'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Locked
ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

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

Post by ranjan.rao »

And our Punjaaabi lover American aunty christine fair is in this fray too...seems like Khan has mobilized all their resources
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ategic-win
In July, Lockheed Martin announced that it would manufacture the most advanced version of the F-16 fighter aircraft (the Block 70/72) exclusively in India as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “made in India” program. Lockheed Martin will likely co-produce the plane with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, which has a standing partnership with Lockheed Martin to produce other airframes such as the C-130 cargo plane and the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter. The announcement was quickly derided by defense wonks who see the F-16 as an outdated workhorse that is used by India’s adversary, Pakistan. However, the deal could be truly transformative, turning India into an exporter of a fighter aircraft with a truly global market.

The F-16 has many detractors in India. There are those who argue that the United States cannot be trusted, implying that Washington will block the collaboration at some point in the future when India has grown reliant on the system. After all, this is what happened to Pakistan in 1990. Others allege that the true motivation for the deal is greed: Lockheed Martin simply wants to take advantage of a recent surge in tensions between Pakistan and India to sell different versions of the same system to both. And that presents another problem: some reject the plane on the facile grounds that India would not want to fight Pakistan using the same platform as its adversary would use. This concern reveals ignorance of the different versions of the airframe and the avionics, sensors, and munitions packages involved.

Even more sinister, some in India simply cannot fathom that Washington wants India to be a world-class power because they believe (without evidence) that the United States seeks to retain “Pakistan as a regional balancer against India.” For these doubters, there simply must be a negative explanation for the deal, even if they do not know what it is. Perhaps the arrangement is an effort to dump an aged, unwanted platform onto India and stifle India’s efforts to acquire a fifth-generation aircraft.

More serious critiques stem from the Indian military aviation community’s belief that India needs a two-engine aircraft to provide acceleration and air dominance in anticipation of a “dogfight” with the adversary; the F-16 has a single engine. Beyond ignoring the F-16’s 76:1 air-to-air win:loss ratio, this view focuses excessively on a tactic that is becoming ever-more irrelevant and which India’s Su-30s and Rafales already execute well. India’s multirole aircraft must be reliable, sophisticated, and flexible enough to fly large numbers of strike and patrol sorties in limited warfare and high-threat environments—and the F-16V can do this cheaply enough to shore up India’s collapsing force structure.
The F-16 detractors’ views have varying degrees of validity, but they all miss a larger and more important aspect of this deal: through it, India will become an exporter of a highly lethal fighter platform with a massive extant global market. No other aircraft India was considering offers this enormous opportunity. If India plays its cards correctly, it could have a veto on sales of the plane to countries that undermine India’s interests—such as Pakistan. {yawn} :cry:
Although the technical merits of the F-16 are comparable to those of other aircraft on offer, this scheme is unique in that it will afford India a leadership position in an established long-term supply chain. The market for spare parts and upgrade for the F-16 is larger than for other aircrafts simply because this plane makes up 15 percent of the world's total military aircraft inventory. Because most of the world lags a generation behind the United States and the Indian Air Force, there will certainly be a multibillion-dollar market for F-16 maintenance, repair, and overhaul for decades after the F-35 fully supersedes its predecessor in the West. {Most of the world..including sri lanka right}

India might be able to use its market dominance as a springboard for additional deals with U.S.-supplied client states and to participate in the development of innovative technologies for the next generation of aircraft. India, in that case, would skip from being a so-called price taker for next-generation aircraft to being a price setter.

Successful coproduction, meanwhile, will sow the seeds for a new set of indigenous businesses and labor markets. To be sure, at first, India will require access to external technology, money, and human capital to complete the manufacturing. But both the external investor—Lockheed Martin—and the local recipient (most likely Tata) stand to benefit from the capacity building that will follow. The result could be a vast network of contractors and subcontractors along with research centers and spinoffs that these businesses can create. That could spur technologically savvy expats to return to or invest in their homeland.

The best contemporary example of a technology transfer in aerospace becoming a springboard for economic development is what occured in China. In the 1980s, China’s aviation industry initiated small-scale joint ventures with Western firms and then gradually worked its way up the value chain. By the early 2000s, all the makers of top-tier engines and airframes, including GE, Rolls Royce, Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, had joint ventures in China. Not coincidentally, as China’s defense spending skyrocketed in the early 2000s, its arms imports declined. In that same period, India’s rose. China’s newly acquired expertise in computer-aided manufacturing dramatically accelerated the production of its first fourth-generation aircraft, the JH-7, J-10, and FC-1. The latter (now branded ‘JF-17’) has become the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force.

Distrust of foreign technology suppliers is not a good rationale for rejecting capacity building joint ventures in favor of import purchases. {And no one ever sold his soul to devil}Even Japan—by far the most successful role model for autonomy in airspace engineering—built its capacity for military-industrial production by coproducing more than two dozen weapons systems with the United States.

With the F-16 deal, India can make up for lost time. {FITJEE Crash Course to clear IIT JEE} It need not surreptitiously adapt Western civilian technology to military applications as China has in aerospace and shipbuilding, or follow the Japanese model of incremental gains. In one fell swoop, India would leap virtually overnight into the top tier of military manufacturers worldwide and establish itself as a pivotal player for at least the next two decades.{So kind of uncle sam}

Put another way, this is not an aircraft buy: it is an industrial transformation on a massive scale and a major strategic win for India
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

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

Post by Cosmo_R »

nachiket wrote:....

HAL is a govt. org and will eventually do whatever the govt. orders it to. But what happens if those orders do not materialize? Like the Arjun Mk2? HAL will be left with lot of capacity to build an aircraft no one wants. Further still, how is HAL going to make sure its ancillary suppliers invest their money into enhancing capacity without the orders to back it up? Those are private suppliers who do not accept govt. diktats based on 'letters of intent'. I guess HAL would have to actually give them large orders to make them comply and swallow the loss if the IAF decides it doesn't have the money for more LCA's after buying 200 Gripens or F-16s.
The flip side is the "we are confident that we can build 200 LCAs and deliver them in a timely fashion" letter from HAL. What happens if HAL which has no track record of mass manufacturing from a greenfields project, misses by a mile? What does the IAF/GoI do? Cancel the contract, make HAL pay penalties?

The F-16s or whatever are not going to kill the LCA. Those are gap fillers because the IAF has essentially said we can't do our job with the resources we have.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/03/28 ... -pub-63123

What will kill the LCA and AMCA is the FGFA nonsense. Instead of funding our own science projects, we ware being asked by Vlad to fund theirs. We also would not have had this problem if we'd gone with the 126 follow-on order for M2K-5s.

We really need to restructure MoD. With this lot, you wonder whose side they are on.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5872
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

JayS wrote:LOL..

Well I found specific info on blk52+ structural strength requirement:

9g/3g Strength Capability at BFDGW of 28750 lb. with and without Conformal Fuel Tanks

Also the CFTs were purely designed based on Aerodynamic considerations - minimum changes in Pitching moment between 0-10deg AoA, lateral-directional stability and Handling at High AoA.

If one patches these two things, its easy to figure out that they never considered 9G capability with fully loaded CFTs. 9G capability would only exist below weight 28750lbs and there is no way one can have CFT filled at that weight unless internal tanks are empty proportionally, even if minimla weapons load is assumed.
What it does, is to confirm that below the threshold weight of 28750 lbs, the max load factor is 9G/-3G, irrespective of the CFTs. And minimal impact on aerodynamic performance.

Now, the weights for the F-16 Block 50/52 as per F-16.net are:
Weights: 18,238 pounds empty, 26,463 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 42,300 pounds maximum takeoff
So, for a normal air-to-air mission at 26463 lbs, one could carry an additional 2,050 lbs. of fuel in the CFTs and still be 9G/-3G load factor capable. That's still a lot of extra fuel for no penalty in terms of maneuvering limits.

For air-to-ground missions, the Block 52+ would be restricted to <9G load factors above 28750 lbs weight irrespective of carrying CFTs or not, but range will be lower if you instead carried drop tanks, due to higher drag, and you'd have 2 less hardpoints available to carry additional bombs. And till the fuel in the drop tanks didn't get used up or you didn't drop your bombs/missiles and get the weight to below 28750 lbs, the F-16 FCS wouldn't let you pull 9Gs.

The only benefit with the drop tank is that you can jettison your drop tanks and bring your weight down quickly, but that is for all intents and purposes, the aborting of the mission. This is the one and only benefit I can see with having drop tanks, in every other way the CFT is better. One could theoretically jettison one's bombs as well to bring weight down quickly.

And as per LM,

link to article
"Addition of large conformal tanks to the F-16 without impacting its superb aerodynamics and handling qualities was a major technical achievement. The CFTs are designed for the full F-16 flight envelope -- up to 9 g's, maximum angle of attack and sideslip and maximum roll rate. These points were demonstrated repeatedly during the flight test program."
..

A total of 54 test flights and 135 flight test hours were accomplished. Testing included fuel system functional operation, air refueling, loads, flutter, stability and control, and vibration.

..
"The CFTs have very little adverse effect on the F-16's renowned performance," said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. "You could hardly tell they were there. A set of CFTs carries 50 percent more fuel than the centerline external fuel tank, but has only 12 percent of the drag."

..

A shipset of two CFTs provides about 450 gallons, or approximately 3,050 pounds of additional fuel for the F-16.

CFTs can eliminate the need for wing tanks on most medium-range air-to-surface missions, doubling the F-16's primary weapon capacity. Mounting the CFTs on the upper fuselage surface minimizes their effect on underwing stores, which significantly reduces stores re-certification requirements and associated costs.

The tanks are attached in a manner that keeps them independent of aircraft bending loads, and they do not have to support external stores, allowing the CFTs to be of lightweight construction. The CFTs do not interfere with daily inspections and servicing and can be removed or installed in approximately two hours.

..
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

If at all, the twin engines story, is to keep an Indian deep state entity happy.

Rafael/Ambani, potentially F-16 certainly Tata, F-18 ......
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

Y I Patel wrote:BRF seems to have developed a serious case of information resistance. That is a real pity, because this is a fast developing picture, and there is a lot to be discussed beyond trying to find someone to blame for what is in reality a very exciting moment for India's aerospace industry.

Let's please try to move beyond the thought that this is to (a) kill Tejas or (b) because HAL is not doing well enough. I had a post two pages or so ago which goes into numbers, and I apologise if it did not register in collective consciousness by falling woefully short of the 500 word minimum. So some of the if you find some of the points below redundant or repetitive, please attribute it to a valiant and conscious effort to meet word count requirements.

(1) This buy is not intended in any way to kill Tejas or augment Tejas numbers. There is a genuine need in IAF for combat aircraft with longer ranges and payloads, plus an opportunity to actually enhance the attractiveness of the Tejas product. Think about this: we all agree a Tejas Mk II with 90-98 kN GE414IN will be hot stuff. So have you considered the possibility of what a Tejas MkII with a 110 kN GE414EPE of the same weight class will be like?

(2) This buy is not about CFTs or some such technical minutiae. It is pretty certain to be either LM or Boeing, but the actual platform almost does not matter. All this has been made clear by multiple number of people in a multiple number of articles. Note that it is not Grippen because then GE jet engine tech will be off the table, and it is not going to be the French because they screwed the pooch on the Rafale deal. With either LM or Boeing GE will be expected to offer some crown jewels, atleast for Make in India if not for transferring any know why. It is about the ecology and not just jet engine tech, but IMHO GE414EPE alone is worth all of this, for the possibilities it opens up vis a vis Naval Tejas, Tejas Mk II and AMCA. And I repeat again, this is not something that will be given out of goodness of heart. Fork out the money to make it worth the while for an American company, or try to develop something equivalent in 25 years when you want AMCA to acheive FOC.

(3) There may be the occasional instance of friction, but by and large, MoD/IAF/HAL/ADA have proven that they are on the same side. Much as gasbags would like to claim in media, there is quiet long term planning going on which is far sighted as well as pragmatic. It is hard for Indians to credit other Indians with any level of astuteness, but try to remove that filter and this will become plain to see. There is plenty of evidence waiting to be observed and evaluated, once the CT blinkers come off.

So apologies for the rant, and I will say it is not intended at any one single person. Attribute it to a chair marshal made cranky by following too much US politics. This is the one bright development to distract attention from what is otherwise an extremely depressing time, so please have mercy and recognize it as such. Celebrate that India and Indians have created a fantastic opportunity for themselves, and by all means give close scrutiny to every piece of information as it becomes available. But please, oh please, try to do something to reduce all this high pitched noise emanating from this thread!
I have just one simple question. Why does the 414EPE route have to go through F-16 license manufacture?
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5872
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Mihir wrote:And that's a fair point. But HAL seems to be happy enough with the letter of intent to invest in the additional capacity.
Even without any intent whatsoever, and on the contrary, open and vocal hostility against it by its sole customer, HAL went and invested its own money on the HTT-40 program. Its own company funds, somewhere in the range of ~Rs 180 crores. But for the Tejas it can't be investing more in a line because the IAF hasn't placed orders beyond 40 as yet and only expressed an intent to purchase 126? An intent whose confirmation the current ACM has stated in multiple interviews?

Has a single order been placed so far for the HTT-40? There is only the same- a letter of intent. That too thanks to the MoD's and Parrikar's intervention. Orders will be when the variant is tested, finalised and the configuration frozen. But HAL knows that if it didn't go ahead and invest its own funds, the entire order would go to the PC-7 Mk2.

By the way, an expression of intent is also a big deal. If the IAF hadn't even done that, then I'd say that yes, the future of the Tejas was uncertain, but the IAF ACM stating that they'll take upto 126 from HAL as fast as they can deliver them is a huge vote of confidence in the airplane. Somehow, the IAF must get those numbers as fast as possible. The same urgency being shown with the HTT-40 development program must be injected into Tejas production.

In 2015, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) had approved a Letter of Intent (LoI) for 70 HTT-40s.
This will now increase the total orders for up to 120 trainers. While Parrikar has made it clear that there will no further import of BTAs for the IAF, he is encouraging HAL to target export customers for the HTT-40, from the developmental stage itself.

HAL commenced work on the HTT-40 in mid-2013, with internal company funding of Rs 176.93 crore being used to launch detailed design in August 2013. The detailed design tasks were completed in May 2015, following which the maiden flight was accomplished on May 31 this year. Final Operational Clearance (FOC) is expected to take place in 2018. HAL is building three prototypes and two static test specimens to accelerate developmental testing. “We are proceeding at a fast pace on this programme and we are already expanding the aircraft’s flight envelope. The HTT-40s initial performance has been exceeding our expectations,” chairman, HAL, T Suvarna Raju told the media.
link to article
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5872
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

nachiket wrote:
Mihir wrote:And that's a fair point. But HAL seems to be happy enough with the letter of intent to invest in the additional capacity.
A letter of intent is not a commitment. Especially when the IAF is simultaneously looking to buy 200 other aircraft which might be close to the LCA in performance.

HAL is a govt. org and will eventually do whatever the govt. orders it to. But what happens if those orders do not materialize? Like the Arjun Mk2? HAL will be left with lot of capacity to build an aircraft no one wants. Further still, how is HAL going to make sure its ancillary suppliers invest their money into enhancing capacity without the orders to back it up? Those are private suppliers who do not accept govt. diktats based on 'letters of intent'. I guess HAL would have to actually give them large orders to make them comply and swallow the loss if the IAF decides it doesn't have the money for more LCA's after buying 200 Gripens or F-16s.
That will not happen because :

- Even if the F-16/Gripen NG come in, that line will not produce more than 16 fighters per year. And the IAF is projecting that it needs more than 16 new jets per year. Su-30MKI deliveries will complete by 2020 or so, and after that there's 2 squadrons of Rafales and that's it.
- So, the IAF will indeed welcome more Tejas fighters per year so that it can actually hope to do a one on one replacement of its MiG-27, MiG-21s and eventually the oldest Jaguars.
- Those 100 or 200 or whatever new jets will take their own sweet time to arrive. There is no bloody way even a single one will roll out of any assembly line in India before 2021, if the deal is signed in 2018. The more they complicate this thing by bringing in more and more types and more and more proposals and what not, the further the first roll out date in India goes. And that means that the IAF will be looking to quickly convert the LoI for Tejas Mk1As to firm orders and get its hands on them as soon as possible.

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

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

Post by Marten »

Couple of quick points:
1. To expect HAL to invest without an order is equally ridiculous. It is even more bizarre comparing HAL with LM or Boeing when the US would NEVER allow a global player to take a fighter contract over a native product.

2. If the IAF does indeed welcome more Tejas, it would have placed orders rather than statements of interest or intent. The difference is that without firm orders placed, no Govt. firm would proceed with procurement. Even for long lead items for aviation. It is ridiculous that the IAF would have to wait until FOC to place more orders for FOC standard aircraft or indeed, for the Mk 1A or 2 or whatever the follow-on version will be called.

One would expect that the orders would be placed as soon as the SOP is finalized. THis is dependent on requirements, which the IAF is wont to change often and then turn around and say a specific capability was missed or there are 86 missing items. ADA and HAL are also at fault for not being able to practise proper change management. Because as you would already know, without the SOP being baselined today, we would not see a Mk1A/2/Z 36 months from now. And 36 LCAs would indeed have been manufactured by then. We have been over this line of debate many times over, but there appears to be some form of cognitive dissonance that prevents otherwise grounded folks from objectively evaluating this situation.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Indranil wrote:Meanwhile, this is what one of the best looking aircrafts of all times has morphed into.
Image
:rotfl:
IAF will be flying this in 2050s and 60s. How many more kabootar ka ghonsla will be added to it in mid-life upgrade.

And a supporter of this was saying "by 2036 Rafale will be too outdated, instead of manufacturing them IAF should just lease them for 20 years...." :shock:
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Crossposting from "VayuSena Rafale" Thread :
Viv S wrote:So 50% of the contract value was to be reverted in the form of offsets. 20% workshare + 30% ToT.

How productive is this ToT infusion supposed to be? (Keep in the mind, its composition is still being negotiated.)

_________________________________________


An interesting snippet from the proceedings of the French Parliament (Assemblée nationale)


[Laurent Collet-Billon, head of the French defense procurement office, Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA).

Gilbert Le Bris, MP, Socialist Party

Yves Fromion, MP, Republican Party]

Commission de la défense nationale et des forces armées

Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Session 4:30 p.m.
Record No. 8

Ms Patricia Adam Presidency, President

Q) Mr. Gilbert Le Bris: Mr. Delegate General, as an engineer of the armament and Chief DGA for almost nine years, you are the best person to answer my question about the transfer of related technology or services to sales abroad. We have suffered a setback with Poland about Caracal helicopters and the Rafale negotiations were very difficult in India, so I wonder if the industry does not underestimate the innovative capabilities of certain countries when they claim that our technological lead is enough to propose transfers without fear of helping them to compete with us.

Q) Mr. Yves Fromion: Negotiations with India was open on 126 Rafale. The order of 36 aircraft it is definitive or can we hope to increase it?


A) Mr. Laurent Collet-Billon: On technology transfer, Mr. Le Bris, we are extremely careful. In the last contracts Rafale, for example, there is no technology transfer at all. What was planned as part of the 126 Rafale, India, does not take place on the thirty-six; these are industrial offsets but do not involve transfer of clean technologies of the Rafale.

Regarding India, the thirty-six Rafale is a "gondola". When they have tried them, they appreciate them. The implementation ease the airplane is outstanding, the number of people required for the implementation is very small compared to what we have seen on US or Russian aircraft. The radar's performance is extraordinary. This batch of thirty-six aircraft was designed as an immediate response to a real need of the Indian forces. The acquisition of these aircraft allows them to form a nucleus around which the Indians can build a modern aircraft complementary force. They already know us because they have a fleet of Mirage 2000 being upgraded, and that works fine. So I think we'll go pretty far beyond the thirty-six. In this case will arise perhaps again the issue of transfer of an integration chain in India.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Y I Patel wrote: (1) This buy is not intended in any way to kill Tejas or augment Tejas numbers.
Its a superfast moving thread so this brilliant post may have escaped you :
deejay wrote:Disclaimer - I write below with my limited information and understanding.

Why I think that Lockheed and Saab are desperate to sell their 4/4.5 gen Single Engine Fighter line to India?

I am essentially flipping the coin and looking at why would Lockheed and Saab do such a thing. Most of us are looking from the Indian perspective (including me).

The answer IMO, is because this Indian need for 100+ 4/4.g Gen single engine aircraft is the last of its kind. There is no large scale demand for Single Engine fighters anymore - certainly not in 100s in a single order.

The host countries of both OEMs are Western world (First World). They supply to either their forces or allies. Lockheed is already supplying a 5th Gen Single Engine fighter to US and Nato plus other allies. They have no residual 4/4.5 Gen single Engine demand.

Grippen secured the Brazilian order and now there is no future large order. Swedish AF is not placing big future orders. All Nato or European countries are either on twin engines or moving to 5th Gen Single Engine.

The third world orders are split between Western, Russian and Chinese fighters. None of the African countries have an appetite where the order could exceed 50 fighters. The markets have little overlap between Western and the rest, though the Russian and Chinese markets may overlap.

The Gulf market has recently closed a lot of fighter deals which went to the Rafale mostly. East Asian markets like Vietnam may result in some 4th Gen fighter sales but will mostly likely not include western ware. One possible way is for the western ware to be sold in such markets, is as an Indian offer.

The other big operators like South Korea and Japan are moving into either twin engines or 5th Gen technology.

India is the only operator now which is buying large quantity of 4th or 4.5th gen Single Engine fighters. To be precise, this 100+ requirement did not exist as it was covered under MMRCA, where the Rafale was the chosen twin engine fighter for 126 aircraft and 60+ optional purchase. That order was curtailed and a need was created for a similar Gen but Single Engine fighter.

Assuming that the IAF is a 42 Sqn air force, we have a max size Air Force of 700 combat aircraft (42sqn x 16ac per sqn plus war reserves). Projecting in future where all Single Engine Mig 21s have retired and all Mig 27s have retired and the upgraded types are yet to retire (say 2029 is a safe year) the IAF will be with 100 LCAs + 100 foreign 4.5Gen Single Engine + 272 Su 30 + 36 Rafale + 50 M2k + 140 Jaguars + 66 Mig 29s = we already have a 764 aircraft air force or a 46 Sqn IAF (plus war reserve).

Except M2K, all other retirements due in next 15 years (2030 onward time frame) are in twin engine category (or medium weight). This means when IAF replaces these retirements, it will be either with equivalent or better aircraft in all measurements. In fact, the replacements are already known - FGFA and AMCA.

Assuming a fighter's life is 30 Yrs and knowing that 1st Tejas was inducted in 2014, the earliest of new induction Single Engines to retire will be 2044. Hence, once the current production ends say by 2028 (max), the next large scale requirements for producing Single Engine 4/4.5 gen aircraft will not be felt prior to 2044.

This brings me to the some conclusions:

> if the foreign fighter comes into India, this is the end of LCA development. There are no more orders for a 4th Gen or a 4.5 Gen Single Engine fighter for the IAF. Forget IAF there are no large orders anywhere in the globe. Piecemeal replacement of crashes in existing fleet or a Sqn or two purchased elsewhere are the only likely sales. This is the last big order. This is why Lockheed and Saab are ready to sell out their lines to India. They get a pie of the Indian market which should have exclusively belonged to Tejas.
> The future fighter aircraft technology is 5th Gen or beyond. If India has to invite a foreign player to develop an MIC, it makes sense if the technology being purchased is future ready or it is able to support 5th Gen technologies. The MIC expertise created under such foreign assembly line will marry very well for the development of our own AMCA which may enter production around 2030. A 4th Gen equivalent technology related MIC will not give the maximum returns that a once in history kind of deal offers.
> It is apparent through repeated articles in media that Lockheed is not interested in setting up the F35 line here but the F16 line in India. Saab's Grippen is also an equivalent 4/4.5 Gen aircraft.
> Both F 16 and Grippen are priced at 03 times the price of an LCA. Add cost of imported weapon systems and the cost differential will be more than 4X.
> The time gained by going for a foreign aircraft assembly line and not Tejas is between 02-05 yrs for full production run. If indeed we are time critical a sharp management of the project and some additional investments and quick decision making can narrow this time gap to max of 03 yrs for full production as per my estimates.
> All these and the finally the need in showing confidence in Desi home grown products is why we should not buy the foreign fighters but promote Tejas. Instead of sourcing the Assembly line, source Tier 1 suppliers from abroad till Indian suppliers come of age but do not buy foreign. If an Indian private player is not capable of setting up an independent parallel line and HAL is refusing to take on additional responsibilities, get Saab to take on its original offer to set up the Tejas Mk2 production line with conditions and road map on developing Indian Tier1, Tier2 and Tier3 suppliers.

In terms of capability with Tejas MKA or Mk1A, the fighter is a very maneuverable, multi/omni role fighter which will have AESA radar, BVR missiles, SPJ and IFR capabilities. The F16 and Grippen at best would provide little extra range and payload at most but will cost four times more and will always be a foreign product.

JMT.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

Great post YP. Finally I have company. There is a LOT more that I had posted, but this is good enough. BR is getting to be too myopic and narrow minded.
Y I Patel wrote:
BRF seems to have developed a serious case of information resistance. That is a real pity, because this is a fast developing picture, and there is a lot to be discussed beyond trying to find someone to blame for what is in reality a very exciting moment for India's aerospace industry.

Let's please try to move beyond the thought that this is to (a) kill Tejas or (b) because HAL is not doing well enough. I had a post two pages or so ago which goes into numbers, and I apologise if it did not register in collective consciousness by falling woefully short of the 500 word minimum. So some of the if you find some of the points below redundant or repetitive, please attribute it to a valiant and conscious effort to meet word count requirements.

............................................

So apologies for the rant, and I will say it is not intended at any one single person. Attribute it to a chair marshal made cranky by following too much US politics. This is the one bright development to distract attention from what is otherwise an extremely depressing time, so please have mercy and recognize it as such. Celebrate that India and Indians have created a fantastic opportunity for themselves, and by all means give close scrutiny to every piece of information as it becomes available. But please, oh please, try to do something to reduce all this high pitched noise emanating from this thread!
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 882
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Post by Mihir »

Marten, may I respectfully suggest that real cognitive dissonance is when folks harp about the purported ridiculousness of HAL investing in increased production without firm orders, when it has been shown that HAL has done exactly that more than once, and that it is the standard worldwide?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Y I Patel wrote:BRF seems to have developed a serious case of information resistance. That is a real pity, because this is a fast developing picture, and there is a lot to be discussed beyond trying to find someone to blame for what is in reality a very exciting moment for India's aerospace industry.

Let's please try to move beyond the thought that this is to (a) kill Tejas or (b) because HAL is not doing well enough. I had a post two pages or so ago which goes into numbers, and I apologise if it did not register in collective consciousness by falling woefully short of the 500 word minimum. So some of the if you find some of the points below redundant or repetitive, please attribute it to a valiant and conscious effort to meet word count requirements.

(1) This buy is not intended in any way to kill Tejas or augment Tejas numbers. There is a genuine need in IAF for combat aircraft with longer ranges and payloads, plus an opportunity to actually enhance the attractiveness of the Tejas product. Think about this: we all agree a Tejas Mk II with 90-98 kN GE414IN will be hot stuff. So have you considered the possibility of what a Tejas MkII with a 110 kN GE414EPE of the same weight class will be like?

(2) This buy is not about CFTs or some such technical minutiae. It is pretty certain to be either LM or Boeing, but the actual platform almost does not matter. All this has been made clear by multiple number of people in a multiple number of articles. Note that it is not Grippen because then GE jet engine tech will be off the table, and it is not going to be the French because they screwed the pooch on the Rafale deal. With either LM or Boeing GE will be expected to offer some crown jewels, atleast for Make in India if not for transferring any know why. It is about the ecology and not just jet engine tech, but IMHO GE414EPE alone is worth all of this, for the possibilities it opens up vis a vis Naval Tejas, Tejas Mk II and AMCA. And I repeat again, this is not something that will be given out of goodness of heart. Fork out the money to make it worth the while for an American company, or try to develop something equivalent in 25 years when you want AMCA to acheive FOC.

(3) There may be the occasional instance of friction, but by and large, MoD/IAF/HAL/ADA have proven that they are on the same side. Much as gasbags would like to claim in media, there is quiet long term planning going on which is far sighted as well as pragmatic. It is hard for Indians to credit other Indians with any level of astuteness, but try to remove that filter and this will become plain to see. There is plenty of evidence waiting to be observed and evaluated, once the CT blinkers come off.

So apologies for the rant, and I will say it is not intended at any one single person. Attribute it to a chair marshal made cranky by following too much US politics. This is the one bright development to distract attention from what is otherwise an extremely depressing time, so please have mercy and recognize it as such. Celebrate that India and Indians have created a fantastic opportunity for themselves, and by all means give close scrutiny to every piece of information as it becomes available. But please, oh please, try to do something to reduce all this high pitched noise emanating from this thread!
I repeat the whole post because it's a sensible one. But it has one huge blind spot. Only a few misguided people actually read all posts and detect the "high pitched noise". Most people do not read it all and hear no nois and simply add to the noise by saying
"But why can't we simply throw money at HAL and make Tejas Mk II. Raha taking bribes and BJP is Congress. Only I know the truth and I am incorruptible and you can consider me as the 11th avatara of Vishnu . So there"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:Great post YP. Finally I have company. There is a LOT more that I had posted, but this is good enough. BR is getting to be too myopic and narrow minded.
Y I Patel wrote:
Rubbish. Your fault for actually reading all posts. Just select a few random posts made in the last 5 minutes before you log in. Vomit some stuff on the forum and then get off saying "BRF is ahead of curve"
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Post by Manish_Sharma »

NRao wrote:Great post YP. Finally I have company. There is a LOT more that I had posted, but this is good enough. BR is getting to be too myopic and narrow minded.
Most humbly I oppose this, you have just made general ishaaras like "US and Bharat" are joined at hip for next 15-20 years...

You have stated that you do not want F-35 for IAF, but strangely everytime anybody has opposed other posters like VivS who 'want f-35 for IAF' you have fought argued against those poster.

Until Rafale/ef2k were declared winner and f-18/f-16 losers, you were supporting f-18.

Suddenly overnight at the victory of Rafale you started saying Rafale will be too obsolete by 2036 and IAF should only "LEASE" 4th generation Rafale.

And now again you are supporting the manufacturing of f-16 "not the BLOODY LEASE". If Rafale was going to be 4th generation "obsolete" by 2036, what will be this f-16?

BRF is not myopic is not narrow minded.

It is somebody else who brings certain arguments and withdraws those arguments just on the basis of whether the platform is from 'usa' or 'others'.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:Great post YP. Finally I have company. There is a LOT more that I had posted, but this is good enough. BR is getting to be too myopic and narrow minded.
Rubbish. Your fault for actually reading all posts. Just select a few random posts made in the last 5 minutes before you log in. Vomit some stuff on the forum and then get off saying "BRF is ahead of curve"

When most posts are about turning radius, t/w, etc comparisons (vomit), the larger picture is lost. Thus no need to read all posts. Modi, who seems to be behind all these thoughts is hardly interested in the vomit on this thread. He has a much, much larger task at hand. Something totally lost in this thread. Neither the Gripen nor the F-16 are just a single-engine-plane. This plane is meant to move multiple needles, so it is very silly to have so many pages just for a plane.

And , yes, I guess a lot on this thread are on my foe (is that what it is called?) list. So I do not see the posts. And one or two that I cannot place on that list do not get read. Not worth it.

And just BTW, YIP's post was on the previous page and I actually linked it in my post.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote: And , yes, I guess a lot on this thread are on my foe (is that what it is called?) list. So I do not see the posts. And one or two that I cannot place on that list do not get read. Not worth it.

And just BTW, YIP's post was on the previous page and I actually linked it in my post.
Ignore list. Aha that is how you keep a the signal to noise ratio high.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote: And , yes, I guess a lot on this thread are on my foe (is that what it is called?) list. So I do not see the posts. And one or two that I cannot place on that list do not get read. Not worth it.

And just BTW, YIP's post was on the previous page and I actually linked it in my post.
Ignore list. Aha that is how you keep a the signal to noise ratio high.
WHat2do?

Janata bites at the heel. Emoticons. Etc, etc, etc. No discussion. And, what is said is either forgotten or ignored - I think it is because of bias.

I have said this before - I am opposed to a 4th gen foreign fighter, unless it comes in very, very cheap or at decent cost (TBD) with a lot of other REAL stuff. And, I really have not seen anyone mention F414-INS6 uprating to 110 kN (co-dev, co-produce that too) linked to the F-16, until YIP came along. I just do not believe anyone on my ignore list is capable of such a linkage, so .............

I have mentioned other things like supply chain, provided my experience (in a word or two granted) and how much it can help India (heck any other nation - even Japan/UK/etc). And people just ignore such a potent point. To me the ideas of a company like LM and Indian IT is extremely potent. WTF is a "F-16" - as long as the IAF is kept happy, in the real sense and I think Modi is doing exactly that, he is not leaving anyone behind the best he can. But :roll:

I would take a F-16 in a jiffy, IF AND ONLY IF TRULY the other things come along. You are not getting any of that from anyone else - for the simple reason no one has it. To me the "F-16" is pocket change. This is NOT about a single plane deal. IF it were perhaps there are plenty of decent options. BUT can anyone provide the package? I happen to think not. Think about it DTTI was going to the dogs until India asked for the engine and carrier thingies. It still can go to the dogs.

So, again, what2do?

OK, let us join the normal program in progress ............ LCA/LC MKI production, etc, etc, etc.
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by Y I Patel »

Hey guys - look what I found!

http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... ns/438759/

Looks like there's going to be some gatecrashers to the party :mrgreen:

Deja vu all over again?

Looks like the whole MMRCA deal is being rebooted, but after a bunch of groundwork in place to make sure Indians don't get shafted again like last time.
Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by Y I Patel »

I honestly thought that the Rafale deal would not happen, not even at the 36 that were finally bought. In retrospect, that logjam was broken only when Safran stepped in with the offer (circa July of this year) to help productize Kaveri. The devil is in details, but one way of interpreting this is that Safran stepped up to be the product partner for Kaveri, much like HAL is for Tejas. This after probably there was no Indian manufacturer who had the resources or technological know-how to help get it done. One developmental impasse broken, and payoff for that 36 jets to Dassault. They might still come back for more, but I hope they get to go to end of line. It smacked of bad faith the first time around.

Some of this is obviously my interpolation. Be that as it may, that particular piece reveals to me that India is being pragmatic about the trade-offs involved in fielding new indigenous technology. The pieces of the larger puzzle are falling into place, and fairly rapidly - now India will no longer fall into the trap of cost or aircraft capability be the determinant of the successful deal. And a big insurance against getting derailed? Involve an Indian strategic partner in the deal, or no dice. Transfer the tech India wants, or no dice. Do all that, and India will make it worth their while with 200 aircraft. And remember the numbers - none of this is going to come out of Tejas purchases. This is the old MMRCA negotiation resurrected, with a new set of ground rules.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

The idea that I got from Modi's "Make in India" was that it is aimed to be a higher tech version of China's "make in China" that was started maybe 20 years ago.

What China did back then was to offer its population to make things in China using lower paid Chinese labour, the same things that were being made at much higher cost in the West. China grabbed and took away almost anything small and relatively low tech first, and gradually crept up the value ladder.

I believe "Make in India" aims to do that for aerospace (and possibly other high ticket items). The idea is that shareholders of private companies should make their money. They make their money if there are more sales. More sales are possible if cost of product comes down. Cost of product can come down if cost of labour can be reduced. Why not a Beretta asembly line in India - but Beretta may fail in competition with OFB. I digress.

Looking at the numbers of F-35s being bought by various nations - it is clear that even the F-35 operators are going to operate some "legacy aircraft" for decades to come. And among those countries who simply cannot get the F-35 there is a demand for capable and less expensive fighters. But if F-16/Gripen or even F/A 18 must fit the bill - the deal has to be sweet for india. Otherwise there can be no deal. India can only sweeten the deal by promising the purchase of over 100 "legacy 4th gen" fighters from this line. But the freedom to export should be there. This will be a crunch point.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

When we use rhetoric in place of facts, the facts can be hidden.

Yes the US is moving on a large scale into inducting F-35. There is even talk of resurrecting an F-22 line. And a third generation post-B-52 heavy bomber is in the works. When you read all this in the media it is easy to forget that the US itself is going to continue to use F-15s, F-16s and F/A 18s, and B-52s and even A-10s for a long time to come . And this is the US

Look at the Zhuhai pictures and you think that the Chinese will soon only be flying J-20 and drones. But one look at the actual numerical strength of the PLAAF and you see that there are still a lot of 3 gen MiG 21 knockoffs and 4 gen J-10, and a fair number of Su-27 knockoffs.

The world is not going "5th gen" in a big hurry because these changes don't occur in a big hurry. There is still a huge market for 4 gen which needs to be exploited. The Tejas is just entering the IAF - and will require much marketing for export. But there are existing customers for some aircraft and some brand names. Brand name is so important. But we need to strike a good deal for assembly and export.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

Shiv ji,

I am not a fan of comparing one AF to another and especially the USAF, which is totally diff ball of wax.

However, just as a FYI, from a USAF PoV, this from aviation week Dec 2015. Prior to this the article mentions that the USAF will purchase more F-15 and F-16s (a trial balloon it seems in hind sight).
The math behind all these discussions is simple. In recent years, ACC has had a target inventory of 1,900 fighter aircraft. The force needs 60-plus new fighters per year just to stop the average age rising beyond 30 years, where it stands today, but has not bought airplanes at that rate since the end of the Cold War. The current JSF plan, even if it can be funded, does not reach that replacement rate until 2019 and peaks at 80 per year in 2022. Far from doing anything to fill the resulting bucket, the Pentagon dropped 150 F-22s from its plans in 2009 and has not made any other purchases.

That shortfall, combined with more than a decade of combat, means the F-15s and F-16s need more and deeper SLEPs just to keep them flying. Also, the day is not far off when active, electronically scanned array radars and electronic warfare systems based on digital radio-frequency memory are considered essential. The Air Force cut those upgrades from its F-16 force plans in 2014 but now needs resources to get them back.
The two just may make very similar decisions, but for totally diff reasons IMHO.

Also, it would be interesting to see what the USAF would do, with its inventory, if it were to be placed in a situation that the IAF faces. So, if the IAF chooses to send a F-16, would the USAF prefer a F-16 or a F-35. I think you would agree that there is more to this than just the-USAF-is-doing-it-so-we-can-too.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:
Also, it would be interesting to see what the USAF would do, with its inventory, if it were to be placed in a situation that the IAF faces. So, if the IAF chooses to send a F-16, would the USAF prefer a F-16 or a F-35. I think you would agree that there is more to this than just the-USAF-is-doing-it-so-we-can-too.
Yes there is much more to it than the US is doing it provided you define what the US is actually doing rather than what people think the US is doing. Unfortunately every man and his uncle are making comparisons with the US and China, hence those two examples.

The US is NOT, as lay media and aam Abduls are apt to think, replacing every aircraft with gen 5. Even China is not doing that. Whatever their reasons - the argument that India is lagging by inducting 4th gen fighters is an invalid argument. 4th gen fighters have several decades of life yet

The discussion on this thread has concentrated on two diversions from the issue.
  • One diversion is that it will kill LCA and therefore the new acquisition is bad
    The second diversion is that it is a bad idea to induct 4 gen because the US and China are moving on to 5 gen yesterday
The second should be discarded. The first is a valid fear that many have - but it is up to the government to assuage public fears in this regard

There really should be more clarity on the issue but I think at this point in time the Govt itself does not have a clear picture or is not revealing its aims. But public speculation is running wild.
rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

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

Post by rohiths »

The mental framework I use for such is as follows
1. Some weapon is better than no-weapon (current scenario)
2. Good weapon is better than some weapon (Single engine fighter)
3. Good usable weapon is better than Good weapon (Question mark with US weapon makers)
4. Good usable Indian weapons is the best

Although I am a big believer in Indian capabilities we should be happy we atleast got a fighter. The last acquisition was Su 30 in the 1990s. So let great not be an enemy of good or even mediocore in Indian context. We have added two more fighter classes: Rafale & Tejas and will probably get a third one. That is better than having none
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

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

Post by Marten »

Mihir wrote:Marten, may I respectfully suggest that real cognitive dissonance is when folks harp about the purported ridiculousness of HAL investing in increased production without firm orders, when it has been shown that HAL has done exactly that more than once, and that it is the standard worldwide?
I'd be more than happy to agree, but investing 40cr vs. 1250 cr is indeed quite different. Wouldn't expect you to agree, but please do check with anyone working in say BEML or BDL or indeed, HAL to see if even the Chairman of such an organization is authorized to "invest" that amount without having CAG and other tribunals blowing smoke up his posterior. There is no insinuation per se about IAF being step motherly. Let's say HAL is incompetent, and that we do not have suppliers who can raise themselves to the global level (whatever we choose as this gold standard). However, the F-16/Gripen deal is not going to change the situation. How about tax holidays and other incentives to foreign vendors to either tie-up with Indian firms or set up 100% owned firms based in India! Why not try and get GE to set up the supply chain based on current or future orders based on our current need? There is no doubt that the F-16 is a great platform -- the question remains -- how does this assembly build our skills unless we get these cos to actually manufacture in India vs. assembling or diffusing their offset requirements.
PS: For which inducted platform has HAL been able to raise production rates without firm orders?
PPS: Shiv saar, if you wish to point out my post as being noise, please do let me know. Not my intent - shall stop posting on the thread if that is the problem.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

Mihir wrote:Marten, may I respectfully suggest that real cognitive dissonance is when folks harp about the purported ridiculousness of HAL investing in increased production without firm orders, when it has been shown that HAL has done exactly that more than once, and that it is the standard worldwide?
First, IAF is categorical that it will not take more than 40 Tejas Mk1. That is where Parrikar came in and got Tejas Mk1A into the picture. And got IAF to agree to 80 Tejas Mk1A. He is on record in the Parliament that IAF will buy these many aircraft and LOI towards the same has been placed with HAL. Plus, MOD is in the process of sanctioning second production line (as of February 2016).

Now, if RM stating about the confirmed requirement in shape of LOI is not good enough to be considered as confirmed order, what is? In the realm of the way GOI transacts business, LOI should stand for something for RM to make a statement to the effect.

Having said that, I think the anxiety stems from something else - that what if HAL is NOT able to deliver Tejas Mk1A on time? What if it gets delayed? Will that sideline Tejas Mk1A and instead more of other type will come?

Which I don't think is going to happen. Because on the contrary, assured delivery of another aircraft is itself a guarantee against Tejas Mk1A coming under pressure.

The bane of many domestic R&D programs has been that they tried to provide replacement for what were time-pressing requirements. Any delay in these programs leads to pressure for imports. As compared to this, take all the programs which were adding new capability to the Services - Pinaka, Dhruv, Samayukta etc.

Same goes for Tejas Mk1A - delay in FOC of Tejas Mk1A will at most hold-up 4 squadron worth of replacement. The balance replacement requirement will be filled by <Take your pick>.
Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

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

Post by Rishi Verma »

Question for seniors. Can someone find out under RTI why gov wants to import single-engine cheap plane under "make in india" as against investing in LCA? My educated guess is that the LCA is not production ready. And even if it were so, it won't be considered so unless and until home-grown engine and aesa and home grown weapons suite are developed leading to a true amca.

Need of the hour is now, IAF doesn't need a plane to loops in air-shows it needs a plane to make pakis poop in air-wars
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

Y I Patel wrote:BRF seems to have developed a serious case of information resistance. That is a real pity, because this is a fast developing picture, and there is a lot to be discussed beyond trying to find someone to blame for what is in reality a very exciting moment for India's aerospace industry.

Let's please try to move beyond the thought that this is to (a) kill Tejas or (b) because HAL is not doing well enough. I had a post two pages or so ago which goes into numbers, and I apologise if it did not register in collective consciousness by falling woefully short of the 500 word minimum. So some of the if you find some of the points below redundant or repetitive, please attribute it to a valiant and conscious effort to meet word count requirements.

(1) This buy is not intended in any way to kill Tejas or augment Tejas numbers. There is a genuine need in IAF for combat aircraft with longer ranges and payloads, plus an opportunity to actually enhance the attractiveness of the Tejas product. Think about this: we all agree a Tejas Mk II with 90-98 kN GE414IN will be hot stuff. So have you considered the possibility of what a Tejas MkII with a 110 kN GE414EPE of the same weight class will be like?

(2) This buy is not about CFTs or some such technical minutiae. It is pretty certain to be either LM or Boeing, but the actual platform almost does not matter. All this has been made clear by multiple number of people in a multiple number of articles. Note that it is not Grippen because then GE jet engine tech will be off the table, and it is not going to be the French because they screwed the pooch on the Rafale deal. With either LM or Boeing GE will be expected to offer some crown jewels, atleast for Make in India if not for transferring any know why. It is about the ecology and not just jet engine tech, but IMHO GE414EPE alone is worth all of this, for the possibilities it opens up vis a vis Naval Tejas, Tejas Mk II and AMCA. And I repeat again, this is not something that will be given out of goodness of heart. Fork out the money to make it worth the while for an American company, or try to develop something equivalent in 25 years when you want AMCA to acheive FOC.

(3) There may be the occasional instance of friction, but by and large, MoD/IAF/HAL/ADA have proven that they are on the same side. Much as gasbags would like to claim in media, there is quiet long term planning going on which is far sighted as well as pragmatic. It is hard for Indians to credit other Indians with any level of astuteness, but try to remove that filter and this will become plain to see. There is plenty of evidence waiting to be observed and evaluated, once the CT blinkers come off.

So apologies for the rant, and I will say it is not intended at any one single person. Attribute it to a chair marshal made cranky by following too much US politics. This is the one bright development to distract attention from what is otherwise an extremely depressing time, so please have mercy and recognize it as such. Celebrate that India and Indians have created a fantastic opportunity for themselves, and by all means give close scrutiny to every piece of information as it becomes available. But please, oh please, try to do something to reduce all this high pitched noise emanating from this thread!
Please don't beg to be noticed. Post something sensible and people will take notice. That post of yours was not very informative. No, AMCA and FGFA are not expected in early 2040's. And no IAF is not going to replace retiring medium weight aircrafts with LCA. Even the most ardent IAF supporters would accept that. And no, we will not get crown jewels of F414EPE. If you have read everything you would have noticed the main bone of contention from US side it amount of ToT. Its amply clear that they are not willing to give what Indians want. Both sides will have to compromise on this one.

And I am sorry to say this, but this post of yours reek of haughtiness. If you are a member of Cabinet committee and know it all, please tell so. Else stop acting like you are the only wise Sage here who can see through everything and rest all are stupid. Everyone here is as clueless as the other person, the whole point of discussion is to bring out different perspectives. Please enlighten us about those plentiful evidences which are ignored here.

I don't understand. why people are getting restless about this thread?? This thread makes exactly ZERO change in the situation. This discussion is only to satisfy personal egos or to gain perspective. Atleast I am learning new things here. There is no compulsion to come and read all posts here.

And BTW what is with this US politics haan ji?? What has it to do with all this?? Do you think everyone in the world cares so about US politics that they would get cranky by that??

However I agree that some posters need to put some more thoughts before posting their POV.
Last edited by JayS on 05 Nov 2016 15:08, edited 3 times in total.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

Kartik wrote: Even without any intent whatsoever, and on the contrary, open and vocal hostility against it by its sole customer, HAL went and invested its own money on the HTT-40 program. Its own company funds, somewhere in the range of ~Rs 180 crores. But for the Tejas it can't be investing more in a line because the IAF hasn't placed orders beyond 40 as yet and only expressed an intent to purchase 126? An intent whose confirmation the current ACM has stated in multiple interviews?

Has a single order been placed so far for the HTT-40? There is only the same- a letter of intent. That too thanks to the MoD's and Parrikar's intervention. Orders will be when the variant is tested, finalised and the configuration frozen. But HAL knows that if it didn't go ahead and invest its own funds, the entire order would go to the PC-7 Mk2.

By the way, an expression of intent is also a big deal. If the IAF hadn't even done that, then I'd say that yes, the future of the Tejas was uncertain, but the IAF ACM stating that they'll take upto 126 from HAL as fast as they can deliver them is a huge vote of confidence in the airplane. Somehow, the IAF must get those numbers as fast as possible. The same urgency being shown with the HTT-40 development program must be injected into Tejas production.
Bingo. I have been trying to highlight this precise point. Why do you think HAL is investing out of company funds in projects like HTT-40, HTFE/HTSE, even started LCH production without any firm orders, but HAL is not investing money in second line for LCA so far?? By all acounts, HAL is actually hell bent on taking ownership of MK1A. Then why no investment seen on second line for 16/yr or third line for 25/yr??
Last edited by JayS on 05 Nov 2016 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

Mihir wrote:Marten, may I respectfully suggest that real cognitive dissonance is when folks harp about the purported ridiculousness of HAL investing in increased production without firm orders, when it has been shown that HAL has done exactly that more than once, and that it is the standard worldwide?
You haven't really shown where in the world it happens. The example of LM for F35 was not relevant. And for the same reason neither would Rafale or EF2000 count.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Post by ShauryaT »

JayS wrote:
Bingo. I have been trying to highlight this precise point. Why do you think HAL is investing out of company funds in projects like HTT-40, HTFE/HTSE, even started LCH production without any firm orders, but HAL is not investing money in second line for LCA so far?? By all acounts, HAL is actually hell bent on taking ownership of MK1A.
I would go with that view and also something else that seems to be in the works. A realization from HAL that in order to scale they would have to create a supply chain, including of Tier 1 suppliers. If they are able to at least "initiate" such a supply chain with Mk1A and the second production line for Tejas, is to be seen.

The question I have is the following: Can the Indian MIC sustain two such supply chains. One being public-private the other largely in private hands. To what degree are the supply chains overlapping and supplemental to each other. Does it help Tier 2/3 suppliers to have this diversified set of customers. What happens to this supply chain, when one is dealing with a PSU and the other with a private entity. What is the effect on them in terms of price, quality, preferences.

This deal for the government is less about the aircraft. It is about having a platform. A platform that will more or less compel the supply chain comprised of 100's and 1000's of companies to "shift" to a MII model, creating 10's or 1000's jobs in India in high tech manufacturing. IF this occurs, the opportunities and risks to leverage for key strategic goals for an indigenous MIC, derived from a foreign one would be, I guess most akin to what the FSU did with China in 50's & 60's.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

rohitvats wrote:
First, IAF is categorical that it will not take more than 40 Tejas Mk1. That is where Parrikar came in and got Tejas Mk1A into the picture. And got IAF to agree to 80 Tejas Mk1A. He is on record in the Parliament that IAF will buy these many aircraft and LOI towards the same has been placed with HAL. Plus, MOD is in the process of sanctioning second production line (as of February 2016).
True.
rohitvats wrote:Now, if RM stating about the confirmed requirement in shape of LOI is not good enough to be considered as confirmed order, what is? In the realm of the way GOI transacts business, LOI should stand for something for RM to make a statement to the effect.
Agreed. But then why GOI not giving approval for 2nd Line then?? HAL cannot take that decision, HAL Chairman or BoG *do not* have the power to take decision on this one. Whats the point in blaming HAL that they cannot kack up production rate to 25 when they are not getting approval for even 16/yr??

And even if we consider, HAL can invest big monies, what about the suppliers?? How they will get confidence over their investments?? If there are firm orders, money starts flowing through the supply chain. That's the whole point. Orders >> advance payment for HAL >> orders for suppliers >> advanced payments for suppliers. Of coarse this is considering that suppliers are willing to set up shop for 120 orders. HAL theoretically can give forward orders and money to suppliers in anticipation of orders from IAF, but please do not forget that HAL does not have financial autonomy to take that decision. Where it was within its limits, it has invested money against all odds - IJT Sitara and HTT-40 being prime examples and latest small scale serial production for LCH.
rohitvats wrote: Which I don't think is going to happen. Because on the contrary, assured delivery of another aircraft is itself a guarantee against Tejas Mk1A coming under pressure.
Valid point.
rohitvats wrote: The bane of many domestic R&D programs has been that they tried to provide replacement for what were time-pressing requirements. Any delay in these programs leads to pressure for imports. As compared to this, take all the programs which were adding new capability to the Services - Pinaka, Dhruv, Samayukta etc.
Who should be held responsible for this one?? RnD folks work on the mandate given to them. Where are our parallel technology programs for de-risking 5th gen and 6th Gen programs?? Where is big ticket funding for AMCA now so it will be ready in time?? Until we start getting in to that model we will always be like the dog who tries to catch his own tail.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

ShauryaT wrote:
JayS wrote:
Bingo. I have been trying to highlight this precise point. Why do you think HAL is investing out of company funds in projects like HTT-40, HTFE/HTSE, even started LCH production without any firm orders, but HAL is not investing money in second line for LCA so far?? By all acounts, HAL is actually hell bent on taking ownership of MK1A.
I would go with that view and also something else that seems to be in the works. A realization from HAL that in order to scale they would have to create a supply chain, including of Tier 1 suppliers. If they are able to at least "initiate" such a supply chain with Mk1A and the second production line for Tejas, is to be seen.

The question I have is the following: Can the Indian MIC sustain two such supply chains. One being public-private the other largely in private hands. To what degree are the supply chains overlapping and supplemental to each other. Does it help Tier 2/3 suppliers to have this diversified set of customers. What happens to this supply chain, when one is dealing with a PSU and the other with a private entity. What is the effect on them in terms of price, quality, preferences.

This deal for the government is less about the aircraft. It is about having a platform. A platform that will more or less compel the supply chain comprised of 100's and 1000's of companies to "shift" to a MII model, creating 10's or 1000's jobs in India in high tech manufacturing. IF this occurs, the opportunities and risks to leverage for key strategic goals for an indigenous MIC, derived from a foreign one would be, I guess most akin to what the FSU did with China in 50's & 60's.
There many nuisances while taking up this question. Some that I can think of right now are:
1. What is the similarities in the part a supplier would supply for two different programs??
If you are a supplier making generic parts then diversification is boon for you. Say you have a 5 axis CNC milling machine to manufacture blisks which you bought for making blisks for Kaveri. You would actually love to have F414 orders where you can simply use the existing machines/man-powers and make the similar thing for other OEM with minimum fresh investments. Thats how suppliers survive. You specialise in one thing and make that thing for different OEMs so you can spread your investment amortization across various projects rather than being dependant on on OEM or one project. However if you are a supplier who make a specialised parts which are not going to be used elsewhere and switching to other OEM/product means investment from scratch (not 100% may be but to a large extent) then having option to go for two OEMs is not very lucritive one. For example say L&T who is going to assemble wings for LCA, cannot use the tooling for wings of F16. And particularly when two programs are running, the company cannot even re-use same man-power/shop floor. There has to be new facility with new tooling and new man-power running the show for another OEM.

Also there will be parts which are unique to only one of the two - for example LCA uses far more composites than F16. Suppliers for those parts will not have much to gain from two parallel lines.

2. What is the order quantity for given project??
If I have option to choose between one project with fixed assured upfront orders and another with likely orders, which one would I prefer first?? Which project would take preference in my investment plan?? What kind of machinery I would buy first - most suitable for 1st product related part or the later one??

3. Ease of business??
Which project would offer better ease of business and quicker return on my investment?? I can bet my precious 100Rs that the clearances/Approvals for F16 will be much faster from GOI for F16 than for LCA. And pvt companies do not have to go to GOI for any capital expenditure decisions or have to pass through red-tapism while HAL will be plagued with it. Whereas HAL has limited financial autonomy. If foreign currency transaction is involved I think HAL has to get MoD babu's approval no matter how small the amount is. Even if HAL internally becomes as efficient as pvt company (which it will not in short span of time unless GOI cracks whip), it will still have to deal with lethargy from babudom. If a supplier has to choose one between the two for reason 1/2, which one will he likely to choose??

4. Less important from Tier2/3 suppliers POV, but more important for Tier1 suppliers is Transfer of Know-how and know-why:
Is the OEM willing to transfer know-how for a newbie who is ready to invest money and take up job? Atleast few businessmen would be willking to venture into new areas and willing to take risks for smaller order in return of gaining know-how/why. Just like GOI pays for ToT, consider the investment partially as payment for new know-how, so the company can use it to make more things and diversify.

I will add points if I can think of something. But others are welcome to add points too.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Marten wrote: PPS: Shiv saar, if you wish to point out my post as being noise, please do let me know. Not my intent - shall stop posting on the thread if that is the problem.
:rotfl: Marten quit being paranoid. I don't recall any posts of your as being noise - and in any case I think I upset you needlessly by wording something the wrong way a week or so ago. (Can't recall if it was you or someone else- but I apologized) It was unintended - so just let it be. And the fact that I actually read your post rather than passing it by indicates that I place some value on what you say.
nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

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

Post by nirav »

Since HAL is having difficulties with Indian pvt players not willing to step up to be major players in LCA supply chain, GoI can put in a clause for the MII contract.

All pvt supply chain players vying for offsets for the MII project will have to get onboard LCAs supply chain. Disqualified from participating otherwise.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Post by ldev »

Let us credit Modi/Parrikar with making decisions with far more information than us armchair warriors on BRF. Information such as the likely deployment rate and the true capabilities of the J20 by China, information such as the true state of the Russian aircraft industry to develop the FGFA with all the 40 IAF specific modifications needed and the time they will need to make those changes, information such as whether the IAF's true requirements are for a 45+ squadron force which will be commensurate with India's economic heft and linkages in the region 20 years from today and China's projected economic/military size 20 years from today. I see the real possibility that India will need 200 F16s plus 120 LCAs and maybe 200 F18s as well to replace the existing inventory of Mig 21s, Mig 27s and Jaguars. Because if the FGFA does not happen, then the $30 billion that India was going to spend on that will be available. Besides the Make in India is a very real priority for Modi and the FGFA is not very clear in terms of what technology will be transferred.

I have no idea whether Indian PSUs have drastically improved in the last 20 years, but my personal experience from friends who were either suppliers or employees of PSUs was dismal. Admittedly the PSUs in question were not HAL but the overall work ethic, supplier relationship left much to be desired. However much one may desire that HAL be the national champion and produce the LCA, that may just not be possible and Modi/Parrikar are IMO the best judges of that.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

Kartik wrote:
JayS wrote: Well I found specific info on blk52+ structural strength requirement:

9g/3g Strength Capability at BFDGW of 28750 lb. with and without Conformal Fuel Tanks

Also the CFTs were purely designed based on Aerodynamic considerations - minimum changes in Pitching moment between 0-10deg AoA, lateral-directional stability and Handling at High AoA.

If one patches these two things, its easy to figure out that they never considered 9G capability with fully loaded CFTs. 9G capability would only exist below weight 28750lbs and there is no way one can have CFT filled at that weight unless internal tanks are empty proportionally, even if minimla weapons load is assumed.
What it does, is to confirm that below the threshold weight of 28750 lbs, the max load factor is 9G/-3G, irrespective of the CFTs. And minimal impact on aerodynamic performance.

Now, the weights for the F-16 Block 50/52 as per F-16.net are:
Weights: 18,238 pounds empty, 26,463 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 42,300 pounds maximum takeoff
So, for a normal air-to-air mission at 26463 lbs, one could carry an additional 2,050 lbs. of fuel in the CFTs and still be 9G/-3G load factor capable. That's still a lot of extra fuel for no penalty in terms of maneuvering limits.

For air-to-ground missions, the Block 52+ would be restricted to <9G load factors above 28750 lbs weight irrespective of carrying CFTs or not, but range will be lower if you instead carried drop tanks, due to higher drag, and you'd have 2 less hardpoints available to carry additional bombs. And till the fuel in the drop tanks didn't get used up or you didn't drop your bombs/missiles and get the weight to below 28750 lbs, the F-16 FCS wouldn't let you pull 9Gs.

The only benefit with the drop tank is that you can jettison your drop tanks and bring your weight down quickly, but that is for all intents and purposes, the aborting of the mission. This is the one and only benefit I can see with having drop tanks, in every other way the CFT is better. One could theoretically jettison one's bombs as well to bring weight down quickly.

And as per LM,

link to article
"Addition of large conformal tanks to the F-16 without impacting its superb aerodynamics and handling qualities was a major technical achievement. The CFTs are designed for the full F-16 flight envelope -- up to 9 g's, maximum angle of attack and sideslip and maximum roll rate. These points were demonstrated repeatedly during the flight test program."
..
With 26500lbs Normal A2A config which is Empty weight of 18500lbs+7000lbs internal fuel + A2A missiles (1000lbs for 4-6 missiles+pylons). Now add 900lbs of Empty CFT weight to that. Almost 27500 and with any addition of other equipment, there will be no meaningful load of fuel in CFT for even pure A2A configuration for pulling 9G, unless proportionally less fuel in internal tanks is used up.

Also, from the design iterations they did, CFTs were always designed as empty tanks, for full envelop. Not with any fuel in it. Infact for aerodynamics optimization one does not need to consider fuel weight at all. Only external shape suffice. Even the structural changes which are made for blk52+ are minimal on account of CFTs mainly only providing mounting locations. There are no significant strengthening done on the bulkheads which carry those CFT, which again means that the it was never designed for taking full 9G load of CFT tanks filled with fuel. Only for empty Tanks.

The BFDGW in case of F16 has increased from 22500lbs yo 28750lbs to keep up with increasing weight of the aircraft. Even the 1st F16 models had some margin with this 22500lbs value with A2A config, same as 28750lbs has with aircraft in A2A config + empty CFT. The margin does not necessarily means any provision for CFT fuel.

Yes, CFTs do increase Range, endurance. Yes CFT are better than EFT in most respects, I never contested those things. I only said I do not believe F16 can pull 9G with CFT any significant fuel in it. These marketing statements are always "conditions apply" and unless they specify exact loads/flight conditions, they cannot be taken at face value. I think I have given enough data to prove my point. Beyond that I cannot say more.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by JayS »

ranjan.rao wrote:And our Punjaaabi lover American aunty christine fair is in this fray too...seems like Khan has mobilized all their resources
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ategic-win
Considering giving away of F16 assembly line as Strategic win is stupid IMO.
Locked