HAL divestment plan gains speed

[sancho]

I think this is a golden opputunity to piss on all the efforts of engineers and managers who have dedicated their lives for PSU's.... starve a company with misguiding them as much as you can and then chop them up and sell them off to private entities?

Sorry but I don't buy these emotional points like other Indians might. I never denied that HAL engenieers and managers would work hard, but that alone isn't enough, since the results are not there and you can't always blame the forces or MoD for everything!
Why not sell a major share of HAL to a specific Indian private company then? HAL would get money to invest, but would need to divert workshare to the new partner too. I suggested TATA, but it could be Mahindra, Reliance as well.
HAL needs external help to be more effective, be it in R&D or production and that's what privat companies could provide, so when you get than + money to invest, isn't that the better way?

There is one fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning. IF HAL wants to derive its revenue from over-seas sales then it will have to first create a product line which is proven AND operational, any foreign buyer will absolutely desist from purchasing a product which the OEM's host country itself refuses to operate

That's not necessarily correct. Switzerland bought Gripen E/F although not even a prototype existed, nor was there an order of Swedish forces by then. The same Gripen was proposed in MMRCA, next to Mig 35, that also had not even a prototype, nor orders.
LCA MK1 has orders by Indian forces (IN only as tech demo versions though), we have prototypes flying, the engine is proven and reliable, just as the Israeli radar, HMS, LDP, or their weapon package. So when you look at it just from the proven and order point of view, LCA MK1 looks even better than Mig 35 today and better than the Gripen looked during MMRCA or the Swiss competition.

As such HAL will never be able to compete with Russian, European, American and even Chinese OEMs

Of course HAL as a company can't that's why I suggest a foreign and credible partner like IAI to take over the marketing. That's plain PR, do you prefer a Chinese smartphone, or a western smartphone that is build in China but marketed by a western company? The later of course, because the standards of the western company are the key. So nobody will buy an LCA as a made in India product, but marketed by the Israelis, the chances are far higher!

 

[Dillinger]

Sorry but I don't buy these emotional points like other Indians might. I never denied that HAL engenieers and managers would work hard, but that alone isn't enough, since the results are not there and you can't always blame the forces or MoD for everything!
Why not sell a major share of HAL to a specific Indian private company then? HAL would get money to invest, but would need to divert workshare to the new partner too. I suggested TATA, but it could be Mahindra, Reliance as well.
HAL needs external help to be more effective, be it in R&D or production and that's what privat companies could provide, so when you get than + money to invest, isn't that the better way?



That's not necessarily correct. Switzerland bought Gripen E/F although not even a prototype existed, nor was there an order of Swedish forces by then. The same Gripen was proposed in MMRCA, next to Mig 35, that also had not even a prototype, nor orders.
LCA MK1 has orders by Indian forces (IN only as tech demo versions though), we have prototypes flying, the engine is proven and reliable, just as the Israeli radar, HMS, LDP, or their weapon package. So when you look at it just from the proven and order point of view, LCA MK1 looks even better than Mig 35 today and better than the Gripen looked during MMRCA or the Swiss competition.



Of course HAL as a company can't that's why I suggest a foreign and credible partner like IAI to take over the marketing. That's plain PR, do you prefer a Chinese smartphone, or a western smartphone that is build in China but marketed by a western company? The later of course, because the standards of the western company are the key. So nobody will buy an LCA as a made in India product, but marketed by the Israelis, the chances are far higher!

The same Gripen E/F is based on an existing AND in service fighter. A factor which was essential in that decision and one which does not apply to any product that HAL might try to sell. So the requirement for proven service still stands unless you are willing to offer a platform which provides disruptive capabilities (eg. 5th gen fighter). Otherwise the cost-benefit analysis will always sway the buyer in favor of the product and OEM with the proven lineage/record.

 

[[Bregs]]

Listing of HAL on stock exchanges and divestment of shares will not make it more efficient because majority holder will still be Govt of India or MOD

Many PSU are listed and there is no increase in there operational efficiency because govt is the majority stake holder which brings in time consuming process, corruption and laxity associated with govt organisations, same fate awaits HAL as well

 

[sancho]

The same Gripen E/F is based on an existing AND in service fighter. A factor which was essential in that decision and one which does not apply to any product that HAL might try to sell. So the requirement for proven service still stands unless you are willing to offer a platform which provides disruptive capabilities (eg. 5th gen fighter). Otherwise the cost-benefit analysis will always sway the buyer in favor of the product and OEM with the proven lineage/record.

That's not correct, the Gripen E/F retains the main design of the older Gripen, but apart from that it's a new fighter! The AESA radar is a newly developed radar, with some minor parts of the older PS05 and mainly developed by Selex. It's not operational in any fighter today, while the EL 2032 is widely exported and proven.
The engine of the Gripen is not a derivate of the Volvo RM12, but a modified GE 414 for single engine fighters, again not operational today in other single engine fighters, unlike the GE 404 that is exported for single engine trainers/fighters.
The IRST is again not developed by the Swedes, nor available for the older Gripens. But at least the commonality to EF's PIRATE should make it basically proven.

I could go on with avionics and EW systems that Selex now contribute, while the older Gripen had higher content of Swedish parts, or that the Meteor is still not developed yet..., LCA MK1 mainly uses proven and widely exported foreign techs, because our own developments are still going on, so while the fighter itself is a new development, most parts of the MK1 are not and that's an advantage today!

 

[Dillinger]

That's not correct, the Gripen E/F retains the main design of the older Gripen, but apart from that it's a new fighter! The AESA radar is a newly developed radar, with some minor parts of the older PS05 and mainly developed by Selex. It's not operational in any fighter today, while the EL 2032 is widely exported and proven.
The engine of the Gripen is not a derivate of the Volvo RM12, but a modified GE 414 for single engine fighters, again not operational today in other single engine fighters, unlike the GE 404 that is exported for single engine trainers/fighters.
The IRST is again not developed by the Swedes, nor available for the older Gripens. But at least the commonality to EF's PIRATE should make it basically proven.

I could go on with avionics and EW systems that Selex now contribute, while the older Gripen had higher content of Swedish parts, or that the Meteor is still not developed yet..., LCA MK1 mainly uses proven and widely exported foreign techs, because our own developments are still going on, so while the fighter itself is a new development, most parts of the MK1 are not and that's an advantage today!

Yaara I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the avionics were swapped out and LRUs changed, the fact remains that the E/F has a lineage and ergo comes an OEM that can ensure reliability, the baseline fighter is employed by the OEM's host country. Almost every component that is new on the Gripen has actually seen service on other platforms or has a proven alternative (meteor). As I said HAL can provide no lineage of successive fighters nor any disruptive capabilities. There is no country short of perhaps remote African one's which will ever purchase the LCA as it stands simply because the IAF itself continues to avoid it.

 

[sancho]

Listing of HAL on stock exchanges and divestment of shares will not make it more efficient because majority holder will still be Govt of India or MOD

Many PSU are listed and there is no increase in there operational efficiency because govt is the majority older which brings in time consuming process, corruttion an laxity associated with govt organisations, same fate awaits HAL as well

That's a fair point, EADS is stating the same for years and that's why they changed the share structure today with less control for Germany, France and Spain. They hope that less control and political decisions will make them more efficient too and that might be true for HAL as well, but as long as HAL is mainly developing and producing arms, without another field to gain profit like EADS, or even Dassault, they will remain to be dependent on GoI and Indian forces and selling shares won't help. First they have to improve themself (especially the fields they already have some success in), before they can think about getting bigger.

 

[[Bregs]]

That's a fair point, EADS is stating the same for years and that's why they changed the share structure today with less control for Germany, France and Spain. They hope that less control and political decisions will make them more efficient too and that might be true for HAL as well, but as long as HAL is mainly developing and producing arms, without another field to gain profit like EADS, or even Dassault, they will remain to be dependent on GoI and Indian forces and selling shares won't help. First they have to improve themself (especially the fields they already have some success in), before they can think about getting bigger.

Govts even under liberalization is not ready to let go the control of the PSU by divesting there shares to minority, till the govt is minority stake holder the state of working in HAL is not going to improve and they are going to make licensed fighters and other arms which is not going to increase there profits

 

[sancho]

Yaara I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the avionics were swapped out and LRUs changed, the fact remains that the E/F has a lineage and ergo comes an OEM that can ensure reliability, the baseline fighter is employed by the OEM's host country.

Not really, but I disagree with you when you say Gripen E/F would be available and proven, when there is only a single Tech demo version flying around (not a real E/F prototype) and the core techs and capabilities are still under development. You simply can't argue with older Gripens here and have to take Gripen E/F orders and operational status in comparison to LCA MK1 orders and operational status.

Almost every component that is new on the Gripen has actually seen service on other platforms or has a proven alternative (meteor).

As I already have shown that's not correct. Who operates the Selex radar, which other single engine fighter uses GE 414G, or even the EPE (which still is a possibility for the E/F)? The IRST is a derivate of the EF IRST, but just for export fighters and not operational so far either. When engine, radar, most avionics are completely new and not operational in any other fighters, how can you consider them as proven?

 

[MilSpec]

Sorry but I don't buy these emotional points like other Indians might. I never denied that HAL engenieers and managers would work hard, but that alone isn't enough, since the results are not there and you can't always blame the forces or MoD for everything!

What do you mean by results are not there? When then the contention is misplanning and miscommunication of intent for project management - the direct responsibility lies with the apex body in any business environment. The actual requirement is autonomy and not disinvestment in my books, but that seems to be too much to ask...

Why not sell a major share of HAL to a specific Indian private company then? HAL would get money to invest, but would need to divert workshare to the new partner too. I suggested TATA, but it could be Mahindra, Reliance as well.
HAL needs external help to be more effective, be it in R&D or production and that's what private companies could provide, so when you get than + money to invest, isn't that the better way?

A major share translates to providing major direction to profits obtained, which have been recirculated back in the Indian economy. As of now Indian Government is the primary share holder in HAL, so for GOI to invest the needed money in HAL, it needs to see the potential in the investment in strategic view (defence perspective ) and income potential (business perspective). Lets assume for now that HAL is the bad guy and has no such potential project which has strategic or monetary value, a private entity would be even more reluctant as it would care less about the strategic aspect of the business case. On the flip side what is Defence ministry's planing cell has not done it's work right and mi -appropriated it's funds in the Annual operating plan (which is quite evident from tatra vectra), who is then responsible.

Raising money doesn't always has to mean dis-investing to larger private holdings, IPO can be used to raise money, or capital can be raised from other PSU investors if the need be. and when the issue here is about performance? how about looking at ADA, and all of the DRDO labs as well??? How do you feel about disinvestment in them too

 

[sancho]

What do you mean by results are not there? When then the contention is misplanning and miscommunication of intent for project management -

Delays in development, development issues (aircraft design, MMR in the initial stages), problems of maintenannce (Dhruv for example, stated by different forces)..., these are problems of HAL too and not always caused by the forces or MoD, but you always blame them only and that's where we disagree, since I see problems at all of them, including the Indian industry and I don't give engineers a free pass either.

Lets assume for now that HAL is the bad guy and has no such potential project which has strategic or monetary value, a private entity would be even more reluctant as it would care less about the strategic aspect of the business case.

Of course they don't but they also see the huge market for helicopters in Indian forces, no matter if developed by HAL or the coming licence productions, we are talking about several 100s here and getting a good share of this would be good for any privat company wouldn't it? Isn't that the case why TATA is building S92 cabins, although it has far less prospect than most of the helicopters HAL is about to produce, so don't you think they would see it as a valuable investment to take over lets say 20% of HAL (government so far only approved 10% if I'm not wrong right?) to get a part of these huge helicopter market in return?

and when the issue here is about performance? how about looking at ADA, and all of the DRDO labs as well??? How do you feel about disinvestment in them too

You should know by now that I am not a fan of them at all and I would take HAL over them any day, but that's also based on their performance, just like I say HAL is not providing enough results too. Just as in the article from Varun Gandhi I think DRDO has got far too big and powerful, with too less results in return. Cutting them back to a reasonable size and reforming the Indian R&D by including more JV and privat partners is important, but that is the case for HAL too. Even you recently stated that you want HAL to do more and when I see HAL future projects like HTT40, AJT, IMRH..., while most current aircraft developments of them are not ready, I ask myself why they don't focus on what is really important? More efficiency => more results!

 

[Sergi]

Yet he also has to tell the MoD where the money went and therein the MoD can happily intervene and stop the R&D cycle midway,

He has to do that even if he doent use the money !!!!

after all when the concerned OFB factory submits its yearly account it would be in the middle of said R&D cycle (which can last for a couple of years), not to mention that the devil lies in the details- the R&D budget needs to provide for the necessary infra for said R&D and if not then the MoD needs to provide said infra..all of which escapes the MoD and its babus..its like handing over studs to a kid disabled from the waist down.

not at all. we are not talking about inventing anything new. But creating something that is already made/assembled by OFB. Point is just to check blue prints and keeping the know how.

Not to mention that the MoD does keep tabs..the OFB folks are at the end of the day answerable and the MoD prefers to keep them constrained to scew-driver giri and nothing more.

The structural malaise first and then the rest, top down approach or else no enterprising OFB fellow will churn out anything no matter how gutsy he is.

Hierarchy is needed in every smooth function so we cant avoid that. Every organisation work as per the man in charge choose it to work.
What could MOD would say if OFB have created a piece from Boforse TOT in 2000 ???
In this case MOD ignorance is responsible for our arty problem but so is inaction for OFB and IA.
IA should have asked for the guns if MOD was too scared to buy one and OFB should have shiwed its ability to make one. But thats in perfect world.

MoD was too scare to make decision on arty since last decision took dirctet hit on PM. And OFB waited as you are saying its not in their mandate.

 

[Dillinger]

He has to do that even if he doent use the money !!!!

not at all. we are not talking about inventing anything new. But creating something that is already made/assembled by OFB. Point is just to check blue prints and keeping the know how.


Hierarchy is needed in every smooth function so we cant avoid that. Every organisation work as per the man in charge choose it to work.
What could MOD would say if OFB have created a piece from Boforse TOT in 2000 ???
In this case MOD ignorance is responsible for our arty problem but so is inaction for OFB and IA.
IA should have asked for the guns if MOD was too scared to buy one and OFB should have shiwed its ability to make one. But thats in perfect world.

MoD was too scare to make decision on arty since last decision took dirctet hit on PM. And OFB waited as you are saying its not in their mandate.

Ummm..IA has been asking for guns at least since the late 90s, at the end of the day the DAC and its overlord the MoD has the last say ergo the reason to lay the shortcomings at the MoD's collective feet.

 

[MilSpec]

Delays in development, development issues (aircraft design, MMR in the initial stages), problems of maintenannce (Dhruv for example, stated by different forces)..., these are problems of HAL too and not always caused by the forces or MoD, but you always blame them only and that's where we disagree, since I see problems at all of them, including the Indian industry and I don't give engineers a free pass either.

Yes, if an organization was perfect, then humans would be gods…. The question here is not about free passes to any one, the question is about dis investing a cash rich extremely profitable organization on the basis of mis-management. SO instead of fixing the shortfalls in budgeting, management, project planning and strategic vision, the solution being floated is to disinvest which is think is a dishonest and lazy way of delineation from best practices for running any business.

Of course they don't but they also see the huge market for helicopters in Indian forces, no matter if developed by HAL or the coming licence productions, we are talking about several 100s here and getting a good share of this would be good for any privat company wouldn't it?

So in essence with tighter project planning, force projection and budget allocations by MOD, HAL would be able to deliver a highly profitable project. In theory If you dis invest just this helicopter cell to say TATA by 30%, it will be highly profitable venture for them as they would benefit from established order book, established quality process, established technology, established lean and six sigma protocol and in the end will benefit with a profit of 30% which will add to their NAV and additional to NPV, additionally a certain payout from this 30% will be made to tata’s shareholders and business partners. How much of the remaining profit will be turned back in to HAL’s development for next project, if there are no potential projects of business value how much of this profit will be turned back to Ministry of defence??

Isn't that the case why TATA is building S92 cabins, although it has far less prospect than most of the helicopters HAL is about to produce, so don't you think they would see it as a valuable investment to take over lets say 20% of HAL (government so far only approved 10% if I'm not wrong right?) to get a part of these huge helicopter market in return?

What is the business problem that we are trying to solve? Is HAL management incompetent, is the problems faced by HAL unsolvable? Are there technological insights that tata or L&T can provide that HAL cannot develop? I keep coming back to the problem that this disinvestment is trying to solve…

You should know by now that I am not a fan of them at all and I would take HAL over them any day, but that's also based on their performance, just like I say HAL is not providing enough results too.

Results are reflection of action taken by an entity. If the results are the action of multiple parties involved, then the effect of results are to be shared by multiple entitites to…. For example in a project that is produced by HAL designed by DRDO, planned by MoD, and directed by IAF- the result should reflect the positives and negatives of each organization not just, ADA or IAF…. Similarly when MoD’s AOP doesn’t have any accountability and the fund for development, research, PLM, capacity increment are awarded by incompetent authorities, the results need to be further evaluated.

My take is there is enough red tape to hide the reasons for delays and less than stellar performance of HAL where major contributors have been other parties which have constantly been given clean chit “IAF” included. In technical audits for project planning and execution, if you find HAL’s management guilty of gross negligence then go ahead and sack them!!! But if the guilty party is IAF, South Block, DRDO- they should meet the same fate… Instead of solving a complex system related problem we are expecting TATA or reliance to solve it for us…. I am big believer in competition but HAL was made with your and mine tax money… There is no right for Reliance or Tata to get a free ride out of established billions of dollars to profit from… if they want the piece of the actions, let them raise their own money and enter the market and compete… No piggybacking on HAL, OFB, BHEL, BEL,BEML, or BDL….

Just as in the article from Varun Gandhi I think DRDO has got far too big and powerful, with too less results in return. Cutting them back to a reasonable size and reforming the Indian R&D by including more JV and privat partners is important, but that is the case for HAL too. Even you recently stated that you want HAL to do more and when I see HAL future projects like HTT40, AJT, IMRH..., while most current aircraft developments of them are not ready, I ask myself why they don't focus on what is really important? More efficiency => more results!

What you see and what the business and strategic reality is, might differ…. What you are stating is based on not enough information…. I have always been amused at htt40 debacle. HTT40 is a low impact high return project and thus a good business case. It makes sense to take that project on, because it doesn’t call for shelving MKI production and making Htt40, it needs a small hangar, 5 managers, 10 engineers, and 20-30 technicians to get that project started. Just because auxillary high benefit/low resource projects are envisaged, that doesn’t mean high value large projects like Mki or FGFA are neglected. So in other words mark my word there is no neglect of important things, as a matter of fact there is extensive planning to accommodate additional projects to strike a balance between strategic and business perspective….

 

[sancho]

So in essence with tighter project planning, force projection and budget allocations by MOD, HAL would be able to deliver a highly profitable project. In theory If you dis invest just this helicopter cell to say TATA by 30%, it will be highly profitable venture for them as they would benefit from established order book, established quality process, established technology, established lean and six sigma protocol and in the end will benefit with a profit of 30% which will add to their NAV and additional to NPV, additionally a certain payout from this 30% will be made to tata’s shareholders and business partners. How much of the remaining profit will be turned back in to HAL’s development for next project, if there are no potential projects of business value how much of this profit will be turned back to Ministry of defence??

First of all, you didn't mentioned the benefits for HAL by getting TATA in, modern production capabilities, faster and at higher quality. Modern project management capabilities, access to TATAs JV partners in the aero field (Sikorsky, Boeing, Agusta Westland, Piaggio..., which can mean divertion of parts of their projects to HAL as well), easier funding at joint developments, without waiting for MoD or the forces.
Secondly, you missed that TATA must invest in HAL first to get the shares, that money then can directly be invested by HAL in new projects or in improving the current once.
Take a look at the NAL / Mahindra JV for the NM5, don't you think that it could be a viable project for both sides and should be even deepend (Mahindra as a partner for RTA for example)?

Results are reflection of action taken by an entity. If the results are the action of multiple parties involved, then the effect of results are to be shared by multiple entitites to…. For example in a project that is produced by HAL designed by DRDO, planned by MoD, and directed by IAF- the result should reflect the positives and negatives of each organization not just, ADA or IAF….

True but what about the projects that are under HAL and that I mentioned above or in earlier discussions too? You always shy away from taken HAL accountable for anything. Can you please name at least one project where you would say HAL is responsible for the delays or problems?
Or the other way around, which is the last aero project of HAL apart from Dhruv/Rudra that you would call successful?

There is no right for Reliance or Tata to get a free ride out of established billions of dollars to profit from… if they want the piece of the actions, let them raise their own money and enter the market and compete… No piggybacking on HAL, OFB, BHEL, BEL,BEML, or BDL….

And there's the problem! You see them only as competition, but not as possible partners for more. When you can team up with foreign companies for projects (IAI, BAE...), why not with TATA and co? Isn't the chance of more benefit wrt to real cooperation between 2 Indian companies higher than, HAL being dependent on what IAI or BAE is ready to provide?

What you see and what the business and strategic reality is, might differ…. What you are stating is based on not enough information….

Quiet possible, I only have the publically available sources to get infos and to get to my own conclusion. However, my advantage is that I see all the parties without any preference and that's how I judge the situation. That's why I can understand IAF, when they don't want 2 completelly different trainers for logistical issuses, or that they judge HTT40 "also" by the performance HAL showed at HPT 32 or IJT problems, or that they don't want to risk further delays after all the problems their training already had to face.
On the other side I can understand HAL to develop a trainer, when the forces used HAL trainers for years too, but and then HAL should had came up with more than just a mock up by now.

Please explain me something, just to get a better understanding. The NAL Hansa trainer was not a project that was pushed by MoD or IAF right? How or where did they got the funds to develop and test prototypes then? If they can develop such a project to prototype level, why wasn't HAL able to do similar with the HTT40?

These are questions aimed only on HAL and have nothing to do with MoD or IAF, DRDO..., I only want to know why NAL was able to do something that HAL couldn't or didn't.

 

[MilSpec]

First of all, you didn't mentioned the benefits for HAL by getting TATA in, modern production capabilities, faster and at higher quality. Modern project management capabilities, access to TATAs JV partners in the aero field (Sikorsky, Boeing, Agusta Westland, Piaggio..., which can mean divertion of parts of their projects to HAL as well), easier funding at joint developments, without waiting for MoD or the forces.
Secondly, you missed that TATA must invest in HAL first to get the shares, that money then can directly be invested by HAL in new projects or in improving the current once.
Take a look at the NAL / Mahindra JV for the NM5, don't you think that it could be a viable project for both sides and should be even deepend (Mahindra as a partner for RTA for example)?




True but what about the projects that are under HAL and that I mentioned above or in earlier discussions too? You always shy away from taken HAL accountable for anything. Can you please name at least one project where you would say HAL is responsible for the delays or problems?
Or the other way around, which is the last aero project of HAL apart from Dhruv/Rudra that you would call successful?



And there's the problem! You see them only as competition, but not as possible partners for more. When you can team up with foreign companies for projects (IAI, BAE...), why not with TATA and co? Isn't the chance of more benefit wrt to real cooperation between 2 Indian companies higher than, HAL being dependent on what IAI or BAE is ready to provide?




Quiet possible, I only have the publically available sources to get infos and to get to my own conclusion. However, my advantage is that I see all the parties without any preference and that's how I judge the situation. That's why I can understand IAF, when they don't want 2 completelly different trainers for logistical issuses, or that they judge HTT40 "also" by the performance HAL showed at HPT 32 or IJT problems, or that they don't want to risk further delays after all the problems their training already had to face.
On the other side I can understand HAL to develop a trainer, when the forces used HAL trainers for years too, but and then HAL should had came up with more than just a mock up by now.

Please explain me something, just to get a better understanding. The NAL Hansa trainer was not a project that was pushed by MoD or IAF right? How or where did they got the funds to develop and test prototypes then? If they can develop such a project to prototype level, why wasn't HAL able to do similar with the HTT40?

These are questions aimed only on HAL and have nothing to do with MoD or IAF, DRDO..., I only want to know why NAL was able to do something that HAL couldn't or didn't.

What can I say... I'm not going to nitpick anymore... I have repeatedly said that HTT 40 is low impact high benefit project which makes a good business case but it keeps falling on deaf ears... And HAL is providing an option and not shoving it down IAF's throat.

TATA LT or Mahindra doesn't bring an ounce of technological benefit and comparing them to BAE, EADS, DB or RADS is just silly.

Suggesting TATA will bring modern manufacturing techniques implies HAL's manufacturing regime is outdated... I will contest that with any production manager any day... get your data to suggest so and i will explain in detail the manufacturing system and opex planning regime...

HAL shortfalls are immense:

HAL has shortfalls, MKI production rate could use rapid improvements, strategic planning for FGFA could be done before hand, HAL should have kicked ADA in teeth for LCA mk1, HAL needs better marketing, HAL needs to grow more balls and stop providing warranty concessions for IAF, HAL needs to MRP restructuring for inventory turn around time, Hal needs to cut down raw rolling stock, HAL needs to stop paying out of it's own pocket for IAF's base repair depot maintenance costs, HAL should stop integrating DARE III upgrades to for Mig 27 and transfer the project to ADA which has barely any business value, HAL needs to stop life extension programs for overhauls and stick to it's scope of std work and Let IAF deal with life extensions for LGU's for mig 27, Jaguar and mig 21 bison units.

And if disinvestment is a magic cure, I have a better Idea, why not sell HAL to TATA, they seem to have some magic cure that I dont see.... If 10% will get all the improvements you envisage, shouldn't 100% increase that 9 folds....