'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Pratyush]

The thinking displayed on the thread takes my breath away. One the one hand we have an enemy who is an industrial power house, that is at the first stage of developing a workable 5th generation fighter.

Here we are having designed a 4 gen jet, are ready to abandon it without learning any lessons that mass production of domestic jet will teach us. For another 4th gen jet that is over 40 yes rs old. While facing the possibility of having to fight the 5 gen PRC jets. The future of domestic 5th gen will be the same as the LCA. In the absence of the painstaking work needed to get the LCA in mass production.

So why not make the logical connection and advocate the buy of F 35, and have a capable 5th gen jet from the word go. This will at least give parity to the IAF in 5 gen experience when compared to PLA.

[Marten]

We want to give every enemy state a dharmic lead of 40 years in defence technology.

Apparently NSA had called for offensive defence but PM after the election has chosen statecraft over all else. What good is an LCA if we cannot spend a few billions on "building capabilities"? As far as the politicos are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the the same. So be it.

[shiv]

I missed the newspapers over diwali and took my eyes off BRF for 77 seconds and may have missed 2500 posts on this thread.

Has the fighter deal been signed yet? When is HAL going to close down the LCA line? They have used up 18-19 of 40 F-404 engines. Maybe the order can be cancelled in favour of buying one F-35 fuselage without wings? The P&W F-135 engine will be totally new to India but I heard that it performs well even with fuel impurities like milk.honey/ghee etc - which is what makes it so reliable and attractive. But for us those ingredients are "purifying", not impurities. A former test pilot of the Cameroon air force told me.

[Neshant]

In 10 years, the difference between the domestic aerospace R&D capabilities of India vs China is going to be night and day.
Almost every dollar they spend goes right back into the aerospace base of their country.
They make every opportunity count including ripping off Russian designs and replicating them just to learn how they're built from the ground up.

They are starting to leverage some of their design abilities in civilian aircraft with an eye on mass production.
Within 10 years, they will give second tier aerospace companies like Bombardier and Embraer a run for their money.
A couple of decades down the road - Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed.

Unlike India, they have a plan of development for their aerospace sector.

You would think the hundreds of billions that India will spend on defense related aerospace would be a golden opportunity to build up the domestic R&D aerospace base. That itself is the "Make in India" opportunity of a lifetime. But its all being pissed away by real bad decision makers who don't have a clue what damage they are doing - not least of which is the IAF chief himself (who needs to be booted).

The document the IAF put out on plans to indigenize the defense equipment over the next 10 years (ironically just before announcing the 200 foreign fighter plane RFI) looks like a cut & paste of rather unimpressive replicas of low tech foreign products. No where in there is any plan to redirect the loads of money being pissed away on buying planes out of a foreign catalog to domestic players.

Unless the RFI is cancelled and heads roll at the top with the view of making the LCA a mass production success, its hard to imagine India being anywhere in the global aerospace market in the next 10 years.

[Neshant]

Gentlemen, grab your screw drivers.....................

A lesson on how to build a domestic aerospace industry without reaching for a foreign order catalog and handing over bags of money.
Within a decade, China will begin to challenge 2nd tier aircraft companies.

____

C919 passenger jet ready to lift Chinese aviation industry



http://www.ecns.cn/business/2016/11-02/232437.shtml

The latest news on the single-aisle, 168-passenger, twin-engine jet has been a highlight of this week's China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai.

"After the C919 aircraft enters the market, it is expected to drive the growth of related manufacturing industries, including airplane materials manufacturing, electronic engineering, automation and mechanical manufacturing," said Li Xiaojin, a professor at the Civil Aviation University of China in Tianjin.

"Our staff is working on the project nearly 24 hours a day, and we would like to speed up the pace to conduct the first test flight," said Yang Yang, director of the marketing research center at COMAC Shanghai Aircraft Design and Research Institute.

[vera_k]

Although, Airbus set up a manufacturing line for the A320 in China a number of years back. They appear to have leveraged that to learn and start making their own plane.

[Amoghvarsha]

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... Defence%29

LM executive claimed that USAF will fly F 16s for more than 30 years.

[Pratyush]

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... Defence%29

LM executive claimed that USAF will fly F 16s for more than 30 years.

So India should buy it.?

[Aditya_V]

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... Defence%29

LM executive claimed that USAF will fly F 16s for more than 30 years.

That doesnt matter, we might as well buy 2nd hand M-2000 or second hand F-16's. this is just sugar quoting, we will gain no tech for the amount we will be spending.

Money much better spent in Bulk orders for Tejas with HAL and putting the focus on Automation with more interchangebility. 10 Billion Investment in LCA in 3-4 years will get much better rewards than this deal.

We can order various munitions, Jet engines 400-500 for LCA,/ AMCA, order Boeing Tankers, more P-8's, Re- engine the Jaguars to keep USA happy, order say 2nd hand M-2000 40, order 40 Mig-29K's, 40 SU-30 and spend money on Astra and LCA. This is a far more workable solution.

Than ordering 200-300 F-16's fr say 30 Billion USD with 30 Billion munitions from Israel and USA and get 0 manufacturing and design base. this 60 Billion screwdrivergiri is going to get us nowhere. we have lost 12 years with the MMRCA farce. There will nothing left for 5th gen fighters, domestic R&D, ABM, BM, Subs, artillery if this deal goes through, all we will have is some 2nd hand US equipment located in India and 60-70 Billion if not gone from our Budget for 200-300 fighters and hand over the keys of our war fighting ability to US Congress- who will ask us to perennial restraint.

500 years ago obsession with expensive Arabian horses wiped many a Native Kingdom and put the country under slavery. Lets hope the future 500 years are not like the past 500.

[Philip]

To abandon the LCA in favour of a 50yr old hag like the F-16,which our mortal enemy the Pakis fly,would be an act of supreme dishonesty,duplicity and make a mockery of the "make in India" mantra that hangs above the door of this supposedly pro-desi govt.We will become the laughing stock of the world and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this horrendous mistake in the making.

[Aditya_V]

F-16 or Gripen both will be monumental blunders after the whole MMRCA farce. If the same amount money is poured into HAL with outsourcing to Indian industries we can get much better rewards.

[Amoghvarsha]

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... Defence%29

LM executive claimed that USAF will fly F 16s for more than 30 years.

So India should buy it.?

Well it then removes one of the doubts that F 16 is obsolete or will be in next few years.

[Amoghvarsha]

To abandon the LCA in favour of a 50yr old hag like the F-16,which our mortal enemy the Pakis fly,would be an act of supreme dishonesty,duplicity and make a mockery of the "make in India" mantra that hangs above the door of this supposedly pro-desi govt.We will become the laughing stock of the world and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this horrendous mistake in the making.

And will the LCA mark2 be better than block 70 F 16?

And how do we make up the numbers till LCA Mark 2 comes up?

[Aditya_V]

How will this make up numbers, Please give us Cost/ Times lines estimate.

[Pratyush]

The point is not if the F 16 is obsolete or will be obsolete. The point is in the capabilities that it brings to the table.

When compared to the capabilities and lessons that a domestic design and its manufacture brings to the table.

[Amoghvarsha]

The point is not if the F 16 is obsolete or will be obsolete. The point is in the capabilities that it brings to the table.

When compared to the capabilities and lessons that a domestic design and its manufacture brings to the table.

Are you telling me that the LCA will be a better fighter than a Block 70 F 16?

[Amoghvarsha]

How will this make up numbers, Please give us Cost/ Times lines estimate.

I will if you can give me time line estimate of the LCA.

[Pratyush]

Let the LCA have 200 confirm orders first before anyone speaks of timeline of production. As no sub assembly supplier will build capabilities without having a market for product.

[Amoghvarsha]

Let the LCA have 200 confirm orders first before anyone speaks of timeline of production. As no sub assembly supplier will build capabilities without having a market for product.

Give 200 orders without knowing the delivery timelines and capabilities.And when they cant deliver,which they do mostly the IAF will be left high and dry.

Rather make up the numbers with foreign import and give HAL the flexibility to maake and deliver a quality LCA at a timeframe of their choosing.

[rohitvats]

Let the LCA have 200 confirm orders first before anyone speaks of timeline of production. As no sub assembly supplier will build capabilities without having a market for product.

Help me understand this:

- HAL will increase production of LCA Mk1 to 16/year when it starts delivering FOC versions.
- HAL chairman says he can go up to 16 per year and no more unless private sector participates. I didn't hear him say give me more orders and I'll increase rate of production. Please correct me on this one if I'm wrong here.

- So, where does this constant whine about more a/c order is coming from?

Has someone done some sort of analysis which says for X numbers ordered, Y production rate/ annum. And if it is 2X, production rate is 1.5 Y.

[chola]

We want India to be like China and make its own planes? But what's all that about the F-35? Non local jingoism for Areeka as opposed to "local jingos?" Just sayin..

Careful, Neshant. I mention the same a few months ago and was blasted by the our local jingos for whining and supporting prc commie propaganda. I do not want the same for you.

Obviously if we can get production of the F35 it would be my dream come true!.

Just sayin' what? Out with it, man!

I would give my right arm to have these 200 single-engine planes be ordered as the LCA.

But if this phoren RFI/tender is going to happen (and it looks like it will) then I rather we take the F-16 and the ameerika production line over anything else.

And yes, if we can get production for the F-35 it would be the greatest aviation news personally for since 2001 when first flight gave me boundless hope for the LCA. What of it?

[shiv]

Just sayin' what? Out with it, man!

I would give my right arm to have these 200 single-engine planes be ordered as the LCA.

But if this phoren RFI/tender is going to happen (and it looks like it will) then I rather we take the F-16 and the ameerika production line over anything else.

And yes, if we can get production for the F-35 it would be the greatest aviation news personally for since 2001 when first flight gave me boundless hope for the LCA. What of it?

Just saying that your posts sound hypocritical to me when taken together.

On the one hand you empathize with someone who laments that China makes its own jets and India doesn't.

On the other hand you dream that India should import the latest F-35 from Amreeka

It is hypocritical to dream of imports and also lament that India is not making its own. It has got to be one or the other. If we import, Indian design and manufacture will have a setback. If we want Indian manufactured stuff, we must stop import.

[Pratyush]

Rohit and AV, if any one tells you that he can build capabilities of mass production of jets with out having firm order for the number of that have to be made. I have tajmahal to sell you.

Regarding the HAL chiefs comment that you have quoted.

Please re read it again in its entirety and maybe just maybe you will understand what he is saying is that in the absence of more orders I will not be able to find suppliers to build major sub assemblies which inturn will increase the numbers I can make per year.

It is clear as the day,. that in the absence of firm orders no capabilities of for mass production will ever be created. So I ask where are the order for LCA beyond the original 40.

[JayS]

Maybe this is my imagination..

Even I do not buy this marketing pitch that with CFTs its fully 9G capable. It seems very unlikely to me as well. May be when CFT are fully empty, but not with fuel in them. Because then they will have to strength the wings to take more G forces that the additional fuel weight adds, or the manoeuvre would take a significant life debit on the parts thereby reducing the life of airframe. Also lets not forget about sloshing in those tanks. With some amount of fuel in the tanks it would be sloshing like crazy while manoeuvring making CG management a nightmare unless there are compartments in the CFTs and fuel management system to take care of it separately.

To me:

- CFT are better than EFT in terms of drag - Yes
- Empty CFT can have same flight envelop as aircraft without tanks - possible
- Empty CFT are better than empty EFT hanging around - yes (you dont have to dispose tank - save money)
- CFT with fuel does not make any different to flight envelop - unbelievable

So main disadvantage I see with CFT is if you have to get into dogfight when CFT are not fully empty, you cannot jettison them like EFT and you have to fly with restricted flight envelop until the fuel in CFTs used up. Or if the FCS allows the aircraft to go 9G with fuel in CFT in such emergency case, it should be taking a significant life debit on airframe, unless LM has modified the airframe structure which is a far-fetched case.

[Viv S]

Help me understand this:

- HAL will increase production of LCA Mk1 to 16/year when it starts delivering FOC versions.
- HAL chairman says he can go up to 16 per year and no more unless private sector participates. I didn't hear him say give me more orders and I'll increase rate of production. Please correct me on this one if I'm wrong here.

That's not what he said. You're twisting his words here. The private sector is already involved in the Tejas production and will inevitably participate in any scaling up of the production.

He was answering a very specific point on HAL's efforts to increase pvt sector participation (which the govt is promoting). He was NOT laying out any limitations on production.

Do you think the recent US offer for the production of F 16 and F/A 18 fighters in India are viable?

Neither aircraft could win the (air force's) medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition. So I really don't know. It is not very attractive and I sincerely don't know how serious they are. The F 16 production has stopped and I am sure a parallel line for the F/A 18 won't be worth it. There are reports that the fighters are being considered as we may have a gap of 200 aircraft of the LCA class by 2021. If this is true, the gap can be filled up by increasing production rate of LCA. In the new defence procurement policy, an Indian designed and manufactured system has top priority which the LCA fits into and the others don't.

How involved will the private sector be in the production of the LCA aircraft in India?

The first 20 aircraft will be completed by 2018, by when we have to make a Mk 1A version of the aircraft. We are ramping up production to 16 aircraft a year. We have recently issued request for quotations to the private players to supply modules like fuselage parts and wings. If we can get this from the private sector, we can increase production to 25 aircraft a year. So, we are looking for capacity augmentation with these private players. We are looking at a concept in which HAL is an integrator that has some 20% (of total) work in the hangers. The remaining 80% of work can be off loaded to the industry. If a private company for example is setting up a shop for composites manufacturing, it will be assured for business for many years.

- Economic Times

- So, where does this constant whine about more a/c order is coming from?

Has someone done some sort of analysis which says for X numbers ordered, Y production rate/ annum. And if it is 2X, production rate is 1.5 Y.

Doesn't require any elaborate analysis, simple arithmetic will suffice. Assuming the production is to cease at the same day, it remains a linear relationship. For a 2X order, production rate must be 2Y.

The equation becomes elaborate when the cost-curve comes into play. Expansion in the production rate is usually carried out with one eye on the marginal cost of the product. But for us, cost is a secondary concern.

Even if unit cost of the Tejas at 25/yr is not significantly lower than when produced at 16/yr, it still shouldn't be a barrier to expansion. We need the aircraft.

[shiv]

Help me understand this:

- HAL will increase production of LCA Mk1 to 16/year when it starts delivering FOC versions.
- HAL chairman says he can go up to 16 per year and no more unless private sector participates. I didn't hear him say give me more orders and I'll increase rate of production. Please correct me on this one if I'm wrong here.

- So, where does this constant whine about more a/c order is coming from?

Also, help me understand this:

I order a phone from Amazon and pay for it up front. It costs a few thousand and will be delivered in X days

OK someone might even order a car - and pay up front and have it delivered in a few weeks

So when someone "orders" 200 jets to be delivered in say 5 years or 500 in 10 years does he pay it all and keep his fingers crossed and hope for the best?

As I know it an "order" is only an intent to buy. For that intent the supplier/manufacturer has to be able to fulfil your order and say "Yes - pay me in full now or pay me XYZ now and I will start delivery by X date and complete by Y date" The person who places the order will hopefully have half a brain and protect his payment with clauses that ensure that he does not lose his money

But here - HAL has clearly stated that they cannot go more than 16 per year and that too only in a few unspecified years down the line. How does anyone place an "order" that cannot be delivered - where the supplier is saying he cannot deliver? How dumb is it to demand that?

[JayS]

Let the LCA have 200 confirm orders first before anyone speaks of timeline of production. As no sub assembly supplier will build capabilities without having a market for product.

Help me understand this:

- HAL will increase production of LCA Mk1 to 16/year when it starts delivering FOC versions.
- HAL chairman says he can go up to 16 per year and no more unless private sector participates. I didn't hear him say give me more orders and I'll increase rate of production. Please correct me on this one if I'm wrong here.

- So, where does this constant whine about more a/c order is coming from?

Has someone done some sort of analysis which says for X numbers ordered, Y production rate/ annum. And if it is 2X, production rate is 1.5 Y.

HAL chairman said that if they can outsource entire manufacturing which is 80% of the work while doing only integration, assembly, testing which is 20% of work they can go upto 25/yr. I have posted that news long time ago on this thread.

HAL's problem is lack of Tier1 suppliers, THey need atleast 4 of them - wing, front, mid, rear fuselage. Tenders are issued already. They have got 2 so far. But its no brainer that with more orders and GOI push with easy terms for production facility set up will make a better business case for others to come forward. We are talking of 500-1000Cr investment for each of those Tier1 suppliers. It doesn't make business sense to put up a facility for only about 5yrs of production run. (with 25/yr rate 120 orders would take 5-6yrs. Actually its only 100 orders since the boat for first 20 is already sailed).

Theoretically speaking HAL could make 25/yr even for 100 nos. Only thing is GOI should be ready to absorb the increased cost for HAL and for suppliers i.e. significant increase in the cost per unit for LCA. Other thing is GOI could commit more orders for MK2 after this production run is over (which should not be a big deal as we are talking of post 2025 here. Enough time for Mk2 to come out) or commitment of work from other programs for suppliers. I do not see both things happening. So far even the proposal for 2nd line to boost production to 16/yr is not approved. When will it approve and when will HAL be able to start working on this, is everyone's guess. FOC is expected next year and production for FOC batch should be starting next year (long lead items would be ordered right away). So there is some time. Lets see what happens.

[shiv]

Even if unit cost of the Tejas at 25/yr is not significantly lower than when produced at 16/yr, it still shouldn't be a barrier to expansion. We need the aircraft.

To me this sounds like a lady at the movie ticket counter saying "Please adjust and give me a ticket" after she has been told that all seats for the movie are sold out. She needs the ticket. She will pay more. But there are no tickets.

HAL has clearly admitted its inability to go beyond 16 a year and that too a few years from now. But we have the entire forum calling for HAL to "adjust" and produce more

I am just waiting for the penny to drop and someone to ask "Why can't HAL expand?" But no one has asked yet. Everyone says "Pay more . Order more. Ask for more. More should be possible" Well that's not what the MD of HAL is saying..

[shiv]

But its no brainer that with more orders and GOI push with easy terms for production facility set up will make a better business case for others to come forward. We are talking of 500-1000Cr investment for each of those Tier1 suppliers. It doesn't make business sense to put up a facility for only about 5yrs of production run. (with 25/yr rate 120 orders would take 5-6yrs. Actually its only 100 orders since the boat for first 20 is already sailed)..

Maybe I have no brains. No wait if its a no brainer I still don't understand.

Who gets paid? Where does the extra money go? Are you saying that HAL should be paid that extra money? But they are saying that they simply do not have all the suppliers they need and can only get enough to reach 16/year. So where does the money go?

Are you suggesting that our money should be poured into HAL, and HAL asked dig up reluctant suppliers to do more work for more money while we wait and hope that HAL with more money, will somehow do magic? To me this does not sound like a good business plan at all.

[chola]

If we import, Indian design and manufacture will have a setback.

Thank you, Captain OBVIOUS, for pointing the OBVIOUS out. I said repeatedly I wish that we simply concentrate the treasure and time on this RFI on the LCA.

Besides you took the F-35 quote of its original context. And even out of context, yes what rational desi wouldn't want to see the F-35 in Indian colors?

The contradiction sounds like a man who buys his wife expensive jewellery while he bangs his neighbour's wife.

I rather like this imagery.

If we want Indian manufactured stuff, we must stop import.

Thank you, Captain OBVIOUS. Again.

[JayS]

Coming from Shiv Aroor, i would take it with pinch of salt. He was in US recently. No price for guessing why.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... india.html

A significant jump in life after a service life extension of the F-16 Block 70 platform. Total Indian autonomy on who can buy made-in-India F-16s or be part of the resulting supply chain that will be governed entirely by India. A choice of avionics and kit currently under test on the F-35 family of fifth generation fighters. These are the three broad pitch points Lockheed-Martin puts forth as it looks to win India’s next big fighter contest — the Make In India Fighter (MIIF, unofficially). Lockheed-Martin, which had one of the most visible campaigns for India’s erstwhile M-MRCA contest, has clearly re-energised itself for what is, by all accounts, a much more significant piece of Indian pie this time, a contest reported first here on Livefist. As the world’s largest defence firm primes itself for a face-off against what could be a much smaller line-up than the six-horse M-MRCA, Livefist puts some questions to Abhay Paranjape, National Executive for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Business Development in India:

1. Outline the major contours of L-M’s Make in India (MII) F-16 Block 70 offer.
Lockheed Martin is offering India the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft. Exclusive F-16 production in India would make India home to the world’s only F-16 production facility, a leading exporter of advanced fighter aircraft, and offer Indian industry the opportunity to become an integral part of the world’s largest fighter aircraft supply chain.

2. How does the current programme differ qualitatively from the M-MRCA programme, which also envisaged a major MII component?
Leveraging technologies from our 5th Generation fleet of aircraft, the F-16 Block 70 aircraft is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. These advances include the APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, a new high resolution center pedestal display, a new mission computer significantly enhancing processing and storage capacity, and a new 1 gigabit Ethernet databus. Further leveraging recent structural life extension efforts performed for the U.S. Air Force, the F-16 Block 70 will deliver a 50 percent or more increase in additional service life to 12,000 hours or beyond – a significant increase over competing aircraft. From an industrial program perspective, Lockheed Martin’s offer to move all future F-16 production to India is unprecedented, as it would place Indian industry at the center of the world’s most extensive fighter aircraft supply base. None of our competitors can offer that.

3. How does L-M address concerns that the F-16, albeit upgraded, is a legacy fighter at the end of its active life?
The F-16 is the most combat proven aircraft in history and the F-16 Block 70 is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. The updated avionics suite leverages technologies developed as a part of Lockheed Martin’s efforts on our fleet of 5th Generation fighter aircraft. Major elements of these advanced avionics are included in major upgrades for multiple F-16 customers around the world and already slated for integration on more than 300 aircraft that will be flown for decades. These elements will also form the basis for upgrades and aircraft life extension for U.S. Air Force F-16 aircraft as they seek to operate their fleet for 30-plus years into the future. Global demand for new production F-16 aircraft also remains strong in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and South America

4. If the Indian government presses a single-engine stipulation, the F-16 could square off against the Gripen NG. What’s your pitch on how the F-16 Block 70 over the Gripen NG?
Lockheed Martin is the recognized leader in the design, development and manufacture of the world’s most technologically advanced fighter aircraft. The F-16 Block 70 aircraft leverages avionics technologies from our 5th Generation fighter aircraft to deliver an aircraft with unrivaled speed, agility, range, and payload. We offer proven, unmatched experience developing international fighter production capacity having previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our offer to establish exclusive F-16 production in India to meet worldwide demand for new F-16 aircraft is without precedent and the opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies necessary parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft is unmatched.

5. Pakistan operates F-16s and looks to operate more. Would the future of Pakistan’s fleet be in Indian hands in the event of a successful MII F-16 programme?
As has always been the case, future F-16 production decisions would be subject to government-to-government discussions.

6. Sweden’s Saab has sweetened its Gripen pitch to India by offering Gallium-Nitride (GaN) radar technology as a spin-off. How does Lockheed-Martin propose to beef up its offering?
Lockheed Martin’s F-16 offer to India—the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft—is without precedent. In addition to proposing the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered to the Indian Air Force, exclusive F-16 production in India extends this Make in India opportunity beyond mere “assemble in India” or “manufacture in India,” to a long-term industrial opportunity for India. Our experience developing fighter production capacity around the world is unmatched. Lockheed Martin has previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our F-16 offer also includes the unmatched opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft. The long-term effect of establishing the sole F-16 production line in India will be to position Indian industry as a major contributor in the production of components and sub-components necessary to support the growing worldwide F-16 fleet.

[Manish_Sharma]

Breaking the myth of MII, I am crossposting from Tejas thread :

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7263&p=2066345&sid= ... 7#p2066270

Vina thanks for pointing to my ignorance, pray enlighten all of us where they are being used? It would be great if you could tell us which car / 2 wheeler is using an original Indian designed IC Engine.

Hmm . Too lazy to even Google huh ? Well off hand, with just what is in the market TODAY.

TVS - All scoter models. All bike models except probably the Apache 175 which I think carries forward the block from the Suzuki Fiero.. Together a couple of million sales , including exports.

Bajaj - All models, including the KTM Duke (which is a Bajaj product branded as KTM.. infact I think Bajaj bought a majority stake in KTM)

Hero Motors - All scooter models . Some new bike models. This was a company that until recently was 100% Honda license manufacturer.

Tata - All truck and bus models except the variants where the Cummins engine is offered as an option. Passenger cars.. All engines except the Fiat sourced Multijet Diesel that is offered in many diesel car models as an option. SUV engines are all Tata

AL - All truck and bus engines, especially the common rail diesel powered BS III and BSIV complaint Neptune engines.. An in house clean sheet design engine. All AL marine engines BS III and BSIV std. Don't know how much of the earlier Hino engines are still in use. I would guess none with the BSIII and BSIV standards now in force.

Shiv sir, Revotron came in only in 2014 with consultancy from AVL, Bosch, Honeywell et al....so some design was done but crucial hand holding was done by the leaders of the industry. The crucial area of knowledge around combustion, fuel injection et al is still not with the Tata. However we have made some progress but not there ye

Hmm. By that standard let us examine the following.

1. Toyota , Honda, Nissan, Mitsu, Subaru, Mazda & Suzuki. NONE design and make engines (either passenger or commercial). The fuel injection the Japanese use is Denso. The turbo chargers are Garrett / Honeywell /Bosch. They probably use Ricardo and AVL for independent validation and verification aka. consultancy. Some gearboxes like the 6 speed.dual clutch in Honda cars is from a 3rd party.

2. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche & VW : NONE design and make engines (either passenger or commercial). The fuel injection the Germans use is Bosch / Siemens VDO (now rolled into bosch) . The turbo chargers are Garrett / Honeywell /Bosch. They probably use Ricardo and AVL for independent validation and verification aka. consultancy. The gearboxes they use are ZF, especially the 8 speed autos and stuff.

3. Ford, GM : Use Delphi /Visteon fuel injectors and Honeywell/Garrett turbo chargers.

4. Italians (Fiat Group) uses Magento Marelli.

So by your reckoning, NONE of the auto guys actually design and develop an engine themselves!

Shiv sir, Revotron came in only in 2014 with consultancy from AVL, Bosch, Honeywell et al....so some design was done but crucial hand holding was done by the leaders of the industry. The crucial area of knowledge around combustion, fuel injection et al is still not with the Tata. However we have made some progress but not there yet!

That's not true ... consultancy (aka hand-holding) doesn't mean "import" of pre-designed parts/assemblies etc which is what happens in CKD/SKD screw-drivergiri (a la what people are trying very hard to convince us wrt this F-16 I/J/K/L/M ... whatever crap version "manufacturing-line shifting" bizziness).

During design/prototyping stage some such assemblies can also be directly imported to validate/prove the overall system-level-design soundness and performance parameter validation etc - but when it moves to mass-production level those will be replaced (which obviously will take time - and which is what is happening in currently with LCA production*).


However, I also see, again we fall back to Auto industry example - which is imperfect!!

For example, in my (now non-existent for decades now) early 90s Maruti 800 there used to be a part called "shelf" (used for starting the car).
When that car was designed/prototyped/and even during the early production runs (and as per the old local "ustaad" who used to maint/service/repair the car, it continued to be an imported item in some later production series as well - and I's unlucky to be one of them), it was imported from Japan.

Problem was, that whole "shelf" needed to be replaced, for what seemed to be minor "starting-during-winter" issue - as the ustaad didn't have a clue the internal "layout" etc.
So it was replaced by a local part (another "shelf") made by a local company called Lucas - yes, it did issues later as well, but was always opened up and "repaired", being local-made (and thus not requiring the expensive replacement - costed me Rs1200, ok now pls don't laugh, many of you wouldn't appreciate what Rs1.2K meant in early 90s).

The point is, replace the above-mentioned "shelf" part, with say, Engine-mounted-accessories-gearbox (bad example, as it's locally produced from day one) of Kaveri/LCA, and try and get an engine-manufacturing multi-national org to pass the "low level design" of it, you will straight-away face the tech-denial regime staring at you.
So no, the above "shelf" of LCA will have to be imported from foreign during design/prototyping stage in CKD/SKD mode, but during actual production run it needs to be indigenous produced either from a foreign sourced design or an indigenous design.


Getting F-16 MII mode will, at best, result in 1st type of dependency, mentioned above - while with LCA you actually get to repair/customize/re-design-and-further-optimise-wrt-indian-conditions etc etc

But then again those type of issues comes up atleast 5+ years of operational life - which is greater than the general-election cycle, so who really cares!!!

I do not disagree with you on this point maurya sir, point I am trying to make is that even Tata motors in 2014 has to go to foreign companies to get consultancy on critical parts of an IC engine....that too in 2014! That simply shows the maturity of our industry. i.

Furiously back peddling now aren't we from the "We haven't designed a single IC engine until now" .. Why even the TVS Victor back in the late 80s (a very successful product) was a fully indigenous engine and basically allowed TVS to throw Suzuki out of the TVS-Suzuki partnership and to this day, Suzuki is a poor also ran in the 2 wheeler business after it re-entered by itself.

Contrast that with Maruti, where the partner was the Govt and all they could do was meekly hand over the company to Suzuki and the dominant position (which continues to this day ) to Suzuki. In fact, out of Suzuki's market cap, the overwhelming bulk of the value is from Maruti Suzuki, while the rest of the Global business is a rounding error. But look at the R&D spend of suzuki , of close to $1B per annum. The R&D Spend doesn't happen in India, but in Japan!

Classic case of revenues from India being used to spruce up R&D capability elsewhere. Same with the licensed assembly /screw driver giri happening in HAL etc traditionally. To add insult to injury, we Maruti /Suzuki India pays Royalty (around 3% to 5% of sales) to Suzuki for the "privilege" of allowing Suzuki Japan to develop models for them ! This is what the Russians do to us with the SU-30 licensed production!

Contrast that with what TVS did and showed the birdie to Suzuki. Consider what Bajaj did to Kawasaki . Consider what Hero did after the Honda tie up ended.

So unless the Baboons and Mantris realise what the stakes are involved in license manufacturing, this will continue. The IAF couldnt give a damn of course. All they want is cash to go shopping.

[Pratyush]

I am just waiting for the penny to drop and someone to ask "Why can't HAL expand?" But no one has asked yet. Everyone says "Pay more . Order more. Ask for more. More should be possible" Well that's not what the MD of HAL is saying..

Why can't HAL expand?

[Viv S]

To me this sounds like a lady at the movie ticket counter saying "Please adjust and give me a ticket" after she has been told that all seats for the movie are sold out. She needs the ticket. She will pay more. But there are no tickets.

HAL has clearly admitted its inability to go beyond 16 a year and that too a few years from now. But we have the entire forum calling for HAL to "adjust" and produce more

HAL has 'admitted' nothing of the sort. HAL is not a movie theatre or an art gallery. Its a manufacturing house. Unless its run out of land or capital or labour there is no earthly reason why production would hit a wall at 16/unit.

I am just waiting for the penny to drop and someone to ask "Why can't HAL expand?" But no one has asked yet. Everyone says "Pay more . Order more. Ask for more. More should be possible" Well that's not what the MD of HAL is saying..

Plenty of people have asked. Plenty of people have answered. Further orders result in fresh capital infusion resulting in expanded infrastructure.

[Manish_Sharma]

The point is not if the F 16 is obsolete or will be obsolete. The point is in the capabilities that it brings to the table.

When compared to the capabilities and lessons that a domestic design and its manufacture brings to the table.

Are you telling me that the LCA will be a better fighter than a Block 70 F 16?

Yes much more better.

But that shouldn't be the point, even if it was little inferior since it is our own should be enough.

The french didn't say "O with fbw americans have better fighter in f-16, so let us cancel M2k and import under 'make if france',"
nope they stayed and developed and produced M2k"

Out of that they were also able to create a masterpiece 'Rafale'. Even now why don't they ride of 10,000 confirmed order of F-35 jets, gets its benefits in number and induct jsf instead of Rafale?

It seems IAF is just interested in getting any "white western" fighter under the farce of "Medium", this flexible "Medium" can be anything from Grippen to F-18

Secondly IAF are ready to believe "Western" companies' brochure planes, paper planes like Grippen 'E' OR Ef2k with mythical AESA radar even without testing .... but not in case of Tejas.

[Viv S]

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... Defence%29

LM executive claimed that USAF will fly F 16s for more than 30 years.

F-16 deliveries to the USAF turned into a trickle by 1996 (with last one delivered in 2005). Going by the LM's projections, 35 years later we'll still be manufacturing the F-16. But its okay since we'll eventually be building the entire airframe in-house.

[JayS]

But its no brainer that with more orders and GOI push with easy terms for production facility set up will make a better business case for others to come forward. We are talking of 500-1000Cr investment for each of those Tier1 suppliers. It doesn't make business sense to put up a facility for only about 5yrs of production run. (with 25/yr rate 120 orders would take 5-6yrs. Actually its only 100 orders since the boat for first 20 is already sailed)..

Maybe I have no brains. No wait if its a no brainer I still don't understand.

Who gets paid? Where does the extra money go? Are you saying that HAL should be paid that extra money? But they are saying that they simply do not have all the suppliers they need and can only get enough to reach 16/year. So where does the money go?

Are you suggesting that our money should be poured into HAL, and HAL asked dig up reluctant suppliers to do more work for more money while we wait and hope that HAL with more money, will somehow do magic? To me this does not sound like a good business plan at all.

The cost associated with any production plus a reasonable profit has to be recovered from the cost of product. There are two ways - low units produced at high margin and high number of units produced with lower margin. Which one will give less price/unit??

If HAL can make one Tejas in 6 months and have 4 jigs they can manufacture 8 Tejas per year. If they have to increase the rate to 16, either they have to increase number of Jigs to 8 or reduce number of months required for production of one LCA to 3 months. For the first option HAL and suppliers both have to invest. For second one, suppliers still have to invest the same but HAL's investment is reduced now. Which option is better overall??

The money goes to whoever end up at loss for higher production rate since the fixed upfront investment has to be amortized on lower number years on lower number of units produced, increasing the price per unit effectively. Whether HAL and/or supplier. The capital expenditure increases monotonically with the capacity for production. how difficult it is to understand that production capacity of 25/yr needs more investment than 16/yr, and that for the same order, the now increased investment has to be amortized over the same number of units, jacking up price per units?? HAL will have to accept same parts at higher price and IAF/GOI in return have to accept LCA at higher price if they want higher production rate foe same number of orders. Would IAF/GOI be ready for LCA costing $60Mil instead of $40Mil. Wouldn't people start crying foul how we could have got Su-30MKI for the same money?? Or how incompetent HAL is??

In a realistic scenario, if I have to set up a manufacturing plant, I will not set it up for only one project and get out of the business. I will look for something which I can grow with in future in long term. So as a small or medium supplier I will only focus on such manufacturing processes/parts which I can make for not just LCA but for LUH/LCA/AMCA etc etc. I will try to find a common ground across various projects to make up my business more lucretive. If I do not have large orders for a project, I will only look to take up those parts for supply which I can easily make leveraging my existing expertise without much upfront investment from my pocket - whatever I can do using existing machine, existing manpower and existing shop floor capacity. In short I will neither look for new capability built-up nor addition of capacity i.e. rate of production.

OTOH If there is assured orders for say a 10-15yrs long production run, I could think of investing into a new capabilities or increasing capacity. Not only I have much larger order/units to amortize my upfront investment on (i.e. I could supply those parts with competitive margins and still recover my investment and as decent profit)., but also I have long enough time to build onto this new capability and find some other project where I can use it and earn more business, even if the original project is closed without repeat orders. Actually this phase is the one which is most attractive for businessmen where the upfront investment is recovered and real payoff of the investment starts coming in. But essential thing for this to happen is the first order making this whole venture viable in starting.

We are expecting some company to come up and set up a plant for say fuselage assembly, manage tier-2/3 level suppliers for that module. Its a good 500+Cr investment. No one has done it in India before. So it will need a capability and capacity build up from scratch. While some companies might think its worth the effort and risk for 120 orders, they can only cater for 8/yr or 16/yr capacity which gives them 8-10yrs of production run, because that needs less number of people, tooling, machines, jig/fixtures, shop-floor space. And they could then hunt for more work elsewhere meanwhile. But if they have to go for 25/yr or 30/yr production rate, not only thy have to invest almost double the money in capital expenditure, they end up with half the time of production run. Thats a double whammy. If the orders are not doubled, the amortization rate is doubled now. And time to find for replacement work is halved. This is far bigger risk than the one with lower production rate. The supplier cannot remain competitive in pricing his parts any more. Prices shoot up. This cost has to be absorbed by the buyer for it to remain viable. We do not have a deep enough MIC where a company can build fighters at 30/yr in 4yrs for order of 120 and then move on to some other program. The next program AMCA is long time in future.

But for Tier2/3 suppliers the picture is still OK as they can still use some of the investment which is basically CNC machines or such sort which can be (relatively) easily deployed in similar other type of production. For Tier1 suppliers who would have assembly of modules its even worse. The assembly jig/fixtures, toolings are totally useless for other programs and have to be remade entirely for new project. Man-power and shop-floor space can be reused only. Same goes for HAL.

Bigger order means larger advanced payment which means more capital available for the entire manufacturing chain.

This is very generalised picture, not specific to Aerospace, but, See, I know how people think in Aerospace business to some degree. I am not shooting in complete darkness here.

We have 5yrs to increase production rate to 25/yr. You have selectively taken up 16/yr statement while ignoring another statement that HAL could manufacture 25/yr if they have all manufacturing outsourced. What GOI has done so far on this front?? I know as a matter of fact that files move faster for Export-related work or MNC related projects. Has GOI offered the same red carpet to private suppliers for LCA production that its offering to F16 production?? Its not just about orders, GOI has to fast-track approvals, land allotment, removing red-tapism etc. Do we see GOI doing it?? There is no practical limit that would stop you from increasing rate from 16/yr to 25/yr in 5yrs time frame given required resources are poured in. And if we cannot do this for LCA with existing supplier base then expecting the same industry would start "full-blown manufacturing" of F16 in 3yrs with break-neck speed while developing entire supply chain from scratch in India is nothing but wet dreams..

To be fair, GOI offered $12B, 200nos worth order proposal for MK2 manufacturing. Whether is was cancelled because no Pvt company came forward or whether because MK2 itself was put into cold storage, I don't know. I assume its the later.

[Marten]

Saying I can make 16/year does not not mean HAL cannot make more than that! Really funny when the orders placed are 40, and we're already talking about HAL being unable to do this/that etc.

Which org in the world will expand output to complete an order in three years?
Not even remotely sensible talking points being brought up here.

MoD is unable to process the approval for Rs 1,250cr for over a year and here we have fine gents getting all frothy talking about the inability of HAL to expand beyond 16/year. At the rate at which funds are being infused, even 4 a year is a huge achievement. A real tribute to the supposedly lazy folks at Tejas division. Please do not conflate your disgust for PSUs with this specific division. It is being run by one of India's finest production managers.

Being critical and analytical is a fine thing, but being dogmatic for the heck of it is well...

[D.Mahesh]

Orders =/= Numbers
Design =/= Numbers
No numbers =/= Offensive capabilities

PLA developed its aerospace capabilities first under a Soviet umbrella - rockets, re-entry vehicles from 60s 70s thru 80s. And then airframes under its Yes-trade/No-threat umbrella from 80s thru now. Its manned space vehicle is a Salyut copy. It makes 2 helos - one is a a straight label tech and the other is complete design.

India has in comparison

-great designs & 4.5 Gen airframe tech
-prototype capability
-almost no industrial base
and most importantly

NO TIME

HAL can't produce even 10 airframes/year. And India right now needs at least 120 4-4.5 Gen airframes. Please understand that building up an industrial base to produce 20-50 airframes/year is not merely a problem of investment.

Don't make a fetish of indigenisation

[JayS]

I am just waiting for the penny to drop and someone to ask "Why can't HAL expand?" But no one has asked yet. Everyone says "Pay more . Order more. Ask for more. More should be possible" Well that's not what the MD of HAL is saying..

Indeed why cant HAL expand?? When proposal for expansion of LCA line is waiting for over a year at MoD. Why forget that HAL is not fully autonomous org and has to depend on MoD for decisions, sometimes very petty decisions worth only a few crores but crucial which take yrs for MoD to pass and they end up delaying far bigger programs. Neither can HAL recruit as many people as they want despite programs like LCA/LUH are overloaded and people are working overtime on daily basis, because some babu has to approve it first.