'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jan 2017 20:58

As the days move on,we are seeing incremental development of aerospace tech like the LCA's canopy,etc. being desi delivered. In the years that it will take to determine which "singleton" suits us best,and we have the inglorious track record of the MMRCA contest to remind us,accelerated LCA production will enhance IAF's qd strength,just as the modest JF-17 is doing for Pak,who plan to acquire around 200+ of these fighters. Remember how the humble Gnat "humbled" Paki Sabres and was even reported to have shot down/severely damaged a Mirage.Therefore,the LCA Mk-1 may pull evem more surprises when engaged in combat with F-16s...

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jan 2017 21:37

UlanBatori wrote:How does that work? One flying ~~Galaxy 7~~ eph-PynThese texting a host of drones?
That pic of an ancient F-4 flying robotic over Florida was quite an eye-opener. The vast aluminum resources parked in the desert suddenly become a vast army of robots.

Imagine the vast resource India has of Gandhi canopied politicians parked everywhere—they suddenly become a vast army of robots. Real shock and awe.

Who says we don't make dumb bombs better than anyone?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 29 Jan 2017 21:39

^yes.
And 200 odd F16s along with 120 odd LCAs in IAF will cause way too much takleef to pakis and even the Chinese.

We simply can't get the LCAs fast enough.The single engine fighter requirement is meant to supplant LCA production and build up numbers quick.

If only we could pump LCAs out at 32/yr !

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jan 2017 22:23

So why is it possible to import, set up and build phoren fighters so much faster than India can set up a new LCA plant and crank those out? I smell a rat, like I did when ppl were telling me that it was a great idea to let ENRON build a power plant in Maharashtra using imported naphtha, instead of building coal-fired plants.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jan 2017 22:48

Paul wrote:^intentions are well and good, but capabilities are what counts. Uncle Sam will control rate of production though the GE404 engine.

+100!

I am hoping Snecma can get the Kaveri up and running as per their offset obligations for the Rafale deal. Snecma has already indicated that would do so. Whether they will follow up on that still remains to be seen.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jan 2017 22:50

UlanBatori wrote:So why is it possible to import, set up and build phoren fighters so much faster than India can set up a new LCA plant and crank those out? I smell a rat, like I did when ppl were telling me that it was a great idea to let ENRON build a power plant in Maharashtra using imported naphtha, instead of building coal-fired plants.

Get ready for the million excuses you will now read. But if you respond with logic, you will get stone cold silence. The import lobby is very strong on BRF.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 29 Jan 2017 22:55

Saar,
I'm anything but an import lobbyist.

Fact is we are having trouble hiking production rate of the LCA. Parrikar at the helm and it still won't go above 16/yr.

Fact also is that IAF does need capital expansion.the squadrons are much needed.

If not F solah then what ?
The Gripen never stood a chance.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jan 2017 23:00

Fact is we are having trouble hiking production rate of the LCA. Parrikar at the helm and it still won't go above 16/yr.
That's my point. How can more F-16s be built ****IN INDIA***** after moving entire system here, which is no joke, per year, than can be built with a new production line for LCAs? What is holding up the production line? India has automobile production lines, so what is the big deal?

Why don't they outsource the LCA production line to Lockheed if Indians are not smart enough to set up a modern production line? Why bring in F-16s for that? Remember what the dissed article in Defence News said about US airplanes? US does not permit software mods. IOW, one also cannot detect if there is code there that, say, prohibits weapon use across the YellowSea. So these India-produced F-16s will be basically limited to being flown by US/US-trained pilots? Stinks. Trojan Horse analogies come to mind.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jan 2017 23:00

Niravji, i am reposting Indranilji's post below. He put it best.

Indranil wrote:And before that

1. The strategic partner policy has to be finalized,
2. The strategic partner chosen,
3. Indian partner chosen,
4. By that time, it is 2018, so election time,
5. New Indian facility will need land. Not just for the assembly line, but an adjoining airstrip.
6. Then, the assembly line has to be set up and new men trained.

Then the 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% rona-dhona. Do the math yourselves.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jan 2017 23:03

I wonder.. Why not a Make in India 0-engine fighter? Match the 39 F-16 bullock carts in Pakistan. Is the problem the supply of engines? Then how are the F-16s going to have engines? IIRC, F-16s have P&W engines, the LCA has GE engines, hain?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 29 Jan 2017 23:13

UB saar, who says production cannot be raised? For the currently ordered numbers, it is true. Which suppliers will invest when orders are limited to 120 over ten years. Make it 240 and then let's see how things swing into action. Obviously the import lobby is strong but Indian defense production suffers from many ailments, but most can be resolved if we commit to doing or paying whatever it takes. The lack of commitment is our first issue.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jan 2017 23:17

UlanBatori wrote:I wonder.. Why not a Make in India 0-engine fighter? Match the 39 F-16 bullock carts in Pakistan. Is the problem the supply of engines? Then how are the F-16s going to have engines? IIRC, F-16s have P&W engines, the LCA has GE engines, hain?

Both GE and P&W supply engines for the F-16's, although they are different and higher rated than the GE F404 or F414s.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 29 Jan 2017 23:23

I doubt if the F16 line will go higher than 16/yr depending on the order size. It will certainly take a while for both LCA and F16 to achieve max output of 16/yr each..

With both at peak capacity we would be adding roughly 2 squadrons every year.

As a layman, I see HAL struggling to achieve a 16/yr output. Asking them to hike it to 32/yr is unachievable. I'm certain MoD would have reviewed it. Had it not been for Sh.Parrikar the LCA was certain to go the Arjun way.So I don't believe for a second that She.Parrikar is blowing away an opportunity to make LCA @ 32/yr to become an import pasand.

There have to be real constraints facing LCA production which made him go for the single engine fighter competition.

The air force does need the squadrons.Since the LCA can't fulfill that role fully, and alternative*has* to be found.

The F-solah in the iteration offered to India ain't no slouch.
Have to accept the tragic circumstances that the LCA production faces which don't allow a quick production hike and move on.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2017 00:01

Nirav ji,

Just answer a simple question why would HAL struggle to manufacture 32 aircraft per year. Forget upping efficiency. Take every stage in the pipeline and replicate it. If orders are doubled, voila! You can double the throughput at same price per aircraft. Time needed to replicate a working pipeline stage working in India. May be 1-2 years. How do you think LM does it in America?

HAL's current problem is that it is truly setting up the pipeline (not assembly line now). That takes 2-3 years. That's the time they require to get to 8-aircraft per year. 16 is in one more year from there. Guess how many years it will need to go to 32 per year.

I will tell you the truth. LCA has not truly won over IAF yet. Hence the need for alternate aircraft. Every thing else is window dressing. An F-16 line with equal desi content as the LCA can't be brought up to speed at the same speed as doubling an existing LCA line. This is a basic fact. Anybody else who tells you something else has something to sell.

If IAF did find a way to fight with LCAs and Su-30s till AMCAs and FGFAs come in, everything would be fine. Sukhoi is the strategic partner with HAL for FGFA. LM could be the strategic partner with ADA and one or two private partners for AMCA. We have to give them 10-15 years. That is nothing in the aero-industry.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Jan 2017 00:09

Marten wrote:UB saar, who says production cannot be raised? For the currently ordered numbers, it is true. Which suppliers will invest when orders are limited to 120 over ten years. Make it 240 and then let's see how things swing into action. Obviously the import lobby is strong but Indian defense production suffers from many ailments, but most can be resolved if we commit to doing or paying whatever it takes. The lack of commitment is our first issue.

On the face of it, your argument about 'More Investment = More numbers/annum' make logical sense. But for reasons not exactly known or shared by RM and HAL, this is something not being done. I've not heard a single peep from HAL chairman that if GOI sanctions another XYZ crores, he can set-up another state-of-the-art production line and ramp-up production to 16+Delta per annum.

As for the argument that it is lack of numbers being committed that is leading to low production rate, well, if the above argument about 'more money equal to higher production rate' holds, that this reason does not hold. Because numbers are not the only criteria. It is the per unit revenue or profit. If more LCA means more revenue, higher per unit cost (for end-user) also means more revenue to vendor for the same number of units.

Look at it this way - a single LCA gives X% revenue(or profit) to a vendor and given (a) agreed price between buyer and vendor (b) no of units ordered, the vendor will invest a certain amount of money into his manufacturing system. Your argument is that more LCA = higher production rate because only then will vendor invest in the infrastructure. More LCA is more revenue (or profit). What is the revenue or profit per order itself is increased?

Has anyone considered that if LCA cost is increased from present USD X million/unit to X+Delta/unit, what impact it will have on the production numbers?

One final point - assume that ingredients A, B, C and D are required for production of LCA (this includes the manpower). Can all factors of production be increased by investing higher amount? Where higher investment is simply the number of LCA ordered. Are there any bottlenecks to fighter a/c production which are not a function of pouring only money in the short to medium term?

And is the sum-total of factors of production in India (read HAL and its vendor base) 16 a/c per annum for a new project like LCA?

Fact is, we don't know the answer to this question.

Your (and others) argument about foreign lobby and all that might well be correct. But what is possible also correct that w/o genuine external help, the production scenario cannot be improved.

Can this external help be used to increase LCA production numbers? And in what timeline?

To the all of the above is the added and much more pressing problem of dwindling IAF strength. So, the problem becomes still more complicated.

The scenario facing Parrikar and Co is as follows and it does not get any more complex:

Ensure the safety of Indian skies by ensuring optimal level of assets for IAF by managing the transition with shortest time-gap possible. At the same time, also work out a plan to put a/c production in India in higher gear and get hitherto denied technology (or with exceptionally long lead time like engines) so that in the long run we can have much higher degree of freedom in fighter a/c manufacturing.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jan 2017 00:10

nirav wrote: As a layman, I see HAL struggling to achieve a 16/yr output. Asking them to hike it to 32/yr is unachievable. I'm certain MoD would have reviewed it. Had it not been for Sh.Parrikar the LCA was certain to go the Arjun way.So I don't believe for a second that She.Parrikar is blowing away an opportunity to make LCA @ 32/yr to become an import pasand.

struggling? Based on what? Loosen the purse for second line which would be cheap for something like LCA and put in more orders, which we would for a foreign player. T-90 got 2000 orders/ Arjun got 124. MKI got 300 orders. Even the Hawk trainer got close to 130-150 orders. Why is the LCA only guaranteed 42+80 orders? We will make the line if the orders are confirmed. Seriously we do this argument every three pages.

HAL is pushing for 16 to 25 orders from next year onwards for the LCA line. We are already adding about 40 new planes a year anyways. That's a huge replacement that is ongoing. From next year or so it will be 20 odd MKI + 12-16 LCA, 12 Rafale. That's two squadrons being number plated. Given the dismal uptime of the older platforms, we can divvy the planes and number plate three squadrons for the same airtime/availability and payload delivery capability for now with increased reliability.

Then there is PAKFA being negotiated, which will take over the MKI line. I also expect the MKI line to continue till something else comes along.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Jan 2017 00:13

I recall a HAL interview in which they'd clearly stated that they are looking for tier1 suppliers for the LCA. For the moment, HAL is flying solo for almost all of the manufacturing which a Lockheed Martin doesn't have to face. I believe this is a major detriment in hiking production + economies of scale necesitating a lower rate of production for a 83 ac order.

I agree with your point of IAF not throwing its full weight behind LCA.while I do understand that coming from the IAF to a certain extent, that has a potential to change once the first few squadrons of the LCA start proving their mettle in IAF service.

With the solah, the air force knows for sure it's getting a proven and a reliable war fighting system.not the worst thing to have in inventory, while the LCA is still earning it's operational stripes.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jan 2017 00:18

rohitvats wrote:
Look at it this way - a single LCA gives X% revenue(or profit) to a vendor and given (a) agreed price between buyer and vendor (b) no of units ordered, the vendor will invest a certain amount of money into his manufacturing system. Your argument is that more LCA = higher production rate because only then will vendor invest in the infrastructure. More LCA is more revenue (or profit). What is the revenue or profit per order itself is increased?

Has anyone considered that if LCA cost is increased from present USD X million/unit to X+Delta/unit, what impact it will have on the production numbers?

This isn't a software unit. Don't we require adding jigs and ordering parts and supplies to keep those jigs fully occupied? There is a huge downstream pipeline that needs to be built each time we increase the order or add in a new jig. If it were only profit for the vendor that was the limiting and not the jigs and increasing profit would assure supply, then dassault and LM would put in a jig of "one" and have just every one work on that and produce gazzalion frames.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2017 00:22

Rohit the answer is whatever is required to double the rate of production of LCA in India will be less than start another pipeline. The same manpower has to be trained. The same materials have to be sourced.

It is a matter of investment. If you make the same investment on LCA as you would do on a new line, the former will yield faster results.

By the way HAL chairman has said he can double the line easily. He can't double the line beyond 8 now because he has only forty mk1s to play with and MK1As is still on paper. He can't go beyond 16 per year of MK1As as he has only 80 of them to deliver.

Let me turn the table. Have you heard the IAF chief saying it will be easier or cheaper to set up a second line of a foreign aircraft here in India. You will always hear that we need an aircraft of the middleweight category and two fighters in contention are F-16s and Gripens.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2017 00:26

Yes Nirav, it will not take time for LM to set up the assembly line if it does not have to go through the pain of bringing up Indian manufacturers. That is what they are saying. That is what I am saying too. But, then if we are going to screwdriver parts together, why move the line? Build the planes off the existing line. We will shore up numbers faster and cheaper. Look no further than the Rafale's induction cost or the Su-30's induction costs. It will always be cheaper and faster to build off an existing pipeline.

On the other hand, if you have to go through the pain of bringing up the ecosystem with the product, LM has to go through the same ground realities as HAL. LM's challenges will be larger. They have to identify willing and able partners. Partners have to acquire land and infrastructure. Train people on building a new part. It is easier for HAL. They don't need to identify partners to build LCA partners. That part is done. The infrastructure. At worst, HAL and the partners have to replicate machinery and man power to double production. Yes, they want to offload some in house work to the private sector. But that is not necessary to double production.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Jan 2017 00:36

I doubt if throwing money can fix production issues instantly or immediately.

When the negotiations with Dassault were going in, Sh.Parrikar said quite a few times that he can easily get a Sukhoi for lesser price.

As Raksha Mantri, I'm sure he's privy to the exact numbers at stake. The amount quoted in the press for HAL to hike production to 16/yr was some 1500-1600 crores.
If 32/yr were as simple as throwing in another 2000 crores, Id think he would have gone down that path.

I'm might get sniped for this but ill say it nevertheless.

The LCA, as much as I love it, has *not* got it's FOC yet.
The IAF and MoD can not base the IAFs re equipment wholly on just the LCA and ignore the medium weight requirement of the IAF completely.Its too much program risk.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2017 00:37

nirav wrote:I doubt if the F16 line will go higher than 16/yr depending on the order size. It will certainly take a while for both LCA and F16 to achieve max output of 16/yr each..

I had posted in the Indo-US relation thread and it was a quote. LM will reach much higher than that. But, as Brar pointed out, it would come at some cost - what exactly I cannot recall.

I think even the LCA in pvt hands will do much better.

All that aside, there is a need to ramp up production. India cannot afford to roll into 2030 still building 4th gen machines and requesting help for other newer techs.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Jan 2017 01:05

Indranil wrote:Rohit the answer is whatever is required to double the rate of production of LCA in India will be less than start another pipeline. The same manpower has to be trained. The same materials have to be sourced. It is a matter of investment. If you make the same investment on LCA as you would do on a new line, the former will yield faster results.

There is one big difference - the external party has the benefit of sourcing the material from existing vendor base in parent company. I don't expect the production line in India to go all indigenous from Day 1. Even if it reaches 50% indigenous in 5 years, that itself would be a great achievement. And again, I won't be surprised if first two squadrons of whatever we finally lump for comes in 'fly-away' condition from the foreign country.

The way HAL works, the timeline issues related to setting up new production line apply to it as well - with the added complication that Tejas Mk1A is not ready yet. Making the first type fly by even mid-2019 is a very challenging task. Everything starts from thereon.

Between HAL and foreign vendor, it will take about 5-years from now for first a/c to roll out. Where foreign vendor has the advantage of supplying you with about two squadron worth of a/c in the interim.

By the way HAL chairman has said he can double the line easily. He can't double the line beyond 8 now because he has only forty mk1s to play with and MK1As is still on paper. He can't go beyond 16 per year of MK1As as he has only 80 of them to deliver.

Source, please.

Let me turn the table. Have you heard the IAF chief saying it will be easier or cheaper to set up a second line of a foreign aircraft here in India. You will always hear that we need an aircraft of the middleweight category and two fighters in contention are F-16s and Gripens.

No need to turn the table. I've no skin in the game - I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here.

As for the IAF requirement for a middle-weight category - well, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. I've been crying hoarse on this forum that the logic of LCA replacing Mig-21/23/27 in IAF service has long ceased to exist.

From the day in early 2000 when IAF asked for 7 squadron worth of Mirage-2000-5 to increase in number of Su-30 a/c, this logic lost its relevance. Here is a bit of magic for you -

Su-30 (10) +M2K (3) +Mig-29 (3) +Jaguar (6) - 22 Squadrons

Mig-21bis+Mig-21 M/MF+Mig-27 (all types) - 11 Squadrons.

Mig-21 Bison - 6 Squadrons.

Now, between the proposed 7 x Mirage-2000-5 squadrons and balance 4 x Su-30 squadrons, the 11 Mig-21/27 series would've also gone. Except for Mig-21 Bison, there would've been NO Mig-21/23/27 type left for Tejas to replace. And exactly 120 Tejas would've been ordered to replace Mig-21 Bison with comfortable lead time.

The time when IAF would've had bulk of its fleet in light-weight category is long gone. Threat scenarios have changed and so has the way in which IAF intends to fight the next war. Just because Tejas is a homegrown product, does not mean that IAF is bound to induct it in numbers which make people on this forum happy.

Tejas coming into service by 2010 would've meant that a genuine Tejas Mk2 could've been entering service by now and there would be no drama for a foreign fighter. Hopefully, we've learned some lessons from Tejas and won't repeat the same mistake in AMCA.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 Jan 2017 01:57

^^^Perhaps HAL can do 32 LCAs a year but what is their track record? Is it like LMs? They've struggled to deliver the basic trainer, the IJT.

They have 'license manufactured' Russian ac but is that what will be useful to them in producing 32 LCAs a year?

Can you penalize them if they don't deliver like you can LM?

And if for whatever reason they fail, what does the IAF do? Order more SU30s? ONce they have a track record with LCAs (they have the orders), they can get first dibs on the AMCA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2017 02:28

Rohit, you asked three main questions:

1. Start a screw drivergiri line of F-16s/Gripens. If in 5 years, we get to 50% Indian content, that's good enough.
a. When does that clock for that 5 years start? Let's look at the C-295W order. Forget the saga of choosing the aircraft and Indian partner. DAC cleared the proposal of Tata manufacturing the C-295Ws at Hyderabad about two years ago. Forget starting to set up the plant, Tata and Airbus havn't agreed on the final who does what yet.
b. Let us say the clock starts now and we order 100-odd aircraft. If you get to 50% desi parts by 5 years (which is a fairy tale come true), you will have 2 more years of production left. You put up an expensive facility, spend money to train a whole lot of men and now you have no aircraft to produce. What do we gain? By the the way, the technology that we gain by producing these aircrafts are at par with Tejas right now.
c. If you absolutely cannot fight without these aircrafts, just import them. It will be much faster faster and at least a 30% cheaper.

2. The days of replacing the light Mig-21s/27s, Jaguars etc. with LCAs are past.
a. If true, then so are are the days of replacing them with F-16 and Gripens, which incidentally are also light aircraft. When you burden a light aircraft with the load of a medium aircraft, it only looks great on a brochure. It flies like a chicken.

3. Where is the evidence that HAL can increase production to 32 per year if an equal amount of money is thrown at it.
I distinctly remember Tyagi saying that if the need arose they can even go to 32 aircraft per year. Can't find the article now, let me dig it out. Anyways, by setting up a second line, they are going from 8 to 16 currently. Sridharan, the G.M. overseeing this was the man who set up the successful Hawk line. In some interviews in 2014-15, he used to say that the goal is 20 aircraft per year. I really can't see what is the difficulty in replicating machine and human resource one more time!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2017 02:39

Cosmo, the IJT is a different story. HAL has lost its aero-design capability. It has to completely build it up from scratch with HTT-40, IJT, etc.

Their new system integration capability on the other hand is quite decent. Look at MKI, Darin III and Mig-27 upgrades. Even HTT-40s and IJTs internals are world-class. Similarly, Mk1A is not about change in the aerodynamics. It is about new systems integration.

I share your negativity on HAL's track record on time keeping or quality control. I also agree the only way out is to break the monopoly. But both money and time is short, so act wisely. A derelict F-16 or Gripen line does not stand up to scrutiny based on ground realities or aircraft capabilities.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2017 03:45

Pros and cons at every bend of the road. To be expected.

However, India has a good grip on design and system integration. Needs to pour funds into "engine" (I do not count the efforts with Snecma or GE via DTTI as vlaid efforts in this respect) and sensors, which includes radar. Then India needs to build a PR/Sales cell, it should take a few years - about 5 in my estimation. Then comes the support systems. ALL these need to be an integrated effort, certainly not as an after thought. Without exports nothing can be sustained.

A few observations:

1) ALL lines are screw driver efforts, including the LCA line. Merely by importing a line will not provide the all round details that are needed to duplicate such a plane ground-up
2) India has to bite A bullet, which one is the question. I would suggest that India ramps up and if the line is idle at any point, that is the A bullet
3) I was under the impression that someone determined that a "second line" was needed. Perhaps no reason was provided to the public (which is OK). BUT, IMHO, it is more urgent to get the numbers up ASAP - like 4 years. IF the LCA can be ramped up to 30 per year, it needs to be, like yesterday. I would not be concerned about what happens when the numbers are reached (#2)
4) I think the LCA is a great plane, but not the right one (want to call it the wrong one, is fine) for the future (I diff between right:wrong vs. good:bad).
5) I am not willing to compare IAF to any oter AF. So, as an example, what Sweden thinks and does with Gripen, does not apply to India - not even close (with due respect). However, if the IAF thinks the Grip is a worthy plane, then so be it
6) I think the future of air wars are WAY beyond turning radius and the like. Great to have a plane with fantastic maneuverability, but, IMVVHO, if it does come to an eye-ball to eye-ball encounter, then something is horrendously wrong with that picture.
7) India better start work on planes that are capable of being stand alone (say 4 ship groups) with ability to survive in dense denied environments. This needs to be achieved in 10 years (more like 2025)
8 ) India needs to dominate IOR + 400 Kms around border ............... by, say 2030. And survive all the way to Alaska to West coast of Africa.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jan 2017 04:18

Please educate me (and I am dead serious):

1. How is the LCA line a screwdrivergiri line?
2. Definitely building a foreign plane is a bullet. It is flying somewhere in outer space. Why bite it?
3. Please order the following options in their ability to shore up numbers fast: a. import F-16s b. double LCA production and c. identify SAAB/LM, identify Indian partner, set up manufacturing line and then manufacture.
4. Teach me if LCA is the wrong plane, how is F-16/Gripen the right one?
5. Judgement call. I will leave it to that.
6. Does the F-22/F-35/PAKFA/J-20 have a gun? If yes, all these world majors have a picture of coming face to face. Do they all have the horrendously wrong picture!
7. Are F-16/Gripen such planes that are "capable of being stand alone (say 4 ship groups) with ability to survive in dense denied environments"? Or do they allow India to get to such planes by 2025 (your deadline)?
8. Which atlas has Alaska and West Africa in IOR+400 kms? In the ordinary atlas found in schools, do F-16s/Gripens allow us to dominate IOR+400 kms? Forget the poor light fighters. Are there any medium aircrafts in the world right now which on their own afford India such a capability?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Jan 2017 08:11

Starting any discussion by branding the opposing view as "import lobby" is not good. More than arguments, it is the branding which is winning the debate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jan 2017 08:35

NRao wrote: 6) I think the future of air wars are WAY beyond turning radius and the like. Great to have a plane with fantastic maneuverability, but, IMVVHO, if it does come to an eye-ball to eye-ball encounter, then something is horrendously wrong with that picture.
7) India better start work on planes that are capable of being stand alone (say 4 ship groups) with ability to survive in dense denied environments. This needs to be achieved in 10 years (more like 2025)

Speaking of the future, the only Air Force that India must face that might serve as an adversary with such capabilities is the PLAAF and even they are some way away from getting to US defined levels. But I just want to point out that with Pakistan on one side, also Nepal, Burma and Srilanka - we can also face a Syria/Iraq type situation where we need anti-insurgency aircraft in a low threat environment.

The US finds that the F-35 may not be the best solution even though it is capable - and they are looking at slow flying anti-insurgency aircraft

The other thing about predictions regarding war is that one can look beyond the air war and see the results of an overall campaign. The US and its allies - with all the advantages in the air simply wiped out all air opposition but have been unable to win most ground wars and are now stuck in a time warp where superduper 5 gen are not useful in the wars they are fighting. As a national entity, US Air forces are not losing men or material, but the ground forces are. How much does and invisible invulnerable undefeatable air force contribute to war winning?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jan 2017 08:41

deejay wrote:Starting any discussion by branding the opposing view as "import lobby" is not good. More than arguments, it is the branding which is winning the debate.

^^
Import lobby? Constantly belittling our own efforts as too little too late and offer to sell some stupid 1960s aircraft is okay?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2017 09:26

Indranil wrote:Yes Nirav, it will not take time for LM to set up the assembly line if it does not have to go through the pain of bringing up Indian manufacturers. That is what they are saying. That is what I am saying too. But, then if we are going to screwdriver parts together, why move the line? Build the planes off the existing line. We will shore up numbers faster and cheaper. Look no further than the Rafale's induction cost or the Su-30's induction costs. It will always be cheaper and faster to build off an existing pipeline.

So that we can get a private industry on par with Hal in screwdriver giri.

So far both sides.... Order more lca vs. Bring in f16s for urgent needs.. make points worth considering. Thing is why can't India opt for a temporary solution via used m2ks and fulcrum. Cheaper by at least one order of magnitude I'll bet, faster induction and commonality with existing fleet. gets the job done well enough until they can get lca line 2 ready. Perhaps Hal can handhold private player for this.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Jan 2017 09:37

Cybaru wrote:
deejay wrote:Starting any discussion by branding the opposing view as "import lobby" is not good. More than arguments, it is the branding which is winning the debate.
^^
Import lobby? Constantly belittling our own efforts as too little too late and offer to sell some stupid 1960s aircraft is okay?

Nothing is OK. Not even calling someone "import lobby" without being sure of his/her credentials. Not here to fight a war on this but we can have discussions on various perspectives based on merits.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jan 2017 09:51

Today we have Mk1A because it's our own design, we can move things around and run them through a regression of sorts to ensure that the movements inside don't change the flight characteristics. Imagine doing that with a foreign design for which we don't have anything other than the TOT document. We have to keep going back to the manufacturer and do the bare minimum so as to not upset anything. Doubt they will run regression for every config we want to change when we feel like it.

We can add new radars, missiles, change processor speeds, add new mission computers, rwrs (even if we fail, we learn), das, new helmets, switch the cockpit around with feedback, etc etc etc.. None of these would end of the category of screwdriver giri for HAL. For Ada, the whole design experience is something.

Most aircraft companies are different than engine companies. With Ada/Hal we got the same setup as either LM or Boeing. We get the engines just like they do. Nothing different. If the contention is we are doing screwdriver giri, then so are they!

The Radars come from Northrop Grumman, the engines from GE/PW and the million other parts come from other vendors. So how come what LM/Boeing do isn't screwdriver giri and when we build an aircraft from scratch it is screwdriver giri?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 30 Jan 2017 09:57

rohitvats wrote:One final point - assume that ingredients A, B, C and D are required for production of LCA (this includes the manpower). Can all factors of production be increased by investing higher amount? Where higher investment is simply the number of LCA ordered. Are there any bottlenecks to fighter a/c production which are not a function of pouring only money in the short to medium term?

And is the sum-total of factors of production in India (read HAL and its vendor base) 16 a/c per annum for a new project like LCA?

Fact is, we don't know the answer to this question.

Your (and others) argument about foreign lobby and all that might well be correct. But what is possible also correct that w/o genuine external help, the production scenario cannot be improved.

Can this external help be used to increase LCA production numbers? And in what timeline?

To the all of the above is the added and much more pressing problem of dwindling IAF strength. So, the problem becomes still more complicated.

The scenario facing Parrikar and Co is as follows and it does not get any more complex:

Ensure the safety of Indian skies by ensuring optimal level of assets for IAF by managing the transition with shortest time-gap possible. At the same time, also work out a plan to put a/c production in India in higher gear and get hitherto denied technology (or with exceptionally long lead time like engines) so that in the long run we can have much higher degree of freedom in fighter a/c manufacturing.

To be honest, Rohit, you are far more well versed about matters of defense. Thank you for the clear outlining of your views.

There are two aspects related to production and vendor support: Most vendors do not operate on massive margins. If you look at the forging industry or hitech screws or bearings, these specialist runs are supposedly at 50-200% margins. If we were to focus on aviation sector alone, imagine the number of small vendors who have to put up capital from their sources and then await the generosity of MoD for the next order (via HAL, of course). Maintaining equipment and retaining trained staff is not an easy task in India. Furthermore, to achieve any semblance of economies of scale, visibility of a larger order helps secure banks loans (LOI will help but not a PR release or a statement from RM or MoD spokie). Someone mentioned 6 axis vs 2 axis CNC lathe - the complexity is multifold, and the cost likewise.

What this larger order or the visibility does is help the vendor actually switch to a more expensive but far more efficient method of production on the basis of the knowledge that the order will cover not just his interest on loans but enable a decent OPM -- such that he can actually focus on aviation vs. looking for jobwork in other fields! Yes, that is how most suppliers to the Indian MIC survive.

The help that we seek in improving our production abilities are not restricted to a specific area (when we talk of any LRU, we are in fact talking of components across multiple sectors and for them to continue supporting indigenous programs requires more than domain training (for potential staff), or technical inputs (when they purchase specific equipment, specialised operator training and environmental needs), or production knowledge (using newer technology vs. handmachining certain items that are otherwise not tenable owing to the cost of jigs/tooling etc).

I do not claim to be a manufacturing expert on the basis on mere visits or interactions with companies across multiple sectors. However, the experts do share their insights and if one may be immodest, knowledge of issues around working with any Govt. entity. Fact be told, folks hesitate to work with this holy triumvirate of HAL+IAF+babudom owing to the uncertainty around payments (orders and payments apparently have no direct relation in this surreal environment). The Indian MD of one of the largest providers of tooling equipment (a SoKo firm at that) promised me both financial and domain support if I were to take up manufacturing despite my obvious lack of knowledge in this field -- and I intend doing that after providing for the financial needs of my children. Meaning, whatever my business does will be for the country -- not for profit, simply because in this environment of "big foreign business can do it better than Indian SME", we need to operate for patriotic reasons and not be motivated unlike other businesses. This, you will note, does not hold true for any other non-Indian company.

As for the ROI, an order of 240 for the LCA will give India much better returns against a new line of even 120 for the Teens. There is no logic or monetary model that can disprove this fact! If we were to issue a tender to manufacture engines in India, do you think PW or GE would not participate? In fact, we need to forget TOT for this specific item, and ask for 70-80% local manufacture via tie-ups with Indian firms. Without that carrot, no company would ever set up any manufacturing units for crucial tech. Give it ten years to mature and everyone would prefer manufacturing in India due to the cost savings and safer manufacturing environment!

All said, I concede RM knows more about the situation and if they choose to not develop the Indian MIC owing to whatever only they know, how can one combat this situation? As I see it, the trickling of orders is doing an Arjun on the Tejas. As simple as that. It is only an opinion and everyone should feel free to ignore it.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Jan 2017 10:11

As a Mango man, my view is that we need things to meet our requirements and challenges. Pakis can be largely managed with LCA in near and even foreseeable future. They have nothing except F16s which can on par with LCA. With Lizard, we need top class ACs and also need large numbers and LCA will offer a low-cost local solution to that. LCA is not some magic AC like F22, but it will do many jobs needed to done for us. Therefore the question is why we are not ordering large numbers of LCA?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Jan 2017 10:47

Cybaru wrote:
deejay wrote:Starting any discussion by branding the opposing view as "import lobby" is not good. More than arguments, it is the branding which is winning the debate.
^^
Import lobby? Constantly belittling our own efforts as too little too late and offer to sell some stupid 1960s aircraft is okay?

Your own efforts mean nothing if they don't translate into a product in the hands of end-user in required numbers and expected timelines. A 60s aircraft in active service will still do a job today versus the latest one in R&D lab or one which takes x-years of delay to reach service.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 30 Jan 2017 12:40

shiv wrote: Speaking of the future, the only Air Force that India must face that might serve as an adversary with such capabilities is the PLAAF and even they are some way away from getting to US defined levels. But I just want to point out that with Pakistan on one side, also Nepal, Burma and Srilanka - we can also face a Syria/Iraq type situation where we need anti-insurgency aircraft in a low threat environment.
The US finds that the F-35 may not be the best solution even though it is capable - and they are looking at slow flying anti-insurgency aircraft

and a jihadifying Bangladesh

+1

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 31 Jan 2017 00:05

Cain Marko wrote:So that we can get a private industry on par with Hal in screwdriver giri.

So far both sides.... Order more lca vs. Bring in f16s for urgent needs.. make points worth considering. Thing is why can't India opt for a temporary solution via used m2ks and fulcrum. Cheaper by at least one order of magnitude I'll bet, faster induction and commonality with existing fleet. gets the job done well enough until they can get the lca line 2 ready. Perhaps Hal can hand hold private player for this.

Being saying this for the longest time. We should get the Dash-5s from Qatar and the Dash-9s from the UAE. Way cheaper than going in for another new type. The UAE is actually selling their Dash-9s and Qatar might be interested to sell them again. The PAF is interested in getting their hands on the UAE Dash-9s.

UAE - 32 new build Mirage 2000-9s + 30 older Mirage 2000s upgraded to the Dash 9 standard.
Qatar - 12 Mirage 2000-5s

The above is 74 aircraft. Let's say only ~ 60 are actually airworthy. The IAF can get 3+ squadrons right there. Huge boost in firepower for the IAF.

UAE, Pakistan and Mirage 2000-9s
http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news ... 00-9s/5264

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Jan 2017 00:14

That would be a very smart thing to do and buys time to prepare the LCA-MK2.