Armed forces should not be obliged to ensure success of Make In India

[Dungeness]

Good argument, but do consider that the major breakthroughs in Chinese D&D, the correct term, as research is just kicking in for the last decade or so, occurred after the horrific period when you were actually in confrontation with the USSR. Even in that fraught and tense situation, for reasons that no one has yet explained with any plausibility, Krushchev offered a full TOT for the MiG 21, and the PRC attempted to use the opportunity.

During the period of tension, in fact, until the early 80s, there was little or no impact on the PLAGF or the PLAN or the PLAAF. While your broad brush-stroke appreciation of the situation is a valid analysis, in concrete terms, China faced the same situation then, as India faces now. And the result was similar; an inhibition on indigenous manufacture, an insistence on the old, tried-and-tested although obsolete measures and organisations, and a craving for import.

On the surface, PLAAF in the 80's appeared to be in the same shoes as IA now, as both import foreign jets to meet their pressing needs, but in the core they differ significantly in terms of domestic industrial base that they can fall back on.

Even during the hard times of 60's-80's, China never gave up its persistent effort to transform ToT into their own knowledge base. Based on Mig-21, they came up with their own J-7II, J-7III, J-8, J-8II and later Super-7, and they even successfully reverse-engineered the entire Boeing-707 in early 80's with a shoe string budget, namely Y-10. You see this is how Chinese put ToTs to work, not merely assembly work.

Their more recent successes of J-10, J-20 were not out of blue, as these are the results of decades of hardwork accumulated by generations of engineers in their military aviation industry.

 

[abc123xyx]

two arms importer shifting to make their own.....really painfull for few....but what alse can they do now other then publishing articles after articles......unki bhaans to pani me ja chuki..

 

[Joe Shearer]

To take the discussion forward, I will pick a few sentences, without taking them out of context and having read through the post in it's entirety.
"The Air Force has nil capacity to build, to assemble or to maintain, forget about specifying or designing new aircraft, or re-designing older aircraft. For all those, it has to have a production shop; that shop is nothing but HAL."

And that remains my frustrations. Instead of leveraging HAL's expertise in the Aero industry, IAF and Drdo wanted to stick it to HAL, by undercutting it and creating ADA. Although I have never had an opportunity to directly work with them, But the grape-wine both from the engineers side and test pilots were not very flaterring about the organisation and it's culture.
there are multiple gopher heads popping out of IAF grounds squeaking thier criticism and vanishing. Two of the most prominent ones being; Performance of the aircraft (FOC/IOC) AoA, Speed, Weapon systems, range and the second one being Production rate.

Lets address the LCA performance and HAL's role in it first. "The most obvious requirements have not been met. The Tejas is today a good, short range interceptor most amenable to GCI missions"
When ADA froze the design specifications of the LCA,the airframe had been selected with a committee of IAF representatives, so was the engine specifications, and the CFD analysis of comparative airframe configurations was presented. This is the G1 of the Project, Zero look approach, conducted, all requirements frozen.
Today IAF cannot go back and say we are not satisfied with the range or payload, this is exactly what you asked ADA to build. IAF cannot behave like my wife at a restaurant ordering Pasta at a spanish restaurant and then hogging my paella instead. IAF was in the process all along,
G0> Scope and role
G1> Zero look approach must have systems
G2> First look approach, alternate subsystems
G3> Prototype, Second look approach (FG404, Engine, recalibration, Weapons system)
and the rest of the project gates which were severely effed up by ada.

Today IAF cannot say they are not satisfied with range, or performance or weapons systems. They picked all of it.

Now the second critique usually is extremely slow paced production of the aircraft:

And here is where I will do my bit to play devils advocate. I am primarily addressing two of you on the thread, and both of you are well aware that there is no MRP sheets without Production rate. And due to the nature of the system the Plant layout for a final assembly hangar plays an immensely important role in number of units produced. This layout is based on the takt time needed to meet the production rate.

If my guideline is that you have to build 8 LSP series aircraft where the MRP will change on each of the aircraft and all of these will be used to validate system and will have continued changes in Part numbers, guess what I will not have a MRP, I will not conduct value stream analysis to increase labor productivity, I will not address bottlenecks, I will not have visual standard work for technicians, and I will not have a takt time to live upto. When there is nothing to measure, there is nothing to improve. The same HAL can crank out 14 MKI in a year in Nasik and struggles with 4 LCA? All I would request is for the ajai shuklas of the world to go and talk to the Grade 5 chief manager of the final assembly for LCA hanger, not the GM or MD of the complex but the actual CM of the hangar and the issue will be clear beyond the doubt.

The same IAF when places an order with say a Dassault: Places 36 rafales or 59 mirages, with the specified systems,without changes in tranches. But when it comes to LCA, 5 with this radar, the next 5 with the other radar, the next 5 with a different MFD, the next 5 with a different nose cone. That's not how production works.

My argument is not to absolve HAL of it's sins which I can count a thousand in the way they have handled their business with MoD and IAF. But it is high time that HAL should start focusing on it's service and product portfolio to attract other clients than the IAF. It is true that Indian military is not responsible for development of domestic defense industry, and given that the world is willing to sell to Indian forces now, Indian domestic industry should also be looking at the same two way street to find clients that fit their culture.

I agree that it is a production problem due to the multifarious changes in the BoMs. The key to the situation is that different versions had different Bills of Materials, leading to understandable confusion about the correct final version to be reproduced in bulk.

This at least is tangible; I am not so sure about your assessment of the ADA, and about their comparative efficiency compared to HAL, so shall leave that strictly alone. This concern is not possible to substantiate, so best left alone.

bW.r.t to Arjun , unlike LCA, key subsystems that were to be developed within the program Arjun was from the beginning set to be a system with imported powerplant with the hull and gun developed by CVRDE. From project delivery this was totally copy book example of correct delivery of a system required by the Army and MoD. when it comes to overall performance with the imported components it has today , the tank is an excellent overall fighting system. IA not accepting this tank for frivolous reasons and setting it up for failure is very disappointing as here the army was involved again from the beginning. I dont remember which show this was on, but the I was watching an interview of the young officer from 17th bat of Brigade of guards, and you could see the esteem that the men held for the Arjun, crews operating the tank love it, but there is a good chunk of others who are hell bent of seeing the end of this system. Remember this is the same establishment which bought WZT garbage from Poland. So I absolutely do not buy Army's argument that a partly German tank is more difficult to maintain that Russian tank.

Another part is the Arjun's weight, this was not a 20 year surprise arrange marriage where an overweight spouse was tied to the army. Army specified the specs, directed the performance characteristics to the be similar to the Leopard 2 and then expect it weigh like the t72, that is just ridiculous. The entire contention of 58 tons of arjun being too heavy is absolute rubbish as the army from the outset wanted to build something on the lines of the 62 Ton Leopard 2. And to add to my frustrations here, the production rate is not even an issue as HVF is a hige factory and will crank our as many Arjuns as the army can buy so this doesn't even have a LCA like issue with production space or resource constraints.

It is pleasing and frustrating to read you on the subject of the Arjun. It is really such a good tank; I wish I could make the critics climb into the T90 and into the Arjun and hear from them after that.

On the surface, PLAAF in the 80's appeared to be in the same shoes as IA now, as both import foreign jets to meet their pressing needs, but in the core they differ significantly in terms of domestic industrial base that they can fall back on.

Even during the hard times of 60's-80's, China never gave up its persistent effort to transform ToT into their own knowledge base. Based on Mig-21, they came up with their own J-7II, J-7III, J-8, J-8II and later Super-7, and they even successfully reverse-engineered the entire Boeing-707 in early 80's with a shoe string budget, namely Y-10. You see this is how Chinese put ToTs to work, not merely assembly work.

Their more recent successes of J-10, J-20 were not out of blue, as these are the results of decades of hardwork accumulated by generations of engineers in their military aviation industry.

I agree wholly with the last paragraph, and agree partly with the previous two.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@jbgt90

Please look at the discussion consisting of your own post and another 32 posts, not including this one.

I have been telling you that if you print good stuff, the trolls won't come in close, because the serious members, Indians OR Pakistanis, will be there and they won't be disturbed. Look at the proof in front of you. It's been a string of excellent contributions, and maybe it isn't fair, but look at @Sharpshooter12 and @Dungeness in particular.

It IS possible to have a good discussion still, in this day and age, if we reproduce a good article, there WILL be a good discussion. Notice several Indians have been impressed by the sensibility displayed by our friends, AND the absence of Indian trolls.

"Please, Sir, could I have some more?"