LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

[Indranil]

That is a lame excuse. ADA/HAL should know how much time it takes to certify anything before flying it. And ration that time in their planning. A program whose timeline gets stretched by 20% is fine. A program whose every single deadline is stretched by 100% or more is not fine. It is failure of planning. The benefit of doubt that HAL can be given is that their projects wont get funded if they don't willfully lie. Unfortunately, it has become a norm!

MoD must step in. Tell HAL/ADA to be honest and diligent and tell IAF to adopt desi products.

[SaiK]

Are we getting into a catch-22 pattern to rest all blames and failures, and get off the publicly available data for just telling purpose? There are programs run by gov institutions that have done extremely well. LCA is a clear indication of HAL+ADA combination that has played orthogonal to IAF's plans. If they had inherant problems they went the russian way of hiding failures and cover ups. Never one gets to know about failures (not necessarily some disaster, but some human aspects, planning, failing to design, etc) out in the public except the regular DDM programming.

We are all left to playing golf in the dark.

[Viv S]

That is a lame excuse. ADA/HAL should know how much time it takes to certify anything before flying it. And ration that time in their planning. A program whose timeline gets stretched by 20% is fine. A program whose every single deadline is stretched by 100% or more is not fine. It is failure of planning. The benefit of doubt that HAL can be given is that their projects wont get funded if they don't willfully lie. Unfortunately, it has become a norm!

MoD must step in. Tell HAL/ADA to be honest and diligent and tell IAF to adopt desi products.

Precisely. The Tejas took 20 years from sanction of funding for full scale development (1993) to achievement of IOC (2013), which is perfectly reasonable considering the country's (at the time) limited technological base. What earned it a bad rep was that it was promised in 12 years. But its here now so we may as well make hay while the sun still shines (or as obsolescence creeps closer).

HAL/DRDO being more realistic in their promises, as well as the IAF focusing on the cost advantages of domestic kit, will go a long way it remedying our import-dependency.

[VijayN]

Some noob questions I had, pls. feel free to direct me to the thread or links.

Is there is a detailed comparison of LCA MK1 and LCA MK2? What is the cost involved for design changes, additional technologies, structural changes due to new engine, etc

Reason I ask for the above - while many are asking to ramp up MK1 production beyond the initial 40, and subsequently upgrade the block 1 to block 2. The question arises - Is it really worth the effort/cost to do that, given the big design changes that are being mentioned, or is it better to focus on the MK2 completion, setup and ramp-up production lines for this.

Assuming, for some reason MK1 numbers are increased to let's say 80 - Would HAL have the capacity to deliver the MK2 in numbers and at the same time upgrade MK1s? What tooling do we need to invest in, costs again, etc - am assuming the upgrade track varies from a production track. Now read this with the below:

The total number of LCAs being thrown around seems 200+(?), now how should we meet these numbers? Would it be better to have a higher ratio of taaza MK2s or should we keep the MK1 numbers going beyond 40 and then decide what should be the number for Mk2?

Thanks for your inputs.

[NRao]

Reason I ask for the above - while many are asking to ramp up MK1 production beyond the initial 40, and subsequently upgrade the block 1 to block 2. The question arises - Is it really worth the effort/cost to do that, given the big design changes that are being mentioned, or is it better to focus on the MK2 completion, setup and ramp-up production lines for this.

There is a cost if you do increase the MK-I order and there is a cost if you do not. Best is to compute this cost and move on.

IF the solution is to stick with 40 MK-Is, keep the production line idle and then start with the MK-II make sure to include the cost of suppliers leaving the supply chain (due to a lack of orders), skilled people leaving the profession (due to lay offs), etc, etc, etc.

Assuming, for some reason MK1 numbers are increased to let's say 80 - Would HAL have the capacity to deliver the MK2 in numbers and at the same time upgrade MK1s? What tooling do we need to invest in, costs again, etc - am assuming the upgrade track varies from a production track. Now read this with the below:

The total number of LCAs being thrown around seems 200+(?), now how should we meet these numbers? Would it be better to have a higher ratio of taaza MK2s or should we keep the MK1 numbers going beyond 40 and then decide what should be the number for Mk2?
.

40 + 5 squadrons (of MK-II) is the latest I have read = grand total of 140 (round it to 150).

On MK-I and MK-II ratio, the decision should be based on retaining skill + supply chain.

Keep 40 constant and extend production date for MK-I or keep production date constant and increase number of MK-I.

Ideally, bring the MK-II date up. But ................................

[Indranil]

Some noob questions I had, pls. feel free to direct me to the thread or links.

Is there is a detailed comparison of LCA MK1 and LCA MK2? What is the cost involved for design changes, additional technologies, structural changes due to new engine, etc

Reason I ask for the above - while many are asking to ramp up MK1 production beyond the initial 40, and subsequently upgrade the block 1 to block 2. The question arises - Is it really worth the effort/cost to do that, given the big design changes that are being mentioned, or is it better to focus on the MK2 completion, setup and ramp-up production lines for this.

Assuming, for some reason MK1 numbers are increased to let's say 80 - Would HAL have the capacity to deliver the MK2 in numbers and at the same time upgrade MK1s? What tooling do we need to invest in, costs again, etc - am assuming the upgrade track varies from a production track. Now read this with the below:

The total number of LCAs being thrown around seems 200+(?), now how should we meet these numbers? Would it be better to have a higher ratio of taaza MK2s or should we keep the MK1 numbers going beyond 40 and then decide what should be the number for Mk2?

Thanks for your inputs.

Few things:

1. Almost the same Assembly line will be used for both variants.
2. Mk1s cannot be upgraded to Mk2s. You would see probably a Mk1.5s with the upgraded avionics, antennas.
3. Mk2 development and Mk1 production don't compete for the same resources. In fact, they complement each other. The more Mk1s we have on the field, the better it is for Mk2 development and production. Use of Mk1s by the IAF in numbers in the field is critical for design feedback. What's more, production issues can be ironed out. Therefore the Mk1 production will streamline the Mk2 production. Ideally, Mk2s should be produced at the max throughput from day 1. And for this to happen smoothly, the line must have been working for 2-3 years at that rate. Otherwise, we would be rolling out LCAs past 2030!

P.S. Hopefully, this will be the last on this production-rate debate from me. I am convinced of what is required, a bad frame of mind to enter a debate in

[member_28722]

They may go for building trainers in the intermediate ....

[VijayN]

^^^ All good arguments, however let me share some additional thoughts:

Supply chain I feel is not going to be affected, given we know the numbers are already committed (40+5 Sqds as you mentioned) and in a continuous timeline to boot. So, orders will be out for them - Would you agree?

Skill - Now's let's see if there are chances of layoffs or losing people holds:

A quick number show on # of LCAs planned production: (Pls. feel to correct the combinations)
2014 - 0
2015 - 8 (A stretch if you ask me, more like 6)
2016 - 8
2017 - 10
2018 - 10
2019 - 8
Total - 44 (I am including trainers too, who knows HAL may churn out Naval versions also, increased numbers!!)

Now, 2019 seems the timeframe for MK2 to be signed and certified for mass production. Result - Skill has may not be lost afterall - Yes?

So, what are we missing in the argument for or against additional MK1s?

Thanks

[Indranil]

1. Well, you are doing a bit of curve fitting, aren't you . For example we know that two SPs would be supplied by the end of 2014. 1 has only been delivered, 2nd will definitely be delivered by year end.
2. Why should I keep an assembly line capable of delivering 16 aircrafts per year at half the strength till 2020? Dr. Tamilmani and Mr. Tyagi both have alluded that HAL can produce 16 aircrafts per annum from 2016 if the the orders came in.
3. Also, why one would need 2 years from 2019 to ramp up production to 16 Mk2s per year. Are we ready to pay the cost?

[Viv S]

A quick number show on # of LCAs planned production: (Pls. feel to correct the combinations)
2014 - 0
2015 - 8 (A stretch if you ask me, more like 6)
2016 - 8
2017 - 10

2014-15: 2
2015-16: 6
2016-17: 9
2017-18: 12
2018-19: 11
2019-20: 0
2020-21: 0

(Assuming there are no delays in sanctioning long lead orders for the second batch of Mk1s.)

[member_28722]

2014-15: 2
2015-16: 6
2016-17: 12
2017-18: 12
2018-19: 8
2019-20: 0
2020-21: 0

Where are you getting 12 from? The rate is projected to being 8-10 through the Mk1 production. The fact that Mirage and Jaguars are going through upgrades for next few years may also contribute to this. If Mk2 is developed on track we should be fine

[Viv S]

Where are you getting 12 from? The rate is projected to being 8-10 through the Mk1 production. The fact that Mirage and Jaguars are going through upgrades for next few years may also contribute to this. If Mk2 is developed on track we should be fine

I'm getting 12/yr because 12/yr is what the production line is rated for. And the Mk2 isn't going to IOC before 2020 (the Gripen E that's running at least three years ahead of the Tejas Mk2 will IOC only in 2018). So that Tejas line is going to sit idle unless they slow down production to keep it at simmer. The Mirage and Jaguars are being upgraded on different lines.

[NRao]

Supply chain I feel is not going to be affected, given we know the numbers are already committed (40+5 Sqds as you mentioned) and in a continuous timeline to boot. So, orders will be out for them - Would you agree?

Cannot talk about other things, but certainly SC.

Any time there is a gap it will be impacted. How is the question.

Technically SC goes down to the ore/source. Somewhere along the way someone stores "stuff", so that allows some elasticity (but if the guy is hedging then there is a cost there too) in the entire SC. However, as the material climbs up the chain, it becomes more expensive to "store". One can order ahead, pay up front, etc, but the fact remains that there is an added cost to all this (where to store, cost of storage, etc).

IF the place it is being stored goes up in flames - problem. Nothing behind it. (As opposed to a continuous line - where there something right behind.)

IF the rawish material is saved for you and somebody else is willing to pay more ................ risk.

The issue is cost - what will it cost to idle the production for N number of years. There is a cost to slow it down, speed it up, etc. But idling is IMHO the most expensive and the highest risk (which is cost too in another form).


OK. enough of this.

[srai]

A quick number show on # of LCAs planned production: (Pls. feel to correct the combinations)
2014 - 0
2015 - 8 (A stretch if you ask me, more like 6)
2016 - 8
2017 - 10

2014-15: 2
2015-16: 6
2016-17: 9
2017-18: 12
2018-19: 11
2019-20: 0
2020-21: 0

(Assuming there are no delays in sanctioning long lead orders for the second batch of Mk1s.)

...
Where are you getting 12 from? The rate is projected to being 8-10 through the Mk1 production. The fact that Mirage and Jaguars are going through upgrades for next few years may also contribute to this. If Mk2 is developed on track we should be fine

x-posting...

Here is a public source that states 12/year: HAL to build 8, then 12, Tejas fighters each year

The ministry of defence has sanctioned Rs 1,556 cr for HAL's high-tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year
Ajai Shukla | Bangalore December 30, 2013 Last Updated at 00:19 IST

...

The ministry of defence (MoD) has sanctioned Rs 1,556 crore for HAL's high-tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year. The funds will come from the IAF (25 per cent); the navy (25 per cent), while HAL will put up half the money.
...
"... By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters," says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL's production line for the Hawk trainer.
...
That was the pattern while building the Hawk. After building just two aircraft in the first year, seven were built in the second year. In the third year, HAL built 18 Hawks, and the remaining 14 Hawks were produced within months.
...

This is what the production rate plan is:

• 4 -> 2014-15
• 6 -> 2015-16
• 9 -> 2016-17
• 12 -> 2017-18
• 12 per year capacity -> post 2017-18

You can add a few months after production complete for delivery to the IAF since quality/validation testings need to occur prior to handover.

[srai]

Another point to note on this matter: while forumers demand increased orders for the mk1, I have not really heard any such demand from HAL or the ADa, basically these folks would have been raising this issue in public fora if it was such a basic point. We don't have capacity to produce at required rate because IAF has not ordered enough quantity. What at am I missing?

First Tejas rolls out, but production line at mercy of further orders

...
HAL’s new assembly line has been established at a cost of Rs 1,556 crore, with HAL paying half and the remaining shared between the IAF and navy.

HAL plans to build 8 Tejas fighters annually by 2015-16. Since the build time of a modern fighter is 2 – 2 ½ years, production and ordering of sub-systems must begin well in advance.

MoD sources say HAL has proposed that production output be doubled to 16 Tejas per year from 2016-17.

However, IAF caution stands in the way of HAL’s enthusiasm. The IAF has ordered just 40 Tejas fighters --- 20 built to current specifications, and another 20 built to a higher set of specifications that will be realised when the Tejas achieves “final operational clearance” (FOC), which is likely only by mid-2015.

Yet, without additional orders, the Tejas production line will shut down 3-4 years from now, when HAL would have delivered the 40 Tejas on order. The IAF says further orders will be placed only for the advanced Tejas Mark II.

Developing this will take some 5-7 years, since it involves extensive redesign. The General Electric F-404 engine that currently powers the Tejas will give way to a larger F-414 engine, requiring major re-engineering. The systems and avionics will also be redesigned; and then a test flight programme conducted.

While this happens, keeping the Tejas production line alive and benefiting from the economies of scale manufacture, would require additional IAF orders for the Tejas Mark I, or large export orders.

Says a top MoD official: “This is a test case for defence manufacture. We have a Defence Production Policy, a Defence Export Policy, and a Make in India slogan. But none of these are of use unless the IAF recognises the benefits of ordering more Tejas to keep the assembly line running.”
...

Case in point is the Arjun production line. It sat idle for more than 2 years waiting for the Mk.2 to be developed and validated. The IAF is basically repeating that mistake all over again.

[sarang]

whatever will happen to production line and all.

Very happy to see tejas at this stage.

After such a fierce battle for researching a fairly advanced product (at least regionally).

Its being produced in number and IAF is going to accept it as inventory.

[Vivek K]

^^^^^The LCA will meet the same fate as the Marut, and the Arjun. That is unless the IAF owns the design.

[VijayN]

2. Mk1s cannot be upgraded to Mk2s. You would see probably a Mk1.5s with the upgraded avionics, antennas.

Thank you for bringing up this point and must say bang on - Would this not be a deal breaker for the IAF? Just asking. What advantage is it to be saddled with MK1.5s after the all the expected upgrades, considering it may happen around 2025 (guesstimate of-course). A 2025 time when the force structure is expected to consist of latest gen fighters, would it have a place?

Not looking to rebut specific comments, just looking at bringing objectivity (for my own curiosity). Many of the posters have shared different but differing perspectives . Appreciate your thoughts, if HAL or IAF were to make a business case they should perhaps consider releasing a white paper - for the sake of transparency at the min. Snapping at each other's heels won't keep the prod. lines running I guess.

[venkat_r]

Few years ago, when IAF was taking potshots at HAL and LCA - I was very angry with IAF and their lack of ownership and used to think IAF should be punished for their lack of ownership.

But, being a bit more wiser now , i think, IAF should be allowed to depute some of its personel in HAL and LCA project to the point that IAF takes complete ownership of the product. The better integrated IAF is, the better it understands the problems from both sides - There is simply no other way. If IAF thinks that it can deliver better (and it does) in the management of its assets, making it part of the execution and production process would make it that much wiser about the issues on the other side and has better chance of integration. Some integration is there, but there has to be massive deputations from IAF or the other services into these programs to have smooth functioning.

As far as missing the deadlines by HAL on some of the projects, it is just the culture shift that needs to happen. For some of us who are used to the corporate deadlines, simply cannot fathom the culture these products are produced in and on top of it, the deadlines are more of a guidelines for programs in which research and new technology are used. Rule of thumb is that it costs more than originally expected and takes more time than anticipated. And to give HAL a break, for most of the LCA project, almost everything is being done for the first time. These are nothing but growing pains, and HAL has met the targets even if delayed in most of the projects except a few.

LCA project seems to have a impetus of its own now and MK1 fighters first sq is going to take to the skies soon. I am looking forward for the day when MK1 news goes into the mundane and we hotly debate and cry over MK 2.

[Vivek K]

^^^^^^+1!

A fool and his money are easily parted.

[vasu raya]

A simple pooch, what are the required nos for the Vietnamese if they were to accept Tejas Mk1? and in that context can the IAF stop running down the Mk1 by saying that only Mk2 meets its requirements

The Chinese have given us an opportunity by threatening all its neighbors, and if we aren't 'confident' about facing them with these weapon systems, there won't be any sale from us. In practice, we rely on the long range missile systems to deter the Chinese, so the yoke is not on the LCA anyways.

[Pratyush]

IIRC, the IAF was OK with the MK 1, engine power not withstanding. ( as it was to be addressed by the 414). It is when the naval prototype took shape that the IAF began to ask for the MK2.

In the light of the above, it makes sense that the MK one be ordered in a larger numbers so that the assembly line is not idle. Till the MK 2 is not mature.

[vinod]

First Tejas rolls out, but production line at mercy of further orders

...
HAL’s new assembly line has been established at a cost of Rs 1,556 crore, with HAL paying half and the remaining shared between the IAF and navy.

HAL plans to build 8 Tejas fighters annually by 2015-16. Since the build time of a modern fighter is 2 – 2 ½ years, production and ordering of sub-systems must begin well in advance.

MoD sources say HAL has proposed that production output be doubled to 16 Tejas per year from 2016-17.

However, IAF caution stands in the way of HAL’s enthusiasm. The IAF has ordered just 40 Tejas fighters --- 20 built to current specifications, and another 20 built to a higher set of specifications that will be realised when the Tejas achieves “final operational clearance” (FOC), which is likely only by mid-2015.

Yet, without additional orders, the Tejas production line will shut down 3-4 years from now, when HAL would have delivered the 40 Tejas on order. The IAF says further orders will be placed only for the advanced Tejas Mark II.

Developing this will take some 5-7 years, since it involves extensive redesign. The General Electric F-404 engine that currently powers the Tejas will give way to a larger F-414 engine, requiring major re-engineering. The systems and avionics will also be redesigned; and then a test flight programme conducted.

While this happens, keeping the Tejas production line alive and benefiting from the economies of scale manufacture, would require additional IAF orders for the Tejas Mark I, or large export orders.

Says a top MoD official: “This is a test case for defence manufacture. We have a Defence Production Policy, a Defence Export Policy, and a Make in India slogan. But none of these are of use unless the IAF recognises the benefits of ordering more Tejas to keep the assembly line running.”
...

What I can't understand is why HAL( aka India) don't try and get more orders from other countries' air forces? Keep the production line moving and people employed! No one has been able to give an explanation why it can't be done. An excuse that nobody wants MK1 is not proven until it is marketed for sale! Does anyone have a concrete answer for this?

[srai]

...

What I can't understand is why HAL( aka India) don't try and get more orders from other countries' air forces? Keep the production line moving and people employed! No one has been able to give an explanation why it can't be done. An excuse that nobody wants MK1 is not proven until it is marketed for sale! Does anyone have a concrete answer for this?

How many defence products is India exporting right now?

Besides, exports are not that easy to win against established players (namely US, Russia, EU and China) and they take time. Look at how long it is taking India to sign contract for the Rafales. Then you also have foreign products, like US's F-404 engines, integrated, and for export, some form of contractual agreement (i.e. who can it be sold to, delivery of parts, servicing and support, and other restrictive clauses) will be required with them.

The other thing about export is that the home forces need to induct that product and give it high praise. You can't have your home forces badmouthing the product and then expect it to sell like hotcakes aboard.

[NRao]

What I can't understand is why HAL( aka India) don't try and get more orders from other countries' air forces? Keep the production line moving and people employed! No one has been able to give an explanation why it can't be done. An excuse that nobody wants MK1 is not proven until it is marketed for sale! Does anyone have a concrete answer for this?

Opening a can of worms.

Does. India need permission to export the LCA with that engine?

Support structure. Spares. Export lic procedures, rules, etc are they in place? Bandwidth to train, etc. Documentation.

Finally, if your AF is not going to use it, will others?

[vinod]

What I can't understand is why HAL( aka India) don't try and get more orders from other countries' air forces? Keep the production line moving and people employed! No one has been able to give an explanation why it can't be done. An excuse that nobody wants MK1 is not proven until it is marketed for sale! Does anyone have a concrete answer for this?

Opening a can of worms.

Does. India need permission to export the LCA with that engine?

Support structure. Spares. Export lic procedures, rules, etc are they in place? Bandwidth to train, etc. Documentation.

Finally, if your AF is not going to use it, will others?

I see them as challenges... if there is a mandate stating "go and sell LCA mk1" -- It will happen. All the issues can be sorted. There will be teething problems, but they will be fixed.

IAF is going to use them.. 40 of them!! Other air forces may have needs that may suit MK1. Unless you find out, how do you know?

[mody]

A sensible approach from IAF would have been or could still be is that they can declare that the current order for 40 LCA MK1 stands and further orders may be placed only in 2016 or so, after the MK1 has achieved FOC and after IAF has had a chance to use the aircraft for at least 18 months and after reviewing the progress made on LCA MKII. If the MK2 is still some time off and the MK1 meets the requirements set for it, then IAF will certainly consider ordering some additional quantity of MK1.

The above would make much more sense then a statement that says that IAF is not going to order anymore MK1 and its only MK2 that they want. This is a complete declaration of no confidence in the MK1 as fieldable combat fighter, by the IAF.

[NRao]

I see them as challenges... if there is a mandate stating "go and sell LCA mk1" -- It will happen. All the issues can be sorted. There will be teething problems, but they will be fixed.

ROI.


Compute it and move on based on that finding.

Not difficult at all.

further orders may be placed only in 2016 or so, after the MK1 has achieved FOC

I think that article states the lead time is 2+ years. Orders placed in 2016 will be fulfilled starting in mid 2018 or so.

[nash]

A sensible approach from IAF would have been or could still be is that they can declare that the current order for 40 LCA MK1 stands and further orders may be placed only in 2016 or so, after the MK1 has achieved FOC and after IAF has had a chance to use the aircraft for at least 18 months and after reviewing the progress made on LCA MKII. If the MK2 is still some time off and the MK1 meets the requirements set for it, then IAF will certainly consider ordering some additional quantity of MK1.

The above would make much more sense then a statement that says that IAF is not going to order anymore MK1 and its only MK2 that they want. This is a complete declaration of no confidence in the MK1 as fieldable combat fighter, by the IAF.

+1 .. exactly that should be approach as described in I para by IAF. It would be sensible if they say that current order is 40 and future order depend on quality and speed of delivery by HAL and progress on MkII. If we see the time line of delivery then we can clearly see there is risk of 2 year of idle LCA production line.
I hope IAF considering this risk and they would hedge against it because if they are not then IAF is to blame here.

[vasu raya]

well Vinod, HAL is not new to exports with its Dhruv sales albeit limited, and some to Nepal or Israel which aren't ROI related either. At this stage though just invite the Vietnamese to Kalaikunda and showcase the Tejas in exercises.

[NRao]

Do not recall, but, was there a Dhruv MK-II?

[vinod]

well Vinod, HAL is not new to exports with its Dhruv sales albeit limited, and some to Nepal or Israel which aren't ROI related either. At this stage though just invite the Vietnamese to Kalaikunda and showcase the Tejas in exercises.

I'm sure Vietnamese would be interested in a replacement for their MIG-21s. We already extend credit lines to Vietnam. So, it would not be a problem to stretch that a bit further and make a sale.

About export restrictions, it would be good to know early where we stand on that front and make plans accordingly. We don't know whether any country will object or try to arm twist us, until the sale actually materialises.

IAF bitching about LCA is not good and should be put to stop. It should be made clear to everyone, that we need to have a sustainable domestic industry that can develop high tech products and for that they need to provide complete support. This doesn't mean that they cannot complain, but it will remain within the house! Not discussed in the public domain at least the stuff that can damage reputation. Building up a reputation will take time and everyone should have a stake in it, in one way or the other.

We cannot compete with China in the long term by buying from others. Period!

[vasu raya]

if we are specifically talking about the engine, within VAF's context its use is defending against China and possibly supplanting Russian planes, and US won't make any direct sales so shouldn't be an issue. There is a French engine in Dhruv.

Rao sahab from wiki,

Mk.1
The initial configuration with a conventional cockpit with mechanical gauges and Turbomeca TM 333-2B2 turboshaft engines. A total of 56 have been delivered to the Indian military.[106] Manufacturing began in 2001.[107]
Mk.2
Similar to the Mk.1, except has the newer HAL-IAI glass cockpit. A total of 20 have been delivered to the Indian military.[106] Manufacturing began in 2007.[107]
Mk.3
An improved version equipped with Shakti engines, new electronic warfare (EW) suite and warning systems, automatic chaff and flare dispensers, and improved vibration control system.[108] The first batch were inducted into service in 2012.[109]
HAL Rudra
Also known as Dhruv-WSI (Weapons System Integrated)

[shaun]

with the pace that HAL is delivering LCA , no need to worry about assembly line laying idle or loss of trained manpower ,at least for the end of this decade . If MK2 comes online starting next decade it could be written as an achievement by HAL.

And Folks , we have a ready made product called BRAHMOS ( accepted and praised by our own defnce force)which is cleared for export and still we cant export , true missiles are of strategic values but i just cant fathom the idea how LCA can be exported to country like vietnam just because we have given credit line to them. People forget that LCA still is not completely indigenous , will vietnam buy an aircraft which have GE engines !!

[brar_w]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /14185033/

A GE engine through the LCA may just be something the US could get away with without seriously impacting its Bi-lateral ties with China (and the negotiations on many fronts) compared to more direct military relations which a sale of US military hardware would bring about

[VijayN]

will vietnam buy an aircraft which have GE engines !!

Why not, the warming relations with the khans should be a good pointer. (US is busy selling to them too!!). They have many a american bird, albeit older ones still flying. The issue is, whether India will be allowed to export with an US engine and, if I were to answer to my own question perhaps yes. If Saab can, why cannot us.

But hey, wait. To hell with asking permissions, I say, bring on the Kaveri export variant!! Cheaper, sanction free, am sure anytime better than the existing VPAF Mig 21s. Extend a credit line, keep the prod lines chugging. OK, let me stop before I get kicked.

[Wickberg]

What I can't understand is why HAL( aka India) don't try and get more orders from other countries' air forces? Keep the production line moving and people employed! No one has been able to give an explanation why it can't be done. An excuse that nobody wants MK1 is not proven until it is marketed for sale! Does anyone have a concrete answer for this?

Opening a can of worms.

Does. India need permission to export the LCA with that engine?

Support structure. Spares. Export lic procedures, rules, etc are they in place? Bandwidth to train, etc. Documentation.

Finally, if your AF is not going to use it, will others?

IAF needs to have at least one squadron operational for a couple of years before you can talk about exports. Sweden tried to sell Gripen to Finland in the early 90´s (to replace Drakens and MiG-21) before it was operational in the SwAF and it failed.In stead they bought F/A-18´s and now they are actually looking at the Gripen NG as the replacement of the Hornets. Who knows. Perhaps a LCA Mk.5 could be an export product 40 years from now?

[Kartik]

IAF needs to have at least one squadron operational for a couple of years before you can talk about exports. Sweden tried to sell Gripen to Finland in the early 90´s (to replace Drakens and MiG-21) before it was operational in the SwAF and it failed.In stead they bought F/A-18´s and now they are actually looking at the Gripen NG as the replacement of the Hornets. Who knows. Perhaps a LCA Mk.5 could be an export product 40 years from now?

if you'd just stuck to being rational, talking about how the IAF needs to induct the Tejas Mk1 and have it in service for some time before export nations take real interest, I'd have agreed with you. But the last statement you made pretty much proves that you're here to troll..something you've shown in the past as well. Admins, keep an eye out for this fellow.

[member_28840]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/ ... 2I20140923

Nearly 40 years after the United States helicoptered its last soldiers out of Vietnam in an ignominious retreat, Washington is moving closer to lifting an arms embargo on its former enemy, with initial sales likely to help Hanoi deal with growing naval challenges from China.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-paci ... 16624.html

The US has partially lifted a long-time ban on lethal weapon sales to Vietnam to help it improve maritime security, a move that comes nearly 40 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

Even when i first heard this news , which came out in close proximity to the Modi U.S visit, i felt that it was a subtle go ahead approval to India which wanted to sell OPV etc to Vietnam.

with the easing of restrictions on export of naval arms to Vietnam, could the GE engines also eventually be allowed for export?

personally, i don't think khan will raise any objections over sales to Vietnam, but if we don't secure a sale within in the next few years we may have to worry about the LCA competing with khan's aircraft for sales to Vietnam.

[shaun]

there are so many if's , 1st let us concentrate in fulfilling our own needs . I just said GE engines how about the Israeli radars ?? Fighter planes are at higher end of spectrum , 1st let us start by exporting OPVs and missiles, if we have to align these ASEAN countries to our side .

Indian aerospace industry needs a structural change , HAL alone cant do that no matter how much u flog it . Folks here site the success of NAVY , they have inhouse design teams and manufacturing is not concentrated with one shipyard.