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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5884
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 09 Nov 2017 17:41

Why would SAAB have to get past Trump? SAAB has a healthy relationship with GE and other US defense firms are involved in the Gripen program and Sweden's and SAABs involvement of US OEMs into its defense equipment dates back decades. Furthermore Sweden and the US have a good defense relationship which has just grown with Sweden selecting Raytheon's AMD system. There is really no advantage that Trump needs to give..

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2017 19:15

Brar: You (and every sane person on this planet knows) are well aware of the amount of American investment is there in the Gripen. Of all the nations that support the Gripen, America arguably benefits the most. Regardless of whichever platform is chosen in the single engine competition - Gripen or F-Solah - America is laughing all the way to the bank. The real loser in this deal is India. But the powers that be are hell bent on importing.

Stop Gripen from coming into the IAF and AMCA will not take off, as the aircraft is planned to have twin GEF414 engines. With the Navy contest, the F-18 (the only real contendor and has cleared the platform to operate from the Vikrant and the Vikramaditya) flies the F414 engine as well. Stop Gripen from coming and F-18 will be out the window as well. As you know, the Tejas uses an older variant - the F404. From GE's point of view - both platforms (F16 and Gripen) - represent serious money coming into their coffers. The US Govt will make all the usual noises when the F-16 loses, but nothing will happen beyond that.

From the IAF and IN point of view - the fact that the F-18, Gripen, AMCA and Tejas - all fly a similar engine is a HUGE plus point. Ease of maintenance, single point of contact, etc. And if India gets to screwdrivergiri that engine in India, it will be a big bonus.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2017 19:20

X-Post from the Artillery thread....Just saying :)

Gunning for Dhanush
http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/gunn ... epage=true

Said a senior official from the OFB: “The Army’s philosophy is simple: the OFB is to identify all the problems and address them so that there are no issues post induction. The Army is asking for a perfect gun. But, this is unduly prolonging the trial process. Since we are not producing the gun, our [OFB] facilities are lying idle and our suppliers are frustrated with no orders. It would be better if the Army ordered a few guns on the basis of the trials, exploited and evaluated them, devised a maintenance philosophy by using them, and allowed the product to mature. Perfection in stages. Have an Mk1, then an Mk2, Mk3, and so on. Dhanush is a major system development, and we at the OFB are learning a whole new philosophy in artillery gun development. Under user exploitation, you have to maintain and put more guns on a trial, thereby exponentially multiplying the chances of something going wrong. When foreign guns are not put through this, why should Dhanush be?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5884
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 09 Nov 2017 19:54

Rakesh wrote:Brar: You (and every sane person on this planet knows) are well aware of the amount of American investment is there in the Gripen. Of all the nations that support the Gripen, America arguably benefits the most. Regardless of whichever platform is chosen in the single engine competition - Gripen or F-Solah - America is laughing all the way to the bank. The real loser in this deal is India. But the powers that be are hell bent on importing.

Stop Gripen from coming into the IAF and AMCA will not take off, as the aircraft is planned to have twin GEF414 engines. With the Navy contest, the F-18 (the only real contendor and has cleared the platform to operate from the Vikrant and the Vikramaditya) flies the F414 engine as well. Stop Gripen from coming and F-18 will be out the window as well. As you know, the Tejas uses an older variant - the F404. From GE's point of view - both platforms (F16 and Gripen) - represent serious money coming into their coffers. The US Govt will make all the usual noises when the F-16 loses, but nothing will happen beyond that.

From the IAF and IN point of view - the fact that the F-18, Gripen, AMCA and Tejas - all fly a similar engine is a HUGE plus point. Ease of maintenance, single point of contact, etc. And if India gets to screwdrivergiri that engine in India, it will be a big bonus.


If you read my post carefully you would realize that it was speaking only of Trump influencing the SAAB SEF deal in a negative way. All I did was point out that nothing like this would happen.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2017 20:00

Saar, your name was put there for a reason :)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kartik » 10 Nov 2017 02:52

From AW&ST

Potential Deals Pending For Lockheed’s F-16 ‘Viper’ Program


The pending deal between the U.S. and Greece to modernize the Hellenic Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-16 fleet would push the number of aircraft upgrades the manufacturer has in the pipeline to about 450.

The recent announcement that Athens wants to convert up to 123 of its legacy Fighting Falcons to the newest F-16V “Viper” configuration comes as Lockheed tries to complete the sale of new aircraft to Bahrain—which would be produced in Greenville, South Carolina, instead of Fort Worth.

Having completed production of the Iraqi Air Force’s F-16 Block 52 fighters, Lockheed is shutting down F-16 production in Fort Worth to free up space and personnel to build more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the U.S. and international customers.

Reign of the Viper

The manufacturer is optimistic about securing an order from Bahrain for 16 Block 70 Vipers, plus three options. This small but important deal could reinvigorate the supply chain for new parts and allow Lockheed to resume production of the single-engine fighter, but at Greenville instead of Fort Worth.

A sale to Bahrain would buy Lockheed time to secure meaningful contracts with other nations wanting to either procure their first F-16s or expand their fleets.

Although Lockheed’s primary focus is on delivering the F-35, industry sources see plenty of opportunities for F-16 upgrades and new production. Indonesia is a prime candidate; it already flies the F-16. Given the increasingly bleak security environment in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates could consider expanding its newly built fleet of F-16 E/F Block 60s—the most advanced F-16 configuration flying today.

And there is talk that the Trump administration could eventually re-examine Pakistan’s request for eight additional F-16 Block 52s. Islamabad’s request was approved by the Obama administration in 2016, but scuttled by Congress over concerns about the need for U.S. foreign military financing.

The greatest windfall for Lockheed’s F-16 program could come from India, which is seeking anywhere from 100-250 locally produced single-engine fighters. The deal would require significant technology transfer and the establishment of an in-country production facility.

Lockheed has partnered with the Tata Group to offer the F-16 Block 70 to India. The companies have an ongoing relationship; Tata builds empennages for Lockheed’s C-130J Super Hercules.

Swedish fighter manufacturer Saab is also promoting its fighter, joining forces with the Adani Group to offer the JAS-39 Gripen E.

New Delhi will first request expressions of interest from the competing teams. Once submitted, a formal request for proposals would be issued, probably sometime next year.

Although assembly would take place in India, Lockheed says any deal would also support thousands of jobs stateside. Top-level meetings have been held in Washington regarding the F-16 offer, and Lockheed senses a positive outcome. The Trump administration has been “fully supportive,” industry sources say, and Defense Secretary James Mattis expressed support for the F-16 proposal during his trip to India in September.

Perhaps the largest emerging market for new as well as upgraded F-16s is Eastern Europe, where nations are trying to replace their Soviet-era Sukhoi Su-22 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 fighters with newer Western models.

Croatia is the latest country to solicit proposals, seeking a replacement for its outdated MiG-21s. Zagreb is weighing offers of secondhand F-16s from Greece, Israel or the U.S. Croatia is also considering South Korea’s Korea Aerospace Industries for its FA-50 and Sweden for its Saab Gripen C/D. Other opportunities to sell fighters are likely from Poland, Slovakia and elsewhere.

More than 4,550 F-16s have been built since the 1970s, and Lockheed sees strong demand domestically and globally for upgrades of early-model and Block 50/52 aircraft. Lockheed is not alone in the F-16 upgrade market. It must compete against other capable firms, such as BAE Systems, Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries.

So far, Lockheed, as the original equipment manufacturer through its acquisition of General Dynamics’ fighter business in 1993, has pulled ahead of the competition with its F-16V, or Viper, configuration, which features technology derived from the F-35 and F-22 Raptor. The centerpiece of the upgrade is Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR).
[b
Lockheed is already on contract to upgrade approximately 336 F-16s for Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea. Now, with Greece considering modernizing as many as 123 of its 154 Fighting Falcons to the F-16V configuration, the number of upgrades in Lockheed’s backlog could grow to more than 450. [/b]

Lockheed says these upgrade programs support thousands of jobs at hundreds of companies in dozens of states, and technologies developed for the programs can be rolled into the U.S. Air Force’s own F-16 modernization plans.

They are conducted as Foreign Military Sales through the Air Force’s program executive office for fighters and bombers, headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio.

The upgrade kits are designed and developed by Lockheed engineers in Fort Worth, and the new equipment must be thoroughly tested prior to production and delivery. Flight testing is mostly performed at Edwards AFB, California.

After being produced and packaged, the upgrade kits are typically shipped overseas for installation at a local depot.

The first aircraft modified to the F-16V configuration took flight from Edwards on Oct. 16, 2015. That U.S.-owned aircraft was supporting the Taiwan program, and industry sources say the first upgrade kits have since been shipped for installation by Taiwan’s Aerospace Industrial Development Corp.

Each upgrade is tailored to an individual country’s needs, but the foundational F-16V upgrades include a new APG-83 active, electronically scanned array fire-control radar; cockpit center pedestal display; mission computer; and high-capacity ethernet data bus. Other upgrades might be a Link 16 theater data link, satellite-aided precision navigation, interrogator/transponder, automatic ground collision avoidance system, new weapons and Lockheed’s Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod.

Lockheed does not disclose the exact number of aircraft it is on contract to upgrade, except to say “more than 300” total. However, information from Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcements and Pentagon contracting notices provide some details.

The deal completed with Taiwan in 2012 is worth about $1.85 billion. It covers upgrades for 142 of the country’s air forces’ legacy F-16A/B Block 20s, bringing them to an F-16V-based configuration, with work continuing through May 2022.

Lockheed secured a $914 million contract to upgrade Singapore’s F-16C/D Block 30 and Block 52 fleets in December 2015. Singapore requested “up to 60” F-16 upgrades, but the actual number is somewhere between 40-60, due by 2023.

South Korea originally selected BAE Systems to upgrade its homebuilt fleet of KF-16C/D Block 52 fighters, incorporating the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar (RACR). BAE Systems won a $1.2 billion contract in 2012, but in November 2016, citing cost increases, Seoul replaced them, opting instead for a Lockheed and Northrop team. The KF-16s will now be kitted with Northrop’s SABR instead of Raytheon’s RACR.

Lockheed’s contract with Seoul is valued at $1.2 billion, with work continuing through 2025.

The potential sale to Greece is worth an estimated $2.4 billion, but the final amount awarded to Lockheed if the deal closes will be somewhat smaller. The Hellenic Air Force’s F-16 fleet is a mix of Block 30, Block 50 and Block 52+ aircraft.

It was announced that the U.S. State Department had approved the package while President Donald Trump was hosting Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras at the White House on Oct. 17. Lockheed will work with Washington and Athens to “consummate the deal” as quickly as possible following the standard congressional notification period.

The package includes delivery of a Joint Mission Planning System and one new F-16 simulator, along with two upgrades. Another line provides 26 more Raytheon-built electronic warfare suites, already installed on Greece’s Block 52+ fleet.

While deliveries have begun for Taiwan, upgrades for Singapore and South Korea are still in the advanced stages of development and testing. Production and delivery of upgrade kits are set to begin over the next couple of years.

In the U.S., the Air Force is hoping to keep its newest F-16s flying until the mid-2040s, which will require modernization and a service-life extension program.

Brig. Gen. Michael Schmidt, the service’s program executive officer for fighters and bombers, says the U.S. will leverage work already done for international programs to keep its Fighting Falcons' talons sharp. In the absence of an alternative bid by Raytheon, the service recently selected Northrop’s APG-83 SABR fire-control radar to modernize 72 F-16s belonging to the Air National Guard as part of a joint urgent operational need.

The program office is already looking for ways to buy more radars, if needed, for additional batches of F-16s. It is not clear whether there will be another opportunity for Raytheon to offer RACR.

Because the F-35 is being introduced later and slower than originally planned, the F-16 will keep flying well beyond its original design life. Full-scale fatigue testing shows that the F-16’s service life can be extended to 13,800 flight hours from the design life of 8,000 hr. with upgrades.


“The F-16 remains a fantastic fourth-generation fighter, but its structural health really needs to be addressed,” Schmidt says. “We’re flying these airplanes a lot longer than we could have ever anticipated, so these full-scale fatigue tests are really important for identifying what areas we need to beef up, and what investments need to be made to keep [them] flying into the future.”

Lockheed delivered 2,231 F-16s to the U.S. Air Force between 1978-2005. The service has, so far, rejected plans to buy new fourth-generation fighters because it wants to protect funding for the F-35 and future sixth-gen fighters.

Even though the service is desperate for new fighters, having purchased fewer than 20 per year over the past decade, Schmidt says he has not received any orders to buy new Lockheed F-16 Block 70s or Boeing F-15 Advanced Eagles.

“Certainly, we could produce better aircraft than what we’re currently flying, but it’s not going to get you anywhere close to the leap to fifth-generation,” Schmidt says.

His office has partnerships with 26 international F-16 operators, so Schmidt is optimistic about the F-16 Block 70 deal with Bahrain, and sees continuing strong demand for the F-16 worldwide, including new-builds and upgrades.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3554
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 10 Nov 2017 05:03

^^^
...
“Certainly, we could produce better aircraft than what we’re currently flying, but it’s not going to get you anywhere close to the leap to fifth-generation,” Schmidt says.
...

Again, why is India going for F-16s import? If import is a must, then put the FOREX to get the F35 instead.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17584
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2017 10:08

F-35 ain't perfected yet,costs a bomb-without its engine and isn't available to us.Better still force the Adanis,Tatas and Ambanis to manufacture the LCA at a fraction of the cost so that at least 200-300 modest LCAs can be used as point defence fighters and bomb trucks for the CS/GA mission.
After all,the principal fighter the PAF is going to field against us will be large numbers of equally modest JF-17s.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 10 Nov 2017 17:17

ramana wrote:N Rao wrote

BTW, it was my understanding that the HAL facilities in Nashik was because the Soviets wanted to have a secure facility to build their planes. Away from B'luru.
-----

The MiG complex had three locations, Koraput for Engines, Nashik for assembly and Hyderabad for avionics.

If you read Chavan's War diaries where the discussions are recorded it was jobs program to satisfy the Congress Satraps like Chavan, Biju Patnaik and Sanjiva Reddy. One plan was to put it all in Nashik but as Chavan was Defence Minister it would not look good. The Russians wanted in one place.


In fact the MiG Complex was a totally different company to start with - Aeronautics India Ltd. (AIL) in 1963. Soon later in 1964 it was consolidated with Hindustan Aircraft Pvt Ltd were consolidated under same company HAL as we see now.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7514
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2017 17:49

Philip wrote:F-35 ain't perfected yet,costs a bomb-without its engine and isn't available to us.Better still force the Adanis,Tatas and Ambanis to manufacture the LCA at a fraction of the cost so that at least 200-300 modest LCAs can be used as point defence fighters and bomb trucks for the CS/GA mission.
After all,the principal fighter the PAF is going to field against us will be large numbers of equally modest JF-17s.



For that to happen the IAF has to say LCA is our future and we have no option but to make it work. Instead of running after the farce that is the single engine imported fighter. Because screwdriver giri of photography design or indian design will teach these companies exactly nothing.

Unless they start designing things by them selves.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17584
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 11 Nov 2017 04:02

The IAF will say so once it has confidence in HAL.HAL will similarly want the IAF to place large orders on trust and the IAF will repeat its tale of woe of HAL broken promises, HAL will again repeat discrimination againsi desi designs and so the dance goes on.This reminds me of that old song "There's a hole in the bucket...."

The chief stakeholder, the GOI representing the poor taxpayer and people of India has to cut the Gordian knot.The DM and MOD should have expert technical advice- which could be set up by establishing a technical panel drawing upon the wealth of experience from retd. sr. officers,DRDO scientists and financial and management experts with a proven track record of success in handling defence related programmes.The decisions taken should also reflect the perspective plans of the services which assesses the current and future threats/challenges and roadmap to achieve goals.Here the 42 sqd. goal looks very dated.In a 2 front war, with even a 3rd maritime dimension, at least 50+ full sqds. plus 5-6 sqds of carrier-borne fighters will be needed also keeping in mind that we have to factor in a % of losses based upon enemy strength and operational issues encountered in the "fog of war".

Someone posted how the US had a vision for the next 50 yrs.and kept achieving that goal by establishing markers at regular intervals where replacements of weapon systems would take place, Induction of a new generation of tech,etc.If the SE acquisition is to make any sense it cannot be a " back to the future " decision. If the GOI is seriously interested in indigenisation and laying the foundation for a more self- reliant India then it has to support the LCA as well. Given the increased no. of sqds reqd. 2 lines of cheaper SE light fighters , one being the LCA with 300-400 being the eventual number of both types, all built within an accelerated time frame, should ,by 2030 be able to meet the reqd. sqd. strength as far as the light component- about 40% of the fleet is concerned. The remaining 60 % shared between med. and heavy birds. As said above, the Indian pvt. players should also be compelled to support production of indigenous systems if they want a share of the halwa.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 536
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Will » 12 Nov 2017 19:28

Just when you think think you have seen it all , our procurement strategies still manage to surprise. This is turning into another farce. The SE should be scrapped. Buy more Rafales to keep the IAF happy. In the meantime go full steam on the LCA mark 2 and the AMCA. Buy a couple of F 35 to hedge against up coming threats. The govt needs to start walking the talk if they are serious about indeginisation. There is a huge difference between “make in India” and “designed , developed and made in India”. The make in India route is just screwdrivergiri filling the pockets of industrialists. I know many won’t like me saying this but it’s about 4years in power for this govt. Till date there is nothing new as far as defence is concerned. Most of the stuff being procured or the path taken is what was proposed by the previous govt. if this govt can’t make much progress then wats the difference between this over the previous govt? It’s all very well to tom tom but what are the results on the ground. The biggest failure of this govt is having part time defence ministers till the current one. I still stand by my statement of Parrikar being a part time defence minister more interested in goa. This has been as bad as having AKA as defence minister. Oh I know everything one will be screaming that this govt needs time. How much time? Four years is a very long time . If one can’t show progress on the ground then the govt hasn’t done it’s job. What’s the use of DAC meetings. DAC clearing items mean zilch . Procurement and development paths should have been streamlined in 4 years. If a new defence minister needs time to learn the ropes who’s fault is it for chopping and chainring defence ministers all the time. My take and the so called ultra nationalists in here will be up in arms over it , is that as far as defence goes this govt has been as bad as the previous till date.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 19:49

All defence development takes a minimum 5 years to start and 10-20 years of development. Nothing can be seen in 3-4 years.

Don't forget: LCA first flight 2001. Sqn service 2017

Here is a nicely flying LCA from 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywNwdqXNGvs

A lot of the stuff displayed in the early 2000s are only coming into service now and this includes Akash and Naag. But look at what has failed. Sara and IJT Sitara. Idli AWACS failed but we have come up with an AEW using imported airframe.

Too much langoti twisting about imports is counter productive in a nation that is just beginning to grow out of PSU/gormint control. Cars broke free after 1998-2000. Defence manufacturing shackles are being broken only now. Do not expect spectacular results for 10-15 years. Of course that requires a lot of patience. If you are 25 now, you will be 40 by the time results show up

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2114
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby kit » 12 Nov 2017 19:50

IAF seems to favour more Rafales over PAKFA , so no money except for Tejas .. no way F16 or Gripen is coming in addition to Rafales

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 291
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby VKumar » 12 Nov 2017 19:51

Will wrote:Just when you think think you have seen it all , our procurement strategies still manage to surprise. This is turning into another farce. The SE should be scrapped. Buy more Rafales to keep the IAF happy. In the meantime go full steam on the LCA mark 2 and the AMCA. Buy a couple of F 35 to hedge against up coming threats. The govt needs to start walking the talk if they are serious about indeginisation. There is a huge difference between “make in India” and “designed , developed and made in India”. The make in India route is just screwdrivergiri filling the pockets of industrialists. I know many won’t like me saying this but it’s about 4years in power for this govt. Till date there is nothing new as far as defence is concerned. Most of the stuff being procured or the path taken is what was proposed by the previous govt. if this govt can’t make much progress then wats the difference between this over the previous govt? It’s all very well to tom tom but what are the results on the ground. The biggest failure of this govt is having part time defence ministers till the current one. I still stand by my statement of Parrikar being a part time defence minister more interested in goa. This has been as bad as having AKA as defence minister. Oh I know everything one will be screaming that this govt needs time. How much time? Four years is a very long time . If one can’t show progress on the ground then the govt hasn’t done it’s job. What’s the use of DAC meetings. DAC clearing items mean zilch . Procurement and development paths should have been streamlined in 4 years. If a new defence minister needs time to learn the ropes who’s fault is it for chopping and chainring defence ministers all the time. My take and the so called ultra nationalists in here will be up in arms over it , is that as far as defence goes this govt has been as bad as the previous till date.

BJP government ordered 2 squadrons of Rafale, with 2 further likely.

A number of army and naval assets ordered.

Severe restrictions on available funds for capital purchase.

Good things in pipeline.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 19:59

kit wrote:IAF seems to favour more Rafales over PAKFA , so no money except for Tejas .. no way F16 or Gripen is coming in addition to Rafales

Well compliments on making a prediction that can be verified in my lifetime, unlike so many other predictions we make..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:23

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

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Nov 2017 22:28

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.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:40

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.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ArjunPandit » 12 Nov 2017 23:02

shiv wrote:Well compliments on making a prediction that can be verified in my lifetime, unlike so many other predictions we make..

you're gonna live 150+ years shiv saar :)

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 07:28

Cross Post / Reply from the LCA Dhaaga.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saar, why this level of concern for Tata or HAL? I am concerned for your concern :)

shiv wrote:How does one "give production to Tata"?

How did one give production to Tata for F-16? You sign a letter of intent to produce the plane, like they did with LM. Simple.

shiv wrote:Is HAL going to shift its production line to say Maharashtra or Gujarat?

Since the Govt is invested in the idea of Make in India, have the Govt provide a new set of jigs and tools to Tata. Not very hard to do. Since they plan to do it with the F-16 anyway by giving money to LM to transfer the production line from the US to India. Maharashtra or Gujarat or wherever. Hakeem, I am aware where you are going with this. But I will wait for you to say it, to reply back.

shiv wrote:Will HAL allow Tata's to use an existing airfield - say in Nasik? Or is Tata expected to invest on its own.

Nope, it will be a 100% Tata owned factory, Tata owned airfield. In that area, only one name exists - Tata. On the investment question, I have answered it in the post below.

shiv wrote:Will HAL downsize and fire employees?

Not Tata's concern. Not my concern. Not your concern. Why are you taking tension? Let HAL deal with the issue, as they see fit. What are they going to do Hakeem? Go on hunger strike? Do it then. I will clap and you should too. Let HAL die a slow, painful death.

shiv wrote:Or do half the orders and give half to Tata. What profits and numbers can HAL promise Tata? Tatas will be totally dependent on the benevolence of a PSU which needs to do next to nothing nothing to break even.

Nope, give the full order to Tata...even the 83 Mk1As on order right now. Screw HAL. Why should Tata share any profits with HAL? Their factory, their airfield, their plane. Welcome to capitalism. It's evil, but HAL has to wake up and smell the coffee. If Prime Minister Modi is truly invested in the idea of revolutionizing the private sector....he needs to take this step.

shiv wrote:And what happens after say 10 years? Does Tata return the machinery? Or pray that HAL gives them some more work. It does not sound like a good sound profit making business model to shift a full depreciated production line to a parallel line.

Why should Tata return any machinery? It is their machinery. Use those tools and new jigs (or modify the existing ones - if that works) to produce AMCA, Ghatak UCAV, HTT-40. Screw HAL :lol:

shiv wrote:Let Tatas find a partner from abroad. Tata signs the documents and takes the risks. IAF will get some, but to stay alive Tata will have to export as well and do its darndest to stay profitable rather than eat scraps thrown by HAL.

I am not against Tata finding multiple partners. But let Tata make Tejas for the IAF and let Tata export Tejas also. And let HAL see it. Then they will learn, if they are still around.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 07:46

So let me adopt your scenario that LM wins the SE competition and answer the questions you asked.

shiv wrote:1. Who can bring in their money to put an entire production line on our land. HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?

100 SE fighters is an IAF requirement. It is not a LM requirement or a US Govt requirement. Why should LM or the US Govt spend any money for an Indian production line? The GOI is footing the bill for the land. This is 100% Indian investment. So land will be provided by the State for the factory OR Tata buys the land from the State. Tata will have to do the same for 100 Tejas as well.

Machinery (transfer of production line) from US to India will be paid by the GOI or Tata. The GOI or Tata is footing the bill, all the way. Lockheed Martin or the US Govt will not be paying us a dime to transfer this, but rather LM will make profit on transfering a depreciated line to India. For Tejas, Tata will purchase a production line or the GOI provides a production line at zero cost to Tata. Even if Tata has to pay, it will be way cheaper than transferring the F-16 production line from the US to India.

shiv wrote:2. Who has a bigger international market share where components I produce can be exported? HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?

Firstly, any part or component of value will come in as a kit from the US. General Electric will not be working with GTRE to make the F110 turbofan from the raw material stage. Northrop Grumman will not be building a GaN foundry to make the APG-83 SABR from scratch. Raytheon will not be knocking at DRDO's door to further develop variants of the AIM-9X, AIM-120D or anything of the like. What is left then? The airframe? If one wants to use that yardstick, the Tejas has a higher % of composites than the F-16. The Tejas airframe has a better stress life than an all metal plane, so much for the 20 year life span :)

Secondly, you are talking exporting components and parts? Saar, I am talking about exporting an entire plane, Designed in India and Made in India. If Tata gets to produce the Tejas, they can sell it to African and South Asian countries, Sri Lanka being a prime example. But because we are dhimmis, we will not do anything of the sort. And I would like you (or someone else) to bring up the point about the GE F404 engine that powers the Tejas Mk1. Please bring it up.

Thirdly, if Tata can work with Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin (and other American suppliers) to acquire kits for F-16 parts and components....Tata can do the same with SAMTEL that makes multifunction displays for Rambha, with MRF to produce the tyres for the Tejas, with Dynamic Tech Ltd to produce the front fuselage, with VEM Tech for centre fuselage, with Alpha Tocol for rear fuselage, with Larsen & Tubro for wings, etc.

On the issue of international market share, please illustrate the profit breakdown between LM's cut and Tata's take home.

shiv wrote: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

You can talk to SAMTEL, MRF, Dynamic Tech Ltd, VEM Tech, Alpha Tocol, Larsen & Tubro, etc. They don't live in castles, surrounded by moats. They are Indian companies. Our people Saar. You cannot talk to these people about later technology? You cannot talk to them about AMCA? Who are the execs at these companies that you can't talk to them? Maharajahs? Nawabs? Or they must be idiots then. L&T partnered with the Indian Navy to build INS Arihant - a nuclear powered, ballistic missile submarine - a vessel far more complex than building a fighter. They know technology.

shiv wrote: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.

Saar, because you are close to the thick of action....I share your concern. HAL is a useless PSU. But to partner with a phoren company in the magical hope that they will bring about a rennaissance in the Indian Aviation Industry is not a viable solution. Give an order of 100 Tejas to Tata, have enforceable deadlines, no union nonsense and watch Tata churn them out.

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

I could not agree more. Well said.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 07:48

Rakesh wrote:Saar, why this level of concern for Tata or HAL? I am concerned for your concern :)
Off topic diversion

Rakesh wrote:
shiv wrote:How does one "give production to Tata"?

How did one give production to Tata for F-16? You sign a letter of intent to produce the plane, like they did with LM. Simple.


shiv wrote:Is HAL going to shift its production line to say Maharashtra or Gujarat?

Since the Govt is invested in the idea of Make in India, have the Govt provide a new set of jigs and tools to Tata. Not very hard to do. Since they plan to do it with the F-16 anyway. Maharashtra or Gujarat or wherever. Hakeem, I am aware where you are going with this. But I will wait for you to say it, to reply back.
HAL's costs are relatively low because their land and buildings are fully depreciated. Salaries are paid by government. Moving the production of Tejas to Tatas will not happen if Tatas have to invest in land, permissions etc. Cheaper HAL production line is not going to get shifted to more expensive Tata line. The question is whether LM shifting its line will be cheaper. It will be cheaper for F-16. Indian workers producing F-16 will cost less than American workers. It makes sense to shift an F-16 production line to India. Both the US and Tata's can benefit as mentioned below



Rakesh wrote:
shiv wrote:Will HAL allow Tata's to use an existing airfield - say in Nasik? Or is Tata expected to invest on its own.

Nope, it will be a 100% Tata owned factory, Tata owned airfield. In that area, only one name exists - Tata. On the investment question, I have answered it in the post below.
That is why Tejas will be unprofitable/loss maker for Tatas. In case of F-16, Tata's invest in land. LM's investment in shifting the production line. Both will need to make profits out of cheaper-to-produce Indian F-16. This is THE China model but not for cheap plastic toys. For F-16s. Can't see why everyone admires China but cannot apply the same model to a high tech item in India


Rakesh wrote:
shiv wrote:Will HAL downsize and fire employees?

Not Tata's concern. Not my concern. Not your concern. Why are you taking tension? Let HAL deal with the issue, as they see fit. What are they going to do Hakeem? Go on hunger strike? Do it then. I will clap and you should too. Let HAL die a slow, painful death.
No they are not allowed to fire employees. Taxpayers will keep paying for them - but the spare space can be used for say Helicopter production, fluffing up HAL "Navaratna" profits while Tata dies for accepting a suicide deal

Funnily enough HAL shares up to 10% are due to go public. Tata shares will go down and HAL shares will go up if HAL disinvests from Tejas. IAF will get fucued. but I digress. IAF is a bystander here.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 08:07

cros-crosspost

Zynda wrote:
shiv wrote:Things like size of market, very big in India too are not even considered.

Actually, all OEMs acknowledge the size of Indian market but unfortunately at this moment, it is more of a footnote. The size of our market is big enough to get noticed but not big enough to entice or force these OEMs to "give in" to our demands like the Chinese.

Do we have our own commercial aircraft program? Nope. Are we likely to initiate one in the next 10-15 years? Not likely. So we will have to buy planes from these OEMs anyways...hope is that we get some offsets/Manf. or Engineering ToT along the way.

As it was mentioned on this forum at various threadsr, Bombardier has handed off Q-400 division to China. Not to mention Airbus & Boeing has acknowledged that some ToT is acceptable compromise for gaining access to Chinese market.

For fighters it is slightly different hakeem saar. I think srai has already addressed that...

Not sure that I agree. No point mixing the commercial market with the military market.

The Indian military market is big enough for everyone to notice and jump in. It is mainly people on BRF who are complaining that the Air Force is import pasand.

The civil airliner deals that China is getting is a clone of the way western manufacturers drop their prices and resistance if they sense that a country is going to pull ahead and compete. But China does not see that as a threat. They will import and co produce and when their workers are trained in screwdrivergiri, they will produce.

For India we on BRF are complaining against something that China is doing successfully. Allowing foreign investment, Getting factories built, Getting skilled workers trained in new methods and then using those skill to break free. I can't see what the resistance is all about. We can and must do that for fighters.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3554
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 13 Nov 2017 08:40

^^^
Do the Chinese badmouth their own programs in order to get imports as replacements? That is one big issue in India.

That whole argument for foreign collaboration should have happened with the MMRCA. That was the original intent. But after some 15-years it ended up being more-or-less just import for 36 Rafales. Let's see what that 30% offset French are doing in India turn out to be in the long run. At this point, don't really see how this SE MII would turn out different. How long would the procurement process would be? Are they going to let the LCA go the way of Marut? Remains to be seen.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby manjgu » 13 Nov 2017 08:46

getting ready to welcome ef soolah ladaku viman... babus and politicians win again... jo maza USD mein aur gooriyon mein hai ..phoren trips mein hai ..wah wah. IAF officers stand like peons in front of babu and netas ... they really have no say. if the babu neta combo ever had interest of country in their hearts they would push for LCA etc...

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 08:52

srai: my profile lists my email. Can you email me please?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 09:03

Rakesh wrote:So let me adopt your scenario that LM wins the SE competition and answer the questions you asked.

shiv wrote:1. Who can bring in their money to put an entire production line on our land. HAL? Or Lockheed Martin?

100 SE fighters is an IAF requirement. It is not a LM requirement or a US Govt requirement. Why should LM or the US Govt spend any money for an Indian production line? The GOI is footing the bill for the land. This is 100% Indian investment. So land will be provided by the State for the factory OR Tata buys the land from the State. Tata will have to do the same for 100 Tejas as well.

Machinery (transfer of production line) from US to India will be paid by the GOI or Tata. The GOI or Tata is footing the bill, all the way. Lockheed Martin or the US Govt will not be paying us a dime to transfer this, but rather LM will make profit on transfering a depreciated line to India. For Tejas, Tata will purchase a production line or the GOI provides a production line at zero cost to Tata. Even if Tata has to pay, it will be way cheaper than transferring the F-16 production line from the US to India.
I have neither heard nor read of any such proposal. If you have a link, please provide - or else we are going to differ on this point

Rakesh wrote:
shiv wrote: Saar, I am talking about exporting an entire plane, Designed in India and Made in India. If Tata gets to produce the Tejas, they can sell it to African and South Asian countries, Sri Lanka being a prime example.

Rakesh manufacture is easy. It is marketing that is difficult. In your proposal - HAL/ADA's 30 year old work that IAF itself has only reluctantly accepted is to be dumped on Tatas to market. Tata will not touch this with a 1000 km pole

Rakesh wrote:Thirdly, if Tata can work with Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin (and other American suppliers) to acquire kits for F-16 parts and components....Tata can do the same with SAMTEL that makes multifunction displays for Rambha, with MRF to produce the tyres for the Tejas, with Dynamic Tech Ltd to produce the front fuselage, with VEM Tech for centre fuselage, with Alpha Tocol for rear fuselage, with Larsen & Tubro for wings, etc.
You are saying Tata's should do what HAL is doing. If it was profitable I am sure they could. But that would mean that HAL must offer Tejas to tatas the way LM is offering F-16. That is not happening. [/quote]

Rakesh wrote:On the issue of international market share, please illustrate the profit breakdown between LM's cut and Tata's take home.
If I actually try and answer this I will be offering pure crap on a plate for you to throw back at me.

But I can answer the question in the following way: There seems to be a business model that profit making pvt firm LM and profit making pvt firm Tatas are working on. They are likely to have some ball park numbers in terms of orders and they will have to negotiate with the government for that. But they are talking and they seem to have some plan. Contrast this with HAL which is NOT looking to move its production line. In fact they are looking to divest themselves of component production and stay with integration. They can ask Tata's to do component production and maybe they already have, I don't know. To my knowledge, the idea that there is a sensible business model in dumping Tejas on Tatas does not seem to have occurred to HAL, Tatas or GoI. Only you seem to be saying it. I am willing to be corrected on this point

That said I think HAL chairman was wishing for a parallel private production line for increased rate of production. He was only admitting that HAL cannot go beyond 16 a year without someone else joining in. That also means that there is no proposal to shift HAL's line to any willing partner. That partner has to take all the risks and find a market for a product that barely has a home market. Not at all a sound business proposition

Rakesh wrote:
You can talk to SAMTEL, MRF, Dynamic Tech Ltd, VEM Tech, Alpha Tocol, Larsen & Tubro, etc. They don't live in castles, surrounded by moats. They are Indian companies. Our people Saar. You cannot talk to these people about later technology? You cannot talk to them about AMCA? Who are the execs at these companies that you can't talk to them? Maharajahs? Nawabs? Or they must be idiots then. L&T partnered with the Indian Navy to build INS Arihant - a nuclear powered, ballistic missile submarine - a vessel far more complex than building a fighter. They know technology.

You have mentioned a lot of names of successful Indian pvt companies. Why are they not lining up to buy the Tejas line? Why is Tatas dealing with LM and not pestering HAL to transfer its existing line. I put it to you that all these companies know the difference between risks taken for profits versus suicide. They can see what is on offer.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 09:12

srai wrote:^^^
Do the Chinese badmouth their own programs in order to get imports as replacements? That is one big issue in India.

Do the Chinese badmouth the PLAAF as an explanation for what they do not understand?

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2497
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kashi » 13 Nov 2017 10:02

shiv wrote:
srai wrote:^^^
Do the Chinese badmouth their own programs in order to get imports as replacements? That is one big issue in India.

Do the Chinese badmouth the PLAAF as an explanation for what they do not understand?


Do the Chinese have the freedom to badmouth PLAAF and by extension the CCP?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 13 Nov 2017 11:24

HAL’s screwdrivergiri is how Cheen makes toys. Foreign investment, foreign parts, foreign factories to train a simple work force.

It is not how Cheen makes warplanes however. Those are deep ToT with licensing that allow them to build and export endless variants of the technology that was transferred in modern contracts — along with RE of the more primitive tech from the 1950s and ‘60s.

RE’ed MiG-21. Have we sold any from HAL after decades of screwing together MiG-21s? No, so nothing like what Cheen is doing.
Image

Endless variants of flankers from one contract — J-11D, J-15, J-16; we see any new variant from HAL’s MKI line? No, so nothing like what Cheen is doing.
Image
Image
Image

Export simple planes with foreign engines, K-8 with Garrett, JF-17 with RD-93; when was the last plane HAL managed to sell even if we don’t have an engine? No, again not like what the chini industry is doing.
Image
Image

Screwdriver giri is crap. It might be what works with chini toys but it doesn’t seem like they follow that technique with their aircraft.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 13 Nov 2017 11:41

Pay for actual transfer of technology don’t sidetrack that purpose with offsets and guarantees. Own the technology so that the seller cannot tell you when and where you can use technology that was supposedly “transferred” to you! And be responsible for the chit you now make from the technology that you now own.

Look at the chini contracts for the Su-27SK, the Dauphin and the Super Frelon for examples. Cheen pumps out endless variants of all three and the firangis involved are all too happy with helping them in new projects.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 13:07

Kashi wrote:Do the Chinese have the freedom to badmouth PLAAF and by extension the CCP?

So, the argument goes: "If the Chinese had freedom to badmouth the PLAAF, they would. And since they don"t have freedom of speech but Indians do, Indians can badmouth the IAF and IAF can badmouth the LCA. It is by this convoluted logic that we on BRF deduce that it is the IAF's fault."

I keep coming to BRF for these ahead of curve gems.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2497
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kashi » 13 Nov 2017 13:36

shiv wrote:I keep coming to BRF for these ahead of curve gems.


And I probably keep coming to BRF for these humbling put downs...

My point simply was unless we are fully aware of what Cheenis do or not do with their own programmes, we are only speaking in hypotheticals.

Chinese have been under Western arms embargo for many years so their situation is hardly relevant to India, IAF and Tejas. They do not have Mirages, F-16s or Gripens lined up, ready to "fill in squadron numbers"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 16:58

Kashi wrote:
My point simply was unless we are fully aware of what Cheenis do or not do with their own programmes, we are only speaking in hypotheticals.

Agreed. But try implementing that on aheadofcurves.

I tried (sometimes successfully) to stop comparisons with China that are brought up only to "make a rhetorical case" for a particular viewpoint to be pushed. "Tejas has failed, but wow look at the Chinese". Once that comparison comes into play - it becomes a game that two can play. The same "China" or "Pakistan" example can be used to make a counter argument.

Please allow me to digress for a bit. I saw a humorous Tweet or TV reference a few months ago just as the high school exam results were being announced, and the statement was "Ah now "Sharmaji ka beta will be back". This refers to the clichéd comparison made by daddy or mummy on seeing their son's marks - they say "But Sharmaji's son (Sharmaji ka beta) has scored 99%". Such a comparison can only humiliate, insult or cause hurt without actually adding any information about how a given individual or entity might perform differently.

"Look at China" is a favourite tactic. Sure. If that is what people want. There are counter examples to every China example or Pakistan example that is used to shore up or emphasize a point. And that successfully derails the discussion once both parties start off. Analogies are rarely fair but I have used China and Pakistan examples in a flurry of "howaboutery" in the last 1-2 days simply to counter certain ideas and argue that they worked for China or Pakistan so if we are going to make comparisons to put India down, "how about" looking at counter examples. I am certain to bring them up again if anyone wants stick to the point of how China or Pakistan examples are relevant to single engine fighter or the IAF.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 13 Nov 2017 17:47

Basically we shouldn’t compare ourselves to anyone else lest we get our feelings hurt, huh?

Yeah, thinking like that gave us Cuba, the USSR and North Korea. We’re a democracy and being free and open to ideas around the world is an advantage not a weakness.

We’ve been comparing ourselves with Cheen since the 1980s. In every aspect of the nation not just the building of aircraft. And I am glad for it.

For decades we were perfectly fine with goris being wealthy and far ahead while as SDREs we stayed poor and were glad for things like MiG-21 and Harriers they sold us. We were fine with the white man staying on top until these other short rice eaters on our northern border began challenging the TFTA of the West and Japan.

Many of us were incensed. Who do they think they are challenging Unkil, the USSR and the whole Fair and Lovely power structure?

But others of us thought: if these damn rice eating yellows can do this, then why not us?

You want to talk about our psychology then ponder this: we were and still are conditioned by the Raj to accept the hierarchy of white over brown. Of white over everyone else. If there were no Cheen to shake the gates of gori dominance we would have been happy to stay where we were in the hierarchy of nations.

No, I am happy to compare with Cheen. They lit a fire underneath us and I hope it continues.
Last edited by chola on 13 Nov 2017 17:53, edited 2 times in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3554
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 13 Nov 2017 17:49

Comparison with the Chinese is a step up ... remember all those comparison with Pakistan before :P

As far as Chinese comparison goes, Doc shab please check your posts. You have been mentioning them the most from what I can tell ;) Other favorite phrase you have been using lately seems to be "BRF ahead of the curve".
Last edited by srai on 13 Nov 2017 18:18, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 18:15

chola wrote:No, I am happy to compare with Cheen. They lit a fire underneath us and I hope it continues.

Oh I know. It's a sensitive topic that pushes all sorts of buttons for all sorts of people. But please speak for yourself when it comes to whose underside feels the heat. "Us" is overkill. No fires being lit under anyone else despite the continuous caterwaul I hear..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33667
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 18:36

srai wrote:Comparison with the Chinese is a step up ... remember all those comparison with Pakistan before :P

As far as Chinese comparison goes, Doc shab please check your posts. You have been mentioning them the most from what I can tell ;) Other favorite phrase you have been using lately seems to be "BRF ahead of the curve".

Yes and I have also stated why I have done that. I repost for your information
Analogies are rarely fair but I have used China and Pakistan examples in a flurry of "howaboutery" in the last 1-2 days simply to counter certain ideas and argue that they worked for China or Pakistan so if we are going to make comparisons to put India down, "how about" looking at counter examples. I am certain to bring them up again if anyone wants stick to the point of how China or Pakistan examples are relevant to single engine fighter or the IAF.

I will do so again:

Saab exported its entire Trainer aircraft line to Pakistan decades ago. Now Pakis are exporting it to all sorts of nations. they have just supplied a few to Nigeria and Turkey in the last few months.

The Chinese took over manufacture of all sorts of low-end "cheap" stuff 2 decades ago and built up their industrial infra and workforce as US and European manufacturers greedily set up plants in China to maximize their profits from cheap Chinese labour. We sat here and laughed. Right here on this aheadofcurve forum. But China now floods the world with that low end stuff. And suddenly the fresh smell off coffee is waking us up as more and more people say that China has moved up from low end. Why not laugh now also? We are different no? It's all in the mind. If only our Air Force was not so import pasand.

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.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2017 18:53

Have not read all posts, but here goes .......

The Chinese took over manufacture of all sorts of low-end "cheap" stuff 2 decades ago and built up their industrial infra and workforce as US and European manufacturers greedily set up plants in China to maximize their profits from cheap Chinese labour. We sat here and laughed. Right here on this aheadofcurve forum. But China now floods the world with that low end stuff.


Very true. Very good observation.

And, THAT (your observations) were calculated by the Chinese. Their game plan was to make money first. Then use that money to manipulate the future.

As an example, they deliberately used coal to increase their industrial capabilities AND knowingly pollute. With the funds they built, they gamed they can then dominate the market to clean their own nation and in the process build an industry to dominate the world. Solar and now electric cars is the result. Not even talking of AI and driverless vehicles., Which they plan to dominate.

Western fighters is the one thing that are not setting up production lines in China. That is something we should grab with both hands as long as it is on offer. 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.


This needs investments in both domestic and the imported efforts. China built funds first and therefore had more than enough to fund anything and everything. Seems to me in the Indian case it is one or the other. ??????. Lack of funds.

That is what I see as the difference between the two.

China had a strategy from day one (which has caused other issues, but that is beyond the topic St hand).
Last edited by NRao on 13 Nov 2017 19:01, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Chinmay, Rakesh, ranjbe, Sumeet and 47 guests