Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 11 Sep 2014 14:05

Interesting ideas. Interesting that NitiCentral has a article of Sitaram Yechuri in it. He is asking us not to support PSU efforts

He is not the CPI-M Boss Sitaram Yechuri but rather a youngish chap named Sitaramrao Yechuri. His photo is at the bottom. Wrong person.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Sep 2014 14:09

Sure. My system has not shown the photos of BR for something. So I was wrong.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Sep 2014 16:59

deejay wrote:
merlin wrote: Incorrect. Capability building is the nations primary concern. IAF does not care about it.
So the IAF is in the opposite camp?

There are in their own camp

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Sep 2014 23:07

That is the problem!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 Sep 2014 23:15

+1. Somehow other than navy rest including the babus politicos jurnos etc seems to ignore the serious weakness in our security posture namely near total dependecy on imports.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Sep 2014 23:47

merlin wrote:
Marten wrote: Those blaming the DRDO/ADA or IAS should also look at IAF. WE WANT is not the answer.
Capability building is also their PRIMARY concern. Blaming a bunch of corrupt babus or clueless MoD doesn't cut it.
Incorrect. Capability building is the nations primary concern. IAF does not care about it.

They should care. Otherwise, its the age old "we dont have spares 10 days into the conflict"..

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Sep 2014 09:39

^^^ ... and perhaps their own experiences do not count for anything.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Sep 2014 10:03

They do counts sir. Just like they count in all other democratic nations. USAF wants 1000s of F22s. Donts they not. But they are not going to get it. Nations limit their defense butgets and cut systems all the time. UK has cut their flat top building recently. So there is always a trade of bitween the resources and the requirements. Now if Rafale is too costly then civilian leadership need to take a call on that. IAF no doubt will have a say in the matter. Particularly in the NM sarkar. But it will be just a say that is all. Decision will be and shall be that of the GOI and not of IAF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Sep 2014 12:39

Deejay if they learnt from their experiences we wouldnt be having this debate. The IAF as an organization does not have a structure to nurture or develop systems in an organized fashion and so when people retire, lessons are lost and mistakes repeated. The lack of support to the LCA despite the Marut, the issues with the Russians till the 1990s is one perfect example. Lessons learnt by the IAF are also shaped by their desire to have the best of both worlds- state of the art heavy fighters and yet low opex. In the MKI case they are having HAL pick up the slack and maintain inventories, but this approach wont work forever. Somethings got to give. And it will if the current delay on the super expensive Rafale is anything to go by. Ultimately its the GOI which has to step up and set the policy which it has failed in doing. But the IAF too has to understand that raiding a foreign toy shop for gizmos is not sustainable. An IAF officer at a CAPs conference admitted that over the past decade the IAF has been importing willy nilly without an idea of the long term impact on their force structure ir the ability of the budget to support their menagerie.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Sep 2014 15:10

@Karan M ^^ "An IAF officer at a CAPs conference admitted that over the past decade the IAF has been importing willy nilly without an idea of the long term impact on their force structure ir the ability of the budget to support their menagerie."

+1

The damage that spending $20 bn + on Rafale will do to the country's over defense preparedness by skewing resources has not been fully thought through. The IAF understandably wants to get rid of the MiG21s/27s but it will kill itself and the other services if the Rafale order goes through.

Mind you, I am not against Rafale the plane—only against Rafale the 'deal'

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Sep 2014 18:39

This "willy-nilly" is not a problem with any individual Service.

It is a problem at the highest levels. There is a dire need for direction, which has been absent for the past 60 years. The politicians and the various advisers have failed to come up with a national policy to drive at the lower levels. They get together and come up with great things when a Kargil happens, the rest of the time it is in snooze mode.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 13 Sep 2014 23:34

Karan M wrote:The IAF as an organization does not have a structure to nurture or develop systems in an organized fashion and so when people retire, lessons are lost and mistakes repeated.

What a load of tripe.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 13 Sep 2014 23:41

merlin wrote: There are in their own camp

That would be the camp that goes to war and puts its life on the line every day.

Then there is the other camp that talks big and delivers nothing and looks for excuses for its pathetic failures.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Sep 2014 23:44

so, you are saying they have many camps?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 13 Sep 2014 23:51

Narayana Rao wrote:+1. Somehow other than navy rest including the babus politicos jurnos etc seems to ignore the serious weakness in our security posture namely near total dependecy on imports.

There is not a single IAF officer on the board of HAL, and the IAF does not set the DRDO budget.

The leadership of DRDO, DPSUs, HAL, etc need to take responsibility for the capabilities of their own organisations. Blaming the user is self-delusional and does not cut mustard in any industry.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 13 Sep 2014 23:52

SaiK wrote:so, you are saying they have many camps?

I've never understood a single one of your posts, so you'll excuse me if i don't bother answering your question.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 14 Sep 2014 03:27

eklavya wrote:There is not a single IAF officer on the board of HAL, and the IAF does not set the DRDO budget.

At one point (~30 years back) that was not the case. For example, HAL, Hyderabad was headed by a (retd.?) squadron leader or wing commander.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Sep 2014 03:44

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Def-Min-in ... /1/14.html

The move to induct IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S B Sinha will help the force to have more say in the functioning of country's only aerospace firm and force's largest supplier, Defence Ministry officials told PTI here.

Fwiw in my knowledge quite a few retired IAF/IN aviation guys work for HAL on permanent/contractual basis.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Sep 2014 08:03

eklavya, you don't have to reply to me then. why bother to type?
sorry, I have to ask tough questions.

imo, you are absolutely wrong in assuming IAF has many "camps".. whatever you mean by that.

people have to understand it is because IAF is not on board as stakeholder in projects all these years caused significant delays, missed deadlines, ill-defined specifications and needs (example Kaveri), and the feeling of shifting goal posts.

why? what is preventing to have developer and user sit tight and discuss things? i think they have realized this now. (hopefully in full)

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Sep 2014 10:20

negi wrote:http://www.brahmand.com/news/Def-Min-in ... /1/14.html

The move to induct IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S B Sinha will help the force to have more say in the functioning of country's only aerospace firm and force's largest supplier, Defence Ministry officials told PTI here.
Fwiw in my knowledge quite a few retired IAF/IN aviation guys work for HAL on permanent/contractual basis.

negi, many thanks, i missed the news you have linked above, its a good development, and shows the positive attitude of the new Defence Minister. One has to wonder why the HAL was resisting this move all along.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Sep 2014 10:57

SaiK wrote:what is preventing to have developer and user sit tight and discuss things?

The developer, for the most part, it seems:

A former AOC-in-C, Operational Command, write

It was the desire for a relatively light, maneuverable and not very high speed and low cost primarily a ground aircraft in our inventory that resulted in our evolving the initial LCA ASR. Unfortunately this was hijacked by the scientific community who wanted to build a world-class light aircraft with multi role capability. What we were promised was an indigenous design with indigenous engine and indigenous multi mode radar in a time frame to replace our ageing Mig 21. Having deliberately kept the IAF out during the Project Definition Phase when many critical decisions were taken (Arun Singh was told that IAF was coming in the way of a fast track project) the IAF was finally asked to comment of the PDP report. I can say with hindsight that every cautionary note that we struck in that report has been more than proven by subsequent events. I have often written that purely as an exercise to learn lessons, an institution like the College of Defence Management should conduct a management study of how this vital project has been mishandled by personalities for egoistic ends.

As if this was not a challenge itself, HAL Design was kept out and instead a Society to oversee ADA was formed to manage the project. So we have ADA as the design authority, HAL as the production agency and one responsible for providing product support to the IAF. ADA will be busy with the next generation design and when in service problems arise, one can visualize passing the buck between HAL and ADA with the IAF facing the consequences! I do not wish to be a pessimist, but my experience cautions me of a repeat of the HF 24 and Ajeet histories. Sadly at great cost to the nation.

srin · Post by **srin** » 14 Sep 2014 14:47

eklavya wrote:
Narayana Rao wrote:+1. Somehow other than navy rest including the babus politicos jurnos etc seems to ignore the serious weakness in our security posture namely near total dependecy on imports.
There is not a single IAF officer on the board of HAL, and the IAF does not set the DRDO budget.

The leadership of DRDO, DPSUs, HAL, etc need to take responsibility for the capabilities of their own organisations. Blaming the user is self-delusional and does not cut mustard in any industry.

Ex-navy admirals and commodores run the PSU shipyards, but look at delays for Kolkata class, the Scorpene and the Kamortas. Can you imagine accepting a destroyer into service, one of whose tasks is carrier escort and protection, without any SAMs ? Can you imagine commissioning an ASW vessel without proper sonar ? Has any admiral called these boats as "three-finned whale" or "Rajput-class plus plus" similar to what an IAF chief did ?

All our projects are delayed and over-budget. The initial versions will be sub-standard. That is part of the R&D process.
So the only difference between having control versus not is whether there is whining or not.

You haven't cited any evidence of where having IAF officer on HAL board or having IAF set the budget of DRDO is going to help.

You haven't cited any evidence of IAF having run any R&D establishment. In fact, the IAF complaints do suggest that they don't "get" R&D. Failure is important in R&D and IAF seems intolerant of that.

There is no reason why the best and brightest scientists and engineers should work for any PSU leave alone in India. What will IAF in control of DRDO budget do ? Cut the pay and force them out of service ?

So unless you have specific examples on how IAF on board will change things (like, how this IAF guy controlling ADA budget figures out control laws or how this guy on HAL board will figure out spin recovery of IJT), I'm not able to comprehend your solution.

That you suggest this as a course of action without any evidence indicates your bias.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Sep 2014 15:59

srin wrote:or how this guy on HAL board will figure out spin recovery of IJT

what is the function of the board? what do you understand by the term "alignment of priorities"? what do you think "stakeholder involvement" means?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Sep 2014 18:09

It is definitely the need of the hour to restrain DRDO R&D within user scope and charter. Of course, the constraints to R&D at an early stage can make the lab people dance and feel low, but there has to be some accountability. They can consider like the 672? parameters to meet ops requirement of MMRCA that were laid down.

There are lot of correction process that needs to established within R&D. I think the problem here is not having a single scope and charter, with a lose coupling for R&D. Budgets and constraints must be driven by the users. This way, it becomes user centric design, and even certain non-available capabilities can be governed under similar charter.

And there are issues in terms of scheduling and project management.. I think the core issue is know-how and capability establishment. I can research and find about things, but I am poor in establishing production setup. My production process is extremely costly and inefficient. These are other areas of R&D and maturity model structures.

It is all about lacing everything together. I can't keep aloof, and expect others just buy it because we did R&D in India. It still does not qualify as made in India and at the same time usable, producible and maintainable.

srin · Post by **srin** » 14 Sep 2014 18:29

eklavya wrote:
srin wrote:or how this guy on HAL board will figure out spin recovery of IJT
what is the function of the board? what do you understand by the term "alignment of priorities"? what do you think "stakeholder involvement" means?

Exactly - I appreciate you see the humor in taking your proposal to the logical conclusion. If DRDO can't get something done (take Kaveri, for instance), how does IAF being in control help ?

srin · Post by **srin** » 14 Sep 2014 18:35

SaiK wrote:It is definitely the need of the hour to restrain DRDO R&D within user scope and charter. Of course, the constraints to R&D at an early stage can make the lab people dance and feel low, but there has to be some accountability. They can consider like the 672? parameters to meet ops requirement of MMRCA that were laid down.

There are lot of correction process that needs to established within R&D. I think the problem here is not having a single scope and charter, with a lose coupling for R&D. Budgets and constraints must be driven by the users. This way, it becomes user centric design, and even certain non-available capabilities can be governed under similar charter.

And there are issues in terms of scheduling and project management.. I think the core issue is know-how and capability establishment. I can research and find about things, but I am poor in establishing production setup. My production process is extremely costly and inefficient. These are other areas of R&D and maturity model structures.

It is all about lacing everything together. I can't keep aloof, and expect others just buy it because we did R&D in India. It still does not qualify as made in India and at the same time usable, producible and maintainable.

Would help if you can give a concrete example here ...

And I disagree that the budgets and constraints should be driven by users. Influence significantly, yes, but controller or driven, no. Because in most cases, users want better of what they have at a lesser price. And their time horizon is next couple of years. The issues with LCA timelines start with ending of Marut - that's decades !

Program management etc is fine, but why only R&D ? Since we are in the MMRCA thread, let's talk program management of MMRCA acquisition. Let's face it - it doesn't matter if it is DRDO or HAL or IAF - when it comes to adhering to timelines and costs, we are like this onlee !

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 14 Sep 2014 18:44

IAF is part of the national security. National capabilities in development and production of weapon systems etc are vital part of national security capabilities. If the top brass of armed forces do not know that and consider themselves as "customers" of weapon systems we we are at serious fault. Navy do its bit. It is not wrong to expect other wings of forces also do their bit.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Sep 2014 19:46

^^^^^
Yes, it is vital that EVERYONE works together; but that also means that DPSUs provide realistic projections for what they can deliver. IAF has no import addiction; they are v happy customers of items made by HAL, provided the design works. When it became clear in the 1980s that the IAF training programme required an AJT, HAL delayed the procurement process by claiming that they could design and manufacture an AJT within the required timeframe. We are in 2014, HAL got a 100 a/c order for IJT, and still it doesn't satisfy basic requirements (spin recovery, etc.). Who says that a 100 a/c order for LCA Mk 1 will miraculously solve all its problems.

The naval shipyards in India design great systems, but not of the complexity of 4/4.5 generation combat aircraft. When it comes to really high-end naval technology like submarines, the know-how still has to be imported.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Sep 2014 19:55

srin wrote:If DRDO can't get something done (take Kaveri, for instance), how does IAF being in control help ?

IAF needs to have a voice, not the ability to dictate. There are 1,000 complex technologies that go into a GT. GTRE should have provided GoI/MoD/IAF with a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and in what timeframe. Having IAF/IA/IN officers on the Board of these companies will mean that tall claims are less likely to emanating from their management, because of the greater scrutiny of their claims, and the monitoring of progress will be more transparent. Also, if setbacks happen, if they are organisationally inter-linked, there will be more common understanding between the different organisations of why the setback has happened and what's the best way to address the issue.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Sep 2014 02:31

eklavya wrote:
Karan M wrote: The IAF as an organization does not have a structure to nurture or develop systems in an organized fashion and so when people retire, lessons are lost and mistakes repeated.
What a load of tripe.

Given many of your recent posts are tripe, you must be looking in a mirror.

Lets restate the facts.

First. The IAF has very limited capability to develop or nurture systems in any organized fashion. It has a handful of BRDs which rotate everyone from gate guards to fitters to reverse engineer lower complexity spares and outsource most of the complex stuff to SMEs and even depend on HAL, NAL/CSIR for complex engineering work. Their mandate is very limited and only in recent years are they expected to pick up basic assembly work of kits and apply them to aircraft not made at HAL. The BRD's are of limited capability beyond a point which is why the IAF has now asked MiG to guarantee an India based stockpile of spares via the offset clause.

In short, the BRDs are nowhere at the level of a system 1 integrator and nor have they produced people of that skill set yet.

Second:
Next, folks are deputed to programs on ad hoc basis - as was Phillip Rajkumar & their staying with the program tends to kill their prospects within the IAF and there is no way to get them back into similar role - no engineering group within the IAF exists for product ownership and control. That experience is lost, period, when folks revert for obvious reasons to original roles. Rajkumar's was given his promotion despite the IAF and not because of it. The IAF thought he was having a good time at Bangalore (such was their impression of the LCA program) and fought with the MOD over his promotion. They even didn't want to attend its first flight till Rajkumar told the then COAS, its being developed for India, not Pakistan. This shows they don't have any larger interest in owning any part of the product creation either.

Third, IAF's own establishments which interface with larger design and development groups are limited in the extreme. ASTE, run on a shoestring budget, limited crew and the Software Development Institute, which does ad hoc programs on upgrades and whatever OEM does not provide.

No overarching group or command path within the IAF for project management or managing industry or learning/addressing the requirements of industry for constant feedback in an organized coherent manner.

These are how things are today.

In ages past, IAF folks used to go to HAL to pick up skills and run things smoothly. People like MSD Wollen, K Suresh and many more. IAF pulled out of the practice citing manpower constraints (despite recent media reports claiming otherwise) and now it wants back in after an attempt to directly parachute a pugnacious, but mfg inexperienced Matheswaran directly to the top spot flopped bigtime. So now they are doing the right thing by getting a member to the board.

At least that may give some IAF folks some real experience and exposure to aero industry reality as versus just being an user and finally move it a tenth of the level of a RAF, FAF, IDFAF or USAF which went down that path decades back.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Sep 2014 02:42

eklavya wrote:
srin wrote:If DRDO can't get something done (take Kaveri, for instance), how does IAF being in control help ?
IAF needs to have a voice, not the ability to dictate. There are 1,000 complex technologies that go into a GT. GTRE should have provided GoI/MoD/IAF with a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and in what timeframe. Having IAF/IA/IN officers on the Board of these companies will mean that tall claims are less likely to emanating from their management, because of the greater scrutiny of their claims, and the monitoring of progress will be more transparent. Also, if setbacks happen, if they are organisationally inter-linked, there will be more common understanding between the different organisations of why the setback has happened and what's the best way to address the issue.

Then perhaps they should behave as such. In recent years, the IAF more and more has presumed that its diktat is what the industry requires and will make things allright. Parachuting Matheswaran, a man completely unsuited for the role, given he lacked any extensive experience with running any large firm, as the head of HAL - diktat zindabad. About technologies - the number of leaks from IAF folks talking stuff about which they lacked subject matter expertise was bewildering, jet engines to metallurgy - the rtd IAF community tackled it all, speaking on behalf of their masters.
Your proposal makes sense, but unfortunately, the ego issues that were dominating many of these discussions let all these sane proposals get delayed. Funnily enough, IA has folks on board of several PSUs. IN ditto. IAF could have pushed for that to begin with. But no, it was all or nothing. As ridiculous as a HAL guy asking to head the IAF, since he too knows aerospace.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Sep 2014 05:16

I think the xcpts/ were from Air Cmde.Tapas Sen's memoirs.Read more of it and you will understand how the LCA programme came to be (called by a former DyCoAS deliberately denied the post of DG ADA despite being repeatedly selected for the post by various boards and even after the PM signed his appointment,shelved by babudom until he retired!) "a scandal upon the nation".The original IAF requirement was mangled beyond repair,why we are struggling to even get the LCA MK-1 into service.The IAF then pretended that the LCA didn't exist for a long time,until it realised the soup it was in .But still lusting for expensive western "broads" when the economy was on the upswing.Those "happy days" now well behind us.

So the wheel has come full circle.Desperate for replacements,no money in the kitty and a lust for the most expensive fighters on the block! Of course one knows the virtues and comfort of a Rolls or Bentley as against a mere Merc,Audi or Beemer,but when you don't have the naya paise in the pocket.....

Unless the new dispensation fast tracks a holistic review of India's strategic plan perspective,its "grand strategy" and the force capability required for the services as a combined military force,rather than 3 separate services,the tugs and pulls of the competing services will result in lopsided defence decision making and we will be sadly repeating the mistakes of history in an even more farcical manner.While the IAF lusts after a French babe,the PAF meanwhile steadily plod on with their JF-17 production,a cost-effective fighter that allows them to build it in large numbers,steadily increasing their capability against us,not to mention the immense Chinese military war machine growing mightier by the day.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Sep 2014 07:38

If IAF really wants a role in the development of LCA even now they can try for it. I am sure the present Cabinet will oppose that move. But the problem is the long term mindset. Both the babus+ politicos and the leadership in the forces failed to identify the need to make the systems in India. PSU culture turned the assembly lines as "production" with no capability addition. Even if IAF gets its wish and Rafale is purchased there will be same kind of "production" deal. That too with huge spending. So better bite the bullet now when the GOI is saying "make in India". Capacity buildup will remove huge security related weakness on long term basis. It will also help economic development and stop $ outflow.

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Sep 2014 14:21

eklavya wrote:
srin wrote:If DRDO can't get something done (take Kaveri, for instance), how does IAF being in control help ?
IAF needs to have a voice, not the ability to dictate. There are 1,000 complex technologies that go into a GT. GTRE should have provided GoI/MoD/IAF with a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and in what timeframe. Having IAF/IA/IN officers on the Board of these companies will mean that tall claims are less likely to emanating from their management, because of the greater scrutiny of their claims, and the monitoring of progress will be more transparent. Also, if setbacks happen, if they are organisationally inter-linked, there will be more common understanding between the different organisations of why the setback has happened and what's the best way to address the issue.

I concur with you that IAF needs a voice and not the ability to dictate. But that doesn't require control over DRDO budget or having someone on HAL board. It means IAF sending its brightest personnel on deputation and at the same time, taking on ADA or HAL personnel to make them familiar with the way it operates.

Also, conversely DRDO also should have a say in IAF acquisitions because after all, when we are talking offsets & ToT and everything, there needs to be someone who knows what we lack (which part of engine tech or radar tech) and what we don't really care about.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Sep 2014 19:07

dinesh_kumar wrote:
Interesting ideas. Interesting that NitiCentral has a article of Sitaram Yechuri in it. He is asking us not to support PSU efforts
He is not the CPI-M Boss Sitaram Yechuri but rather a youngish chap named Sitaramrao Yechuri. His photo is at the bottom. Wrong person.

Being pushed by the reliance group.

Long time mucho dinero

They already seem to have a JV with reliance onlee

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Sep 2014 11:41

The 'miscellaneous' blunder in India's Rafale deal

Don't know if this is a paid article of the actual state of affairs.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 16 Sep 2014 14:56

Pratyush wrote:The 'miscellaneous' blunder in India's Rafale deal

Don't know if this is a paid article of the actual state of affairs.

Seems like the actual state of affairs, since the start this whole deal and costing of the Rafale has been suspicious, there is an obvious increase in the initial bid based on which the L1 was decided and the eventual negotiated total cost. The way the L-1 was decided is suspicious. They should have scrapped this L-1 business and hold direct discussion with both vendors and the best final offer wins.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 16 Sep 2014 17:18

This would explain why the Rafale deal cost has not been officially published, because we don't know how much it is actually going to cost. This is either chicanery on the part of the French, stupidity on our part or more likely both.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Sep 2014 21:46

A clear Con if one ever saw one!

PS:Rafales to be built by that aerospace giant "Reliance" who've never even built a paper plane!

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Sep 2014 22:22

I wonder why this and the Scorpene saga isn't being called Arm twisting here. Gorshkov escalation seems pennies in comparision.