Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
jpremnath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby jpremnath » 14 Jul 2018 11:41

rohan1424 wrote:Time has come to implement the changes.HAL has taken everyone for a ride for far too long.There work culture is very bad , never meet any deadlines ,no innovation and R&D .The only thing they are good at is contract assembling , for which they don't learn anything also. We need to get pvt. firms involved .Give companies like TASL, L&T(for navy),Mahindra defense , Bharat forge a chance.At least start giving them small/medium projects and gradually give them major projects .L&T recently delivered OPV for ICG ahead of schedule. Have you heard anything like this from govt. shipyards or DPUs? IAF needs to have control over all projects similar to model used by IN.

Not entirely true..HAL does what it is told to do.. the healthy dividends what HAL gives the govt is not out of generosity but govt needs those funds to balance their umpteen welfare programs ...Remember how the forces actively discouraged HAL when they went ahead with their own independent programs like the HTT40 and now the IMRH.? The IAF chief wrote to govt to stop hal from pursuing it?..Now the Navy and the IAF says they don't want the IMRH and they would only buy ubercool unobtanium choppers with stealth and plasma guns...

Any HAL chief who sanctioned any independent r&d programs without the forces' permission will be sitting in front of some enquiry committee years later to explain why he was wasting public money.... nevertheless, of late HAL has gone ahead with decent programs like htfe and htse with decent progress...

I am not saying HAL is a world class company....It has its own problems and inefficiencies. We should be focussing on how to improve it... Private enterprises are not the panacea for everything....They should be encouraged to outsource parts and HAL can be the OEM..

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby habal » 14 Jul 2018 12:14

has anybody watched the rajya sabha tv program linked on previous page. AVM bahadur, & ajay banerjee and one other gent whose name I forgot were arguing for IAF running bureau so that they would stick to a final design and not suggest umpteen modifications. Also ajay banerjee suggested leasing out govt dpsu land to pvt companies who were subcontracted various parts/platforms for setting up plants with condition that ownership would transfer back to govt when they stopped manufacturing goods for armed forces. This was necessary because finding land for defence production for private companies to start manufacturing would prove to be a hurdle and time consuming.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17324
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 14 Jul 2018 13:46

ramana wrote:
dinesha wrote:Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html


IN admirals are in charge of all the major shipyards yet we don't get these type of articles.
Sad that even good news is packaged as bad.


The IN has the most naval design as well as weapon integrating expertise in India and they also run their own dockyards. Furthermore, they have firm control over the shipbuilding civilian yards as well as production PSUs like BEL etc. Expertise as well as experience counts. They also run their own weapon systems R&D lab to customize the design and integration solutions for the shipyards and Naval dockyards.

The IN cannot be faulted for seeking to control the complete chain when the alternative of ceding control to disparate organizations may be counterproductive.

It may be wise to take a lesson from what Cmde Arogyaswami Paulraj says about his experiences with the DRDO. Mediocre persons build little kingdoms to safeguard their own interests. Great persons strike out on unexplored paths that they are ever eager to explore.

After being sent out of DRDO and working in Stanford University and currently their Electrical Engineering Professor Emeritus Arogyaswami Paulraj uncommonly won the Marconi Prize coming just three years after he was honored with the other major Telecom technology award - the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for his work on theoretical foundations of MIMO.

This was the same man who was told in no uncertain terms that he was not required in DRDO from where he was banished and told never to darken their doors again.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/nris-in-news/nri-scientist-aj-paulraj-wins-tech-nobel-2014-marconi-prize/articleshow/29232251.cms

In fact, Paulraj's work enabled India to overcome the military export restrictions imposed by the west. In an ironic twist, the Navy allowed him to go to Stanford on a two-year sabbatical, joining his mentor Tom Kailath. He returned to India in 1986 and served as the founding director for three major labs - CAIR (Center for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics), CDAC (Center for Development of Advanced Computing) and CRL (Central Research Labs of Bharat Electronics).

But by 1991, according to the now familiar narrative, bureaucratic battles began to take their toll, and with the consent of the Indian Navy, he returned to the US and Stanford University. ''His departure for Stanford University was a major loss for our country and the circumstances that led to his move may explain why we have so few Nobel Laureates from India,'' Admiral Tahiliani said.


The age old attitudes have not changed very much over the years. The IAF may very well find out the hard way. Turf wars here are fiercely fought with no quarter given because little fiefdoms are at stake.

Cmde Paulraj could very well have said a great deal more but he wisely chose not to.

The quote below was recieved by whatsapp some time ago.

APSOH – A DREAM COME TRUE

Cmde Arogyaswami Paulraj AVSM VSM PhD(Retd)/Fox/25/BCC/Silver Medallist

Early in 1969, I was nominated to attend a selection interview for the M Tech course at IIT (Delhi). I joined IIT in July 1969 for the M Tech course, overjoyed at a chance to pursue my interests in a real university. Soon Prof Indiresan became impressed with my work and asked the IIT and NHQ to allow me to transfer to a Ph D programme. I did not have a B Tech degree and therefore normally needed to complete an M Tech before starting on a Ph D. Prof Indiresan succeeded in persuading the IIT Senate to make a concession, but had much more difficulty with NHQ. Initially Vice Admiral Krishnan (the VCNS) gave a flat no, because, as he put it, he did not need scientists in the Navy. But Prof Indiresan persisted and wrote or visited NHQ. VCNS finally relented on the condition that I get back to the Navy in the two years allowed for the M Tech.

I began my Ph D research in December 1969. After an initial start in more applied work, I was successful in developing many interesting results in filtering theory (extracting signals from noise). During early 1971, Prof Kailath from Stanford University visited the IIT. Kailath was already a legend. He encouraged my theoretical research interests. Prof Indiresan with his emphasis on 'practice' and Prof Kailath on 'theory' influenced my professional interests and they remain my principal heroes and mentors. In August 1971, my two years at IIT were completed, and I was posted to Valsura (the Navy's Electrical School). I still needed a mandatory additional year to submit my thesis.

I did have interesting results, but it required more polishing and Valsura, lacking a research library, would have killed the Ph D. Once again, Prof Indiresan lobbied NHQ for a New Delhi posting and after a great deal of anxiety; I was assigned to the Directorate of Electrical Engineering at NHQ.

The Beginning

One night in early December 1971, during the Indo-Pakistan War, we lost the frigate INS Khukri from submarine action. The next morning, the DEE (Director of Electrical Engineering, Commodore Chatterjee) asked me whether I knew anything about sonars. I don't remember what I told him, but later that afternoon, I accompanied him to Bombay. The next day, I became aware of Lt Jain's association with the BARC experiments. I also examined some of the hardware developed by BARC.DEE then asked me if I would take over Jain's place and pursue the work to improve Sonar 170 B. I accepted and suggested that we do the project at IIT under Prof Indiresan. I was of course happy to get back to IIT to rescue my Ph.D.

The Sonar 170B Modification

In March 1972, NHQ assigned me back to IIT Delhi to develop a modification kit to improve Sonar 170 B. NHQ allowed me to use any design approach. BARC was encouraged to continue its work. I had my misgivings about the BARC's approach, but kept quiet because of the sensitivity of the circumstances.” By March 1972, IIT had a basic prototype and the team (Prof Indiresan, myself and three Ph.D. scholars) flew down to Bombay for trials on INS Kuthar. The first trial had problems in interface to the sonar. We were back again in June 1972, with an improved prototype and this time the trials went well. NHQ was enthusiastic. A final prototype was built during September 1972 to September 1973. It was cleared for production after extensive trials. BDL Hyderabad was nominated as the production agency. IIT handed over the design to BDL in December 1973. I left for the UK to work atLoughborough University in January 1974. The ex-BDL 170 B mod kits entered fleet service in 1976/77.

Comments on the BARC Project

“Lieutenant Jain had done a course in the UK at HMS Collingwood and had picked up sonar knowledge beyond his Valsura courses. In Bombay, Jain met Dr Phadnis of BARC who had returned from Italy where his professor had developed an instrument for nuclear scintillation logging. Phadnis had learned in Italy that this technique can also improve sonars. So Jain and Phadnis, with Dr Dastidar's blessing, began adapting this instrument for use with Sonar 170 B. Jain was then at the Naval Dockyard Bombay's Weapon Workshop WECORS and Western Naval Command had clearly encouraged his association with BARC. I don't think NHQ was aware of the BARC project. Jain never visited or worked at IIT. I became aware of his involvement only after the loss of Khukri and his death. What I recollect hearing was that the BARC equipment was attached to Sonar 170 B, which was operating when Khukri was hit and Jain was in the Sonar Control Room.

I believe that the IIT system design is much superior to the BARC design. Once, during a meeting in Scientific Adviser, Dr Ramanna's office in 1973 to discuss the IIT vs BARC technology, I tried to explain why the PI approach of BARC had a problem and suggested alternate approaches. I am not sure if anyone understood. The BARC project went on for a few more years before being shut down. This was a high visibility project at BARC and it was politically hard for BARC to wind up the project on a negative note. However, BARC and Jain deserve the credit to have taken the initiative to start improving Sonar 170 B. Clearly, there would have been no IIT project (and the improvement of 170 B) and perhaps even APSOH if not for the BARC-Jain initiative.

UK and the Seeds of APSOH

From January 1974, I spent 18 months at Loughborough University working on signal processing on an Admiralty Under-Water Establishment funded project. I used every chance to visit the sonar industry and learn whatever I could about the technology. Apart from my research into passive sonar signal processing, I had lots of fun building a minicomputer. At the end of my stay, I was given 2 months to visit sonar companies. This was a revealing experience:

Visit to Grasebys: They were, at that point, building the Solid State version of 184 M for the Indian Navy. I discovered that the design team had only minimal grasp of sonar signal processing. During my brief stay, I helped them improve some of their designs.

Visit to Plessey: I was told by Plessey that they had developed an improved Sonar 170 B. I found that they had not really improved the sonar, other than adding LFM. They had not figured how to do DODN.

Visit to Thompson CSF: This was a strong team building the Diodon sonar for the Indian Navy. However, they did not know anything new. I arrived back in India in November 1975, confident that we could develop our own major sonar. Initially DEE assigned me for sea time. But then somebody intervened and I was assigned to NPOL. NPOL did not have a billet for me and I was finally posted on a transferred billet.

APSOH

When I arrived in Cochin in February 1976, NPOL was already working on a sonar project. This had a budget of Rs 14 lakhs. Initially, NPOL's Director, Dr Srinivasan, did not involve me with this project. If I recall correctly, a computer system arrived from the US badly damaged and I managed to fix it.

This impressed Dr Srinivasan and I was included in the project discussions. It soon became clear to Dr Srinivasan that I had the best grasp of system design and I slowly began to drive the project into high ground. Around this time, NHQ started looking for an advanced sonar. Dr Srinivasan and I managed to convince various people VCNS, DCPT (Captain Hiranandani) and others that we should build our own. It was a leap of faith for us all. NPOL had little track record to back up such an ambitious project. And I was a pretty green project leader. A CCPA paper was drawn up for Rs 280 lakhs. We had approval by end 1976 and APSOH was rolling. Our team grew from 10 in 1976 to about 60 by 1982. Captain Prabhala headed the Engineering team at BEL. Relations between NPOL and BEL were initially good, but as deadlines appeared, there was much finger pointing and our relations cooled. Looking back, I did a poor job in carrying BEL along and indeed also the DRDO brass. Too much of the technical leadership was centralised in me and my close relations with the Navy (innocent and indeed vital for the project) were unfortunately misread by many of my superiors in the DRDO and BEL. Serious problems cropped up in 1982 and VCNS and CNS had to intervene to keep NPOL - BEL fights in check. If not for these two senior officers, APSOH could have been stopped dead. Many heads soon rolled in the aftermath. “After a 6-month installation on Himgiri commanded by Captain (later Admiral) Shekhawat, the APSOH prototype took to sea in mid 1982. On the very first day, we saw 16 km ranges against a submarine target. It brought so many others and me great satisfaction. We had problems with the power amplifiers, which took a while to fix. But this aside, the system behaved superbly. The sonar screens were sometimes unreal in quality compared to anything known.

Thoughts on APSOH in Retrospect

Now that I lead aspects of wireless technology at a worldwide level, I have a better understanding of the technology development process in the developed countries. I sometimes compare APSOH with other achievements I see in my new field. I am always amazed as to how such an inexperienced team, with such few resources, pulled off this major project in such a short period. APSOH was an impossible dream that came true for many of us.

The End

One day in May 1983, as the APSOH trials were concluding, Dr Arunachalam, the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, asked me to leave the country on sabbatical for two or three years and to do something completely different. He made it clear that my sonar career was over and I should find wider interests.
Since I was not seconded to DRDO, the CNS's (Admiral Dawson's) clearance was needed, and went along with this. I was initially a little hesitant, but was willing to be persuaded. Thus, with some surprise, my sonar period ended almost as abruptly as it had begun, more than eleven years ago on the day after we lost the Khukri.“In September 1983, I joined Stanford. It all worked out thanks to Prof Kailath who remembered my Ph D work and arranged the visiting faculty appointment. At Stanford, I returned to pure theoretical research in mostly applied mathematics, very far from sonars and mostly irrelevant to the DRDO or the Navy. However I came to enjoy Stanford a lot, and therefore in 1992, when I was at a loose end, I decided to return here to start a new activity in wireless communications for the University.

I was fortunate to have played a role in the early development of the Indian Navy's sonar capability: Sonar 170 B Mod and later APSOH and its variants - I started the variant but was out of NPOL before these were completed. I acknowledge the support and encouragement of many people. Clearly the most important person was Prof Indiresan. His perseverance and faith launched me (an ex-NDA officer without a formal university degree or for that matter any real engineering training) into a world of high technology - IIT (Delhi), sonars, parallel computers, wireless networks, Stanford University and the rest. Recalling my sonar days, I was blessed with tremendous personal support from the highest levels in the Navy including every CNS and VCNS from 1972 to 1983. There are many others drawn from Navy, DRDO and BEL, too numerous to mention here.

Acknowledgement

These memoirs have been adapted from the Indian Navy history volume ‘Transition to Eminence’ Indian Navy 1965-1975, by VAdm GM Hiranandani (Retd).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50220
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2018 04:17

In early 1990s , I forget the exact year, I was fortunate to hear his lecture on smart antennas even though I was mechanical engineer. I appreciated the elimination of mechanical scanning delays.

Much later in 2012, I had the good fortune to be at a desi fundraiser and had Dr,
. Kailath at same table. Very fruitful conversation!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17324
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 15 Jul 2018 10:39

ramana wrote:In early 1990s , I forget the exact year, I was fortunate to hear his lecture on smart antennas even though I was mechanical engineer. I appreciated the elimination of mechanical scanning delays.

Much later in 2012, I had the good fortune to be at a desi fundraiser and had Dr,. Kailath at same table. Very fruitful conversation!


ramana ji,

Many people in govt service seem to forget, or perhaps have not even understood that performance is all about results because they are so busy consolidating their perks and privileges that it never strikes them that:

‘‘You pay a cow for its milk, not for standing over the bucket.’’

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jul 2018 11:53

chetak wrote:
A Deshmukh wrote:IAF leadership is dominated by pilots and not engineers.
Building a plane requires skills of Designer first, and then Engineering & Operations, Supply Chain, Manufacturing Managerial skills.
IAF pilots will not have any of these skills.

But sometimes in school, the naughtiest boy is made the Monitor.


IAF is pilot led and HAL/DRDO is engineer led and therein lies the rub.


My feeling reg. Lca has always been that iaf is pilot led, HAL is babu led and Ada is engineer led

.
ramana wrote:IAF being in charge of their planes procurement is a good thing. Its similar to the IN being in charge of procuring ships.
And if you want bahar ki murgi its the way USAF does business.

It was only under Maj Gen Jetley of IA,the M-4 Shermans were up-gunned with the French CV-75N cannon that made mince meat of Pattons at Asal Uttar.


So IAF wanting to take leadership of the Tejas program is the right thing.
It should have done it from day one.t.


Spot on Ramanaji, Der aye lekin durust aye

rohan1424
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 18 Sep 2016 11:09

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby rohan1424 » 15 Jul 2018 12:13

jpremnath wrote:Not entirely true..HAL does what it is told to do.. the healthy dividends what HAL gives the govt is not out of generosity but govt needs those funds to balance their umpteen welfare programs ...Remember how the forces actively discouraged HAL when they went ahead with their own independent programs like the HTT40 and now the IMRH.? The IAF chief wrote to govt to stop hal from pursuing it?..Now the Navy and the IAF says they don't want the IMRH and they would only buy ubercool unobtanium choppers with stealth and plasma guns...

Any HAL chief who sanctioned any independent r&d programs without the forces' permission will be sitting in front of some enquiry committee years later to explain why he was wasting public money.... nevertheless, of late HAL has gone ahead with decent programs like htfe and htse with decent progress...

I am not saying HAL is a world class company....It has its own problems and inefficiencies. We should be focusing on how to improve it... Private enterprises are not the panacea for everything....They should be encouraged to outsource parts and HAL can be the OEM..


The reason why defense forces are reluctant to encourage or support new projects by HAL or other DPSUs is that they know it will take long time to materialize with cost overruns and deadlines never been met.Name a single project by HAL which they have completed successfully on time and within budget. I m not advocating to hand over all defense projects to private sector but we should give them a chance so that MIC and talent pool is established.They will also provide competition to govt enterprises who have a laid back attitude , bad management and total lack of accountability.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21830
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Austin » 15 Jul 2018 14:31

PODCAST: Admiral Arun Prakash on Indian military aviation today


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19552
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2018 14:42

"Tejas price to come under scrutiny".NS says.
New committee by the MOD to look into cost of products of the DPSUs.

This is precisely the argument which I've put forward regarding the IA and Arjun, which is far more expensive than the T-90.The report also mentioned the cheaper cost of buying MKIs than those built by HAL.Realisation is dawning upon a cash- strapped govt. that " make in India" often does not reward you with cost-effectiveness.
The news of this new committee being formed surely will recommend outright " cheaper" buys of firang fighters!
MRCA contestants will be popping champagne corks!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2629
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby kit » 15 Jul 2018 16:11

Philip wrote:"Tejas price to come under scrutiny".NS says.
New committee by the MOD to look into cost of products of the DPSUs.

This is precisely the argument which I've put forward regarding the IA and Arjun, which is far more expensive than the T-90.The report also mentioned the cheaper cost of buying MKIs than those built by HAL.Realisation is dawning upon a cash- strapped govt. that " make in India" often does not reward you with cost-effectiveness.
The news of this new committee being formed surely will recommend outright " cheaper" buys of firang fighters!
MRCA contestants will be popping champagne corks!


There it is. Why is everyone so eager to blame HAL. There are a lot of vendors looking to recoup their investment in LCA .. wonder how each of them charge the HAL for their products when their IPR is owned by a government entity

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19552
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2018 18:31

Cost of Tejas 463 crores.Cost of an MKI 400crores made in India! HAL earlier quoted only 100 crores for an LCA. How is this acceptable? The DM , NS is perfectly within her right as DM to demand fiscal accountability from the pampered DPSUs which for decades have been ripping the services and the GOI( taxpayer) off.

The committee will respond within 60 days says the report.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SiddharthS » 15 Jul 2018 19:19

It's not surprising that firangi influencers are doing the influencing in the government, media and even on this forum; what's surprising is the inability of discerning patriots in identifying them.

Calls of civility protect the influencers from admonition, giving them ample space to influence under a cloak of 'Indian interest'. That, which should be completely disregarded and treated with utmost indifference, attracts the inordinate amount of interest because of the well-meaning patriots inability in identifying the manipulative opinions.

After three years of reading this forum it is obvious to spot the Russian influencer. Anyone who knows anything about PR knows exactly what this Russian influencer is doing. Having done bit of influencing myself its easy to see the different structures employed by this influencer.

Just to give you the taste of influencing, Following comment of mine uses the 80:20 structure, the article was about Jf-17 but general inclination of website and author had been towards gripen, Tejas wasn't in the forefront.

Jf-17 is an all metal plane, with an underpowered engine , not fully fbw and dodgy avionics ,carrying only sub standard Chinese missiles and radar with no scope of significant future improvements given its designer doesn’t even deem it worthy enough to induct in it’s own air force. Gripen does not have any of these drawbacks ,with the full sensor suit it’s a beast ,Tejas is good but most of its production is going to be diverted to fulfill orders from IAF, Gripen does not have any of these commitments so at the moment it seems like a good choice.


Tejas and AMCA ought to be given utmost priority no matter how loud the firangi (Russian, swede, american, french) and their influencers whine. Mk1a must not be delayed; AESA, EW and aerial refuelling makes it a SEF killer. Every committee formed to delay the Mk-1a would be a boon for the SEF. And underdeveloped aeronautical complex would be a boon for the Russians who want to sell us their 'fifth' gen aircraft.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby RKumar » 15 Jul 2018 19:44

I would order LCA and Arjun at those rates because money does not flow out of the country. We develop skills, tools and industry even if it costs double-triple the amount.

Lets for the argument sake, HAL is charging 3x more for LCA. It is OK, let them invest this money either in people or tooling or infrastructure or return to GoI as dividend :wink: . It is like shifting money from my pocket to my wife's pocket as compare to giving it out to Natascha's.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17324
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 15 Jul 2018 20:27

RKumar wrote:I would order LCA and Arjun at those rates because money does not flow out of the country. We develop skills, tools and industry even if it costs double-triple the amount.

Lets for the argument sake, HAL is charging 3x more for LCA. It is OK, let them invest this money either in people or tooling or infrastructure or return to GoI as dividend :wink: . It is like shifting money from my pocket to my wife's pocket as compare to giving it out to Natascha's.


I understand that the PSU works on a cost plus 10%. basis.

There is no real audit of the costing at any stage and people merrily sign because there are no corruption charges that follow any orders placed on a PSU.

Moreover, these orders are not on a competitive basis so its usually a jiski lathi uski bhains story and it is a single tender story too.

And let's not kid ourselves, in India there is corruption in every sphere and in some places it is like an iceberg with a very large part being invisible.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19552
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2018 21:28

One can understand if the LCA was in the same class as the MKI.It simply isn't by any stretch of the imagination.You can't have a 4 × cost escalation.I have repeatedly stressed that cost-effective decisions must be taken.It is easy to say pay for Tejas and Arjun " at any cost".But that cost comes out of our pockets, the poor taxpayer reeling under 18% GST, high fuel prices, etc.

This cost committee was required at least a decade ago.Kudos to NS and the govt. Every rupee saved iz vital for other economic development. The DPSUs are now being called to account, pun intended.

As for DPSU corruption, remember the Tatra affair? It is why they fight tooth and nail to keep out the pvt. sector which will show them up with real competition. Even if corruption is limited, inefficiency, wastage, high labour costs- remember the ongoing spat between the IAF and HAL regarding who pays for the extra labour costs for the already extortionate cost of M2K upgrades (50M a pop) !.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17324
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 15 Jul 2018 21:42

Philip wrote:One can understand if the LCA was in the same class as the MKI.It simply isn't by any stretch of the imagination.You can't have a 4 × cost escalation.I have repeatedly stressed that cost-effective decisions must be taken.It is easy to say pay for Tejas and Arjun " at any cost".But that cost comes out of our pockets, the poor taxpayer reeling under 18% GST, high fuel prices, etc.

This cost committee was required at least a decade ago.Kudos to NS and the govt. Every rupee saved iz vital for other economic development. The DPSUs are now being called to account, pun intended.

As for DPSU corruption, remember the Tatra affair? It is why they fight tooth and nail to keep out the pvt. sector which will show them up with real competition. Even if corruption is limited, inefficiency, wastage, high labour costs- remember the ongoing spat between the IAF and HAL regarding who pays for the extra labour costs for the already extortionate cost of M2K upgrades (50M a pop) !.


The tatra affair spawned a whole new ecosystem of corruption that reached right into the elements and entities in that specific PMO itself.

Board memberships, directorships, land deals including readily and per individual spec constructed bungalows in posh areas of major cities, kickbacks from huge and very lucrative construction contracts, exclusive purchase deals from friends and family owned companies at inflated prices, foreign jaunts, shopping trips, jewelry plus the usual, very ordinary and mundane wine+dine, women and song bit.

Nothing has changed, even today. Same shit, different day and with different people.

As usual, the bigwigs get away scotfree.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sudeepj » 15 Jul 2018 22:10

Willing to bet this MKI to tejas comparison is not an apples to apples comparison. Its the same old T90 shell vs a fully equipped Arjun comparison and the Russian ape is flinging shit as usual.

Added later: Checked out the Rajya Sabha TV program with AVM Bahadur and the two journo types unloading on HAL. Suffice it to say, flyboys dont know shit about engineering complex aviation systems or 'production lines' and journos ofcourse, know nothing.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 15 Jul 2018 22:21

LCA cost more most likely because all the fixed costs are amortized into the 83 units. Ask HAL for 284 units and see the price fall!!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2629
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby kit » 15 Jul 2018 22:53

https://m.timesofindia.com/business/international-business/lockheed-f-35-jet-price-falls-6-to-below-90-million/articleshow/64997337.cms

But negotiations for this 11th batch of jets extended because new Pentagon leaders drilled deep into the programme to understand it and its costs, prolonging negotiations for the multi-year "block buy," the sources said.

MOD needs to "drill deep" to understand the cost of Tejas LCA ..it's vital to understand this for continuity of the programme

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 901
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby yensoy » 15 Jul 2018 23:08

Dileep wrote:LCA cost more most likely because all the fixed costs are amortized into the 83 units. Ask HAL for 284 units and see the price fall!!


The R&D costs must be taken off HAL's books with a one-time grant with recurrent payments for refinements. HAL needs to be clear about it's per-unit production cost (based on say 83 units) and move the conversation from there. Otherwise they will lost the sympathy of even hardcore swadesi advocates very soon.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2732
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 16 Jul 2018 00:01

true

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2478
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby tsarkar » 16 Jul 2018 00:04

Dileep wrote:LCA cost more most likely because all the fixed costs are amortized into the 83 units. Ask HAL for 284 units and see the price fall!!

For Project 17, 28 & 71, MDL, GRSE and CSL respectively were given modernisation packages for modular construction infrastructure including new Goliath cranes. The investment is being reused for Type 15A/B & 17A. If HAL needs investment, then GoI should have factored it like the examples above instead of taking it from customer's budget. IN didn't fund MDL, GRSE & CSL modernisation with its meagre budget.

Plus HAL is a cash rich company being able to invest in own infra, like new helicopter factory at Tumkur. That too is being built on HAL own money rather than IAF or IA money.

Something doesn't add up. Let's wait for the MoD assessment to complete.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby RKumar » 16 Jul 2018 01:14

Philip wrote:One can understand if the LCA was in the same class as the MKI.It simply isn't by any stretch of the imagination.You can't have a 4 × cost escalation.I have repeatedly stressed that cost-effective decisions must be taken.It is easy to say pay for Tejas and Arjun " at any cost".But that cost comes out of our pockets, the poor taxpayer reeling under 18% GST, high fuel prices, etc.

This cost committee was required at least a decade ago.Kudos to NS and the govt. Every rupee saved iz vital for other economic development. The DPSUs are now being called to account, pun intended.


Oh yeah, poor tax payers were happy paying for cheap imports during last 70 years and will be saving money for next trillions of years. Let’s keep importing or may be better let’s out source our defense to British/Russians/USA like our Kings did 300 years ago. That was cheaper for us, just swallow our pride and get used to insults. it may make sense to have begging bowl like our great green stupid friends and sold security to PLA.

We are like this only, penny wise and pound foolish.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3193
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Jul 2018 02:16

Dileep wrote:LCA cost more most likely because all the fixed costs are amortized into the 83 units. Ask HAL for 284 units and see the price fall!!

Probably also includes development costs...

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Khalsa » 16 Jul 2018 02:21

Cain Marko wrote:
Dileep wrote:LCA cost more most likely because all the fixed costs are amortized into the 83 units. Ask HAL for 284 units and see the price fall!!

Probably also includes development costs...


Can we have this validated and double checked with official statements and sources.
My group of friends have picked up this news as well that Desi is more expensive than a Firangi fighter.

now these are good couple who don't know better and have asked if the rumours are true.
its important that we kill this rumour before it has a chance to get the pants on.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1014
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rishirishi » 16 Jul 2018 04:39

The point with LCA is not to save money. It is to obtain the ability to develop aircrafts.

Yes it is expensive, and over time the price may come down.

The MKI is not as Indian as some may think.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Khalsa » 16 Jul 2018 08:08

Rishirishi wrote:The point with LCA is not to save money. It is to obtain the ability to develop aircrafts.

Yes it is expensive, and over time the price may come down.

The MKI is not as Indian as some may think.


and therefore

the F-16 will not be as Indian as some may think
the F-18 will not be as Indian as some may think
the Gripen will not be as Indian as some may think
the Eurofighter will not be as Indian as some may think



re: overtime the price may come down. Do you infer to the amortization angle ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21830
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Austin » 16 Jul 2018 09:15

IF Gripen or MKI would have been ordered in just 100 then it would have cost double or triple than the current cost.

HAL has to take into account the inflationary cost of building any aircraft and account for it today for something delivered in 2025 , many factors can infulence cost including HAL own desire to make a fat profit from it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50220
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2018 21:10

Lets wait for the report of the MoD committee on HAL pricing of Tejas Mk1A.

The earlier Rs.363 crores/aircraft itself could be high due to low rate initial production and mfg. tooling amortization?

Then what about the funding of Rs 1360 crores for the second line and money allocated in the mid 2000 decade for HAL to gear up to start producing the LSPs?

By way of comparison today F-35 is priced at $80 million and LMT is planning to re-compete the component to reduce prices.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nash » 16 Jul 2018 21:20

Dileep wrote:LCA cost more most likely because all the fixed costs are amortized into the 83 units. Ask HAL for 284 units and see the price fall!!


And if that is the case then MoD committee should suggest to increase the order from 83 to 123 or more.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6864
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Prasad » 16 Jul 2018 22:05

Or you know, shut up about cost.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50220
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2018 22:30

Prasad wrote:Or you know, shut up about cost.



how about we dig into the funds allocated to HAL to build the Tejas mfg line?

I am not clear on the TDS, PV, LSP and SP mfg line.

However I am clear on the second Tejas line was funded at Rs 1350 crores from Ajai Shukla blogs and many others.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby souravB » 17 Jul 2018 05:44

How about everybody pitch in.. 130Cr population, 10 rupee/head should be sufficient. And/Or GoI can start a new cess..
</sarcasm>

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4562
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 17 Jul 2018 08:46

The massive opportunity costs of destroying the local aerospace R&D base by importing foreign planes should also be factored in.

Huge outflows of foreign exchange to finance the R&D of foreign scientists and engineers whomworked on the plane at the expense of local ones should be calculated when a comparison is made.

That is by far the most damaging part in dollar terms.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1233
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 17 Jul 2018 11:28

souravB wrote:How about everybody pitch in.. 130Cr population, 10 rupee/head should be sufficient. And/Or GoI can start a new cess..
</sarcasm>

In CBSE hindi textbook of class 6, there was a chapter on FSU about kids collecting scrap iron to gift tractors to friendly nations. Goes long way in grooming kids about national pride. Even in our school days there used to be funding for earthquakes (remember doing myself for latur and uttarkashi ones beyond my capacity).
Forget everything even pakistan is funding for dams. Damn...

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17324
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 17 Jul 2018 11:37

RKumar wrote:
Philip wrote:One can understand if the LCA was in the same class as the MKI.It simply isn't by any stretch of the imagination.You can't have a 4 × cost escalation.I have repeatedly stressed that cost-effective decisions must be taken.It is easy to say pay for Tejas and Arjun " at any cost".But that cost comes out of our pockets, the poor taxpayer reeling under 18% GST, high fuel prices, etc.

This cost committee was required at least a decade ago.Kudos to NS and the govt. Every rupee saved iz vital for other economic development. The DPSUs are now being called to account, pun intended.


Oh yeah, poor tax payers were happy paying for cheap imports during last 70 years and will be saving money for next trillions of years. Let’s keep importing or may be better let’s out source our defense to British/Russians/USA like our Kings did 300 years ago. That was cheaper for us, just swallow our pride and get used to insults. it may make sense to have begging bowl like our great green stupid friends and sold security to PLA.

We are like this only, penny wise and pound foolish.


It is not the PSU/DRDO/Govt organization per se, it is the massive organized and frenzied feeding off the public trough that shames us.

If the PSU/DRDO/Govt organization simply took business decisions and played the game with a straight bat it would be fine but it never does. It is forced to accommodate a great many scheming, defrauding and thieving companies that instantaneously spring up around any such new venture.

The system is systematically milked by using unquantifiable catch phrases like "research", "development", "infrastructure", "low ROI" "pioneering technology" and what not.

This drives the costs up and the quality down and frequent demands for "profit sharing" by greedy inspectors does not help. Delays abound and timelines slip, fraud companies simply slip away with contracts uncompleted but much money is always paid by some "uncle" sitting on the board or senior management forcing the PSU to pay.

Without exception, friends and family always seem to benefit.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby RKumar » 17 Jul 2018 12:56

Last OT from my side on this topic ...

PSU/DRDO/Govt organization == there working class are common people like you and me.

It is always easy to blame neighbor or teacher or neta or babu or employee not doing a decent job. In the end, all these are from our own community, as a nation - everyone needs to help other to get better but we the experts of leg pulling.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby jaysimha » 17 Jul 2018 14:36

update in ada web site. glimpse of what it takes to make a aeroplane
https://www.ada.gov.in/images/ORG-WC1.pdf

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17324
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 17 Jul 2018 15:04

RKumar wrote:Last OT from my side on this topic ...

PSU/DRDO/Govt organization == there working class are common people like you and me.

It is always easy to blame neighbor or teacher or neta or babu or employee not doing a decent job. In the end, all these are from our own community, as a nation - everyone needs to help other to get better but we the experts of leg pulling.


this is a canned and hackneyed response. It says nothing, means nothing.

Get a system in place, we deserve one at least after 50-60 years of license raj looting.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 17 Jul 2018 16:54

chetak wrote:
RKumar wrote:Last OT from my side on this topic ...

PSU/DRDO/Govt organization == there working class are common people like you and me.

It is always easy to blame neighbor or teacher or neta or babu or employee not doing a decent job. In the end, all these are from our own community, as a nation - everyone needs to help other to get better but we the experts of leg pulling.


this is a canned and hackneyed response. It says nothing, means nothing.

Get a system in place, we deserve one at least after 50-60 years of license raj looting.


One correction Saar, the license raj has been looting for around 260 years.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karthik S and 53 guests