LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Nov 2017 15:24

Modi government has been all talk so far. Can't recall any major MII under their governing and as some have posted defense budget has actually gone down. The whole MII SE fighter is another wild goose chase in the same vain as the original MMRCA. It takes so long that no real decision have to be made by the government in power. Keep pushing it for someone else far into the future. In the meantime, lip service is provided.

If they were serious about MII, then they should have really pushed for a lot more LCA Mk.1. Got 3rd line going under HAL-private JV partnership etc.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 15:36

deejay wrote:That IAF is behind the SE deal is a misnomer. The MMRCA reqmt curtailed with 36 Rafale order, now being hawked as SE, MII, SP thing is today firmly a GOI initiative. IAF is part of GOI and has laid out the QRs for what the SE should be. IAF is not responsible for anything else in this new initiative. It will ofcourse be part of the tech evaluation process. But only for the aircraft. Manufacturing and partnership are equally important part of this deal and IAF is no way capable to judge that and it won't.

In some ways, this deal is to address the lack of pvt industry players, as the expertise does not exist, in the private industry to take on fighter production without hand holding. It appears to me that since no pvt player came forward to build a large no. of (200) LCA, the need to create the expertise in pvt sector is being addressed through the SE deal.

However, I am yet to understand why there is no joint bid by HAL + a Pvt Indian manufacturer for the MII, SE deal using the Mk 2 platform?

The deal as of now appears to be blatantly played in the media. I get a sense that the Americans are strong favourites with the Govt. They also dominate the media space. So much so that any counter view is getting clubbed with liking the opponents product. The Americans are also gunning for other deals as obvious in PAK FA thread. The F 35 push has now started speculating with authority on a confidential IAF report making it sound that IAF has rejected the PAK FA.

Just a prediction - In 02 / 03 years I won't be surprised if hear the Americans hawking the Osprey or the new Valor.

Any American TOT will come with the penalty of many 04/05/06 letter binding slavery like COMCASA, KISNEPHANSA, etc. I would rather not source such weapons.

BTW, election year (2019) no decisions will be taken pre results.

I understand that. In fact I have expressed my views which are exactly the same as what you are saying - SE is a compromise deal for Rafale since Rafale is not affordable. Me thinks 36 were taken purely to fulfill the requirement which other options would not have been able to - N delivery. The requirement was split in two with 36 Rafale and 100+ SE. I have said this multiple times on SE MII thread. Once even in recent few days. In fact I have even said that this seems to be purely PM's decision with even MP being unhappy over it. In fact In my post above also I said, Plan B (Rafale + SE) by GOI on IAF. And if this doesn't materialize, Plan C will be forced.

But this is what I have precisely been trying to highlight when I say "having no plan B pushed IAF into tight spots eventually".

I think MK2 will not be allowed to take part in the competition. It will not qualify anyway. There is no MK2 for tech evaluation.

Re pvt players being unwilling, I think GOI perhaps barked the wrong tree. Expecting big biz houses to make big ticket investments on green field projects with little assurance of continued businesses (it was 2014 and perhaps no one had much trust in new government, today might be different) was a long shot. After it fell through, GOI should have pressed the gas paddle on MK2 with speedy approvals, ordered MK1 for long enough to keep MK1 lines humming, push IAF-HAL-ADA to work in harmony, and make HAL to develop MIC taking along the SMEs like they are doing now with MK1. Some of those SMEs have will and potential to be the backbone of Indian MIC. Facilitating them to work more effectively by giving soft terms would have been more productive.

In any case, I don't see SE contract being signed before 2020 and any significant numbers coming in before 2025. But what this deal is doing is, it poured cold water on MK2. There goes our fall-back option. If the contract goes MMRCA's way, perhaps we will remain empty handed in 2025 with neither SE nor MK2. Similarly we have stopped NLCA. Anyway I do not consider IAF/IN completely responsible for this. The onus is on GOI. They could have kept funding the programs despite any upfront orders. IAF/IN are likely unwilling to commit because the fund will then go from their purse which is already inadequate for their needs. But NO one has stopped GOI from funding the projects. GOI is planning 30-40lakh Cr spending on Infra of all sorts. 10-20k on these projects should not be a big deal.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Nov 2017 15:40

JayS wrote:...

In addition, GOI had floated idea of 200+ MK2 to be produced by private company with $12B. I have never seen any info on why it never took off. My "guess" is no private player was willing to take the offer. But I am still looking for answers why it never got materialized.

...

It could be done with LCA Mk1 itself! It's here and now. Given enough orders, 3rd and 4th lines could be opened by private entities (maybe some form of JV with HAL). Even HAL chairman has given his blessings. They don't need to keep waiting for MK2 or other future projects.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 15:59

srai wrote:
JayS wrote:...

In addition, GOI had floated idea of 200+ MK2 to be produced by private company with $12B. I have never seen any info on why it never took off. My "guess" is no private player was willing to take the offer. But I am still looking for answers why it never got materialized.

...
It could be done with LCA Mk1 itself! It's here and now. Given enough orders, 3rd and 4th lines could be opened by private entities (maybe some form of JV with HAL). Even HAL chairman has given his blessings. They don't need to keep waiting for MK2 or other future projects.

Well, that was in 2014. That time MK2 was eminent. And MK1 was only limited to 40 orders. Now things have changed. Yes, its possible to do it with MK1A. I have also been suggesting JV between HAL+pvt company. Even will full GOI funding to start with, without the pvt company having to put its own money, its part to be repaid with 0% over the years gaining equity in return in the JV. So if JV fails they lose nothing. But we don't know if such model is already floated, if yes, has anyone agreed to it, it not, why not. I am not able to get any answers on the GOI offer of 200 MK2. It seems everyone has forgotten about it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Nov 2017 16:04

The whole planned switching production to MK1A by 2019/20 is a mistake IMO. It seems delays are inevitable given where things are at the moment. Mk1 is certain (from product pov) and more orders are needed beyond th3 40 to keep the lines going until Mk1A is ready. Time to make that decision is fast approaching.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 16:29

srai wrote:The whole planned switching production to MK1A by 2019/20 is a mistake IMO. It seems delays are inevitable given where things are at the moment. Mk1 is certain (from product pov) and more orders are needed beyond th3 40 to keep the lines going until Mk1A is ready. Time to make that decision is fast approaching.

Had the GOI showed vision and let the MK2 start in parallel earlier, that might have made sense. With the serial approach of working due to shortage of manpower and funding, LCA MK2 would have been kept pushing ahead, frustrating IAF even more. Given that, MK1A is a good approach. With MK1A IAF has such good fighter that they can easily use it as fall back option in case MK2 is delayed. But all this has gone for a toss now. I am not expecting change in current status until after 2019 elections. Which means even MK1A will be delayed a good bit, and no decision on MK2 till then.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Nov 2017 16:42

Agree.

More Mk1 orders are needed to keep the lines going given uncertainty around Mk1A and Mk2.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 16:45

srai wrote:Agree.

More Mk1 orders are needed to keep the lines going given uncertainty around Mk1A and Mk2.

That should not be an issue since anyway the 20 FOC config jets are going to be upgraded to MK1A eventually. Even the 20 IOC jets can be converted if IAF is willing to pay. In case of delay in MK1A, more Mk1 be produced and converted to MK1A standard later.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Nov 2017 16:55

Hopefully that is the case ... and won't be delayed by the Indian 11-step procurement process. Will it allow that change to switch some or all of the 83 Mk1A to Mk1 when the time comes? Or will it require it to undergo a new procurement process? And the other question would be, would the IAF be ok with switching production of Mk1A to Mk1 until Mk1A is ready?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 17:12

srai wrote:Hopefully that is the case ... and won't be delayed by the Indian 11-step procurement process. Will it allow that change to switch some or all of the 83 Mk1A to Mk1 when the time comes? Or will it require it to undergo a new procurement process? And the other question would be, would the IAF be ok with switching production of Mk1A to Mk1 until Mk1A is ready?

Who knows. If there's will and harmony between MoD/ADA/HAL/IAF, no hurdle can stand in a way. If not...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Nov 2017 18:17

JayS wrote:
srai wrote:Hopefully that is the case ... and won't be delayed by the Indian 11-step procurement process. Will it allow that change to switch some or all of the 83 Mk1A to Mk1 when the time comes? Or will it require it to undergo a new procurement process? And the other question would be, would the IAF be ok with switching production of Mk1A to Mk1 until Mk1A is ready?
Who knows. If there's will and harmony between MoD/ADA/HAL/IAF, no hurdle can stand in a way. If not...

Now you are giving those heights of optimism whatsapp forwards.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Nov 2017 18:24

JayS, this is MOD acquisition wing in action deciding on MMRCA/SE/LCA with all key players standing around debating and MOD sitting on throne. In yellow you can see MMRCA now SE MRCA.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lhbc5m4NWLI/maxresdefault.jpg

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 19:00

Karan, I didn't right anything after "If not.." for a reason. Entire sagas have been created after that "If not.."

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Nov 2017 19:46

Karan M wrote:JayS, this is MOD acquisition wing in action deciding on MMRCA/SE/LCA with all key players standing around debating and MOD sitting on throne. In yellow you can see MMRCA now SE MRCA.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lhbc5m4NWLI/maxresdefault.jpg

Karan that is hillarious

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Nov 2017 19:55

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Nov 2017 20:35

And so the saga continues! While other countries build next generation craft, corruption prevents India from embracing the first step to a healthy industry.

Long live the Rafale!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2017 22:35

JayS, The Mk2 with the 1 meter mid-fuselage plug is a non starter with the unstable aerodynamic LCA configuration. The whole qualification program has to be run again. Any one saying it will be a delta qual is smoking some strong stuff along with strong drink.
Having said that most of the other improvements of : the LRU repositioning for ease of maintenance and the cable harness re-design to accommodate that, and the weight reduction for the undercarriage are doable. And if needed extra length nose to accommodate the refueling probe and the radar. Essentially no changes to aero dynamic configuration as that will lead to further delays.
The production line for 12 and then 6 more is underway to ramp up to 24/year. That's one squadron a year.

Anyway when are the gun firing trials?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Nov 2017 22:38

Ramanaji: How long to complete the whole qualification program? In 2015, DRDO Chief said FOC can be achieved in 2025.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2017 22:40

JayS wrote:
srai wrote:The whole planned switching production to MK1A by 2019/20 is a mistake IMO. It seems delays are inevitable given where things are at the moment. Mk1 is certain (from product pov) and more orders are needed beyond th3 40 to keep the lines going until Mk1A is ready. Time to make that decision is fast approaching.
Had the GOI showed vision and let the MK2 start in parallel earlier, that might have made sense. With the serial approach of working due to shortage of manpower and funding, LCA MK2 would have been kept pushing ahead, frustrating IAF even more. Given that, MK1A is a good approach. With MK1A IAF has such good fighter that they can easily use it as fall back option in case MK2 is delayed. But all this has gone for a toss now. I am not expecting change in current status until after 2019 elections. Which means even MK1A will be delayed a good bit, and no decision on MK2 till then.

Please see my post above. MK2 with the mid section plug is non starter. they could have introduced it during the IOC version as being the design cognizant they knew its needed. To come up with it after IOC is underway is unconscionable.
it just derails the process and shows science project mindset.
There wont be any Mk2 with those changes. Adds huge delay. Not worth it.

I blew my top to ArunS when I first heard about this!!!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2017 22:44

Rakesh wrote:Ramanaji: How long to complete the whole qualification program? In 2015, DRDO Chief said FOC can be achieved in 2025.

I am sorry I don't believe any dates from that organization.
Most ECDs are loaded with optimism and success oriented hopes.
No schedule or cost float in such critical programs.
So ten year plan in 2015 if its started then. Its now already two years gone.

Look at lackadaisical approach to Nirbhay.
No deadlines are adhered to.
Some excuse always comes up.

I will believe when the R is taken out of DRDO.
The R mindset causes this futuristic mindset.

Having ranted, Dr. Christopher has been quite results oriented, and delivered.
However he wont be in charge in 2025.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Nov 2017 23:16

ramana wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Ramanaji: How long to complete the whole qualification program? In 2015, DRDO Chief said FOC can be achieved in 2025.

I am sorry I don't believe any dates from that organization.
Most ECDs are loaded with optimism and success oriented hopes.
No schedule or cost float in such critical programs.
So ten year plan in 2015 if its started then. Its now already two years gone.

Look at lackadaisical approach to Nirbhay.
No deadlines are adhered to.
Some excuse always comes up.

I will believe when the R is taken out of DRDO.
The R mindset causes this futuristic mindset.

Having ranted, Dr. Christopher has been quite results oriented, and delivered.
However he wont be in charge in 2025.

We have research “labs” in DRDO not integrated research and development arms of manufacturing corporations like GE, P&W, RR or SNECMA in the engine realms or LM, Boeing, Dassault or Sukhoi in air frames.

I imagine you could not easily build prototypes in labs and when you could you could not easily productionize.

A R&D division say at GE would have all parts necessary to build a new engine or upgrade a variant from a F-404 to F-414 since the patent company makes engines. And why is designed would be something within the ability of the parent to manufacture.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Nov 2017 23:17

LCA Mk2 would be our Gripen E. Having said that running after a Gripen E, without having our A B C D in service would be foolish. To see the humdrum support for Mk1A, limited order numbers and no mention of Tejas Mk2 let alone AMCA is equally depressing, given Modi/BJP etc and Make in India. At least 200 LCAs need to be made for proper ecosystem development. A 16 plane per year order does little for the suppliers.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Nov 2017 23:27

Thanks Ramana-ji. No movement is happening on Mk1A or Mk2 because of SE competition.

Actually Karan, we want to go from Tejas Mk1 straight to AMCA. How is that even possible?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Nov 2017 23:50

ramana wrote:
JayS wrote:
Had the GOI showed vision and let the MK2 start in parallel earlier, that might have made sense. With the serial approach of working due to shortage of manpower and funding, LCA MK2 would have been kept pushing ahead, frustrating IAF even more. Given that, MK1A is a good approach. With MK1A IAF has such good fighter that they can easily use it as fall back option in case MK2 is delayed. But all this has gone for a toss now. I am not expecting change in current status until after 2019 elections. Which means even MK1A will be delayed a good bit, and no decision on MK2 till then.

Please see my post above. MK2 with the mid section plug is non starter. they could have introduced it during the IOC version as being the design cognizant they knew its needed. To come up with it after IOC is underway is unconscionable.
it just derails the process and shows science project mindset.
There wont be any Mk2 with those changes. Adds huge delay. Not worth it.

I blew my top to ArunS when I first heard about this!!!!

Ramana saar, I hope you see the irony when at one hand you say MK2 is so different that it will need rerunning of full flight testing program due to 1mtr plug (its 0.5mtr for AF version, 1mtr for NLCA) but on the other hand you also suggest they should have included it in IOC version. How many years IOC would have needed to be pushed after that..? By IOC majority of basic flight characterisitcs were already tested. Making such a cha ge at that time would have derailed the process in fact and would be a sign on immature program management IMHO. Already including such constant changes have screwed up LCA time lines.

Anyway, I disagree that 1mtr plus was such a big deal that it was a non-starter. Had MK2 been started around 2014, it would have easily achieved FOC by 2025. Until then IAF would have got 120 odd MK1 or more perhaps to fill number. There could have been smooth transition to MK2 around 2025. A large part of LCA MK1 flight testing is for weapons integration. Majority of that part would not have needed repeat cycle in full. Only requalification with MK2. Similarly for flight testing. With identical wing and same CG position the flight characteristics would not have changed so significantly that FCS had needed redesign from scratch. Even if we assume entire loop of MK1 was to be rerun, when you do it second time its always much quicker. 10yrs were quite sufficient for this.

Its not science project mindset at all. Civil jet liner versions are made with plugs all the time and are churned out in double quick time compared to original version. It was quite an organic approach. Mk1 to MK2 to AMCA. If we want to be like western OEMs we need to do program management like them. I would even go to such a level and say that its not really technology that we need to learn from outside, we can develop that on our own. What we really need to learn is how to Manage a defense Program..!!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 00:02

ramana wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Ramanaji: How long to complete the whole qualification program? In 2015, DRDO Chief said FOC can be achieved in 2025.

I am sorry I don't believe any dates from that organization.
Most ECDs are loaded with optimism and success oriented hopes.
No schedule or cost float in such critical programs.
So ten year plan in 2015 if its started then. Its now already two years gone.

Look at lackadaisical approach to Nirbhay.
No deadlines are adhered to.
Some excuse always comes up.

I will believe when the R is taken out of DRDO.
The R mindset causes this futuristic mindset.

Having ranted, Dr. Christopher has been quite results oriented, and delivered.
However he wont be in charge in 2025.

IMO the credit doesnt go to anyone in DRDO for this, but the push from PMO on low hanging fruits with clear mandate on objectives and time line and with adequate funding. IMO DRDO was asked to identify short term force multiplier products which could be developed in 3-4 yr time line and was given funding for them. We have seen many of these PGM and missile projects with few hundred Cr each sanction in 2015-16. Compare that with funding for projects like Nirbhay, AMCA or Ghatak or even LCA MK1A. Today Sjha tweeted that Sudarshan has sum total of 10lak spent before it was closed down (i guess he meant 10cr perhaps) but this is still peanuts. We know Nirbhay had got total of only 95Cr funding ou pf which perhaps half is spent till now. No proper funding, no results. Its as simple as that.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2017 00:37

JayS, I meant everything from Mk2 except the mid-section plug. Sorry for not being clear.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2017 00:40

Sudarshan : The gimbaled seeker cant come for Rs. 10 Lakh. All component development was good. its the systems level that went awry. The original Paveway in 1965 was about $100K for proof of concept.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 01:10

ramana wrote:JayS, I meant everything from Mk2 except the mid-section plug. Sorry for not being clear.

Thats what MK1A is minus internal SPJ. It was a good step. But work should continue to MK2. If we jump to AMCA directly. It would be exactly the same mistake

we did with LCA.

Re Sudarshan, 10lak is not possible, yes. More like 10Cr perhaps. Typo by Sjha maybe. Even 100Cr for 1st ever LGB project is small amount. I was reading about GBU-32. Americans dropped 450+ of them during testing. We wrapped up our project of 1st LGB in a handful of tests. We do too less testing. Engineering is all about doing. And that exactly what we lack.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Nov 2017 01:12

JayS, what low hanging fruits and what PMO great vision?

"IMO the credit doesnt go to anyone in DRDO for this, "

You are incorrect IMHO. It is to the credit of worthies in DRDO who thought a decade ahead and developed all the subsystems from seekers to navigation systems to propulsion which are being used by todays PGM programs. Modi was not even a CM at the time these programs were first thought of. He was nowhere near power.

Lets be clear and give credit where it is due.

This success is ENTIRELY due to visionaries at DRDO, some in MOD who supported them and people in services who evinced interest. Current PMO at best has funded DRDO a bit more for past 2-3 years, but it has NOTHING to do with how much effort these programs took to germinate and develop.

The GPS systems in our missiles and bombs come from work done on Brahmos. The nav systems from strat programs and Astra plus Akash. The semiactive seeker from the much reviled Sudarshan. The IIR seekers from Nag and so it goes.

All this is the work of decades given pathetic underfunding. However, even today, where is the Modi Govt's overt support for DRDO or local R&D. It is just limited to meeting their budget proposal. I will gladly change my tune when I see Modi announcing a grand Defense R&D vision and actual work happening on the much announced mega projects for subsystems. Till then, its the usual hard grind, non glamorous but essential which has been happening at DRDO all this while.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 01:42

Karan M wrote:JayS, what low hanging fruits and what PMO great vision?

"IMO the credit doesnt go to anyone in DRDO for this, "

You are incorrect IMHO. It is to the credit of worthies in DRDO who thought a decade ahead and developed all the subsystems from seekers to navigation systems to propulsion which are being used by todays PGM programs. Modi was not even a CM at the time these programs were first thought of. He was nowhere near power.

Lets be clear and give credit where it is due.

This success is ENTIRELY due to visionaries at DRDO, some in MOD who supported them and people in services who evinced interest. Current PMO at best has funded DRDO a bit more for past 2-3 years, but it has NOTHING to do with how much effort these programs took to germinate and develop.

The GPS systems in our missiles and bombs come from work done on Brahmos. The nav systems from strat programs and Astra plus Akash. The semiactive seeker from the much reviled Sudarshan. The IIR seekers from Nag and so it goes.

All this is the work of decades given pathetic underfunding. However, even today, where is the Modi Govt's overt support for DRDO or local R&D. It is just limited to meeting their budget proposal. I will gladly change my tune when I see Modi announcing a grand Defense R&D vision and actual work happening on the much announced mega projects for subsystems. Till then, its the usual hard grind, non glamorous but essential which has been happening at DRDO all this while.

Credit for execution goes to DRDO of coarse. And yes the success of these programs is because of hard work done in past. Since building blocks were available hence "low hanging". I have quite a lot of faith in DRDO in fact. I still feel DRDO can deliver on challenge like Kaveri or 5th gen fighter given adequate funding.

What I meant by credit is the "driving force" really. To me it looks like a clear mandate from GOI to show some quick results in short time frame so Modi can score some political brownie points. Thus good emphasize on small projects. Without this kind of push we wouldnt have seen such progress. But at the same time zero work on strategic long term work. Their seriousness can be judged by the time RM post was lacking a dedicated person. I have said previously as well, while this has given a good boost on the bottomline for our AFs since they will have some crucial force multipliers in double quick time than otherwise, there is serious neglect on any half decent effort on long term strategic work for tomorrows need. Even after the granduer statements like ""Chalta hai" Nahi chalega" "young people leading labs" for DRDO in 2014 and mishandling of Dr Chander sacking, absolutely no visible work is done on any structural reforms in dRDO from GOI. While there is good progress on some projects, work on AMCA or Arjun or Kaveri or some such long gestation projects seems to be laggarding as usual. DRDO is the same. So whats the difference..? Its funding IMO. Wherever GOI will fund we will see fruits bearing. DRDO is fully dependant on GOI for that. I get this funding thing very well since now a days I say "No funding only, what to do" at least once a week to some one in office whenever topic of doing some quality work comes up. No funding - no work. Drip funding - half baked work. Good funding- satisfactory results.

Have same complaint as you have with this govt. No visible work on structural issues. And I have been quite vocal about it. They seem totally clue less and even applying wrong techniques to deal with issues. Worst part is they are not even appointing capable people who could have perhaps handled it better. Good work on bottomline everywhere. No visibility of any work on topline. We cant wait until everything gets right to start work on top line. Just as I see lack of focus on projects like LCA and AMCA as Myopia and curse GOI for it, I think the push for small projects is also a product of same myopia - looking just next to your nose but not farther.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Nov 2017 02:40

Jay, young folks oriented labs have been set up. There are some teams in these labs, one is on avionics, one on radars and so forth. They are doing good work. But again, whatever they are doing is based on building blocks of work achieved by others.

Similarly, there is this new myth making that magical program management from services can somehow turn around programs and make Defense R&D a cakewalk.

A soldier focuses on being the best at war, while some familiarity with his weapons system and usage is of course the norm, how can he have the time or energy (after hours of thankless patrolling) to sit and learn some esoteric stuff to design his own tools?!?

They should provide inputs & give guidance, which is essential and have ownership by being part of the program, but you need to have long term vision from the scientific community, trust them and fund them.

Instead MOD plays peter against tom and sits in the middle pushing files.

This sort of muddled thinking - is the epitome of what goes on at GOI. A few discussions back we had one gent from MOD who was perhaps justifiably upset at forum members responses to his posts. Be as it may, the MOD thinking, point to the scale of the problem. See, Modi can ask DRDO to set up young scientist labs for young scientists only. What can they do, if the building blocks for programs are missing?

Similarly, whether for political brownie points or whatever, if PMO just keeps haranguing DRDO, but then spends 10x the funding on some misbegotten MII purchase, then they are making fools of the Indian public & Modi as well.

Sacking Chander in a publicly humiliating manner was no way to treat a distinguished scientist. The subsequent shuffle of chairs for Defense Ministry, and then news that the ammunition shortages circa 2014 are yet to be fully resolved three years later shows the lack of focus from Modi led GOI on defense. Better than UPA, but not anywhere near where we need him to be.

Funding is an issue and so is the vision. Where is the vision?? Right now whatever DRDO is doing is developed off of the work done on other programs. But seriously, Dhanush is on verge of cancellation, yet as Akshay Kapoor had posted, MOD is loathe to rope in Kalyani/Bharat Forge for supplanting OFB?

Modi should do far more IMHO. One, dealing with Indian MIC. In fear of being labelled pro-business, he avoided them entirely and we have lost years of possible privatization of the MIC. Mere process work and DPPs do diddly squat. Giving large contracts, funding MII programs in pvt-public partnership would have been the litmus test. Instead, we have mann ki baat and what not.

Next, was complete inability to handle the biased ELM. When Tejas was ordered there was a complete media campaign to run the fighter down. Did Parrikar do anything to rubbish the claims? He kept quiet or appeared on the very media that ran Indian programs down. When media runs campaigns alleging Modi is against DRDO/Indian industry, has Modi even attempted to counter the narrative? He keeps quiet. But speaks up when his pet demon or some other political hot potato lands in his lap. IMHO, by surrendering to the media and having his ministers court the same ELM, Modi led GOI has let all sorts of shady sorts drive the narrative. And what has come of the mess, some talk of creating a new DD for positive PR.

All this and MII remains a distant cry.

Again, more funding for some large programs should be accelerated. A large corpus set up for pvt sector R&D. Public-private partnerships like Brahmos accelerated.

Instead, defence budget has flatlined, even revenue expediture under MOD was reduced (what the heck?) and additional approvals sought, and then in this period of artificial scarcity, while this and that scheme is announced, we announce a SE fighter deal. Is India a colony of Sweden or any other country to constantly subsidize their industry over Indias?

And what the heck was the logic in buying 36 Rafales and then switching over to the SE fighter deal? This was not at all well thought out.

For a fraction of the money spent on these imports, we can have so many production lines in India for critical items. But it is galling to see MII become reduced to come and assemble in India with foreign kits.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Nov 2017 02:43

One thing, Modi is honest and is not gutting our MIC like the previous UPA did. But he should fund them more & trust them as well. Depending on babus to drive progress IMHO is a mistake & will not succeed as they are partly the ones who landed us in this mess, by constantly refusing to sanction funds for critical programs & then the drip feed funding will again delay programs, which in turn creates rationale for expensive, quick, imports. Whether demon or any other program, the intent is good, but the ones executing it, the so called GOI infrastructure, a shambles. I will change my tune day I see large orders placed for domestic programs under this GOI (not carry over from previous ones) AND significant funding plus progress on key things like seekers, electronics etc. Not just Acceptance of Necessity or this committee or that committee. At best, that is just making the babus push a file a bit harder but it is not radical change, which is what we want and what we need.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2017 04:20

Major mistake was the MMRCA contest with all manner of flying insects competing against each other..The simplest solution then was more upgraded M2Ks,out of prod.,more upgraded MIG-29s and the LCA.The MKI superior to all flying machines barring the F-22.We now have a hotch-potch of legacy birds due to fold their wings,others on steroids with the only comfort factor being around 310+ MKIs available with around 3-4 sqds to be upgraded to SS std.These will outclass the Rafale at half the cost.The pvt. sector need to come aboard the LCA progr. With the fullest support from the GOI.Otherwise the "make in India"/"made in India"mantra will be all bogus and an abject surrender to US interests.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Nov 2017 06:58

At the risk of going contrary to the popular opinion of jingoes on BR and inviting their wrath, I have to disagree and suggest that it is time to look past the LCA mk2.

1) It is redundant on a number of levels: Building a 4.5++ bird after having already buiilt a 4.5 bird is a marginal improvement and the learning associated with the same will not bring to a design house any great experience - such as the kinnd that is required for buildinng a 5 gen fighter. IOWs, no matter whta you do, the mk2 will remainn a 4th gen fighter.
1b)The mk1A wiill offer 90% of what the mk2 will - so what is thee poinnt? Might be a better idea to pursue the mk1a further and develop it iteratively.
1c) By the time the ADA comes out with a mk2 - after increasing its lenght and width, adding new engines, etc. etc., it will be no less than 2030 - a time when SAMs with v.long ranges and 5g birds will proliferate and very likely change the threat matrix. It might be rendered as a point defence fighter, same as the mk1a, at least in the initial part of any major war.
2. The need of the not so far future will be a cheap 5gen a/c - something that is high end and procurable in large numbers. I think the ADA iis currently best positioned to make this happen - spend the resources required for a mk2 on an AMCA that at once meets the needs of the IN and acts as a a replacement for IAF jags, mirages and fulcrums circa 2035.
3. Having said this, I feel that once FOC is achieved, the IAF should convert the order for Mk1a, which will take about 4-5 years to productionize, into mk1 - foc std. Additionally, it should also place an order for 126 Mk1a to be delivered by 2030.
4. Further, the GOI should sanction every penny and resource into AMCA development so that the armed forces can have a cutting edge homegrown fighter from 2035 onwards.

Rant mode on:
I recall conversations on this forum where folks were critical of the IAF for jumping on the mk2 bandwagon simplly because the IN was going for the nlca. IOWs, the IAF never truly needed a mk2. So why all the hoopla now? IAF has settled for the mk1 and mk1a. Meets its current and foreseeable needs. And scape goating the IAF for the current state of affairs, seems even less useful. Considering the opinion of Vidur, himself a babu of the ministry and other past episodes, I daresay that amongst all the major stakeholders involved - MOD, DRDO, HAL, and the IAF, the last is the one with least influence and the civil service, with the most. The netas of course get the goldd for being the most nefarious. In any case, lets get back on topic - rant mode off.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2017 07:38

CM spot on.My friend former VCoAS said the same aeons ago,"nothing but a point defence fighter".But was effusive in praise of the MKI.Some time later when asked about progress said that they were now doing what he had told them years ago but was worried about the obsolescence factor kicking in with the inordinate delays .

Prof.Das in VAYU makes a lengthy comparison with the JF-17 progr.,considers it a better dogfightr,etc.,and that they started 8 yrs. behind us.BVR ,etc. only overloads the bird.V.low cost both in capital and running costs when compared with western birds.Too lengthy to lost full details here,but your feeling that we should go beyond a MK-2 for the future is what I've been saying for some time now.There was a titbit in an Ru site that SU is thinking of in the future developing 6th-gen tech for the SU-57.The LCA will be a decade from now looking an antique.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 08:23

Karan M wrote:One thing, Modi is honest and is not gutting our MIC like the previous UPA did. But he should fund them more & trust them as well. Depending on babus to drive progress IMHO is a mistake & will not succeed as they are partly the ones who landed us in this mess, by constantly refusing to sanction funds for critical programs & then the drip feed funding will again delay programs, which in turn creates rationale for expensive, quick, imports. Whether demon or any other program, the intent is good, but the ones executing it, the so called GOI infrastructure, a shambles. I will change my tune day I see large orders placed for domestic programs under this GOI (not carry over from previous ones) AND significant funding plus progress on key things like seekers, electronics etc. Not just Acceptance of Necessity or this committee or that committee. At best, that is just making the babus push a file a bit harder but it is not radical change, which is what we want and what we need.

Karan Saar, I dont see much difference in our opinions and expectations overall in this matter.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 10:54

Cain Marko wrote:At the risk of going contrary to the popular opinion of jingoes on BR and inviting their wrath, I have to disagree and suggest that it is time to look past the LCA mk2.

1) It is redundant on a number of levels: Building a 4.5++ bird after having already buiilt a 4.5 bird is a marginal improvement and the learning associated with the same will not bring to a design house any great experience - such as the kinnd that is required for buildinng a 5 gen fighter. IOWs, no matter whta you do, the mk2 will remainn a 4th gen fighter.
1b)The mk1A wiill offer 90% of what the mk2 will - so what is thee poinnt? Might be a better idea to pursue the mk1a further and develop it iteratively.
1c) By the time the ADA comes out with a mk2 - after increasing its lenght and width, adding new engines, etc. etc., it will be no less than 2030 - a time when SAMs with v.long ranges and 5g birds will proliferate and very likely change the threat matrix. It might be rendered as a point defence fighter, same as the mk1a, at least in the initial part of any major war.
2. The need of the not so far future will be a cheap 5gen a/c - something that is high end and procurable in large numbers. I think the ADA iis currently best positioned to make this happen - spend the resources required for a mk2 on an AMCA that at once meets the needs of the IN and acts as a a replacement for IAF jags, mirages and fulcrums circa 2035.
3. Having said this, I feel that once FOC is achieved, the IAF should convert the order for Mk1a, which will take about 4-5 years to productionize, into mk1 - foc std. Additionally, it should also place an order for 126 Mk1a to be delivered by 2030.
4. Further, the GOI should sanction every penny and resource into AMCA development so that the armed forces can have a cutting edge homegrown fighter from 2035 onwards.

Rant mode on:
I recall conversations on this forum where folks were critical of the IAF for jumping on the mk2 bandwagon simplly because the IN was going for the nlca. IOWs, the IAF never truly needed a mk2. So why all the hoopla now? IAF has settled for the mk1 and mk1a. Meets its current and foreseeable needs. And scape goating the IAF for the current state of affairs, seems even less useful. Considering the opinion of Vidur, himself a babu of the ministry and other past episodes, I daresay that amongst all the major stakeholders involved - MOD, DRDO, HAL, and the IAF, the last is the one with least influence and the civil service, with the most. The netas of course get the goldd for being the most nefarious. In any case, lets get back on topic - rant mode off.

CM - MK2 is a very important stepping stone to AMCA from engineering capability development, manufacturing set up, de-risking AMCA and jacking up IAF numbers POV. There is a huge gap between LCA MK1A and AMCA, time, technology and capability-wise. Without MK2 we will repeat the same mistake that we did by jumping from Marut to LCA. We are not like Khan where innumerable technology programs run below the radar providing readymade technology base for next thing in line. In India its driven from top and trickles down to bottom. No program no funding. The only way to bridge gap between 4th Gen and 5th gen is MK2 where we bring in some key technologies from AMCA to MK2. Develop-test-perfect them before putting in AMCA which is whole new thing. Remember - one miracle at a time. But since we do not have enough breadth and depth to our eco-system to do so, we should at least try to keep the number of miracles to the least. Engineering is all about doing. The more we do the better we get. New programs provide business case to develop whole technology base up. We do not have to worry about obsolescence at this juncture. Today our main focus should be to create the technology and manufacturing base. As such world is not gonna turn Star Wars in 2030. Every single AF in the world will be still using 4th Gen aircrafts in large numbers. As such MK2 and AMCA are two different programs and they need not eat into each other. In fact MK2 only will expedite AMCA.

Another important aspect apart from laying ground for AMCA, MK2 is the avatar in which LCA will have its true potential explored. Lets not forget LCA is still a late 80s - early 90s design as a concept. MK2 can be 2010s design with far better organic capability and margin for future growth. IAF's all the SQRs will be satisfied in MK2 avatar only, as multiple sources indicate. Not only it will have better kinematic performance parameters, extended range, extended payload capacity, it can have much more organic integration of some key 5th gen technologies such as better outer surface blending for reduced RCS, better RAM, sensor fusion, shape conforming internal electronic components making it a true 4.5++gen fighter (Simply put, It will be our Rafale). In its existing form, MK1A will have a limited capability of growth and will always remain bogged down by the short-comings which are associated with MK1 configuration. With a new program and opening up of design space will give designers far more flexibility to iron out the short-comings from MK1/1A.

Time has been changing. In 2013-14 thinking was slightly different. Today thinking needs to be slightly different. But MK2 still has a very good appeal and make a whole lot more sense. It will cost less now, will be double quick in development (2nd iteration is always faster) and will give a true potent multirole fighter which will not be shunned saying its only "point defense fighter". And it will give breathing space in case AMCA gets delayed.

Finally, you may not agree to these points. Its after all a personal thing, which all points a person consider more important among all. I personally feel we should go with incremental step rather than hopping one more time because it will delay AMCA further. And we will be in a quandary to buy F35 to jack up numbers in 2030-35 time frame because MK1A will be seen as grossly inadequate to replace M2K/Jags in that era.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Nov 2017 12:00

Main thing to point out is that India needs to have three pronged approach going forward. Teams and funding need to expand to support multiple development efforts with aerospace clusters (research, academic and industrial) in support. There shouldn't be gaps like before between Marut and LCA.

Ongoing Iterative Development of LCA (Gen 4++) -> Mk.1A, Mk.2, LIFT, etc. R&D Active dates: 2010-2035. Advantage: No stopgap; continuous production and updates. Apart from meeting Indian requirements, this would be one of those high-end defense products that India could export.
New Designs (Gen 5) -> AMCA. R&D Active dates: 2010-2050. Advantage: Catch up with the rest of the world (other than US).
Future Designs (Gen 6) -> UCAV. R&D Active dates: 2020-2050+. Advantage: Catch up with US

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 12:19

srai wrote:Main thing to point out is that India needs to have three pronged approach going forward. Teams and funding need to expand to support multiple development efforts with aerospace clusters (research, academic and industrial) in support. There shouldn't be gaps like before between Marut and LCA.

Ongoing Iterative Development of LCA (Gen 4++) -> Mk.1A, Mk.2, LIFT, etc. R&D Active dates: 2010-2035. Advantage: No stopgap; continuous production and updates. Apart from meeting Indian requirements, this would be one of those high-end defense products that India could export.

New Designs (Gen 5) -> AMCA. R&D Active dates: 2010-2050. Advantage: Catch up with the rest of the world (other than US).

Future Designs (Gen 6) -> UCAV. R&D Active dates: 2020-2050+. Advantage: Catch up with US

That's a good summary.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2017 20:19

Funding programs is the product of lengthy program studies, with expected costs included each step of the way. It can't be any other way, otherwise CAG will breathe fire.
This probably has to be submitted in triplicate,

Funds release after jumping through a series of minefields at the MOD and MOF and Once a month meeting of the defence minister (If the defence minister is in town on the fateful day, and if the agenda for the meeting is not otherwise full for the meeting) is a another hoop to jump through.
If the defence minister is out of town, or if someone pushes some other procurement related item into the agenda for the day, this will again get shafted to the next month.

The timeline given above are just approximations.

The Babus, play havoc by quoting the rule book and styming and delaying everything - EVERYTHING, to the fullest extent of their abilities. The babus get a rash, the moment they see a uniformed officer or jawan. The sight of an upright person, who is willing to lay down his life for the nation does not go too well with a potbellied, lazy, inefficient and corrupt babu.

UPA defence ministers are sent in with one agenda - fill the party's coffers for the next election. Period. Running the ministry is only incidental.

Put everything into the mix, and one should be grateful that things even get approved at all !

Once approved, the ministry will refund unused funds to the min of finance.

At the DRDO level, tendering is a triplicate process involving all sorts of laws and bylaws, including contract negotiation (likely even or a ball point pen) and avoiding a single vendor situation - I'll bet they don't procure ball point pens if only one supplier responds. God help us all !!!!!
Programs are R&D, and so unexpected things and problems crop up. This arachic system is just not geared to handle this, and funding, procurement, equipment supplies all get in the way of running a smooth program.

Case in point - when HAL paid for the HHT-40 out of its own finances, see how quickly the program came to first flight! They were able to bypass many of these steps.

(Apologies in advance for the typos - my computer has surely been taken over by the Chinese or the NSA, and is buggy and slow)