'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[brar_w]

The peak was in 1987. At the moment they are probably moving at around half of their production capacity so if they can probably ramp up to two dozen a year without sizable investment in tooling. They can of course keep scalign it up, they would have plans on exactly how it was done and how it could be done given they have ramped up to 50 or more F-35's already in LRIP. But that will require extra investment and it is extremely cost prohibiive to make a large investment to ramp up and then only sustain that for a few years.

[Cybaru]

Arrest the temporary numbers shortfall with the Mig-35, the only downside to it is higher operations cost but will keep IAF happy. Modi and team need to understand that Make in India cannot be at the cost of Made in India!!

I think we arrest it using whatever we have in the house. Add more MKI numbers especially Brahmos-M capable ones. Order another 40-60 of those. Sure there is an increase in operation cost, but there will be a decrease in support costs due to commonality of support infrastructure and you get added benefit of strategic advantage of a larger fleet that is brahmos-m capable. We are top heavy for a while, it will stabilize as time goes by.

60 MKI-BM(Brahmos enabled) equals 100 of anything else out there in range/payload and strategic reach.

[Rakesh]

Kartik: Please tell me you meant that in humour There is no way LM is going to produce 120 F-16s in three years.

LM, right now, produces one per month. At its peak they produced 30 a month.

Kartik Saar, that is Lahori mathematics Neither HAL nor a private manufacturer will be able to replicate LM's 30 aircraft a month feat. No way! Allow me to explain.

We are right now banana eating, monkeys swinging through trees. This is what LM has led folks to believe. An evangelist (Lockheed Martin) comes along and through miraculous intervention / serious prayer we magically turn into divine TFTA, super-duper-uber, masters of production? We need to stop drinking the Lockheed Martin Kool-Aid and wake up to reality which is this --> LM needs to squeeze the last bit of profit they can from a successful platform they have masterfully marketed to the entire world. And we are the potential (soon reality) bandar whom they can squeeze this from.

At one per month, you are looking at 36 F-Solahs by the beginning of 2020. And that is assuming a contract is signed by Dec 2016, the line magically comes over (through Star Trek style transport), the production crew fully trained and ready to roll. By the way, we are in the RFI stage....the first stage and the last time I checked, this is Oct 2016. 120 F-Solahs in three years. NEVER!

[Kartik]

Kartik: Please tell me you meant that in humour There is no way LM is going to produce 120 F-16s in three years.

By 2020 there won't even be an assembly line functioning, that too assuming that a contract is signed by 2018, but I do believe that if the contract does land in LM's lap, they will find an Indian partner and manage all the associated headaches of transferring even assembly knowhow that HAL will be very reluctant to do. LM has a vested interest in doing so- they'll be shutting down F-16 production, but the global F-16 fleet will require sustainment programs for at least 3 more decades. OTOH, HAL is a manpower stretched organization and has zero incentive in overstretching itself while standing up a competitor by having a private assembly line built for the Tejas.

My one and only worry about the F-16 Block 70 is related to the level of technology transfer that will be approved. With a new GOTUS coming in place soon, lets see how these things transpire.

[Rakesh]

Kartik: Please avoid using the term technology transfer. There is no technology transfer. This is production transfer.

[Kartik]

Combat Hawk does not equal F-Solah, Block 70. Not shiny enough.

A great idea, but not shiny enough.

not shiny enough, not capable enough. Not in anyone's wildest imagination Rakesh. They're leagues apart.

[Kartik]

Kartik: Please avoid using the term technology transfer. There is no technology transfer. This is production transfer.

and production transfer requires technology transfer as well. As of today, there is no private sector entity in India that does even that since HAL has had a monopoly on this. Some parts being built to order is as far as they've gone, but one has to start somewhere.

And most of the ToT that HAL has had on other licence building programs were to be able to support the fleet of fighters/helicopters that they would be assembling and eventually building from scratch.

[Rakesh]

Kartik: we have been doing production technology transfer for decades now. We did it with the MiG-21, the Jaguar, the Rambha, the Alouette, the Ajeet. There had to be a level of technological absorption to understand production and HAL mastered that quite well. So HAL, the IAF, the MoD understand fully well the need for a well stocked supply chain. So this argument that HAL has been caught flat footed - due to a lack of an assured supply chain - when it came to mass producing the Tejas is flawed. what is going to happen with the F-Solah production is exactly what has happened with all the aircraft that India has licensed produced in the past. It is just that....LICENSE PRODUCTION. The only difference here is the entire production line is being shifted to India. That is it. Nothing else. And thus there is not going to be anything of significant value that one can transfer to the Tejas program or the AMCA program. We may learn how to screw from left to right when we are right now doing it from right to left.

[Cybaru]

TOT= Simplee Assembled in India.

[NRao]

My one and only worry about the F-16 Block 70 is related to the level of technology transfer that will be approved. With a new GOTUS coming in place soon, lets see how these things transpire.

Key.

Despite LM making so much noise, looking for land, organizing meeting with potential locals, etc, this is far from a done deal.

but people of the betting kind are looking at it favorably.

With the stakes so high , LM will make it happen with a private partner.

[JayS]

Nobody has to give us anything on a platter. What it will do is equip a large number of Indian engineers and technicians with the skills required to commission, run, maintain, and optimize a modern aerospace manufacturing setup. If the cut their teeth on maintenance, overhaul, and upgrade work involving R&D, so much the better. That knowledge is sure to feed into the AMCA and other programs that India has going. This is real technology transfer; and goes beyond what the mere transmission of blueprints could achieve. Remember what that Russian scientist said to some BRF member at Aero India (I think it was shiv): "What is technology? I am technology!"

Mihir Saar, Please do not take Auto to Aero analogy too literally. While its OK to compare them in principle, reality is not the same. There are many differences which play crucial role. One thing is iterations are slow. While for a typical car company, concept to prototype is typically 9-12months, it could be a decade for even the best of the OEM. Things happen fast, thus feedback correction is much faster. Also you produce in millions which again gives you as many chances to improve. This is simply not true for Aerospace. Thus numbers matter a huge deal. Technology is not that much restricted in auto sector. Things are mostly driven by market forces. This is not at all true for defense sector. Also the profit in Auto sector is far more and break-even happens much earlier than any typical defense or aerospace project where margins are very thin and break-even could stretch as long as 20yrs in some cases. There is significant difference in the mindset - all critical parts in Aircraft are designed for a scenario which might happen only once for entire fleet of the aircrafts in entire of their lifetime taken together. A car could fail on the middle of the road, but an aircraft cannot. Also, unlike Auto, defense industry need large scale resource and technology infusion from government directly and indirectly. Elon Musk created Tesla without much help from govt, could he have done the same with SpaceX had NASA been not there to help in every aspect??

With this F16, precisely this is what gonna happen - transfer of blue prints and transfer of algorithmic step by step instruction to carry out manufacturing processes. This is what has happened so far, even in Su-30 which is the epitome of ToT. F16 will not reach to that level where we will build almost entire aircraft from raw material in India. Please talk to any HAL production engineer as and ask him how this ToT happened. There were many many gaps despite promise of full ToT, which HAL had to fill on their own. Indigenisation of Su-30 has been painstaking. And even after that it didn't teach HAL much that would help in LCA. Nor did hawk assembly did. Same thing will be repeated for F16. Please do not expect they will teach us all the intricacies of production.

Lets take welding as an example - foreign OEM/supplier will tell us what parameters to use for welding of certain parts. They will never tell what effect each parameter has and why this precise value is used here, what will happen if some value of some parameter is changed. This is technical-know-why. This comes only when you play around with the process by varying all parameters and actually seeing how each parameter affects the end result. You can't just take the exact same process and manufacture component for another aircraft. A new process parameter set has to be developed again based on changes inputs - geometry, materials, drawing requirements. This is the real manufacturing knowledge. Knowledge in defense is far more fiercely protected. And knowledge that comes from field experience is the most valued part of all (this is same in all fields, but testing a part in a car is far far easier that testing it in a fighter if you are mere a supplier for that part). As I have mentioned earlier, if you are tier-1 company and design some module from scratch and supply it to OEM, the OEM still never shares the data related to the real life performance of the part, unless they absolutely have to. Similarly the same tier1 company does not want to share their process knowledge with the OEM (I know real life examples). This happens among the companies of same people/country. Now imagine what will happen if the companies are from different countries and when they are creating potential competitors?? Its far easier to reverse engineer something in Auto sector because real life testing is much cheaper and easier to do and iterations thus can be done faster. If I am a casting company owner who wants to develop casting process for new type of engine block, for testing it i just have to buy few engines, design a replacement of the block in that engine and produce it, put it in the engine and start testing. Buy 2-3 cars put it into cars and drive it as much as I want. But imagine this same process for an Aero engine part supplier. Where will he bring the engine test facility or a fighter to test it from?? its not only way too expensive, but impractical as well. This is the reason why typically the suppliers , even tier1 most of times, do not have much of an idea of how their own designs work in real life. They have to take the OEM's word for it. (And that why I have said previously that being the system integrator is the most lucrative part for OEM).

In summary, you could learn process know-how, but not enough know-why that will enable you to apply same process elsewhere easily. Ex. Despite HAL knowing SCB blade manufacturing, they still cannot make blades for Kaveri using same thing. And please don't think its because all HAL employees are lazy. No there are some very good people trying to figure out things on this. Its just too complicated and Russians simply never gave enough info. No one will.

One might argue why it wouldn't be same when HAL does TOT to suppliers?? It won't be the same, because:
- NAL/HAL are very much willing to give out the manufacturing technology knowledge because they dont want to do it any more.
- If not real life data, at least good amount of process know-why will be percolated in MIC. This is true enabler.
- Unlike LM or its suppliers HAL isn't creating its own competition. Their position is secured in this. On contrary by enabling the suppliers they cement their position as system integrator and to focus on system design alone. So they actually have incentive to give as much process knowledge as possible.
- There is opportunity for Tier1 suppliers to get into design of the components they would be manufacturing for the next platform. ADA anyways outsource some of the definition work.

Another point is, the real understanding of "Design for manufacturing" only comes when you design something and then manufacture it, see how it fares, fine tune the process to get it right, or when you understand the limitations of the process, change the design accordingly. You do this a few times, the designer gets the experience of "Design for manufacturing". The precise problem why our Aerospace guys lack skills for "Design for Manufacturing" is we have either manufactured given design or designed some system but never manufactured it on any scale that would help us gain enough knowledge of manufacturing. And I am not even talking of back and forth iterations, since generally our products have been killed early in their product life cycle. Screwdrivergiri does not give you chance to learn "design for manufacturing" since all you do is manufacture, never design. Design is a given. F16 is already a frozen design and its so mature that their is hardly any scope to change or modify anything in it, unlike LCA which still has a lot of scope for optimization or changes. Which means a supplier making a component for F16 will merely manufacture it as per given instructions and he will not have much to tinker with the parts even if he wants to. While the same supplier for same part from LCA, can do much more while using his innovation. My company manufactures a big modules of Aero-engines, arguably the best in the world for that part, not even PW could best our capability for that particular part, GE might be able to match. We have done now about 6-7 iterations of that part over last few decades, all flying today. Exact same part, just different sizes, yet we still struggle big time in "Design for manufacturing". Thats Aerospace for you. I see all big three OEMs struggle, Boeing/Airbus struggle on daily basis, despite having so much of experience. Can one then really get hang of things by mere copying one of them for a short while for one particular project??

For all the things that our Auto companies have learned in last 25yrs of liberalisation of economy, our cars are still bottom dwellers in terms of quality and level of technology, by world standard. I would believe they learned some real deal when I will see truly world class cutting edge technology cars like Ferrari or Lamborghini rolling out from Tata or M&M. Because that what we are trying to do in Aerospace basically, competing with the some of the best in the business and trying to outdo them right in our first attempt.

I can accept all the reason for F16 buy, accept one - that it will somehow help create MIC which will then independently take up AMCA. This is a plain hogwash in even the most optimistic level of knowledge sharing by LM, which ain't gonna happen of coarse. It will not enable us to even upgrade F16 if we wanted to, let alone make new system.

Let alone manufacturing, even in design screwdrivergiri doesn't help much in building real capability. There are literally thousands of Aero-structural engineers in BLR, many of whom are working on Airbus/Boeing aircrafts. Ask them how do they design those parts (its not really design work but definition work). They use s/w codes given by those OEM which are basically black-boxes. Those who have used it for years do not know whats in there. Even if they see the code or the database, its really a bunch of fine-tunes empirical equations/data based on decades of experience in highly condensed form - for example - various types of cracks, and how the life of component will affect if you have one of those - one will never get the rationale behind it, the true engineering understanding of the fundamental logic. The moment you are asked to do same design for some other plane without that proprietary s/w, you are totally clueless what to do. Despite working for years, and knowing entire process, just one crucial piece missing and all your experience goes to toss. I have many friends from GE aviation. The way a GE employee works in India office, my reaction was GE's tagline should be "just do it" because thats what you are expected to do, just carry out the process, without asking questions why, what if, how etc etc. This is what I call as "mental screwdrivergiri". Imagine if this is the situation of GE's own employee, what kind of data/knowledge sharing will happen to suppliers if GE decide to manufacture F414 in India?? As a matter of fact I know exactly what happens in this situation. Case with LM is no different.

And on top of all this, the processes that have dual use and come under ITAR, cannot be easily used for things other than permitted work. Even if used they carry the same restrictions. The way ITAR is made, it follows everywhere the knowledge goes, no matter how many layers it passes through. Even if it may not restrict use, its pain in ass to maintain the legal requirements such as export control system on entire documentation, processes, people etc. Misuse would be punishable offense in US, no matter where the person seats in the world.

The only way to be a good system builder is to execute full loop of Product Life Cycle. Multiple times over. There are no short-cuts here.

PS: I once asked a top exec of a company, "you know that Chinese will copy whatever you give them, still you are going to China and opening a shop their, trying to show them how its done. You are creating a potential competitor in near future. For today's revenue you are jeopardizing tomorrow's business. How are you ensuring this not happens??"

He answered, "We are not Stupid.."

[sudeepj]

Kartik: we have been doing production technology transfer for decades now. We did it with the MiG-21, the Jaguar, the Rambha, the Alouette, the Ajeet. There had to be a level of technological absorption to understand production and HAL mastered that quite well. So HAL, the IAF, the MoD understand fully well the need for a well stocked supply chain. So this argument that HAL has been caught flat footed - due to a lack of an assured supply chain - when it came to mass producing the Tejas is flawed. what is going to happen with the F-Solah production is exactly what has happened with all the aircraft that India has licensed produced in the past. It is just that....LICENSE PRODUCTION. The only difference here is the entire production line is being shifted to India. That is it. Nothing else. And thus there is not going to be anything of significant value that one can transfer to the Tejas program or the AMCA program. We may learn how to screw from left to right when we are right now doing it from right to left.

Here is the key difference Rakesh ji, in all the years of our license production, we were simply consumers of the said parts. The Migs/Sukhois/Dassaults/Sneckmas etc. were happy to tell us how to make the parts but never bought anything from us. Here, we have a chance to actually sell, what we can make at our level of technology, back to the US companies. As evidence, I cite the export of the C130 and the Sikorsky helicopter parts by TASL. Admittedly, this is a small beginning, but the hope is that with time, it will grow. Ill point you to Manohar Parrikars speech at a recent function where he thanked Boeing for the successful offsets implementation, which itself is a major challenge with French and the Russis, and said these very significant words: (paraphrasing) "..I will not forget those who kept their promises, unlike others..'. Lastly, because this ToT is to a private sector company, the dynamics will be completely different from HAL.

Apropos your remarks that these weapons will not work against the Pakis, Ill humbly point out that the strategic situation has changed. Pakis are no longer required to restrict the USSR to the CAR landmass and stop them from coming into the Indian ocean. They arent required for access to Afghanistan either.. 10-15000 troops can be sustained through air or through Iran. (FWIW, the mosul offensive is being led by Qassim Suleimani, head of the Iranian Al Badr force.. A Shia warlord working with the US!!!) Energy requirements of the US have changed. They are the biggest producers of oil in the world today. Even the the rest of the world's energy supply goes for a toss, they can simply ban the export of oil from the US, which was the case up until recently when Obama revoked the ban. Further, Chinese claims on SCS, wooing/threatening Asian allies such as the Phillipines while trying to bypass the primacy of the seas for commerce (one belt one road) means the strategic chessboard has completely inverted itself.

All prior alliances are going to be infructuous. I dare say, itll actually be Russian weapons, if shot at the Chinese that will refuse to work. (Actually, many Russian missiles such as the R77 dont work regardless of whom you shoot them at).

[sudeepj]

[


The main issue with the Mk-1A is the lack of range and time on station. It is a great light fighter/strike aircraft, but it cannot do what a medium like the F-16 Blk 60/70 can. If the IAF is willing to live with a reduction in combat capability in order to support a fleet of some 200 Mk-1A's, I'm all for it. But unfortunately, that won't happen. And so here we are...

The range it has and the onstation time was their requirement!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Their requirement for the light plane in their desired light-medium-heavy mix! not the medium plane they want now.

[sudeepj]

Actually, these can be settled in a few ways.
1. Marry HAL and ADA. Will not happen.
2. Marry ADA to a private sector major. Task them with building the Mk2. HAL is making presentation after presentation about how Mk1A obviates the Mk2. ADA/IAF is not convinced. Let there be a faceoff. This F-16/Gripen screwdrivergiri will not generate any actionable "knowledge" or "expertise". The marriage of ADA and (say) Tata will relieve ADA of the "rahu" status, and generate a true design house with manufacturing capability challenging HAL. The problem is HAL makes many of Tejas's parts and will not cooperate with Mk2. MoD will have to intervene and use the other parts of Mk1A as ransom.

In one way, the Mk1A vs the MK2 competition is really good news. The winner should get the next tranche, whatever it is.

In another way, its bad news, because what are we going to produce after the first 20 IOC and next 20 FOC? We dont know. Cant blame GoI and IAF for hedging the risk.

[JayS]

Kartik: Please tell me you meant that in humour There is no way LM is going to produce 120 F-16s in three years.

By 2020 there won't even be an assembly line functioning, that too assuming that a contract is signed by 2018, but I do believe that if the contract does land in LM's lap, they will find an Indian partner and manage all the associated headaches of transferring even assembly knowhow that HAL will be very reluctant to do. LM has a vested interest in doing so- they'll be shutting down F-16 production, but the global F-16 fleet will require sustainment programs for at least 3 more decades. OTOH, HAL is a manpower stretched organization and has zero incentive in overstretching itself while standing up a competitor by having a private assembly line built for the Tejas.

My one and only worry about the F-16 Block 70 is related to the level of technology transfer that will be approved. With a new GOTUS coming in place soon, lets see how these things transpire.

Kartik, they will not need the assembly skillset for MRO support for the fleet once the production is done. Spare parts are supplied by suppliers, and MRO guys take care of machines. Assembly line will be scrapped. Plus there is eco-system existing in 3-4 other countries. They are also in the MRO fray. For avionics upgrade as well there are already three players. (Anyway we are not gonna get that capability from this production run, and our own fleet would in all probability will be upgraded by BAE or Elta, if at all it is upgraded in future). The other guys already have a head start over us, so we do not have any particular advantage there. Plus even if they disappear in future leaving us alone, so does most of the fleet.

Unless there are more orders. Indeed one of the main aim behind this entire idea is MII - bring in some hi-tech industry in India, export the stuff. Same way as some car OEMs are doing. But no-one is ready to come without the orders, so the orders. In fact what I have heard is SAAB was being convinced to set up shop in India for export, without any orders for Gripen from IAF. Obviously its not gonna happen. And we know there will not be any more orders for either F16 or Gripen after our own order. Then how the MIC will sustain once this 100 production run is finished?? This is why there is some doubt in GOI's mind about this whole thing. Deejay's logic, the news posted by Philip and what I have heard offline seems to fit well in this picture. LM has nothing to lose really so they will push on - since anyway they were going to scrap the line, it will get extended by some years. Good for them. For SAAB the issue is more serious and almost like a existential issue.

[nachiket]

People should also remember that when Lockmart was building 30 F-16s a month, there were hundreds on order. If they had a grand total of 40 on order with verbal assurances of further orders once the next block with all requested changes was ready to be built, they wouldn't be making more than one or two a month.

[Rakesh]

JayS: Fantastic Post! Beautifully explained Boss.

Karan M: Where are you? Have you crossed the LoC to do surgical strike or what?

Their requirement for the light plane in their desired light-medium-heavy mix! not the medium plane they want now.

So the IAF changed the requirement and that is HAL's fault?

Here is the key difference Rakesh ji, in all the years of our license production, we were simply consumers of the said parts. The Migs/Sukhois/Dassaults/Sneckmas etc. were happy to tell us how to make the parts but never bought anything from us. Here, we have a chance to actually sell, what we can make at our level of technology, back to the US companies. As evidence, I cite the export of the C130 and the Sikorsky helicopter parts by TASL. Admittedly, this is a small beginning, but the hope is that with time, it will grow. Ill point you to Manohar Parrikars speech at a recent function where he thanked Boeing for the successful offsets implementation, which itself is a major challenge with French and the Russis, and said these very significant words: (paraphrasing) "..I will not forget those who kept their promises, unlike others..'. Lastly, because this ToT is to a private sector company, the dynamics will be completely different from HAL.

I would suggest you read JayS' long post on technology transfer on this very page. I really cannot explain it any better than him. I am a HR/Org Dev dude. Not an engineer. I think he is and that explains his depth of knowledge in his post. We are not making anything of significance (like the engine or the avionics of the C-130 or the Sikorsky). As you said, that is a small beginning. But it will only stay there. Don't get your hopes high on producing anything else.

Apropos your remarks that these weapons will not work against the Pakis, Ill humbly point out that the strategic situation has changed. Pakis are no longer required to restrict the USSR to the CAR landmass and stop them from coming into the Indian ocean. They arent required for access to Afghanistan either.. 10-15000 troops can be sustained through air or through Iran. (FWIW, the mosul offensive is being led by Qassim Suleimani, head of the Iranian Al Badr force.. A Shia warlord working with the US!!!) Energy requirements of the US have changed. They are the biggest producers of oil in the world today. Even the the rest of the world's energy supply goes for a toss, they can simply ban the export of oil from the US, which was the case up until recently when Obama revoked the ban. Further, Chinese claims on SCS, wooing/threatening Asian allies such as the Phillipines while trying to bypass the primacy of the seas for commerce (one belt one road) means the strategic chessboard has completely inverted itself.

Saar, I am talking about US-Pak relations which despite all the hiccups (no US funding for additional F-16s for example) is still going strong. Once Hillary Maasi comes into the Oval Office, all bets are off.

Let me ask this. Which of the ToT items (from raw material stage) is occurring here with the 90 F-Solah, Block 70 purchase?

- Engine Tech? know how of crystal blade tech?
- Radar Tech? know how of GaN modules?
- Air to Air Missile Tech? AIM-9X or AIM-120D missiles?
- Ordnance Tech? AGM-154 JSOW? AGM-65 Maverick? AGM-88 HARM?

Is even one of the above coming Saar?

If not, then please tell us what exactly is coming?

I echo cybaru's words, albeit with the Malayalee attribution.

TOT= SIMPBLY Assembled in India.

[ramana]

IOW the supply chain was humming with pre-orders for long lead items to support the 30/month!!!

[sudeepj]

JayS: Fantastic Post! Beautifully explained Boss.

Karan M: Where are you? Have you crossed the LoC to do surgical strike or what?

Their requirement for the light plane in their desired light-medium-heavy mix! not the medium plane they want now.

So the IAF changed the requirement and that is HAL's fault?

I would say, its the IAFs fault. But we are where we are.

Here is the key difference Rakesh ji, in all the years of our license production, we were simply consumers of the said parts. The Migs/Sukhois/Dassaults/Sneckmas etc. were happy to tell us how to make the parts but never bought anything from us. Here, we have a chance to actually sell, what we can make at our level of technology, back to the US companies. As evidence, I cite the export of the C130 and the Sikorsky helicopter parts by TASL. Admittedly, this is a small beginning, but the hope is that with time, it will grow. Ill point you to Manohar Parrikars speech at a recent function where he thanked Boeing for the successful offsets implementation, which itself is a major challenge with French and the Russis, and said these very significant words: (paraphrasing) "..I will not forget those who kept their promises, unlike others..'. Lastly, because this ToT is to a private sector company, the dynamics will be completely different from HAL.

I would suggest you read JayS' long post on technology transfer on this very page. I really cannot explain it any better than him. I am a HR/Org Dev dude. Not an engineer. I think he is and that explains his depth of knowledge in his post. We are not making anything of significance (like the engine or the avionics of the C-130 or the Sikorsky). As you said, that is a small beginning. But it will only stay there. Don't get your hopes high on producing anything else.

Lets see. Manohar Parrikar at least, appears to be impressed with the progress.

Apropos your remarks that these weapons will not work against the Pakis, Ill humbly point out that the strategic situation has changed. Pakis are no longer required to restrict the USSR to the CAR landmass and stop them from coming into the Indian ocean. They arent required for access to Afghanistan either.. 10-15000 troops can be sustained through air or through Iran. (FWIW, the mosul offensive is being led by Qassim Suleimani, head of the Iranian Al Badr force.. A Shia warlord working with the US!!!) Energy requirements of the US have changed. They are the biggest producers of oil in the world today. Even the the rest of the world's energy supply goes for a toss, they can simply ban the export of oil from the US, which was the case up until recently when Obama revoked the ban. Further, Chinese claims on SCS, wooing/threatening Asian allies such as the Phillipines while trying to bypass the primacy of the seas for commerce (one belt one road) means the strategic chessboard has completely inverted itself.

Saar, I am talking about US-Pak relations which despite all the hiccups (no US funding for additional F-16s for example) is still going strong. Once Hillary Maasi comes into the Oval Office, all bets are off.

Again, lets see. The contours will be clear enough in the coming months and if the relationship goes back to Bill Clinton's first term, then of course, screw the F16 and LM. My perception sitting in the US is that it was Kerry who was taken for a ride by the Pakis. Hillary was tougher on them and the deep state in the US has decided that its going to teach Pakis a lesson. Whoever the next president is, Pakis are going to get it in the neck.

We are at the RFI stage, lets see what is on offer before we make up our minds.

[Rakesh]

sudeepj: I give you full marks for your optimism. So if you agree that it is the IAF's fault, then why should HAL suffer for it? Can you go to a car dealership and order a car in red colour and on the day of pick up, you say you prefer blue instead? Is that going to fly with the dealership? Why is the IAF any different? Amerika has been taken for a ride for the past 70 years by the Paks and they have not learnt anything. Nothing is going to change.

[Cain Marko]

Can some guru ji explain if the ge f110 in the blk 60 with the higher thrust fit on the blk 50-airframe, which seems lighter by a good 1500kg? Perhaps the payload won't be equal but the requirement is for a light fighter after all. We'd get a stupendous a2a performer for sure

[nachiket]

In any other country, the 8 billion dollars we are going to spend on the piddly 2 squadrons of Rafales would have been instead used to massively increase funding to the LCA Mk2 and Mk1A development (as per Indranil, there are no funds for building an Mk2 prototype yet : ) and also to set up a second assembly line for building Mk1s. A corresponding increase in orders for the Mk1 to 80 or 100 from the current 40 would have made that feasible. And we still wold have money left over to perhaps "encourage" the local ancillary suppliers to expand their own production to cater to the second line.

But ofcourse this is India, so we'll instead make the IAF into even more of a zoo as far as types are concerned, spend much much less on the local efforts compared to buying from abroad and watch the LCA go the way of the Arjun tank. Jai Hind!

[ks_sachin]

JayS: good post mate. I would like to share it with some people if I may..

[Rakesh]

This entire thread needs to be shared with your people I hope your people can bring about some change.

[shiv]

Please do not take Auto to Aero analogy too literally. While its OK to compare them in principle, reality is not the same.

A car could fail on the middle of the road, but an aircraft cannot.

This post should be encoded in a microchip and that microchip embedded under the forehead skin of all people oldies and newbies who want to post on BRF

[Rakesh]

Only from Shiv Saar will that one liner come

[ks_sachin]

This entire thread needs to be shared with your people I hope your people can bring about some change.

I wish Rakesh...as much as I love the forces there is a level of inertia in some senior officers that does not allow them to see beyond their nose.

[Cain Marko]

Dunno if this was posted earlier but seems like some are pegging the contract to be worth $12 billion and up to 150 units

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/25/investi ... heed-saab/

[shiv]

Posting as data point for future ref: What ACM Arup Raha said about Tejas in June 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8skV2Do9Ms

[Marten]

So, basically ACM Raha says, (of the 700 odd aircraft in the IAF stable), LCA can aspire the currently known figures of 120 and no more. At least until Mark 2 turns up. Basically we will remain a top heavy force for many more decades. To fix this imbalance, we shall buy 120 more F16is but not 120 more LCAs. And then we will become a medium heavy force.

[shiv]

Shiv, what kind of CAS mission do you see the Jaguar not being able to carry out? The Mig-29 upgrade also adds full ground-attack capability to the aircraft.

It's not that a Jag cannot carry out a CAS mission, but CAS often requires multiple passes to take out targets of opportunity - a bunker here, an armoured car there etc and that calls for a short turning radius. The Jaguar with its high wing loading and high speed low altitude character is less suited for climb, dive, shoot, turn and return for another pass aka "loitering" over the target zone

Here is a comparison of Tejas and Jag - each doing a 180 deg turn - both clips are more than 5 years old at 2 diff Aero India shows. The Jag went so far out of sight that my camera could not keep track but I managed to refocus by zooming in.
http://vid1116.photobucket.com/albums/k ... knwby4.mp4

[shiv]

So, basically ACM Raha says, (of the 700 odd aircraft in the IAF stable), LCA can aspire the currently known figures of 120 and no more. At least until Mark 2 turns up. Basically we will remain a top heavy force for many more decades. To fix this imbalance, we shall buy 120 more F16is but not 120 more LCAs. And then we will become a medium heavy force.

I object to the term "Mark II". I was trying to locate the Arup Raha press conference where he clearly says "Let us not refer to them as Mark IA, Mark II"etc. Unfortunately I did not locate it. Saying that AM Raha is against Mark II is something I would like to see as a video clip or an interview transcript. That is a BRF myth that is being propagated because I do not find anyone from the Air Force referring to a Mark II LCA. Semantics - but in the light of hyper-emotional discussions we need to get facts tight. Does HAL refer to a Mark II in press releases. Someone set my qibla right if I am wrong, but did the Mark II term come from some BRFite or journo talking to a HAL guy are Aero India.

[Rammpal]

Shiv, what kind of CAS mission do you see the Jaguar not being able to carry out? The Mig-29 upgrade also adds full ground-attack capability to the aircraft.

It's not that a Jag cannot carry out a CAS mission, but CAS often requires multiple passes to take out targets of opportunity - a bunker here, an armoured car there etc and that calls for a short turning radius. The Jaguar with its high wing loading and high speed low altitude character is less suited for climb, dive, shoot, turn and return for another pass aka "loitering" over the target zone

Here is a comparison of Tejas and Jag - each doing a 180 deg turn - both clips are more than 5 years old at 2 diff Aero India shows. The Jag went so far out of sight that my camera could not keep track but I managed to refocus by zooming in.
http://vid1116.photobucket.com/albums/k ... knwby4.mp4

Thrust vectoring, using conventional methods and vernier thrusters ?
How challenging would it be to retrofit Jags And LCA with limited shot vernier thrusters to pull 'short turning radius'maneuvers ?

[shiv]

How challenging would it be to retrofit Jags And LCA with limited shot vernier thrusters to pull 'short turning radius'maneuvers ?

Very challenging

[Zynda]

JayS, as usual great post. Yours should be made sticky. Many people try to use auto analogy to aerospace industry with good intention...

A small OT, I am surprised by the work culture in GE India. In fact, I am unhappy with the whole interview process in India. Most of the work done by Indian Pvt companies, at least in aerospace is copy & paste work i.e. like you have mentioned, the OEM provides a set of proprietary tools for which data has to be formatted in a certain way and results/outputs needs to be collated and presented in a certain format. The input comes from OEM or their Tier-1 vendor. The interview process is so involved...3 or 4 rounds which provides an impression that company is a preferred vendor working on a critical part for the OEM. LOL. Anyways, disappointed to learn GE India isn't too different. That was one company which I had lot of respect knowing that many of their hires are from top Engg institutions and thus thought work would involve some innovation.

[Singha]

what next , perhaps sold via cloudtail on amazon.in ?

[ks_sachin]

Thrust vectoring, using conventional methods and vernier thrusters ?
How challenging would it be to retrofit Jags And LCA with limited shot vernier thrusters to pull 'short turning radius'maneuvers ?

Please do some research before asking or post in newbie thread please...

[JayS]

Saar, I am talking about US-Pak relations which despite all the hiccups (no US funding for additional F-16s for example) is still going strong.

To to emphasize this point more I would like to add this thing - Remember folks the wikileaks cables, one of which states US logic in supplying F16s to Pak in first place?? Now whether one wants buy it or not its different question but the cable says the whole sole reason for giving F16s to Pak was to "delay Nuclear War". Pak would have something to fight with against India and keep us at bay for few days which gives US enough time to do something to stop Nuclear war. Now even if this logic is one which US uses just to sugercoat its sinister plans against India, it still stands and it will continue to stand. Think about it folks. Nuclear war is not in US favour anyway. Especially on India which is the new hope for world economic growth due to its sheer market size which is set to explode if we keep stead pace of 8% plus growth. And US is heavily invested in India. Any disruption will be felt across the world economy. Even if US comes firmly in India camp (the other way round really) US will still continue to suppress our efforts to punish Pak by any means but sub-conventional war until it believes that Pak can use N-Weapons.

BTW I fully agree with you Rakesh Sir, on this thing, support should be seen by the way of orders or it cannot be called full support. I mean there is a significant difference in promising your girlfriend to marry and actually marrying her.

LCA MK2 cannot be developed until IAF gives at least verbal indication that they want it. Remember HAL could do something because they have money of there own to some extent (limited financial autonomy) but ADA has Zilch in their pockets. They are totally dependant on GOI for money and have very limited executive power. Unless IAF wants it ot GOI decides to press on anyway and give money for the project MK2 is as good as dead.

[JayS]

Posting as data point for future ref: What ACM Arup Raha said about Tejas in June 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8skV2Do9Ms

"In large numbers" and "120" are oxymoron. Especially considering the heavy Su30 will be 272 in nos. LCA should be at least 300 in number to justify that "large' word.

I am amazed by the this reserved approach of IAF, I have never heard IAF chief saying, if LCA comes along better we will be or at least think of buying more. If there is no intent today, MK2 cannot be developed because the modification work needs to start now (starting with Aero configuration) side-by-side when Mk1A is being taken over the finish line. IAF should be giving fixed targets for the MK2 today for it to be possible to come up by 2024-25. Arguably Mk2 will be developed for navy, but still it will have to be stripped of the Navy spcific add-ons for AF which will take some time.

Is there a possibility that its already happening behind close doors and we simply never heard of it?? I would like to hope for it...

[JayS]

Can some guru ji explain if the ge f110 in the blk 60 with the higher thrust fit on the blk 50-airframe, which seems lighter by a good 1500kg? Perhaps the payload won't be equal but the requirement is for a light fighter after all. We'd get a stupendous a2a performer for sure

Hay allah, blk-50?? Tobah tobah... How can we have same version that Pakis have??