Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Oct 2013 18:53

So 7 IJT are flying?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Oct 2013 21:12

So far the only other program ARDC has to their credit is the DARIN-2 Jaguar upgrade. But it did leverage common systems developed for the MiG-27 Upgrade, which was led by DARE. The DARIN-3 program is currently underway and is also ARDC. Its more complex than the DARIN-2 (has a radar integrated into the upgrade, replacing the earlier LRMTS), and more advanced systems for the cockpit, EW etc.
But the IJT news is pretty depressing and bodes badly for the program.
Rolling up ARDC into ADA has the negative effect of taking away whatever R&D capabilities that do exist in HAL at the central level, which means that HAL will become more of a license build shop.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 10 Oct 2013 22:02

Karan M wrote: Rolling up ARDC into ADA has the negative effect of taking away whatever R&D capabilities that do exist in HAL at the central level, which means that HAL will become more of a license build shop.

HAL may welcome this outcome since then they will be relieved of the most important--and troublesome--responsibility as far as India is concerned--aircraft development. They will be more than happy to do only screwdrivergiri with large turnover, handsome margins and no responsibility, keeping all fat cats happy. This should never be allowed. HAL should be expected to perform and deliver as a fully vertically integrated outfit like all aeronautical companies of their size worldwide or have management handed over to IAF. IMO, it will save us a lot of time and money, not to mention grief, if the latter is done asap because it will happen eventually.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Oct 2013 23:01

chackojoseph wrote:Bad Bad HAL.

The ALH Dhruv with Army Aviation Sqn (Spl ops) did the honours.

Indian made ALH Dhruv Helicopter clocks 100,000 flying hours

Nice, will be a good point to flaunt in future business presentations.

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Oct 2013 23:53

I think the Chairman of HAL should be from IAF and MD from ADA. Though, presently, The most important job of HAL seems to be producing grease and that's why the current Chairman is from OIL industry.

HAL has been for last 3 years blaming the problem on engines but I have been pointing out that malaise may be in design & production. But no paradise lost, if there is a major problem in design then better to go back to basics and make the requisite changes rather than jugad.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 01:18

agupta wrote:Karan_M: Valid examples, but you'll note which HAL "complex" they come from... its not the aircraft design side. Aam junta tends to think of all HAL as one big monolithic structure... whereas the reality is more complex. There ARE islands of excellence, where the work culture is "to-do" real and useful stuff - however unsexy or incremental that sounds rather than "to-sketch" big dreams. DARIN-X is such a good example... its useful, is cost-effective, meets the war-fighters needs. The equivalent thing to do if there was any culture of shame or accountability would have been to create an HPT-32 Mk2, Mk 3, Mk4.... that would've put HAL in a good credible position when they proposed a HTT-3X; what happened in reality is laid out for the world to see and makes them the laughing stock..

My take is that HAL like most other DPSUs whittled away its design ability - both due to sarkari interference/disinterest and also its own leadership. TBH, their lack of interest in the LCA at the management level, is simply inexcusable. They have not supported their own people who work on the program with the right resources (e.g. Tarmak007 report on some of the guys who work on the LCA, is that they are treated with polite disinterest) despite HAL itself making many of the LRUs for the LCA and assembling the aircraft. They simply don't get its importance for the national aircraft industry at all. Plus, they have treated the IJT in the public as some sort of miracle that justified HAL's entire existence to the point. Ten years, and its a cropper. IMHO, it represents the fact that HAL simply does not have a proper aerodynamics group which could come up with a simple design. Similarly, the HPT-32 problem is linked to the disinterest of the original OEM that supplied the engines from assisting with the fuel flow problem. Be as it may, it does not explain why HAL did not move heaven or earth via its own resources to find an alternative.

Now the other side, somewhere along the past few years HAL seems to have realized how badly it has been held hostage by all the foreign system providers who provide subsystems and tech at heavy markups, and HAL has to run to them for integration as well.

If we look at the SHar LUSH upgrade, what portion of that is HALs, even if its supposedly done at HAL? The DVR, MFDs, radio/datalink, radar, EW pod all come from Israel, as do the missiles. The RWR comes from DARE. The mission computer was also probably from abroad.

Now in recent years, HAL is increasing its % of R&D spend (vs revenues). Its developed its own MC as a JC from Edgewood (still trying to figure that one out). Its developed its own Software Defined Radio recently at Hyderabad (after a first attempt with another one which apparently failed/ was not reliable per IAF needs) and is working on stuff like this (http://www.spsaviation.net/exclusive/?i ... AESA-radar).

IMHO, the way forward is this:

1.HAL needs to be told firmly at every level, that the LCA is of vital importance. Giving it secondary priority, is not an option.

2.Their QA needs to improve. The IAF is clearly unhappy with the production of some of the stuff they are getting with them such as the MiG spares etc. The whole point of HAL is to have local manufacturing is to have a reliable manufacturer of local aircraft. This means that DPSU issues with worker unions and management lack of focus/chalta hain, both need to be firmly tackled. How exactly is HAL better than a L&T, if all it does is manufacture and yet its customers complain that some MRO's are not up to the mark, and every now and then there is a quality fade?

3.Their sub-optimal decisions need to be questioned and corrected. Following a basic trainer program over FGFA workshare? When the primary customer is firmly against it? Working on the trainer only makes sense, IF they could do the FGFA as well properly.

4. Their focus on subsystem R&D needs to continue. If that means higher spends and less dividends to the MOD, that is good. (http://twitpic.com/b8u35m) what the heck is this anyway, but pointless recycling of money between different parts of GOI? In the meantime, we end up importing huge amounts of airframe, hydraulics and other aggregates from other nations for programs like the ALH? Yes, its good to keep assembly/MRO local and save money, improve serviceability, own the design etc. But then its not sufficient to differentiate HAL from a Tata-Sikorsky JV doing the same, with a purely commercial basis. The entire point of having a strategic local capability is whittled away otherwise.

5. HAL needs to be much much more transparent about its programs, what it has achieved, and what its struggling with. DRDO can provide regular updates on everything from strategic missiles to biodigesters.. but we have to wait for "leaks" to tell us about IJT struggling ten years after program launch, when its a much simpler program than others?

Plus, with this sort of attitude, the amount they'll learn from the FGFA is also limited and purely limited to what the Russians transfer to them (or don't). The IAF will then come out with demanding requirements for the AMCA which may require lighter/more compact tech (since it is to be a more compact platform) and again HAL's "learnings" from the FGFA may end up being of limited use for the AMCA, same as how the Jaguar etc didn't really radically simply anything with the LCA.

Ultimately, unless HAL starts to overhaul how it does business, it will just find itself becoming irrelevant. Perhaps not now, perhaps not over the next decade, but after that, who knows.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 02:07

vic wrote:I think the Chairman of HAL should be from IAF and MD from ADA. Though, presently, The most important job of HAL seems to be producing grease and that's why the current Chairman is from OIL industry.

HAL has been for last 3 years blaming the problem on engines but I have been pointing out that malaise may be in design & production. But no paradise lost, if there is a major problem in design then better to go back to basics and make the requisite changes rather than jugad.

Well, there are no slash and burn attacks on him at Tarmak which is a good thing I guess. Or, if you look at it another way, thats damning him with faint praise. Some positive step that appears to have happened during his tenure - not saying he initiated it -is the support and sustainment of ALH with more attention paid by HAL. Plus, the helicopter division seems to be doing ok with ALH derivatives. On the rest, well he may not be a HAL insider, but that may be a good thing since he can actually drive change. At his level, he seems to have picked up the basic stuff fast - and can rattle off what HAL's PR says, but again, there seems to be very little from his side towards addressing IAF complaints on HAL, towards the LCA (he too appears to be treating it as LCA also), about HALs future plans in R&D beyond just doing MMRCA, Hawk etc assembly..

HAL's finances are detailed here: http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 078_1.html
They are basically taking their profit and returning it in the form of heavy dividends to the MOD (say what??) as versus investing heavily in their own R&D and future growth. On the one hand, many other orgs in India are begging for more money to pursue indigenous R&D. HAL is sitting on a goldmine of cash, and is busy farming it back to the MOD. In 2010-11, they made an unbelievable 16% PAT - unbelievable in that this is a company which is basically working on TOT, and I wager that its percentage of locally designed goods and services is lesser than that of even other DPSUs (like BEL), yet it has such a strong profit margin (which implies pretty aggressive pricing strategy on their part towards the IAF) and also indicates that they could spend FAR MORE on R&D and even capex.

HAL’s financial performance has been strong and steady (see table). It reported a profit before tax of Rs 3,200 crore on sales of Rs 14,001 crore in 2011-12. Its net profit margin has been upwards of 17-18 per cent. Its capital assets have risen from Rs 8,143 crore in 2008-09 to Rs 9,628 crore in 2009-10 and then to Rs 11,230 crore in 2010-11. HAL has huge land parcels in places like Bangalore, Nashik, Koraput (Odisha), Hyderabad, Lucknow and Kanpur. In Bangalore alone, it is said that the company owns around 900 hectares. The debt on its books is negligible. This makes the company an attractive buy. Also, say people in the know of things, the company sells on a cost-plus basis to its buyers, largely the Indian Air Force, and that leaves no room for negotiations on prices. On the flip side, there is no incentive for the company to become more efficient and prune costs.

Now, i do remember reading - or I had it in my scribbled notes someplace - that HAL was moving away from cost plus pricing. But even so, the above shows that HAL has huge fiscal ability to actually make a change in its own focus and thats its profit margins are so solid that many foreign OEMs would give their eyeteeth.

The Govt owned IAI in Israel is making $69Million on Revenues of $3.3 Bn. Thats 2%. Ok, IAI is Govt managed and hence has HAL like issues presumably, heavy cost structure etc. But still..
L&M made 5% net profit (http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NYSE:LMT) in 2012. Around 6% in the year before that.

So here we have a GOI owned org, thats making 16% PAT selling to GOI itself, and then instead of using that money to invest in its own future success, returns it to the Govt.

L&M's percentage spent on R&D (as a % of sales, an industry KPI) is not available per their arrangement with SEC..
But this shows that spend in Aerospace is around 6-8% as % of sales.
Link

So if HAL is spending this amount, is this sufficient? No, not really. Because the amount spent by foreign firms is in $/Euros - and given a substantial portion of that investment will go in capex, HAL is heavily outmatched (the PPP arguement doesn't hold ground for cost of CNC machines/test equipment etc as presumably most of this will be imported anyhow). So we are behind the world - and we are spending lesser than them - so how will we catch up??

Yet, we are willing to spend tens of billions of dollars as license production, which then involves limited TOT transfer over decades (Rafale iirc was pegged at 50-60%).

There is something fundamentally messed up about how we operate.

Ok, now lets look at something positive..

HAL, which now outsources about 20-25 per cent of its work, is planning to enhance it to 30 per cent of the work content, while moving up the value chain. HAL claims it has brought about a paradigm shift, from a purchase-focused organisation with controls and validation-oriented systems and procedures for all its purchase, to partnership building through a well-defined architecture. This will help the shift to the role of an assembler/integrator of flying platforms and focus on manufacturing will shift to HAL’s partners/suppliers. “The company will retain the core technologies and focus on design and development,” according to the company.

So basically HAL wants to limit capex (i.e. its previous focus on vertical integration) and is moving towards more investment in R&D/design and development. But again, is that movement really substantial, given what its sitting on?

Thats the question.

My point is that for all this ability/money/scale - the company seems to be a conservative, run by MOD diktat org, which functions as an adjunct of what the latter wants. HAL may well claim its only doing what the babus allow it to.

Just to give an idea about how much this under investment, lack of focus on building a proper infrastructure costs us.

LCA MMR was at HAL. It didn't go through. Now, in the intervening period since the program has launched - India has imported,
65 odd radars for MiG-29
50 odd for Mirage 2000
10 odd for SHar
100+ for Jaguar
125 for MiG-21 Bison

A total of 325 radars. Even assuming a conservative $2 Mn per unit of these radars, including spares/logistics to set them up - thats $700 Mn lost right there.

The above apart, there is the aspect of HAL products and their quality fade. Some batches excellent, one bad, and image again affected.

Incremental additions to QA, similarly, reducing flight incidents - will directly impact attrition, and can hence translate to a Rs impact. Let alone the customer perception of HAL or even pilot losses (morale, ethical issues, cost of training - all factors).

IMHO - HAL has a lot of potential to improve. Its in an enviable position financially, and if it doesn;t get its act together now- one day, it will not have the resources to address any changes it must.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 11 Oct 2013 02:11

Biggest three complains from HAL, and if they do not improve all of them, they are good for nothing
1.Step motherly treatment to LCA - LCA delay of few years is on them (they shifted focus/manpower from this to IJT)
2. Spare quality (enough said)
3. No ability to make anything new or extend things by even 10%, it has manufactured 1000s of various engine, but cannot make engines , 1000s of radar, but cannot make one new, It has manufactured 1000s of .....no innovation, all that tot does not get us anything. With same ToT a private player (say Tatas, we would have been self sufficient by now).

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 11 Oct 2013 02:12

HAL should be vertically split into 2 to 3 firms and let them compete!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 02:36

fanne wrote:HAL should be vertically split into 2 to 3 firms and let them compete!!

If they are run the same way the current HAL runs under MOD, then no significant improvement can be expected. Does it really matter that we have CSL, HSL, Mazagaon, GRSE?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 11 Oct 2013 02:50

true, but Mazagaon, however bad, does things light speed faster than (whatever the agency is out of Kolkatta). In fact IN had to tow ships out of that port to Mumbai to get it completed.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 11 Oct 2013 02:53

There is no substitute of private participation. These are cutting edge technology, that needs big brains (along with drive, vision etc), that costs money. With Sarkari pay you can get few good fellows (thats why DRDO and HAL can deliver), but you need probably 100 times more men, make it private, fund it (based on end result) and see the miracle. In fact have small firms that specialize in few things and few top integrator, that way you have flexibility and small size.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Oct 2013 03:15

>> true, but Mazagaon, however bad, does things light speed faster than (whatever the agency is out of Kolkatta). In fact IN had to tow ships out of that port to Mumbai to get it completed.

that's almost 20 years back in history. in recent years GRSE has churned out SDB's, LST's and patrol craft at a steady pace. the P28 ASW corvettes are also running on schedule, especially if you consider the mess MDL has done with the scorpene.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 03:35

Thing is productivity per worker (usually tracked as revenue/employees) is still low.. combine that with CAG reports of bad QA (which means rework if lucky, or high wastage rates otherwise) and it gets even worse. Work is fast tracked (affecting QA) to coincide with end of FY, with otherwise slow work through the year (and improbable hikes in overtime). Basically, the PSU unions have found ways to game the system and a slack/ineffective management allows them to get away with it..
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 055_1.html

Time overruns in defence shipyards are also endemic. Part of the blame can be laid on missing equipment/fitout items, long lead times, changing Naval requirements, suppliers.. but not all.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _India.htm

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 08:19

First pic of the IAF's IACCS that I have seen...

www.bel-india.com/IACCS

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 08:27

As I had posted previously, some 5 IAF IACCS nodes are up and running already, another 5 were cleared thereafter and are in process of implementation and should cover pretty much the whole country.

This is more on the system, plus what appears to be a CGI image of how it would have looked etc.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5iHvnnvD-Sw/T ... CCCS-1.jpg

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Oct 2013 09:27

Wow ! that IACCS center looks neat !

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Oct 2013 10:38

Sources confirm to Express that, engineers and designers at HAL's Aircraft Research and Design Centre (ARDC) are having the daunting task of identifying and correcting the inherent asymmetry of the aircraft

These kind of things are actually pretty normal in a test program which get addressed as issues crop up. From the looks of it, it looks like it needs more roll damping at close to critical angle of attack which will be hit for stall testing. Nothing a good amount of simulation and wind tunnel work, along with good old elbow grease of fixing solutions like ventral strakes near the tail/belly area will not fix in a jiffy.

This kind of thing again reeks of Natashas wiggling their hips hoping to land a John.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Oct 2013 11:07

I am one of the biggest supporters of indenisation on BRF but it does not mean that we must not see the gross failures of DPSU. The list of problems is as follows:-

1. Lack of funds – there is no mandate or permission for spending funds for “deep” indigenisation. If funds are spent for indigenisation at component level then the cost of final product will go up, profit will go down and the HAL management will go to jail as it is misappropriation in legal terms.

2. No attempt to develop a vendor base in India- Even the seats of ALH are imported. It is easier to take cuts from established players then to waste time and energy developing a new Indian base of suppliers

3. Lies- ALH is not a HAL design. HAL has not successfully designed or set up production line for anything in last 30-40 years. They are only monopoly screw drivers.

4. Corruption – Deals are negotiated in the manner that we will keep paying through our nose for decades without 100% IPR or ToT like AL-55, Shakti engine, Garrett engines etc. But then BDL is not better, 1970s tech ATGMs still have 80% foreign components. The focus of the management is what it can import rather what it can develop. Even HTT-40, Rustom etc will be combination of imported components.

5. Upgrade – there is no attempt to upgrade acquired technology. For instance, there is no attempt to use “upgraded” indigenous version of Garrett or Shakti engines for upcoming programmes.

6. HAL should be split up. Engine division plus GTRE should go to BHEL. Radar & avionics division should go to BEL. Pvt players should be encouraged and the MLH whose orders can go upto 400-500 & NCA should be offered to Pvt players.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 11 Oct 2013 11:41

What on earth made you conclude that the ALH is not HAL's design? Please elaborate, I am very keen to know what facts made you state this. Thanks in advance
Chris!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 Oct 2013 11:57

The ALH was designed with assistance from MBB in Germany.

Its engines are French : twin 1000 shp Turbomeca TM333-2B turboshafts

And the Comptroller says : "...against the envisaged indigenisation level of 50% (by 2008), 90% of the value of material used in each ALH is still imported from foreign suppliers"

Conclusion : ALH is a largely foreign helicopter with a few Indian add-ins like the carbon composite construction.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Oct 2013 12:16

neshant - in that way, no aircraft is 100% indegenious in any one country. almost all source subsystems from global manufacturers. only a few countries have multiple vendors of sub components (US, France, Russia), almost all others design and integrate
not very unusual

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 11 Oct 2013 13:09

The most important things for a heli, the rotors and the transmission system are indigenous and no heli maker in the world would part with these two technologies. Today we are capable of making helicopters from 4 to 10 tons with indigenously without foreign help. Engines have always been our problem area. The luh in fact will have very less lru from outside India which I feel is a tremendous achievement. So all said and done HAL's heli division is as much capable if not better than ADA and I feel people should read up before posting. I strongly recommend watching the aero India seminar by pur CTP. It will answer most queries.
Cheers!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 Oct 2013 14:44

Karan M wrote:...
1.HAL needs to be told firmly at every level, that the LCA is of vital importance. Giving it secondary priority, is not an option.
...

Why fault HAL? It is after all only a "production agency". They can only be blamed if they don't show as much importance as the IAF/MoD shows. By opening their checkbooks for 20-30 billion dollar deal for the rafale whilst giving only paltry orders for the LCA(even future projection amount to <200 for both IAF and IN), the IAF/MoD have shown where their priorities are. HAL is only following the lead.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2013 17:34

If the IJT tanks,then the IAF is in real trouble and will yet again have to select a knee-jerk trainer import.The PC-21 is one option,since the PC-7 is already with the IAF,being a turboprop cheaper to operate too.One finds it absurd that HAL with so much of captive projects in hand,orders that any international aircraft manufacturer would die for,has been so slipshod with its priorities.Now that the "emperor",HAL has been found to have no clothes,and the IAF is strafing it on its failures,it is going to be difficult for the MOD/GOI to continue to protect a DPSU whose performance is very patchy.Involving pvt. Indian industry across the defence spectrum can now no longer be delayed to give competition to the DPSUs,as the money left for imports with a devalued rupee evaporates daily.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Oct 2013 17:42

why another a\c? and they want a jet

a downgraded Hawk should be enough

keeps commonality and we are already making the damn thing

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 11 Oct 2013 19:19

while it is well known HAL is struggling with IJT, the latest 'revelation' that IAF has the capability and wants to build their own trainer does beg a question - why didn't IAF depute the competent personnel from BRD to work on the IJT along with HAL personnel?? while it would have helped IAF itself in their future dream, even IJT issues possibly could have been fixed too.

The above question is something no one can answer - the entire premise is based on one interview by senior IAF officer which revealed practically nothing. Questions like above lead to unnecessary speculation(s) and quickly generate into free for all.

This is not a commentary on the poster but simply an observation - we all can control the flow of debate and discussion through what we post on the forum - rohitvats

that aside i do feel while HAL should continue with heli R&D apart from being manufacturing agency for most crafts, it's fixed wing division seems to be a problem. how about NAL/TANEJA/MAHINDRA jv to handle the trainers, medium transports etc??

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Oct 2013 19:56

It is better to fix the IJT then to dump it for one reason or the other , if we have this approach we will never develop any aircraft to its logical conclusion when going gets tough. If necessary involve international consultant ,pump in more money a bit more time but fix it for good.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 11 Oct 2013 20:49

Karan M wrote:Similarly, the HPT-32 problem is linked to the disinterest of the original OEM that supplied the engines from assisting with the fuel flow problem. Be as it may, it does not explain why HAL did not move heaven or earth via its own resources to find an alternative.

Actually Karan HAL did exactly that moved heaven and earth to fix the problem, a few months back high tempo discussion had happened regarding the same but nobody had any idea of what was done to fix the problem and I searched and searched for the same but nothing concrete came out except a few pointers of what was done. Sample this from an IAF guy,

In the nearly 25 years of service in the IAF, there were over 70 accidents on the HPT-32 out of which 17 were attributable to engine failure due to interruption of fuel flow to the engine. Tragically, 19 pilots perished in the mishaps. Several modifications were carried out on the aircraft by HAL to solve the problem of interruption of fuel flow in certain conditions of flight, but none were successful. AVCO Lycoming refused to join hands to solve the problem unless HAL reversed all the modifications carried out by them. Clearly, this was not a practical possibility and hence in the resulting stalemate, the IAF was left with no option other than to take the very difficult step of premature withdrawal of the HPT- 32 fleet.

Source, "Quality is the Key" By Air Marshal (Retd) B.K. Pandey SPS Aviation Issue 5-May 2013 pg. no 50. The entire article is a good read.

At that time I had also posted info regarding HAL going to IIT Kanpur through CEMILAC and a technical paper was submitted for the same titled Solution of HPT-32 Engine Cut-Off Problem by A. Kushari and N. G. R. Iyanger, Submitted to RCMA, Kanpur/CEMILAC, 2007. I have no clue for what happened with this "fix".

Add to this the last proposal of attaching a Parachute Recovery System which was given a go ahead from IAF themselves.

Now who would have thought that an engine cutoff problem would be such a pain in the arse and all these years it couldn't be fixed even when top Indian institutes were involved. No matter what permutation/combination is applied to find a solution to fix HAL all the routes lead unfortunately through our MoD and that won't be fixed till we don't fix our government.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 11 Oct 2013 22:15

RV,

this is not contest your observation.

i brought that interview in because -

1. it is direct quote from an air marshal under whom the BRDs work.

2. if you read the link it says project to be operational by 2015-16.

not to be dismissed at all IMO. however these are not what i meant. if you have noticed, i have raised my own doubts in a post earlier. i only wish i am proven wrong.

my focus was these -

we all know BRDs are quite efficient and innovative and there is enough material if one looks for it - even if they are low end LRUs, spares etc.. but what one can safely deduce is they do have expertise to guide a programme to IAF's satisfaction. besides i made the observation in a positive spirit. i did not even think 'speculation'.

fwiw. no more from me.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Oct 2013 22:40

Acquisition Chief’s Death Delays Indian Purchases

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2013 06:28

The latest AWST has a report ,"Aged but upgraded",that Israel is offering refurbished 3rd-gen Kfirs to a block 60 std. which turns them into a 4th-gen fighter at the ridiculously low price of just $ 20M including "avionics and wepaonry",and its operating costs down to about 25% that of a current gen. fighter.It would give these jets 8000 hrs of service,in normal terms about 40 years of service.It also says that the smaller Kfirs equipped with EL-2032 radars were superior in frontal RCS against SU-30s in exercises (Red Flag?),where Colombian Kfirs scored 8 kills.The Colombian success has resulted in the Israelis developing the new Block 60 Kfirs will have EL-2052 AESA radars which can scan 64 targets simultaneously,helmet-cued Python-5 and Derby AAMs,and also be equipped with in-flight refuelling probes,plus the ability to network with Link 16 systems with a flight of Kfirs where just one can use its radar to exchange info and inform the the rest of the tactical situ.Israel is offering these to Bulgaria which is and has about 60 airframes that can be similarly delivered to customers.

The IAF has already done something similar to its MIG-21s turning them into Bisons.But these have already served for some time and we are told have to be nursed until 2025 or so thanks to the shortfall in the inventory! It would be worth examining how the Israelis can upgrade these elderly aircraft,former Israeli built Mirages at such a ridiculous cost while we are spending $2.5B on upgrading just 40+ M-2000s! More than the cost of a new MIG-29K.The cost of upgrading our 60+ MIG-29s is also very reasonable at less than $1B. What gives?

Surely one can examine how many more MIG-21s can be salvaged and upgraded at a very low cost in similar fashion.It is a pity that the MIG-21 production line was closed early.Had we built another 100+,they could've also been upgraded in like manner.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Oct 2013 06:42

So the israelis are buying quite a few of them - right?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 12 Oct 2013 07:54

Austin wrote:Acquisition Chief’s Death Delays Indian Purchases

This is like leaving the sole keys to IGI Airport with Constable Sukh Ram and if he gets indigestion and doesn't report for duty, no planes can land or take off. Pure hogwash. Most likely an attempt to pressure the French to accept responsibilty for HAL's performance which of course they will not. Absurd to the point of being treasonous.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Oct 2013 08:47

^^ More like an opportunity by MOD to delay the signing of MMRCA and other defence deal until next year and keep FM happy with some pre-election figure he has to juggle with.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 12 Oct 2013 12:24

IAF seems to be on a Jihad against all PSUs

More signs that a major defence cut back this year may well happen.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 12 Oct 2013 15:09

No need to do all that to keep the FM happy, he has allocated hardly any money for new deals anyway.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 Oct 2013 19:47

C-17 has joined the ops

Indian Army and Air Force in Phailin Salvage Operations

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 12 Oct 2013 21:11

a bit of an elaboration on my last post.

1. NAL has the experience of successfully designing and productionising HANSA trainer as also co-developing with 'plexion technologies' (which Mahindras bought out) - NM 5 (all for civilian use).

2. Taneja Aerospace builds HANSA.

3. NAL has also built SARAS which has faced a setback due to the crash of PT 2. however they haven't given up - IMO right thing to do - and are ready with modified PT supposed to fly by the end of the year. even if takes a few years to reach production, atleast it proves NAL's capabilities. their contribution in carbon composites is a known thing. the fact that they have the biggest wind tunnel facility in India used by one and all is to be noted too.

4. NAL is developing RTA 90 civilian airliner.

4. TAML has been producing the composites. a host of SMEs have been catering to sub systems across the board for all the services.

net, if one takes a cursory look at the aviation sector in India, one realises alternative design/production/agencies are indeed available as against 'only' HAL. while NAL has to shed the 'civilian' facade and get into military side of it, the pvt sector needs to step in too and build capacity - which obviously needs MOD's encouragement!!

ofc this is not to 'belittle HAL' - which has done reasonbly well within the limitations/mandates. while its HELI division has been excellent, the same does not hold good for the fixed wing div - not withstanding some good work in the past. seems great minds have retired and the newer bunch inspite of being good are unable to rise to the challenges of today's demands.

so IMO -

a restructure of all agencies is in order. it disperses the overload from some and distributes among others - as capable.

1. let NAL deal with all trainers and medium transports - i daresay even MTA!! they can choose their own partners, be it Taneja/Mahindra/Godrej etc..

efficiency in project management - a trait pvt sector exhibits, is not seen in DPSUs, especially when 'monopoly' is ingrained permanently.

2. let ADA/DRDO deal with all kinds of fighters - light/medium/heavy. again they should be able to choose their own production agencies.

3. HAL apart from being a 'manufacturing agency' for both imported and local aircrafts (when chosen) should continue their R&D and production wrt all helis. they have done us proud with Dhruv. on the way is LCH/LUH and planned MRH.

FWIW.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 12 Oct 2013 21:13

RajitO wrote:IAF seems to be on a Jihad against all PSUs

They are going to HPC and BPC, both PSUs like IOC. Private players are kept out "for security reasons" which raises the question: how can a private company pose a threat that a PSU cannot? So the PSU monopoly remains and the tender is not truly open to ensure the greatest possible savings.