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.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Sep 2017 01:53

So if US doesn't want to give any trade secrets for f-16 production (wonder what these could be anyway other than engine tot), and still wants India to buy. Why not just make an outright G2G purchase of a few f-35 as silver bullets? Similar to Rafale model and single engine to boot!

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2017 02:03

Cain-ji: The sensors and the engine are the key tech in the F-16 that they will not part with. They can keep it. Unrealistic to expect it anyway. Therefore, the F-35 purchase makes way better sense.

Avtar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 22 Jan 2017 02:07

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Avtar Singh » 27 Sep 2017 02:19

#darshhan

very interesting information and good to hear.... procurement procedures

I was having dinner with all gora colleagues (restaurant in JNB) with rich aussie (racist towards Indians, aren't they all? have another story on this.. for another time)

aussie sitting next to me, in mining etc....loudly proclaiming how great it was to do business with china/chinese and how terrible Indians and India is to do business, your post explains a great deal.

At the time I thought good! Stay out of India you idiot(replace this with 4 letter word).

With decent procedures this man can keep his head firmly up chinese a#se and no Indian will see his face in India, hopefully

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Sep 2017 02:51

All this procedural rigor etc. is great, but the point remains that our procurement process is nothing short of scam. China might be far more corrupt but it seems to get a much a better deal for anything it buys, be it from Russia or the west. Negotiating a great deal is something India needs to learn and learn quickly. All the bloody procedures and iterations result in are unbelievably long wait times, higher prices and of course, poor preparedness of the armed forces.

Simply tomtomming "how we are not banana republic like xyz" is hardly something to be proud of. That mantris and babus cannot easily sellout their country (and this has hardly always been the case) is to be assumed for any respectable nation. What is required is - how can a much better deal be achieved with desired price, speed, tot and end user rights.

Otherwise, let us all doff our hats to the great, "white as snow", incorruptible, St. Anthony! MP was decent in that he made some well thought out, prompt moves to alleviate the burden on the forces. Forging decent relationships with big players is not a bad idea either. Let us hope NS carries this further.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Sep 2017 03:01

Rakesh wrote:Cain-ji: The sensors and the engine are the key tech in the F-16 that they will not part with. They can keep it. Unrealistic to expect it anyway. Therefore, the F-35 purchase makes way better sense.

Admiral saar, I'd have to agree. It is a 4th gen platform anyway and the Tejas can soon fill this requirement. And if needed, urgent purchases of used platforms could be made. However, the expanding threat scenario dictates a qualitative edge as well. And the F-35 could fit this niche role for the IAF. Possibly even for the Naval requirement. But in such a case where 100 odd F-35s are being thought about, I'd say a FACO line in partnership with private player would be a nice start. Even if the price is higher and it is mere screwdrivergiri.

The unfortunate effect would be a menagerie of sorts for the IAF - circa 2040:
AMCA - 125
F35 - 36
FGFA - 125
Rafale - 36
MKI - 300
Tejas - 300

Still better than what has been in the past.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1373
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby manjgu » 27 Sep 2017 07:43

well a assuie friend of mine ( married to a indian girl) who is a mining engineer had to go to Korea finally since Rajasthan govt was asking too much bribes for issue mining licensce. His company shifted its entire ops out of india. both the BJP and congi govt in Rajasthan are equally corrupt. Similarly ratan tata had offered to develop the whole of jaislamer area as part of development of limestone mines ( which is of immense importance for steel industry) but again got stalled due to bribes/kickbacks. India imports limestone from Dubai and middle east.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 27 Sep 2017 08:14

:((
manjgu wrote:well a assuie friend of mine ( married to a indian girl) who is a mining engineer had to go to Korea finally since Rajasthan govt was asking too much bribes for issue mining licensce. His company shifted its entire ops out of india. both the BJP and congi govt in Rajasthan are equally corrupt. Similarly ratan tata had offered to develop the whole of jaislamer area as part of development of limestone mines ( which is of immense importance for steel industry) but again got stalled due to bribes/kickbacks. India imports limestone from Dubai and middle east.


The problem is not bribes. Most foreign companies including koreans are always ready to oblige financially. What people do not realise is that main problem for Businesses is that even after paying massive amounts of bribe there is no assurance that the work will get done. All it takes is one noting in the file from anyone in the hierarchy(Jr.Engineer to Minister) to throw a spanner in the wheel. And everyone cannot be "managed". Most likely this is what would have happened.

Its only when even after paying bribes work does not get done that "India becomes unfriendly to business".

I refuse to believe that a Korean company before investing so much time and money in India would not have conducted due diligence in detail. If the due diligence was indeed done then it would have been clear that certain amount of bribes will have to be given here.

The same company would be very happy doing business in China/south africa/Russia/congo. Honestly which of these countries is less corrupt than India. Will they not be paying bribes in these countries?

Most companies have a standard way to deal with the bribes they have to pay. They just load it in their project cost. Their margins are hardly affected. Instead it is the taxpayer who is suffering.

I have lot of experience in Rajasthan having executed projects. You are right about Corruption and its scale in Rajasthan. But here most of the Executive Engineers stress on minimum quality and proper documentation in addition to bribes. This is the real complication for contractors and vendors, since tbey expect relatively freer pass after paying off money.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 27 Sep 2017 08:25

Make no mistake, most of the developed countries around the world would actually like developing countries including India to be permanently corrupt, so that we are always at their call. But in case of India because of the peculiar system we have they are unable to have their way inspite of massive corruption. Now this system might be extremely inefficient, but it is able to prevent the wholesale loot for most of the times.

And when it is unable to prevent the loot as was the case in UPA era and various state govts, it will definitely point out the culprits clearly for future investigations. Remember it was CAG which played a major role in highlighting the mega corruption during Congress rule.

It is another thing though that we lack enough number of investigators to bring all perpetrators to justice.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2017 18:01

Can both of you take a breather? And don't lose focus on the main issue...SE is bad :)

Manish-ji: Criticise the idea, not the person.

Mods, please clean up the posts in this thread.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5672
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 27 Sep 2017 22:37

As I go ahead and clean up this thread, Manish_Sharma you should go and rinse your mouth. Next time, you will earn a warning.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 28 Sep 2017 01:14

Rakesh and Indranil
Points understood clearly.

Will stay on track.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 05:58

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/911083642264313856 --> A lot of people don't get this, but one of the aims of the import lobby has always been to keep orders for indigenous systems to a minimum.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/911083063873961985 --> The import lobby will not be happy with that Tejas video where operational IAF pilots are all praise for the jet.

Q, Ever wonder why you never see BRF's import lobby praise milestones in the Tejas program? :)

India's enemies are not Lockheed Martin, Saab, General Electric, United States, Sweden, etc....India's enemies are within onlee. Those companies/countries are only looking out for their interests. That is corporate/geopolitical speak. Nothing evil about it. But when we give in to the interests of other nations, at the expense of our own, then that is evil.

As the African proverb states, "If there is no enemy within, the enemy outside can do you no harm."

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 07:26

Exclusive: U.S. defense firms want control over tech in Make-in-India plan

U.S. defense firms offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions of dollars want stronger assurances they won’t have to part with proprietary technology, according to a business lobby group’s letter to India’s defense minister.

These companies are also saying they shouldn’t be held liable for defects in products manufactured in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make-in-India’s drive to build a military industrial base.

In the backdrop of the above article, dated 19 Sept 2017, look at the question Sambhaji Chhatrapati (Rajya Sabha MP nominee) asked Dr Subhash Bhamre in Indian Parliament nearly two months back. The writing was on the wall...above link and question below is from previous pages of this thread.

Image

Sambhaji Chhatrapati --> 13th descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji (incidentally my favourite historical figure in school)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji_Raje

Image

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Chinmay » 28 Sep 2017 09:58

Rakesh wrote:
Image

Sambhaji Chhatrapati --> 13th descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji (incidentally my favourite historical figure in school)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji_Raje

Image


As far as the MP's question goes, I believe the GoI's response was appropriate as no decision has been made about the selection of the F-16. When the F-16 hasn't been selected yet, the question of ToT does not arise.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 28 Sep 2017 12:56

I was just ckg. up on some stats.11 MIG-21 sqds will be retiring v.soon. In addition "160" twin-engined aircraft are also reqd.! The sqd. strength is down to just 30 sqds. from the approved 42 and just half of what analysts now say we need, 50-60 sqds.

The failure of the LCA programme,in the most important aspect,delivery of aircraft,is the key factor for the SE req. Why only an SE? The thought that this would be the cheapest way forward to plugging the widening shortage gap.But from the sev. posts and media reports,the Yanqui bid comes with ropes attached not just strings! Therefore,unless the Gripen can come in at a reasonable price,TOT and all the bells and whistles reg. the plant,production,performance,after sales support,etc.,is assured and comes without strings,we'll have no alternative but to acquire more of types ins service like the MKI,MIG-29/35 and as we've been reportedly doing,sifting through the dustbins of global air forces for old MIG_29s,M2Ks,even legacy Jaguars (!),upgrading these legacy variants to make up numbers.

Why there is little movement -at least reg. media reports from the DRDO,HAL,etc.,reg the LCA is a mystery. One can only draw two conclusions.One,that HAL/ADA etc., are miserably incompetent,or two,that there is a widespread conspiracy to suppress the success of the LCA by vested interests. Either way,the LCA's laboured birth pangs,which have gone on for at least a decade+,and after 3 yrs. of the NDA-2,makes a mockery of the "make in India" mantra of the current govt. Along with the N-sub programme,it is the most important national defence programme,meant to be a shining star to be held up to world aviation majors and was earlier touted as having excellent export options. That optimism has evaporated.
The ball is clearly in the GOI/MOD's court.Can NS make a breakthrough? Reports today say that some def. decisions have been made,a v.good sign and let's keep fingers crossed that she will break the logjam reg. the LCA. The unexpected infighting in the BJP over the economy is an ominous sign reg. big tkt. funding,esp. for defence.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 28 Sep 2017 14:05

Rakesh wrote:Image
Sambhaji Chhatrapati --> 13th descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji (incidentally my favourite historical figure in school)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji_Raje


Holy Moly Admiral,
Super Impressive , the man and his questions.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 29 Sep 2017 12:04

Great economy of words.Abso to the point!
http://thediplomat.com/2017/09/can-indi ... tion-deal/
Can India and the United States Work Out the Kinks for a Fighter Production Deal?
Will concern over technology transfer scuttle another aviation deal for India.

By Robert Farley
September 23, 2017

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.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
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.


PS:For the record,for JSF/F=35 enthusiasts.Full details in the intl. td.
Ejector seat problems persist,will probably kill at least 22 pilots in the future says the US. DEv. problems continue as exg. aircraft ins ervice,cannot go to war without the necessary mods! Full details again in the intl. av. td.
Faced with a set of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that are too limited to fly in combat, the U.S. military is faced with the question of what to do with them—upgrade or buy new?
“From a production perspective, we have literally 150 to 160 modifications (Emphasis added—Ed.) that have to occur on some of our tails to get it to a Block 3 configuration,” Winter said during a Sept. 18 speech at the Air Force Association’s annual Air, Space and Cyber conference here. “Our mods program is almost as exciting and dwarfing our production program.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 29 Sep 2017 15:13

Of course the F-35's that are in frontline service can go to war without modifications, you have to look at which ones you are talking about and what the IOC configuration is for that service. The Aircraft with the US "operational" squadrons out at Hill Air Force Base are in 3I configuration, i.e. they have either received all those identified modifications at the factory during production, or afterwards at the depot prior to them being handed over to the squadron post IOC. Same with the USMC jets that have been delivered to them in the last couple of years, or those planning to declare operational activity shortly.

Essentially, all aircraft that have been delivered over the last few years have been delivered in the 3I (block 3, Interim) configuration and have hardware changes incorporated in them. To get to 3F, they need a software upgrade ONLY which will come when it is released, in full, to the fleet. This process is already happening, with initial F-35As with he USAF, and F-35Bs with the USMC getting the first sub-variants of 3F released to them.


But yes, the article is correct, there are aircraft out in the USAF fleet, not part of the operational squadrons, but part of the training, tactics, and test squadrons that are in 2B configuration and must upgrade hardware to Tech refresh -2 standards and get to 3I configuration before being able to get a software upgrade to full final SDD capability which is now being released in sub-variants.

There are also USMC IOC aircraft that would need the same, but those are less in number since the USMC has been getting deliveries of 3I configured aircraft for the last many months.


Between the three US services, the total requirements are in excess of 2000 aircraft, and this is a very very large training undertaking. Hence you have seen a very high number of initial deliveries going in to standing up training, tactics, and test units at various places. The number of pilots they need to graduate on the aircraft is rather high and this is no small task given how many F-16's, F/A-18s, and AV-8s are sunsetting and squadrons transitioning to the F-35 in the next years and beyond. The "GO TO WAR" F-35As with the USAF will be units based out of Hill AFB, Alaska, and then the UK (First three bases identified for operational units). Current deliveries are finishing up the unit completion for Hill AFB (total of 72 aircraft will be at that base) before operational aircraft are delivered (from the factory) to the other two bases the USAF will stand up next (Alaska and UK). These three units form the Operational UNITS of the service.

Again, to put things in perspective, ALL aircraft that are coming out of the factory (and have been for close to if not more than 2 years now) are either in 3I configuration, or 3F configuration and all have those hardware changes incorporated and all sport the latest technical hardware. The bulk of the 2B aircraft that need to be brought up to the 3I/F standards from a hardware perspective are the aircraft delivered straight to the training squadrons that are never meant to see combat service anyway but are delivered to bases in Arizona, Florida, and California for training current and future F-35 pilots (and testing).

aircraft ins ervice,cannot go to war without the necessary mods! Full details again in the intl. av. td.


That is factually incorrect. Even the USMC IOC aircraft in 2B can go to war TODAY if called to. They will be limited by USMC's IOC capability but there is nothing stopping the IOC standard aircraft to go to war. This is a nuance that should not be hard to understand. Air-Force IOC aircraft are in 3I configuration, i.e. they already have all those hardware changes incorporated in them. In other words THERE IS NOT A SINGLE OPERATIONAL F-35A in the USAF that has not had those hardware changes incorporated (to enable 3I to 3F) and ALL are in "go to war" configuration as identified by the USAF in its IOC criteria (both USAF and USMC IOC criteria can be obtained by using Google). To get from 2B to 3I for the first Marine squadron requires depot modifications which they have plans to complete. To get from 3I to 3F for the first USAF Unit at Hill AFB requires a simple software upload. This also holds true for the second USMC squadron that received 3I aircraft.

The bulk of the "depot level hardware changes" to the aircraft in question are for training, tactics and test units..Not OPERATIONAL aircraft.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 661
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nash » 30 Sep 2017 20:25

Can Wrap up LCA-Tejas Production in 3 Years: HAL Chief

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website http://idrw.org/can-wrap-up-lca-tejas-p ... hal-chief/ .

Why we need solah and all if HAL is so confident, it would be lot better if we order another production line of 8 shared with private enterprises: Tata or Adani.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7465
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Pratyush » 30 Sep 2017 21:36

Wtf did the hal boss just said that he can be make nearly 100 jets in the next 3 years.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 30 Sep 2017 22:30

Excellent find Nash and THANK YOU! :)

We were reminded on this very thread - earlier in the year - that only 2 Tejas have been inducted to date and thus the reason for the SE purchase. What bakwaas that has turned out to be now. The longer the SE purchase takes, the better it turns out to be for the Tejas. In the meanwhile, read from Amit Cowish who is a former Financial Advisor (Acquisition), Ministry of Defence and presently a Distinguished Fellow with the Indian Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. I highlight the most important part of the article.

Acquisition of single-engine fighter aircraft – A few suggestions
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... ggestions/

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has also set the ball rolling by issuing the Request for Information (RFI) to these two companies. But this is as good as it gets, for RFI is just the first of the eleven stages through which every procurement programme has to pass before the deal is signed. Each of these stages carries within it the potential to derail the programme.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 30 Sep 2017 22:53

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/913604292543578112 --> Even thinking of spending $15 billion on the goddamn license production of a tech denied legacy fighter is a complete waste of mindspace.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/913605724940275712 --> Any sane country would use finite resources into refining its own 4G plus indigenous fighter to provide the numbers & indigenize its engine.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 01 Oct 2017 19:41

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914431240626888704 --> Proponents of F-16 screwdivering are now saying that its 'legacy' nature makes it easier for novice Indian pvt companies to build. Hahahaha. :lol:

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914431509360033792 --> Thereby totally contradicting their initial pitch that license producing F-16s was somehow going to 'boost' aero manufacuting tech in India.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914432028904390658 --> India has already graduated into building 4G fighters that use a high percentage of composites with modules outsourced to the private sector.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914432233284530176 --> Screwdivering F-16s with imported components & zero core tech transfer will do *nothing* to boost India's aero manufacturing capability.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914435238872403968 --> $15 B for a handful of fancy imported jets?, 'No problem, we are a super (importer)'. 4000 cr for AMCA devpt?, 'sorry we are a 'growing ...'' :lol:

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914436428032913408 --> If India is serious about becoming a military power it will cancel this single-engine import tender & pour money into domestic products.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/914481186528886784 --> Moreover rather than fudge around about interoperability with America, work on your own inter-service and intra-service interoperability.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 02 Oct 2017 10:34

My suggestion would be to designate ADA itself as the second nodal agency for manufacturing Tejas and its successors. If HAL is trying to increase its R&D footprint, then ADA should also be able to do the same wrt manufacturing. Just being a R&D agency is anyways of limited utility, since both R&D and manufacturing are intrinsically cross linked with each other using feedback mechanism to improve processes and systems continuously.

Now coming to the practical part of how ADA might be able to do so. My suggestion would be to use talented and motivated personnel from HAL(procurement, operations, facilities management,HR etc) itself by posting them to ADA on deputation. They could serve as the core team responsible for getting ADA into manufacturing. Needless to say such a move will be hard fought by HAL as good people are hard to come by. But they will have to be convinced in the greater interests of the nation.

From the start this new avatar ADA should be focussed more on outsourcing all but the most critical parts to the private sector. Which means most of their effort should be for Vendor creation and vendor management.

By each passing day it is becoming clear that single engine fighter procurement (F-16/gripen) is not needed. 15 billion dollars is almost Rs 100,000 cr(one lakh crore). For much less of that amount, we can always induce the best of the aerospace world( Lockheed, boeing, sukhoi, dassault etc) to work in India leading to actual technology transfer and training of our future aerospace personnel. Of course the key would be to ensure that lateral induction policy is in place for govt agencies plus they have the requisite freedom to carry out their activities without being restricted by bureaucracy.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 02 Oct 2017 10:38

The problem in Indian govt mode of working as per my observation is that no body sees the big picture. The corrupt guy is busy making money and the honest one is busy following CVC guidelines and departmental procedures. Until unless this changes, our hopes will continue to get dashed and smashed.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 02 Oct 2017 12:24

The ADA is simply superfluous.It should be dissolved....into HAL and the IAF,which should like the In set up its own aviation design centre.
The HAL Boss is smoking what? Famouys last words.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby darshhan » 02 Oct 2017 14:28

Philip wrote:The ADA is simply superfluous.It should be dissolved....into HAL and the IAF,which should like the In set up its own aviation design centre.
The HAL Boss is smoking what? Famouys last words.


Didnt ADA play the lead role in development of Tejas. If so then how it is superfluous? It is the storehouse for India's best manpower inventory for aircraft related R&D.

If you want to dissolve it then why dissolve it in HAL? Why not create a competitor to HAL?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2017 16:11

Dissolving an entity that has designed and developed a modern advanced 4+ generation, supersonic single engine fighter, practically from scratch is not a very smart idea given how few design teams exist around the world that can do the same and what it would take in terms of time and resources for a competitor to get to the same level of ability.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 02 Oct 2017 21:10

Perhaps should've used the word merge instead.If I look at global OEMs in ,both west and east,there is no division of agencies reg. design,dev.and products.I may be wrong but perhaps part of the delay in the LCA programme. may be this factor.If HAL could design the HF-24 and follow on variants which were shelved ,what was the need for a new design bureau?

Take both the US and Russia,Britain too.So many design bureaus/aircraft cos. were merged.Where is McDonnel-Douglas,Fairchild,C-Vought,etc.Hawker,English Electric,etc.Today it's either Boeing or Lockheed in the US.Only BAe. in the UK and European cos. have come together too.No more MBB,etc.
Russia? Even here Sukhoi and MIG are being drawn together .

India has the luxury of a sep. design entity which zealously guards it's turf ,HAL does the same and the IAF
waits and waits until it demands another firing import.A great achievement by the MOD babus.Our enemies couldn't have done better.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2017 18:58

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/915099915231027200 --> While the world wants multi-polarity, dalals are working overtime to try & make India a 20th C. style US client State with COMCASA. Ack thoo.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/915105817522778113 --> CISMOA = COMCASA. CISMOA has been rebadged COMCASA to make it sound 'India-specific' (which is BS).

COMCASA – Should India Sign?
http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... -sign/amp/

Over the past decade, India has been steadily purchasing military platforms from the United States that typically come with secure communication systems of US-origin. However, since India has thus far refused to sign the so-called Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), usually known as the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) in US parlance, it has been forced to use lower-grade commercially available equipment in lieu of US-origin radio, communications security (COMSEC) and navigation equipment that apparently give American platforms an operational edge over similar systems available from elsewhere. By extension, it is claimed that the regional superiority that India was expecting via such procurement has been somewhat diminished. So, the question is: ‘Should India just sign COMCASA?’ In this piece, we argue that there are very good reasons for India to not rush into something like COMCASA.

What is COMCASA?

COMCASA essentially provides a legal framework for the transfer of COMSEC equipment from the US to India that would facilitate ‘interoperability’ between Indian and US forces, and potentially with other militaries as well that use US-origin systems for secure tactical data links. The US, however, tightly controls COMSEC technology and provides access to only those countries that have signed a CISMOA / COMCASA with it. Obviously, the current denial of this COMSEC equipment to Indian military forces means that they cannot really exchange tactical information with even friendly regional forces that might use CISMOA/COMCASA covered communication systems. Furthermore, not signing COMCASA also means that certain things such as high-precision GPS or the latest guidance packages for US-origin air to air missiles will not be available to India. Indeed, if a US origin fighter plane is selected for the recently announced ‘Make in India’ single-engine fighter aircraft procurement project, the pressure on India to sign COMCASA will likely increase, since the Indian Air force (IAF) will be hard put to integrate cutting edge non-US origin weapons with an American fighter platform.

Having said that, even though the US maintains that COMCASA is only ‘foundational’ in nature and ‘innocuous’ in import, there are genuine reasons for India to be concerned about the implications of this agreement. For instance, from an Indian perspective, it is worth considering whether COMCASA has the potential to compromise India’s operational security while protecting that of the US. COMCASA may also increase pressure on India to source all of its COMSEC equipment from US vendors in the future.

At the end of day, secure communications require high-grade encryption algorithms and encryption-key management. An encryption algorithm operates the key over messages to produce an encrypted message that any intruder is supposed to find difficult to break, if he has no access to the keys. This also implies that all communication devices in a network need to be compatible with one another by incorporating the same encryption algorithms. Now COMCASA requires that US operators perform functions such as keying for the encryption. Indian operators will not be allowed to even participate in the maintenance of these systems. So, will India be comfortable with the presence of US designated personnel on Indian-procured US platforms for long durations of their operational life? In the COMCASA scheme of things, the US will basically end up controlling the entire communications and message flow for the sake of ‘interoperability’. Long term analysis of the message flow could end up revealing tactical doctrines adopted by Indian forces in combat.

Since communication devices and links currently in use with Indian Forces cannot interact with US-provided systems, it implies that any attempt to establish interoperability between a part of India’s inventory and participating US forces could actually lead to reduced ‘intra-operability’ within India’s own military. This is on account of the fact that COMCASA-covered equipment/platforms will become ‘incompatible’ with the rest of India’s inventory. This could lead to calls to ‘overhaul’ the Indian military’s entire network to COMCASA-compliant standards through wholesale import of US systems. Short of which India would have to willfully acquiesce to the creation of a divide in its inventory, thereby reducing the flexibility of field commanders to deploy available resources during action. Obviously, neither prospect is a particularly happy one for Indian military planners. The fact that COMCASA could lead to the secrecy of tactical doctrines getting compromised besides imposing greater complexity costs on India’s communication systems demands that a detailed study of the ground realities and practical implications of signing COMCASA be made prior to deciding on a course of action.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2017 19:48

Lockheed’s Greenville operation plans to land 2 military projects
https://gsabusiness.com/news/aerospace/73027/

Continued production of the F-16, which could add up to 250 jobs at Greenville, will be timed to fulfill anticipated orders for jets with Bahrain, Indonesia and Colombia. India also is in the mix for new F-16s, but it wants to eventually build the planes in India to shore up its advanced manufacturing sector. Greenville, however, will build F-16s for the Indian air force until India completes its own plant.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2017 19:49

Out of fire power?
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... 883971.ece

By AK Sachdev - a former IDSA senior research fellow and a retired IAF officer

PM Modi’s pet project ‘Make In India’ tottered into its third birthday a few days ago but there wasn’t much to celebrate. Launched with much ado just four months after Modi took over as the PM, it was projected as both a nationalistic slogan and an economic vision for the nation. However, three years down the lane, results are lacklustre and most predictions about economic revival, burgeoning employment opportunities and increased share of manufacturing in GDP remain unconsummated.

In February 2015, Modi took it upon himself to drum up support for ‘Make In India’ in the defence production domain (one of the 25 components of the programme) by inaugurating the Aero Show in Bangalore (this was only the second time that a PM had graced the show, a meeting point for defence and aerospace industries). His speech was an enticement to Indian and international entities to ‘Make In India’ and held out much promise of ease of business, dwindling red-tapism and manufacturer-friendly regulations. The sense of urgency that India’s state of defence preparedness vis a vis its two antagonistic neighbours mandates appears to be missing.

In February 2016, the much-awaited Defence Procurement Procedure 2016 (DPP 2016) was unveiled at the Defexpo 2016 in Goa, but it was evident that the Government had been under pressure to meet that deadline because the all-important chapter on Strategic Partnership (with private entities) was conspicuous by its absence. After inordinately long procrastination (which involved discussions with private entities who had some serious disagreements with the Government vision of the Strategic Partnership model), the final policy was announced on May 31 this year, but some loose ends still remain to be tied up. Clarifications are expected soon especially on the clause which says that “only one SP would generally be selected” in each of the four segments declared so far.

Private companies are raring to have a go at juicy contracts in collaboration with foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs); the benefits for Indian entities of learning from their foreign partners will include work cultures, management techniques and profit orientation but most of all the tangible benefit would be transfer of technology. As far as defence aerospace industry is concerned, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) has largely been content with license production of foreign aircraft and transfer of technology has not been high on its priority list. Even the Rafale deal involves no transfer of technology while all the offers (F-16/ F-18, Grippen) of setting up aircraft manufacturing lines in India are also very unambiguous about not sharing leading edge technology; hard negotiation lies ahead for Indian entities.

It is impossible for India to become a major power unless it is a major industrial power first; leading edge capabilities in aerospace and defence production are essential and that is the thrust that ‘Make In India’ needs to provide to India’s defence production capabilities. Technology transfer is thus the key to success for ‘Make In India’ for defence and partnerships would have to be located so as to maximise technology transfer — a motivation that would militate with the Indian private industry’s profit orientation.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2017 19:53

How a US arms lobby group played both India and Pakistan on the F-16 aircraft
https://qz.com/1092790/how-a-us-lobby-g ... -aircraft/

The above article is an excerpt from Senator Larry Pressler’s book Neighbours in Arms reproduced with permission from Penguin Random House India. Since I do not have similar permission, please click on the above link and read.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1382
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby wig » 03 Oct 2017 20:02

http://www.sebi.gov.in/filings/public-i ... 36155.html

HAL has filed a Draft Offer Document today with SEBI.
This implies that we can expect a public issue of shares in HAL in due course of time which will augment the financial resources.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 03 Oct 2017 20:09

Ck a recent mag.There is an LCA unmanned variant under dev.Any further news?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2017 20:10

Philip Saar, Tejas discussions only in Tejas dhaaga. Thank You.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3458
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 04 Oct 2017 06:05

Rakesh wrote:...

Acquisition of single-engine fighter aircraft – A few suggestions
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... ggestions/

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has also set the ball rolling by issuing the Request for Information (RFI) to these two companies. But this is as good as it gets, for RFI is just the first of the eleven stages through which every procurement programme has to pass before the deal is signed. Each of these stages carries within it the potential to derail the programme.


Eleven stages!!!

If every stage takes an average of one-year ... you can do the math ;)

Both fighters in competition will be out of production by then. It would be competing with AMCA orders ...

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 04 Oct 2017 06:30

srai: welcome back! :)

Even if you cut that timeline in half - 5.5 years - then the process has to begin for the acquisition of the land (good luck if the factory is located in Kerala - meant as insult onlee or West Bengal - no offense), then the factory has to be built, then the planes have to begin production (which LM will refuse to certify because they are made by SDREs) and then the planes will be delivered to the IAF.

So a minimum of 5.5 years to jump through all the bureaucratic hassles (assuming it moves smoothly) then 1.5 years (at minimum for land acquisition and factory building) to the first plane coming out. Assume we use 2018 as a starting point and we fast forward 7 years...it will be the end of 2024 before everything is done. Then let us assume it will take 10 years to complete the 100 aircraft order and thus by 2034, production will be complete. And what do you know...around the same time when the Rafale will be obsolete by some predictions :mrgreen:


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 04 Oct 2017 10:52

"So the Octopus must be fed"! LP says that the arms lobby has gotten too strong in the US and must be fed (by India).What effing crap.We are not some banana republic,unless some in the GOI think that we are,but a sovereign state which must put its interests first not those of the US "Octopus".

We've already fed the Octopus handsomely both by "Snake-oil Singh" and the Modi regime with lucrative contracts which have upset our traditional long-term arms supplier Russia.Russia cannot be too upset as in sev. cases there have been difficulties in spares,support,etc.only now being rectified.Not keeping all eggs in one basket is a prudent policy too,but as I've always maintained,our interests must be underlined by this policy,
"horses for courses",meaning that the best system for the requirement must be chosen .that technically it is sound giving the end-user the capability/performance he wants,will be easy to maintain and support during its lifespan plus comes in at affordable costs,both initial and life-term.
In some cases like the Rafale,the initial costs are so exorbitant that the desired number couldn't be acquired. One shudders to think what the annnual operating costs will be too.

Therefore,extreme prudence must be exercised when choosing a major weapon system.It simply cannot be a decision where political considerations outweigh mil/technical/professional ones.Having dumped both the F-16 and F-18 in the MMRCA contest,it would be the most retrogade and cretinous step ever undertaken by the GOI since independence to acquire either of these two fighters which are now a decade older than when first considered! Let the Donald feed the Octopus,anyway,Yanquis love "junk food" what?!

PS:There are other products which we require where the US "Octopus" can be fed with. For ex. the Sea Guardian/Predator drones,V-22 Ospreys,xtra P-8Is,etc.Let the food fed to the big "O" be of our choosing,not what it specifically wants!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wasu and 46 guests