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.
JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 31 Jul 2017 16:53

Cain Marko wrote:I didn't realize you held Hal in such low esteem but I don't see why a healthy dose of competition is such a bad idea. Btw, personally I never claimed much of the above mentioned hyprrbole...


No no. It wasn't directed to you specifically. Neither I hold HAL in particular contempt. Its just I am rather frustrated at the situation where we neither do it ourselves nor even quickly buy something to fill the gaps and then work from there to be prepared for next iteration. We are like the dog who keeps chasing his own tail.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 22:06

↑ this I can understand. I too am most frustrated jingo who takes out said frustration every now and again by furiously typing on BR or fantasizing about a fleet of Katrina's...

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jul 2017 22:55

Lockheed Martin says India could become F-16 fighter jets maintenance hub
http://www.livemint.com/Companies/O5vidL9GOtAJmUKSrnqL2I/Lockheed-Martin-says-India-could-become-F16-fighter-jets-ma.html

Bharat Karnad, professor for national security studies at New Delhi based Centre for Policy Research said SAAB’s Gripen is far ahead in technology and is the unstated choice for the Indian Air Force.

“The Block 70 is an updated version of a 70s vintage fighter aircraft, so it is a bit like a granny dressing up for a debutante’s ball,” he said adding, “About the MRO hub and all that, well, everybody’s taking that...(statement with) a ton of salt. Recall that the original offer was to produce all orders for this aircraft from anywhere from the India source. But under Trump’s pressure, LM decided to continue producing some F-16 and spares for USAF use in order to retain jobs at the Fort Worth F-16 plant in Texas,” he added.

Karnad also said he remained unsure if India will even go ahead with this deal at all. “Post-Modi’s visit with Trump, an evaluation has been ordered and will take years (with this assessment not available before the 2019 elections), thereby all but killing its prospects,” he said adding it may eventually not happen, “(It will go) through the motions to make the case to Washington that we are giving it careful consideration.”

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 00:43

Cain Marko wrote:
Indranil wrote:And why would another private fighter manufacturer namely SAAB or LM willfully help bring up a competitor? People have pointed to KAI. KAI has developed so much design knowledge over the past four decades that it can't design any aircraft (except basic trainers) without LM's handholding. Just saying. On the other hand, there is Embraer, Avic, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki. Or for that matter, SAAB itself. They are design houses not by virtue of license manufacturing.


Because.....
For Saab, that's a lot of money for a company which is not doing great.

Do we have a pressing need to bail them out?
Cain Marko wrote:For LM, making a small minnow in manufacturing hardly amounts to greater competition for a company that is a giant in this field. It also gives them some easy monies by finding use for it's older tech.

Nobody in their right mind should expect a local aero design bureau from this program. At best you will get another expert at screw drivergiri, which is great because it creates competition to the PSU called HAL.

That is quite a slide from what was being claimed by the supporters (not specifically you).

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 01:03

Indranil wrote:Do we have a pressing need to bail them out?

Perhaps and perhaps not. In either case all the stakeholders seem to think that it or the LM deal is worth it. I have speculated at why this might be so in a previous post and will repost something similar below...
Cain Marko wrote:That is quite a slide from what was being claimed by the supporters (not specifically you).

Well I don't have any expectations from this other than
A. Providing a western fighter to the iaf, which it had wanted for ages for diversification purpose
B. Creating competition to Hal and setting up India as a manufacturing hub for top end technology
Ç. Hedging against further delays in the LCA development and production which would screw IAF strength levels.
D. Possibly provide quick inductions via some direct purchases from oem

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 01:08

Jay is right. Let me put it this way. We need aircrafts now, and we need aircrafts manufacturers for tomorrow. We need to sit down and have a strategy instead of ad hoc purchases like the ones we see now: 36 Rafale, and then another set of 100 imports. These band-aids have to stop. And the govt. also have to

1. Standardize on LCA + mid-weights (we have now) + Su-30 MKI. Shore up numbers with LCA. The govt/IAF/private players/DPSUs have to sit down and figure out a way. There is a lot of money for the private players and DPSUs here. If they decide on LCA today, they can work out wrinkles much faster than choosing the aircraft, haggling over price, setting up ab initio assembly lines and then starting production.
2. IAF should issue a competition for the next generation of fighters: trainers, stealth light aircraft, stealth medium aircraft, stealth heavy aircraft. Everybody is welcome to come in including AMCA and FGFA. Trials would chose the winner. We already have the strategic partnership model in place.
3. GoI has to figure out a way to assimilate ADA into a production house.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 01:09

Cain Marko wrote:A. Providing a western fighter to the iaf, which it had wanted for ages for diversification purpose
B. Creating competition to Hal and setting up India as a manufacturing hub for top end technology
Ç. Hedging against further delays in the LCA development and production which would screw IAF strength levels.
D. Possibly provide quick inductions via some direct purchases from oem

A. It is no longer a case of diversification. It is a circus now.
B. Sure
C. There much better ways.
D. Sure

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 01 Aug 2017 01:19

i think with the money allocated to the PAK-FA I am sure the single engined fighter is dead.

Indranil is right. We need a strategy.

Here is one suggestion

Higher / Heavier Category.
Su-30 MKI + upgrade pathway
--Future--
PAK-FA

Medium
Mirage
Mig-29
Jags

--Future--
More Jags with Darin III Upgrades and Re-engined Jags supported by French Spares.
Rafael
AMCA

Light/ Low
Tejas Mk1
Tejas Mk1A
--Future--
Tejas Mk2


Buy second hand air frames from everywhere. Buy those Malaysian Mig-29s, F18s.
But kick off the AMCA now.
Raise a factory for Manufacturing the AMCA + Tejas Mk2.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 01:40

Indranil wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:A. Providing a western fighter to the iaf, which it had wanted for ages for diversification purpose
B. Creating competition to Hal and setting up India as a manufacturing hub for top end technology
Ç. Hedging against further delays in the LCA development and production which would screw IAF strength levels.
D. Possibly provide quick inductions via some direct purchases from oem

A. It is no longer a case of diversification. It is a circus now.
B. Sure
C. There much better ways.
D. Sure

A. IAF has dealt with worse circuses before.
C. I'd have to agree

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 01 Aug 2017 05:00

Cain Marko: When one compares the offers (on paper) that Saab and LM has, it is obvious that the former has a way better offering than the latter. In fact, it ties in to what Chola is arguing for.

With the F-16, Lockheed Martin is offering to shift the production line to India, where we will do screwdrivergiri on it and India will become a MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) for the aircraft. That's about it. The rest is all conjecture - on BRF - that LM has promised the moon and Tata will become Einstein in fighter aircraft development. Lockheed Martin has failed to read what the Indian Govt wants out of this deal and what the IAF wants out of this deal.

With the Gripen E, Saab is offering the following;

Saab Offers To Create Aerospace System Under Make In India
http://saab.com/region/india/gripen/mak ... -in-india/

“Saab is not only looking at setting up a base here, but also helping in the development of aerospace capability for many years to come,” said Jan Widerström, chairman, Saab India Technologies Pvt Ltd.

This is what chola has been stating. Chola, please correct me if I am wrong.

To further add to the above, there is this...

Gripen - The Ideal Solution For India
http://saab.com/region/india/gripen/gri ... for-india/

More than assembly lines [That is a direct DIG at Lockheed Martin].

Rather than simply transferring assembly lines to India, Saab’s vision for the project involves helping the Indian defence industry to grow. In addition to assembly, local teams would be involved in and responsible for system and sub-system design; development; component and system manufacturing; quality and processes; integration; and support, maintenance, repair and operation.

There is only problem with ALL of the above. It is a promise and as a result vaporware. Now that term - vaporware - is not used as a punchline, but there is a reason for it. Click on the link below;

http://fotos.miarroba.es/fo/6ffd/1C560A ... EA154A.jpg

How many of those countries - in the above diagram - are eager/willing for India to have a developed aerospace capability as Saab is promising? But then, I came across this...FWIW :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rX8hpyuAE_o/U ... _ng_br.jpg

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 01 Aug 2017 05:42

Cain Marko wrote:A. Providing a western fighter to the iaf, which it had wanted for ages for diversification purpose
B. Creating competition to Hal and setting up India as a manufacturing hub for top end technology
Ç. Hedging against further delays in the LCA development and production which would screw IAF strength levels.
D. Possibly provide quick inductions via some direct purchases from oem

On Point A, I think you are largely mistaken Sir :) From 1947 to 2022, on a pure numbers basis, the IAF has operated a near equal, if not more "Western" fighters than it has "Russian" fighters.

The first jet fighter that the IAF operated was a Western one.

The de Havilland Vampire was the first jet fighter to join the IAF - in 1948. That was followed by the Dassault Ouragan in 1953. That was followed by the Dassault Mystère IV which came in 1957. That was followed by the English Electric Canberra, also in 1957. That was followed by the Gnat in 1958. That was followed by the Hawker Hunter in 1959. That was followed by the HAL Ajeet (an improved Gnat) in 1977. That was followed by the SEPECAT Jaguar in 1979. That was followed by the Mirage 2000 in 1984. And soon to join Rafale in 2019.

361 de Havilland Vampires of various types, 104 Dassault Ouragans, 104 Dassault Mystère IVs, 150 Canberras, x Gnats, 89 Ajeets (license built by HAL), 262 Hunters of various types, 160 Jaguars (of which 120 were licensed built by HAL), 51 Mirage 2000s and 36 Rafales. Not including the Gnat, the TOTAL number of Western jet fighters that the IAF has operated is 1,317.

Now lets look at Russian fighters. 650 MiG-21s (the first Russian jet fighter - the MiG-21 - joined the IAF only in the early 60s...by then the IAF already inducted six Western jet fighters), 154 Su-7s, 150 MiG-23s of the BN, UB and MF variants, 8 MiG-25s in RBK and RU variants, 165 MiG-27s, ~ 70 MiG-29s, 272 Su-30MKIs. That total is 1,469 aircraft. Please note, I do not know how many Gnats were inducted...but you get the idea. Please take this notion that the IAF needs a western fighter for ages for diversification purposes out your mind :)

Moral of the Story: The IAF has operated (and licensed produced) Russian and Western fighters for 70 years. We learned NOTHING of value these past 70 years from doing screwdrivergiri. And we will learn NOTHING from doing screwdrivergiri of F-Solah or Gripen E.

We have all heard this before, but it is apt considering the discussion at hand...

Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3658
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Aug 2017 08:37

Image

How about a joint program with LM to develop Tejas XL, on lines of Brahmos?

Original Tejas fly by wire was tested on f16xl and performance was better then it's on Feb.

With f135 engine from f35.

While ADA and LM develop it and Tata-LM mfr it. We can place order of 270 fighters plus 45 twin seat trainer.

LM produces 16 in USA per year and 16 in Bharat per year with f35 composites.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 01 Aug 2017 11:20

Indranil wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I think a private entity to become a fighter manufacturer would need some handholding and ADA can't do that.

Hence the need for something like Saab or LM.

And why would another private fighter manufacturer namely SAAB or LM willfully help bring up a competitor? People have pointed to KAI. KAI has developed so much design knowledge over the past four decades that it can't design any aircraft (except basic trainers) without LM's handholding. Just saying. On the other hand, there is Embraer, Avic, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki. Or for that matter, SAAB itself. They are design houses not by virtue of license manufacturing.


So funny onlee that we pooh pooh KAI when their T/F-50 went from first flight in 2002 to induction with numbers in 2005 and now with exports everywhere.

It not the "designing" that is the most obvious difference. Both planes use phoren consultants, engines, radars among many other things, yes. But look at the results! Night and day. It is the manufacturing and the associated ecosystem!

Give Tata a chance on the manufacturing by giving them access to defense contracts and the design divisions will grow in house like Embraer, Avic, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Saab.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 01 Aug 2017 11:39

Since becoming chini mil watcher (and expert) a few months ago, I can vouch this for AVIC, though commies they run a competitive market system with many manufacturers who can take a product through the whole process from drafting table to the assembly line.

Fighters:
Shenyang - Flanker rip offs, J-31
Chengdu - J-10, FC-1, J-20

Trainers:
Hongdu - K-8, L-15
Guizhou - JL-9

Transports:
Xian - Y-20
Shaanxi - Y-8, Y-9

Helos:
Harbin - Z-9
Changhe - Z-8

I cannot find a single independent "design house" like ADA. All of their manufacturers have integrated design divisions. This is how they pursue so many projects at the same time.

Many of the projects -- like L-15, FC-1 and J-31 -- are pursued independently by the manufacturer without initial official support. Possible profits/prestige is what make them do this. It would be the same if Tata and the private sector get into aviation.

But right now, we are using a shitty soviet style ADA/HAL setup with fractured design/manufacturer that even the fvcking Chicoms are not using.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 12:18

Manish_Sharma wrote:Image

How about a joint program with LM to develop Tejas XL, on lines of Brahmos?

Original Tejas fly by wire was tested on f16xl and performance was better then it's on Feb.

With f135 engine from f35.

While ADA and LM develop it and Tata-LM mfr it. We can place order of 270 fighters plus 45 twin seat trainer.

LM produces 16 in USA per year and 16 in Bharat per year with f35 composites.

Why would you put a F135 class engine in a light fighter? I can get it into an aero discussion, but I will leave it by saying that the suggestion is a little naive. :wink:

But you are speaking along the lines as me from some time back. LM offloading a derelict manufacturing line makes perfect sense to them and zero sense for us (well, not all of us). Otherwise, they have to pay to remove it to junk (literally). But if LM said that we will be the strategic partner who would help Tata refine and build on the plane listed below, I would have been all supportive. They offered this Korea, but Korea went with a double engined plane. There is something for everybody here and this is an aircraft qualitatively different from Tejas, not just another aircraft which can stay 30 minutes longer in the air.

Image

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 12:32

chola wrote:
Give Tata a chance on the manufacturing by giving them access to defense contracts and the design divisions will grow in house like Embraer, Avic, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Saab.


Folks need to drill down one thing in their heads - There is not one single thing that gonna change on the broader level simply by moving screwdrivergiri from DPSU to pvt companies. The real problem lies with GOI itself. Bad working of PSU or the ad-hoc approach offered by AFs while procurement is just symptoms. At the very most the pvt companies will start taking some component level manufacturing for some projects and move on to become Tier2/3 suppliers slowly. But the change will be too slow and will not bring any real strategic change in the situation for a long long time. We don't have that kind of time. There is no time to waste on "Lets do this and see what happens". You don't develop MIC like this, trial and error.

Unless GOI starts bankrolling RnD at every level on a massive scale (Rs 231 Cr for 5th Gen tech dev is a bad joke) we are not going to see any particular change in the situation. Tatas or any other business houses do not have the kind of money, resources, time and intent to become an OEM that could rival even HAL in 15-20 yrs "on their own". Show me one fcking company in the whole world anywhere which grew from ZERO to even to a Mitsubishi type of Aircraft OEM without full government backing across the board - from bankrolling basic RnD, to ensuring fixed orders, to throwing own weight while dealing with foreign companies/governments. If GOI was giving the kind of money really is needed to be poured in, even existing system would have come up with world class systems/technology. Even for beg/borrow/steel the government needs to give full support. DO NOT make mistakes of applying principles that work in other sectors like Auto or IT to MIC. MIC does not operate on Capitalist or Free Market principles on the larger scale. Its more socialist than what our current PSU system is. This is not related to socialist vs capitalist difference that is seen elsewhere. That would account for only a small difference. But lets not miss the big picture while giving too much ado to small details.

Mark my words, until GOI starts pouring massive amount of money with a clrear cut mandate to all (including the AFs) for indigenisation MIC for strategic independance, we will not see any upliftment of our MIC anytime soon. Private or PSU does not matter that much. If we are importing fighters to create "jobs" or create more competition among our already thinly spread resources and funds, I am sorry I have to say this, this is no less whimsical than Chacha Nehru's thinking which has already failed big time. There are other n number of sectors to create large scale employment. Why play with one key sector which a single most important sector from National Security and tech advancement perspective..??

If GOI is ready to give away $10B today, we will see n number of global companies making beeline to start TFTA RnD centres in India. Major problem is they want to take the IPR back home. So the only solution is to bankroll RnD in desi companies on which GOI will have full control at the policy level. But GOI needs to fund, provide orders. Without that everything is futile.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 01 Aug 2017 12:46

^^^ When you allow the private sector access to defense contracts, you are in essence "funding" the development of a MIC.

And this "we do not have time" bullshit. We have a clock ticking away on us from who? TSP? How many times do we have to beat them before we can safely build out our MIC?

Cheen? This SYRE army who haven't fought in decades is practically inviting us to kick their arses. But no, we'll just sit around waiting for the first move of an enemy who is outnumbered 20 to 1 across the length of the border.

Just build the MIC. If we did this 16 years ago right after LCA's first flight, we'd have a MIC today.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 12:51

Chola sir,

I bow out to your superior knowledge, reason and "expert"ise.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 13:08

chola wrote:^^^ When you allow the private sector access to defense contracts, you are in essence "funding" the development of a MIC.


No you don't. Aerospace companies do not make enough margins that they can fund their own RnD completely. The competition is cut-throat if they want to supply to global programs. Thus price competitiveness is very important. For every penny companies like GE put in RnD that they earn from their business, they receive perhaps 5x or 10x money from government through various programs or from free access to technology from academia or government agencies. A large chunk of this subsidized RnD is hidden but without this the costs of aircraft would be much more than what they are now. It takes good long 20-30 yrs of hidden tech development before such technology can come up to TRL 6 or 7. No business can sustain that kind of gestation periods unless govt basically makes it free for them to do it.

My company spends overwhelming majority of its income in buying other companies. It receives majority of its RnD funding from various governments in Europe or US. Only limited own funds are invested on long gestation RnD. This is same as what others are doing. Only recently we are seeing OEMs in US putting up their own funds on the TDs of any jet program. Until recently even those were government funded.

Show me where is GOI's funding. All the funding that is given to DRDO or HAL is almost always for some product dev. I hardly see anything that was given for pure tech development. The picture is not gonna change when its Pvt companies doing work. Do not expect Tatas or Ambanis to put money on RnD from their own pockets. You will only get disappointed.

And we have no MIC after 16yrs of LCA, or nowhere on AMCA precisely because govt never funded anything beyond bare minimum required for the program itself.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 01 Aug 2017 13:11

Indranil wrote:Chola sir,

I bow out to your superior knowledge, reason and "expert"ise.


It takes a big man to acknowledge an intellectual giant. Many others have come to this point regarding myself. Some took far longer than you in overcoming their initial stubborness :D

Good show, Saar!

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 01 Aug 2017 13:28

JayS wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ When you allow the private sector access to defense contracts, you are in essence "funding" the development of a MIC.


No you don't. Aerospace companies do not make enough margins that they can fund their own RnD completely. The competition is cut-throat if they want to supply to global programs. Thus price competitiveness is very important. For every penny companies like GE put in RnD that they earn from their business, they receive perhaps 5x or 10x money from government through various programs or from free access to technology from academia or government agencies. A large chunk of this subsidized RnD is hidden but without this the costs of aircraft would be much more than what they are now. It takes good long 20-30 yrs of hidden tech development before such technology can come up to TRL 6 or 7. No business can sustain that kind of gestation periods unless govt basically makes it free for them to do it.

My company spends overwhelming majority of its income in buying other companies. It receives majority of its RnD funding from various governments in Europe or US. Only limited own funds are invested on long gestation RnD. This is same as what others are doing. Only recently we are seeing OEMs in US putting up their own funds on the TDs of any jet program. Until recently even those were government funded.

Show me where is GOI's funding. All the funding that is given to DRDO or HAL is almost always for some product dev. I hardly see anything that was given for pure tech development. The picture is not gonna change when its Pvt companies doing work. Do not expect Tatas or Ambanis to put money on RnD from their own pockets. You will only get disappointed.

And we have no MIC after 16yrs of LCA, or nowhere on AMCA precisely because govt never funded anything beyond bare minimum required for the program itself.



From a business perspective, this is a very well thought out reply.

That said, the billions upon billions that we laid out to the "we need the best phoren maal here and now" --when we live in one of the weakest neighborhoods on earth outside sub-Saharan African -- should have been used to develop our MIC.

GD and the F-16 would be initial kickstart to get Tata into aviation but a properly priced indigenous plane say a $20B program for 150 (working off MMRCA proposal) would allow a private sector enough profit to plow back into development.

There has to be a proper price point since we see it in the US government's support of LM, Boeing, Raytheon, etc.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 14:26

chola wrote:
GD and the F-16 would be initial kickstart to get Tata into aviation but a properly priced indigenous plane say a $20B program for 150 (working off MMRCA proposal) would allow a private sector enough profit to plow back into development.

There has to be a proper price point since we see it in the US government's support of LM, Boeing, Raytheon, etc.


Ain't gonna work. :D Give them money like that and I can bet my bottom rupee that most of that money will never be put back in RnD. Did I not tell you my company uses its own earned money only for business purpose and go with begging bowl to government for RnD money..? That's Capitalism for you. Of coarse they get money only on the condition that they have to match the contribution to be able to get the funding or they have to surrender the control of tech in some way. Instead, keep the price competitive, if you want them not to become another PSU. They need to be lean and competitive as an org for bread and butter work to survive on the global level. Bankroll the RnD separately in pieces for well articulated long term and short term hard goals in bigger inter-organisational frameworks. Bankroll the RnD in academia. GOI's work is not only to give money but to give the direction as well. GOI also has to drive the tech dev actively through its various organisations. Capitalism do not work in intended way unless there is a strong shepherding and regulation from government.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4887
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 01 Aug 2017 14:32

A lot of the discussion here, doesn't make sense to me.

HAL is a production body NOT a design authority. Domestic design & development capabilities for fixed-wing manned aircraft are vested in the ADA & NAL. So any comparisons to Boeing, LM, NG etc. are a void for that reason alone. A more valid parallel is with the Russian setup i.e. with Sukhoi/MiG/Yak operating as design houses and IAPO/KnAAPO/NAPO handling the production end.

Which is why TASL emerging as a private sector alternative to HAL, even within the next 10 years, is a perfectly feasible idea, assuming its operating under the aegis of ADA or a foreign OEM. Its already building airframe parts for a variety of customers including HAL, and is a subcontractor on the Tejas program. It'll also be running the assembly line for the Airbus C-295. (And if the MoD were willing to foot the bill for it, TASL ought to have been operating a second Tejas assembly line today.)

There's already an existing precedent for it in other segments, with Tata Power SED, Bharat Forge emerging as alternatives to the OFB, and PSU shipyards facing competition from the likes L&T and RDEL, even while core design capabilities lie with ARDE, DND etc.

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

Problem here isn't Tata, the problem is the F-16. Simply put, we've moved past it. It brings zero capabilities to the table that aren't already available through a combination of Tejas, Su-30s & Rafales. Its at the end of its production cycle and being replaced in its home markets (US, Israel, EPG quartet*, Turkey) by the next generation of fighter, and other major operators (Singapore, South Korea) are poised to follow. Same applies to the Gripen as well; Saab will be hard pressed to sell it beyond Sweden, Brazil and a few small operators like Thailand & Switzerland.

We do need to move past the monopoly exercised by HAL today. Pursuing the F-16 or Gripen would be a stupid way to do it.

If the MoD could get over said incipient stupidity, it'd start negotiations with the US for the F-35A produced through a TASL-LM partnership, while HAL in parallel gears up to build the PAK FA along with Sukhoi/UAC. That way, by 2025, we'd have two functional (and somewhat complementary) competitors that could be played off against each other to maximize the domestic industrial input, all while the Tejas fleet expands unhindered to take up the lower end of operational tasks. As an added advantage, when the AMCA enters the picture in the 2035-40 timeframe, ADA would have two production options with manufacturing experience on 5th gen fighters.

(* Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark)

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 15:14

Viv S wrote:A lot of the discussion here, doesn't make sense to me.

HAL is a production body NOT a design authority. Domestic design & development capabilities for fixed-wing manned aircraft are vested in the ADA & NAL.


You are mistaken a bit there, if you think ADA prepares all the drawing sheets completely on their own and simply hands it down to HAL for manufacturing. HAL does have a decent in-house aircraft design capability. In fact a lot of LRU/Module level design of LCA is done by HAL. ADA is system level designer and owns the design as a whole but they do not design each and every component. I posted once snippets from TSR's interview (form the Walk the Talk IIRC). HAL has designed 17 or 19 out of 21 or so major modules (such as LG) of LCA. The way our system works, its difficult to separate out ADA and HAL. They work in very close collaboration. But ADA owns the design and subcontracts the work to various organisation including HAL as far as administration is concerned. As such a major portion of ADA was formed by people taken from HAL. ADA is a small org, not enough to run entire program solo. I would rather say ADA is like skunk works of HAL (not exactly but you get the drift). Only thing is neither HAL has any administrative power over ADA nor ADA has it over HAL. And that has complicated matters.
Last edited by JayS on 01 Aug 2017 15:26, edited 2 times in total.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby yensoy » 01 Aug 2017 15:17

If it's a matter of mastering technology while building up military might, may I suggest that we instead look for a single engine stealth UAV program? Despite the addition of channels to support remote sensors and control, it is a much easier (and less risky) proposition to build a remotely operated aircraft with today's technology. Something in the sub 10000kg takeoff weight supporting a decent range (1 way is good enough for war, after all this is a UAV), 4-6 hardpoints for missiles/radar/IR pods would be a very decent challenge. The engine and controls would be much simpler, maybe even purchased off the shelf - UAVs don't need to dogfight. Success in this program will give a huge morale boost, a proven platform which can be built in huge numbers (needless to say the other end of the UAV - remote operations - also needs to be built up), and clear technological & manufacturing learnings which will help with future manned airplane design and manufacture.

This strategy is like leapfrogging land line telephony with mobiles.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 15:24

yensoy wrote:If it's a matter of mastering technology while building up military might, may I suggest that we instead look for a single engine stealth UAV program? Despite the addition of channels to support remote sensors and control, it is a much easier (and less risky) proposition to build a remotely operated aircraft with today's technology. Something in the sub 10000kg takeoff weight supporting a decent range (1 way is good enough for war, after all this is a UAV), 4-6 hardpoints for missiles/radar/IR pods would be a very decent challenge. The engine and controls would be much simpler, maybe even purchased off the shelf - UAVs don't need to dogfight. Success in this program will give a huge morale boost, a proven platform which can be built in huge numbers (needless to say the other end of the UAV - remote operations - also needs to be built up), and clear technological & manufacturing learnings which will help with future manned airplane design and manufacture.

This strategy is like leapfrogging land line telephony with mobiles.


A $30-40mil UAV (yes, that's what it will cost, with all the stuff you want on it, 10ton and all) cannot be expendable one. Better build missiles then.

UAV and robotics is one area which GOI can very easily open up for Pvt companies and we could see real proliferation of capability there with all sorts of machines being developed. But GOI will rather give away $10-20B to a few shiny toys. We all know how it works.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3658
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Aug 2017 16:17

Indranil wrote:Why would you put a F135 class engine in a light fighter? I can get it into an aero discussion, but I will leave it by saying that the suggestion is a little naive. :wink:


No no that's why I put XL with Tejas. Making it equivalent of MMRCA "'Medium" from "Light". So TejasXL becomes SE 'medium, and it could be f16's engine too instead of jsf; I thought it will be better to go with with jsf engine as it will be supported after 40 years too.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4887
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 01 Aug 2017 16:18

JayS wrote:You are mistaken a bit there, if you think ADA prepares all the drawing sheets completely on their own and simply hands it down to HAL for manufacturing.

Actually you'll find that is true for the examples I quoted as well. Sukhoi works with KnAAPO, Yak with Irkut, MiG with Sokol - hasn't stopped Yak-130s from being built at Sokol or Su-27/30s at Irkut. What core competencies HAL has developed over years of license production, overhauls and minor modifications can be achieved by TASL. Not a particularly high hurdle really given a better commitment level.
Last edited by Viv S on 01 Aug 2017 16:20, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5498
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 01 Aug 2017 16:20

Virtually doubling the engine thrust class essentially means a completely new aircraft once you account for the changes you need to support similar performance. It is not an upgrade or a variant at that point. From a design, development and test perspective it is virtually a brand new aircraft.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3658
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Aug 2017 16:35

^I remember reading that Tejas FBW was first tested on f16xl and it worked better than f16xl's own FBW, so had this idea that maybe just a TejasXL with same FBW and f135 engine can be put together quickly using ADA and LM's experience.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5498
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 01 Aug 2017 16:47

No it would not be quick or easy. You can't double the engine thrust and not expect a domino effect on other design features which they take you back to the starting point in terms of design, integration and testing.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 17:04

Viv S wrote:
JayS wrote:You are mistaken a bit there, if you think ADA prepares all the drawing sheets completely on their own and simply hands it down to HAL for manufacturing.

Actually you'll find that is true for the examples I quoted as well. Sukhoi works with KnAAPO, Yak with Irkut, MiG with Sokol - hasn't stopped Yak-130s from being built at Sokol or Su-27/30s at Irkut. What core competencies HAL has developed over years of license production, overhauls and minor modifications can be achieved by TASL. Not a particularly high hurdle really given a better commitment level.


I don't think Russian design houses worked with their MFG counterpart in quite the same manner that ADA and HAL works with each other. But even keeping this aside, You grossly underestimate the capabilities that HAL has accumulated over the years. HAL has good expertise in systems integration given its experience of integrating various avionics stuff from across the world on our fighters - Darin, Su-30MKI, LCA, M2K upgrades has given good experience. Look how quickly HAL could come up with HTT-40, the concurrent certification process is quite innovative. That's no mean feat. It will take TASL quite a while to reach to that level. At least 2-3 decades by my estimate, if they get a good deal of government support.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4887
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 01 Aug 2017 18:07

JayS wrote:I don't think Russian design houses worked with their MFG counterpart in quite the same manner that ADA and HAL works with each other. But even keeping this aside, You grossly underestimate the capabilities that HAL has accumulated over the years. HAL has good expertise in systems integration given its experience of integrating various avionics stuff from across the world on our fighters - Darin, Su-30MKI, LCA, M2K upgrades has given good experience. Look how quickly HAL could come up with HTT-40, the concurrent certification process is quite innovative. That's no mean feat. It will take TASL quite a while to reach to that level. At least 2-3 decades by my estimate, if they get a good deal of government support.

None of the capabilities developed by HAL through the Darin, Su-30 etc were a necessary prerequisite to effectively functioning as a manufacturing body. Same applies to TASL - lack of organic design capability is not a hurdle to starting off in production.

With respect to the future, the important thing to note is that TASL is not bound by the regulations & culture that define much our ecosystem of PSUs. Sure the HTT-40 development was quick by our standards, on the other hand if we take.. say the example of General Atomics - it went from negligible experience in aerospace to dominating the RPA market in 10 years and to the Avenger within the next 10. Like GA, TASL has the luxury of recruiting people like Abraham Karem, contracting to consultants without MoD approval and CAG audit. Coupled with its current & emerging manufacturing experience, I don't see it needing 2-3 decades to bridge the gap to HAL, such as it is.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 01 Aug 2017 18:29

Viv S wrote:None of the capabilities developed by HAL through the Darin, Su-30 etc were a necessary prerequisite to effectively functioning as a manufacturing body. Same applies to TASL - lack of organic design capability is not a hurdle to starting off in production.

With respect to the future, the important thing to note is that TASL is not bound by the regulations & culture that define much our ecosystem of PSUs. Sure the HTT-40 development was quick by our standards, on the other hand if we take.. say the example of General Atomics - it went from negligible experience in aerospace to dominating the RPA market in 10 years and to the Avenger within the next 10. Like GA, TASL has the luxury of recruiting people like Abraham Karem, contracting to consultants without MoD approval and CAG audit. Coupled with its current & emerging manufacturing experience, I don't see it needing 2-3 decades to bridge the gap to HAL, such as it is.


Well I thought we are discussing aircraft design capability only. TAML can surely start screwdrivergiri better than HAL in a decade, if they try hard enough. Its not that hard to "make to print" given detailed instruction sheet, if the company is willing to invest itself in continuous improvement (well in some areas even that is not that trivial, but that fine). Anyways, let's agree to disagree. :D

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 02 Aug 2017 00:44

chola wrote:I cannot find a single independent "design house" like ADA. All of their manufacturers have integrated design divisions. This is how they pursue so many projects at the same time.

You have sufficiently displayed a lack of basic understanding of the issue. Independent or in-house design bureau matters little. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Tata can develop a design house from assembling F-16s. You have still not answered my question from how assembling F-16s is Tata going to make another fighter. I asked you that on the previous page (101) of this thread. You have no answer, do you?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Aug 2017 04:20

Rakesh wrote:On Point A, I think you are largely mistaken Sir :) From 1947 to 2022, on a pure numbers basis, the IAF has operated a near equal, if not more "Western" fighters than it has "Russian" fighters.

The first jet fighter that the IAF operated was a Western one.

The de Havilland Vampire was the first jet fighter to join the IAF - in 1948. That was followed by the Dassault Ouragan in 1953. That was followed by the Dassault Mystère IV which came in 1957. That was followed by the English Electric Canberra, also in 1957. That was followed by the Gnat in 1958. That was followed by the Hawker Hunter in 1959. That was followed by the HAL Ajeet (an improved Gnat) in 1977. That was followed by the SEPECAT Jaguar in 1979. That was followed by the Mirage 2000 in 1984. And soon to join Rafale in 2019.

361 de Havilland Vampires of various types, 104 Dassault Ouragans, 104 Dassault Mystère IVs, 150 Canberras, x Gnats, 89 Ajeets (license built by HAL), 262 Hunters of various types, 160 Jaguars (of which 120 were licensed built by HAL), 51 Mirage 2000s and 36 Rafales. Not including the Gnat, the TOTAL number of Western jet fighters that the IAF has operated is 1,317.

Now lets look at Russian fighters. 650 MiG-21s (the first Russian jet fighter - the MiG-21 - joined the IAF only in the early 60s...by then the IAF already inducted six Western jet fighters), 154 Su-7s, 150 MiG-23s of the BN, UB and MF variants, 8 MiG-25s in RBK and RU variants, 165 MiG-27s, ~ 70 MiG-29s, 272 Su-30MKIs. That total is 1,469 aircraft. Please note, I do not know how many Gnats were inducted...but you get the idea. Please take this notion that the IAF needs a western fighter for ages for diversification purposes out your mind :)

Moral of the Story: The IAF has operated (and licensed produced) Russian and Western fighters for 70 years. We learned NOTHING of value these past 70 years from doing screwdrivergiri. And we will learn NOTHING from doing screwdrivergiri of F-Solah or Gripen E.

We have all heard this before, but it is apt considering the discussion at hand...

Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Reg. Point A that I had made in an earlier post. Nahi nahi sir, aap mere misunderstanding ko misunderstand kar rahe ho. :D My response to Indranilji's comment that the IAF is likely to have a circus with so many different fighters was to suggest that the IAF has dealt with worse before. As far as diversification of fighter inventory goes, I believe the IAF wanted to reduce its dependence on Russki maal and this is borne out by by the rather disdainful attitude shown by the IAF towards the Mig-35. IIRC an ex-ACM suggested that the bird was "empty" from the inside....

WRT the definition of insanity above, I completely agree however, with a caveat. For a private company to get roped into doing screwdrivergiri is an entirely new thing for India. It will create much needed competition to HAL and that is not a bad/insane thing even though it is still only screwdrivergiri. IOWs, we will have great efficiency in screwdrivering at the end of this story. Still that might just be enough to create competition to PSUs. For example - ADA might have a choice when it comes to the AMCA whether to tie up with HAL, with which it has had a rocky relationship or with Tata and even Reliance. This will light fire under HALs tush for good measure. In time, these companies might even tie up with international design houses and come up with their own designs to compete against ADA+HAL, but that could take a loong time..

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Aug 2017 04:26

Viv S wrote:A lot of the discussion here, doesn't make sense to me.

HAL is a production body NOT a design authority. Domestic design & development capabilities for fixed-wing manned aircraft are vested in the ADA & NAL. So any comparisons to Boeing, LM, NG etc. are a void for that reason alone. A more valid parallel is with the Russian setup i.e. with Sukhoi/MiG/Yak operating as design houses and IAPO/KnAAPO/NAPO handling the production end.

Which is why TASL emerging as a private sector alternative to HAL, even within the next 10 years, is a perfectly feasible idea, assuming its operating under the aegis of ADA or a foreign OEM. Its already building airframe parts for a variety of customers including HAL, and is a subcontractor on the Tejas program. It'll also be running the assembly line for the Airbus C-295. (And if the MoD were willing to foot the bill for it, TASL ought to have been operating a second Tejas assembly line today.)

There's already an existing precedent for it in other segments, with Tata Power SED, Bharat Forge emerging as alternatives to the OFB, and PSU shipyards facing competition from the likes L&T and RDEL, even while core design capabilities lie with ARDE, DND etc.

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

Problem here isn't Tata, the problem is the F-16. Simply put, we've moved past it. It brings zero capabilities to the table that aren't already available through a combination of Tejas, Su-30s & Rafales. Its at the end of its production cycle and being replaced in its home markets (US, Israel, EPG quartet*, Turkey) by the next generation of fighter, and other major operators (Singapore, South Korea) are poised to follow. Same applies to the Gripen as well; Saab will be hard pressed to sell it beyond Sweden, Brazil and a few small operators like Thailand & Switzerland.

We do need to move past the monopoly exercised by HAL today. Pursuing the F-16 or Gripen would be a stupid way to do it.

If the MoD could get over said incipient stupidity, it'd start negotiations with the US for the F-35A produced through a TASL-LM partnership, while HAL in parallel gears up to build the PAK FA along with Sukhoi/UAC. That way, by 2025, we'd have two functional (and somewhat complementary) competitors that could be played off against each other to maximize the domestic industrial input, all while the Tejas fleet expands unhindered to take up the lower end of operational tasks. As an added advantage, when the AMCA enters the picture in the 2035-40 timeframe, ADA would have two production options with manufacturing experience on 5th gen fighters.

(* Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark)


Great post Viv - have to agree. INdia needs to get a private player to get a FACO line for the JSF although the one downside to this could be its cost

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby abhik » 02 Aug 2017 10:01

JayS wrote:...
Ain't gonna work. :D Give them money like that and I can bet my bottom rupee that most of that money will never be put back in RnD. Did I not tell you my company uses its own earned money only for business purpose and go with begging bowl to government for RnD money..? That's Capitalism for you. Of coarse they get money only on the condition that they have to match the contribution to be able to get the funding or they have to surrender the control of tech in some way. Instead, keep the price competitive, if you want them not to become another PSU. They need to be lean and competitive as an org for bread and butter work to survive on the global level. Bankroll the RnD separately in pieces for well articulated long term and short term hard goals in bigger inter-organisational frameworks. Bankroll the RnD in academia. GOI's work is not only to give money but to give the direction as well. GOI also has to drive the tech dev actively through its various organisations. Capitalism do not work in intended way unless there is a strong shepherding and regulation from government.

Under what policy does to government fund R&D in the private sector, I'm trying to understand how this works and how much money is actually transferred. I think it was posted on another thread that the brahmos seeker being developed by data patterns(?) is being done on their own dime (unless I misunderstood). So who gets funded and who doesn't?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59316
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2017 10:32

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/lh-ivzYPr ... hrough.pdf

https://hbr.org/2013/10/special-forces- ... s-problems

these make it evident that project/program offices have to be formed and run by good people , just giving money to a , b , c and hoping something will happen is not going to work.

for all its undoubted prowress, the secretive soviet union did not manage to bring even one commercial technology to worldwide market, they remained stuck in their nuclear and aerospace excellence rut. no russian manufactured civilian product today is sold around the world except weapons.
they had the people but not the right model.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2127
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 02 Aug 2017 12:25

Singha wrote:
these make it evident that project/program offices have to be formed and run by good people , just giving money to a , b , c and hoping something will happen is not going to work.
.


True. I agree and I mentioned the same in one of my posts above:
GOI's work is not only to give money but to give the direction as well. GOI also has to drive the tech dev actively through its various organisations.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, LokeshC, tushar_m and 44 guests