LCA News and Discussions

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 09 Feb 2013 00:09

Misraji wrote:I call that progress.

"We are not retreating! How absurd! We are simply advancing in the opposite direction with much gusto!" -Unknown.

manum · Post by **manum** » 09 Feb 2013 00:11

I think IAF sees all local efforts as perpetual failure and an attempt to milk its funds....which it can use to buy more toys obviously to better safeguard our sky...

the moot point I can see is IAF wants something which it is not getting because it is giving away funds for local R&D, which seems to be not as elite as IAF could have bought...

secondly IAF might have protested a lot in private meetings, but politicians must have forced it to pay for all the R&D which is so called delayed with obsoleteness settling in, as per IAF words...

IAF is unhappy, and they don't want to share their pocket money with dirty guys in the neighbourhood...

I don't like this obsolute TFTA attitude they seem to be having....

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 09 Feb 2013 00:13

^^^
^^^^^
but then Sir, I hear that IAF wants its people to manage HAL, but it is never allowed. If this is true then why.
I see a lot of shipbuilding firm being headed by present or retd. Navy official but that is not the case with HAL.
At least then IAF will not be able to make any complains and probably will have a better understanding of the
compulsions which HAL may be facing.
JLR became profitable with Tata, may be some rejig can change the fortune of HAL too

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 09 Feb 2013 00:14

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Misraji wrote:I call that progress.
"We are not retreating! How absurd! We are simply advancing in the opposite direction with much gusto!" -Unknown.

As long as proven platform/tech ideology remain one will keep moving in the opposite direction with the illusion of being on progressive path.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 09 Feb 2013 00:15

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 00:19

Misraji wrote:I am a professional, Sir. So I understand the point settling stuff privately.

If so, then why these bizarre claims of a "game which both sides must play"? Clearly, if you understand how partners must and should be handled, and you state you do, this is NOT stuff which happens at an international event, attended by international press/media/industry - many of whom are export competitors!! When you are trying to put your best foot forward. Especially when that presentation has several subjective claims & does not even attempt to show the other side of the story or progress made!

My point is. Any professional organization does.

If the IAF does, then these sort of things should not happen, but they regularly do. Which BTW, is something even IAF officers deputed to the industry acknowledge is a serious matter, because in part, IAF folks lack the awareness of the other side of the spectrum.

That is not something the DPSUs can solve.

The IAF needs a professional Program Management & RL (see USAFRL) setup which can understand both program issues, get involved and also do proper technology forecasting based on Indian industrial capability. Instead of merely observing these issues and then complaining when they aren't resolved to their situation.

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.

And who told you that all previous meetings in private have gone unheeded? More assumptions..

The LCA for instance has ground testing equipment & second line testers as a key area of development and focus as clearly brought out by ASTE's Muthanna in another meeting. You have a person from HAL getting up and speaking about how it was not all one way traffic & people like him did make an effort to solve things..

Further, what is also obvious is that these same methods were not made to name and shame foreign OEMs. This sort of hypocrisy will not go unnoticed either. Its an open secret that many MiG assemblies are now sourced from Indian OEMs because MiG cannot or will not support them to the extent required. But they don't get attacked in this manner..

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

You continue to press the issue and there are a variety of ways to do so. If things are entirely unworkable, you can even stop placing orders till the issue is resolved.

What you DONT do, is go to a public event, not a private closed door conference, and attempt to humiliate your single largest supplier, who has the same head as you do & is trying to export the very product you are savaging.

Holding candle light vigils is perhaps the best way for the FB crowd to proceed, if you suggest that be the IAF's way, then it has more problems to consider.

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

The posts on BR reflect the other side of the spectrum as versus those in the media, which today is dominated by leaks savaging local industry! In balance, the edge still belongs to the services/other leak providers, because the average person goes by what the main stream media says, and the widespread perception is what carries the day. So I don't get or see how your grouse is relevant.

Because the issue is not what BRF says or does not say, it is the issue about how singularly irresponsible this sort of behaviour in public is, when all it does is worsen relations. The reaction of the industry people in the audience, with a lady, easily a middle ranking scientist, judging from her age/demeanour openly saying that they were getting demotivated says it all.

You may come up with glib statements about progress, about it being a game two sides can play and similar bizarre claims, but the fact of the matter is that the speech was clearly perceived by people whom the IAF needs, its true partners, not people on BRF or elsewhere, as being an attack on them & their capability.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 09 Feb 2013 00:19

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Misraji wrote:I call that progress.
"We are not retreating! How absurd! We are simply advancing in the opposite direction with much gusto!" -Unknown.

....

--Ashish

manum · Post by **manum** » 09 Feb 2013 00:20

If IAF will be allowed to manage an intellectual and emotionally sensitive organization...it in most probability kill its creativity...

IAF needs to have a broom where it can tidy up the missing parts...IAF needs to have a team, with 24x7 job to keep the communication all the time with DPSU's...and work with them...
A team which works with the designers...not to sit on their head...

Since its IAF's/service's money, does not mean its only DPSU's job....

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 00:24

dhiraj wrote:^^^
^^^^^
but then Sir, I hear that IAF wants its people to manage HAL, but it is never allowed. If this is true then why.
I see a lot of shipbuilding firm being headed by present or retd. Navy official but that is not the case with HAL.
At least then IAF will not be able to make any complains and probably will have a better understanding of the
compulsions which HAL may be facing.
JLR became profitable with Tata, may be some rejig can change the fortune of HAL too

Can you tell me which IAF person has the professional qualifications to run HAL? Have they run large companies? Or developed items? The IAF seems to have thought that just by sending its man to run HAL things would become better.

Take your own example of Navy people running shipyards. How successful are these shipyards in terms of timely delivery etc? Their problems are beyond appointment of 1-2 people.

Granted, many MOD appointees who are sent to professional organizations like HAL dont have the right qualifications either. But again, they are neutral. You send an IAF guy to head HAL, what you are telling HAL senior and even mid management is, you guys aren't good enough to head the company you served for in 20+ years

It will be seen as a power grab, pure and simple, and people will leave for better prospects.

Now, the right solution is the harder one, something IAF clearly is LOATH to do. That solution involves building a dedicated group of people who participate in these programs from day one & lead them to success and are peers with their industry teams. One day, if such a guy/lady becomes the head of HAL, that would be the right thing.

But by then, many of the problems afflicting our programs would also be resolved anyhow.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 09 Feb 2013 00:29

Folks, I have made points clear, from my perspective.

People who actually have to face the enemy, and who have given their lives and continue to live with the fact that they might not be alive tomorrow, get a lot more leeway in their actions and their behaviour, with regard to selection of the equipment that their lives are protected by.

We are not a nation of idiots. Our collective behaviour is not stupid. The IAF is not stupid, neither is the HAL.

Looking from an engineer and researchers perspective (which I am...ironically very much in line with HAL/DRDOs work), they are insensitive, selfish brutes.

But they might have good reason to act as they do.

No matter.

My recommendations are ;

1. Open up the LCA to export. Just as the Su 30 MKI was obtained by the IAF much before the VVS, let the LCA be open to , say Vietnam and let them get it before the IAF.
Let HAL be more commercial and international.

2. Sell some stake in HAL to pvt equity investors.

Thats it. ALLOW for more freedom.

As Indians, we tend to over think things and say..." If I were to create one more guidline, one more rule, one more DPP, I would sort all my problems in one stroke"...

NOT.

Lets look at things from a more commercially aggresive standpoint, as well as REDUCING the number of laws that one requires to address in order to manufacture sensitive technology.
Bring on, a free for all. We'll take care of its caveats when we ge to it. But FIRST. BRING ON FREE MARKETS. IN EVERYTHING.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 09 Feb 2013 00:29

Karan M wrote:The IAF needs a professional Program Management & RL (see USAFRL) setup which can understand both program issues, get involved and also do proper technology forecasting based on Indian industrial capability. Instead of merely observing these issues and then complaining when they aren't resolved to their situation.

I don't know what is stopping IAF from having such a department.

manum · Post by **manum** » 09 Feb 2013 00:34

If LCA is open to exports before being seriously inducted...It'll turn into JF-17 atleast in image...

a failed aircraft but a business opportunity...

As its been told again and again...There is no knee-jerk solution, IAF will have to pursue its objectives with local partners/friends and share their failures and successes...While also being allowed to buy systems from abroad...Which is happening right now...

Rest is a management issue...

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 09 Feb 2013 00:37

Karan M wrote:. 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!

Sorry to say Karan, but these sentiments are shared across forces.

1. In Kashmir, I came across colonels who said that the imported Belgium made stuff is far better than anything made in India..."it is better to import only"

2. One Major General in my family and two colonels, all share a common disdain for the DRDO/HAL combine.

Anti-DRDO/HAL/OFB/Avadi sentiment in the Indian land and air forces is INSTITUTIONALIZED.

I am sure about one thing, that this is not enshrined in the constitution of India, nor has been put in there by law.
So there must be something to it. It takes two hands to clap...there is no smoke without fire...etc.etc.etc.

manum · Post by **manum** » 09 Feb 2013 00:43

I don't think India has even started making anything to judge...

and whatever it is starting to make is being judged against the shinier one's...by our very own services...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2013 00:45

His talk was titled "Maintenance issues in Indigenously Inducted Systems", and he highlighted the issues. Frankly, I don't have a problem with his content and demeanour.

But should it have been done in public. Definitely no. This is now being reported in the international media. It is a shame! IAF could have done much better than this. For example, it is understandable that the ACM wants trainers quickly and with Pilatus, he can get them in the next 2-3 years. He can say, "IAF wants the trainers immediately, HAL can't give me HTT-40 fast enough, so IAF is not interested in the HTT-40 now". But why say "What is the use of HTT-40?". HAL is funding the development on its own. It is none of the ACMs business (much like how he doesn't care how Dassault gets the parts to HAL).

I would really like to see the solution to this. How will MoD bring both under one roof for the nation?

P.S. Karan, Air Cmde V Pande is heading a lot of indigenization efforts at IAF. So please don't go about preaching that he does not know what he is speaking and that is "hands off"! You can certainly charge him of being biased and condescending.

member_20033 · Post by **member_20033** » 09 Feb 2013 00:47

mahadevbhu wrote:Folks, I have made points clear, from my perspective.

People who actually have to face the enemy, and who have given their lives and continue to live with the fact that they might not be alive tomorrow, get a lot more leeway in their actions and their behaviour, with regard to selection of the equipment that their lives are protected by.

We are not a nation of idiots. Our collective behaviour is not stupid. The IAF is not stupid, neither is the HAL.

Looking from an engineer and researchers perspective (which I am...ironically very much in line with HAL/DRDOs work), they are insensitive, selfish brutes.

But they might have good reason to act as they do.

No matter.

My recommendations are ;

1. Open up the LCA to export. Just as the Su 30 MKI was obtained by the IAF much before the VVS, let the LCA be open to , say Vietnam and let them get it before the IAF.
Let HAL be more commercial and international.

2. Sell some stake in HAL to pvt equity investors.

Thats it. ALLOW for more freedom.

As Indians, we tend to over think things and say..." If I were to create one more guidline, one more rule, one more DPP, I would sort all my problems in one stroke"...

NOT.

Lets look at things from a more commercially aggresive standpoint, as well as REDUCING the number of laws that one requires to address in order to manufacture sensitive technology.
Bring on, a free for all. We'll take care of its caveats when we ge to it. But FIRST. BRING ON FREE MARKETS. IN EVERYTHING.

Sir,

Nothing realted to LCA but I would like to counter few points you have raised. In my life i have realized that whatever newspaper, textbooks, 24*7 news channel's opinion are they are almost always wrong.

I am very much sure that as a society we are a society of Idiots (sickular fools).

Collective decsion is almost always wrong as the weakest decsion are being accepted. History has never progressed due to collective wisdom of people. It is always one brave individual who puts his life in the line of fire and changes the world.

Regards,

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 00:50

SagarAg wrote:
Karan M wrote:The IAF needs a professional Program Management & RL (see USAFRL) setup which can understand both program issues, get involved and also do proper technology forecasting based on Indian industrial capability. Instead of merely observing these issues and then complaining when they aren't resolved to their situation.
I don't know what is stopping IAF from having such a department.

Because they or at least this individual think it is ALL the DPSU's responsibility & hence they shouldn't bother at all. This was what was the most disturbing part of the presentation for me, because it began with the gent's or the IAF's expectations of what the "integrator" should do. Pretty much everything.

The IAF just wants to be the customer, that is all.

Ironically, in ANOTHER presentation, you have a gentleman heading the LCA/ASTE team, making the correct observation that India seems to be the one country which lacks any thorough sort of military contribution to the design and development of critical programs. But with these programs being incredibly complex, and with multiple versions getting developed, you need them involved throughout.

Current method is to assign 1-2 people from services, if the program is lucky, and based on prior experience, it gets done in 5-7 years, everyone is happy.

What happens when it is a generational program, bridging decades, like the Arjun or the LCA? What happens when the assigned people themselves are attacked and called as being disloyal to the Olive Green? Or denied promotion?

What does this tell us, but the fact that there is no organizational support for these people.

That is a fundamental problem.

So a DPSU engineer, who thinks that a certain system is essential, may very well be wrong in his interpretation because the IAF may not think it is. On the other hand, what they consider as not essential, may very well turn out to be critical from the user perspective.

So when a prototype is done, the system gets ready, and suddenly a user says change, and back to the drawing board. This adds time delays like nothing else does. One by one, the delays accumulate and finally, you will have the Arjun situation wherein a huge fracas results and a meeting has to be called, with all the heavyweights to even decide what is missing and what is not, and what needs to be done for even the first 124 to be produced.

India does not have superhuman engineers and designers who are 80+ years old, fought in tank or air battles in WW2 and hence retain the experience to meet all requirements. They dont have designers in plenty who handled the IAF maintenance command and at the age of 60 changed careers and became developers.

It has a handful of people versus a plethora of requirements. If the services want their stuff ready and on time, they need to get involved. Even then, there will be delays and imperfection, but it will be far better than now, because they will understand the decisions were made with their involvement and it was not DPSU incompetence that is making them lack critical abilities.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 00:58

indranilroy wrote:His talk was titled "Maintenance issues in Indigenously Inducted Systems", and he highlighted the issues. Frankly, I don't have a problem with his content and demeanour.

You may not have a problem, but the people in the audience certainly did, and that matters more than what you or I may think! Because it is they who work on these systems & getting them completed.

P.S. Karan, Air Cmde V Pande is heading a lot of indigenization efforts at IAF. So please don't go about preaching that he does not know what he is speaking and that is "hands off"! You can certainly charge him of being biased and condescending.

Sorry but if he can go around preaching about issues where he is clearly mistaken, for instance cavalierly dismissing the current 50% + indigenization of the LCA, given how complex the LRUs are, then he can be called on it as well.

Your statement about being "biased and condescending" as versus your interpretation of my statements being that he doesn't know "what he is speaking and is hands off" are equally facile and preaching about a topic you seem not to be aware of. Those may be your views but i don't necessarily subscribe to them.

What you are stating is that he is being deliberately disingenuous (biased and condescending) wherein I merely observed that he probably lacks the capability to discern what a program like the LCA entails, versus merely dealing with suppliers and local BRDs for reverse engineering mandatory components for which form & fit plus performance specifications are already known. That is the level of the indigenization the IAF currently does. Many folks are well aware of the level of the IAF indigenization and what these indigenization programs entail - holding supplier conferences, working to retrofit systems into older platforms etc.

Next, you'll be informing me that the gentlemen who do a fine job at the BRDs making machined reverse engineered components for the MiGs can now stand up & do the job of the LCA team as well & understand the challenges involved in developing systems which are often more sophisticated, from scratch with no prior product to base them off of. And when they do that, it may be a mistake rather than a solution!

manum · Post by **manum** » 09 Feb 2013 01:03

In short...IAF is not owning the DPSU's...it wants to remain in plain white...

can not happen...and finally its taxpayers money and to spend it, all of them will have to fit in one large single T-shirt of adult size...

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Feb 2013 01:03

Here is my problem with DPSU criticism

A lot of the problems is also related to MOD and Govt and the whole ungodly relationship

even if good people (lets not forget the raghuks who work there) want to change and improve things it so hard - from recruitment to procurement to deal making etc etc
before we bash DPSUs we may have to bash MOD to make the conditions for better performance from DPSUs

PS

Can some good soul point me to the video of the ASTE dir?

titash · Post by **titash** » 09 Feb 2013 01:11

Great discussion here - it's good to see opposing PoV's here, even if it's borderline mud slinging! Guess that's what makes us a noisy democra<b>z</b>y

Irrespective of whether one chooses to sit in the HAL camp or the IAF camp, as a citizen of India, three things stand out:

(1) Every rupee that goes to the US or France or Russia is a rupee that isn't being used to build a road or a bridge or a hospital, or a citizen-friendly police force that we so desperately need

(2) The IAF's prime mandate is defending India and may be somewhat justified in wanting to be a customer only with no interest in product development (or it's source). However, the country's long term strategic and economic interests dictate that we must build a strong local, self-reliant, and cutting-edge aerospace industry in India. There is no escaping that fact. Under these circumstance, the IAF must participate and cooperate...even if unwillingly

(3) Likewise, our strategic and economic interests require that HAL, associated DPSUs, and the Private Sector be held accountable to capacity, productivity, quality, and after-sales support...even if unwillingly

So who is going to bell these cats? An educated and concerned citizenry that will elect a responsible and strategic thinking leader is the ultimate decision maker!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 01:17

mahadevbhu wrote:1. Open up the LCA to export. Just as the Su 30 MKI was obtained by the IAF much before the VVS, let the LCA be open to , say Vietnam and let them get it before the IAF.
Let HAL be more commercial and international.

Then Vietnam will know everything about the LCA, including critical info like how it performs in A2A, its avionics, strengths and weaknesses etc. Its one thing to sell Dhruvs to customers far away, what do we do when Vietnam or anyone else has an info leak and the data goes to PRC/Pak combo?

We don't have the resources to make a dumbed down version of the LCA for export (besides which customers will not buy such a version when more capable non dumbed down light fighters are available).

No easy answer there ..

2. Sell some stake in HAL to pvt equity investors.

Thats it. ALLOW for more freedom. .

What will these PE investors do? If they gain just a seat on the board they really can't do much..

My solution would be to build up multiple HALs, say a Tata or a Mahindra or both to compete with HAL.

Problem is the capex required to build multiple lines of production is prohibitive.

What will happen is ultimately you have 3 manufacturers and then you have to farm out contracts to keep all happy, lest they collapse and we lose capability.

So its LM versus Boeing, and judging by WW programs, execution remains a challenge across the board.

Ultimately, we have to have better program management (all involved), uninterrupted funding and a consistent institutional support for all these programs.

Right now, we seem to be critically deficient in several such areas..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 01:24

titash wrote:Great discussion here - it's good to see opposing PoV's here, even if it's borderline mud slinging! Guess that's what makes us a noisy democra<b>z</b>y

Irrespective of whether one chooses to sit in the HAL camp or the IAF camp, as a citizen of India, three things stand out:

One would rather that there were no camps and there was just one group all in synch with each other!

(1) Every rupee that goes to the US or France or Russia is a rupee that isn't being used to build a road or a bridge or a hospital, or a citizen-friendly police force that we so desperately need

(2) The IAF's prime mandate is defending India and may be somewhat justified in wanting to be a customer only with no interest in product development (or it's source). However, the country's long term strategic and economic interests dictate that we must build a strong local, self-reliant, and cutting-edge aerospace industry in India. There is no escaping that fact. Under these circumstance, the IAF must participate and cooperate...even if unwillingly

(3) Likewise, our strategic and economic interests require that HAL, associated DPSUs, and the Private Sector be held accountable to capacity, productivity, quality, and after-sales support...even if unwillingly

Beautifully put.

So who is going to bell these cats? An educated and concerned citizenry that will elect a responsible and strategic thinking leader is the ultimate decision maker!

Agreed!! But 90% of our fellow educated citizenry is busy debating whether Dabangg2 was better or whether Talash was...or whether TDS slabs will rise or not...or whether a diesel car makes sense or petrol...etc etc. Mundane issues trump all these debates.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Feb 2013 01:47

Karan M wrote:
indranilroy wrote:His talk was titled "Maintenance issues in Indigenously Inducted Systems", and he highlighted the issues. Frankly, I don't have a problem with his content and demeanour.
You may not have a problem, but the people in the audience certainly did, and that matters more than what you or I may think! Because it is they who work on these systems & getting them completed.

Is their work complete. If yes, why are their critical shortcomings. I am not putting a halo on the IAF, but saying that the IAF officer was completely misinformed is only willful oversight. I don't subscribe to that either.

Karan M wrote: Sorry but if he can go around preaching about issues where he is clearly mistaken, for instance cavalierly dismissing the current 50% + indigenization of the LCA, given how complex the LRUs are, then he can be called on it as well.

You seriously think he does not know how difficult it is? Why single out his statement on LCA. What about the other problems that he brought out. Why don't you question the people who did not complete their work. I am pretty sure you won't be proud, if your customer came back to you and said that he can't use your work.

He never said design was bad. His peeve was that the quality assurance and after sales support was missing. The ALH, Cheetal, and Rohini problems were all about them. He never said that the platforms were bad.

Karan M wrote: Your statement about being "biased and condescending" as versus your statements that he doesn't know "what he is speaking and is hands off" are equally facile and preaching about a topic you seem not to be aware of. Those may be your views but i don't necessarily subscribe to them.

What you are stating is that he is being deliberately disingenuous (biased and condescending) wherein I merely observed that he probably lacks the capability to discern what a program like the LCA entails, versus merely dealing with suppliers and local BRDs for reverse engineering mandatory components for which form & fit plus performance specifications are already known. That is the level of the indigenization the IAF currently does. Many folks are well aware of the level of the IAF indigenization and what these indigenization programs entail - holding supplier conferences, working to retrofit systems into older platforms etc.

Fair enough.

Karan M wrote: Next, you'll be informing me that the gentlemen who do a fine job at the BRDs making machined reverse engineered components for the MiGs can now stand up & do the job of the LCA team as well & understand the challenges involved in developing systems which are often more sophisticated, from scratch with no prior product to base them off of. And when they do that, it may be a mistake rather than a solution!

You are jumping the gun

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Feb 2013 01:52

it all depends on growth and dependencies, and power projections and aspirations. how much money we want to put on defense all driven by our environment. if we had a super power close by, or not have two duper enemies bordering us, then we would not have to struggle this much., and diverted all money to nation building with reduced defense budget.

it has to be well calculated move to cut on defense expenses especially when we are living in a volatile neighborhood. and, at the same time ignoring basic infrastructure and civil society, is no less important than defense. so, it is a requirement analysis and social engineering to an extent.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Feb 2013 01:53

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> Because they or at least this individual think it is ALL the DPSU's responsibility & hence they shouldn't bother at all. This was what was the most disturbing part of the presentation for me, because it began with the gent's or the IAF's expectations of what the "integrator" should do. Pretty much everything.

The IAF just wants to be the customer, that is all. <SNIP>

Karan M, in one post after another, you've not added anything which has not already been discussed on this forum - many a times by yourself. I will not comment on the act/content of presentation bit again...I have already done that earlier.

Having said that, you've also harped on the services involvement issue. But do answer this - was the IAF presentation about delays in systems under development or lack of product support (along with QC issue) for those already in service?

For a moment if I even assume that all that ails indigenous military-industrial complex is but more participation by Services, that still answers the product development phase. What happens to the product support? Does HAL need Services to tell them they will require product support? You made one very small comment on HAL not focusing on product support because it was engaged in production. So, for last 10+ years of ALH production, HAL never got time to focus on constructing a ROH? This when it has been budgeted for? Which means someone thought about it and understood its requirement. But HAL could never get to the point of putting one in place.

So, while HAL enters into commercial transactions with IAF and seeks to recoup every bit of invested money from its customer, the customer behaving as customer is seen as sacrilege. It seems that but for IAF it is OK for everyone to look out for their interests - if IAF does that, heavens come crashing down.

Another favorite argument to hit back at services is their 'sucking' up to foreign vendors - well, pardon me if I see the case a bit differently.

We have the oft quoted example of Migs and Mirages and Jaguars. IAF asked for a certain capability and GOI gave them what it could. It gave them Jaguar when it wanted Viggen. And Bofors when it wanted Sofma. And they made do with what they had. Because they had a job to do. They complained to GOI/MOD which got them those systems and expected them to resolve them. When they could not, they did what they could.

And that is what is happening with HAL products as well. For all the issues which IAF officer pointed out, IAF will still go ahead and induct the system. Same with IA - which very enthusiastically inducted ALH Mk 4 or Rudra. And IAF has close to 40 (IIRC) Rohini radars on order - along with many others which have come online of late.

BTW - the same Russians would be ruing the day they fvcked up with IAF on spares and product support. MiG-35 is DOA and IL-78 is out of reckoning from MRTT. And IL-76 is going to be the last Russian heavy-lifter in IAF service. Slowly but surely, Russians are being thrown out from every bit of involvement with Indian services.

As for the system integrator bit - well, you do realize that this is the role appropriated by DPSUs for themselves. If the DPSU is the single point of contact for sales, then it is the DPSU which needs to be single point of contact for product support. A BRFite posted that BEL has upgraded Shilka - I'm sure there are many vendors and sub-vendors in the program - including foreign OEMs. Tomorrow, if Shilka develops problems and requires product support, should the IA be asked to deal with each vendor/sub-vendor? Or, will it be the responsibility of BEL?

There seem to be very rationale and matter-of-fact arguments about short-comings of DPSUs and DRDO but when it comes to IAF, they are the big bad wolf in the room.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 09 Feb 2013 02:03

Karan M wrote: --SNIP--
If so, then why these bizarre claims of a "game which both sides must play"?
--SNIP--
You may come up with glib statements about progress, about it being a game two sides can play and similar bizarre claims, but the fact of the matter is that the speech was clearly perceived by people whom the IAF needs, its true partners, not people on BRF or elsewhere, as being an attack on them & their capability.
--SNIP--

I am not sure what you are more pi$$ed off at, words I chose or that the event happened.

Why doesn't HAL answer the facts about ALH, Cheetal maintenance issues before people jump to its defense?
Dragging MOD, Taxpayer, Middlemen, issues with MiGs into the discussion does not answer the effing question about why HAL is not doing its job!!!
And let HAL answer that for once.

God knows what other Saas-Bahu drama-baazi this forum will witness before the dust has settled ....

--Ashish

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 09 Feb 2013 02:16

From SecyGEN_ficci

https://twitter.com/SecyGEN_ficci/statu ... 2390006785

India could rank among top3 aviation markets by 2020
http://m.thehindubusinessline.com/indus ... 90044.ece/

2020 is not too far. Perhaps we need a much better and more holistic approach here. More knowledge and actual production of trainer types, more LCA variants will come to aid of our own aviation market also.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 09 Feb 2013 02:31

Misraji wrote:
Karan M wrote: --SNIP--
If so, then why these bizarre claims of a "game which both sides must play"?
--SNIP--
You may come up with glib statements about progress, about it being a game two sides can play and similar bizarre claims, but the fact of the matter is that the speech was clearly perceived by people whom the IAF needs, its true partners, not people on BRF or elsewhere, as being an attack on them & their capability.
--SNIP--
I am not sure what you are more pi$$ed off at, words I chose or that the event happened.

Why doesn't HAL answer the facts about ALH, Cheetal maintenance issues before people jump to its defense?
Dragging MOD, Taxpayer, Middlemen, issues with MiGs into the discussion does not answer the effing question about why HAL is not doing its job!!!
And let HAL answer that for once.

God knows what other Saas-Bahu drama-baazi this forum will witness before the dust has settled ....

--Ashish

Misraji HAL is doing its effing job. But they are not making mobile phones. Defense products takes its own time to develop and mature. Unfortunately IAF as no patience for it. Be it LCA, Kaveri, Dhruv, ALH, LCA, LUH, IJT, Basic HTT-40 etc etc all were started from scratch decades ago when the tech experience in Indian aerospace sector was NIL nada. There was no involvement of IAF in the development of these products what so ever. Therefore the disconnect between HAL/IAF. There was no involvement of IAF in conceptualization-design-development phase of the product. IAF's grass is always greener on the foreign side syndrome needs to change for good. With statements like we are just customers, they are running away from the responsibility of being co-culprit in the delays and maintenance issues with the systems.
There is a lack of understanding between customer requirement and supplier developmentwhich cannot be solved unless and until IAf is directly involved in a project from start/scratch. Instead of building capability around proven platforms available around the world IAF should start focusing on building it from what we have in house.
That will be termed as real progress in the right direction.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 09 Feb 2013 02:40

Anyone has the link to a video of ASTE Muthanna's talk??

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 09 Feb 2013 02:42

SagarAg wrote: Misraji HAL is doing its effing job. But they are not making mobile phones. Defense products takes its own time to develop and mature. Unfortunately IAF as no patience for it. Be it LCA, Kaveri, Dhruv, ALH, LCA, LUH, IJT, Basic HTT-40 etc etc all were started from scratch decades ago when the tech experience in Indian aerospace sector was NIL nada. There was no involvement of IAF in the development of these products what so ever. Therefore the disconnect between HAL/IAF. There was no involvement of IAF in conceptualization-design-development phase of the product. IAF's grass is always greener on the foreign side syndrome needs to change for good. With statements like we are just customers, they are running away from the responsibility of being co-culprit in the delays and maintenance issues with the systems.
There is a lack of understanding between customer requirement and supplier developmentwhich cannot be solved unless and until IAf is directly involved in a project from start/scratch. Instead of building capability around proven platforms available around the world IAF should start focusing on building it from what we have in house.

Sigh. I thought we were discussing IAF presentation and problems with inducted systems. Not history of aviation in post-independence India.
I have no additional points to bring to this debate except post a transcript of the presentation and ask for a point-by-point rebuttal.

I concede.

--Ashish

titash · Post by **titash** » 09 Feb 2013 02:58

Karan M wrote:Agreed!! But 90% of our fellow educated citizenry is busy debating whether Dabangg2 was better or whether Talash was...or whether TDS slabs will rise or not...or whether a diesel car makes sense or petrol...etc etc. Mundane issues trump all these debates.

And to some degree that is understandable. The struggle to obtain resources for everyday life (water, electricity, schools, milk, etc) has been mitigated to a large extent in the West. People usually think clearer when they don't have a bunch of errands and to-do lists clouding their vision. Diesel vs. Petrol / TDS slabs etc legitimately consume a high proportion of an Indian's time because their 'quality of life' impact on an Indian is higher. But, OT...

btw, Dabangg2 was good, Dabangg even better

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 03:16

rohitvats wrote:Karan M, in one post after another, you've not added anything which has not already been discussed on this forum - many a times by yourself.

Rohitvats, some points do bear repeating. Especially when others are not making them.

If you personally feel that you know all the details, please do ignore them.

I will not comment on the act/content of presentation bit again...I have already done that earlier.

Having said that, you've also harped on the services involvement issue. But do answer this - was the IAF presentation about delays in systems under development or lack of product support (along with QC issue) for those already in service?

Hello, if it was merely the latter, then why the carping and facetious remarks about the LCA.

Your query is answered by the presentation, since it brings in systems under development and the presenter was subjective about one point (being facetious about 50% indigenization) and unclear about the second (documentation et al) which was mentioned by the gentleman from CEMILAC who corrected him thereafter!

Further, this also brings into question some of his other remarks about the other points - were they too, subjective interpretations of the issue from his point of view? The HAL gents remark about the issue at Sarsawa in particular brings to a light there could be more to this issue as well.

For a moment if I even assume that all that ails indigenous military-industrial complex is but more participation by Services, that still answers the product development phase. What happens to the product support? Does HAL need Services to tell them they will require product support? You made one very small comment on HAL not focusing on product support because it was engaged in production. So, for last 10+ years of ALH production, HAL never got time to focus on constructing a ROH? This when it has been budgeted for? Which means someone thought about it and understood its requirement. But HAL could never get to the point of putting one in place.

Sorry, but I don't suggest services involvement only in the product development process. My point is that a program management office will remain involved all the way from product beginning to product end. Its tasks may change, manpower/specialization required may recede, but involvement should remain.

Many companies like HAL struggle badly when it comes to product support. I cited several examples of international organizations facing similar issues.

The basic challenge many organizations, including Indian DPSUs face is the lack of trained manpower which is then juggled around to meet organizational objectives which can go haywire if the user is not adequately involved.

But lets take HAL as an example. This company was all about production and maximizing those metrics. Product support ultimately depends on user utilization of the end system and projected rates of how those systems will work! Given the dearth of a proper vendor base in India, HAL focuses on things it controls - which is assembly & integration, and does paper/pencilwork to get the rest in place, while deputing people to keep maintenance & other issues happy. But there is a definite mindset issue wherein they think getting a product out of the door is priority A and seeing how things happen in the field is priority B.

Please go ahead & see how the LCA project was treated in the past by HAL - people deputed to R&D are not maximizing production so were ignored. Plus how a unit can get shortchanged when IAF/users run out of aggregates (because projected rates of utilization can often vary wildly - a unit raised initially, which dwells on competence as the IAF does can & does use systems more heavily than initially planned, and aggregates can when system integrated, show lower reliability than original ground testing predicted!) Meanwhile, HAL managers want to meet production quotas so are busy focusing on getting aggregates into build systems. See:http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... s-own.html

Let me give you another boring example. In 2005, there was talk of inducting fancy touch screen displays for use by the Navy (same type as on the Rafale). It was ahead in terms of multiple parameters. Everything went well till a helicopter pilot from the Navy turned up to the organization in question, on some other assignment, took a look, and said, sorry no way! Why? Because the particular helicopters the Navy used, vibrate so much, that no operator could routinely put his finger on the screen and be consistent. Small things!

This is the reason why I state the users have to be involved at every stage! There is no other way! Finger pointing is useless.

There is also the issue that HAL & Indian industry are very new to this entire end to end business and there is a severe lack of infrastructure/ability to test things to the right level right before induction. Till date, they merely did license production & sourced all the tech from one managerial vendor (BAE or the Russians) and then happily sat & merely managed those. Where do they have the experience to manage multiple supply chains & get them all integrated? Like it or not, this is a path India is following now. No prior experience exists, and mistakes will be made.

You seem to be under the impression this is HAL specific. Sorry, but all are equally culpable. IAF has faced issues with items it acquires & delays in procuring/utilizing maint/overhaul services/systems.

Now, we talk a lot about India;s engineering talent and how enthusiastic they are. But they are also inexperienced. Large organizations like HAL are also bureaucratic and have a checklist of items they track. Its very easy for them to follow a 85%-15% rule and focus on the 85% things they think are vital and think of working on the 15% that are not.

The reason the services need to be involved is because they rationalize those breakups. They also inject an element of accountability into a system which by its very nature is large, and decentralized. There is a saying about the Chinese Aviation conglomerates - the mountains are big, and Beijing is far away. The same applies to us. Please think about how many HAL units are there, placed across how many different states often for political reasons, how many different programs, different vendors & different lines of authority.

Finally, they also realize they, the services, too need to change or why the decisions were made.

The simple point I am making is that xyz are asking for an utopia, if they think that by doing all these public bashing things etc, they will change the system. No, to change the system, they have to become involved and change what they can influence from within. Otherwise, all you do is drive away the "toilers" the average person in the system who labours despite it, and feels that whatever he/she is doing is going no place. I am sure we'd have all met many such folks, and its a very tough situation if these people keep leaving.

So, while HAL enters into commercial transactions with IAF and seeks to recoup every bit of invested money from its customer, the customer behaving as customer is seen as sacrilege. It seems that but for IAF it is OK for everyone to look out for their interests - if IAF does that, heavens come crashing down.

Sorry, but whats the point of exactly taking sides here? The IAF's money comes from the MOD/MOF, same as HALs, same as everyone in the Indian DPSU set up, and ultimately it comes from the Indian public!!

This is what is so bizarre about this entire IAF money versus HAL money argument, its ridiculous! Its ultimately the same money and typical of the dysfunction in the Indian setup, wherein the IAF is allotted x money for capex/procurement, HAL has y money which it wants to optimize (and hence does not want to spend on infrastructure/spares/anything that hurts its bottomline), and ADA has z money (which is enough for design, but cannot be used to invest in infrastructure!!).

Bottomline - this is a MOD screwup, pure and simple. I am beginning to think this has been a long standing policy to keep all the children at each others throats, instead of acting like one family & behaving as such.

Another favorite argument to hit back at services is their 'sucking' up to foreign vendors - well, pardon me if I see the case a bit differently. We have the oft quoted example of Migs and Mirages and Jaguars. IAF asked for a certain capability and GOI gave them what it could. It gave them Jaguar when it wanted Viggen. And Bofors when it wanted Sofma. And they made do with what they had. Because they had a job to do. They complained to GOI/MOD which got them those systems and expected them to resolve them. When they could not, they did what they could.

The issue is not whether they did what they could, in the context of this particular discussion, but whether they engaged in such public recrimination with these foreign vendors. Whether we like it or not, there is a longstanding perception that the services often do not engage in such behaviour with foreign vendors, whether it be trials which are of less intensity & lead to problems later. And also, definitely, they dont get attacked like these in public forums. I can specifically quote the manner in which IAF officers in the past have slagged local programs at media press meets, it just sets a bad precedent in front of a media which loves to sensationalize any and every bit of news they get.

And that is what is happening with HAL products as well. For all the issues which IAF officer pointed out, IAF will still go ahead and induct the system. Same with IA - which very enthusiastically inducted ALH Mk 4 or Rudra. And IAF has close to 40 (IIRC) Rohini radars on order - along with many others which have come online of late.

Lets also be clear here that they are inducting these systems because they bring in capability which the foreign vendors can often not match, often not at the same cost either. The ALH brings unique capabilities to the table - for instance its high altitude ops capability is unmatched by any other system. The Rohini radar may be facing issues at high altitude in extreme weather (-10 deg centigrade) but it was inducted after the baseline 3D CAR went through gruelling trials through the Akash program for its originally intended operational areas, and it was made available in a rapid fashion to meet an IAF surveillance radar requirement which literally came out of nowhere. In 2001-03, the IAF decided to replace the ST-68, and the Rohini came in handy and was modified from the 3D CAR for that requirement, plus in 2001 (during Parakram) it showed sterling performance (in 3D CAR variant), detecting low RCS UAVs at very long range.

Every product inducted will have some things that need to be finessed. Our Indian requirements are very extreme in terms of weather conditions, operational limitations (no US type supply chains for replacing n number of gas turbine engines if the engine just throws a blade in the sand).

The problem is that despite all these efforts, and the achievements therein - of the services themselves - if we just take a look at the number of officers involved in trials, a single such public attack can damage the efforts achieved and the morale of the people involved.

BTW - the same Russians would be ruing the day they fvcked up with IAF on spares and product support. MiG-35 is DOA and IL-78 is out of reckoning from MRTT. And IL-76 is going to be the last Russian heavy-lifter in IAF service. Slowly but surely, Russians are being thrown out from every bit of involvement with Indian services.

Sorry sir, I have to disagree here. The Russians are laughing all the way to the bank, still.
FGFA - the single biggest brand new Russian fighter program after Soviet Union breakup? Bankrolled by India.
Sukhoi Corp and Irkut in particular? Kept in business by India with 272 Su-30 MKIs. Not enough? Well there is the Super 30 upgrade.
MiG corp? Resuscitated by IAF orders for 69 odd Upgrades and 45 new planes for the Navy.

As for the system integrator bit - well, you do realize that this is the role appropriated by DPSUs for themselves. If the DPSU is the single point of contact for sales, then it is the DPSU which needs to be single point of contact for product support. A BRFite posted that BEL has upgraded Shilka - I'm sure there are many vendors and sub-vendors in the program - including foreign OEMs. Tomorrow, if Shilka develops problems and requires product support, should the IA be asked to deal with each vendor/sub-vendor? Or, will it be the responsibility of BEL?

The issue is not merely of system integrator - do you understand the IAF sees no role for itself apart from BEL? This is where I think you are not getting the issue at all. I suspect it is because you are looking at this from a viewpoint of a customer who buys commoditized products, but that is not the case here!!

The "circle in the center" which deals with everyone (all other OEMs etc/makes procurement/program lifecycle decisions) should have an IAF representative, when it deals with others.

Right now, since the IAF is neither staffed for this, nor does it see a need, it has left everything to the integrator and complains that it is not meeting the requirement.

As mentioned before, the integrator fundamentally lacks the capability to do everything at the level the IAF/services want, given their demands are so complex, and uncompromising. It also has its own constraints to deal with, given how dysfunctional our setup is. If HAL/XYX want to retain a certain "ratna status" or whatever, they have to show a certain level of financial performance to retain autonomy.

So, only if the services are present at critical levels of the program management loop, will things change.

The easy, answer - lets import, is to shoot ourselves in our own foot, because at the end of the day, those MICs which operate joined at the hip-user & maker - still make for their own needs and hold a veto power over us, politically.

Also, merely deputing retired officers to these orgs will not help. That is a key takeaway of the Arjun experience and something which does not come out from CAG/Committee Reports. These gents lack access to the user hierarchy and are hence not considered their own people anymore by the services.

There seem to be very rationale and matter-of-fact arguments about short-comings of DPSUs and DRDO but when it comes to IAF, they are the big bad wolf in the room.

Unfortunately, that is not the point made. However, you seem to have taken it so & are coming to a defence based on that conclusion!

Please understand this - there are enough people here who have seen & understand both sides of the coin. We don't need to be told to not take sides etc.

The big that I have is that the IAF has continued with single minded focus on doing one thing & one thing alone, which is being the user and as such is being left behind by those nations/setups which have integrated the two - user & MIC. Furthermore, lacking a historical and institutional setup to understand technology by lacking institutions like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_ ... Laboratory), they simply ignore how capex, investment intensive the R&D projects are. Since they cannot replicate an AFRL - a duplication of resources existing in ADA/HAL etc - they need to have a dedicated program management arm which at least gets the decisions made with the right inputs.

Sorry, but this file -back & forth - depending on XYZ to do the heavy lifting - and then criticizing them after the acts of omission/comission are done - is not going to work.

Public attacks @ DPSUs only expose the ch!nks in our armor to every vendor out there who will exploit them.

Good luck HAL in selling Rudras or ALHs abroad after this presentation.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 03:33

Misraji wrote:I am not sure what you are more pi$$ed off at, words I chose or that the event happened.

Irrelevant juxtaposition.

That the event happened is something regrettable & is being discussed.

Your statements about "games" & what not, in support of this event, were however bizarre & I mentioned them as such.

Your choice of increasingly colorful language does indicate though that you are becoming upset. If you can't handle folks questioning your premises - including statements that these sort of things were games & necessary & a sign of progress (of all things), then don't enter the debate.

Perhaps you were being facetious. I do hope you weren't serious.

Why doesn't HAL answer the facts about ALH, Cheetal maintenance issues before people jump to its defense?
Dragging MOD, Taxpayer, Middlemen, issues with MiGs into the discussion does not answer the effing question about why HAL is not doing its job!!! And let HAL answer that for once

Net, any detailed reply about the state of affairs is "jumping to HALs defense". Brilliant.

Sorry, didn't know you had appointed yourself judge, jury & executioner.

God knows what other Saas-Bahu drama-baazi this forum will witness before the dust has settled ....

--Ashish

With you around, I am sure we wont lack for enthusiastic participants in the drama-baazi.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 03:47

titash wrote:And to some degree that is understandable. The struggle to obtain resources for everyday life (water, electricity, schools, milk, etc) has been mitigated to a large extent in the West. People usually think clearer when they don't have a bunch of errands and to-do lists clouding their vision. Diesel vs. Petrol / TDS slabs etc legitimately consume a high proportion of an Indian's time because their 'quality of life' impact on an Indian is higher.

Agreed, and it applies to all of us facing these challenges. Unfortunately, we are all are caught up in these issues. So things are unlikely to change in the short term.

Meanwhile, there is a bit of positive news re: competition. It is one of my beliefs that HAL itself could do with a bit of competition. Antony specifically mentioned the Avro program as a deliberate attempt to get a competitor to HAL & spur it on (decision taken apparently despite HAL's desires).

One of the pluses though right now of the decentralization between HAL and ADA/ADE is that we have not (yet) created a monopoly. If a competitor to HAL does come up fast thanks to the Avro, ADA/ADE can, hopefully, work with it. If ADA/ADE etc and HAL were merged - then it would be a disincentive to creating a truly equitable industry.

A longer term issue though is that even with competition, the problems may remain or reoccur, because ultimately two HALs still equal a cartel situation. If both come to a tacit understanding, things will remain the same.

Which is why I'd want the services to bell the cat & start getting involved across the board.
Ultimately, something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_ ... l'armement

Which can work across the entire alphabet soup of design-manufacture-certification agencies that we have.

An Aerospace Commission is also an essential requirement, oft mentioned but very necessary to ensure long term investment and consistent development.

That in itself would reduce a lot of the insecurity & hence inject more reality into a lot of these programs cost projections and timelines. If you know long term support is available, without our CWG politicians seeking to kill the program, then you can ask for a proper program budget and cost.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Feb 2013 03:55

HAL needs right sizing long time back.. it is a huge org, and ensuring a total quality management is extremely hard. I think, this was discussed time and again, but due to the nature of products and services, and the GoI setup, regulations, security and legal aspects, they are kind of enjoying their status. It is high-time a good GoI based review is done on all public sectors and
1. right size the industry - lay off/voluntary retire
2. get people on board with merit
3. employ TQM and involve them in latest and greatest tech.
4. spawn off if that helps

drdo has heavily seen investing ideas in concurrent engineering etc.. and HAL seems to be in the old school. there is a disjoint in the strategies and approaches. perhaps, we need to look at this whole issue by setting up a fast track commission, and get this sorted out.

HAL is a very big org!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 04:34

indranilroy wrote:Is their work complete. If yes, why are their critical shortcomings.

But who says their work is complete? Don't recall anybody making those statements. That those problems will occur is also not a surprise either. Though by all accounts the SRE program by BEL was a disaster.

I am not putting a halo on the IAF, but saying that the IAF officer was completely misinformed is only willful oversight. I don't subscribe to that either.

Hello, you would be the one taking extreme positions "completely misinformed", "willful oversight" etc ...nothing like that from my end.

Based on what he said, he does seem misinformed about the LCA program. Even regards documentation, he was corrected by a gent from CEMILAC. Similarly work is being done on other aspects as well. So clearly, the presentation may not have been 100 % accurate either..

You seriously think he does not know how difficult it is? Why single out his statement on LCA. What about the other problems that he brought out. Why don't you question the people who did not complete their work. I am pretty sure you won't be proud, if your customer came back to you and said that he can't use your work.

I do think he doesn't know how difficult it is. I'd rather think that, than think that he brought in a program for unsolicited criticism at a public event, despite being aware that he was being facetious.

Second, why shouldn't I single it out? Sorry, but what exactly is your issue there? People have been harping on how his "facts" regarding all the claims he made were yet to be rebutted. I pointed out that his "facts" regarding at least the LCA are anything but & were rather subjective.

As regards what one may or may not be proud about - look, if you are in the business of dissing your partners or primary suppliers at public events, whatever rocks your boat, but please don't sell me that as being A-Ok, I don't subscribe to it.

He never said design was bad. His peeve was that the quality assurance and after sales support was missing. The ALH, Cheetal, and Rohini problems were all about them. He never said that the platforms were bad.

Irrelevant hairsplitting. If the product cannot perform in certain conditions, it may need to be redesigned. The issue is not whether these issues arise - that they will is a given (look at Eurocopter Tiger or NH-90 production issues/QAs etc) and that people will work to get them resolved. The issues are whether it was the complete story. Judging by the audience reaction & the follow on comments and the comments on the LCA, probably not.
Also, that he did not specify that these problems were some of the challenges faced and the baseline was good enough, which thankfully we do know from other reports (e.g. ALHs unique capabilities at high alt, 3D Cars prior excellent performance). By only harping on these issues and not even making a throwaway comment about the overall platform being good, he made it appear they were lacking.

Plus, the bigger issue: the event he chose to bring these up at.

Karan M wrote: Next, you'll be informing me that the gentlemen who do a fine job at the BRDs making machined reverse engineered components for the MiGs can now stand up & do the job of the LCA team as well & understand the challenges involved in developing systems which are often more sophisticated, from scratch with no prior product to base them off of. And when they do that, it may be a mistake rather than a solution!

You are jumping the gun

No I am not, since the gentleman in question did exactly those things and they are credible achievements. Which is what I mean, as fundamentally, despite all that the BRDs have achieved, the LCA is something of an entirely different class, since its sophistication is a generation beyond and so are its challenges.

The BRDs are all about indigenization, finding the right suppliers etc etc for getting Russian parts replaced on existing platforms. That does involve a fair bit of development but the complexity of a LCA class platform is at a different level since its software intensive & far more capable. The MiG-29 indigenization effort for instance, had severe challenges in terms of meeting weapons systems requirements, as these more complex aggregates were not easily reverse engineered. If you look at the LCA, all these systems are being developed ab-initio & constantly upgraded as well.

That is also brought out by another speaker, when he mentions that initially a mistake was to not exploit the LCA's more modern systems (eg many MFD) having kept HMI of earlier aircraft in mind - the Mirage 2000H with a single CRT. If I compare that speaker with this gentleman, the former was did not pull any punches, yet, gave credit where it is due.

For instance, the LCA team had one set of systems on the TDs, now they are entirely another on the LSPs/PVs, which was something done in 3-5 years rapidly changing the entire avionics architecture to a more integrated system. However, if you listen only to the gentleman whom we are discussing, one would walk away with the impression that a 50% LRU localization count on the LCA was nothing much & besides which it would not be exploitable as a weapons platform because nobody had even thought of things like documentation, if another speaker had not spoken up about the topic.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2013 04:43

Another issue is of breaking up HAL. The critics point out that breaking up HAL takes away a lot of the synergies that can happen across the board in HAL, joint management/responsibilities, development of integrated avionics etc etc.

Fundamentally, a lot of the problems that HAL faces can be tagged right back to it being a DPSU setup as Surya mentioned. Challenges in redtapism etc and the sheer inertia of being an organization under the MOD. Privatization is ultimately the panacea for the DPSUs if not core R&D at CSIR/DRDO etc which need to keep strategic systems @ cost effective levels and away from the profit motive. These need to be Govt owned.

But a single rule needs to be put in place that ownership, even if Govt Owned, Pvt run etc - it has to be Indian ownership. This 100% FDI stuff in defence simply won't do (IMO) for India. We need secure systems of our own design. A couple of years back, all the so called JVs with foreign OEMs proposed, were floundering because the companies in question didn't want a PSU working on Indian programs, access to their tech without their own oversight.

Wonder how much of the latest MMRCA stuff about not wanting HAL is actually similar. Or Rafael not wanting BEL for missile seekers etc.

BTW concurrent engineering is not a panacea.

If your design has issues in trials, what will you do if there is no MK1 or MK2 approach decided? You may end up with a bunch of systems on the shopfloor, all waiting to get fitted out to something newer, and what if that can't be done?

Take a look at JSF. Concurrent engineering has not proven to be a panacea there. Multiple aircraft with differing systems, supply chain in flux, and design fixes yet to be finalized.

In contrast our TD->PV->LSP system for the LCA has been slow, but by the time SP-1 to SP-40 are made, bulk of the issues would have been resolved.

Concurrent engineering - net - can be pretty expensive. Do it if you have big pockets.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 09 Feb 2013 05:08

</DELETED>

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 09 Feb 2013 05:09

Karan M, what's your email address? I tried your m35 address a few weeks ago, but it wasn't working. (The message bounced back to me.) Thanks.