Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Austin » 01 Dec 2017 12:47

IN Chief Press Today on Tejas
We continue to LCA Navy project. Our share of the budget for LCA was 40%, over INR 600 crores. Paying 40% for LCA Mk2, over INR 300 crores. I need a Dec based fighter by 2020. LCA Navy is nowhere on the horizon. It is underpowered. - Admiral Lanba

"I need a deck based combat capable fighter by 2020 for IAC I, in present state, LCA Navy cannot be operated from deck" - Admiral Lanba

As and when DRDO and ADA develop a deck based fighter we are happy to induct it. - Admiral Lanba

Don't foresee budget problems with 57 carrier borne fighters. We have fixed form and fit of IAC2, conventionally powered, CATOBAR, through deck carrier. - Admiral Lanba

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5848
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 01 Dec 2017 13:06

The problem is no more money is flowing towards LCA Navy Mk2. How will they develop without funds?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Austin » 01 Dec 2017 13:11

I will stick out my neck and say that IN made the decision to go for N-Tejas and rest of what he says is to not show IN in poor light for not supporting N-Tejas and he is backing up with some figures and some statements.

Now they would have very valid Technical reason to not opt for Tejas and I have posted that the opinion of ex Admiral in another thread of N Tejas being 2 ton heavier and not taking off with the load from 180 m deck that IN wants to , Today IN Chief said the same thing Tejas cannot be operated from deck.

Although I doubt he will get the 57 Twin Engine fighter by 2020 considering it would cost more than SE fighter for IAF by virtue of its capability and import cost. This is a long drawn out battle that will go till atleast 2025 and beyond. Money will determine its fate !

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 01 Dec 2017 17:08

Indranil wrote:The problem is no more money is flowing towards LCA Navy Mk2. How will they develop without funds?

What is this R&D costs? We just want the end product now :((

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 01 Dec 2017 17:21

srai wrote:
Indranil wrote:The problem is no more money is flowing towards LCA Navy Mk2. How will they develop without funds?

What is this R&D costs? We just want the end product now :((


We Indians are actually good in R&D - Rona-Dhona. We did that for 1.5 decades for MMRCA. Now we will do it for SEF MII. :mrgreen:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 01 Dec 2017 19:40

:mrgreen:

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 650
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 03 Dec 2017 08:47


fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 03 Dec 2017 18:38

Someone at the highest level is batting for LCA-
VCOAS - south flies LCA solo (he has been earlier the test pilot)
After few days, Signapore def minister takes a ride
Now yesterday Navy says it is backing NLCA all the way.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 03 Dec 2017 19:52

fanne Sir, it was C-in-C, Southern Air Command who flew. There is no VCAS -south.

That said, absolutely agree. Lot of strong support coming to LCA.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 03 Dec 2017 20:17

Thanks DJ sir for correcting me. I hope they do some more towards optics of LCA - Send to some show. Have more base commanders fly/take a ride. I would imagine PV-6 should be hopping from air base to air base to advertise LCA capability. The best anti-dote to LCA doom is more IAF in service pilot having positive experience of the aircraft.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5848
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 03 Dec 2017 23:24

There is NO OTHER antidote. It has to be accepted by IAF, by IAF personnel. Our job is to just say "sirs, aap ek do baar uda kar toh dekho". I mean think about it. In terms of technology, is there any aircraft in IAF's entire inventory which rivals the Tejas, other than the Rafale. It is just rough around the edges. But, those are easy fixes.

By the way, HAL's offer to transfer manufacturing license for ALH is very interesting. Didn't see this coming. It is their best product. They are outsourcing manufacturing of LCH too. Are they ready to do the same for Tejas?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 04 Dec 2017 00:02

^^^
Besides outsourcing components to 5 Tier-1 private companies, HAL chairman has already said something along that line where additional LCA lines (beyond 16/year) should be done by private company.

More firm orders of Mk.1 are needed though.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 04 Dec 2017 08:29

Hal seems to be doing everything possible NOT to produce LCA. While Hal Chairman has produced 100 interviews talking about potential to produce 24 LCA per annum but HAL has actually produced total of only 2 IOC LCA in last 8-9 months. Seems Dalal lobby, IAF, HAL are happy at the current situation. All support but NO prodction.
Last edited by ramana on 04 Dec 2017 23:13, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited. ramana

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 04 Dec 2017 08:53

Really? Based on everything that Indranil and others have posted it seems that HAL is meticulously setting up a world class line for producing the aircraft. It seems that all tooling is in place and the lines are ramping up to their capacity. Posters have gone to lengths to provide that how long it takes to get one aircraft out. Therefore orders must be given with advanced planning and systems should be frozen to allow the lines to produce without any stoppages.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 04 Dec 2017 09:24

Gyan: Everything in your post can be refuted. Come on, you should know better. Please edit your post.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33924
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 04 Dec 2017 09:27

Gyan wrote:Hal seems to be doing everything possible NOT to produce LCA. While Hal Chairman has produced 100 interviews talking about potential to produce 24 LCA per annum but HAL has actually produced total of only 2 IOC LCA in last 8-9 months. Seems Dalal lobby, IAF, HAL are happy at the current situation. All support but NO prodction.

This is a masterpiece of rhetoric.

When the media, Aurdrey Trushcke or Witzel use it we get our knickers in a huge twist, but it is worth studying that masterful technique in producing a paragraph of critical rhetoric. The para is just over 50 words.

1. Hal seems to be doing everything possible NOT to produce LCA: A statement which is simply a lie - contradicted in the same paragraph in sentence number 4 below
2.While Hal Chairman has produced 100 interviews talking about potential : 100 is an exaggeration - a "harmless one" to push a point through
3. to produce 24 LCA per annum : Another exaggeration - a "harmless one to push a point through" and a lie. The HAL chairman has spoken only of 16 per annum
4. but HAL has actually produced total of only 2 IOC LCA in last 8-9 months I had only one child in the last year. I promise to have at least 10 children in the next ten years with my 4 wives. Why is this statement wrong in terns of capability and intent?
5. Seems Dalal lobby, IAF, HAL are happy at the current situation Interesting:
    a) "Dalal lobby" an unspecified group who need not be identified, who may not even exist, but are named simply as a rhetorical construct to push a point theorugh
    b) IAF is not happy. They have said so.
    c) HAL has expressed no happiness and have said that they would like to produce more if certain constraints can be removed.

It has been said that the amount if effort that is needed to rebut bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the rffort to produce bullshit. I canot quanitfy the effort I have put in but it has taken me 400% more words to rebut 50 odd words of bullshit.

Rhetoric, when used for criticism is worth 4 times its volume in bullshit

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33924
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 04 Dec 2017 09:31

Rakesh wrote:Gyan: Everything in your post can be refuted. Come on, you should know better. Please edit your post.

veer madrasi adi kollu

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 04 Dec 2017 10:06

Hakeem: I am more like a scared madrasi now. What marriage does to you! :lol:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 04 Dec 2017 18:41

I said recently,that every day that the LCA makes progress it is more "downhill progress".The LCA is now like a snowball slowly gathering speed downhill.To make it unstoppable, HAL needs to get its act together and deliver on schedule,even before if poss. which will ensure confidence in the primary stakeholder the GOI representing the Indian taxpayer,the likes of you and I. The IAF have no alternative.The longer it takes to negotiate a new SEF deal,the better for the LCA! Babudom,you can show some legendary skills here to assist the LCA!
:rotfl:
As regards the NLCA,the IN has been a pro-active client,but from a post in another td.,the weight of MK-1 was 1t in excess and the NLCA 2t in excess which when tested at the Goa facility showed that it could not take off and perform as desired with a worthwhile payload ,range,etc.The IN is hoping that the Mk-2 will deliver,but as we've seen with the new req. for 57 new naval fighters,a twin-engined bird will inevitably be chosen. When the next NLCA prototype based upon Mk-2 eventually arrives,it will have to perform v.well for any acquisition.40+ 80+ LCAs ,MK-1/1A,will ensure at least half of the retiring MIGs will be replaced by it. The rest could be made up with more acquisitions of the sa,e,an assortment of MKis,perhaps 18-20 Rafales and some extra MIG-29/35s.The SEF can then be decently buried.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1067
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby sudeepj » 04 Dec 2017 20:07

Actually, if anything, it appears to be the reverse. Every time an indigenous program is about to succeed, there is a spate of truthy articles arguing in bad faith, with outdated factoids etc. Last time we saw this was when the Akash was about to be inducted which rehashed details of old tests etc. This time, its about the tejas. With the recent counter by HAL, IAF and ADA - including the sortie by the Singapore foreign minister, I am sure it is on the cusp of getting a larger order.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 04 Dec 2017 20:10

^^^+1

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1015
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 05 Dec 2017 01:39

shiv wrote:
Gyan wrote:Hal seems to be doing everything possible NOT to produce LCA. While Hal Chairman has produced 100 interviews talking about potential to produce 24 LCA per annum but HAL has actually produced total of only 2 IOC LCA in last 8-9 months. Seems Dalal lobby, IAF, HAL are happy at the current situation. All support but NO prodction.

This is a masterpiece of rhetoric.

When the media, Aurdrey Trushcke or Witzel use it we get our knickers in a huge twist, but it is worth studying that masterful technique in producing a paragraph of critical rhetoric. The para is just over 50 words.

1. Hal seems to be doing everything possible NOT to produce LCA: A statement which is simply a lie - contradicted in the same paragraph in sentence number 4 below
2.While Hal Chairman has produced 100 interviews talking about potential : 100 is an exaggeration - a "harmless one" to push a point through
3. to produce 24 LCA per annum : Another exaggeration - a "harmless one to push a point through" and a lie. The HAL chairman has spoken only of 16 per annum
4. but HAL has actually produced total of only 2 IOC LCA in last 8-9 months I had only one child in the last year. I promise to have at least 10 children in the next ten years with my 4 wives. Why is this statement wrong in terns of capability and intent?
5. Seems Dalal lobby, IAF, HAL are happy at the current situation Interesting:
    a) "Dalal lobby" an unspecified group who need not be identified, who may not even exist, but are named simply as a rhetorical construct to push a point theorugh
    b) IAF is not happy. They have said so.
    c) HAL has expressed no happiness and have said that they would like to produce more if certain constraints can be removed.

It has been said that the amount if effort that is needed to rebut bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the rffort to produce bullshit. I canot quanitfy the effort I have put in but it has taken me 400% more words to rebut 50 odd words of bullshit.

Rhetoric, when used for criticism is worth 4 times its volume in bullshit


Your break down analysis is spot on Doctor.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 05 Dec 2017 05:41

But LCA has few niggles if you will. The radar was thought to be frozen 2032 -hybrid, with the family of Israeli AA missiles. It was to be upgraded to 2052 with a family of AA missile. Recent articles have suggested (unless it is a pressure point created by us to get a favorable deal from Israelis) that 2052 is in doldrums as Israel is dithering and enter France in picture. If there is any grain of truth, it will setback LCA by few years (qualifying the new radar + missile combo, plus French offer will be super costly). Our own effort, Uttam and Astra needs few years to be ready. We need at least few more AA missiles to compliment Astra.
As we near completion, I would expect other issues to come up, maybe Kashmir, that will stop Rodome from UK to be exported, or any other thing. I wished IAF went for a bigger order, justifying a parallel R&D effort that turn the last atom going into the plane truly made in India. That will surely give us the aircraft industry that we are looking for.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 05 Dec 2017 05:47

^^^
All signs indicate the LCA production will come to a halt post the first 20 IOC-2 and possibly after 20 FOC. The subsequent lot of 83 Mk.1A a bridge too far?

In any case, the planned orders are far too small and disjointed for any meaningful and continuous volume production.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 650
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 05 Dec 2017 06:15

Philip wrote:I said recently,that every day that the LCA makes progress it is more "downhill progress".The LCA is now like a snowball slowly gathering speed downhill.To make it unstoppable, HAL needs to get its act together and deliver on schedule,even before if poss. which will ensure confidence in the primary stakeholder the GOI representing the Indian taxpayer,the likes of you and I. The IAF have no alternative.The longer it takes to negotiate a new SEF deal,the better for the LCA! Babudom,you can show some legendary skills here to assist the LCA!
:rotfl:
As regards the NLCA,the IN has been a pro-active client,but from a post in another td.,the weight of MK-1 was 1t in excess and the NLCA 2t in excess which when tested at the Goa facility showed that it could not take off and perform as desired with a worthwhile payload ,range,etc.The IN is hoping that the Mk-2 will deliver,but as we've seen with the new req. for 57 new naval fighters,a twin-engined bird will inevitably be chosen. When the next NLCA prototype based upon Mk-2 eventually arrives,it will have to perform v.well for any acquisition.40+ 80+ LCAs ,MK-1/1A,will ensure at least half of the retiring MIGs will be replaced by it. The rest could be made up with more acquisitions of the sa,e,an assortment of MKis,perhaps 18-20 Rafales and some extra MIG-29/35s.The SEF can then be decently buried.

Phillip i respect you a lot, but for some reason can't resist commenting on your die hard spirit to
1. push russian products (not that i have problem with them)
2. gentlemanly ignore the potshots others take at you
3. repeat 1
You are way elder to me so please take this as a friendly banter with a bit of smile

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2804
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Dec 2017 07:27

^yes Philip sir is the consummate gentleman. Ain't never seen one man take Soo much abuse and still remain unflappable. Must've been 007 in past life, nothing gets him to lose his cool. Well played.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9167
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Dec 2017 07:30

I saw NCLA fly in Goa. Why is Philip sir saying it cannot fly?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 05 Dec 2017 10:45

fanne wrote:But LCA has few niggles if you will. The radar was thought to be frozen 2032 -hybrid, with the family of Israeli AA missiles. It was to be upgraded to 2052 with a family of AA missile. Recent articles have suggested (unless it is a pressure point created by us to get a favorable deal from Israelis) that 2052 is in doldrums as Israel is dithering and enter France in picture. If there is any grain of truth, it will setback LCA by few years (qualifying the new radar + missile combo, plus French offer will be super costly). Our own effort, Uttam and Astra needs few years to be ready. We need at least few more AA missiles to compliment Astra.
As we near completion, I would expect other issues to come up, maybe Kashmir, that will stop Rodome from UK to be exported, or any other thing. I wished IAF went for a bigger order, justifying a parallel R&D effort that turn the last atom going into the plane truly made in India. That will surely give us the aircraft industry that we are looking for.


Fanne Sir, teething issues. Every newborn has it. LCA does. It will be overcome.

The 83 Mk1A order was cleared by IAF around the time ACM Raha spoke about in the press conference. MoD is finalising the contract and we should hear of it shortly. Rest is rona-dhona^n!

Further LCA orders will need some clarity from GOI on the path to Mk2. Funding will be sanctioned from GOI for the development. Proposal for Mk2 development by ADA, alternative proposals, etc are all available at MoD. They need to take a call.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 05 Dec 2017 11:51

CM,guys,you have to develop a rhino hide to survive. I used to box.A first cousin was once world ranked.Just for the record,It could've been any other country other than the Sovs/Russia who've helped us for decades,providing us with their best products.Sure,there have been problems,which relationship is smooth? If tomorrow the US provides us with the same cutting edge weaponry without strings,as the Rus and French do,I'll applaud them!
Pure objectivity. Secondly,they Ru milware has one big advantage.Cost. Acquisition cost is much less than western products.Even if there is extra maintenance,required,the cost of western spares,etc. is also much more and as the system gets older,finding spares difficult as the IA has found with Arjun MK-1,which has a lot of western eqpt. That doesn't mean that we should buy only from Ru."Horses for courses",from whichever source best serves our purpose and a steady increase in desi designed and developed products.Where we can't develop items ourselves,or it will take too long to do so,we must enter into JVs like we did for BMos.
I again say that Dr.Pillai's" BMos mantra"is an excellent method to achieve rapid success and produce a world-beater.


The silver lining in the LCA cloud is the apparent review by the GOI which is reading the writing on the wall,or rather the bill for the SEF! Yanqui burgers and hot dogs,Swedish smorgasbord,cost far more than dal and roti,equally nourishing.The only worry is that a twin-engined bird,if chosen instead will cost even more than an SEF!

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 05 Dec 2017 19:43

And therein lies the fallacy with Russian equipment - low upfront cost and hidden, killer life cycle costs. It isn't for nothing that the Navy is wanting to get better fighters to replace the Mig-29ks that have lower than 20% serviceability. Or the IAF's pride - the Sukhois with 50-55% serviceability. Lets not even get started with other stuff like the T-72s that adorn IA depots. The Arjun Mk-1 has a fleet of only 100 odd units in service. Surely the logistical chain for such a small purchase cannot be compared to the supply chains for the T-72s or the MKIs or the 29Ks?

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby viveks » 06 Dec 2017 00:04

T-72s I think are more reliable than the latest T-90s. The tank continued to function normally in the 2017 tankathon in russia but the indian T-90s suffered breakdowns and were thus dis-qualified from the event. I wonder what Arjun might have done in that event.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 12:49

Vivek K wrote:And therein lies the fallacy with Russian equipment - low upfront cost and hidden, killer life cycle costs. It isn't for nothing that the Navy is wanting to get better fighters to replace the Mig-29ks that have lower than 20% serviceability. Or the IAF's pride - the Sukhois with 50-55% serviceability. Lets not even get started with other stuff like the T-72s that adorn IA depots. The Arjun Mk-1 has a fleet of only 100 odd units in service. Surely the logistical chain for such a small purchase cannot be compared to the supply chains for the T-72s or the MKIs or the 29Ks?


If IAF/IN needs guranteed high availability then they need to go in for PBL type arrangement like we did for Rafale or US Deals , Else the availability will always be dependent on multiple factors including when spares are ordered.

There is a huge cost to pay to maintain high availability and that can easily be seen with deal where we have opted for such type of arrangement even for short period like 5 years

Sukhoi servicibility was already at 66 % when Parrikar left MOD that was his last statement on the matter

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 06 Dec 2017 13:02

Austin wrote:
Vivek K wrote:And therein lies the fallacy with Russian equipment - low upfront cost and hidden, killer life cycle costs. It isn't for nothing that the Navy is wanting to get better fighters to replace the Mig-29ks that have lower than 20% serviceability. Or the IAF's pride - the Sukhois with 50-55% serviceability. Lets not even get started with other stuff like the T-72s that adorn IA depots. The Arjun Mk-1 has a fleet of only 100 odd units in service. Surely the logistical chain for such a small purchase cannot be compared to the supply chains for the T-72s or the MKIs or the 29Ks?


If IAF/IN needs guranteed high availability then they need to go in for PBL type arrangement like we did for Rafale or US Deals , Else the availability will always be dependent on multiple factors including when spares are ordered.

There is a huge cost to pay to maintain high availability and that can easily be seen with deal where we have opted for such type of arrangement even for short period like 5 years

Sukhoi servicibility was already at 66 % when Parrikar left MOD that was his last statement on the matter


Not enough is spent on spares and their inventory management. According to this 2014 article, the IAF orders for Su-30MKI spares amounted to less than Rs 50 crore whereas by standard norms (5% of its worth in consumption of spares each year) the spending should have been Rs 3,450 crore annually. Spare orders are placed in piecemeal fashion after defects arise.

5-year PBL should be mandatory going forward for all platforms.

Government takes note of Su-30MKI’s poor serviceability
...
For decades, the IAF has accused HAL of poor workmanship and maintenance. At the MoD meeting on Su-30MKI serviceability, HAL turned the tables on the IAF.

The MoD was informed about serious problems with the IAF’s management of spares. By standard norms, a fighter fleet consumes 5 per cent of its worth in consumables and spares each year. By that benchmark the Su-30MKI fleet, currently worth about Rs 69,000 crore --- 193 Su-30MKIs at Rs 358 crore per fighter --- should consume spares worth Rs 3,450 crore annually. Yet, IAF orders from HAL add up to less than Rs 50 crore, including ground handling equipment.

Without competent inventory management by the IAF, and with spares ordered piecemeal when defects arise, Su-30MKI fighters spend weeks on the ground awaiting spares.


To ensure that 13-14 per cent of the Su-30MKI fleet is not grounded for want of spares, HAL has stockpiled spares worth Rs 400 crore in Nashik. According to S Subrahmanyan, the chief of HAL’s Nashik facility, the inventory is based on a study of consumption patterns of Su-30MKI spares over the preceding five years.

HAL says this buffer stock includes spares that are still purchased from Russia, because low consumption volumes make indigenisation non-cost-effective. Even so, non-availability of these spares could ground aircraft.

Simultaneously, HAL has proposed to the MoD that the IAF must order spares required over a 5-year period, stocking them at 25 Equipment Depot, the IAF’s holding depot for spares at Nashik.

Separately, HAL has offered the IAF “Performance Based Logistics” (PBL) for the Su-30MKI fleet --- a solution common in advanced western air forces. PBL would bind HAL to maintain the Su-30MKI, providing the IAF a specified serviceability rate --- calculated in flight hours, or as a percentage of the total aircraft fleet --- in exchange for an annual service charge.

Besides saving maintenance costs for the IAF, PBL has been found to encourage quality manufacture, since manufacturers know they will be responsible for keeping the aircraft serviceable through its operational life.

MoD officials say the IAF dislikes the PBL model, because outsourcing maintenance to HAL threatens a large maintenance empire built around “base repair depots”, manned by IAF personnel. In 2008-09, the IAF rejected HAL’s proposal for a PBL contract for maintaining the Hawk advanced jet trainer.
...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33924
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 19:26

viveks wrote:T-72s I think are more reliable than the latest T-90s. The tank continued to function normally in the 2017 tankathon in russia but the indian T-90s suffered breakdowns and were thus dis-qualified from the event. I wonder what Arjun might have done in that event.

This is all appropriate for the LCA thread. The Indian army finds out about reliability by sending tanks to Russia for competitions. They wouldn't know otherwise.

On another note - why on earth do people say such things on this forum? Is this a manifestation of our aheadovcurveness?

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 06 Dec 2017 20:00

Is it only spares that keeps the MKIs un-serviceable? Or is it problems with the engine ( several engines have failed ) and with other systems?

Why would the IAF that has been in existence and in the business of flying and maintaining fighter aircraft of all types for 70 plus year, not know that it needs 5% of spares in its inventory. And should spares be valued by the value of aircraft? What would you take as the correct value - purchase price, current price or replacement cost? Similarly, how are spares valued? Would you value 2 year old spares at their purchase price or at current value?

Aren't spares better estimated by - OEM's maintenance schedule (initially), and then based on observed consumptions, or could be based using a percentage of the number of total parts in the aircraft?

My feeling is:
a) Only for imports we allow for logic to account/hide failure.
b) IAF may be keeping a proper inventory per OEM's advice, but the aircraft may have systems that are failing more than they should

At any rate, costs for every system should be evaluated in total and not for just the up-front cost. Russian systems typically are more maintenance intensive than western systems like aircraft engines (higher MTBO).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 20:06

So if IAF knows the spares are needed to maintain as per OEM advise , Why is IAF going for PBL type arrangement for Rafale and US deals to maintain uptimes at such high cost ? They would any way know what spares are need and can keep a proper inventory as per OEM advise , Why pay Dassault more just to have 75 % guranteed uptimes and pay them upfront for it for 5 years or so ? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 019_1.html
Following the model of the C-17 Globemaster III procurement from the US, a large share of the Rafale payout is for “performance based logistics” (PBL). This means that for the first five years of a Rafale’s service, Dassault will supply all spares and components, including engines, and technicians needed to keep the fighter flying. The vendor is liable to ensure that 75 per cent of the fleet is available at all times.

The IAF has the option to extend PBL to 12 years, subject to a fresh contract being negotiated for the next seven years. Says a top ministry official: “We are currently getting 55-56 per cent availability from the Sukhoi-30MKI fleet. The Rafale will give us 20 per cent more.”
Last edited by Austin on 06 Dec 2017 20:10, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33924
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 20:08

Vivek K wrote:Is it only spares that keeps the MKIs un-serviceable? Or is it problems with the engine ( several engines have failed ) and with other systems?

70% serviceability is the norm for many "advanced" air forces

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2017 20:20

Readiness is always a balance between operational need and budgets. Unlike an airline, defense equipment does not generate revenue so planners have to strike a balance between what they need to maintain their national security and training commitments while not stressing their budgets to such an extent so as to raid other accounts (modernization, other OPEX drivers etc etc.) For some 70% would work, yet for others 50% may suffice and may actually be preferred especially if they have a good plan to boost it up during surge demand. Speaking of platforms, mission and component reliability and MTBF and MTBCF are always better metrics in addition to your depot capacity to support surge, parts availability etc etc. At the end of the day you may have an exceptionally reliable aircraft but no money to support higher readiness because parts need to be kept in stock, PBLs renewed etc. Take the current USN for example. Readiness rates are where they are simply because they were not allowed to invest (on account of Congressionally introduced budget sequestration) in increasing depot capacity in anticipation of a backlog of some really old and worn out classic-hornets..they literally have aircraft waiting for their turn to get an overhaul and receive parts...If that's your problem then investing in capacity is the only fix..
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Dec 2017 20:27, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 06 Dec 2017 20:26

Austin wrote:So if IAF knows the spares are needed to maintain as per OEM advise , Why is IAF going for PBL type arrangement for Rafale and US deals to maintain uptimes at such high cost ? They would any way know what spares are need and can keep a proper inventory as per OEM advise , Why pay Dassault more just to have 75 % guranteed uptimes and pay them upfront for it for 5 years or so ? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 019_1.html

I would agree and that would save us a bunch. However, an initial investment higher in spares would not be lost if the spares do not have a shelf life and are not used.

Has IAF developed any of its own models in the past 70 years maintaining large fleets? Or does every aircraft in IAF inventory have lower than 50% serviceability and does IAF practice cannibalization to keep flying?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 20:58

Vivek K wrote:
Austin wrote:So if IAF knows the spares are needed to maintain as per OEM advise , Why is IAF going for PBL type arrangement for Rafale and US deals to maintain uptimes at such high cost ? They would any way know what spares are need and can keep a proper inventory as per OEM advise , Why pay Dassault more just to have 75 % guranteed uptimes and pay them upfront for it for 5 years or so ? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 019_1.html

I would agree and that would save us a bunch. However, an initial investment higher in spares would not be lost if the spares do not have a shelf life and are not used.

Has IAF developed any of its own models in the past 70 years maintaining large fleets? Or does every aircraft in IAF inventory have lower than 50% serviceability and does IAF practice cannibalization to keep flying?


The IAF would go bankrupt with OPEX if they have a PBL type arrangement for fleet strength in 100's , its not practically possible unless we are dealing with dozen or 2 of them and they too comes with very high cost.

The IAF may have low servicibility for a type during normal operations but that does not mean during war time it would have the same servicibility they would have huge war reserves in terms of spares weapons etc that wont use unless there is war like situation like that happened during Kargil where IAF maintained high sortie tempo for all the types it deployed and that was the worst days of IAF since entire 90's the funding was low.

Its a trade off IAF has to choose , It will boil down to investment

Cannabilisation is nothing new and IN did that for its SHAR and Sea King fleet during early 2000's and IAF now ordering grounded Jaguar from France to use it for spares. Similar thing was done in 90's for its Mig fleet too

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/635 ... funct.html
The IAF is now looking at France for a solution with Paris offering to sell its 36 grounded Jaguar aircraft at a nominal price. These aircraft could be cannibalised – extraction of spares in aviation parlance – to run the Indian squadrons for several years.

There are 117 Jaguar aircraft (as on October 2016) with the IAF that flies six squadrons with these jets. In the last five years, the government has sanctioned multiple upgrade projects for these aircraft to give them more teeth during combat.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, chola, deejay, navneeet, uskumar and 40 guests