'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Mihir]

JayS, thanks for taking the trouble to type that out. Here’s my response.

Of course one cannot compare the auto and aero industries directly! There are differences, but then again, there are also several similarities that allow experiences in one domain to be applied to achieve results in another. The scale is different, and the progression of iterations is much faster, yes. But ultimately, the local manufacturer still has to be given access to information and data that enables him to build the product to a required standard and test it to assure quality. There is much to be learned from such processes if an aggressive management demands it. Or, like with the Su-30, the management could simply choose to coast and deliver the product without learning much. If the private sector is pulled in, I’m confident that what will happen is the former.

You seem to imply that technology restrictions apply to the aero industry alone. I’ve seen very stringent restrictions on the auto side too. The equipment and machine tools come with extremely stringent restrictions on what can or cannot be done with them. And yet, here we are. The industry still absorbed the tech and applied it to their homegrown products. How? Because they initiated the project with that specific aim (although it wasn’t articulated as such), did what they had to in order to pick up know how, and used the knowledge to either accelerate the development of their own vehicles or start new product lines.

To take your example of welding – that’s exactly how it works in license auto manufacturing too. Auto OEMs are no more eager than their aero counterparts to communicate the knowledge behind why certain parameters are used. They still manage to figure it out. Like I said before, it doesn’t all have to be handed on a platter. There are ways and means to extract it from the system in question. And when a similar process is used towards the manufacture of local equivalents, it helps compress the design-prototype-test cycle significantly. To give you an extreme example, a major Indian automotive manufacturer worked with another Indian company to reverse-engineer a series of machine tools that were used to fabricate a certain high-end product (these weren’t simple tools mind you; they were all high-precision CNC machines whose use was very strictly restricted) and used said machines to independently enter the market to manufacture the finished parts. Within a few years, the foreign entity that had transferred the tech started importing the same parts – for the international market – from the domestic manufacturer. Why wouldn’t a company like TASL or L&T manage to do with same with the F-16’s components and use them to accelerate the AMCA program? The transfer of knowledge doesn’t even have to be comprehensive. You absorb what you can and then invest in real R&D to plug whatever gaps are found.

You give another example – the AL-31F SCBs – to illustrate why tech transfer doesn’t work. But are we sure that it doesn’t? Can you say with confidence that whatever know-how HAL acquired was completely useless? Because I have heard very different. The takeaways from the effort were indeed less than anticipated, but the knowledge gained was very useful towards allowing R&D agencies to figure out the process for themselves. There were other issues as well, such as friction between HAL and GTRE over access and what not. Also, the problems with the Kaveri also had a lot to do with the geometry; something metallurgy can scarcely address. Unless they resolved those, no amount of SCB tech was going to help. And lastly, metallurgy of this sort is notoriously hard (almost impossible) to reverse engineer. The same is not true for geometries and fabrication/assembly processes. In other words, it is much easier to reverse engineer a gearbox or a hydraulic pump than it is a jet engine turbine.

Now with regards to design for manufacture, I completely disagree. The best way to do acquire know-how and imbibe a mindset amongst R&D teams that gives manufacturability its due is to license manufacture a foreign product and embed internal R&D teams in shop floor operations. The reason it hasn’t worked so well in India’s case is that there is a firewall of sorts between the manufacturing agency (HAL) and the R&D agency (ADA), so any knowledge transfer is limited. But if a private manufacturer and R&D shop operates under one management, the knowledge transfer is that much smoother. The pay off in terms of developing components and subsystems for future aircraft design would be immense! Of course, like you point out, this is all useless if you aren’t putting local designs to mass manufacture. And that’s precisely why I think manufacturing and overhauling F-16s in India, along with the LCA, will work out.

As far as mental screwdriver-giri goes, it doesn’t surprise me at all. It is not GE’s intention to develop engineering capability in India and use it to compete in the market. So GE’s management takes measures and adopts processes that restrict the spread of knowledge while throwing cheap Indian labour at routine tasks. I know folks who have been through this grind. But you know what? I also know people working for Indian companies who have absorbed plenty of know-how while acting as contractors for foreign majors, used it as a basis to develop a knowledge base of their own, and are now offering their skills in the market on their own merit. Because there was a push from the top company leadership, as well as support and funding, to see this achieved. Today there are Indian citizens, working for Indian companies, embedded in structural design/testing teams and software development teams with global aerospace majors, doing “real” R&D work. How did this happen in spite of foreign engineering houses wanting to restrict Indians to mental screwdriver-giri?

And finally, the “top exec” you spoke to. His people might not be stupid, but then, neither is anyone else. Certainly not the Tatas and L&Ts. If they were, then you wouldn’t have seen Chinese clones of Western and Russian aircraft flying around today, They’re building clones of the Su-27, Su-30, Dauphin, Black Hawk, etc. etc. Heck, even the civilian ARJ-121 borrows elements from the MD-90. So why can’t India use the know-how acquired from an F-16 manufacturing setup to give a boost to domestic aero efforts?

[ragupta]

Only time India was offered any serious technology was when it had its own program and was about to succeed in its own effort.

Technology absorption and acquisition will be incremental process, there has to be indigenous R&D product as substitute and bargaining chip.
Where India does not have anything to show, it will have hard time acquiring those technology.
No short cut to hard work.

Having said that, any additional production capacity is a welcome move, there is lot to learn. It is not a waste at all.

Additionally it offers weapon delivery platform for US weapon, possibly useful against China if ever needed.

[Marten]

That hole was caused by the IAF downselection leading to the two expensive options on the table. Leading to 36 units instead of 126.
That budget has not changed.

Why not put up the three stacks (see Rohit's earlier post on this) instead of posting rhetoric?
PS: Still doesn't fix your analogies or logical fallacies. Or the trolling!

[Manish_Sharma]

So fast just within few years MIC of US has us in its anaconda grip.

All it'd take is an Pressler Amendment to bring all the C-17, C-130, PHALCON, P8i and f-16 / 18 to a grinding halt.

Moving towards Platinum Jublee of Indepndence we might find another type of colonisation.

[JayS]

@Shiv,

brar_w is right. If there is no public disclosure to shareholders then these reports from magazines are worthless.

This is the GE official press release page related to Mil engines. No news on F414 order. Only cursory mentions in 1-2 places with verbs like "committed" "selected" but not one mention of "ordered". Whats more funny is not even F404 are ordered beyond the 2008 order.

http://www.geaviation.com/press/military.html

[sudeepj]

That hole was caused by the IAF downselection leading to the two expensive options on the table. Leading to 36 units instead of 126.
That budget has not changed.

Why not put up the three stacks (see Rohit's earlier post on this) instead of posting rhetoric?
PS: Still doesn't fix your analogies or logical fallacies. Or the trolling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

Trolling/useless Rhetoric is what you are doing. Posting a disagreement is not trolling. Fact of the matter is an F16 is a different class of aircraft than the LCA and one can not fulfill the requirements of the other. IAF has a requirement of around 200 each light/medium/heavy aircraft. From an electronics and weapons point of view, F16 is leagues ahead of anything we have except the gold plated rafales.

If you can not accept these facts, you will inevitably go down a route alleging either corruption or incompetence by people who have devoted their lives to the nation and are experts in their fields. And you will end up doing so as baat-bahadurs only.

And btw. a logical fallacy is that an aircraft with 13 tonnes of max takeoff weight is in the same class as an aircraft with 22 tonnes of max takeoff weight.

[Vivek K]

It seems that a vast section of Indian citizenry is composed of either presstitutes or prostitutes - the second type being guilty of pimping foreign products over domestic.

[Rakesh]

And finally, the “top exec” you spoke to. His people might not be stupid, but then, neither is anyone else. Certainly not the Tatas and L&Ts. If they were, then you wouldn’t have seen Chinese clones of Western and Russian aircraft flying around today, They’re building clones of the Su-27, Su-30, Dauphin, Black Hawk, etc. etc. Heck, even the civilian ARJ-121 borrows elements from the MD-90. So why can’t India use the know-how acquired from an F-16 manufacturing setup to give a boost to domestic aero efforts?

I am going to leave it to JayS to answer to the rest of your post. But I must make a point with your statement above.
While the Chinese are building clones of the Su-27, Su-30, Dauphin, Black Hawk, etc….this is a nation that does not see anything wrong in adopting that approach. They shamelessly copy everything. They have some successes but spectacular failures as well. HAL cannot adopt the Chinese strategy because of the stringent intellectual property rights that Lockheed Martin will have on the F-16. You believe that the F-16 manufacturing set up will give a boost to domestic aero efforts. So let me ask you if building 90 F-Solahs in India will give the following;

- GTRE gets technical know-how on redesigning the Kaveri – currently rated to 72 kN – to the 90+ kN that it needs?
- LRDE gets technical know-how on getting the Uttam AESA operational?

The engine and radar are the heart and brain of an aircraft. If India is not going to learn neither, what is the point of this purchase?

[Rakesh]

Every man thinks he is smarter than the other chap and also that the other chap has more money than him. Its your prerogative to proclaim your greatness to the world and call out others as whatever you want to, it doesnt make one whit of a difference.

Fact is, there is a 90 aircraft hole in the projected 126 requirement for MMRCA. There is a separate requirement for 200-300 light aircraft, that LCA is on its way to filling up. The heavy requirement it already taken care of by the Sukhois.

The current forum brouhaha is a rehash of the howls that went up when the MMRCA requirement was mooted. Why MMRCA when we have the LCA?

The LCA will never hit the 200 – 300 mark at the support it is getting now from the IAF. A maximum of 120 – 130 airframes will be ordered and they will share the same fate as the Marut. The IAF will whine and complain that it is underpowered and overweight. Then they will retire the aircraft in a decade or two. If that sounds familiar, because that is what they said about the Marut. The MMRCA when put out in 2007 (initially started in 2001) was only six years after the Tejas flew. The aircraft in 2007 was still undergoing flight tests and trials. A lot of water has flown under the bridge then. The Tejas has proved itself and is a capable platform. Those are not my words but rather from IAF pilots who have flown the aircraft. The IAF, MoD, HAL and anyone else who was involved in this program has had 15+ years – from 04 Jan 2001 to date – to figure things out. FIFTEEN YEARS. In all this time, they never figured out about a well-stocked supplier base? About the need for TFTA-type production? That is COMPLETE nonsense. Thus to state that the current forum brouhaha is a rehash of the howls that went up when the MMRCA requirement was mooted is erroneous. That statement may have been valid in 2007, but it does not fly in 2016. No Sir. No Way!

[JayS]

JayS, thanks for taking the trouble to type that out. Here’s my response.

Of course one cannot compare the auto and aero industries directly! There are differences, but then again, there are also several similarities that allow experiences in one domain to be applied to achieve results in another. The scale is different, and the progression of iterations is much faster, yes. But ultimately, the local manufacturer still has to be given access to information and data that enables him to build the product to a required standard and test it to assure quality. There is much to be learned from such processes if an aggressive management demands it. Or, like with the Su-30, the management could simply choose to coast and deliver the product without learning much. If the private sector is pulled in, I’m confident that what will happen is the former.

Mihir, I just wanted to give a different perspective. I do not reject all the points outright. I said as much - on general basis you can compare and its a valid comparison. Auto sector has a lot of its own engineering challenges which are of different kind. The sector is very aggressive and cut-throat with very less margin for error on business front. To be fair, its the US Auto industry which propelled the Aero industry into mass manufacture mode in WW2. A lot of Aero OEMs have had some Auto background. But that was a different time era. Aerospace today has become to expensive. Companies like GE are looking to offload financial risks, as the upfront investments are getting out of bound. There is a consolidation happening in Aero industry at suppliers level now. If you had observed there used to be so many aircraft OEMs in US, now all those have got consolidated in only 3-4. Same thing is being played out on Tier1/2/3 levels where soon you will see a small number of Tier1 companies absorbing large number of small Tier2/3 companies. In such scenarios, the investments are becoming more and more risky. Already the margins are very thin. In such scenario, for any budding supplier from India will have to struggle a lot to make any space in global supply chain, and it will be a slow process. Yes, they can learn from scant information, but it will take some serious investment on RnD side and there is little incentive to make that kind of investment upfront for new comer. Even the established players are shying away from opportunities. This is why I feel that not many companies will forward for even this F16 project (unless govt promises them more work in future, but then why not the same deal extended to LCA manufactures?). Same as they are not coming forward for LCA easily. And we will have only a limited suppliers' base developed.

If there are no significant scale orders coming from multiple projects, its not worth getting into the game.

You seem to imply that technology restrictions apply to the aero industry alone. I’ve seen very stringent restrictions on the auto side too. The equipment and machine tools come with extremely stringent restrictions on what can or cannot be done with them. And yet, here we are. The industry still absorbed the tech and applied it to their homegrown products. How? Because they initiated the project with that specific aim (although it wasn’t articulated as such), did what they had to in order to pick up know how, and used the knowledge to either accelerate the development of their own vehicles or start new product lines.

No, I merely want to point out they are more severe in case of Defense related industry, and it is not governed by only market principles either. You must have known about the Cryogenic tech related Saga from ISRO. Do you think US will try to sabotage an effort by say TML making desi engine?? Would USG try to stop AVL from teaching TML all about engines?? They won't. But they will definitely try to discourage (if not subotage altogether) Kaveri efforts by offering somewhat better tech on easier terms.

To take your example of welding – that’s exactly how it works in license auto manufacturing too. Auto OEMs are no more eager than their aero counterparts to communicate the knowledge behind why certain parameters are used. They still manage to figure it out. Like I said before, it doesn’t all have to be handed on a platter. There are ways and means to extract it from the system in question. And when a similar process is used towards the manufacture of local equivalents, it helps compress the design-prototype-test cycle significantly. To give you an extreme example, a major Indian automotive manufacturer worked with another Indian company to reverse-engineer a series of machine tools that were used to fabricate a certain high-end product (these weren’t simple tools mind you; they were all high-precision CNC machines whose use was very strictly restricted) and used said machines to independently enter the market to manufacture the finished parts. Within a few years, the foreign entity that had transferred the tech started importing the same parts – for the international market – from the domestic manufacturer. Why wouldn’t a company like TASL or L&T manage to do with same with the F-16’s components and use them to accelerate the AMCA program? The transfer of knowledge doesn’t even have to be comprehensive. You absorb what you can and then invest in real R&D to plug whatever gaps are found.

Please tell me how many iterations the auto industry got to do to refine themselves in last 25 years?? And in comparison, in same time period how many iterations ADA/HAL got to do?? Which one of the two got more chances to correct themselves you think?? And with this kind of speed how long will it take for newbies learning F16 manufacturing will take to make any significant contribution on their own to say AMCA??

You missed an important point. The investment in gaining the know-why is quite significant and the ROI is not very encouraging in Aerospace. Also the process is too slow as compared to Auto industry. An MIC doing screwdrivergiri for F16 will not learn stuff fast enough to have much impact on AMCA. May be 15-20yrs down the line. Remember, its not gonna be mere repetition of same technology. AMCA will demand a slightly higher level while the companies are still absorbing the current thing they were doing. For example - Co-Cured Co-Bonding will definitely come in AMCA which is not gonna come through F16. Similarly a good amount of Additive Manufacturing will appear in AMCA which is not there in F16.

You give another example – the AL-31F SCBs – to illustrate why tech transfer doesn’t work. But are we sure that it doesn’t? Can you say with confidence that whatever know-how HAL acquired was completely useless? Because I have heard very different. The takeaways from the effort were indeed less than anticipated, but the knowledge gained was very useful towards allowing R&D agencies to figure out the process for themselves. There were other issues as well, such as friction between HAL and GTRE over access and what not. Also, the problems with the Kaveri also had a lot to do with the geometry; something metallurgy can scarcely address. Unless they resolved those, no amount of SCB tech was going to help. And lastly, metallurgy of this sort is notoriously hard (almost impossible) to reverse engineer. The same is not true for geometries and fabrication/assembly processes. In other words, it is much easier to reverse engineer a gearbox or a hydraulic pump than it is a jet engine turbine.

Can we say that had we invested same amount of efforts and money in RnD directly, instead of paying to Russians we would probably have known more about the technology?? I mean all it takes it to do it over and over and over again till you get it right, isn't it?? The point is in one iteration it didn't enable HAL to make SCB for anything else. They will take some time to figure it out. By that time DMRL also would have a mature SCB technology of our own. I accept that some familiarity with the process helps in going in correct direction. But all said and done, I don't think we gained much in terms of time. Arguably, If same efforts were invested in RnD, we would have figured it out, only in slightly more time, but I daresay we would have had much better insight in the technology. The problem is we don't want to try out new things. We just look for someone to show it first.

About other easy things you mentioned, Sir we already have those things. We are manufacturing LCA from scratch. We are manufacturing almost entire Su-30 from raw materials. What earth shattering new technology an decades old platform from US is gonna bring on table for us?? If it was F35 manufacturing, then I would have accepted there are new things to learn from that one. Even Rafale would have some ground to stand on. What we don't know can be learned anyway by doing those things and correcting ourself continuously. I daresay, some of the manufacturing technology used for LCA is superior to that of F16.

Now with regards to design for manufacture, I completely disagree. The best way to do acquire know-how and imbibe a mindset amongst R&D teams that gives manufacturability its due is to license manufacture a foreign product and embed internal R&D teams in shop floor operations. The reason it hasn’t worked so well in India’s case is that there is a firewall of sorts between the manufacturing agency (HAL) and the R&D agency (ADA), so any knowledge transfer is limited. But if a private manufacturer and R&D shop operates under one management, the knowledge transfer is that much smoother. The pay off in terms of developing components and subsystems for future aircraft design would be immense! Of course, like you point out, this is all useless if you aren’t putting local designs to mass manufacture. And that’s precisely why I think manufacturing and overhauling F-16s in India, along with the LCA, will work out.

Sir, manufacturing is important, not manufacturing of F16. All the things in this respect that we will learn from F16, can be learned from LCA manufacturing, MRO, just as easily. The firewall you are talking about is going to be there in F16, in fact a taller and thicker one. Because no design related stuff whatsoever is coming in this F16 project. Why can't we simply sent ADA guys to HAL then and make then understand manufacturing?? But do not think ADA as standalone organisation designing everything on LCA. HAL is after all Prime Contractor and they themselves designed and developed some 17 out of total 23 subsystems for LCA, not ADA. Even the design department from HAL itself was heavily involved in the system level design along with ADA. This disconnect between design engineer and production engineer is a broad spectrum phenomenon in India, not specific to LCA project. One reason is we lack exposure to modern manufacturing right from college. (for those who have done Aerospace in bachelors instead of Mech/Prod, they are even worse off) And another thing is for some reason production engineer working on shop floor is looked down in India while design engineer working in AC office is considered superior. In West, the manufacturing guys get much higher say in design decisions. This one is gonna long time to change.

As far as mental screwdriver-giri goes, it doesn’t surprise me at all. It is not GE’s intention to develop engineering capability in India and use it to compete in the market. So GE’s management takes measures and adopts processes that restrict the spread of knowledge while throwing cheap Indian labour at routine tasks. I know folks who have been through this grind. But you know what? I also know people working for Indian companies who have absorbed plenty of know-how while acting as contractors for foreign majors, used it as a basis to develop a knowledge base of their own, and are now offering their skills in the market on their own merit. Because there was a push from the top company leadership, as well as support and funding, to see this achieved. Today there are Indian citizens, working for Indian companies, embedded in structural design/testing teams and software development teams with global aerospace majors, doing “real” R&D work. How did this happen in spite of foreign engineering houses wanting to restrict Indians to mental screwdriver-giri?

I made a general statement which is applicable on majority but it doesn't mean *All*. There are bright spots here and there obviously. I know so many good people in Industry myself. But that doesn't mean there is a large scale improvement en masse. Which is what being impressed here, that it will happen, if F16 project comes to India. It may happen eventually but not soon enough.

And finally, the “top exec” you spoke to. His people might not be stupid, but then, neither is anyone else. Certainly not the Tatas and L&Ts. If they were, then you wouldn’t have seen Chinese clones of Western and Russian aircraft flying around today, They’re building clones of the Su-27, Su-30, Dauphin, Black Hawk, etc. etc. Heck, even the civilian ARJ-121 borrows elements from the MD-90. So why can’t India use the know-how acquired from an F-16 manufacturing setup to give a boost to domestic aero efforts?

Chinese are hell bent on copying, They will copy even by looking at pictures, if that's the only thing they can get their hands on. Point was the companies are very well keeping in mind that if they give out any significant knowledge, they will end up making competitors too soon. So lets not expect LM to help create their competitor.

Why can't India leverage technology from F16?? Pray tell me, what exact technology that F16, screwdrivergiri is bringing in, that those companies which will make parts for F16 will learn, that they cannot learn from HAL for LCA?? As I said, we are already making LCA from scratch which is fairly advanced aircraft. Arguably HAL is far more willing to give tech know-how and tech know-why to any supplier willing to work on LCA.

Another question - I asked it previously no one answered. So our auto companies have done a lot in last 25 yrs. Why we still don't see one world class IC engine coming out from desi company?? They have huge amount of money. they have motivation, they have huge market, they have manpower, they have manufacturing capacity, they have excellent business case. Still not much on this front. I do not understand this. You are from Auto background it seems. May be you can answer.

Same thing with IT, we have global IT power houses, but I do not see any real technology coming out of our companies, only applications of existing technology. Again they have all the necessary things to make it happen. Why not a single OS, or new programming language or a good CAD software or new cloud architecture or new innovation like Android. Please someone explain this to me. Its been 25yrs of open economy and 15yrs of post-2000 boom period.

I do not want to get into "whose dick is longer" type confrontation. I genuinely wanna understand in what ways F16 will transform our industry than LCA cannot. And I am asking above counter questions because I feel they are connected to the misery we are in today and they are not gonna get resolved so easily in short time.

[Mihir]

While the Chinese are building clones of the Su-27, Su-30, Dauphin, Black Hawk, etc….this is a nation that does not see anything wrong in adopting that approach. They shamelessly copy everything. They have some successes but spectacular failures as well.

Just like the Indian automotive sector that I keep drawing parallels to. So what exactly is the problem here?

HAL cannot adopt the Chinese strategy because of the stringent intellectual property rights that Lockheed Martin will have on the F-16.

Who said anything about HAL? Who said anything about lifting the design wholesale?

You believe that the F-16 manufacturing set up will give a boost to domestic aero efforts. So let me ask you if building 90 F-Solahs in India will give the following;

- GTRE gets technical know-how on redesigning the Kaveri – currently rated to 72 kN – to the 90+ kN that it needs?
- LRDE gets technical know-how on getting the Uttam AESA operational?

Will the LCA give India these things? Last I heard, the engine was going to be the GE-F404/414 and there is little clarity on the radar employed. Perhaps we ought to scrap it as well?

I wish success in setting up an aero industry was dependent on achieving self-reliance in one or two critical subsystems alone, but unfortunately that's far from the truth.

[ShauryaT]

^^ It was the Air Chief who stated that the 90 new phoren fighters will have transfer of technology and final selection would be based on who provides the best ToT. I would like to know what technology is going to be transferred. I asked those questions rhetorically, because I know none of them are coming.

Rakesh ji: You talk old and outdated concepts. This is the USofA. Not Communist states mingling with socialist DPSU's. Just wait and watch the magic of MII of our govt. It will change the "culture" of India. Old thinking has to go!!

[JayS]

**Rant ON**

Going by the past experience, there is a good chance that following this will happen.

For the F16, there will be red carpet spread, suppliers getting sweet deals, lot of assurances, relatively quick approvals, state govts making beelines for attracting them for setting up facilities, its prestigious to make F16 from Amrica, everyone going gaga over it.

For LCA, there will be usual red-tapism everywhere, suppliers do not get much co-operation from govt, usual atmosphere of confusion, MoD seating on HAL proposal/procurement files for small small things, its already 32yr old delayed junk who cares, dissing for every small things, constant comparison with F16 and how LCA is in comparison not 3-legged Cheetah but 2 legged donkey only.

With these two programs running parallel, I can bet today which one will be the loser.

**Rant OFF**

[chola]

The J-10, J-11, JF-17, J-20, Y-20 and L-15 are all rip-offs and all successful (as being in service and serviceable I would imagine.) All undoubtedly have had help from the original creators of their cloning subject.

That is the point. You are imagining it. Do you have access to their serviceability records? In the absence of such, how do you know how effective these aircraft are. At least in India, the MoD releases info on the 55% availability rate of the Rambha. What is the availability rate of any of the above aircraft? If the Russian design is what they copied it from and Russian engines are notorious for being unreliable, how effective do you think a cloned copy is going to be?

[JayS]

It is becoming clear to me that the chinis were able to extract aquiescent if not outright help on their clones. So if they can negotiate this kind of agreement so can we.

In Doval's words, China's Comprehensive National Power is 3 times that of ours. We are not in a situation, geo-politically speaking, that we can demand such terms, even if we become as assertive and hyper-nationalist as they are.

What can we give to Russia in return of "right to copy"? Can we provide them economic security, which is what they need the most today?? Despite doling out such large orders to them, we barely can stop them from selling stuff to pakistan.

Lets first talk of keeping what we have already made. We will talk of copying TFTA maal from elsewhere later.

[sudeepj]

Last post from me on this.

The people who run the IAF envisage it as a mix of heavy-medium-light weight aircraft, each aircraft multirole and cutting edge in its own category. There is room for 250 aircraft in each category. The heavy category is taken by Sukhois today, possibly the FGFA later on. The light category is taken up by the LCA. We have a gaping hole in the medium weight category planes that can hit beyond the range of the LCA and have greater endurance. This hole is going to get worse in the next 5 years as the Mig27s retire.

The LCA simply can not achieve the ranges that an F16IN with CFTs can. In addition, in a pure fighter configuration, if the CFTs are removed it has the performance and the weapons to fight almost any fighter.

If anything, the F16s are defeating the rafales, not the LCA.

[brar_w]

Last post from me on this.

The people who run the IAF envisage it as a mix of heavy-medium-light weight aircraft, each aircraft multirole and cutting edge in its own category. There is room for 250 aircraft in each category. The heavy category is taken by Sukhois today, possibly the FGFA later on. The light category is taken up by the LCA. We have a gaping hole in the medium weight category planes that can hit beyond the range of the LCA and have greater endurance. This hole is going to get worse in the next 5 years as the Mig27s retire.

The LCA simply can not achieve the ranges that an F16IN with CFTs can. In addition, in a pure fighter configuration, if the CFTs are removed it has the performance and the weapons to fight almost any fighter.

If anything, the F16s are defeating the rafales, not the LCA.

There is plenty of ways around that. Say you have a 90 MRCA shortfall, can you at a cheaper rate get say 40 interim heavy aircraft along with 30 light aircraft and cover that shortfall and assume the risk that still remains? Each and every air-force in the world assumes risk in certain mission areas. Even the best funded USAF assumes plenty of risks across the mission areas at any given time. Straight of the bat there is a 250 aircraft F-22 shortage that will go unfilled for another 15 or so years. No one here is trying to argue that buying 150 LCA's will somehow compensate for 90 F-16's across the entire mission spectrum. What folks here are arguing is that when you have finite resources and plenty of unfunded mission areas you need to think smart.

Even the largest programs have what is at times referred to as a requirements-trade*, i.e. you actually trade specification/requirements/performance in favor of cost. You look at the 80% solution if that means you can get more aircraft or buy them more affordably. Similarly, instead of creating yet another foreign aircraft supply chain can you look to meet those needs through some other creative way, utilizing the footprint and exposure that you currently have? This is where the LCA can play a major role especially when you can hedge for the MK2 and AMCA development risks by simply buying interim Su-30's and assume the higher O&S cost associated with a heavy in the interest of long term self reliance. You won't get a perfect mix of aircraft but operating half a dozen foreign types is also far from perfect.

The MRCA and subsequently the Rafale deal failed to trade capability for cost..the IAF chose (and rightly so) the best performer, but no one at the MOD/acquisition community level properly accounted for a cost v value analysis where cheaper aircraft like the M2k, Gripen E or indeed the F-16 would have made some sense since it would probably mean you could have gotten more of them. So the situation is that you cannot afford 120 rafales, however that is no excuse for making yet another mistake by introducing yet another type in the inventory at a time when the LCA MK1 is in service, and MK2 which crosses into the light-medium category is in development. Similarly, a decade from now you could have a true medium class prototype (AMCA) in the air. Its all good to say that these programs won't be affected however they most certainly will if you keep buying 50 rafales, 90 F-16's etc.

*Keep in mind that the 250 : 250 : 250 split you mention is also part of a trade analysis because if cost/money was of no concern all you'd want is 750 of the highest performing aircraft (speed, range, performance, weapons) on the planet.

[Manish_Sharma]

Rafale and F-35 are 'Pagani' level of cars, which no Bharatiya Car Manufacturer is able to make. But ADA has done that miracle they have created our own 'Pagani' level of car that is Tejas. We have to mass produce it now and we will be able to sell it to arabs, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and even Myamar too.

See how in Bahrain Tejas impressed the hell out of Arabs, while cheeni porki put their tail between legs and shamefully escaped from the show with their bundaar.

See how the moment we ordered 36 Rafales two Arab Nations also placed orders. Bharat has great respect those nations will buy from us.

Just like Indira Gandhi took the gutsy decision to create "The Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP)" and changed our missile capabilities forever. TODAY MODI GOVT. HAS TO TAKE THIS GUTSY DECISION AND MASS-PRODUCTIONISE TEJAS TO CHANGE THE AVIATION DESTINY OF BHARATVARSH.

If Sarmat and Satan OR Trident-2 were available for sale who would have gone for Agni & Shourya missiles?

Arjun is 45% imported 'cause orders are piddly 248 while tincan =1600 ordered. If more Arjun are ordered, like 1600 then many more parts and %age will become indigenous. Same with Tejas order 450 Mk. 1 and 90 twin seaters = 540 then go for 450 Mark 2 and 90 twin seaters. Try and keep them at 75% serviceablity so there is a constant order for more parts, that means more business for the suppliers. As these suppliers prosper they'll be ready for AMCA and UCAVs too.

There was a conference from India Today??? of the retired air force pilots with likes of Air Marshal Barbora and Admiral Arun Prakash, also attended by likes of matheswaran and Bahadur types. One thing they talked about was how Vayu Sena is becoming top heavy with MKI & they found that Eurofighter had a flying expense of 1 lakh dollar per hour compared to 12000 of Grippen iirc. A sikh gentlemen says "if we had bought eurofighter the pilots would be practicing mostly on the simulater".

"Where would the money come from?" With expensive heavy MKIs (fuel expensewise).
They talked about how replacing Mig 27 and Mig 21 with Rafale would break the budget.

Imagine when FGFA also starts coming in how much expensive it would become to run the air force.

Best solution is to keep producing Tejas till 2040 in huge numbers. There will be a war and attrition too and to replace those aircraft we need 2 fast running lines of Tejas.

The thing is Tejas can replace all 4 types Mig 21, 27, Jaguar & Mirage. While later on AMCA CAN REPLACE Mig 29 & MKIs (partly).

Imagine a two front war happens in next decade and we lose a big number of jets, if we have 2 or 3 lines of Tejas running then they'll be quickly replaced, else again we'll be paying through nose to buy expensive foreign jets.

MMRCA started with 6 billion figure when first time I read about it and now its a 50 billion dollar game. Imagine in 2026 we have a two front war and after that we need to order 10 - 12 squadrons immediately.

4.) Shiv ji has mentioned that a certain part of aviation grade alloys are coming from french firm with limited capacity as they have orders from all over.

I believe if French are doing it, then Germans can also do it, just like there was a news about Bharat buying "Seeker Tech" from Israel for 50,000 crore as it will help us on many platforms missiles, tanks, jets we are ready to pay for it.

This problem will be again enough front of us at the time of manufacturing AMCA, HAL/NAL Regional Transport Aircraft, helicopters etc. So why not pay through our nose and buy it.

Lets say if order for LCA Mk1 is given replacing all the 450 Mig 21 and mig 27, then as each jet goes through 3 engines in its life that will make the need for 1350 GE F-404 engines. We give them order of 200 straightaway and rest 1150 manufactured here with a deal of GE / US govt. setting up Aviation Grade Alloys plant here with TASL etc.

PROBLEMS AREN'T GETTING SOLVED DUE TO SMALL NUMBERS, ONCE WE UP THE NUMBERS MANY THINGS WILL FALL IN PLACE.

German-Swiss giant Ruag had offered HAL in joint manufacturing of Tejas, but HAL didn't even bother replying.

If we set a big target till 2030 of manufacturing Tejas in replacing Jaguar, Mig 21 & Mig 27 in next 15+ years it is doable.

Second line could be Ruag + TASL + Kalyani + L&T churning out 32 Tejas yearly.

Then even if we have to pay British company to set up plant here for Tejas Radar nosecones WE CAN due to numbers.

All these Composites, Seekers, Alloys, Cobham Quartz tech will be needed again for AMCA, Tejas Mk 2 & even FGFA (If it improves radar range why not). It all can come and buying these can be justified with ONLY ONE CONDITION MORE ORDERS FOR TEJAS NOW.

Even now money is finishing with paying the salaries of the forces and other expenses, now. With mostly cheap Mig 21 and 27s. Imagine the fuel bills when we have full 272 MKIs at 75% availability and FGFAs these will consume lot of budget. So best bet is to go for huge number of Tejas with fuel sipper F-404 engines.

Otherwise close down these Tejas, AMCA, Arjun

I pray to you all Tejas supporters to write a letter to PMO, Parrikar & Amit Shah explaining the enormity of this issue.

[sudeepj]

Last post from me on this.

The people who run the IAF envisage it as a mix of heavy-medium-light weight aircraft, each aircraft multirole and cutting edge in its own category. There is room for 250 aircraft in each category. The heavy category is taken by Sukhois today, possibly the FGFA later on. The light category is taken up by the LCA. We have a gaping hole in the medium weight category planes that can hit beyond the range of the LCA and have greater endurance. This hole is going to get worse in the next 5 years as the Mig27s retire.

The LCA simply can not achieve the ranges that an F16IN with CFTs can. In addition, in a pure fighter configuration, if the CFTs are removed it has the performance and the weapons to fight almost any fighter.

If anything, the F16s are defeating the rafales, not the LCA.

There is plenty of ways around that. Say you have a 90 MRCA shortfall, can you at a cheaper rate get say 40 interim heavy aircraft along with 30 light aircraft and cover that shortfall and assume the risk that still remains? Each and every air-force in the world assumes risk in certain mission areas. Even the best funded USAF assumes plenty of risks across the mission areas at any given time. Straight of the bat there is a 250 aircraft F-22 shortage that will go unfilled for another 15 or so years. No one here is trying to argue that buying 150 LCA's will somehow compensate for 90 F-16's across the entire mission spectrum. What folks here are arguing is that when you have finite resources and plenty of unfunded mission areas you need to think smart. ...

The MRCA and subsequently the Rafale deal failed to trade capability for cost..the IAF chose (and rightly so) the best performer, but no one at the MOD/acquisition community level properly accounted for a cost v value analysis where cheaper aircraft like the M2k, Gripen E or indeed the F-16 would have made some sense since...

*Keep in mind that the 250 : 250 : 250 split you mention is also part of a trade analysis because if cost/money was of no concern all you'd want is 750 of the highest performing aircraft (speed, range, performance, weapons) on the planet.

The IAF has surely considered a split between the Su and the LCA.. Splitting the difference is easy and Indian politicians and defense forces do it often when faced with difficult choices.

I am speculating here, but I think the issue might not be with the aircrafts themselves, but the sensor suite and the weapons available for them. Our own Astra is inducted, but unproven. Russian BVR capabilities are suspect and even more so because Russia is increasingly allied with the Chinese. Both the LCA and the Su30 can not match the sensor chain and the weapons suite that is available on the F16. Rafale is equal or better, but at a much higher price point. We can not integrate American or French weapons on the LCA because they are simply not available. This may be the reason why the IAF is interested in F16s.

[brar_w]

The IAF has surely considered a split between the Su and the LCA.. Splitting the difference is easy and Indian politicians and defense forces do it often when faced with difficult choices.

A few months ago, we were all discussing about how there wasn't a plan B, and not there is and apparently it involves buying either the Gripen or the F-16. Prior to that everyone thought that 126 Rafale's with TOT and licensed production would come in at $12 Billion and apparently that was what along with the performance allowed Dassault to win that competition. Is anything of that sort materializing? NO.

Reality is that the IAF gets 36 Rafales without TOT or domestic production for $ 8-9 Billion along with support and weapons and perhaps once everything is settled they'll get a couple of dozen more for another 3 or so Billion USD. Bottom line is that things change especially when you go into the weeds of negotiating for deals the likes of which very few if any have ever been struck. The same is the and will be the case for the F-16 and Gripen. On the former you are thinking about moving the entire production line to India, and assuming the reports are correct, some suppliers will also be selected amongst indian manufacturers and components manufactured in India.

The way it is being passed on as is that soon the world including the US will be buying their F-16 components from a common pool of spares some if not most of which will be made in India. On the latter the OEM is promising yet another production line which would make it what the 3rd in three continents along with the sale of a prototype radar that for the LCA.

I am speculating here, but I think the issue might not be with the aircrafts themselves, but the sensor suite and the weapons available for them.

If that is the case then the solution is acquiring sensors and mission systems. What exactly stops the IAF and the MOD from buying these? The IAF is already wanting Israeli AESA for the LCA and you could also expand it to cover other mission systems.

Our own Astra is inducted, but unproven.

If the problem is with weapons, whats stopping them asking the AMRAAM, MICA, ASRAAM, or Meteor from being integrated on to the LCA at a future date?

Both the LCA and the Su30 can not match the sensor chain and the weapons suite that is available on the F16.

The MKI has a huge diameter radar, PESA or AESA you are trying to compare apples to oranges here. You aren't going to drive the performance from a SABR or RACR to match what the PESA on the MKI will get you and that is a simple fact. Aperture size, power matter and larger aircraft provide that. Look at the F-35, it does not make the same mistake the F-16 does (which it gets from its LWF legacy)...It sports a 1500 T/R element AESA instead of a 1000-1200 AESA that is possible on the F-16 family. The NG or Raytheon radars will come with excellent Electronic protection and multiple modes but again you won't be hunting down J-20's with those. At best the AESA bumps will allow you to draw maximum capability out of the AMRAAM-D.

We can not integrate American or French weapons on the LCA because they are simply not available.

Says who?

This may be the reason why the IAF is interested in F16s.

That is mere speculation. The IAF always wanted 126 western Medium class fighters. This is fine because services and the operator communities always demand what they deem as the best fit. That is why most have an acquisition layer on top of that to make sure the national defense capability acquired is balanced when compared to the monetary and strategic cost paid.

In this case the 126 Rafale's would have been cost-prohibitive..but acquiring yet another MRCA even more so given that you have essentially invalidated the original analysis that led to the MRCA down-select deeming the entire process as deeply flawed - since you could never afford to buy the aircraft you yourself selected within even a moderately affordable budget even w/o the TOT and domestic production that you thought would come within that price point. Keep in mind that the IAF rafale price paid is going neck and neck with USAF F-35 price paid - and the latter has many many times the budget of the former. That is clearly not sustainable and the only long term way of reversing that curve is to develop the Light combat aircraft, and then make a light-medium aircraft (MK2) out if it and fielding a new medium class aircraft (AMCA) as soon as possible. Any deviation from that does actually hurt the overall national defense capability in the long-term.

If that was a flawed line of thinking, and we now know that it most certainly was then its best not to embark on yet another one that gets you two different types with totally different weapons and mission systems.

[Rakesh]

Just like the Indian automotive sector that I keep drawing parallels to. So what exactly is the problem here?

What boost to domestic aero efforts do you see? Can you provide some specific examples?

Who said anything about HAL? Who said anything about lifting the design wholesale?

I am asking you again, what boost to domestic aero efforts do you see? Can you provide some specific examples? You are confusing production transfer (which is going to happen) with intellectual transfer (which will NEVER happen). The latter is what the top brass in the IAF is pushing to the media - under the guise of technology transfer - which in turn is parroting it to the Indian public who are largely unaware of the difference. They spoke about tech transfer during the 90s as well, when they were negotiating the Su-30 production. We can now see - 20 years later - what Russia meant by tech transfer. For the Super Sukhoi upgrade, the MoD had to negotiate with Russia. So much for tech transfer.

Will the LCA give India these things?

The Tejas has taught India a LOT. Many of them very humbling - but important - lessons. None of which would have occurred had we gone down the path of import. No one, not even India's all weather friend - Russia - would have done this. The Tejas turned out quite well considering the meagre resources that was thrown at it due to a lack of strategic vision. I am sure you remember the cryogenic engine episode in the early 90s. For anyone who wants a refresh, please click on the link below.

How India’s cryogenic programme was wrecked
https://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/12/04/ho ... cked_31365

Had Amerika not done the above, India would not have developed her own cryogenic rocket engines. Although I must state...my knowledge on those engines are limited to the spelling, the pronunciation and what they are used for. I have no idea how good or bad they are. There are others on this forum who can answer that quite well. My point is that these cryogenic engines are free to be used in any manner that India wishes. There is no one to stop us from using them or no one to stop us from further developing them. Similarly, how would we know that we could build a jet better than the Mirage 2000 (words from IAF test pilots), if no attempt was made in the first place? Thus in the same manner, how can India know what her production capability is, if no attempt is made? This phoren 90 aircraft order is designed to extinguish that know.

Folks talk about geopolitics being changed and thus sanctions are not a valid argument any longer. Let me remind everyone that nothing has changed. Back in the 90s (and prior), India was stymied by sanctions from international governments (mainly the US). India was stymied by denial of technology from governments (again mainly the US). Now in the 21st century, India is STILL being stymied but through the use of corporations, companies and organizations. The actor has changed faces, but the play is still the SAME. The goal is still the SAME. This is denial of advancement. If one strategy does not work, then try another. If that fails, try another. But keep on stalling. Because the longer you stall, the longer India stays away from her goal of self-reliance. With regards to the Tejas specifically. First the naysayers complained that the Tejas will never fly (I remember those times, I am sure you do as well!). Once it flew, they complained it was not good enough. The IAF top brass and presstitutes came up with every excuse in the book to shoot it down. Many of those excuses existed with the phoren aircraft that the IAF flew, but they never complained about them because they were phoren. Finally at the fag end of trials and tests, the top brass (and retired Air Marshals) at the IAF are now stating that the Mk 1 has serious deficiencies (where were they these past 15 years?), only 120 Mk.1As will be inducted and that too hesitatingly (because the Govt is shoving it down our throats) and that they have no interest in the Mk 2.

Folks are also saying the situation is changed now. The US has turned over a new leaf. All of a sudden, the US loves India. US-India Bhai Bhai. However evidence states otherwise. Please see below.

An India-US Tussle Over Technology Transfer - From June 2015
http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/an-india ... -transfer/

In addition, working groups were announced to explore cooperation on jet engine technology and aircraft carrier design. Both areas are of immense importance to India but according to reports in the Indian media, the U.S. is reluctant to part with the latest jet engine technology, which New Delhi wants. India’s Defense Research and Development Organization wants to partner with GE on the latest F-414 engine for the future Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. So far the U.S. side has been reluctant despite the scope of future engine deals which may leave India no choice but to consider an international tender, according to Ajai Shukla, a prominent defense analyst. U.S. analysts agree that Washington is unlikely to part with cutting-edge technology because that’s what gives its defense industry an edge.

Five Months Later...This is the story...

U.S. updates jet-engine technology transfer policy with India - From Dec 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-i ... 1920151211

"As a result of this policy update, the Secretary is confident that the United States will be able to expand cooperation in production and design of jet-engine components," the joint statement said.

India knows the design and the production. What we do NOT know is the metallurgy involved or the processes needed to get to that design and production. That as you can see is NOT being provided. And thus it is NOT technology transfer. It is transfer of production. But see the title of the article and you will see where the disconnect is. Don't get me wrong. America is NOT the great Satan that terrorists claim it to be. America is only looking out for its own interests. And honestly I have no problem with that. Every country - including Russia - will do the same with India. We need to look at our interests because India comes first...just as for America...America comes first. Take a look at the recent news about France offering to invest $1.2 billion to revive the Kaveri. France - in this case Snecma - is not about to open her jewel chest and show GTRE all the bells & whistles.

France offers EUR 1 billion to revive India's combat jet engine project
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 036894.cms

What Snecma is going to do is take the Kaveri and fix it. They will get it up and running albeit behind closed doors. Once the engine has reached the required performance that the Tejas needs, GTRE will be called back. Snecma will offer a detailed overview of what was done, with blueprints of all the components added or replaced to get the engine up & running to the requested performance parameters. Snecma will offer to manufacture these components but they will never tell GTRE how these components are made or why they made them in the first place. But I would rather adopt this approach, than go with the F-Solah, the F404 or the F414 engine. I am sorry, while I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future...America's past behaviour towards India has not been rosy. And if the past is any indication of the future, then the future does not look too rosy either. This new bonhomie that America has towards India is because of a common enemy - China. That's it. This is pure geopolitics.

I wish success in setting up an aero industry was dependent on achieving self-reliance in one or two critical subsystems alone, but unfortunately that's far from the truth.

I am happy that you finally realized that. Because development of the Tejas has made India realise that self-reliance is requested in a number of areas, not just in one or two. But part & parcel of that self reliance is learning that an attitude of permanent importing of phoren maal is detrimental to achieving self reliance. At some point, you are going to have to learn to fly. The bird has to leave the nest at some point.

[shiv]

I have a conspiracy theory. The RFI is to make Aero India a success.

This single engine fighter request will make aero India 2017 the best since 2003-2005 when we had F-15, F-16, Gripen, EF, Rafale, C-17, Beriev, Hawk, Su-30, Mig 35, F/A 18, LCA, IJT, Dhruv, C-130, Chinook.

Maybe this time we will have F-16, Gripen, Rafale (certain), Shin Maywa, LCA, LCH, F-35??, C-17, C-130, Chinook, Apache, PAKFA????, HTT 40?, Su-30, new Suryakiran

[sudeepj]

I have a conspiracy theory. The RFI is to make Aero India a success.

This single engine fighter request will make aero India 2017 the best since 2003-2005 when we had F-15, F-16, Gripen, EF, Rafale, C-17, Beriev, Hawk, Su-30, Mig 35, F/A 18, LCA, IJT, Dhruv, C-130, Chinook.

Maybe this time we will have F-16, Gripen, Rafale (certain), Shin Maywa, LCA, LCH, F-35??, C-17, C-130, Chinook, Apache, PAKFA????, HTT 40?, Su-30, new Suryakiran

[Chinmay]

I have a conspiracy theory. The RFI is to make Aero India a success.

This single engine fighter request will make aero India 2017 the best since 2003-2005 when we had F-15, F-16, Gripen, EF, Rafale, C-17, Beriev, Hawk, Su-30, Mig 35, F/A 18, LCA, IJT, Dhruv, C-130, Chinook.

Maybe this time we will have F-16, Gripen, Rafale (certain), Shin Maywa, LCA, LCH, F-35??, C-17, C-130, Chinook, Apache, PAKFA????, HTT 40?, Su-30, new Suryakiran

[Rakesh]

Rakesh ji: You talk old and outdated concepts. This is the USofA. Not Communist states mingling with socialist DPSU's. Just wait and watch the magic of MII of our govt. It will change the "culture" of India. Old thinking has to go!!

Since you have the inside track of the magic of MII, why don't you explain it? I am impatient

[Rakesh]

The J-10, J-11, JF-17, J-20, Y-20 and L-15 are all rip-offs and all successful (as being in service and serviceable I would imagine.) All undoubtedly have had help from the original creators of their cloning subject.

That is the point. You are imagining it. Do you have access to their serviceability records? In the absence of such, how do you know how effective these aircraft are? At least in India, the MoD releases info on the 55% availability rate of the Rambha. What is the availability rate of any of the above aircraft? If the Russian design is what they copied it from and Russian engines are notorious for being unreliable, how effective do you think a cloned copy is going to be?

At least from the Pakistanis we know that Chinese aircraft are not what their glossy brochures claim to be. The Pak Air Force has not had a fairy-tale episode with their Chinese aircraft.

[Bart S]

I have a conspiracy theory. The RFI is to make Aero India a success.

This single engine fighter request will make aero India 2017 the best since 2003-2005 when we had F-15, F-16, Gripen, EF, Rafale, C-17, Beriev, Hawk, Su-30, Mig 35, F/A 18, LCA, IJT, Dhruv, C-130, Chinook.

Maybe this time we will have F-16, Gripen, Rafale (certain), Shin Maywa, LCA, LCH, F-35??, C-17, C-130, Chinook, Apache, PAKFA????, HTT 40?, Su-30, new Suryakiran

And with our aircraft acquisition patterns, the OEM will not even have to fly these down to India...there will be a handful of samples of each available with our forces that can be used for static and flying displays.

[Mihir]

What boost to domestic aero efforts do you see? Can you provide some specific examples?

I've given enough examples in my previous posts. If you want a detailed BOM broken down to the last part, I'm afraid I cannot help

You are confusing production transfer (which is going to happen) with intellectual transfer (which will NEVER happen).

I'm saying knowledge doesn't have to be handed over by LM on a platter in order for the transfer to happen.

They spoke about tech transfer during the 90s as well, when they were negotiating the Su-30 production. We can now see - 20 years later - what Russia meant by tech transfer. For the Super Sukhoi upgrade, the MoD had to negotiate with Russia. So much for tech transfer.

I have elaborated on this in my earlier posts.

The Tejas has taught India a LOT. Many of them very humbling - but important - lessons. None of which would have occurred had we gone down the path of import.

Preaching to the choir, sir! I wrote an article about it a year ago that was pretty well received, on BRF and elsewhere.

And yet, going by the same yardstick you use for the F-16, the Tejas has not equipped India with a working jet engine or a fighter radar. Even the Mk-II, which Dr. Christopher says will take until 2024 or 2025 to be ready, won't. It will be powered by the GE F414 and maybe, just maybe, sport an Indian MMR in its later tranches. By that logic, it too should be dropped.

I wish success in setting up an aero industry was dependent on achieving self-reliance in one or two critical subsystems alone, but unfortunately that's far from the truth.
I am happy that you finally realized that.

Wat.

It was me making that argument to you. There isn't anything for me to "realise" by reading my own post.

JaiS, I have said my piece and have nothing more to add. But my hat tip to you, sir, for typing out those detailed posts. Was a pleasure to read, as always, even though we disagree.

[Kashi]

And yet, going by the same yardstick you use for the F-16, the Tejas has not equipped India with a working jet engine or a fighter radar.

But then neither will transfer of F-16 production to India, just like that transfer of Cryos in 1993 without the critical tech did not equip us with a working cryo engine. We got our own only last year.

Unless we are able to reverse engineer the components, how do we get a working engine and radar out of the proposed F-16 line? If we have not done it so far for the stuff in our current inventory, how and why would we do it for F-16?

[chola]

It is becoming clear to me that the chinis were able to extract aquiescent if not outright help on their clones. So if they can negotiate this kind of agreement so can we.

In Doval's words, China's Comprehensive National Power is 3 times that of ours. We are not in a situation, geo-politically speaking, that we can demand such terms, even if we become as assertive and hyper-nationalist as they are.

Yes we are in the correct geo-political position to demand such terms from the US. India is a centerpiece of their cordon of China.

We CAN demand acquiescence of Make-in-India F-solah in the same way the PRC did of Russia for the Su-27. Except in our case we'll get a world class system while China got russian crap.

What can we give to Russia in return of "right to copy"? Can we provide them economic security, which is what they need the most today??

We should not give russkies chit. As I said, the one thing that will salvage this blow to the LCA for me is the F-16 will get us on the road to going off Russian crap once and for all.

[Kashi]

F-16 will get us on the road to going off Russian crap once and for all.

..and onto American crap.

If anything, there should be absolutely no compromise on LCA...none whatsoever, else we'll be caught in a vicious cycle of shuttling from crap to crap.

[Philip]

"Russian crap".What a magnificent sweeping statement.It beggars disbelief. Real crap is what the US sold to the Pakis.F-104 Starfighters,Patton tanks,etc.Despite the massive billions in arms sold/gifted to the Pakis for over 50 years,they've never been able to defeat India which had predominantly Russian/Soviet arms,considered inferior to Western wares.But history has proven otherwise as to where "crap" came from!

Crap like BMos,Akulas,VikA,MIG-29s,Klubs,Kilos,N-sub tech,etc? Well,the MOD and Indian armed forces do not seem to think so.In the latest round of Indo-Russian defence talks between the two Def Mins,has reported today that defence ties will be "expanded",especially for the IN. It doesn't look like they were talking about "crap" to me!

[chola]

The J-10, J-11, JF-17, J-20, Y-20 and L-15 are all rip-offs and all successful (as being in service and serviceable I would imagine.) All undoubtedly have had help from the original creators of their cloning subject.

That is the point. You are imagining it. Do you have access to their serviceability records? In the absence of such, how do you know how effective these aircraft are? At least in India, the MoD releases info on the 55% availability rate of the Rambha. What is the availability rate of any of the above aircraft? If the Russian design is what they copied it from and Russian engines are notorious for being unreliable, how effective do you think a cloned copy is going to be?

At least from the Pakistanis we know that Chinese aircraft are not what their glossy brochures claim to be. The Pak Air Force has not had a fairy-tale episode with their Chinese aircraft.

No, the point is NOT that the chini clones are actually any good. We know they are not since their fixed wings are all russian in origin. The pakis love their ancient F-16 A/B more than their brand new Blunders.

But guess where the majority of the IAF's firepower resides? In Russian crap, including the MKI, that are unreliable and in all likelihood already had their specs and secrets sold off by the russians to the chinis as a package deal.

No, the point is that they followed a process of demanding acqiescence of their cloning from Sukhoi, MiG and Eurocopter. We CAN do the same with the F-16.

Again, 120 F-16 for the IAF will dominate in Asia and that includes the PRC. F-16 with AMRAAM versus Russian clones? Are you kidding me? It would not be close.

Now, imagine if we parlay our strategic position where gain control of the F-solah like the chinis did with the Flanker? Endless supplies of this world-class platform with whatever variations we want.

[chola]

"Russian crap".What a magnificent sweeping statement.It beggars disbelief. Real crap is what the US sold to the Pakis.F-104 Starfighters,Patton tanks,etc.Despite the massive billions in arms sold/gifted to the Pakis for over 50 years,they've never been able to defeat India which had predominantly Russian/Soviet arms,considered inferior to Western wares.But history has proven otherwise as to where "crap" came from!

You are projecting Paki incompetence onto their weapons. The pakis were never going to defeat Bharat no matter what they use. The weight of India was always too much for them.

Now look at Israel versus the hordes of arabs armed with Russian chit. The results were not even close. Now imagine the Israelis armed with Russian and the Arabs with American? Israel would not exist, even factoring in the incompetence of the muzzies.

Crap like BMos,Akulas,VikA,MIG-29s,Klubs,Kilos,N-sub tech,etc?

Phillipji, I like reading your posts and much respect for your opinion.

But I can positively say they are absolutely and irrevocably russian CRAP.

Save possibly for Brahmos, there is NO comparison between those on your list and their US/Western equivalents. The MiG-29 vs F-16, the Akula vs the Los Angeles class, the VikA vs the Forrestal/Nimitz/Ford? Are we kidding???

Well,the MOD and Indian armed forces do not seem to think so.

Yes, again I hope a F-16 deal will forever change this.

Right now, if we ever fight the PRC, it will be our russian chit versus their russian chit and they will have more of it.

[Pratyush]

When people on BRF can fall for the charms of an imported design. What can we say off the MOD, who are constantly bombarded with Natasha's and her sisters from all over the world.

[Zynda]

Endless supplies of this world-class platform with whatever variations we want.

Please explain on how we can have endless supplies of the world-class platform in whatever variations? My interpretation is there will be 120 single-engine fighters which will be assembled/manf in India and that's it.

To me it seems like what you are suggesting is, reverse engineering F-16 right from the scratch...that can be done with structures to an extent. I have no clue on how much reverse engineering can be done wrt avionics, but I am sure stuff like Radar algos, ECM algos etc probably won't be made available to us by LM. Same case with the engine. I am highly skeptical of LM/Gripen or any other OEM providing the degree of tech transfer that needs for the above to be accomplished. I hope the tender clauses include provisions for integrating our desi weapons on to F-16/Gripen platform. Perhaps there will be provisions for inclusion of some desi ECM, IFF kits.

The rest of the ideal expectations from the tender to Indian aerospace MIC is beautifully explained by JayS and others in this thread. Won't go in to it again...

[JayS]

Again, 120 F-16 for the IAF will dominate in Asia and that includes the PRC. F-16 with AMRAAM versus Russian clones? Are you kidding me? It would not be close.

Err...you are forgetting Chinese are also copying TFTA American maal - They have a significant information gotten from espionage from B2/F22/F35 programs.

I will make things easier for you. Leave "Russian CRAP" (I mean seriously?? ) aside, which one will dominate Asia in next few decades, tell me, copies of F16 or copies of F22/F35?? You tell me, I don't know $hit about F16/F22/F35.

Even if one decides to take your hyperbole of "endless supplies" of F16 seriously, do you really think India can produce more nos of jets as compared to China??

Hint - this is what Americans are saying:
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/05/u-s-pi ... -f-22-f-35

“I think they’ll eventually be on par with our fifth gen jets — as they should be, because industrial espionage is alive and well.”

The senior U.S. pilot familiar with the F-35 — who has extensive experience flying the Lockheed Martin F-16 Falcon — told USNI News the Chinese jet is now likely more than match for existing fourth generation non stealth American fighters like the Air Force Falcons, Boeing F-15 Eagles and the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

For Americans, India is the same with respect to China, as what Pak was with respect to India - a Pawn. Do we want to be one?? I don't want my country to be one. I want India to be a Player not a Pawn. And you become a player by manufacturing your own weapons, not on borrowed ones.

[Manish_Sharma]

In Russian crap, including the MKI, that are unreliable and in all likelihood already had their specs and secrets sold off by the russians to the chinis as a package deal.

And US kept all the secrets of f-16 safe from porkis all these years?

[JayS]

In Russian crap, including the MKI, that are unreliable and in all likelihood already had their specs and secrets sold off by the russians to the chinis as a package deal.

And US kept all the secrets of f-16 safe from porkis all these years?

Applying same lahori logic, we can also conclude, looking at J31, that Americans have given away stealth secrets and F35 blueprints to Chinis.

YOu know folks what really happening?? Americans are actually empowering China to defeat both Russia and India in a single masterstroke. Not only they are giving 5th Gen stealth secrets to Chinis, they are also keeping India from even developing 4th Gen LCA by offering F16 and trying to kill LCA. Now who exactly US is helping, India or China...??

[Manish_Sharma]

^