Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 18 Apr 2015 16:01

Altair wrote:Gurus
In the event of a war breaking out between India and Pakistan in next few months, Will India get 36 Pre-Owned Rafael from armée de l'air on an emergency basis?


They'd be no point. The aircraft wouldn't be compatible with (non-NATO standard) Indian systems. We'd have neither the trained air crew to operate the aircraft effectively nor the ground crew to support them. Also, French wouldn't transfer them in wartime because it would amount to explicitly picking a side in a regional conflict, something that they'd be reluctant to do.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 18 Apr 2015 16:17

If the intention is to break up the monopoly of HAL,then why on earth has the GOI/MOD batted for HAL in the Basic Trainer issue,when HAL's basic trainer has yet to fly and the IJT hasn't been perfectly developed as yet?

Instead,the MOD should've plumped for more Pilatus trainers built in India,full TOT with a pvt. party or at the IAF's own BRDs.This is far less complex aircraft to master the art of building rather than the ultra-sophisticated LCA MK-2! Similarly,the light transport aircraft should also be handed over to Tata's,whoever and supported with a subsidy by the GOI. Military aircraft cannot be built as yet by brand new entrants. Secondly,unless and until the GOI/MOD decide upon the future fleet composition and strength of the IAF,combat and transport aircraft and helos, and decide in principal what will be built by HAL and what by the pvt. sector,so that there are sufficient numbers for cost-effective production and support by both public and pvt entities, ad hoc "$12B" statements of intent may eventually be $12B down the drain if the pvt. sector fails to deliver!

One says this because Pipapav are in danger of a huge 125 cr. penalty for delay in the delivery of patrol vessels.One sincerely hopes that DPSUs also get penalised for the same,delays,etc. There must be a level playing field.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby shiv » 18 Apr 2015 16:49

Altair wrote:In the event of a war breaking out between India and Pakistan in next few months, Will India get 36 Pre-Owned Rafael from armée de l'air on an emergency basis?

No. I doubt it. In fact I doubt if the IAF would even want a totally new and unfamiliar fighter to throw into a war without having first integrated the type into war plans. If the IAF wanted anything at all on an emergency basis it would probably be something that could fit right in like MiG 29, Su 30 or Mirage 2000.

Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Altair » 18 Apr 2015 17:00

Shiv
Then the entire logic of "Operational Preparedness" and "Necessary Oxygen" simply flies out of window.
Why sell this snake oil to public?
What is the payment for? Why the smoke screen?
I knew this Invincible Pigeon had something to do with this. Damn!! :twisted:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby shiv » 18 Apr 2015 19:56

Altair wrote:Shiv
Then the entire logic of "Operational Preparedness" and "Necessary Oxygen" simply flies out of window.
Why sell this snake oil to public?
What is the payment for? Why the smoke screen?
I knew this Invincible Pigeon had something to do with this. Damn!! :twisted:


No please Altair. You are totally wrong in using such language. Operational preparedness is something that is done in advance and needs planning even further in advance. You cannot simply bring in new aircraft out of thin air (well you can but they can be an expensive waste). Apart from the pilots there has to be a team of trained technicians and engineers to prepare the aircraft to fly and fight. A logistics chain for spares needs to be created so that the aircraft can be available almost anywhere in the country. Bases must be prepared to accept the aircraft and serve as home. Tactics need to be developed and the role that the aircraft will play has to be defined so that there is no unnecessary duplication and other squadrons get a chance to see how the new induction can be used optimally to make each others' role more effective with mix of types doing different roles.

This cannot be done in days. The best would be months, and actually it takes years before the aircraft type has a robust role. That is why the air force anticipated in 2000 that operational preparedness would start taking a hit by 2015 unless replacements start arriving. To be fair, all they wanted was the Mirage 2000 back then, but the issue was muddied by the MMRCA competition. Suppose we get the first 4 Rafales by June 2016, it will mean that from now until June '16 Indian pilots and technicians have been training in France. Some will have to prepare air bases to take the Rafales well in advance and then we get the first 4. In order for those first 4 aircraft to mesh in seamlessly with the IAF it wil take some more months. So if we say that 4 Rafales will be ready for fighting by December 2016, operational readiness will improve provided we have not retired any old aircraft by then. But if the first Rafales come in only by say 2018 and we have retired a MiG 21 squadron by then then there will probably be a further drop in preparedness which has to be compensated by an appropriate change in war plans. In case of war some things won't get done as planned because the planned numbers are not there.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 20:20

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:We used that in all american supplied platforms. It reduces the effectiveness of their platforms which is optimised for their equipments,

How is say... an IFF module optimized for a particular platform? And since we swap out gear on Russian & European types as well, how is this specific to the US platforms?

I will give counter example for c130j , c17. In absence of critical technologies under CISMOA, low level flights are impacted. As per some report. Please search chacha.
Shive Aroor tells "It is important to remember that this is equipment that has specifically been asked for by India".


You are parrying the point. Unreliable supplier, paki supplier, not a friend in defence field being friend of enemy.

What you were implying was that since we won against Pakistan often with inferior equipment, we'll win against China and therefore the edge provided by better equipment is not needed.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Al I implied is that India with its equipments ( russian and british and french ones) proved more than match for american ones in all wars it had with pakistan. It is you who is implying that Indians had inferior weapons and american ones are Soup-e-rear and hence needed. I am mostly pitching for indigenous one or from friendly reliable countries. I think we have better weapons in technicals for MMRCA.


You must be knowing some different meaning of logistics sharing. When two equipments from same platform belonging to different airforce work in a shared environment CISMOA comes into effect for better coordination and comm. Military exercises, one of the component of LSA framework , will be difficult and not seamless in absence of CISMOA .

The 'LSA framework' does not require any military exercises. So the whole point about 'better coordination and comm' is irrelevant. All the LSA does is switch the payments for using each others logistics from a cash basis to a reciprocal barter basis. Basically reducing the red tape and lowering the overhead costs for both sides. LSA or no LSA, sharing of logistics will continue to take place albeit on an ad hoc basis (eg. Indian ships in the Gulf of Aden regularly refuel from USN tankers).

Why don't you quote exact wordings of LSA. AFAIK it does include specific clauses for Military cooperation and exercises and compatibility of platforms ( that implies CISMOA)



I never knew US was being so stupid to offer legacy designs in one of the largest ever deals by any country in recent years. And to top it all both versions were under development stages. I am dubmfounded. That my sixth sense or spider sense tells me "Keep off the stuff" But for record IAF technically disqualified both of 'em.

You've been on this forum since 2010 with nearly 8000 posts. You can't seriously be claiming that the time-line and requirements of the MMRCA deal are new to you. But for the record, the RFI for the MMRCA was first released in 2001 which is when the F-16 entered the fray. It was re-released in 2004, which is when the SH threw its hat in the ring. They were 'under development' the way the Jaguar's DARIN III upgrade was 'under development'. In either case, its now 2015. Facts on ground have changed.

Nobody (aside from George Welch) considers either of the aircraft viable for an off-the-shelf purchase today. Different matter for the aircraft wrecking the export market for the Eurocanards.

I think you are forgetting that tests were concluded only in 2011 and in Jan 2012 Only two aircrafts were cleared. And to my best knowledge both were not from US. What changed on the ground that made them fit for MMRCA in two years' time?? Except that you saw and opening in scrapping of MMRCA. Well I don't think that is opened for US. I could be wrong.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 18 Apr 2015 20:54

chaanakya wrote:I will give counter example for c130j , c17. In absence of critical technologies under CISMOA, low level flights are impacted. As per some report. Please search chacha.
Shive Aroor tells "It is important to remember that this is equipment that has specifically been asked for by India".

1. Its not affected by the CISMOA, its affected by the BECA. 2. It applies only when operating in blackout conditions. 3. Low level operations are still regularly carried out. Even in blackout conditions the pilots can operate with night vision. 4. Doesn't change the fact that data-links, IFF, Satcom will be swapped out even on French & Russian will 'less effective' Indian equivalents.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Al I implied is that India with its equipments ( russian and british and french ones) proved more than match for american ones in all wars it had with pakistan. It is you who is implying that Indians had inferior weapons and american ones are Soup-e-rear and hence needed. I am mostly pitching for indigenous one or from friendly reliable countries. I think we have better weapons in technicals for MMRCA.

Discussing Pakistan gives that feel-good factor, but its time to drop that and start thinking in relation to the actual behemoth on our borders. And its fine to look at 'friendly reliable countries' when they provide similar equipment for the same price. Unfortunately, the Rafale is neither a cost-effective workhorse like the Su-30MKI and Tejas (esp. in low volumes) nor capable of deep penetration missions like the F-22 & F-35. And that's still fine if all we were facing was a stumbling Pakistan, rather than a superpower in the making.

Why don't you quote exact wordings of LSA. AFAIK it does include specific clauses for Military cooperation and exercises and compatibility of platforms ( that implies CISMOA)


Like I said, it has nothing to do with CISMOA, implied or otherwise.

2. This Agreement applies to the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services between the military forces of one Party by the other Party in return for either cash payment or the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services to the military forces of the other Party.

3. All obligations of the Parties under this Agreement and any Implementing Arrangements are subject to the availability of appropriations for such purposes.

4. The following items are not eligible for transfer under this Agreement and are specifically excluded from its coverage:

a. weapon systems;

b. major end items of equipment (except for the lease or loan of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List); and

c. initial quantities of replacement and spare parts associated with the initial order quantity of major items of organizational equipment covered in tables of allowances and distribution, tables of organization and equipment, and equivalent documents.
____________________________

1. As used in this Agreement and in any Implementing Arrangements, which provide
specific procedures, the following definitions apply:

a. Logistic supplies, support, and services which may be provided as approved by the Parties under this Agreement are defined and subject to the following:

(1) Supplies - Food, water, petroleum, oils, lubricants, clothing, ammunition, spare parts and components, provided during an approved activity.
(2) Support and Services - Billeting, transportation (including airlift), communication services, medical services, operations support (and construction and use of temporary structures incident to operations support), training services, repair and maintenance services, calibration services, storage services, and port services, during an approved activity. Storage units and ports shall at all times remain under the control and supervision of the host state.
(3) Logistic supplies, support, and services include the temporary use of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List, during an approved activity.


I think you are forgetting that tests were concluded only in 2011 and in Jan 2012 Only two aircrafts were cleared. And to my best knowledge both were not from US. What changed on the ground that made them fit for MMRCA in two years' time?? Except that you saw and opening in scrapping of MMRCA. Well I don't think that is opened for US. I could be wrong.

I'm afraid you're wrong again. The technical evaluations for the MMRCA ended by 2009-10. The first aircraft will be delivered no earlier than 2018, almost a decade later. And for the record, the MMRCA has already been scrapped. By the govt. Local assembly, license production, ToT, domestication... all out the window.
Last edited by Viv S on 18 Apr 2015 21:08, edited 4 times in total.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 18 Apr 2015 20:55

Altair wrote:Shiv
Then the entire logic of "Operational Preparedness" and "Necessary Oxygen" simply flies out of window.
Why sell this snake oil to public?
What is the payment for? Why the smoke screen?
I knew this Invincible Pigeon had something to do with this. Damn!! :twisted:


No, in the current purchase the same situation does not apply. In war it would take time for pilots train and be operational on the Rafale.

Yes, I could never get the sight of Mr. Doval at the meetings in France out of my mind. The decision has been taken in consultation with the NSA. There is little doubt in my mind about it.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vasu raya » 18 Apr 2015 21:28

Since we aren't at war one could get an 'in-stock' Rafale squadron from France for training in these two years except,

1) it costs assuming France agrees
2) IAF didn't extend such courtesy to the LCA and instead prefers an FOC'ed LCA

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 22:34

Viv S wrote:1. Its not affected by the CISMOA, its affected by the BECA. 2. It applies only when operating in blackout conditions. 3. Low level operations are still regularly carried out. Even in blackout conditions the pilots can operate with night vision. 4. Doesn't change the fact that data-links, IFF, Satcom will be swapped out even on French & Russian will 'less effective' Indian equivalents.

Glad that with Indian equipments we perform better and we don't need CISMOA. I hope India does not sign any of the three agreements .


Discussing Pakistan gives that feel-good factor, but its time to drop that and start thinking in relation to the actual behemoth on our borders. And its fine to look at 'friendly reliable countries' when they provide similar equipment for the same price. Unfortunately, the Rafale is neither a cost-effective workhorse like the Su-30MKI and Tejas (esp. in low volumes) nor capable of deep penetration missions like the F-22 & F-35. And that's still fine if all we were facing was a stumbling Pakistan, rather than a superpower in the making.

Well we have always looked at Friendly reliable countries rather than US and US has not done anything to change the situation. Of course it is fine for parading their wares.


Like I said, it has nothing to do with CISMOA, implied or otherwise.

2. This Agreement applies to the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services between the military forces of one Party by the other Party in return for either cash payment or the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services to the military forces of the other Party.

3. All obligations of the Parties under this Agreement and any Implementing Arrangements are subject to the availability of appropriations for such purposes.

4. The following items are not eligible for transfer under this Agreement and are specifically excluded from its coverage:

a. weapon systems;

b. major end items of equipment (except for the lease or loan of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List); and

c. initial quantities of replacement and spare parts associated with the initial order quantity of major items of organizational equipment covered in tables of allowances and distribution, tables of organization and equipment, and equivalent documents.
____________________________

1. As used in this Agreement and in any Implementing Arrangements, which provide
specific procedures, the following definitions apply:

a. Logistic supplies, support, and services which may be provided as approved by the Parties under this Agreement are defined and subject to the following:

(1) Supplies - Food, water, petroleum, oils, lubricants, clothing, ammunition, spare parts and components, provided during an approved activity.
(2) Support and Services - Billeting, transportation (including airlift), communication services, medical services, operations support (and construction and use of temporary structures incident to operations support), training services, repair and maintenance services, calibration services, storage services, and port services, during an approved activity. Storage units and ports shall at all times remain under the control and supervision of the host state.
(3) Logistic supplies, support, and services include the temporary use of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List, during an approved activity.


I'm afraid you're wrong again. The technical evaluations for the MMRCA ended by 2009-10. The first aircraft will be delivered no earlier than 2018, almost a decade later. And for the record, the MMRCA has already been scrapped. By the govt. Local assembly, license production, ToT, domestication... all out the window.


I am afraid that only on 31 Jan 2012 MoD declared the result of technical evaluations. Till such time no conclusions can be drawn officially.

you may be knowing what are the approved activities and whether it involves "interoperability"?? Well it could even extend to joint military operations conducted under US command should we desire. India has consistently refused to serve under US command for UN peacekeeping operations. LSA involves many things and CISMOA is one. That is the reason US is insisting on siging all the related agreements for a robust military to Military cooperation.
http://www.ipcs.org/article/military/ex ... -2500.html
In South Asia, Washington has a similar arrangement with Sri Lanka. Just last year in March, both countries signed ACSA (valid for 10 years) to transfer and exchange logistics supplies, support and re-fuelling of services during peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations, and joint exercises. This is also a logical culmination of the growing familiarity between the two militaries which were part of the largest military exercises last year along with Japan, Australia and Singapore. The important aspect here is 'interoperability' meaning the Indian and US forces can work together in times of emergency without wasting any time in familiarizing themselves with each other's forces. India and the US are no strangers to the arrangement outlined under the LSA. During the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the Indian government had provided refueling facility to American fighter jets at Mumbai's Sahar international airport. However, this move had come under criticism from opposition parties and the government had to withdraw the facility subsequently.

And here
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42823.pdf

And here
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150123/j ... TKSvkbcAhQ
A political commitment to find convergence on the three “foundational” agreements — logistics support, CISMOA (communications interoperability and security memorandum of agreement) and BECA (basic exchange and cooperation agreement for geo-spatial cooperation) — will be written into the text of the new framework agreement for India-US defence cooperation that is likely to be signed during US President Barack Obama’s visit.

Not that these agreements materialised. Glad for that, for now.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 18 Apr 2015 23:53

chaanakya wrote:Glad that with Indian equipments we perform better and we don't need CISMOA. I hope India does not sign any of the three agreements .

Which brings us back to - what is CISMOA? And what stops India from operating a US-origin aircraft without signing it?

Well we have always looked at Friendly reliable countries rather than US and US has not done anything to change the situation. Of course it is fine for parading their wares.

Again, I suggest you acquaint yourself better with the various aircraft being discussed and the colossal challenge we face from emergent China.

I am afraid that only on 31 Jan 2012 MoD declared the result of technical evaluations. Till such time no conclusions can be drawn officially.

You can declare the results in 2020. That still wouldn't change the fact that the Dassault's entry was in response to an RFP issued in 2007 and that the Rafale's field trials were conducted in 2009 (with an F3 variant).

you may be knowing what are the approved activities and whether it involves "interoperability"?? Well it could even extend to joint military operations conducted under US command should we desire. India has consistently refused to serve under US command for UN peacekeeping operations. LSA involves many things and CISMOA is one. That is the reason US is insisting on siging all the related agreements for a robust military to Military cooperation.

Read the excerpt again and please make an effort to understand it. It does not bind India into any 'approved' activity or to service under US command, or whatever else you're on about. Its about instituting a reciprocal payment for logistics instead of the current cash based mechanism. So if an US ship passing through refuels from an Indian tanker in the IOR and an Indian ship bound for France refuels from a US tanker in the Atlantic, instead of each paying the other cash, they deem the services to cancel each other out, saving both sides substantial overhead costs.

The payment system itself helps interoperability/jointness/cooperation/<add buzz word> by simplifying logistics and reducing red tape. It however does not oblige either side to engage in any activity that it does not wish to perform.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3899
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby arshyam » 19 Apr 2015 00:02

Guys, can we move the US agreements discussion to some other thread? It is OT here, and frankly, getting boring and repetitive.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Apr 2015 02:34

Seriously, enough of this stuff. Discuss teh freaking Rafale or close this thread and be done with this.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Sumeet » 19 Apr 2015 04:12

Good discussion on Rafale at Vikram Chandra's show. Shukla was isolated. Rahul Bedi proves why he has a particular reputation in this forum. I never understand why congress was even invited for this debate. Loved how Vikram screwed congress spokesperson. You guys should watch it.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-bi ... dget_cat_4

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby shiv » 19 Apr 2015 06:07

Karan M wrote:Seriously, enough of this stuff. Discuss teh freaking Rafale or close this thread and be done with this.

I think closing this thread at least for a few days is a good idea.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby ramana » 19 Apr 2015 06:39

OK. Closing thread next week.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby ramana » 20 Apr 2015 05:45

Its Monday and a new week. Please observe decorum or get banned.

Thanks

ramana

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 983
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Guddu » 20 Apr 2015 10:14

I am not sure the last word has been spoken on the MMRCA....maybe some posters need to take a break :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Apr 2015 11:38

As I suggeested elsewhere,why not send this td. to the archives and start a new one for the Raffly alone,like the LCA.The Ind.Mil Aviation td. could be used for other discussions.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 11:40

Cosmo_R wrote:
Anujan wrote:^^^

The same argument would hold for HAL wanting to build aircraft through ToT from abroad, no?

This of this as an "internal" ToT. From HAL/ADA to a private player.


Exactly. I mean what does it take? Hive off the team building the LCA from HAL and place it in a private sector entity that is profit driven and has excellent project management skills.


You can't because many of the LRUs come from multiple HAL divisions. Cant split all of them up...

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srin » 20 Apr 2015 12:02

Yep - the entire supply chain has to be reworked. Engines are in Koraput, Sukhois final assembly is in Nashik, LCA is in Bangalore - a mess, just like OFB (like how the Pinaka system is integrated).
But it does make a lot of sense to split up HAL into baby-HALs (I think someone mentioned it on the other PSU delay thread). Like the PSU shipyards to bid for orders. One cluster in and around Bangalore/Chitradurga, one around Nashik, one around Kanpur/Lucknow and so on.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 12:09

Problem is the systems are so spread out across both accessory divisions and different complexes.

Avionics are split across Hyderabad, Korwa and Kerala. Landing gear accessories were in UP. Question is which mini HAL does what?

And will all this diversification really add value? World over, centralization is occurring. UK has BAe. US has now just Boeing and LM as prime fighter integrators. Russia has UAC. France has Dassault.

IMHO, the route to reforming HAL should be GOPM - Govt owned pvt managed. And throw open the aircraft sector fully to the TATAs, L&T etc. That competition alone will make HAL reform a fair bit. Private management & Pvt laws applicable should help dealing with labour issues as well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Apr 2015 15:37

Start by handing over to the pvt. sector lesser complex programmes like the AJT,IJT,BTT,light transports,LUH,etc. Let HAL manufacture only the most advanced mil aircraft.LCA,MKIs,Rafales,MTAs,AMCAs,whatever.It can then pool its resources to deliver on the most vital programmes. In a recent issue of a def. mag the reasons for the LCA's delay was clearly spelt out. It makes sad reading.lack of skilled manpower just one reason.lack of the ability to absorb tech,establish proper manufacturing lines,etc.,etc.Here is where the GOI/MOD must also deliver on the "make/made in India" mantra,if it is not just rhetoric. Spend a few billions on setting up better production infrastructure at HAL for the LCA,give some sops to pvt. industry,which is always protected with subsidies and sops in the advanced western countries,manufacture moe in India and save in the long term.

It was we (UPA-2) who delayed matters in the FGFA JV.I remember about 3-4 years ago, a Russian diplomat saying that we had not decided upon what aspects of the programme we wanted to work on. Vlad Putin doesn't wait for anyone.He fixes deadlines and cracks the whip,perform or perish.

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby adityadange » 20 Apr 2015 17:50

srin wrote:Yep - the entire supply chain has to be reworked. Engines are in Koraput, Sukhois final assembly is in Nashik, LCA is in Bangalore - a mess, just like OFB (like how the Pinaka system is integrated).
But it does make a lot of sense to split up HAL into baby-HALs (I think someone mentioned it on the other PSU delay thread). Like the PSU shipyards to bid for orders. One cluster in and around Bangalore/Chitradurga, one around Nashik, one around Kanpur/Lucknow and so on.


in my view distributed suply chain is fine for following reasons:
1. in case of war if enemy will need to attack multiple targets.
2. employment opportunities available across india rather than concentrated in certain city/region. help in establishing industrial base nationwide.

i had seen documentary on discovery of bmw factory. they produce parts of their cars in different countries (iirc, engines from us, some parts from italy or something and assemble in germany), ship to assembly factory and assemble there. (not a good example to compare with fighter planes but you will just get idea)

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 20 Apr 2015 22:04

Buying Rafales outright best decision under current circumstances-Nitin Gokhale

The MMRCA saga will be taken to its logical conclusion, which in other words means it will no longer be pursued. Two, the option to buy more Rafales provided future manufacturing dovetails the government's Make in India concept, remains a distinct possibility, although the number of Rafales, including the 36 that are being purchased now, from all indications may not go beyond 60-63 even five years down the line.

Aware that the outright purchase of 36 Rafales does not solve the IAF's long-term shortage (12 Squadrons are to be retired by 2020), the government is likely to push the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to deliver three squadrons of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, Mark II in that time frame. The final step in this likely roadmap is to buy more Sukhoi-30 MKI to make up for the planned phase out of the older MiGs. At least this is the thought process I could discern after conversations with multiple sources.

That still begs the question: what about the much-touted Make in India scheme? The government's reasoning on this is driven by an understanding that the follow-on order for more Rafales will come with a rider that it will co-opt Indian companies both for main components as well as sub-assemblies.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 22:08

Interesting. Gokhale has clearly got the inside track in NaMo govt.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 20 Apr 2015 22:11

Well, he is in VIF so finds himself positioned nicely to the consternation of Shukla G........

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4005
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby partha » 20 Apr 2015 22:22

vaibhav.n wrote:Buying Rafales outright best decision under current circumstances-Nitin Gokhale

That still begs the question: what about the much-touted Make in India scheme? The government's reasoning on this is driven by an understanding that the follow-on order for more Rafales will come with a rider that it will co-opt Indian companies both for main components as well as sub-assemblies.

Yeah, what about Make in India? Make in India doesn't mean every nut and bolt will be manufactured in India and that there will be zero import of manufactured goods.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 22:52

vaibhav.n wrote:Well, he is in VIF so finds himself positioned nicely to the consternation of Shukla G........


LOL, strategic move. By the way did you see that gossip site Lutyens Masala about ShuklaG?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 22:56

partha wrote:Yeah, what about Make in India? Make in India doesn't mean every nut and bolt will be manufactured in India and that there will be zero import of manufactured goods.


With a total order of 60-63, Make in India for Rafale is mostly hope and conjecture at this point.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby enaiel » 20 Apr 2015 23:01

During Aero India, I had read these 2 articles:

http://www.oneindia.com/india/we-have-no-doubts-on-tejas-capabilities-iaf-chief-1659076.html
"The first two series production aircraft (SP-1 and SP-2) have some slight variations and from SP-3 onwards we will have them entering into the Squadron. The first squadron will consist of aircraft from SP-3 to SP-6," the Air Chief said.

So, besides the 8 LSP aircraft, IAF is also not going to accept SP-1 and SP-2 into squadron service?

http://www.oneindia.com/india/aero-india-2015-ada-chief-says-iaf-will-get-36-tejas-in-foc-format-1661826.html
"We are sure that from SP-4 onwards (likely to be rolled out by HAL during the end of 2015), IAF will start getting the Tejas that matches all FOC requirements. Hence, the IAF will be ready with 36 FOC Tejas aircraft, instead of 20 as per the order," Subramaniam said.

With the above news, SP-1 to SP-4 completely lose all importance. ADA and HAL might as well just concentrate on achieving FOC and then start producing any aircraft. This is completely insane compared to fighter aircraft development programs the world over.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 23:04

But its better than making 20 IOC standard, leaks continue about how LCA is not fully capable helmed by twits like Pandit and co, till 20 IOC appear. Better to have 2 squadrons fully FOC standard.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby enaiel » 20 Apr 2015 23:53

But why should it matter what DDM says? Shouldn't MoD, IAF, ADA and HAL discuss with each other the progress (or lack of) that LCA is making rather than reading about it in the press? Even from the link above, we have this quote:

"We read it [IAF Chief's comments] in the newspapers and it has lifted the morale of all entire teams in ADA, HAL, DRDO and NAL. In a development programme, delays are natural and we are now ensuring that the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) is achieved as planned in December," Subramaniam said.

Seems like ADA Chief has never spoken to the IAF Chief before and has to read about the IAF Chief's thoughts on the LCA from the press!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2015 23:55

A public show of support versus a private one would definitely make the team feel good.
That's what is being referred to not the 36 FOC config. That was decided between ADA/HAL and the IAF.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Apr 2015 01:41

adityadange wrote:
srin wrote:Yep - the entire supply chain has to be reworked. Engines are in Koraput, Sukhois final assembly is in Nashik, LCA is in Bangalore - a mess, just like OFB (like how the Pinaka system is integrated).
But it does make a lot of sense to split up HAL into baby-HALs (I think someone mentioned it on the other PSU delay thread). Like the PSU shipyards to bid for orders. One cluster in and around Bangalore/Chitradurga, one around Nashik, one around Kanpur/Lucknow and so on.


in my view distributed suply chain is fine for following reasons:
1. in case of war if enemy will need to attack multiple targets.
2. employment opportunities available across india rather than concentrated in certain city/region. help in establishing industrial base nationwide.


In time of war, the enemy just has to hit one key component in the supply chain e.g the airframes factory in Nasik and no more planes come off the line. Dispersal of facilities for employment is another matter to be weighed against cost.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 21 Apr 2015 02:21

Cosmo_R wrote:
In time of war, the enemy just has to hit one key component in the supply chain e.g the airframes factory in Nasik and no more planes come off the line. Dispersal of facilities for employment is another matter to be weighed against cost.


It would matter if you are fighting a prolonged conflict that runs into months if not years. Short term logistics are death with through an inventory as opposed to an active production process. I don't think many armed forces around the world are prepared to fight a conflict that can potentially run into that much time and for shorter duration conflicts they build attrition reserves in the active fleet.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 21 Apr 2015 03:07

in my view distributed suply chain is fine for following reasons:


Unless there are restrictions based on security, most supply chains are highly diversified.

It is normal for SC software to incorporate cost tables form resources such as UPS/FedEx/USPS/etc (which could change daily).

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Apr 2015 03:45

brar_w wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
In time of war, the enemy just has to hit one key component in the supply chain e.g the airframes factory in Nasik and no more planes come off the line. Dispersal of facilities for employment is another matter to be weighed against cost.


It would matter if you are fighting a prolonged conflict that runs into months if not years. Short term logistics are death with through an inventory as opposed to an active production process. I don't think many armed forces around the world are prepared to fight a conflict that can potentially run into that much time and for shorter duration conflicts they build attrition reserves in the active fleet.


It should if wars are going to be like WWI and WW2. Future wars are more likely however to be hobbesian: nasty, brutish and very short. Full spectrum offense is everything. Nothing is safe or 100% defensible.

For India, whether China or Pakistan and/or both are foes, it will not last more than 2 weeks. It's not about attrition in conventional terms, nukes enter the picture. So get in your punches before the redlines cause a time-out. IOW, not a counter punch game plan.
Last edited by Cosmo_R on 21 Apr 2015 03:52, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 21 Apr 2015 03:50

^^ That is 100% true. In fact even a NATO-Warsaw scenario wasn't expected to last very long, in fact Dassault and SAAB made good use of that in their marketing materials ;). You do however need to protect the aerospace expertise and by housing it in a non-distrubted fashion you do risk loss due to strategic bombing.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Apr 2015 04:02

brar_w wrote:^^ That is 100% true. In fact even a NATO-Warsaw scenario wasn't expected to last very long, in fact Dassault and SAAB made good use of that in their marketing materials ;). You do however need to protect the aerospace expertise and by housing it in a non-distrubted fashion you do risk loss due to strategic bombing.


It's not just aerospace expertise you need to protect. Even if you have a really distributed supply chain, the little SME which produces the landing gear panel and has no power because your grid got zapped with graphite ribbons or Stuxnet, your a/c aren't rolling off the line like Marutis.

You roll up your wad and shoot your load. Use it or lose it. :)

Reminds me of Duane Bobbick (Great White Hope) boxer in the 1970s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXyrhILOI8

His lament was "I'm a slow starter, if I get by the first round, I know I can win." :)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests