'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 23:51

Cybaru wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:the optics of any production shift to india will be bad in trumpistan regardless of the economic logic
why india? why not tennessee? or Arkansas?
Would Arkansas nor Tennessee add another 100-200 to order and then pay for the line itself?

If President-Elect Trump denies MII for the single engine fighter competition, you can be sure it is going to be Gripen. Which is equally pointless for India, but ironic for LM which promised the moon if the F-Solah was chosen.

The only advantage that Gripen E has over the F-Solah is the GE414 engine.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 23:58

F-16 for India Air Force…Really?
http://thenorthlines.com/f-16-india-air-forcereally/

If MoD select F-16 or Gripen right now, it will take a long time to finalize the technical and financial terms and conditions of the actual contract. MoD and the manufacturer will not be able to sign the contract before late 2017 or early 2018. Another 2/3 years will be spent on transferring the production line to India and finalizing contract with local vendors. First aircraft will not come out of the assemble line before 2021. IAF will have its first complete squadron latest by late 2022 or early 2023.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jan 2017 00:02

Rakesh wrote:F-16 for India Air Force…Really?
http://thenorthlines.com/f-16-india-air-forcereally/

If MoD select F-16 or Gripen right now, it will take a long time to finalize the technical and financial terms and conditions of the actual contract. MoD and the manufacturer will not be able to sign the contract before late 2017 or early 2018. Another 2/3 years will be spent on transferring the production line to India and finalizing contract with local vendors. First aircraft will not come out of the assemble line before 2021. IAF will have its first complete squadron latest by late 2022 or early 2023.

Interesting article.
Essentially dumps on both the planes.

Could be Russian inspired?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Jan 2017 00:04

could be....but I think the main point that I got from the article is what I have put in quotes. Either one (the author tilts towards the Gripen) would arrive not anytime now (2017, 2018 or 2019). We are only in RFI stage. This is Indian bureaucracy we are talking about. 10 years is like warp speed for them

Took two decades to procure the BAe Hawk AJT. Took 15+ years for MMRCA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jan 2017 00:09

I take back my comment. The author wants more Rafales!!!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Jan 2017 00:13

Pretty sensible article Rakesh! I don't think we have many options left. We have to develop our Engine and radar line. If money has to be spent, spend it directly on those.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Jan 2017 00:25

Austin wrote:Lockheed Martin offers F-16 Block 70, for India, from India, exported to the world
By Neetu Dhulia

New Delhi, August 4, 2016: In sync with ‘Make in India’, Lockheed Martin is all out to move the production facility of its F-16 next-generation fighters to India. “We have had a round of discussions earlier this year with the US Government, the Government of India and the Indian industry partners about this opportunity. At this stage the Indian Government has been supplied with all data to support an informed decision,” said Abhay Paranjape, National Executive, India, of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. He however mentioned that shifting of the assembly line is conditional to some assured orders from India.

This offer by LM is a unsolicited and India has not asked it.
India was invited by SaaB/Grippin to check out their aircraft and official visit was done.

India has opened process to start looking for a single engine aircraft. So giving too much importance to LM offer is premature

But the article from AshleyT about the current situation in the AF changes the discussion.
This is a lobby article and need to find out who is behind it. This is for the LM and their congress supporters to support this deal with lot of carrots to throw with it.

We need to watch the carrots!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jan 2017 09:52

The article about F-16 and Gripen entering service by 2021-2022 does not factor the possibility of 3-4 squadron worth of planes coming directly from existing production line abroad? And here again, I suppose LM would've advantage because they've been there, done that.

Can LM deliver a Squadron worth of planes (Which are likely to have higher 2 seater for conversion) per annum from 2020 onward for 2-3 years till the production line comes up in India?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jan 2017 10:04

rohitvats wrote:The article about F-16 and Gripen entering service by 2021-2022 does not factor the possibility of 3-4 squadron worth of planes coming directly from existing production line abroad? And here again, I suppose LM would've advantage because they've been there, done that.

Can LM deliver a Squadron worth of planes (Which are likely to have higher 2 seater for conversion) per annum from 2020 onward for 2-3 years till the production line comes up in India?

I do not see why not.

BTW, I had posted a quote from a LM person, that they can reach - IIRC - 30 units a year in India. Block 70. I do not recall a year being associated with it tho'.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Jan 2017 21:35

From our very own Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

The IAF Fleet Needs Rejuvenating, And Needs It Now
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... ds-it-now/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Jan 2017 22:05

Cybaru: Read this when you have a minute....and you will see the irony

No, Mr. Trump, You Can’t Replace F-35 With A 'Comparable' F-18
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/no-m ... able-f-18/

Nevertheless, today the F-35 is on track to provide a huge capability for a comparatively reasonable price: $85M by 2019. Decades-old designs like the F/A-18, F-15, and F-16 cost well within that range or more depending on what upgrades to the basic fighter are included. It is also crucial to recognize that the F-35 doesn’t just do the same things better (though it does): It does things the legacy fighters just can’t do at all. First and foremost, planes like the F/A-18 will never be very stealthy because their designs were never built to evade radar, as evident in their shapes, construction materials, or avionics. Modernization cannot fix this problem: Stealth has to be built into a design from day one.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2017 22:12

rohitvats wrote:The article about F-16 and Gripen entering service by 2021-2022 does not factor the possibility of 3-4 squadron worth of planes coming directly from existing production line abroad? And here again, I suppose LM would've advantage because they've been there, done that.

Can LM deliver a Squadron worth of planes (Which are likely to have higher 2 seater for conversion) per annum from 2020 onward for 2-3 years till the production line comes up in India?

No Rohit, it can't. You can't be moving a line and manufacturing through it simultaneously. You could get a few planes, but what you ask for needs the replication of the line, i.e. the US line is kept intact to produce 2-3 squadrons while a separate Indian line is set up.

The rate at which the Indian F-16 line can produce planes is governed by finance. Look around the world, for the economical rate of production for a 100 aircraft order. Anything more, you will have to pay a premium. No matter what any LM guy says.

Also, please don't buy the lie that the Indian assembly line is going to be making spare parts for the global F-16s. The Indian assembly line is an assembly line to put parts together into a plane. Please check how HAL has to sign another TOT pact with UAC to manufacture the spare parts of Su-30 in India.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Jan 2017 22:15

Indranil wrote:Also, please don't buy the lie that the Indian assembly line is going to be making spare parts for the global F-16s. The Indian assembly line is an assembly line to put parts together into a plane.

thanks for highlighting Indranil, as I said before - making parts is a completely different type of business to assembling aircraft

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Jan 2017 01:37

Indian Air Chief Flies MiG-21 as Vote of Confidence in Soviet-Era Jet
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017011210 ... ef-mig-21/

The Indian government has shown interest in a single engine replacement for the MiG 21. But sources close to the Ministry of Defense say tendering may take more than three years.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 01:57

Rakesh wrote:Indian Air Chief Flies MiG-21 as Vote of Confidence in Soviet-Era Jet
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017011210 ... ef-mig-21/

The Indian government has shown interest in a single engine replacement for the MiG 21. But sources close to the Ministry of Defense say tendering may take more than three years.

So, Sputnik has now gone from 2018 to "more than three years"? Enough time to develop a clean sheet single engine solution.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 02:10

This seems about right.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/par ... e-fighters

However a top MoD official said selection of an Indian private company to manufacture single engine fighters will only be approved by the cabinet by the end of 2017. Thereafter a global bid will be floated, with expectation that Lockheed Martin of US and Saab of Sweden will pitch the F-16 Block 70 and Gripen, respectively.

The global tender will be floated in the first quarter of 2018. At that time, a private company will be nominated as the strategic partners production agency and a two or more year process will kick off to evaluate technical and financial bids and conduct extensive trials, MoD official noted.

Seriously, if that is the time line, then IMHO none of these planes will be anything more than fillers to claim that India will have 50 squadrons.

So, boom. In 2024-25 all planes arrive? LCA MKII, this single engine solution, a twin engine solution, FGFA and within another 5 years or so the AMCA?

It will not help to fulfill the economic needs either. Too late for that too.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 02:56

I am glad, this gives more time for team LCA to induct more Mk-IA and perhaps even have Mk-2 flight

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 03:26

Sir,

Time is your enemy. Got to find ways to either kill or shorten it!!

By the time "Cabinet" (!!!!!!) makes a decision, there would be another 10-12 million people added to the work force, wanting a job. What you gain will be lost. India is competing against herself.

How many LCAs would be made by 2020?

Unless India hits a cool 30 planes a year by 2020 - no matter which plane - cannot see much improvements in the longer run. Can never export any of them.

But, yes, "IAF has 50 squadrons", is something they can say in perhaps 2035 or so. Hopefully. Of what, do not ask.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Jan 2017 04:26

50 squadrons if achieved by 2035 need to be assessed wrt the opposition they'd be facing in 2035.

The 100 odd BLK 70s would still be very relevant on the Paki front and also on the China front.

The squadrons however need to be there.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 04:33

NRao wrote:Sir,
Time is your enemy. Got to find ways to either kill or shorten it!!

Malik, Please don't sir me!

I agree with you, Kill it!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2017 05:50

I have been saying this at the top of my voice since the beginning of the thread. It is not possible to get the first plane before 2021-22. It is unrealistic. The next reality to hit will be the production rate. The next: price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 06:18

What is teh reason for saying they (I am assuming you mean the Teens/Grip) cannot come before 2021 or so?

To me it seems like a problem with the GoI. Cabinets, tenders, processes ..................... Nation?

All this is the fault of the French. I bet they are still expecting Ambani to pull a Rafale line at $30 billion in India. For 50 planes that too.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Jan 2017 06:35

I hope this tender is dragged through babudom until it's bare bedraggled corpse looks like the MMRCA circus.

Let them first start JVs or SPVs to manufacture spares for export from India. The precondition must be that 50% of the bidders suppliers by content value must have continuous operations in India for at least two years for the bidders to be eligible to put in a bid. We desperately need not (just) the fighters but the suppliers/manufacturers. No better way to guage their intent.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Jan 2017 06:40

NRao Sir, it is most certainly the fault of India. The Govt should be pouring money into enhancing LCA production *both MK1a and MK 2 and the AMCA instead of relying on fickle partners. It will take a decade or more likely two but rest assured we will not need an F-xx or Suxx line to build a 6th gen unmanned fighter.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 13 Jan 2017 08:13

The articles in Sputnik and DefenseNews don't quite gel with the tweets and Livefist article on page 45 of this thread, where MP appears to say that the MIIF1 contract will be signed this year (2017). Also MP seems to categorically deny current consideration of Rafale, while Vivek Raghuvanshi in DefenseNews has MP stating that further Rafale purchases are considered. The two pieces of news can't be right at the same time, so what to believe? My personal sense is that India will remain quiet on this until US presidential transition is complete before announcing any major move. Things will become a lot clearer in the next couple of weeks.

The identification of a SP will shape the Indian Aerospace industry for decades to come, so it is well worth getting right. Especially the first SP. Note that IAF projections for a 45 squadron need are based on a steady buildup of PLAAF infrastructure in Tibet plus acquisition/production of high performance aircraft. It is not an overnight emergence of conventional imbalance, and the first stage of a serious imbalance would manifest in foreclosing offensive options rather than a dire threat of loss in conventional conflict. So the need for stated 45 squadrons is to maintain an offensive edge, and then the additional squadrons up to 55-60 are projected as being needed in case same trends continue over a longer time, as in 2030s and beyond. If Tejas production finally gets into gear as projected by ACM Raha (NOT HAL), IAF numerical strength will bottom out by mid2020s until the next round of retirements hit starting 2030s. The real catastrophic situation will only emerge in late 2020s if no viable replacement is in place by then for the MiG29s, Jaguars and Mirages.

The point of all this is that while India's acquisition process appears to be moving in its usual excruciatingly slow pace, a manufactured sense of urgency and crisis only serves the purposes of the sellers. Tejas and 36 Rafales have bought enough time to get the two MIIF deals right. The deals are not just about the platforms, but about moving away from a situation in which there is no alternative to HAL, ADA and Russia for India's combat aircraft needs. If both of the MIIF aquisitions eventually go into full production mode sequentially in the next 3-7 years, IAF will be in a good place medium term and India will have the industrial ecosystem in place for producing world class combat aircraft.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 08:55

Y I Patel wrote: The deals are not just about the platforms, but about moving away from a situation in which there is no alternative to HAL, ADA and Russia for India's combat aircraft needs. If both of the MIIF aquisitions eventually go into full production mode sequentially in the next 3-7 years, IAF will be in a good place medium term and India will have the industrial ecosystem in place for producing world class combat aircraft.

If we move away from HAL/ADA, there will be nothing to produce in 10 years from now. I personally feel there is no strategic sense in what you are proposing other than remaining users and assemblers not stakeholders, designers and creators. We have been there and done that, it has created diddly squat. Those planes are designed for the use by USAF for their tactics and operational needs. Ours are probably very different. We have to learn to figure out how we will fight in the next 20 years and cater to that. We will have to ensure that IAF digs deeply within itself and plays a pivotal role in defining the next gen of fighters it needs realistically. I am glad to see IAF put its foot down on PAK FA and demand what it needs. As we are going to find out that "Customization" is not going to come cheaply. This is where we lost the rafale, perhaps not on the initial costs, but the customization that IAF needs for its use.

IAF is also doing great in adding force multipliers. Both AEW and Refuelers will require large CAPEX investments. Adding more Transport for buying extra used C17 and C29W is going to cost. Refurbing the Il-76 fleet is going to cost a lot of money. We are already adding about 30 new planes a year (20 MKI + 8/10 LCA and possibly 12 Rafales starting from 2019 onwards) That is already a huge commitment. That's almost 2 new squadrons a year. With LCA being pushed to 16/24, its possible we will a larger number there as well. Do we have it in us to add another 20 planes a year pushing us to 50/60 new planes for yearly intake around 2020 onwards? What happens to the other investments like NEW Airbus330 AEW/PAK-FA/extra Chinooks/extra Apaches/Extra C130s/JSTARS like functionality on G550(ELINT)/AMCA investment/Bhramos-M/SDBs/SAAW/Sudarshan/ASTRA/Aerostats/Dhruvs/LCH/Ka-226/New Mil-17s or IMRH/Su-30 Modernization with ASEA/Jaguar engine upgrades/UAVS? Wouldn't adding that make more sense to help reducing the fog of war rather than mindlessly adding pawns to a fight, without being able to utilize them effectively?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2017 09:23

NRao,

Parrikar's one big problem is sticking to self set deadlines. I cannot see how proposals from SAab and LM on completely new policy vehicle namely strategic partnership can be signed in six months. Remember, a fine and dusted Rafale deal took 2 years. And planes rolling off an existing line will start to arrive 5 years after the initial Namo proposal. This will take 2-3 years more than that. Believing in anything faster is the same as believing in unicorns. Today is 2017 + 5 is 2022 already. Adding 2-3 years ...

Anyways, I would love LM to be a strategic partner in developing NLCA mk2, LCA mk2, AMCA. I have even said let LM design KFX-E for India which is unlikely to be accepted in Korea. Those make sense. Setting up an F-16 line in 2020 does not make sense.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 09:27

I personally feel there is no strategic sense in what you are proposing other than remaining users and assemblers not stakeholders, designers and creators. We have been there and done that, it has created diddly squat.

I was watching a vid from NASAx, where NASA has two projects going on for "engines" - one with P&W and the other of course with GE. The topic with P&W was about gears - how to reduce their size, yada, yada, yada. P&W VP comes on-line and talks for a bit - the short of it is it took them 20 years to design that gear.

Eh? ONE piddly gear.

India needs to be realistic and not get into this mode of chest-thumping. "Pouring money" is not a solution. A great plan is a solution, funding that plan is a subset to the plan. Funding has never solved problems. In fact, if one looks at some of the early problem solver, they worked with very, very little funds. Solved problems then attract funds, not the other way around.

On "designers and creators", best of luck. That is cultural. Funds can never jump start that. In fact, it probably needs people who do not care about making money.

IF India wants to use "funds", then she will have to fund many parallel projects. One of them will hit pay dirt and there is your win. 2/3 LCA type planes, as an example, not MK-II, followed by a MK-III.

Basically, India needs infusion of a variety of things. I very much doubt India can achieve goals to match global aspirations by herself.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 13 Jan 2017 09:32

One major advantage of twin engine planes is that when one engine gets into trouble, the plane is still able to make it back to base on its other engine.
In that sense the money "wasted" on additional fuel/parts of a 2 engine plane gets recouped over time by these planes NOT crashing as often as single engine fighters.
This is an important consideration for a hot, humid, dusty, bird prone environment like India which stresses the engine to the max.

They should not restrict the selection of planes to just single engine aircraft.
Frankly, this distinction between single/twin engine should be done away with. It should not be a major criteria for selection of a plane since the economics (and combat effectiveness) of operating a plane are more than just the number of engines it has.

Open up the competition to twin engined planes as well and have them compete on an overall bang-for-the-buck premise.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 09:40

NRao wrote:
I personally feel there is no strategic sense in what you are proposing other than remaining users and assemblers not stakeholders, designers and creators. We have been there and done that, it has created diddly squat.
I was watching a vid from NASAx, where NASA has two projects going on for "engines" - one with P&W and the other of course with GE. The topic with P&W was about gears - how to reduce their size, yada, yada, yada. P&W VP comes on-line and talks for a bit - the short of it is it took them 20 years to design that gear.

Eh? ONE piddly gear.

India needs to be realistic and not get into this mode of chest-thumping. "Pouring money" is not a solution. A great plan is a solution, funding that plan is a subset to the plan. Funding has never solved problems. In fact, if one looks at some of the early problem solver, they worked with very, very little funds. Solved problems then attract funds, not the other way around.

On "designers and creators", best of luck. That is cultural. Funds can never jump start that. In fact, it probably needs people who do not care about making money.

IF India wants to use "funds", then she will have to fund many parallel projects. One of them will hit pay dirt and there is your win. 2/3 LCA type planes, as an example, not MK-II, followed by a MK-III.

Basically, India needs infusion of a variety of things. I very much doubt India can achieve goals to match global aspirations by herself.

Interesting use of example. It's a good example, but it deflects from the main argument and starts a parallel argument:

Can we afford to give money away when so many programs are required as listed below?
All these programs have to move forward.

Refub il-76/Extra used C-17s/NEW Airbus330 AEW/12-18 C330 refuelers/PAK-FA/extra Chinooks/extra Apaches/Extra C130s/JSTARS like functionality on G550(ELINT)/AMCA investment/Bhramos-M/SDBs/SAAW/Sudarshan/ASTRA/Aerostats/Dhruvs/LCH/Ka-226/New Mil-17s or IMRH/Su-30 Modernization with ASEA/Jaguar engine upgrades/UAVS/Akash/LRSAM/MRSAM/SRSAM/Ground based radars etc etc etc

Can we afford to customize any weaponry when the cost of such things adds a few billion dollars to the bottom line that we cannot afford and that's why we are still flying Mig-21s? If money were no object we would have been like the gulf states and bought Rafales and this, that and the other.

On another note:
Do you think giving money away to another corporation is going to solve our problem in arriving there?
So you are saying they solved the problem because they didn't take short cuts and spent 20 years toiling away on difficult issues, yet we shouldn't and we will still arrive there? E=MoneySquared. (Where is that Trademark sign?

)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 09:53

Indranil wrote:NRao,

Parrikar's one big problem is sticking to self set deadlines. I cannot see how proposals from SAab and LM on completely new policy vehicle namely strategic partnership can be signed in six months. Remember, a fine and dusted Rafale deal took 2 years. And planes rolling off an existing line will start to arrive 5 years after the initial Namo proposal. This will take 2-3 years more than that. Believing in anything faster is the same as believing in unicorns. Today is 2017 + 5 is 2022 already. Adding 2-3 years ...

Ah. Makes total sense. OK, disconnect. I just do not think the LM deal will go via that route. My feel is that they are nailing down teh details for the GE engine for the AMCA. Once that happens, LM slides in smoothly. In fact, I happen to think a lot of leg work has already been done. Even with Carter leaving ot should not create any waves. My feel is that the US had determined - way back around 2000 - that India needs to be helped - just when and how much was the question. That is not being solidified.

?????

Anyways, I would love LM to be a strategic partner in developing NLCA mk2, LCA mk2, AMCA. I have even said let LM design KFX-E for India which is unlikely to be accepted in Korea. Those make sense. Setting up an F-16 line in 2020 does not make sense.

On a side note, KF-X is the one that LM is working on? The KF-X-E was a rival I thought (with Airbus?). However, KF-X and IF-X are going to be built.....................................the quid pro quo? F-35A. (No idea how Indonesian fits into this picture.)

My pref is LM, with F-16 + GE engine for AMCA (hot section), ALL processes, down to supply chain, manufacturing of planes and export of F-16s (I happen to think there is a large market for them). Manufacture 30 F-16s a year, export 4-8 of them a year.

Boeing, with F-18 line and very, very serious help for AMCA and perhaps some exports of F-18. I am opposed to any foreign plane for IN (unless as a stop gap). Naval planes are the crown jewels and need to be Indian hands.

And, have both provide direction in networks, data management, etc.

I would keep the LCA line open (NEVER close it under any circumstance) and move to design/dev the AMCA. In parallel start an internal effort to beat the best China has - land or sea.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 10:10

NRao wrote: On "designers and creators", best of luck. That is cultural. Funds can never jump start that. In fact, it probably needs people who do not care about making money.

That's pretty arrogant and rich! Yet, the answer seems to be privatization and throw money at it (Private sector, Reliance and what not)

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Jan 2017 10:13

NRao wrote: India needs to be realistic and not get into this mode of chest-thumping. "Pouring money" is not a solution. A great plan is a solution, funding that plan is a subset to the plan. Funding has never solved problems. In fact, if one looks at some of the early problem solver, they worked with very, very little funds. Solved problems then attract funds, not the other way around.

And how exactly will we develop a manufacturing base and the associated issues of achieving scale (like the ones you have been lamenting about on the LCA thread)? With philosophy?

NRao wrote: On "designers and creators", best of luck. That is cultural. Funds can never jump start that. In fact, it probably needs people who do not care about making money.

So basically SDRE designers and creators care only about making money AND have cultural issues? Let's politely call that RICH.
BTW, why exactly are Airbus, Boeing and associated firms such as GKN expanding their design capabilities in India? Because they want to import designers to India OR are they using the available talent? Ask the Aero folks here if you are unaware -- JayS or Kartik or Zynda can educate both of us on that situation. But this culture BS strawman must be put away for good.

NRao wrote: IF India wants to use "funds", then she will have to fund many parallel projects. One of them will hit pay dirt and there is your win. 2/3 LCA type planes, as an example, not MK-II, followed by a MK-III.

Basically, India needs infusion of a variety of things. I very much doubt India can achieve goals to match global aspirations by herself.

What India needs is to focus her sparse funds and ample energies into building a massive manufacturing complex where we can handle alloys, tolerances to nms, and complex jigs. We do NOT have the FUNDS to do so.
You are RIGHT in saying we need multiple projects. We are unable to even make a move on the AMCA precisely due to lack of precious funds which will instead go towards a tired 1960s model (Russki or if you have your way, US) that does nothing for the capabilities that you bemoan are lacking.

And you are WRONG in believing that it is a cultural or attitudinal issue due to which we are unable to scale.
The precise issue is funds. Nothing stops the MOD from ordering 30 LCAs a year -- HAL and its suppliers will need the same three years to scale up production. I do not see you taking that rational path. Instead we are hankering for a shiny assembly line where our "design and creator" abilities are ZILCH. Screwdrivering didn't teach us anything yet.

India needs to set up SPVs for components and ancillaries, and provide ample funding and see the majors chase that short skirt all the way to the 2040s.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 10:15

Cybaru wrote: Interesting use of example. It's a good example, but it deflects from the main argument and starts a parallel argument:

Can we afford to give money away when so many programs are required as listed below?
All these programs have to move forward.
Refub il-76/Extra used C-17s/NEW Airbus330 AEW/12-18 C330 refuelers/PAK-FA/extra Chinooks/extra Apaches/Extra C130s/JSTARS like functionality on G550(ELINT)/AMCA investment/Bhramos-M/SDBs/SAAW/Sudarshan/ASTRA/Aerostats/Dhruvs/LCH/Ka-226/New Mil-17s or IMRH/Su-30 Modernization with ASEA/Jaguar engine upgrades/UAVS etc
Can we afford to customize any weaponry when the cost of such things adds a few billion dollars to the bottom line that we cannot afford and that's why we are still flying Mig-21s? If money were no object we would have been like the gulf states and bought Rafales and this, that and the other.

On another note:
Do you think giving money away to another corporation is going to solve our problem in arriving there?
So you are saying they solved the problem because they didn't take short cuts and spent 20 years toiling away on difficult issues, yet we shouldn't and we will still arrive there? E=MoneySquared. (Where is that Trademark sign? )

Well, I am not going down that rabbit hole. So, let me frame it a little diff.

The challenge in front of India is to keep ahead of China and build an exportable MIC

By herself, India cannot do it - no matter how much one throws money at this problem. Not even close. India does need help, both teh carrier working group and teh engine working groups are at the request of India, which shows the gap. One needs to acknowledge that, otherwise you will only drill more rabbit holes.

The 20 years P&W spent on THAT one gear was supported by decades of research prior to that. So, the point there was NOT 20 years, it is more like 60 years.

BTW, the Russians have an alternative solution, which works for them - so there are other solutions and one does not have to follow the P&W example. I gave that example because the techs from the US are considered to be the leading edge - which is borne out in the request made by India. Note that these are not my assertions, just observations.

But, if one thinks India can build a viable engine for the AMCA, please do so. I just happen to think even the Kaveri with Snema's help will take a few years and even after that it will be just another engine - India will not have learnt too much (France is NOT going to part with any jewels) and a few years down, back to Russia -> France -> US................. And, meanwhile they all would have move to the 7th gen engine.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jan 2017 10:19

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote: On "designers and creators", best of luck. That is cultural. Funds can never jump start that. In fact, it probably needs people who do not care about making money.
That's pretty arrogant and rich! Yet, the answer seems to be privatization and throw money at it (Private sector, Reliance and what not)

Ah, a diff culture. The likes of reliance take risk.

"Throw money"? Nope. Make money. That culture has the notion of producing a good product for profit.

But, even there there can be mistakes of just plain simple goofs. But, that is part of that culture.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Jan 2017 10:20

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote: On "designers and creators", best of luck. That is cultural. Funds can never jump start that. In fact, it probably needs people who do not care about making money.
That's pretty arrogant and rich! Yet, the answer seems to be privatization and throw money at it (Private sector, Reliance and what not)

My take is that your entire effort in listing priorities per IAF including the following has been glossed over. Else, this discussion would be more logical instead of saying plainly you SDREs cannot even do this, be happy that the "US determined to help India", and that too in 2000! Which is why we see a massive GE plant at Naroda or Nagpur today - ready to manufacture every engine component from scratch. Thank you Boeing!?! Hehe

Airbus330 AEW/PAK-FA/extra Chinooks/extra Apaches/Extra C130s/JSTARS like functionality on G550(ELINT)/AMCA investment/Bhramos-M/SDBs/SAAW/Sudarshan/ASTRA/Aerostats/Dhruvs/LCH/Ka-226/New Mil-17s or IMRH/Su-30 Modernization with ASEA/Jaguar engine upgrades/UAVS

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Jan 2017 10:20

NRao, why would Boeing hand over whatever Snecma will not?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 10:26

NRao wrote:
Cybaru wrote: Interesting use of example. It's a good example, but it deflects from the main argument and starts a parallel argument:

Can we afford to give money away when so many programs are required as listed below?
All these programs have to move forward.

Can we afford to customize any weaponry when the cost of such things adds a few billion dollars to the bottom line that we cannot afford and that's why we are still flying Mig-21s? If money were no object we would have been like the gulf states and bought Rafales and this, that and the other.

On another note:
Do you think giving money away to another corporation is going to solve our problem in arriving there?
So you are saying they solved the problem because they didn't take short cuts and spent 20 years toiling away on difficult issues, yet we shouldn't and we will still arrive there? E=MoneySquared. (Where is that Trademark sign? )
Well, I am not going down that rabbit hole. So, let me frame it a little diff.

No, I refrained from getting caught up in your other argument and asked you my main question once more, so yeah, no we aren't chasing down the wrong rabbit hole.

The argument is simply this, there is a limited pool of money.

Which of the above program would you like to cut, so that we can relieve LM of its obligation of maintaining F-16s for world wide users, so that it can focus on what's important to it, the F-35. We have to cut a program to do the same for Boeing. The pie is not ever expanding. It grows some with GDP, but so do salaries and other expenses.

We will have to cut something, what will you cut from the above list (I am sure my list is not exhaustive, I may have missed many a things, but feel free to take a stab at it anyways)?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 10:30

Marten wrote:NRao, why would Boeing hand over whatever Snecma will not?

Excellent question.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Jan 2017 10:33

NRao wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
That's pretty arrogant and rich! Yet, the answer seems to be privatization and throw money at it (Private sector, Reliance and what not)
Ah, a diff culture. The likes of reliance take risk.

"Throw money"? Nope. Make money. That culture has the notion of producing a good product for profit.

But, even there there can be mistakes of just plain simple goofs. But, that is part of that culture.

I don't understand what you are even saying. These people are from a special race and cut from different SDRE free cloth??