Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2019 02:13

wig wrote:https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/balakot-showed-iaf-s-ability-of-precision-bombing-air-chief/803020.html
Balakot showed IAF’s ability of precision bombing: Air Chief
from the above

The Balakot strike demonstrated the IAF’s ability of precision bombing, Air Force chief B S Dhanoa said on Tuesday, asserting that it is capable of taking part in full spectrum of conflict, ranging from “sub-conventional to nuclear”.
He said in case “we have correct coordinates, the Air Force is capable of doing all-weather bombing through clouds”.
Early this year, after the Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel, the Air Force launched air strikes at a terror camp in Balakot, inside Pakistani territory.
Speaking at a seminar on ‘20 years of Op Safed Sagar’, Dhanoa said precision bombing capability was very much needed during the Kargil operations where targets were very small and at high altitudes.
In 1999 (precision bombing capabilities) was operationalised only on the Mirage-2000 aircraft. Now all aircraft, Mirage, Su-30, Jaguar, MiG-29 and MiG-27 upgraded aircraft have the capability for precision bombing. Not only that, in case we have correct coordinates we can do all-weather bombing through clouds very accurately,” Dhanoa said.



Was AVM Dev Ganesh in the audience of that talk on 20 years after Operation Safed Sagar?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 17 Jul 2019 02:22

Vidur, Welcome back. Missed your insights.

Maybe the solution is to have HAL quote for the 106 and allocate funds for 36, 36 and remainder in annual budgets.
With inflation price escalator when actual allocations take place.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3597
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Jul 2019 06:58

Karan M wrote:
I understand that a lot of people feel that the mic in the US plays a huge role. Politically, yes. Economically, no. Lets not mix the two. In the US, Defence Tech plays a very minor role in economic innovation and even less when it comes to most economic metrics. the entire manufacturing sector contributes about 10% to the job sector, and defence manufacturing had a share of only 10% of this. All in all 1-2% of the entire economy is driven by defence manufacturing. How is this the driving force of an economy as some stalwarts are insisting?


Much of the US's famed innovation in key technologies is driven by its profligate spending into the US MIC? Its *not merely volume* but the kind of work that's being done! Even the Internet grew out of the DARPA for a jaded older example. Today, much of the stuff on quantum comms, new classes of encryption, AI is directly being funded by US MIC via the USG. Quite well known by now, that Google had ties to USG black funding as well to allow it to scale as it did.
And second, the US MIC allows the US to keep core technologies within its ambit without worrying about how x car went to China! By keeping F-35 production within the US, they get to master and retain technologies relevant to everything from metallurgy to embedded software to AI to optics to nanotech! There is not a single similar field which allows them to get so much "bang" for the buck! For instance mil semicon market is barely a few % points of the WW market, point missed though is that push comes to shove, gold plated weapons could field the capability, a consumer device driven by cost cannot. So, the MIC can still fund technological development to proceed apace, while currently taking advantage of the cost/yield being driven down by the civilian market. At best rate of development would slow down, but it would still go ahead.

heavy engineering has its own applications, and defence is just one of them.

All in all, if a country has to depend on it's defence sector and mic to drive it's economy, it is screwed. There is simply not enough demand to generate the revenues and jobs required. Only a highly imperial nation as the Japanese once were, might sustain it, if that. If war is the only occupation we want, then yeah, lets think of the defence industry as a major driver of the economy.

Having said this, The goi has to invest heavily in core tech and strategic resources that nobody will share. And I think it has done this to some extent. Hence the success with the missile, space, nuke sectors. More will come....


You have completely mixed up cause and effect! You can have a huge economy churning out all sorts of goods and industrial items, question is where are you in the value chain exactly? Nobody here is saying the MIC *alone* should run an economy (though it can, during wartime) but the fact is that the MIC is *essential* to developing capabilities and technologies you would otherwise *not have*.
Actually, Vivek cleary pointed out that an MIC is core to running an industrial base and the economy, and it supposedly makes a big difference to the economy", which I disagree with based on figures of the largest arms industry in the world - just about 2% contribution to jobs and GDP, directly and indirectly. Btw, Explain what value chain you speak of? What is the unit of analysis here? A country, right? And where exactly would you place a country like the US in the value chain vis a vis, say a Germany or Switzerland in said VC?
Never said an MIC is not essential to develop capabilities and tech - that is exactly what I said i the last para - I've highlighted it. But this has very little to do with making an industrial base or a powerful economy. The US became an MIC based economy largely after WWII but its industrial base was already quite developed by then.

Case in point Japan, despite its huge investments in semiconductors, computers, RF engineering, it struggled to field an AESA on its F-2 fighter which did not match what the US had. Despite that, or because they learned the lesson, they persevered.
Bottomline, the US can replicate a lot of what Japan has by virtue of the capabilities it had developed in its MIC, not vice versa!
If there was a need to, you think the Japanese couldn't replicate the tech needed? Struggle or not, the fact that they could have the first operation aesa not just on fighters but other military applications says a lot about their capability
An export driven MIC can actually do far more, as the US's is currently. There is a good reason why from the technology viewpoint they are still sitting pretty. From their own standards (Cold War), they have fallen mightily. But to the rest of the world, they are still on a totem pole.
hardly an export driven MIC - where do these companies get most of their orders from? what percentage of total exports is defence equipment? And what totem pole? Increasingly, US standards and rankings on important indices are dropping. Take for example infrastructure. and innovation. This is what happens when an MIC is given way more importance than it should get, esp. considering its small contribution to the economy.

$600-700Bn into defence every year, more than the rest of the world combined, many times over!
Like I said earlier, the actual figure is a lot more - so far, $ 12 trillion are unaccounted for in the dod. This is another issue with overemphasizing the MIC - it takes over. Not just that but it is horrendously inefficient - massive inputs to bring about extremely specific results that may or may not later be used by more productive sectors - utterly wasteful.
Point is lip service apart, everyone knows a domestic MIC is at the acme of industrial skill. Investments there payoff elsewhere and the skills there can't be replicated either.
Everyone ASSUMES this, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. What amount of investment into an MIC results in what sort of return economically - dollar in dollar out? Nobody truly knows but all indications are not very promising. $$ are poured into products that have extremely specific uses and there is little guarantee that this will lead to proportionate innovation or whether it is the best way to make innovation happen. More importantly there is absolutely no reason why similar or better tech innovations won't come from other sectors if given half the impetus. The only reason we see it through the lens of an MIC is because that's the way the US has done it. Frankly it is absolutely inefficient because the purpose of such innovation is to hardly empower markets or the economy although it desperately tries to pretend that this is the case. Talking of well worn examples - some of the most crucial innovations never came through the MIC, not electricity for starters. Bottom line remains that an advanced economy is driven by non manufacturing sectors and defense manufacturing even less so. It is normally driven by entrepreneurs and most of these have little to do with the defense sector.

A fighter spans everything from aerospace grade metals, high technology simulations, powerplants, hydraulics, power generation, RF, semiconductors, photonics and so forth. Exactly why US is still able to punch above its weight in technology despite outsourcing so much of its blue collar manufacturing to China. They continue to innovate in production via MIC investments.
Yes and inceasingly that punch becomes less powerful. I understand the ecosystem created by fighters and I daresay, a commercial aerospace industry would have done so just as well. As far as the US is concerned, the only reason they seem to punch so high is because they have been punching light weights so far, that too after monopolizing and inheriting a post colonial world via sheer force. Such a strategy will last only for a little while longer and we can see already how threatened it is by a vague alliance of Cheen and Russia. Actually they punch a lot lower than they could have if they had not sacrificed so much at the altar of an MIC that ultimately needs war to sustain itself. And that is never efficient.


In any case, if you want an economic powerhouse, a far better way to approach this would be to emphasize areas that actually lead to economic upticks - infrastructure,, innovation, education.

But (again) this does not mean that there should be no emphasis on high tech defense RnD - but this does not have to always tied to the security apparatus buying everything. Some things, sure. Bottomline - the business of the security forces is security, everything else is secondary, esp. in a developing country like India, at least not yet. Suggesting that quick imports in various areas such as the S400, Mig 29, MKI, Rafale etc., should be banned is absolute rubbish.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 17 Jul 2019 08:44, edited 4 times in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3597
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Jul 2019 07:03

Karan M wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I think this an accepted argument on BR, and I'm all for indigenization, but for the sake of playing DA, how come the evil jooz manage to skewer their much larger enemy every single time eh?


Are you serious here? Israel gets billions in FMS.


Not really, just being a bit facetious...larger point was that if the armed forces see the need for an S400 or Rafale/Mig29 sqds in the near term, these should not be put off in the name of boosting the economy via buying local products. Unfortunately, currently there is room for both..

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9478
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Jul 2019 10:43

Main issue to the political leadership. Unfortunately we hardly have any one senior in our political leadership who understand defense production, technology, and other security related issues and can find a path forward. Further the commitment for MII is to be more than we have at present.

uskumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 23:41

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby uskumar » 17 Jul 2019 13:08

Russia Offers India its Su-57 Stealth Fighter (Again)

Russia’s military aircraft industry has once more offered the Indian Air Force (IAF) to co-develop a variant of the Sukhoi Su-57 fighter aircraft, Russia’s first purported indigenously designed and built fifth-generation stealth fighter jet

mody
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby mody » 17 Jul 2019 13:42

Rakesh wrote:I echo Karan. Great post. You have clarified much of the ambiguity. Just a few questions.

mody wrote:The HTT-40 carries some baggage. The IAF was never really happy with its predecessor, the HPT-32 and didn't want HAL to take up the design and development of HTT-40, when HAL actually took it up. IAF reluctance on this part is well documented. HAL went ahead anyways, funding the development from its own resources.

The unnamed sources claiming HTT-40 in current form is not acceptable, don't really know what they are talking about, or just deliberately putting negative perception out there with regards to HTT-40.

Once the current stall and spin tests are over, the HTT-40 will be ready for IOC. It is as per IAF specs and matches or exceeds the PC-7 in almost all parameters.

I agree that HPT-32 was a substandard aircraft. However does that justify starting a tender for a new BTA when the HTT-40 will soon achieve IOC? If the HTT-40 exceeds or matches the PC-7, what is the point in a global RFI?

That's the whole point Admiral saheb!! When we have a domestic program and I is progressing well, why look for a global competitor for a locally developed product. This kind of thing happens only in India. Remember the comparative trails between Arjun and T-90! The results were brushed aside, when Arjun performed better.

mody wrote:The bigger problem is what happens, once the plane is ready production. The way the Indian defence purchase is structured, I suspect the RFP will be issued for only 38 aircrafts, which is the immediate requirement and not for 106 planes, which is the total requirement. If it really plays out this way, the price for HTT-40, will seem much higher the PC-7 and then all the usual suspects will write pages upon pages about how HAL is inefficient and how in reality the plane has an X% of foreign components and hence is not really indigenous etc. etc.

If the HTT-40 exceeds or matches the PC-7, why is the RFP being issued only for 38 aircraft and not 106 aircraft?

Does it make sense for the IAF to operate three different types of BTAs? PC-7, HTT-40 and un-named BTA?

The MoD will not place a large order, so the cost will obviously go up. But the MoD will gleefully waste money on a third BTA type! How is this logical? Our enemy is not Pakistan or China. We are our own enemy.

An Old Proverb ---> If there is no enemy within, the enemy outside can do us no harm.

The IAF may not end up operating 3 different BTAs. If a second foreign one is bought, it is curtains for HTT-40. However, I don't think that will happen.

mody wrote:In India, we do not have any long term defence planning based on the capabilities that we really want to have. Long term procurement in multiple tranches, is very difficult in our setup. The problem is the way MoD and MoF are setup and the way the budget is set. In many years, the unspent capital budgets of the services are taken back to bridge the government deficits. Hence, instead of supporting domestic development and production, wherein the services would be funding the development for multiple years, before the actual production starts, the services are happier just getting a one time purchase of ready to use imported equipment. Government to government deals are even better. The services know that the government will have to pony up and make the payment for the imported equipment, as per the agreed upon payment schedule. For domestically manufactured stuff, the payment at times are deferred for want of cash and even the orders may be deliberately delayed for budgetary considerations.

None of this is directed at you Sir...I am questioning the infallible logic of the MoD! I am not shooting the messenger!!!

Q1. How much money has the IAF invested in the development of the HTT-40? I honestly want to know.

IAF has not invested any money in development of HTT-40. The entire development has been funded by HAL, from internal resources. The entire story is that IAF had given their requirements. As usual the requirements were fairly stringent, matching with the best available aircrafts of the type in the world. Initially HAL hesitated, and the proposal was given quite late. IAF in the meanwhile issued a global RFP and selected PC-7. PC-7 did not meet all the requirements that IAF had given to HAL. Some requirements that I can remember from the top of my head are zero-zero ejection seat and option for weaponization etc. HAL cried foul that the requirements had been diluted for a foreign product. The PC-9 from Pilatus, would have matched the requirements better, but was more expensive. HAL thereafter decided to embark on full fledged development, while trying to meet the original IAF requirement as best as it could. At this point, IAF objected and asked HAL not to pursue the project and use its resources on other projects, as for the BTA, IAF had already selected a foreign vendor. HAL still went ahead with the development and decided to fund the development from its own resources. IAF in all its wisdom, wrote to the MoD, asking to instruct HAL, to cancel the project. This did not happen and infact HAL put together, comparatively a very young team to work on the project. The team delivered and HTT-40 was developed in a relatively very quick time.

Q2. How is the unspent capital budget of the IAF sent back to the Ministry of Finance (at the end of the financial year i.e. March 31st) for the MMRCA purchase and then at the commencement of the new year (i.e April 01st), that money is budgeted back to the IAF? How is that justified?

That's the way the annual budgets in India work. Meeting government fiscal deficit targets or other numbers is more important fro the political class. Maybe someone like Vidur can say more about this.

Q3. Why is that payment schedules are followed to the letter for imported equipment, but the same is not true for domestic equipment? How does the MoD justify the excuse of want of cash or budgetary considerations for domestic equipment?

For imported equipment, mostly foreign governments are also involved. Even if the deal is with a private company, the foreign government also has to approve the deal and the paperwork is done to ensure that the payment schedule has to be met. In fact in a lot of import deals, the paperwork has been shoddy from our end, leading to us not getting full bang for our buck. In case of domestic purchases, mostly it has been with PSU's. Here the government can delay the payments if it wants to or roll it over the next financial year etc. For private companies to work like this, would be very difficult.

mody wrote:Can anyone imagine a private sector company functioning the way HAL does? Recently there were news, of HAL being owed hundred of crores of rupees by IAF, which had not been cleared by the ministry so far and government actually had to help out HAL with a one time payment, to just cover the salary payments. Which private sector company would function in this fashion.

Besides this, the MoD and MoF babus are more interested in just having the paperwork in order. Orders are placed in small numbers, because that's what the budget allows for. For example, only 2 squadrons of Akash MK1, were ordered initially. This was followed by an order for 6 additional squadrons. Now for additional requirement of 7 squadrons, the MoD is negotiating with the PSU's on price for the last 3 years. Argument is that the additional requirement is to cover for our requirement of SRSAM, for which the Akash was chosen over imported systems. Now MoD is comparing the price of Akash with imported SRSAM systems and asking for price reduction. For the earlier purchases, the requirement was against area or MRSAM type of system, to replace the Pechora SAM's and hence the price was deemed to be OK.


Q1. Is HAL incapable of having their paperwork in order? Please tell me they are able to do this simple task!

Q2. How is the budget justified for 110 MMRCA aircraft (a large order), 57 carrier-borne fighters (another large order) but yet the budget goes haywire when 106 HTT-40s are to be ordered? The process for acquisition is the same no? I am not referring to the technical specs of MMRCA vs BTA. I am referring to the paperwork and procedures that exist for both purchases.

Rakesh sir, do you really think the MMRCA purchase is going to go through? Why do you think the contract for the Rafael was never signed after the first MMRCA contest. The final contract amount of $20Billion was just too big, for any government to sign off on. That's why the UPA did nothing. For BTA, the total requirement is for additional 106 planes, as per IAF. However, the immediate requirement is for 38 planes. The real problem is how the MoD and MoF allocate the resources for defence purchases. They can very well give the total requirement as 106, sign the contract, with the delivery schedule required. This would help reduce the price and allow HAL and all its subcontractors to plan accordingly and execute the contract. However, the past records indicate, that this may not happen. The first RFP might be for 38 planes, with the balance 68 sought after a few years, once the first lot has entered service. Then the MoD will negotiate again with HAL, as HAL would increase the price somewhat, citing inflation. Plus the services may ask for some upgrades or improvements, which would again increase the prices. if the entire contract is given to together, HAL can even think of indigenising some of the imported component. For small piece meal orders, it is very difficult.

Q3. I am honestly surprised that the Babus can actually whine and complain when it comes to local products (i.e. Akash SAM) versus phoren products (MRSAM type SAM) and question the manufacturer (in this case, BDL for the Akash SAM) on price. I have been advised that the entrance exam for the Indian Administrative Service is arguably the hardest exam in the world. The competition to become an IAS officer is cut-throat. The folks who get in represent the cream of the crop of young Indian minds.

However I am now deeply alarmed by reading the above. Simple economics teaches us that investing in the local economy helps not just the manufacturer (in this case, BDL for the Akash SAM), but all the subsidiary companies that support BDL in delivering the product to the end user (i.e. the Armed Forces). Simple economics teaches us that investing within the country saves valuable FOREX. Simple economics teaches us that investing within India keeps the money in India.

What in heaven's name is going on in the MoD?


Sirjee we are a nation of clerks. Whether engineers or IAS officers, most people only want to ensure that the documentation is perfect. Even in regular engineering colleges, teachers are more concerned about how well the journal has been written and now neat the handwriting is, rather then whether the student knows how to do the experiment. In most projetcs there will be consultants who specify the approved brands for each different part, from bearings to electric motors to everythin else. This is also for proprietory products. How should this matter? When the manufacturer stands guarantee for his entire product, what is the sense in specifying the approved brands? For example, for electric motors Siemens may be an approved brand. However, for LT motors, Siemends does not produce a single motor. It is all made by someone like Hindustan motors, on contract. Most consultants will know this fact or will accept the fact when informed, but will not approve electric motors with Hindustan badge, because they will have to do the paperwork to approve the deviation and also justify the same. The same motor, with a Siemens badge and higher price tag will do!!

Incase of Akash, unfortunately the additional requirement for 7 squadrons is under the head of SRSAM. If you recall, a few years a back there was global tender sent out for SRSAM. However, once Akash had been inducted, it was found that it could do this role very well. It could hit small targets at very low heights consistantly. Hence, the requirement was dropped in favour of Akash and many on BRF rejoiced. Now for MoD the problem is that BDL has increased the price, citing inflation, which is justified, and now, this contract had to be approved in liu of SRSAM, for which the price from some of the international suppliers might have been lower. However, those systems were perhaps pure point defense systems, with much less capable radar etc. But no one is willing to take a call on this and approve the order. The result is that apart from Pune and Gwalior, we do not have Akaksh SAMS, guarding the skyes on the western border and still make do with the old Pechora SAMS. The production line at BDL remains idle.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5091
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby SBajwa » 17 Jul 2019 19:55

Today is the 76th Birthday of the Param Veer Chakra Fl officer Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon.

Image

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2728
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 17 Jul 2019 20:35

Kakarat wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Karan if you look at KF110 adjacent its definitely a Magic 2
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 7.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 3.jpg.html

Similarly R-73E has big rear fins while the Magic 2 has shorter rear fins
R-73E - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AA-1 ... issile.PNG
Magic 2 0 https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Gall ... b.jpg.html

Similarly MICA has long vertical strakes just after the radome https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mica/ that Super 530D doesnt http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... d.jpg.html

Thanks to Kartik and Rakesh for point out the lettering and radome colour. Possibly they are upgraded aircraft outfitted with the older missiles. I based my comments based on the missile loadout.


https://scontent-bom1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5DB33271

the Missile in this picture is definitely a R-73, please look at the difference with the missile on the aircraft in the background
and the launcher carrying the missile also a Vympel launcher and is lot different from the Magic 2 launcher from your above link


Kakarat - Magic 2 came in both fins and non-finned versions, and I've posted links for both. However you're right, its an R-73E on a Vympel launcher that is also used for Astra Mk1.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/wp-content ... 8944_n.jpg

https://cdn.dnaindia.com/sites/default/ ... le.jpg.jpg

Where I'm surprised is that the older missiles are still deployed on upgraded fighters, so there must be ample service life left in them.

This also proves that along with the 1996-1999 Su-30MKI bulk orders, the IAF standardized R-73E across its fleet. Adding R-73E to Tejas was not an arbitrary decision that delayed it but part of a long term plan at that point of time. The R-73E was deployed across the entire fighter fleet - Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000, MiG-29 & MiG-21 Bison. Only the strike aircraft MiG-23BN, MiG-27 and Jaguar were not fitted, though the Jaguar had Magic 2.

Personal Wish - given the Vympel launchers and algorithms & interfaces of RDY-2 purchased as part of Mirage-2000 upgrade, I hope to Astra on Mirage-2000 quickly. While Astra might not have the range of iDerby-ER or Meteor or the maneuverability of MICA, it still provides an affordable BVR capability across the fighter fleet

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2728
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 17 Jul 2019 21:36

Great posts by Mody & Vidur. I would request Rakesh to archive these posts and print it on the first page of relevant threads.

mody wrote:Incase of Akash, unfortunately the additional requirement for 7 squadrons is under the head of SRSAM. If you recall, a few years a back there was global tender sent out for SRSAM. However, once Akash had been inducted, it was found that it could do this role very well. It could hit small targets at very low heights consistantly. Hence, the requirement was dropped in favour of Akash and many on BRF rejoiced. Now for MoD the problem is that BDL has increased the price, citing inflation, which is justified, and now, this contract had to be approved in liu of SRSAM, for which the price from some of the international suppliers might have been lower. However, those systems were perhaps pure point defense systems, with much less capable radar etc. But no one is willing to take a call on this and approve the order. The result is that apart from Pune and Gwalior, we do not have Akaksh SAMS, guarding the skyes on the western border and still make do with the old Pechora SAMS. The production line at BDL remains idle.


There are behavioral issues as well.

Bharat Rakshak members are able to scour print, video and internet material and form a balanced and correct opinion. I personally found fascinating a link posted by Karan M of Dutch experience in Afghanistan of Spike missile seeker facing the same issues like Nag missile seeker differentiating targets when ambient temperature was high. I share that link to everyone I know who thinks Nag technology is inferior. Actually Nag is ahead of the curve than Spike because the issue was identified earlier and corrective action initiated much before Spike faced the same issue.

Typically services personnel spend field postings at remote locations where internet bandwidth is not good, so most of their knowledge of technological developments come from glossy international magazines like Janes, Flight Global and Aviation Week & Space Weekly. Some Indian magazines like Vayu also make it to the mess & library but they're filled with visually appealing advertisements and curated interviews of global arms industry personnel.

When they get a staff role and posted to HQ, more often than not, their bandwidth gets pre-occupied with family matters that they couldn't attend to during their field posting. 99% of the cases staff posting is requested due to family related exigencies, that include child birth, education, higher education, medical issues of family members, especially aged parents, marriage of children.

Procurement activities are part of staff roles. This includes preparation of QRs. Here too, more often than not, holistic research is not undertaken and sales presentation and literature is used as the basis of forming QRs.

Now comes the clincher. Even in the civil commercial space across any sector, the vendor/OEM/Service Provider who presents well often wins our attention because we think the articulate presentable person would be able to deliver. Someone may have a technically superior offering, but if he is unable to present or articulate it well, the message doesnt go through or the ability to deliver is unclear.

Most companies - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple hire the best & smartest grads in B Schools and put them in a Sales/Business Development/Marketing role. Their sales personnel articulate crisply while their marketing creates immersive and pervasive content across print and digital media.

In the Indian DPSU context, Sales and Marketing are seen as overheads. So these functions have people who have not shined in R&D or Production and parked in Sales and Marketing. They also have retired service officers but they're often looked down upon by their service batchmates/coursemates who got promoted compared to the DPSU employed retired officer who didnt get promoted in service & had to leave.

The MNC's also have expense budget and often hold their presentations in a 5 Star hotel with lighting and special effects while a DPSU struggles to make a power point slide aesthetic and relevant.

Digressing a bit, my dear wife and our cook expect me to eat whatever they cook depending on their mood. My daughter has watched Masterchef and understands the concept of plating and making food visually appealing. Wife too understands it but would do so only if we have guests at home or some special occasion.

In context of defence sales, PSUs expect Services to take whatever they dish out. Prototypes that may be fundamentally good often lack fit & finish. Ergonomics is often totally lacking. Personnel accompanying if pointed a flaw would yawn and say,"so what if the salt is in excess, eat the bloody food or go hungry coz I wont make anything else."

On the other hand MNCs send prototypes that are sleek and appealing like a Ferrari with personnel accompanying it treating Service Evaluators like waiters from the Taj would serve customers.

HAL/DRDO's material at Farmborough and Paris Air Shows are atrocious. Its like serving Tinda Masala where everyone else is serving 5 star meals.

And HAL's participation at Farmborough and Paris Air Shows are more for covering our Babu's foreign trips than a serious marketing effort.

So, given the difference in customer experience, even small flaws in indigenous products are magnified while major issues with MNC products are white-washed with sugary assurances of being rectified in due course of time.

Products like C-130, C-17, P-8I, Rafale come with a comprehensive service package and availability guarantees.

Indigenous products Dhruv suffered seriously from lack of spares and logistics for over a decade since induction that Indian Army had to arrange on its own. Its only with the recent Indian Coast Guard order that HAL is offering PBL.

http://hal-india.co.in/Maiden%20Ground%20R/ND__230

Ecuador's Dhruv crashes were blamed on pilot and maintenance errors but looking at the bigger picture, no car company blames drivers for car crashes because drivers are buyers even though drivers DO actually cause crashes.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 624013.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 425469.cms

IAF training command know Pilatus will resolve any issues with PC-7 - or atleast make an assurance - whereas for HAL HPT-32 engine fuel starvation issues, everyone thinks, "what to do next"? If HAL CMD at that point of time given IAF CAS a solid assurance and put his best engineers on the job to solve the issue, the perception would have been wholly different.

Such behavioral issues like customer experience plays a major role in procurement.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10922
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Jul 2019 10:28

Wow Lovely post

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 18 Jul 2019 18:02

Actually - I will go a step further - this insanity and addiction to imports must be beheaded!! GOI should state that if there is domestic production of a weapon system, imports of that type cannot be allowed!

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2963
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby fanne » 18 Jul 2019 19:23

But that weapon has to be good in practice, ready as of now and meet the requirement. INSAS did not (would jam when required), HPT-32 (many pilots died because it was bad design). Then the recent trend it, after the product has been accepted, jack the price so that IAF cannot afford/wont buy it. Check if the designing/producing agency (or the management) itself want to sell? Check for any CT/Bribery angle as well (please make that mandatory).

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 18 Jul 2019 22:56

Well don’t just use that argument selectively to deride domestic systems. HPT-32 has a history and we all agree it was not great! However what we quietly push under the rug is the quality of imports - IAF has lost hundreds of pilots in peacetime flying foreign fighters - Mig21 with perhaps the worst record due to design issues and supply of spares post Soviet Union collapse! The other Migs did not exactly cover themselves in glory.

And what about the Jaguar - our feared “Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft”? Don’t you think that for Balakot it would have been the striker of choice? But IAF ended up using the M2Ks. Does the IAF not have trust in its capability to outrun the enemy? Perhaps because everyone hid one design flaw - the jags replaced an under powered Marut with themselves being under powered. What is the cost to fix them - $25 million a pop last we heard!! Mora of the story - imports must have a good brochure and poor performance will be tolerated and fixed at whatever cost later. Domestic products must be better than the best of worlds weapons I their class even if they are not operating in our theater.

So get off your high horse and stop pushing imports! Even if expensive, domestic weapons create a whole ecosystem! To make domestic products better - INVEST in domestic industry and create competition to HAL and ADA and DRDO! That is you national interest.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16774
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rahul M » 18 Jul 2019 23:06

OT

Karan M, plz check yahoo a/c.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Khalsa » 19 Jul 2019 02:37

SBajwa wrote:Today is the 76th Birthday of the Param Veer Chakra Fl officer Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon.

Image


Salute to the warrior.
The times I went to Ludhiana and all I cared for is was his Gnat and his statue.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 19 Jul 2019 03:22

Great Hero and a wonderful inspiration to youngsters!

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 361
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rishi_Tri » 19 Jul 2019 03:48

mody wrote:
Rakesh wrote:I Now for MoD the problem is that BDL has increased the price, citing inflation, which is justified, and now, this contract had to be approved in liu of SRSAM, for which the price from some of the international suppliers might have been lower. However, those systems were perhaps pure point defense systems, with much less capable radar etc. But no one is willing to take a call on this and approve the order. The result is that apart from Pune and Gwalior, we do not have Akaksh SAMS, guarding the skyes on the western border and still make do with the old Pechora SAMS. The production line at BDL remains idle. [/color]



रक्षा मंत्री कार्यालय/ RMO India

Verified account

@DefenceMinIndia Jul 17

RM Shri @rajnathsingh chaired a review meeting of Air Wing and the Air Acquisition Wing of the Ministry of Defence at South Block.

रक्षा मंत्री कार्यालय/ RMO India

Verified account

@DefenceMinIndia Jul 17

Raksha Mantri Shri @rajnathsingh reviewed the issues pertaining to the Defence Public Sector Undertaking, Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) at a meeting in South Block today

uskumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 23:41

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby uskumar » 19 Jul 2019 13:01


Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10922
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 19 Jul 2019 14:09



So what happens to spare parts for these trainers?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2728
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jul 2019 18:43

Aditya_V wrote:

So what happens to spare parts for these trainers?

Banning Pilatus will lead to more corruption. Because the aircraft will require spares as training for cadets wont stop. And intermediaries supplying spares will make an extra buck giving the high demand and lack of supply due to blacklisting.

This was a typical Congress way of making more money in guise of anti corruption. When Manohar Parrikar was Defence Minister, he removed blacklisting as an anti corruption measure and went after the corrupt people.

The aircraft isnt corrupt, people are. Dont ban the aircraft, ban the rascals indulging in corrupt practices.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2728
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 19 Jul 2019 19:02

Vivek K wrote:GOI should state...

Vivek, name me one politician or leader or bureaucrat who understands technology cycles, Product Development Life Cycle, Production Engineering.

The person who came closest was Manohar Parrikar to untying the Gordon's knot of operational availability, R&D and Production. His death is as tragic as that of Madhavrao Peshwa.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 19 Jul 2019 20:06

Agree tsarkar ji! No point in making the Pilatus die away - must exploit it and get the bang for the buck invested. And if our politicos will remain dhoti clad dhoodhwalas then India should abandon the dream! Someone has to realize that filling their pockets at the cost of national security is not in the national interest? Modi 2.0 comes in with a lot of promise. Keep fingers crossed and push Indian products wherever possible! Repeat the Mantra, buying Rafale builds France, buying Tejas - builds India!

The pakis believe repeating a lie over and over again makes it the truth - repeating the truth over and over should perhaps help make it be accepted? How can India export weapons when its own armed forces reject them. The Arjun, LCA, Shivaliks, INSAS, Dhanush and several others can be exported to friendly nations worldwide.

Exports not only help keep factories running but help in providing increased employment - manufacturing sector growth provides immense employment. So say it with me - buying Rafale builds France, buying Tejas - builds India!

mody
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby mody » 19 Jul 2019 20:30

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:GOI should state...

Vivek, name me one politician or leader or bureaucrat who understands technology cycles, Product Development Life Cycle, Production Engineering.

The person who came closest was Manohar Parrikar to untying the Gordon's knot of operational availability, R&D and Production. His death is as tragic as that of Madhavrao Peshwa.


Completely agree with Sarkar Sahab. This govermnment disappointingly, has given quite a shoddy treatment to MoD. Earlier there was no full time RM, Jet Li was given the additional charge. He was hardly doing a good job with MoF, to be given the additional charge of MoD. Appointing Parrikar was the best thing to happen. unfortunately, that didn't last.
Seetharaman, was efficient, but with no technical background and no experience in defence matters, I would say not the best person. Now, the current appointment of Mr. Kadi Ninda, is just a political appointment. As he was removed from the post of HM to make room for Amit Shah, he had to be given a high enough post and hence, make him RM. No tech background, no knowledge of defence matters either.

What I meant in my earlier posts was a need for long term planning based on capabilities that the nation really wants to have, over the next 5, 10 and 15 years.
Consider that in the current budget, out of $39 billion, about $9 billion are earmarked for capital expenditure. This means that over the next 10-12 years, India intends to spend over $100 billion on caiptal expenditure, even if we assume that we continue to spend at the current level only. Add to this the DRDO budget for development, plus the additional expenditure for strategic programs like SSN's and SSBN's, sattelites etc, and we are looking at a development and capital procurement budget of close to $200 Billion over the next 10-15 years, at the least.
I don't think the level of planning exists in the MoD or in our political/civilian class for this and sadly maybe not even in our services.

Adhoc one of imports of systems works best for us. An example would be the IA requirement for 6 Apache gunships. Don't know in what kind of plan, this kind of purchase would fall into. A long terms plan would probably require 8-12 dedicated LCH helicopters assigned with each IBG, with additonal assets available at corps level. Plus, LUH type machines for recon and evac roles, and Medium helicopters for fast troop movement, as well as fast resully of ammo etc. for the armoured coloumns and arty. Defensive formations would probaly get the Rudra.

Total planning for training also needs to be in place. Plan for BTA and start planning for a new AJT from now, so that when the need arises 15 years donw the road, the plane is ready by then.
Same goes also for armaments of all types. However, after every military action, no matter how small or big, we find outrselves going around shopping for emergency purchases. This includes everything from SRSAMs like SPYDER to air to air missiles, to air to gound weapons, arty shells, tank ammo, ATGMs, etc. etc. Don't understand how IAF was flying around for the last so many years, without reliable Air to Air missiles, such that they have to go for an memrgency purchase of 400 missiles from Russia at this point. The missiles they are buying, at least on paper, seem to be the same ones, that they are already supposed to have in their inventory and in sufficient numbers.
The need for inducting Astra in numbers should have been felt a long time ago and project should have been put on missin mode. In fact given the pace of our deveopment and testing, almost all our domestic defence projects should be put on mission mode.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vidur » 19 Jul 2019 23:58

May I take the liberty of repeating myself once again - there is a detailed long term planning process.

Step 1 - Long Term Perspective Plan made by services and approved by Cabinet after Raksha Mantralya due endorsement
Step 2 - 5 Year Defence Plan flows from this and is also duly approved as above

However, unlike in the US this 5 year plan does not get approved by finance bill. Its funding is decided by annual budget which has very different (and somewhat adhoc) priorities. The plan meets its nemisis here and completely breaks down. This then becomes a fire fighting exercise where the only question we ask is what are absolute immediate priorities. Only those go through.

Then comes the procurement process which also has dual stages of of approval from MoF. We can never be sure which procurement they will reject at what stage and for what reason. It is important to understand that each ministry has its own priorities and objectives.

Our current allocations do not adequately cover our contractual obligations of signed contracts.

We also have to balance needs of DPSUs, OPFBs. These are not decided on merit but on who has most organisational capital. That is why you see perverse outcomes like 100 % cost escalations from DPSUs, crowding out of pvt sector, the problems we are seeing with Strategic Partnerships, 20-30 % cost escalations with foreign vendors when we buy the same equipment that was approved 5-7 years ago.

Another example of perverse outcomes - about 15-20 % by value of OFB ammunition is faulty. It has to be destroyed as its unsafe. That has some costs too.

To conclude we have a very good plan. Its just not implemented.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 361
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rishi_Tri » 20 Jul 2019 01:30

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:GOI should state...

Vivek, name me one politician or leader or bureaucrat who understands technology cycles, Product Development Life Cycle, Production Engineering.

The person who came closest was Manohar Parrikar to untying the Gordon's knot of operational availability, R&D and Production. His death is as tragic as that of Madhavrao Peshwa.


There is one person - Nitin Gadkari. Mumbai Pune Expressway is his work besides other projects. He is an industrialist and thus understands finance, projects, execution and most importantly that Time is the most critical resource to be managed.

I know this is OT in this thread but this let's one know how good is he. He can eat, live, dream, sleep concepts, numbers, finance etc.

Fortunately, unfortunately with Transportation now a days because Transportation is crying need across the nation.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1625
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ldev » 20 Jul 2019 02:38

Vidur wrote:However, unlike in the US this 5 year plan does not get approved by finance bill. ......................This then becomes a fire fighting exercise where the only question we ask is what are absolute immediate priorities. Only those go through.

The best illustration of this is the late lamented MRCA contest where the IAF was told, "Go and spec out your dream aircraft" with no thought given as to how the number of aircraft that were required would be funded. Lo and behold they zeroed in on the Rafale and the resultant fire fighting resulted in the current ad-hoc purchase of 36 Rafale.

I would have thought that 72 years after Independence something as basic as co-relating long term requirements to budgeting would have been implemented in the Government of India.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4150
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jul 2019 03:31

^^^
MRCA 2.0 :((

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 22 Jul 2019 03:20

I think IAF should look at Su 30MKI, Tejas Mk1, Mk1A, and Mk2, and Rafale to build the fleet.
And look at engine options for Mig 29K and Jaguar.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 22 Jul 2019 03:54

I think that IAF should phase out Mig-29s and Jaguars. The cost of these upgrades are probably every bit as costly as a new LCA.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2963
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby fanne » 22 Jul 2019 06:42

what's the issue with Mig 29 engine?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 22 Jul 2019 06:45

Not much life!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6895
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 23 Jul 2019 00:36

Vivek K wrote:I think that IAF should phase out Mig-29s and Jaguars. The cost of these upgrades are probably every bit as costly as a new LCA.

Mig-29 upgrade is already completed. Why phase them out when you have just spent money on upgrading them?

I have doubts about the Jaguar. Our frontline DPSA has taken a backseat to the Mirage on the 2 occasions when the IAF actually fired a shot in anger since they were both inducted. The proposed engine upgrade went nowhere so the performance shortfalls aren't going to go away. However if there is an all-out war and we need to stop a paki armored thrust in the plains the aircraft with its CBU-105's will be useful.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 23 Jul 2019 00:40

Good point. Well - what is the life expectancy of these upgrades? Do not do further upgrades on them and phase them out as they reach the end of lif on the current upgrade.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6895
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 23 Jul 2019 00:41

I don't think the IAF is planning any more upgrades for the Mig-29s. At the most they may try to integrate new missiles on them.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4150
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 23 Jul 2019 18:21

^^^
Next major retirement of types will take place between 2030-40 when MiG-29, Jaguar, and Mirage-2000 reach their end-of-life. Around 10-12 “medium” squadrons need to be replaced.

If LCA Mk.2 MWF can be made ready for production before the end of the decade (~2028), then it’ll be all good for the indigenous aerospace industry. A smooth transition to AMCA will occur a decade later (~2038).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 24 Jul 2019 01:51

srai wrote:^^^
Next major retirement of types will take place between 2030-40 when MiG-29, Jaguar, and Mirage-2000 reach their end-of-life. Around 10-12 “medium” squadrons need to be replaced.

If LCA Mk.2 MWF can be made ready for production before the end of the decade (~2028),
then it’ll be all good for the indigenous aerospace industry. A smooth transition to AMCA will occur a decade later (~2038).

I think it fits in with the development and production time lines of the MWF.

So 10-12 squadrons means 180 to 216 planes.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2452
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby abhik » 24 Jul 2019 08:53

Most M2000, Mig-29 and Jaguar airframes are over 30 years old? It must be getting hideously expensive to maintain, apparently Taiwan is looking to replace the their mirages with f-16s as the spares are 2x as expensive.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7645
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby rohitvats » 24 Jul 2019 12:29

Vivek K wrote:I think that IAF should phase out Mig-29s and Jaguars. The cost of these upgrades are probably every bit as costly as a new LCA.


If a BRF Oldie, who's spent years on this forum, makes statements like these, and there is actually a discussion around the topic - well, it simply highlights the decline in quality of discussion on BRF.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vivek K » 24 Jul 2019 17:07

rohitvats wrote:
Vivek K wrote:I think that IAF should phase out Mig-29s and Jaguars. The cost of these upgrades are probably every bit as costly as a new LCA.


If a BRF Oldie, who's spent years on this forum, makes statements like these, and there is actually a discussion around the topic - well, it simply highlights the decline in quality of discussion on BRF.

Your point being? Instead of grand standing, my friend , put your thoughts to counter.

Perhaps the decline is because of posts like the one you just put up? When personal attacks become more important than content - yes the forum will be in decline.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rakesh and 70 guests