'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Oct 2016 08:10

At this juncture why go for a 4th gen plane. Why not pick up the F 35, for a simple reason, the issues faced with the LCA will also be present with the AMCA. As India will not have learnt the lesson of mass production of fighter jets from scratch.

Same arguments will be made in favour of the f 35 when constracted with the AMCA.

So let's make a decision to bring the airforce up to date and get the F 35.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 30 Oct 2016 08:18

Pratyush wrote:At this juncture why go for a 4th gen plane. Why not pick up the F 35, for a simple reason, the issues faced with the LCA will also be present with the AMCA. As India will not have learnt the lesson of mass production of fighter jets from scratch.

Same arguments will be made in favour of the f 35 when constracted with the AMCA.

So let's make a decision to bring the airforce up to date and get the F 35.

Wouldn't the 'tried and tested' bit get left out, i.e.: within context, F-35 is no better than LCA.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 30 Oct 2016 08:46

Pratyush wrote:for a simple reason, the issues faced with the LCA will also be present with the AMCA. As India will not have learnt the lesson of mass production of fighter jets from scratch.

After the LCA is relegated to the side lines like the Arjun tank, I doubt talk of researching & developing indigenous planes by IAF/HAL/ADA..etc will ever be entertained again.

Any such suggestion of allocating crores of funds for years to do the above will be greeted with great cynicism.

Management of the project looks incompetent sorry to say. In the west, heads would have rolled at the top.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Oct 2016 10:03

Rammpal wrote:
Pratyush wrote:SNIP>>>>>>

Wouldn't the 'tried and tested' bit get left out, i.e.: within context, F-35 is no better than LCA.

Fixing the F 35 is USAFs problem, the IAF will be happy to apply that fix to the Indian version.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Oct 2016 10:31

Cosmo_R wrote: If we are smart

I am not too sure about this part...

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Oct 2016 10:31

Did not f16 started as a bomb truck and until f16c was viewed as such? Am I wrong here? Maybe we are looking into a cheap strike AC with MII and transfer of tech.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 30 Oct 2016 11:04

^er..F16 was conceived to be a nimble footed knife fighter.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 30 Oct 2016 12:07

Duplicate post deleted

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 30 Oct 2016 12:08

Yagnasri wrote:Did not f16 started as a bomb truck and until f16c was viewed as such? Am I wrong here? Maybe we are looking into a cheap strike AC with MII and transfer of tech.

Not so, though it has been used as a bomb truck in plenty of conflicts, mainly due to the presence in the USAF of even more formidable air superiority aircraft such as the F15. The F-16 had its genesis in the pure air to air, air superiority fighter proposed by the legendary John Boyd and Pierre Sprey, so far from just a bomb truck. Of course the USAF wanted something more multi-role so much to their chagrin tacked on more requirements where as it was originally meant to be a low-tech Soviet style dogfighter. However the end result was a formidable air to air machine, and with later additions of multi-role avionics and CFTs, one heck of a bomb truck as well. For what started out as a light fighter (and in many ways still is), it has a formidable payload and strike capabilities.

I think we are a bit conditioned to dislike it due to it's presence in hostile air forces, but in the right hands (like the Israeli IAF and now our IAF) it can be a really formidable aircraft - if our pilots could wreak havoc with Mig 21s think of what they could do with a state of the art F16s in numbers. It is also going to be a quantum leap for the IAF in terms of availability and reliability.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Oct 2016 12:33

I am not against it. What I mean is if they IAF wants F16 to replace Jags and Mig27s, then it may be a suitable one.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 30 Oct 2016 13:16

Yagnasri wrote:I am not against it. What I mean is if they IAF wants F16 to replace Jags and Mig27s, then it may be a suitable one.

It can't do exactly what the swept wing aircraft like Jag/Mig27 do in terms of low-level flight since it wasn't designed for that. However it can replace the overall function, and do it very well, especially with the help of jammers, precision weapons and standoff range munitions.

And if you look at aircraft that replace Mig27s or Jags, there aren't any like for like replacements available anyway, at least ones that don't date back to the same era. So F16s with their excellent payload along with self-defence capabilities are an excellent replacement.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 30 Oct 2016 13:36

If numbers are required at low cost then how about a QF-16i. One software stack for auto-piloting and navigation other software stack could be Indian-designed mission specific (SEAD or decoy or special delivery or carrier attack etc). Cost can be lowered in having no pilot to train, no ejection seat, etc.

Has other indirect benefits too for Indian drone development.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2016 14:03

Rishi Verma wrote:If numbers are required at low cost then how about a QF-16i. One software stack for auto-piloting and navigation other software stack could be Indian-designed mission specific (SEAD or decoy or special delivery or carrier attack etc). Cost can be lowered in having no pilot to train, no ejection seat, etc.

Has other indirect benefits too for Indian drone development.

This is so yesterday. I would prefer something like this

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Oct 2016 15:30

shiv wrote:
Rishi Verma wrote:If numbers are required at low cost then how about a QF-16i. One software stack for auto-piloting and navigation other software stack could be Indian-designed mission specific (SEAD or decoy or special delivery or carrier attack etc). Cost can be lowered in having no pilot to train, no ejection seat, etc.

Has other indirect benefits too for Indian drone development.
This is so yesterday. I would prefer something like this

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Oct 2016 16:08

Rishi, the cost and complexity to convert an aerial target to something you describe is not trivial. Even the USAF/AFRL/DARPA are working through the set of challenges that will be required to be overcome to enable such concepts (look up Loyal wingman, and the gremlins programs), particularly in the manned-unmanned teaming, how they accomplish mission objectives under threat from space, cyberspace and RF contested environments. Even for the most basic of roles, the list of things required is actually quite long.

Expect most to be still working through these problems well into the 2020's and early 2030's. It would have been much easier if the actual battlefield resembled the controlled space of a weapons test range (where these targets are expected to perform all their operational life), but it doesn't.

chola · Post by **chola** » 30 Oct 2016 21:56

JayS wrote:
chola wrote:
I like your thought process. The F-18 line would probably end around the same period as the F-15. But we would need a CATOBAR carrier to make it really work for the IN. Though plenty of advanced nations (Australya, Canada, Finland, etc) have made it their chief land based fighter.

Oh yes, the F-18 would be very nice in Indian tri-color.
It makes all the sense no?? We buy line for F/A18 as well. We will have fighter for Navy. Commonality of F414 engine with AMCA (I mean we won't really need AMCA any more but just to keep the scientist busy we will have is as fun project). In fact if we buy GE engines for all three teens, GE might as well think of giving us HPT technology. (I means its not like we gonna go make Kaveris using that anymore right?? We won't be needing it either). I am sure when we are buying FA18, US will give us EMALS as well for IAC-2. What more we will be US's BFF.

Actually, those are very real advantages of a F-16 line. Bharati takeover of the 'Teens and EMALS.

No laughing matter. The stars are really aligning. US pivots to Indo-Pacific. Counterbalance of PRC. The coming end of the 'teens lines. All it takes is the vision to grasp it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Oct 2016 00:53

Actually, those are very real advantages of a F-16 line. Bharati takeover of the 'Teens and EMALS.

No they're not.

ashbhee · Post by **ashbhee** » 31 Oct 2016 01:04

If we setup a F 16 production line in India, will US let GE setup a engine plant here for use in F 16 and LCA?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Oct 2016 01:09

will US let GE setup a engine plant here for use in F 16 and LCA?

The likely outcome is an extension of the current arrangement of assembling GE Engines for the LCA (that they have apparently agreed for in the agreement that had been "initialed" by HAL).

On the F-16 front, they could probably negotiate a type of production arrangement that South Korea managed to do through their industry -

The deal relates to the production of the General Electric (GE) F414 turbofan engine, which was selected for the KFX programme by the Seoul's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in late May. This programme will see Hanwha Techwin, in collaboration with other South Korean companies, produce at least 50% of the F414 engine parts before localised assembly and delivery to KAI for installation on the KFX aircraft.

DAPA hopes to finalise negotiations with GE on the purchase of the engine as well as the industrial engagement programme, which will enable GE to discharge its offset obligations on the contract, within the next few months.

A GE spokesperson told IHS Jane's recently that the localisation package features the entire fan and low-pressure turbine (LPT) module for the production phase of the KFX programme. Additional parts featured in the package include blisk, blades, and disks, including the high-pressure turbine, and critical high-volume rotating parts. Hanwha Techwin's involvement in the KFX programme consolidates its position as South Korea's leading aero-engine manufacturer.

In partnership with GE, the company, which Hanwha acquired from Samsung in June 2015, also licence-produced the GE F404-GE-102 turbofan engine that powers KAI's single-engine T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer and its derivatives.

Hanwha Techwin and GE are also partnered on the programme to build and supply the GE T700-701K turboshaft engine for South Korea's Surion light utility twin-engine helicopter, which is operated by the Republic of Korea Army and was developed and produced by KAI in collaboration with Airbus Helicopters.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 31 Oct 2016 01:34

This question is also valid should India choose Gripen because Gripen also uses GE engines. Infact, commonality is better with F414 engine being used in Gripen and future AMCA.

ashbhee wrote:If we setup a F 16 production line in India, will US let GE setup a engine plant here for use in F 16 and LCA?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Oct 2016 01:43

It will probably come down to cost. Neither of these deals will be cheap (still cheaper than the rafale would have been with similar MII level) simply due to the other aspects such as licensed production, technology access, and offset obligations. Gripen E/F will find it tough to compete with an F-16V derivative on cost simply because the Viper has little to no development to do, and relies on mostly stable (cost) technology. The Gripen E isn't even ready and won't in its totality until well into the next decade. It is tough to go very low on cost when there is some RDT&E still left on the program. Moreover, SAAB has to balance its TOT and production commitments to Brazil and look at the Swedish Air Force's interest.

Almost everything on the Gripen E is new (avionics) and still in development, developmental testing and/or pre-integration stage. On the F-16V you have two sets of new mission computers..one has already flown and is plug and play, while the other may also have flown and is entirely company funded. On top of this you have the Israeli mission computers as well. The radar is flying at the moment..The IRST sensor has been ready and flying on various operational platforms for many years. There are two US, and one Israeli EW suits integrated. The only part that is left is the IAF specific changes. Israel even has SATCOM integrated iirc.

The advantages for Gripen will be technology given that SAAB has some very new systems going in. Another advantage is that its not a US system outside of propulsion and few other systems. With everything else I see an advantage for the Viper, but rest assured with all these things factored in, this deal will not be cheap...

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 31 Oct 2016 02:15

^^^"...Gripen E/F will find it tough to compete with an F-16V derivative on cost simply because the Viper has little to no development to do, and relies on mostly stable (cost) technology. "

The DFW line has has been fully depreciated and amortized over 3K units(?). This includes suppliers. Plus, they received all sorts of tax credits when ramping up. Moreover, the supply chain is transitioning to the F-35. Any write-offs they make on the F-16 tooling etc will apply against sure income from the F-35. No way the Swedes can compete—they are part of the 'bake-off' to quell the single vendor accusation.

IN fact, Al Hundi says "The Maryland-based firm is currently scouting for land to set up its manufacturing unit. According to sources, it is looking to set up the plant in a State that will have a runway near a port. "

No points for guessing for which state that might be.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/eco ... 835851.ece

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 31 Oct 2016 04:19

Cosmo_R wrote:No points for guessing for which state that might be.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/eco ... 835851.ece

Which one? I can think of the following location possibilities:

1. Chennai
2. Mumbai
3. Vishakhapatnam
4. Goa

Care to elaborate?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 31 Oct 2016 05:34

ashbhee wrote:If we setup a F 16 production line in India, will US let GE setup a engine plant here for use in F 16 and LCA?

I worry that further LCAs will be cancelled after F16/Gripen are purchased.

Apparently, no further orders beyond 40 engines have been placed.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Oct 2016 05:48

I wouldn't make much out of the orders beyond the 40. There is unlikely to be a longer lead time to the engines than is required to keep production hot as they move beyond 40 production units. When HAL gets a firm timeline on LCA 41 and beyond, they can place more ordered for F404's.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Oct 2016 09:49

Forgive me for the probably OT post:
Top guess would be Maharashtra! The new location would likely be close to Nhava Sheva port, close to where the new greenfield airport will be coming up. The Pimpri-Chinchwad/Talegaon stretch in Pune as well will be the likely location for suppliers (along with a few places around Pune where existing JVs/subsidiaries already supply to Euro/defense manufacturers). Motabhai already owns land at a proposed SEZ and would not mind sharing the bounty with his sibling. Gripen as well would be likely located around the same belt since most Swedish manufacturers have mostly been in the same place for a long while.

Gujarat would be the second choice due to PM and his MII initiatives, owing to cheaper land and the number of manufacturing cos in multiple GIDC areas. But the factory location would have to be closer to Vadodara or Surat with connectivity to (Anywhere in the Kutch --i.e. Kandla or Mundra would be a vulnerable location during war-time). Mangalore is out of the question. Goa offers some options inland but does NOT have the manufacturing setup to support anything remotely connected to aviation.

Tamil Nadu already has a planned Aero SEZ and a manufacturing stretch planned on the Chennai Bangalore Industrial Corridor and some parts in Madurai, but they will need to offer major breaks such as a tax holiday and similar incentives as other states. They are best placed in that respect (since they have managed to out-manoeuvre other states for auto cos).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 31 Oct 2016 10:20

brar_w wrote:
Actually, those are very real advantages of a F-16 line. Bharati takeover of the 'Teens and EMALS.
No they're not.

No point in telling him anything. He doesn't live on Earth Prime.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Oct 2016 11:07

I would try to negotiate the deal and give a single contract to a pvt company as follows:-

1. 100 F-16s manufactured in India with tech transfer of GE F110 engine. 2020-2025

2. Assistance in manufacturing 120 LCA MK-2, with tech transfer of GE 414 engine. 2025-2030

3. Development and manufacture of 250 AMCA with tech transfer of GE 414 EPE engine. 2030-2040

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 31 Oct 2016 11:12

Gyan wrote:I would try to negotiate the deal and give a single contract to a pvt company as follows:-

1. 100 F-16s manufactured in India with tech transfer of GE F110 engine. 2020-2025

2. Assistance in manufacturing 120 LCA MK-2, with tech transfer of GE 414 engine. 2025-2030

3. Development and manufacture of 250 AMCA with tech transfer of GE 414 EPE engine. 2030-2040

Pray tell how this would be arrived in practicality.

Verbal diarrhoea coupled with a constipation of thought is a dangerous combination.

Give us facts or plausible reasons for your POV..

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Oct 2016 11:26

Pray tell me, how does your abusive language help in rebutting the post? Provide a sane alternative rather than fulminating on the keyboard as mummy did not buy you ice cream.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Oct 2016 11:53

Gyan wrote:I would try to negotiate the deal and give a single contract to a pvt company as follows:-

1. 100 F-16s manufactured in India with tech transfer of GE F110 engine. 2020-2025

2. Assistance in manufacturing 120 LCA MK-2, with tech transfer of GE 414 engine. 2025-2030

3. Development and manufacture of 250 AMCA with tech transfer of GE 414 EPE engine. 2030-2040

Gyan the above is a wish list. What you are proposing to do will not be possible to accomplish. For a simple reason that budgets are not sufficient for supporting the manufacturing of 2 separate platforms. Namely LCA and the 16. The IAF will have to choose on of the 2 and concentrate on the production of the platform.

If the 16 if the chosen platform. The rationale for mk2 evaporates. As they are very comparable designs in performance and capabilities.

With this deal, the Indian defence aerospace capacity will be still born. With an adverse effect on the ability to produce the AMCA. so much so, that when it's time to produce the AMCA at home we will face the same issues we are facing with LCA. No amount of hand-holding will solve the problems unless they are solved with LCA. But it's not going to happen. Because the LCA didn't solved them

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 31 Oct 2016 12:04

My hunch is that F-16 will come to India.
- Israel/US will help in speedy induction by giving training, tactics.
- Already Israel has modified its F-16 to fire its munitions, so its a huge plus point.
- In future we may export some F-16s to Taiwan and may be Vietnam too.

We may manufacture whole air-frame. Radar will be 50%, imported core with "Made in India" modules. Engine will be again "Made in India" by GE India. US will make tons of money in AAMs and in A2G munitions, exotic coatings.

Once F-16 comes in, the current design of AMCA will be scraped and may be we go for single-engine platform, albeit not regular GE F110 engine, but around PW F135 engine. IAF is more comfortable on single western engine platforms.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 31 Oct 2016 12:16

^The AMCA design is too far down the line to be redone. A new gen fighter would be unlikely as well.

I've been discussing this theory with a friend who might be in the know but wisely refuses to say so (and I do not wan't to confirm anything that may not be for public consumption): The current dispensation being technically sound believes the investments need to be in the area of unmanned aerial vehicles (where we are severely lagging behind). The LCA/F-16 is not where the real battle lies - we want the Predators and two other armed platforms that will take to the skies by 2030-32 (meaning the prototype for at least one is ready to be developed - as evinced by the Ghatak tender), and another larger platform that will probably be the AURA design that went black.

PS: Said gent flatly refuses to believe ADA deliver a proto by 2020 (which is required if we wish to induct the platform by 2030). AMCA is being throttled by all involved parties (different reasons, some being quite bizarre to be honest). I do not entirely believe the smoke and mirrors. We are at cusp of the rebirth of our aviation industry. Some capabilities will die, and will take another 20 years to re-acquire. If we fight a war in the interim, it will be at the mercy of our two major suppliers and this dependence is never going away. Jingos need to wake up and accept that no party involved gains much from local design and manufacture, until there is war.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 31 Oct 2016 16:06

Gyan wrote:Pray tell me, how does your abusive language help in rebutting the post? Provide a sane alternative rather than fulminating on the keyboard as mummy did not buy you ice cream.

You called it so you justify it. I see no logic in your post yet you are not important enough for me to largess my thinking on you. But I will call you out because you post crap in a forum I have been on since inception and am getting a bit tired of thoughtless drivel!!

Or post with logical arguments!!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Oct 2016 17:45

I don't understand the obsession with the F-16 when the MOD has ,as posted earlier said that it is "unimpressed" with the offers so far,as after the IAF's requirements,here is little scope for exports. That being the case,then which of the birds on offer meets the grade best? Certainly not the F-16,long in the tooth and being replaced by the F-35 with US allies. How would two lines of Gripen manufacture not beggar both? The only bird with export potential is the LCA,but the ADA/HAL haven't been able to get their act together either with development or production.Here the GOI/MOD is at fault for not lighting a fire under the backsides of the agencies and the IAF as well,who seem to think that money grows on trees and are unwilling to bite the bullet and do with cost-effective solutions to resolve the numbers problem. Unfortunately,MP too appears to be a bit unsure of the next step as the "make in India" dogma reduces options. Buying and assembling/building at home more MKIs or 29s is the simplest solution and cheapest too.

The argument about the IAF being "top heavy" when studied carefully is specious.One MKI can wipe the skies of enemy aircraft best and upgraded MKIs to come even better.With improved availability given the 4 maintenance/support centres being established ,they will give a quantum leap in the IAF's capabilities.The 29/35 is even cheaper.

The LCA already is a hybrid bird,with a firang engine,radar,much weaponry,etc. Some realistic decisions must be made about it.Either it is further developed into a worthwhile MK-2 bird or we can the project after one large round of prod. of the Mk-1/1A .Putting our resources and manpower into making the LCA a success would see us investing $10B+ inside India into an Indian programme,far better than a firang bird with no future.

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 31 Oct 2016 18:49

Russia would get pissed off if we go for western replacements of the Mig21s

To pacify the Russkies we would end up giving juicy contracts for other assorted weaponry - maybe TXXs by the thousands and effectively kill of the Arjun programme as well

The same IAF that derided the F16/18 seems to be Ok with it now ?? What gives ??

They would do anything but support an indigenous weapons programme

I had mentioned long back in one of my earlier posts that HAL/DRDO /MOD must set aside a few hundred crores to buy off the top decision makers in IA/IAF so that they would start to support our own products

In the long run this may be a cheaper option saving us billions of forex as well ensuring strategic independence

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Oct 2016 19:35

If LM starts producing 20 F-16 every year in Bharat and we have 200 F-16 by 2030. That means this fighter will be with us well into 2060s, where would be tech at that time? F-16 will be a 90 year old design by then, I mean certain people will crying tears of blood that how unstealthy Rafale will be soooooo outdated by 2035, that instead of producing it IAF should just LEASE THEM FOR 20 YEARS!!!

chola · Post by **chola** » 31 Oct 2016 19:44

brar_w wrote:
Actually, those are very real advantages of a F-16 line. Bharati takeover of the 'Teens and EMALS.
No they're not.

They are so.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Oct 2016 20:00

I'd caution against attributing mythical benefits to acquiring either the F-16 or the Gripen, outside of purely what one is likely to get in terms of direct benefits. No one is taking over EMALS, which remains one of the most important carrier based technology for the USN, which will be buying pretty much all of such systems coming out of the supply line. These things involve a different mechanism, different set of negotiations and completely different set of vendors and the service level cooperation. They have opened discussions under the DTTI framework and the US will regardless of what the IAF decides vis-a-vis the F-16 continue to discuss what role it can play when it comes to supplying such systems if something can be worked out under the framework. This is not a lockheed martin technology, and GA has virtually ZERO contribution to the F-16 program through which Lockheed can negotiate a level of offset obligation that looks at the EMALS.

RohitAM · Post by **RohitAM** » 31 Oct 2016 20:08

brar_w wrote:
will US let GE setup a engine plant here for use in F 16 and LCA?
The likely outcome is an extension of the current arrangement of assembling GE Engines for the LCA (that they have apparently agreed for in the agreement that had been "initialed" by HAL).

On the F-16 front, they could probably negotiate a type of production arrangement that South Korea managed to do through their industry -

The deal relates to the production of the General Electric (GE) F414 turbofan engine, which was selected for the KFX programme by the Seoul's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in late May. This programme will see Hanwha Techwin, in collaboration with other South Korean companies, produce at least 50% of the F414 engine parts before localised assembly and delivery to KAI for installation on the KFX aircraft.

DAPA hopes to finalise negotiations with GE on the purchase of the engine as well as the industrial engagement programme, which will enable GE to discharge its offset obligations on the contract, within the next few months.

A GE spokesperson told IHS Jane's recently that the localisation package features the entire fan and low-pressure turbine (LPT) module for the production phase of the KFX programme. Additional parts featured in the package include blisk, blades, and disks, including the high-pressure turbine, and critical high-volume rotating parts. Hanwha Techwin's involvement in the KFX programme consolidates its position as South Korea's leading aero-engine manufacturer.

In partnership with GE, the company, which Hanwha acquired from Samsung in June 2015, also licence-produced the GE F404-GE-102 turbofan engine that powers KAI's single-engine T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer and its derivatives.

Hanwha Techwin and GE are also partnered on the programme to build and supply the GE T700-701K turboshaft engine for South Korea's Surion light utility twin-engine helicopter, which is operated by the Republic of Korea Army and was developed and produced by KAI in collaboration with Airbus Helicopters.

With regards to the possible order being ramped up to 200+ aircrafts for the single-engined MRCA (let's assume it is the F-16), and the GOI being able to negotiate the engine manufacturing ToT offsets as well, will this include blade materials and manufacturing tech? From what I've read here, that is one of the critical aspects which we lack vis-a-vis Kaveri, and from the looks of it, Hanwha did get to manufacture the engine blades for the KFX program, that too for the more advanced GE F414 engine (compared to the F110-132 currently used on the F-16). Are there any benefits of getting engine ToT offsets as part of the F-16 manufacturing which can trickle down into engine R&D looking forward, even if it is for private players such as Reliance or TASL?