'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Locked
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

saumitra_j wrote: Sir, may I remind you that operational life of a rocket is 25 mins to an hour at the most, as opposed to an aircraft which can last for anything from 4000 to 8000 hours so it is not an apples to apples comparison. I understand your frustration about the situation, especially the PSUs but the fact of the matter is that in India, even the private manufacturers have a LONG way to go before they can start supporting a booming aerospace sector. For those thinking why we can't produce LCA in large numbers given our success in auto industry, have we given a thought that to this day, why are the auto companies not designing their own IC engine? Why, in the small segment of cars, the Diesel engine used by multiple manufacturers comes from the SAME company i.e. Fiat? The answer to this will easily explain why we cant build more LCA IMHO.
Why the country which is fifth largest Car manufacturer has exactly ZERO achievements in IC engines to brag about?? Zimple, our pvt industry is as incompatible as PSUs are and happy doing screwdrivergiri until the mullah is flowing.
This lack of industry base or lack of talent is all a big farce. There's no will whatsoever to invest on long term ventures. Everyone wants return on investments tomorrow. Why invest 1000cr and wait for 10yrs when you can just licence make engine from Fiat no??

I would really like those who think just giving out manufacturing to pvt industry will solve the problems, to explain why we have not done anything significant on IC engines in post-1991 era. Money is not an issue in Auto industry, nor the man power, nor the capacity, nor orders, nor market, nor future assurance. It doesn't even need hi-fi metallurgy be build decent engine. They have every bit of motivation to develop own IC engines. Heck we cant build a decent motorcycle which doesn't sound like sewing machine or don't vibrate like crazy.
Last edited by JayS on 14 Oct 2016 17:31, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Singha »

instead of beefing up their internal r&d teams and trying to move protos into production, many of the leading indian itvity and industrial cos go for headline making but ultimately irrelevant things like sponsoring some research in american or european univ, setting up a chair in oxbridge, setting up a design studio in krakow and hangzhou(because samsung or bmw do so!) - first you need solid own products and some global scale for such to make any sense.
now its the "lets setup a office in palo alto to get close to the startups" stampede among auto cos and Tata motors is joining that herd

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sma ... 819559.cms
"How do you find out about the next big stuff? How do you know that it exists? Whether it is worthy enough to be able to shape it into what you want or even be part of something? These networks will allow us to access the new ideas for future,” Leverton added.

^^^ thats powerpoint/consultant driven r&d while cheen pays for and builds huge capabilities inhouse.
saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 383
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by saumitra_j »

JayS wrote:Why the country which is fifth largest Car manufacturer has exactly ZERO achievements in IC engines to brag
Precisely the point I am trying to make - the private industry has a LONG LONG way to go before we develop the right supply chain to support LCA production at rate that would make us jingos happy. Unfortunately, the time it will take to get there does not help IAF's operational needs.
Zimple, our pvt industry is as incompatible as PSUs are and happy doing screwdrivergiri until the mullah is flowing.
Slightly disagree on the bolded part, Pvt Industry is in some places far more incompetent :)

For all the auto manufacturing abilities that we would like to brag about, we still do not make decent IC Engines as it requires investment, patience, long lead times, gradual acquisition of know how and know why, acceptance of failures and lots of skills ... attributes so far shown only by the institutes funded through tax payer's money so far!
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

^^ My point is not that they are incompetent (I said it in sarcastic manner). We are not incompetent. My point is we lack the will to give what it takes and jump on to readily available things from imports. This is same be it PSU or be it private company. Then why only deride PSUs?? And claim privatization will solve everything or bringing in Gora sahib here to teach us brownies how to manufacture things will do the trick. It won't. Only thing that will make us competent of manufacturing is actually try and manufacture on our own. Yes, take consultancy wherever needed. Send people for trainings outside.


I 400% agree with Rohit's question:
rohitvats wrote:Have we exhausted all means to produce LCA MK2 in required numbers and timeline?
Yes, may be Modi knows something that even MP might not know and he has some other grand scheme where buying F16 pays a better dividend than focusing on LCA. But At least for me answer to above question is NO.

I do not understand. Why the second line for HAL is not being sanctioned by MoD?? What is stopping them to do so?? Even if we are not going to order more than 120 LCA, don't we want to have them at more than 8/yr?? 80 LCA MK1A gonna be bought, everyone asking for higher production rate, still MoD seating on proposal for over a years now. Precisely this kind of uncertainties make private small suppliers nervous for investing anything from their pocket or to depend on HAL for business. Big players at least can talk to people in South/north block directly and get the picture or lobby for stuff. But small players can only seat tight and get frustrated.

Even if IAF doesn't want LCA, MoD should still let HAL build LCA in large numbers like 250. IAF can take the additional numbers in if they like when they are ready or HAL can sell to other countries. Heck, give them to BSF or just donate them to Afghanistan or Vietnam, if nothing else can be done. But build LCA in large numbers. For the amount of money we sink in various scams, this money is peanuts. Else we will be looking westwards for AMCA production as well.
kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by kapilrdave »

May be we need a long drawn (cold)war with a major economic power which will force us to invest into indigenous strategic projects. Perhaps China will give us exactly that :lol:
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

saumitra_j wrote:Slightly disagree on the bolded part, Pvt Industry is in some places far more incompetent :)
400% true. :D

The best brains I have seen in India in Aerospace so far are all from govt organisations. Overwhelming majority from pvt company I know of, are, particularly the white collar engineers from big companies like GE, doing metal screwdrivergiri only. (I know some good engineers from small small companies, but a lot of them turned to Auto or some other sector in the want of even basic money, enough for survival). Looking at this crowd only I feel that this "ToT" from LM is not gonna be of much help in long run.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

kapilrdave wrote:May be we need a long drawn (cold)war with a major economic power which will force us to invest into indigenous strategic projects. Perhaps China will give us exactly that :lol:
I have been endorsing Pokharan-3 for quite some time. Else the way we are buying stuff from other countries, not only in Defense, but in general, I don't think even China would like to have cold war with us in near future. :((
kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by kapilrdave »

You never realize your own strength until you are left with no choice but to be strong.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Cosmo_R »

kapilrdave wrote:May be we need a long drawn (cold)war with a major economic power which will force us to invest into indigenous strategic projects. Perhaps China will give us exactly that :lol:
I think I've seen this video. It was our (cold war) strategy from 1947-2000. Our hope (which is not strategy) was that the FSU would give us what we wanted.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6732
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Manish_P »

Even Multi-roles have a primary role. What is the primary role of the new fighter we are looking at ?

Had found this interesting clip sometime ago

Lavi - An Engineer's Perspective

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Marten »

My ahead of the curve prediction is that the next few months or indeed years will see a massive wave of lifafa farticles on how HAL is unable to ramp up production and how the LCA is not a mass production friendly design.

The delay in finalizing the design was not a coincidence. From that date, it would take two years at best, three at worst for the line to be ramped up. I would expect to see 8 a year on the jigs only starting April next year. Praying we don't have to experience a Marut Redux. That too under a swadeshi-focused, forces-friendly sarkar.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Gyan »

Historically any manufacturing sector that has been under the Govt has been sold off to foreign parties or lost out to private sector. For instance, scooters, jeeps, trucks manufactured by PSUs died off as soon as they faced competition from Pvt Sector. While sectors like Telecom, Cars etc were transferred to foreign interests on a platter. In Def sector also, DPSU are not going to survive, the only issue is whether Indian Pvt sector will suceed or loose out to foreign companies. OFB & DPSU are a lot of times just fronts for foreign imports. Now I personally hoped MODI will increase DRDO budget and reform the system incrementally. But it seems that GOI is going to cut the Gordian knot itself. HAL will be allotted the budget but knowing HAL it will not be able to manufacture LCA at a reasonable pace. The max HAL will manufcature in FY 2017-2018 are 4 LCA only instead of 8. FOC is not going to come before March 2018.
Last edited by Gyan on 14 Oct 2016 21:08, edited 2 times in total.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by deejay »

Cosmo_R wrote:Muthu's LinkedIn profile
https://www.linkedin.com/in/m-matheswaran-7b70964b
His bio says:
Previous:
Reliance Defence Ltd.,, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HQ IDS, Ministry of Defence, India
Education
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government
So Reliance let him go and I don't know how he became a fauji with that education. :)
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Cosmo_R »

One of the Infosys founders told me a long time ago that the main reasons why the IT industry flourished in India was that GoI was slow to understand its importance and did not have an IT Ministry in place.

What we desperately need is a DARPA.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

Cosmo_R wrote:One of the Infosys founders told me a long time ago that the main reasons why the IT industry flourished in India was that GoI was slow to understand its importance and did not have an IT Ministry in place.
:rotfl: :rotfl:

We need a Dept of Aeronautics as well. Vested interests have been resisting this for decades now. Just like Dept of Space and Atomic Energy.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21240
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Rakesh »

deejay wrote:So Reliance let him go and I don't know how he became a fauji with that education. :)
He did a term at Harvard. His actual education was at the NDA and the IAF Academy (although the latter is surprisingly missing from his LinkedIn profile)
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Karan M »

Admiral Koshy saar - thanks for the kind words, though I don't deserve them. :mrgreen:
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by deejay »

Rakesh wrote:
deejay wrote:So Reliance let him go and I don't know how he became a fauji with that education. :)
He did a term at Harvard. His actual education was at the NDA and the IAF Academy (although the latter is surprisingly missing from his LinkedIn profile)
I know that janab.

His refusal to accept Tejas goes beyond what I have thought. He does not like his desi education too. Only Videshi is good enough for him.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Karan M »

deejay wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Muthu's LinkedIn profile
https://www.linkedin.com/in/m-matheswaran-7b70964b
His bio says:
Previous:
Reliance Defence Ltd.,, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HQ IDS, Ministry of Defence, India
Education
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government
So Reliance let him go and I don't know how he became a fauji with that education. :)
Still consulting for them..and member of IDSA.

Expecting more LCA is of limited use, obsolete concept, why MMRCA is essential articles in IDSA. :)
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Karan M »

Cosmo_R wrote:"Many LCA suppliers scouted by ADA and DRDO have been doing LRUs out of national pride and all, but FSED and integration requires capex which GOI wants them to cough up .."

National pride does not pay bills. Plus, no venture capital or bank loans. Better for individuals who have to pay bills to focus on the next Yo App (Google) than on moonshots for PSUs who don't pay on time.

With nationalized banks you cannot even close an account without 'intervention' , You think you can have an ecosystem that includes PSU as payors would actually work?

It is this realization that PSUs cannot deliver and indeed maybe the cause, that is driving MII. There are many bright individuals and hard workers in the ADA/HAL group but they are in a system that sets them up to fail.

We need to think differently.

JMT.
Things change, when people at the top change and suddenly artificial bottlenecks disappear.
#1I spoke to a HAL suppliers relation recently. Accounts would usually be settled over several months. If you were a cash starved, low margin, but precision mfg SME type org - it was no joke.
However, now bills get settled promptly and checks arrive in a month.
#2 MOD related naval planner. Says after Modi came, MOD functionaries actually sign on decisions which get taken. He says, still getting used to this new feeling of change. Man has conviction and seriousness and the attitude percolates.
#3 DRDO et al have been hollering for funds for actual new programs for a long while. Artificial delays in sanctions. Now, two years running as far as I remember, increases in budget. IAF revenue and capex budget is still low (e.g.) but Parrikar has gone on record stating he has asked MOF to sanction the needs.
#4. Parrikar notes he has signed for Rs 3 Trn of order after coming to the position. Has effect on offsets (most of which go to private sector anyhow) and indigenous programs have been part of it.

So PSUs deliver and will deliver when the right people at the top free them. Reliance taking offsets for Rafale deal - i don't mind. Its better HAL focus on LCA Mk1 and Mk1A, not divert people to wiring imported harnesses for Rafale per diagrams and harnesses imported from France and passed off as value addition.

Parrikar has also made it clear MOD has no issues with PSUs and pvt sector exporting weapons with MOD clearance.
Any surprise then, that BEL has revamped its entire website with a professional catalogue of all its products (which were hitherto mostly kept under the bushel) and is investing heavily into new state of the art facilities. TATA SED is breathing down their neck & MOD will basically start awarding loyalists like Tata SED, L&T which stood by India and supported DRDO, with orders. Modi & co, spent 2 years taking stock and the Ambani-Adani sht!ick only goes so far. At the same time, they are not foolish to let the hard won capabilities in BEL, BDL, HAL etc disappear. There is serious manpower, infra there and GOI will now ask these companies to invest in themselves and move forward (BEL has been doing that) as versus engage in the artificial inflated price to MOD, take money from MOF, pass it back as dividends game.

This is a serious govt and they appreciate balance. Not idealogical choices of public versus private. Whosoever has the capabilities and will invest - come forward.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5412
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by ShauryaT »

http://www.ndtv.com/video/shows/walk-th ... o-featured

HAL Chairman: Expanding capacity to 16 AC per year.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Gyan »

As far as my memory goes, DRDO budget was increased only in first budget and thereafter no increase in next two.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

Karan M wrote:
So PSUs deliver and will deliver when the right people at the top free them.
+1
In fact if NM/MP wants to make long lasting structural changes they need to completely free DPSUs (or rather all PSUs) from Babus/Ministers wishes and whims by granting them full autonomy (Financial + Administrative) and letting them work like any private company. GOI should then neither favour them nor should tie their hands. Autonomy works wonders. If they still sink, let them sink. Perhaps thats for the best. It will be sold to someone who can handle it.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Cosmo_R »

Karan M wrote:

Things change, when people at the top change and suddenly artificial bottlenecks disappear.
Captain Kirk on the Starship Enterprise used to press buttons sitting on his Barcalounger. They were not connected to anything except empty commands (raise the shields, fire the photon torpedoes). Modi & co can try their hardest but without putting the PSUs into full bore competition with domestic and foreign suppliers, we're not going to get them to raise their game.

The prospect of imminent death has the has the effect of focusing the mind. For PSUs the the prospect is to deliver on spec and on budget or die just as it would/should be for a startup. If it's a social/ideology issue, we are in trouble.

In all simplicity, its about diving our deputed soldiers the means to execute diplomacy by other means. Shame on us if we sacrifice them for R&D and local/indigenous products that don't arrive in time to employ in war.

Having watched the stupidity/cupidity for some 50 years Defence PSUs are about patronage employment not about giving the armed forces the tools they need to succeed.

No developed or aspiring nation has this confusion between goals and tools.
Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Suresh S »

cosmo is right. Simply changing the top people will not work in the Indian context.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Karan M »

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:

Things change, when people at the top change and suddenly artificial bottlenecks disappear.
Captain Kirk on the Starship Enterprise used to press buttons sitting on his Barcalounger. They were not connected to anything except empty commands (raise the shields, fire the photon torpedoes). Modi & co can try their hardest but without putting the PSUs into full bore competition with domestic and foreign suppliers, we're not going to get them to raise their game.
As the prior examples showed, Modi & co are already getting PSUs to up their game. And the pvt sector has so far not stepped up (for LCA Mk2). On the other hand, they have not recieved substantial orders as well, so both will take time.
The prospect of imminent death has the has the effect of focusing the mind. For PSUs the the prospect is to deliver on spec and on budget or die just as it would/should be for a startup. If it's a social/ideology issue, we are in trouble.
For all Govt organizations now, the simple expectation is that they deliver, the central ones that is. However, that also means Modi and co, will reciprocate with resources too. Its a 2 way street.
In all simplicity, its about diving our deputed soldiers the means to execute diplomacy by other means. Shame on us if we sacrifice them for R&D and local/indigenous products that don't arrive in time to employ in war.
Its pointless to bring words like shame into a discussion based on facts and not emotion. So far, few of the fancy imports we sign up for either arrive on time or work as advertised.

Buying local is important for strategic independence and also products which can be fixed, not sit in a corner like American WLRs or Israeli Popeyes or Russian Kh-31s gathering dust.
Having watched the stupidity/cupidity for some 50 years Defence PSUs are about patronage employment not about giving the armed forces the tools they need to succeed.
The blame lies squarely on the ruling mafiosi who subverted a system set up for national goals for narrow personal aims. The Defense PSUs BTW haven't exactly been around in their full form for 50 years. HAL yes, but mostly a license assembly shop per New Delhis aims. The real expansion began post '71 when India had to go scouting for arms dealers to sell it ammunition. So the need was genuine and came out of operational necessity.

Most of our PSUs etc began local programs in the 1980s, and that has been a key factor for items such as the Delhi class, the Agnis and the other not so minor items which are surprisingly enough, not available via import.
No developed or aspiring nation has this confusion between goals and tools.
Goals and tools are set by those in power.
Those in power are elected by the electorate. You get what you vote for.

A nation which oscillates between Gandhian non violence to sudden impulse purchases of arms when available at friendship prices or because certain vested interests benefit, will be "confused".

Its confused because its leaders were voted in by people who were/are confused or were desperate, which ensures that the wrong leaders come in and arms imports become a good way to get lifafas and over time everyone gets addicted to them. Tatra come to mind.

End result is a local MIC is ignored, PSUs are subverted, and even well meaning Govts have to depend on imports in the "interim".

The only real successes have been hard won, which include programs like the Tejas.

Not hand me downs like the F-16 which will have come with export controls galore or vapor ware like the Gripen NG which features a ready radar, with GaN no less, which is yet to be developed.

Still figuring out what is the gain in supporting such acquisitions when they neither add to the local technical base (unless screwdrivering panels = mastering AESA) or bring us any real strategic gains (until and unless getting black boxes of which we have no surety of what's inside = strategic autonomy).

A private screwdriver is as good as a PSU one. That's about it.

About offsets and even the Rafale and the lurid claims of them transferring stealth coatings, AESA tech, missile tech - will see it to believe it.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Neshant »

Whether India becomes an aerospace design and development centre is entirely based on whether the flagship product LCA succeeds or fails. If it fails (ie less than 250 planes are produced at a minimum), it will be a glaring spectacle of incompetence which no future actions will easily wash away.

Gutting the domestic R&D aerospace base of the country to satisfy vested interests and temporary needs will be an unmitigated disaster.

The single engine fighter role should only be occupied by the LCA as the domestic market already saturated with foreign planes cannot support 2 single engine fighters.

This is a pivotal moment.

For the future aerospace base of the country, the foreign single engine plane RFI must be scrapped.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Karan M »

Why 250, and why not 300? What's the significance of that number? Anything less is incompetence? This sounds like over the top hyperbole.

We may most likely see around 180-200 LCAs, 120 SP for AF, a couple more sq for AF as Mk1A stabilizes, a couple of squadrons for the Navy + the 17 protos.

For an AF which is around 600-700 airframes strong, of which a third are HCAs, 100 airframes plus is not a small number by any means.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Neshant »

As of 2013, the number of Grippens built is 247.

It is the minimum number needed to achieve economy of scale.

One does not invest this much time and resources into a project just to build a handful of Arjun tanks or LCA planes.

Single engine fighters in US and Russia are typically planned by the thousands. Only heavy fighters like Rafael that cost and arm and a leg can plan for sub 1000 numbers and even then they are barely breaking even on their investment.

Once the foreign single fighter plane enters, the LCA program will be gradually shut down as that is the goal.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Karan M »

The Gripen was built in Sweden. How do you translate Swedish cost of development and production to claim that it is the same as India needs for the LCA?

Anyhow, we are already at 137 units inc protos & with Navy orders might even touch around 160-180. Point is higher the better, but putting "anything less than 250 is bad" is meaningless.

US and Russia spent far more on defence than us, and Russia has dropped all single engine fighters last I checked. They only operate 2 engines or heavies now.

So there goes the single engine fighters are essential argument, larger the country and its willingness to spend, more they focus on MMRCA and HCA (in IAF parlance) segments.

The US single engine fighter, the JSF and F-16 are both much heavier than the LCA - more range, payload.

Next, the LCA will anyways go over to the AMCA, in the 2020+ timeframe that has to be the goal.

I'd like more LCAs but we have to be realistic. IAF does want a MMRCA and we don't have a LCA available quickly.

We are not going about it optimally, there I agree, the 36 Rafale order and stopping there & yet another type will be a logistical mess.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Neshant »

The comparison to the Grippen is just that - a comparison. Sweden per capita is way higher than India though way smaller population wise. Net net, 250 planes seem to be the minimum production number for any single engine fighter plane. I can't think of any other single engine fighter developed from scratch where only 120 or so were produced.

My point is that even the 120 won't be produced. I fear the program, like the Arjun, will be killed well before those numbers are ever reached.

Anyway there is nothing we can do about it here.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Paul »

MIG corporation is working on a single engined 5 generation fighter to be rolled out by late 2020s.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Philip »

"Too late the (MIG) hero"! We need these MIG-21 replacements right now.It is v.surprising that the MIG Corp. did not a decade ago enter into a JV with India/whoever to produce a stealthy 21 replacement .I think funds was the constraint .The market would be in the thousands.Seeing what the Indo-Ru upgrade of the 21 into "Bison" std. did,should've seen at least design work started. Thanks to the LCA fiasco,late arrival in underperforming Mk-1 std.,low ROP,we have to look for another light fighter with western manufacturers mouths drooling! Will is be a sultry Swedish babe this time?

At this rate,my prediction that the LCA will end up like the HF-24 seems to be coming true.Who knows,even the HF-24 production numbers will be a tough target for the LCA!
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by NRao »

Did not find this posted prior:

Oct 13, 2016 :: Sweden’s SAAB sweetens deal for Gripen jet
Explaining the developments in Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Lars Tossman, vice-president & Head of Communications of SAAB said that they were the first company to develop an AESA radar with Gallium Nitride which, he said, significantly enhances its efficiency and performance over the current AESA radars.

“We will be willing to share this and transfer the technology to India,” he told a group of visiting Indian journalists. India is looking to select a single engine fighter aircraft to be built in large numbers in India with extensive technology transfer for which the SAAB had offered its latest Gripen E fighter. “Our Transfer of Technology [ToT] is more than just transfer of assembly work aiming for an indigenous system of systems integration capability to create indigenous capabilities,” said Mats Palmberg, heading the SAAB Gripen program for India. Mr. Palmberg said that with AESA radar, stealth was not as important as it was earlier.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21240
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Rakesh »

I believe I posted this earlier and vina has clearly stated that it is bunkum.

His arguments are more in depth though, than my one word - bunkum :)
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Gyan »

SAAB Agreed to ToT for Carl Gustafs ten year ago. As per CAG report, till date 75% components are being imported as SAAB does not have technogy or has not provided it, inspite of getting almost 1000 crore worth of orders.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

^^ Interesting info. Do you have any source for this one which I can throw on the face of anyone from Gripen lobby when I see one??

Anyone who has a some knowledge about SAAB, can tell easily figure out that the ToTclaim of is a truckload of BS.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by brar_w »

Paul wrote:MIG corporation is working on a single engined 5 generation fighter to be rolled out by late 2020s.
Not funded.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by NRao »

brar_w wrote:
Paul wrote:MIG corporation is working on a single engined 5 generation fighter to be rolled out by late 2020s.
Not funded.
Perfect.

India can fund it.
Locked