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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5863
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 22 Sep 2017 00:50

I don't know of any formal proposal to build Tejas on a private line.

My biggest peeve with MP in spite of him being a patriot of the highest and the best RM India has seen in decades is that for him his party came even higher.

This single engine MII-F16 just is more attractive poll statement for Make in India program than just increasing orders for Tejas. Otherwise MII has till date brought in less than 100 crores in FDI to India. Another benefit of MII-gripens is that It allows Adani/Reliance to enter the frame.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 01:18

JayS wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Well said once again! I say get Tata and Adani to both open Tejas lines. They are bidding for phoren aircraft production. Give them both a 100 aircraft order for the Tejas. HAL has gone on record stating that they have no orders post Rambha production.

Also get Birla, Godrej, Bajaj, MRF Tyres, Sheetal Fashion and Raymond Group to all pitch in. The latter two can design & make the uniforms for the folks that Tata and Adani are going to hire...oh wait, they are HAL employees onlee :mrgreen:

All about job creation and getting the ball rolling in other sectors of the economy :lol:


I pulled out that 12B 250 LCA Mk2 offer's reference for this only. It seems it was already pitched, what is being suggested in your post. But it went no where. Why..??

IR, you have any chaiwalla info..?

Saar, while the first para I meant in all seriousness, the second para was meant in jest onlee :) So I hope you are referring to the first para.

On that first para, first off I must say that when folks on BRF make absurd claims in support of this deal, it takes the wise to come up a counter solution which would not necessarily have been thought of before. I am not sure if anyone came up with this idea, but I am reading it for the first time from Indranil. So correct me, if I am wrong. Also, where did you read that this idea was pitched? And what is this $12 billion Mk2 order? A big thank you to Indranil for the following statement, "And I don't care for a DPSU. Ask Tata to build Tejas. I would be most happy about it too."

Come to think of it. That is actually a bloody amazing idea. To expand on that idea further, I would suggest have the GoI provide the funds for both Tata and Adani to build a production facility of their own. Or at least provide the land to both companies. Give each one of them an order for a minimum of a 100 Tejas fighters. Now I will concede that neither Tata nor Adani have any experience in building fighters and so that is where HAL comes in. Let HAL provide the manpower (at least initially) to commence production and then transition over time to train Tata and Adani employees. Heck, even Boeing is saying the same thing...they would rather partner with HAL as they are the only ones with the experience. LM and Saab are saying the same thing as well, but behind closed doors. They do not want to rock the boat.

Provide incentives (monetary) to both Tata and Adani. Whoever produces aircraft quicker (that meets standards obviously) gets a cash incentive. Make it competitive. We can have four Tejas lines minimum - two at HAL (the second being the Rambha line), one at Adani and one at Tata. Each facility should also have a MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) center as well. When the Tejas is due for an overhaul, do it there. This will truly be Designed in India, Make/Made in India and Overhauled in India. And it will be Jobs of Value in India as well...none of this assembly/screwdrivergiri nonsense.

Think about it. This SE deal is going to cost (at minimum) $10 billion in land acquisition, building a factory, buying the jigs, the tools, CKD/SKD kits for the aircraft and whatever else. Then there will be the billions in after sales support to keep these phoren jewels flying. Why not invest all that money in India itself? Roll the money within the country, why hand over valuable FOREX to a foreign nation? Employ people who will have valuable jobs and thus will spend, because they are now earning.

When AMCA rolls along, rinse and repeat. Have four AMCA production lines going. And when AMCA is being produced, Tata/Adani/HAL employees should be doing overhauls of the Tejas at their respective MRO centres. Employ even more people.

Buying the F-16 is akin to Israel's Lavi program and Canada's Avro program (from the 50s). The F-Solah purchase will kill the Tejas. Gripen will be no different either. Our leaders need to wake up and see this. It is frustrating because we do not have effective project managers to bring ideas like this to life.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 05:57

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the F-16: Mattis has to hardsell these issues on his visit to India
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/ ... hE2WN.html

Before you click on the link, it is an article by Bharat Karnad. You have been warned :D

Mattis’ returning home empty-handed will not hurt relations with the US at all because there’s China; and the US needs India to strategically hinder it.

The only part of the above article that I wholly agree with.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 06:50

F-16 Fighter Jets May Come to India Under `Make in India' programme
http://theindiasaga.com/defence-securit ... -programme

By Air Marshal VK Jimmy Bhatia (Retd)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2017 08:54


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5863
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 22 Sep 2017 08:56

I like Philip saar and I think he has changed for the good, i.e. moved a little towards the middle.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 11:38

He!He! You know the famous saying,"playing both ends against the middle".

Seriously,had we been with the LCA a dev. state about 10 yrs. before around 2007-2010,long before testing had ended (still no answer about gun firing tests?),we would have had no alternative but for going in for large scale firang buys + screwdriver tech to follow and many years down the line,some degree of genuine local manufacture using local raw materials. The case in Q is the MKI programme,which when you look at it has been an unqualified success for both the IAF and HAL ,with the only glitch being sufficient support.That issue is being remedied with local OEM/JV support facilities being set up.

However at this juncture in time,the LCA has entered series production,but very gingerly.There aren't even enough aircraft to form 1 sqd.! Doubts have arisen when the first block of 40 MK-1s will be finished,let along the extra 80 the IAF is willing to buy,the MK-1As. The GOI announced a second line of prod. being set up,but some reports say that zero has happened.Theefore,the taxpayer can genuinely ask as to what is happening with the entire LCA prog.? The easiest way to get the pvt. sector involved is to outsource key components.At prev. air shows,we had stalls of desi cos. which were supplying LCA wing panels,etc.I remember a few decades ago,the DRDO used to have road shows in all major Tier 1 and Tier-2 cities calling for import substitution for items for MBTs aircraft,etc. I seldom see such reports in the media now-a-days. There may be a display at an airshow,etc. but those industrialists whom I personally know,who've been supplying the DRDO with important parts are very frustrated.One gent I know who developed "blisks" for the DRDO (for Kaveri) has recd. ziltch orders.This was developed sev. years ago! Becos of some peanut funding from the DRDO he can't even sell his product abroad.Therefore,if the MOD/GOI want to bring India Inc. aboard,there must be a sweeping change in attitude and the DPSU's "chalta hai" attitude banished forever.Both the PM and former DM have been v.outspoken about poor performance of def. DPSUs.

WE have a double-edged problem today.An immediate req. for more fighter aircraft to replace hundreds of retiring MIGs of various types,plus the need to set up a truly modern cutting edge manufacturing facility which will be the foundation for more desi-designed/JV projects in the future.But s very rightly said in an above post,setting up the green field facility after another ropund of evaluating contestants,etc., will take aeons by Indian stds.I was just going through an old def. mag where YB Chavan in the '60s,def. min. of the day,took just one year to seal the entire deal with Russia for the IN's Foxtrot subs! WE had also never operated subs before,a few submariners got trained in the UK but the UK never wanted us to operate subs,so we turned to Russia and as they say,the rest is history,much gratitude to Adm. of the Fleet of the Sov. Navy.Adm. Sergei Gorshkov,who was its chief for 30 years and had a great influence in building up the IN too.

How many years did it take to order a paltry 36 Rafales after the bird was chosen? Therefore,the sensible solution for govt. is to take decisions on both aspects,increase the number of the fleet by adding more nos. of types already in service (MKIs,MIG-29/35s,Jags,armed Hawks) ,ramping up LCA production in a genuine manner with the strictest deadlines (reward or punishment for success or failure),replacing incompetent mangers,etc.,and choosing wisely should the SE req. still a necessity. Given that setting up facilities for local prod. will take a few years,a batch of two sqds. should be supplied by the OEM asap,even from egx. stock,replaced in time with new aircraft (this was done for both the Jag and SU_30 acquisition),and the aircraft not an old hag with inches of make-up but a new-gen fighter that will not be obsolete even after a decade+ with ample room in it for further dev. of more advanced variants.
From the available open info. there is only one clear front-runner,the Gripen.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5863
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 22 Sep 2017 23:19

Philip wrote:He!He! You know the famous saying,"playing both ends against the middle".

I did not know, but I like it. My only defense is that I am not trying to "play" both sides. I expressed what I felt.

I feel:
1. If F-16 block 70 is an old hag, so is the Mig-29/35. At least the lipstick on the F-16 looks better.
2. If F-16 is foreign, so is Mig-29 and so is Gripen
3. If F-16/Gripen hurts Indian interests, so does the Mig-29.

There are a few things for sure:
1. The avionics on the F-16/GRipen is a generation ahead of that on the Mig-35
2. Mig-35 is aerodynamically superior than F-16/Gripen.
3. Mig-35's/Gripen's radar is an experiment in progress whereas F-16's radar is the most well tested radar currently in the world. I expect the Mig-35's radar to have higher range.
4. Gripen is likely to be the most expensive of the three to acquire. But the Mig-35 will be the most expensive to maintain throughout its life. It is not about Russian vs. western design. It is based on laws of physics. You need more energy to lift and push an heavier vehicle. The more the moving parts, the more parts to fail.

But LCA will be cheaper to acquire and maintain by a significant margin. Mk1 is at least as capable as a block F-16-Block 52/Gripen A/B. Mk2 will be at par with Block 60/Gripen E/F. Believe in physics, not brochures.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Sep 2017 23:32

Indranil wrote:3. If F-16/Gripen hurts Indian interests, so does the Mig-29.
True, but the question also is, who has the least overlap of these interests with your own. Nations who choose to wield their sovereignty and seek independence of action to protect their interests but are unable to do so, ought to choose a partner who would have the least overlap with your own interests in your neighborhood. Allowing powers to build up equities in our MIC, who may not always share your view points and could impede your sovereign interest should be avoided? If Gripen would not have such large American foot prints, it would actually have a leg up compared to the Russian Mig-29 as far as geo-political equities go.

e.g: In Operation Parakram the American interest in Afghanistan at the time, played a significant role in how India made their decision vis-a-vis its actions on Pakistan. Musharraf's pronouncement in January 2002 had the brokerage of the US.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5863
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 23 Sep 2017 00:16

America can ground Gripen as easily as the F-16s.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Vips » 23 Sep 2017 02:48

Indranil wrote:I feel:
1. If F-16 block 70 is an old hag, so is the Mig-29/35. At least the lipstick on the F-16 looks better.


This one comment sums it up. Mig 35 is old wine in an even older bottle (The one which is rinsed clean after it is bought from a kabadiwala)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2017 21:38

Can India and the United States work out the kinks for a fighter production deal?
https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/can-ind ... tion-deal/

The U.S. and Indian governments continue to work on at least a couple of proposals to shift production of fighter aircraft from the United States to India. The core problem, as outlined by Aditya Kalra and Sanjeev Miglani, is that U.S. firms worry about the security of their technology. Lockheed Martin and Boeing, in particular, have expressed concern that by taking a minority stake in joint ventures with Indian companies, they will lose control of sensitive military technologies.

Acquisition of technology (especially sensitive defense technology) is a key part of the deal for the Indian government, which has continued to struggle with developing a world-class defense industry. Protection of technology, conversely, is a key demand of U.S. firms considering partnerships in India. As Indian rules limit foreign partners to a 49 percent stake in any joint ventures, the U.S. firms have real concerns.

With respect to the F-16, the technologies in question have matured to the extent that it is unclear how exposed Lockheed Martin is to the risk of technology appropriation. However, the terms of the F-16 deal will set a precedent for future collaboration between U.S. and Indian defense and technology companies. Boeing faces a similar situation with the F/A-18, although some of the technologies associated with the Hornet are more cutting edge.

American firms have also expressed concern over the ability of private Indian firms to manage production of sophisticated aviation technology. Apart from HAL, few Indian companies have extensive experience with producing components for military aircraft. Given that Lockheed Martin, at least, expects to produce F-16s for export in India, the ability to manage the manufacturing tree is a serious concern.

The debate (perhaps not yet a dispute) takes place against a dual backdrop; first, of hopes in both Washington and New Delhi for a closer strategic partnership, and second, of long-term concerns over the protection of American intellectual property in India. The Trump administration has pursued both of these issues with varying degrees of seriousness, while Modi has, perhaps implicitly, suggested that the latter is negotiable in pursuit of the former. One government official, at least, has suggested that U.S. firms can expand their stake beyond 49 percent, depending on the sophistication of the technologies they bring to the partnership. How this would function in practice remains unclear, however.

Still, similar concerns over technology transfer scuttled the largest envisioned version of the Dassault Rafale deal; they have also repeatedly cropped up in the Su-57 joint project with Russia. Both of these situations were different in character from the U.S. complaints, however, as both involved Hindustan Aeronautics Limited as the lead Indian contractor. In the case of the Su-57, concerns were more about the Russian production side than the Indian, although with the Rafale the French repeatedly raised concerns about the quality of Indian production and maintenance.

These concerns seem manageable on their face. However, Boeing and Lockheed Martin wield significant influence in Washington, and the Indian defense bureaucracy have proven intractable before. It is possible that the two sides will not find their way to a deal, especially given the availability of other fighters for the Indian Air Force.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2017 21:42

Let them choose their partners
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes. ... -partners/

By Amit Cowshish
(The writer is former financial adviser (acquisition), ministry of defence, GoI)

India’s quest for single-engine fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF) has taken a somewhat strange turn with both the main contenders signing agreements with local companies to make the aircraft in India.

While Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with Tata Advanced Systems in June to set up the assembly line for its F-16 Block 70 aircraft in India, SAAB quickly followed suit by signing a similar agreement with the Adani Group earlier this month to manufacture JAS-39 Gripen-E. Fighter aircraft manufacturing is one of the four segments identified by the ministry of defence (MoD) to unroll the ‘strategic partnership’ scheme.

This scheme entails the parallel selection of the platforms that meet IAF’s operational requirement and the Indian private sector entities that could be invited to bid for the programme after tying up with the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of the chosen platforms.

Selection of the platforms will be comparatively easy, especially if these are subjected to trials only in respect of the changes made after these were last trial-evaluated in the context of the now-aborted programme for the acquisition of 126 medium multi-role Combat Aircraft, assuming that it is feasible to do so. It is the shortlisting of the Indian companies that could pose a challenge. No wonder the process has not even begun.
With these pre-emptive tieups, the two OEMs in the fray have outmanoeuvred the MoD. It will now be superfluous to go through the cumbersome process of identifying the Indian companies that could be invited to bid.

More to the point, it will be surprising if the terms of the agreement between the OEMs and the Indian companies would permit the former to be wooed by — and to enter into a production agreement with — any other Indian entity.

For sure, the MoD could ‘out-outmanoeuvre’ the OEMs by laying down the selection criteria for the Indian companies that wish to participate in this programme, which the companies already chosen by them do not meet. Apart from being very unlikely, such an act could only queer the pitch for everyone without there being a reasonable chance of the issue getting resolved any time soon.

It is difficult to think of any reason why the MoD would indulge in such pettifogging. The main objective has to be to ensure that the chosen platform is made in India, rather than to have a say in deciding who makes it. This pre-emptive action could well be a blessing in disguise for the MoD.

It has had problems in the past in shortlisting Indian companies through asomewhat similar process, at least in one big-ticket programme. The Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV), which was given a go-ahead sanction almost a decade back, is stuckbecause, apart from other reasons, the MoD has not been able to shortlist two development agencies — as originally envisaged — out of the fiveodd contenders who are in the fray.
It makes little sense to force the OEMs to choose a partner from among the Indian companies selected by the MoD, especially because it is the OEM that is required to shoulder a greater responsibility.

The obligation is not limited to only transfer of technology. The strategic partnership scheme makes the OEM jointly responsible along with the Indian partner for certification and quality assurance of the platforms made in the country. In fact, the Indian partner will also require handholding by the OEM for meeting various other obligations, including Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) for the platform.

With a virtual FDI cap of 49 per cent — although technically it can go up to 100 per cent if the proposal entails access to state-of-the-art technology, or for other unspecified reasons — the least the MoD can do is to cut OEMs some slack by permitting them to tie up with partners of their choice. What should be comforting is that permitting the OEMs to do so does not amount to violation of any statute, rule, regulation or procedure.
This stratagem was adopted in the not-yet-dead Avro-replacement programme of the IAF much before it was formally incorporated in the Defence Procurement Procedure 2016.

The ministry will clearly be on the right side of propriety if it recognises the tieups made by Lockheed Martin and SAAB. By doing so, it will save itself many a hassle involved in the time-consuming — and potentially contentious — process of shortlisting the potential strategic partners and also let the OEMs work with the Indian companies of their choice. It is difficult to see how this would come in the way of achieving the objectives of the strategic partnership scheme.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 24 Sep 2017 04:08

The Congress' vision of Make in India is vastly different from the BJP's version. See below. If Congress wins in 2019 - unlikely - expect SE deal to get delayed even further.

Make in India a powerful idea, but should focus on SMEs: Rahul Gandhi
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/politi ... 93387.html

Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi today said the Modi government's 'Make in India' is a good initiative, but it should focus more on small and medium enterprises rather than on large businesses.

Gandhi, who is in the US on a two-week-long tour, during his interaction with students at the prestigious Princeton University said 'Make in India' is a good idea, if implemented well, it is a very powerful idea.

He was asked what is the one idea from the Modi government that he wishes his government has thought of.

He, however, said that it should focus more on small and medium enterprises rather than on large businesses.

"The prime minister feels the targeting of Make in India concept should be large businesses, I believe it should be small-scale businesses...small and medium companies should be turning into large companies and that’s not happening.

"The problem is that not enough small businesses are getting access to finance system, or getting access to the legal system or getting access to the political system,” he said.

He underlined that on economic policy, broadly between the Congress and the BJP there is an agreement, but the central difference is that his party feels that India needs to carry everybody.

"Make in India is a good concept. That's a good direction. GST, is something we agree with the government...on the fine tuning slight difference,” he said.

"Also, if you look at economic policy, broadly between us and the BJP there is an agreement. There is not much difference between our economic policy and theirs other than the fact that we tend to do things like NAREGA and Right to Food. On liberalisation front, on big business front, we are similar,” Gandhi said.

"We feel it is dangerous if we don’t carry everybody," he said.

"A lot of progress has been done but a lot more needs to be done. On economic very good movement has been there but it also has resulted in inequality. This inequality is becoming a problem," he said.

When asked about his assessment of the performance of India in the last 25 years, he said, "I would say decent performance. But what we did previously is not going to work forward."

"Public school system in Kerala is very good. Public school system in Tamil Nadu, excellent, but a large number of states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are not doing their jobs in the field of education and health," he said.

When asked what he thought was the central challenge facing the country, Gandhi said it was the lack of jobs.

Globally, he said, democratic countries are struggling to create jobs.

"Democratic countries are struggling to produce jobs and that really is a problem. That's a problem in the United States. That’s a problem in India, in Europe. You can talk to any of these countries and ask them they will tell you that yes we are struggling to get blue collar jobs,” he said.

"Big countries like India, US can't afford not to have blue collar jobs. And that gap is creating the churn in the country’s political system and the anger that one sees."

In the last 25 years, Gandhi said, India had a good record on growth, but the job numbers are nowhere near where it should be.

"That is the crux. India has to figure out a way to solve this problem,” he said.

He, however, said that India despite all its challenges has done pretty well and one should be proud of its democratic accomplishments.

"Overall if you compare to the largest percentage of the world, we have done pretty well," he said.

"Between China and us, nobody has taken more people out of poverty. And frankly, look back 10,000 years, there is no democratic country that has been able to take as many people out of poverty as India. So, that’s a huge success. The scale is massive," the Congress leader said in response to a question.

"We will always have certain things not working, but certain things are working very well. I get worried when I see fundamental structural problems,” he said, adding that the main challenge is how to transform the country from a rural economy to a modern urban economy.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 24 Sep 2017 12:58

Rakesh wrote:Can India and the United States work out the kinks for a fighter production deal?
https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/can-ind ... tion-deal/

The core problem, as outlined by Aditya Kalra and Sanjeev Miglani, is that U.S. firms worry about the security of their technology. Lockheed Martin and Boeing, in particular, have expressed concern that by taking a minority stake in joint ventures with Indian companies, they will lose control of sensitive military technologies.

Acquisition of technology (especially sensitive defense technology) is a key part of the deal for the Indian government, which has continued to struggle with developing a world-class defense industry. Protection of technology, conversely, is a key demand of U.S. firms considering partnerships in India. As Indian rules limit foreign partners to a 49 percent stake in any joint ventures, the U.S. firms have real concerns.


Quoting from your post in Rafale thread Admiral:

Rakesh wrote:French Rafale ready to make jets in India
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 71199.html

French SMEs were being encouraged to set up production activities in India alongside Dassault Aviation, Safran and Thales as part of the Rafale programme to help the company meet its obligations, said a Rafale spokesperson in India. The move comes two days after a US business chamber expressed its concerns over sharing hi-end technology with Indian companies.

“Encouraging French SMEs to come to India is a key condition to participate in the ‘Make in India’ initiative of PM Narendra Modi and will benefit both French and Indian industries,” the spokesperson said.

Rafale is looking towards creating opportunities for establishing a full-fledged aero-defence manufacturing eco-system in India, said Eric Trappier, Dassault Aviation chairman and CEO and GIFAS chairman.

The GIFAS is a trade body of 382 members ranging from major prime contractors and system suppliers to small specialist companies.


Could it be that parrikar contrived SE to bring French to their senses as having ousted all others in mmrca they were behaving too uppity and now since the competition is back they see themselves losing order of 200 fighters?

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Sep 2017 13:23

Indranil wrote:I don't know of any formal proposal to build Tejas on a private line.


I can't find any of the original news items now but on DFI I found quoted text for one news, original news page is no longer available. I distinctly remember this particular thing, there was a high level meeting of JetLee who was RM then in 2014-15 and leading industrialists.

NEW DELHI — The Indian government, acting on Air Force demands, has offered to spend $12 billion to encourage private firms to establish an aircraft manufacturing facility — a move that would break Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s monopoly on aircraft manufacturing after years of delays on several projects.

Specifically, the Indian government has offered an advance order for the homemade light combat aircraft (LCA) Mark-2, a Defence Ministry source said.

The offer was conveyed to senior private sector executives during several meetings with MoD officials in the last month, the source said. India’s private defense majors, Tata Group, Mahindra & Mahindra and Larsen and Toubro, are the most capable of setting up an additional military aircraft plant, either independently or in partnership with overseas firms.

None of the executives who participated in the meeting would comment on whether they would consider building such a facility.

Madhukar Vinayak Kotwal, president, Heavy Engineering of Larsen & Toubro, said, “Since this [building of an additional facility] is a matter currently under discussion at various levels in the government as well as in industry associations, we would like to refrain from giving any comments at this stage.”

The LCA, developed by Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is nearly 20 years behind schedule. The first order for 40 of the Mark-1 version of the aircraft has been given to state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL). The final operational clearance is expected to be granted in 2015, after which the aircraft can go into production.

The Indian Air Force has a future requirement for only the next-generation LCA Mark-2, which would be powered by the higher thrust General Electric GE-414 engine. But the aircraft is still in the development stage and is not expected to be ready for production before 2017-18. The Air Force has a requirement for 250 LCA Mark-2s, which the government estimates would be covered by the $12 billion advance order.

The Air Force has demanded establishment of an additional aircraft facility to break the monopoly of HAL, India’s sole military aircraft manufacturer, and has complained of delays in delivery of aircraft.

HAL, with annual sales of $2.3 billion for the year that ended March 31, has produced more than 50 types of aircraft and helicopters, and has been designated as the production agency for the $12 billion Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft program, in which Dassault’s Rafale has been short-listed as the favored aircraft.

“It is absolutely essential to set up an additional military aircraft facility here, as HAL is overloaded for the next 10 years and has become too unwieldy,” defense acquisition expert Miral Suman said.

Vivek Rae, former director general (acquisition) in the MoD, said, “India sorely needs aircraft manufacturing capability in the private sector. We cannot afford to put all eggs in the HAL basket.”

Subhash Bhojwani, retired Air Force air marshal, agreed an additional manufacturing facility is needed, but said HAL should be made more commercial.

“HAL is into the design and contemporary manufacture of fighters, transports, trainers and helicopters, as well as avionics and engines,” he said. “It is possibly the only company in the world to be so diversified. However, while this may sound good in a book of world records, it isn’t good as a commercial model.”

Defense analyst Amit Cowshish, a retired Defence Ministry bureaucrat, said the objective should be “not to create an entity that could compete with HAL but to have additional capability in India to manufacture aircraft so that the requirement, both of the military and civil sectors, could be met in a more cost-effective manner and in shorter time frames. Of course, competition would help in improving HAL’s efficiency.”

Sujith Haridas, deputy director general of India’s industry lobbying agency, the Confederation of Indian Industry, said, “It is very much desired to have an additional manufacturing facility, but one should not ignore that it takes several decades of consistent investment and efforts to create a mammoth system integrator like HAL.”
Would It Build Fighters?

Analysts disagree about whether the new facility should be used to build fighter aircraft

India’s private sector is able to set up such a facility, and could acquire the capability to build the LCA Mark-2 over time, but it could be a challenge, Cowshish said.

“LCA is a program in the pipeline for more than three decades. HAL and DRDO have worked hard on it, and the final operational clearance is expected sometime later this year,” he said. “To bring in a new manufacturing agency at this stage may not be a very good idea. Though it is possible to pass on the technology to the private industry for manufacturing the aircraft, selecting such an agency may turn out to be a [technically] tricky affair.”

Defense analyst Rahul Bhonsle said, “Setting up a new military aircraft facility is no doubt a Herculean task. But the new facility will be looking primarily at system integration.”

But Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired air marshal and adviser (for strategy) to the chairman of HAL, said no private-sector aircraft facility could build the LCA.

“There appears to be a misconception that if ADA wishes, the LCA can be produced by the private sector. Nothing can be further from truth. The LCA cannot be produced by anybody without the major involvement of HAL.” â–

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Sep 2017 13:27

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Can India and the United States work out the kinks for a fighter production deal?
https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/can-ind ... tion-deal/

The core problem, as outlined by Aditya Kalra and Sanjeev Miglani, is that U.S. firms worry about the security of their technology. Lockheed Martin and Boeing, in particular, have expressed concern that by taking a minority stake in joint ventures with Indian companies, they will lose control of sensitive military technologies.

Acquisition of technology (especially sensitive defense technology) is a key part of the deal for the Indian government, which has continued to struggle with developing a world-class defense industry. Protection of technology, conversely, is a key demand of U.S. firms considering partnerships in India. As Indian rules limit foreign partners to a 49 percent stake in any joint ventures, the U.S. firms have real concerns.



Lifafa article making noise about policy which amirkhan companies do not like. If these companies were so much "concerned" about technology none of them would even think of setting foot in China ever. But they are doing so nonetheless. India is far safer for them by any yardstick.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19911
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 24 Sep 2017 15:22

Looks like only the US feels they will loose "sensitive military technologies" inspite of having 49 % stake , For decades the Russia French UK and Israel have parted sensitive technology dealing with Indian PSU without such fear or apprehension

While US is happy to trade technology with China when exposed they say it got stolen by them and there is no action taken on China for stealing while trading sensitive technologies continues.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Pratyush » 24 Sep 2017 15:31

All the more reason to cancel this farce of a project and focus on the Tejas. Sala, nothing is coming our way, only Indian money will be lost and India will not get tech nor will we get jobs.

Juts what will we get??

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19911
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 24 Sep 2017 16:06

Single Engine Program is just a FARCE since Inception , The guys who could not win MMRCA are now getting backdoor via such Intitutively worded program at the cost of Indiginious program.

First they invented MMRCA where every one and their pop was allowed to compete now since that ended in partial success they want to let Single Engine come in post that MOD has a road map for twin engine fighter competition ! Atleast MOD now figured out fighters have single and twin engine !

Wisely invest the same money in Tejas program let private sector build another line and let them build more aircraft inspite of HAL Claims they can build 24 if funded well , I dont believe HAL claims so if they build 14 per year let pvt sec start building 10 initially and build up from there.

With $10-15 billion poured in Indian MIC we can have multiple spinoff in our MIC/ SMall and Medium sector industry not just limited to Aeronautic but entire MIC.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 24 Sep 2017 18:00

Austin wrote:Looks like only the US feels they will loose "sensitive military technologies" inspite of having 49 % stake , For decades the Russia French UK and Israel have parted sensitive technology dealing with Indian PSU without such fear or apprehension

While US is happy to trade technology with China when exposed they say it got stolen by them and there is no action taken on China for stealing while trading sensitive technologies continues.


Exactly, hence I say this joining at hip and strategic partnership is a farce.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2017 12:28

"While US is happy to trade technology with China when exposed they say it got stolen by them and there is no action taken on China for stealing while trading sensitive technologies continues." :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What an effing hypocrisy of a "democracy"!

PS:If we want to be practical and seek to maintain a cordial def. relationship with the US,we should dump its ancient hags for the SE /extra fighter req. but buy the Predators/Sea Guardians whatever worthwhile UCAVs it is willing to sell us.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 26 Sep 2017 00:24

FWIW...but Washington wants to know quickly if India "wants" the F-16, means they see the writing on the wall. Guess they got negative vibes from the IAF on the F-16. But just as predicted, they know the relationship is worth more than a 100 F-16s. Interesting article.

On Tuesday, Jim Mattis, an unusually influential US defense secretary meets preoccupied newbie, Nirmala Sitharaman
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/09/o ... ually.html

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 25th Sept 17

When US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis meets his Indian counterpart, Nirmala Sitharaman, in New Delhi on Tuesday, it will be a first handshake between an unusually powerful American incumbent and a greenhorn Indian one. Mattis is not just a vastly experienced combat soldier who has commanded an infantry battalion in Iraq in 1991, an expeditionary brigade in Afghanistan after 9/11, a US Marine division in Iraq in 2003 and eventually the US Central Command, which covers the world’s most dangerous hotspots from Pakistan to West Asia and North Africa. He is also a member of President Donald Trump’s cabinet and of the National Security Council. Most significantly, with the US president embroiled in domestic political battles, Mattis calls the shots in defence more than any recent predecessor. In contrast, Sitharaman will have served just 19 days as defence minister when she meets Mattis. Further, she is preoccupied with the Gujarat elections, for which the Bharatiya Janata Party has appointed her “sah-prabhari”. With the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) retaining control of important defence ministry issues, there is little expectation that Sitharaman will go beyond her talking points when she meets Mattis.

American and Indian officials agree there are few deliverables on the table. Instead, they are playing the Mattis-Sitharaman meeting as an opportunity to establish personal rapport – like that between previous US defence secretary Ashton Carter and Manohar Parrikar between 2014-16. US officials privately admit to concern over Sitharaman’s reserved presence, which contrasts with Parrikar’s gregariousness. “As a commerce minister she came off as cold and haughty and her lack of confidence caused her to stick to her positions. That effectively stalled the trade dialogue”, opines a senior American industry leader.

Sources say Mattis will discuss with Sitharaman the implications of “Major Defence Partner”, a category that Washington placed India in last year; and how New Delhi proposes to enlarge Indian “economic assistance and development” in Afghanistan, which Trump called for last month. Mattis himself is a key driver of an expanded US presence and role in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan will be a big part of Mattis’ discussions in New Delhi. He will be going straight from Delhi to Kabul”, says a US official, speaking off the record. Mattis will be raising the issue of China, with India having recently come off the Doklam confrontation.

The two sides will also discuss rejuvenating the sputtering Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), with progress stalled in cooperating on jet engine technology, and in building India’s next aircraft carrier. During President Barack Obama’s visit to New Delhi in 2015, two joint working groups (JWGs) had been set up to pursue these projects. With little progress on those, three more JWGs are on the agenda. “We could see three new JWGs for cooperation in space, cybersphere and on ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance)”, says a US industry insider.

Finally, Mattis will urge New Delhi to push through a Communications Compatibility And Security Agreement (COMCASA), which would allow the US to supply India with advanced communications equipment for greater interoperability. This has been stuck for years, with drafts repeatedly exchanged, but little agreement on a final text. Notwithstanding media reports about US pressure on India to transfer the F-16 production line to India; and to buy 22 Sea Guardian drones, US officials say Mattis will only flag these “opportunities”.

Meanwhile, US stakeholders, including General Atomics, which builds the Sea Guardian, are reminding New Delhi through various channels that much political capital has been invested in clearing that drone sale in Washington. “There is worry that India might be using the Sea Guardian offer to create the impression of a multi-vendor procurement, but has already decided in favour of an Israeli drone”, says one US industry analyst. “The heightened public focus on the F-16 is because the production line in Forth Worth, Texas, is shutting down soon and Washington needs to know quickly if India wants it”, he says. Mattis’ visit comes in the backdrop of delay in scheduling the “two-plus-two” dialogue, which will have US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Mattis meeting jointly with Sitharaman and Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj. This format replaced the earlier “strategic and commercial dialogue”, which involved the foreign and commerce ministers (then Sitharaman).

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 26 Sep 2017 00:39

My oh my....what will happen to the jobs! And the global supply chain! And all those other sectors of the economy will now suffer if F-Solah loses. I am dhoti shivering already. :lol: :wink: And whoever wrote the piece below is mistaken if they think the French or the Swedes (an American plane onlee) are going to be any different.

Q. So What is the Solution?
A. Tejas Banao, Desh Bachao - Saurav Jha

Ominous Turbulence
http://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/omi ... 98759.html

Hope of India’s defence industry taking a short-cut to advanced technologies using the SP (strategic partner) formulation when entering into joint-ventures with reputed American producers could have run into trouble. Even as they pledge support to the government’s “make in India” effort, the US-India Business Council has articulated reservations of American firms in parting with “proprietary technologies”. This raises questions if the SP route is markedly different from the licensed production of yesteryear? As of now only US firms appear to be holding back on complete technology transfers, but that could well be the norm other OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) will favour. Was it wishful thinking on the government’s part to think all doors would be opened? Were is not for the likelihood of triggering a political row, it would be pertinent to seek information on the extent of the technology transferred in deals with British, French, German and Russian firms. That would put the present complication into realistic perspective. On an immediate “hit list” could be the Lockheed Martin-Tata tie up to produce over 100 single-seater F-16 fighters, and the Boeing proposal to supply the Navy F-18s for its aircraft carriers.

An alternative to the F-16 is already under evaluation, the Swedish Gripen for which its OEM has tied-up with the Adani group, while a version of the French Rafale could also be considered for the Navy ~ provided the Swedes and French are less fussy about transferring advanced technologies. It is therefore impossible not to lament the failure of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, despite having spent vast sums, to provide the military state-of-the-art technology. True that a limited number of Tejas fighters have been ordered, but HAL’s production line cannot deliver enough planes to meet the shortage faced by the IAF. Maybe a system could be worked out by which HAL undertakes “development”, and production is entrusted to private sector firms.

Even that has its pinpricks. The Council, apart from its reservations technology-transfer, says US firms would not be liable for glitches in equipment produced by their Indian partners ~ that could be a fall-out of the Russians contending that India-made components had been responsible for the Nashik-built Mig-21s having acquired notoriety. A representative of a leading US firm recently told a seminar in India that to expect firms with no experience in aircraft manufacture to churn out sophisticated fighters was something of a pipe-dream. The government would do well to come clean on all these complications, opt for direct imports to address the IAFs immediate shortages, and recast its make in India plans in more realistic light. For far too long have defence issues been camouflaged under the blanket of “security interests” and “patriotism” ~ how far behind does the domestic industry actually lag?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 26 Sep 2017 00:43

A hard sell for Fighting Falcons
https://defenceaviationpost.com/hard-se ... g-falcons/

The US is also required to overcome the advantages India sees in Rafale. It is possible that India could follow up the order for 36 Rafale as the original requirement is for 126 MMRCA jets with the Indian Air Force selecting this jet as fit for its requirements. A common platform would reduce basing, training and maintenance costs. Whether the decision of the Indian Navy to buy naval fighters where Rafale is a contender be dependent on this issue remains to be seen.

Overall, Mattis’ visit to India will uphold the special strategic relations between India and the United States in this age of uncertainty and increasing military aggression. While Mattis will be happy about the strategic relations, it will be hard for him to negotiate a deal on fighter jet acquisitions.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1950
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 26 Sep 2017 01:54

Satisfy Mattis with UAV order or 100 predators with some make in India components esp for the payloads being carried. Forget the frame and engines, it will be the payloads that we will need in 100s for our own Rustom 1/2/3.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 26 Sep 2017 05:18

Indo-Israel Relations: Make With India
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... h-india/0/

It was the Indo-Pakistani war in 1999 that brought the two countries together, as Israel rushed to supply India with critical military supplies for the war effort, at a time when India’s main provider – the Soviet Union – practically ceased to exist.


Both countries carved their national identity as a fragile balance of cultures, religions and minorities. Both have significant expatriate communities in foreign countries, giving significant contribution to the country’s wealth, and international influence. For India, it was a struggle for unification and defending the borders from external threats. For Israel, it was the epic culmination of movements that began in the 18th century, gathering the Jewish people from diaspora. The Jewish immigrants that returned to their homeland after 2000 years in exile established their homeland in the promised land, in the heart of a hostile region.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 26 Sep 2017 10:16

Rakesh wrote:As a commerce minister she came off as cold and haughty and her lack of confidence caused her to stick to her positions. That effectively stalled the trade dialogue”, opines a senior American industry leader.


PsyOps haan ji..? Perhaps, you couldn't deal with her, so point fingers to her confidence...? Who knows what the truth is. Whether she is a shrewd and cunning negotiator who didn't give in to amirkhan's unreasonable (and we know they have many of those) terms, or she is really short on confidence..? Who knows. But people are easily fooled by anonymous opinions and casually written cursory notes.

I would treat entire article as a propaganda piece, to be honest. Not worth giving too much thought. The premise seems to be of intimidation by putting Mattis and his "stellar" resume vis-a-vis a "newbie" Indian lady RM and to shift the blame to Indians if the deal breaks down. Clearly Americans do not want to give away too much while expecting us to buy their fully amortised scrap at top dollar. Ain't happening no more, bitch.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Pratyush » 26 Sep 2017 10:32

How many times we have seen madam sitaraman on tv presenting her point of view. Dose she come access as some one who is timid or short of confident. This is just a psyop to make DM look bad.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Gyan » 26 Sep 2017 10:54

If she sticks to Indian position then she lacks confidence. Seems like an opinion of a Dalal whining for his masters.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 26 Sep 2017 11:06

NS is an intelligent minister.The PM wouldn't have made her DM had he not had confidence in her.While MP was also competent,his heart was in Goa not in the DM,a pity.

Now Mad Dog Mattis has come with a demand in his pocket,says the media today.Indian troops to fight America's war in Afghanistan! So the cat is out of the bag,about this great strat. relationship.America wants Indian troops as cannon fodder as their soldiers are weary of way after decades of unsuccessful fighting.They don't have the stomach of the Russians as we're seeing in Syria,where even a Russian Lt.Gen was killed leading from the front.More on this in the appropriate td. Therefore the Indo_US def. relationship must be carefully analysed and we should not "go in where angels fear to tread".There are alternatives to the ancient F-16 which the Yanquis want to dump upon us.In simple liingo for them to udnerstand,Predators and Sea Guardians good,F-16/F-18s bad.

Flash:
A little birdie twittered and revealed why the Yanquis are hell-bent upon us buying their antique fighter the F-16. The intention is that India fight their Afghan War,Mad Dog Mattis has just come to seduce us with that dangling carrot,where both the IAF and Afghan air farce operate F-16! These will be built/supplied in the hundreds where we will also end up paying for most of the bill.Thus far India has had an arrangement with Afghanistan and Russia,where India would pay for ex-Sov/Ru weaponry to be supplied by Russia. This was done to outflank any criticism from the Pakis,etc.,since the goods were being supplied by Russia ,none daring to criticise Comrade Putin.Financing would be an Indo-Russian matter as in any case,we were financing many other infrastructure projects in he country.

Mad Dog M wants a "meshing" of not only Indian and American military ops,but also its political objectives,thus rendering our independence and sovereignty obsolete.As I said earlier,the carrots are mere "wampum",in fact it will ensure a perpetual dependence upon the US for our military,with Yanquii style air force,navy and a large cannon-fodder army to save America;s bacon!
Last edited by Philip on 26 Sep 2017 12:10, edited 1 time in total.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9168
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Yagnasri » 26 Sep 2017 12:06

I remember reading that 30mki can perform the job of 34 in case of need for the bombing? Am I wrong? Then there is the need for 34 now? The wrong brochure has given at the time of buying 30mki?

We do not have too much money to spend on MII screwdrivergiri and large LCA order. So more LCA orders will not be there. It may also kill LCA Mk2 development if the same is not already dead.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 26 Sep 2017 12:14

Pratyush wrote:How many times we have seen madam sitaraman on tv presenting her point of view. Dose she come access as some one who is timid or short of confident. This is just a psyop to make DM look bad.


There is one more reason to this psyop. You see both US,China and EU are extremely alike in certain ways. Wrt strategic and trade relations, they do not want equal partners but subservient and compliant banana republics. But when it comes to India there is a problem that they have to face. For all the talk of corruption and inefficiency, India has done a commendable job in laying out procedures that govt departments/ministries have to follow. If it is tendering they have to follow CVC guidelines. For arms procurement also DPP is continuously being refined. Soon we will have an optimum DPP. Every decision or purchase made comes under the purview of audit both internal as well as by CAG. The purchase powers delegated to officers are limited and even they are subject to certain procedures. These procedures are such that even the minister cant bypass them arbitrarily or he risks going to jail in case of a major investigation.

Now when the Gora or chinese comes to India, he has a perception of India as a corrupt third world country. He thinks that just by bribing the minister or bureaucrat he can armtwist the system for favours. But then they get the shock. India is not that halkaa i.e lightweight. Even if someone in system is corrupt or compromised in certain way,at the end of the day procedure will reign supreme. Hence you can imagine the frustration on their side.

I will give you an actual example for this. A few years back I was contacted by a HongKong based company for supply of an agricultural product to Indian govt. Since trading is not my business initially I was not interested. But since it was through reference, I took up the offer. I did all the research and provided this company with all the details. Basically the Indian govt floats tenders for this product multiple times a year through designated nodal agencies(3 actually). These tenders are e-tenders. Completely transparent. Within hours of opening of bids you can see the complete result. These guys even came to India. We discussed the modalities and the details. Apparently these guys had supplied the product earlier to countries like thailand,Myanmar and lately Sri Lanka and were under assumption that India would be same. They asked us to set up a meeting with one of the cabinet ministers. I told them meeting could be arranged but it will be of no use when it comes to being awarded the supply contract. There is a laid out tendering procedure which actually is very simple and transparent and not even PM can bypass it. Why do you want to meet the minister? Ofcourse this being India, ministers are free to meet anyone provided its is by appointment. They were like in Sri Lanka we have direct access to the President and he gives us the order directly. Then it struck me what they wanted and what was their assumption of India. I told them Boss this is India and not a banana republic like Sri Lanka where the President can rule by decree in the process even selling their country. Here even the Prime Minister has limitations. Eventually they even met the minister. The mantri ji was also happy that a foreign delegation met him. But after all this they understood that what I was saying. That this is no Sri Lanka. Now they started complaining. How it was so difficult to do business in India. How hotels were bad and heat is so much and all that.

So the nutshell is that all these goras and chinese want India to be a banana republic like what Sri lanka/Nepal/Pakistan/Sierra leone etc are. Trust me they are shocked when they get to know that they have to follow certain norms and procedures. You can imagine the shock in Lockheed when a successful aircraft like F16 was disqualified in Mmrca tender inspite of all the American influence in the power corridors.

Hence the sorry ass psyops to create pressure on RM.

Infact if any westerners/other foreigners are lurking here, my advice to them will be " stop wasting your money and time in pursuing such shady tactics and useless shortcuts. Go by the norms and you will be actually more successful.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Will » 26 Sep 2017 13:46

When will the powers that be understand that to the Amrikans no one is a friend. Not even their closest allies. They are driven only by their interests and everything offered comes with a string attached. Why in heavens name is an antique like the F-16 even being considered. The way things are going looks like that the IAF will eventually end up with close to the number of rafales that were in the original tender with no tech transfer whatsoever. Who will be making the money ????????? :evil: What has this and what is this whole rigmarole bringing us? Screwdrivergiri again? Just goes to show that whichever govt is in power the arms lobby is too firmly entrenched and however one may coat it, it all boils down to the same thing- "More Imports" and only lip service to indigenous development. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 26 Sep 2017 16:22

Dirty dog ajay shukla, before in 2011 LM sponsored his usa trip and he pimped f35. Posting his own pics from f35 assembly line.

Now first he worships and sings paens to mattis guy, then like a slimey slithery creep denigrate RM.

There was a report some time back that invincible pigeon got his file on why he was ousted from army.

But make no mistake, it is indeed americans who are behind these dirty words, he just a mere tool in their paws.
Last edited by Indranil on 27 Sep 2017 22:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: A poitn can be made without obscenities.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 26 Sep 2017 16:41

Will wrote:When will the powers that be understand that to the Amrikans no one is a friend. Not even their closest allies. They are driven only by their interests and everything offered comes with a string attached. Why in heavens name is an antique like the F-16 even being considered. The way things are going looks like that the IAF will eventually end up with close to the number of rafales that were in the original tender with no tech transfer whatsoever. Who will be making the money ????????? :evil: What has this and what is this whole rigmarole bringing us? Screwdrivergiri again? Just goes to show that whichever govt is in power the arms lobby is too firmly entrenched and however one may coat it, it all boils down to the same thing- "More Imports" and only lip service to indigenous development. :evil: :evil: :evil:


Dont worry. F-16 is only a contender as of now. It will be considered only when it fulfills all the requirements and criteria both technical and financial. It it is unable to do so then it will be rejected just like in Mmrca tender. Hell it is much more difficult now as the level of TOT required will be much more than what was stipulated in MMRCA tender.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby yensoy » 26 Sep 2017 16:54

Philip wrote:NS is an intelligent minister.The PM wouldn't have made her DM had he not had confidence in her.While MP was also competent,his heart was in Goa not in the DM,a pity.

Now Mad Dog Mattis has come with a demand in his pocket,says the media today.Indian troops to fight America's war in Afghanistan! So the cat is out of the bag,about this great strat. relationship.America wants Indian troops as cannon fodder as their soldiers are weary of way after decades of unsuccessful fighting.They don't have the stomach of the Russians as we're seeing in Syria,where even a Russian Lt.Gen was killed leading from the front.More on this in the appropriate td. Therefore the Indo_US def. relationship must be carefully analysed and we should not "go in where angels fear to tread".There are alternatives to the ancient F-16 which the Yanquis want to dump upon us.In simple liingo for them to udnerstand,Predators and Sea Guardians good,F-16/F-18s bad.

Flash:
A little birdie twittered and revealed why the Yanquis are hell-bent upon us buying their antique fighter the F-16. The intention is that India fight their Afghan War,Mad Dog Mattis has just come to seduce us with that dangling carrot,where both the IAF and Afghan air farce operate F-16! These will be built/supplied in the hundreds where we will also end up paying for most of the bill.Thus far India has had an arrangement with Afghanistan and Russia,where India would pay for ex-Sov/Ru weaponry to be supplied by Russia. This was done to outflank any criticism from the Pakis,etc.,since the goods were being supplied by Russia ,none daring to criticise Comrade Putin.Financing would be an Indo-Russian matter as in any case,we were financing many other infrastructure projects in he country.

Mad Dog M wants a "meshing" of not only Indian and American military ops,but also its political objectives,thus rendering our independence and sovereignty obsolete.As I said earlier,the carrots are mere "wampum",in fact it will ensure a perpetual dependence upon the US for our military,with Yanquii style air force,navy and a large cannon-fodder army to save America;s bacon!


This isn't the full story, even if it is part of the story. There is no quid pro quo here. Two demands from the US, no accessions or concessions to India. Isme mera kya hai?

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 182
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Luxtor » 26 Sep 2017 20:52

We must reject the F16 at all costs. We have to make it costly for the Americans to continue to produce spare parts and subsystems, even full air-frames for that matter to continue to supply their current F16 customers, ESPECIALLY THE PUKIS.

The Americans are being all too clever to dump the F16 production line on India and get parts from us to supply the other F16 users. My disgust is the thought that parts and systems made or assembled in India might be gifted to the Pukis so they can attack us with it. What nonsense. We don't have to tell the Yankees directly but by rejecting the F16 we'll be saying we will not support our enemy, (for whom you have sold at rock bottom prices and many times gifted F16s and other weapons), by taking the F16 production off your hands. F16 is obsolete and let it die a natural death. We want to see the Pukis run from pillar to post to procure spares for their F16s which is their only advanced fighter that they threaten us with. Whether that actually happens or not is not important but let's not make it easier for the Americans or the Pukis.

:evil: :evil: :evil:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2017 00:33

Stop paying attention to what that senior American industry leader said about our new Raksha Mantri. Focus on the issue - SE deal which is bakwaas. The rest is smoke and mirrors - character assassination that adds nothing of value in the SE deal. Don't lose focus.

yensoy hit the nail on the head. "Two demands from the US, no accessions or concessions to India. Isme mera kya hai?"

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2017 00:50

Big Ticket US-India Defense Deals Unlikely While US Guards Tech Secrets
https://sputniknews.com/military/201709 ... s-secrets/

"I cannot say with any certainty, but coming out in the media, as it does, on the eve the US defense secretary's visit, I will be surprised if this issue is not discussed. But India is unlikely to agree to continue purchasing equipment off-the-shelf from the US as has largely been the case so far. Discussions will be of some help only if the US defence secretary has some concrete suggestions to make to reconcile the American concerns with the Indian aspirations," Amit Cowshish, former financial adviser to India's Ministry of Defense, told Sputnik.


"I think a middle ground can be found even if the transferred technology is not state-of-art but helps the Indian companies in acquiring the capability required for built-to-specs manufacturing," Cowshish explained.

With regards to the above quote, every anti-import lobby member on BRF has been saying from day one...this is transfer of production.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Indranil, Kakarat, rkhanna, viveksonkhla and 42 guests