Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

'Make in India' Single engined fighter

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kashi » 13 Nov 2017 18:55

shiv wrote:Western fighters is the one thing that are not setting up production lines in China. They are not yet on offer. That is something we should grab with both hands as long as it is on offer to us. But I see such uppity "play hard to get" posts - we can't see an opportunity when it is in the face and use all sorts of excuses to get away.


Like they say..."Beware a Westerner bearing gifts"

What should we grab with both hands? What exactly is being offered to us? What is this opportunity that you speak of?

Are Western firms promising to transfer full production line as you mentioned with SAAB doing with Pakistan? Are they willing to transfer the technology that we really need to make the necessary step up? You have slammed the rampant screwdrivergiri that plagues the Indian MIC- and rightly so- how do you suppose that the so-called offers that are on the table will actually be any different? Heck, two of them have even refused to guarantee their own products that will come out of the proposed assembly line in India.

The greedy corps as you called them learned it the hard way with China, once Chinese started pillaging their secrets and undercutting their business, they realised the folly of their shortsightedness. What makes you think that they will repeat the mistake with India, especially for something as sophisticated and as hard to develop as a combat jet?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 19:06

As I see it Western high tech industries (aviation among them) are being pushed into a corner by new upstarts among which China is prominent. They will be looking to stay in the game. They could set up lines in Vietnam or Bahrain but from those nations it will be export oriented only - with a very small domestic market. India is a different ball game. An order of 75-100 from India to kickstart the production lines can infuse the will to start component manufacture and support services for 100s of other aircraft in use. Provided a sound business deal can be worked out.

Yesterday someone had posted an article about a Metro train service to start in some Australian city. Turns out that the coaches have been made in India by Alsthom. The comments section had some typical whitey sarcasm and contempt about that news..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2017 19:11

As far as India is concerned, there are three buckets: MIC, manufacturing and the client (IAF in this case). Potentially there is a forth, exports.

Decide which bucket India should address. IAF, then address precisely the problems associated with that bucket. If the solution includes imports, then ensure domestic efforts are adequately funded, will be mature and will be consumed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 19:14

Kashi wrote:
Are Western firms promising to transfer full production line as you mentioned with SAAB doing with Pakistan? Are they willing to transfer the technology that we really need to make the necessary step up? You have slammed the rampant screwdrivergiri that plagues the Indian MIC- and rightly so- how do you suppose that the so-called offers that are on the table will actually be any different? Heck, two of them have even refused to guarantee their own products that will come out of the proposed assembly line in India.

I think you got me wrong
1. There is no such thing as transfer of technology
2. Do not sneer at screwdrivergiri. I think only textbook giants sneer at the work experience and workforce expansion afforded by screwdrivergiri.

For too long I have seen this mythical educated elite attitude among my compatriots who sneer at mere copying and screwdriver assembly while in their minds they are great designers with all the high funda stuff and calculus calculussing away in their minds throwing out words like thermodynamics, enthalpy and Fourier transforms like a singer in full flow. The world simply does not work that way. We need fewer white coats and more people who know how to do.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kashi » 13 Nov 2017 19:24

shiv wrote:2. Do not sneer at screwdrivergiri. I think only textbook giants sneer at the work experience and workforce expansion afforded by screwdrivergiri.


I am not disputing this, nor am I sneering at screwdrivergiri. As you said, it's a fine way to gain work experience and work expansion.

I would rather prefer that if we are going down that route, we do it by screwdrivergiri of our own product that we have designed, developed and are looking to manufacture in house.

After all screwdrivergiri of Tejas should be not be very different from that of F-16 or Gripen or Rafale should it? At least as far the workforce involved is concerned.

They key difference in my opinion is that the workforce experience with screwdrivergiri will directly feed back into the the labs with the white coats who'll probably use this to iteratively refine and enhance the product so that the same workforce can get to do screwdrivergiri on a better system the next time.

With the Foreign OEM, that will never happen.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2017 19:25

What India needs is funds.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 19:30

Kashi wrote:With the Foreign OEM, that will never happen.

Further discussion on this prediction will depend on whether anyone wants to use a China example or not..

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 13 Nov 2017 20:03

Whatever happened to the MII Avro replacement? When will it take off?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 13 Nov 2017 22:07

The Chinese market is rapidly drying up.The pirates and bandicoots that they shamelessly are, stealing the west's family silver from right under their noses, don't care a hoot about continuing to do so, thereby pay zilch for the "TOT" Beijing style.

This has made India the target of all manner of snake-oil salesmen,touting 50 yr old hags , Lockheed's Thanksgiving's turkey JSF bred, French tarts available at $200M a trick, a Swedish s*x bomb and there's even a Russian filly, new in town from the stables of Sukhoi, where we' ve already made a down payment for a ride! Plus peddlers of all manner of mil.merchandise from rifles to radars.There's even an EMALS snake-oil peddler ( not to confused with EPSOM salts....what is dat? ...for constipation!) wanting to sell us this $1B toy which even the Donald has trashed saying " no good, no good"!

Unfortunately these Yanquis think that we Indians can be won over with somd wampum....bead necklaces, cheap rotgut and some "baccy" to chew on.But we aren't from the reservation and we've been chewing tobacco and puffing the famous "Trichynopoly cigar " for centuries. We aren't going to waste our precious paisa on trash.At least that's what I think.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby KrishnaK » 14 Nov 2017 00:12

shiv wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Simple solution Hakeem. Give order of 100 Tejas to Tata now. Let the private Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers partner with Tata to produce the fighter. Do same with AMCA, HJT-36 and HTT-40.

Let HAL die. Replicating a phoren production line in India will do squat other than assembly. In the words of an Air Commodore who is with the Tejas program right now — our plane, our flight control software, our weapons...we can do what we want with it.

HAL cannot die. That is the problem. It is too big to die. Too many fingers. Too many pies. Giving Tejas to Tatas may be trying to make Tatas die.

They will need land, machinery, an airfield etc. A mini city. If I were Tatas and I had the choice of collaboration with more than one aerospace company to make their product then I would ask
1. Who can bring in their money to put an entire production line on our land. HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?
2. Who has a bigger international market share where components I produce can be exported.? HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?
3. Who can I talk to about future expansion and manufacture of later technology 20-30 years from now? Who has more programs going? HAL? or Lockheed Martin

Based on these considerations I would do a deal with one of these companies.

Hypothetically speaking, I think I know who would win hands down.

Incidentally the IAF is a side issue here. They are simply onlookers. They want plane? They will get plane.

+1 - The model to follow IMO, is Kalyani.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3324
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 14 Nov 2017 01:44

^^^"Like they say..."Beware a Westerner bearing gifts"
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 190714.cms

Western companies are not shy about wanting to make a buck. Knowing that makes it easier to negotiate. It's the 'no strings' stuff that worries me as in the 'free Gorshkov'.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3324
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 14 Nov 2017 02:10

shiv wrote:...
I think you got me wrong
1. There is no such thing as transfer of technology
2. Do not sneer at screwdrivergiri. I think only textbook giants sneer at the work experience and workforce expansion afforded by screwdrivergiri.

For too long I have seen this mythical educated elite attitude among my compatriots who sneer at mere copying and screwdriver assembly while in their minds they are great designers with all the high funda stuff and calculus calculussing away in their minds throwing out words like thermodynamics, enthalpy and Fourier transforms like a singer in full flow. The world simply does not work that way. We need fewer white coats and more people who know how to do.


I agree. I have consistently maintained that this 'ToT' stuff is just a way for us to pay more for stuff we don't know how to use. Not to belabor this but I remember exchanges with Ramana regarding why we imported Titanium ingots/castings/forgings from Russia for the MKI. The answer was something like we did not have the economies of scale to do it ourselves. Which sort of brings me to the oft asked question: we have a deep 'ToT'/ production license on the MKI—can HAL use this 'ToT' to build a derivative Flanker—for starters a 'silent Flanker' or a version like the SU 35? TSarkar once mentioned the IAF daydreaming about putting in PW-F100s to replace the MKI engines. Could HAL have done that as a way of leveraging the Deep ToT/License?

If not what have we gained is a trained workforce that knows how to build/assemble MKIs and maybe other stuff after hands on training. Sure, some people made a great contribution when Irkutsk refused to help integrate/do mods to put Brahmos on the MKI but the first move was to approach the OEM.

Slightly tangential but still relevant. See what appears to be happening to the Japanese in their efforts to develop an 'indigenous' fighter:

" Mitsubishi Heavy, the maker of the World War Two-era Zero fighter, in January 2016 tested a prototype jet, the ATD-X. Developed for around $350 million, it was seen as the first step toward a new homegrown frontline stealth fighter.

While support for a domestic-only program is strong among some government officials, other bureaucrats are worried about the potentially enormous expense of developing components from scratch. They support international collaboration to share costs with overseas partners and tap their technology. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclus ... es-2017-11

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 14 Nov 2017 08:00

There is another critical social reason for ramping up manufacture in India - the "youth bulge". India has done relatively well in education and has ended up educating millions. But they will have to live and any manufacturing that we do is an advantage.

However - as I see it the possibility of employing vast numbers in manufacturing white goods, TVs etc is limited because everyone is doing it. There are only a few high technology areas for manufacture to expand into and military tech - esp aerospace is critical both for defence and for high tech job creation. When HAL builds a manufacturing plant in unheard of Koraput in the middle of Dandakaranya forest - an entire city gets built with all the support services - just for Russian aero engines. We need to get more private players interested in investing and attracting partnerships and giving them a slice of defence pie. At least they will not be hiring drivers and gardeners as permanent employees for the next 50 years as PSUs have done. They will hire short term consultants when there is work and pay them well and downsize when orders are low. Unlike PSUs that run like M1 Abrams turbine engine. Can't start and stop - needs to keep running and using up resources.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 14 Nov 2017 10:00

Cosmo_R wrote:Could HAL have done that as a way of leveraging the Deep ToT/License?

HAL does not need to do anything much to survive.

PSUs that do not make profits will make losses, become sick, but will not be closed down. Compare Air India with other airlines.

OK allahoakbar and you find HAL doing well. But never forget that HAL's profits after expenses are built up on fully depreciated assets, land, buildings etc. And I am not sure if salaries are taken into account but even if they are - which private firm will hire drivers, watchmen and gardeners as permanent lifetime employees like PSUs?

Private firms do not give increments if profits are low and people are fired as existing projects run out without new ones. That will never happen in a PSU. The incentive to survive and make a profit has to be a basic one for a private firm. Not a socialist PSU

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Nov 2017 10:09

shiv wrote:If we look at emotions and feelings expressed, we are all agreed that
1. IAF needs more numbers
2. We want Tejas to succeed
3. We all hope/think that Tejas can meet IAF's numbers

But all the reports I have seen tell me that HAL wants to be an integrator. An integrator is top dog. He takes the parts, puts them together, tests and flies the damn thing and provides the guarantees and signs agreements for spare parts.

If HAL is going to be the only aircraft integrator in the country then it is, ultimately just another PSU. Land belongs to government so land costs are not included. Buildings are depreciated so no cost there. Taxpayer is paying everyone so everything looks rosy and socialistic just like Nehru wanted it.

I don't know about you guys but the continuation of this model for the country is a disaster. There will be no escape from PSU and a government who spends on farmer subsidy one day, flood relief a second day and minority education on the third day. No drive to stay alive making aircraft while the PSU staff have lifetime jobs with pension, medical benefits and all? wtf? Is this the USSR?

We need aircraft production lines that are not hamstrung by government and its sloth. There is no alternative to getting someone bring his production line here.

Anyone seen Vayu. Wtf is the Mushak trainer? It is being exported left right and center. Nigeria is one of the latest customers. Also Turkey. Why are we even talking like a bunch of Nehrus who are afraid of private enterprise, profit making and foreign collaboration? We are mentally paralysed but blaming the Air Force. It is honestly disgusting


shiv wrote:HAL cannot die. That is the problem. It is too big to die. Too many fingers. Too many pies. Giving Tejas to Tatas may be trying to make Tatas die.

They will need land, machinery, an airfield etc. A mini city. If I were Tatas and I had the choice of collaboration with more than one aerospace company to make their product then I would ask
1. Who can bring in their money to put an entire production line on our land. HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?
2. Who has a bigger international market share where components I produce can be exported.? HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?
3. Who can I talk to about future expansion and manufacture of later technology 20-30 years from now? Who has more programs going? HAL? or Lockheed Martin

Based on these considerations I would do a deal with one of these companies.

Hypothetically speaking, I think I know who would win hands down.

Incidentally the IAF is a side issue here. They are simply onlookers. They want plane? They will get plane.


Both these posts are worth reading and chewing on....I think this is exactly what the Modi govt is thinking and forms the missing piece in the loud rants that are either anti IAF or anti GOI. Explains the need for the sef.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9157
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Yagnasri » 14 Nov 2017 10:32


JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Nov 2017 11:30

Yagnasri wrote:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/great-democracies-should-also-have-the-worlds-greatest-militaries-resolve-trump-and-pm-modi/articleshow/61632880.cms

So we need F16 for that purpose???


Well you don't make greatest militaries based on imported or screwdriver-ed weapons systems. Let any other factor be aside, its economically infeasible.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 14 Nov 2017 11:36

Media reports quoting an official spokesman say that deficiencies in the LCA will be rectified.MK-1A will come with AESA radars,etc.This appears to be a counter to the media report about the unhappiness of the IAF about Tejas.It could also mean that whatever the SEF decision is,the 40+80 aircraft,MK-1/1A will be built.If the second line with 16/yr prod. is established from 2020,then by 2025 we should in theory should have had the 120+LCA variants delivered.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47895
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ramana » 14 Nov 2017 11:41

Is the SEF supposed to be a single engined Rafale?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Nov 2017 11:42

ramana wrote:Is the SEF supposed to be a single engined Rafale?


Looks like that was the break up of MMRCA. 36 Rafale + 100 SEF

Considering that MMRCA was a 126+67 options, I expect SEF to be more than 100 eventually. If it comes it will come through all the way.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 14 Nov 2017 12:14

18 Rafales hinted at in a report,all for the strat. command.This will make 54 aircraft. No reason why MKIs or even SU-34s at 1/3rd the price can't do the same biz,esp. with Super Sukhois equipped with BMos.AESA radars,new engines(?),etc. to come.Indian pvt. industry should also be asked whether thy're willing to build LCAs in extra lines.Only those saying "i do",should be allowed to qualify for a firang SEF should it become abso necessary! Once they've said "I do" to the LCA,then the MOD must fast track the same possibilities with HAL in tow.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Nov 2017 13:01



F-16 is a small component of a much, much larger picture. The IN should/will see the true benefits.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2500
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kashi » 14 Nov 2017 13:15

^^ What IS the larger picture??

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Nov 2017 13:28

Kashi wrote:^^ What IS the larger picture??


On a cell. Will respond later - perhaps in the indo-us thread

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 14 Nov 2017 15:21

1. Screwdriver giri is great when you have a new work force. NOT when when like HAL you are still screwdrivering (screwing around?) five decades after the first screws were turned; at some point you must expect the damn eco-system to be established,

2. True and deep ToT is hard to get BUT IT DOES HAPPEN. I’ve showned repeated examples of it in the Flanker, Dauphin and Super Frelon variants that Cheen negotiated for and are now spitting out from their own factories; this damn evidence is staring us in the face. Negotiate better actual TRANSFERS meaning full control of the technology and use OUR market as damn LEVERAGE; what we do now is getting subcontracting work for particular contracted production runs not TOT in the vein of what Cheen got,

3. I had fully supported the screwdrivergiri of F-16 and other Amreeki projects because they will build up a work force in a new system unlike Russian screwdriver giri which after 50 years and thousands of aircraft screws turned had left us in a dead end. And under Modi, the Amreeki tie-ups will also bring in Tata and our pvt sector which could be a gamechanger; I got pounded into pulp by Rakesh and others for supporting these points,

4. Indigenous projects must supercede all of the above; if we have something that works (whether from HAL or not) then we must accept it and then improve upon it in iterations. The IAF and IA in openly rejecting the Tejas and Arjun do not give these products a chance to evolve and do not give the makers and the industry to improve. As much as there is resistance to comparing with Cheen there are lessons in the J-10. It was a shitty plane that crashed repeatedly in its early life. But the PLAAF perservered and now it is in its C variant with hundreds in service and this in turn allowed Chengdu to grow and progress to the point that CAC is producing stealth fighters.

The freedom and ability to look at, compare and learn from others is our one major advantage over commie states and dictatorships. It would be great if we could simply learn from the Big Three of US, EU or Russia and we do. But their history and experience are so long and entrenched that they can’t be applicable to a nation with our technical base. The US or Russia do not need to negotiate ToT from each other the way we need to (though the Big Three do have ToT — like the Harrier — with each other.)

Cheen OTOH did/do need to negotiate TOT in the same way we do. They had to build up their turd world industrial base just like we needed to. Exploring how they succeeded or failed is incredibly useful because it provide a stack of data to research and pick best practices.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 14 Nov 2017 16:40

Philip wrote:This has made India the target of all manner of snake-oil salesmen,touting 50 yr old hags , Lockheed's Thanksgiving's turkey JSF bred, French tarts available at $200M a trick, a Swedish s*x bomb and there's even a Russian filly, new in town from the stables of Sukhoi, where we' ve already made a down payment for a ride! Plus peddlers of all manner of mil.merchandise from rifles to radars.There's even an EMALS snake-oil peddler ( not to confused with EPSOM salts....what is dat? ...for constipation!) wanting to sell us this $1B toy which even the Donald has trashed saying " no good, no good"!

Unfortunately these Yanquis think that we Indians can be won over with somd wampum....bead necklaces, cheap rotgut and some "baccy" to chew on.But we aren't from the reservation and we've been chewing tobacco and puffing the famous "Trichynopoly cigar " for centuries. We aren't going to waste our precious paisa on trash.At least that's what I think.

Moscow's view duly noted.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2017 12:01

PS:Read my latest post in the Intl. td.,quoting the Pentagon report on the sorry state of affairs with the JSF (including the fact that "20 new problems" crop up on average every month!) ,and others,where one expert says that the JSF is inferior to the SU-35 and even a MIG-21 will defeat it in A-to-A combat! By this yardstick,our humble LCA even in MK-1 avatar should be able to do the biz at 1/6th the cost!

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9213
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Nov 2017 11:54

Can we get an RMF deal deal on the first 18 F-16's to be produced in the US , where the US taxpayer pays 70% of the Funds?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 16 Nov 2017 12:40

Like Trump and the "Mexican Wall?" :rotfl:

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 16 Nov 2017 13:13

Philip wrote:PS:Read my latest post in the Intl. td.,quoting the Pentagon report on the sorry state of affairs with the JSF (including the fact that "20 new problems" crop up on average every month!)

You mean the post that Brar debunked with you scurrying away when challenged to defend that position in detail?

I'd point out your hypocrisy in championing the acquisition of an aircraft in prototype stage "ASAP" in "whatever form" while criticizing a type that's in its last leg (6 months) of development for having pending issues. But I suppose hypocrisy is just part of the job description eh Commissar?

,and others,where one expert says that the JSF is inferior to the SU-35 and even a MIG-21 will defeat it in A-to-A combat! By this yardstick,our humble LCA even in MK-1 avatar should be able to do the biz at 1/6th the cost

One "expert" said that did he? Well there are some boobs who'd rather swallow BS and regurgitate propaganda (a la "$1 trillion+") than exercise their own grey matter, lest it bring them to unappetizing conclusions, while blatantly lying when the facts are unavoidable.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 16 Nov 2017 16:09

I'd point out your hypocrisy in championing the acquisition of an aircraft in prototype stage "ASAP" in "whatever form"


I double checked, he hasn't been active much on the PAKFA thread and I haven't seen a single post from him linking to the official PAKFA test report for 2016. Perhaps he'll post a report there soon.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 16 Nov 2017 22:27

Wow! This thread is like Dodge City Bar on fri-raat! :eek:

Over the past few years, India has become (one of?) the largest manufacturer(s) of automobiles in the world. Small, big, economy, luxury, SUV, u name it, it is built and exported from India. That is a fabulous vindication of the merit of "screwdrivergiri" in creating jobs. My nephew, who would completely endorse shivji's tirade against anyone who can spell "Call-Kullus" and "Furrier Transformers", recently changed jobs after his MBA from selling cars in a Renault showroom to a Ford (?) showroom. Pictures of shiny cars were his greatest passion, so he is in his dream job.

Let me post a small question: What is spinoff into the ability to machine precision parts, design subsystems, design full automobiles? Because there is no reason to be short of manufacturing skills for airplanes if these are available in plenty now in the private industry. Micro electronics may be different, but aren't there mobile phones also built in India?

IOW, hasn't the equation (perish the word!) changed in the past few years with regard to aerospace design/build/test/refine vs. Buy/assemble/don't even look at blueprints let alone copy them?

And p.s.. Let's not forget GSLV and chandrayaan and Mangalyaan. Robotics is not very far behind either, if the lunar rover is to be a reality to take off within the next month.

But quite recently I was told by very insider desi aphsar that the reason for the French offer to build Rafales in India was declined was that HAL etc babus flat-out said that even if given all ToT they didn't think Rafales could be built in India. Which may be one reason why F-16 assembly line is to be shrinkwrapped and shipped to India.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3555
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 16 Nov 2017 23:29

UlanBatori wrote:...
But quite recently I was told by very insider desi aphsar that the reason for the French offer to build Rafales in India was declined was that HAL etc babus flat-out said that even if given all ToT they didn't think Rafales could be built in India. Which may be one reason why F-16 assembly line is to be shrinkwrapped and shipped to India.

This sounds like an excuse for not giving away real ToT. Easy to scapegoat a company in India with poor reputation among its users.

IMO, the real main reason is that those foreign companies want to retain their IPs and control. It would be in their business interest to have their own entity setup in India and win future orders while protecting key IPs. That is how multi-national companies work.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2017 01:04

SRai, exactly. As if Reliance would suddenly be able to make fighters from raw materials. The French dont want India developing any AMCA with any Rafale tech in it, plain and simple, nothing unusual about it. Hence, reason to keep HAL out of the game, given its state owned and collaborates on most Indian strategic programs.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1000
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 17 Nov 2017 01:33

Philip wrote:Read my latest post in the Intl
quoting the Pentagon report on the sorry state of affairs with the JSF
and others,
where one expert says that the JSF is inferior to a MIG-21 will defeat it in A-to-A combat!


Honestly I have always given you leeway but from today I signal my intention to call you out as a heavily influenced or heavily paid for Russian Mouth piece. Any self respecting Indian no matter what would have stopped his peddling of Russian wares in the face of abuse you do pick up but you don't seem to.

Which leads me to the conclusion, that you are interested only in keeping the Russian flag flying high.
Your tokenism for tejas and arjun is all part of the plan.

I do not even know if you are Phillip or some Russian Hacker has hacked into Phillip's account.

Question for all , has anyone ever met Phillip at a BR meet or something ?
Is this guy even real ?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Nov 2017 02:12

Karan M wrote:SRai, exactly. ...The French dont want India developing any AMCA with any Rafale tech in it, plain and simple, nothing unusual about it. Hence, reason to keep HAL out of the game, given its state owned and collaborates on most Indian strategic programs.


Aoa! Pls see what I said at the start: (cannot go further in identifying, sorry)
But quite recently I was told by very insider desi aphsar

Perhaps one should ask whether ****HAL netas**** are correctly representing the capabilities and aspirations of the younger folks there, to, say, the PMO as an example.

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Katare » 17 Nov 2017 02:19

Philip wrote:PS:Read my latest post in the Intl. td.,quoting the Pentagon report on the sorry state of affairs with the JSF (including the fact that "20 new problems" crop up on average every month!) ,and others,where one expert says that the JSF is inferior to the SU-35 and even a MIG-21 will defeat it in A-to-A combat! By this yardstick,our humble LCA even in MK-1 avatar should be able to do the biz at 1/6th the cost!


JSF is being produced at the rate of 100 aircraft/year as of now for a dozen or so nations. A new generation aircraft would have teething problems that will get sorted out in due time like IAF did with MKI, to some degree at least, and IN is struggling with Mig 29K.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Nov 2017 06:52

One point that is missed here is that an India-jeenius fighter does not have to be superior to the best in the world. But you do have to have large numbers, so unit cost must be kept down and domestic production & spare parts are utterly indispensable. A PAF JF-35 or Thundaar SuperWeapon cannot be everywhere. The focus on individual air-to-air combat as the criterion, is seriously flawed, and is a 1940s concept. If you are out of range of the Flying Cellphone's mijjiles, well, u r out of range, however superior the Flying Cellphone might be.

In the Gelf War, the Iraqis had too few planes. In Arab-Israeli wars, the tactics were flawed, the 80:1 kill ratio in favor of F-16s/F-15s was vastly lopsided and attributable to some magic weapon/radar, not airplane's superiority. Also the theater was very small, so that a few planes could zoom from one end to another and provide full coverage. War on a long frontier or a large area would be something quite different.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ashishvikas » 17 Nov 2017 09:27

Boeing and HAL discuss building F/A-18 fighter

http://wap.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2017 12:36

Tx Khalsa.I am nobody's mouthpiece.I am totally independent and objective of opinion.I ask the hard tough Qs which many do not like perhaps becos they serve the purpose of vested interests The quote was from Pierre Sprey himself,the designer of the F-16! This is the fighter that is being touted for the IAF for the SEF too!

Now you can argue the same with him.I am merely posting what innumerable articles and reports on the JSF including the Pentagon re[ports are saying.Unfortunately,some snake-oil salesmen for the JSF who hope to dump the Turkey (described by another US analusts!) upon India cannot accept the expose!

As for the FGFA. In my last post on the matter, after reading the many flaws with the JSF,276 in fact,I've said "hasten cautiously". With the experience of the JSF before us,the Russians/Sukhoi must also be asked some tough Qs. Under no circumstances should we get trapped into a JSF like scenario.However,there is one very important basic difference in that the FGFA/SU-57 was designed specifically for the RuAF for one specific role.Not a "jack of all trades,master of none" as was the case with the flawed from concept JSF,meant to serve 3 services.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201508151025 ... vs-us-f35/
America’s much-touted fifth generation F-35 fighter jet is so bad it would be a sitting duck even for Russia’s MiG-21, designed back in the 1950s, famed US aerospace engineer Pierre Sprey told Russian media on Friday.

https://www.defensetech.org/2015/08/12/ ... ican-f-35/
Analyst: Russian MiG-29 and Su-27 Top American F-35
Xcpt:
“The F-35 is so bad it is absolutely hopeless when pitted against modern aircraft. In fact, it would be ripped to shreds even by the antiquated MiG-21,” Sprey told RT, commenting on a recent expert report, which dismissed the F-35 project as a total failure.
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, described by US media as “a pure gold plane” for its exorbitant price tag, would find itself helpless in a dogfight with Russia’s fourth-generation Su-27 and MiG-29 jets, Pierre Sprey said.


“The Su-27 and even the MiG-29 have bigger wing space, more powerful engines and carry more air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons… That’s why the F-35 will be totally helpless against both because when you confront a plane, which is more maneuverable, accelerates faster and is better armed then you are in trouble,” he added.

Few people are as qualified to speak about fighter aircraft as Pierre Sprey. He is the co-designer of the F-16 Falcon jet and the A-10 Warthog tank buster, two of the most successful aircraft in the US Air Force.


TOPICS:AirF-35F-35 WatchFlankerFulcrumJoint Strike FighterLockheed MartinMiG-29Su-27
POSTED BY: BRENDAN MCGARRY AUGUST 12, 2015

Can Soviet-era fighter jets like the one above, the twin-engine MiG-29 Fulcrum, or the bigger one below, the Su-27 Flanker, outperform the newest American design, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

Yes, according to Bill French, a policy analyst with the National Security Network, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that favors progressive defense policies. He’s the author of a report released Tuesday by the organization. It’s titled, “Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program,” a pun on the jet’s official name, Lightning II.

The document comes a month after news of an internal Pentagon review that detailed how an F-16 outperformed an F-35 in a dog-fight.

In his research, French wrote the Joint Strike Fighter performed only slightly better than the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B Harrier — the U.S. aircraft it’s slated to replace. What’s more, he compared the power, maneuverability and maximum payloads of the fifth-generation stealth fighter against those of the older Russian aircraft.

Here’s what he wrote:

“The F-35’s performance characteristics also compare unfavorable to already deployed foreign 4th-generation fighters such as the Russian-designed MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker (also produced by China) in service with air forces around the world. These are the kinds of aircraft the F-35 would most likely face in air-to-air engagements against a high-end opponent. Compared to both the Su-27 and the MiG-29, the F-35 is grossly inferior in terms of wing loading (except for the F-35C), transonic acceleration, and thrust-to-weight. All F-35 variants also have significantly lower maximum speeds, Mach 1.6 for the F-35 compared to Mach 2.2 for the Su-27 and Mac 2.3 for the MiG-29.


Air-to-air simulations paint an even grimmer picture. In 2009, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin analysts indicated that the F-35 could be expected to achieve only a 3-to-1 kill ratio against the decades-old MiG-29 and Su-27 despite its advantages in stealth and avionics. The results of other simulations have been far worse. In one simulation subcontracted by the RAND Corporation, the F-35 incurred a loss exchange ratio of 2.4-1 against Chinese Su-35s. That is, more than two F-35s were lost for each Su-35 shot down. While these simulations take into account a host of other factors and include assumptions about the context in which the engagements take place, they nevertheless underscore the need for skepticism regarding the F-35’s air-to-air capabilities.

Unfortunately, there are insufficient data on foreign 5th-generation fighters to allow for meaningful comparisons. Three such fighters are known to be under development: the Russian PAK FA and the Chinese J-20 and J-31.

The F-35 is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program, estimated to cost $391 billion to purchase 2,457 aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy.

The Corps recently announced the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was ready to fly initial operations — albeit with a less lethal version of the aircraft. The Air Force is expected to make a similar declaration in 2016 and the Navy in 2019.

Corps officials have acknowledged they’ll have to “make do” with a less lethal version of the airplane. For example, the early operational F-35Bs won’t include a new night-vision helmet, Small Diameter Bomb II or GAU-22/A four-barrel 25mm Gatling gun — or the ability to stream video or simultaneously fuse sensor data from four aircraft.

Many of the weapons improvements will be included as part of a future software upgrade, known as 3F, which is slated for fully operational F-35Bs in late 2017. Indeed, proponents of the aircraft argue that fully operational Joint Strike Fighters will easily outperform fourth-generation aircraft.

Eight countries have committed to help develop the F-35, including the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Also, Israel, Japan and South Korea plan to buy production models of the aircraft.

Last edited by Philip on 17 Nov 2017 12:50, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 41 guests