'Make in India' Single engined fighter

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Jun 2017 01:33

nirav wrote:The bakis reportedly used the Bandar to down an Iranian UAV.
We meanwhile used a MKI , 93 gasha rounds to down a Paki balloon over Jaipur earlier this year.

It was the job of a point defense fighter, not our air dominance fighter.

For kind folks talking about understanding orbat, this is a glaring hole that the delays have caused.

This is hilarious. What does this example actually prove? Are you trying to say we sent an MKI to shoot down the balloon because there was no other fighter capable of doing that?

The MKI shot down the balloon because the closest available fighter on ORP was an MKI. If there was a Mig-21 squadron at that base and a couple of Mig-21's were on ORP that day, the balloon would have been shot down by a Mig-21.

And I don't know how this is supposed to make a case for F-16s. The F-16s cost more than MKIs. So if we make them our "point defense fighters" and use them shoot down balloons it would be even more of a problem by your logic.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 29 Jun 2017 01:40

IAF had sent Migs to shoot down atlantique in '99. Though Su30 can be questioned but Mig 20 and Mirage 2000 were certainly there in IAF. So net net nachiket's point is valid that the closest fighter was sent to shoot.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jun 2017 02:07

This is getting hilarious

The airbase closest to the threat is sent to intercept the target. MiG-29s, M2Ks, MiG-21s, Su-30MKIs have all done that role.

So when a Pak balloon appeared over Jaipur, a Su-30MKI probably from No.30 Lions Sqn based at Jodhpur AFS, was probably the closest to the threat. So that was sent.

That is all there is to it. There ain't no conspiracy, waste of resources or anything of the nature.

Folks need to get serious

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Jun 2017 05:39

Cain Marko wrote:It all depends upon how the deal is structured..... My guess is first batch will be straight from Fort worth, then some skd assembled by tasl followed by ckd and finally an additional order with raw materials from India, if that. Just like su30.
Basically brings private players on par with HAL. all delivered in less than 10 years, more or less. 2028 time frame. They could expedite this in many ways. For example, deliver 36 directly from TX in 4-5 years and produce 8, 12, 12, 12, 12 p.a via tasl.

so much for LM "scaling-up" production in India

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jun 2017 06:04

Cheee....I would be sorely disappointed if 100 F-16s do not come in 3.5 months...at the rate of 30/month

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Jun 2017 06:49

nachiket wrote:
nirav wrote:The bakis reportedly used the Bandar to down an Iranian UAV.
We meanwhile used a MKI , 93 gasha rounds to down a Paki balloon over Jaipur earlier this year.

It was the job of a point defense fighter, not our air dominance fighter.

For kind folks talking about understanding orbat, this is a glaring hole that the delays have caused.
This is hilarious. What does this example actually prove? Are you trying to say we sent an MKI to shoot down the balloon because there was no other fighter capable of doing that?

The MKI shot down the balloon because the closest available fighter on ORP was an MKI. If there was a Mig-21 squadron at that base and a couple of Mig-21's were on ORP that day, the balloon would have been shot down by a Mig-21.

And I don't know how this is supposed to make a case for F-16s. The F-16s cost more than MKIs. So if we make them our "point defense fighters" and use them shoot down balloons it would be even more of a problem by your logic.

One thing to note though...... As the fleet gets increasingly top heavy, we start basing heavy fighters in areas where otherwise lighter fighters might be the norm. I always found it odd that the Mkis were being based so close to the border when earlier even Mirage 2000s were placed deeper in gwalior. Note that they started off in Pune for the mki but with time and delays in getting a lighter single engined fighter like the lca or m2k, it could very well be that the IAF was forced to base heavy fighters like the mki further out.

In other words, the point that we are using heavy birds like mki for point defense and qra duties is sub optimal. The very fact that the IAF is saddled with such a large proportion of heavies is strange, I have a feeling they are about 80-90 airframe more in this category than ideal. JMT

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Jun 2017 06:52

so much for LM "scaling-up" production in India

Truly. I doubt they will go any faster..... Not that they couldn't, but I don't think it would be commercially viable.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Jun 2017 07:28

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2017 08:09

Interesting article.

Why the F-16 deal isn’t a game changer

The brouhaha over the recent deal between Tata Advanced Systems Ltd and US aircraft major Lockheed Martin for the manufacture of the F-16 fighter jet in India is really just much ado about nothing. A closer examination of the production system of the F-16, which is one of the most globalized fighters ever made, shows that even if this deal if ever realized, it would at best improve the metallurgy standards of the Tatas, but add little in terms of serious technology transfer, market penetration, or denial of strategic space to Pakistan.

The wording of the deal which was signed at the Paris Air Show is very clear—it states only the “intent to partner together to meet India’s Make-in-India requirement through the establishment of an F-16 production line in India”. The most obvious takeaway from this is that the deal is not a firm agreement to manufacture the F-16 in India, but only a letter of intent to assemble the plane in India if and when the Indian Air Force (IAF) chooses that platform.

Portrayals in the commentariat (mostly through omission of the operative paragraphs of the deal) that this deal will result in the transfer of the entire F-16 production line to India, irrespective of the IAF’s choice, are plain wrong. Equally, the question is: can any manufacturer win the Indian single-engine aircraft contest without ensuring local production? The answer is a resounding no. So, is this agreement a big deal at all? Yes, but for a different set of reasons.

The F-16 is one of the most remarkable fighters of the last century. When it started out, it was a triumph of globalization—sourcing parts from across the width and breadth of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and other major non-Nato US allies.

The brilliance of this was that even though it started off as a US national programme, it effectively became the national fighter of a cluster of five northern European countries, of Turkey, Israel and South Korea—with each cluster heavily buying into the production and supply chains. Each of the companies buying in benefitted from the massive economies of scale in a production run of over 4,600 units as well as from being able to innovate follow-on sub-systems that were incorporated into the several upgrades that the F-16 has seen. In effect, what the F-16 did was to spawn a global production and supply chain of sub-systems manufacturers, that was highly innovative but still flexible enough to be highly adaptive and competitive.

The downside of this, for India, is that by some estimates, less than 40% of the F-16 is actually Lockheed technology. The remaining 60% is proprietary technology owned by hundreds of sub-systems manufacturers spread across the globe. This means that about 60% of the F-16 technology remains unavailable to India unless its signs deals with each of the hundreds and possibly thousands of sub-component manufacturers, some of whom are based in countries like Turkey that are less than enthusiastic about India.

The F-16 engine, for example, belongs to another US company: General Electric. Its core crystal-blade technology is off limits to even the closest US allies. Also, given the slow growth of new engines globally and considering that India’s stated aim is to become a competitor, it hardly suits GE’s business interests to transfer such technology to India.

There are other problems as well. For example, all F-16 sensors and datalinks come under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which restricts the technology of US crown jewels from being given to other countries. This could be anywhere between 10-20% of the total F-16 technology, but it is this 10% that holds the key to 90% of the combat effectiveness of the F-16 platform.

Take for instance the Link-16 data system. It is a small, ugly set of boxes, but it is this which has ensured that the F-16 has been able to shoot down every Eastern Bloc (Russia and China) fighter jet it has encountered. This system increases the situational awareness of the pilot and has been key to the supremacy of Western electronics, which have decisively trumped an Eastern focus on kinetics.

In short, while the GE engine is an important component of the F-16’s combat effectiveness, the Link-16 is the real war winner, and neither are on offer to India—except for assembly purposes.

One of the most egregious compromises with the truth as far as the F-16 India saga goes is that purchasing the plane will mean India can effectively cripple the Pakistani F-16 fleet by controlling the supply of spare parts. The F-16 block 70 being sold to India is a vastly different beast from the F-16 block 50 sold to Pakistan. This means that the supplier chain India will get will be different from the supplier chain that Pakistan has access to. Indeed, the globalized supplier and manufacturer chain means that Pakistan’s tap can never be turned off.

That said, make no mistake: the F-16 is a brilliant plane. Yes, it is at the end of its life cycle but India, which isn’t as technologically advanced as the US, should be able to easily absorb whatever technology it gets from the deal. However, prospects for further external sale and secondary maintenance contracts are non-existent given that the F-16 best exemplifies an anti-monopoly product. In the end, India gets a superb fighter and a few thousand jobs but nothing more—not a monopoly, not a market, not innovation, not cutting-edge war-winning technology and, certainly, not “strategic autonomy”.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2017 08:19

And, this ......

Aviall Enters Parts Agreement with GE Aviation for F110 Engine

LE BOURGET, France, June 20. {Boeing} announced today, through its subsidiary Aviall, an exclusive aftermarket distribution agreement with GE Aviation for spare parts supporting F110-100 and F110-129 engines that power the F-16 aircraft for a select list of operators.

Aviall will assume distribution responsibilities including forecasting, ordering and delivering all original equipment manufacturer (OEM) genuine replacement parts for F110 engines. The agreement has a potential value of more than $1 billion over the life cycle of the program.

“We are very pleased by the continued confidence GE Aviation has shown by joining with us in another agreement utilizing our innovative and cost effective engine solutions in support of the F110 engine,” stated Aviall President and CEO Eric Strafel. “Our vast global footprint and strategically located material based on fleet demographics and utilization will provide a number of valuable benefits for F16 operators including enhanced forecast fleet demand, increased operational efficiencies and reduced operating costs. We look forward to growing our ever-expanding business relationship with GE and its customers.”

“This deal builds on our strategic relationship with Aviall that started with the J85 engine more than 11 years ago and sets the foundation for future opportunities,” said Cristina Seda-Hoelle, General Manager of Military Customer Services.

More than 3,200 F110 engines have been ordered worldwide since initial selection by the United States Air Force (USAF) in 1984, making it the best-selling engine for Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighter aircraft. In addition to the USAF, 11 international forces fly F-110 powered aircraft.

GE Aviation, an operating unit of General Electric Company [NYSE: GE], is a world-leading provider of commercial and military engines a, and avionics, digital solutions and electrical power systems for aircraft.

Aviall operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company, supporting both commercial and defense business units within Boeing. Aviall is a leading solutions provider of aftermarket supply-chain management services for the aerospace and defense industries.

Headquartered in Dallas, Aviall is the world’s largest provider of new aviation parts and related aftermarket services. The company markets and distributes products for more than 240 manufacturers and offers approximately 2 million catalog items from 40 customer service centers in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.

From July 1, Aviall will be part of Boeing Global Services, a new dedicated services business focused on the needs of global defense, space and commercial customers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2017 11:14

You know the famous saying, "generals always planning to fight the next war with weapons/tactics of the last .The F-16 treasure hunt by elements in India resembles just that. Had we been operating F-16s earlier,and were faced with a serious inventory shortage,buying the latest/last avatar of the bird would've been a reasonable thought. This is being shown by the IAF in scouring the dustbins around the world for legacy MIG-29s,when in fact acquiring a few sqds. of the same upgraded versions/MIG-35s would be far more preferable. But here the LCA's future comes into question. How can it be saved? We need firang help right from the engine,radar,AAMs,etc.It explains why only an SE bird is wanted.That is a stupid falacy,as the major aircraft OEMs,have vast experience of designing SE and multi-engined fighters for decades.Right now,the most modern SE light fighter available is the Gripen,which flies with a Yanqui engine.So whichever choice we make,the US engine OEM will smile all the way to the bank.

Nevertheless,whatever choice the IAF make,one fact stands out,v.little news of movement on LCA accelerated production,MK-1A,MK-2 dev news,etc..One mil mag reported that the talk of a "second line" was just that "talk". DEpressing. It seems that we're looking for our "great white hope"!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2017 11:50

If LCA production could be acclerated they would have done that in the first place , Even MOD Parrikar who was very pro-DRDO mentioned that they could not get more than 5-6 Squadron of Tejas then there is Mk2 variant that is a work in progress , So both variant included we wont get 5-6 squad by 2025 wrt HAL , That is around 12 aircraft per year that the same we managed to do with MKI after 10 years and we are are peak production numbers.

F-16 or Gripen which ever get selected is just to boost those sqd number in IAF which is top heavy today or would be in some years.

Having said that I dont know if MOD really explored the same TATA or Reliance ability to build Tejas in pvt sector when the same entity will be building the Teen or Gripen.

We need a white paper in Parliament from MOD on Tejas program and if full spectrum work was done to explore with Pvt sector beyond HAL to build Tejas which should be the first option for any single engine program.

I see no reason why Tejas manuf should be only in the domain of single entity like HAL which is already bogged down with many small and big programs

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2017 12:08

Absolutely.What I've said before,start the second or even a third line in the pvt. sector.It will give competition to HAL,provide an insurance against tardy prod. from the DPSU and increase the capability of aircraft prod. in the pvt. sector.If Tata,Rco.,L&T whoever are fit to build a sophistciated firang fighter,why can't they be trusted with building a desi fighter which we've developed and should have far less problems in executing the directive?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 29 Jun 2017 12:13

What stops ADA from accelerating its work on Mark 2?
It's not a sequential activity that requires any phase completion from Mk 1A/P/x!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2017 13:28

Marten wrote:What stops ADA from accelerating its work on Mark 2?
It's not a sequential activity that requires any phase completion from Mk 1A/P/x!

Neither it is carried sequentially , They are working on Mk2 but Flight Test program will take its own time and by and large Mk2 would qualify as deep upgrade of Mk1

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Jun 2017 16:06

There have been reports in 2014 15 of the goi desire to have the pvt sector produce the mk2. The numbers quoted was for 250 units and the budget was 12 billion dollars. But no follow up to that took place.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 29 Jun 2017 16:15

Nobody in private sector showed interest

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 29 Jun 2017 17:27

Pratyush wrote:There have been reports in 2014 15 of the goi desire to have the pvt sector produce the mk2. The numbers quoted was for 250 units and the budget was 12 billion dollars. But no follow up to that took place.

This is an opportunity for saab to setup LCA Mk2 assembly with private players to benefit from its investment in Gripen-E. This will shape up after the single engine fighter deal is through by 2018. My prediction only.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2017 17:40

This is an opportunity for saab to setup LCA Mk2 assembly with private players to benefit from its investment in Gripen-E.

Gripen-E is a SAAB designed fighter, while the LCA - MK2 is an AdA designed one. Besides the engine there is literally nothing in common between the two and their supply chains are quite different as well. There is no benefit that SAAB has derived from Gripen-E that it can leverage on the MK2 besides building a new aircraft, a skill set the possessed even earlier.

Moreover, there needs to be a transition between the design and production team and they need to work better with each other and essentially outsourcing this to a foreign OEM will prevent those key lessons from being learnt. If the objective is to get a private player involved in the MK2 production, and there seems to be no interested party, perhaps a Root Cause analysis is on order to determine why that is and what can be done to remedy that. Industry is responsible to its shareholders and therefore wants the reward to be commensurate with the risk they are taking. If the objective is to reap strategic benefits of having a diversified public and private A&D sector, then strategic investments can be made to develop private industry but you can only do it if its domestic..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2017 20:34

How is then either a Gripen or F-16 deal going to resolve LCA dev. and prod. glitches? By the above description,the 3 birds are akin to apples,oranges and mangoes! The point is very valid as Volvos and Saab autos,have/had their unique engineering style,different from those of other manufacturers.The LCA's approach may be quite different.Nevertheless the LCA's engine,radar and much weaponry is firang and what's on the other birds could be used here too.Some sensors like IR,EW systems ,etc. may be better than what we've developed. In retrospect,the ADA should've hunted in the "universal parts bin" of the major OEMs for as much of the components as poss. It would've saved a lot of time in development,no need to reinvent the wheel.We had the M2K to learn from. If we have for the LCA developed unique components which have to be sourced in India,then there's much work to be done involving setting up a reliable Indian supply chain.Here the GOI has to help those corporate entities keen on entering the aviation field.

If the entire objective is merely to shore up declining numbers,the easiest way,most cost-effective too is to induct more of the types in service ,while pushing the lCA programme as much as poss with outside help if poss.Or just buy 120+ Gripens and in the offset clauses,get SAAB to set up a lifetime service centre in India just as the Russians are doing for their fighters,or similar or better than what we've signed on for the Rafales. The extra moolah saved for acquiring TOT could go into the LCA prorgamme.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 29 Jun 2017 21:02

brar_w wrote:
This is an opportunity for saab to setup LCA Mk2 assembly with private players to benefit from its investment in Gripen-E.
Gripen-E is a SAAB designed fighter, while the LCA - MK2 is an AdA designed one. Besides the engine there is literally nothing in common between the two and their supply chains are quite different as well. There is no benefit that SAAB has derived from Gripen-E that it can leverage on the MK2 besides building a new aircraft, a skill set the possessed even earlier.

Moreover, there needs to be a transition between the design and production team and they need to work better with each other and essentially outsourcing this to a foreign OEM will prevent those key lessons from being learnt. If the objective is to get a private player involved in the MK2 production, and there seems to be no interested party, perhaps a Root Cause analysis is on order to determine why that is and what can be done to remedy that. Industry is responsible to its shareholders and therefore wants the reward to be commensurate with the risk they are taking. If the objective is to reap strategic benefits of having a diversified public and private A&D sector, then strategic investments can be made to develop private industry but you can only do it if its domestic..

If Saab does not win single engine fighter contract, what is the future of Gripen-E? with low volume, costly to maintain. Technical minds are best if occupied with some opportunity. What future customer can Gripen-E or sea Gripen expect.
LCA-MK2 going to happen, similar class, roadmap can be developed to use technology created from both the projects, the best part is, design is owned by individual houses, so easier to develop specs to be used for commonality. Reduce reinventing the wheels.
Both these platform provide strategic capability to respective country. It will provide volume reward and reduce risk for supplier.
LCA Mk2 Private sector production line is a strategic requirement for India.

A roadmap can be developed for sure, they have few years to work on it. When components are going to plug into same MIL bus standard, design is owned, weapon may be common, I do not see why all stakeholders cannot benefit from it. When billions are involved, path always opens up.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2017 21:04

I *hope* and pray that SAAB does NOT follow the Russian example and set up a service centre 15 years after the fact. They better do FAR better. And I know they will.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 29 Jun 2017 22:10

brar_w wrote:
Moreover, there needs to be a transition between the design and production team and they need to work better with each other and essentially outsourcing this to a foreign OEM will prevent those key lessons from being learnt. If the objective is to get a private player involved in the MK2 production, and there seems to be no interested party, perhaps a Root Cause analysis is on order to determine why that is and what can be done to remedy that. Industry is responsible to its shareholders and therefore wants the reward to be commensurate with the risk they are taking. If the objective is to reap strategic benefits of having a diversified public and private A&D sector, then strategic investments can be made to develop private industry but you can only do it if its domestic..

This entire paragraph needs to be engraved in big bold letters in a few offices!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2017 22:31

f Saab does not win single engine fighter contract, what is the future of Gripen-E?

Future? Between 120 and 200 aircraft to be sold to the Air Forces of Brazil and Sweden with production running through the 2020s. They will likely compete in international competitions and will likely receive follow up orders from either or both Brazil and Sweden. That amount of volume is not atypical given their size. They will likely be only slightly behind Dassault in terms of Rafale numbers and easily ahead once the overall Gripen program is factored in.

For the company and Sweden the future will lie on affordable upgrades to Gripen-E, Gripen E+ etc and to support the multiple European next generation manned and unmanned assets. As they have done with the Neuron program, I expect them to integrate within larger European programs as a supplier. Again, given SAABs size and the product a couple of hundred (+/- 200) Gripen Es is about what one could expect in an era where the F-35 annual production rate would be north of 140, and unmanned aircraft increasing in terms of export sales from Europe, Israel and the US.

Producing a completely unrelated aircraft, in a foreign country may serve a purpose for them in terms of making money but it serves no purpose to India or to the advancement of its strategic objectives in manufacturing. If the aim is to develop a viable private player you have to make industrial base investments and allow freedom to these players in terms of choosing a foreign partner for consultancy as and when required with appropriate security considerations. One most certainly does not need to pipe out money to a foreign private company so that an AdA developed HAL product can be mass produced.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2017 22:58

Prasad wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Moreover, there needs to be a transition between the design and production team and they need to work better with each other and essentially outsourcing this to a foreign OEM will prevent those key lessons from being learnt. If the objective is to get a private player involved in the MK2 production, and there seems to be no interested party, perhaps a Root Cause analysis is on order to determine why that is and what can be done to remedy that. Industry is responsible to its shareholders and therefore wants the reward to be commensurate with the risk they are taking. If the objective is to reap strategic benefits of having a diversified public and private A&D sector, then strategic investments can be made to develop private industry but you can only do it if its domestic..
This entire paragraph needs to be engraved in big bold letters in a few offices!

There is a brain trust called IIS right next door.

There are two institutions that have done very, very well, with little funds, called ISRO and the DAE.

And, various IIMs churn out brains that many multinational seek, this is not a topic they need advise on (with due respects).

The problem lies elsewhere.

I suspect Parrikar had come close to solving it, when he was pushed out. Read that even the PMO opposed Parrikar's plan and Parrikar stood by it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Jun 2017 23:38

NRao wrote:I suspect Parrikar had come close to solving it, when he was pushed out. Read that even the PMO opposed Parrikar's plan and Parrikar stood by it.

Can you elaborate a bit on this.... What was pmo opposed to?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2017 00:11

^^^^^

Parrikar, as the story goes, was pushing for the Strategic Partnership, followed by the - as I understand it - a dedicated predetermined relationship between and Indian and foreign entity. And, Parrikar wanted this to be completed ASAP, as in SP by March, 2017 and pairing in Oct/Nov time frame (there is a vid from AI17 and another some TV show in ND where he mentions this in passing - but says, it will happen). Again, as I understood it, once paired Parrikar wanted that team for life (remember "life" here means about 10 years, so once, as an example only, LM delivers via Tata, and the production ends, that is pretty much the end for that pair).

PMO, the article stated was opposed to the pairing mechanism and to a lesser extent the SP. SP seems to have passed through - do not know if it was modified. Waiting to hear about pairing from (Asarva vyapi) Jaitley.

In the longish post of mine, a page or two ago, I stated that there is still some time for the 6000 F-16 jobs .......... This is why. The "pairing" was scheduled - BY Parrikar - for Oct/Nov. PM calling SAAB country and talking big - IMHO - was to push LM to get the deal worked out in the WH. LM has till Oct/Nov (in my opinion) to make it happen. And, all that signing in France and subsequent articles, all will lead to this date. Modi has already mentioned (like the 36 Rafale, while in France) that he will buy 200 F-16/Grippen. So, up to LM to work their magic IMHO. Ball is in LM court.

And, as far as "pairing" is concerned, I have to guess LM/Tata just decided to pair themselves.

I hope that makes sense. Typing on smart phone.

BTW, only to track happening, please post any "Tata" "looking" "for" "land" along the coast. They absolutely need a port and an air strip to make the F-16 happen. IF anyone comes across that please post here.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jun 2017 00:14

Cain Marko wrote:One thing to note though...... As the fleet gets increasingly top heavy, we start basing heavy fighters in areas where otherwise lighter fighters might be the norm. I always found it odd that the Mkis were being based so close to the border when earlier even Mirage 2000s were placed deeper in gwalior. Note that they started off in Pune for the mki but with time and delays in getting a lighter single engined fighter like the lca or m2k, it could very well be that the IAF was forced to base heavy fighters like the mki further out.

In other words, the point that we are using heavy birds like mki for point defense and qra duties is sub optimal. The very fact that the IAF is saddled with such a large proportion of heavies is strange, I have a feeling they are about 80-90 airframe more in this category than ideal. JMT

There is no real reason why larger, heavier fighters cannot be based near the borders as long as they can respond to an ORP scramble within a short time. The only issue is that of infrastructure available at these bases. There was a recent report about the IAF requesting for new Hardened Air Shelters (HAS) for the Su-30MKIs, since they were too large for the HAS that existed for MiG-21 size. In the past, since the MiG-21 was the most numerous of the IAF fighters and with its short range, the forward bases made the most sense. Now that the IAF has more Su-30MKIs than any other fighter and these are the only ones replacing retiring MiG-23, MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons, they have no choice but to base them near the border itself.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 30 Jun 2017 00:50

brar_w wrote: Producing a completely unrelated aircraft, in a foreign country may serve a purpose for them in terms of making money but it serves no purpose to India or to the advancement of its strategic objectives in manufacturing. If the aim is to develop a viable private player you have to make industrial base investments and allow freedom to these players in terms of choosing a foreign partner for consultancy as and when required with appropriate security considerations. One most certainly does not need to pipe out money to a foreign private company so that an AdA developed HAL product can be mass produced.

There are not that many established foreign players with mass manufacturing experience, Saab having involved from MRCA time, could use this opportunity to partner with private player to profit from their investment, rather than just provide consultancy on one time basis. Private player holding 51 percent + ADA + Saab holding remaining. This will reduce initial cost for Indian private setup . I think it would be win win for all. In the long run private setup is must, either with foreign or without foreign help.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jun 2017 01:05

ragupta, I understand how SAAB can benefit from a completely unnecessary task of being the leader in producing the LCA MK2 for India. What I am interested is to see how India benefits given the sort of dynamics required to take a design from conceptual stage to prototyping, testing, validation and eventually mass produce it.

Private set up does not have to be simply calling for SAAB to show others how it is done. It requires first understanding where the problems lie and how best to involve private players and which tasks to expect from them and how they go about developing those competencies. First, barriers need to be removed both technical and financial.

There isn't a magic wand that SAAB will come and wave and that will get a private player up and running. The MK2 is a product being designed by AdA and is currently set to be built by HAL. HAL or a private player need to integrate themselves at all stages of product development and all these various aspects need to move as one. No one from abroad is going to help accelerate this simply because it involves teamwork and inter dommain and agency partnership. Foreign partners can come in and plug gaps but thats about it, they can't do the heavy lifting for domestic private players or for HAL.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 30 Jun 2017 01:28

brar_w wrote:ragupta, I understand how SAAB can benefit from a completely unnecessary task of being the leader in producing the LCA MK2 for India. What I am interested is to see how India benefits given the sort of dynamics required to take a design from conceptual stage to prototyping, testing, validation and eventually mass produce it.

Private set up does not have to be simply calling for SAAB to show others how it is done. It requires first understanding where the problems lie and how best to involve private players and which tasks to expect from them and how they go about developing those competencies. First, barriers need to be removed both technical and financial.

There isn't a magic wand that SAAB will come and wave and that will get a private player up and running. The MK2 is a product being designed by AdA and is currently set to be built by HAL. HAL or a private player need to integrate themselves at all stages of product development and all these various aspects need to move as one. No one from abroad is going to help accelerate this simply because it involves teamwork and inter dommain and agency partnership. Foreign partners can come in and plug gaps but thats about it, they can't do the heavy lifting for domestic private players or for HAL.

I understand, thanks!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Jun 2017 05:47

Austin wrote:If LCA production could be acclerated they would have done that in the first place , ...

It's a mystery question Austin saar , why? Why LCA production can't be accelerated?

Cobham will be happy to get more orders, so would GE, Gadha plus myriad suppliers for different LRUs etc. One point raised last year that certain parts like single piece alloy tail and other parts are very specialised and some French company supplies them and they are busy with orders from world over. I m sure as Srai ji and Aditya ji pointed out if govt. Places a big order then these companies will be happy to expand so they fulfill as they will have surity.

I am sure some German company would also have mettullargy expertise too like Ruag or Siemens too.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 30 Jun 2017 06:22

NRao wrote:^^^^^

Parrikar, as the story goes, was pushing for the Strategic Partnership, followed by the - as I understand it - a dedicated predetermined relationship between and Indian and foreign entity. And, Parrikar wanted this to be completed ASAP, as in SP by March, 2017 and pairing in Oct/Nov time frame (there is a vid from AI17 and another some TV show in ND where he mentions this in passing - but says, it will happen). Again, as I understood it, once paired Parrikar wanted that team for life (remember "life" here means about 10 years, so once, as an example only, LM delivers via Tata, and the production ends, that is pretty much the end for that pair).

PMO, the article stated was opposed to the pairing mechanism and to a lesser extent the SP. SP seems to have passed through - do not know if it was modified. Waiting to hear about pairing from (Asarva vyapi) Jaitley.

In the longish post of mine, a page or two ago, I stated that there is still some time for the 6000 F-16 jobs .......... This is why. The "pairing" was scheduled - BY Parrikar - for Oct/Nov. PM calling SAAB country and talking big - IMHO - was to push LM to get the deal worked out in the WH. LM has till Oct/Nov (in my opinion) to make it happen. And, all that signing in France and subsequent articles, all will lead to this date. Modi has already mentioned (like the 36 Rafale, while in France) that he will buy 200 F-16/Grippen. So, up to LM to work their magic IMHO. Ball is in LM court.

And, as far as "pairing" is concerned, I have to guess LM/Tata just decided to pair themselves.

I hope that makes sense. Typing on smart phone.

BTW, only to track happening, please post any "Tata" "looking" "for" "land" along the coast. They absolutely need a port and an air strip to make the F-16 happen. IF anyone comes across that please post here.

I think Tata is involved in a big port project in Odisha

gaurav_w · Post by **gaurav_w** » 30 Jun 2017 17:11

That port is Dhamra which Tata and L&T were in 50:50 JV. I think any local JV aero manufacturing has to be close to existing centres 4 avail skilled manpower related issues.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Jul 2017 04:50

Kartik wrote:
There is no real reason why larger, heavier fighters cannot be based near the borders as long as they can respond to an ORP scramble within a short time. The only issue is that of infrastructure available at these bases. There was a recent report about the IAF requesting for new Hardened Air Shelters (HAS) for the Su-30MKIs, since they were too large for the HAS that existed for MiG-21 size. In the past, since the MiG-21 was the most numerous of the IAF fighters and with its short range, the forward bases made the most sense. Now that the IAF has more Su-30MKIs than any other fighter and these are the only ones replacing retiring MiG-23, MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons, they have no choice but to base them near the border itself.

This is the point....the IAF had no choice. Given a choice would they have based a light fighter forward or its heavy bird that has much longer range? While it is no doubt possible to have mki types do point defence, is it optimal?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2017 07:59

On the general question of basing "near border" or elsewhere - the deep air bases are needed whether planes are based at border air bases or not. There are several obvious reasons for that

Simply strategic depth - keeping assets away from enemy proximity
Places for reserves and training
Interim stop off points for planes being ferried from one theater to another
Long range planed based centrally can be used flexibly for the northern and eastern borders
If we do lose territory and air bases are captured - we still have more inside to keep fighting

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jul 2017 10:44

Read the ACM's interview with Vayu.He makes the IAF's position v.clear on sev. issues.First,clearing up the issue of retirement of legacy MIG-21/27s.27s will serve until 2020,BIsons until 2025,and the rest retired in phases as they reach the end of their designated lifespan incl. technical. A second SE fighter to complement the LCA .No mention of how many LCAs expected,as frankly who knows? AMCA expected only post 2030+.FGFA,teams sorting out R&D matters.Rafales to be based ,one sqd. in the east and west.Says Rafales are less maintenance intensive than other aircraft.Will have to see in actual ops when they arrive.With the "Yellow peril"warmongering on our borders,we could anticipate a faster acquisition of the SE whatever,beefing up existing types too asap.

Reg. Tata/LM,a port shouldn't be the major issue,skilled manpower availability the key factor. Look at BLR ,India's aerospace capital ...AND growing! New Helo plant being taken to Tumkur,first LCA sqd. to be located at Sulur near Coimbatore.L&T relocated one of its Bombay units there some time ago. There is an SEZ near Madras,Sri City,right on the TN/Andhra border,which thousands of acres available and has attracted many MNCs,v close to Sriharikota too. Has a nearby port in Krishnapatnam AP.Chennai and Ennore ports in TN are also close by.Has suburban elec services from Chennai Central.Visited the place some years ago,was impressed.Good flat land.Water seems not to be a problem too with a huge lake (Pulicat) close by. It would be ideal in my opinion as ports are closeby and manpower from both madras'Chennai and AP.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jul 2017 13:56

IAF has put up a case for building 108 next gen hard aircraft shelters that can withstand a direct hit from a 2000 pound bomb.

Seen on shiv aroor twitter

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jul 2017 13:58

Note that each has can sometimes hold many ac..i have seen special ones that house some 6 or so and are air conditioned in the gulf

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Jul 2017 16:09

Cross posting from R&D thread:

jamwal wrote:https://www.facebook.com/Livefist/photo ... =3&theater
LiveFist

The sum total of HAL's achievements at #PAS17! Not running them down and I'm aware that we give our people the wrong end of the stick often, but is receiving a 'price catalogue' an event?

This photograph is actually representative of the disappointingly poor levels of initiative and activity by HAL right through the show. The DRDO missed the show itself (they didn't prepare in time, by Dr S. Christopher's own admission) while HAL's lacklustre aircraft-less presence cruised invisibly through the show. No buzz at a show pretty much tailored for new aircraft to show off a little.

The reason we're particularly riled is that we went to the HAL chalet literally every day hoping for a way to support and report on Indian activity, opportunities and presence. But came away with nothing. One would have imagined that HAL, which enters a new existential phase with private sector competition under the strategic partnership policy, would be sitting up now, with its best foot forward. This isn't for a moment to suggest that the business of developing and building aircraft needs to be a hoopla. But if you've decided to be at one of the world's most prestigious defence trade events, being seen and spoken about is supposed to be part of the splash.

Other then teams of grinning Russians happy to pass on their price lists to a locked-in HAL, the only other highlight at the company's chalet is understood to have been some specially procured biryani on the day dignitaries from the Indian Embassy in Paris dropped by along with a delegation from India, including MoD officials who organise the Aero India show.

The Paris show could have been a terrific playground to showcase the Light Combat Helicopter, the Rudra and perhaps even the LUH. The LCA, which had a magnificent show at the 2017 Aero India would have been a perfect fit at Le Bourget, both for flying and as a static.

This was our first visit to the Le Bourget show. We noticed the smallest companies, with nothing more than mock-ups of their aircraft and the shirts on their backs, make a splash. It didn't seem to us like HAL had any excuses not to attempt showcasing itself and India, especially given that it is particularly armed at this time to do so. No excuses.

What HAL did have was no more than a wrongly labelled poster at an expensive chalet.

And biryani.

Maybe it's not babus for once, but HAL which is contented with biryani, Sukhoi + hawk screwdriver Giri while pretending to be manufacturer.

They just aren't interested, maybe too incompetent to manufacture a product from ground up.

Private sector competitors are needed for this pot bellied - biryani fed pampered HAL.