LCA News and Discussions

[member_20033]

Sirs,

I think the fault lies on both side. HAL and DPSU are terribly inefficient and need competition from private sector. I think in next 10 -15 years we will see private sector coming in a big way in defense. Having said that India before 1990's was technologically laggard still we have come out as a success in missiles, radars etc due ingenious individual efforts and salute to those individuals who make it happen.

The problem with IAF is that it needs to realize that life is less than perfect. If the country has to become self sufficient in Defense we will have initially accept products which are less than perfect. For example let us assume that F22 is the best available aircraft in the world but since that is not available we are living with Rafael. Similarly may be LCA do not fulfill all requirement of IAF but we need to start production today and let there be 5 new version of LCA come out in next 10 years which increasingly fulfills IAF expectations.

If we dont start today we will never get there. What is the worse things that will happen. The first 100 LCA MK will become obsolete in 10 years, so let it be if it is able to create a foundation on which we can come out newer Air Crafts etc.

I think we need to do the following.

IAF needs to integrate efforts with HAL and other DPSU as well as upcoming private sector, Cutting edge technology can not be generated by our immature system on its own now. Since we are living in less than perfect condition IAF cant behave as a pure customer and have hands off approach.

Private sectors needs to be encouraged and let free to start ventures which over next 20 years will become a force to reckon with. Competition will also push HAL towards efficiency.

We need to start using our products even when they are less than perfect (and procure some high end product at the same time). Just like prithvi missile might be a primitive technology but it created the foundation to create a K15 and Agni 5.

Regards

[SagarAg]

Sirs,

I think the fault lies on both side. HAL and DPSU are terribly inefficient and need competition from private sector. I think in next 10 -15 years we will see private sector coming in a big way in defense. Having said that India before 1990's was technologically laggard still we have come out as a success in missiles, radars etc due ingenious individual efforts and salute to those individuals who make it happen.

Till IAF believes itself as just customer and HAL thinks itself as the sole supplier to IAF nothing will change and this blame game will continue.

The problem with IAF is that it needs to realize that life is less than perfect. If the country has to become self sufficient in Defense we will have initially accept products which are less than perfect. For example let us assume that F22 is the best available aircraft in the world but since that is not available we are living with Rafael. Similarly may be LCA do not fulfill all requirement of IAF but we need to start production today and let there be 5 new version of LCA come out in next 10 years which increasingly fulfills IAF expectations.
The problem is IAF does not believe in this doctrine of quantity over quality.

If we dont start today we will never get there. What is the worse things that will happen. The first 100 LCA MK will become obsolete in 10 years, so let it be if it is able to create a foundation on which we can come out newer Air Crafts etc.
Check the presentation. IAF is already terming LCA tech as obsolete.
I think we need to do the following.

IAF needs to integrate efforts with HAL and other DPSU as well as upcoming private sector, Cutting edge technology can not be generated by our immature system on its own now. Since we are living in less than perfect condition IAF cant behave as a pure customer and have hands off approach.
Can't agree more with you on this point. Someone in IAF, HAL, MoD needs to have this mindset to get it working.

Private sectors needs to be encouraged and let free to start ventures which over next 20 years will become a force to reckon with. Competition will also push HAL towards efficiency.

Here is a list: http://www.ada.gov.in/ADA-IND.pdf of LRU's by HAL/ADA requesting participation of private sectors for indigenous development. Let us see how much response does it gets.
We need to start using our products even when they are less than perfect (and procure some high end product at the same time). Just like prithvi missile might be a primitive technology but it created the foundation to create a K15 and Agni 5.
IAF does not follow this doctrine. I am really surpirsed to see the Lady scientist involved in R&D of LCA Tejas saying that all the requirements put for LCA MK-1 are complete. Their job was done. IAF guy said that they need to further apply the more advanced tech in MK-2. But what about MK-1 The serious disconnect is so evident between customer requirement and the producer development.
Regards

[Jamie Boscardin]

This boxing match needs to continue.
Its I guess IAF's way of saying that "we are not the culprits". If we are the customer- We need to be given "what we asked for" and the indigenous OEM needs to surpass our expectations consistently, in the same way IAF is supposed to consistently & continuously keeps our skies safe.
If Rohini radars are unmovable they are dud, coz in wartime they would be taken out just like that. Show poor designing at the start itself.
If HAL as the final integrator, cant be the only point of contact for the end-user, they are total wastage. Means they have just assembled parts based on a diagram without developing any expertise for maintenance and problem resolution.

IAF is not behaving as a customer only, they define requirements, pay advance, sign off on the end product and then HAL starts it's work. When HAL finishes off, IAF has a product with no maintanence plan, no life cycle support, lowest indigenous content inspite of funds been earmarked & transferred for TOT with OEM and all this for a far greater cost & decades of saying "we are almost there" just a few more years.

Way to go HAL!

[srai]

[quote="Chanakaya"
...

Private sectors needs to be encouraged and let free to start ventures which over next 20 years will become a force to reckon with. Competition will also push HAL towards efficiency.

Here is a list: http://www.ada.gov.in/ADA-IND.pdf of LRU's by HAL/ADA requesting participation of private sectors for indigenous development. Let us see how much response does it gets.
...

I think when people mention "private sector needs to be involved" they really mean big enterprise like TATA, Reliance, etc. In terms of participation of small to medium sized private enterprises in aerospace projects, there are already more than 200 vendors involved in supplying various parts and components for various HAL/DRDO projects.

One of the main issues highlighted by one of these smaller private enterprise is that they have to take full risks in developing the products required at their own costs without any guarantee of orders. Orders can be intermittent and in small quantities. No private company will thrive in this kind of environment.

[SagarAg]

[quote="Chanakaya"
...

Private sectors needs to be encouraged and let free to start ventures which over next 20 years will become a force to reckon with. Competition will also push HAL towards efficiency.

Here is a list: http://www.ada.gov.in/ADA-IND.pdf of LRU's by HAL/ADA requesting participation of private sectors for indigenous development. Let us see how much response does it gets.
...

I think when people mention "private sector needs to be involved" they really mean big enterprise like TATA, Reliance, etc. In terms of participation of small to medium sized private enterprises in aerospace projects, there are already more than 200 vendors involved in supplying various parts and components for various HAL/DRDO projects.

One of the main issues highlighted by one of these smaller private enterprise is that they have to take full risks in developing the products required at their own costs without any guarantee of orders. Orders can be intermittent and in small quantities. No private company will thrive in this kind of environment.

I think you have raised a very valid point srai ji. I can't think of a viable option/answer for these small private enterprise vendors.

[mody]

Indigenous development will only take place, when the services seriously start supporting it and are involved with DRDO/DPSU right from the design stage, upto the final handing over of the project.

If the services simply consider themselves to customers and many times draft the requirements keeping in mind the latest and greatest product available in the world or sometimes requirements which are technically not feasible, the indigenous development in defense will keep lagging behind.

Take the case of our missile program. We tested the Prithvi and Agni missiles in 1988 and 1989 respectively. If the easy route of import was available for the missiles, the services could have very easily argued that both the missiles, as tested were already outdated and the program should be scrapped. At the time Prithvi being liquid fueled, was easily inferior to the Chinese M11 missiles procured by Pakistan. The Agni TD-1 was also quite crude as compared to most intermediate range missiles at the time. in fact 1 US senator called the first tested Agni missile as a "Dead Dog", that could not hit anything smaller then the bay of bengal.

From those early days to launching of the Agni V and BO-5 with single digit CEP, composite second stage etc. etc, we have come a long way. But the development took place in stages and now we have the technical know how and development experience to develop most kinds of missiles.

Fortunately, the easy import route was not possible for the missile program.
Sadly, it is possible for most other systems and hence even after so many years, we are still importing even basic things.

A case in point could be the artillery. It is not something that was beyond our technical capability even 10 years ago. But, the services never saw it that way. Had we initiated a program 10 years ago for Artillery development, today we could have been the master's of artillery in the world. Maybe the first products developed, could have just about managed to match the performance of Bofors B-77 152mm/39 cal guns in our arsenal. Or maybe it could have even fallen slightly short. Even then, if the project had been carried on, after producing a small number, as per the initial effort, today we could be producing amongst the best 152 mm/52 cal guns in the world.

Also for the imports, the whole offset policy is a total mess. I would rather suggest allowing 100% FDI in defense, with the clause, that atleast 70% by value of the product, would have to be manufactured in India or sourced from Indian vendors. The percentage can be scaled up for large projects, to go upto 90%, within 3-4 years. This would bring in much better technical know how and expertise in the Indian industry, then the stupid offset program ever will.

[Indranil]

And in this we, DPSUs are also included, right? For example what was stopping OFB from foreseeing the requirement and presenting the alternative?

[member_20292]

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.

1. We require more IIT's to do the core technology research aspects while the HAL does more productioneering.

2. There is no way around it. And the ambit of the work lies largely outside the IAF's capabilities and responsibilities.

3. To do 1. better, we need more companies. This is coming via the private companies production.

4. HAL should be allowed to export its products and find free markets for them. Currently, its only the IAF who has a free for all choice to import what they like. HAL should be freed up similarly.

[member_20292]

Also for the imports, the whole offset policy is a total mess. I would rather suggest allowing 100% FDI in defense, with the clause, that atleast 70% by value of the product, would have to be manufactured in India or sourced from Indian vendors. The percentage can be scaled up for large projects, to go upto 90%, within 3-4 years. This would bring in much better technical know how and expertise in the Indian industry, then the stupid offset program ever will.

Suppose we forget about all of these ch**tiypanthi waale clauses and quotas, and allow foreign defence companies to setup 100 % fully owned subsidiaries?

[member_20292]

what will your family do when spares are cut off??

People all over the world buy Iphones without necessarily being even AWARE of too much more support products and OEM supplies . They buy it and use it.

IAF is similar and let them be similar. Dont expect them to buy Nokia 1100 made in Chennai when Foxconn Iphone 5 is available.

[Manish_Sharma]

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 ...

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... aguar.html

Indian Efforts.

As explained above, since there were serious limitations to unrestricted operation of the aircraft and no tangible solution was forthcoming from BAe, we had to do something. There were several insinuations from BAe: IAF aircraft were being subjected to excessive number of cycles of slat operation. Strictures were passed on IAF maintenance practices, permitting entry of air into the system, during the process of charging hydraulic fluid. The first allegation of excessive slat operation was negated after our Air Advisor in London checked with the RAF and found that their slat operation cycle was identical to that of IAF. The second allegation was negated after it was pointed out that the Jaguar had a self-bleeding hydraulic system and there was no scope for air remaining within the system.

Bharat from Air HQ exhorted HAL to study the whole problem and come up with quick solutions, so that the aircraft could be cleared for unrestricted operations at the earliest. The damaged slat motor of JS 139 was brought to Bangalore for detailed metallurgical examination at National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL). By now it was clear that the accident of JS 120 could also be due to the same reason. On our request the wreckage (of JS 120) was searched again and the damaged slat motor located and brought to Bangalore. Jam put in relentless effort to analyse the cause of failure by interacting continuously with metallurgists of NAL and scientists of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). Detailed analysis was made using ELFINI, structural analysis software. It was found that the brake body of the slat motor had inadequate corner radius (by design) in the body unit, at the circlip holding groove, resulting in a sharp corner, leading to be a stress raiser. This component was prone to early failure even with normal load and duty cycles. The corner radius of 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm was permitted as per design. Jam and his team of scientists then worked out the duty cycles obtainable at different radii. Calculations revealed that even under normal operating conditions, units with corner radius of less than 0.03 mm were likely to fail prematurel,y around 1500 flying hours. This was precisely what had happened in both the accidents.

Jam presented the detailed analysis to BAe who were very reluctant to accept the findings. After a number of meetings and presentation of accurate facts and figures, BAe did accept the shortcoming. In the meantime, BAe had also examined RAF aircraft with about 1500 flying hours and found that the brake bodies of slat motors with lower corner radius showed signs of impending failure. BAe then took action to correct the design requirements and advise AVIACA accordingly. The reluctance on the part of BAe was probably to avoid any liability or legal hassles. We had learnt our lesson at the cost of one aircraft and almost another one.

Modifications.

There were a number of brainstorming sessions at the Aircraft Division of HAL to develop and introduce suitable modifications. The aim being to clear the aircraft for unrestricted operations by being able to manage the emergency, should it recur. The first modification was the introduction of a warning light on the Central Warning Panel (also wired to the Master Warning Flasher), to come ON the moment the reservoir levels dropped, consequent to a hydraulic fluid leak This was relatively easy and Mr Veluswamy, Design Engineer came up with trumps in no time. The second and most important part was to be able to use the residual fluid to lower undercarriage without putting off the battery. Jam came up with a concept; ? why not selectively de-energise one of the solenoid-operated valves, so that the fluid trapped exclusively for controls from one of the systems could be diverted to operate services like undercarriage. Controls could still be operated with the fluid from the other system?. This idea took shape and with tremendous encouragement from Mr Haridas, then General Manager of Aircraft Division and Bharat from Air HQ. Veluswamy, Rajshekar, Jayamohan and the team of the Division came up with a viable modification scheme. An additional switch was provided in the cockpit, which enabled the pilot to selectively isolate one of the hydraulic systems and divert the fluid for services, while the other system took care of the controls. Aircraft could thus operate unrestricted, as it was not required to put off the battery.

Both the modifications were rigged on one aircraft in record time, (less than two weeks). These were assessed and evaluated by HAL test pilots. In early February 94, Bharat and a team from Air HQ came to Bangalore and assessed the modifications. Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) was also involved at this stage. Air HQ gave a go ahead to fabricate the required components and introduce the modifications on the Jaguar fleet of the IAF. HAL undertook the task on priority, sent teams to Jaguar operating bases and the entire fleet was modified within six weeks. The limitations on Jaguar operations were removed by April 94. In June 94 it was found that BAe introduced these modifications as applicable to the Jaguar fleet all over the world. Interestingly the Company Notice of BAe was identical to that of HAL, word for word; expect that the letters BAe substituted letters HAL. There was a very fine print (visible only through a magnifying glass) that the modifications were based on ?work done by HAL? Contract.

Since the modifications were developed in India and adapted by BAe, it was decided to examine the possibility of claiming "Intellectual Property Rights" from them. Some interesting features of the Jaguar contract and licence agreement signed in 1978 by Government of India with the BAe emerged. The gist without actual legal terminology is given below: Operator (India) may introduce modifications on their own aircraft, the details of which are to be communicated to BAe. If we (BAe) have any technical observations, we will inform you within two months. In any case, the introduction of modification is at your own risk and cost.

If we (BAe) find that the modification is useful and should be introduced on the entire Jaguar fleet world over, we shall do so. However, this does not attract any "Intellectual Property Rights" or Commercial considerations.

It is amazing that the contract signed even before the aircraft were inducted had incorporated clauses as above. We learnt that a team of experts specialised in drawing up contracts draft these documents and bring to them the desired thoroughness.

Awards.

Mr Jayamohan and Mr Jamadagni were commended by the CAS. HAL management gave a cash award to Jayamohan and very reluctantly promoted him (he had less than year?s service at that stage). Jayamohan?s role had been invaluable. It was his accurate analysis, commitment, intimate knowledge of the Jaguar systems and clear headed thinking during crisis, that saved an aircraft. It also provided material evidence for identifying the exact cause of the problem and take corrective actions. He for one certainly deserved a National Award. Sqn Ldr Palit kept his cool throughout the 97 minutes he flew and displayed a very high degree of professionalism and airmanship in bringing back the aircraft safely. He richly deserved the award of Vayu Sena Medal.

The others from Aircraft Division like Haridas, Veluswamy, Rajshekar who burnt mid night oil remained unsung heroes. An irony that has baffled me for years; HAL management did not recognise the role and contribution of Jamadagni in solving the unusual Jaguar problem, although he had earned a commendation from the CAS. It was only in April 2002, that the present Chairman, HAL honoured him at a small function.

Conclusion.

There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the Jaguar crisis described in this article. These are: No design is foolproof. There would always be surprises in aviation.

No problem is insurmountable, provided it is tackled with purpose and synergy, setting aside narrow organisational loyalties. Jayamohan's timely advise during the crisis, has once again reinforced the fact that there is no substitute to thorough professional knowledge.

The thoroughness with which BAe drew up contracts is to be admired. Hopefully our experts have learnt to be as thorough.

[RKumar]

It takes many iterations before a product is world class. When Prithvi was introduced it was outdated/primitive but as no was willing to give us anything Army accepted it. Then came the earlier Agni series and now we have Agni-IV, V, VI and B-05 in it due time with 10s of iterations.

I wish -> Rafale deal is scrapped and Russian project FGFA is delayed by 10 years.

[member_22539]

Dont expect them to buy Nokia 1100 made in Chennai when Foxconn Iphone 5 is available.

I hope you are capable of more intelligence than you used to make a bigoted comparisons like this. If any thing the comparison is between a gold plated I phone 5 and the latest Galaxy S, but hey, some people wanna be hip .

[Aditya_V]

both python-5 and derby!!!

One missile on the Pylon is r-73 what is the other??

Is Tejas supposed to fire R-77??

[k prasad]

The forces need modern equipment, on time, and easy to use. But as a nation, we need to get to the point of being able to produce these ourselves. Its a national imperative. How to do that? We need to build up a technological base - that can be done by investing in research and developing systems. Then, we need to also create a production base and ecosystem to slowly make the industry self sufficient and efficient. These will get frittered and dissipate away if these systems are not put to use and improved upon - which means deep services support and investment in the idea of indigenization.

A nascent R&D system cant produce cutting edge stuff right away, and an antiquated manufacturing system cant build reliability immediately. Both need to be ramped up to get to speed. This will take time and risk, and means that we must be willing to accept a lot of failures. Even the worlds top defence R&D industry is facing severe delays in its flagship programs, and killed a stealth copter project after sinking in 66 BILLION dollars (i'm talking about the RAH-66 Comanche).

So our services will need to accept risk, and a slightly lower tech initially, for the purpose of stimulating growth of an industry that can do much better in next iterations. When learning to ride a cycle, you must accept that the child will fall sometimes. But without that, else will the child grow up to be able to ride a cycle, a scooter and then, a motorbike? Remember, our defence projects are always initiated by force requirements. This means that they need to show foresight and plan for these much in advance, to give time for our R&D agencies to build competence.

Coming to faults, our production agencies need to get off their A$$es and push themselves to indigenize. They cant be protected. Especially OFBs. As long as the DPSUs are spoonfed, they will never work. At the risk of sounding racist, I'd say thats a general Indian trait (which even I share, I might add) - we have the best minds in the world, but are too lazy to work if an easy route is available. Why else are we now up to world class in areas we have been embargo'ed in, and still import nuts and bolts things?

If a private player offers to come up with something better, great. support them. The private industry needs to be be developed, nurtured and fostered, even if it means a certain amount of money lost in orders for things we might not need. The forces need to also look at things strategically and patriotically (I say this with all due respect, since their love for the nation is unquestionable) - Merkava is a good example - the Mk1 wasnt always up to scratch, but the IDF stuck with it, helped improve it, and see where the Mk4 is today. Contrast that with the IA's attitude towards Arjun. IAF isnt much better. The Navy historically didnt have a lot of money, and wanted more control on the systems they wanted, and thus, are more heavily involved in design and closely interact with the designers. Again, look at the difference in level of interest between IN and IAF in the Tejas project. The forces need to be more closely tied with design, and feel like they're a part of the design, rather than end customers.

I worked on a project once for an Indian defence lab (missile related) in a small consultancy firm - a firm of the type that srai mentioned above. There was a good deal of personal money invested by our boss in this project, with almost no guarantee of actual procurement. The only reason the project was actually going ahead was because it wasnt an exorbitantly expensive one, and because there was a good deal of patriotism in sinking in money in the hope of being able to deliver a good system. The advantage we had was direct interaction with DRDO rather than MoD or the services. The bureaucracy in both (especially due to lack of technical understanding - their file-pusher, I-want-it-now-I-dont-care-about-your-problems attitude is fatal for any enthusiastic defence entrepreneur).

I know quite a few people (some of them closely) who have tried to develop indigenous systems for the forces but have been utterly broken by the system - both the forces bureaucracy, or their stubbornness or the MoD idiocy. Such lack of support can kill any indigenous industry. Its not a unique problem, and this is one reason I dislike the good Air Cmde's presentation. He might have the DPSU issues down pat, but the kind of dismissiveness in his tone was rude and offensive, and worse, lacked balance. He didnt bother to evaluate where the issues arose from, showed a lack of balance about whether these were not similarly seen with phoren OEMs (Need I mention the Gorshkov or GSLV Cryo engines?) and a level of insularity about IAF's own failings when confronted with the same by the HAL guys (one of whom clearly mentioned that attitudes from IAF in recent times were changing for the better).

[mody]

A lot of the innovative engineering in India actually comes from small and medium sized enterprises and not giant companies like Tatas and Reliance etc.
In fact my personal experience has always been that large companies are much more dis-inclined to innovate and generally prefer to just go with the flow.

This is the reason I would advocate 100% FDI in defense, but with the clause that atleast 70% by value of the equipment has to be manufactured or sourced from India. Without this clause, the foreign companies will simply run screw driver shops in India, while keeping their bases in their home countries chugging along and keeping most of the high tech stuff under wraps.
The sourcing or manufacturing in India will be limited only to reduce some cost and would generally not involve high technology stuff. If instead they are forced to source from Indian manufacturers, they would have to provide the drawings and specifications for the parts required.
If now for example, a foreign company is setting up an artillery manufacturing plant in India, they would have to provide the drawings and specification for a lot of the parts to Indian foundries and forging units, as well as other manufacturing companies. When these companies are able to meet this requirement, they gain the knowledge and expertise on how to manufacture weapons grade material as per International standard. This experience gained can be used in the future to help build similar systems in India itself or use the knowledge for producing different products or applications.
Also, if foreign companies have to source in India, they will not be bound by stupid DPSU procurement procedures, that require a lot of paperwork and highly time consuming and lengthy vendor registration and approval procedures. These procedures itself are enough to turn away 80% of Indian companies from working with DPSU's or MoD.

The current 26% FDI regime is meant only for large companies to benefit and get imported stuff through the back channel, without really developing anything in house.

[mody]

both python-5 and derby!!!

One missile on the Pylon is r-73 what is the other??

Is Tejas supposed to fire R-77??

The other missile is our very own Astra

R-77 will mostly not be used with LCA. From what I recall, the Russians refused to open out the code to allow porting of the missile, to different platforms. Hence R-77 can only be used with Russian aircrafts or planes having russian radar, designed to work R-77.

[jamwal]

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.

Rohit sahab
Haven't you read Tejas Story in which Air Chief Tipnis had to be persuaded by the author to attend a Tejas related landmark. Not to say that they are outright hostile, but dedicated support for Indian weapon system isn't a priority for Air Force and Army.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

Rohit sahab

Haven't you read Tejas Story in which Air Chief Tipnis had to be persuaded by the author to attend a Tejas related landmark. Not to say that they are outright hostile, but dedicated support for Indian weapon system isn't a priority for Air Force and Army.

JJ, I've read the book and then some more. I know what was IAF's attitude to LCA. But what everyone seems to forget is that the same book also tells you that it was scientists who tried to chew far more than what they could manage. And half the reasons for delays can be attributed to the decisions which they took. They said we will build this and give it to you. And a certain Air Commodore by the name of Krishnaswamy in Air HQ even then commented that we don't have capability to built this. But we digress.

IAF is committed to LCA - has already ordered aircraft in advance - even Mk-2 which exists only on paper, as of now. Coming to IJT - IAF has committed INR 600 Crores to its R&D and given firm order for 7 LSP and 73 aircraft. In spite of all the issues with ALH serviceability, IA and IAF continue to induct the same. And today, even Rudra entered service with IA.

So, pray do tell me, what is this clamor of IAF not committed to domestic products?

But you know what - the funny thing is that while everyone had deemed it all right to use the cliched arguments to bash the IAF, no one, not a single soul has bothered to answer the issues raised by the IAF officer. How about taking a step back and trying to see what the officer was saying? But no, that would not be glamorous and will actually require people to do some research. It is easier to regurgitate old stuff and perpetuate the prototype.

[Surya]

ut you know what - the funny thing is that while everyone had deemed it all right to use the cliched arguments to bash the IAF, no one, not a single soul has bothered to answer the issues raised by the IAF officer. How about taking a step back and trying to see what the officer was saying? But no, that would not be glamorous and will actually require people to do some research. It is easier to regurgitate old stuff and perpetuate the prototype.

Rohit

not disagreeing with many of the points the officer raised but this was entirely the wrong forum to raise it. you do not indulge in this bashing on your premier airshow where all sort of local industry is trying to sell themselves

[rohitvats]

Rohit

not disagreeing with many of the points the officer raised but this was entirely the wrong forum to raise it. you do not indulge in this bashing on your premier airshow where all sort of local industry is trying to sell themselves

Surya - I'm can live with that line of argument. And can understand why the HAL gentleman and lady decided to air their views.

However, if you ask my personal opinion, I have no issues with it. There has to be a very strong reason for an IAF officer (Read IAF) to make such a presentation. People talk about IAF bullying the supplier aka HAL but I strongly feel it is the other way around. HAL and other DPSUs are a law to themselves. 2010 CAG Report talks about HAL not coming up with ROH facility for ALH and the officer talks about same problem in 2013. This when the facility was budgeted for. 4th iteration of ALH entered service today with induction of Rudra. 159 ALH were ordered by IA as of early 2012 - now, add another 60 of Rudra. Does anyone realize the enormity of the situation from users perspective? Or, should IAF/IA set up the ROH for HAL?

Has anyone, apart from CAG, held HAL accountable for the above? Or, the system integration but no responsibility about product support? But no, how can IAF ask such question. I'm sure enough has happened for IAF to come out like this.

[Karan M]

Surya, agreed. Pande's behaviour was too over the top. See his body language, the manner in which he responded to the HAL guy at the end. Confrontational and absolutely intended to force the issue. When he behaves like this, in front of an international audience, what message does it send?

Uncivil and on top of it, come to an international seminar, attended by the international community, looking to pick a fight. This is the sort of attitude which India can do very well without.

And on top of it, look at the reaction from both the LCA lady & the HAL guy - emotional, distraught. Just goes to show how upset they'd be at behaviour like this. Instead of motivating teams, people like Pande ensure that the entire development process collapses.

And the claims of him being accurate, and factual. For one, look at the cavalier manner in which he dismissed the LCA's 50% + LRU indigenization count! As if he's doing a favour to people there by saying that "I crossed that line out to be positive etc" and then make a point of showing that line as well.

Does he even understand what it takes to develop these items? Machining relatively low tech items at BRD for mandatory spares for earlier gen MiGs is one thing. Designing & developing LRUs like a FBW DFCC entirely another.

And the IAF was busy testing the Gripen @ MMRCA, which has an indigenization count of lower than that figure in all likelihood, in its NG variant, given how many new systems are being included.

The amount of effort required to achieve the 50%+ indigenization figure already & the progress involved escaped him totally, but not only that, he didn't have much to support himself there, given that no aircraft hitherto in the IAF has achieved anything close that from design & only depend on TOT to HAL. With near complete TOT, the Su-30 MKI is there a decade after induction, let alone at pre-IOC itself, and we are not talking about completed design ownership in India which the LCA has!! Those so called indigenized LRUs will require HAL to go back to the OEM, which he also cribs about.

Compare his talk to that by Mr Muthanna from ASTE, who gave criticism where due, but was also categorical about LCA's positives!

Net,folks like this Pande gentleman, are adept at causing bad blood I'm afraid, and the results will be seen much later when programs continue to totter thanks to such sledging.

Further, for all those thinking that there is some sort of institutional change in the IAF that will support indigenization via IAF involvement in local programs, this was a wake up call. Clearly, unlike the Navy, the IAF's program progress is still going program to program & gents like these have no interest in getting involved in program management.

He is clearly hands off with regards to all the platforms and states that its the integrators job to manage all these tasks! Given the current DPP itself mandates half or even more of the cost by value from outside, even in Make (local), this gent clearly is at odds with even the MOD policy.

This totally comes in line with all the prior issues of the LCA & several other programs having the IAF as a reluctant customer, who comes in late to the program & observes from the sidelines. After which, once the program is well underway, with many mistakes made, continues to carp from the sidelines & then savages the program at every opportunity.

This form of behaviour is inexcusable and is completely missing when it comes to foreign products, inducted without any leaks or such bashing at external conferences. Lets take a look at other points raised previously.

- IAF's purchase of Russian weaponry - many batches dodgy, duds. IAFs response - studied silence
- MiG21 Bison - dodgy spares support, dodgy MTBF of key Russian avionics items. IAF response, silent subcontracts to PSUs/pvt sector to investigate/resolve issues. No public slagging of MiG.
- Mirage 2000H, IAF continues to run after French OEMs for small items & was asked by two French suppliers to place orders upfront as production of these items was closing. They did. No presentation with shocked smilies at an event when this was done.

Say good bye to any thought of the IAF ever forming any organization like the AFRL or having its own technologist to guide programs. On the one hand people at ASTE & test pilots will give their all to make the LCA a success. Others like this gent will come and attack the program on dubious grounds, for challenges which are known and the team is working towards them.

Further, its also evident now that there is a serious mismatch between the IAF & HAL about logistics and spares. And even Capex. Several folks who track the issue, have noted previously at other events, that IAF routinely pushes the DPSUs to stock the relevant spares & supply aggregates and does not want to hold them on its own. Reason, IAFs cost burden goes down, but DPSUs goes up. In return, the Indian setup with its Navratna and this and that, expects DPSUs to still show a good "financial performance", including returning money as dividends. This dysfunction - something which should be resolved by the MOD and hasnt, means that this constant pressure on DPSUs will continue, whereas their financial controllers will obviously resist measures to increase their inventory of items which may or may not ever be used.

Overall, a bizarre performance at a premier event. On the one hand, India hosts these conferences and events in part to drive awareness and even raise its stature, and then folks like these come and sabotage these efforts. Even whilst other members of the same organization create teams like Sarang etc to "sell" the image of local goods.

[titash]

IAF is committed to LCA - has already ordered aircraft in advance - even Mk-2 which exists only on paper, as of now. Coming to IJT - IAF has committed INR 600 Crores to its R&D and given firm order for 7 LSP and 73 aircraft. In spite of all the issues with ALH serviceability, IA and IAF continue to induct the same. And today, even Rudra entered service with IA.

I think its important to understand the serviceability problems that the IA/IAF is facing with the ALH. The Dhruv is a homegrown design and the associated problems are well understood (recently, there was a beautiful article by Shri Hari Nair on the problems HAL faced and overcame in the Dhruv project). So the question arises as to why there are issue getting these birds back in the air double quick - the vendor is local, there are no US/UN sanctions, the spares should be plentiful, the mechanics should be plentiful too

Why then do we have a serviceability problem? The Dhruv is not an embargoed PAF F-solah or a Mig-25 with no Russian product/spares support

Any ideas guys???

[vivek_ahuja]

but you know what - the funny thing is that while everyone had deemed it all right to use the cliched arguments to bash the IAF, no one, not a single soul has bothered to answer the issues raised by the IAF officer. How about taking a step back and trying to see what the officer was saying? But no, that would not be glamorous and will actually require people to do some research. It is easier to regurgitate old stuff and perpetuate the prototype.

Rohit

not disagreeing with many of the points the officer raised but this was entirely the wrong forum to raise it. you do not indulge in this bashing on your premier airshow where all sort of local industry is trying to sell themselves

Surya: +1

Rohit: the IAF gets to speak to a lot of media (and they can arrange conversations if they like) without having to choose an international event like Aero India to do this. I think you ought not to get worked up about us missing the point the IAF is trying to make: we get it as well. What we don't get is the below-the-belt type attack that this ugly event was and I think that is where the IAF has really lost support from people such as myself. I find myself fully agreeing to the technical arguments being made and utterly sympathetic to the users (I even support Browne's comments on scrapping the HTT-40 for example), but I still cannot forgive them the way they chose to do what they did at this air show. I think this point is being muddled up by people's emotions above. Does not mean that they are all pro-HAL or something.

[Misraji]

What we don't get is the below-the-belt type attack that this ugly event was and I think that is where the IAF has really lost support from people such as myself.

If this had come through media, everyone would have used the words, hit-job, paid-journalism, unnamed sources etc.
The message would have been lost again.

--Ashish

[vivek_ahuja]

What we don't get is the below-the-belt type attack that this ugly event was and I think that is where the IAF has really lost support from people such as myself.

If this had come through media, everyone would have used the words, hit-job, paid-journalism, unnamed sources etc.
The message would have been lost again.

Is that the excuse for this sort of behavior at a premier international event?

But I will concede that this was a very well planned hit job by the IAF, so you may very well be correct in that there were no other avenues left for the IAF to air its voice internally within the system. And if true, is even more disturbing than this incident.

[Karan M]

IAF is committed to LCA - has already ordered aircraft in advance - even Mk-2 which exists only on paper, as of now. Coming to IJT - IAF has committed INR 600 Crores to its R&D and given firm order for 7 LSP and 73 aircraft. In spite of all the issues with ALH serviceability, IA and IAF continue to induct the same. And today, even Rudra entered service with IA.

I think its important to understand the serviceability problems that the IA/IAF is facing with the ALH. The Dhruv is a homegrown design and the associated problems are well understood (recently, there was a beautiful article by Shri Hari Nair on the problems HAL faced and overcame in the Dhruv project). So the question arises as to why there are issue getting these birds back in the air double quick - the vendor is local, there are no US/UN sanctions, the spares should be plentiful, the mechanics should be plentiful too

Why then do we have a serviceability problem? The Dhruv is not an embargoed PAF F-solah or a Mig-25 with no Russian product/spares support

Any ideas guys???

Based on several conversations around this topic @ public events with both sides of the spectrum, its this, one HAL was tardy in setting up a ROH & servicing facility and second, the IAF wants assured spares supply for all LRUs.

First, HAL admitted the issue noting it had been too focused on the production line and are working towards the latter, but this sort of issue routinely happens with new products because of inexperience and project management goof ups.
For instance, the IAF itself has routinely fluffed up in setting up maintenance facilities for its imported gear. Usually, they happen several years after induction, by which time many items would be waiting for overhaul.
Orders get revised, works execution gets delayed and govt redtape is another bugbear.
But these are solvable issues.

Second, however, HAL has had issues in placing these orders because they come in piecemeal & the end supplier will not supply these. So the IAF & the other services, wanted HAL to coordinate, maintain adequate stocks - do whatever it took to have a ready supply of all LRUs. Easier said than done. HAL like all organizations has financial targets to meet.

This is something the MOD should drive, since at the end of the day, HAL & IAF are at loggerheads with both being funded by MOD, and whatever money HAL "makes" goes back to the MOD itself.

The bigger issue is that IAF thinks that indigenization will solve these problems. As if- local SMEs too would have the same issues, plus the challenge of qualifying a proper local vendor pool remains. HAL's opening presentation makes it clear the efforts they are undertaking to do this.

However, quality will suffer if inexperienced vendors are brought into the Supply Chain and start supplying items. Qualifying these items to a proper build level, will take time. This is easily 4-5 years for any LRU.

Further, the IAF clearly does not understand the concept of scaling up or even the quantum of investment required to support these efforts. They are now talking of punitive measures to keep the suppliers in line. That is insane. As it is SMEs in India struggle with getting payments on time - something which every vendor complains. And now they are talking of penalizing programs, whose effects if they go to the vendors, forget indigenization.

I am sorry to say this, but the IAF is clearly dysfunctional when it comes to understanding how to run business or develop technology at a broad level. Their tough guy act has already caused damage in the past to aeronautical development (sinking all HF-24 follow ons, and also sinking efforts by national aero orgs to get funding for the entire aero ecosystem - at a previous Aero India, then AC Chief Tyagi sabotaged these efforts). They are their own enemy whenever they do this, and they dont seem to realize this either.

[Misraji]

But I will concede that this was a very well planned hit job by the IAF, so you may very well be correct in that there were no other avenues left for the IAF to air its voice internally within the system. And if true, is even more disturbing than this incident.

I agree. That is THE disturbing part.

International event and international image be damned. The system is not working.
Everything else is secondary to sorting out the system.

--Ashish

[Karan M]

What we don't get is the below-the-belt type attack that this ugly event was and I think that is where the IAF has really lost support from people such as myself.

If this had come through media, everyone would have used the words, hit-job, paid-journalism, unnamed sources etc.
The message would have been lost again.

--Ashish

It is a hit job & a stupid one at that. By attacking local industry in this manner, this man has directly impacted the export success of the very programs which if they scale up, will support the IAF's objectives as well. The Dhruv is being pitched across the world. Guess what will happen now, if a rival OEM needs ammo to do a counter claim? They'll point to this guy and his statements.

Compare and contrast to the studied manner in which both Air Chiefs of Germany and UK pitched the Eurofighter to Indian media. Does anybody think it doesn't have serviceability issues? RAF had to cut down on training for a time, as adequate spares werent available. New contracts were given to redesign aggregates/processes for better logistics.

British/German/Italian/French AF officers in contrast act as ambassadors for their local industry. They know the stakes.

This is not the first time such a hit job has been done as well. At the LCA IOC-1 ceremony, then CAS PV Naik made a deliberate reference to the LCA as a MiG-21++. It was obviously picked up by the media and a ceremony which should have been a positive, coming of age of India's aero industry one, was turned into a mini-scandal by an eager media. Did the IAF do something similar with the induction of the MiG-21 Bisons which were seriously lacking serviceability and did not meet IAF reqs at the time?

At another previous Aero India, after then DRDO head made an impassioned case for more funds, then CAS Tyagi directly countered those requirements. It wasn't his business to do so, because the funding related to far more than what the IAF alone needs. But he made it so, and even today, several programs are delayed because adequate funding isn't there. This years shortfall is ~20-30% and VKS made the point some programs had to be prioritized, PC speak for rob peter to pay paul.

Further, if the case is that he had to use this international event to make such claims, then there is also the point that the MOD is either sleeping on the case or has seen that the IAF's case is not necessarily lily white. As mentioned in my previous post, there are many international acquisitions managed directly by the IAF which have been far worse in terms of initial deliveries and program objectives, plus sustainment. Yet, the IAF did not make a point to savage these OEMs in front of an international audience. There is a point here as well.

Last time the IAF even spoke of MiG, MiG spokesperson went on an overdrive mocking the IAF for its high rate of attrition and making all sorts of claims. Most of them were lies, but then the IAF kept quiet. The message that sent was obvious. IAF did not want to take MiG on, because if it did, its own image would suffer too in the process, and perhaps serviceability too, if MiG/Russia took a hard line.

By doing such washing of dirty laundry in front of the public, the message going out to DPSUs is if you don't play a similar game, you'll keep getting attacked. That is not a good thing. It doesn't take much for some fast operator to start pulling similar tricks with the media. What will the IAF do then? Its such a worthless game where nobody wins.

Further, by being so hostile - the message to the industry was anything but positive. The reaction of the people in the audience confirms how they perceived it as well. That too is not good. Instead of motivating people, you end up alienating them.

[SagarAg]

But I will concede that this was a very well planned hit job by the IAF, so you may very well be correct in that there were no other avenues left for the IAF to air its voice internally within the system. And if true, is even more disturbing than this incident.

I agree. That is THE disturbing part.

International event and international image be damned. The system is not working.
Everything else is secondary to sorting out the system.

--Ashish

It doesn't work like that Misraji.
Arre bhai if the system is not working I would sort it out in one-to-one dialogue with the supplier not ranting about it in public. IMHO IAF is being a crybaby here.

[Misraji]

It is a hit job & a stupid one at that. By attacking local industry in this manner, this man has directly impacted the export success of the very programs which if they scale up, will support the IAF's objectives as well.

Further, if the case is that he had to use this international event to make such claims, then there is also the point that the MOD is either sleeping on the case or has seen that the IAF's case is not necessarily lily white. As mentioned in my previous post, there are many international acquisitions managed directly by the IAF which have been far worse in terms of initial deliveries and program objectives, plus sustainment. Yet, the IAF did not make a point to savage these OEMs in front of an international audience. There is a point here as well.

Last time the IAF even spoke of MiG, MiG spokesperson went on an overdrive mocking the IAF for its high rate of attrition and making all sorts of claims. Most of them were lies, but then the IAF kept quiet. The message that sent was obvious. IAF did not want to take MiG on, because if it did, its own image would suffer too in the process, and perhaps serviceability too, if MiG/Russia took a hard line.

By doing such washing of dirty laundry in front of the public, the message going out to DPSUs is if you don't play a similar game, you'll keep getting attacked. That is not a good thing. It doesn't take much for some fast operator to start pulling similar tricks with the media. What will the IAF do then? Its such a worthless game where nobody wins.

As a small snipe, something coming from the horse's mouth does not count as a a "hit job" ...

I am not disagreeing with any point in particular. I do disagree with the assessment that the presentation should have been mellow.
This game has to be played by both sides until a satisfactory status-quo is reached.

So far, all points had been notched up against Armed forces for not supporting indigenous programs enough.
How long were we expecting them to play saints?
Not to mention that things were stagnant.

The message going out to DPSU's is "Clean up or shut up".
They have already been doing all the talking anyway.

--Ashish

[rohitvats]

Surya: +1

Rohit: the IAF gets to speak to a lot of media (and they can arrange conversations if they like) without having to choose an international event like Aero India to do this. I think you ought not to get worked up about us missing the point the IAF is trying to make: we get it as well. What we don't get is the below-the-belt type attack that this ugly event was and I think that is where the IAF has really lost support from people such as myself. I find myself fully agreeing to the technical arguments being made and utterly sympathetic to the users (I even support Browne's comments on scrapping the HTT-40 for example), but I still cannot forgive them the way they chose to do what they did at this air show. I think this point is being muddled up by people's emotions above. Does not mean that they are all pro-HAL or something.

I respect yours, and everyone else's sentiments and their talking umbrage at the venue chosen to make the point and consequences thereof. And I have stated my point on the same - I don't see a problem because I think I know where he is coming from.

The issue I had was for everyone to jump on the usual bandwagon of cliched arguments. But for you and Surya (and I think Pratik Das), no one even bothered to raise this point. Services criticism of DPSUs tends to bring in Pavlovian response from BRFites.....'phoren maal pasand' and every thing else in between.

However, if you ask me, this was coming. DPSUs have become a law to themselves and given their relationship with MOD, there is nothing to keep a tab on them. For MOD and denizens therein, DPSUs are a source of legit income in form of dividends as well as to keep the gravy train going. DPSUs are fleecing Services and charging all they can but Services are no behave as customers. They need to be more 'involved'....yeah! sure. All the heavy lifting needs to be done by the Services...either people in HAL and others are daft or IAF/Services guys are superman...and we know that is not the case.

[Misraji]

It doesn't work like that Misraji.
Arre bhai if the system is not working I would sort it out in one-to-one dialogue with the supplier not ranting about it in public. IMHO IAF is being a crybaby here.

Sagarji,

What was not working was the way things were.
This is a nice way to shake things up and get things moving.

This one-to-one dialogue with supplier is done in 1st year, the 2nd year .. Not the 5th year of product support.

IAF has hard facts to support its case.
What do its detractors have? Words like crybaby, indigenization, moral-support, demotivation, etiquette, ethics (and all unquantifiable things in between.)
Sorry. I side with IAF.

--Ashish

[Karan M]

As a small snipe, something coming from the horse's mouth does not count as a a "hit job" ...

A hit job is a hit job, irrespective of whom it comes from.

I am not disagreeing with any point in particular. I do disagree with the assessment that the presentation should have been mellow.
This game has to be played by both sides until a satisfactory status-quo is reached.

If you disagree with that assessment, then I welcome you to pull that stunt in any professional industry, in a public setting. Be very aware then, that many of your partners will & can show their displeasure by various means. You wish to settle issues, do so privately. Its a rare thing for anyone to publicly attack a partner in this manner, and only customers with large pocketbooks who don't give a darn where they source from do this sort of thing. That flies in the face of the reasonable expectation that the services work with industry.

This is not a game, which has to be played by both sides. Because its not a game at all.

This is a pretty serious matter which has to be resolved professionally. So far no DPSU delegate has gone onto a public event and mocked/attacked the armed forces. The manner in which you cavalierly suggest this "game" should be played, they should do so as well. Wonderful. What next, more demarches like the one by a controversial head of a DPSU to an ex Army chief when he levelled allegations of impropriety?

Your suggestion is not only bizarre, its unworkable & will only cause more friction.

So far, all points had been notched up against Armed forces for not supporting indigenous programs enough.
How long were we expecting them to play saints?
Not to mention that things were stagnant.

The message going out to DPSU's is "Clean up or shut up".
They have already been doing all the talking anyway.

--Ashish

Excuse me, but when were they saints to begin with given services officers themselves crib about lack of institutional support for several local programs. And where is the expectation that they had to be saints?

There is no message per se going out to any DPSUs because lets face it, as the MOD's preferred children, they will continue to be where they are. Its going to be another decade till any replacements from the private sector come along.

But by trying to browbeat them in this manner, nothing prevents the DPSus from being equally adept at leaking stuff to the press etc. Then this issue becomes even more ridiculous.

If the IAF is serious about solving these issues and expecting the DPSUs to respond, they have to become more involved in program management, no ifs and buts.

Successful weapons industry programs across the world have voluntary contributions by their home services in terms of deputed officers throughout the program genesis, and a program management organization to ensure continuity.

The IAF lacks this.

To expect the DPSUs to understand the minutae of the IAF's different logistical structure, what its operational constraints are, the challenges in developing a weapons system as versus a technology system - are pointless. They don't have the ability. The IAFs structures, its policies and operational deployment take decades for even its own officers to understand. Can a DPSU design team, freshly working on a project, grasp all these? Hardly.

Availability of the right armed forces manpower is not assured currently, either. In the past, for HAL for instance, even having regular test pilots was a challenge. Deputation to such programs is often considered a cushy job and treated with disdain by the command structure. The ex head of ADA had to fight for his IAF promotion thanks to this perception. The standing committee on defence has the ludicrous claim by an IA delegate that people deputed to these programs "Forget the olive green". Why because program managers are neutral and take program objectives into account.

This just shows the customer versus partner mindset, which is why we buy planes from France (which has a dedicated PM setup), kit from Israel (where experienced soldiers and reservists have a dual role as developers) and India is the one country in the world where the two worlds work in parallel but don't intersect as a routine.

If the IAF wants programs to run per its requirements, it has to get its hands dirty. Bashing HAL at a seminar will not cut it. The problems remain and will only worsen

[Karan M]

What was not working was the way things were.
This is a nice way to shake things up and get things moving.

This is hardly a "nice way", its an immature & pretty bizarre way because it will only lead to bad blood.

This one-to-one dialogue with supplier is done in 1st year, the 2nd year .. Not the 5th year of product support.

Nope.. In any program, the one to one dialogue continues till product end of life, because issues keep cropping up, especially when the product itself is in rapid development.

IAF has hard facts to support its case.
What do its detractors have? Words like crybaby, indigenization, moral-support, demotivation, etiquette, ethics (and all unquantifiable things in between.)
Sorry. I side with IAF. --Ashish

His 50% snipe on the LCA for instance was hardly anything related to a hard fact, it was a pretty subjective & ridiculous comparison. You can side with the IAF, but its a moot point whereas the whole IAF itself is represented by this chap, because its doubtful his subjective statements be supported by those in the IAF who are working on the program & appreciate the tasks ahead far more than he does.

[member_23694]

Against which fighter IAF will be more comfortable fighting , an F 16 or JF 17.
Indigenous fighter is very important and we must have one , but it should not be used as a tool by any organisation as a source to hide its failures or delays. IAF will not like its operational requirement to suffer because of delay somewhere over which it does not have even any control. Result will speak more than counter-argument. Its perform or perish world and countries security cannot be compromised using words like crybaby, indigenization, moral-support, demotivation, etiquette, ethics . Once LCA Mk.2 matures and AMCA starts flying i am sure IAF will be more than happy and confident to use them as there weapon of choice.
Regarding browbeating the DPSus, the DPSus should take it as a constructive criticism and focus there attention towards increasing there efficiency and quality and start churning out more LCA's MK.1, be ready for Rafale manufacture and prove Dassault wrong and then they also need to take care of FGFA and AMCA. So no time for them for counter argument and excuses.
As said let result / performance do the talking

[member_20292]

1. Can we sell some of HAL to Tata to get the privatization ball rolling?
2. Sorry to say, but since the govt. services, MOD and the dpsus do not pay top dollar, they do not get the best talent. Which leads to all sorts of issues down the road.
3. India is tech unfriendly. we have to accept it. Indian companies are far more cost driven than value driven.

[SagarAg]

It doesn't work like that Misraji.
Arre bhai if the system is not working I would sort it out in one-to-one dialogue with the supplier not ranting about it in public. IMHO IAF is being a crybaby here.

Sagarji,

What was not working was the way things were.
This is a nice way to shake things up and get things moving.

This one-to-one dialogue with supplier is done in 1st year, the 2nd year .. Not the 5th year of product support.

IAF has hard facts to support its case.
What do its detractors have? Words like crybaby, indigenization, moral-support, demotivation, etiquette, ethics (and all unquantifiable things in between.)
Sorry. I side with IAF.

--Ashish

Misraji I don't know in which direction this will shake things up considering that HAL employees were demotivated by it to say the least. IAF's hard facts to support its case were meant for HAL not the public. Forget IAF as the presenter and HAL as the audience. Suppose you were the customer/presenter and I were the vendor/supplier sitting in the audience. After hearing such a speech from you it would have no where motivated me to deliver or shake things up. It was out and out not acceptable to use such a platform to shake things up. Jab apna hi saath nahi dega toh parayon se kya bair
JMT

[Misraji]

If you disagree with that assessment, then I welcome you to pull that stunt in any professional industry, in a public setting. Be very aware then, that many of your partners will & can show their displeasure by various means. You wish to settle issues, do so privately. Its a rare thing for anyone to publicly attack a partner in this manner, and only customers with large pocketbooks who don't give a darn where they source from do this sort of thing. That flies in the face of the reasonable expectation that the services work with industry.

This is not a game, which has to be played by both sides. Because its not a game at all.

This is a pretty serious matter which has to be resolved professionally. So far no DPSU delegate has gone onto a public event and mocked/attacked the armed forces. The manner in which you cavalierly suggest this "game" should be played, they should do so as well. Wonderful. What next, more demarches like the one by a controversial head of a DPSU to an ex Army chief when he levelled allegations of impropriety?

Your suggestion is not only bizarre, its unworkable & will only cause more friction.

I am a professional, Sir. So I understand the point settling stuff privately.
My point is. Any professional organization does.

This is NOT the start of the problem that we are dealing with.
This is the phase which happens when all previous meetings in private have gone unheeded.

What does one do then? Hold candle-light vigils?

Excuse me, but when were they saints to begin with given services officers themselves crib about lack of institutional support for several local programs. And where is the expectation that they had to be saints?

There is no message per se going out to any DPSUs because lets face it, as the MOD's preferred children, they will continue to be where they are. Its going to be another decade till any replacements from the private sector come along.

But by trying to browbeat them in this manner, nothing prevents the DPSus from being equally adept at leaking stuff to the press etc. Then this issue becomes even more ridiculous.

Where is the expectation? Have we even examined 90% of the posts on BR (or on the current topic).

The issue is acrimonious/shameful/ridiculous. We can label it either positively or negatively.
We can use words like brow-beat, adept etc.

It got the ball rolling, debate going, and probably a few heads rolling. I call that progress.

--Ashish

[Karan M]

Once LCA Mk.2 matures and AMCA starts flying i am sure IAF will be more than happy and confident to use them as there weapon of choice.

The big point that you miss is that with attitudes like the one on display at the event, its a moot point whether the LCA will be allowed to mature or an AMCA developed with the right kind of attitude where the IAF jumps in with gusto throughout the program. Hopeful comments like yours were made even when the HF-24 were flying, it didn't end up anywhere once that program was ended and the IAF wanted nothing to do with a follow on. This business of let the product speak for itself does not always work, if the end user has significant portions working with a chip on their shoulder. The organizations have to be involved in wanting the product to work & succeed, and not just stand by the sidelines carping that it should. Once the AMCA is launched, India NEEDS the IAF to be involved every step of the way, to avoid the reluctant customer issue with the LCA genesis. Comments like this & those of former AChf Major (why AMCA when we have FGFA) continue to be scary! When a former AC puts a bought out design (with a fig leaf of MKIzation) and a local lead program at the same level, what can one say!