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.
srin
BRFite
Posts: 1360
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srin » 06 Oct 2017 00:05

Indranil wrote:
srin wrote:Given that there is only one vendor to build LCA, and that vendor is also MoD run, what's really the point in issuing an RFP ?
I don't believe I'll ever understand the workings of the MoD !

Due process.

In which case it is a single vendor situation :D

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1563
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 06 Oct 2017 00:10

Gagan wrote:Final edit:

Image



Very nice, Gagan!

We need more. With our massive herd of IT-wallahs we should be providing a better challenge to chini domination of PS’ed and CAD mil pics!

Rishi_Tri
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 06 Oct 2017 00:21

enaiel wrote:So for all intents and purposes, Indranil was right. Only 40 Tejas Mk1 have actually been ordered. MoD/IAF have yet to order 83 Tejas Mk1A. Very depressing.


We shall need sacks of anti depressants..

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 958656.cms

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 00:38

Guys - the IAF is stating it will order 83 MK1As. It will. Have faith in the CAS.

The aim should be to progress the Mk2. Not just cap the LCA at 123.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 06 Oct 2017 00:48

It's not that we don't have faith that 83 Mk1As will be ordered - it's just that they were supposed to have been ordered in late 2015 - and yet two years later they have not been ordered. It will take a few years after funding is received before MK1A can be produced in quantity and people on this very forum will be throwing insults at HAL for not delivering MK1A in time. If this is the state for the "fast tracked" Mk1A, MK2 is surely in a far more hopeless situation?

Karan M wrote:Guys - the IAF is stating it will order 83 MK1As. It will. Have faith in the CAS.

The aim should be to progress the Mk2. Not just cap the LCA at 123.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3009
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kakkaji » 06 Oct 2017 01:12

Rishi_Tri wrote:We shall need sacks of anti depressants..

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 958656.cms


Not to worry Saar, there are still 11 steps to go through. :wink:

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 05:18

The LRU information in the video is incorrect.
As of 2012, five years back:
There
are 358 LRU's (Components) in the Tejas aircraft, o
ut of which 53% of total LRU's are
indigenously developed with in India. In view to re
duce the remaining 47% of the import
LRU's, ADA has initiated the Indigenous development
programme for indigenization of the
import LRU's.

https://www.ada.gov.in/images/ADA-IND.pdf

The same information was provided as of May 2017.
http://www.aeromag.in/articlesingle.php?article=9
Here CD Balaji, Distinguished Scientist and Programme Director (Combat Aircraft) & Director, ADA explains the success of his entity, in an interview with Aeromag Asia.

The level of indigenisation is at least to an extent of 65% currently. The entire structure along with majority of the aircraft systems like Fuel, Hydraulics, Environmental Control, Electrical, etc., of the aircraft is built in the country. Critical ‘’intelligent’ systems like the computers in Avionics, Weapons and Flight Control Systems (FCS), including hardware and software is indigenous. This is very critical and completely under our control and is considered a key enabler towards self-reliance. ADA has played a significant role for indigenous development of Line Replaceable Units (LRU’s) and advanced technologies along with development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Programme. So far, 190 LRU’s out of 350 LRU’s in LCA have been indigenised and another 30-35 LRU’s are in various stages of development process. We will continue to play a major role for replacement of imported LRU’s by ab-initio design.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47549
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2017 05:23

Gagan, Try to get a 3D printer at local library and make a model.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17243
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 06 Oct 2017 05:42

Govt. and IAF intent will be seen only if the proposed second line work begins.Otherwise it is all kabuki.
Just watch statements about "numbers" and the SE
req. from the CoAS! No mention whatsoever about the LCA second line urgently needed to boost numbers!
The IAF has always wanted firang food,firang toys spurning anything desi. since the 70s. when we had the Gnats, Ajeets and HFs still in service.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3463
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 06 Oct 2017 08:19

Karan M wrote:Guys - the IAF is stating it will order 83 MK1As. It will. Have faith in the CAS.

The aim should be to progress the Mk2. Not just cap the LCA at 123.


The way things are panning out there will likely be production gap occurring between Mk.1 and Mk.1A. Current orders of 20/40 Mk.1 orders are going to be completed by 2019/2020. That means Mk.1A needs to be ready for production within the next two years (or so). Given previous track record of underestimating R&D time-frames, it is very likely Mk.1A (AESA radar, Jammer and internal rearrangement) won't be ready for production in that short time span. That too just when full production @16/year has kicked in. Then followed by a likely production gap!

To me, this whole stacked order with nonviable production quantities (20 Mk.1 IOC2 + 20 Mk.1 FOC + 83 Mk.1A) is a setup for failure. No extra margin for R&D (and potential delays) and qualification. Give it two years, blame games will be thrown around making a case for import justification.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2715
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Oct 2017 09:01

ashthor wrote:Antonov An-124 Ruslan and India's LightCombatAircraft Tejas

https://t.co/o4g2Yrys71

:shock: damn. It looks like the Tejas could hang underwing and be launched mid air. ...that is some contrast

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3445
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 06 Oct 2017 09:35

Kakkaji wrote:
Vidur wrote:There is CNC stage - contract negotiation. HAL needs to agree to price and is well known to demand their pound of flesh. They have clout as well can certainly push as well. Beyond that I wont be able to comment.


Vidur Ji:

I am confused :-?

HAL is a company owned by the Govt of India. So, in buying from HAL, the money will only move from one pocket of GoI to another. So, why haggle so much with HAL and delay the production?

Being a GoI-owned company, all of HAL's accounts can be examined by GoI auditors and you can arrive at a cost + reasonable profit amount, instead of MoD haggling with HAL on price. So, why the whole RFP and contract-negotiation Tamasha?

'Jaldi sey order karo Saaheb. Ab der kya baat ki hai'?


The haggling may be from HAL side or IAF side, we do not know. We do not know if there is any haggling at all.

The issue with mil purchase is the complicated procurement process. Even Parrikar ji could not really bell the cat. Somewhere, someone has to find a way to draw a straight line instead of this mitochondrial elongation of the procurement.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2017 10:45

Karan M wrote:The LRU information in the video is incorrect.


Thanks for posting. I knew the data in the video was wrong. Roughly remembered the number ~200 for desi LRUs.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1563
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 06 Oct 2017 11:02

Cain Marko wrote:
ashthor wrote:Antonov An-124 Ruslan and India's LightCombatAircraft Tejas

https://t.co/o4g2Yrys71

:shock: damn. It looks like the Tejas could hang underwing and be launched mid air. ...that is some contrast


Now that would be making use of the “Light” attribute in the LCA.

Going after a “light” fighter made things harder (albeit supposedly cheaper if defining cost by the ton.) I find no good reason why we needed a light fighter with all the bells and whistles to be perfectly honest.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 13:04

I am reminded of some guy asking about whether LCA could fire Brahmos.

Cybarus answer was yes, each Brahmos can carry a LCA. :lol: :lol:

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 13:09

chola wrote:Going after a “light” fighter made things harder (albeit supposedly cheaper if defining cost by the ton.) I find no good reason why we needed a light fighter with all the bells and whistles to be perfectly honest.


This should explain the IAFs liking for small fighters.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercia ... e-6-a.html
https://iadnews.in/2015/12/gnat-the-sab ... dcynDtx3IU

The IAF then standardized on the MiG-21 and all the logistics were built around this new fighter, including base sizing, hangers, etc. The IAF then had access to the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 in terms of sophisticated new generation platforms.

The LCA hence started out as a Gnat follow on platform, with dimensions then moving towards the MiG-21 constraints but with the features and capabilities IAF was exposed to via the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 14:00

srai wrote:
Karan M wrote:Guys - the IAF is stating it will order 83 MK1As. It will. Have faith in the CAS.

The aim should be to progress the Mk2. Not just cap the LCA at 123.


The way things are panning out there will likely be production gap occurring between Mk.1 and Mk.1A. Current orders of 20/40 Mk.1 orders are going to be completed by 2019/2020. That means Mk.1A needs to be ready for production within the next two years (or so). Given previous track record of underestimating R&D time-frames, it is very likely Mk.1A (AESA radar, Jammer and internal rearrangement) won't be ready for production in that short time span. That too just when full production @16/year has kicked in. Then followed by a likely production gap!

To me, this whole stacked order with nonviable production quantities (20 Mk.1 IOC2 + 20 Mk.1 FOC + 83 Mk.1A) is a setup for failure. No extra margin for R&D (and potential delays) and qualification. Give it two years, blame games will be thrown around making a case for import justification.


I don't understand why no DM has the political will to just have the IAF order more Mk1As and also commit to a Mk2. Its likely the lack of domain experience and hence they just sign off on any import proposal.

Political will does not mean they ride rough shod over the IAF but explain the LCA is a national program, and with its capabilities it will add more to the IAF and the IAF need not worry that spending on the LCA means no money for fancy force multipliers or Rafales etc which will still be funded by GOI even so.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 06 Oct 2017 14:05

As I have said (in vain) before DAC approval has been given. IAF role is only to bring AON request to DAC after which the procurement process takes over. Most of you are barking up the wrong tree. It is rather frustrating to have an informed discussion when people have such strong preconceptions and refuse to even read material that is out on a platter for them.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 14:24

Vidur, if you are referring to my post, I am merely stating the entire approval for only 83 aircraft itself is limited. The actual order quantities for the LCA should have been larger. Hence the proposal that went to the DAC itself should have been more substantive & supported the LCA more.

At the time this LCA Mk1A stuff was announced, I did feel it was not substantive enough. However, folks on this board kept pointing out that 123 orders were better than merely 40 (true!) and also, the Mk2 project would continue in parallel, plus there was the NLCA Mk2. Now, we are told the IAF has no firm commitment to the LCA Mk2 (plus we see no firm communiques from the MOD on this aspect) and the Navy washed its hands off of the NLCA in a rather unseemly, acerbic fashion (while remaining studiously quiet officially on the MiG-29 K acquisition). This is again worrisome, about the LCA programs long term future because after all this effort, it would be bizarre to stop such a great platform at merely 100 odd units, when aircraft which are not as sophisticated such as the JF-17 may end up being ordered more in number and meet local industrial aims.

Surely, the MOD effort could have resulted in more LCA orders or a firm commitment to the Mk2 or follow on programs. We have very little communication from the MOD or GOI in this matter, which is bizarre given the LCA is all about Make in India.

I am a voter of the current Govt and its performance in this regard has been haphazard. We have two steps forward (LCA MK1 and MK1A movement), and some steps backward (SE fighter deal) and no clarity on the Mk2.

That besides, this entire process is the be-all approach also has flaws. The point is not that the process asks for this but why no political leader has the will and capability to push for the process to be expedited. If the PMO is driving so many things, perhaps the PMO and DM need to have a conversation wit the respective stakeholders in order to simplify the process and in the interim seek workarounds.

Let me give you an example. In a certain organization, to develop a certain business, the process is like this: The required dept puts up a proposal. Its vetted by that dept. The sign off occurs from the head. Goes to central HQ whose team independently judges financial viability. Goes to the head for approval. Then a detailed draft is sought. The original dept then puts up a detailed proposal. This detailed proposal is then again vetted by the central team which then agrees/disagrees on business benefit, and takes it to an empowered panel (per GOI parlance) which sits and decides on whether this entire proposal was warranted.

Based on this approval, both the required parties are asked to come up with detailed estimates. This then again goes back to the empowered committee for approval. After that, if the project is approved, then there are regular progress meetings.

As you can see from the above, this is a time consuming, lengthy, involved, sequential process. While all the stakeholders are busy dotting the i's and crossing the t's, an agile competitor would happily, not having read any documents on process, invest and walk away with gains via a growing business and being a first or second mover.

So what is done, is the initial heads & juniors from all 3 teams, the panel, the central finance guys, the local BU, ALL sit together & come up with a joint draft proposal which comes to the panel only in the final form! The earlier drafts are quickly summarized & in parallel. In short, the process is technically followed, but urgency is the norm.

What I dont see anywhere in the MOD decision making, is a factor accounting for this aspect - that taking 24 months to negotiate a MMRCA after spending another 24 months trialing it, after 24 months doing the RFP/RFI jig, with the lead time of industrial transfer, actual manufacture may mean that by the time it actually lands in India, an adversary may actually buy something off the shelf which is superior to it or the world moves onto another platform which offers superior capabilities.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 14:35

For instance, has anyone in the MOD or the DM sought an IAF explanation on the detailed specifications achieved by the LCA & how they compare vis a vis to the existing fleet. Next, why can't the MOD seek out independent, unbiased contractors under non-disclosure norms from private industry or academia, to then decide on how many LCA can be ordered by the IAF vis a vis the existing adversary force levels. And if say LCAs cannot do all tasks, then what is the quantum of additional assets required (whether MMRCA or FGFA), do a cost-analysis of the same. Look at the projected benefits of local manufacture, local industry vis a vis an imported supply chain. Look at investing some of the savings into force multipliers on the LCA eg advanced sensors, EW etc and then take the final figure. Have ADA/HAL audit the figures along with specific IAF folks independently deputed to the MOD to ensure the final LCA version chosen for these compares is in synch with what IAF wants.

Run that with the IAF, come to a conclusion that MOD will support a finalized structure that ensures IAF capability will not be below the original war fighting requirement, after LCA induction & any deep strike or specific requirement can be met via upgrades or selected force accretions elsewhere.

Take that proposal to MOF/and or have the PMO/bigwigs involved in this program from the very beginning so the entire "approval process" is expedited with everyone being on the same page from day one.

From Parrikars statements, it appears he did follow something similar to this for a 83 unit order. Thereafter though, we are back to only MK1A and no sign of a Mk2.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 06 Oct 2017 14:59

Karan M wrote:For instance, has anyone in the MOD or the DM sought an IAF explanation on the detailed specifications achieved by the LCA & how they compare vis a vis to the existing fleet. Next, why can't the MOD seek out independent, unbiased contractors under non-disclosure norms from private industry or academia, to then decide on how many LCA can be ordered by the IAF vis a vis the existing adversary force levels. And if say LCAs cannot do all tasks, then what is the quantum of additional assets required (whether MMRCA or FGFA), do a cost-analysis of the same. Look at the projected benefits of local manufacture, local industry vis a vis an imported supply chain. Look at investing some of the savings into force multipliers on the LCA eg advanced sensors, EW etc and then take the final figure. Have ADA/HAL audit the figures along with specific IAF folks independently deputed to the MOD to ensure the final LCA version chosen for these compares is in synch with what IAF wants.


This is more or less what the 5 year defence plan is supposed to. That is how proposals reach DAC and then CCS.

Karan M wrote:Run that with the IAF, come to a conclusion that MOD will support a finalized structure that ensures IAF capability will not be below the original war fighting requirement, after LCA induction & any deep strike or specific requirement can be met via upgrades or selected force accretions elsewhere.



This is the result of the 5 year defence plan after CCS approval but real sanction has to come from annual budget. I have written at least 3 times before that that regardless of CCS approval, 5 year plan ultimately everything comes down to annual budget. All of the above work is worthless. It has no consequence, it is ink on paper, wasted trees. The article I posted on the 13th Five Year Defence Plan illustrates this. I have requested you all to read it. I have even posted the DPP process and explained several times where the problems are but I don't think anyone has bothered to read them.

How will you ever convince the services that ''capability will not be below the original war fighting requirement'' when the only consistent delivery you have given them is huge deficiencies. When even CCS approval counts for nothing then it is insulting and facile to give these assurances to the services.
Last edited by Vidur on 06 Oct 2017 15:06, edited 1 time in total.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 06 Oct 2017 15:02

uly 31, 2017
The 13th five-year defence plan (2017-22) envisages an allocation of Rs 26,83,924 crore for the armed forces.1 This includes Rs 13,95,271 crore under the revenue segment and the remainder for defraying the capital expenditure. Given the secrecy surrounding the plans, it is unlikely that much will be known about the outcomes intended to be achieved.
Although other stakeholders were apparently consulted while preparing the plan, in all probability this projection does not include the requirements of the Defence Research & Development Organisation, Ordnance Factories, Coast Guard, Border Roads Organisation, and many other organisations as well as activities carried out under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). It certainly does not include the money required for defence pensions.
The total allocation for these aforesaid organisations, activities and defence pensions adds up to Rs 1,36,746.10 crore for the year 2017-18, with defence pensions alone accounting for Rs 85,737.31 crore. Without factoring in any increase in the coming years, the requirement on this count for the plan period will work out to Rs 6,83,730.50 crore.
Assuming that the requirement has been worked out based on immaculate costing and there will be no cost overruns or additional requirements, the total requirement of the armed forces, other organisations and defence pensions would thus add up to Rs 33,67,654.50 crore.
Since the current financial year happens to be the first year of the 13th five-year plan and a total sum of Rs 3,59,851.43 crore already stands allocated for the current year, a sum of Rs 29,07,803.07 crore will be required for the remaining four years at an annual average of Rs 7,26,950.76 crore. This figure may undergo some minor change if additional sums are allocated, or the allocation reduced, at the Revised Estimate (RE) stage.
Achieving the intended outcomes of the plan, therefore, is critically dependent on the ability of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to increase the budget by at least 100 per cent from next year onward, pushing it to around three per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is considered by many to be an ideal level of funding. It is, therefore, possible that the plan is actually based on the assumption that allocations totalling three per cent of the GDP will be made available for defence during the 13th defence plan period.
It is not known whether the MoF was asked about the possible level of funding before commencing the planning process. In any case, meeting the projected requirement will require the MoF to revisit its Midterm Fiscal Policy of 2016-17, which estimated the defence expenditure, including its capital component, to be about 1.6 per cent of GDP in both 2017-18 and 2018-19.2 It will also have to make serious efforts to raise more revenue in the coming years to be able to meet the requirement.
From now on, the discourse on the 13th defence plan will follow a familiar course. To begin with, there is bound to be clamour for an early ‘approval’ of the plan. Though there is no procedural or statutory requirement of seeking the approval of any authority outside the MoD, the expectation will be that the plan will be brought before the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for immediate approval.
For the record, only three of the 12 five-year plans so far have been approved by a cabinet committee. The sixth and seventh plans for the periods 1980-85 and 1985-90 were approved by the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA), and the ninth plan for the period 1997-2002 was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).
Stung by protracted deliberations with the MoF on the size of the 11th defence plan which led nowhere and forced it to abandon the idea of seeking CCS approval, the MoD decided to let matters rest after the 12th five year plan was approved by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) within the ministry on April 2, 2012.
But the view that defence plans must be approved by the CCS continues to find strong support in the public discourse, although hardly any information is available on the impact of such approvals on the achievement of the intended outcomes of the plans in the past or, conversely, the impact of non-approval on defence preparedness. The general view is that CCS approval would make it binding on the government to make the projected funds available for spending during the plan period.
The clamour for seeking CCS approval, with strong prodding from Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence (SCoD), may force the MoD to abandon the precedent set in 2012 and actually seek CCS approval. This will lead to the re-emergence of the problem which had led the MoD in the first place to abandon the idea of seeking CCS approval for the 11th plan and instead deciding to approve it within the ministry.
According to the laid down procedure, MoD will need to first consult the MoF on putting up the 13th defence plan for CCS approval. The expectation implicit in this process is that the government will ‘commit’ itself to the projected level of funding, irrespective of any other developments which may have a bearing on its ability to generate additional revenues to meet the commitment. While nothing is impossible, this seems improbable and, consequently, so does the possibility of obtaining CCS approval any time soon, causing disappointment all around.
This might also lead to some feeble questioning of the utility of basing five year or other plans on unrealistic assumptions about how much money is likely to be available for achieving the desired objectives. It does not help either that the plans are not overarching in so far as they do not encompass other organisations which must necessarily play a complementary or supplementary role in achieving the overall objectives.
Defence planning was synchronised with national plans only in 1980 when the sixth defence plan for the period 1980-85 was made coterminous with the sixth national plan covering the same period. It is not clear what purpose was served by this, as there has never been any direct linkage between the two.
While there is no question that planning is an important facet of defence management, the question whether objectives can be achieved only be persisting with the concept of five-year defence plans as a part of the three-tiered structure of defence planning is moot. The entire gamut of defence planning needs to be revisited against the backdrop of the dismantling of the national five-year centralised planning regime and the Niti Aayog – successor of the Planning Commission – vowing to venture into defence. There is no indication that the proposed 13th defence plan takes into account the Niti Aayog’s vision for defence.
A financially pragmatic and outcome oriented plan covering a compressed time span has a better chance of showing results in the short run and setting the stage for a long haul towards achieving the highest level of defence preparedness. It is time that financial viability, including the ways and means of augmenting financial resources, is recognised as an inalienable factor in planning, however abhorrent that idea may be.
Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 15:05

I did go through the process but i will do so again, with the specific points you raised.

Yes, if there is no firm commitment to stick to a well thought out plan, then the stakeholders will quickly give up on the whole process and dub it a charade and then seek to optimize their own interests, any which way. Which it seems is exactly what has been happening.

Going through your posts, there is basically a need for a firm non-lapsable fund to support a 5-year plan. And that, clearly, may be a step too far for a political establishment (irrespective of which party is in power) as it seeks to balance sops and economic challenges plus underinvestment in other infrastructure.

Personally speaking, of the 5 year plan process, i have always had a bee in the bonnet about how the services are often lagging in serviceable platforms, yet there are big-ticket purchases elsewhere. That part too is bewildering.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2017 15:07

Karan M wrote:
I don't understand why no DM has the political will to just have the IAF order more Mk1As and also commit to a Mk2. Its likely the lack of domain experience and hence they just sign off on any import proposal.

Political will does not mean they ride rough shod over the IAF but explain the LCA is a national program, and with its capabilities it will add more to the IAF and the IAF need not worry that spending on the LCA means no money for fancy force multipliers or Rafales etc which will still be funded by GOI even so.


In my opinion this is because of a general lack of expertise on defense technology in the political and administrative class and lack of faith in AFs towards RnD establishment for whatever reason. To take decisions which need long term hard work on a large scale to make it a right decision, one needs conviction. Conviction comes with understanding and faith in the decision. Even if some RM is there who is willing to be bold, if he has no personal expertise he depends on the advice given by administrative staff or AFs. Since there is a general lack of empathy towards desi programs and everyone considers it a safe bet to simply import, the bulk of the advices given would not be favouring desi programs (remember how the then IAF Chief was advised not to attend LCA's first flight, lest it will be seen that IAF is favourable to LCA..?). No one wants to take responsibility of failures. And this is applicable when there is an RM who deserves to be an RM to some extent, like MP. We generally have RM post allotted based on political reasons not because of anyone's suitability to the post. Nothing of substance can be expected from politicians like Mulayam. Even under current government we see far more eagerness towards importing things rather than working with improving desi setup. True that there has been a good push for low hanging fruits but not much is being done to structurally change the things in long term. Thankfully though with focus on short term goals our defense preparedness is improving. But we still are yet to start on tomorrow's problems. We can't work serially on these matters.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 15:15

I am sorry but this just reiterates to the average citizen how dysfunctional our system really is Vidur ji (not blaming the messenger, but merely noting the below):

It is not known whether the MoF was asked about the possible level of funding before commencing the planning process. In any case, meeting the projected requirement will require the MoF to revisit its Midterm Fiscal Policy of 2016-17, which estimated the defence expenditure, including its capital component, to be about 1.6 per cent of GDP in both 2017-18 and 2018-19.2 It will also have to make serious efforts to raise more revenue in the coming years to be able to meet the requirement.
From now on, the discourse on the 13th defence plan will follow a familiar course. To begin with, there is bound to be clamour for an early ‘approval’ of the plan. Though there is no procedural or statutory requirement of seeking the approval of any authority outside the MoD, the expectation will be that the plan will be brought before the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for immediate approval.
For the record, only three of the 12 five-year plans so far have been approved by a cabinet committee. The sixth and seventh plans for the periods 1980-85 and 1985-90 were approved by the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA), and the ninth plan for the period 1997-2002 was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).
Stung by protracted deliberations with the MoF on the size of the 11th defence plan which led nowhere and forced it to abandon the idea of seeking CCS approval, the MoD decided to let matters rest after the 12th five year plan was approved by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) within the ministry on April 2, 2012.
But the view that defence plans must be approved by the CCS continues to find strong support in the public discourse, although hardly any information is available on the impact of such approvals on the achievement of the intended outcomes of the plans in the past or, conversely, the impact of non-approval on defence preparedness. The general view is that CCS approval would make it binding on the government to make the projected funds available for spending during the plan period.
The clamour for seeking CCS approval, with strong prodding from Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence (SCoD), may force the MoD to abandon the precedent set in 2012 and actually seek CCS approval. This will lead to the re-emergence of the problem which had led the MoD in the first place to abandon the idea of seeking CCS approval for the 11th plan and instead deciding to approve it within the ministry.
According to the laid down procedure, MoD will need to first consult the MoF on putting up the 13th defence plan for CCS approval. The expectation implicit in this process is that the government will ‘commit’ itself to the projected level of funding, irrespective of any other developments which may have a bearing on its ability to generate additional revenues to meet the commitment. While nothing is impossible, this seems improbable and, consequently, so does the possibility of obtaining CCS approval any time soon, causing disappointment all around.


So this is the basic summary of the above, MOD talks with services and comes up with a budget. Takes it to MOF, gets stalled. Now thinking of taking it to CCS to ensure the budget is actually funded as versus being a planning project.

Can't a simpler workaround be that MOF and MOD come up with a threshold budget and the services then fit the requirements to the projected finances? And iterate back and forth.

The key takeaways for the services should be:
80% serviceability of all existing assets
Adequate WWR
Basic munitions and capability on all assets (as versus hangered assets)
Then speak of further purchases and focus should be on upgrades first, then new purchases.

For instance MMRCA - for the $12Bn on 36 Rafales, how many more Su-30s would have flown, what upgrades were possible, how many more LCAs could have been ordered?
This is the part where I think leaving the decision entirely to services to project best o the best, without taking actual economic progress into account, and the political economy, is frustrating and dangerous to our actual warfighting capability.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14380
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2017 15:22

This is so frustrating. The above excerpt clearly shows how flawed the 2nd SE fighter deal is. It will add further huge costs to a budget, which as it is, ends up being stalled by MOF mandarins who are running to the whims and legitimate needs both of running a national economy which is heavily socialist in nature. So the aim should be to optimize any which way possible. Instead, we have a workable domestic fighter, and budget constraints. Our key adversary - Pak, has platforms mostly inferior to the LCA. Yet, we are insisting on a highly expensive, unproven platform (most likely the Gripen) which will stall the domestic program, be of limited use against the more advanced adversary (PRC which is moving to heavy 5G programs) and will also break the budget and worsen the MOD-MOF dysfunction.

How in anyone's guess, did Parrikar agree to the travesty that is the SE fighter program? Why did the IAF/MOD not work out a slightly expanded buy of the LCA+Rafale would have been economically better (72 Rafales + 200 LCAs vs a menagerie of 36 Rafales+ 126SE + 123 LCAs) and better for domestic industry as well.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 06 Oct 2017 15:23

Karan M wrote:I am sorry but this just reiterates to the average citizen how dysfunctional our system really is Vidur ji (not blaming the messenger, but merely noting the below):

.


It is a dysfunctional system and frankly its a miracle when something positive happens.

OT - I had very little knowledge of defcne forces or interest in defence matters but for whatever reason (perhaps some poorva janam sanskars) when I interacted with defence forces and saw some of these issues very closely, I started seeing what a difficult position they are in - have the responsibility but no authority. They are under fire from all sides not the least of it the IAS but they maintain their core values and ethos and patience. Perhaps from a spiritual progress and karma yoga perspective they are far ahead of most of us.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 06 Oct 2017 15:39

Karan M wrote:And iterate back and forth.



Oh, we are very good at iterations. Its called a file noting. There are 11 steps in procurement and 10 drops of ink at any stage by event a Under secretary can set back a nationally critical project by years if not decades. Even the honble judicary helps. They were kind enough to set back MAFI by 3 years on the basis of a foreign company's plea.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 06 Oct 2017 15:43

Am going to take a break for a few days. Happy Diwali to all of you.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3463
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 06 Oct 2017 16:55

One would think if given acquisition process is painfully long (11-steps), the firm orders placed should be substantial itself (i.e. 200) rather than piecemeal (i.e. 20+20) in nature. When the approval finally comes through, large orders can be executed without bureaucratic interruptions.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33460
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Oct 2017 16:56

Vidur wrote:Am going to take a break for a few days. Happy Diwali to all of you.

And to you sir.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2017 16:57

shiv wrote:
Vivek K wrote:nah Hakim ji! Who will buy it?

Please visit me before looking at available models so I can prescribe a powerful anti-puking agent.

There is huge demand for modelling

Checked with someone in the business. It would cost may be 2000 bucks for table top model with decent finish, if only one piece is to be printed. For order of 100, it could be 1200 per piece. Economy of scale works here too. :wink:

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9138
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Yagnasri » 06 Oct 2017 17:24

I am ok with taking one at Rs.2000. It is not that bad a price if the finish is good.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 473
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 06 Oct 2017 18:58

Rishi_Tri wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:If priced right, there will be many buyers (yours truly included)


Absolutely. Whatever scale models were there at AI'17 of Tejas were not even a patch on projects that school students would do.

A bad model is any day preferable than no model.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2017 19:10

ArjunPandit wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:
Absolutely. Whatever scale models were there at AI'17 of Tejas were not even a patch on projects that school students would do.

A bad model is any day preferable than no model.


You should have seen the model that was with one of the Sq-45 pilot I ran into once. It looked like very badly made clay model. If I had my own printer I would print nice models and gift to those Sq-45 pilots (but when you fly LCA, you perhaps don't care much about toys. :D ). HAL is really terrible in marketing. Any other company would have given away nice shiny models to people like IAF pilots and many more.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1563
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 06 Oct 2017 19:40

Are there any hobby, scale model making companies in Bharat? I never bothered to look for any hobby shop when I visit family in Chennai.

I grew up with Revell and Monogram from the States and the Japanese Hasagawa and Tamiya. (Bandai does Godzilla and hot fantasy chicks.)

Very hard to find models on Indian subjects. The only LCA models I could find were costly ($200) wood models from the Philippines on EBAY.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 473
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 06 Oct 2017 19:45

JayS wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote: A bad model is any day preferable than no model.


You should have seen the model that was with one of the Sq-45 pilot I ran into once. It looked like very badly made clay model. If I had my own printer I would print nice models and gift to those Sq-45 pilots (but when you fly LCA, you perhaps don't care much about toys. :D ). HAL is really terrible in marketing. Any other company would have given away nice shiny models to people like IAF pilots and many more.

In last to last DefExpo, I asked the HAL guy about it. He mentioned about the scaled die cast models and he said to me in Malyali accented hindi (no offense)
1. Why do you need it?
2. you can get it for 500 bucks in HAL area around Kanpur

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2017 19:52

GrabCAD has LCA Navy CAD model. Nice renders. Though the model looks not so accurate to me.

https://grabcad.com/library/lca-tejas-navy-1

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33460
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 06 Oct 2017 20:01

The models I saw are aero India were not just bad, they were shameful. Unfortunately our artsy people are living in Picasso mode. Surreal is the word. For example Channapatna toys are still lacquer coated parodies of day to day objects. They really need to get a 3D printer and move on.

The minute I lay my hands on 3D renderings of Tejas (I mean the Autocad/Blender files) will get one printed and publish photos online to make people jealous.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1563
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 06 Oct 2017 20:06

JayS wrote:GrabCAD has LCA Navy CAD model. Nice renders. Though the model looks not so accurate to me.

https://grabcad.com/library/lca-tejas-navy-1


Pretty nice. It is a good start IMHO. To be perfectly honest the complete lack of models really does the LCA a disservice in the global aviation community where there are many crossovers between veteran groups, researchers, enthusiasts and modelling.

Modellers will tackle Indian theme subjects as long as there is a base model like the Rafale.

From britmodellers:
Image

Without a model, the Tejas is completely missing from the conversation. Even the Blunder gets heavy treatment at these forums (mainly because the chini scale modeling firm Trumpeter makes kits of it.)
Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jpremnath and 36 guests