Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Jan 2014 06:31

NRao wrote:May 6, 2004 :: Russian engine to power HAL jet trainer

Snecma had proposed to develop a more powerful version of the same Larzac, but the cost factor became “alarming” in the words of HAL’s Chairman N.R. Mohanty. He told The Tribune: “We decided to invite bids, and the Russian proposal was much cheaper.”
Since they requested bids, there is absolutely no way that India could have specified a low MBTO. The Russians were not the only party to respond to that bid request.

So, the question about what the MBTO may/could/would have been is not a valid one.

There could however, be a difference between what is promised and what is delivered. Not that Russia has ever done that.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Jan 2014 07:35

More on Al-55I.

1) Engine thrust : 20% low
2) Overweight : 30 kgs
3) Engine Life is considered low and I don't have the figure.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 07:37

My feel (from reading various sources) is that the Russians promised a near perfect engine and just ran out of time. So, they delivered an engine that did not completely meet the recs, but had to be delivered. And, India, under own pressures, wanted to install the engine ASAP, and accepted an engine with the understanding that it would be improved at a later date. I suspect that the agreement written was not as good as it should have been and that Russia now is using the loop holes and India is stuck in legal jargon.

I do not see this getting resolved (to the satisfaction of the IAF).

BTW, the best MBTO number I have found is 500 hours.

This was an engine that India had ideas to export!!! So, I would not be very surprised if the designers are also playing games from that PoV.

More on Al-55I.

1) Engine thrust : 20% low
2) Overweight : 30 kgs
3) Engine Life is considered low and I don't have the figure.

Is that anywhere in open source? I have not seen that so far.

I bet the 30 Kgs at the rear is what is causing it failing the spin test.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Jan 2014 07:52

NRao wrote:Is that anywhere in open source? I have not seen that so far.

All these are old issues. I knew it even back in 2012. Since i was not posting here...

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Jan 2014 09:14

Ah , AL-55I . Wasn't this the engine that the dude who said that the "Replacement for a Mig 21 is another Mig21" wanted to use to build a gazillion cheap (nearly single use , just guns and heat seeking missiles, no need for radar) fighter and use them in swarms (sort of like People's Air Force) like mosquitoes /bees ?

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 02 Jan 2014 09:57

The engineering houses in Russia will not design an aerial engine like AL-55I with meager 100 hours of life. The main purpose of AL-55I is not for trainer aircraft, but to be used in long range cruise missiles. The trainer aircraft is just a smoke screen.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 02 Jan 2014 10:07

kmkraoind

Yes that makes sense , with the Missile treaty in place this would be a way around it.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 02 Jan 2014 10:39

kmkraoind wrote:The engineering houses in Russia will not design an aerial engine like AL-55I with meager 100 hours of life. The main purpose of AL-55I is not for trainer aircraft, but to be used in long range cruise missiles. The trainer aircraft is just a smoke screen.

It would be way too powerful for a cruise missile. For comparison the Tomahawk's engine produces 2.7-3.1 kN to the AL-55I's supposed 16.9 kN(~5-6x). Figures from wiki.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jan 2014 10:52

abhik wrote:
kmkraoind wrote:The engineering houses in Russia will not design an aerial engine like AL-55I with meager 100 hours of life. The main purpose of AL-55I is not for trainer aircraft, but to be used in long range cruise missiles. The trainer aircraft is just a smoke screen.
It would be way too powerful for a cruise missile. For comparison the Tomahawk's engine produces 2.7-3.1 kN to the AL-55I's supposed 16.9 kN(~5-6x). Figures from wiki.

So it will allow the missile to go faster, no?

That said, I don't think this engine fiasco is anything more than what it looks like: a fiasco. Trying to find sense from within the ruins is similar to how the Pakis look for a victory within every war they lose.

IMO and all that.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Jan 2014 10:53

abhik wrote:
kmkraoind wrote:The engineering houses in Russia will not design an aerial engine like AL-55I with meager 100 hours of life. The main purpose of AL-55I is not for trainer aircraft, but to be used in long range cruise missiles. The trainer aircraft is just a smoke screen.
It would be way too powerful for a cruise missile. For comparison the Tomahawk's engine produces 2.7-3.1 kN to the AL-55I's supposed 16.9 kN(~5-6x). Figures from wiki.

It could be de rated and probably perform with far greater reliability on a cruise missile??

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jan 2014 10:57

chetak wrote:It could be de rated and probably perform with far greater reliability on a cruise missile??

Derating engines to 20-30% power capacity is an ineffective strategy in air-breathing missile design for numerous reasons. Besides, we have other smaller engines available for the cruise missile applications.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 11:18

The engineering houses in Russia will not design an aerial engine like AL-55I with meager 100 hours of life. The main purpose of AL-55I is not for trainer aircraft, but to be used in long range cruise missiles. The trainer aircraft is just a smoke screen.

* In 2003/4 engineering houses in Russia were in turmoil. I would think they would do anything to keep afloat
* So, do you think that India now has everything to design and build her own engine? (Which would actually fit in very well with recent comments of "ab initio" engines (for AMCA)). May also fit very well with ditching Snecma as a partner for the Kaveri. Only problem is that this all happened some 7-8 years ago

Not a bad read for a late night story. Scary.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 02 Jan 2014 11:43

If we use AL-55I engine in toto in our missiles, it will be an overkill (high power) and it will become an issue with western countries who can browbeat both Russia and India with this issue.

But derivatives of that engine and/or some parts of that engine, i.e. turbofan or some other core technologies can be used in strategic programs.

NRaogaru, even in down time i.e. 2000s period, Russia developed MKI variant out of Su-30 MK. Moreover, designing houses designing an engine with just 100 hours of life is out of question. At best, they can take their own time, but will not deliver such mediocre product.

These are JMT only.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jan 2014 11:44

I thought we already had a deal with saturn to first import their 36MT engine for nirbhay (200 units) and then locally manufacture it.

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Jan 2014 12:00

The engineering houses in Russia will not design an aerial engine like AL-55I with meager 100 hours of life. The main purpose of AL-55I is not for trainer aircraft, but to be used in long range cruise missiles. The trainer aircraft is just a smoke screen.

The AL-55 was meant to replace the Ukranian engines that hitherto powered the Former Soviet Union trainers. And yes, the thrust and application exactly matches the Ukranian engine . The applications are Mig AT, Yak 38 etc, IAF/HAL (cant figure out which one) got cute, thought they will ride the coat tails of the Russians (remember always, if something is too good to be true, it probably isnt true), got sold of the Kool-Aid of "Same Gas Path and just a teeny weeny scaled down design from the AL-31" , salivated the thought of producing it cheaply by leveraging the investments made for the AL-31 in Koraput /wherever and finally when the Russians took OUR money and went AWOL and had a protracted development schedule, HAL got a couple of Heat Seeking Missiles fired up it's Musharraf by the IAF!

And to think that the likes of Prodyut Das were canvassing for a "People's Air Force" kind of fighter in thousands since AL-55 was the next best thing to sliced bread, while giving heat to the LCA program just boggles the imagination .. And that too considering that the AL-55 still has a long way to go to get to full specs and reliability.

As usual, Mother India paid through her nose in treasure, time and pain so that Rodina can have a substitute engine for her trainers! Rodina lovers will love it of course.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jan 2014 12:21

Singha wrote:I thought we already had a deal with saturn to first import their 36MT engine for nirbhay (200 units) and then locally manufacture it.

We do. That's why looking for miracle explanations within this fiasco seems like a wasted effort to me.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Jan 2014 13:09

Philip wrote:What was the need for an alternative Russian engine in the first place? The IJT was never intended to be powered by a Russian engine,it was the French first.Why didn't we castigate the incompetent French for an underpowered engine then? If we want better TBO performance from Saturn's, if it was not in the original specs demanded by us (1000 hr TBO?) ,then we will have to pay more for modifications,just as we are going to pay more for the 414 replacing the 404 on the LCA!

Poor argument here. The Larzac was an off-the-shelf interim engine for the HJT-36 The French didn't develop the Larzac with Indian funds for the IJT program, unlike the Al-55I.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Jan 2014 13:54

Russia strong! Russia do no wrong!! India always wrong!! India nose long!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2014 15:00

The Lazarc was only an interim engine? I find it difficult to comprehend what was in the minds of the project head/designers when the programme started.The IJT could be another iconic fiasco for management schools to study.The engine choice a story within itself.Once again I ask,why has HAL asked for a TBO upgrade to 350" hrs only when the IAF wants 1000? It looks like a translator is needed for communications between both entities.

Here's DND on the trainers subject.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/may ... ers-07391/
Xcpts:
May day: India’s New Basic & Intermediate Flight Trainers
Dec 18, 2013

India’s stalled defense procurements have become an international joke, but they’re not funny to front-line participants. The country’s attempts to buy simple artillery pieces have become infamous, but their current problem with trainer aircraft is arguably a more significant wound.

You can’t produce pilots properly without appropriate training, but the IAF’s fleet of 114 locally-designed HPT-32 Deepak basic trainers has been grounded since August 2009, because they aren’t seen as reliable enough or safe enough to fly. Since then, equally aged HJT-16 Kiran external link jets are being used for both Stage-I and Stage-II fighter training. That yawning gap has added urgency to a replacement buy, but progress has been predictably slow. With its high-end Hawk AJT jet trainer deals behind them after 20+ years of effort, can the IAF take the next step, and plug the hole in the middle of its training? In May 2012, it did.

Basic Training: Pilatus Wins the Competition

By June 2011, Switzerland’s Pilatus had emerged as the IAF’s preferred basic choice with their PC-7 Mark II external link, which is in wide international use with over 20 air forces.Overall, Pilatus touts the PC-7 as a trainer that can cover both basic and intermediate roles, at very low operating costs. Like the HPT-32s, PC-7s can be armed, and this has been done by a number of customers.

To win, Pilatus beat Korean Aerospace’s KT-1 and Hawker Beechcraft’s T-6C in the finals. Embraer’s EMB-314 Super Tucano armed trainer, Finmeccanica’s M-311 jet trainer, and Grob’s G-120 TP didn’t make it past the technical trials.

In May 2012, the IAF has signed a contract to import 75 PC-7s from Pilatus in fly-away condition, and they reportedly plan to have Hindustan Aeronautics Limited license-build another 106 in Bangalore. HAL has been having problems handling their workload, though, so India may have to decide how many future orders to source from Switzerland instead. The country reportedly plans to exercise a 37-plane option with Pilatus in late February 2013.

Intermediate Trainers: HAL’s IJT

India’s current intermediate training curriculum rests on a dwindling stock of HJT-16 Kiran jets. They were first introduced in 1968, though another 65 Kiran Mk.IIs entered service beginning in 1985. They serve as the bridge between existing basic flight trainers, and the IAF’s advanced Hawk Mk.132s.

HAL received a 1999 contract to develop the HJT-36 Sitara as an intermediate trainer successor, but the firm has missed its 2007 in-service date very badly, and a number of crashes have raised concerns. HAL is contracted to deliver 12 limited series production aircraft and 75 production IJTs, but the Sitara still hasn’t achieved initial certification as of late 2013, and remains saddled with serious aerodynamic issues. The question is whether the plane can enter service by 2015, and whether it will be safe if it does.

The PC-7 fleet is touted by Pilatus as being fully capable of assuming the intermediate training role, but even if the IJT proves to be poorly-suited or unsafe, India has a long history of pursuing indigenous programs well past the point of crisis. Choking the IAF’s pilot training pipeline may be crippling enough to force movement, so there’s a potential opportunity. It’s just a low-odds opportunity.

Oct 10/13: IJT. HAL is having serious flight and safety problems with its HJT-36 Intermediate Jet Trainer. The plane has an inherent asymmetry that makes the aircraft roll around 16 degrees during stall trials. That’s very dangerous to trainee pilots, and has forced the suspension of stall testing. HAL is still saying that they hope to get the HJT-36′s Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) by the end of December 2013, but “insiders” don’t consider that very likely.

HAL is contracted to deliver 12 limited series production aircraft and 75 production IJTs, but the IJT program has been in trouble for several years now. The original IOC date was supposed to be 2007, but a string of crashes (q.v. April 29/11) and other problems have pushed the likely date back by 7 years or more. It’s not a very good advertisement for HAL’s “MTT-40″ lobbying, and the longer-term question is whether continued IJT problems will push effective fielding beyond the old HJT-16 fleet’s safe life. Sources: Indian Express, “HAL struggling with jet trainer project”.

The last air chief's diatribe against HAL for its delays last yr.
Indian AF Chief Slams Hindustan Aeronautics
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... eronautics

In a detailed letter written to Defence Minister A.K. Antony last month, Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne wrote that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) should instead focus on its delayed aircraft projects, especially intermediate jet trainers (IJTs), and not build the HTT-40 homemade basic trainer.

In making the case for further purchases of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark 2 trainers, Browne wrote that not only are the PC-7s cheaper than the HTT-40s, there is also no guarantee that HAL would adhere to the delivery schedule, given its poor track record.

“It is pertinent to mention that HAL routinely seeks approval for a small project completion period (Typically T0+60 months) without achieving it,” Browne wrote. T0+60 means the product will be delivered 60 months after signing the contract, which HAL fails to do.

In the case of the IJT, HAL claimed it would achieve the initial operational clearance (IOC) within 60 months of signing the contract. But even after 14 years, the probable date of completion for IOC is still unknown, Browne wrote.

Browne went on to write that the HAL promised IOC of the light combat helicopter by December 2010, yet now says it won’t happen until September 2014 and is expected to cost more. As for the light utility helicopter, IOC was to be February 2014, but the project is behind schedule and the engine contract has yet to be signed.

Browne contends that the Swiss trainer is not only cheaper but its delivery is guaranteed. Plus, he wrote that he prefers to use only one model of basic trainer, and building two would complicate issues relating to spares. India has already ordered 75 PC-7 trainers.

The HTT-40, meanwhile would cost nearly 62 percent more than the Swiss trainer after 2017 due to slippages in delivery of the homemade trainer.

The contract for 75 Swiss trainers contained an option for 37 more. Browns said he wants to exercise that option and then buy another 68 for a total of 180.

The Air Force set a requirement for that number of trainers in 2009 after a series of accidents forced the MoD to ground the HPT-32 basic trainer. A global tender was issued, which Pilatus won for the 75 trainers, with the balance to be built by HAL.

No official from HAL would give the exact delivery date of the HTT-40, but said the prototype would fly in three years. A senior HAL official said Browne’s cost estimates for the HTT-40 were too high.

Browne alleged that the basic trainer proposed by HAL has several imported components. “Instead of assembling together and integrating the BTA from foreign procured items, HAL needs to concentrate all its design & development efforts, energy and capabilities on expediting IOC for the IJT, urgently required to replace the Kiran trainer aircraft which is starting to retire this year.”

“The severe criticism of the Indian Air Force on HAL reflects the underlying dissatisfaction with the users on delay in homemade projects and inferior quality of work done by the state-owned aerospace monopoly company,” said Bhim Singh, retired Air Force wing commander, adding that the government must establish an aircraft manufacturer in the private sector. ■

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 02 Jan 2014 15:35

India scraps helicopter deal due to bribes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/india-39- ... 43494.html

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 02 Jan 2014 15:53

Karan M wrote:Russia strong! Russia do no wrong!! India always wrong!! India nose long!

You are wasting your breath (though I agree with you a million times over), if you think you will get him to own up to his mistakes or back down from his nonsense.

Little bit of cussing never hurt anyone but why the personal attack? Others have already countered his POV with facts and reasoning. Why add unnecessary personal attack? - rohitvats

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2014 16:42

I suppose the good air chief and DM are liars.I guess some can't stomach the truth when it stares them in the face. and their hyperventilating is farcial in the extreme! I seriously wonder at the motive of those who still keep on defending the indefensible incompetent performance of our DPSUs with some projects even after chiefs and Def. Mins castigate them openly.

As far as the IJT,BT,LCH,LUH are concerned,all delayed officially,the only controversial Russian element is the engine for the IJT ,its TBO and no one is defending the manufacturer if it failed to deliver as agreed upon in the contract specs.

One still asks and has yet to receive a reply as to who was in charge of the project at inception,responsible for the design and choice of engine with all its specs,TBO,power,etc.,and how the IAF want 1000/1200 TBO when HAL wants the Russians to upgrade it to a mere 350?

Unfortunately,the Indian taxpayer has to shell out year after year for such incompetence for which none are held accountable.At least now the new DRDO chief with the reorganising of the entity into clusters with cluster heads equipped with sweeping power and the responsibility that comes with it, better performance will result from the DPSUs.However the ADA and HAL with its proven track record of delays in every programme still needs a major review into its working where the end-user has to be fully embedded in its projects and should call the shots.

The perform or perish attitude is slowly growing within the MOD .The involvement of pvt. Indian yards for warship building and opening up of aircraft projects too (AVRO replacement) and vehicle manufacturers for IA IFVs,etc.,rejecting fresh imports is noteworthy,but demands more incentives for pvt. industry to compete with the mollycoddled DPSUs.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Jan 2014 17:42

Philip wrote: As far as the IJT,BT,LCH,LUH are concerned,all delayed officially,the only controversial Russian element is the engine for the IJT ,its TBO and no one is defending the manufacturer if it failed to deliver as agreed upon in the contract specs.

Uh, you did exactly that. When someone posted about the pathetic MTBO value achieved (and subsequent money wrangling by the Russians to increase it) you blamed both the IAF and HAL for it, just like you once blamed the IN for the Gorshkov delays. And you followed that up with sundry tangential arguments about how every project that HAL or any other DPSU has worked on sucks which ofcourse has nothing whatsoever to do with the AL-55I engine.

If that's not defending the Russians I don't know what is.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2014 19:32

Who's defending the Russians with the engine? Why was there a substandard. engine chosen in the first place,French,interim one say some, and why was the Russian one chosen later,on what basis and on what specs? Please,I repeat,if the manufacturer is at fault please show how with facts ,original specs and delivered sub-standard performance.If it has failed penalise it! I've been saying this all along.When the first lot of Talwars were delayed due to some problem with the Shtil SAM,it was reported that a penalty was imposed and supposedly adjusted in the cost/discount of the second batch.Why can't the same be done here too? With the meek apparent acceptance of HAL to pay extra for a better TBO,that too 2/3rds less than what the IAF wants,it seems to me that the goof up fundamentally is with HAL for not enforcing the required IAF specs for TBO at the outset.Yet again,do the two entities IAF and HAL speak in different tongues and need a translator to arrive at an acceptable TBO figure?!

By the same yardstick,the GE-404 has also not performed to expectations with the Tejas,here it is not the TBO but that LCA MK-1 is underpowered (just as the IJT was with the Lazarc) an indisputable fact,affecting its performance which is well known.This has neccessitated a MK-2 to be developed with the GE 414 to be used instead,at much extra cost and time as well.Who's to blame? Both birds,the IJT and LCA MK-1 are obese.If you want to hang one manufacturer for a performance failure,then you must hang them both! But as I said before,this is a ridiculous argument as the lack of performance is fundamentally due to the obesity factor in both aircraft the fault of the design.It appears that it is only in India where the designers and project heads can get off scot free of any responsibility, while the blame is laid elsewhere and the common man made to pay the price for incompetence and mismanagement by the DPSUs.

After 14 years on,the IJT has failed to arrive and apart from the engine TBO has deep inherent flaws.It appears that HAL cut corners with the specs of the Saturn engine development,a new one where it would "own" the rights,in order to do a rush job and get the IAF to accept the bird.One factor is there however,a two year reported delay in the Russian engine arriving.If it is true then a penalty must be enforced for the delay and with other delayed key eqpt./systems like Barak-8,etc. There can be no exceptions,even for our own DPSUs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 20:42

We have two reliable sources (posted) that have stated that the LCA MKI is NOT underpowered. So, that topic should never (but will) come up again.

_________________

However, this topic of US vs. Russian companies is rather, or very, very, interesting.

One consistently delivers, while the other not only does not deliver all the time, but is a black hole for Indian funds. What's up?

GE has delivered, Saturn has not.

Boeing has delivered (on the C-17 and P-8I).

LM has delivered.

Honeywell ??????

For better or for worse, there is a pattern out there, which I had not seen earlier. Thanks.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jan 2014 21:37

we are buying proven off the shelf products from US without any special customization even - P8,C130,C17,chinook,apache,414,404...all these had accumulated lot of hours barring the P8 which is also funded with a huge P8A USN purchase.

I suspect if we ever got into a AL55/PAKFA type arrangement with the US, the same go-slow and price gouging would apply but they will be more upfront in cost demands and not change it every month. mostly the US never really gets into any such JV because its internal orders and capability are huge enough.

will be fascinating to know just how much help and timeliness was given by LM in the initial phase of Tejas project from a insider who knows the oldies involved.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 21:51

if we ever got into a

Did India not go - in the MMRCA deal? IIRC the US was very clear about what ToT India would get and what they will not (much to India's chagrin).

What about the F-414 deal? India is supposed to build them in-house AND are entitled to any future enhancements. So, there already are decent amount of data points out there. Besides, India had the option of going the non-FMS route on any of these products. So, there are some data points and the future is yet to see ..............

However, that is not my point. The only reason I brought it up is because the argument was made about Russia vs. US.

On the AL-55I I do not see this as a sole Russian issue. I *think* India needs to take a boat load of responsibility for it too. However, the MTBO issue is a correctable one - and should have been corrected by now. Exceptions: Russians are finding it difficult due to rust over a period of time (to be expected) OR, one that I am gravitating towards, they are trying to position the MiG-AT. Like the Vicky, I would not be surprised to find a UPS delivery - from Russia - stating free AL-55I IF you buy the MiG-AT with an engine. Like I stated, considering that the AL-55I came form a robust, trusted, 1000 hours MTBO engine, I find it very hard to believe that they could not even deliver a 500-800 range machine to start with.

Somesup.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Jan 2014 22:03

Singha wrote:will be fascinating to know just how much help and timeliness was given by LM in the initial phase of Tejas project from a insider who knows the oldies involved.

all those details in LCA story saar + tarmak007 stories on FBW development etc. basically, individuals very helpful and all, very well appreciated, but limited to the agreement and once sanctions came, khan did all it could to stop us in our tracks. how we bust the sanctions make for a tale of grit. eg actuators only limited sets available thanks to third world funding by goi. so lca team shuttled them around test rigs and flying aircraft and still kept planes flying! engine documentation used by GTRE to validate/certify engine for flights. national control law team set up to develop everything from basics.

incidentally kalam sir was clearly aware of tests coming, and kept asking all teams whether they could do it on their own if push came to shove. they said yes. but wonder why he didnt give a headsup so we could get more done asap. basically i guess secrecy was the key thing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jan 2014 22:09

APJ could not release it into a large team env like Tejas proj. would surely have compromised opsec. our actual weapons development seems to be a very opaque entity as it should be. even people on the civilian side of trombay dont seem to have any clue judging by some emails stolen and published by a hacker group after pokhran tests.

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 04 Jan 2014 16:00

Our Comrade's blood is boiling at the very mention of yet another russian back-stabbing.
The saga continues of russia royally screwing up indians.Please feel free to add to the below list.

1) The T90 screw-up

The initial price of the junk was lowered first by removing the Shtora self protection system.
They then offered FULL TOT. Once we signed the dotted line and the (screw driver assembly)production was started,
we see that there was :
(1) No TOT for the gun barallel
(2) No TOT for the armor
(3) No code for the ballistic computer were given.

Without a gun barallel or the armour, what is remaining in a tank to tranfer? The seat where the driver sits???
Neither we have a working thermal imager.We had to procure this from french at high cost(which is still not working in T90)
The army is now running after DRDO for porting Arjun's armor and other parts to T90 at the same time giving tiny orders for Arjun itself .This happens only in INDIA.
REMEMBER ARJUN IS A WORLD CLASS TANK comparable to any of the best out there. T90 dosent even come in a list of top 5 tanks as of now.
Swiss banks would have been able to get quite a few new accounts in this farce TOT deal.I wonder if this is the biggest scam in Arms import in india considering the order size.

2) The Gorshkov screw-up

Just pay us 750$ milion and we will give you a super duper carrier, said the russians.

End result :
(1)The ship came many many years after the expected date.
(2)The final cost : 2.3$ BILLION. That too without any air defense missiles adding this should cost another 1$ Billion.
(3) We really helped them learn the art of constructing an aircraft carrier at our expenses.

3) The Al-55 engine screw-up

We will develop you an engine at a fraction of of the cost what the french would do, said the russians.
Not only that , it is based on the AL-31 engine. So very easy to develop you know. Trust us. If we can develop AL-31 type engine,dont you know how easy it is to develop a smaller engine, said the russians.

End result : An engine with a TBO of 100hours !!!ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Russian strategy : give me more money and i will increase the TBO 100 hours each time.Makes perfect business sense for them you know.

Some future screw-ups i am predicting.
1) FGFA
2) MTA

In FGFA Basically we will be funding the development with minimum TOT ,considering our experience from the above examples.
Best strategy would be let them develop the FGFA on their on money. Once its working buy them at the market price.
LET US PUT ALL OUR MONEY THUS SAVED INTO OUR OWN AMCA.

The overall strategy of the russians seems to be:
1) First offer a deal you cant refuse.
2) Once you are hooked, increase the cost.
3) Once all your blood is sucked out, unhook and give a junk product.
4) repeat steps from 1 for the next contract.

Will we ever learn from the past?
Hope at least we-don't get hooked in FGFA project. Else it has the potential to wipe us dry.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 04 Jan 2014 17:06

Not defending the Russians, but as i was involved in a ToT deal (non military) with UK and French based company, such deals are neither easy or straightforward. Everyone hopes for the best, but wat usually given by collaborator is typically like this:

> Manufacturing Drawings
> CKD kits at certain price discount
> Production Machinery to make the product
> Vendor information for stuff like sensors, seals and diaphragms, wiring harness, special processed metal component like laser welding, etc. which not done in-house.

If you work in R&D, you get to speak to a guy with bad English once a week over the phone (ISD Call).

Nowhere have i mentioned Structural Engineering, Heat Transfer, Material Specifications, software codes, programming of NC Machines, FE Analysis of parts, CAD Drawings, etc.

A chaiwala told me that Su-30 project, Russians had supplied Paper Drawings, and Actual Part supplied had changes over the corresponding drawing. So CAD work was done in-house by HAL, and took some years to complete.

IMHO, only way to get skills is build your own project.

Germany has built FBW and composite fighters prototypes, and many engine study projects from vendors like MTU and Universities. If they attempt LCA or Kaveri, they can do better than us as knowhow already available.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jan 2014 19:37

There is no question that deals with the former Soviet Union were far smoother than the deals after its collapse.We built hundreds of MIGs,etc. without too many problems.During Soviet years,defence production units were spread all over the USSR for both strategic reasons as well as providing employment for the various republics.The Yeltsin years of decay further complicated the situation,where the grey market of former Warsaw Pact manufacturers was turned to for spares,etc. of dubious quality.We have had serious problems with spares and support for many Soviet era weapon systems supplied which caused much heartburn in the past. Now with Putin at the helm,the Russian defence industry has turned the corner and products like the IL-476 are now totally manufactured in Russia.In fact there has been a huge surge in defence production of cutting edge weapon systems especially nuclear sub production and newer missiles . The aircraft industry too has flourished with Sukhoi Flanker derivatives being the most widely sold air-dominance fighters sold around the globe.MIG-29 production has also restarted with 29Ks for both the IN and RuN.

For those critics of Russia,let's underscore the fact that no other nation has provided India with N-sub tech,which allowed us to build the ATV,acquire the Akula-2 Chakra on lease,the Brahmos JV-a world beater,the Gorshkov-yes there were problems,and JVs for the MTA and FGFA.Don't forget it gave us the weaponry with which we fought Pak in '65 and "81 and today the cutting edge of the IAF are the superb SU-MKIs and MIG-29s along with the remarkable MIG-21 Bisons that have earned praise even from the yanquis!.Remember after all who used Sabre jets and Starfighters,Patton tanks,and the Ghazi-a US sub! The insidious role of Nixon and Kissinger and the continuing US support for the TSP despite its perfidy against India.Who still operates F-16s and other US origin weaponry and has recently been given $15B in aid? With a spineless GOI leadership,the US in the last decade has tried to sell US arms to both Pak and India (so that it can influence both nations and sabotage their capability in a crisis),while allowing Paki terrorism to continue,protects the villains of 26/11 like Headley,traitors like our former RAW agent,apart from the latest spat involving our Dy.Consul who was disgustingly sexually assaulted by US officials.

Unlike the US,the Russians have no desire to see the Indian armed forces doing their dirty work for them around the globe ,obeying the commands of a "white massa",which the US has been attempting to do,turning the Indian armed forces into a servile mercenary force like OZ,etc.,to be used against China. The hard truth is that India and Russia have decided to boost military ties ,to "jointly strategise on policies and cooperation" ,decision taken at the Nov 10th Indo-Russian "Inter Governmental Commission on Military Cooperation" . where AKA and his Russian counterpart were present. 2014 will see Indo-Russian air exercises,Naval exercises off japan in the pacific and annual Army exercises,the last held in Rajasthan .Both sides reportedly reviewed all programmes and felt that both sides should sign a long-term maintenance agreement for weapon systems.

However,the two main Indo-Russian aviation JVs,the FGFA and MTA have to deliver.The FGFA work share has yet to be finalised.The sooner that these loose ends are tied up the better as every year lost increases the widening military gap between India and China.The Brahmos JV has been an outstanding success and 2014 should see the tests of the air-launched version begin,while the hyper version to also arrive within a few years time.

One sincerely hopes that other JVs and deals with other western nations like France for the Rafale,are given the same consideration that US acquisitions have recd.,many concluded in indecent haste.There are strong allegations that the US is sabotaging the Rafale deal.AKA has his chance in the last few months of his role as DM ,to seal the deal and to reverse the assessment that he has been the worst ever defence minister of India,indecisive in the extreme,barring the aforementioned deals.The arty crisis still not seen to during a decade of UPA rule is unforgivable.

Here is an interesting report:

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/ ... ng-nations

December 26, 2013
Fighter jet battles flare up in emerging nations

YASUO TAKEUCHI, Nikkei staff writer

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 04 Jan 2014 20:11

There is a lot of convergence of strategic interests between us and the Russians. I would say they naturally are and should be our closest strategic partners and have been in the past. So agree with Philip here.

Having said that I also think that there are very strong reasons for a natural friendship with the Americans...democracies, Indian diaspora , aligned interests wrt to global Islamic terror (even though the yanks don't see it that way). However this will bear fruits for us only if we are clear thinking and hard nosed in our relationship with the US. If we stand up for ourselves with confidence and conviction then our relationship with the US will strengthen. No one wants to be 'real' friends with fools and weaklings. At the moment our relationship is not working well for us. Philip has mentioned some examples. There are some bigger concerns as well for example their role in Bangladesh. I had posted on this before.

We are best served by sorting ourselves out, building our own capabilities and managing our relationship with both Russia and US with clear headed self interest.

I think we should buy 60/70 Rafales off the shelf immediately at a lower negotiated price and that should be the extent of it. Buy 60/80 Mig 29s if we get them cheap and order 20 more LCA Mk1 and go full steam ahead with LCA MK2 (and remember it is still a light combat aircraft and not try to stuff it with every goodie possible). I think we are going to need these a/c sooner than we think.

OT - Philip, I agree with your perspective on our focus on carriers vs subs. I had an interesting (and slightly heated) discussion with some senior ex and current naval officers on this recently. Will post on naval discussion thread.

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 04 Jan 2014 22:28

Philip wrote:There is no question that deals with the former Soviet Union were far smoother than the deals after its collapse.We built hundreds of MIGs,etc. without too many problems.During Soviet years,defence production units were spread all over the USSR for both strategic reasons as well as providing employment for the various republics.The Yeltsin years of decay further complicated the situation,where the grey market of former Warsaw Pact manufacturers was turned to for spares,etc. of dubious quality.We have had serious problems with spares and support for many Soviet era weapon systems supplied which caused much heartburn in the past. Now with Putin at the helm,the Russian defence industry has turned the corner and products like the IL-476 are now totally manufactured in Russia.In fact there has been a huge surge in defence production of cutting edge weapon systems especially nuclear sub production and newer missiles . The aircraft industry too has flourished with Sukhoi Flanker derivatives being the most widely sold air-dominance fighters sold around the globe.MIG-29 production has also restarted with 29Ks for both the IN and RuN.

For those critics of Russia,let's underscore the fact that no other nation has provided India with N-sub tech,which allowed us to build the ATV,acquire the Akula-2 Chakra on lease,the Brahmos JV-a world beater,the Gorshkov-yes there were problems,and JVs for the MTA and FGFA.Don't forget it gave us the weaponry with which we fought Pak in '65 and "81 and today the cutting edge of the IAF are the superb SU-MKIs and MIG-29s along with the remarkable MIG-21 Bisons that have earned praise even from the yanquis!.Remember after all who used Sabre jets and Starfighters,Patton tanks,and the Ghazi-a US sub! The insidious role of Nixon and Kissinger and the continuing US support for the TSP despite its perfidy against India.Who still operates F-16s and other US origin weaponry and has recently been given $15B in aid? With a spineless GOI leadership,the US in the last decade has tried to sell US arms to both Pak and India (so that it can influence both nations and sabotage their capability in a crisis),while allowing Paki terrorism to continue,protects the villains of 26/11 like Headley,traitors like our former RAW agent,apart from the latest spat involving our Dy.Consul who was disgustingly sexually assaulted by US officials.

Unlike the US,the Russians have no desire to see the Indian armed forces doing their dirty work for them around the globe ,obeying the commands of a "white massa",which the US has been attempting to do,turning the Indian armed forces into a servile mercenary force like OZ,etc.,to be used against China. The hard truth is that India and Russia have decided to boost military ties ,to "jointly strategise on policies and cooperation" ,decision taken at the Nov 10th Indo-Russian "Inter Governmental Commission on Military Cooperation" . where AKA and his Russian counterpart were present. 2014 will see Indo-Russian air exercises,Naval exercises off japan in the pacific and annual Army exercises,the last held in Rajasthan .Both sides reportedly reviewed all programmes and felt that both sides should sign a long-term maintenance agreement for weapon systems.

However,the two main Indo-Russian aviation JVs,the FGFA and MTA have to deliver.The FGFA work share has yet to be finalised.The sooner that these loose ends are tied up the better as every year lost increases the widening military gap between India and China.The Brahmos JV has been an outstanding success and 2014 should see the tests of the air-launched version begin,while the hyper version to also arrive within a few years time.

One sincerely hopes that other JVs and deals with other western nations like France for the Rafale,are given the same consideration that US acquisitions have recd.,many concluded in indecent haste.There are strong allegations that the US is sabotaging the Rafale deal.AKA has his chance in the last few months of his role as DM ,to seal the deal and to reverse the assessment that he has been the worst ever defence minister of India,indecisive in the extreme,barring the aforementioned deals.The arty crisis still not seen to during a decade of UPA rule is unforgivable.

Here is an interesting report:

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/ ... ng-nations

December 26, 2013
Fighter jet battles flare up in emerging nations

YASUO TAKEUCHI, Nikkei staff writer

What an inspiring speech. Really brought tears to my eyes.

Now let me correct some of your points .

1) Brahmos JV.

Is the missile good? Yes.
Did we get the full capability to manufacture all the critical component with this JV? A big NO

Did they give the seeker technology in this so called JV? NOP. Last i heard the seeker itself costs around 25% of the missile and we are directly importing the same.
Why did we not get this? After all its a JV right?Was this a selective JV OR do we need to change the definition of JV itself?

2) You say 'the Yeltsin years of decay further complicated the situation,where the grey market of former Warsaw Pact manufacturers was turned to for spares,etc. of dubious quality.Now with Putin at the helm,the Russian defence industry has turned the corner and products like the IL-476 are now totally manufactured in Russia'

But i thought most of recent deals with russia except the Su30MKI were done when Putin was at the office.Nothing against putin.He is doing the best for his country unlike some of us who give away anything for a few dollars.Wished we had a politician who is at least half as capable as him.

3) FGFA JV??? Are you joking?

After the T90 FULL TOT farce,Gorshkov,AL-55 engine TBO fiasco etc. you still want another joint venture?
Boss the Russian 5th generation fighter is up and flying. Its already well past the point where we could have "ventured inside for any joint action".
The best we could do now in this "JV" is write the cheques.
What is going to happen is this : They take our money, we get 0 or minimum TOT,we license manufacture and then they will sell the same to china or another country.This will not add anything to our indigenous capability.
The same is being done with Su30.Just buy the plane at the market price when they are ready.
So lets not live in any dream-land.The earlier we start on AMCA, the better for us strategically,economically and politically.

You may not agree to the above,i would say add this to each and every defence contract we make.

"Since your nation had helped us in the past, we are permanently indebted to you.Hence you shall receive all the rights to increase the price of any signed contract, deny us the promised TOT as you wish.We shall not raise a voice".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2014 23:40

There is a lot of convergence of strategic interests between us and the Russians. I would say they naturally are and should be our closest strategic partners and have been in the past. So agree with Philip here.

Having said that I also think that there are very strong reasons for a natural friendship with the Americans..

It is the other way around: Friendship with the Russians and strategic interests with the US. (where is the strategic convergence with Russia? I would be interested in knowing - seriously.)

For those critics of Russia,let's underscore the fact that no other nation has provided India

Does not mean that India rely on them (or any other nation), nor should Russia take India for a ride as has been done along with the strategic assets they have provided. Point being, Russia has provided a ton that others would not have provided, but India has paid for them - none has come free of cost (monies and otherwise).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2014 23:48

Did they give the seeker technology in this so called JV? NOP. Last i heard the seeker itself costs around 25% of the missile and we are directly importing the same.

Are you sure?

Sept, 2013 :: BrahMos will cement India’s place as missile powerhouse

On March 4, 2009, BrahMos was tested again with a new navigation system, found successful and then test-fired yet again on March 29, 2009. For this test, the missile had to identify a building among a cluster of buildings in an urban environment. It successfully hit the intended target within two-and-a-half minutes of launch. What made a quantum difference was the new “seeker,” considered unique and capable of seeking targets, which may be insignificant in terms of size, in a cluster of large buildings. India is now the only nation in the world with this advanced technology.

I thought the propulsion came from Russia and that India had the navigation + seeker + associated software for pattern recognition.

And, with the next iteration India should be free of Russia was my understanding. ?????

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 05 Jan 2014 00:00

NRao wrote:
Did they give the seeker technology in this so called JV? NOP. Last i heard the seeker itself costs around 25% of the missile and we are directly importing the same.
Are you sure?

Sept, 2013 :: BrahMos will cement India’s place as missile powerhouse

On March 4, 2009, BrahMos was tested again with a new navigation system, found successful and then test-fired yet again on March 29, 2009. For this test, the missile had to identify a building among a cluster of buildings in an urban environment. It successfully hit the intended target within two-and-a-half minutes of launch. What made a quantum difference was the new “seeker,” considered unique and capable of seeking targets, which may be insignificant in terms of size, in a cluster of large buildings. India is now the only nation in the world with this advanced technology.
I thought the propulsion came from Russia and that India had the navigation + seeker + associated software for pattern recognition.

And, with the next iteration India should be free of Russia was my understanding. ?????

Is this an indian made seeker? If so then i am wrong in assuming that still we are importing this.
Was there any help from russians in making this new seeker or we reversed engineered/modified the existing seeker our own?
The point being if a project is a "JV" , then both the countries should have full TOT of all the critical technologies and not import some components.Again are the russians giving us the propulsion technology or we are developing this own our own?If we have to develop this own our own instead of getting the full TOT , then what is the point in a "JV".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jan 2014 00:11

I do not know if it is an Indian "made" seeker.

However, from what little I have gathered (and someone else should be in a better position) there have been rather rapid advances in "seekers" in India: Nag, then there was the case of the Brahmos itself that was to be used in mountainous terrain, where if the target was on the reverse side of a mountain, then the missile would come-back and strike the target, not to talk of the missile defense case.

So, I am inclined to believe that India has made a lot of progress in this area. I would not be surprised if she is among the elite. But, I am certain of it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jan 2014 00:33

There is no point in blaming the Russians or any foreign supplier if contracts and agreements have not been met and we do nothing.It is the MOD that ultimately negotiates the deal,scrutinises the fine print and recommends it to the political bosses.There have to be safeguards and guarantees protecting the country's interests in the contract.Who screwed up the Scorpene deal? The French? The above rant against the Russians is a typical desi attitude that we can do no wrong and everyone else is to blame.
If there are aspects of certain deals that haven't been fully met then we should take up the matter with the supplier and demand compensation.Who is stopping the GOI from this if it is the case with Russian weaponry?

Secondly,whine at paying for the advanced weaponry that are the cutting edge of the Indian armed forces,but did the US/west even offer us the same,and compare the prices of equivalent weapon systems too? What about the Israeli AESA radar for the LCA which was blocked by the US ? Did the US give us the C-17s or other recent deals free or at "friendship prices",or did they charge "good money"? Memories are indeed short.How come there is little talk about who sabotaged the LCA after P-2 with sanctions? It also affected Sea King helos.What guarantee is there that it will not happen again?

FGFA.True,the first prototypes flying are entirely Russian,but there is a huge amt. of other work left to be done.Who has abdicated the % of JV development which has infuriated the IAF,is it not HAL,preferring to waste its time on the unwanted basic trainer? Or is it because it will be found out incapable of developing its share of high tech? We have procrastinated on the amt. and scope of JV from our side.No use blaming the Russians as they progress apace while we procrastinate.Even with the LCA,IJT,etc.,there are foreign firms bailing us out in refining the design,ironing out flaws,establishing production facilities,etc. It is the height of optimism that we who cannot even design and produce an IJT after 14 years be able to go ahead with the AMCA on our own. We haven't even been able to build our own engine for the LCA with Kaveri proving a failure! Where is the AMCA engine going to come from,the GTRE?!

PS:BMos.Reg the seeker,has there been any open angst by us on the issue? This is what was said after the 2009 land attack tests.

"The new seeker is unique and would help us to hit our targets, which are insignificant in terms of size, in a cluster of large buildings. India is now the only nation in the world with this advanced technology," an official claimed.

By 2017 when the hypersonic Mach 7 version arrives if on schedule,we will have the world's first hypersonic missile,while other nations haven't even developed their first supersonic anti-ship,let alone multi-role equivalents to BMos.Is the US helping us in this bleeding edge tech? It has several "black" programmes going on.Which of those have been offered to India if any?

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 05 Jan 2014 01:06

Philip wrote: Did the US give us the C-17s or other recent deals free or at "friendship prices",or did they charge "good money"?

At least they honored the contract signed and did not increase the price(compare this with gorshkov deal), did indeed supply a quality product(compare this with AL55 engine with 100 hours TBO) and delivered the product ahead of time(compare this with the delay in delivering the gorshkov)
At the minimum we can have a good night sleep after signing the deal with the US. In case of russians we might get horrifying dreams of the contract price getting increased to even three times like what happened in the case of gorshkov OR worse, getting a substandard product after waiting for many years for the product like that happened in the case of Al55 engine.

Philip wrote: We haven't even been able to build our own engine for the LCA with Kaveri proving a failure! Where is the AMCA engine going to come from,the GTRE?!

A well proven engine is always prefered during the test flights of a new aircraft.For example the Rafale demonstrator did not initially fly with Snecma M88.It flew with GE 404.Stupid french.They did not even have a ready made engine for their Rafale test flight.

So i believe we can use GE414 engines on AMCA initially. We should have enough experience on the type on LCA mk2 by then.
This could be used as a fail safe if our own AMCA engine is delayed like kaveri.

Philip wrote: FGFA.True,the first prototypes flying are entirely Russian,but there is a huge amt. of other work left to be done.Who has abdicated the % of JV development which has infuriated the IAF,is it not HAL,preferring to waste its time on the unwanted basic trainer?

I think HAL was intelligent enough to see what was coming. They had the brains to see through this farce JV. They understood that nothing much was there in terms of learning other than screwdriver assembly(with a new type of screwdriver) in FGFA.