LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Aug 2015 14:13

shiv wrote:If ADA designed the LCA, ADA designed the landing gear too, not HAL. The fact that the landing gear is over engineered seems to have appeared after the navy looked at it in detail

ADA does the overall design and some sub assemblies for which they couldn't find partners or the local industry did not have enough experience. For many of the mechanical and hydraulics LRUs, HAL was the primary designer with ADA having set the goals. If HAL is saying there is a potential to take weight off the landing gear, its probably correct. It was probably discussed in some internal deliberations but set aside for Mk2 as not worth the effort, or HAL thinks it can do better now. OT, ADA has zilch FBW experience. They made a mess of the aerodynamics on even the IJT and even the program. Giving them the LCA to run (alone) would be a big issue.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Aug 2015 14:31

Karan M wrote:
shiv wrote:If ADA designed the LCA, ADA designed the landing gear too, not HAL. The fact that the landing gear is over engineered seems to have appeared after the navy looked at it in detail
OT, ADA has zilch FBW experience. They made a mess of the aerodynamics on even the IJT and even the program. Giving them the LCA to run (alone) would be a big issue.

You mean HAL, right?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Aug 2015 19:46

Karan,

I wrote this before and the browser at it. Your post brings up the context again.

IayeF is buying Hawks, Soo30s, Jaguars, and upgrading evrything from Mig29s to An32s at HAL. They may not be skunks but they are also not the local welders of bangalore, kerala.

In re. HJT, the problem was next generation specifications with last generation design and manufacturing. Even then it was only the manufacturing that let them down (weight creep, wing flex, yada yada). HJT can be salvaged, but a blot in the name of india-geniuses is so much better for the bank accounts.

Now HTT is a separate matter. They may not be rocket scientists, but they are better than the kamra people who on their own accord have been churning out their prop. trainers. Unlike HJT, you barely need kit assembly skills and engines are not a constraint. Unless, their is intentional sabotage there is no possible reason under this earth for HTT to suffer HJTs fate. Heck if one person by themselves can do it in any oeuropean or khan country, then so can HAL as an organisation. If not sabotaged.

Now, the HF. The HF is a curious case. Transparency (and there was a little bit of it, all along) has nearly completely gone away. Why? Its not in HALs interest to NOT be singing the praises of new manufacturing techniques, automation, precision, speed and abilities of the new india-genius assembly line. So why do you hear so little? Address that and you will have all your answers.

edit -- just in case it conveys the wrong impression, I am not arguing that these geniuses be allowed to "own" or "run" or "redesign" the HF. But making them in numbers is well within their grasp. Send an under-secretary or some other uber babu to have a desk and chair at the entry gate of the assembly line and dont let him come back until numbers are 16 per year or whatever. HTT is an internal project. HAL exports dhruv, chetak and anything else anyone will buy. Extra HF can be HAL dividend money too, keep the line open, park the products in the desert claiming afghanistan or vietnam or nepal will buy it. The rest of the bellyaching is rest of deadwood (er paper).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Aug 2015 21:08

JTull wrote:You mean HAL, right?

Oops yes.

Shreeman, I dont disagree with your post. The issue is not of HALs mfg capabilities but their design and development which is still at the integrate, upgrade level for the most part. Their avionics R&D record is yet to mature.

Its just that I think there is a political angle here. T Suvarna Raju is new HAL head. He was ex head design and devpt, HALs inhouse R&D arm. Add that rivalry + historic HAL-ADA grouses into the mix and we can have another makings of an issue. I hope I am mistaken.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Aug 2015 21:30

^^^ The C-DOT story keeps popping up and being relevant all the time.

Now for the control wrangle re. HF. Frankly, again just like CDOT, ADA will have to grow up, hand over production to a third entity and move beyond endless testing of TD/PVs. It is as much about ADA moving on to greener pastures with the integration level documentation as it is about HAL wanting to shred them and make its own Mk1A.

I do not doubt this "we will remove the 1,000 kg weight that we so simply had not told ADA was not needed" is immature nonsense. Manufacturing and production engineering demands its own procedures, HALT included for any new part. And the problem is to get SP2 out the door, not Mk1A.

But the solution is a. increased transparancy (build reports by each SP per month in public domain), and b. increased oversight. TSR be damned, still reports to some secretary in MoD. Same with ADA. Same with Cobham. These are not technical issues.

These are methods for killing the geese for want of all the eggs upfront.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Aug 2015 22:10

>>Now for the control wrangle re. HF. Frankly, again just like CDOT, ADA will have to grow up, hand over production to a third entity and move beyond endless testing of TD/PVs. It is as much about ADA moving on to greener pastures with the integration level documentation as it is about HAL wanting to shred them and make its own Mk1A.

This can only happen if HAL has proven capabilities in terms of overall design (it hasn't), can understand the complexities of FBW and other factors (it so far can't). HAL had a wonderful opportunity to use the IJT to demonstrate its growing capabilities. To design and develop avionics items of its own provenance to move beyond a integration shop. It did very little.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Aug 2015 00:28

I'm not against HAL or any other PSU taking initiative and setting up in-house R&D. As they say, walk before running. What I find objectionable is over-trumpeting one's capabilities and promising what everyone knows cannot be delivered. This sounds like a desperate way to appeal to immediacy of IAF requirements to keep the gravy train flowing. In the context of shenanigans around IJT and new basic trainer, this proposal is even more preposterous. Similar to their claim of having technology to 3D print gas turbine blades when the first global attempts had just made it to international journals.

If I was in the govt I would be talking about breaking-up HAL and selling pieces to private players. There's zero accountability at the moment.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Aug 2015 02:22

Shreeman, What is HF? Already you uses pingrez and cryptic language where its not needed. And now throw in new acronyms. Good practice would be to spell out at least once and then use the new acronym.

KaranM, How does the DARE distributed EW suite appear to you?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Aug 2015 02:31

The landing gear of LCA is designed by CVRDE, and likely to be over-designed. But what exactly is HAL's expertise in designing/optimizing landing gears?

Also LCA Mk1 does carry a 300 kg ballast for managing the CG. Therefore, LCA Mk1 can be optimized. But that is exactly what is being done for Mk2. If HAL can bring forward this changes faster, why not cooperate with ADA. Doesn't this show its stepmotherly treatment towards LCA? And I don't get it. Forget history. No matter what happens, HAL is going to be the principal integrator of LCA Mk1 and Mk2. If LCA Mk2 timelines can indeed be brought forward, then orders will come today! Everybody (ADA, MOD, IAF) is waiting for it. And yet HAL wants to go alone NOW!!!! Is there a better example of putting the cart before the horse?

And I have some serious question from HAL:
1. If 800 kgs can be shaved off Mk1, what the hell were you doing till now? Havn't you been integrating these prototypes for the past 15 years?
2. Where the hell is SP-2 to SP-4? I have no sympathies for HAL regarding this. Is anybody managing this project inside HAL? When IOC was supposed to obtained in 2010, the assembly line should have been set up by 2010. It is 2015 now! Kitna "chalta hai" bhai? Which customer will have faith in you? Dornier left, Boeing left. Pilatus chose a newbie. Airbus chose a newbie!

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 15 Aug 2015 03:21

See saurav jha tweets

https://twitter.com/SJha1618

Regarding lca , Kalam demise and offer of soolah to kill lca

Unable to post tweets as images due to unknown reasons.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Aug 2015 04:07

Indranil wrote:The landing gear of LCA is designed by CVRDE, and likely to be over-designed. But what exactly is HAL's expertise in designing/optimizing landing gears?

Indranil, are you sure about the regular LCAs landing gear (not NP). My recollection is it was designed by the same LRU group which handles the Jaguar landing gear, accessories division lucknow. There is now a landing gear focused unit.
http://www.hal-india.com/Common/Uploads ... nglish.pdf
Several patents for the Undercarriage components by ASERDC at HAL but can't find the original report. I think CVRDE was roped in later for the MLG.

Ramana wrote:KaranM, How does the DARE distributed EW suite appear to you?

[/quote]

Its a good concept and DARE hopefully will get it to work. The basic design is modular and was first (partly) implemented on the MIg-27. However the program was dropped before fully realizing the functionality. Now three variants exist, one is on the LCA with MPM transmitters and one for the MiG-29 Upgrade with AESA transmitters for which we have tied up with Elettronica from Italy. Latter is a pretty expensive program. Third is the new RWJ program for the Jaguar DARIN-3 upgrade. The modular part is the ESM (signal reception) and signal analysis/generation part. The transmit part can be added depending on the platform. Heavy platforms get heavier jammers.

The good part is that if it works it will be a game changer as it offers geolocation capability and can be scaled up/leveraged for many other platforms in the future too.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Aug 2015 04:49

Nitesh wrote:Is the change of attitude stems from French refusing to integrate Astra with Rafale:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/495 ... tions.html

. The Frenchies are rightly simply refusing to bend to the IAF, they have a program to run after all. IAF is probably learning that last minute unplanned this and that and change modifications and requests have huge cost and timeline issues. Learning this the hard way of course. The easier way, with a long trip to south of France and hospitality and a visit to Paris thrown is,

Pourquoi l'Astra monsieurs ? Le Mica est disponsible

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Aug 2015 06:06

Speaking of F-16 offer - I suspect things have moved along a bit. About 20 years ago the US tried to kill LCA by offering to let India produce the F-5's single engine cousin, the F-20. Now after 20 years the US is offering to kill LCA with F-16.

Who knows, we may even get the F-35 as an offer to kill something or other in future

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 15 Aug 2015 06:40

ramana wrote:Shreeman, What is HF? Already you uses pingrez and cryptic language where its not needed. And now throw in new acronyms. Good practice would be to spell out at least once and then use the new acronym.

KaranM, How does the DARE distributed EW suite appear to you?

Ramana,

OT, but 'tis true, these complaints will never go away against my silly output.

But HF is not new, the LCA should have had its HF designation. HF twenty something or thirty something. If it were not for the meddling. No one uses Viper, eagle, whatever, often just F-xx, B-xx. Even J-xx, and JF-xx. What is so wrong with reminding folks, it is HTT, HJT, HF. There is no name for the new HTT, and sitara didnt stick all that well for IJT. Tejas is the only official name. In all three, Tejas doesnt describe HAL, but ADA/Vajpayee. HF is HAL, marut and all.

I would rather use HF-xx for production tejas, they just dont assign it a designation.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2015 07:16

shiv wrote:Speaking of F-16 offer - I suspect things have moved along a bit. About 20 years ago the US tried to kill LCA by offering to let India produce the F-5's single engine cousin, the F-20. Now after 20 years the US is offering to kill LCA with F-16.

Who knows, we may even get the F-35 as an offer to kill something or other in future

Well, as part of the MMRCA deal LM had stated that IF the F-16IN was selected the JSF could follow. They were tied at the hip to some extent.

But, I very much doubt that will happen.

Also, I just do not see any of these, including the Grip, killing the LCA - hard as they may try. "Killing" the LCA MK-I, that I can see. But not the MK-II. (the MK-1A, has meaning - to me - only to keep a line going, which is valid reason.)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Aug 2015 07:34

Fact is that among Indian defence officials - esp DRDO, defence labs and PSUs it is well known that tech items that reach maturity in India are instantly offered for import at bargain basement prices. I first heard this from my late cousin Wingco Suresh, but have heard the same from many others including Air Marshal Rajkumar and Dr Ramchand, formerly of CABS. The real worry may be politicians who may opt for import rather than furthering local tech.

LCA, Astra etc seem to be threats to foreign industry. Engines are the next frontier. Sorry to go OT but we need to get a UCAV off the ground with non afterburning Kaveri soon.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2015 07:53

The real worry may be politicians who may opt for import rather than furthering local tech

THAT is what I have been saying for a very long time. Indians in India need to decide where they want to be on the pecking order. Once that decision is made then things can potentially fall into place, unless people wait for the next Kalam, etc.

The problem, as I see it, is India.

App ki chal.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Aug 2015 09:54

KaranM, thanks.

Now next question.

What would it take to fire Astra from LCA?

Radar, hard points, weight.....

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 Aug 2015 10:44

not sure if this has been posted tejas 2015 brochure

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Aug 2015 15:04

ramana wrote:KaranM, thanks.

Now next question.

What would it take to fire Astra from LCA?

Radar, hard points, weight.....

Same qn applies to both L & R, so answering both.
Form, fit and function tests. The Astra weight wise is ok for LCA and Rafale pylons.
Test wise - the mechanical part
Store Release simuations, followed by ground vibration tests (all possible configurations), then actual flight trials and release tests.
Electricals- making sure the system is compatible to LCA/Rafale pylons or special pylons with adapter to interface with Rafale weapons control/management system
Software access - we need to be able to load the Astra config into the Rafale MDPU/LCA MC so that the weapons control system can automatically "load" the Astra data into the launch parameters/deploy parameters when a target is locked
Command & control - Astra has a midcourse datalink. Either existing Rafale datalink needs to be modified to talk to the Astra or a new datalink with again links to the WCS needs to be added. We have managed this for the Su-30 for the Astra, so LCA not an issue.

Re Rafale It can get fairly complex and time consuming. But we have expertise. IM(H)O, IAF wants Astra capability from day 1, hence the Rafale team is being asked to work out the kinks beforehand rather than it all being dumped on us, and deliberate delays from French side to force us to buy huge stocks of MicaERs, which are in all likelihood not as capable as the Astra. IAF has access to Mica ER/IR data since they purchased them for the Mirage 2000.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Aug 2015 19:46

As LCA avionics is similar to SU-30MKI, Astra on paper should not be a show stopper for LCA. Guess we need radar/radome proofing.

All the more reason to buy LCAs

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Aug 2015 20:06

^^ BTW guess what I found. EF typhoon page on Euro wiki, machine translated

After the amicable settlement the ECR-90 was prepared by the Euro radar consortium of GEC Marconi and FIAR (now Selex ES), ENOSA (now Indra) (now Airbus Defence & Space) develops and DASA for series production. This also was the BAC 1-11 used. The development steps were the BAC 1-11 to a built-in, which was first flown in DA5. In this first air-to-air radar modes were tested, then air-air modes under ECM -Influence, and finally air-ground modes. The tests were carried out in close coordination with the testing of sensor fusion (AIS), the weapons and the navigation. [19] In May 1996, it was found here that the radar energy the Radom partly could not leave because the Frequency Selective Surface (FSS) for Flashbacks made. The problem was solved by the antenna was changed from vertical to horizontal polarization, and the radome has been redesigned. Main problem was that the design of the radome was conducted by British Aerospace, and the work between AEG in Germany, Alenia in Italy and was split CASA in Spain. In retrospect, it was found that it would have been better to place the orders for radar and Radom to a company. The primary responsibility for the radar was therefore transferred from DASA to BAE Systems. [20]

Looks like we have gone through a similar process with the LCA and so did the EF guys. They too had transmission losses in the radome thanks to its design, which was designed by a different firm than the radar one and had to make radar tweaks in the radar itself, plus redesign the radome. And BAE ended up taking the whole thing.

And these guys have more experience than us in airborne radar tech and access to all of NATO gyaan.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Aug 2015 06:00

Maybe it is these new gen radars that need specialized radomes.
I wonder if the legacy fighters had similar issues? Most of them were fighting WVR / IR battles. BVR was just about making its presence known.

The americans have deployed AESAs on their legacy jets, they've probably gone through a radome redesign as well. I remember reading something about a new F-16 radome programe a long time ago

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Aug 2015 06:27

we should not rule to experiment anything that is available to get past this problem.
even something like this
http://phys.org/news/2007-10-plastic-st ... arent.html

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Aug 2015 13:19

ramana wrote:As LCA avionics is similar to SU-30MKI, Astra on paper should not be a show stopper for LCA. Guess we need radar/radome proofing.

All the more reason to buy LCAs

This is what PS Subramanyam Said recently in his online chat:

Astra missiles programme was actually initiated at ADA only. All the time the integration of ASTRA on to LCA has been kept in mind while evolving Astra. Once Astra is cleared on any other platform it will be integrated on LCA

Also from this report: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 721103.ece

The missile was initially planned to arm Jaguar, Mig-29 and light combat air-craft (LCA) Tejas, but meanwhile DRDO has integrated Astra with Indian Air Force's front line fighter air-crafts like Sukhoi-30 MKI.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Aug 2015 19:43

^^^

DRDO, as a collective, have been supporting its LCA and that includes its weapons development.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 16 Aug 2015 21:59

krisna wrote:See saurav jha tweets

https://twitter.com/SJha1618

Regarding lca , Kalam demise and offer of soolah to kill lca

Unable to post tweets as images due to unknown reasons.

http://i.imgur.com/eWYjZ5r.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/3IflLVR.jpg?1

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Aug 2015 23:32

Lockheed Martin is well within its rights to try and expand its business. They are in the business of making money.
Why should they care if the Indian netas or babus decide to sabotage their own projects hain ji?

For 5+ decades, Indian politicians, babus with the connivance of the top military brass have sabotaged indigenous products, they've take large bribes in the process. Part of these were necessitated to maintain foreign relationships with seller nations.

But the crime of our own people was that they killed domestic products. GOI was poor enough that they could not sustain domestic R&D in parallel with videshi imports.

This move by LM probably won't succeed in 2015, because the LCA is on the verge of FOC. There is enough money for a parallel gap filler. Real deshdroh will be when IAF goes in for either the Grippen or the F-16, but sabotages the LCA.
Kalam ji's death does not appear to have much to do with this offer, shouldn't correlate them so.

So LCA manufacturing should be given to a suitable private player - chota bhai can outsell any videshi on desi soil. A private player can do things minus the redtape of GOI, that the ADA and HAL have to deal with. Any future improvements on the LCA will be implemented sooner and more efficiently with a pvt player.
Who says that the only wise minds work for the ADA or HAL? There is a sea of superbright talent that a PVT player can tap into, minus the red tape.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Aug 2015 23:46

Saurav Jha is lamenting that HAL can't produce more than 2 LCAs a year. If true, maybe one should rope in Saab as a production partner along with an Indian firm and let HAL charge a royalty for technical services and loan of personnel.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Aug 2015 23:48

This year, they're going to make only 2.
But they're going to make 8/yr based on current orders.
They want more orders to bump it up to 16.

That's what I understand

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2015 06:09

Cosmo_R wrote:Saurav Jha is lamenting that HAL can't produce more than 2 LCAs a year. If true, maybe one should rope in Saab as a production partner along with an Indian firm and let HAL charge a royalty for technical services and loan of personnel.

I was not going to respond to this but changed my mind because this suggestion, if serious, is in the same category as statements that we used to hear on BRF 10 years ago saying "Give LCA to Infosys or Tatas"

Even if we called SAAB in tomorrow - they will face the same problems that all other manufacturing concerns in India face.
1. They will have to search for partners
2. they will have to look for factory space, buy land if need be; get permissions from various agencies
3. The will have to look for skilled aerospace experienced labour which is practically non existent outside HAL
4. They will have to obtain detailed drawings and specs from HAl/ADA/GE whoever is involved
5. Funds will have to flow freely and SAAB will have to make money out of it
6. Final certification will have to be done by the usual agencies

All this could end up taking longer than simply encouraging HAL to get on with it and set up what then have been doing for 15 years.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2015 06:14

All this could end up taking longer than simply encouraging HAL to get on with it and set up what then have been doing for 15 years.

As SJha said, 2/two per year.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2015 06:42

NRao wrote:
All this could end up taking longer than simply encouraging HAL to get on with it and set up what then have been doing for 15 years.
As SJha said, 2/two per year.

With an order of 40, it is well within HALs rights to make sure that they spend the least amount on expanding floor space, tooling and skilled labour and use what they have to keep their people employed for 10 more years rather than spend a lot and finish everything in 2 years at 20 per year.

Everyone in the business wants more orders and there are not enough wars and too many manufacturers. People want to make money out of F-16, F/A-18, Gripen etc. Faced with such formidable competition who can wipe the floor with HAL on the request of Netas Babus and senior officers whom we say are not patriotic enough, why should HAL also not discard any pretence of patriotism, say screw you but we ain't gonna do any more unless you give us more orders.

Dassault is saying the same thing. they say "If you want 2 air bases, either enlarge the order or pay more or keep our workers employed by some other means"

Ultimately it is the IAF and national defence that will take a hit. We cannot speak with both sides of our mouth and say that "HAL is useless, get foreign" and then say "IAF/Babus are useless, they should use what we have in India" without ending up sounding like hypocrites who are no smarter than the people we curse.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2015 06:56

A dharmic person I know used to work for a major multinational company which supplied machines that dispensed a beverage. He was in the R&D business and pointed out that the current model was inefficient and 10-20% of the product was being discarded and being replaced by a new cartridge. The multinational opined that this was good because they would have greater turnover of refill cartridges.

When it comes to ethics versus business, business always wins. How many F/A 18s, F-16s, Gripens and Rafales are being shot down? None. The world is getting filled up with these planes and there is no one to buy them. Dropping prices is a last resort.

China is trying to fill the niche with JF-17 with not too much success. Russia is doing OK with India and China. Europe and the US are trying to break into the "India market". This has nothing to do with defence and everything to do with money and business.

In the old days great powers would start wars between other nations (or between rajas and sultans in some turd world colony) simply to supply them both with arms. It is now 16 years since India and Pakistan fought a war. It is decades since China, Japan or Korea fought a war. Even Egypt is not doing anything. the only wars that are being fought are by people who buy Kalashnikovs and RDX. Not 4 gen, 4.5 gen and 5 gen aircraft - except the wars that Europe and the US start.

If a US president could declare Pakistan a normal state an ideal solution for current crises and glut would be to supply Pakistan with a healthy number of F-16s and F-18s. perhaps some Gripens as well. I predict that Iran will soon buy Rafales. Vietnams is a good market for Gripens or F-16s. What we need is more wars.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Aug 2015 07:46

Given the current Mk.2 timelines, a minimum order of 100 LCA (IAF - 4 squadrons [around 68 Mk.1 and 12 Trainer]; IN - 1 squadron [12 NLCA and 8 N-Trainer])are required to keep assembly lines and its suppliers busy till 2025 with peak production rate at 16 per year (peak rate lasting for around 4 years during that timeframe). Gradual production switchover between Mk.1 and Mk.2 would need to occur between 2022 and 2025.

The problem with services is their small sized orders without a formal intent for x amount more as options for indigenous products. If the follow-on order is not placed within a certain specified time (usually 36-months in advance), there will be gaps in production. For example, if the IAF waits till 2019 to place follow-on orders beyond 40 units then the line will remain idle for 3 years (if not more). At that point it may make sense to wait for Mk.2 while forfeiting valuable capability and investment that could have been made use of. There seems to be a lack of understanding of this on the users part. Minimum viabile quantity needs to be supported at the get go!

Note: Given the habitual pattern of underestimating timelines by DRDO and HAL, MoD should pad all their estimates by at least 2-years more

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 17 Aug 2015 10:48

Look, HAL thinks it has a problem but will not use the solution it has on hand -- build surplus inventory. If public sector banks can hand out bad loans to make it look like they are open shops, what is wrong with the production line turning?

Have a parking lot full, someone will find a way of selling them to someone. Take a loss, stop giving that large divodend check you hand over back to the govermand. It is the most ridiculous egg-sir-size. I take Rs10 from you, and a year later return 3 back to you when it has depreciated. Spend the damn money on improving skills and equipment. Maybe more HTT type prpjects, an engine or two, some safety parachutes, better flight data recorders that you can decode, tracking equipment that is always on. Is there a lack of things to do?

No. But HAL will idle this line. Like the Arjun line. Because,... broken record...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2015 11:06

How many F/A 18s, F-16s, Gripens and Rafales are being shot down? None. The world is getting filled up with these planes and there is no one to buy them.

That is the point. Defense or deterrence.

On business side it is the responsibility of India to break that cycle.

That story is the same everywhere. Software consulting too, where India is playing that game and killing others.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Aug 2015 11:56

Shreeman wrote:Look, HAL thinks it has a problem but will not use the solution it has on hand -- build surplus inventory. If public sector banks can hand out bad loans to make it look like they are open shops, what is wrong with the production line turning?

...
No. But HAL will idle this line. Like the Arjun line. Because,... broken record...

If options are also included in the orders for indigenous products by the services, like they are doing for Rafale (+60 options), C-17 (+6 options), C-130 (+6 options), T-90 (+1000 licensed prod) etc., then HAL or other production agencies can build surplus inventory of known quantities in anticipation of options being exercised. Without that, it would be hard for any production agencies that rely on several hundreds of MSEs for parts to bulk up. How many more do you buy for? And how much excess cash (or borrowing power) does public companies like HAL have for spending on non-existent orders?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2015 13:33

Shreeman wrote:Look, HAL thinks it has a problem but will not use the solution it has on hand -- build surplus inventory. If public sector banks can hand out bad loans to make it look like they are open shops, what is wrong with the production line turning?

Have a parking lot full, someone will find a way of selling them to someone. Take a loss, stop giving that large divodend check you hand over back to the govermand.

I think that with PSUs excess inventory means excess permanent staff as well. No hiring-firing-shiring. No retrenchment. All pensionable jobs. Permanent commission. Life is made even if aeroplanes are not made.

Maybe trade unions should go on "patriotic strike" to expand capacity. After making 40 LCA a whole assembly line can lie idle with 2000 extra workers assured salary for life with increments, dearness allowance, additional dearness allowance, medical expenses, casual leave, annual leave, sick leave and finally pension and hearse allowance.

This actually happens in government hospitals. For example a famous government cancer hospital in Bangalore has the latest surgical equipment costing crores because they are simply ordered best of brochure. But they lie unused. The next purchase will be something you may have heard about - robotic surgery equipment. When water is flowing anyone who is nearby can draw their fill and the river does not notice.