'Make in India' Single engined fighter

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 08:47

Pages and pages written about whether to manufacture the F-16/Grippen in India? And heated debates about whether India is getting an outdated aircraft? And what will that do to the LCA?

Just one question:

If this same offer is made to China, what will China do? I can bet you they will offer to manufacture and buy 500 of whichever aircraft is chosen i.e. F16/Grippen with none of the endless debate and prevarication we seem to possess. Because their primary objective will be to see what they can learn from this aircraft and its manufacturing process. Why cant India do the same?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 08:58

If America/Sweden is willing to open the family jewel chest on AESA radar, engine tech and other tech goodies, any country would sign up.

A question right back at you...we have been assembling MiG-21s, Jaguars & Su-30MKIs and overhauling and/or upgrading MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s, Su-30MKIs, Jaguars for decades...what have we learnt that is meaningful to date? Zilch.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2017 09:03

Indian companies should start buying additive companies.

our NAL autoclave looks like a kids sandcastle in comparison

This will be ancient in no time. They have already started building wings using printing. Wings should be 30-50% lighter. Soon.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 09:09

Rakesh wrote:If America/Sweden is willing to open the family jewel chest on AESA radar, engine tech and other tech goodies, any country would sign up.

A question right back at you...we have been assembling MiG-21s, Jaguars, Su-30MKIs, overhauling/upgrading MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s, Su-30MKIs, Jaguars for decades...what have we learnt that is meaningful to date? Zilch.

Precisely, the problem is in the ability or inability to learn from that "family jewel chest" and apply that learning to our own "improved product". That is what is missing. Now, nobody is going to open up 100% of that jewel chest, but if one is smart and 50% of that chest is opened, then a knowledge rich country should be able to work out, deduce and work towards getting the other 50%?

And should this "deficiency" in the "learning process" by HAL, which is no fault of the armed forces of India impact them in their preparedness to defend India e.g. the shortfall in squadron numbers for the IAF?

Today with the confrontation with China, how much more comfortable would the IAF have been if it had 120 additional fighter aircraft?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jul 2017 09:17

at one point china was using france to try and remove the EU arms embargo. they had apparently put a offer of buying 200 rafales on the table in exchange. but uk and usa put a stop to it.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 09:19

Singha wrote:at one point china was using france to try and remove the EU arms embargo. they had apparently put a offer of buying 200 rafales on the table in exchange. but uk and usa put a stop to it.

Precisely. And if they had been successful, 10 years down the road, they would have a "new and improved" Rafale which they will designate the J-41!!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 09:26

ldev wrote:Precisely, the problem is in the ability or inability to learn from that "family jewel chest" and apply that learning to our own "improved product". That is what is missing. Now, nobody is going to open up 100% of that jewel chest, but if one is smart and 50% of that chest is opened, then a knowledge rich country should be able to work out, deduce and work towards getting the other 50%?

I do not believe it is anything to do with inability. But there are certain technologies that you have to just keep working at, until you master it - or to quote Hakeemji - blood, sweat & tears. I can add investment, persistence & vision to complement the previous three (in that order). We have the persistence and have proven it, but the investment is piss poor because there is no vision. Everything is ad hoc.

That is one part of the equation and it is a key part. Because without that, you CANNOT deduce and work towards getting the other 50%. And that is the other part of the equation. You cannot reach Point Z (what you are referring to), without starting from Point A (what I am referring to).

So I ask the question again...we have been assembling MiG-21s, Jaguars, Su-30MKIs, overhauling/upgrading MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s, Su-30MKIs, Jaguars for decades...what have we learnt that is meaningful to date? Zilch.

Let me answer that in the best SDRE way I know. And correct me if I am wrong.

Obviously HAL, MoD, GoI were all involved in the above - screwdrivergiri of foreign aircraft. In some form or the other, they came across or realized the value of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers. Did none of this figure into their larger picture - managing the successful manufacture of their own home grown fighter? I do not believe it did - the proof is in the pudding - because there is no clear vision.

We have learnt NOTHING of value from assembling fighters for the past numerous decades. We will learn NOTHING of value from assembling F-Solah or Gripen E. Now if the only goal is to increase squadron strength, then by all means, do screwdrivergiri.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 09:34

>>We have learnt NOTHING of value from assembling fighters for the past numerous decades. We will learn NOTHING of value from assembling F-Solah or Gripen E.

And yet the Chinese were willing to assemble 200 Rafale because they believed that they would learn something. So why is that they can learn and we cannot? As the saying goes, "You can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink the water".

The other big issue is mass production. The LCA has been built, but what about mass production? What about producing 10 aircraft a month, why not 20 a month? Real bottlenecks there.

As UB said, maybe car manufacturing techniques can be applied. And among car companies, I think only Tata Motors and Mahindra to some extent have done a complete inhouse design and mass manufacture of cars in India. It is no wonder that they are the preferred partners for LM and Dassault. Sorry, I think Dassault's partner is Moto-bhai. But he has a proven track record of of project management so who knows, he may succeed where HAL has failed....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 09:41

The Chinese are willing to invest (they will starve their people for it), because they have a vision or a goal. The fact of the matter is, India herself does not know what she wants. Their is no unifying goal or purpose, in anything. Everything is chalta hai yaar.

Read Mihir's post on Page 94 of this thread. It is apt. Based on the numbers he has provided, where are we going to find the money to go where we want to go? Rhetorical question.....because what do we really want? What is our goal?

I remember watching an interview from one of my favourite Air Chiefs - ACM Pradeep Vasant Naik. He said (I paraphrase, so forgive me if I do not reproduce the exact quote), "The goal is to meet the country's aspirations. The Air Force must have the capability to meet those aspirations." What are those aspirations ldev? Do you know? I for sure do not. Now ask the Chinese about their vision/goal/purpose. I am sure they know.

Case in point - we talk about being prepared to fight a two front war. I have been hearing that pre-BR days. BR started in 1997. Twenty years later, how close is India to achieving that? We don't even have the resources / equipment to fight one war, forget two.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jul 2017 09:49

cheen has very successfully upscaled their C919 efforts both through huge domestic efforts and on the side learning what they can from airbus plants. once its flight test regime is in control , they will double down on a A350 sized plane.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2017 09:50

Ldev,

Recently I read that the model China came up with - some decades ago - was to learn very quickly, make *massive* money out of that learning and then clean up their act (improve efficiency).

The topic was about environment and Chinese use of coal. Supposedly, they polluted and made a ton of cash (invested heavily in industries) and used the huge profits have now invested in clean techs, where they want to dominate too.

So, the question is not about learning. It is what one does with that learning. China's game plan is to dominate. I doubt India has such a national goal.

I would expect China to build 200 Rafale only to ensure they can in turn sell 500 to someone else.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 09:53

Singha wrote:cheen has very successfully upscaled their C919 efforts both through huge domestic efforts and on the side learning what they can from airbus plants. once its flight test regime is in control , they will double down on a A350 sized plane.

Excellent point! Because the Chinese want to compete in the international market. And they will give Boeing and Airbus a run for their money. I am not sure about the quality. That is a different discussion altogether. But the Chinese have a vision.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 10:01

Also, after getting a bloody nose from Vietnam in February 1979 China has not got involved in any military skirmish. These last almost 30 years have allowed them to concentrate on building up their economy so that they have the money to invest now, in their armed forces, health, education etc.

I think China is spending roughly $150 billion on defence vs $45 billion for India.

China has a clear goal of supplanting the US as the numero uno country in the world. Will they succeed or not is not clear, but at least they have a goal. Unfortunately India is side-tracked by issues such as cow protection, implementing Hindi.....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:06

ldev wrote:China has a clear goal of supplanting the US as the numero uno country in the world. Will they succeed or not is not clear, but at least they have a goal. Unfortunately India is side-tracked by issues such as cow protection, implementing Hindi.....

So now you have the answer to your initial question....Why can't India do the same?

And once the goal/vision/purpose is set in place....the money will come. China has proven that.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 10:08

Touche

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jul 2017 10:12

NRao wrote:Indian companies should start buying additive companies.

our NAL autoclave looks like a kids sandcastle in comparison
This will be ancient in no time. They have already started building wings using printing. Wings should be 30-50% lighter. Soon.

Aint getting ancient anytime soo. No worries. NAL already has tech which is next gen to LCA Composite tech and are doing good in areas further. But do not expect NAL to build large autoclaves. They might as well make it if asked to, but what will it be used for haan ji..? To bake bread for millions of poor and hungry people under PradhanMantri Sabko Khana Milega Yojana..?

BTW, who is printing aircraft wings..?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:16

Rakesh wrote:I remember watching an interview from one of my favourite Air Chiefs - ACM Pradeep Vasant Naik. He said (I paraphrase, so forgive me if I do not reproduce the exact quote), "The goal is to meet the country's aspirations. The Air Force must have the capability to meet those aspirations."

Found the interview

Watch the whole thing, but the point I made is in the very first part of the interview.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:23

This is why we have no vision, which is the result of piss poor investment....watch the first part and last part of the video. The middle is just fluff.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 10:27

Rakesh wrote:This is why we have no vision, which is the result of piss poor investment....watch the first part and last part of the video. The middle is just fluff.

Wow!! That is some plain speaking. But beyond a few ripples in the pond when this speech was given in 2009, the ship of state continues it's rudderless drift.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:28

ldev: Air Marshal P K Barbora puts it best...NATIONAL AEROSPACE STRATEGY. That seminar was held in 2010. Sixty three years prior to that, we had no strategy. In 2017, we still have no strategy. Chalta Hai Yaar

What am I saying, we have a strategy - SCREWDRIVERGIRI

What was I thinking!!!

Forgive this SDRE! Tauba Tauba!

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 10:30

NRao wrote:Ldev,
So, the question is not about learning. It is what one does with that learning. China's game plan is to dominate. I doubt India has such a national goal.

Yes, in 1979 when the Chinese fought their last war with Vietnam, the economies of India and China were the same size. And in less than 30 years they have gone from a piss poor country to a goal of trying for global domination.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:35

ldev wrote:Yes, in 1979 when the Chinese fought their last war with Vietnam, the economies of India and China were the same size. And in less than 30 years they have gone from a piss poor country to a goal of trying for global domination.

Guess what we are fighting for ldev? How will our situation improve with samples like him?

'Govt looking for math tutor': Rahul Gandhi takes dig at RBI delay in counting demonetised notes
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 582448.cms

Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi took a dig at RBI chief's statement and tweeted, "Government of India (is) looking for a Math tutor. Please apply to Prime Minister's Office (PMO) ASAP (as soon as possible)."

This is the childish behaviour from our opposition leader. The fact that he could be PM in the next decade is downright SCARY.

For that the Amreekis have to be commended. Republican or Democrat...both see & understand CLEARLY the value of world domination. And unlike us, they do not play politics with that.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 10:45

I think rather than doing a Make in India for any foreign figher, India should buy outright or at most do a local assembly of the kind that Turkey and Italy? do for about 120 F-35s for the IAF and 30-60 V/STOL type F-35s for the IN. That will take care of the immediate requirements of the IAF/IN

And at the same time make a real investment by increasing the budget for the LCA and getting a private sector player involved by guaranteeing purchase of at least 200-300 LCAs.

Also, intensively work on technologies for the AMCA and fast-track the help that Snecma? is willing to provide on the Kaveri....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:46

cybaru, myself, srai and many others have been saying the same thing. Welcome to the dark side

Yes, we will be doing screwdrivergiri ONLEE and yes we will learn NOTHING of value, but at least we will have a next generation platform that will be survivable in the decades ahead. Induction of the F-35 also keeps the door WIDE OPEN for the Tejas.

but as per brar, it will be ridicously expensive to go down that route. If he is reading this, he may provide more input.

Snecma will revive the Kaveri, with M88 tech. I did a subtantiave post on that a few pages back on this thread I believe. Or may be it was the LCA thread. Let me see if I can find it.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 10:54

India's 36 Rafale cost $8 billion. Norway is buying 52 F-35s for $10.7 billon. Don't know the finer details in terms of what is included in each package.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 10:57

brar can provide more input on cost and everything else wrt to the F-35.

Rakesh wrote:Snecma will revive the Kaveri, with M88 tech. I did a subtantiave post on that a few pages back on this thread I believe. Or may be it was the LCA thread. Let me see if I can find it.

Found my post....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7263&p=2176191&hili ... 8#p2176191

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 14 Jul 2017 10:59

ldev wrote:India's 36 Rafale cost $8 billion. Norway is buying 52 F-35s for $10.7 billon. Don't know the finer details in terms of what is included in each package.

That comes to ~$220 million per Rafale and ~$200 million per F-35.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jul 2017 11:04

Kashi, that $220 million involves a "whole lot of stuff" that will not be repeated in a follow on order. The Rafale contract signed in Sept 2016 has a follow on option for 18 additional aircraft. There is near certainty, that option WILL NOT be exercised. Now what is this whole lot of stuff?

10 Reasons Why The Indian Rafale Is Evolution Itself
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/07/14696.html

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 11:08

Rakesh wrote:brar can provide more input on cost and everything else wrt to the F-35.

Rakesh wrote:Snecma will revive the Kaveri, with M88 tech. I did a subtantiave post on that a few pages back on this thread I believe. Or may be it was the LCA thread. Let me see if I can find it.
Found my post....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7263&p=2176191&hili ... 8#p2176191

I always felt the F404 and it's f414 derivative were "weak-assed"

engines. If you want a GE engine, IMO, the one to go for is the F110-GE-132 which powers the UAE F-16s with 32,500 lb/ft of thrust. Imagine the performance of the LCA with 32,500 lb/ft of thrust.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jul 2017 11:29

Higher thrust engine will sip in more fuel and small fighter like tejas does not carry more internal fuel , but that would be another good reason for IAF to reject Tejas and ask for F-16

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Jul 2017 11:36

Why not just pick up the f 35 the need for numbers is still going to be there. Even when the you add a 100 f 16 and 123 LCA.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Jul 2017 11:37

Austin wrote:Higher thrust engine will sip in more fuel and small fighter like tejas does not carry more internal fuel , but that would be another good reason for IAF to reject Tejas and ask for F-16

Can you even fit the F 110 to the tejas.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Jul 2017 11:46

Austin wrote:Higher thrust engine will sip in more fuel and small fighter like tejas does not carry more internal fuel , but that would be another good reason for IAF to reject Tejas and ask for F-16

Why do you need range? The LCA should be a pocket rocket, point and shoot fighter dipersed around airbases at the Pakistan and China borders. High T/W ratios so it can out-accelerate and out-climb enemy aircraft, armed with BVR missiles such as the Derby and Astra and with an ELTA aesa radar. A modern replacement for the hundreds of Mig-21s

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2017 11:53

The LCA's initial concept was doomed from the start."The world's smallest multi-role fighter..." What was conceived was a scaled down M-2K,with the expectation that everything could be "shrunk" and a magic potion that Alice drank in Wonderland was available!

The good Prof. Das in a recent Vayu issue actually postulated reviving the Gnat in improved form,v.cheap,cost-effective and simple. The LCA should've been tasked as a pure light-weight fighter,like the little Gnat almost invincible to opposition in a dogfight,with a secondary close-support/GA role,with heavier aircraft like upgraded M2Ks,MIG-29s in the med. cat.,and MKIs in the heavyweight division,to carry the larger,heavier munitions and PGMs.
But its fuselage filled to bursting point with all sorts of multi-role eqpt.,supported by an engine that is too underpowered for it,has simply failed to make the grade.A reluctant IAF is to be saddled with 40+ in the great brown hope,that a MK-2 with (larger) more powerful (and thirsty,tx Austin),which also requires more redesigning of the fuselage,etc.,will (hopefully) do the biz. The IAF has been living on "hope" for 3 decades now and unfortunately,the legendary MIG-21s ,still surviving 50-60 yrs. on are at their last gasp.We've been keeping them going for so long,akin to making top footballers play well into their '60s!

Therefore,some drastic rethinking on the role of the LCA is needed for the MK-1As by the IAF,lessening its "jack-of-all trades" role,and instead focussing on its best core capabilities.What it struggles to do can be done by larger more capable birds.This way we can see that it will fulfill its fundamental responsibility in replacing one-for-one our ancient MIG-21s.We can leave the multi-role stealth tasks for the AMCA project,as extra MKIs,UG Jags,M2K UGs, and 29/35s could be used as decent "bomb trucks" to deliver heavier payloads including longer range PGMs.The SE requirement can then be fade into the sunset.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jul 2017 11:54

UlanBatori wrote:The final assembly line seen in Brarji's and the A-380 lines, has some big jigs to move things in 3 degrees of freedom and maybe some rotation. But beyond that, it has very little robotics capability seen. A couple of arms that are guided by operators to drive fasteners, that's about it. So this is not where the "crown jewels" of manufacturing are, hain? Surprising, because the US stated theme is that they will outsource the "details" but retain the System Design Integration and the Final Assembly in the US as the top value addition segments.

Not surprizing at all. Even if they give you step-by-step instruction of making an aircraft, that will not make you an OEM overnight or not even in decades, unless you invest yourself heavily into understanding the whole history behind each and every step. Just like HAL will never be an OEM for Su-30MKI even if they manufacture it 100% from raw materials or even if they manufacture the raw materials themselves in-house to start with. Even HAL is very happy outsourcing entire component level manufacturing for LCA if there are takers for it. But they want to keep integration/assembly with them.

UlanBatori wrote: By contrast look at an auto manufacturing line, from modern India. The caption says Hyundai, I have my doubts whether it is in India but I guess a given manufacturer has to use the same sort of tooling anywhere in the world.

Tata had 100% fully automated TFTA Indica assembly plant in Pune like 15yrs ago. Did that make Indica a truly world class car..? All it takes to have a TFTA assembly line for cars or for an FMCG product is to pay someone in Germany who can set it up for you. It took Tata Motors many years of loss, near wipe out from Passenger car segment in Indian market, a change in Chairman of Tata Sons, acquisition of JLR, complete reversal of their failed business and marketing strategy and actually getting new cars designed in JLR design houses to get to a level now where their cars look on par with the cars from Maruti or Honda or Hyundai that are made in India. And still a long way to go for being a world class car manufacturer.

UlanBatori wrote: Then again, note that a lot of CAD etc for aircraft parts is actually done in B'Looru by entities like RANAL. So maybe the plane is conceived in B'looru and ends up being born in Mumbai, traveling all over the world in between. Once you have Final Assembly, the manufacturer is motivated to move more of the production nearer. Look at the pains they undertake with the multi-nation Airboos 380, shipping huge pieces by road and canal! All political.

Quite a bit of outsourcing in Aerospace and defense actually works on political, geo-political/strategic considerations/compulsions and not really economic ones.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2017 11:56

I forgot to add the 36 Rafales arriving in the future to do the major biz.

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Jul 2017 12:27

UlanBatori wrote:
We need something we are good at that can tip the balance. I am thinking ISRO and maybe rocketships.
OT, but there is no hope of deterring Cheen with a few glamorized and budget-breaking pieces of anything.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we to do. We need something cool and advanced that balances out numbers because there is no way we can outbuild Cheen.

The tyranny of numbers is too stark here. Their economy is 11T while ours is 2T. Every year they add far more to their economy than we do to ours because their base is so much larger. So the gap is continuously widening no matter how fast we grow in realistic terms (7-10% per annum.)

This is why I advocate for war here and now when we have definite advantages along our borders and the IOR. The numbers get worse as the years go by.

At the same time, it is not a straight numbers game when comes to the military situation. We have immense geographical and geo-political advantages in our theater. The PRC is not a military power. It is a trading, industrial power that intimidates with lots of hardware but not by using them.

We have time to invest in and produce our own stuff.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jul 2017 12:45

we would surely have put a Gnat-mki into FOC in say 2005 but it would be throughly outclassed esp in BVR combat and night fighting by even the upg PAF F16 and JF17. so what would be the use of 150 we could have built up by now at full rate production?

Gnat-mki was out of date even in mid 90s.

a more valid case would be avoid the FBW/composites complexity and make the Tejas a bundar-MKI to get it done sooner - but the challenges of flight testing , avionics, missiles, radar would remain the same. cheen got all that done much sooner as they had been building JH7, J8, F7, F6 to gain scale and experience and also a family of domestic weapons like PL9, PL10, PL12, guided bombs .... not exactly SDB/AASM quality but workable stuff. their investment has been full spectrum and commitment total for long.

The Marut should have been persisted with and made our desi Jaguar/Hunter. but i believe the british conspired to sabotage it on engine front.

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Jul 2017 12:51

Rakesh wrote:
Singha wrote:cheen has very successfully upscaled their C919 efforts both through huge domestic efforts and on the side learning what they can from airbus plants. once its flight test regime is in control , they will double down on a A350 sized plane.
Excellent point! Because the Chinese want to compete in the international market. And they will give Boeing and Airbus a run for their money. I am not sure about the quality. That is a different discussion altogether. But the Chinese have a vision.

Ah! My exchange with Singhaji would best explain why east asians and goras do what they do and we do what we do and how best to rectify this situation.

#1 why is ESA,dassault,EADS,snecma all "govt owned munnas with a easy french work culture" able to deliver world class products while our govt owned do not?

They are gora and we are not. They have gora infrastructure and gora processes and gora accountability. You put desis in the same environmental soup (like NRIs in Sillycon Valley) we will prosper in the same way. Full stop.

Indian private sector because of global competition is closer to gora standards.

Closer but I don't expect miracles since the French also have sexy gori wives and girlfriends to go back to every day that invigorates them greatly.

#2 is there some mutation in the indic gene that prevents us from organizing large scale manufacturing even as east asian cultures are able to organize like a disciplined army of ants? the jury is out of that.
part of the reason why tejas is tough to manufacture is because for most of the team it was their first design and they had no exp to fall back on and books to read.

Well, techniquely it is our second after Marut. So is institutional knowledge retained in Bharat? It might not be a genetic factor but a cultural one.

East Asian (Confucian) culture prize obedience and uniformity for a functioning society of teeming humans. Dharmic culture focuses on the individual and his internal spiritual well being. We cannot be ants.

Our best approach is the free market which approximates the gora environment. We need the private sector.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jul 2017 14:08

a large aircraft design and manufacturing bureau unlike a small startup cannot run on the back of a few superstar scientists/engg/pgm managers, so even a few aeging indic superstars from OEMs abroad doing r2i is not going to "fix" things. 80% of the engineers need to be at top notch level at various levels of seniority to ensure continuity as people age out. this is perhaps where isro, barc, aec has succeeded in keeping its pipeline going. even in medicine all our top notch surgeons pair up with atleast 1 padawan to jointly do operations until the old are ready to stand down.

old article by SR valluri - from 2001 - prophetic words

http://www.thehindu.com/2001/03/03/stories/05032524.htm

At the first meeting of the ADA general body in July 1984, presided over by the then Defence Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, Mr. V. P. Singh, then Finance Minister, wanted to know the estimated cost of development of the LCA. I stated that if the first flight took place by 1991 as planned, the actual cash outflow would be Rs. 1,250 crores and that every year of delay would entail an additional expenditure of Rs. 150 crores to Rs. 175 crores. The cost over-run due to the ten-year delay is thus Rs. 175 crores a year so far. At least four years of this delay could be attributed to the decision of the then Scientific Adviser to ease out the late Raj Mahindra. His crime was that his wife was British and not an Italian. At that time, he was the only person with hands-on experience in the design of any jet aircraft. I informed Mr. Narasimha Rao that no serious harm would result if I leaft the position of DGADA, but if Mr. Mahindra was eased out, it would have serious repercussions. There was no other person down the line who had hands-on experience to take over the responsibility without loss of time. I estimate that the loss to the nation resulting from this unfortunate decision to be at least Rs. 700 crores. Errors in judgment at that level do not come cheap. While seeking Mahindra's resignation as desired by the Scientific Adviser, as a matter of principle, I too resigned.

...

Sanction of the LCA programme found the following facts. The HAL management had let the Design Bureau get gradually decimated over the years. Instead of having about 1000 engineers and designers typical of such institutions, it had only about 400, of which about 150 have to be written of. HAL did not have any corporate R&D worth speaking. It was comfortable with licensed production. What saved the situation was that due to the innumerable feasibility studies taken up over the years to respond to the multitude of ASR released over the years by the Air Force, the Design Bureau continued to keep abreast of the conceptual designs of advanced technology aircraft. We found this when we compared our studies with the proposals made by our foreign consultants.

What we did not have were the technologies to implement such ideas.

For example, when I made a proposal to the HAL Board that an HF-24 aircraft should be converted into a fly-by-wire (FBW) flying platform, it was summarily rejected by the South Block representative. It was the lack of appreciation for forward technology development that separated the aircraft industry from the Space and the Atomic Energy Departments. We now know that after the May 1998 nuclear explosions the U.S. held us for ransom for the release of FBW technologies. The fact was that there was enough intrinsic capability in the country to develop such technologies. But time was not on our side, due to the ignorance of policy makers about the areas in which forward- looking R&D should be taken up in anticipation of future tasks such as the LCA. The LCA project paid a heavy price, by way of inordinate delays and escalating costs, for the lack of vision of policy-makers.
...
Finally a word about engines. No matter how good an aircraft designer is, he is helpless if he does not have a proper engine. It is the combination of the aircraft and a suitable engine that assures the performance of the aircraft.
...

We are a long way away from realising the full potential of the LCA. Nevertheless, the programme must go on to enable our aircraft and engine designers to learn what it means to build advance technology fighter aircraft and engines. Inspite of the delay, Dr. Kota Harinarayana has done a commendable job as the LCA Programme Director. It is a regrettable that the Government did not recognise his contribution in a tangible manner. It is to be noted that the development of a fighter aircraft with 10 to 15 independent systems operating perfectly and simultaneously is more complex than designing a Prithvi or Agni missile. It would appear that the Government needs to evolve rational policies to recognise significant contributions from scientists and technologists.