LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2013 01:50

Need of the hour/times is JOINT TASK FORCE for all future projects. We all had enough of this finger pointing. The forces needs to come at level playing field for requirements, requirements engineering, verification, validation, usability, feedbacks, followups, inspections, etc.. they are a big setup, and a group of afsars can take up the role, or appoint young guns!

Total quality management and systems gurus should take positions at helm.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2013 01:53

I'm sorry to say this but ACM Browne's attitude leaves HAL no choice but to prefer golden screwdriver projects. Only then does King customer get his up-to-date technology and brochure fix.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 01:53

SagarAg wrote: Just watched the whole presentation. IAF's current view on LCA is not at all motivating. The speaker was just short of terming it as obsolete technology.

I just can't imagine being an HAL/DPSU's employee and sitting there in the audience. It felt like a humiliation session for HAL/DPSU's guys. Sorry to say this but that lady's voice felt like she was crying from inside while giving her viewpoint at the end of presentation. Instead of understanding it the IAF chairperson sitting there said We are the KINGS!! Its all your fault.

Just because there is no synergy between IAF/HAL these hard working talents have to suffer this kind of humiliation. This needs to change ASAP. IAF needs to be more involved in the whole process from scratch.

The IAF officer at one point said that don't ask for advance The lady said that if felt like they were being demotivated from the last 3-4 presentations.And they clearly were. It clearly showed the lack of coordination/involvement between the two services. Ridiculous.

You know, what is quite funny is that you (and others) are only talking about the one single comment the IAF officer made with respect to LCA and change in ASR. How about trying to answer other points which the officer raised about lack of product support from the HAL and other vendors to IAF? And that too, systems which are in active service of the IAF?

Let me see anyone here answer the issues raised by officer and why IAF is wrong to raise them.

It seems all the understanding has to be done by the IAF. This "IAF needs to be more involved argument" seems to have become single argument for all that ails the Indian aviation sector - especially, HAL. If IAF has to do everything - including telling HAL how to run their business - might as well make HAL a part of IAF. This will put all 'us-versus-them' arguments to rest.

The line of one argument after the other is that IAF is some sort of beast out to destroy the HAL and its hard working employees - and HAL is babe in the woods. All that is success is because of the hard work of DRDO and other scientists and all that is wrong is because IAF fvcked up.

As for customer being the king - yes, that is the case. The fact of the matter is that DPSUs take services for granted because they are their captive audiences.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2013 01:59

IAF wants aircraft that can win battles. It wants the best that it can get and it wants it now - you can never predict when the next war is going to happen or against who. Make no mistake, the ethos of services is such that they will fly/fight even with aircrafts that aren't the best (like training with the Kirans), but we will lose a lot of warriors - and no leader wants that.

If one studies the time taken by IAF to finalize an AJT and MMRCA, I wonder if one can say IAF wants the assets that it can get it NOW. I wonder if IAF could wait nice 15yrs for MMRCA that is bought off the shelf (if it wanted to) then why this kolavari for Desi-mall?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 02:04

This customer is king attitude is not completely misplaced. LM will get a deal unless USAF is satisfied. Also I like ACM Browne's straight talk. He speaks what he believes.

Also this bickering in BR that IAF doesn't support indigenous things is not true. 66% of 11th five year plans budget went for indigenous purchase! HAL/DRDO said that they would provide IAF with LSP 7/8 by summer of 2011 for user trials. You may say whatever you want, but LSP 8 is not even flying now. IJT still hasn't got its IOC. Whether HAL management is at fault or Russia is at fault, does it matter?

But, I don't agree with ACM on HTT-40. He himself says that we should invest more into R&D. That it should go up from 7% to 12-15% of the total investment in the next 5 year plan. And that we should start moving up the hierarchy from tier3 to tier2 to tier1. But then he himself asks what is the use of HTT-40? And ex-ACM Fali Major asks what is the requirement of IJT and AMCA.

How will we go up the chain without sharpening our tools on HTT-40 and IJT?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 02:05

I think the biggest problem is the reputation and record of DPSUs precede their work. The forces don't have faith that they can deliver a good product in time and with good quality control through serial production.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2013 02:07

I think you meant LM will not get a deal unless USAF is satisfied. But on the F-35 thread we know and you know that the customer's criteria has recently been lowered for F-35. How is that explained?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 08 Feb 2013 02:11

There is research and there is engineering.
Research is proving results/features FEASIBILITY in strict test conditions.
Research eliminates all the variables to just prove/disprove the existence of a particular result.

Engineering on the other hand makes all such PROVEN results/features work together.
Engineering is a lot more "dirty" and involves fine-grained hacks.

When one mixes engineering with research in the same project, one gets the delays we see in our projects like Arjun, LCA, Nag etc
When one differentiates the two, we get projects like NPOL sonars, Rajendra-Rohini radars, Agni missiles etc.

Case in point in USAF's next generation bomber project.
To paraphrase, they basically set aside a DECADE (yup!! 10 full years) for generating and proving technologies PIECEMEAL which would go into the aircraft.
Then, there would be full scale development for another decade, leading to induction in late 2020s.

I am afraid that I just cannot find the link for the same.

--Ashish.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 02:15

You know, what is quite funny is that you (and others) are only talking about the one single comment the IAF officer made with respect to LCA and change in ASR. How about trying to answer other points which the officer raised about lack of product support from the HAL and other vendors to IAF? And that too, systems which are in active service of the IAF?

This is LCA dhaga so talked about it onlee saar. Otherwise there were various other sectors where IAF were as per them "fooled" by HAL/ADA/DPSU's according to the presentation.

Let me see anyone here answer the issues raised by officer and why IAF is wrong to raise them.

They are right in raising them but not at a public platform and in a humiliating/rude tone where the whole world is watching the presentation. Its embarrassing as well as humiliating for DPSU's.

It seems all the understanding has to be done by the IAF. This "IAF needs to be more involved argument" seems to have become single argument for all that ails the Indian aviation sector - especially, HAL. If IAF has to do everything - including telling HAL how to run their business - might as well make HAL a part of IAF. This will put all 'us-versus-them' arguments to rest.

I believe if IAF was more involved from the start in development of these projects such issues would not have been raised by IAF. This clearly showed lack of involvement by IAF. They even wanted documented instructions to start a car err plane which IMO they are well capable of doing/documenting by themselves.

The line of one argument after the other is that IAF is some sort of beast out to destroy the HAL and its hard working employees - and HAL is babe in the woods. All that is success is because of the hard work of DRDO and other scientists and all that is wrong is because IAF fvcked up.

Well actually its the other way round. Its always HAL's fault.

As for customer being the king - yes, that is the case. The fact of the matter is that DPSUs take services for granted because they are their captive audiences.

That is exactly what the speaker said in the presentation. At the end of the day who pays the bill, its the user. Therefore if the user is not satisfied obviously the manufacture is not doing his job well. The customer is KING!! This thinking of IAF needs to change of calling them as customers. In literal sense they are but they need to be involved in every stage of development of a system. This is the added responsibility they need to take apart from being a customer.

I will repeat myself again there needs to be synergy between IAF/HAL for a project from scratch until then this ranting/blaming will continue and since customer is KING!!it will always be HAL's fault.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 02:17

PratikDas wrote:I think you meant LM will not get a deal unless USAF is satisfied. But on the F-35 thread we know and you know that the customer's criteria has recently been lowered for F-35. How is that explained?

Through political will.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2013 02:19

Lets have some of that please.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Feb 2013 02:20

indranilroy wrote:Also I like ACM Browne's straight talk. He speaks what he believes.

Yes, but his statement about the LCA's engine "not working" at Leh was irresponsible, especially in front of our DDM. We saw pics of the LCA taking off from Leh, so obviously its engine did "work". What the ACM probably meant to say was that there was a performance shortfall, or a fault that developed after testing for a while. But that is not how it will be portrayed by the media a few months down the line. LCA will be marked as an aircraft whose engine does not work at high altitudes.

Also, I think this washing of dirty linen in public between HAL and IAF is in bad taste. AI is not the forum for this. The disagreements need to be handled internally.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 08 Feb 2013 02:22

SagarAg wrote:In literal sense they are but they need to be involved in every stage of development of a system. This is the added responsibility they need to take apart from being a customer.

I am afraid I completely disagree. IAF needs to concentrate on war-fighting, not product development.
Just because DPSUs cannot do their job, does not mean IAF can afford to be side-tracked like this.

DPSUs which have been building similar products for so long, should have HISTORICAL DATA about project timelines.
That they eff up so completely, just points to them not doing their jobs.

If some technology is being developed for the first time, then there is no historical data for such projects.
Hence its a research project and should be treated as such i.e flexible timelines and not holding any product hostage to its development.
It CANNOT be a product development project.

--Ashish

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 02:42

Misraji wrote:
SagarAg wrote:In literal sense they are but they need to be involved in every stage of development of a system. This is the added responsibility they need to take apart from being a customer.
I am afraid I completely disagree. IAF needs to concentrate on war-fighting, not product development.
Just because DPSUs cannot do their job, does not mean IAF can afford to be side-tracked like this.

DPSUs which have been building similar products for so long, should have HISTORICAL DATA about project timelines.
That they eff up so completely, just points to them not doing their jobs.

--Ashish

Misraji then I am afraid the situation will not improve. Till the time IAF doesn't realize how much hardship and time R&D takes place with the facilities and budget available in our country they will not connect with the product being developed indigenously.It is evident from the fact of various videos and documentaries on indigenous products available on the net. Just observe the connect of an IAF personnel and that of a HAL/DRDO employee on an indigenous product. You will get to know what I mean.

I am not saying to go there and built it by themselves but at least support it and unfortunately IAF needs to be involved in every stage of development of a system. But here we have speaker from IAF saying don't ask for advance for a product being developed

That IAF is being fooled by DPSU's in believeing thet the product they are getting is proven.

It has to take up this as I had mentioned added responsibility apart from being a customer if they want better indigenous products.

Otherwise as our air chief commented there are proven products available around the world to buy.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 02:47

PratikDas wrote:Lets have some of that please.

nachiket wrote: Yes, but his statement about the LCA's engine "not working" at Leh was irresponsible, especially in front of our DDM.

nachiket wrote: Also, I think this washing of dirty linen in public between HAL and IAF is in bad taste. AI is not the forum for this. The disagreements need to be handled internally.

Couldn't agree more.

But I also feel that IAF is frustrated with HAL. It is actually quite welcoming private participation. I don't blame them. They need to train their guys who come every year. That can't wait for 10 years. also flying is precision business. The grounding of the Dhruv incidence because of complete negligence is quite sad. Also, HAL not providing Cheetal helicopters bought in 2009 is similarly not acceptable. It does not matter how good Cheetals as a product is!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 03:11

Your reply is symptomatic of the noise which permeates the aviation forum and all the topics under it.

There is very little literature out there on any of the topics and on top of it, given the technical nature of the subject, not many understand the nuances of it. But since India is democracy and we have right to speech and express, everyone still makes high sounding comments.

Let us take this topic of presentation by IAF. And your reply below.

SagarAg wrote:This is LCA dhaga so talked about it onlee saar. Otherwise there were various other sectors where IAF were as per them "fooled" by HAL/ADA/DPSU's according to the presentation.

And do you, or anyone else for that matter of fact, have contrary data point which proves the examples quoted by IAF officer as incorrect? I guess not. Then, what is the need to put the 'fool' part under commas as if it is something which is of dubious standing?

They are right in raising them but not at a public platform and in a humiliating/rude tone where the whole world is watching the presentation. Its embarrassing as well as humiliating for DPSU's.

Sorry, the perception about rude/humiliating is your opinion. The presentation was matter of fact where he used examples from the existing issues faced by the user - IAF.

I believe if IAF was more involved from the start in development of these projects such issues would not have been raised by IAF. This clearly showed lack of involvement by IAF. They even wanted documented instructions to start a car err plane which IMO they are well capable of doing/documenting by themselves.

This is the cache-all statement: Let me ask you this again - please use the information given in the presentation and tell me, how the IAF's lack of involvement led to these issues cropping up. Is it the job of IAF now to tell DPSU how the hydraulics used to raise the mast of radar and associated antennae works? Or, should IAF go and establish Repair and Overhaul facilities (ROH) which is the responsibility of manufacturer - HAL?

As I said - you, and many others don't have shred of data-point to counter what was said in the presentation but use this cliched line for arguing away anything and everything to do with HAL/DPSU.

And the bolded part takes the cake - you do not even understand the gravity of the topic you're commenting on. Even if i take your example - did you print the user manual of car or PC or what-have-you? Did you bother to listen carefully to what the IAF officer was talking about? It is obvious you did not. Or, you'd not have made the above comment.

And user manual (BTW - the officer was talking about technical manual for 2nd line repair) is not a 20-page kunji...and mind you, everything needs to be documented. This is an aircraft which is yet to be handed over to the IAF. And IAF will need instruction manual for every bit and piece. This is a fighter aircraft we're talking about, for God's sake - not the bicycle in my back-yard.

Well actually its the other way round. Its always HAL's fault.

It is time people ask some questions to HAL as well. All we hear is news from chaiwalls and paanwalas about what the HAL/DPSU feels.

That is exactly what the speaker said in the presentation. At the end of the day who pays the bill, its the user. Therefore if the user is not satisfied obviously the manufacture is not doing his job well. The customer is KING!! This thinking of IAF needs to change of calling them as customers. In literal sense they are but they need to be involved in every stage of development of a system. This is the added responsibility they need to take apart from being a customer.

Please, stop this charade of 'lack-of-involvement'. Along with 'lack-of-technological base', this has become the second most cliched argument. You have any details from which we can discern that IAF's lack of involvement led to problems arising which the officer quotes?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 03:22

indranilroy wrote:<SNIP>But I also feel that IAF is frustrated with HAL. It is actually quite welcoming private participation. I don't blame them. They need to train their guys who come every year. That can't wait for 10 years. also flying is precision business. The grounding of the Dhruv incidence because of complete negligence is quite sad. Also, HAL not providing Cheetal helicopters bought in 2009 is similarly not acceptable. It does not matter how good Cheetals as a product is!

He has raised some very valid points which refer to HAL's unwillingness to let go its monopoly. He specifically spoke about lack of willingness to develop private sector in the production and DPSU working simply as integrator. All his points were about lack of product support and cohesion on part of HAL and other DPSUs.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 08 Feb 2013 03:24

SagarAg wrote: Misraji then I am afraid the situation will not improve. Till the time IAF doesn't realize how much hardship and time R&D takes place with the facilities and budget available in our country they will not connect with the product being developed indigenously.It is evident from the fact of various videos and documentaries on indigenous products available on the net. Just observe the connect of an IAF personnel and that of a HAL/DRDO employee on an indigenous product. You will get to know what I mean.

I am not saying to go there and built it by themselves but at least support it and unfortunately IAF needs to be involved in every stage of development of a system. But here we have speaker from IAF saying don't ask for advance for a product being developed That IAF is being fooled by DPSU's in believeing thet the product they are getting is proven. It has to take up this as I had mentioned added responsibility apart from being a customer if they want better indigenous products.

Otherwise as our air chief commented there are proven products available around the world to buy.

I am not sure exactly what is being discussed here. Is it:

a. The validity/correctness of statements made by ACM Browne:
My stand is: He was absolutely right. Its DPSU's fault for its lack of adequate engineering skill and culture.
- LCA failed (in some form) in Leh trials.
---ADA needs to acknowledge that. There is no shame in that.

- They don't need HPT-40.
---HAL should have started the project a decade ago. Not to mention, it effed up IJT so much that the customer no longer has any confidence in them.

b. How do we improve the situation?
- I am afraid I don't see the situation improving.

We succeeded where we were forced to: Strategic missile systems + EW systems.
- Externally-Imposed self-reliance (on the forces) + Iterative development.

We failed (and will fail again) where there is no such compulsion: Tanks + Fighters + Small-arms.
- Foreign analogues available (hence no pressure on the forces) and
Mixing up R&D + Product Development (lack of engineering culture).

--Ashish

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 03:44

rohitvats wrote:
indranilroy wrote:<SNIP>But I also feel that IAF is frustrated with HAL. It is actually quite welcoming private participation. I don't blame them. They need to train their guys who come every year. That can't wait for 10 years. also flying is precision business. The grounding of the Dhruv incidence because of complete negligence is quite sad. Also, HAL not providing Cheetal helicopters bought in 2009 is similarly not acceptable. It does not matter how good Cheetals as a product is!
He has raised some very valid points which refer to HAL's unwillingness to let go its monopoly. He specifically spoke about lack of willingness to develop private sector in the production and DPSU working simply as integrator. All his points were about lack of product support and cohesion on part of HAL and other DPSUs.

I am supporting his points. I think they are valid.

I am asking all. Will people here be ready to buy a car, whose brakes may be slightly loose due to manufacturing negligence and whose manufacturer can't provide good after service. Worse than that, will you let your neighbors young son to drive that car? If not, then how are you asking the ACM to allow young boys to fly machines whose critical parts have fillings in them. And that too not civilian flying, but flying over dense forests with directed fire at them.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 03:44

Sorry, the perception about rude/humiliating is your opinion. The presentation was matter of fact where he used examples from the existing issues faced by the user - IAF.

Saar if if believe that the presentation was not at all humiliating/demotivating for the HAl/DPSU's employees then I think you have seen much worse presentations than the one in discussion. I have not. Who am I or you to judge that. Even the lady employee from HAL involved in LCA development felt demotivated by this presentation by the IAF personnel and preceding few presentations. I believe she didn't deserve this. The presentation had a negative tone right from the start. I believe this should have been dealt between HAL/IAF in one-to-one meeting and not on a public platform where whole world is watching it.

This is the cache-all statement: Let me ask you this again - please use the information given in the presentation and tell me, how the IAF's lack of involvement led to these issues cropping up. Is it the job of IAF now to tell DPSU how the hydraulics used to raise the mast of radar and associated antennae works? Or, should IAF go and establish Repair and Overhaul facilities (ROH) which is the responsibility of manufacturer - HAL?

As I said - you, and many others don't have shred of data-point to counter what was said in the presentation but use this cliched line for arguing away anything and everything to do with HAL/DPSU.

Agreed I don't have a shred of data point to counter. But the HAl/ADA/DPSU employees who rebutted the points made in the presentation gave enough data-point to counter.

And the bolded part takes the cake - you do not even understand the gravity of the topic you're commenting on. Even if i take your example - did you print the user manual of car or PC or what-have-you? Did you bother to listen carefully to what the IAF officer was talking about? It is obvious you did not. Or, you'd not have made the above comment.

And user manual (BTW - the officer was talking about technical manual for 2nd line repair) is not a 20-page kunji...and mind you, everything needs to be documented. This is an aircraft which is yet to be handed over to the IAF. And IAF will need instruction manual for every bit and piece. This is a fighter aircraft we're talking about, for God's sake - not the bicycle in my back-yard.

I just agree with the bold part. IAF just wants the cake. It doesn't matter who makes it! And to a certain extent they are right. After all they are concerned with protection of our country and it always strives for the best possible available. These years of delay can get to anybody nerves. But how to improve it

Instead of blaming each other they need to find a solution to solve it.

Please, stop this charade of 'lack-of-involvement'. Along with 'lack-of-technological base', this has become the second most cliched argument. You have any details from which we can discern that IAF's lack of involvement led to problems arising which the officer quotes?

How can we stop the charade of 'lack-of-involvement' and 'lack-of-technological base'. If these are the core issues that needs to be resolved then one can not escape from realizing it sooner or later. HAL employees clapping at the end on a rebut by one of them, LCA R&D lady being upset with the presentation. IN personnel trying to motivate her by saying to apply the tech to LCA Navy. IAF personnel accusing HAL/DSPU of fooling them. IAF calling them as just customers and putting blame on DPSU for all the problems facing by them. If all these events doesn't show a lack of involvement in just 30 minute presentation then I don't know what will.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 08 Feb 2013 03:48

If it wants,HAL should develop basic trainer on it own and if it turns out good enough, IAF can buy it. HAL can also try to sell it to other domestic/international customers.

No need to tie IAF to HAL for such a basic and 'life at risk' requirement of training young pilots. They were screwed for 2 decades for AJT by MoD, HAL has screwed them on IJT for a decade no wonder they don't want to get screwed for the basic trainer.

Anyhow I think HAL should play to its strength and build on its successes rather than try to make everything for IAF. They are doing great with helicopters, lets focus on LCA, Pak-FA and AMCA besides numerous license assembly, upgrade, JV and overhaul projects that they are involved with.

After success with helicopters they could try to repeat it in UVA market which is going to be a major business in a decade or so. why chase puny basic trainer?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 03:52

Sagar,

I agree with you that the IAF officer only expressed all negative feedback. Is there not a single positive feedback to give when you speak for 2 hours.

But IAF wanted to lead HAL in projects related to defense. HAL rebuffed it. So you can't say that IAF was not trying.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 08 Feb 2013 03:56

What presentation are you guys talking about??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2013 04:00

if the public podium is considered as meeting points between groups for a single mission objective, then there is abject process established or followed within public/gov/mil/dependents service organizations.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 04:00

Katare wrote:What presentation are you guys talking about??

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 04:14

indranilroy wrote:Sagar,

I agree with you that the IAF officer only expressed all negative feedback. Is there not a single positive feedback to give when you speak for 2 hours.

But IAF wanted to lead HAL in projects related to defense. HAL rebuffed it. So you can't say that IAF was not trying.

-ve feedback by IAF + -ve feedback by me = +ve feedback overall. Zimble onlee saar!

Indranilroy ji can you give me link for the correct thread or news article where there is discussion about your second point (bold).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 04:35

Please no ji.

IAF wants an Air Marshal to head HAL.

Defence ministry scuttles IAF move.

Just do a google seach with IAF+HAL+head. There will be a list of reports.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 04:54

Actually, please watch the Gripen presentation. The presenter kept emphasizing on "on time" testing and one co-located team.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2013 05:16

both python-5 and derby!!!

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 07:20

indranilroy wrote:Please no ji.

IAF wants an Air Marshal to head HAL.

Defence ministry scuttles IAF move.

Just do a google seach with IAF+HAL+head. There will be a list of reports.

Thanks for the links boss.

But this looks more like a takeover of HAL proposed by IAF rather than joining hands with HAL in developing IAF worthy products. Becoming head of an organization is a different thing from working in synergy with it for a product development from scratch.

This is a post by Shiv garu in Military Aviation thread, which is what I meant, since both the threads are working in complete synergy on the same topic/discussion.

shiv wrote:
vina wrote:
Here we don't have that. All the IAF is used to is, "Give us Dollars, we go shop abroad" and then whining about this and that, with total lack of any ownership and skin in the game. Of course the Army keeps august company with them on that, with the Navy sailing the high seas majestically all alone.
The attitude of some IAF officers I have met is like that of a young man in a brand new Merc parked outside a Tata Nano showroom who is asking why the Nano cannot match the Merc which his father bought him. "Arre this Merc has been in prodcution 50 years and this Nano is so crude?"

The IAF's warfighting doctrine is based around a huge component of imported products and as long as imports work the warfighting doctrine wlll work. This is a strategic error. I think the IAF's warfighting doctrine is good only for short Indo-Pak type wars. For long tern survival and dominance the warfighting doctrine will have to be brought down several notches from its current "we will fight with the highest tech we can buy" to the highest tech thet country can achieve in practice. For that the IAF and DPSUs need to depute offcers who are smart to work with each other. This mindset of IAF only for figting and DPSU only for production needs to change. At least some IAF enginners need to start working with DPSUs

Someone needs to point out to both DPSUs and IAF that we have more or less mastered 1950s to 60s level tech and any wars we fight will have to keep that in mind. By semanding 21st century tech we get only imports.

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 08 Feb 2013 07:59

indranilroy wrote:
Katare wrote:What presentation are you guys talking about??

We have seen worst customer behaviors than this but they usually comes behind closed doors, and here on a public forum, this kind of presentation was not expected, points were valid but tone was bit too sharp.

disha · Post by **disha** » 08 Feb 2013 08:10

akshat.kashyap wrote: We have seen worst customer behaviors than this but they usually comes behind closed doors, and here on a public forum, this kind of presentation was not expected, points were valid but tone was bit too sharp.

With all due respect to the "presenter"., he must be an excellent, professional and a patriotic soldier. As a speaker, it was a 3rd rate presentation. The speaker forgot the Jaguar story. Interesting. Why are they upgrading the engines on Jaguar now?

IAF should get out of this "customer is king" mode., they are not shopping for bananas and potatoes. They need to get into "partnership" mode.

IAF does not seem to be professional any more. Somewhere they leave a partner bleeding and in harm's way. Not even a simple humanity.

Let the flames fly ...

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2013 08:55

indranilroy wrote:
PratikDas wrote:I think you meant LM will not get a deal unless USAF is satisfied. But on the F-35 thread we know and you know that the customer's criteria has recently been lowered for F-35. How is that explained?
Through political will.

indranilroy wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Lets have some of that please.

I'm not quite sure what is funny about this. Simply put, the IAF doesn't have the patience for R&D. Western companies sit on a huge cache of technical knowledge paid for indirectly by the tax payers of their respective countries and earned over decades. Yet with all that knowledge they **** up like they have with the F-35. No knowledgebase and vast experience to save them from the ignominy of even Canada reconsidering the F-35 and yet "political will" is for LM because the F-35 simply must happen for the US. Somehow it is ok for India to be lakh wise and crore foolish by just paying other companies for up-to-date tech.

Either the MoD should intervene and tell the IAF what the IAF needs to accept because in this democracy one is the other's boss, or the MoD should just hand IAF a screwdriver, an equivalent budget to HAL's and the instruction that if they think they can do better than HAL then prove it. That would be sufficient competition for HAL and the IAF tag will be good lure for hiring local talent. Anyone willing to bet how quickly new R&D money for IAF would disappear?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Feb 2013 09:01

We have seen worst customer behaviors than this but they usually comes behind closed doors, and here on a public forum, this kind of presentation was not expected, points were valid but tone was bit too sharp.

good point kashyap

it immediately pricked me because i have seen this in our customer conferences -

very disappointing that one would use the countries premier air show to present this.

more appropriate from some local industrial conference etc

srin · Post by **srin** » 08 Feb 2013 09:17

Surya wrote:
We have seen worst customer behaviors than this but they usually comes behind closed doors, and here on a public forum, this kind of presentation was not expected, points were valid but tone was bit too sharp.
good point kashyap

it immediately pricked me because i have seen this in our customer conferences -

very disappointing that one would use the countries premier air show to present this.

more appropriate from some local industrial conference etc

What it shows is the disfunction of the MoD - they are both under MoD, and they have to use an international conference to highlight the differences ? If the Cmde is compelled to wash dirty linen in public, does it mean that there is no private internal fora where he can do it and be taken seriously ?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2013 10:10

Please don't treat IAF like a babe in the woods. What makes you think IAF doesn't air dirty laundry in private and in public? Maybe they just don't give a damn for etiquette.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2013 10:21

PratikDas wrote:Please don't treat IAF like a babe in the woods. What makes you think IAF doesn't air dirty laundry in private and in public? Maybe they just don't give a damn for etiquette.

Exactly. Once the etiquette, national-pride, self-esteem and national interests go out the window, the boxing match simply becomes more interesting!

And the whole world watching? Well, every good boxing match needs an audience, right? Why would the two boxers fight in private otherwise? Hain ji?

In fact, I am waiting for HAL's counter-response to the media today out there.

Unless someone in the MOD was a spoil-sport and during the night went backstage to get the two boxers to take a dive today and shut their mouths!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 11:13

SagarAg wrote:<SNIP>I just agree with the bold part. IAF just wants the cake. It doesn't matter who makes it! And to a certain extent they are right. After all they are concerned with protection of our country and it always strives for the best possible available. These years of delay can get to anybody nerves. But how to improve it Instead of blaming each other they need to find a solution to solve it.

<SNIP>

How can we stop the charade of 'lack-of-involvement' and 'lack-of-technological base'. If these are the core issues that needs to be resolved then one can not escape from realizing it sooner or later. HAL employees clapping at the end on a rebut by one of them, LCA R&D lady being upset with the presentation. IN personnel trying to motivate her by saying to apply the tech to LCA Navy. IAF personnel accusing HAL/DSPU of fooling them. IAF calling them as just customers and putting blame on DPSU for all the problems facing by them. If all these events doesn't show a lack of involvement in just 30 minute presentation then I don't know what will.

For heaven's sake man, please listen to that presentation again.

Except for one LCA comment and ASR revision therein, the entire presentation is about lack of product support. Where is he complaining about delays in the project? He is highlighting about product support of systems which are already in IAF's service. ALH is in service so is the air traffic control radar. And IAF (along with IA) is committed to induction of ALH and now, Rudra and LCH when it comes on line. This chopper entered service in 2002. We are in 2012. How about someone asking HAL as to what it was doing in last 10 years?

HAL is manufacturer of the product. It has to ensure that infrastructure for product support exists - if it needs IAF to tell HAL that it needs to develop product support infrastructure than something is wrong with HAL.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2013 11:16

vivek_ahuja wrote:<SNIP> Exactly. Once the etiquette, national-pride, self-esteem and national interests go out the window, the boxing match simply becomes more interesting! And the whole world watching? Well, every good boxing match needs an audience, right? Why would the two boxers fight in private otherwise? Hain ji? In fact, I am waiting for HAL's counter-response to the media today out there. Unless someone in the MOD was a spoil-sport and during the night went backstage to get the two boxers to take a dive today and shut their mouths!

Oh! I am all for it.

I want to hear the IAF's side of the story. For too long, the IAF has been labeled as the villain in the story. Simply because nothing from their sides reaches the public domain. The DPSU and HAL's of the world have enough opportunities to 'leak' information to the press. Let there be catharsis if that is what is required.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2013 11:19

rohitvats wrote:Oh! I am all for it.

I want to hear the IAF's side of the story. For too long, the IAF has been labeled as the villain in the story. Simply because nothing from their sides reaches the public domain. The DPSU and HAL's of the world have enough opportunities to 'leak' information to the press. Let there be catharsis if that is what is required.

Fair enough, I guess.

So I am re-posting something that Singha saar posted on my scenario dhaga recently. I think you will find it very apt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1TxiVhrkZA