'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Manish_Sharma]

This is major push from American president.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/trump-a ... 403494.cms

I think the idea is to Hoover up all existing capability build up so far by DRDO and HAL and delay next generation research as much as possible while extracting maximum bucks. Yet we need to create this jobs so I will not mind US presence in Indian markets as long as India grows.

Circa 2004 Carnegie and some other think tanks were of view that '98 sanctions had no impact on Bharatvarsh, so USA needed to sell more weapons and platforms to Bharat in order to control it.

Now see while Post Pokharan sanctions only impacted Tejas and dealings.

But now my god !

C17, ç130, Tejas, p8i, m777, lm2500 powerplants on Shivalik. Hari Om, Hari Om!

Poster Vinayak had pointed out that First our connection with USA should be economic -industrial - business and later military.

Seems there's not even a thought in Delhi about asking USA to pass a law regarding guarantee that the weaponry we buy won't be sanctioned.

[Cain Marko]

Cain-Ji: You are probably older than I am, so I am going to stick with the Ji, okay?

I sure hope not! But, yadi ji ka zikr karna hi ho, to karnewalay ka haqq Admiralji ke laqab ko hi ho!

All jokes aside, I understand what the pro F-Solah crowd on BRF is claiming. Make in India is meant to increase meaningful employment in the country. No one is disputing that. But I do not believe that the MII model can fit like a glove to a complex and crucial issue such as defence production. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is this;

- Too many hands in the pot. Too many vested interests at play here. You cannot expect the PSUs - after 70+ years of monopoly - to take that lying down. To copy a dialogue from a Hindi movie I once saw...Toh Hum Kya Kahenge, Mitti ? HAL is going to fight this tooth & nail and they know they have a strong case and they have the government's ear. The fact that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley basically (see a few posts above) endorsed PSUs to be a player in this SE tamasha proves that point.

- This is not to suggest that Tata or Adani have no role to play, after all the Prime Minister's vision of MII is at stake here. The winner will play a very crucial role, but not one of ownership IMVHO. What will likely happen is the winner will partner with HAL and assemble the aircraft together. What that means is either Tata or Adani's investment (acquiring land for the factory, building the factory, buying the tools & jigs, etc....with subsidies from the GOI of course) will be present and HAL will provide the crucial influx of staff to assemble and train follow on staff (Tata or Adani employees) to do the same. That is a likely win-win situation for both - the PSU and the private sector - in the short term (with short term being the total number of SE aircraft purchased). The winds of change are coming, but one cannot expect it to change overnight. The reality of the matter is that neither Tata or Adani can assemble a fighter. Only HAL can do it, after all they have 70+ years of screwdrivergiri experience.

The issue lies in what does the IAF want? Because they are the END USER of the product. The IAF has come to the realization that after 70+ years, its local aerospace industry cannot come up with a viable product. We are still struggling to develop an aero engine for example. So the SE deal comes along and the IAF has a choice before it;

a) Go with F-16 which is in service with 28 countries around the world. Global supply chain. Strategic alignment with the US. Export to other countries. Upgrade other nations' F-16 to the Block 70 std. Lethal aircraft. Excellent weaponry. However end of life of product.

b) Go with Gripen E which is unproven and NEW, but Saab is offering the following --> operational performance, availability, cost effectiveness, technology transfer, industrial partnership, setting up of an aerospace eco-system in India, creation of a local supplier base of ancillary systems; employment of a well-trained Indian workforce. That italcized part...none of it is my own interpretation or imagination...I lifted that WORD FOR WORD from the Gripen for India website.

If you had to choose, which one would you pick? Any professional air force around the world, in the IAF's predicament, would pick B. You would have to be certifiably insane to pick A. The fact that the Gripen shares the exact same "sanctionable" engine as the Tejas is a fact that is not lost on the IAF. And that is a HUGE bonus in this competition.

LM has not even come close - in the marketing game - to what Saab is claiming to offer. LM believes that the geopolitical push is enough for India to pick them as the winning bid. I would not bank on that, especially when you have $10+ billion (and only the Almighty knows how many billions more in "after sales" support) at stake.

I am not myself to convinced about the employment/job creation benefits of this deal. However, it might very well help develop another HAL type organization but more efficient. Your understanding of a JV with HAL and some pvt entity seems to also be on the minds of others (e.g. RK Tyagi). I believe this is the main strategy. Of course, if won't be too easy (and popular) with OEMs because of the difficulty in getting these inexperienced companies up to par, but if they are held accountable, it might just work.

As far as the merits of each platform are concerned, the differences are minimal imvho. The f16 airframe is just as modern as the Gripen; the latter is no 5th gen design. Differences are unnees-bees ka farak. But it is possible that Saab offers more sweeteners.

All in all, a wasteful deal. It might be far better to buy another 36 JSFs as silver bullet option direct from Texas - just like the rafale deal. At least the platform has a clear qualitative edge.
However, more can be achieved by buying some used 4G frames and pushing the LCA @ 16 p.a for 15 years. Additionally, the AMCA should be pursued with urgency and the FGFA too. Possibly

[Rakesh]

Seems there's not even a thought in Delhi about asking USA to pass a law regarding guarantee that the weaponry we buy won't be sanctioned.

I have a greater chance of when crossing the road, have a Ferrari - driven by none other than Katrina Kafi - hitting me, Katrina Madam jumping out of the car and having smypathy on seeing me lie on the ground, picking me up and driving me to the local hospital and then take me out an Amul ice-cream date....than the above scenario happening.

Why wish for the moon Saar, when all you will get is onlee crumbs?

[Rakesh]

Even the private Indian companies know what they are in it for:

Aspiring Indian SPs, like TASL, admit that their role in an SP contract would remain “build to print”, i.e. manufacturing sub-assemblies and assemblies to blueprints provided by the OEM. Yet, it would provide a lucrative growth opportunity.

“The need of the hour is for the ministry of defence to go forward with the two very large aerospace orders [for] single engine fighter and helicopters. Frankly, in my mind, there is nothing else to it”, said TASL chief, Sukaran Singh, at the same seminar.

"Make to Print" is quite profitable business. In fact Tier1/2/3 suppliers often make more margins that the OEMs. That what the Indian companies are after - steady and good profit. You need a little different character to an organisation which can be an OEM. I know exactly, since I see how our management behaves.

There is simply no way around DPSUs. We have very limited resources and they are concentrated in DPSUs. It makes no sense to spread them thin all over the place and endanger even those things which are slowly working out e.g. LCA. There is a structural issue with DPSU, but there are ways to deal with it intrinsically. Going for MII kind of models without trying to deal with issues at home is only marginally better than what previous dispensations have done by outright importing.

Obviously Make to Print is quite profitable....so would you agree with the assesment of this?

Carnegie Endowment in India: Promoting US Leadership With Indian Corporate Wealth
https://thewire.in/163918/carnegie-indi ... tank-role/

[Manish_Sharma]

Katrina Kafi - hitting me, and then take me out an Amul ice-cream date....than the above scenario happening.

Why wish for the moon Saar, when all you will get is onlee crumbs?

https://goo.gl/images/guWxGT

[Karan M]

Rakesh, you raise an interesting point.

For this to happen, US President would have to ratify a special law or bill and have it pass via the senate to give Indian some special non sanctionable status.

We didn't get that even for our nuclear deal. So to expect Trump to do that for F-16s? Why?

As Manish Sharma pointed out, conservative think tankers wanted to encourage India to buy American weapons to get leverage. Why would they wish to lose it, when for every India, there is a Saudi Arabia that buys sh!tloads of American arms & keeps the orders ticking, even apart from the huge domestic budget (what some 57% of the total?)..

[JayS]

Obviously Make to Print is quite profitable....so would you agree with the assesment of this?

Carnegie Endowment in India: Promoting US Leadership With Indian Corporate Wealth
https://thewire.in/163918/carnegie-indi ... tank-role/

I don't trust anything coming up in media anymore unless I see multiple sources indicating it to be highly probable. So all I can say is, while I am agnostic about this one, whatever the article says looks very much plausible and not to far-fetched, IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if it proves to be true. GIven the penchant we have for gora chamadi and how we always look westwards when in confusion, its not difficult to understand why would Indian bizmen find it convenient to co-opt US think tanks to push their case in GOI offices. And of coarse for those think tanks it falls right in their intended direction. Win win for both. Why wouldn't they co-opt..?

If I were one of these business houses, and I know, I know shit about Aerospace, but I also do not want to miss the gravy train of soon to be exploding defense market, I would try to do the same thing what these guys are doing - try to get screwdrivergiri jobs. Some would like to get there by hook or by crook.

[JayS]

Rakesh, you raise an interesting point.

For this to happen, US President would have to ratify a special law or bill and have it pass via the senate to give Indian some special non sanctionable status.

We didn't get that even for our nuclear deal. So to expect Trump to do that for F-16s? Why?

As Manish Sharma pointed out, conservative think tankers wanted to encourage India to buy American weapons to get leverage. Why would they wish to lose it, when for every India, there is a Saudi Arabia that buys sh!tloads of American arms & keeps the orders ticking, even apart from the huge domestic budget (what some 57% of the total?)..

Exactly. While I do not see US would arm-twist Swedes to back-off clandestinely, because selling F16 is not a big deal anymore for Uncle Sam (good if happens, doesn't matter if it doesn't) and they wouldn't want to aggravate as big "ally" as India for such trivial matter, at least not just yet. But we should remember that all it would take it is one phone call to scare away the Swedes if need be.

[Cosmo_R]

Seems there's not even a thought in Delhi about asking USA to pass a law regarding guarantee that the weaponry we buy won't be sanctioned.

I have a greater chance of when crossing the road, have a Ferrari - driven by none other than Katrina Kafi - hitting me, Katrina Madam jumping out of the car and having smypathy on seeing me lie on the ground, picking me up and driving me to the local hospital and then take me out an Amul ice-cream date....than the above scenario happening.

Why wish for the moon Saar, when all you will get is onlee crumbs?

Who is this Katrina Kafi? Sounds more bountiful than the original. Just so you know, the physics of a Ferrari hitting you means you get tossed over the hood towards the windshield. Given how low it (the windshield) is, you'll wind up in her lap. That's if she has the top down. Else, you get the boot

On a more serious note, any law promulgated to do XYZ can be be offset by another one. The US offers no guarantees or surety. In fact, you may recall that Henry K is the one who said: "To oppose the US is often dangerous, but to be allied to it is invariably fatal."

It's all about convergence of interests and lobbying.

[ashish raval]

I ask this again. How does building F-16 generate jobs and manufacturing Tejas doesn't?

F-16 will be built in hundreds of numbers for rest of the world with all cutting edge technology expertise being supplied to desh and thousands of engineers will be skilled over few years creating large aeronautical engineering base in the country at the cost of a foreign company without necessarily putting any desi $$$ on the table. With Tejas the count will be few hundred and will be done in-house without necessarily hiring thousands perhaps few hundreds. With more variety in manufacturing HAL we I'll have to up its game and become purely ruthless tiger competing with another manufacturer. We had 30 years to do so and although we have achieved quite a lot being a nation of million engineering graduate a year churn we ought to be way high up in the league..

[Austin]

We should make one thing clear in single engine deal that we should have the independence to hardwire the Gripen or F-16 for nuclear role and retain independence to use then both in conventional role or nuclear role with stand off missile if need be with no strings attached.

If they disagree then chuck the deal we can still use Tejas

[ashish raval]

This is major push from American president.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/trump-a ... 403494.cms

I think the idea is to Hoover up all existing capability build up so far by DRDO and HAL and delay next generation research as much as possible while extracting maximum bucks. Yet we need to create this jobs so I will not mind US presence in Indian markets as long as India grows.

Seems there's not even a thought in Delhi about asking USA to pass a law regarding guarantee that the weaponry we buy won't be sanctioned.

Agreed !!however which other country has passed a law that they will continue to supply weapons without sanctions from it for any reason? No one does that for any one and ties itself up.

Secondly US is and will be biggest export market for us for years to come so economically we have lots of interdependence, skills exchange is on a huge scale with US i.e. 70 percent with US and 30 percent rest of the world. I am all for indegeneos production of everything but not averse to beg, borrow or steal to reach there a generation ahead without reinventing a wheel. Once a nation is technologically sound and skilled it will be on a auto trajectory of being in league of top 2 or 3 nations. With huge technical base we shall be able to make next generation highly skilled and a technology inventor nation rather than a user of it.

[brar_w]

F-16 will be built in hundreds of numbers for rest of the world...

What rest of the world? Where is the demand? Bahrain's FMS was issued this week, beyond that demand there aren't many nations that are looking at an F-16. Upgrades to the "V" standard yes, but not new build frames. Most NATO F-16 users either have very young aircraft (like Poland), or are committed to phasing out F-16's for the F-35 (all European JSF partner nations). Same with South Korea, Israel and Singapore, all legacy F-16 operators. The only 4th generation aircraft I see Israel potentially acquire is the F-15 Strike Eagle, to replace their Eagle fleet and to complement the F-35Is and F-16Is. There isn't an unmet demand for "hundreds of F-16's" around the world - besides India's SEF of course.

[Cosmo_R]

^^^The only demand I could think of was Taiwan and Vietnam for new build. I don't know what the MRO market is but if we become sole source, the margins are phenomenal.

[KrishnaK]

This is major push from American president.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/trump-a ... 403494.cms

I think the idea is to Hoover up all existing capability build up so far by DRDO and HAL and delay next generation research as much as possible while extracting maximum bucks. Yet we need to create this jobs so I will not mind US presence in Indian markets as long as India grows.

Circa 2004 Carnegie and some other think tanks were of view that '98 sanctions had no impact on Bharatvarsh, so USA needed to sell more weapons and platforms to Bharat in order to control it.

Now see while Post Pokharan sanctions only impacted Tejas and dealings.

But now my god !

C17, ç130, Tejas, p8i, m777, lm2500 powerplants on Shivalik. Hari Om, Hari Om!

Poster Vinayak had pointed out that First our connection with USA should be economic -industrial - business and later military.

Seems there's not even a thought in Delhi about asking USA to pass a law regarding guarantee that the weaponry we buy won't be sanctioned.

As usual, CT garbage. Economic sanctions bite far more than military ones. So long India has enough spares stockpiled, military platforms can continue to be used. It was an economic threat that stopped India from reacting to the Parliament Attack. Forum rakshaks wail about treason by ITVITY CEOs to this day.

[Avtar Singh]

Whilst I am ardent MinIndia and want to see 100s LCA coming off lines in the next year.. with this unlikely,
having something like the following would be useful experience, no?
(+ I am no fan of america and its treatment of India)

sent to me in email;

Ever wonder how Boeing produces over FORTY 737 airplanes a month? A train arrives with the main body in the morning. They turn them out about one every 18 hours and every part is supplied by the lowest cost supplier.
This 3½ minute video is fascinating.
CLICK ON BELOW:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SE71NJl-naY?autoplay=1

[Indranil]

I ask this again. How does building F-16 generate jobs and manufacturing Tejas doesn't?

F-16 will be built in hundreds of numbers for rest of the world with all cutting edge technology expertise being supplied to desh and thousands of engineers will be skilled over few years creating large aeronautical engineering base in the country at the cost of a foreign company without necessarily putting any desi $$$ on the table.

Oh, I see!

There is such a large demand for F-16s that LM cannot fulfill them from its Texas line. So to fulfill this demand it will move the line to India. The magic word PRIVATE will be said and the following will happen automagically:
1. An ab-initio company will absorb technology which the rest of the world has taken decades to master in a few short years.
2. It will be efficient and yet create the largest amount of jobs
3. It will replace HAL, and galvanize the Indian military aviation industry
4. It will cut through bureaucracy and and shorten Indian decision making time
5. With its newly acquired design skills, it will provide IAF with a 7th generation UCAV before the world moves to the sixth generation of manned fighters.

What other aspects did I miss?

[ashish raval]

F-16 will be built in hundreds of numbers for rest of the world with all cutting edge technology expertise being supplied to desh and thousands of engineers will be skilled over few years creating large aeronautical engineering base in the country at the cost of a foreign company without necessarily putting any desi $$$ on the table.

Oh, I see!

There is such a large demand for F-16s that LM cannot fulfill them from its Texas line. So to fulfill this demand it will move the line to India. The magic word PRIVATE will be said and the following will happen automagically:
1. An ab-initio company will absorb technology which the rest of the world has taken decades to master in a few short years.
2. It will be efficient and yet create the largest amount of jobs
3. It will replace HAL, and galvanize the Indian military aviation industry
4. It will cut through bureaucracy and and shorten Indian decision making time
5. With its newly acquired design skills, it will provide IAF with a 7th generation UCAV before the world moves to the sixth generation of manned fighters.

What other aspects did I miss?

To mock or not to mock is what I sense here. Kindly enlighten me on how will anyone deliver 7th generation UCAV in next 40 years to IAF without any one even opening a screw factory. I see HAL is already design phase isn't it? No pun..just showing kind of language prevalent without actually anything on ground.

1) It takes me 2 years to learn something when I am told how to do things. It takes me 10 years if I have to use my brain to learn how to do it. We have already used 30 years doing this. Ask this to any top ranking Reliance engineers who learn things after 3months training outside India..
2) Correct. I don't see fighter aircraft market for American aircraft die down. I don't see people shelling 150 million a piece for f-35 anytime soon.
3) not replace HAL, add more competition in the mix where there is none and will never be if not for private companies coming in, however harsh it may sound.once Americans open factory, Russians, Europeans will too. No one otherwise except some breadcrumbs. I do see this as genuine American interest in India, whatever they want to sell. We sell software they sell weapons it's fair I think. We repatriate billions every year too..back home.

4) perhaps it may if you have products which are proven worldwide
5) no comments. Totally unrelated things. Talking about UCAV and manned aircraft is like talking apples and oranges..

[Manish_Sharma]

Agreed !!however which other country has passed a law that they will continue to supply weapons without sanctions from it for any reason? No one does that for any one and ties itself up.

Which other country makes the customer nation line up purchased stuff for humiliating EULA euma type inspections?

Which other country is so trigger happy to sanction?

[Manish_Sharma]

As usual, CT garbage. Economic sanctions bite far more than military ones. So long India has enough spares stockpiled, military platforms can continue to be used. It was an economic threat that stopped India from reacting to the Parliament Attack. Forum rakshaks wail about treason by ITVITY CEOs to this day.

You are amrikan bootlicker garbage.

Economic sanctions bite both ways. While military sanctions will only hurt us.

[Karan M]

Circa 2004 Carnegie and some other think tanks were of view that '98 sanctions had no impact on Bharatvarsh, so USA needed to sell more weapons and platforms to Bharat in order to control it.

Now see while Post Pokharan sanctions only impacted Tejas and dealings.

But now my god !

C17, ç130, Tejas, p8i, m777, lm2500 powerplants on Shivalik. Hari Om, Hari Om!

Poster Vinayak had pointed out that First our connection with USA should be economic -industrial - business and later military.

Seems there's not even a thought in Delhi about asking USA to pass a law regarding guarantee that the weaponry we buy won't be sanctioned.

As usual, CT garbage. Economic sanctions bite far more than military ones. So long India has enough spares stockpiled, military platforms can continue to be used. It was an economic threat that stopped India from reacting to the Parliament Attack. Forum rakshaks wail about treason by ITVITY CEOs to this day.

Kindly quantify the economic cost of stockpiling spares used by all military platforms and whether the manufacturing country will even provide ample spares in time (as versus seeking to use the as leverage).

Simply put, military platforms and their continued usage depends on spares stocks which in turn depend on the amount provided by the manufacturer. Stockpiling huge quantities in advance is expensive & if sanctions persist post the conflict, the entire equipment is rendered useless.

[KrishnaK]

As usual, CT garbage. Economic sanctions bite far more than military ones. So long India has enough spares stockpiled, military platforms can continue to be used. It was an economic threat that stopped India from reacting to the Parliament Attack. Forum rakshaks wail about treason by ITVITY CEOs to this day.

Kindly quantify the economic cost of stockpiling spares used by all military platforms and whether the manufacturing country will even provide ample spares in time (as versus seeking to use the as leverage).

Simply put, military platforms and their continued usage depends on spares stocks which in turn depend on the amount provided by the manufacturer. Stockpiling huge quantities in advance is expensive & if sanctions persist post the conflict, the entire equipment is rendered useless.

I'm not suggesting India buy arms from the US unless it's worth it - including the cost incurred on account of political unreliability. Just that it seems far fetched the US is selling arms to control India. A weaker economy (compared to China), not having a security council seat, need for access to financial markets in the west, let alone consumer markets and oil are India's weak points currently. Taking all these into account India's military aims are modest, to the best of my understanding. Broad based economic and military convergence as far as China goes makes the whole arms sanctions issue far less of an issue than it used to be. What's stopping Modi from passing a law that mandates any arms supplying country imposing sanctions will be put on a blacklist ? I think India's has come to terms with some level of uncertainty as far mil supplies from the US goes.

[Karan M]

KrishnaK, this statement:

I think India's has come to terms with some level of uncertainty as far mil supplies from the US goes.

more or less indicates that there is indeed a level of uncertainty, correct?

Now the GOI, which we voters elect, may have indeed accepted this, but on the forum, it is also worth debating (as are all GOI policies or assumptions).

Next, it has also been reported by certain US Govt thinktanks that selling to India, will increase leverage on India. This is but common sense. Hence, hardly "CT Garbage" & I dont understand why you should be so defensive/hostile about this. After all, it is in the US's best interests to seek to arm-twist or control or modulate or shape Indian policy (whichever term be more fitting) whereas it is in India's interests to seek the best possible deal for its own interests.

This forum, not being part of GOI, certainly has no "omerta" when it comes to debating whether GOI may have erred. In the past for instance putting all the LCA eggs in the US basket certainly did not help the program.

Similarly, despite the priorities and weaknesses you mention, India is still an emerging power (we could sarcastically claim for a long time, but still) and also faces two significant military threats in PRC and Pak. Its military aims are hence hardly "modest" since it has to face down two heavily conventionally and nuclear armed powers, which are hostile to it.

In turn, the US has significant interests in Afghanistan, and also may regard India as a possible future PRC (competition wise), so sensibly it would seek to modulate Indian behavior and policies vis a vis Pak for instance, what is so "CT or garbage" about that? Is it not a fact, that South Korea and Japan have many tacit agreements for limiting their weaponry and development programs (military) in agreement for US weapons & support. By selling us expensive gear, which we cannot easily replace, the US (or any country for that matter) does gain leverage.

[KrishnaK]

Next, it has also been reported by certain US Govt thinktanks that selling to India, will increase leverage on India. This is but common sense. Hence, hardly "CT Garbage" & I dont understand why you should be so defensive/hostile about this. After all, it is in the US's best interests to seek to arm-twist or control or modulate or shape Indian policy (whichever term be more fitting) whereas it is in India's interests to seek the best possible deal for its own interests.

It is in US's best interests to increase leverage over India and is in India's best interests to increase leverage over the US. Could you provide me a link about US Govt think tank advocating selling weapons to India to gain leverage ?

Similarly, despite the priorities and weaknesses you mention, India is still an emerging power (we could sarcastically claim for a long time, but still) and also faces two significant military threats in PRC and Pak. Its military aims are hence hardly "modest" since it has to face down two heavily conventionally and nuclear armed powers, which are hostile to it.

To clarify, I think India's aims are to thrash Pak in a short war and deter China from entering it or have the ability to get into a standoff and not back down. I do not think India's aims are on the scale of for example - fighting a war over a decade thousands of miles from its shores all by itself. I didn't mean modest in deprecating manner. Simply that its aims are well within its means, a very sensible policy. I don't think India expects to be at a full scale war beyond a few weeks. I also don't think the US can sustain sanctions against India.

In turn, the US has significant interests in Afghanistan, and also may regard India as a possible future PRC (competition wise), so sensibly it would seek to modulate Indian behavior and policies vis a vis Pak for instance, what is so "CT or garbage" about that? Is it not a fact, that South Korea and Japan have many tacit agreements for limiting their weaponry and development programs (military) in agreement for US weapons & support. By selling us expensive gear, which we cannot easily replace, the US (or any country for that matter) does gain leverage.

This is simply the point where I think a lot of energy on this forum has been spent in whistling in the dark. The PRC wouldn't be where it is today, if not for trade with the US, the security of which has been underwritten by the US as well. Japan and S. Korea have gotten fat selling to the US under the US defence umbrella. The thing the US has historically used as quid-pro-quo to gain leverage, repeatedly, has been access to the american market. Until India makes its markets as appealing, the military constraints are not going to be hugely damaging by themselves, because it will have other, potentially more crippling, constraints. Once that happens, the military constraints alone won't matter as much.

Arvind Subramanian had stated somewhere India should catch up with the PRC in about 30 years. Can you show me one incident where the US has shown capable of thinking of threats that are going to mature 30 years out. You might not believe it, but being democracies, India and the US are alike. They spend a lot of effort, at publicly debating potential threats before treating them like one. There's plenty of material out there where the US has explicitly stated its aims vis-a-vis far greater powers, the erstwhile Soviet Union and the PRC. Again can you show me that the US has seriously entertained the thought of India as a competitor. It might still happen tomorrow, but I don't think it has happened yet. My last post on this topic.

[ashish raval]

Agreed !!however which other country has passed a law that they will continue to supply weapons without sanctions from it for any reason? No one does that for any one and ties itself up.

Which other country makes the customer nation line up purchased stuff for humiliating EULA euma type inspections?

Which other country is so trigger happy to sanction?

Ok, which country has Americans forced to lineup the purchased stuff for inspection. If it is rogue nations then they would want to know if they have opened things up and sold things to their competitors or not.

American sanctions against India was a regressive step. Americans came to realise this within next 5 years and took corrective actions and now sell most dual use technologies to India. It is not correct to think that they would want to loose market of a billion plus people and access to Indian ocean as India grows stronger every day. They would rather be ally than competitor to a democratic non Islamic nation where they intend to open a fighter aircraft factory. Although they serve some business purposes, there is always give and take in business as I am yet to see any selfless country who will supply every technology to India for free and create a competitor out of it.more competition in India will lead to rapid rise in skills base in this nation.

[NRao]

Has been posted earlier .......................

Need to develop Intellectual Property locally or we are doomed, says IAF Vice Chief

As I have stated (in the LCA thread), the key is:

The Air Marshal further added that we are into committees, sub-committees and concepts but we don’t get our hands on it. “We are afraid of failure. This is what is holding us back,” he stated.

As long as as people are afraid to fail, there can never be *meaningful** IP. By that I mean at the very least equivalent of IP that is imported. Better still bleeding edge IP.


Which is why I prefer *not* to support incremental changes in the LCA context - they will take too long.

[ArjunPandit]

Ok, which country has Americans forced to lineup the purchased stuff for inspection. If it is rogue nations then they would want to know if they have opened things up and sold things to their competitors or not.

American sanctions against India was a regressive step. Americans came to realise this within next 5 years and took corrective actions and now sell most dual use technologies to India. It is not correct to think that they would want to loose market of a billion plus people and access to Indian ocean as India grows stronger every day. They would rather be ally than competitor to a democratic non Islamic nation where they intend to open a fighter aircraft factory. Although they serve some business purposes, there is always give and take in business as I am yet to see any selfless country who will supply every technology to India for free and create a competitor out of it.more competition in India will lead to rapid rise in skills base in this nation.

Pakistan, they figured out in their inspection that their harpoons have been modified to work as land attack missile, and same thing for P3C.

[Philip]

The air chief's statement about over-estimating the PLAAF's capabilities in Tibet ,which aren't all that fabulous according to him,should have some effect upon future acquisitions by the IAF.Here's more on the current dogfight between the F-16 and Gripen.

Gripen or F-16? It’s a dogfight
Josy Joseph Dinakar Peri NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 00:00 IST

While the Tatas have tied up with Lockheed, SAAB is aligning with the Adani group

After several dramatic twists and turns, as the Air Force looks at procuring a new single engine fighter, the Adani group is emerging as the dark horse that could end up manufacturing a large number of India’s future fighters.

The IAF is now working on issuing Request for Information (RFI) to the two single-engine fighter manufacturers available in the global market — Lockheed Martin for its F-16 and SAAB for its Gripen. While the Tata group has tied up with Lockheed Martin for possible manufacture of F-16s in India, SAAB last week announced a tie-up with the Adani group.

“In the present scheme of things, Gripen enjoys a clear advantage because of its capabilities,” says an Air Force source. While the F-16 is 50 years old, the Gripen is a four-and-a-half generation fighter of very recent vintage.

The IAF had sent out an informal request asking the two manufacturers details of their products. Based on the input and other analysis, the RFI would be issued under the Strategic Partnership model in a couple of months, officers said. The target would be to acquire at least 100 fighters in the first stage, but the demand is expected to go up further now.

The government will select the preferred aircraft and its Indian partner based on submissions. Once selected, the manufacturing plant for the selected fighter is to be set up in India, with the Indian partner holding the majority stake in the venture.

MMRCA process in mess

“By not taking a quick decision and dragging its feet, the government has messed up the MMRCA [Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft] process,” says Air Marshal (retired) M Matheswaran, who played a crucial role in drawing up the requirements and conceptualising its original tender in the early 2000s.

“[The] original MMRCA was not only to get fighters but also to get technology here in India. All those objectives have been defeated,” he said.

The IAF in 2001 projected a requirement for 126 fighters, to fill the gap between its future indigenous light combat aircraft and the heavy-weight Sukhoi-30 fighters.

Though the initial move was to buy more Mirage 2000 fighters, it evolved into the MMRCA global tender.

In January 2012, the twin-engine Rafale fighter was declared the winner, and finally negotiations began with its French manufacturers.

Air Force sources point out that the only reason the government has now put out the present single-engine requirement is the cost.

The purchase of 36 Rafale fighters from France not only surprised most military sources but also upset the financial projects for the fleet modernisation, sources say.

Air Force sources point out that the requirement is now for over 200 fighters, and the Rafales are being limited to just 36.

Josy Joseph Dinakar Peri

[Prasad]

Lulz. Put all that money into converting MKI lines into LCA lines and get private sector to build major assemblies. Put money into developing EW pods, modules, versions etc etc etc. Maybe even an MKI growler version or whatever. What physical/personnel assets does Adani have to start making fighter jets in 3 years' time?

[shiv]

Lulz. Put all that money into converting MKI lines into LCA lines and get private sector to build major assemblies. Put money into developing EW pods, modules, versions etc etc etc. Maybe even an MKI growler version or whatever. What physical/personnel assets does Adani have to start making fighter jets in 3 years' time?

Exactly. It's that simple.

[abhik]

IMO this is a massive chorporate wellfare scheme. If A Raja was proposing this instead of the current dispensation, would you view it any differently?

[Indranil]

IMO this is a massive chorporate wellfare scheme. If A Raja was proposing this instead of the current dispensation, would you view it any differently?

Nailed it.

[JayS]

IMO this is a massive chorporate wellfare scheme. If A Raja was proposing this instead of the current dispensation, would you view it any differently?

Bingo. Couldn't have put it in any better words. But let me say this. There is nothing wrong in it, in principle - this welfare schemes. World over, defense sector as a whole is run in more socialistic way than we run our PSUs. Its a strategic national capability which goes beyond what bean-counters can think about it. Governments throw their full weight behind their OEMs. What I personally have problem with is, the blind faith in non-existing capabilities, unrealistic expectations and myopic goals that are driving the scheme, while better options are available, albeit it would need more dedication and hard work for that. It seems that GOI is applying same matrix to the defense manufacturing as they are applying to something like Mobile manufacturing.

[Kartik]

F-16Vs cleared for Bahrain. This will give an idea about the kind of kit that will be proposed for the F-16 Block 70 for India. Works out to $146 million each acquisition cost, despite existing infrastructure for 20 F-16 Block 40s. If this is the kind of acquisition cost for the F-16 MII program, since the savings from large order size will be more than offset by the price increase in shifting the FACO assembly line from the US to India, this will be a really expensive program.

Except for the operating costs, there seems to be no sense at all in going for such an expensive program, much better to just bite the bullet and order more Rafales instead. If required, make them in India with an order size of 72 or so, for an eventual fleet of 108. Way better from a commonality perspective as well.

WASHINGTON --- The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Bahrain for F-16V aircraft with support. The estimated cost is $2.785 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Bahrain has requested a possible sale of nineteen (19) F-16V Aircraft; nineteen (19) M61 Vulcan 20mm Gun Systems; twenty-two (22) F-16V F-110-GE-129 Engines (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) (includes 3 spares); and thirty-eight (38) LAU-129 Launchers.

This sale also includes nineteen (19) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, thirty-eight (38) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-two (42) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-two (22) AN/APX-126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) system or equivalent, twenty-two (22) cryptographic appliques, secure communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, simulators, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, original equipment manufacturer integration and test, U.S. Government and contractor technical support and training services, site survey, design, construction studies/analysis/services, associated operations/maintenance/ training/support facilities, cybersecurity, critical computer resources support, force protection and other related elements of logistics and program support.

The total estimated program cost is $2.785 billion.

..

The proposed sale improves Bahrain's capability to meet current and future threats. Bahrain will use the capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. This purchase of F-16Vs will improve interoperability with United States and other regional allies. Bahrain employs 20 older F-16 Block 40s and will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

..

[Indranil]

There is no other way, Kartik. You are from the industry. You would know what it takes to set up a plant, get people trained, transfer ToT (whatever that may be). If the F-16s are manufactured here from a new facility, unit cost will rival that of the Rafales built in France from an existing facility.

[raghuk]

The initial builds and the first of the "100% Indigenous raw material" aircraft will be horrendously expensive. But I suppose people will take it because it would be from a super efficient private sector entity and not a tax money sucking useless PSU like HAL.
Cheers!

[Rakesh]

Exactly. While I do not see US would arm-twist Swedes to back-off clandestinely, because selling F16 is not a big deal anymore for Uncle Sam (good if happens, doesn't matter if it doesn't) and they wouldn't want to aggravate as big "ally" as India for such trivial matter, at least not just yet. But we should remember that all it would take it is one phone call to scare away the Swedes if need be.

But boss why? The americans already have a big slice of the pie of the Indian defence market. And that pie is going to get only bigger for them in the years ahead. How is (possibly) losing the opportunity of selling 100 F-Solahs going to change that?

Arm twisting the Swedes after the downselect has occurred will leave a bad taste in India. And will not be forgotten. Arm twisting the Swedes before that is a different story

America and India both need each other. However, if America wants China to play nice in the IOR and in South Asia/South East Asia in general, it needs India and who else in the region can take India's place? Have you recently visited America's debt clock? Those numbers only keep going up. Fighting a war - even limited in scale - with China would be an economic nightmare for the US. Put India in that equation and the situation changes (for the better) for the US.

American Debt Clock ---> http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If they lose the SE competition, expect the usual noise. But the relationship will only deepen. It has no other place to go but up and you can thank China's rise for that. And like I said earlier, not worth antognizing the relationship with India over this. This deal has more significance and value for the Indian Air Force, then it does for the two countries at a geopolitcal level.

[brar_w]

One must wait for the contract with Bahrain to be finalized before determining the unit cost of the deal, and the added cost of the support. FMS notifications are highly conservative estimates and in many instances, the actual negotiated deal results in a unit price that is far lower. An example, Singapore just purchased military hardware recently that had an actual negotiated unit price that was >50% lower than the FMS notification issued a few years earlier. Another point with ME customers is in the very large support contracts that are signed, which are generally atypical of the sort of deals worked out outside the region.

[JayS]

Exactly. While I do not see US would arm-twist Swedes to back-off clandestinely, because selling F16 is not a big deal anymore for Uncle Sam (good if happens, doesn't matter if it doesn't) and they wouldn't want to aggravate as big "ally" as India for such trivial matter, at least not just yet. But we should remember that all it would take it is one phone call to scare away the Swedes if need be.

But boss why? The americans already have a big slice of the pie of the Indian defence market. And that pie is going to get only bigger for them in the years ahead. How is (possibly) losing the opportunity of selling 100 F-Solahs going to change that?

Arm twisting the Swedes after the downselect has occurred will leave a bad taste in India. And will not be forgotten. Arm twisting the Swedes before that is a different story

America and India both need each other. However, if America wants China to play nice in the IOR and in South Asia/South East Asia in general, it needs India and who else in the region can take India's place? Have you recently visited America's debt clock? Those numbers only keep going up. Fighting a war - even limited in scale - with China would be an economic nightmare for the US. Put India in that equation and the situation changes (for the better) for the US.

American Debt Clock ---> http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If they lose the SE competition, expect the usual noise. But the relationship will only deepen. It has no other place to go but up and you can thank China's rise for that. And like I said earlier, not worth antognizing the relationship with India over this. This deal has more significance and value for the Indian Air Force, then it does for the two countries at a geopolitcal level.

But I said exact same thing that you are saying just a sentence before the one that you bolded, no..??

[Kartik]

One must wait for the contract with Bahrain to be finalized before determining the unit cost of the deal, and the added cost of the support. FMS notifications are highly conservative estimates and in many instances, the actual negotiated deal results in a unit price that is far lower. An example, Singapore just purchased military hardware recently that had an actual negotiated unit price that was >50% lower than the FMS notification issued a few years earlier. Another point with ME customers is in the very large support contracts that are signed, which are generally atypical of the sort of deals worked out outside the region.

Yes, it isn't a final cost, but the FMS notification does give a general ballpark figure that we can use as a reference figure.

And a ballpark figure of $140 million unit acquisition price is not cheap by any measure. Even if one assumes that this will be as much as 30% off the mark, the F-16V for Bahrain will end up costing almost $100 million each, including spares, contractor support and infrastructure facilities set up for Sheikh Isa airbase. For India, while larger acquired numbers will mean some discounts, when one adds up the cost associated with transferring an existing FACO line, training and contractor support for TASL, plus the infrastructure setup costs for a new type, it will more than make up for the discounts.

So what was the rationale behind going for a single engine fighter? Lower acquisition and operating costs which meant overall lower program costs, which were proving to be unaffordable for the Rafale. But it doesn’t look like the Single engine MII program will end up being very affordable either.

And now that several hundred million $s have been earmarked for infrastructure and for setting up training costs for the Rafale fleet, it makes sense to just increase that fleet size and not needlessly add another light-medium fighter into the mix. From a commonality perspective of stocking spares for the airplane, its engines and training, its weapons, MRO work, in every way it makes sense to standardize on fewer types. Since we are getting the Rafale and the Tejas, and the IAF is hankering for more Rafales, it makes most sense to just go with these 2 types as the light and the medium fighters for the IAF. Increase the size of the orders for the Rafale to 72 to be made in India and find a strategic partner to do so.

LONDON—Bahrain looks set to provide a lifeline to Lockheed Martin’s F-16 production line after making a formal request to purchase 19 F-16Vs and upgrade 20 of its existing fighters to the F-16V standard.

The Foreign Military Sales request, announced by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) on Sept. 8, is valued at a combined $3.867 billion, $2.785 billion of which covers the purchase of the new-build aircraft.

..

The RBAF’s Block 40 aircraft will be upgraded to the F-16V standard, known by Lockheed Martin as the Block 70.
..
Bahrain’s F-16Vs will be fitted with Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR). The contract for the new-build aircraft also covers contractor support, as well as design and build of new facilities to support the aircraft likely to be located at Sheikh Isa airbase in the south of the island.
The upgrade deal also appears to include several weapons to be used for testing purposes, including AIM-120 Amraam air-to-air missiles and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). The air arm is also purchasing 25 Sniper targeting pods.
..