LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Kartik »

Viv S wrote: Not necessarily. Their looking for ToT for Mfg which is basically 'assembly' + some LRU production (worth 40% of the contract); deep mfg isn't economical for just 48 units. The clause does seem to favour the Israelis though who have less hangups about ToT and are far more dependent on export orders.

Image

Image
I don't think that the US has ever had its AESA radar built, under ToT, by any other nation. This is a big requirement, that requires assembly from raw materials. It has no precedent for the US, AFAIK. With a new GOTUS coming in place, the necessary clearances will not come in time and consequently I seriously doubt that Raytheon will be able to respond in time while stating that it will be able to meet the requirement. They may stall or request more time for clarity and that will go against the rules of the tender that emphasize the urgency of the requirement.

Plus this requirement
The vendor shall not sell the Radar system being developed through this RFQ to any other customers or transfer the IPR of the system to any third party without prior written consent by HAL.
Of course, they could just call the RACR variant they will offer an India specific radar due to its integration with India specific IFF and weapons, something like a RACR-IN. And then go on to offer the regular RACR to other customers without HAL having a say in it, but I doubt that an American firm would like such clauses. OTOH, RACR has no customers so far, since NG will be supplying to Taiwan and South Korea after the USAF selected it for the CAPES program. So Raytheon will look at this as a huge opportunity. Anyway, we'll find out soon enough since the timelines for response are very tight.

NG had the APG-80 specifically built for UAE, on their dime, maybe this is somewhat similar to what happened there, but my
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Rakesh »

but my.....what? Spit it out my good Sir! :)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by brar_w »

Of course, they could just call the RACR variant they will offer an India specific radar due to its integration with India specific IFF and weapons, something like a RACR-IN. And then go on to offer the regular RACR to other customers without HAL having a say in it, but I doubt that an American firm would like such clauses. OTOH, RACR has no customers so far, since NG will be supplying to Taiwan and South Korea after the USAF selected it for the CAPES program.
Some points -

* TOT can mean a whole lot of things. Will it involve TOT for all components, critical components etc etc. I'm sure this point will be clarified. The US OEM's have not had to export such radars for such roles given the aircraft sales since there was only one program that could have made use of an AESA for a non US aircraft (F/A-50) and that program has not yet decided on one iirc. The case for the South Kroean denial was different because South Korea wanted transfer of technology that it could use on its own internal project as opposed to something that supported assembly or sustainment of the radar they were buying.

* No OEM will agree to not sell the hardware w/o prior authorization of HAL without such a clause referring to an Indian specific variant with software and other hardware developed through GOI funding. This is common practice and why Northrop Grumman had the SABR in the first place despite having AN/APG-80 in the field operational. It strips UAE funded components, both hardware and software and replaces that with NG or USAF funded ones. Elta which only has such programs to fall back on since they aren't integrated with an israeli fighter (in sufficient quantity) relies on such projects to sell its radars and they obviously won't lock themselves in with HAL even though for them, this along with possible F-16I ugprade market in the long term represents the best chance to sell a decent amount of hardware.

* Raytheon has a very good product in the RACR particularly since these radars share a lot of hardware and/or software commonality with their highly regarded AN/APG-63(V)4, AN/APG-82, AN/APG-79 and AN/APG-79(V)X families. They are going to be at a disadvantage in some US cases because the US delegates the responsibility of choosing an upgraded sensor to the prime and there was no way Lockheed would have picked Raytheon that has not really worked on the F-16 program and with whom they don't have as extensive a relationship when it comes to sensors. It's about price and Lockheed and Northrop are going to be transacting for something like 100 AESA radars a year fairly soon between the AN/APG-81 SABR and Boeing's SABR-GS procurement which adds economies of scale that benefits multiple Lockheed programs.

Similarly, Boeing chose Raytheon to upgrade the radars on the Eagle, Strike Eagle, and Hornet/Super Hornet families and here Northrop Grumman didn't have a shot. These are markets where each OEM is strong in and a product that they have been supporting for decades. Raytheon is however going to have capacity issues. Having cut back on the AN/APG-79 production they are in the process of moving their foundries to greater GaN component production given their shrinking GaAs portfolio. They'll still be delivering as many as 50 or more GaAs fighter AESA radars a year through next decade but with the TPY-2 moving to GaN they are creating a lot more capacity to serve that end of their business since they need economies of scale in X-Band GaN production given two very important contracts on the horizon.

In the end this will boil down to TOT and the granular details of what is being sought. Product familiarity (integrating weapons) should give ELTA a significant advantage.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Gyan »

I was wondering, should not the ToT for AESA radar for LCA be done either to BEL or atleast to a JV of both BEL & HAL? Presently as I understand the capability to manufacture AESA radars in India is only with BEL in Govt Sector, so should not BEL be involved?
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 856
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by ashishvikas »

As per Tejas - LCA Facebook Admin:

SP3 has joined Flying Daggers Family.

SP4 is expected by mid Jan'17.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Kartik wrote:I don't think that the US has ever had its AESA radar built, under ToT, by any other nation. This is a big requirement, that requires assembly from raw materials.
It says assembly from raw materials, but unless they set up a GaAs foundry that's not going to happen. Its simply not economical for the kind of volumes in play (48 units). And HAL lacks core competencies in electronics mfg in any case.

Even the Israelis source their 'raw materials' for their AESAs from Taiwan, carry out final assembly at Astra in Hyderabad, 'generously' mark-up the local value-addition and register as it with the MoD as offsets (had a long chat with an executive from Astra about it).

In this case, mfg as per tender is based on 'combination of kits' with 'balance' items supplied/mfg by HAL. Which basically means HAL will be building the frame/chassis for the radar and then carrying out final assembly. If it were anything deeper the project would be led by BEL/LRDE, would take time for the OEMs to formulate and be followed by a lengthy evaluation over the course of several months rather the few weeks specified by tender.
It has no precedent for the US, AFAIK. With a new GOTUS coming in place, the necessary clearances will not come in time and consequently I seriously doubt that Raytheon will be able to respond in time while stating that it will be able to meet the requirement. They may stall or request more time for clarity and that will go against the rules of the tender that emphasize the urgency of the requirement.
Assuming Raytheon does make a serious bid for the contract, the administrative/bureaucratic component will be taken care by the outgoing administration. Thereafter, its an issue of getting Congressional approval. Again that could be deferred to after the bid. Its not a major obstacle, not for level of ToT actually involved. Especially in wake of the MDP thing recently signed into law.
Plus this requirement

The vendor shall not sell the Radar system being developed through this RFQ to any other customers or transfer the IPR of the system to any third party without prior written consent by HAL.

Of course, they could just call the RACR variant they will offer an India specific radar due to its integration with India specific IFF and weapons, something like a RACR-IN.
Exactly. Even the Israelis aren't going to stop marketing the 2052 after scoring a win in India. The clause isn't intended to block the OEM from marketing its wares elsewhere.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Gyan »

Raytheon - Will not get permission anytime soon and if they get permission, integration with Derby and Astra will be No No or cost prohibitive

Thales - integration with Derby and Astra will be cost prohibitive

SAAB & Russians will most probably fail on technical evaluation but will help in keeping Israeli Price in Control

Israelis- will be considered rank morons if they loose this.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3118
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JTull »

This RFP came out of the blue when there was no need to, esp, with Israeli input in Jag upgrade and LCA mk-1. I don't think it would have happened without US/Raytheon wink/interest.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

JTull wrote:This RFP came out of the blue when there was no need to, esp, with Israeli input in Jag upgrade and LCA mk-1. I don't think it would have happened without US/Raytheon wink/interest.
And came with a tight deadline that's just about enough to get clearances from the outgoing administration.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Gyan wrote:Raytheon - Will not get permission anytime soon and if they get permission, integration with Derby and Astra will be No No or cost prohibitive

Thales - integration with Derby and Astra will be cost prohibitive

SAAB & Russians will most probably fail on technical evaluation but will help in keeping Israeli Price in Control

Israelis- will be considered rank morons if they loose this.
Raytheon already has permission to export to India (via SH). It might be somewhat more expensive but in pure technical terms they are ahead of the pack. And another $1-2 mil for a $35 mil aircraft isn't a high price to pay for something that critical.

The French meanwhile are very well positioned with the RBE-2AA as an option.

Thales is already integrating the Astra & local IFF as part of the Rafale contract. (The Derby is just a stop-gap solution to the Astra Mk2 which will be the 'standard' BVR weapon for the Tejas Mk1A.) Could also share LRUs & SRUs with the IAF's Rafales while also offering the Meteor as an option.

Neither SAAB nor Zhuk/NIIP have a fighter AESA in service (the ES-05 on the Gripen E is a Selex product), so they're unlikely to be a serious option.

Elta was the obvious winner and could have been awarded a single-vendor contract without issue. There's probably some reason why HAL issued an open tender instead.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Kartik wrote:Regarding the number of T/R modules on the 2052, I've seen info that states that the array size can be tailored to the aircraft, based on multiple factors, like radome diameter, cooling and power available and so on. I've not seen any reports on a low T/R count being a drawback for the 2052. Maybe you have some other link that shows this being an issue?
I was wrong about the T/R count. Just took a look at the 2052 variant for the F-16 (on offer to Colombia at the moment).

Image

A fairly well populated array. ~1100 modules.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by abhik »

"raw material" phase by HAL's standard is only 40% of radar by value i.e. screwdrivergiri.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Kartik »

Viv S wrote:
JTull wrote:This RFP came out of the blue when there was no need to, esp, with Israeli input in Jag upgrade and LCA mk-1. I don't think it would have happened without US/Raytheon wink/interest.
And came with a tight deadline that's just about enough to get clearances from the outgoing administration.
IMO, they won't have time to get the necessary clearances. the new POTUS takes office soon and with the re-shuffling and bringing in of new personnel into the GOTUS, my guess is that Raytheon will will not be able to get it done in time. I guess we'll soon find out what happens in this regard.

Seems like the Elta 2052 is the front-runner looking at the tender requirements and being the incumbent radar supplier to the Tejas Mk1, they know the inner workings of both the system as well as the Tejas platform. Not to mention the existing integration of the entire weapons suite with the Elta 2032 which will make it a lot easier for the Israelis than for any other radar supplier.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Indranil »

It is definitely for Elta to lose.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Cybaru »

Yeah, lets hope the Israeli's offer a good price and give some TOT that we need and close this out soon.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Kartik wrote:IMO, they won't have time to get the necessary clearances. the new POTUS takes office soon and with the re-shuffling and bringing in of new personnel into the GOTUS, my guess is that Raytheon will will not be able to get it done in time. I guess we'll soon find out what happens in this regard.
The tender was released on Dec 14. Submissions are to be made on Feb 14. The govt will change over at the half way point (Jan 20). Ashton Carter could comfortably push the bureaucratic bit through before remitting office, enabling them to participate. Congressional approval can come through at its own pace (its not bound by the executive) after the tender award.
Seems like the Elta 2052 is the front-runner looking at the tender requirements and being the incumbent radar supplier to the Tejas Mk1, they know the inner workings of both the system as well as the Tejas platform. Not to mention the existing integration of the entire weapons suite with the Elta 2032 which will make it a lot easier for the Israelis than for any other radar supplier.
Elta's definitely got the inside line on the contract. No doubt about it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by ramana »

VIvS, Can you get a timeline between Ashton Carter visit to Delhi and the tender being issued?
Reason is there was rumor Carter came with a letter from Trump even though Carter is Democrat nominee.
Maybe some form of defence cooperation thing.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

ramana wrote:VIvS, Can you get a timeline between Ashton Carter visit to Delhi and the tender being issued?
Reason is there was rumor Carter came with a letter from Trump even though Carter is Democrat nominee.
Maybe some form of defence cooperation thing.
Dec 2: US Congress passes MDP act.
Dec 8: Carter makes final visit to India.
Dec 14: HAL issues tender with a 60 day window.
--------------------
Jan 20: Trump to be sworn in.
Feb 14: Bid submission.
Feb 15: Bid opening.


I don't know whether to read much into it though. Fact is, its not a very big deal in terms of value (~$200-300 mil). Not really enough to merit personal attention from the US SecDef. All the same, if Raytheon is selected, it will have a significant symbolic/political effect so who knows...
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by NRao »

Ashton Carter could comfortably push the bureaucratic bit through before remitting office, enabling them to participate.
Don't they have an "India desk" at the Pentagon?

Such projects could be a good test for the process - from both sides.
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Nick_S »

A nice pic from LCA FB page -

Image

https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca/
tushar_m

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by tushar_m »

One is "Made In India" & other is product of "Make in India"
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by rohitvats »

There are actually three fighters in that pic!
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Is that the TopSight-I on the MKI?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

NRao wrote:Don't they have an "India desk" at the Pentagon?
"India Rapid Reaction Cell"
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

rohitvats wrote:There are actually three fighters in that pic!
Damn! hawkeye.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

Viv S wrote:Is that the TopSight-I on the MKI?
No, I think it is the Sura-K:

Image
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by PratikDas »

^^^^ That is an awesome photo. Calm and confident.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by shiv »

rohitvats wrote:There are actually three fighters in that pic!
I am reminded of a quote I saw in a medical paper about how discoveries are made
Serendipity is the act of noticing a single hair behind a leaf on a bush and discovering a furry animal hiding in the bush
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Khalsa »

SP3 Joined Squadron
Mark it as Data Point
and
Tu Chalta Jai
Tu Badta Jai
RKumar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by RKumar »

Khalsa wrote:SP3 Joined Squadron
Mark it as Data Point
and
Tu Chalta Jai
Tu Badta Jai
Eagerly waiting for SP4, it will mark final milestone for LCA MK1 IOC2+. It will be product and line stabilisation :D before we move to LCA MK1 FOC :)
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Khalsa »

Indeed sir. RKumar sir.
Looking fwd to it.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Neshant »

Viv S wrote: They have little interest in integrating the R-77, which has faced extensive reliability issues in IAF
They will have to.

Israel will stop any supplies of Derby/Python to India when it is most needed (i.e. war) if Uncle Sam tells them to.
Ditto for the govt of Ukraine.

Only Russia remains a truly independent supplier - the quality of their wares notwithstanding.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Neshant wrote:They will have to.

Israel will stop any supplies of Derby/Python to India when it is most needed (i.e. war) if Uncle Sam tells them to.
Ditto for the govt of Ukraine.

Only Russia remains a truly independent supplier - the quality of their wares notwithstanding.
That is your opinion of what ought to be, not what is. As things stands, R-77 integration is not planned for any variant of the Tejas.

And whether Russia will support us in war with China, is a very debatable issue.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Neshant »

Yes it is my opinion.

They should at least examine how much work/cost would be required to integrate R-77.

Complete reliance on 1 supplier can be hazardous for the health.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Neshant wrote:Yes it is my opinion.

They should at least examine how much work/cost would be required to integrate R-77.

Complete reliance on 1 supplier can be hazardous for the health.
The IAF has six different BVR weapons in service or on order - R-77, R-27, MICA, Derby, Astra, Meteor. [To which you can add, three different varieties of WVR weapons - R-73, Python 5, ASRAAM (+ R-60).]

Complete reliance on 1 supplier isn't an issue. The real problem is quite the contrary.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Neshant »

I'm talking about A2A weapons cleared for use on Tejas.

France will not allow Meteor to be used on Tejas, only on its Rafael. Not sure if they will let Mica be used on anything other than their Mirage.

If Israel stops its supply at any time of Python & Derby, the only weapons Tejas will have are Astra (assuming it works) for medium to long range AR engagements assuming Russia does not stop the supply of its seeker.

Getting short range IR missiles from suppliers is not a problem. But longer range AR missiles is as only a few countries supply them.

Its not a priority but if the Tejas is deployed in large numbers, the R-77 (or its successor the K-77) should be integrated. The latter will be used on the PAK-FA as its main medium range air-to-air missile.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

^ in a worst case scenario there are stocks of R27 sarh bvr missiles that iaf has massive inventory of that could be brought into play. These were sourced from Ukraine recently
Last edited by Cain Marko on 26 Dec 2016 03:18, edited 1 time in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Viv S »

Neshant wrote:I'm talking about A2A weapons cleared for use on Tejas.

France will not allow Meteor to be used on Tejas, only on its Rafael. Not sure if they will let Mica be used on anything other than their Mirage.
France doesn't own the Meteor line. The MICA is already been pitched as a Barak-1 replacement. They to no reason to block further sales of their own product. That the IAF has passed over the MICA (in favour of the Python 5) is a different matter.
If Israel stops its supply at any time of Python & Derby, the only weapons Tejas will have are Astra (assuming it works) for medium to long range AR engagements assuming Russia does not stop the supply of its seeker.

Getting short range IR missiles from suppliers is not a problem. But longer range AR missiles is as only a few countries supply them.
Stocks of all weaponry are built up in peacetime. There's not much scope for ordering in wartime (the build cycle is too long) unless the vendor country cannabalizes its own war reserves.

There are number of countries producing BVR AtA missiles - US, Russia, UK/Germany, France, Israel, Japan, Ukraine, South Africa. And India.

However, the Tejas' primary BVR weapon is to be the Astra. The Mk1 has already been cleared for production. The Mk2 will come in due time. There is no need for further supplements outside of the Derby stocks acquired as a stop-gap.
Its not a priority but if the Tejas is deployed in large numbers, the R-77 (or its successor the K-77) should be integrated. The latter will be used on the PAK-FA as its main medium range air-to-air missile.
The R-77 has long been a problematic acquisition for the IAF, resulting in substantial R-27 orders. The IAF may also pass over the the K-77 in favour of the Meteor and Astra for the FGFA project. To be followed by the integration of a domestic SFDR-based missile.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Indranil »

HAL has issued a few RFQs for LCA MK1A/Mk2:
1. SUPPLY OF MAIN WHEEL AND NOSE WHEEL TYRES FOR LCA MK2 AIRFORCE PROGRAMME
2. SUPPLY OF PROGRESSIVE PRESSURE CONTROL VALVE FOR LCA MK2 PROGRAMME

They are planning to begin construction of Mk2 prototypes in 2018-19 and series manufacture from about 2020. I have a feeling that they are also planning to fit some of these parts to the Mk1A. In one tenders the number of "anticipated orders" is set to 83+10(floating). Anyways, the service ceiling of the aircraft is being raised to 18 km from the current 15 km and at least the Mk2 will be 9G capable (stretchable to 10). The MTOW will be 15 Tons. Here's an interesting table.

Image
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 856
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by ashishvikas »

ET Defence ‏@ETDefence 3h
LCA will be operated in large numbers, will see large improvements in capabilities in the Mk 1A version: Air Chief Raha @IAF_MCC

It feel good when IAF Chief say this.
Locked