AbhimanyuQuadbike, the news which you have posted is extremely gratifying and welcome for the indigenous weapons development in India. More importantly, HAL (at lease in this particular case) has attempted to do design & development totally indigenously. Otherwise, usually it just robotically issues a global tender for “joint partnership” (read : licence production), whenever it is tasked with developing a new fighter, chopper or whatever.
It is good that the order for importing foreign LOH’s is capped at 197, while the rest will be indigenously designed, developed and productionized by HAL. It is also hoped that the Army and IAF do Not “dilly-dally” over HAL’s product unlike the initial “hiccupping” over Dhruv and embrace it wholly. Further improvements can be carried out in tranches.
HAL must finally rid of it’s ‘habit’ of just issuing global tenders as soon as a new aircraft is mooted by the armed forces. The first line of action must be indigenous design & development. The import or licence production option must be the very last resort.
One may sincerely hope that the proposed so-called “JV” with Russia to develop an MTA is also cancelled and HAL instead “throws it’s weight” behind NAL’s 70-seater RTA. Note that MTA was also supposed to be one of the highlights of Mr. Putin’s recent visit, but it was silently pushed to sidelines because of disagreements between HAL and UAC. This is because the MTA is a ready-made Ilyushin design waiting to be productionized; HAL has little to design and conduct R&D on it.
AbhimanyuArey, just because some private company has come up with a so-called “loitering missile”, the Indian Army developed a requirement for it (and must’ve already drawn up a doctrine around it too by now, so that when the CAG asks it can say, “Oh look, this new missile neatly fits into our already envisaged doctrine. It’s almost as if we foresaw it’s invention by messrs MBDA Inc !”)
AbhimanyuI wonder about Shourya too, not too sure about the depressed trajectory term
I fully agree with you. Although Shaurya uses a tactical ballistic missile’s propulsion, it’s cruise path & trajectory are more akin to a cruise missile. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shaurya too is off the list of informing Pakistan. Same goes for the under-sea Sagarika missile.
AbhimanyuJust look at this thread? What other air force rushes to the US embassey to complain about a Youtube clip?
No other Air-Force has done that, because no other Air-Force has been subjected to such an unprofessional and unsolicited commentary. It is to the credit of professionalism, as also India’s stature, that the USAF immediately issued a statement denouncing the officer’s views as his own, and not the official view of the USAF’s. The USAF took pains to clarify that the USAF holds the opposite view of the officer in youtube.
Now, we may assume if a USAF officer is shown on an hour-long youtube clip “denouncing” the PAF’s JF-17 or Mirages. Would the PAF remain silent ? You can answer that better.
AbhimanyuThe above is correct. The agreement mandates prior information to be given to the other country only for ballistic missile tests.
So, just as India does not have to inform Pakistan before testing it’s Akash and Brahmos missiles, Pakistan won’t have to inform about it’s Babur tests.
I wonder what about the 3 PAD/AAD tests that India has conducted so far. PAD/AAD are not ballistic missiles,and only the target missile is a ballistic missile. So, maybe Pak is informed only about the target, and not about the interceptors.
AbhimanyuI don’t understand your post…why should the HAL justify the 25% joint development..if the IAF wants it they will just buy it.It should be easy to justify it considering that it is the only 5th gen plane available today to India.
Incorrect. I’ll rephrase your statement to reflect the truth : “if the IAF wants it, then they have to justify to the govt. and public that it is a ‘joint development’, because yet another multi-billion dollar purchase won’t go down well with the govt monitoring agencies and public at large”.
Also, HAL’s stated corporate policy is to licence-produce only, and not go in for design. Given that they have the monopoly on licence-producing fighter jets for their sole customer, i.e IAF, why bother to design indigenous jets ?
Indigenous development will always suffer till the govt controls defense production…the F22 was not made by the US govt and certainly not by a company where recruitment is done by quotas and not merit.
See, F-22 was funded largely by the American taxpayer, and it’s development was controlled, managed and monitored by the Pentagon and USAF. It was NOT the sole initiative of Lockheed Martin.
AbhimanyuIt was extremely heartening to note that the agreement to finance and purchase PAK-FA units was not signed during the recent visit of Mr. Putin to India last week, although it was one of the “most anticipated” highlights of Mr. Putin’s visit.
It is thus amply clear that the HAL is trying very hard to seek more ways to justify it’s “25% joint development” con.
What must’ve happened is this :- The “tidbit” work that HAL managed to get from Sukhoi, doesn’t still quite look like “25% joint development”. It knows that the CAG and Defence Committees will haul it up and ask very tough questions. They know how to distinguish between “screwdriver licence production” and “joint-development”.
It is sincerely hoped that this deal never goes through, to save billions of dollars of taxpayer’s finances. It must also be noted that the media too did NOT report too much on the above lapse — which is understood, biased as it is in favour of Russian import lobby.
AbhimanyuInsignificant differences have no bearing on what mission computers & other avionics are chosen. Arey, the same class of MCs are used in Su-30, Tejas and Jaguars and Litening pod is used in Tejas and Su-30. So, the airframe doesn’t matter at all, leave aside insignificant differences between MKK and MKI.
I repeat again that there is near-commonality between the Su-30 MKI and the MKK. Significant changes usually result from Su-35/37 onwards, which warrant the model-name change. (now wikipedia reports that canards are needed more to balance the shift of CG due to the weight of the bars radar. Changes in FBW are also needed. This is claimed to be the main reason why PLAAF rejected bars).
Abhimanyuno it doesn’t. I’ve provided proof in support of my statement.
source ? proof ? your statements or arguments won’t do. neither will goebbelsian tactics.
to prove your point you need to provide valid links. not bluster.
Mister, you haven’t provided any source or valid links for Algerian Su-30s using HAL made equipment either (the Hindu report you posted, has nothing), and you pick holes in my argument ? That’s why I said earlier, and repeat you don’t know what you talk yourself, and in a flustered flush of simply letting out an argument, you type anything.
HAL announced that Malaysian export specifically. There has been NO mention of any other mission computers being exported to any other Su30 variant, much less Algerian ones — contrary to what you’ve been crooning till now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Abhimanyuyou do realise you are repeating my own arguments ? 😀
let me try put this in simple words for you, once again:
MKK and MKI are different (as in NOT SAME) aircraft programs for DIFFERENT countries that are potential military rivals. IOW, to even think of using each others military equipment is sheer nonsense. even otherwise, aeroplanes are not lego bricks that one can plug and remove equipment at will.
Huh ? Uncleji, you are repeating what I said 2-3 posts back. Please learn to comprehend posts. I said :- Except the Malaysian program, HAL’s equipment are NOT standard fitment in ANY variant. I think I’m repeating this for the second or third time.
I think I must’ve added, “Except the Malaysian program, HAL’s equipment are NOT standard fitment in ANY variant, MKI or otherwise“. Now, there is nothing to distinguish the airframes of MKI and MKK. They are distinguished by their internal equipment. Airframe-wise, there is near complete commonality.
To illustrate, Vietnam for example, uses the MK variant, but not it’s adversarial China’s avionics. But it didn’t choose Indian ones either. Malaysia did. And Algeria didn’t. And Algeria does use the MKI variant.
So I repeat for the second time :- Malaysia chose to opt HAL’s equipment, and Algeria chose not to opt for HAL equipment. There goes your “‘standard equipment on MKI variants'” conjecture out of the window anyway.
swerve, India’s version of the flanker is the su-30mki aka flanker-H and the Indian made (and designed) components are “standard equipment” on ‘all’ mki versions AFAIK.
No. MKA too doesn’t use MKI components. Please get off your “standard equipment on MKI varints” horse.
lastly, Indian origin parts do end up in MKI derivatives meant for other air forces. that’s all I said. here’s a bit of news from 2004 for example. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/12/24/stories/2004122401440700.htm
Arey baba, they DO NOT end up in Algerian variant. And neither reportedly in the Belarussian variant too (they were supposed to buy older used Su-30’s from the IAF).
so you are admitting that you were deliberately trying to mislead people, aka trolling ? :rolleyes:
if you post BS it will be called out, simple. the solution is not to post BS. 😉
Like I said earlier, you clearly seem to have a scorched nerve. You were caught passing off your unsubstantiated and unverified fantasy of “Indian stuff is standard equipment in MKI variants” theory, as fact.
Abhimanyu:rolleyes: how many of the ‘non-chinese flankers’ are MKK derived and how many are MKI derived ? what % of MKI derived aircraft does not have Indian components ? look it up, it will be enlightening stuff for you. for someone who posts so authoritatively on every topic you make far too many factual mistakes.
Other than the Chinese variant, the variants exported to Venezuela, Indonesia and Vietnam are derived from the basic MKK variant, originally developed for China. They use Russian (also probably Chinese) mission computers and other avionics. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
and I’m not even talking of the absolutely ridiculous ‘NAL hansa should be HPT-32 replacement’.
Whoever spoke to you about that ?
awww, got under your skin did I ? what next direct insults of the ‘you are a xyz’ type ? :rolleyes:
Well, I sure did inadvertantly pluck a very touchy & petulant chord there in you, Rahul M. Sorry !
Abhimanyuabhiman, swerve is “not” correct, see above. as for the rest of your post, not infrequently I fail to grasp your point and this time is no different.
I think he is correct. You said, “Indian components (mission computers etc IIRC) do end up on other specimens of the mki family in other countries i.e the MKM and MKA.” True, they do, but they are NOT standard fitment on all non-Chinese variants of the Su-30. In any case they end up there, only because the customers opted for them. Malaysia’s MKM, for example, did not opt for Israeli components for obvious reasons.
Either you yourself don’t understand what you post, or have an innate inability to express them. To me, it seems both.
AbhimanyuRahul M, Swerve is correct. HAL’s equipment on some Su-30 MK-X variants is NOT part of standard fitment. It is optional. Besides, only because the original SU-30 was bereft of quality equipment and EW, the void had to be filled by DRDO.
As just examples, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Ford etc. all have their manufacturing plants in India. They source auto ancillaries from local parts makers. And these made-in-India vehicles are exported too. Some of these companies want to make India and Vietnam their export hubs (probably beause there is no space left in S. Korea and Japan).
Also, they heavily customize the cars for the Indian market and Indian road conditions.
But all this doesn’t change the fact that the cars are, (and remain) of Japanese, Korean or American design & technology. The soil on which they’re manufactured, does NOT matter.
The same understanding has to be vis-a-vis the PAK-FA. What is being touted as a JV, is really nothing but plain old licence production. The entire airframe, radar, engine, avionics, weapons, stealth tech etc. are all Russian with zero Indian input.
The only difference is that FGFA will be a two-seater — designed by Sukhoi of course, and NOT HAL, contrary to what is commonly believed by media and on bharat rakshak. This is as per interviews of no less than Sukhoi chief Mr. Pogosyan, and HAL chief, Nayak themselves. So, HAL’s contrib is all the more miniscule.
The so-called FGFA is no different from F-16 IN and Gripen-IN — both, customized for the 126 MRCA tender. So, Lockheed slapped 2 CFT tanks and an AESA radar to the F-16, while SAAB added more weapon-stations and fuel capacity to the existing Gripen. Similarly, Sukhoi will just add a second seat to the PAK-FA for the IAF, that’s all.
Instead, Nayak is fixated on the term “joint development”, which has been massively misinterpreted in India. He cleverly hides the fact that all the India-specific customization (like twin-seats), will be done by Sukhoi, and HAL will just copy-paste it in Bangalore. Instead, he keeps insisting that the FGFA is a “customization for IAF, different from PAK-FA”, and leaves it to the Indian imagination to conclude that, “..but of course, the India-specific customizations (like two-seats) will done by HAL. This really is a JV !….”
—–
There is one other country, which basically bankrolled a fighter that was designed by another nation. The developer nation calls it by one name, but the purchasing country insists that it is a “Joint Fighter”, and so has it’s own name for it. The country is Pakistan, and the fighter is the Joint Fighter -17 (JF-17). But China prefers to call it, Fighter China – 1 (FC-1).
AbhimanyuSee, that is exaclty why I told you not to quote out of context! The full quote was:
Take MKI for example, it was way more than a simple procurement for India than the EF procurement for Saudi. We customized it from the start for those requirements and didn’t simply used techs that Russia offered us, we get the max of our advantage of access to foreign techs too.
Pak Fa / FGFA will also be mainly a Russian development of course and we will do pretty much the same things that we did with MKI, but this time we will also produce parts for Russian and possible export fighters. Our industry will make parts not only for 230 MKIs, but for 500+ Pak Fa and FGFA, so with every new fighter, they will earn money too! Will Saudi Arabia have this advantage? No, because they are only a simple buyer, whereas India will be (maybe a minor, but) a partner!
Bhaisaheb, you should’ve gone into politics (they keep saying, “no no I meant that, in that context!”).
I quoted parts of your bolded post also, and reiterate once again that Su-30 MKI is NOT a joint development by any stretch. It is not officially regarded as one too, either by HAL or by IAF. So, if you think it is a JV, then you’re opposing even HAL and IAF too.
If you compare what HAL did with Su-30 with PAK-FA, then PAK-FA is not a joint development at all. Customization is NOT joint development (read Swerve’s post again).
I’ve also stated earlier that in the PAK-FA, if HAL plucks out perfectly fine Russian mission computers, displays, 5th gen. EW, and display processors only to replace it with it’s own, it would be wasting time, money and effort in doing so. It was necessary in Su-30, because the “vanilla” Su-30 didn’t have any quality equipment, bar the bars (pun intended) in the first place. So, Indian,Israeli,French customization was compulsory.
So although all main techs like engine, radar and also the main airframe development will be done by Russia, we will customize it for our requirements including the max use of foreign techs, will produce parts for Pak Fa and exports too. This all comes in a partnership, where we paid at least 25% of R&D, which means it is not a licence production!
Goodness ! Mere customization and making parts for export is NOT a JV ! Please read this post of mine in the PAK-FA MKI thread. FGFA and it’s technicalities are discussed in detail there.
You simply can’t agree that you are wrong right? :rolleyes: Again, your own source said HTT 40 will replace Deepak turboprop trainer in the first stage , it’s not important that it’s specs on wiki looks close to Kiran, because the one is a turboprob, to replace the turboprob Deepak and the other one is a jet trainer that will replace the jet trainer Kiran.
Arey, I said HTT-40 (or the imported turboprop) is meant to replace Surya-Kiran, because it has Kiran’s specs. That’s because you can’t replace a 230 km/hr Deepak with a 600 km/hr HTT-40, or equivalent imported turboprop that IAF seeks. Both are entirely different class of trainers. Hansa is more in Deepak’s category.
We all have been discussing that HTT-40 or the imported turboprops, are “meant” to replace HPT-32 Deepak. We all know that. That’s what I’ve been asking why ? Why not Hansa for Deepak, and IJT for Surya-Kiran ? Only 12 IJT Sitara’s are under order (though unconfirmed reports say 73, which is unlikely, given IAF’s disappointment.) The HTT-40 or the imported turboprops will invariably replace the Surya-Kiran stage of training also. So, IJT Sitara is also on it’s way out !
Agree to the first part, because I misread it, the development part of HAL remains to FGFA of course, but the second part is wrong, because when it comes to production, HAL will also produce common parts that the Pak Fa uses too.
No. ex-HAL chairman, Ashok Baweja and current chairman Ashok Nayak are on record saying that HAL’s workshare will be limited to FGFA only. HAL has nothing to do with PAK-FA at all. You are quite lacking in basic info.
AbhimanyuEdited previous post, so as not to sound rude. Discussions must be civillian, though heated. No offence meant to Sancho78. Not taking moral ground here. Just forgot how I used to post earlier myself.
It is not licence production of those parts. Bit it is still licence production of the aircraft.
Consider the F-4 built in the UK for the RN. It is universally agreed to have been licence-produced, despite having British engines, some other British parts, & having design modifications done at British expense, largely in the UK.
The UK built the F-4 under a licence from the USA. That is what makes it licence-produced: the permit, the licence, to build it. Whether it has zero or 25% local content does not affect that.
Swerve, the above is a brilliant post. Only because some tinkering is done on the locally produced variant, doesn’t mean that it becomes a JV ! This is what IAF doesn’t understand, and HAL uses this trick to cleverly mask licence production as a JV.
HAL locally manufactures some Su-30 components and if I’m not mistaken, even the entire fuselage. That doesn’t mean it becomes an “indigenous” Su-30. It remains Russian, for which we pay a licence purchase fee.
Sign In
