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.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1016
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 10 Oct 2016 01:54

After browsing various threads I found a lot of arguments made use of a (yet to be decided) possible fighter that maybe manufactured in India, with a single engine and advanced tech etc. The noise for this manufacturing is coming from a lot of places, including govt and IAF (not to mention me, you and the media).

However soon it became clear that instead of being used as a supportive argument within these threads the new single engined fighter with tech is a self sustaining topic that is independently floating in various threads. I found some great arguments against and for this new fighter.

Hence I am starting a new thread.
Mod and Admins, please feel free to rename or lock or delete.
Happy to hear why before you do what you do.

I kick off the thread with an article from Ajai Shukla.
Image


Saturday, 8 October 2016
IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters in India
A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India.

Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday to fighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity.

The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposal” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen D.

The much-hyped MMRCA tender eventually collapsed, with the IAF last month buying a token 36 Rafale fighters. Now, the IAF has kicked off a more focused contest that will feature only single-engine fighters.

Numerous airpower experts have pointed out that the IAF needs single-engine fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that must be retired in the near future. The Rafale, a medium-heavy, twin-engine fighter, is too expensive for operational tasks that a single-engine fighter can easily manage.

While Boeing, Eurofighter, RAC MiG, Sukhoi and Dassault would technically be able to respond to the latest RFI, none of them can offer a state-of-the-art, medium, single-engine fighter. Therefore, it seems likely that New Delhi would have to choose between Saab’s Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin’s latest F-16 Block 70.

As Business Standard reported earlier, both Saab and Lockheed Martin have kicked off high-stakes, high-voltage campaigns to meet the IAF’s needs. Both have already submitted what the IAF chief described on Thursday as “unsolicited bids” for building their fighters in India.

Saab has linked its offer with assistance to the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) development programme, which is being spearheaded by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a unit of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Saab has offered to help ADA in quickly developing the Tejas Mark IA, which the IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, said required four improvements — better combat radar, more lethal weapons, dedicated electronic warfare capability and better maintainability. He said the upgraded Tejas should fly within three-four years.

Saab has also offered to help ADA develop the planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is pushing an offer, made through the Indo-US Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), to shift its F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas to India. A new, more advanced version of the F-16, designated the Block 70, has been offered to entice India.

Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.


The IAF is keeping an open mind. On Thursday, Raha stated: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1016
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Khalsa » 10 Oct 2016 02:03

A few suggestions and pointers to give the thread a push before it becomes self sustaining.

Arguments slightly against.
------------------------------------

How is this manufacturing going to be different from current License manufacturing by HAL

Licensed production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan ... production

Aircrafts
    Harlow PC-5 — first aircraft assembled by HAL
    Percival Prentice — 66 built by HAL
    Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 — FL, M, Bis and Bison upgrades variants
    Folland Gnat
    HAL Ajeet — improved version of the Folland Gnat
    Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-27 — M variant
    SEPECAT Jaguar— IS, IB and IM variants
    BAE Hawk — scheduled production run of 42 aircraft
    Sukhoi Su-30 — MKI variant
    Dornier Do 228 — 117 built + fuselage, wings and tail unit for production of the upgraded Do 228 NG variant
    Aerospatiale SA 315B Lama — HAL Cheetah, Lancer, Cheetal Variants
    Aerospatiale SA 316B Alouette III — HAL Chetak, Chetan Variants
    HAL HS 748 Avro — Modified for military usage, includes Series 2M variant with large freight door
Engines
    Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk 811 — Engine for SEPECAT Jaguar
    Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk 871 — Engine for BAE Hawk Mk 132
    Garrett TPE331-5 — Engine for Dornier Do 228
    Turbomeca TM 333 — Engine for HAL Dhruv

In the list above the notable success for me are HAL Ajeet and Mig-27 which were the independent re-hash and master upgrade of the underlying platform respectively.

Other than that, the licensed manufacturing did not really (in my mind) give birth to the incredible scientists that have created Tejas.
Nor did the licensed manufacturing of engines help Kaveri or Shakti.

Will the Made in India Fighter give us the magic formula that will allow Kaveri to be reborn or allow us to manufacture jet engines.
Will it remove the final kinks in our AESA/ PESA tech ? How sure are we that we will get everything .... if that is... we are promised that we will get everything.

Last not least Why on earth did we continue on with Rafael if we knew the procument for a non-Fifth generation aircraft was not going to end there.
Could we have gotten ourselves a license manufacturing of the Rafael or ditch the rafael completely.

Arguments slightly for.
------------------------------------

The best argument that I have heard for and that shuts me up almost completely is the drop in numbers.
Shiv said so in another thread that even with promised production of Tejas speeding up and matching what they promise, we are looking for a 100 a/c shortfall

Holy HELL I say.
Last edited by Khalsa on 10 Oct 2016 02:16, edited 1 time in total.

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby maxratul » 10 Oct 2016 02:12

I dont think F35 will be offered without the CISMOA or with any level of customization, forget about Screwdriver In India.

Poor Tejas...

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1016
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Khalsa » 10 Oct 2016 02:14

Okay last post to anchor

This post is neutral since I do not understand the effect of it , so the argument is neither for nor against.

Where does this new Indian Single Engined Fighter put the Tejas 2.0 and AMCA ?
In the Hospital Mortuary or in the Hospital New Birth Ward ?

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1787
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Vivek K » 10 Oct 2016 02:57

Hospital mortuary bhaji!

sarang
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 11:23
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby sarang » 10 Oct 2016 05:28

well! it depends on how we look at it.
for production run HAL record says it all but then the effort is indian, it takes a lot of pain to come this far.
and again if we see the falling strength ( greetings to congees), we are in dire need of 6-8 squadrons 10 years ago. :evil:

me thinks, it all comes down to fighting strength, when the war erupts; hell matters from where the jets come from, it all boils down to kick the enemy butt.

God only knows how much time we have before china-pak nexus starts the grand finale. :(

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2016 06:01

Cross posting RohitVats reply to me from the LCA dhaaga - will reply in a separate post
rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote: We (IAF alone) need 200 plus in the next five years or at most a decade. I would start with that figure and not worry about thousands. Cars are made in hundreds of thousands or millions. Most fighters are made in 100s - a few hit thousands

I presume you saw the video interview with the HAL MD who stated that in one year HAL can ramp up production to 8 aircraft a year and a year after that they can go 16 aircraft a year. The MD of HAL stated that they cannot ramp it up any higher.

If we take his word and assume that all goes well we will have
9 Tejas by 2019
25 by 2020
41 by 2021
57 by 2022

By then we would have our Air Force depleted by 12 MiG 21 squadrons leaving a 140 aircraft net depletion
By adding Rafales we still have a net depletion of 100+ aircraft below what we have today, let alone a future requirement of 45 squadrons


Shiv, its been sometime since I updated my numbers but from what I remember, IAF has to take care of the following turnover:

1. 3 x Mig-27ML squadrons (only 02 of 05 Mig-27 squadrons were updated) - As per one news item, 1 x Mig-27 squadron has already been number-plated. So, 02 more squadrons to go. Even the upgraded Mig-27UPG will need to be phased out by 2022-2023 time-frame.

2. Between 4-5 squadrons of Mig-21 (I think we've 1 x Mig-21bis and 3/4 Mig-21 M/MF).

3. 5/6 x Mig-21 Bison Squadrons - these will be last to go but here again, the upper timeline should be 2025.

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

So, over next 5 years (2016-2020) and 10 years (2016-2025) period, we need about 14-16 squadron worth of fighter a/c. And these are all single engine variety.

Had we got 126 MRCA and with 120 Tejas Mk1+Mk1A, we would have the solution to manage this turnover. However, even with best of effort, we'll not be able to bypass the short-fall in immediate future.

Lets look at what we're getting: 04 x Su-30MKI squadrons + 02 x Rafale + 6 x Tejas Mk1/Mk1A.

The above equation looks OK but there are two problems: (a) timeline for induction of Tejas (b) We'll still not reach 39 Squadron strength.

On top of it, we're aiming for 42 squadron IAF.

Between today and 2025, IAF needs 7-8 additional squadron worth of aircrafts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, here are the doubts that I have:

1. Why is the production capacity of Tejas Mk1A not being planned with increased output from word go? We know that Tejas Mk1A will become available in 2020-21 time-frame. Production capacity can be planned in advance.

2. More Rafale manufactured in India. Between Rafale and Tejas Mk1A, we balance the requirement.

3. First fighter to roll out of Indian production line will take 5 years minimum (negotiations+plant set-up+production). Almost in parallel to first flight of Tejas Mk1A and its production.

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

- Only reason for additional fighter line is that GOI is looking to add about 2 squadrons from foreign supplier till Indian plant starts rolling out the first plane.

- And GOI/MOD think we need a foreign partner to provide the deep knowledge to kick-start an aerospace environment in the country.

- For some reason, we're reluctant to expand the Tejas Mk1A production - this bit is most perplexing for me. Current RM made stakeholders meet and arrive at Tejas Mk1A solution. And it has everyone's backing. So, why not put all the weight behind it and expand its production line?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2016 06:55

rohitvats wrote:However, here are the doubts that I have:

1. Why is the production capacity of Tejas Mk1A not being planned with increased output from word go? We know that Tejas Mk1A will become available in 2020-21 time-frame. Production capacity can be planned in advance.

2. More Rafale manufactured in India. Between Rafale and Tejas Mk1A, we balance the requirement.

3. First fighter to roll out of Indian production line will take 5 years minimum (negotiations+plant set-up+production). Almost in parallel to first flight of Tejas Mk1A and its production.

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

- Only reason for additional fighter line is that GOI is looking to add about 2 squadrons from foreign supplier till Indian plant starts rolling out the first plane.

- And GOI/MOD think we need a foreign partner to provide the deep knowledge to kick-start an aerospace environment in the country.

- For some reason, we're reluctant to expand the Tejas Mk1A production - this bit is most perplexing for me. Current RM made stakeholders meet and arrive at Tejas Mk1A solution. And it has everyone's backing. So, why not put all the weight behind it and expand its production line?


Here is my take.

First I hate the term Mk1A. To me it is like Pakis quoting Kejriwal about strike because it gives people something to latch on to and wave about as something tangible and real to discuss.

Judging from various interviews of Parikkar, CAS Arup Raha and HAL folks - there will be "in the fullness of time" an upgraded version of Tejas. The analogy is something like some BRFite (maybe vina??) posted on another thread. The West accepts aircraft when they are not fully ready but gradually inducts upgraded versions. Whether you call the upgrades as IOC version/FOC version, Mk1 or Mk 1A is irrelevant. There will be a progressive improvement in capability

You have said:
Why is the production capacity of Tejas Mk1A not being planned with increased output from word go?

In my view the answer is that India simply does not have the "industrial mass" to increase output in this manner. HAL already has 2500 suppliers and the MD is complaining that they have mainly Tier 1 and 2 suppliers and very few Tier 3. Without those suppliers appearing a numbers ramp up is not going to happen.

The question that arises from this is if HAL can't get those suppliers how will an imported aircraft get the same

I this is a likely possibility

The screwdriver assembly line of a phoren imported fighter will be set up in India initially with Semi-Knocked down kits. All ancillary components will be imported. In the course of time - local industries will take over production of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 components - and will then have the manpower and machinery to serve HAL, TAAL Reliance or any other new aerospace industry that comes up - which would be good incentive for investment in a new firm. In fact HAL itself could be sourced for Tier 3 components from any spare capacity they have after they have built 1.5 Airbus doors and Boeing ailerons. The imported assembly line will initially have IAF as customer but will later supply foreign operators with spares or new build aircraft

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2016 07:01

The idea that India operates "too many diverse varieties of platforms" has one fallacy. That is small thinking. We are a huge country and may end up having the world's biggest or defence industry in future - at least we must aim for that. Large forces have a large and diverse variety because it makes sense on so many grounds. We need to stop thinking like a small European or African air arm

India's platform diversity used to suffer from two problems
1. Physical Separation of infrastructure needed between Soviet sourced and Western sourced
2. Headaches about compatibility of avionics and weapons systems

Many of these things have now been sorted out and we can move ahead an increase the variety. If anyone seriously looks at the number and variety of aircraft platforms being used by even the UK and France - let alone USA or China we would stop howling about variety. We have the manpower. We have the size. We have the requirement. We need the vision to strike ahead.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 07:13

I might as well state this. Tea leaves indicate Gripen to India. French asked for too much for Rafale & original deal reeked of corruption. Hence Modi-Hollande rejig for 36. Some more are optional, in the future, if FGFA is delayed.

IAF's prior lukewarm attitude to LCA is well known & no point in rehashing it. Given ADA finally got a 120 a/c order or at least the solid IAF proposal on that line, the quid-pro-quo is Gripen & they will keep quiet, perforce. You can see that well in the ADA Director's statements.

F-16 wont come to India. Both issues that PAF operates it, plus doubts on full blown SD control over what US exports and can't and also "obsolete airframe". SAAB has been harping on this for a while.

Big issue is radar for Gripen. Derisked option was Raven. However, Selex owns it & Finmeccanica is blacklisted. This is the one issue that can still swing F-16 with AN/APG-80. And hence SAAB non stop PR on latest radar tech from "inhouse capability".

This is litmus test for Parrikar if he continues with LCA beyond Mk1A and not just stop there. Strategic coup for Gripen team if it can head off LCA Mk2 (a competitor). But remains to be seen if Parrikar/ADA can get something from them there & on AMCA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 07:16

shiv wrote:The idea that India operates "too many diverse varieties of platforms" has one fallacy. That is small thinking. We are a huge country and may end up having the world's biggest or defence industry in future - at least we must aim for that. Large forces have a large and diverse variety because it makes sense on so many grounds. We need to stop thinking like a small European or African air arm

India's platform diversity used to suffer from two problems
1. Physical Separation of infrastructure needed between Soviet sourced and Western sourced
2. Headaches about compatibility of avionics and weapons systems

Many of these things have now been sorted out and we can move ahead an increase the variety. If anyone seriously looks at the number and variety of aircraft platforms being used by even the UK and France - let alone USA or China we would stop howling about variety. We have the manpower. We have the size. We have the requirement. We need the vision to strike ahead.


..continues to suffer.
Rafale ground handling kit can't be used for Su-30, LCA, Mirage 2000, Jaguar. AFB require huge investment in MRO/servicing for unique airframes. Training as well for different crews.

Its all good if you have the budget and finance your AF.

So far we haven't. Hard numbers indicate revenue budget for AF has constantly been challenged (that's where all the spares & consumables come from).

Parrikar has promised to fix this. So far Su-30 serviceability is on an upward trend, but diversity of types is not easy to maintain and is very expensive.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 07:20

UK and France
France standardized on Mirage 2000 & Rafales. A handful of F-1s etc remain in service?
UK - Typhoon, Tornado and Jaguar (any left?). F-35 in future..
USAF - F16 variants and F-15 variants and a few hundred F-22s. F-35s will replace older F-16s and F-15s. A-10s moved to ANG if i remember.
USN - F-18 variants & now F-35.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 397
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby rohiths » 10 Oct 2016 07:37

The key arguments against the imported single engine fighter are as follows
1. It does not solve for fighter shortage: The whole cycle time between RFI and getting physically getting the first fighter will take atleast 3 years in the most optimistic scenario and 5 years with business as usual. This means we will get the first plane only in 2022. By that time we would have already inducted 40 LCAs, 16 Rafales and probably 40 Su30 MKIs even with the current plans. We may even have a working version of the FGFA. It is far better to invest in existing
2. Creates leverage for foreign nations: If we choose the F-16 (most likely scenario) then we will give USA high leverage against India. We will be providing leverage to foreign entities without any commensurate gain. Indian national security interests will be subordinated to US when in 2022 we will probably be 40% of US GDP
3. Kills of the domestic industry: Diverting the orders to a similar single engine fighter when a superior domestic alternative is available will stunt whatever aerospace industry for the forseeable future.
4. Fallacy of the Scaling argument: HAL and other suppliers may not be able to double the LCA production overnight. But they can increase many fold within a 5 year time given firm orders. There is absolutely no reason for any company to scale up production facililites without firm orders.
5. Superior alternative: The LCA is both superior and cheaper when compared to either the F-16 or the Gripen. There is no combat mission (in 2022) that the F-16 or Gripen can do which the LCA cannot do

IMHO the whole single engine fighter program is being pushed by some vested interests who will benefit either through bribes or in some other ways and is coming mostly from the very top of the IAF.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2016 08:00

Phantom IIs, AV-8 Harriers, SkyHawks, F-15s, F-117s, U-2s, B-1, B-52, B-57 (NASA), A-10, and a whole lot of other aircraft are kept in flying condition in the US, some by private operators who serve US military aviation in various ways.

Here are the Aircraft operated by ATAC USA
http://www.atacusa.com/atac_aircraft.html
ATAC comprises the world's largest outsourced civilian, tactical airborne training organization and we proudly provide the highest-quality live training to Fleets, Squadrons, and Battalions that put their lives on the line every day in the name of Freedom.

For the last 20 years, Airborne Tactical Advantage Company, or ATAC, has trained Navy, Marine, Air Force and Army air-crews, ship-crews, and Combat Controllers in the air-to-ship, air-to-air, and air-to-ground arenas. From five bases worldwide, including the Continental US, Hawaii and the Pacific, ATAC has trained the finest warfighters with over 42,000 hours of tactical flying support. ATAC is the only civilian organization approved to train the U.S. Navy's elite Fighter Weapons School, also known as "TOPGUN", and is the only civilian organization to train the USAF's F-22 Raptors.


Discovery Air Defence have more aircraft and personnel than many air forces in the world

To me the key factor is the number of private companies who can supply spares - in a widely diversified and huge industrial base. Nations like the UK and can keep historic planes flying because of this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33948
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2016 08:08

rohiths wrote:The key arguments against the imported single engine fighter are as follows
1. It does not solve for fighter shortage: The whole cycle time between RFI and getting physically getting the first fighter will take atleast 3 years in the most optimistic scenario and 5 years with business as usual. This means we will get the first plane only in 2022. By that time we would have already inducted 40 LCAs, 16 Rafales and probably 40 Su30 MKIs even with the current plans. We may even have a working version of the FGFA. It is far better to invest in existing

We will still have an Air Force that is smaller than it is today and will take longer to get anyehere near the 45 sq strength we are looking for


rohiths wrote:2. Creates leverage for foreign nations: If we choose the F-16 (most likely scenario) then we will give USA high leverage against India. We will be providing leverage to foreign entities without any commensurate gain. Indian national security interests will be subordinated to US when in 2022 we will probably be 40% of US GDP

As long as we keep on with Tejas and AMCA etc the leverage any nation will have will be limited


rohiths wrote:3. Kills of the domestic industry: Diverting the orders to a similar single engine fighter when a superior domestic alternative is available will stunt whatever aerospace industry for the forseeable future.

No diversion. Support both

rohiths wrote:[4. Fallacy of the Scaling argument: HAL and other suppliers may not be able to double the LCA production overnight. But they can increase many fold within a 5 year time given firm orders. There is absolutely no reason for any company to scale up production facililites without firm orders.

Given HALs history and open admission of inabaility to scale up why beat this dead horse again


rohiths wrote:5. Superior alternative: The LCA is both superior and cheaper when compared to either the F-16 or the Gripen. There is no combat mission (in 2022) that the F-16 or Gripen can do which the LCA cannot do

Agree. That means that in the Long term our domestic industry will score over the import and as production of the import winds down the ancillary companies developed to supply parts for the phoren import will get orders for domestic aircraft

saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby saumitra_j » 10 Oct 2016 08:14

Cross posting from LCA Thread:

Indranil's point:
Saumitra, let me rephrase my question. The same people, the same industry, the same infrastructure has to be used to build the foreign fighter. Right? Then how is the challenge larger to produce LCAs only


Indranil, that is exactly what I am trying to say - the new imported fighter will NOT be produced by the same industry at least initially per my understanding. We simply do not have the man power or the capability to raise that man power in meaningful ways to meet IAF's operational needs in the limited time that we have before squadrons get number plated. Just think about it: A Su30 has over a million parts and even after all the tech transfer et al, how many Indian vendors can make those aerospace qualified parts? Lest we forget, despite having a very robust aerospace industry and access to a well oiled supply chain, France cannot fast track it's Rafale orders - it will still take them three years.

In one of my earlier posts, I had mentioned that a basic device such as a space qualified heat pipe required by ISRO had to be imported from Russia and ISRO is trying to grow a small vendor in Pune so that they can get that done locally. I think Indian manufacturing industry despite all the success in the automotive sector is no where close to where it is required to support two production lines for the Tejas, much as I would want it that way!My take is that the Tejas cannot be fast tracked, no matter what money we are willing to throw at it.

Part of the problem is that we have not used our commercial aircraft deals wisely, an offset clause there a few decades back would have done wonders! AFAIK, HAL only makes the doors for A320, we have sold them our Composite related software but nothing beyond that.

The way I look at this deal is:
1. Initially, it is to meet IAF's immediate operational needs, especially given the mid term challenges from Pakistan and China - which means full import a la Rafale
2. The deal will have suitable offsets clause, tech transfer etc to increase the vendor base for aerospace qualified parts using Make In India.
3. IAF will have to deal with multiple aircraft types, a bad situation operationally but given the reality of the country's dependence on imports, that is possibly lesser of the evil.
4. Tejas will come in the numbers as announced, may be be exported as well. Once the overall eco system is built, Tejas Mk2 and MCA will come from HAL in huge numbers.
5. MTA, Saras etc HAVE to succeed to create a robust civil market for Indian designed and manufactured aircrafts - otherwise sustaining this capability will be very difficult.
6. There could be a strategic angle to this deal as well including buying commercial influence, setting up long term academic relationships including some labs etc - to be honest that is an unknown and could be pure wishful thinking at this point.

PS: I have tweeted to MP asking him this question, don't expect a reply :) but mostly a short in the dark.....

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 09:10

shiv wrote:Phantom IIs, AV-8 Harriers, SkyHawks, F-15s, F-117s, U-2s, B-1, B-52, B-57 (NASA), A-10, and a whole lot of other aircraft are kept in flying condition in the US, some by private operators who serve US military aviation in various ways.

Here are the Aircraft operated by ATAC USA
http://www.atacusa.com/atac_aircraft.html
ATAC comprises the world's largest outsourced civilian, tactical airborne training organization and we proudly provide the highest-quality live training to Fleets, Squadrons, and Battalions that put their lives on the line every day in the name of Freedom.

For the last 20 years, Airborne Tactical Advantage Company, or ATAC, has trained Navy, Marine, Air Force and Army air-crews, ship-crews, and Combat Controllers in the air-to-ship, air-to-air, and air-to-ground arenas. From five bases worldwide, including the Continental US, Hawaii and the Pacific, ATAC has trained the finest warfighters with over 42,000 hours of tactical flying support. ATAC is the only civilian organization approved to train the U.S. Navy's elite Fighter Weapons School, also known as "TOPGUN", and is the only civilian organization to train the USAF's F-22 Raptors.


Discovery Air Defence have more aircraft and personnel than many air forces in the world

To me the key factor is the number of private companies who can supply spares - in a widely diversified and huge industrial base. Nations like the UK and can keep historic planes flying because of this.



Shiv, that's not just fighters. By the same yardstick, we can bring in the variety in IAF chopper, transport, training holdings as well.

IAF fighter holding is a menagerie and that has a huge reflection on its operational rates, and that's a fact. Plus we don't fund as the US does, so in a sense even the comparison to the US is moot.

The basic thing to check is the IAF revenue expenditure. It's not even met IAF projections in UPA era. Add deliberate obstructionist bureaucracy in MOD which had instructions to return capex, unspent money to ensure UPA boondoggles for electioneering.

USAF has basically standardized around F-15s and F-16s for fighters. A couple of hundred F-22s and rest will be F-35s.
USN is all F-18 in the fighter arena & a few F-35 will start coming in. Leave aside the aggressors with a few F-16s etc.
US Marines are all F-18 and will move to F-35.

Even the disadvantages apart, the three services are standardizing on variants of one type with similar avionics, systems - the F-35.

Compare to the circus act IAF logistics chain will be.

Mirage 2000, Rafale, Su-30 MKI, Jaguar, MiG-29, Rafale, LCA MK1 and LCA Mk1A. And now Gripen or F-16 (what other types are there?).

With upgrades all these types will exist simultaneously.

Just think of the completely crazy redundant infrastructure costs & how badly the serviceability will be affected if in a wartime situation the key base for one type is taken out.

Weapons aren't all interoperable. Can we take a Mica from a Mirage and put it on a Sukhoi? Or an Archer from Sukhoi and on Rafale?

The ground infra is incompatible. The MiG-29 kit can;t be used for Rafale or Jaguar or LCA or Su-30. And so forth.

So what do we do? We inflate costs for a procurement of 36 fighters & then ask for two bases with maint facilities & then promptly don't even amortize costs & go for yet another type.

This is highway lunacy of the worst kind, sorry to say & Parrikar should have ensured the future was LCA & LCA variants. I suspect his hand was forced by the Modi-Hollande agreement which was for the nuke stuff (Modi alluded to Areva & L&T tieup), but even so, he should have focused on the Rafale for the future.

This falling squadron numbers stuff could also have been addressed by doubling the number of Rafales & improving serviceability & force multipliers & PGMs for existing aircraft.

He's doing some of this with the Su-30, but I suspect he gave in to the IAFs demand for yet another MMRCA for a "cost effective" MMRCA since the Rafale was very expensive & some short term answer was suggested as the answer.

With the OROP row, the BJP is very afraid to be seen as anti-forces.

With TSP barking & yapping, AF has also been pushing for some new accretions.

We barely have enough AWACS for a single front, few IFR, less transports than necessary & here we are not even spending on our own aero industry and going around looking for yet another expensive, overpriced assembly in India line.

This new fighter proposal is a disaster.

Kudos to Parrikar for at least lending stability to the LCA line by getting it up and running & committed. AKA couldn't even get the AF to do that.

But by buying a single engine fighter "today", we have effectively killed the LCA Mk2 until and unless Parrikar shows some hard nosed thinking & forces that project ahead and funds it.

I can tell you right now what the argument made will be by the usual peddlers of foreign war. We should focus on AMCA etc and forget about LCA Mk2. Meanwhile HAL will keep focusing its energies on screwdriver.

For a while it appeared the stern message had gone out to HAL to cooperate and get the Tejas done, but instead we are back to same old, same old.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 09:22

rohiths wrote:The key arguments against the imported single engine fighter are as follows
1. It does not solve for fighter shortage: The whole cycle time between RFI and getting physically getting the first fighter will take atleast 3 years in the most optimistic scenario and 5 years with business as usual. This means we will get the first plane only in 2022. By that time we would have already inducted 40 LCAs, 16 Rafales and probably 40 Su30 MKIs even with the current plans. We may even have a working version of the FGFA. It is far better to invest in existing


Completely agreed. How much will it cost to get Su-30 MKIs to 80% rates from 60% (on a 270 fleet that is 54 aircraft) and an upgrade, plus additional PGMs, AWACS etc for the cost of 100 odd new fighters with all the inflated TOT costs and what not.

2. Creates leverage for foreign nations: If we choose the F-16 (most likely scenario) then we will give USA high leverage against India. We will be providing leverage to foreign entities without any commensurate gain. Indian national security interests will be subordinated to US when in 2022 we will probably be 40% of US GDP


Gripen is as bad, that's the sad issue. Both are a bad choice and they are the only ones available.

3. Kills of the domestic industry: Diverting the orders to a similar single engine fighter when a superior domestic alternative is available will stunt whatever aerospace industry for the forseeable future.


Yup, to get LCA MK1A, Parrikar had to make IAF sit down with HAL and get this agreed on.. a whopping order of (gasp) 80 fighters.
No commitment to Mk2 yet.

4. Fallacy of the Scaling argument: HAL and other suppliers may not be able to double the LCA production overnight. But they can increase many fold within a 5 year time given firm orders. There is absolutely no reason for any company to scale up production facililites without firm orders.


Exactly.. why will any Tejas supplier scale, when no firm orders exist? Why will HAL invest its money in all this, when all it has to do is deliver 120 odd aircraft & screwdriver many more.

Its talent will be either poached by pvt firms (if Tata makes the Gripen or F-16) or busy learning how to translate swedish manuals into english into whatever for Gripen assembly... what TOT btw.. almost nothing in it is swedish.

5. Superior alternative: The LCA is both superior and cheaper when compared to either the F-16 or the Gripen. There is no combat mission (in 2022) that the F-16 or Gripen can do which the LCA cannot do


The NLCA Mk2 which could be a game changer may end up being an orphan

IMHO the whole single engine fighter program is being pushed by some vested interests who will benefit either through bribes or in some other ways and is coming mostly from the very top of the IAF.


Import craze for best and greatest latest all over again.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 09:25

It will be hilarious if US responds with F-35. Much confusion and simultaneous shock and awe in AHQ about latest and best. RFI amended, RFP resent, blah-di-blah. In the meantine, IAF forced to commit to some more LCAs also.. better than F-16 at any rate. If we have to mortgage our sovereignty given we nowadays are doing PBL agreements and not even stockpiling spares (err.. sanctions anyone?), we might as well be fancy doing it.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby GShankar » 10 Oct 2016 09:33

Karan M wrote:For a while it appeared the stern message had gone out to HAL to cooperate and get the Tejas done, but instead we are back to same old, same old.


I know (2nd hand information) that number of the HAL engineers feel that LCA is not worth the effort. They seem to be much happier fitting up MKIs than toiling on LCA.

The prevailing opinion seems to be

  1. This is a project thrust on us by ADA
  2. We are having to complete their stupid R&D projects
  3. Proven capability is either on par or a bit less than Mig-21
  4. We are wasting our time by having to re-invent our wheels for this project
  5. IAF is imposing LD charges if we fail to deliver the ac at the right time then we don't have any other option
  6. Very proud of helicopter efforts. Saying HAL will be market leader in helis by 2020-21

A data point. Work force is not motivated to deliver LCA.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5856
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Indranil » 10 Oct 2016 09:52

^^^ this is actually true. And this is why I would have gone to town with dhol baaja and mithai if DM issued an RFI to the private sector to generate a parallel line for LCA. Let there be some competition. But there will be only one single engine aircraft in India, aka LCA. Let us not repeat the Marut-Jaguar folly again.

@saumitra, thanks for asking that question.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2016 09:57

Without competition, HAL is going to continue to look at screwdrivering as a great future.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1949
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cybaru » 10 Oct 2016 10:06

Does this mean this pushed rafale out of the competition?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 10:12

shiv wrote:the MD is complaining that they have mainly Tier 1 and 2 suppliers and very few Tier 3. Without those suppliers appearing a numbers ramp up is not going to happen.


You got it the other way round. HAL must have large number of tier-3 suppliers but very few tier2 suppliers ans zero tier1 suppliers.
EDIT:
Sorry I get your point now. What I meant by tier-1 supplier was one who can build entire modules. Aero industry is shifting from this old tier structure now and more and more consolidation is happening in market where tier2/3 companies are being absorbed in single units forming TIer1 companies. This is expected as everyone wants to move up the value chain. Also OEMs are more willing yo outsource ownership of modules to mitigate the investment in the entire project.
EDIT ends

Tier1 suppliers will only come if you place firm orders on table from day one. An order of 250 for LCA would do wonders here where even Chota Bhai would be willing to come on board. Because its a huge investment on part of the manufacturer and he would have no business case to invest so much if there is no assurance from GoI for orders. Investment on manufacturing plant of say LCA wings with the rate IAF wish for will run into 2000cr easily for someone who is doing from scratch. How would that company take loan from banks if they cannot convince the banks that they have enough orders to earn and then pay off the loans?? If someone willing to put money from his pocket why would he risk his money if there is no reasonable guarantee that he can recover the money and earn some decent margins on it?? You probably underestimate the upfront development costs for tier-1 suppliers. As an example consider this, a component which is merely 2-3% of whole engine cost required $2B investment on the part of the tier-1 supplier over some 10yrs if they were willing to take it up on Risk Revenue Share (RRSP) basis, before they could start earning a penny from it. Nobody in the world was willing, GE had to do it on their own. This is GE9X I am talking about which is bound to have good order book. And the tier1 supplier is the best company to design and manufacture the said component. And they have supplied same part for GEnX. So you can imagine they were not even building anything from scratch. You perhaps have little idea how any private aerospace company is thinking today in India. Today no MNC is willing to start any technology centre in India (which is not a mere glorified body shopping office) unless GOI signs a firm contract with numbers on paper or willing to fund the venture 50:50 as charity money. And even then they are not willing unless they are allowed to take back the IPR to parent country. An Indian pvt company is not very far from this thinking. As such the margins are thin in Aerospace - a mere 5% is considered good even for company like GE or Boeing. Which means volumes are imperative if you want to have sizeable profit from the venture, and a decent growth prospectives is a must, which can only come if GOI assure the investors privately that they will get orders no matter what. Else same money can be put into FD and get better returns no??

Even if we say these players who set up plants for 120 LCA can pick up AMCA parts later. Have we heard nos commitment from IAF for AMCA ever?? And what will they do when there is a gap between LCA prod end and AMCA prod run starting?? This doesn't happen anywhere like this. Even civil airliner manufacturers do not jump into a new aircraft project until they get some good assurance from airlines that they will buy it given it meets certain performance/DOC parameters (Only perhaps GA sees some risk taking but its becasue the competition is cut-throat and its based on some firm Market research as well). USAF puts numbers right at the start on the bids they invite, in many cases quite optimistic numbers.

We are living in a fantasy world if we think F-16 will help sprout tier-1 suppliers in India, let alone those who can design them independently, but even those who can just make-to-print. There are going to be only 6 Sq ordered for this single engine tender in all probability and even this is not enough to justify any investment in tier1 setup for anyone. Again GOI has to give assurance for future orders. Then why not just do it for LCA itself??

If GOI is ready to order 250 LCA and pump in some of that money now as advance payment and/or some soft loans, quick clearances for setting up facilities, land availabilities, tax breaks etc for suppliers with assurances for future business then within 5 yrs I don't see any reason why we cannot bump up LCA prod rate to 24/yr and and may be even beyond that if we could export some 100units or so and keep the lines buzzing till AMCA comes along. There are some companies who can be top 3-4 tier1 suppliers for modules. They can together with HAL/DRDO help Tier2/3 suppliers to come forth. Problem is GOI is not willing to do the first and foremost condition to make all this possible. I do not even see an honest attempt to even go out and check if its possible. Why can't GOI release a ROI with 250 orders for LCA and offer some soft terms for setting up mfg facilities and see how many are willing??
Last edited by JayS on 10 Oct 2016 11:24, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17812
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Philip » 10 Oct 2016 10:40

Options for resolving the fighter shoirtage at reasonable cost.

1.More MIG-29 UG/35s,available at just $30-40M/aircraft (RuAF 29s at just $29M).ease of induction,no need for new training,maintenance,etc. Set up dedicated spares,mainterance centre as being done for the MKIs.60 + should suffice.

2.Accelerate and increase LCA prod. units. LCA cost supposed to be only $33M+Second unit with the pvt. sector,tata's best bet.They're already making aircraft,helo components,etc. This will give us at least 16+ aircraft /yr from both units,extended top 24+ later on.In 5 yrs time we'll get 120+ LCAs.10 years time 200-300.

3.Gripen the best bet as Pak also uses the F-16 Gripen components could spur LCA development.Gripen cost though is likely to be almost double that of an LCA.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby vina » 10 Oct 2016 10:50

Karan M wrote:I might as well state this. Tea leaves indicate Gripen to India. French asked for too much for Rafale & original deal reeked of corruption. Hence Modi-Hollande rejig for 36. Some more are optional, in the future, if FGFA is delayed.

IAF's prior lukewarm attitude to LCA is well known & no point in rehashing it. Given ADA finally got a 120 a/c order or at least the solid IAF proposal on that line, the quid-pro-quo is Gripen & they will keep quiet, perforce. You can see that well in the ADA Director's statements.

F-16 wont come to India. Both issues that PAF operates it, plus doubts on full blown SD control over what US exports and can't and also "obsolete airframe". SAAB has been harping on this for a while.

Big issue is radar for Gripen. Derisked option was Raven. However, Selex owns it & Finmeccanica is blacklisted. This is the one issue that can still swing F-16 with AN/APG-80. A.


My tea leaves indicate F16. The "nice" thing about both the F16 and the Gripen, is that they do fully integrate the Isreali weapons package. So you can atleast not buy the weapons package that comes with both the Gripen and F16 . That way, you atleast save on some logistical footprint with the LCA (okay including engine maintenance , max with Gripen) as we most definitely will go with the GE engines . That way, there actually are synergies in terms of maintenance and logistics with either choice.

The lure of the F16 will be that it is actually the same benchmark price of Gripen at around $80m (before weapons) and LM are on record for transferring the full existing assembly line and the existing vendor base lock stock and barrel to India and turn over the spares sourcing for the global fleet to the Indian base. That is actually a great offer and a dedicated cash flow beyond the new build airframes for India and it is easier to get the ecosystem in place.

As far as Pakistan operating it goes , I really dont see that as a problem. They are older blocks. And that kind of argument didn't prevent us from getting the Su30 , which the Chinese operate as well!

This deal is based on strategic payoffs and political reasons and I am sure US would have been promised this and that for some heavy lifting in MTCR, NSG and the 123 agreements .

And, oh , I do think the f16s will come not, with the AN/APG-80 A , but rather with the Elta 2052 and Israeli weapons package for max mainteance and logistics footprint with LCA , and a India specific data link. That will cut life cycle and upfront acquisition costs significantly.

To me , F16 ticks everything . Strategic & political payback /alignment, price, global scale and cash flow to support industry moved to India and ability to largely overlap and use maintenance and logistics footprint of LCA.

Sweden & Gripen unfortnately dont offer the same global installed base for support to be transferred to India, the strategic and political heft and also the Gripen will need a brand new line to be set up (the existing line in Sweden cant be transferred, they will need it themselves) and will end up costing more.

And also, tech wise , Gripen has NOTHING to offer, except some vapour ware Radar / AESA front end that is not used by anyone, including themselves
Last edited by vina on 10 Oct 2016 11:18, edited 3 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 11:15

^^ Only two advantages I see with Gripen are:
- Its later design and has open architecture - better in terms of upgrades/growth
- Swedes are far more willing to share "whatever" they know than Americans or French or even Russians.

Other than that all points stack up against Gripen

But I have another question:

Why not invite SAAB/LM to build LCA for us?? A JV between one of these OEM + HAL set up outside PSU framework could be best bet.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Paul » 10 Oct 2016 11:17

I don't see Saab pimps going gungho over this announcement.

Am I missing something? OTOH Karnad alluded to LM CEO returning optimistic to US after her recent visit.......!

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Paul » 10 Oct 2016 11:19

My money is on F16.

sarang
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 11:23
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby sarang » 10 Oct 2016 11:40

Paul wrote:My money is on F16.


+1
provided amerikhan will do as they say. :wink:

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

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Marten » 10 Oct 2016 12:03

If Billary comes to power, these free-flying dreams will be limited to the NG. Unless hell freezes over, LM will not be allowed by the new POTUS and SD to even consider an assembly plant in India. 2 fooTe cowries onlee.

As for the key question raised by someone knowledgeable - if the current suppliers for the LCA are unable to ramp up, and if the GOI is unable to find local companies who can actually ramp up and build EXISTING parts and requirements thereof, how can anyone in their right mind consider that the same companies will magically be able to do so when LM asks them to take up indigenization of parts for F-16 Block 70/7i/7x. So they can do it for the FSola but not the LCA is what we are hearing? And if some company can, why would we not consider hiving off the Tejas division and handing it over to a new team comprising these go-getters and the old supposedly demoralized lot? Who would mind a nicer working environment with higher pay?

If Parrikar believes that poppycock about indeginization being easier for the Sola or Grippen but not the Tejas, we must anticipate far more serious issues than losing capabilities on the LCA/AMCA/Aura front.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby vina » 10 Oct 2016 12:28

As for the key question raised by someone knowledgeable - if the current suppliers for the LCA are unable to ramp up, and if the GOI is unable to find local companies who can actually ramp up and build EXISTING parts and requirements thereof, how can anyone in their right mind consider that the same companies will magically be able to do so when LM asks them to take up indigenization of parts for F-16 Block 70/7i/7x.


Who is talking about building anything by existing companies. It is about getting the existing suppliers of the Foreign fighters to move lock stock and barrel, with tooling and whatever to continue to build the existing parts and fighters in India. The lines are anyways going to shut in the US, so move the entire thing to India.

Yeah, it will give employment to a few thousand local folks. And along with that, you might get help with materials and stuff with engines and radar. And transplanted plants will continue to produce parts of the F16 fleet still flying worldwide that will need to be supported. It is all in all a newer version of "screwdrivergiri" with a fancier name and probably better economics.

But thinking that the transplanted plants are going to do something magical like trying to build and develop anything from that is a stretch. That will be a big "it depends" . It will give them a start. But what they do with the start is something up to them. For them to continue beyond that will need investments in R&D both at their end and also new programs that India kicks off and to rope them in as suppliers.

However, given the Mota Bhai and Chota Bhai kind of guys, those guys will not be able to design and manufacture a screw, nor will they aspire to. The only thing they can look forward to is future screwdrivergiri with future imported platforms.

Hmm. The world has moved on beyond the MMRCA contest from what I see now. The F16 MMRCA offer was based on the UAE BLK 60, which UAE paid for and had a lot of UAE paid IP on it, on which royalty would be payable to UAE and also the Packees from flying the UAE planes (as they historically did) would know it.

But now it looks like Northrop Grumman and Raytheon have drop in replacement as an upgrade of the radar (can be replaced in the field) and that the Taiwanese have selected the NG version the SABR for their upgrade program. I guess that kind of radar with upgraded avionics and the top thrust rated engine and conformal tanks would be on offer. This kind of upgrade has huge potential for all the existing fleet starting from F16 A/B versions like the Taiwanese ones and that could come here with the potential LM offer.

The Israeli 2052 would fit as well and the Israelis would have developed it to retrofit the F16 fleet, but were not allowed to use their own Radars by the US.
Check out the SABR video.

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

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Marten » 10 Oct 2016 13:58

When you say move lock, stock and barrel, you surely jest. Do you know how many suppliers exist in the DFW area alone? GSCS will be the sole entity coordinating all of these basic ordering agreements or the sourcing agreements, if you please. Who is going to train the new workforce in the areas of manufacturing from scratch? And who is going to ramp the ITI folks up? The sheer magnitute of setting up the supply chain must be easy-peasy going by the PPT-approach of first transitioning assembly and then going into indegenization. Or were you being sarcy? Because it makes no sense that we believe existing suppliers will be able to do what you say here with a new workforce that existing suppliers cannot do right now (owing primarily due to the lack of technical abilities or more so, the finances).

Why not spend simply offer monies for acquiring these tech skills. Help us make engines in India for n $bn instead of the cockamamie ten year plan of moving plants and setting up the supply chain (which btw is a 5 year effort just for this part). I think folks over-simplify the part where moving three thousand part manufacturing locations is considered a simply three step plan.
PS: Vina saar, none of the comments are meant to offend you. Just that it boggles that even someone like you believe it can be done quicker than an expansion of the local suppliers currently in place (or of JVs of the Phoren suppliers with the local suppliers).

kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby kapilrdave » 10 Oct 2016 14:10

The deal is said to be a project under MII and not primarily about fulfilling IAF's requirement. It would obviously cater to IAF too but it's not the primary objective. This is no MMRCA contest. It has different objectives and goals. So IMHO it is wrong to analyse this deal with only IAF's requirement in mind. What we should consider in no particular order is the following...

A. Will it create more jobs?

B. Will it create an industrial base?

C. Will it help us become powerful & influential enough to sell defense weapons to other countries?

D. Will it help us to become a major exporter from the current state of major importer?

E. How will this deal effect our local R&D and indigenous products?

F. Will this deal attract other defense manufacturerers to come to India to be more competitive? Can we become the China of defense manufacturing?

IMVHO these are the more appropriate points to discuss for this thread.

Just my do kaudi.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Pratyush » 10 Oct 2016 14:13

Has the iaf launched an exercise to procure a new type of fighter. :?:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2016 14:14

Indian order for F-16 is not going to be more than 140-160 a/c. This in itself does not seem attractive enough proposition to ship manufacturing base to India.

What is most likely to happen is that a/c will be assembled in India with CKD and SKD kits imported from LM in a brand new ASSEMBLY line in a new factory. And slowly, the percentage of Indian inputs increases. But here again. we'll reach an upper limit of what is permissible for production by Indian suppliers in India. I see a geographical divide in how the capability rests - high tech stuff rests with suppliers in USA while low tech stuff moves to India.

MRO related activities and deep upgrades are addressed jointly by this distributed set-up.

Also, if LM (USA) transfers tech to LM (India), how does INDIA benefit from it? Unless, the whole thing has a clause to transfer tech to HAL and help them also to evolve a genuine eco-system.

So many things just don't make sense.

Just when I thought we'd reached a steady ship on this fighter acquisition front, we've this surprise.

For thinking out aloud - Why can't we ask SAAB to work jointly on LCA MK2? And reap the rewards of addressing a large captive consumer base in IAF plus the sales possible to other countries looking for low cost+high tech replacement for their Mig-21/23/27 and other western fighters.

In the hyper competitive world of fighter sales, SAAB/Sweden stand less chance of survival given the geopolitical nature of this field.

LCA MK2 has easy potential of clocking 400+ fighters (including IAF). SAAB cannot even dream of this number with Gripen/NG.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3314
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby hnair » 10 Oct 2016 14:36

This will drag on for a few years and at some point, the only other single-engined fighter that India can learn somethings from, the F35 will enter the fray with a ramped up production. FMS route and be done with. Although a bunch of those auto-MRO type systems will be rubbed out of India specific planes, making it slightly less fun to own.

But the above situation is any day better than shafting the LCA, by allowing established companies selling end-of-line maal. This is kind of a sad repeat of the Marut

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2125
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby kit » 10 Oct 2016 14:41

Why not just use a weaponized Hawk and the Tejas instead of a foreign fighter again !!!

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1192
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby geeth » 10 Oct 2016 14:48

What I feel when I read in between the lines is this:

1. India has procured only about a 100 engines of F404. Has the tender for F414 concluded even after so many years? Not to my knowledge. Why?
2. India cannot thow out GE and fit another engine. So the LCA programme including 1A, MK2, NLCA, and also AMCA is wholly dependent on the wishes of Amreekhan. People salivating about producing 400 LCA is meaningless as long as khan doesnt oblige. So, in short, our testimonials are firmly in the vice grip of khan as of now. No point squirming.

3. Kavaeri nowhere in the horizon. So the options in front of Parrikar are limited. What may come along with the F16 line is the full setup to manufacture the engine in India. If, along with that, if weget the permission to install our own avionics and weapons, then I would say it is a fair deal because
(A) It saves the LCA / NLCA/AMCA deeal from inordinate delay
(B) IAF has enough fighters in the meantime to fight any eventuality
(C) production is ramped up relatively faster
(D) somewhat better eco system for fighter production is set up.
(D) France is brought down to mother earth.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 15:06

From a past article, April 2016:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/local-production-of-us-f-16-f/a-18-not-attractive-hal-chairman-suvarna-raju/articleshow/51834356.cms
How involved will the private sector be in the production of the LCA aircraft in India?
The first 20 aircraft will be completed by 2018, by when we have to make a Mk 1A version of the aircraft. We are ramping up production to 16 aircraft a year. We have recently issued request for quotations to the private players to supply modules like fuselage parts and wings. If we can get this from the private sector, we can increase production to 25 aircraft a year. So, we are lookin ..


So 25/yr is possible according to HAL given they can have pvt companies who can take manufacturing of entire modules.

And we have time till 2021 to make it happen.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cosmo_R, Google Feedfetcher, Karan M, KrishnaK, rajkumar and 34 guests