LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Jan 2014 19:12

^^oh no.... not again.

Sir ji... Fires we're just doused by admins, why restart it? I really love this dhaaga and hate to see it go up in flames.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jan 2014 19:26

Look,the point I'm making is that we're limiting ourselves to just an engine or two for the LCA,AMCA whatever,specific programmes without setting up a holistic,comprehensive R&D establishment that will in the future be able to design,develop and deliver any kind of engine for aircraft or helos,just as we are self-sufficient in rocketry.Secondly,unlike China which reverse-engineered the various Russian engines illegally,we have been straight-jacketed mentally as far as aero-engines are concerned.Even our space programme started from scratch with the launching at Thumba of sounding rockets.In comparison to the aero-engine development,just look how far we've come with space,sending a mission to Mars and mastering BM tech with the AGNI series of N-tipped missiles!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jan 2014 19:31

K Mehta wrote:what is the orange thingie on the gun port in 2nd and 7th calendar pic? also visible in last 2 pre ioc pics? have they started integrating the gun?

Camera harness. They seem to be orange in color.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 11 Jan 2014 20:44

Flight update

2469th flight on 07 Jan
PV3: 381, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 290, LSP3: 183, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 246, LSP7: 77, LSP8 : 62
NP1: 8

2470th flight on 09 Jan
PV3: 381, PV5: 36
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 290, LSP3: 183, LSP4: 110, LSP5: 246, LSP7: 77, LSP8 : 62
NP1: 9

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 22:09

Maitya,

Please ignore the asinine rants about how incompetent GTRE et al are (you know it results in more egocentric bloviation when you attempt to counter it). Can you point out whether a collaboration with MTU & other independent designers/manufacturer consortiums is possible? Snecma seems out (a deal could not be agreed on after so many days). The Russians are also not #1 because despite their political plus points, the AL55I case shows how unreliable they can be from time to time, besides which all their tier 1 resources are already on AL31 derivatives & the PAKFA engine programs.

The only approach available seems to be the go it alone but with multiple partners sort of thing. Not ideal, but perhaps, if only we can coordinate things, might get us better tech & knowledge versus taking somebody else's design for local assembly.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 11 Jan 2014 22:16

On the LCA weight optimization,

if they move to AESA probably they get to remove the gimbal assembly made of metal
the mission computers can be ported to SoC based hardware
they are already standardizing on hardpoint control units
they could move to Ti based actuators even if it pushes the price

On the Naval LCA they are adding a centerline bulk head to support the landing gear, that bulkhead probably helps with mounting 2 engines as well, the fcs in the pitch axis may have to be worked a bit more. They did manage asymmetric loads in the roll axis. The endurance might take a hit but look at the handling of a Mig-29 or a Rafale, maybe they will move to conformal tanks and give it endurance as good as a Mig-29

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Jan 2014 22:17

We should tap the Brazilians now, a co-developed engine family would be a huge win-win for both.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 12 Jan 2014 05:09

Brazilians only have experience in designing and producing airframes but they do not have any indigineous engine program. They rely on American or European engines to fly their planes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2014 06:51

We have banged our heads billion times to convey that we throw money and countries fall in line to provide technology is not going to happen. Still, we are madly, blindly in love with firang participation. Countries like Israel too are bound by IP rights and laws of their land to provide help. Even Russia will not help but might provide facilities or screw driver kits only. The sukhoi 30 again all Indian effort on a Russian platform.

So..pl wake up from this wishful thinking about joint r&d business

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jan 2014 10:01

HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

The Tejas Mark I will be one of the world's most affordable fighters in its class. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has quoted a price of Rs 162 crore per aircraft for the first 20 Tejas fighters that have begun production in Bangalore. That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter.

This is a fraction of the cost of the comparable Mirage-2000, which was bought relatively cheaply in the 1980s, but is currently being upgraded for Rs 280 crore ($45 million) per fighter. On December 19, 2011, Defence Minister A K Antony had told Parliament that Thales would get Euro 1.4 billion (Rs 11,830 crore today) for upgrading the Indian Air Force (IAF) fleet of 49 Mirage-2000 fighters, while HAL would get Rs 2,020 crore, i.e., a total of Rs 13,850 crore. Since the upgrade will only be completed by 2021, that cost would rise further if the rupee falls.

Antony also told Parliament the IAF's fleet of 69 MiG-29 fighters was being upgraded for $964 million, that is about Rs 87 crore per fighter, over and above the acquisition cost.

The Sukhoi-30MKI, a heavier and, therefore, more expensive fighter that HAL builds in Nashik, currently costs the IAF more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. The Rafale medium multi-role fighter, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, could cost between Rs 750 crore and Rs 850 crore ($120-140 million) each.

The JF-17 Thunder, the Pakistan Air Force's new light fighter that was "co-developed" with China is believed to be marginally cheaper, at $23-24 million per aircraft. However, the Tejas is significantly more advanced than the JF-17, being built from composite materials, incorporating an advanced fly-by-wire system, and fitted with more advanced avionics.

The MoD is bargaining with HAL over the Tejas' Rs 162 crore price tag, pointing that HAL had, in 2006, quoted a unit price of Rs 116.49 crore per fighter. HAL argues the rupee's decline (some 45 per cent of the Tejas comes from abroad) and inflation over the past 8 years warrants a 40 per cent rise.

During a recent tour of the Tejas assembly line, Business Standard was briefed about HAL's initiatives to slash the cost of the Tejas, rendering it more attractive to the IAF. HAL's first step has been to target economy of scale by developing its assembly line and supply chains for 200 fighters, though the IAF has only committed to buying just 40 Tejas Mark I fighters so far.

In planning ambitiously, HAL has the MoD's support. Antony announced last month in Bangalore, when the Tejas was being inducted into the IAF, that about 200 fighters would be eventually built in Mark I and Mark II configurations.

By HAL's reckoning, these include 20 Tejas Mark I fighters in the current configuration; and 20 more once Final Operational Clearance is received at the end of 2014 (the IAF has already committed to buying these two squadrons). Next, HAL plans to build 84 Tejas Mark II (four squadrons). The navy has already ordered 8 Naval Tejas; and is planning to order 11 Naval Tejas trainers soon. When development is complete, about 46 Naval Tejas will be ordered for India's two indigenous aircraft carriers - INS Vikrant and its successor.

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

Long lead components, which require time to build and sometimes have a high rejection rate, have been identified and addressed. The Tejas line will have a high quality machining shop with state-of-the-art five-axis CNC machines. For critical parts like the Tejas' carbon composite wing skin, these machines will replace the manual drilling of 8,000 holes, using instead a computerised drilling programme that will reduce cycle time, errors and production cost.

"With measures like these, we will improve the Tejas' build quality and eliminate rework, rejection and delays. Bringing down the 'Standard Man Hour' for series production, when compared to building prototypes, will automatically reduce the production cost of the Tejas," says RK Tyagi, chairman of HAL.

nash · Post by **nash** » 12 Jan 2014 10:35

With the bulk order of 100+ MkII in horizon and if inflation cool down and HAL/DRDO able to make upto 70-80% of LRUs indigenously, then i would say the cost might come down to the level of 20 mil $.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 12 Jan 2014 11:52

maitya wrote: merlinji, radar is lesser of an issue - true, there is an order of magnitude of difficulty betw developing land-based (and sea-based) radars and a deployable airborne-radar. But basic building blocks of the FCR (both hardware and software) are available in-house.
True, we screwed up by entrusting HAL to develop airborne FCR - and thus got rewarded with the DSP fiasco forcing the "Hybrid" route - anyway it's getting rectified now by entrusting it to LRDE.
And in the interim, we have relied on Israeli's - but push come to shove an airborne FCR can be developed fairly quickly. Yes, it maynot be a true-blue X-band AESA, but a coherent PD MMR is very much within our capability.

True, but I'm still a little worried. We need to get our AA and AG routines sorted out fast. Hardware is less of a concern than software here and going for the Russian option still means that we will be reliant on an outside party for this which is not good.

maitya wrote:Engine is the true reason to worry ... as the technological capability wise we are atleast 1-gen (maybe even 2-gen in the Compressor part) behind. Bridging it would be very difficult and needs very serious hand-holding on multiple aspects (which nobody wants to do, as it'd be akin to handing over very hard earned/learned crown jewels).

Let me ask a rhetorical question - if tomorrow GE offers a full ToT, deep enough to transfer complete manufacturing knowhow of F414 HPT/LPT and LPC/HPC stages (which incidentally were promised by the Russians on the AL-31F ToT but they eventually didn't - forcing us to import full blades and discs and basically do screw-driver-giri with those imported blades/discs), what would we do - refuse them just becuase they are sanction-prone?

But that is knowledge and not a product which is sanction prone. Once we know then sanctions won't affect us that much assuming we know how to make every last part on our own.

maitya wrote:We saw how the French basically offered us to import the M-88 core and then ToT on the other insignificant aspects of the engine. Why do we think AL-31F is not similarly sanction-prone (after all we are well too aware of the CUS saga, isn't it)?

Fact remains we need to develop these technologies indigenously, and in the interim, grin-and-bear these sanctions - and maybe try and find ways of mitigating the impact (e.g. en mass import of discs and blades etc, if possible and allowed).

IMO least sanction prone would be Russian stuff (sure they may shaft us on price and schedules but at least it will come - I will discount CUS for now as the drunkard Yeltsin was a western lackey and such a situation *may* not repeat in the future), then the French items, then Israeli, then other Euros and finally the US.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 12 Jan 2014 12:24

At the end of the day indigenous development bears greater results and resilience. Suppose we want to ramp up production , we can do it at will and not be constrained by a third party.We have sufficent intelligent people but need only the will. I would expect that if we staged a competition between two units of GTRE with sufficient performance increments for success then we would get an engine pretty soon.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 12 Jan 2014 13:25

There is a huge market there for Mig-21 and F-5 replacement
Vietnam itself is operating around 200 Mig-21's and around 140 Su-22's.
Countries like Ecuador, Brazil, Philippines and lot of other countries are looking for a light combat aircraft. Tejas and associated weaponry like Astra will fit their bill perfectly along with complete independence from countries like U.S and China when it comes to weapons. The opportunity to mass manufacture Tejas like Mig-21s do exist. A win win situation for India and her friends.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jan 2014 13:51

indranilroy wrote:For making Kaveri a viable option (when it becomes ready) Tejas has to lose about 700 kgs. That is more than 10% of it's current weight. And this after they have gone through 1 round of weight reduction already. If that was easy they would have made Tejas Mk2 lighter and gone with the 404 (because Kaveri is not ready yet). It would have saved them a lot of trouble.

I didn't say that the weight reduction is an easy thing they are trying to do that but I guess it is not in their priority list since now they have access to an engine which will take care of the excess weight. It has been discussed many times as well that Tejas is overweight due to being over engineered, so that needs to be looked into as well.

Baseline is do whatever you want to do but get rid of American components from each and every military project that India pursues or purchases.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jan 2014 14:03

maitya wrote:SagarG-ji, what is required urgently is reduction of Kaveri weight to it's desired design goal (950Kg - it's currently 120-150Kg or 12-15% overweight) an achieve the 76N/Kg TWR as it was originally envisioned. LCA airframe weigth reduction etc, if it happens, is well-and-good but Kaveri in it's present form will not make it to LCA - maybe, optimistically a Kaveri MK-II for LCA Mk-II later stages, but we will cross that bridge once we reach there...........

Thank you saar for delivering your well timed post. Yes we have to overcome a lot of hurdles before Kaveri makes it to Tejas, after the recent tests they had found some problems again and are now targeting 2016 for mating one with Tejas and testing out so lets see what we come up with.

What do you think about the offer given by Snecma regarding bringing in their core and mating it with the rest of Kaveri ??? France has developed their own alloys for making SC blades so can we use them on Kaveri ??? We know how to make SC blades what we lack is the alloy in which I think we are in gen 1 still.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Jan 2014 14:30

SagarG-ji, what is required urgently is reduction of Kaveri weight to it's desired design goal

I don't understand..what if Kaveri has 150 kg overweight, but produces the design thrust? Won't it be better? IMO, the aim should be to achieve the overall design weight of LCA (even if kaveri weight remains a little more), which will enhance performance of LCA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Jan 2014 14:43

geeth wrote:
SagarG-ji, what is required urgently is reduction of Kaveri weight to it's desired design goal
I don't understand..what if Kaveri has 150 kg overweight, but produces the design thrust? Won't it be better? IMO, the aim should be to achieve the overall design weight of LCA (even if kaveri weight remains a little more), which will enhance performance of LCA.

Wet thrust was significantly behind design aims.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jan 2014 14:54

geeth wrote:
SagarG-ji, what is required urgently is reduction of Kaveri weight to it's desired design goal
I don't understand..what if Kaveri has 150 kg overweight, but produces the design thrust? Won't it be better? IMO, the aim should be to achieve the overall design weight of LCA (even if kaveri weight remains a little more), which will enhance performance of LCA.

The answer is in maitya saar's post itself

maitya wrote:SagarG-ji, what is required urgently is reduction of Kaveri weight to it's desired design goal (950Kg - it's currently 120-150Kg or 12-15% overweight) an achieve the 76N/Kg TWR as it was originally envisioned. LCA airframe weigth reduction etc, if it happens, is well-and-good but Kaveri in it's present form will not make it to LCA - maybe, optimistically a Kaveri MK-II for LCA Mk-II later stages, but we will cross that bridge once we reach there.

Thrust to Weight ratio

If Kaveri is overweight then that results in reduced TWR since it has to carry that extra weight and hence reduction in performance.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Jan 2014 15:39

Once Kaveri is flight qualified then it will give us technology base for numerous Gas turbine engines worth thousands of crores. Almost all commercial Turbine technolgy dates back to 60s and 70s.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Jan 2014 16:12

The answer is in maitya saar's post itself

If you don't understand the question, pls don't try answering it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Jan 2014 16:29

Dec26, 2012

During this test the Kaveri did well, generating 49.2 KiloNewtons (KN) of “dry thrust”, marginally less than its target of 51 KN. But there was a serious shortfall in “wet thrust”; the Kaveri generated just 70.4 KN, well short of the targeted 81 KN.

The Kaveri’s dry thrust is deemed adequate for the USAV, which does not require wet thrust since its survival depends on stealth (invisibility to radar) rather than on speed or manoeuvrability. The Kaveri will propel the USAV with dry thrust alone, eliminating the afterburner.

“Since the USAV will weigh less than 10 tonnes, the Kaveri’s 50 KN will suffice. And, with the afterburner removed, we would significantly reduce the weight of the Kaveri,” says a top DRDO scientist.

GTRE has a threefold plan for perfecting the Kaveri for the USAV. First, it will remove the design flaws that were detecting during testing in Russia in 2010-11; then, after ground testing in Bangalore, the Kaveri will undergo a round of confirmatory tests in Russia; finally, it will be fitted on a Tejas fighter for flight tests.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 012_1.html

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Jan 2014 16:37

The designers shoould concentrate on improving the thrust even if they are not able to reduce the weight to desired level. That would make it a lot more acceptable than present condition

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Jan 2014 16:42

Agreed!!

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jan 2014 16:53

geeth wrote:
The answer is in maitya saar's post itself
If you don't understand the question, pls don't try answering it.

Ok so according to you it is perfectly OK if Kaveri achieves design thrust but remains overweight and that reducing Tejas's weight to design level solves all issues.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Jan 2014 17:11

That is a better option than trying to do both and struggling to achive either..If overweight in kaveri can be compensated with reduction elsewhere, it would not affect the performance with same level of engine thrust

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jan 2014 17:22

When the Tejas design team is struggling to reduce the weight to the design specs itself wouldn't it be too much to ask for reduction of 150 kg more ??? Different teams are working on both the projects so I don't see how their efforts for weight reduction in each project would be detrimental to the entire project.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jan 2014 18:06

its probably easier and more useful to do whatever is needed to increase thrust and then worry about weight. reaching the desired wet thrust even in a overweight engine will be a huge achievement for us as its been a longtime bottleneck.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 12 Jan 2014 19:25

indranilroy wrote:HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

The Tejas Mark I will be one of the world's most affordable fighters in its class. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has quoted a price of Rs 162 crore per aircraft for the first 20 Tejas fighters that have begun production in Bangalore. That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter.

So 1 Rafale = 4 to 6 LCAs? Someone needs to do a cost to benefit study.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2014 22:04

I would say these for GTRE
- Get support for edu institutions
- Let industries and stake holders participate in project management and resources
- Let the design and architecture be reivewed constantly
- Define must have, nice to have and excellent to have standards
- Get the right resources, men and materials
- Have a TQM approach and learn from GE and other matured organizations

Rest is what you would see in LCA Mk-3 in 5 years bang on target!
Kaveri++ is the core thrust for LCA program to focus on, at the very core.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 12 Jan 2014 23:29

Karan M wrote:Maitya,

Please ignore the asinine rants about how incompetent GTRE et al are (you know it results in more egocentric bloviation when you attempt to counter it). Can you point out whether a collaboration with MTU & other independent designers/manufacturer consortiums is possible? Snecma seems out (a deal could not be agreed on after so many days). The Russians are also not #1 because despite their political plus points, the AL55I case shows how unreliable they can be from time to time, besides which all their tier 1 resources are already on AL31 derivatives & the PAKFA engine programs.

The only approach available seems to be the go it alone but with multiple partners sort of thing. Not ideal, but perhaps, if only we can coordinate things, might get us better tech & knowledge versus taking somebody else's design for local assembly.

KaranMji, first the disclaimer: What I'm posting below, is more-or-less from memory, so may have got some of the data-points incorrect. Too lazy to cross-check my half-finished Kaveri write-up (and the references, there-in) as well. But the general contour of the point that I'm trying to make stands. So pls take it strictly FWIW.

Not sure how much approaching MTU would help at the current stage of maturity Kaveri is in - unless MTU (or for that matter any other established turbofan design house), agrees to part away with their crown jewels wrt
1. Compressor Stage manufacturing technology vis-à-vis 30+ OPR achievement in a 6 stage layout
2. 1650-1700deg C TeT Turbine blade/disc manufacturing capability in an industrial scale

In fact, since you mention MTU, pls note that the GTRE folks already did so and reached out to the MTU right at the start of the program. And they did so to almost all established Engine houses across the globe for consultancy, peer-validation and many times, to import critical components, so that the engine itself can be progressed (and later these components can be replaced with indigenous components, a standard practice for such kind of ab-initio major programme anywhere in the world).
Plus, this being ab initio programme, there were sometimes multiple agencies being approached for the same stuff.

The following list is maybe a bit dated info (around 2002-04), but to get a fair idea on the spread of help-being-requested by GTRE, here's a list of agencies approached by them for various consultative help:

MTU, Germany
1. Over speed & Burst Margin Test on K6HP Turbine Rotor Assembly
2. Over speed & Burst Margin Test on K6LP Turbine Rotor Assembly

Russia
Via 'Rosoboronexport"
1. Exploratory Altitude Testing of Kaveri Engine
2. Exploratory Altitude Testing of Kaveri Engine
3. Fan Casing Containment Test for Kaveri Engine
4. Testing for Main Combustor at Sea level and Altitude conditions

Via Gromov Flight Research Institute
1. Technical services for Kaveri Engine

Test Devices INC, USA
1. Over speed & Burst margin test on K6HPC Rotor assembly
2. Over speed & burst margin test on K6 Fan Rotor assembly
3. Design, Analysis, Testing & Optimization of Damper for the LP Turbine Rotor Blade

Belgium
1. Dynamic Analysis under Blade off condition of Kaveri engine

Applied Technology Consultants Ltd., UK
1. Dynamic Analysis under Blade off condition of Kaveri engine
2. Consultancy for Reheat System Design Review/Audit
3. Consultancy for HP Turbine Risk Analysis/Review
4. Consultancy for Weight Reduction Study
5. Consultancy for Thermal and Hydraulic Modelling of Kaveri Lubrication System
6. Consultancy for Kaveri Fan Aerodynamic and Mechanical Design Review/Audit and enhancement.
7. Consultancy for Critical Design Review of the Kaveri Engine Project
8. Consultancy for Accelerated Simulated Mission Endurance Test (ASMET) Cycle and test schedule definition and development programme integration.
9. Consultancy for Kaveri Integrated Test, Development and Procurement programmes
10. Consultancy for Kaveri PFRT Fan Aerodynamic Design 3D Blade-to-Blade and Viscous Analysis
11. Consultancy for Kaveri K4 Build 06 HP Compressor Blade Stage 1 Failure Investigation and Follow-up
12. Consultancy for Review and Proposal for the Resolution of Vibration Problems in the Kaveri Engine
13. Consultancy for Design Review and Audit of High Temperature High Pressure Heat Transfer Rig
14. Consultancy for Kaveri K5 & K8 Compressor Blade Stage I vibration & Rub Investigation Problems in the Kaveri Engine

But the point I'm trying to make is, if you look closely at this list, most of these help were in the form of consultative support for design validation, issue/failure confirmation and the required resolution approach - plus of course help in testing various aspects of a turbofan.

Rarely will you find some help in the form of a major turbofan component/system being put forward.

In fact, it's not that GTRE were not aware of the challenges on the compressor and turbine design and manufacturing aspects, in an ab-initio programme like this. But they were also aware that stuff like Turbine (both HPT and LPT) Blades and Discs, the very heart (and thus most difficult and riskiest aspect) of a turbofan will not be available from anybody. So the whole focus was on them while they wanted the relatively non-strategic compressor stages (at least the fan stages) be imported from Germany (IIRC from MTU) - i.e. they wanted to do the design of the fan blades and wanted MTU to manufacture them.

End result was that it was denied first with reasoning that GTRE's design was just too complicated for them to manufacture - and when GTRE simplified the blade design (to a lesser efficient one) , then the reasoning was that the volume being these being asked is commercially non-viable to be manufactured. GTRE was then forced to manufacture it and most probably was forced to settle with a further sub-optimal compressor design as the design had to match with the indigenous manufacturing capability available then with MIDHANI et all.

So yes, morale of the story is, collaborate we must but when it comes to the cutting-edge turbofan-core design and manufacturing technology capability building, we were basically on our own. Irony is had GTRE aimed for a lessen gen core, maybe just maybe, this collaboration-story would have been different.

And more ironical aspect is that when the (currently achieved) dry thrust was in danger due to the indigenous LPT blades and LPT disc integration challenges (the disc was simply giving up while blades were able to cope with the RPM at around 1400deg C TeT), it was USA who supplied the LPT disc and saved the day.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Jan 2014 23:55

Is there any information about how Indian Navy plans to use Tejas ?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Jan 2014 00:52

abhik wrote:
The Tejas Mark I will be one of the world's most affordable fighters in its class. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has quoted a price of Rs 162 crore per aircraft for the first 20 Tejas fighters that have begun production in Bangalore. That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter.
So 1 Rafale = 4 to 6 LCAs? Someone needs to do a cost to benefit study.

1. 1 Rafale cannot be equal to 4-6 Tejas in combat, except in cases where the targets are outside Tejas's range. Unless the Rafale gets in tech mitigating the cost of developing the same in house, justifying its cost vis-a-vis Tejas is going to be very difficult.

2. The cost of upgrading those Mirage-2000 are starting to look really ridiculous now. There is only one justification, they had to be done to maintain squadron strength.

3. Tejas is always compared to Gripen. Question now is: Is 1 Gripen equal to 2-3 Tejas? Answer: Are you kidding?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jan 2014 01:00

1 Rafale can be in 1 place.
1 Tejas can be in 1 place.
Until aforesaid Rafale can clone itself and make Rafale babies in flight, it cannot be in multiple places and hence, truly, it cannot be the equal of 4-6 LCAs in combat.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jan 2014 01:03

Maitya, you need to collect all your posts into a Kaveri- BRF Project analysis sort of thing. They are too valuable to be lost in the noise.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jan 2014 01:05

indranilroy wrote:1. 1 Rafale cannot be equal to 4-6 Tejas in combat, except in cases where the targets are outside Tejas's range. Unless the Rafale gets in tech mitigating the cost of developing the same in house, justifying its cost vis-a-vis Tejas is going to be very difficult.

2. The cost of upgrading those Mirage-2000 are starting to look really ridiculous now. There is only one justification, they had to be done to maintain squadron strength.

3. Tejas is always compared to Gripen. Question now is: Is 1 Gripen equal to 2-3 Tejas? Answer: Are you kidding?

Well articulated. Only caveat is we are dependent on Shukla's projection of Rafale costs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jan 2014 04:18

1 tejas-2 should be equal to 5 gripen-ng.

- AESA
- RCS
- weapons and stores (nato+russkie+indic)
- multi role
- LRUs parts
- mission profiles
- operational ease
- cost
- strategic roles - even nukes
- advanced upgrade program platform
- no technology transfer
- jobs
- economy

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jan 2014 05:33

The long hard crawl to self-sufficiency.Snail's progress despite many indigenous programmes finally arriving.What really ails our DPSUs? Lack of funds,lack of will/interest,lack of human resources? Adm.Arun Prakash's comparison between the Chinese and Indian leadership and our defecit in national will required to achieve goals appears to be the core of the issue.What leadership and focus has the UPA/Cong. given during the last decade? Gen.Bikram Singh is to give his last press conf. on Monday,keenly awaited.Decisions have taken place even slower than snail's pace. For example,It is now for the 26th yr. running that not a single artillery new piece has been inducted (barring the upgrades of 130mm guns)! AKA is universally described as the worst ever Def. Min. in the history of our country since Independence.

Desi defence showpieces powered by videshi parts
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 720189.cms

NEW DELHI: The Tejas light combat aircraft, 30 years in the making, is just 60% indigenous as of now. The story of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank is even worse. First sanctioned in May 1974, 55% of the tank is still made of imported parts. This is the recurring theme across India's fledgling defence industrial base (DIB), with the government failing to whip DRDO and its sprawling empire of over 50 laboratories as well as the five defence PSUs, four shipyards and 50 ordnance factories into shape.

The defence ministry, with its constant flip-flops, has also failed to spur the domestic private sector into entering the defence production sector in a big way. Neither has it managed to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), notching up a measly $5 million in the last 14 years.

A K Antony may often tom-tom "indigenisation" as one of his guiding mantras, which he feels can curb corruption, but the ground reality has hardly changed in the over seven years he has been at the helm in MoD. India continues to wallow as the world's largest arms importer, with the armed forces still getting around 65% of their military hardware and software from abroad.

In sharp contrast, China has emerged as the fastest growing arms exporter around the globe after assiduously building a strong DIB. It's now hawking fighter jets, warships, missiles and smaller arms to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia and Zambia.

But a "proper ecosystem" has simply not been erected in India. As if the "high import content" in the so-called indigenous projects was not enough, insiders say even the much-touted transfer of technology (ToT) provision build into large defence contracts with foreign manufacturers is a bit of a sham.

"Indian PSUs focus more on just assembling knocked-down kits from foreign vendors instead of properly absorbing technologies," said a senior official, pointing to the ongoing "licensed production" of the Russian-origin Sukhoi-30MKI fighters by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL).

India has inducted almost 200 of the 272 Sukhois contracted for well over $12 billion from Russia, with HAL producing most of the fighters. "As per plans, HAL should have begun making Sukhois completely from raw material two-three years ago. But there has been a big delay," he said.

"Moreover, the cost of each HAL-manufactured Sukhoi is almost Rs 100 crore more than if the same fighter was directly imported from Russia (the last 42 Sukhois ordered cost over Rs 450 crore each)," he added.

DRDO does have a point that funds allocated for defence R&D are not adequate. "We just get slightly over 5% of the total defence budget. The US defence R&D budget is around 12%, while China has 20%," said a scientist.

But not many are impressed, pointing to huge time and cost overruns in almost all DRDO projects. While the indigenous development of Tejas, Arjun and other weapon systems is certainly to be cheered, the high import content in them remains another source of worry.

Take Tejas, which finally achieved its initial operational clearance last month. It has an American engine, British ejection seat, Canadian canopy sheath and Israeli radar. "A major chunk of its avionics and weapons are also imported. The series production of the Tejas Mark-II version, which is what IAF actually wants, is unlikely to begin before 2022," said an officer.

The Army, in turn, has inducted 124 Arjun Mark-I tanks, while trials are currently in progress for the Mark-II version with 89 "upgrades or improvements". The tank is just about 45% indigenous as of now, with its main laser guided missile being the Israeli LAHAT. "Arjun's missile firing control system, laser target designator, engine transmission, suspension unit and running gear (track) are all foreign," said an Army officer.

India has fared relatively better on the naval front, with all the 45 warships currently on order being constructed in Indian shipyards. Officials say India has achieved 80-90% indigenisation in the "float" (warship's structure, hull etc), 50-60% on the "move" (propulsion) and 30% on the "fight" (weapons and sensors) components.

PS:Silver lining in the cloud thanks to the IN and its focus on indigenisation.In comparison with the other programmes,impressive progress.

PPS:Karan,high cost of M-2000 upgrades made it poss. for Raffy's cost to come down to win the contract.Why has Dasssault tied up with Reliance for TOT criticising HAL? This is alleged to be the political end of the stick.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jan 2014 05:55

Reg. GTRE/Kaveri,in retrospect,GTRE should've been asked to go ahead with engine dev. at speed,but not worry about it being tied down to the LCA's timeframe where a proven firang engine would power it for first Mks. This is ultimately what has happened.The time lost waiting for Kaveri to power the LCA could've been avoided. Since aircraft programmes usually last 30-40 years of the type in service,there would be enough time to retrofit indigenous engines onto older aircraft or new orders during the prorgamme's life span.One single engine's success does not make us self-sufficient in engine tech.The engines for lesser complex programmes for other classes of aircraft like the IJT,etc.,should've also been started.Using consultants mainly for firefighting purposes as Maitya has pointed out in the list of/history of Kaveri does not address the core of the issue.
Unless a comprehensive,holistic R&D establishment is created,we will be "Waiting for Godot" every time an indigenous power plant is required.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Jan 2014 06:00

This is only tangential to the LCA program but I am frankly tired of these Rajat Pandit el stupido misleading articles:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 720189.cms

"Desi defence showpieces powered by videshi parts"

Colossal ignorance/laziness. Every program he mentions is pre serial production. It does not make sense for the products to be 100% indigenous until they are adopted so you can build the backward linkages.

The Su 30 program indigenasation keeps falling behind because they keep adding emergency orders to compensate for the delay in the MMRCA.

JMT