TeerLets get into details.
There are three firms in India with the muscle and/or prior experience in defence or similar domains to actually compete with HAL, BEL etc on somewhat equal terms if they invest proportionately. Actually four, but two out of these four are DRDO partners, they basically cut their teeth on DRDO programs, and got some critical knowledge.
First is TATA. Tatas SED and other divisions are partners with DRDO in Electronics. Tatas current aero plans seem to be basically around offset work & becoming a build to print partner, working up to design. This is apart from their credible experience in systems work & engineering design services, (eg TCS, Tata Elxsi etc). I am talking of complete end to end D&D, certification, integration. And here, TATA has started on that path with its aero SEZ and its work on Sikorsky cabins and other work. It has a long way to go but is fairly serious.
Second is L&T – Larsen & Toubro. L&T is a world class engineering org, just like TATA. Big name in construction, heavy engineering. Again, works extensively with DRDO, on electronics, hydraulics, mechanical systems, also per public reports manufactured the hull for India’s nuke sub. Aerospace work – less public than even TATA, currently seems to be focused more on offsets.
Third, Mahindra. Big name in Indian automotive, wants to be the next Embraer. Focus on that. Clearly, its looking towards the export market & civil market, not defence. Complement HAL and not replace it. Here they purchased a small aussie firm making light aircraft & are starting operations to india. Again, working with NAL for civil programs – these are all programs where HAL has let work go, because its currently overloaded with defence work. Possible part of the Indian regional transport programs, might compete or partner with TATA.
Fourth, Bharat Forge. Largest forging firm in the world or one of the largest. Lots of interest, talk about entering into defence but no firm plans yet. Probably waiting for rules to relax a lot more, but risk aversion shows its not too willing to get into a business with such long gestation times.
Now, of these four private majors, which of them can compete or even replace HAL over the next decade? They are all going to take that much time to even mature their aerospace (which is a subset of their defence work) capabilities beyond build to print and their areas of expertise, eg engineering design or embedded systems or electronics systems.
L&T and TATA also have JVs with companies like EADS etc – all that means is more work for their overall defence portfolio in responding to Indian RFPs, eg communications, networks, etc and they might even supply HAL but competing across the entire design, certification process is a very time consuming and tough affair.
In the meanwhile – HAL has
Helicopters: 1500 target in ten years
http://expressbuzz.com/cities/bangalore/hal%E2%80%99s-target-1500-helicopters-in-10-years/247074.html
Transport
MRTA with Russia, SARAS with NAL
UAVs
Drdo programs, programs with Elbit, IAI
Fighters
LCA, FGFA and AMCA
MMRCA using TOT
Trainers
IJT, Hawk, HTT-40
Upgrades
Mirage 2000 series upgrade, MiG-29 series upgrade, Jaguar Darin 3, Su-30 MKI series upgrade
Offsets
Pretty much to pick & choose from all these programs as it is the largest player in town
Bottomline – its not going to be easy to compete, let alone supplant HAL. The units centralized structure also makes it easy for GOI to monitor, invest & run. Multiple firms, multiple headaches, and you need a larger economy to support them. Just take a look at how post cold war, US supplier shrank to a few key firms in each domain, versus many earlier.
TeerThen the above view does not match those of the view or opinion or experience of HAL in the ether.
One entity saying something I would put to sour grapes but almost all entities in the ether saying the same ?
Matt,
To judge the “ether”, to tell whether your “ether” is factual or just gripes… you need to have an understanding of the climate HAL works under, what its strengths and weaknesses are and even where HALs peers are, both public & private, the programs they are working on, their record so far, and even the non glamorous details…it requires a lot of effort, have you done all this?
Plus, you neither work in India or are even resident in India. In all your posts so far, I haven’t found anything in depth about the state of industry in India today. Its mostly been opinion but that doesn’t always translate to facts.
If you have to evaluate HAL dispassionately, one cant depend on something as iffy as the ether. One has to depend on facts. Financial performance. Details. Numbers. Programs and Performance. Customer satisfaction. After all this, if there is something from the “ether” – then you can well make out whether it is factual or just sour grapes.
Unless you do all this, all this ether stuff is just the “ICHS” – Indian Coffee House Syndrome, where everyone sits together and b!tches about everything under the sky.
As a case in point, I am yet to see any of the vast majority of people I have been in touch with, in private organizations, the who’s who of the efficient private Indian industry and what not, actually be happy with their firms. They are mostly dissatisfied on one level or the other. Its either this or that, money or something else.
That is the reality & the perspective I was pointing to, all this ether stuff apart, the facts are that as far as product development is concerned the reality speaks for itself. HAL has products like the IJT, LCH etc which dwarf anything Indian pvt firms have done so far. For the Indian pvt sector to compete, they have to invest in R&D correspondingly, with a far higher rate of investment to scale up to HAL level in the aircraft domain. Are they doing so? No. Its mostly build to print, supply chain participation, offset work and some limited investment in mergers and acquisitions so far. All this will take a decade to mature.
These are facts & pure hard ones from the business point of view. HAL, BEL have a scale which is full spectrum, and they have competent leadership who are not sitting idle.
Their private peers are far behind & will require a lot of time to catch up, even hoping HAL, BEL etc dont move ahead in the process. HALs nearest competitor (would be) is just talking of being the next “Embraer” & ramping up civil aircraft capabilities in a phased manner, whereas HAL is firming up an investment of $5 Billion in manpower, capex (facilities, tooling, design capabilities!) apart from the excellent body of knowledge it has in design, development and certification!
The problem Isnt what the government has mandated Hal to manage I think more about the internal management structure.
Again, more “in the sky” talk, which doesn’t translate into anything specific and implementable. Lets talk details.
What exactly is bad about HAL structure, whats to be corrected and whats not. Based on what I know, its not perfect and has the typical GOI setup vs pvt set up pros and cons, but its not that different either from the vast majority of large Indian companies most of whom, public or private operate under the same restrictions and have the same people.
Thats the exact point I was making to Swerve.
Things wont change magically, with efficiency and what not, just because there are two “private companies” competing with each other. It’ll just be a duopoly, with the same issues and instead of one HAL, you’ll have two quasi HAL, with duplication and confusion.
Take a look at the number of times a certain firm up north of India has been reorganized into A-1 and A-2 and then A and now a commercial plane unit has been hived off..
The only firms which are truly different are the SMEs which work under a flat hierarchy, and are bigger risk takers. But then thats true of SMEs all across the world. They have to compete with larger fish and hence routinely push the limits when it comes to risk and reward.
And even there, SMEs are just at the Tier 2 or Tier 3 level. They are not at the level where DRDO say can approach them and say build us this entire complex high end unit, like the phased array radar on the AEW&C. Even there, the heavy lifting has been done by LRDE and CABs with partnership for specific systems with the SMEs etc. The body of knowledge that is there with public firms is immense. Unless the pvt firms invest disproportionately to catch up, its a tough call.
TeerThis is why India needs private sector aviation firms. A competent build to print state firm with rigid management isn’t going to advance combat aircraft development, & design & development groups divorced from production have known problems. What’s needed are firms (more than one, to keep ’em keen) capable of doing both development & production engineering. They don’t need to be able to do everything in-house, but they need sufficient expertise to manage & integrate design & component manufacture done by subcontractors.
I don’t think DRDO & HAL fit the bill, either separately or together.
Your points about Indian industry & HAL, DRDO etc, are pretty mistaken per the actual state of affairs.
First, HAL is not just a competent build to print state firm with rigid management. It is one of the highest spenders in R&D in India at around 4-5% of sales as i recall, Bharat Electronics, another defence PSU is at 4% and will double it to 8%. In contrast, most Indian firms, bar pharma ones and a couple of big congolmerates into general or automotive manufacturing are at 1-2%. Basically they don’t do R&D.
From 2007 itself
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/pj7HW1WSqpdxWFuZuTgt10Cux5nDTtoUdSQOfRrXxFI?feat=embedwebsite
SMEs do a lot of R&D. Eg:
http://www.adtl.co.in/profile.html
One startup started by ex BEL guys is at 11% of sales and others are even looking at 12-14%.
But for a large enterprise to compete with HAL across the domain, it would have to effectively double its current allocation without hurting its current core product lines. Thats a huge risk & which few, if any private firms will make. The Govt of India, the present one, after having spent like anything on social justice (read vote scheme) does not have the cash to sustain/write a blank check to create a HAL like enterprise. Plus, whom should it choose? L&T, Tata or Mahindra? The result would be a duopoly instead of a monopoly and even the efficiency of centralized investment would disappear.
Second, HAL got managerial freedom ie the mandate to chart its own path in the late 90’s during the NDA tenure. From then on, its investment and focus on R&D has grown by leaps and bounds. First, HAL set up the Aircraft Research Design & Upgrade unit, which already has the Jaguar Darin-2 upgrade to its credit, and is now productionizing the Darin-3 one. It also worked with DRDO for the MiG-27 Upgrade & is responsible for follow on work in avionics and systems.
Third, two years back, HAL decided to set up a centralized R&D unit, which is working on a host of technologies and systems. These wont come cheap, nor will they come quick, but its an investment for the future. It also includes JVs with pvt firms like SAMTEL for cockpit displays and both DRDO & others for subsystems. This is apart from aircraft specific R&D units which for instance do their own design & development. Eg the aircraft division worked on the IJT, is contributing to the LCA, the rotorcraft division developed the ALH, and now the follow on LCH.
http://www.hal-india.com/randd.asp
There is a focus on UAVs, transports, helicopters as well.
Says a lot about the Indian pvt industry, that in a partnership around the production of the SARAS light transport, the IAF vetoed pvt involvement and asked HAL to do it. Basically, aerospace is all about manpower and certification competence. There is no firm in India which has the wherewithal to seriously compete with HAL at the level full design & development demands.
Fourth, Ambassador Roemers remarks are not surprising. HAL is very manpower intensive & tends to reuse older facilities rather than build/modernize spanking new ones which tend to leave a better impression on a visitor used to seeing spotless new facilities with maximum automation. But the needs of the MMRCA competition, Tejas, 5G program & now the LCH all mean new facilities and capex are required.
Hence:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/136490/hal-plans-rs-20000-crore.html
Thats around $5 Billion. How many aviation majors are even planning something of this sort over the long term, let alone being serious about it?
The LCA facility refresh has already started and stuff has been posted earlier on in this thread. Its currently at eight per year but will be expanded.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/5-tejas-to-light-up-aero-india.html
Newer facilities are generally cleaner & more visitor/media friendly than the older lines..even if they reuse older jigs, tools, access equipment etc
LCH
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/TU_DrCC2yHI/AAAAAAAABcY/T25redTbUtk/s1600/LCH4.jpg
Sadly, you won’t get all this from the likes of Shiv Aroor and the media. While news like HALs investment was making folks with some industrial interest sit up, he was probably busy blogging on something inane.
Basically, most folks who are talking of HAL etc need to account for the fact that its transforming. And the MOD mandate is “more the better”, as matter of fact, more and more firms are getting into aerospace, eg TATA, Mahindra, BEML etc, but to get to where HAL is…takes a lot of doing.
Coming to DRDO, they have a fairly decent track record when the production partner is interested. BEL is a case in point, just take a recent example.
http://forceindia.net/lastmonth/interview21.aspx
Commandant, Military College of Telecommunication and Engineering, Lt Gen.
V.K. Sharma
What are the major changes that have happened in the electronic warfare (EW) in the last five years? Where exactly are we headed in this area?
We have EW equipment which has been indigenously manufactured by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) on which training is being given in addition to the new equipment which is on its way from Israel. Samyukta system by BEL is state-of-the–art equipment and has already been fielded in one of the groups. We also have simulators on which training is imparted.The recent advancement in EW is that now the same equipment is able to address a large number of frequencies for which separate equipments were required earlier. Today, we have the advanced equipment which can take care of a larger portion of the spectrum and is more potent. These systems can also take care of the anti-ECCM (electronic counter counter-measures) techniques adopted by the adversaries like frequency hopping etc.
Samyukta is a DRDO product
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DLRL/English/index.jsp?pg=AreasWork.jsp
Follow on systems are in development..
HAL – the Tejas will tell but the MOD is making sure of that with sufficient carrot (investment) and stick (strict deadlines, prioritizin). With ECIL, Keltron – for products like Brahmos, Akash etc, its been ok as well, just check the trials and orders.
With OFB – land systems, record has been hit and miss. Subsystems etc ok, but lot of handholding required in terms of QC, production engineering etc. Again because OFB had very limited R&D of its own.
Basically, the private sector in India has a long way to go before it invests in anywhere near the scale required to get upto speed in terms of own design and development. Problem is, the GOI cant sustain them. They have to figure out their own path. Best GOI can do is create an equal playing field but till the pvt firms step up with investments and capability, HAL etc will still have the edge.
Becoming a biggie is a big thing…Mahindra and TATA have started but they have at least a decade to go before they can even attempt to claim they understand the nuances and complexities of end to end D&D..let alone attempt it.
TeerThere is only one country with extensive experience on stealth and that is the U.S. Russia is just taking baby steps along the stealthy path.
You have to be joking if you believe that…several countries apart from US have an understanding of stealth concepts and systems, only they dont have the funding or reason to pursue expensive full operational systems. And Russia, by far, is one of the nations, which has understood many aspects and things about radar cross sections, other signatures, and how to minimize them. Look at their investment and understanding in the allied engineering domains, and its clear they have a fairly extensive set up and infrastructure on the topic
Teer@Teer
What gives you the idea that heavier=more capable in A2A ?
Compare P-51 with P-47 and tell me how the heavier P-47 was more capable,
and compare Gripen NG with any MMRCA, except perhaps Typhoon, and tell me in what way they are more capable.
Or are you only referring to the bomb truck role ?
If so consider that Gripen/F16 will be a far cheaper bomb truck than other “more capable” MMRCA competitors, a capability in it’s own right.
I meant overall. The F-16 is in service with PAF and I doubt IAF will take it, so lets leave it out.
In air to air, I’d take the Rafale over the Gripen NG as well, given its system maturity especially its onboard passive sensors, after ATLC. Given it was designed to handle the French deterrence, it would make a better striker as well. Hornet – sorry far more funded & with more mature systems than the Gripen has.
I am not concerned with “cheap” as I have said before, I am concerned about overall capability.
TeerLOL – the IAF plans for the same number of LCAs as it does for the MMRCA. Both have ~126 aircraft planned with rest options!
83 Aircraft is the LCA MK2 proposed order. Not 126.
You have misinterpreted what I wrote, and second, you have a flawed understanding of how the IAF works as well.
I said LCAs – I didnt break them out by Marks, since neither did Loke. The total number of LCAs planned so far, is nothing less than 40+3+83 =126 MK1 & MK-2, even excluding the first 5 LSP. There is every chance that the IAF will order more than 83 as well, once the aircraft matures! Right now, the IAF has committed for Bison replacements but more orders are likely given AF sq expansion and number build up.
The IAF took 18 Ks till the MKI arrived, and ending up ordering several hundred more of the type!
The 83 is MOQ – minimum order quantity, required by HAL to draw up production plans, capex for tooling, manpower, line expansion, keeping in mind IAF needs!!
So the Tejas orders are well in line with MMRCA orders – both at 126 aircraft each, and both aircraft types can have follow on orders as well!!
IAF pilots deputed at NFTC – fairly well versed with several types of aircraft, the experience is incredible, from Mirage to MiG-21,27, 29 and even Su-30 MKI are certain once the IAF gets its hands on the LCA, the IAF will appreciate the type. And this is merely for the MK1 itself, despite it not hitting overambitious ASRs! Let alone the MK2 which adds significantly more thrust.
It was the same for the MKI and several other programs. Once the IAF realized the capabilities of its new equipment, it ordered more. Its a very conservative organization when it comes to initial orders, and many suppliers, not just domestic have complained about this habit. But it makes up the numbers thereafter.
India cannot match China fighter for fighter weapon for weapon. We should look at what China is doing to counter U.S superiority in certain areas and do the same with respect to China.
Have you considered what the IAF is doing versus China in modernization? If you actually list out all the areas India is investing in, it would be a pretty self explanatory read. We are investing in equipment which is fully capable of handling the two front threat. Why exactly do you think the IAF is so insistent that the LCA MK-2 arrive, when even the operational MK-1 can beat the Bison handily in several respects, and the Bison has been very useful in IAF operations. They know the scenario.
The Chinese will use cruise and ballistic missiles to target Indian Air Bases and defensive infrastructure before launching Air Raids, all these uber expensive fighters may be sitting ducks on destroyed run ways. The Gripen meanwhile can operate from highways and improvised air strips.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong, Quad. Think from the IAFs viewpoint. Do you want to invest on AFB AND additional grounds, just because the AFB would be targeted? Or would you rather ensure the AFB that would bear the brunt of the attack can ward off such attacks and your assets are distributed
Gosh, listening to you, one would think the IAF had never heard of concepts such as SAMs, grid defences, dispersed basing etc.
The Gripens so called highway basing etc, in India is a bit irrelevant, as India does not train for operating from highways – and no, there is no such thing as “improvised air strip” for sustained combat ops, the risk of FOD, the problems with securing the strip are just too many! Google MAFI & see what the IAF plans!
The WW2 Era landing strips which are being reactivated in the North East is can also be used by the Gripen.
Those strips are NOT meant for fighters!! Exactly because they will be targeted in the opening phases of a conflict. They are meant for sustaining outposts in peacetime, and rapidly building up forces before the conflict starts!
The Peace time operation costs of all the twin engine heavies will bear down heavily on the IAF especially considering the increased number of squadrons. The money thus saved can be invested in other areas (more Cruise Missiles, Smart Bombs, SRBMS and the likes) which will give more of an edge during the battle.
India is under investing in defence as a proportion of its GDP versus security threats, and yet, is able to sustain a large capex, increasing constantly which has funds earmarked for different requirements. In other words, the operational costs stuff is a bogie spread by those competitors who have little to offer in terms of combat capability versus their peers!! The IAF is actually pitching for more squadrons, not trying to skimp on money elsewhere because a two front war requires every bit of effort. In war, theres no price for second place, no matter how inexpensive your aircraft are.
So far I have never heard any IAF official favouring a twin engined fighter, while have had several favouring a cheap light fighter.
Only a bunch of retired types, several given freebies, and junkets by a certain “cheap light fighter” or easy PR handouts to replicate for mags without much effort, have been drumming up its support. Its just spin
In reality, there is a significant IAF camp which supports twin engine fighters, especially after the acquisition of the MKI. Hence what matters are the actual type evaluations, which focused on capability and then the offsets, strategic aspect
TeerThe mk2 is scheduled to fly “in 2015 or 2016” link.
Allow for some delays and then some years of flight testing. Let’s say it becomes introduced in 2020 with production of 10 a/c a year — by 2025 there will be 50. OK, perhaps not “tiny”, but still a rather smallish number.
I think it will be an open question if IAF really wants to order much more than that given that by 2025 focus will be on 5. gen and UCAVs…
Loke, you are really twisting the numbers to somehow support your rather erroneous claim!
First, the production rate of the LCA MK–II is planned for @20 year. The modalities are being worked out between HAL, IAF & ADA. Even the LCA MK-1 production rate has already been funded for 8/yr, with clear provision for expansion as IAF expands orders.
So, even if the LCA MK-II was to enter production in 2020, going by your claims, assuming a four year design to production cycle, and in fact, even assuming 15 a year versus 20, by 2025, at least 75 MK-2s would have been delivered, along with the 40 MK-1s! Add the last few LSPs which too are to make it to the IAF, and thats ~120 LCAs.
Assuming IOC by 2019 a more reasonable estimate, 3 years from 2016, and production from that point on at 4 the first year, and 14 thereafter you have 74 planes! And again, the LCA numbers are at the 120 level.
Pretty much the same as the numbers of MMRCA, planned!
Coming to what the IAF really wants to order, on the one hand you try to support the Gripen NG for the IAF while trying to downplay its threat perception, which more and more consists of heavy fighters – several hundred Flanker airframes & the PRC now has its own J-20 design to productionize as well.
Then you make a prediction and say 5G and UCAVs – when the 5G program is coming as a follow on to the LCA & the IAF already has a heavy PAK-FA. Its really surprising to see how your arguments change function – on the one hand the IAF is top heavy, if it does not acquire the Gripen, never mind, the threats are mostly heavy & the IAF has the local Tejas program to build up “light numbers” if it so chooses. But you ignore this.
And for tomorrow, you support heavier 5G programs, and a UCAV which is not even around or ready, as versus aircrafts which the IAF would have a much better chance of having ready.
Your statements just dont add up.
Basically, yeah ok, so you like the Gripen & want it selected for the MMRCA. I get that, but its also equally true that the Gripen does fall rather into an uncomfortable place which in procurement terms is between the heavier plus more capable MMRCA competitors, and the Indian lca… And its also true that given the threat perceptions India faces, Gripen may not actually be the best choice in terms of combat capability, even if its cheaper and what not.
Teer“126 or 200 twin-engine MMRCA,
and a tiny number of lca and some old Mirage.”
LOL – the IAF plans for the same number of LCAs as it does for the MMRCA. Both have ~126 aircraft planned with rest options! IAF has also now asked for 5.5 more squadrons to 45 from existing 39.5.
But to somehow justify the Gripen, you have to come up with convoluted numbers for the IAF composition. While correcting Sancho, do ensure your numbers are right!
As regards top-heavy, given IAF faces hundreds of heavy aircraft such as the J-11, Su-27, Su-30, and now even the J-20 etc – it has every right to decide its force composition.
TeerIf the AMCA was a single engined fighter it would need a really powerful engine to be a stealth fighter considering the internal volume of stealth fighters is generally much more than regular fighters.
With no such engine available, and with India wanting an indigenous turbofan (and the only one available is going to be in the 90kN class) to be used on the AMCA, it leaves no option but to go with 2 engines.
As for Russia partnering India, it is actually a very remote possibility. Russia has decades of expertise on fighters and would almost naturally assume the lead role in such a fighter project, whereas what India wants is to develop the expertise by doing the bulk (not all) of the design and development work within India itself.
Which is why smaller nations with solid experience would be better partners- they could contribute technologically but not necessarily push for design lead. And considering Dassault’s history in this matter one might think that they would’nt fit it so well. SAAB OTOH are possibly the best partners for ADA/DRDO/HAL on this project.
It doesnt exactly work that way. A big thing for DRDO/ADA is to do things on their own. They dont exactly need workshare, ie an agreement with SAAB unless they have multiple programs and are running low on manpower, eg IAI with Barak-2 because India has Akash, SRSAM, BMD, Agni, Shaurya, SLBM etc etc. The AMCA will be the follow on to the LCA, so the entire team will work on it throughout. So what they need are partner/s with extensive experience on stealth, and systems, that can audit, offer consultancy. Thats exactly what EADS, BAe etc are doing right now for the LCA. They are not doing the work for ADA or partnering it in developing systems.
And here – Russia or countries with extensive experience on stealth, may be much better partners than SAAB. US companies won’t be allowed to share critical best practises by the US Govt. – stealth is a very closely guarded secret. So in all probability, Russia could be a better support.
Partnership but joint IP and India does the rest, SAAB could still be a partner, but only if pretty much everything both countries work on is joint IP, and even then, the rest will be done by India. Because at the end of the day, India is committed to building a local aerospace capability, across the board, despite all the obstacles.
Other option is an enhanced version of the LCA type one, but this time, properly funded from day one, with different consultancy packages with different firms. Slightly more or lower risk, depending on what parameters you choose, but may offer more independence, and even, if well done, better expertise and lower cost. But risk of delays, with multiple partner and impact of managing them on program exists.
Lets see what they choose.
TeerAnd since Sweden does not have the EMB-145 (its Erieyes are mounted on Saab 340s), an obviously flawed one, even without looking at the details.
Actually, all you are doing is looking at that one table, as versus the entire presentation – go to the aeroindia website & look up the online telecast. Its fairly educative & goes into the details of what a modern AEW&C constitutes, testing etc. The presentation shows a 340 with AEW&C earlier. So basically, whats happened here is a mistake in the table, which implies that its comparing all systems already on EMB-145s wherein it should be more accurately saying “comparable systems which can be put on an EMB-145” or such like.
I note that the comparison has been misleadingly skewed by “C-band data link”, as if data links using other frequencies don’t count. Not really worth looking any closer.
No, that parts not misleading but contextual. The IAF requirement specifies a C Band datalink. So if the others dont have one, then its noted as such and datalinks using other frequencies really dont count.
However, if I recall correctly, there was a star beside that portion, noting other aircraft do have different datalinks.
Eitherways, see the actual presentation – its fairly educational and a well spent half hour of one’s time.
Teerembraer’s sole experience in fast jets (well not that fast) is the joint production of the trainer class AMX. much like saab it doesn’t own the little things that go into an aircraft (even in the class it has mastered i.e civil airliners) and is more of an assembler, although saab does at least develop some of its tech.
HAL/ADA/DRDO among them have vastly more capability in a wide front of areas that embraer simply outsources from elsewhere. it surely makes for a good business model but I don’t see how it makes them even remotely interesting as a tech partner for HAL/ADA in developing something as complex as AMCA. to call them ahead is laughable..
You got all the relevant points!
Thing is Embraer does have technology areas, areas of expertise which can help India, but it doesnt have the complete depth of expertise which a primary partner is expected to bring to the table.
According to some program managers who conducted this exercise, only a handful of companies or state managed/assisted aerospace “combines” (including EADS combine, LM, Boeing & Russian state owned UAC, French Dassault/Thales/Safran combo, I think BAe was also mentioned) can actually manage this. Hence, the reason why they are often chosen as primes in partnership engagements or tend to get large package deals.
Other firms are usually chosen for specific assistance & technology & components in specific functional areas, eg Elta for radars or say Moog for actuators, but thats different from being a primary partner who has to bring a lot more onto the table.
Of course, the flip side is the partner has more negotiating power & demands a high price for services, but it does save time & allow for simpler lines of communication.
TeerIt does not matter what you say of my ideas, wont change the fact
If your “ideas” are whimsical, and not grounded in reality, how can they become a fact?
to pull Indian Aerospace up by its boot straps a company like SAAB is needed.
Heh. India has a lot more going on than what a single company like SAAB can provide. India has no dearth of programs & even the industrial capability to achieve it, what it really needs is an overarching commitment to aerospace from national leadership & complete & equitable participation from all firms involved, whether public or private, with long term plans laid out upfront, serious commitment from the end user to justify the investment, and clear lines of leadership & accountability. The rest is just eyewash. With the huge offsets bonanza coming in, there are many firms capable and eager enough to participate in aerospace, the challenge & the need of the hour is to have an aerospace vision beyond just individual programs, organizations and trade bodies.
Teeroh and by the way, i was talking about the indian press when i asked why there had been so little reaction to those exercises. it doesn’t seem to make any difference whether stories are true or not, but i haven’t seen any and that makes me feel that there was something they didn’t want to report.
but only slitely so don’t get to worked up over it. you take my point though quadbike?:)
Can you tell me what the Indian press reported about the recent RSAF exercises, the other exercises held with the US in recent times (on its own as versus US reports)…
Your claims are shooting in the dark. The IAF doesn’t usually leak stuff and they repeatedly go out of the way to make sure the exercises are held in a cordial atmosphere, with mixed packages to avoid the us versus them aspect.
Teerwhy not? better than having a long space between the moving parts and non moving parts with a axle curvature. In flight these will only move microskopic due to its size.
next thing to make all moving is the wings 🙂
They are going to make RCS modeling very complex at the size they are at, and strength requirements @ speed, make me doubt they’ll be made all composite & of RF transparent materials.
IMO, the F-22/JSF continue to be the benchmark for stealth.
Teer2. If you insist on comparing the LCAs to the “right version” of Gripen then you need to compare the LCA mk1 to Gripen A/B, and LCA mk2 to Gripen C/D… and LCA mk3 (if it ever gets built) to Gripen NG…. 😉
Even if we take what you say as correct, that itself counts against the Gripen NG, that it has an aircraft, which in one design cycle can come to the Gripen NG level, so why buy an aircraft at that level. It makes more sense for India to actually buy something fundamentally different and in a different category like the Rafale, F-18 or the Eurofighter
Sign In
