LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

[member_20292]

Actually if you ask me, IAF was not wrong there. This is what an air force should do for a fighter it is going to adopt. The same story for Jaguar (which was changed from a trainer to a strike aircraft). The same should have happened with LCA also. Alas, this is not is happening. From day 1 it has to be able to enter squadron service! From then on, IAF will start their evaluations, and if found fit, then orders will follow!!! How is this financially sustainable?

Because the IAF does not realize what it takes to develop , ab initio, such things.

They do not have the engineering and scientific talent at the highest, decision making levels - its all the fly boys doing everything.

Its jocks vs. geeks all over again.

When the geeks are gora, then one is able to enjoy ready made halwa.

But one does not have the patience to taste and then recommend changes to halwa being made live , at home.

The IAF needs to be forced here.

[rohitvats]

Because the IAF does not realize what it takes to develop , ab initio, such things. They do not have the engineering and scientific talent at the highest, decision making levels - its all the fly boys doing everything. Its jocks vs. geeks all over again. When the geeks are gora, then one is able to enjoy ready made halwa. But one does not have the patience to taste and then recommend changes to halwa being made live , at home. The IAF needs to be forced here.

And how did arrive at this wisdom?

When the scientists went about claiming that LCA would be delivered at the turn of the century, the same 'fly-boys' had put in a analysis predicting that given the scope of R&D envisaged, this thing is not going to fly for a long time. And they were proven right. But for the geeks and their penchant for going for the best and making this into a science project, the fighter would've been flying much earlier.

[Vivek K]

What a colossal national waste! It is pretty obvious that IAF and IA have long been pampered and are not thinking in strategic terms. When you buy a foreign weapon system that will remain in use for 5 decades, how much extra will the IAF need to integrate new generation missiles and sensors especially when will successfully knock out domestic research and production.

[member_23694]

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 010_1.html

"By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production.

The above time line is delayed. But fine as it is expected for whatever good reason.

In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters," says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL's production line for the Hawk trainer.

This standardisation, and coordinating the flow of Tejas systems and sub-systems to the assembly line constitutes what Sridharan describes as the process of "stabilising" the Tejas line.
"Once the process is stabilised, we can transition to higher rates of production. My initial focus will be on production quality; then we will scale up production. HAL will meet the target of building 20 fighters by 2016-17," he says.

So the question how will giving 100 MK.1 order NOW make any difference. The first 40 production will probably go till 2018-19.

That was the pattern while building the Hawk. After building just two aircraft in the first year, seven were built in the second year. In the third year, HAL built 18 Hawks, and the remaining 14 Hawks were produced within months.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/01/h ... ghter.html

HAL is also developing a cost-effective supply chain by establishing Long Time Business Agreements (LTBAs) of 3-5 years with its sub-vendors. Instead of giving them piecemeal orders, HAL assures its sub-vendors of production orders for up to 40-50 aircraft sets. Having provided them business confidence and driven down prices, HAL negotiates yearly requirements with them in tandem with its production rate, ensuring the in-flow of raw materials and parts to keep the Tejas line rolling. As IAF/navy orders grow, these vendors are assured of further business provided their performance and prices remain satisfactory.

Now for the part of forcing IAF to buy more MK.1 (not to suggest that MK.1 is not a good aircraft or passing a judgement on Navy' approach towards ALH. It is just to highlight that what the Navy considered appropriate was fine and NO one forced the 120 ALH in the name of indigenous product. )

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rogram.htm

HAL started with a letter of intent for 300 of the ALH from the Indian government and its agencies, and hoped to deliver 24 annually. Some 110 are planned for the Indian Army, 150 for the Air Force, and 40 in a combined batch for the Navy and Coast Guard. This was followed by contract for 100 in late 1996, but the allocation was revised by 2001 as Army 120, Navy 120, Air Force 60 and Coast Guard seven; all to be delivered by 2015.

By mid-2008 the Indian Navy has virtually written off the naval variant of the Dhruv advanced light helicopter (ALH), saying it had failed to meet basic operational requirements. The navy, which operated a fleet of six [or eight] ALHs, decided against placing further orders with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Navy officials said that the ALH lacked the desired endurance for mission requirements. The navy is also not satisfied with the chopper's rotor blade folding mechanism for storage on warships and its payload capacity. The requirement of Blade Folding with a width of 3.5 meters was not feasible due to the inherent design characteristics of the ALH hingeless Main Rotor Blade with an Integrated Dynamic System. The navy wanted a helicopter to spend 2 hours and 20 minutes on task (i.e. airborne with its task payload), and have an additional reserve of 20 minutes. The Dhruv is simply not capable of meeting this requirement, which is beyond the inherent payload capacity of any 5.5 ton class helicopter and can be met with difficulty by a 10-ton class helicopter. Originally the prototype was powered by navalised and corrosion-resistant twin Rolls-Royce CTS800 engines preferred by the Indian Navy. However, HAL has instead settled for the Ardiden/Shakti engine that was not navalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Dhruv

in 2008 a senior Navy official said: "The ALH has a long way to go before the programme matures sufficiently for it to undertake basic naval roles such as search and rescue (SAR) and communication duties.
On 12 November 2013, the Indian Navy commissioned their first Dhruv squadron

So how is the Navy's approach different from Air force approach if a product does not meet the requirement ? [in terms of Tejas and ALH]

[member_20292]

Because the IAF does not realize what it takes to develop , ab initio, such things. They do not have the engineering and scientific talent at the highest, decision making levels - its all the fly boys doing everything. Its jocks vs. geeks all over again. When the geeks are gora, then one is able to enjoy ready made halwa. But one does not have the patience to taste and then recommend changes to halwa being made live , at home. The IAF needs to be forced here.

And how did arrive at this wisdom?

When the scientists went about claiming that LCA would be delivered at the turn of the century, the same 'fly-boys' had put in a analysis predicting that given the scope of R&D envisaged, this thing is not going to fly for a long time. And they were proven right. But for the geeks and their penchant for going for the best and making this into a science project, the fighter would've been flying much earlier.

Having known the wisdom of not taking a science project approach, why do they NOT order in bulk at this time, the Mk1? Freeze the requirements and build a LOT of Mk1 before doing the science project Mk2.

[member_23694]

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/11/iaf- ... uture.html

The decision to develop the LCA Mk-2 was taken when it became evident to the IAF while testing LSP Tejas LCAs that the aircraft performance was short on certain key Air Staff Requirements including


Power to Weight Ratio
Sustained Turn Rate
Maximum speeds at low altitudes
AOA range
Weapon delivery profiles


Performance shortfall like sustained turn rate and maximum low level speed could only be remedied through the use of a more powerful engine, so it was decided to develop a new variant of the aircraft powered by the more powerful GE-F414-INS6 engine.

[member_20292]

So how is the Navy's approach different from Air force approach if a product does not meet the requirement ? [in terms of Tejas and ALH]

The Tejas meets the requirements. Viv S's or someone else's earlier post in the last two pages quotes the defence minister and parliaments proceedings to this effect.

There is a large difference between the ALHs shortfalls vis a vis the Naval requirements, and the LCAs shortfalls vis a vis the IAFs.

People should realize the slow nature of RnD in general. It is absolutely necessary to let the ecosystems develop and they take their own times.

Production has to start at least. This should not be stopped.

[member_23694]

Production has to start at least. This should not be stopped.

Sir, I have quoted HAL official on the Tejas production plan above. Please show me one quote from HAL which mentions that they are being forced to NOT START Tejas production or delay MK.2 development.

[suryag]

first flights on weekends and other important milestones
PV6, LSP8, mid air engine relight on LSP7 etc

The team has really been pulling out all stops trying to meet deadlines working over the weekends and probably long nights. this has been a huge learning curve for DRDO-ADA/HAL and IAF and it is time IAF gives them the orders that they deserve and don't stop at a pidly 40 orders thereby helping their own men, the engineers and the country. Any day it is better than the rust buckets(21, 27) and the Ashok Leyland like smoking 29s

[Cain Marko]

CM sahab,

Wrong analogies and counter points aside, just answer this question. What is so wrong with the Mk1 that we can't have 4 squadrons of Mk1? Basically, I have the wherewithal to build 16 mk1 in the next 2 years and 16 more annually from then on. Why shouldn't I use this capability till Mk2s can be serially produced at the same rate?

Indranilji, nothing wrong with what you are saying, and like I said earlier, nothing wrong with the mk1 either. Problem is in the second part - the wherewithal to build 16 airframes per year. IIRC, Jet li made a statement to the effect that HAL can't build more than 4 airframes to begin with due to inadequate production facilities - whatever that is supposed to mean. According to PS, mk2 will be available for production sometime in 2018. Now, you tell me how they can manage 40 a/c by then, let alone an additional order. My guess - optimistically, they will manage 40 by 2020-21 pending FOC is achieved soon in 2015.
2015 - 4 a/c, 2016 - 4 a/c, 2017-20 - 8 a/c. By that time hopefully, the mk2 will be ready for mass production.

By the way, this is how the first 50 Su-30 MKIs were accepted by IAF.

After two years of evaluation and negotiations, India signed a US$1.462 billion deal with the Sukhoi Corporation on 30 November 1996 for the delivery of 50 Su-30MKI aircraft in five batches. The first batch were eight Su-30MKs, the basic version of Su-30. The second batch were to be 10 Su-30Ks with French and Israeli avionics. The third batch were to be 10 Su-30MKIs featuring canard foreplanes. The fourth batch of 12 Su-30MKIs and final batch of 10 Su-30MKIs aircraft all were to have the AL-31FP turbofans. These 50 aircraft were made by Sukhoi in Russia.

So, IAF signed a deal 3 years before it got the first Su-30MKI variant. It accepted 30 articles which were not even aircraft which would enter squadron service!

How is this so different from IAF formally giving an order for 20+20 birds in 2005 itself? At least the flankers were delivered within a year of order. The IAF committed to the Tejas 10 years ago! Nor has it been inflexible and said that every bird has to be in final configuration from the start itself. Hence 3 step induction - first in 2011, then in 2013 with an agreement to accept first 20 in 2013 configuration and another 20 in FOC configuration. And then the big order.

What is so different from MKI - order was given/agreement signed to accept them in different configurations as well over a period of four years. Once this was done, a massive order automatically followed.

It needs to be remembered that even the basic Su-30MK was a pretty well developed bird, productionized without much difficulty First 8 came to Pune within 1 year of agreement. IAF is doing exactly the same with the LCA - deliver the first 40 @ IOC II and FOC standards with a promise to buy the ultimate variant in larger numbers thereafter. The deal was pretty much signed in 2005. Problem is, the birds are still not close to starting deliveries and now the timelines for the mk1 and mk2 are becoming concurrent. It is not as though the IAF took deliveries of imported aircraft if they did not meet their required standards - for e.g. the IAF did not rightaway accept the second batch of Ks without appropriate customization from the first 8 - missing french inputs . Also, one thing that the IAF has learned from the MKI saga is that it is not very feasible to induct birds with highly varying configurations - they are not easy to upgrade to the final standard. Perhaps IAF has learned from experience that it is better to get as many a/c as possible in single configuration than a hodgepodge of variants - something that might not work for them as compared to say, the USAF.

Actually if you ask me, IAF was not wrong there. This is what an air force should do for a fighter it is going to adopt. The same story for Jaguar (which was changed from a trainer to a strike aircraft). The same should have happened with LCA also. Alas, this is not is happening. From day 1 it has to be able to enter squadron service! From then on, IAF will start their evaluations, and
if found fit, then orders will follow!!! How is this financially sustainable?

Have they not given preliminary orders worth 40? Have they not promised to buy more in the final configuration? If you look at most IAF procurement, the pattern is the same - order a couple of sqds early, get acquainted with them, sort out the niggles and then give the big orders. This pattern works for them and I don't question their reasoning. I really don't seem much difference here Indranil sir and frankly, am tired of seeing arm chair gernails take wily-nily potshots at the IAF. Having said that, I am grateful to both you as well as Rohitvats for making contributions that are well informed (as expected from anyone who is a mod) and more importantly, balanced. Thanks.

[rohitvats]

CM sahab, Wrong analogies and counter points aside, just answer this question. What is so wrong with the Mk1 that we can't have 4 squadrons of Mk1? Basically, I have the wherewithal to build 16 mk1 in the next 2 years and 16 more annually from then on. Why shouldn't I use this capability till Mk-2s can be serially produced at the same rate?

What is the basis of this per annum manufacturing projections? Numbers given out by HAL? And when was the last time HAL manage to keep a deadline?

There are some conflicting reports on this production projection with 16 a/c per annum from 2017 being one that appears from later part of December 2013.

SAMPLE 1:9 December 2014

Once the IOC is awarded, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will build the IAF’s first 20 Tejas fighters on a brand new production line in Bangalore. HAL has told Business Standard that it aims to roll out the first two fighters by March 2014, deliver 8 fighters by end-2014, and then enhance the production line’s capability to 16 fighters per year

.

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/t ... s-iaf.html

SAMPLE 2: 30th December 2013

By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters,” says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL’s production line for the Hawk trainer.

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/h ... hters.html

SAMPLE 3: 18 December 2013 - Anantha Krishnan in IE says that HAL is planning to produce 16 a/c per annum.

Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 951332.ece

So, who is right? One expects that the Project Manager for Tejas production should know what he's taking about. What sanctity does this 16 a/c per annum have?

That aside, the SP-1 was to be flying in March 2014 as per HAL's own claim with SP-2 already having taken to skies by now. The flight of SP-1 itself is delayed by 6 months - and we don't know when it will be finally handed over to IAF Squadron. Will it have a cascading impact on production of other aircrafts?

The neat timelines for delivery of first 20 IOC-2 a/c by 2017 need to be taken with bucket of salt.

By the way, this is how the first 50 Su-30 MKIs were accepted by IAF.

Where did you get the idea that first 30 a/c were not fit for Squadron service? I can understand first 8 not up to the mark in terms of combat deployment but not fit for Squadron service? Since when was the Su-27/30 flying in Russian service?

Actually, the way IAF inducted Su-30 MKI is quite comparable to LCA - as are numbers. IAF is inducting IOC-2 cleared Tejas into Squadron service. Followed by full fledged Mk1 version. By the article posted by you, the second batch of Su-30 which arrived had French and Indian avionics. And with upgraded engines following later on.

I could have understood the analogy if IAF had inducted basic Su-30 in 40-50 numbers. But that was hardly the case.

[Cain Marko]

No. Making 40 is NOT the same as making 120. Making 8 / year is NOT the same as making 15 /year, just with more resources. Ramping up is something to be learnt.

Thing is - what is the need for additional Mk1s when the mk2 is around the corner and will need mass production anyways? Simply to learn mass-production techniques? Btw, HAL does have some experience in ramping up production - it has done so with other a/c including the MKI (not very well I admit, but nevertheless).

Our mil-ind complex is NOT a past master at production. Making en masse is very much a desirable and doable goal which will teach us a lot. The IAF risks doing a Marut again on HAL with their demand for the Mk2 and the throttling of the Mk1 quantities.

What is "doing a Marut" mean exactly? You speak as though the IAF is some villainous outfit determined to sell out the integrity of the nation, has no clue about engineering or production and is constantly berating a sincere, innocent and faultless deshbhakt in the ADA and HAL. Rohitvats has posted an informative article about this earlier. In either case, IAF is on record for their commitment to the mk2. ACMs are on record saying that they desperately need the Tejas in larger numbers. Making an interim variant such as the mk1 en masse has little value if you are concurrently making a final variant. You might as well make the final variant in larger quantities instead of bulking up on the interim product.

But, to repeat - the IAF will probably land up ending larger numbers of Mk1 anyways - a) because of the shortage in numbers, and b) because the mk2 is unlikely to come of age before the early 2020s.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>Having known the wisdom of not taking a science project approach, why do they NOT order in bulk at this time, the Mk1? Freeze the requirements and build a LOT of Mk1 before doing the science project Mk2.

Because second science project is about to begin - that of manufacturing and delivering the a/c as per timelines. And also ensuring that OEM provides the full ecosystem for utilization of the aircraft.

As posted by me a above - HAL is delayed by more than 6-months in first flight of SP-1, forget handover to IAF for Squadron service. What will be the cascading effect of this on further delivery?

Another important data-point: LCA flew 2,400 sorties between 2001 and IOC-2 (as per an article I read, please correct me if I'me wrong). Even assuming 1 hour of average flying time per sortie, that is 2,400 hours over 12 years in a closely monitored environment and controlled flight conditions. And flown by highly experienced Test Pilots.

Compared to this, as per AM Philip Rajkumar, the first 20 IOC-2 Tejas would've flown on average 4,000-5,000 hours over first two-years of Squadron service. Just think about it.

[koti]

LCA Trainer out!
It says this bird has cleared all the FOC weapon tests. Is it accurate?

Livefist Link

[Indranil]

In the aero industry, there are 2 things:

1. I can't field a plane before I have tested it all. And I really believe that ADA/HAL should have been more forthcoming on realistic timelines. For anybody who knows anything about flight testing, once ADA outlined the number of test flight hours required, we all had calculated (based on the number of flying articles and the sorite rate per article) that there is no way that FOC can be achieved before 2014/2015. But we also know why they had to lie. Also, we are now nearing the end of the testing and the plane has come out with flying colours.

2. The easiest thing to do for an assembly line is to increase throughput (atleast up from these 8-12 planes per year number). There are many ways of doing this. But none of this can be done, if orders are not made apriori. And nobody knows this better than IAF. But still ...

[Cain Marko]

^ for all those who would like to see more mk1s (this includes me), I say, as did the wise Gandalf - "look to Modi and his riders ere the sun rises (FOC)"

[Viv S]

What is the basis of this per annum manufacturing projections? Numbers given out by HAL? And when was the last time HAL manage to keep a deadline?

Its a pertinent point you raise about HAL and deadlines. But that in turn gives rise to a few questions -

1. Are you confident that the HAL will meet the deadlines with respect to the Rafale and the Tejas Mk2? If so, why so?

2. If not, how is the deficit of aircraft delivered to the IAF in the meantime to be bridged? [Same cascading effect as you mention in your post above.]

3. Is the 12 aircraft per year the maximum number of aircraft that HAL can deliver? If so, why so?

4. If not, is that still the ideal rate at which the IAF should be inducting aircraft, in light of its woes with regard to its squadron strength?

5. Should HAL be boosting the Tejas' production rate, if it has no orders to justify that capital expenditure?

Two more questions as an addendum to that -

6. Is there any justification for the Arjun Mk1 production line sitting idle gathering dust, as it is at the moment?

7. Should the IAF's Surya Kiran (Surya Hawk?) display team be flying the BAE Hawk, instead of two seat Tejas Mk1s?

[Viv S]

So the question how will giving 100 MK.1 order NOW make any difference. The first 40 production will probably go till 2018-19.

Its because there is a LEAD TIME involved in any production process of the kind. If you want an aircraft delivered three or four years from now, you'll have to order it now, so that long lead items can go into production. Same applies to the infrastructure, if you want production rate to be boosted from 12/yr to 24/yr, you can't wait until its delivered all 40 aircraft, order 40 more and expect deliveries over the next two years.

[JTull]

LCA Trainer out!
It says this bird has cleared all the FOC weapon tests. Is it accurate?

Livefist Link

Please read what the blog says before correcting your post.

[Viv S]

Same way ADA does not get an order to build 24 prototypes of Tech Demos, a smaller number is sufficient for HAL to develop/demonstrate its PRODUCTION capabilities and ability to SUSTAIN the rest of the value chain (incl. delivering production variants of the Trainers as well) while the last changes for it to meet its original requirements are made to Mk.2.

And what if the Mk 2's IOC were to be achieved in say... 2022. How does HAL having gained invaluable experience in bringing a prototype to a high rate of production help when the production line stagnates?

WHY should Mk1 get an order beyond sufficient numbers to stand up the initial test,eval and operational squadron ? Anything more is a waste of money, time and effort... all of itshould be going to accelerating the path to the Mk2. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT, and it has not changed. The plan is that as soon as they finish doing the first run, they can speed conversion from Mk1 std to Mk2; the gestation line of the plane is long enough that they can start on Block 1 even when the last assembly Blocks are still pushing out the last of the Mk1s.

What is the downside if the MoD/IAF were to order 80 Mk1s and ask the production rate to be pushed up past 20/yr? Worst case scenario, HAL is only able to achieve a rate of 15-16 units per year. So be it.

The only way this does not work/make sense if if we don't believe that HAL and ADA will not deliver on the timeline of the Mk2 being ready. In that case we have bigger problems

On one hand we're skeptical about HAL meeting its delivery targets, on the other hand we're taking as granted that the Mk2 cannot be delayed. Just as importantly, if it is the Mk1 line that will be switching to the Mk2, having the infrastructure geared for large scale production cannot but help the Mk2 program.

[Indranil]

Agupta sahab,

I don't think you appreciate what ADA/HAL has to do to create those assembly lines. They have to give a shoutout. Is there anybody out there who can make this hardware? In the western world, where there are lots of established players who cater to various high precision manufacturing across various domains, such suppliers are easy to find. Not so in India. This why they say that LCA is much more than a plane for India. They are building so many tier 2 tier 3 manufacturers.

Next comes the question of financial sustainability (the very point to you arise). Who will be a 5-axis CNC machine for building 40 parts over the next 5 years? It is not surprising that HAL/ADA is finding it difficult to maintain the supplier base. Tyagi openly said in AI'13: half his suppliers have either closed shop or have dropped out!

This is an industry where you need high capital expenditure to build parts. And nobody will sink capital unless there are guaranteed results (aka orders). And that is the reason why Su-30MKI and ALH are successful programs.

[JTull]

http://tarmak007.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11 ... first.html

The new engine was tested to full power under all available conditions

Anyone know about this new engine?

[Viv S]

Can you help explain this last part ? Make up your mind

- Is the Mk2 a derivative of the Mk1 ? Or somthing so radically different that the production line is useless.

If its the former, then your last point is highly disingenous. Why can it not be converted ?

My point exactly. A 12 per year production rate equates to a 40 unit order, if not more. A larger order for the Mk1 will allow investment in infrastructure for a higher production rate, which in turn will lead to a higher production rate for the Mk2, as and when it becomes ready.

If its the latter, then that makes the entire set-up of the Mk1 being a bridge - as claimed by ADA and HAL a complete lie.

The Arjun Mk1 is a bridge to the Arjun Mk2. Gave HVF/AVRDE valuable experience in terms of production. That doesn't mean only the Mk2 has value and the Mk1 doesn't.

How does the production line stagnate ? Today, they dont even have ONE. THey have just flown the PV version of the trainer... and the LSPs are just finishing up!!! What fictional capabilities of increasing production when they cannot even achieve the promised 8/12/16 are being talked about here ?

Why even order even 40 then, since there's no production line to make them in. Why do you think the Boeing can deliver 65 fighters per year to the USN, LM will deliver 100+ while Dassault can deliver only 11 fighters?

Its ONLY those who cannot understand the Production Engineering is almost as important /tough as the actual Design/DEmo phase who talk about this.... and treat Aircraft production like its making chapati's.

Well.. the Arjun's line at Avadi is certainly not making chapatis. Or anything else. Perhaps they haven't mastered production engineering.

[Indranil]

Indranil... hmmm, all i will say is I do. Lets just say I was not born yesterday and the aerospace industry is where I've shed a lot of greying hair

Yes - and this set up is exactly what the limited 40 order Mk1 is about. To get started - build the entire value chain both on the production side and the Service/Sustainance chain. Do YOU really think the 5-axis CNC machine becomes a waste when you go from Mk1 to Mk2 ?? I am ready to be shocked. Or that the Mk2 is going to be that radically different from Mk1 ?

AFAIK, there's supposed to be a high degree of commonality between the two - that's the VERY BASIC definition of Mk. releases (in Production and Product DEvelopment parlance). Thats' also how ADA and HAL have sold it to the IAF, hasnt it ?

So which is it - are they similar enough for this compromise to make sense or is it NOT. One would mean the development side has massively lied again, or the other would be a sensible compromise given the history and all players have decided to let bygones by bygones and look ahead to the original promise of the Mk2.

Exactly, and that is the point!

No man with even the slightest of business sense will buy a CNC machine today and let it lie mostly idle for 5 years? He will buy the machine 5 years from now. But if that machine is not bought, Mk1s will not be produced and test flown, and feedback will not get incorporated into Mk2s. See the catch! I am pretty sure that a man with your experience can. It is just that you don't have faith in HAL/ADA, which is fine. But what is the alternative within India currently?

And quite frankly the blame does not lie only with HAL/ADA. IAF needs light fighters. Give orders for 15 squadrons of Tejas at 16 planes an annum and push for Mk2. Whenever, Mk2 design freeze happens, the assembly line switches to Mk2 production from the next year This is not voodoo! In fact, it is the global norm. Call it "blocks", "tranches", "marks" or whatever! Our Eastern and Western neighbours are doing the same thing as well with the J-10 and JF-17. It is not surprising at all!

In contrast, IAF has ordered only 20 till now, and has shown an intent to order 20 more!

[Viv S]

Viv - I'd like to understand in what personal/government spending that kind of thinking make sense once you bring the time-element into it ?

Would you make an order for a 100 pizzas for a party tomorrow if you knew that the shop could potentially only deliver 20 ??? What sort of budgetary wisdom is that... think India has THAT kind of money to waste ?

HAL currently has a commitment for 40 aircraft. They've been allotted actual funding only for the first 20 aircraft. But they can afford to scale the line for 12/yr because they know the order for second squadron is assured. Similarly, Lockheed Martin can afford to invest in a production line that will deliver 200 fighters annually because the US DoD is committed to 2443 aircraft (along with other participants). That doesn't mean that the bean-counters have signed over a cheque for $400 bn.

A firm commitment for 80 Mk1s isn't going to make an iota of difference to the defence budget, outside of the fixed investments that HAL will make in its production line and supply chain.

Or would you commit to your entire family's education to only Govt. schools - and rely that Modi or anyone elses investments will bring them up to "good enough" ?

Eh? As opposed to educating only one kid in a govt school and homeschooling the other, while a private school is in the process of being built (with the contract given to a PSU)?

[srai]

What it comes down to is that the IAF needs to be little flexible with the Mk.1 orders and keep options open for another 20 to 40 units. Fine, they don't trust ADA/HAL to deliver 12/year but when that occurs, there should be a push to exercise the options keeping in mind Mk.2 R&D timelines (delays inevitable) and production line being idle. It would be a big waste to only have all 40 Mk.1 delivered by 2017/8 and then have the line sit idle for 3 or more years waiting for the Mk.2 to attain its IOC/FOC.

Why is the IAF so stubborn with 40 Mk.1 only and that's it? Mk.1 meets more than 90% of its requirements other than ITR and TW, which could be remedied in the future with iterative weight & aerodynamic refinements. From day 1, it will be able to deliver ordnance that the IAF already possesses. No extra weapons (or new weapons) need to be purchased separately.

Besides, it is the ideal plane to take over the reigns of Operational Flying Training/Conversion (OFT/C) from MiG-21s. There were 5 MOFT units: MiG Operational Flying Training Unit and 30 Squadron at Tezpur, the Operational Conversion Unit and 52 Squadron at Chabua and 8 Squadron at Bagdogra.

[Vivek K]

Its easy to comprehend - IAF want the Rafael. All the time and energy wasted on this acquisition could have been better used in making the Tejas better and building Public Private Partnerships to improve HAL timelines for numbers produced.

[koti]

Please read what the blog says before correcting your post.

I am sorry but what?

[Cain Marko]

There seems to be a basic incoherence here and AGuptaji has brought it out quite plainly - is the mk1 similar enough to the mk2 that a new line is not required and some retooling will enough OR is it such a radical departure from the mk1 that another line will be required? What is the level of commonality here?

What it comes down to is that the IAF needs to be little flexible with the Mk.1 orders and keep options open for another 20 to 40 units./quote]

I think this flexibility is already there and so is the option, iaf is just waiting to see a) how the bird turns out post foc and b) how far away the mk2 really is.

Why is the IAF so stubborn with 40 Mk.1 only and that's it? Mk.1 meets more than 90% of its requirements other than ITR and TW, which could be remedied in the future with iterative weight & aerodynamic refinements. From day 1, it will be able to deliver ordnance that the IAF already possesses. No extra weapons (or new weapons) need to be purchased separately

This I am not too sure about, while a certain level of trimming and streamlining is supposed to be okay after induction, in general most fighters tend to gain weight and lose.performance over time e.g. super hornet, viper, fulcrum, flanker, gripen etc., weight s have gone up and twr reduced with time. Only the rrusskis have somewhat alleviated this issue because the original frames were often full metal.

[Viv S]

I am sorry but what?

PV6 is the second two- seater and has the capability to deliver all air to air and air to ground weapons as required by the Indian Air Force for the Final Operational Clearance.
___________

Its not saying the PV 6 has cleared FOC weapon tests.

[koti]

Thanks Viv saab.
I was loose with the wording.

[Viv S]

There seems to be a basic incoherence here and AGuptaji has brought it out quite plainly - is the mk1 similar enough to the mk2 that a new line is not required and some retooling will enough OR is it such a radical departure from the mk1 that another line will be required? What is the level of commonality here?

My understanding was that it'll use the same infrastructure, same line workers will operate on it, albeit with modified jigs and tooling. Same model as they're following on the Gripen NG, and as the one employed while transitioning through blocks on the F-16.

Therefore, a high production rate for the Tejas Mk1 will eventually result in a high production rate for the Tejas Mk2.

[Viv S]

Thanks Viv saab.
I was loose with the wording.

Just Viv please.

[Cain Marko]

There seems to be a basic incoherence here and AGuptaji has brought it out quite plainly - is the mk1 similar enough to the mk2 that a new line is not required and some retooling will enough OR is it such a radical departure from the mk1 that another line will be required? What is the level of commonality here?

My understanding was that it'll use the same infrastructure, same line workers will operate on it, albeit with modified jigs and tooling. Same model as they're following on the Gripen NG, and as the one employed while transitioning through blocks on the F-16.

Therefore, a high production rate for the Tejas Mk1 will eventually result in a high production rate for the Tejas Mk2.

Thanks Viv.

[srai]

There seems to be a basic incoherence here and AGuptaji has brought it out quite plainly - is the mk1 similar enough to the mk2 that a new line is not required and some retooling will enough OR is it such a radical departure from the mk1 that another line will be required? What is the level of commonality here?

My understanding was that it'll use the same infrastructure, same line workers will operate on it, albeit with modified jigs and tooling. Same model as they're following on the Gripen NG, and as the one employed while transitioning through blocks on the F-16.

Therefore, a high production rate for the Tejas Mk1 will eventually result in a high production rate for the Tejas Mk2.

Majority of the Mk.1's 358 LRUs (components) will be similar or upgraded in Mk.2. Internal arrangements of the LRUs are changing to make them more maintenance friendly. Major parts that will differ will be engine-related LRUs. There are also talks of integrating AESA MMR but that remains to be seen.

INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT OF LINE REPLACEABLE UNITS (LRU’s) FOR LCA-TEJAS

...There are 358 LRU's (Components) in the Tejas aircraft, out of which 53% of total LRU's are indigenously developed with in India. In view to reduce the remaining 47% of the import LRU's, ADA has initiated the Indigenous development programme for indigenization of the import LRU's. ...

Airframe of the Mk.2 design hasn't changed all that much from Mk.1. Here too, a lot of the jigs and toolings would remain the same or would require very little modification.

[member_28867]

What we need is confidence
1. confience from iaf that Indian maal is good.
2. confidence from drdo that iaf's needs are genuine
3. confidence from the goi that lca rocks
Start fulltoo mfg of the mk1 to finish the 2 squads.
complete mk2 design & fly pv on war footing. remember sweat in peace .....

[member_28867]

Regarding lca mk1 production orders, what would you suggest be the course of action if we know that there will be a war in 2018?

[Ramu]

Regarding lca mk1 production orders, what would you suggest be the course of action if we know that there will be a war in 2018?

Let me give you a real life scenario. What will you do if Su 30 mki or rafale or c130's tyre burst during a war?
What happens lets say for example when fuel lines choked up just before a critical deployment of c27.

During kargil, we were caught unprepared so we had to beg around for LGB kits. Someone please enlighten me if we ever had enough stock of it and why we had to get them from Israel. We had planes from France and soviet. But had to get the bombing kit from Israel, a country which had no strategic link with us whatsoever.

An indigenous production line is supposed to address exactly these type of scenario.

Imagine a production line that churns out spare parts, bullets, bombs, missiles, LGB kits like hot cakes in the middle of an ongoing war. Importantly tech support team to address issues that were not known before.

In an ideal world, you will start to feel the gloom of war about a month or two when diplomacy breaks down. This should be enough time to build an additional squadron of LCA if necessary.

Hope this explains.

[shiv]

During kargil, we were caught unprepared so we had to beg around for LGB kits. Someone please enlighten me if we ever had enough stock of it and why we had to get them from Israel. We had planes from France and soviet. But had to get the bombing kit from Israel, a country which had no strategic link with us whatsoever.

We had kits but not the bombs to fit them on. Some old Spanish bombs were adapted to the kits.

[rohitvats]

When will the SP-1 be handed over to IAF Squadron? Same goes for PV-6/Trainer version. I'm sure there would be some ceremony to mark handover of SP-1 for active service.

Also, what is the word on the street on SP-2?