Air Force Tejas Mk1A: News & Discussions: 02 January 2022

[srai]

For whatever reasons, no talk of license manufacture of F-404 engines. A lot of engines are being procured over the next 10-years.

[Rakesh]

Gentlemen, please do not lose hope. It is frustrating, but delays (especially in India) are par for the course. Nothing ever comes on time in India. Regardless of that, Tejas will still serve in large numbers. She will be fashionably late, but she will come.

I have posted this before and I am posting this again. There is no other journalist in India (perhaps Hemant Rout) who has valuable insight into India's military acquisitions and processes than Saurav Jha. Take hope in the tweet below.

This is the long term plan: https://x.com/SJha1618/status/1773283439996797189?s=20 ---> 220 + 201 + 272 + 189 = 882

P.S. I empathize with anyone who feels that the above tweet does little to assuage the concern in delays.

But hang in there, because it is going to be a bumpy ride.

[fanne]

My take on delays -
MK1 to MK1a is a major upgrade (like mid life upgrade, M2KI took time to qualify and the took a decade or more to implement on 50 planes). ADA underestimated the effort (and no other fault like they are slacking or sabotage, e.g. GE not giving engine). The prototype was under construction since 2023 Feb/march (?) and was supposed to be complete by Feb 2024. Two other specimen (one LSP and 1-2 mk1) were also flying in parallel to move the testing faster (so HAL/ADA recognized the risk and had parallel process to mitigate it). Now all of these 3/4 planes were not sufficient to complete the testing by say Feb 2024 or July 2024 (now August 2024). There may have been last minute additions (like SDR, but reports say, they were not last minute). In any case, the plane involves Hardware changes(new BNET radio, moving rwr, changes in internal layout as demanded for easier maintenance), their impact on CG and hence the control laws. You add software changes (with Hardware, newer mission computer etc) - integration of SDR (SDR should send and receive data, integrate tha with the existing display from planes own sensors, cater for false signal/hacking etc.) and all of that needs time to test.
If I were to make a decision - I would induct the plane if all hardware changes are complete and it is safe to fly. All the daa fusion can wait, say it gets completed in next 9 months, port those software changes to in service planes and not hold the plane from joining squadron service. Go with a lesser capable software release.

[srai]

Tejas Mk1A was a major upgrade. People should not think otherwise.

If you look at Su-30MKI, they have been in service for like 20-years and the IAF still has not done a major MLU on them yet!

Similar to Mirage-2000, they were in the IAF service for like 30 years before the MLU upgrades took place. The process of upgrading them in small batches took another 10-years.

Same goes for MiG-29s.

What the IAF could have done if numbers were the desired priority would have been to place a larger order for Mk1 itself. Instead of 40 units, orders could have been for 80 units. That would have allowed for a smoother production continuity with larger capacities at an earlier timeframe.

[fanne]

Also delay by GE on engines have no bearing on MK1A (and perhaps further 10-15 planes). Further MK1A may get delayed, but the current one has an engine. The delay is purely on integration of new system and their validation.
The LCA engines are already there. If you believe GE website, HAL may have total of 120 engines already. You can say 32 +18 have been used (or will be used) for mk1 and trainers. Another 16 or so for LSP and PV (some of them were not f404 IN 20 engines). So 120-66 = 54 engines are still available for MK1A. I would assume some 20 are reserves, that would leave some 34 planes that can be made till we start again getting GE engines.

[VinodTK]

^^^ If it takes time why does the program director / program manager not set the expectations right at the start itself, by saying the asked for dates are not viable and when the projected dates are going to be.

If they are going to miss the projected dates get ahead of the news and say why we are going to be late.Red flag should have been raised about the GE engine delay about a year ago, not when the date is missed.

Upgrades might take time; how ever quick response / turnaround time is a must. Look at the Russia & Ukraine war, how systems are being modified on the fly (I now not aircraft)

It is very sad that this type of discussion comes into public domain through newspapers via unnamed IAF and HAL sources.

[fanne]

Very good question

NASA did a study of all projects during Mars rover project (it was delayed and all that). They figured that chances of 80% to 100% correct was when someone projected for something to be done in 3 months. The accuracy decreased for 4, 6 , 9 months etc. When something was projected to be done in a year, it could very well take 2 years to complete (100% variance, they also said predicting something out for 5 years was stupid) . This is assuming,no one was lying, or was incompetent.

When the ADA/DRDO scientist made the plan, they did not have a time machine, they had indeed planned to do it in a year. Whatever was being done, was being done for the first time, with no precedence, no data to estimate. The estimate is off is a very expected outcome. This is more true for R&D effort.

What is all wrong is, reason for the delay, it is not GE engines. Unless they don't have enough engines, and figured if they rush LCAMK1A without some last minute updates, they will have to sit idle after 6-9 months, they may have decided to take these last minute changes, delay now by 6-9 months and then enter smoother production after a year when these engine start coming. I am speculating, who knows what the reasons are.

[KSingh]

Any delays especially at the delivery point are hugely disappointing and another feature of over promising/under delivering by almost every Indian project in existence but that seems to be by design

That said and as others have said above a few months here and there means little- hopefully that really is all it ends up being.

Stable production is the main criteria for judging the success of tbe MK1A now


HAL is talking a huge game by saying they will deliver 16 this FY- that is 4x more than they have ever produced in 1 FY and I frankly do not believe them With only ~10 months left of this FY.

That said if they can hand over 8+ that’s a win and get to 16/yr within 18 months


The engine talk seems highly questionable- GE is a private company with shareholders, they would be in extreme trouble if they simply stopped delivering on time. There’s definitely more to this than HAL are claiming

IAF briefing against HAL as usual via unnamed sources is utterly despicable but par for the course. LCA succeeding is a threat to plenty of lobbies especially Inside the services

[srai]

VinodTK,

If it takes time why does the program director / program manager not set the expectations right at the start itself, by saying the asked for dates are not viable and when the projected dates are going to be.

…

After observing for more than two decades the GoI/MoD, DRDO, Indian public/private MIC and the Indian armed forces, the timelines for indigenous offerings are “unrealistic” and that the reason is to get the program to proceed. If they say 15-years, the end users would balk at it and imports would be chosen (even though that import path will take as long with the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy).

That is the game that needs to be played. It repeats over and over again.

[srai]

fanne,

…

If you believe GE website, HAL may have total of 120 engines already.

…

Not possible. GoI/MoF/MoD has only “recently” (2021) signed for 83 Mk1/A+Trainers. The funds are released progressively over years.

So who would have paid GE for 120 engines already?

There would be some spare GE 404 engines from previous batches (TD/PVs/LSPs, IOC, FOC, Trainers). Totals of all those so far would amount to around 60 engines or thereabouts.

[VinodTK]

Another piece of bad news from Tajes project from Ananth Krishnan




#GodSaveHAL | Iron Man of HAL Sanjay Sharma quits I Set back to Tejas prog I Wake up MoD | #AKM #TMH

[sanman]

Tejas Mk1A facing problems:

[fanne]

Another one from the same author --
Engine Option After US Backstabbing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s98YTg6BH8Q

[fanne]

If you look at screen shot in the video, it says we have 75 engines only delivered, while GE website says 120+ delivered. The screen shot looks like some official page (perhaps from GE itself). What could explain the discrepancy is that it is an older news when GE had delivered 75 and then additional 50 were delivered (or maybe not). I like the idea of putting RD-33 (not 93). It is a bad engine compare to F404, but comes without sabotage etc.
From interfering in our elections to our defence preparedness, who needs enemies if you have friends like these.

https://youtu.be/s98YTg6BH8Q?t=43

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/alpha_/status/18120092288 ... BFomuaYzwg —> #Fact: 99 GE F404 engines ordered for the Tejas Mk1A in 2021. "0" Delivered.

[srai]

^^^
Usually the first lot will be delivered 36-months from contract signing. This is the typical standard. Lead times required with many suppliers, manufacturers, and assemblies.

So the first lot should be arriving sometime this year. GE has stated 20 engines/year capacity once production stabilizes.

[Rakesh]

^^^
Usually the first lot will be delivered 36-months from contract signing. This is the typical standard. Lead times required with many suppliers, manufacturers, and assemblies.

So the first lot should be arriving sometime this year. GE has stated 20 engines/year capacity once production stabilizes.

Indeed. It is just that rule never applied to the Americans or so we on BRF were "told".

The world's largest MIC does not have supplier issues Nice to know that the Americans are "human" like everyone else.

[sanman]

[Rakesh]

From the GE press release page, when HAL signed the order for 99 F404-IN20 turbofans for the Tejas Mk1A fighter and the Mk1 trainer.

The delivery schedule is set at ~ 20 turbofans per year. This will not be enough to address the squadron shortage.

Even a follow-on tranche of 97 Mk1A fighters will do little, if the turbofan delivery is set at only 20 per year.

MRFA is coming It is no wonder that Air HQ is still insistent on the program.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Orders 99 F404s for Tejas Light Combat Aircraft
https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press- ... ght-combat
August 19, 2021

“We are proud of our 16-year-long partnership with HAL and happy to extend our relationship with this new order,” said Chris Cyr, Vice President Military Sales and Business Development for GE Aviation. “The F404 family of engines has proven itself in operations all over the world, and we have committed to deliver all 99 engines and support services by 2029.”

[VinodTK]

GE Aerospace says working with HAL to fix new Tejas LCA engine supply delay

[basant]

The supplier issue of GE is not confined to HAL. It appears,
Delays Have Become Normal for Aircraft. It's true with LEAP engines too.

Boeing fails to deliver, as 12 airlines wait for 777 freighters

Boeing admitted yesterday that it had failed to deliver a single 777 freighter in the first quarter of the year.

The troubled plane-maker did, however, produce 11, according to analysis by Jefferies, but they are yet to have engines fitted and these so-called ‘gliders’ are stored at its facility in Everett.

[fanne]

Rakesh Sir,
Thanks for pointing it out. It looks like the deal for 99 GE engines had 20 per year delivery schedule per year, starting in 2024 sept to 2029, 5 years for 100 engines, 20 a year.
If you look dispassionately, there is no delay (perhaps missing by several month) from GE side. I guess HAL may have asked more than 20/years for an order of 99 engines which GE may have declined.
If you look, HAl/MOD/IAF is at fault. They could have ordered engine before (in anticipation of future order) as a risk mitigation strategy. Sounds stupid which babu will order 100 of engine before hand, before iaf wants it, which mod will approve before the whole program is sanctioned by ccs. A total hopeless situation.
One other thing can happen is, if power that be are sure of 97 follow on tejas, order 120 f 404 now, see if doubling the numbers (99 + 120), GE can increase supply per year down the line. That can accelerate the first lot of lca.
The other thing is at least ask for overhaul and maintain ace facility in India, best would be some kind of tot. F404 being better, we may need at least one replacement of engine (or even half per plane), we are looking at 300 extra engine on top of 99.
We have created this mess

[fanne]

fanne,

…

If you believe GE website, HAL may have total of 120 engines already.

…

Not possible. GoI/MoF/MoD has only “recently” (2021) signed for 83 Mk1/A+Trainers. The funds are released progressively over years.

So who would have paid GE for 120 engines already?

There would be some spare GE 404 engines from previous batches (TD/PVs/LSPs, IOC, FOC, Trainers). Totals of all those so far would amount to around 60 engines or thereabouts.

I agree with you. I have no way to know, I am looking at two 'official' sources, one categorically says 75 have been delivered. The website says 120+ produced. We definitely have 75 (from previous order, prior to 99) and perhaps 120+ if you believe GE website.

[fanne]

Mod please delete the content if that is illegal -

https://idrw.org/india-may-be-looking-a ... ejas-mk1a/

read this for more clarity on number of engines.

[maitya]

fanne,



Not possible. GoI/MoF/MoD has only “recently” (2021) signed for 83 Mk1/A+Trainers. The funds are released progressively over years.

So who would have paid GE for 120 engines already?

There would be some spare GE 404 engines from previous batches (TD/PVs/LSPs, IOC, FOC, Trainers). Totals of all those so far would amount to around 60 engines or thereabouts.

I agree with you. I have no way to know, I am looking at two 'official' sources, one categorically says 75 have been delivered. The website says 120+ produced. We definitely have 75 (from previous order, prior to 99) and perhaps 120+ if you believe GE website.

Fanne-ji, what is so difficult to understand - 75 F404 have been delivered, and that's as per various incremental orders over last 20+ years, prior to the 2021 contract (for MK1A 1st contract). Out of these 75, as few initial ones, are 402 versions and not IN20 that IAF had asked for.

Majority of these 75 (IIRC ~57-59) have already been used in TDs + PVs + LSPs + Naval Prototypes + 40 ( 32 + 08 ) SPs - a few more has been used-up for the various testing regimes (mostly ground runs) over the years - which is std process for any new engine getting into a new platform etc.

That leaves around 10-12 remaining engines, which are allocated as spares (called "secondary" by HAL) to the 2 squadrons (again std practice of sqn set-up).

Now GE has postponed the delivery of this latest contract by atleast 3 times now - so no, this delay is squarely on them.
If the original delivery schedule (supposed to have started sometime last year, maybe Oct-Nov'23, not sure, have to dig up) was maintained, the contracted 16 for this FE delivery would have gone pretty smoothly and there'd have been a few more with HAL for next years delivery.

But it didn't - so HAL is currently hoping that 2 engine/month delivery will commence from Sep'24, the latest promised deadline.
And in the interim, HAL is saying that they'd draw-away those 10-12 with the Squadrons (as reserve), and atleast use them to execute the pre-delivery flight testing (for the initial 16 deliveries for this FE).
And may even deliver some of them to IAF as well, fitted with these "reserve" engines - and later build up the Sqn reserve numbers, once the delivery is normalized.

So now all hinges upon if GE is able to live upto the Sep'24 deadline - if they miss that as well, delivery schedule will be missed not only for this year but also for the next year.

[fanne]

True Sir, I will address some unrelated points separately, then I have a question for you.

1. How many from 75 engines are available -
Let's go with 75 count If I remember 2-4 were vanilla F404. We have total of 15 non IAF planes - 2 TD (vanilla 404), 5(or 6) pv, pv-4 was never made and 8 LSP. I would imagine HAL/ADA will keep say 5 PV and LSP for future needs, that means 10 engines with very low hours (each not more than 250 hours max) available. You reduce another say 5 for ground runs. So out of 75, you minus 5 for ground run, 5 for LSP/PV to verify future builds and another 4-5 vanilla F404. We still have 60 engines. These will go into 32 IOC/FOC Tejas, 18 trainers. We are left with 10 engines that can potentially go into LCAMK1A, leaving no spares.

2. Do we really have 75 or we have 120? The GE website clearly mentions (an has been since last 2-3 years, before the 99 order) that they have build 120+ F404 IN. Link here -
https://www.geaerospace.com/military-de ... gines/f404
please scroll where you find mention of F404 IN 20. You find while scrolling down F404 powered aircraft, then scroll right to F404 IN 20. It mentions 120+ have been produced.


We may have gotten smart and ordered more F404 as a risk hedging. No one will comment and we will never know. I find it hard to believe the official web site will either lie or be inaccurate.
3. The current delay in LCAMK1a is squarely HAL/ADA and if IAF made last minute changes, them. We had engines for them at least 4 years ago.

Question for you -
Here is chat gpt generated result for F 404 IN 20 AND RD-33M3 (Licensed by HAL). Can the RD-33M3 be not used in place of F404. Guaranteed, it will be not as good as F404 and perhaps a maintenance and availability hog, but the dimension of both engines are similar. It is better than not having a plane flying -
-----------------
GE F404-GE-IN20
Manufacturer: General Electric Aviation
Type: Low-bypass turbofan engine
Application: LCA Tejas
Thrust:
Dry Thrust: Approximately 48.9 kN (11,000 lbf)
Afterburner Thrust: Approximately 84 kN (18,900 lbf)
Bypass Ratio: 0.34:1
Specific Fuel Consumption:
Dry: 0.78 lb/lbf/hr
Afterburner: 1.94 lb/lbf/hr
Dimensions:
Length: 154 inches (3.91 meters)
Diameter: 35 inches (0.89 meters)
Weight: Approximately 1,036 kg (2,285 lbs)
Notable Features: Advanced materials, digital electronic control (FADEC), modular design for ease of maintenance.
Klimov RD-33M3
Manufacturer: Klimov
Type: Low-bypass turbofan engine
Application: MiG-29 and derivatives
Thrust:
Dry Thrust: Approximately 53.0 kN (11,900 lbf)
Afterburner Thrust: Approximately 88.3 kN (19,850 lbf)
Bypass Ratio: 0.49:1
Specific Fuel Consumption:
Dry: 0.77 lb/lbf/hr
Afterburner: 1.96 lb/lbf/hr
Dimensions:
Length: 4.23 meters (166.54 inches)
Diameter: 1.04 meters (40.94 inches)
Weight: Approximately 1,145 kg (2,524 lbs)
Notable Features: Improved reliability and performance, enhanced hot section components, digital control systems, and reduced infrared signature.
Comparison Overview
Thrust: The RD-33M3 provides slightly higher thrust in both dry and afterburner modes compared to the F404-GE-IN20.
Bypass Ratio: The RD-33M3 has a higher bypass ratio, which typically contributes to better efficiency and lower fuel consumption.
Dimensions and Weight: The RD-33M3 is longer, has a larger diameter, and is heavier than the F404-GE-IN20.
Fuel Consumption: Both engines have comparable specific fuel consumption rates.
Technological Features: Both engines incorporate advanced materials and digital control systems, though the RD-33M3 places additional emphasis on improved reliability and performance enhancements.
Conclusion
The RD-33M3 and the F404-GE-IN20 are both high-performance turbofan engines designed for modern fighter aircraft. The RD-33M3 offers slightly higher thrust and incorporates specific improvements for reliability and performance, while the F404-GE-IN20 is known for its modular design and advanced materials. The choice between them will depend on the specific requirements of the aircraft and the operational considerations of the air force utilizing them.

[maitya]

...
3. The current delay in LCAMK1a is squarely HAL/ADA and if IAF made last minute changes, them. We had engines for them at least 4 years ago.
...

The delay is on all 3 counts actually:
1) HAL clearly underestimated the certification time-line/duration that'd be required vis-a-vis 2052 and the indigenous extn SPJ AESA integration - but that aspect got resolved around Jan-Feb'24 this year, so no more an issue.
2) It seems, IAF did ask for a few additional software upgrades etc, which is fine - happens all the time in any such large-scale platform initiating delivery, so ok.
HAL et all should have clearly set the expectations (of missed/delayed deadlines) publicly, but they didn't (when is the last time they did anything like this, so not again a surprise).
Again, it seems, HAL thinks they have sufficient flexibility in the delivery schedule etc to be able to absorb these schedule slippages, and still make the 2024-25 delivery schedule.

Pls note, software upgrades and certification duration etc, though certainly will impact the overall schedule/timeline, but not linearly. I mean, simplistically put, while the certification/testing etc is in progress, the assembly etc can be (and should have) continued for the other platforms.
So it's ok to assume, some amount of initial schedule slippages, for the above 2, can be mitigated etc

3) But nothing can be done if Engine itself is not there.
Do note these 10-12 engines are with IAF and is part of 2 "operational" squadrons. IAF, in their own right, can outright reject HALs proposal of drawing them-out to maintain the contracted delivery schedule.
I think, not sure, the initial 2 MK1As are from the previous lot of 75 contracts - now from the 3rd one ones all will have to be from Sqn reserves, until GE initiates the contracted delivery from Sep'24.
So, beyond these 10 engines (in fact I doubt IAF will the Sqn reserve count to be made 0), there'll be permanent delivery-schedule impact.

Question for you -
Here is chat gpt generated result for F 404 IN 20 AND RD-33M3 (Licensed by HAL). Can the RD-33M3 be not used in place of F404. Guaranteed, it will be not as good as F404 and perhaps a maintenance and availability hog, but the dimension of both engines are similar. It is better than not having a plane flying:
<snip>

Theoretically yes IMVHO ... but not practical enough, wrt the temporary schedule-impact mitigating step, that is being discussed here.
Any new engine integration will require, fresh certification, spanning years involving a few-thousand flying hours.

But even before that, a lot of pre-integration R&D would be required ... I'll just give an example:
The air intake of the LCA/Tejas are optimized for certain flow-pattern/characteristics across the *entire* flight-regime envisaged for it - it's actually a collection of intake flow regimes.
Now strapping it with a different engine, *MAY* imply a large number of those flow-patterns turning out to be non/sub optimal for the new engine's Fan/LPC design - there may be various stall-scenarios etc that also may (most certainly will actually) suddenly rear up.
Nothing insurmountable though, but will take some work (and schedule, atleast a few years), to iron them out no doubt.
And likewise there are so many other aspects that will have to be painstakingly discovered (via extensive test-flying) and then fixed, re-tested and then finally certified.

So yes, if from future planning/derisking perspective, if something like that is being thought of, can certainly be done IMVHO, maybe via a separate stand-alone project etc - but it will still not resolve the immediate delivery-schedule impact related issue.

But then again, just where from will the RD-33 (note MKs are the ones which has a FADEC IIRC, vanilla 33s didn't) show up - it will have to license manufactured by HAL themselves, isn't it (Russians themselves currently, won't be able to produce anything surplus for exports etc)?
(in fact IIRC, HAL is currently doing so, I think, for the latest "upgrade" talk that was being talked about a couple of months back)

Betw if we are talking about RD-33, why not the EJ200s .
They are not certified for single-engined platforms, but again can be certified for it in some years, alongwith the above-mentioned re-certification regime - but then again, just how does RR become reliable than GE, hien-jee?

And since we are thing out all sorts of scenarios, how about importing a few surplus 404s from the Swedes (part of their Gripen-A/B sqns), as a stop gap measure?
Better still, how about asking our Jernails/Kernails to part some of their emergency-procurement budget towards begging Unkil for, say 16-20 (1 years worth of production-run) 402s, from their seemingly infinite number of Hornet Sqns.
Don't worry, nothing of that sort will happen - ever!!

[maitya]

Betw, there are some, who have started their std laments about why not lic-mfg domestically F404, if F414s are to be done in future.

What I do not understand is this collective cognitive dissonance on display - if we are to import the SKD kits of the HPT/LPT complex, as a part of the Lic Mfg agreement, how that arrangement would have helped in the current scenario?
Are we sure, that current hold-up wrt GE's supply-chain issues, is not wrt these Turbine complex parts?

Lic Mfg can only help in 2 scenarios:
1) we have full 100% ToT agreement for each and every component and sub-component level - plus the Mfg itself is from indigenous Raw materials.
Which obviously will never happen.
2) setup a robust MRO facility (aka stock-up a good inventory of components, A to Z)

Also any Lic Mfg deal, doesn't magically gets the Assembly aspects initiated immediately - it takes years, north of atleast half-a-decade (pushing about a decade realistically), to graduate from SKD -> CKD -> System/Sub-System Mfg from imported raw-materials -> Indigenous Parts replacement (if allowed - in TF world zero chance of this) etc lifecycle.

Certainly helps in certain aspects/scenarios, but the current situation is not one of them.

[fanne]

Why I think EJ2000 is a bad choice is if Uncle is playing hardball, the EJ2000 suppliers (many of them) will play tango with uncle. It will also be denied. Where as RD33MK3 will not be. In fact I think, it is because of these reasons, suddenly there is uptick on talks of RD-33MK3 by Russia and India - as candidate for Mig 29 K and also for Mig 29 of IAF to be re-engined with these and perhaps then LCA.

[pravula]

Nothing is stopping HAL from building out airframe sans engine and ready to integrate. During Covid microprocessor shortage, lot of auto manufacturers did the same. Built out the rest and had them stored. They kept the lines humming.

[Nikhil_Naya]

While there is a simple way to say that the 404 can be replaced with the RD33 - based on specs - in reality it is NOT that simple.

Even if we ignore the aspect that the 33 is longer and has a higher diameter than the 404, other aspects make this difficult.
1 - The connectors, fuel lines, etc are all designed around the 404, so unless the interfaces of the 33 are in the same location as that of the 404, requiring the same inputs - there is no way it is just a plug-and-play.
2 - If we were to change this routing - let's take for example a fuel feed line is moved by about 30 degrees off the existing one, we will have to possibly reconfigure multiple things that this fuel line will move around, ensure that there is no fuel flow issues in various movement regimes etc.
3 - Another aspect would be to reconfigure the control laws for any CG shifts that happen due to changes in engine setup (hot section/ compressors/ etc).

I am over simplifying it - but the fact is it is not a like to like replacement. Heck you cannot do that with car engines...

[fanne]

For sake of strategic autonomy/strategic capability/Operational Hedging - A side project to integrate RD33M3 with LCA should be started. The whole idea of that is - to persuade the like of GE or DEEP state not to play foul. Btw it is a valid business strategy. I will cut paste from chatgpt below -

Companies have invested serious money and resources to maintain these. It was a concept drilled during MBA courses 25 years ago and parcticed wildly.

--------------------
The strategy you are describing is often referred to as "strategic capability" or "strategic autonomy." This involves a company maintaining the capability to produce a critical component or service internally, even if it currently chooses to outsource that production, in order to avoid being overly dependent on external suppliers and to ensure that it has the flexibility to respond to changes in the market or supply chain.

Key Elements of the Strategy:
Maintaining Internal Capability: Even if not actively used for production, the capability to produce the component (e.g., microchips) is preserved.
Outsourcing for Efficiency: The company may currently outsource production to leverage cost efficiencies, superior technology, or other advantages offered by suppliers like Intel.
Risk Mitigation: The internal capability acts as a safeguard against potential risks such as supply chain disruptions, price hikes, or strategic disadvantages imposed by the supplier.
Flexibility and Control: By having the ability to produce critical components, the company retains greater control over its operations and can quickly pivot if necessary.
Example:
IBM and Microchip Manufacturing: IBM may have the capability to manufacture microchips but chooses to buy from Intel. This ensures that if Intel were to raise prices, face production issues, or otherwise become an unreliable supplier, IBM could still produce its own chips without being held hostage to Intel's decisions.
Related Concepts:
Dual Sourcing: A strategy where a company uses two different suppliers for the same component to reduce dependency on a single supplier.
Vertical Integration: Where a company owns its supply chain, allowing it to control production processes more closely.
Operational Hedging: Maintaining capabilities or resources as a hedge against uncertainties in supply or demand.
This strategic approach helps companies manage risks associated with supplier dependence and ensures long-term operational stability and competitiveness.

[srai]

Betw, there are some, who have started their std laments about why not lic-mfg domestically F404, if F414s are to be done in future.

What I do not understand is this collective cognitive dissonance on display - if we are to import the SKD kits of the HPT/LPT complex, as a part of the Lic Mfg agreement, how that arrangement would have helped in the current scenario?
Are we sure, that current hold-up wrt GE's supply-chain issues, is not wrt these Turbine complex parts?

Lic Mfg can only help in 2 scenarios:
1) we have full 100% ToT agreement for each and every component and sub-component level - plus the Mfg itself is from indigenous Raw materials.
Which obviously will never happen.
2) setup a robust MRO facility (aka stock-up a good inventory of components, A to Z)

Also any Lic Mfg deal, doesn't magically gets the Assembly aspects initiated immediately - it takes years, north of atleast half-a-decade (pushing about a decade realistically), to graduate from SKD -> CKD -> System/Sub-System Mfg from imported raw-materials -> Indigenous Parts replacement (if allowed - in TF world zero chance of this) etc lifecycle.

Certainly helps in certain aspects/scenarios, but the current situation is not one of them.

License manufacturer of F-404 is not for current supply problems. It is for long-term thinking. There are going to be 200 Tejas Mk1 over the next 10-years. There are opportunities for MROs and batch production for the next lot and future replacements.

In India defense arena, everything takes time, especially the contract signing. Looking at many years. Forget about the actual setup itself.

[sanman]

[pravula]

If an RD-33 can fit an LCA, then K9/K10 can fit a Mig29. Buy out the old airframes and get a few Kaveri airborne...Heck, there are privately owned Mig29s for CEOs to dick around...https://www.twz.com/37795/heres-who-bou ... um-fighter

The VAT tax from Ambani's wedding should cover 10 airframes ....

[Pratyush]

This discussion about engine's is disappointing.

Apparently, getting the Kaveri to work is not even an afterthought. Followed by iterative development program.

[Manish_P]

This discussion about engine's is disappointing.

Apparently, getting the Kaveri to work is not even an afterthought. Followed by iterative development program.

That's what hits hard

We are going to have increasing numbers of highly capable UAVs/UCAVs in the future. Full size ones replacing/complementing manned aircraft

Kaveri variants can power them

[Cain Marko]

Ages ago, circa 2007 when the "inadequacy" of the 404 was mentioned by the forces, I had suggested we bump up the LCA to a Mirage 2000 level fighter based on the Al-31. Ooh forumites pooh poohed that idea - after all, what did I know about injuns and aerodynamisms. AL31 was simply not possible (despite it being almost entirely same size as that of m53 on mirage 2k, and the proposed mk2 looked very much like a m2k to my simpleton eyes). In any case, all I knew was that injuns were depending on firewater provided by paleface, and the paleface didn't seem level.

Then the IN got in the game and said they will support NLCA. Again, I called their BS and pointed out that we should try a more powerful injun. Maybe go twin engined with basic Kaveri, which seemed promising . Again, I was pooh poohed by wise men of forum for bad mouthing navy and ADA - they were sacred and should not be questioned I was told. Surely enough, so called indigenius injun navy came a cropper and said 404 was too weak. Too bad. Any simpleton from any forum could've told them that many years prior.

Then I suggested we drop the AMCA idea and go with twin engined mk1 - ala mirage 4000. It will fit IAF MRCA and Navy MRFA. OOoh wise men of forum threw a fit saying this is BS. AGain, years later, ADA floats idea of ORCA and what not.

Now, I look at this saga over 15-20 years later totally conphujed by lamentations on forum. Again, technocrats be very smart since they know injuns aerodynamisms so well. What does simpleton know?

[maitya]

Betw, there are some, who have started their std laments about why not lic-mfg domestically F404, if F414s are to be done in future.

What I do not understand is this collective cognitive dissonance on display - if we are to import the SKD kits of the HPT/LPT complex, as a part of the Lic Mfg agreement, how that arrangement would have helped in the current scenario?
Are we sure, that current hold-up wrt GE's supply-chain issues, is not wrt these Turbine complex parts?

Lic Mfg can only help in 2 scenarios:
1) we have full 100% ToT agreement for each and every component and sub-component level - plus the Mfg itself is from indigenous Raw materials.
Which obviously will never happen.
2) setup a robust MRO facility (aka stock-up a good inventory of components, A to Z)

Also any Lic Mfg deal, doesn't magically gets the Assembly aspects initiated immediately - it takes years, north of atleast half-a-decade (pushing about a decade realistically), to graduate from SKD -> CKD -> System/Sub-System Mfg from imported raw-materials -> Indigenous Parts replacement (if allowed - in TF world zero chance of this) etc lifecycle.

Certainly helps in certain aspects/scenarios, but the current situation is not one of them.

License manufacturer of F-404 is not for current supply problems. It is for long-term thinking. There are going to be 200 Tejas Mk1 over the next 10-years. There are opportunities for MROs and batch production for the next lot and future replacements.

In India defense arena, everything takes time, especially the contract signing. Looking at many years. Forget about the actual setup itself.

Absolutely no argument wrt this - any other country, who is serious about developing a cutting-edge (read 4+ gen) TF capability, would have funded and supported a program like Kaveri to the hilt.
I have written tomes on this aspect, for decades now, here in BRF, won't go into those any more now.

But we (IAF/MoD/decision-makers) are of course "different" - so that project was stopped funding approx 14-15 years back, IIRC.
Do note the K9 version that was made available then (in 2010-2012), with 51KN/73-75KN thrust levels, was/is good enough* to power MK1s and even maybe the MK1As - and if funded, it would have by now matured enough to make some headway wrt the wet thrust shortfalls (and weight) etc.
(Hint: the K10 program was exactly that betw, but never saw the light of day, as funding was cut even before it could be initiated)

But that'd have created some bottlenecks wrt imported TFs (like F404 etc), so needed killing immediately.
Which is exactly what happened, true to our import-pasandness psyche - so, now crying about it and thinking that somehow magically things will appear, is just that, wishful thinking.

But I will still say this:
If the Kaveri program is funded sufficiently, even now, it can still be resurrected for Mk1/1A capable TF, maybe after 4-5 years. There were recent news items wrt brand new A/B design initiative, that is supposed to be mated with the Kaveri dry variant (which had already achieved 48.5 KN dry thrust) - whilst the dry variant itself is going to get test flown in Tejas itself (in a LSP or PV maybe). Of course, there were other news items (very confusing actually) that the old K9 itself will be test-flown in a Tejas platform.

IMVHO opinion we need to have a two-pronged strategy:
1) Fund the existing Kaveri (or Kaveri dry) program, and test certify it - followed by a LSP run of say 20-30 engines, for active Sqn service, needs to happen, even if the F404 delivery etc smoothens out.
If there are trouble wrt F404 deliveries, then the option of switching to SP run, is already there. Godrej, IIRC is partnering wrt the dry-Kaveri certification related engine production, so that can be easily leveraged for LSP and SP runs.

2) Negotiate with GE and get a F404 Lic Mfg agreement, as an subset of the F414 Lic Mfg agreement.
Do note, 100%-80%-70%-whatever-percentage etc for indigenous production from raw materials, doesn't make much of a difference - but for F404 production/lic mfg, insist on active parts-replacement** clauses, for all parts (no exceptions), inbuilt into the contract.
Without that, just SKD-CKD assembly (and some testing, basically what I call as ToAsT deal) m doesn't make sense/value-add for F404.

Technologically there's no system/subsystem in F404 that can't be manufactured indigenously without any GE support, but for a law-abiding country like us (which is not such a bad thing betw), those aspects are of little value, until and unless there's a iron-clad contractual support for doing just that.

Fat chance of either 1 or 2 ever happening, just too many "conflict of interests" within our decision-making fraternity, to even contemplate these aspects. So import, and more import, for us - and if we are importing anyway, what's wrong in importing from GE/USA?

Do note, our all-weather-ally, mother Russia, kicked us out of the FGFA program, the moment we uttered Izdeliya-30 program participation etc, about a decade+ or so back .

===========================================
* A non-flat-rated IN20 will struggle to meet even these performance figures in Indian conditions, especially in the summers. Always assume a derating of ~9-10% from the shiny-brochure advertised figures.
** Which essentially means, we can on our own free-will, can design/manufacture an engine system/subsystem/parts and then use it (after proper testing and certification) in the lic-mfg engines, without any whole-engine warranty-voiding clauses/threats from the OEM.\
We didn't even try this for the AL-31F lic mfg agreement, decades back.

[Rakesh]

Remember this when we blame Air HQ for still keeping the MRFA alive. Especially read the Print article.

Amid delays, HAL now aiming to deliver first LCA Mark 1A by August 15; GE engine supplies to start by September
https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 712114611/
12 July 2024

https://x.com/AdithyaKM_/status/1814161874755187096 ---> GE is supposed to deliver engines at the rate which HAL is supposed to deliver aircraft (16/year), according to the terms of contract signed in August 2021 for 99 engines. However, it is learnt that GE has failed to deliver even a single engine to HAL.

IAF’s plans hit as Tejas delivery schedule goes for a toss because of GE engine delay
https://theprint.in/defence/iafs-plans- ... y/2180271/
19 July 2024