'Make in India' Single engined fighter

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 May 2017 11:44

shiv wrote:Reading Shivshankar Menon's book "Choices" right now and he says that it is only in the last 10 years that the Indian army has achieved frorce levels on the border with China sufficient to check Chinese creeping infiltration. In the last confrontation - China poured in hundreds of troops - but were soon matched by an Indian force that made the Chinese withdraw in 3 weeks.

The point is - with the need to get much much stronger in terms of force levels - where does the AMCA fit into the scheme of things? It is at least 70% science project. Probably OT for this thread...

OT for the thread but the above is a generalization. I think the author was referring to eastern Ladakh; force level was not the problem but desire to deal with Chinese infiltration was.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 May 2017 12:27

The entire SE acquisition is a monumental fraud bing perpetrated upon the nation and IAF.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 22 May 2017 16:40

I was trying to dig up information about the CAG report which had highlighted 53 waivers granted by the IAF for the LCA to achieve its IOC in 2013.
Out of the 53, 20 were 'permanent' waivers of the ASR specified in the '80s.

Going back to the LCA dhagaa@ may 2015 to see what was discussed about the waivers by our learned experts, I got to see some heckling by the usual suspects, CAG being called duffers and an allegation of IAF authoring the CAG report to kill the LCA.
Genuine facepalm worthy stuff.

The principal opposition to the Single engine MII fighter is - it will "kill" LCA.
Well, that's NOT happening.the order book is there, investments in production capacity have started already.

The CAG report mentioned addressing speed and fuel issues in the mk2 variant as the proposed solution to a few of the waivers.
We know now that mk2 isn't happening.

Unless we know what those 53 waivers were, we really can't criticise the airforce for going in for another MII single engine bird.
The AF does have a good measure of what the Gripen or the Solah are capable of.

Risk reduction on the LCA in the form of MII single engined bird + boosting the squadron numbers is an actual and urgent need.

We currently have zero discussion on a critical issue of having to give 20 permanent waivers to an ASR of the '80s intended to "replace" the MiG 21s.
I'm positive that the remainder of 33 will be addressed by the time Mk1A hits testing, concurrent engineering and all that.
Permanent waivers is a concerning thing and it needs to be discussed what's being done to address those shortcomings since the proposed solution to them,the mk2 isn't coming online.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 22 May 2017 17:19

Here are the links to the May 2015 CAG Report:
Press Release
http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... of2015.pdf

CAG Report:
http://www.cag.gov.in/content/report-no ... ght-combat
Direct link: http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... 7_2015.pdf

Adding the relevant paragraph for convenience.

2.3 Shortfall in accomplishment of Air Staff Requirement (ASR)

Air Staff Requirement (1985) prescribes the physical parameters of LCA such
as aircraft weight, fuel capacity, load carrying capacity of weapons, missiles,
survivability, navigation, etc and features like single point defueling, pilot
protection system, all weather operations, fuel system protection etc. to make
the aircraft capable of performing its role of multi mission fighter aircraft and
have increased survivability against battle damage. The ASR also envisages
timeline for induction of LCA, quantity of LCA fighter and trainer required.
There were no revisions to the ASR by IAF, except in respect of weapon
requirements, as discussed in Para 2.3.2.

The Project Definition Phase (PDP) document of LCA prepared by ADA
(December 1988) had been reviewed by Air HQ (March 1989) who found it
deficient in the crucial parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and
weight as set in ASR, particularly with reference to significant increase in
weight of LCA, which could adversely affect performance. To resolve the
deadlock, it had been decided (March 1990) that the development may be
executed as Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) in a phased manner.
We however observed during the course of audit that LCA which had
achieved (December 2013) IOC did not meet the ASR in terms of increased
weight, reduced internal fuel capacity, non-compliance of all-weather
operations, non-achievement of single point defueling, fuel system protection,
pilot protection, etc., for which, ADA obtained (December 2013) from Air HQ
altogether 53 temporary concessions/permanent waivers.

To an audit observation (June 2014) regarding operational impact of the
concessions/ waivers, IAF replied (December 2014/February 2015) that the
concessions/permanent waivers would adversely impact the operational
performance.

The 20 permanent waivers were granted for ASR parameters which the current
configuration of LCA Mk-I with GE-F-404-IN20 engine cannot achieve.
Also, the performance shortfalls applicable to 20 IOC aircraft under
production at HAL will also be applicable 20 FOC aircraft as these waivers
were granted for LCA Mk-I in its current configuration. The 33 temporary
time bound concessions were granted for ASR parameters which are still
under design/development and testing and would adversely affect LCA's
combat potential.

Thus, the views expressed by Air HQ as early as in March 1989 that the
aircraft planned to be developed by ADA would be deficient in crucial
parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and weight adversely
affecting its performance have not been overcome in LCA Mk-I developed by
ADA as it does not meet the requirements of IAF fully in terms of combat
potential and survivability.

It was precisely with this forethought that the Empowered Committee headed
by Chief of Air Staff had recommended in October 2007 for the building of
LCA Mk II under FSED Phase III in order to meet the ASR parameters.
Consequently, till the LCA Mk II is developed, manufactured and inducted
into squadrons, the IAF would be constrained to use the LCA Mk-I (40
aircraft) with reduced operational capabilities.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 May 2017 18:03

Can't call 40 + 83 a large enough order that will go on to sustain an indigenous fighter long term. What is the future order beyond that? Yes, sure if it was an import order for that many it will look like a lot because that is export for the OEM on top of "break-even" orders from its own host country. That is an important difference. And no India can't rely on exports to sustain its programs because it hardly is able to sell any big defense items up until now. It's not going to change anytime soon in that regards.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 23 May 2017 01:04

I'd say the order is HUGE.
The first 40 will have no way of addressing the weight gain 'permanent' waivers of the ASR over their operational lifetime.
The next 83 don't even have a PV/TD flying yet.
Nor do we know if the permanent waivers will be addressed or not on the Mk1A.
If this,40+83,isn't a large enough order,I don't know what is.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 May 2017 05:24

^^^
We have differing opinions then

The IAF is not a small air force and its requirements are large especially with depleting squadrons. The LCA is more than a good replacement for retiring 200+ MiG-21s and MiG-27s.

On the other note, there will be no PV/TD for Mk.1A. It is being designed straight for production, meaning manufacturing standards and processes are setup with final production in mind. All future R&D are being done this new way in line with latest practices by leading nations. It saves a lot of time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2017 10:47

It is amazing that when we last went to war at Kargil,it took a few months before we were able to swat the Pakis off the mountain tops,and now fondly Imagine that a future war with either or both together involving China and Pak would last a mere 10 days beggars the imagination. We need to prepare for a 3-month long war at least,one month of intensive fighting,and logistics will determine who wins in the end. Look at the ME/Afghan wars,which have been going on for years! In fact the J&K situ is an irregular war that has been going on for decades.

We will suffer large losses in the first few days mostly due to AAA fire as seen from all our prev. conflicts.Therefore numbers matter and the requirement from the IA for close support will be huge.A measly 11 Apaches being acquired is ridiculous,that too at their exorbitant price.The IAF have a dog-in-the-manger attitude and won't give up their 24 Apaches. So the IS will have to depend upon HAL delivering dozens of LCHs at record speed. That there has been no thought/urgent need for a dedicated cheap close-support aircraft ,expecting multi-role aircraft to do the biz is going to be a costly exercise,both operational and losses when the balloon goes up.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 May 2017 18:41

Karan M wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Good to know that the F-16 will be in service until 2048. By that time GoI will make a decision. To buy 36 F-16 Block 70s upgraded to MMLUs (many many midlife upgrades) ..at a unit cost in today's dollars of $650MM against a hard fought contest with SU-75s the stealth UANFVs (Unmanned Aerial Non Functional Vehicles) which are invisible to both enemy and buyer alike.

The Namo/Jet Li approach to security is no different than Mumble Mumble Singh's. They really don't get it.
right. the GOI should just become an extended US client state and buy some extra dooper special F-16s.
the Namo govt just doesn't get "it" - because clearly they need to be told about what's happening with PRC, Pak & hence all the emergency procurement to build up WWRs, improve serviceability is all for show & bluster.
or perhaps, just perhaps, the current dispensation knows exactly what the current state is of the respective services & how much improvement is possible via restocking, improving serviceability & iterative advancement, while striking the best possible deal with the Indian Govt's cash. as versus handing out gifts for unreliable vendors.

I think you may have missed the undertone of irony.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 May 2017 18:44

Khalsa wrote:
Rakesh wrote:And here we go again....

DOGFIGHT: The Gripen vs F-16 For India
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/05/ ... fight.html
Facepalm (seriously).
Not aimed at Shiv Aroor but this cycle which never seems to die.

^^^
"The Gripen E Sweden’s first squadron of single-seat E-models will be ready for combat by late 2023", the SwAF says.

Give or take another 2-3 years. Keeps this discussion going.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 May 2017 00:06

Quite a long article, am just posting snippets. Please click on the link to read the entire article.

Analysis- Saab counts down to Gripen E debut

Saab is counting down to performing the first flight of its Gripen E combat aircraft before the end of June, as it also strives to finalise a slew of potential new sales of the earlier C/D version in Europe and Africa.

Aircraft 39-8 – the first of three single-seat prototypes which will support the E/NG programme – is currently in the flight-test hangar at the Swedish manufacturer's Linköping site.

"It's preparing for first flight right now," head of flight test Hans Einerth said on 9 May. Ground vibration testing with accelerometers attached to the airframe to simulate the effects of flight had just concluded, and updated software was poised to be loaded on to the jet ahead of its milestone sortie.

Einerth says low- and high-speed taxi tests have already been performed to just over 100kt (185km/h), and that so far the team has been impressed by the new aircraft's software. "We can see it is really stable and robust," he says, noting that only one in-built test needed repeating during taxi trials. "With the [Gripen] C/D there was a lot of work there," he notes.

Saab opted last last year to push back its first flight target by six months, to enable the E model jet's flight control software to undergo assessment to civilian standards. The current indications are that this approach – which also splits flight-critical elements from other systems to enable rapid updates – will pay dividends, potentially reducing the total amount of flight testing to be required.

...

Saab has not revealed how many hours of testing its trio of prototypes will accumulate, but their work will build on its experience with flying the Gripen Demo platform since May 2008. The demonstrator has tested key new elements, including the type's Leonardo-developed Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array radar and infrared search and track sensor.

Einerth says aircraft 39-8 will be dedicated to general vehicle and structural testing, along with some limited tactical functions.

Saab officials used a pre-Paris air show media tour to outline its progress on the Gripen E, and reveal a configuration which would enable the type to carry seven MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles. Mounted on under-wing and fuselage pylons, this would give the type a formidable counter-air weapons load, which could alternatively be provided by using a mix of the European weapon and Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs and Diehl Defence's short-range IRIS-T.

The Swedish air force began introducing the Meteor system to its six operational Gripen C/D squadrons last year, as part of the current fleet's MS20-standard update, making it the first service to field the European design.

“It is a longer-range weapon [than AMRAAM], with some really good performance in it,” says Maj Johan Jeppsson, director of operations at the Swedish air force’s Gripen operational test and evaluation unit at Malmen air base. This is continuing to work with operational squadrons to define the procedures for operating with the ramjet-powered weapon.

“We have some new tactics,” he says. “And a pretty good edge in air-to-air combat.”

..

Brazilian backing

Brazil's confirmation as the first export buyer for the Gripen E was a massive coup for Saab, with the 36-aircraft F-X2 contract previously thought to have been heading the way of Dassault's Rafale, following a pre-emptive and ultimately disastrous political decision during the tenure of president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Pointing to the "very hard competition" which led to the Gripen's selection, Brig Márcio Bruno Bonotto, president of the co-ordination committee for the combat aircraft programme at Brazil's COPAC procurement agency, says: "We support the decision that the Gripen was the best choice. We have not changed a word since the evaluation."

Speaking to reporters while visiting Linköping in early May to attend a customer review, he said: "We are very happy with this [programme] until now. We are on schedule."

Brazil's operational ambitions for the Gripen E/F are clear from its service entry plan. The nation's air force should receive its first aircraft in 2021 with an initial air-to-air capability, and Bonotto says full operational clearance is planned about one year later. "Since the beginning we will have an operational aircraft – not an independence day fighter for flybys," he says.

...

Saab and Embraer have already started early-stage work on future fighter concepts, but Bonotto notes: "This is almost a dream – it would be a product for after the Gripen is retired."

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jun 2017 07:26

IAF to trial American F-16, Swedish Gripen for 120-jet Make in India project to replace MiGs

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf- ... 76479.html

yes i know...I am laughing and crying at the same time...I don't know which is more appropriate....

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Jun 2017 09:02

What Is it that will be seen that hasn't been seen already.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jun 2017 09:10

Pratyush wrote:What Is it that will be seen that hasn't been seen already.

I am guessing (and hoping) that this time they will look at the logistics and supply chain for maintenance that can be done in India by pvt player as opposed to performance. Last time the air force's ask was to look at performance onlee and all other negotiation was out of vayusena hands. UPA failed big time on that one.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 12 Jun 2017 10:14

shiv wrote:I am guessing (and hoping) that this time they will look at the logistics and supply chain for maintenance that can be done in India by pvt player as opposed to performance. Last time the air force's ask was to look at performance onlee and all other negotiation was out of vayusena hands. UPA failed big time on that one.

To add to your post, the gradual manufacturing of components from raw material and not just SKD/CKD kit assembly is also hopefully being negotiated/demanded.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Jun 2017 10:59

Rakesh wrote:IAF to trial American F-16, Swedish Gripen for 120-jet Make in India project to replace MiGs
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf- ... 76479.html

yes i know...I am laughing and crying at the same time...I don't know which is more appropriate....

Laughing definitely laughing. The absurdity far outweighs any sorrow at this point. The MoD issued the final RFP to the six OEMs in 2007 and we spent countless hours debating which aircraft was the best option.

If, at that point, someone had said that we might delay it for 10 years - then place a truncated order for the Rafale, followed by a batch of Super Hornets (because the Rafale-M lacks folding wings) and then crowned by a license-assembly deal for the F-16 (or god forbid.. the Gripen) - my response would likely have been derisory. "Order three of them?! Don't be absurd. What you think we're morons?"

And here I am 10 years later, praying that the IN orders more MiG-29s just so that the answer to that rhetorical question doesn't end up being - yes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2017 11:55

Blessed be Viv's conversion to MIG-29s!

The simplest way to increase numbers is to buy more new MIG-29s when the IAF are willing to buy-as posted recently,old legacy Malaysian 29s which can be upgraded! These aircraft will also come with a "spare engine",Can the F-16 or Gripen carry one? The MIG bureau should explain this to the MOD/DM/PM (and air chief too) why Beemers don't sell that well since they can't carry a spare.The beauty of the MIG-29 is that you don't even need to get out of the cockpit in mid-air to replace the engine,simply switch it on and watch F-16/Gripen pilots bail out when their engines conk out.

All this for a bird that comes in at half the price too.Amazing how blinkered is the vision of the IAF and MOD.
PS:I forgot another moot point.You can even do engine rotation (like tyre rotation ) inflight!

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 12 Jun 2017 18:53

Yes for that MIG-29 have to be first out of the hangar to be able to fly.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Jun 2017 20:52

Philip wrote:Blessed be Viv's conversion to MIG-29s! The simplest way to increase numbers is to buy more new MIG-29s when the IAF are willing to buy-as posted recently,old legacy Malaysian 29s which can be upgraded!

No no. Please ji don't corral poor 'ol me into the Rodina cult.

I didn't say anything about MiG-29s for the IAF. We have the Tejas and as far as I'm concerned that is the simplest way to increase numbers rather than engage the ridiculous notion of buying brand new MiGs or F-16s. (Of course, I'll admit my bias towards indigenous equipment may be clouding my judgement and hampering me from truly appreciating the wonders of Mikoyan.)

The MiG-29K is an option solely for the Navy. And even that's only because the Rafale isn't compatible with the Vikrant and the SH is too expensive to be bought and discarded in 15 years.

Besides, with a serviceability rate of 33%, we need a fleet of 100 odd MiG-29Ks to have enough working fighters to equip one carrier. And, who knows, perhaps one day we might even be able to get enough MiGs functional to equip both carriers simultaneously. Hope springs eternal, eh?

The beauty of the MIG-29 is that you don't even need to get out of the cockpit in mid-air to replace the engine,simply switch it on and watch F-16/Gripen pilots bail out when their engines conk out.

Unfortunately, we're more likely to see both engines conk out on the MiG-29 before we see the first F-16/Gripen engine failure.

The Gripen's been in service for 20 years now and has accumulated over 200,000 flight hours to date with zero losses to engine failure. Meanwhile the MiG-29K in 4 years had 10 cases of single engine recovery.

Audit observed (December 2014) that as of September 2014, a total of 65 engines (42 with 21 aircraft and 23 spare) had been accepted. However, since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (representing 62 per cent of 65 engines) had been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design related defects/deficiencies. The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Jun 2017 21:02

I have a solution... Buy the entire mig 29 line and replace engine with kaveri. So there.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Jun 2017 02:43

I am going to ignore this thread .... that I started.
Why are we so poor at cutting the Gordian Knot.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jun 2017 03:46

The beauty of the MIG-29 is that you don't even need to get out of the cockpit in mid-air to replace the engine,simply switch it on and watch F-16/Gripen pilots bail out when their engines conk out.

Errr. The 'Make in India' Two engine fighter - is another thread. The contenders for that include the Rafale and the F-18 (for the IAF).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jun 2017 11:15

Seriously speaking,laughter aside,if the IAF are a-hungering for old Malaysian MIG-29s,to upgrade them to UG std.,at very low cost,why not buy new fighters at around just $30M as Egypt is doing,both 29s and 35s? LCA cost is around $25M,for a little more you get a far better fighter half the cost of any western equiv. As I've said before,the entire "SE fighter" requirement is a massive scam ,deliberately engineered to acquire a garage sale of the F-16 line,which NO one in the world wants! Even little Belgium are to dump their 50+ F-16s and guess which aircraft are in the line up as replacements? Typhoons,Rafales and Gripens.So by their yardstick,after using F-16s for decades,they feel that there's no use in an F-16 upgrade as something better is needed and the Gripen is abetter bird!

We will become the laughing stock of the world if we ever select the F-16,especially as the Pakis know all about it,have been flying it for decades and may graduate to Chinese Flanker clones and even their stealth fighters once in production. Our main problem is LCA production and the MK-1s minus expected parameter performance,supposed to be improved with the 1-A and rectified with the MK-2,whose arrival no one knows when! Nevertheless,why can't we set up a third line in the pvt. sector? This will give us at least 18-24 LCAs /yr at inception,which is far healthier than a mere 6-8-12. WQith a few more 29s,Jags (we want old French Jags too!) and MKIs,the retirement of MIG-21/27 sqds. could find these interim replacements until LCA production expands by 2020,when with 3 lines,we could have at least 36/yr.

For top of-the-line fighters,the Super Sukhoi upgrade (why is there no news about its approval?) to BMos std.,and first arrivals of FGFAs in the RuAF,should see post 2020,deliveries of the same for both types which can then increase the number of aircraft and sqds. to the 45 number planned.In fact a 50 sqd. fleet should be the future requirement of the IAF given the increased threat scenarios ,current and future.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Jun 2017 11:57

There will be no single "newly acquired" engined fighter rolling out of an Indian factory for another 6 years from today.

Caveats: CKD or SKD kits assembled by some or the other "incompetent" PSUs are not included in the statement above. Else, F-16s could be available within 24 months of contract signing, which will be anywhere from 48-84 months from today.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jun 2017 00:41

If this plane is to be chosen solely on logistics & supply chain, the F-Solah will win hands down. But if there is going to be a technical trial, the Gripen E will be a strong contender. Sad really, because logistics & supply chain makes all the difference. Apparently we have not learnt from the first MMRCA tamasha.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2017 00:52

But if there is going to be a technical trial

Trial may not be the right word here. The Gripen-E hasn't even flown yet and has a long road ahead of it as far as testing, certification and IOC --> FOC is concerned.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jun 2017 00:56

Saar, if the India Today article is true...they are going to be trialing something of the Gripen. No trials will be anathema to the rules of babudom. What a joke this is.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jun 2017 03:26

Rakesh wrote:Saar, if the India Today article is true...they are going to be trialing something of the Gripen. No trials will be anathema to the rules of babudom. What a joke this is.

brar_w is right, there hasn't yet even been a first flight of the Gripen E and we have some IAF "sources" talking about flight trials?

While the behaviour of the Gripen E aerodynamically speaking, may not be too far off from its ASRs, the IAF will not be able to test it out since it will be too early in the flight testing cycle. Evaluating the avionics systems and the new architecture, to see if everything works as advertised will also not be an easy task since it is an in-development airplane.

All they'll get is some ground trials of test-beds to see the capability of the Raven ES-05 AESA radar and the Skyward IRST. The Raven was supposed to be delivered to Saab for integration on the NG prototype, way back in 2012. But, FOC on the Gripen E isn't due till 2023. So, expect some of the modes to be tested and operating when IAF wants to evaluate the type.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2017 03:36

Radar modes and EW suite features are the ones that will be iteratively delivered, debugged and finally approved on the road to IOC and FOC. IRST will likely be more mature but then practically the same sensor is on offer on the F-16 as well.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Jun 2017 04:04

Khalsa wrote:I am going to ignore this thread .... that I started.
Why are we so poor at cutting the Gordian Knot.

Because it is in our (Indic) nature to focus on the hole and not the doughnut. The Gordian Knot is more important whole than cut and solved. The joy of wringing every minutiae threadbare because it is 'inclusive. We love argument at the expense of immediate solution. It is the Ramachandra Guha 'Idea of India'.

Indians all want to be Chiefs

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Jun 2017 10:32

Looks like another "fabulous ToT" in the making with this new MII ... wondering when will India learn

anupamd wrote:How Russia continues to hold Iron Grip on after sales Support of Su-30MKI in India
Earlier this year in March, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and the Russian manufacturers of Sukhoi-30 aircraft United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and United Engine Corporation (UEC) had an agreement for the long-term supply of spares and rendering technical assistance for five years. While Media reported that new agreement will come as a boost to improve serviceability of the aircraft, but a detailed later media reports cleared that they were no additional technology transfer nor Russia had allowed India to replace mandated Russian components with local ones.

Even with new agreements, Russia continues to hold Iron Grip on after sales Support of Su-30MKI in India due to a flawed contract signed between India and Russia in 2000, which now has become Cash Cow for Russian original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) which had mandated that nearly 51 % of the equipment by value which goes into Indian built Su-30MKI have to be supplied by Russia only .

2000 Contract allows India to procure 73 percent of the components within India which are built locally by various Public and Private sector companies but India still needs to procure 23 % of the components from Russia which now make little more than the 49 percent in Value for Indian built Su-30MKI.

Mandated 23 % of the components which needs to be sourced from Russia can be sourced locally but a lack of foreseeing in original contract means, Russia is not willing to let go lucrative after-sales support to Indian built Su-30MKI and allow India to further indigenize the jet.

AL-31FP engines which power Indian Sukhoi Su-30MKI are biggest money makers for Russian Companies since only 53 % of the cost value of the engine is sourced from India while Russia still Supplies remaining 47 % of the cost of the engine.

Russian companies also make a killing in mandatory sourcing of Raw materials like titanium blocks and forgings, aluminium and steel plates, etc which tend to go up year-on-year due to Inflation and also due to high demand in the market.

Over the years, India was able to get a minor or negligible concession from Russian OEMs on low-value spares which Russia was finding hard to meet Indian demands. One of the recognisable exemptions allowed was when Russia allowed India to source Tyres for Indian Sukhoi Su-30MKI from local Indian Tyre Company MRF which were also 35 % Cheaper then Russian-supplied ones which also had higher burnout rate.

2000 Orginal Contract easily blocks any further indigenisation attempts by India legally, while HAL and other companies have identified several areas including 36 high burning components which can be built locally in India but Russia is not willing to make any further concessions against original contract and India will have to rely on Russian OEMs for Long-term Spare support for its entire 270 + Sukhoi Su-30MKI fleet till the time they are retired and any attempts to reverse engineer or source spares locally will mean withdrawal of Complete support to Sukhoi Su-30MKI fleet by OEMs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jun 2017 11:22

How did China do it? Reverse engineer the Flanker? They're even going to get the SU-35 despite all their chicanery! The sad fact is that our babus in charge of contract agreements,one must sadly conclude,are either extremely incompetent,or deliberately mischievous,where vested interests make a packet.

Just for comparison,what is the agreement between India and the US/GE on the GE engines (404/414) for the LCA? What is going top be our liability for the Rafale too? Dassault will make a massive killing given the high cost of the bird.In fact,the M-2Ks upgrades for just 40+ aircraft cost us $2.5B,while MIG-29 upgrades for 60+ cost us only $1B! When dealing with all firang OEMs, there must be some std. policy by the GOI/MOD,and real hard bargaining to gtet a better deal for the country,not agents.

In the final analysis,unless we do it ourselves,we will have to pay a heavy price. Doing it ourselves though doesn't come cheap or quick.The ISRO has taken decades to get where it is now,in a very enviable position by global standards. A similar long-term policy must be made reg. defence milware.
As said ad nauseum, a dedicated centre for comprehensive engine dev. for all fixed and rotary birds must be set up. Pvt. industry must also be allowed to design and develop whatever it wants,with the DRDO assisting it by handing over tech that it has developed,not ending up trying to manufacture the same.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Jun 2017 11:27

^^^
The Chinese are illegally copying products and stealing trade secrets. They spend heavily on industrial espionage. They even brought in former Soviet scientists and engineers when the Union collapsed. At the same time, they are also pouring massive amount of money on R&D and facilities.

India is doing neither.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 14 Jun 2017 11:42

As I have said before the Chinese do make a lot of unreported payments to Russians and Europeans which go in the name of reverse engineering. Its an easy way of explaining things to their people and keeps thier H&D up. If they can reverse Engineer everything Russian Industry should have completly shut shop by now. I m sure Russian factories are still manufacturing Engines to radars on J-11's and seekers on Sd -10 missiles and even S-300, Smerch etc. If the Chinese built them completely they will be different designs.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 14 Jun 2017 12:29

When an inexplicable drama such as (mmmrca, hot/cold/desert tibet) is played out and we laught at IAF and Babus.. A question needs to be asked. Who are we and who are they?

IAF and defense ministry babus are us! They are india. And "we" should not be surprised. We see such drama daily in real life, tv, sports, infra... Many illogical, inexplicable, idiotic things happening and "we" are all responsible. We dont deserve any better and blaming IAF will not solve the problem. The elite think they living in elysium and look down on unwashed IAF and DRDO. The whole country is going to the dogs, and we feel good that in comparison with pakistan we are wayyyyy ahead.

LCA is a fine plane, but we dont deserve it. Quality of HAL (and its toxic surroundings corrupt politicians ) compared to Boeing (Everrett - with blue skies and apple orchards) ...who deserves to sell more?

Point is.. Look at the big picture, fix the basics, then compete with Boeing

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Jun 2017 15:13

You can reverse engineer a toy or even a copier. But a fighter like the Flanker with thousands of moving parts each with their own specifications and tolerances to the Nth degree? Not likely, in fact probably impossible, without direct help from the OEM. Even if you did "cloned" every piece you would probably need to expend more resources than simply designing something of your own.

And since I began chini military watching in earnest a few months back, the realization hit me that "cloning" is a bullshit cover story that comes from equal parts dhoti shivering ("Holy shit, they copied the F-35") and unwarranted distain ("eh they just copy.")

What the chinis have done in reality is leverage their market to sign real honest-to-goodness ToTs where they end up with total control of the design whose technology was actually TRANSFERRED. Where they end up building as as large a number and in as many versions as they want. That design becomes theirs to play and experiment with.

The Su-27 variants -- J-11, J-11A, J-11B, J-11BS, J-11BH, J-15, J-15A, J-16, J-16s -- are just one example. The Dauphin and Super Frelons are other examples with dozen of variants. It is bullshit that they are able to just clone these complex systems -- they bought explicit tech transfers from KNAAPO and EuroCopter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jun 2017 17:44

Our DPSUs have been for decades blessed with large captive orders with abso zilch competition.They were able to churn out licence built "silver" level milware,the 'gold" being sophisticated western ware.Soviet ware was less sophisticated,cheaper,practical,meant for battle,rough use,etc.which also suited our maintenance regime.As more frontline milware became available from the west and the money available to buy them,it became more difficult for the DPSUs to match the same stds. of firang OEMs.So contracts became more TOT intensive,but "the manner in which they were drafted,saw to it that we got shafted!" (pardon the poet).The need of the services today is FGFAs,AMCAs-why,we're even wanting improvements to Sukhoi's T-50! The hard truth is that our def. industrial base is very low in the pvt. sector,the DPSUs having cornered all the gravy all these decades. So the climb is going to be uphill,steep and expensive. Unless we have partners to help us as we've seen with BMos,etc.,going it alone is going to be lonely and we may get overtaken ,or the gapo between the leaders of the pack widen even further.

True about China.They gave v.large orders,set up an entire A-320 plant,got almost everything they needed.They spent big when required.We however,have this miserly attitude,typical Indian "dog-in-the-manger" trait.Even when attractive firang offers where on,like the second lot of Talwars for the same price as the first 3,we simply allowed the cut-off date to slip by despite reminders,and when we eventually decided,had to pay much more for batch 2. Wait and see what the next batch of Rafales is going to cost us or even the SEs who are to fight it out! When the menu arrives with the cost of the dish,it will be back to second-hand Malaysian MIG-29s,French Jags,scrounging from the dustbins of the world's air forces and whatever LCAs arrive.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 15 Jun 2017 18:20

X Posting: Video of SAAB's Gripen-E first flight which happened earlier today.

https://twitter.com/Saab/status/875305884548825088

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 15 Jun 2017 21:13

After 78 pages of this thread, after debating all the single/twin engines on table, there is no convincing argument to not invest the same amount of money in Tejas. It might a different game for Navy RFP, but for AF, an extra Tejas line will give comparable number or quality of fighters before contract will be drafted for any fighter. Wish there wwas someone like Sreedharan at top of HAL who would have put his foot down to do what is right

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jun 2017 06:23

^^^

It may happen after all.

Austin wrote:4 contracts jettisoned

Last month, a Rs 10,900 crore contract for surface-to-air missiles for the army was scrapped in favour of an indigenous missile system

Defence minister Arun Jaitley has pulled the plug on four long-delayed defence purchases worth over Rs 20,000 crore. Last month, a Rs 10,900 crore contract for surface-to-air missiles for the army was scrapped in favour of an indigenous missile system. Now Jaitley has recommended the cancellation of contracts for armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs), naval multi-role helicopters (MRHs) and torpedoes, worth about Rs 10,000 crore, which were comatose with the MoD for years.

In 2011, the MoD had placed a Rs 1,770 crore contract with Bharat Earth Movers for 204 ARVs, used to tow tanks, made by Poland's Bumar. Delays resulted in a 20 per cent increase in cost thanks to the appreciation of the dollar. Another contract, worth Rs 1,800 crore, for the purchase of 98 Blackshark torpedoes manufactured by a subsidiary of Finmeccanica (now Leonardo) came under a cloud after the firm was accused of paying bribes. The fourth, for the purchase of 18 naval MRHs, hit an impasse in 2014, when commercial bids by Sikorsky for S-70B choppers were found to be way above the Rs 6,000 crore the MoD had set aside.

Jaitley's decision could be a mixed blessing for the armed forces. Once these contracts are scrapped, it is likely they will be refloated as Make in India projects and government-to-government deals. MoD watchers tie the cancellations to the government's policy on strategic partners, helicopter manufacture is one of four areas where the government sees private sector firms tying up with foreign partners, and US firms are strong contenders in this regard. Though the hardware is still years away from induction and will likely see significant cost escalations, the armed forces can take heart from the fact that the wheels of decision-making have started moving again.