LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[Milspec]

HAL is not a designing agency. R&D is different from manufacturing. ADA is part of DRDO and is R&D institute.

Yet, they designed the HF24 Marut Employing Tank, They also designed and qualified the Bison Upgrades, They also designed the HJT16 Kiran, HTT 40, LUH, ALH and LCH and thousands of subsystems. ARDC HAL is a design center of excellence. Many of my batchmates are still in NOE ARDC.

This is called ranting without facts. ADA can do only as much as they are supported by government funds. Be grateful that ADA did something with minimal funds instead of nothing.

Minimal funds? maybe you should get your facts straight,, when has DRDO had a dearth of funds?

HAL already had infrastructure to make planes. MiG21 was made in HAL fully. Su30 was also partly made in HAL since late 2000s and Al31F is being made in HAL since 2015 fully.

Wow, please tell me more, given I grew up in HAL Township, Did my intern in HAL there and started my career in HAL Nasik Division, i guess i would know that, where from my post did you derive that HAL does not have manufacturing capability. Is it true that sarcasm is truly dead in India now?

The quality and other factors can be assured with sufficient funding. HAL can't do magic and get things for free.

Isn't that what IAF wants, freebies from HAL?

WHo told you that DRDO wanted to snub HAL?

Who? Let me recount, Every CTP i came across, Every Engg Manager that I worked for in HAL, Couple of Chief managers for banglore div on td, ,Ever CRE/CRI officer, Every Cemmilac/DGQ Official I met, every 11 BRD based Pilot I had lunch with. And ohh yes, Sr. Manager for ARDC HAL.
(Disclaimer : I was never involved with LCA project)

How can IAF build Tejas? Are you living in a world of delusion whereby you can get a new set of qualified engineers and scientists or simply barge into Russia or France and make AMCA there?

How can IAF build Tejas, by building a "aeronautical ecosystem of manufacturing"Just like it "supposedly" created ADA because ARDC wasn't good enough.

Do you even know what you are speaking? I have read several comments of yours. You continually act like a fool with sole intention of quarelling and keep shouting till everyone says 'Yes' to you.

And you are here to shut me up for good, more power to bro, @randomradio I guess I will have 2 run away now, tail tucked and all.

 

[Milspec]

way to phrase it !! He has been doing it for Years...

Hey teamstratfront, if it is an issue let me know, i will stop posting. @Ashwin @Aashish

 

[Ashutosh]

Hey teamstratfront, if it is an issue let me know, i will stop posting. @Ashwin @Aashish

Damn, I mistook you for random.. Wihtdrawing statement.

 

[Milspec]

ADA didn't had money ? They had HAL, DRDO & ISRO infra, they could have designed a space ship if they wanted to. All they need was integration with some research institutes, that's it.

Every time govt is not at fault, it is ADA itself built on idea of separate program executing agency, they developed LCA in isolation at first with IAF's input when everything was falling apart HAL came to rescue and some are blaming HAL for everything.

One of family members has long been a supplier for PSU sector, off late DPSU's including DRDO labs. The chronicles of rot in the system PSU's and DRDO alike are so unpalatable that it fringes on demonic. Once you realize the institutional debauchery within these government entities it is quite difficult to come to terms with the mandate these organizations serve. Nevertheless despite my rantings on ADA and DRDO, there are scientists (and engineers which apparently is derogatory in DRDO lingo ) who are doing good work, but my skepticism on role of MoD as the nodal agency for all of these different organization remains irrespective of which government is in power.

 

[Bharath]

We have received the approval to prove unmanned technologies like auto take-off and landing on LCA for future uses. The unmanned version will sport Flush Air Data Systems technology for stealth feature. The design of the front also will be modified. The project will begin immediately after receiving the FOC for Mark 1.

this - bridging the gap between ghatak and LCA?

Our focus is currently on the LCA Mark II, along with giving equal importance to the production of Mark 1A.

I remember SO MANY posts by SO MANY members that there was nothing called LCA Mk II.

One of family members has long been a supplier for PSU sector, off late DPSU's including DRDO labs. The chronicles of rot in the system PSU's and DRDO alike are so unpalatable that it fringes on demonic. Once you realize the institutional debauchery within these government entities it is quite difficult to come to terms with the mandate these organizations serve. Nevertheless despite my rantings on ADA and DRDO, there are scientists (and engineers which apparently is derogatory in DRDO lingo ) who are doing good work, but my skepticism on role of MoD as the nodal agency for all of these different organization remains irrespective of which government is in power.

@Milspec - can you please let me know if there is anyway we can fix this? can you take lead on this and figure out how to establish at least one component manufacturing without the debauchery?

 

[Milspec]

@Milspec - can you please let me know if there is anyway we can fix this? can you take lead on this and figure out how to establish at least one component manufacturing without the debauchery?

I am at literally at loss for words and that doesn't happen quite often. I have typed 2 paras and deleted them to respond to your post.

The short answer is I really dont know.

Suggestion would be two fold:

Empower DPSU:
1> Rapid overhaul of manufacturing and management processes is a must for DPSU. I won't comment on DRDO, but for HAL, I found HTT 40 to be a remarkable feat of an empowered young project team which was licensed to run with the project. Circumventing tendering processes to a very Private industry type procurement system and Supermarket MRP system will help. Till date if a Opex RIE finds that a molex connector needs to be changed to improve a process, an engineer is given the task, he creates a project to change BOM and part revision, the Procurement agent sends out request to registered vendors, the vendors submit a tender, the tender is opened in 2-3 months. The drafting team prioritizes the bom change among the list, the bom is revised in couple of years, and then the L1 is sent out the acceptance letter. The vendor submits the connector, another three months to review the package (where it might get lost, misplaced, etc), First article inspection is carried out at the assembly station. and then the PO is issued. A connector change took almost three years as a recommendation for "Rapid improvement event", in the private sector, all of administrative stuff will happen in an afternoon in Windchill, and the new part will be available in lead time for the and go into production as soon as current kanban is exhausted. When you have such reaction time, your organisation is nimble, your leaders confident. A part change that took 3 years in PSU can take as little as 2 weeks in private MNC.
Management processes and manufacturing practices need to be changed in PSU's, leadership needs to be empowered to fire non-performing employees. I used to see non-exec staff (shop-floor workers), shut-shop half and hour before breaks and end of shifts, people who were there working at snails pace because they were protected by unions, union members in a group doing rounds around the factory like it was a political rally with zero-accountability. Every engineer and manager had the view if given a choice, all of these deadbeat worker need to be fired right there, but we were totally helpless. This union culture needs to go.


2>Phased Privatization: Accountability trickles from top down, I (personally) don't know of 20% commissions on order in M&M but is a regular affair in DPSU, even military garrison establishments. So privatization might be the answer, but then again how do you make private entities make stuff there there is not enough of a lucrative business case. So lowered interest rates for capital employed for defense industry, large research corpus for private R&D and swift vigillance and enforcement organization, which doesn't takes years to come to any conclusions and destroys morale of the workforce. Eventually DPSU unless can show competence, needs to be privatized and government equity in the firm should come with added benefits to the private partner like exemptions, lower interest rates, interest forgiveness, debt reconciliation etc. Larger units Should be broken down into smaller entities, OFB standing as a prime candidate, you do not want the guy from textile division running the firearms stuff.

 

[Bharath]

I am at literally at loss for words and that doesn't happen quite often. I have typed 2 paras and deleted them to respond to your post.

The short answer is I really dont know.

Suggestion would be two fold:

Empower DPSU:
1> Rapid overhaul of manufacturing and management processes is a must for DPSU. I won't comment on DRDO, but for HAL, I found HTT 40 to be a remarkable feat of an empowered young project team which was licensed to run with the project. Circumventing tendering processes to a very Private industry type procurement system and Supermarket MRP system will help. Till date if a Opex RIE finds that a molex connector needs to be changed to improve a process, an engineer is given the task, he creates a project to change BOM and part revision, the Procurement agent sends out request to registered vendors, the vendors submit a tender, the tender is opened in 2-3 months. The drafting team prioritizes the bom change among the list, the bom is revised in couple of years, and then the L1 is sent out the acceptance letter. The vendor submits the connector, another three months to review the package (where it might get lost, misplaced, etc), First article inspection is carried out at the assembly station. and then the PO is issued. A connector change took almost three years as a recommendation for "Rapid improvement event", in the private sector, all of administrative stuff will happen in an afternoon in Windchill, and the new part will be available in lead time for the and go into production as soon as current kanban is exhausted. When you have such reaction time, your organisation is nimble, your leaders confident. A part change that took 3 years in PSU can take as little as 2 weeks in private MNC.
Management processes and manufacturing practices need to be changed in PSU's, leadership needs to be empowered to fire non-performing employees. I used to see non-exec staff (shop-floor workers), shut-shop half and hour before breaks and end of shifts, people who were there working at snails pace because they were protected by unions, union members in a group doing rounds around the factory like it was a political rally with zero-accountability. Every engineer and manager had the view if given a choice, all of these deadbeat worker need to be fired right there, but we were totally helpless. This union culture needs to go.


2>Phased Privatization: Accountability trickles from top down, I (personally) don't know of 20% commissions on order in M&M but is a regular affair in DPSU, even military garrison establishments. So privatization might be the answer, but then again how do you make private entities make stuff there there is not enough of a lucrative business case. So lowered interest rates for capital employed for defense industry, large research corpus for private R&D and swift vigillance and enforcement organization, which doesn't takes years to come to any conclusions and destroys morale of the workforce. Eventually DPSU unless can show competence, needs to be privatized and government equity in the firm should come with added benefits to the private partner like exemptions, lower interest rates, interest forgiveness, debt reconciliation etc. Larger units Should be broken down into smaller entities, OFB standing as a prime candidate, you do not want the guy from textile division running the firearms stuff.

interesting.

the first paragraph seems to be an outdated model - can easily be replaced by a online ticketing and management system to track the details along the supply chain.
the second - is not something we could do - but maybe something we can circumvent.

what do you think we should do to push this change?

 

[Milspec]

interesting.

the first paragraph seems to be an outdated model - can easily be replaced by a online ticketing and management system to track the details along the supply chain.
the second - is not something we could do - but maybe something we can circumvent.

what do you think we should do to push this change?

The first is just an example of paralysis in procurement. Same is for design changes, procurement, manufacturing changes, opex/CRP, testing, etc.

frankly speaking I don't know what needs to happen to get things lean. The people who work there already know the solutions but are not empowered to implement them. HTT40 is a prime example of that.

MOD needs to changed into a DoD/Pentagon type infrastructure. Bureaucrats need to interface with DPSU and Private players, and both development and procurement needs bureaucratic accountability. Delays directly needs to tie in to the MoD performance, Once MoD is accountable, they will hold their direct reports accountable, so BEML, BDL, BEL, HAL, OFB all have to follow suite when ministry is breathing fire down their behind.

 

[pachawry]

I am at literally at loss for words and that doesn't happen quite often. I have typed 2 paras and deleted them to respond to your post.

The short answer is I really dont know.

Suggestion would be two fold:

Empower DPSU:
1> Rapid overhaul of manufacturing and management processes is a must for DPSU. I won't comment on DRDO, but for HAL, I found HTT 40 to be a remarkable feat of an empowered young project team which was licensed to run with the project. Circumventing tendering processes to a very Private industry type procurement system and Supermarket MRP system will help. Till date if a Opex RIE finds that a molex connector needs to be changed to improve a process, an engineer is given the task, he creates a project to change BOM and part revision, the Procurement agent sends out request to registered vendors, the vendors submit a tender, the tender is opened in 2-3 months. The drafting team prioritizes the bom change among the list, the bom is revised in couple of years, and then the L1 is sent out the acceptance letter. The vendor submits the connector, another three months to review the package (where it might get lost, misplaced, etc), First article inspection is carried out at the assembly station. and then the PO is issued. A connector change took almost three years as a recommendation for "Rapid improvement event", in the private sector, all of administrative stuff will happen in an afternoon in Windchill, and the new part will be available in lead time for the and go into production as soon as current kanban is exhausted. When you have such reaction time, your organisation is nimble, your leaders confident. A part change that took 3 years in PSU can take as little as 2 weeks in private MNC.
Management processes and manufacturing practices need to be changed in PSU's, leadership needs to be empowered to fire non-performing employees. I used to see non-exec staff (shop-floor workers), shut-shop half and hour before breaks and end of shifts, people who were there working at snails pace because they were protected by unions, union members in a group doing rounds around the factory like it was a political rally with zero-accountability. Every engineer and manager had the view if given a choice, all of these deadbeat worker need to be fired right there, but we were totally helpless. This union culture needs to go.


2>Phased Privatization: Accountability trickles from top down, I (personally) don't know of 20% commissions on order in M&M but is a regular affair in DPSU, even military garrison establishments. So privatization might be the answer, but then again how do you make private entities make stuff there there is not enough of a lucrative business case. So lowered interest rates for capital employed for defense industry, large research corpus for private R&D and swift vigillance and enforcement organization, which doesn't takes years to come to any conclusions and destroys morale of the workforce. Eventually DPSU unless can show competence, needs to be privatized and government equity in the firm should come with added benefits to the private partner like exemptions, lower interest rates, interest forgiveness, debt reconciliation etc. Larger units Should be broken down into smaller entities, OFB standing as a prime candidate, you do not want the guy from textile division running the firearms stuff.

For the first point, it is due to treasonous behaviour of UPA. UPA not only made problems to defence but also caused problems to manufacturing industry by bringing environmental restrictions. The reason India does not have electronic industry or other important industry is because of UPA. That can't be blamed on the agencies

For the second point, no country in the world has private companies indulging in defence research at their expense. Even in USA, entire research expense is borne by DoD. The private industry in USA is a big resource hog and is highly irresponsible. Look at the delay of F35 for example, despite spending heavily on research. Private industry will not fund defence technology or high end technology research as that is very risky and more often fails than not. India tried to allow private companies to research and get reimbursement and they ended up doing "design" and "jugaad" of existing technology which developed nothing new but wasted Indian funds. If you have read news, recently the govt stopped such allowance and now requires government approval before allowance/reimbursement is given

 

[Bharath]

For the second point, no country in the world has private companies indulging in defence research at their expense. Even in USA, entire research expense is borne by DoD. The private industry in USA is a big resource hog and is highly irresponsible. Look at the delay of F35 for example, despite spending heavily on research. Private industry will not fund defence technology or high end technology research as that is very risky and more often fails than not. India tried to allow private companies to research and get reimbursement and they ended up doing "design" and "jugaad" of existing technology which developed nothing new but wasted Indian funds. If you have read news, recently the govt stopped such allowance and now requires government approval before allowance/reimbursement is given

excellent point.

but again, getting back to @Milspec 's point, there should be something, even if it is a miniscule thing, that we can do? I mean - we have engineers, doctors and MBAs in this forum - if we can find a small way and make that even slightly profitable in doing so - we can explore that and do something?

 

[pachawry]

excellent point.

but again, getting back to @Milspec 's point, there should be something, even if it is a miniscule thing, that we can do? I mean - we have engineers, doctors and MBAs in this forum - if we can find a small way and make that even slightly profitable in doing so - we can explore that and do something?

What we can do is ensure BJP wins elections and all the mismanagement will stop. The series of development of weapons like Astra, AIP, Tejas, UTTAM, Kaveri, Pinaka, Akash, seekers etc all have been fast paced. Many of the above projects were started in NDA1 too but were in limbo during 2008-2014. Initially, Pranab Mukherjee was independently helping defence but he was replaced by stooge Antony who ruined defence at the behest of high command.

The DRDO scientists are also genuinely interested in development of new technology and have regularly proved their worth even under hostile environment. The reason India is decently placed in technology levels is because of these enthusiastic scientists. There is no point blaming scientists or DRDO either.

 

[Milspec]

For the first point, it is due to treasonous behaviour of UPA. UPA not only made problems to defence but also caused problems to manufacturing industry by bringing environmental restrictions. The reason India does not have electronic industry or other important industry is because of UPA. That can't be blamed on the agencies

For the second point, no country in the world has private companies indulging in defence research at their expense. Even in USA, entire research expense is borne by DoD. The private industry in USA is a big resource hog and is highly irresponsible. Look at the delay of F35 for example, despite spending heavily on research. Private industry will not fund defence technology or high end technology research as that is very risky and more often fails than not. India tried to allow private companies to research and get reimbursement and they ended up doing "design" and "jugaad" of existing technology which developed nothing new but wasted Indian funds. If you have read news, recently the govt stopped such allowance and now requires government approval before allowance/reimbursement is given

India's problems did not start and end with UPA, policy paralysis continuous with NDA1 and NDAII just seems a little bit better.
Congress, Janta Party, VP singh, Chandrashekar Gujral, NDA-Atal, UPAI , II and NDA-M, all have brought mix bag of issues as well some development for defence. And yes , I blame agencies as much as political dispensations, because some agencies are inherently bad. OFB specifically in R&D, innovation for small arms sucked in the 80's under congress, it sucked under UPA, and it still sucks. The blame squarely lies on OFB (and maybe arde)

Apart from DOD, Darpa projects there are multi-tude R&D projects undertaken soley by private companies, F5, F20 tigershark, Textron scorpion, multitude of subsystems and materials for Boeing, LM, Raytheon, orbital sys . one for the stories of kelly johnson of Skunkworks fame is, when LM was requested to work on radar evading tech, darpa did not participate citing lack of funds and kelly johnson pushed forward without a formal contract for r&d from DoD, this eventually turned into the TD for F117. There are multitude of other systems like Magpul masada which later became the BM Acr, multitude of advanced calibers for small arms developed by hornady, winchester etc were pure R&D by the private sector. This was even more prevalent before the big aero-space consolidation which saw the end of fairchild, grumman, douglas, GD, etc. As of now GE has en entire division which is just working on next generation engines which have no prospective aircraft for them, all on their own expense.

 

[Sathya]

excellent point.

but again, getting back to @Milspec 's point, there should be something, even if it is a miniscule thing, that we can do? I mean - we have engineers, doctors and MBAs in this forum - if we can find a small way and make that even slightly profitable in doing so - we can explore that and do something?

That line of thinking is gone for me...

Present one is ..

Military Veteran s -- retired bureaucrats ( for civil ) --- Lawyers --- Journalist

 

[pachawry]

India's problems did not start and end with UPA, policy paralysis continuous with NDA1 and NDAII just seems a little bit better.
Congress, Janta Party, VP singh, Chandrashekar Gujral, NDA-Atal, UPAI , II and NDA-M, all have brought mix bag of issues as well some development for defence. And yes , I blame agencies as much as political dispensations, because some agencies are inherently bad. OFB specifically in R&D, innovation for small arms sucked in the 80's under congress, it sucked under UPA, and it still sucks. The blame squarely lies on OFB (and maybe arde)

Apart from DOD, Darpa projects there are multi-tude R&D projects undertaken soley by private companies, F5, F20 tigershark, Textron scorpion, multitude of subsystems and materials for Boeing, LM, Raytheon, orbital sys . one for the stories of kelly johnson of Skunkworks fame is, when LM was requested to work on radar evading tech, darpa did not participate citing lack of funds and kelly johnson pushed forward without a formal contract for r&d from DoD, this eventually turned into the TD for F117. There are multitude of other systems like Magpul masada which later became the BM Acr, multitude of advanced calibers for small arms developed by hornady, winchester etc were pure R&D by the private sector. This was even more prevalent before the big aero-space consolidation which saw the end of fairchild, grumman, douglas, GD, etc. As of now GE has en entire division which is just working on next generation engines which have no prospective aircraft for them, all on their own expense.

Can you explain the policy paralysis regarding defence in NDA govt? India may not have the capabilities and hence things may have required building up from scratch. But, what was possible was done. I am speaking of technology development, not procurement of equipment. NDA always encouraged development of technology and as a result there was absolutely no paralysis. If you disagree, give example. Narasimha Rao also played a good role in technology development. But otherwise, it was mostly policy paralysis

DARPA is also USA agency. I am saying that most of the project is funded from USA treasury. The LM and Boeing may have pitched some independent research but tr profit these companies used were from earlier government funding. Even HAL uses its own money to start projects at times. This is not something new. But these projects can only be smaller scale and to expand will need govt support.

Don't speak of hornady, Winchester, ruger, walther etc as these are also sold for private consumption. Americans buy these arms from local stores and are not weapons for military. About Indian small arms, it is decent enough. Don't go into the myth that Indian small arms are bad.

 

[Milspec]

Can you explain the policy paralysis regarding defence in NDA govt? India may not have the capabilities and hence things may have required building up from scratch. But, what was possible was done. I am speaking of technology development, not procurement of equipment. NDA always encouraged development of technology and as a result there was absolutely no paralysis. If you disagree, give example. Narasimha Rao also played a good role in technology development. But otherwise, it was mostly policy paralysis.

As I said NDA-M is better than NDA I, for long there has been consensus that MOD needs to be re-structured, which will lower political leverage on micro items and will only maintain control over macros, like the Pentagon, all of the governments have subsequently avoided that. As far as the current dispensation, IAC phase III money has still not been released to CSL, the project of MSRV is still stuck, across the last 4 years LCA's development hasn't seen anything spectacular, it is still moving at snails pace. We will find out the status of AMCA timeline in 7 months, the first four prototypes are supposed to be built by Jan 2019, I would be surprised if the prototypes are done by that time.
Ref : DRDO in talks with foreign cos for advanced fighter jet engine | Brahmand News
None of the Indian firms private or government are capable of producing a decent Assault rifle, a DMR, a Sniper rifle, a MMG and a HMG that would be able to replace the vintage small arms fielded by the army, the current dispensation doesn't seem to be interested in small arms either. And along with that this has been one of the most frugal defence budget in years, forcing the amred forces change it's procurement focus.

DARPA is also USA agency. I am saying that most of the project is funded from USA treasury. The LM and Boeing may have pitched some independent research but tr profit these companies used were from earlier government funding. Even HAL uses its own money to start projects at times. This is not something new. But these projects can only be smaller scale and to expand will need govt support.

Sure where am I disagreeing, based on the research quality and alignment, government should afford R&D funds to private players too.

Don't speak of hornady, Winchester, ruger, walther etc as these are also sold for private consumption. Americans buy these arms from local stores and are not weapons for military. About Indian small arms, it is decent enough. Don't go into the myth that Indian small arms are bad.

Are you sure about that?
.338 lapua magnum, the most premium sniper round today - built of a 416 casing for big game hunting.
300 winmag , Chris Kyle's choice in Iraq, also developed for deer hunting.
5.56 nato based on 223 remington (varmint round) and 7.62nato based on .308win (deer round)
Magpul Masada/ACR competed for the M16 replacement along with SCAR. and there are bunch of cusch examples from the remington 700 and its military variants, even the M16 rifle was released to the public before it became the M16.

As far as Indian smallarms , as long as we are talking about the .03 06 sporter and the ishapore SMLE, these are decent and I agree , other than that license production stuff by OFB has no OFB contribution, OFB developed stuff in recent years is horrible, it truly is.

@nair is watercarengineer here by any chance.

 

[nair]

@nair is watercarengineer here by any chance

Nope.... couldnt get in touch with him

 

[Himanshu]

Defence Ministry sets up committee to check HAL’s ‘high bill’ for Tejas Mark1A

Concerned about the price for an indigenous fighter jet, which the government has been keen to promote under Make in India scheme, the committee set up by the Defence Ministry will look into the pricing of military equipment manufactured by defence PSUs.

The euphoria within the defence establishment over the induction of the first indigenous Light Combat Aircraft into the IAF appears to have subsided with the Defence Ministry forming a committee to look into the “high price” demanded by Bengaluru-based public sector manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), for Tejas Mark1A.

Sources told The Indian Express that in response to a request for a proposal for 83 Tejas Mark1A fighter jets issued by the IAF in December last year, HAL quoted a price of Rs 463 crore per jet in April. This raised eyebrows in the government, sources said, as the price compared unfavourably even with more modern foreign fighters. “The HAL supplies the more modern Russian Sukhoi fighter, which it assembles at Nashik, at Rs 415 crore. The Russians supply it at Rs 330 crore. The Swedish Gripen was offered to us for Rs 455 crore, and F-16 for Rs 380 crore, and both were to be made in India. The HAL itself gave us Tejas Mark1 at Rs 100 crore less. This price for an improved version seems high,” sources said.

Concerned about the price for an indigenous fighter jet, which the government has been keen to promote under Make in India scheme, the committee set up by the Defence Ministry will look into the pricing of military equipment manufactured by defence PSUs. The committee is headed by Principal Advisor (Cost) in the ministry and is likely to submit its report in the next few weeks. Once the committee submits its report, the ministry will form a commercial negotiations committee (CNC) to bring down HAL’s price for the jet. The contract for 83 jets, sources said, will take another year before it is finally signed.

According to sources, the Defence Ministry is also concerned about the delay in supply of the existing order of the first lot of 40 Tejas fighter jets. In last three years, only nine fighter jets in Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) mode were supplied against an order of 20. The order for another 20 Tejas jets in Final Operational Clearance (FOC) has not even begun, as the FOC has not yet been attained by the aircraft. The ministry has also agreed that the HAL will supply eight trainer aircraft out of 40, after the 36 Tejas Mark1 have been supplied. “The idea was that HAL will produce 18 Tejas fighters every year. That is the only way we can provide IAF to make up its numbers as its older fighters go out of service. But there has been a delay and we are in touch with HAL about it,” sources said.

The ministry had also asked IAF about allegations that it had made constant changes in ASQR (Air Staff Quality Requirements), which could have led to the delay. They found that there have been no changes in the ASQR of Tejas Mark1A, since it was first formalised in 2014. Even in the case of Tejas Mark1, the IAF had given 135 concessions on the ASQR to HAL.

“We were somewhat surprised to learn that contrary to the impression, there have been no changes in the requirements given by the IAF, except for items which had reached obsolescence. Mark1 had no Electronic Warfare capability and before Mark2 could be produced, Mark1A is meant to fill up that gap. Those were not additional requirements added later, but formulated in 2014 itself when HAL offered Mark1A,” sources explained.

The problem, sources said, are mainly of coordination and ownership of the Tejas project between the HAL, IAF and Aeronautical Development Authority (ADA). Borrowing from the successful Navy model of indigenous defence production, ministry is now asking for a senior member of IAF on the board of HAL for greater coordination.

The Tejas indigenous fighter project was first conceived in 1984, benchmarked against the Mirage2000, with a view to replace IAF’s ageing Mig21 fleet. The order for first 20 Tejas Mark1 (IOC) was placed in 2006, and the jet inducted in the IAF in 2016.

 

[randomradio]

I get the feeling the LCA's cost potentially includes a lot of other stuff.

 

[Sathya]

I get the feeling the LCA's cost potentially includes a lot of other stuff.

private sector participation jacked up the price ?

if its AESA or new engine makes MK1A Costlier, government wouldn't form a committee

 

[Volcano]

Defence Ministry sets up committee to check HAL’s ‘high bill’ for Tejas Mark1A

Concerned about the price for an indigenous fighter jet, which the government has been keen to promote under Make in India scheme, the committee set up by the Defence Ministry will look into the pricing of military equipment manufactured by defence PSUs.

The euphoria within the defence establishment over the induction of the first indigenous Light Combat Aircraft into the IAF appears to have subsided with the Defence Ministry forming a committee to look into the “high price” demanded by Bengaluru-based public sector manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), for Tejas Mark1A.

Sources told The Indian Express that in response to a request for a proposal for 83 Tejas Mark1A fighter jets issued by the IAF in December last year, HAL quoted a price of Rs 463 crore per jet in April. This raised eyebrows in the government, sources said, as the price compared unfavourably even with more modern foreign fighters. “The HAL supplies the more modern Russian Sukhoi fighter, which it assembles at Nashik, at Rs 415 crore. The Russians supply it at Rs 330 crore. The Swedish Gripen was offered to us for Rs 455 crore, and F-16 for Rs 380 crore, and both were to be made in India. The HAL itself gave us Tejas Mark1 at Rs 100 crore less. This price for an improved version seems high,” sources said.

Concerned about the price for an indigenous fighter jet, which the government has been keen to promote under Make in India scheme, the committee set up by the Defence Ministry will look into the pricing of military equipment manufactured by defence PSUs. The committee is headed by Principal Advisor (Cost) in the ministry and is likely to submit its report in the next few weeks. Once the committee submits its report, the ministry will form a commercial negotiations committee (CNC) to bring down HAL’s price for the jet. The contract for 83 jets, sources said, will take another year before it is finally signed.

According to sources, the Defence Ministry is also concerned about the delay in supply of the existing order of the first lot of 40 Tejas fighter jets. In last three years, only nine fighter jets in Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) mode were supplied against an order of 20. The order for another 20 Tejas jets in Final Operational Clearance (FOC) has not even begun, as the FOC has not yet been attained by the aircraft. The ministry has also agreed that the HAL will supply eight trainer aircraft out of 40, after the 36 Tejas Mark1 have been supplied. “The idea was that HAL will produce 18 Tejas fighters every year. That is the only way we can provide IAF to make up its numbers as its older fighters go out of service. But there has been a delay and we are in touch with HAL about it,” sources said.

The ministry had also asked IAF about allegations that it had made constant changes in ASQR (Air Staff Quality Requirements), which could have led to the delay. They found that there have been no changes in the ASQR of Tejas Mark1A, since it was first formalised in 2014. Even in the case of Tejas Mark1, the IAF had given 135 concessions on the ASQR to HAL.

“We were somewhat surprised to learn that contrary to the impression, there have been no changes in the requirements given by the IAF, except for items which had reached obsolescence. Mark1 had no Electronic Warfare capability and before Mark2 could be produced, Mark1A is meant to fill up that gap. Those were not additional requirements added later, but formulated in 2014 itself when HAL offered Mark1A,” sources explained.

The problem, sources said, are mainly of coordination and ownership of the Tejas project between the HAL, IAF and Aeronautical Development Authority (ADA). Borrowing from the successful Navy model of indigenous defence production, ministry is now asking for a senior member of IAF on the board of HAL for greater coordination.

The Tejas indigenous fighter project was first conceived in 1984, benchmarked against the Mirage2000, with a view to replace IAF’s ageing Mig21 fleet. The order for first 20 Tejas Mark1 (IOC) was placed in 2006, and the jet inducted in the IAF in 2016.

$67 Million a piece. LCA was supposed to be a low cost alternative, and cost more than su-30 MKI?