Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

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.
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sankum » 26 Sep 2018 23:52

The 10nos trainers of 83nos Tejas mk1a will be of common mk1 standard as the first 8nos trainers as per livefist report.
Extra trainer are ordered so that if mk2 is delayed 40 nos more single seater Tejas mk1a can be ordered to keep the production line running without restarting trainer line again.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Sep 2018 03:28

Picklu wrote:
ramana wrote:Picklu, Why didn't you say that earlier?

What you are saying is that DRDO/HAL should use the 52/75 KN Kaveri and see how it performs in squadron service and not wait for the 52/81KN Kaveri.

Mean time they can do product improvement to get to 81 KN or better.


Yes Sir, thank you and Ks_sachin to finally get it. Mere certification on a flying test bed or one or two test aircrafts are not enough. We need to get it in squadron service to get all the kinks out.

Picklu again I hope by kinks you mean just 75 to 81 kn i.e. performance enhancement. If by kinks u mean anything else then I give up...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50429
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2018 09:13

By kinks he means those jinks that show up from usage. Not any increase in wet thrust.
Normal usage will bring out minir issues always. Nothing is perfect.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1033
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 27 Sep 2018 09:38

Full Capability 2 seaters are preferred in some roles like SEAD, CAS, C&C, etc

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5719
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2018 09:42

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044833000037527553 ---> The only way out of these constant scam allegations is indigenization. Now that India already has a good 4th gen plus fighter platform, every effort should be devoted to scaling that up.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044833626788175874 ---> Now as far as HAL's present Tejas production lines are concerned, it's like this: a) There's 5 per year at the Tejas Division. b) 3 per year in the old Kiran hangar of the Aircraft division. c) Another 8 per year in the Hawk hangar of the Aircraft division.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044834061397749760 ---> None of the above lines are at full capacity at the moment. But they are expected to reach full capacity from 2019-20 onwards, which according to HAL is the first annual period during which they'll deliver 16 Tejas.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044837726552494080 ---> Only the Tejas programme can seed a true aerospace eco-system in India. Why only 324? The total production figure for different variants should be in the high hundreds with lines in the private sector as well. Alongside that, serious resources should be devoted to jet engine R&D.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044838618806849537 ---> It is important to accept that production rates are a function of order size & frequency. 20 IOC Tejas were ordered in 2006. 20 FOC in 2010. That is what HAL was working with & unsurprisingly was producing a few each year. And till date, those are still the only firm orders.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044839030448443393 ---> The tender for a further 83 Tejas MK-1A is still being negotiated, but the system (which includes HAL) has 'convinced' itself that more Tejas will be built in the years ahead. Ergo HAL's investment into scaling up production capacity to 16 per year.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044840721956704256 ---> Besides the 40 Mk-1 (already ordered) + 83 Mk-1A (tender stage) figure, the IAF has also given a written commitment to procuring some 201 Mk-2s if that variant materializes. But do note, that even today only 40 Tejas MK-I are on 'firm' order.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044844307268718592 ---> Each Tejas Mk-1 has some 346 line replacement units (LRUs) many of which are still imported, although indigenous sourcing has improved considerably. Over the years HAL has faced a major headache trying to convince firms to supply a 'few of those & a few more of those'.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044844697724817408 ---> Today, for a 'few more of those', suppliers are demanding steep price hikes. HAL is currently trying to convince a whole bunch of suppliers in India that the Tejas will see a 'serious' production run and that they will gain by participating in the project.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Sep 2018 10:16

Gyan wrote:Full Capability 2 seaters are preferred in some roles like SEAD, CAS, C&C, etc

How so?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 27 Sep 2018 10:51

SJha is on the dot.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Sep 2018 11:15

Mango question:

Can Mk1 which now ready be used for CAS and bombing purpose? My question is to understand if this version can replace some other ACs doing those roles at present. Can someing like Mig27 can be replaced by Mk1?

Mango view: Surely we need some new fighters like Mig27 which we are retiring soon asap and we have Mk1 now under production and why not build squadrons of dedicated short range Mk1 bombers for CAS and Bombings till Mk1A or Mk2 is ready. May not be ideal but should is good. No?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sankum » 27 Sep 2018 11:18

The production run will be greater than 324nos as IAF is committed to 18sq (360nos+)of which 123 nos Tejas mk1/mk1a (6nos) and 201 nos(10sq) Tejas mk2.
The difference of 2sq will most likely be additional 40 nos Tejas mk1a as IAF projected timeline for mk2 is 2027 instead of 2025 a delay of 2 yrs

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Sep 2018 11:31

We can invest more to at least make it 24 units per year if not 32 by 2027 to cut the time short and churn out Mk2s in large numbers. Mk2 will be new Mig21 for us.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ashishvikas » 27 Sep 2018 17:38

Yagnasri wrote:We can invest more to at least make it 24 units per year if not 32 by 2027 to cut the time short and churn out Mk2s in large numbers. Mk2 will be new Mig21 for us.


HAL Chairman had claimed earlier to achieve 24/yr with current setup only with higher Outsourcing.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5719
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2018 17:40

Indranil wrote:SJha is on the dot.

Thank you IR for the corroboration. Very good news indeed.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ashishvikas » 27 Sep 2018 17:41

Also, SJha answered one of question : are we on track for 12 this year?

Question is coming bcoz just 1 have been produced till now in current year.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044851828649848833 ---> HAL says it is. We still have six months to go before we come to end of fiscal 2018-19. let's see.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Sep 2018 18:28

ashishvikas wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:We can invest more to at least make it 24 units per year if not 32 by 2027 to cut the time short and churn out Mk2s in large numbers. Mk2 will be new Mig21 for us.


HAL Chairman had claimed earlier to achieve 24/yr with current setup only with higher Outsourcing.


Even otherwise higher outsourcing is a must for efficiency and better execution when we deal with PSUs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50429
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2018 19:16

ashishvikas wrote:Also, SJha answered one of question : are we on track for 12 this year?

Question is coming bcoz just 1 have been produced till now in current year.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044851828649848833 ---> HAL says it is. We still have six months to go before we come to end of fiscal 2018-19. let's see.



US military has an accounting/monitoring system called Earned Value Management (EVM).
You earn your value if you meet both production and cost targets.
Very simple idea but powerful results.

You take the budget funds and spread them per your program goals.
Depending on the program early months could see slow allocation and a ramp up and steady for some duration and then ramp down.
Then you track actual hours expended in those months.
So it shows planned curve and actual curve.
So far simple idea. Then comes the power of EVM.
They calculate schedule and cost performance indices.
Now if either is below 15% you will never make it without re-planning.*

So 12 planes in 2018-2019 is one plane a month.
In six months should be 6 planes roll out.
By their own reports, they are behind 5 planes.
i.e. 5/6 which is >>> 15%.
So making 1 plane so far and trust to deliver the 11 won't happen.
Not enough schedule runway.


* The reason is the Gompertz curve. If you plot % complete for a project versus time you get the famous S curve. This is an exponential function. If there is significant shortfall, it takes for ever to reach 100% complete as it asymptotes.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50429
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2018 19:25

Yagnasri wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:
HAL Chairman had claimed earlier to achieve 24/yr with current setup only with higher Outsourcing.


Even otherwise higher outsourcing is a must for efficiency and better execution when we deal with PSUs.


In production planning there is a tool called Value Stream Mapping in which you layout the various steps for building the plane and the time and cost at each step.
Just outsourcing without such a plan will not deliver you the results which is 16 planes/year.

Let's examine the HAL Chairman claim of building 24 planes/year on existing setup using higher out sourcing.

Current HAL plan is to have 16/planes a year when all the lines are established i.e. 1.33 planes/month.
24/planes per year means 2/month.

So far HAL has demonstrated even 1 plane/six months. i.e. 2 plane/ year in Fiscal Year 2018-2019.

Out sourcing will deliver parts as HAL can push the suppliers but the biggest bottleneck is HAL assembly itself.
Its blaming GOI for not giving funds to outsource.

The fault is in HAL itself.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3503
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 27 Sep 2018 21:06

ramana wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:
Even otherwise higher outsourcing is a must for efficiency and better execution when we deal with PSUs.


In production planning there is a tool called Value Stream Mapping in which you layout the various steps for building the plane and the time and cost at each step.
Just outsourcing without such a plan will not deliver you the results which is 16 planes/year.

Let's examine the HAL Chairman claim of building 24 planes/year on existing setup using higher out sourcing.

Current HAL plan is to have 16/planes a year when all the lines are established i.e. 1.33 planes/month.
24/planes per year means 2/month.

So far HAL has demonstrated even 1 plane/six months. i.e. 2 plane/ year in Fiscal Year 2018-2019.

Out sourcing will deliver parts as HAL can push the suppliers but the biggest bottleneck is HAL assembly itself.
Its blaming GOI for not giving funds to outsource.


The fault is in HAL itself.

Idea is to completely get rid of structural subassemblies (4 major ones) currently happening at HAL so all that freed up space and those people can focus only on equipping and final assembly phase. That's how existing lines would produce more. Earlier HAL was doing perhaps 60% (or some such number showing lion's share) of all the LCA MFG. Now they have kept only 30% of the total work, from their latest update I have seen some time back. Their target final is to keep only 20% and outsource 80%. Its not too difficult to imagine that same number of people working on less amount of work per plane would bump up production rate eventually.

I would very much like to get an update of status of the 4 tier-1 suppliers. I think they must have started sometime late 2017 or early 2018. I would give them 2yrs to get upto speed with HAL fully hand holding.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35893
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 27 Sep 2018 21:22

price hikes can be controlled by long-period agreements, or bulk purchase agreements. Let's also put those throttled supplies into the agreement, so that it remains. The problem was the commitment to large orders, and now we do have the 324 T-Shirt that none seem to be understanding.

======

I wonder why India within herself not able to build a consortium approach? just like EADS, we could combine HAL, ADA, Tatas, L&T, Mahindras and who not have a joint company holdings? [if it is all about profitability?]

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50429
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2018 22:16

ADA was old HAL design engineering bureau that was hived off for the LCA project.

Right now there is a consortium of sorts with HAL, ADA and the 4 Tier 1 suppliers.
Similar arrangements are there even in US.


JayS or Indranil, I would like our Bengluru based admins and members go interview HAL management if that can be arranged. I think it will be much more informative then rely on tweets and slys on SM.

Wonder if vidur can facilitate this?

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Haridas » 28 Sep 2018 09:40

Yagnasri wrote:Mango question:

Can Mk1 which now ready be used for CAS and bombing purpose? My question is to understand if this version can replace some other ACs doing those roles at present. Can someing like Mig27 can be replaced by Mk1?

Yes, from what i remember & read, current Mk1 is superior to Mig27

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Haridas » 28 Sep 2018 09:55

SaiK wrote:price hikes can be controlled by long-period agreements, or bulk purchase agreements. Let's also put those throttled supplies into the agreement, so that it remains. The problem was the commitment to large orders, and now we do have the 324 T-Shirt that none seem to be understanding.]

All good for high volume commodity production. Not applicable for few high value items.
All these fiscal planning ideas are lay speculation (read: time pass), given these is zero order in hand for Tejas mk1A, much less 200 to 300 of Mk2.

"Mungeyri Lal kay haseen sapney" :rotfl:

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 28 Sep 2018 11:21

Haridas wrote:All good for high volume commodity production. Not applicable for few high value items.
All these fiscal planning ideas are lay speculation (read: time pass), given these is zero order in hand for Tejas mk1A, much less 200 to 300 of Mk2.

"Mungeyri Lal kay haseen sapney" :rotfl:

What else do u expect? There cannot be a firm signed order for an underdevelopment product. HAL cannot negotiate price until it actually locks down a design. How do u expect a price negotiation then, because a form order is exactly that. Nowhere in the world does anyone give a firm order for an underdevelopment product. What everyone gets is an expression of interest, which IAF has also given. Expecting anything more to come before moving forward is the real 'Mungeri Lal ke haseen sapne'.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3240
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Tanaji » 28 Sep 2018 14:39

Was the Su 30 MKI version fully developed when we signed the order? Just curious as we received the MKK version initially.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 28 Sep 2018 15:45

Haridas wrote:
SaiK wrote:price hikes can be controlled by long-period agreements, or bulk purchase agreements. Let's also put those throttled supplies into the agreement, so that it remains. The problem was the commitment to large orders, and now we do have the 324 T-Shirt that none seem to be understanding.]

All good for high volume commodity production. Not applicable for few high value items.
All these fiscal planning ideas are lay speculation (read: time pass), given these is zero order in hand for Tejas mk1A, much less 200 to 300 of Mk2.

"Mungeyri Lal kay haseen sapney" :rotfl:

We need sanctions!!!!

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Yagnasri » 28 Sep 2018 15:58

Don't worry. By 2019 there will be sanctions.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 28 Sep 2018 16:16

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044840721956704256 ---> Besides the 40 Mk-1 (already ordered) + 83 Mk-1A (tender stage) figure, the IAF has also given a written commitment to procuring some 201 Mk-2s if that variant materializes. But do note, that even today only 40 Tejas MK-I are on 'firm' order.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044844307268718592 ---> Each Tejas Mk-1 has some 346 line replacement units (LRUs) many of which are still imported, although indigenous sourcing has improved considerably. Over the years HAL has faced a major headache trying to convince firms to supply a 'few of those & a few more of those'.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044844697724817408 ---> Today, for a 'few more of those', suppliers are demanding steep price hikes. HAL is currently trying to convince a whole bunch of suppliers in India that the Tejas will see a 'serious' production run and that they will gain by participating in the project.


The crux of the issue is those last three tweets. Payments for 40 is not enough to convince suppliers to invest in capital equipment to ramp up output of parts which in turn makes them expensive being small batch orders.

The GOI/IAF needs to confirm large orders and set aside a budget so the suppliers know that money is available and they can be confident that capital expenditure will pay off.

prashantsharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 23:17

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby prashantsharma » 28 Sep 2018 20:11

ashishvikas wrote:Also, SJha answered one of question : are we on track for 12 this year?

Question is coming bcoz just 1 have been produced till now in current year.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044851828649848833 ---> HAL says it is. We still have six months to go before we come to end of fiscal 2018-19. let's see.


My dad was a Test Pilot at one of the HAL factories in the early 90s. The target of 10-12 aircraft was mostly completed in the last 1-2 months of the fiscal - engine and ground tests were audible late into the night. Thats how the target used to be achieved, not evenly over the whole year, but with last minute scramble.

Doesn't look like much has changed.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2312
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JTull » 28 Sep 2018 20:27

chola wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044840721956704256 ---> Besides the 40 Mk-1 (already ordered) + 83 Mk-1A (tender stage) figure, the IAF has also given a written commitment to procuring some 201 Mk-2s if that variant materializes. But do note, that even today only 40 Tejas MK-I are on 'firm' order.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044844307268718592 ---> Each Tejas Mk-1 has some 346 line replacement units (LRUs) many of which are still imported, although indigenous sourcing has improved considerably. Over the years HAL has faced a major headache trying to convince firms to supply a 'few of those & a few more of those'.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1044844697724817408 ---> Today, for a 'few more of those', suppliers are demanding steep price hikes. HAL is currently trying to convince a whole bunch of suppliers in India that the Tejas will see a 'serious' production run and that they will gain by participating in the project.


The crux of the issue is those last three tweets. Payments for 40 is not enough to convince suppliers to invest in capital equipment to ramp up output of parts which in turn makes them expensive being small batch orders.

The GOI/IAF needs to confirm large orders and set aside a budget so the suppliers know that money is available and they can be confident that capital expenditure will pay off.


What about spares for aircraft in sqn service?

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 28 Sep 2018 21:22

Tanaji wrote:Was the Su 30 MKI version fully developed when we signed the order? Just curious as we received the MKK version initially.

Hell of a lot of difference between an 'underdevelopment' product and some country specific modifications.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 28 Sep 2018 22:05

Okay. Since the cat is somewhat out of the bag. Let me join the dots for those who couldn't do it yet.

1. HAL initially planned to continue most of Tejas inhouse and reach a rate of 16 planes per year. Program management was still shoddy though. There is immense turf war between ADA/HAL. Also the managers can rightly point out that Tejas was not ready to be serial produced till recently. Anyhow, this road was the fastest way to ramp up.
2. About 2-3 years back there was a great pressure to move the a line(s) to the private sector. Thankfully some sanity prevailed and HAL agreed and could make others agree that only HAL is in a position to be the primary integrator. Let the private sector become Tier 1 suppliers of major structures. Private parties were subsequently identified. This path will be initially slow as these Tier 1 suppliers come up. But, in the long run this is the best path (in fact the universal norm now).
3. But there is a HUGE learning curve for these newcomers. They are jumping from being Tier III suppliers to being Tier I suppliers. However, they are capable of overcoming this initial hurdle given the capital. This jacks up the per aircraft cost of the LCAs to be built. This is one of the primary reasons why LCAs are costing this much and the jump from Mk1-IOC2 (manufactured inside HAL) to Mk1-FOC to Mk1A. We are paying for this industry to come up. I know that brickbats will always use this to dish LCA in the future. LCA is not a plane for India. It is an entire industry hiding behind just one fighter. But who cares. It takes effort to know the truth. It is much easier to be an ignorant tight-ass and say that an LCA cost as much as a screwdrivered Su-30 (yes, I don't buy HAL's claim that they have the knowhow to build Su-30 from scratch).
4. The per plane cost of LCA can be brought down by more automation (HAL-built Rafales were more to be more expensive for this reason). But this jacks up the initial capital costs further. In the absence of firm orders NOBODY will put capital in (not even the Ambanis). It's a chicken and egg problem.

By the way, ever wondered why the Ambanis are so keen to screwdriver 36 Rafales (and even Antonovs), but have shown next to zero intent in the LCA?

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 28 Sep 2018 22:13

Indranil wrote:By the way, ever wondered why the Ambanis are so keen to screwdriver 36 Rafales (and even Antonovs), but have shown next to zero intent in the LCA?

Because screwdrivering something is easy. It's time we stopped this sham completely. Either make an Indian design in India or just buy off the shelf.


Btw, Thanks for the post. Very informative, though some things were already suspected.

prat.patel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby prat.patel » 28 Sep 2018 22:32

Thanks IR!

Any info that can be shared yet on how IAF (now that they own the program) is going to help navigate through the pricing part?
I mean the concerns over the price were raised by them, right (if I am not mistaken on this) - are they on board now and is the price issue dead and buried or its still being worked about between IAF and HAL+the suppliers?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 28 Sep 2018 23:47

Everybody has to take care of their optics. Do you think IAF doesn't know about these things? They know a thousand times more than me.

Let me show you another example of optics. How many billions are we paying for "India-specific" changes of the Rafale? How different are those capabilities from the F3R tranche (the F3 tranche is what we tested and were initially negotiating). You think IAF doesn't know. They have to do things like this. Otherwise the whole deal may be nixed thanks to petty politics.

We have to look at the higher picture (India needs quality medium sized aircraft till AMCA comes onboard) and turn a blind eye to these optics.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1015
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rishirishi » 29 Sep 2018 02:31

PSU's in India are generally very poorly managed. This goes from Hotels to steel etc. Firstly India needs to start with changing how the PSU's are managed.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3240
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Tanaji » 29 Sep 2018 03:56

Trikaal wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Was the Su 30 MKI version fully developed when we signed the order? Just curious as we received the MKK version initially.

Hell of a lot of difference between an 'underdevelopment' product and some country specific modifications.


Sorry no. The MKI differed from MKI significantly:

The MKI had a 2D vectored engine which the MKK did not have . This alone was a huge modification to the flight control laws
The MKI had canards and the MKK did not. It is not a trivial change
The MKI had completely revampled avionics which were western in origin
The MKI had an enhanced radar

These are very significant changes and not "country modifications" as you dismissively put it. Compare the above list with the differences between MK1 and Mk1a of Tejas: LRU changes for maintainance ease a new radar, and you will see which had the more changes. Note that Mk 1 is now more or less FOC so it is no longer "under development" with the attendant risks.

So, saying IAF does not place orders for an undeveloped product is wrong. It does but it wont for Tejas, and that is probably due to the HAL factor as it is not confident of HALs ability to deliver as the risk is with IAF and it would want to hedge its bets with MMRCA x.0 round... These are the pains we will have to go to develop an industry.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 29 Sep 2018 04:37

Agreed. Credit to where it is due. The country specific modifications for the MKI/Jaguar was way more than what we see for Rafale. Airframe, avionics, weapons et al.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Philip » 29 Sep 2018 11:15

This is the intriguing thought.That HAL which performed so well in Jag/ Darin upgrades, converting the vanilla SU-30 into a world-beater MKI, now going to be even deadlier with 40 MKIs to be upgraded to BMos std., was considered by Dassault as being inadequate for whatever Raffy prod. work they envisaged and chose a 2- week old co. whose only claim to fame is cutting through our babu red tape with ease.HAL being a DPSU not a pvt. entity should not have had any major problem with babudom.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50429
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2018 11:21

Only for offsets. All 36 Rafale are made in France.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby pankajs » 29 Sep 2018 12:21

Philip wrote:This is the intriguing thought.That HAL which performed so well in Jag/ Darin upgrades, converting the vanilla SU-30 into a world-beater MKI, now going to be even deadlier with 40 MKIs to be upgraded to BMos std., was considered by Dassault as being inadequate for whatever Raffy prod. work they envisaged and chose a 2- week old co. whose only claim to fame is cutting through our babu red tape with ease.HAL being a DPSU not a pvt. entity should not have had any major problem with babudom.

Wrong on a couple of counts at least.

1. From what I understand, Sukhoi is responsible for the design fault, etc if one is found with the plane but not for the HAL build quality where as Dassault was asked to Performance garuntee on HAL built plane! Did we hear of any such clause with respect to SU-30 MKI? There is simply NO comparison on that count.
2. HAL being part of the babudom is EXACTLY the problem. The red tape means all calculations/assumptions will come back to bite Dassault at the whim of HAL/babudom. If for whatever reason HAL muck's up who will be left holding the bag? HAL or Dassault. Mucking up has no consequence for HAL where as it has a consequence for a "2 week old Co." with respect of future contracts.

I am sure if Dassault was offered a "similar style" contract as Sukhoi they would gladly take it, help HAL get up to speed and let the MOD/IAF/HAL and babudom muck it out if something went wrong at HAL end. No skin off their nose.
Last edited by pankajs on 29 Sep 2018 12:23, edited 1 time in total.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 29 Sep 2018 12:23

Tanaji wrote:
Sorry no. The MKI differed from MKI significantly:

...

So, saying IAF does not place orders for an undeveloped product is wrong. It does but it wont for Tejas, and that is probably due to the HAL factor as it is not confident of HALs ability to deliver as the risk is with IAF and it would want to hedge its bets with MMRCA x.0 round... These are the pains we will have to go to develop an industry.

True, my bad for dismissing it without a proper reply.

However, I don't think comparing with Sukhois is right here. Sukhoi was a very special case. We didn't buy the plane back then. It was sold as a joint development project (remember PAKFA?). India invested in the design program itself of the MKI with the hopes of getting real TOT. What we got later is another matter though.
Also, one must not discount the cold war politics behind the decision. It was India's way of paying back a trusted ally in its time of need.

So yes, we have never bought an underdevelopment product. Investing in joint development is a different thing and done by many all across the world.

As for Tejas, we ARE investing in its development. GOI invests in Tejas through ADA and HAL. The expression of interest is already there for 324 planes from IAF, as a show of customer support. Firm orders cannot be placed, because HAL itself doesn't know at what price point it can definitely deliver on. We have already seen how Mk1 costs have ballooned. A firm order is a legal contract and HAL cannot then later ask for more money because so and so unforseen things happened.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aarvee, brar_w, souravB and 23 guests