Opinion - Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

[Aashish]

Why do we need so many expensive aircrafts while we can do the same job with missiles and long range rocket artillery

Not every place you require missiles nor every mission as well.. Ballistic Missiles more or less are known from each side. They are normally assumed to be strategically armed. So using any such missile implies a straight forward standard approach.

Secondly most of the payload including Chest Thumping first strike ones are normally in stored conditions and their movement is tracked 24x7. even a slight change leads to changes in posture and responses.

Lastly rocket artillery is great support for certain missions like CAS. Similarly even CAS planes carry Rocket Pods and even Helos do the same.But there is a limitation of timely response. For example a Pinaka MRBL might have to travel first 200 km to deliver a flattening effect over 60+km of enemy formation. To do that it might require 5-6 hours. The same mission manned planes or unmanned RPAs can do the same in 20 mins or even less say 10 mins as well. So there is a difference of mission requirements, priority and what is expected as standard response package.

You know a arrow fired cant be called back.. a missile can be self destructed upto small last window of communication. That is the biggest thing. Man in loop till the last point changes the perspective of aborting the inevitable destruction. Thast why they cant be replaced.

 

[The enlightened]

It is not enough that we just consider squadron numbers and ignore the issue of technology.

Rafale and Tejas are older generation fighters that are nearing obsolescence. Plus even then they are going to be heavily outnumbered by hundreds of advanced Chinese flankers and soon enough J-20's.

What we need are units that can counter that numeric overmatch. Tejas is not that although it is needed for domestic industry. Rafale is also much less capable than the J-16's and J-20's of the world as well as Chinese ADGE which are readying themselves to take on Americans, putting its survivability in question and thus should not be considered for further induction.

The only legible alternative is F-35 or PAK-FA. AMCA is a 2040ish project and thus not part of current discussions.

On one side we have an aircraft that is about halfway through its development, whose stealth qualities are questionable, made by our former ally with a long history of fleecing us, who is increasingly in bed with our current enemy.

On the other hand you have a somewhat unreliable partner but one with tremendous heft in all areas of statecraft, who has in the past, provided significant assistance and promises much more in the future with both our countries sharing a common threat. F-35 has gone through the most teething phase of its development and is steaming towards full service at which point it will be a fully polished Warhammer ready to smite all competition at the time and for at least another decade. Thanks to concurrency, it has already sorted out all the teething problems that other fighter jets could only discover after they had been inducted and will be integrated with all kinds of weapons. I am sure we can negotiate ourselves out of a centralized logistics system like the Israelis did and even get some of their customization. The best part is F-35 is much cheaper than Rafale and wouldn't require extensive modifications or MLU. Yes it's not an Air superiority focused platform but that is what AMCA could instead be looked for.

There are political problems but none insurmountable. If the Americans insist on F-16/F-18 as a precondition, well that's what the middle finger is their for. But seeing as how the Navy does need an F-18 class, it might not be a bad option to get it for both the services as an interim fighter. Especially the Growler.

Those are my 2¢.

 

[bonobashi]

Yes.

The reason why Tejas took 30 years from design board to dropping LGB firing BVRAAM is lack of strong leadership across development authority+airforce+neta.

We were so lazy on Tejas that airforce changed the gsqr so many times that drawing board had to be revisited and technology either had to be developed or reviewed.Plus absolute lack of any kind of design department is also creating hurdle,then there is lack of vision-almost all of our il-76s will be reaching retirement from next decade and yet there is no plan on how to maintain our transport fleet,an-32 is the same story.No clear vision on what UAV and UCAV.Then their is their love of firangi maal.

List does not ends there-hal produced many defective parts for spares and maintenance,there was a news that they were using used up engines for su-30mki.

Then political leadership is a joke-they can easily be bought or are idiot enough to buy any foreign product.

The very answer to these problems are-get civvie babus out of mod and install technocrats and autocrats,same for HAL.

Say clear no to foreign maal which can easily be produced in India (like FRCV tender should be thrown in the garbage-simply improve Arjun platform and buy them in masses,no more Russia ka maal).

The path is long and involve a lot of kickbacks but we have to charter,there is no way out.

___________________________________________

And make people accountable.

Dear Sir, In your opinion, is HAL manned and managed by civvie babus? Which posts do they manage? Your kind insights will oblige.

 

[Falcon]

Do we have official numbers (based on loadout) the actually range and loitering time for the LCA (since we have many articles saying only 30mins combat and short legs - which i call BS and want it proved to be BS)

Sir. There is a reason for that 'BS'.

The Indian doctrine of Minimum Credible Deterrance also has the requirement of NGBs to be used by a strike mission of Su-30 MKI in addition to Mirage 2000s and Jaguars.

Since the Sukhois are maximum in number, an assumed requirement comes in picture on base of an assumed first counter value strike against India. The probability of losing some Mirages (they all are at Gwalior anyways) and Jaguars can not be discounted.

A Su-30 MKI will need a dedicated escort to ensure package delivery at the intended target. That shall need aircrafts with longer 'legs'.

As of today and in forseeable future too, Tejas does not meet the criteria.

Defence Minister AK Antony, as early as 2006, spoke of plan to develop a Medium Combat Aircraft. Members here have dealt with this topic I see. This was precisely the reason for the MCA to be conceptualised.

 

[Falcon]

What our enthusiasts failed to notice is, and here probably you all can help, use of "Project Arjun" and "Project LCA" while talking about them.

Sir. Rightly said. It is a project and not a platform.

 

[Falcon]

well, the AMCA aka MCA aka NGFA plan was surfaced in 2008 but get their first fund for feasibility study in 2010


View attachment 58


First preliminary design of AMCA at AI'09

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Frontpage | On drawing board: desi stealth fighter

Sir.

Correction. MCA was conceived as an idea in 2005 and then RM gave a statement on plans to design it in 2006. This was on the backs of the IAF being given an assurance by ADA-HAL of delivery of LCA. There was a timeline of designing and production to commence by 2015.

However, keeping up the consistency, HAL-ADA did not deliver LCA in time and were left scrambling. IAF was of opinion of delaying the retirement of it's fleet in case Project MCA was to fructify. The earlier excuses of 'ecosystem and infrastructure' to be built being given to explain away the colossal failure in LCA project, was no more valid as the ecosystem namely research of composites and advanced metallurgical processes, was already 2 decades and counting, old.

However, the failure of Kaveri GTX coupled with failure of HAL-ADA-DRDO to be able to diversify technology evolution and development in the typical turf war, delayed everything.

It was only in 2010, after an ASQR was drawn up, that IAF and IN have started backing the project actively. Towards this, the funding was released over 2011 onwards.

MMRCA came up with delay in LCA and follow on MCA.

 

[GuardianRED]

Sir. There is a reason for that 'BS'.

The Indian doctrine of Minimum Credible Deterrance also has the requirement of NGBs to be used by a strike mission of Su-30 MKI in addition to Mirage 2000s and Jaguars.

Since the Sukhois are maximum in number, an assumed requirement comes in picture on base of an assumed first counter value strike against India. The probability of losing some Mirages (they all are at Gwalior anyways) and Jaguars can not be discounted.

A Su-30 MKI will need a dedicated escort to ensure package delivery at the intended target. That shall need aircrafts with longer 'legs'.

As of today and in forseeable future too, Tejas does not meet the criteria.

Defence Minister AK Antony, as early as 2006, spoke of plan to develop a Medium Combat Aircraft. Members here have dealt with this topic I see. This was precisely the reason for the MCA to be conceptualised.

BUT ....Still my Question isn't still answered! ..... Do we have official numbers (based on loadout) the actually range and loitering time for the LCA ??!!

 

[Falcon]

BUT ....Still my Question isn't still answered! ..... Do we have official numbers (based on loadout) the actually range and loitering time for the LCA ??!!

Sir.

You do not have the actual figures for MKI either. The economies kick in with LCA

 

[Falcon]

Why do we need so many expensive aircrafts while we can do the same job with missiles and long range rocket artillery

Sir.

My return to you is why do we need so many rifles and soldiers when we have nuclear weapons?

I hope this answers you.

 

[Falcon]

Are you sure that government approved 2 Billion dollars for just a concept, when the total cost of AMCA development was estimated at $3.2 billion.

Sir.

T-50 PAKFA -

Perspective - Concept. I think that the time till an IOC is available, it being labelled is a concept only.

 

[Falcon]

Dear Sir, In your opinion, is HAL manned and managed by civvie babus? Which posts do they manage? Your kind insights will oblige.

Sir.

What he probably avers to is the nexus ...

 

[Falcon]

It is not enough that we just consider squadron numbers and ignore the issue of technology.

Rafale and Tejas are older generation fighters that are nearing obsolescence. Plus even then they are going to be heavily outnumbered by hundreds of advanced Chinese flankers and soon enough J-20's.

What we need are units that can counter that numeric overmatch. Tejas is not that although it is needed for domestic industry. Rafale is also much less capable than the J-16's and J-20's of the world as well as Chinese ADGE which are readying themselves to take on Americans, putting its survivability in question and thus should not be considered for further induction.

The only legible alternative is F-35 or PAK-FA. AMCA is a 2040ish project and thus not part of current discussions.

On one side we have an aircraft that is about halfway through its development, whose stealth qualities are questionable, made by our former ally with a long history of fleecing us, who is increasingly in bed with our current enemy.

On the other hand you have a somewhat unreliable partner but one with tremendous heft in all areas of statecraft, who has in the past, provided significant assistance and promises much more in the future with both our countries sharing a common threat. F-35 has gone through the most teething phase of its development and is steaming towards full service at which point it will be a fully polished Warhammer ready to smite all competition at the time and for at least another decade. Thanks to concurrency, it has already sorted out all the teething problems that other fighter jets could only discover after they had been inducted and will be integrated with all kinds of weapons. I am sure we can negotiate ourselves out of a centralized logistics system like the Israelis did and even get some of their customization. The best part is F-35 is much cheaper than Rafale and wouldn't require extensive modifications or MLU. Yes it's not an Air superiority focused platform but that is what AMCA could instead be looked for.

There are political problems but none insurmountable. If the Americans insist on F-16/F-18 as a precondition, well that's what the middle finger is their for. But seeing as how the Navy does need an F-18 class, it might not be a bad option to get it for both the services as an interim fighter. Especially the Growler.

Those are my 2¢.

Sir, Rafale nearing obsolescence?

 

[GuardianRED]

Sir.

You do not have the actual figures for MKI either. The economies kick in with LCA

Official Figures Put the Su30MKI range at 3,000km!

Tejas??!?

 

[Falcon]

Official Figures Put the Su30MKI range at 3,000km!

Tejas??!?

That 1864 nm. or 3k Kms ... same, officially.

But these figures, as you are certainly aware, are misleading too.

Interesting musings here:


The Beta Coefficient: LCA Tejas versus F-16 in combat (Part-I)

 

[GuardianRED]

That 1864 nm. or 3k Kms ... same, officially.

But these figures, as you are certainly aware, are misleading too.

Interesting musings here:


The Beta Coefficient: LCA Tejas versus F-16 in combat (Part-I)

??? The #3K Range are officially post by IRKUT/HAL (Sukhoi Su-30MKI) and yes they could be for ideal conditions - but to say misleading - sorry NO

Sukhoi Su-30MKI (see post #4)

(Off topic - The same - ARAI fuel efficiency figures and in real world figure are different but a close match - STILL we take the ARAI as official figures that posted by the Manufacturer - yes i know can't compare - but take this as an analogy )

Again - Same Q : Do we have official figures for the Tejas!

 

[Milspec]

Opinion Piece
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

By Aashish , 02.12.17

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have been seeing mind numbing articles for quite some time with an emphasis on

• Tejas program not up to mark
• IAF personnel wanting the end of Tejas Program
• IAF wanting a Single Engine jet Deal in place of Tejas program

First one has to understand this is in backdrop of a so called Single Engine Fighter Plane requirement and with that context , certain vested interests have been taking pot shots on the Tejas program. The technicalities are a bit different from the topic in this small article but I certainly believe a Mark1A+ should be in a position to out match Gripen D, Mirage 2000 Vajras and will push the plane closer to capabilities to F16 Block 70 and Gripen E (barring MTOW) in particular mission roles.

The whole general perception that Tejas program may not able to match the expectations and time schedule and hence the additional 83 planes which has been awarded AoN as per IAF may be scrapped has built hysteria that there is a critical shortage in IAF inventory.

Let us take an example of such a possibility with this pictorial, courtesy dadeechi who took pain to understand how the whole scenario is being played out to weaken the psyche of all the Indians

View attachment 47
Figure 1

As you can see the gap being shown makes a grim situation and a opening for a SE jet to pitch in quickly a so called make In India or MII Line and take a deal of 98+16 Flyaway + follow on possible option of at least 56 over time making a grand total of 170+ planes easily... The truth is such a SE fighter jet deal can eventually rise to 200 jets as well over a long time say by 2030.

So it made me wonder what if we don’t take these 170 jets by 2027 but rework something out better, how could different combinations look like?

Below is one such combination..


View attachment 45
Figure 2

What I did is basically considered “magically” the 170 aircrafts possibility by 2027 and break it down into two halves.

~ 170+ = 105 + 72 by 2027

Apparently such a approach enables me to consider two existing platforms which has been invested a lot already (time, money, efforts and strategic willpower)

As you can see I have conservatively considered that a total of 7 squadrons can come in LCA Mk1A+ by end of 2027. This implies a clear cut additional 5 squadrons or approximately 105 planes over Figure 1 scenario.

Second I considered further batches of Rafale under MII program where for every batch component localisation and ecosystem creation increases. So two more batches of 36 under DRAL plant lets to a total of 6 squadrons as well.

Eventually 8 more squadrons of M2K, Jags and MiG 29 will be up for replacement as well post 2030 allowing at least another 5 squadrons of LCA fleet and 3 more for Rafales. Interestingly such a combination puts the whole LCA fleet at 14 sqd plus or 294 Jets and Rafale 12 squads or 216 odd aircraft's. The whole fleet is left with Just Super MKi, Rafales and LCA eventually AMCA comes in with AURA.

Now it's not that all these production facility can't be scaled up in either of the cases. For example in case of LCA we can scale up additional 8/year to bring it to 24/year as long as ecosystem support the same. Same is the case for DRAL Line. This means even the 2030 scenario of 40 sqd number can be achieved couple of years earlier as well. The chief challenge being timely "Ecosystem" growth & support + emphasis on ensuring higher efficiency in the whole chain.

The naysayers say the SE line can pump minimum 24-30-36 Jets per year easily from the very beginning of stable operations. But what people miss out is that a new SE Fighter jet manufacturing line will mean net investment from zero level. As an incentive government will share half the expenses of such a line set up with direct or indirect help, second for good amount of time they will focus on CKD or completely knock down route progressing to SKD or Semi Knockdown to finally sufficient localisation. Now all that is already under progress with existing 2 lines in LCA and DRAL (through offset localisation), so why again reinvent the thing and waste time and money?

Technically I believe the challenge to this proposition is simply the following

How to make French side commit for making Rafales in India and still support Tejas program?

Tejas program biggest challenge is the ecosystem and the outsourced parts... If there is a possibility that entire imported portion of Tejas can be augmented by a DRAL component manufacturing facility which is indeed making parts for Rafales under offsets, then this proposition is a win win for both the sides.. With enough of present LRUs and Components, you get a facility which becomes part of HAL Ecosystem naturally.

How so? Well let's for example contemplate the following –

• Safransied Kaveri engine program which is under offset implementation for Rafale 36 deal is successful and the same 65/98 Kn engine gets qualified for LCA and later better 72/110Kn version becomes available as well..
• Thales RBE 2 AESA family Radar into the radome with new cooling solution
• EW suit internal + RWR
• Internal re-arrangement and taking forward the open system architecture with more cores to boost the performance of the system
• Avionics Package
• Aerodynamic improvement in 0.8-1.2M zone
• Rearranging landing gear to improve the central pylon capabilities
• Arming Tejas with MICA IR and MICA EM and using the sensors to transfer data to main processing unit for enhanced target recognition and engagement
• Improving the maintenance regime and making it more friendly with easier accessibility for quicker turn around, a health Monitoring system for plug and play approach with enhanced Quality Checks

Such an approach leads to creation of a much improved Mki1A and hence designated Mk1A+.

To further use the expertise of the French side, we should propose a simple block approach with each of the capabilities which can be later upgraded to latest standard.

To keep Program Tejas move ahead, there must be a Joint program with French side for AMCA and use the development of technology to seamlessly flow into all future iterations.

Is that all?

The answer is still No..

The reason being every program under aviation history will show dramatic cost over runs, delays and at times a black hole like situation. The major focus is not to lose hope and continue on the path of an indigenous development.. But at the same time reinventing the whole wheel is not needed. It's better to use the joint development efforts and bring in the best of synergistic congruence towards a better risk management in the project.

Developing Tejas program with such capabilities and AMCA joint program opens the path to future iterations of Tejas as well.. Our AURA program without the after burners can learn a lot from NUERON program as well.. So it's not a day dream to think a swarm of AURA drones can be controlled by LCA as well like below

View attachment 46

This implies Rafale /AMCA remains our best access medium for 5th gen level capability and use many of the 5th gen functions in a network centric role with LCA iterations itself.. With so many possibilities and future potential, it's still hard to understand is the gap really there or forced to be there by some opinion makers in order to thwart such a incredible possibility.

So back to opening question
Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

- In my humble opinion, No but it becomes a Yes if you do get a government which in spite of knowing the best course of action maintains the status quo for some other strategic motive.

First Rant on the new forum

There is a shortage in squadron strength. the projected strength in the background accounts for service rates for the platform. If you have a platform whose service rate is close to 50% on a good day, guess what your projected sqdn strength increases. So sqdn strength is relative, not absolute. The final call of which platform to induct is of the IAF, and if their prerogative is NO LCA, then there is no LCA, but again IAF also needs to be accountable, and thus explain the induction of Sub par platforms like Jaguar SEPECAT?

LCA and Accountability:
Given that success rate of ADA has been 2 out 4 from development stand point, (Airframe/control system Pass, engine/radar and avionics - Fail), were any of the ADA program leads sacked. With HAL's so called production delays, what has happened to Mr Raju, why hasn't he being discharged from his position?

This whole conduit to 5th gen technology perplexes me. We have been building a 4+ platform in the hundreds for the last 20 years, by that logic LCA as a 4+ should be world beater, but it doesn't come even close to slow or high speed performance of the MKI.

How do you build capabilities to get to a xgen technology, by piggy backing on imports? The ones who have indeed matured to x y z Generation in weapons platforms, how did they arrive there? Did US or Russia piggyback on someone else to get there or did they put in work to develop and mature there technology.

GE right now is working with an entire team for next generation engine for which they do not even have an intended platform. If we ever want to get anywhere with any technology, we need to get out of the obsession with squadron strength and number of platforms or generation fascination and take pride in actually developing technologies. Don't get into the debate of look at our neighbors or USA or Russia and what they have in their arsenal, Look at what they have built and compete with the technology. we do not have a radar FST article or a facility to test airframe config and still rely on mathematical models instead of actual dynamic testing. Technologically advanced battlefield systems come at a cost, whether it is spending a billion dollars on a technologies for 10 years, or ending up spending 20 billion dollars on an import platform due to lack of internal capability. Either ways you will end up spending money. If you want a super car and want to build it from scratch, you will need to learn the skills, which will come at a cost, you will need the right materials, and the know how for developing the right technology, it might come at a huge cost or you could go out and buy a 458 Italia, and it still will be extremely expensive. But if you put in the effort to build your own you are now in the league of ferrari. We as a nation, especially defence fanboys always have focused on owning 458 italia and zonda's rather than becoming a Paggani or a ferrari. There lies the real problem.

How many technology demonstrators have we built, for the Pakfa, there was the Mig 1.44, S57 Berkut, and numerous others. What have we done?

We need research in Engines, Avionics and Airframes. Not just for FGFA and AMCA, but for multiple platforms including LCA mkXX as you point out. We do not need safaranized GTRX, we need GTRX'ed modular platforms to replace everything from Al31's to FG404 and power the LCA and AMCA lines.

If the airforce is not happy with the LCA 1P or Mk2's aerodynamic performance, just stop the project and start working on AMCA, and MCA platform.

 

[Tarun]

Sir.

Correction. MCA was conceived as an idea in 2005 and then RM gave a statement on plans to design it in 2006. This was on the backs of the IAF being given an assurance by ADA-HAL of delivery of LCA. There was a timeline of designing and production to commence by 2015.

However, keeping up the consistency, HAL-ADA did not deliver LCA in time and were left scrambling. IAF was of opinion of delaying the retirement of it's fleet in case Project MCA was to fructify. The earlier excuses of 'ecosystem and infrastructure' to be built being given to explain away the colossal failure in LCA project, was no more valid as the ecosystem namely research of composites and advanced metallurgical processes, was already 2 decades and counting, old.

However, the failure of Kaveri GTX coupled with failure of HAL-ADA-DRDO to be able to diversify technology evolution and development in the typical turf war, delayed everything.

It was only in 2010, after an ASQR was drawn up, that IAF and IN have started backing the project actively. Towards this, the funding was released over 2011 onwards.

MMRCA came up with delay in LCA and follow on MCA.

It was about official documented kick-start of the plan..

Sir.

T-50 PAKFA -

Perspective - Concept. I think that the time till an IOC is available, it being labelled is a concept only.

When AMCA was planned to have first flight in 2017 than how it was possible to have IOC in 2011 (it is the time when preliminary design fund was released).
And due to mentality to use most of the systems from FGFA JV project, lead the further delays for AMCA Program.

 

[Falcon]

??? The #3K Range are officially post by IRKUT/HAL (Sukhoi Su-30MKI) and yes they could be for ideal conditions - but to say misleading - sorry NO

Sukhoi Su-30MKI (see post #4)

(Off topic - The same - ARAI fuel efficiency figures and in real world figure are different but a close match - STILL we take the ARAI as official figures that posted by the Manufacturer - yes i know can't compare - but take this as an analogy )

Again - Same Q : Do we have official figures for the Tejas!

Read again sir. I said same for Tejas only.

 

[The enlightened]

Look around the world. F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, ATD-X are the cutting edge of fighter jets. Europeans want their own 5th Gen and have several demonstrators to that effect. And in the meanwhile some here want to keep spending a massive proportion of CAPEX on Rafale well into the 30's at a time it will be absolutely slaughtered by China's and even Pakistani 5th Gen inductees.

 

[Aashish]

@Milspec

A good write again.

Perhaps first thing that comes to my mind is Indian by nature dont understand what is truly in lucid words a Proper Project Management.

Second the R&D budget and timeline is another field which certainly we dont have good grasp. From the time of genesis of the project, we thing that the whole funding requirement will be frugal, resource allocation limited and funds released even worse as per benchmarks achieved.

The truth is LCA Tejas as project has its own shares of issues with biggest problem being lack of accountability for the whole system. Right from Day 0 till date the whole system from Administrators, bureaucrats , the channel to DPSU officials and many more have done little to be really deserving their superannuation benefits on time. Of course they will not agree to this view point of mine. Nonetheless the lack of accountability crippled from Top to bottom and seeped through the ecosystem which got formed as well.

Good thing is we as a country have changed a bit in last few years. Thus there is a greater scrutiny and awareness that the whole system cannot shrug it off and final product be termed sub optimal. LCA MK1A+/XX better iterations are a due to learning of such poor project management that plagued our past but still the changes to really reflect will still take time. The ecosystem should see a upswing in next decade due to these changes.

An example is this

Source http://www.hal-india.com/Common/Uploads/DMS/Items intend to be Outsourced.pdf
According to HAL site, they are looking at outsourcing the parts of LCA even more which is good and in line with what they should have done good amount of time back





This thought process should have flown in case of HAL long back but as we suffer from systemic issues, the steps taken were too meagre and slow. We are still moving towards it but unless there is a drastic push for the same, the whole structural rejig may take too long time..

And that is where opportunity for "imported" weapon systems are present.

A quick look at the full budget of a DARPA program in last 1 year versus R&D funds allocated over last decade or two will show whats our real position.

Let me quote here from a article i refer a lot for general R&D spending plaguing our whole country

On the domestic front, India’s public spending on research has been stagnant at around 0.8% of GDP for over a decade. As a major growing economy, we have been happy to piggyback on the innovations of the advanced economies and use them in an Indian setting, despite some exceptions. However, if the authors’ findings are true, then the advanced economies are definitely facing a problem of declining returns to research.

As a result, it is important for India to seize the initiative and start investing in R&D, and develop a robust R&D infrastructure if it wishes to maintain a sustainable and a high economic growth path. While the jury is still out on whether it was demonetisation or the introduction of GST that reflected in the dismal Q1 growth percentage of 5.7 %, it is important that we should not stray away from investing in R&D that will ultimately lead us to a higher long-run growth trajectory. The Modi government’s flagship schemes such as Impacting Research Innovation and Technology and Uchhatar Avishkar Yojana are pivotal to India’s R&D growth story.
The non-takeoff of the Vishwajeet scheme is certainly a setback to the research centres and universities that were seeking financial resources for research.


Figure 4: Total factor productivity levels of India, China relative to the United States. Note that these are levels, not growth rates. India’s TFP levels are below those of China and nearly two-fifth to that of U.S. Source: Authors calculations and Penn World Table 9.0



Figure 5: Total factor productivity growth of India, China and United States. It is encouraging to note that India has been on a rising TFP path and therefore, R&D merits even more serious attention. Source: Authors’ calculations and The Conference Board


The present NDA government certainly needs to commit more budgetary increases to the R&D sector if we want our researchers and scientists to be doing more high-end research. Moreover, this spending must crowd-in private investments from the industry. These increases are pivotal to increasing India’s TFP level – though Indian TFP growth has been having an upward trajectory in the last few years, it continues to be only a fraction of the US TFP levels. (Figures 4 and 5 illuminate this above.)

While the nation celebrates the 86th birthday of one of its greatest citizens, A.P.J Abdul Kalam on October 15, it becomes important to recollect what he had to say for the policymakers, “When grand plans for scientific and defence technologies are made, do the people in power think about the sacrifices the people in the laboratories and fields have to make?”
It is essential that India respects these words more generously.

Link : As Scaling Effects of Research Productivity Diminish, India Must Step up R&D Investment - The Wire

Thus, there are limitations and thats being honest but then i still believe the MIC can benefit a lot with the proposed opinions. Instead of trying to master everything with such a frugal R&D spending we should concentrate on some limited fields and be master in that. I dont mind the GTRE Kaveri becoming Safransied Kaveri bcz of actual waiting and R&D spending + requirements of additional stuff being never sanctioned. I am comfortable seeing Safran coming in putting the M88 Core over Kabini and getting the work completed. Same lies with other portions.

What i am looking forward too is not reinvent the wheel further up, rather use the wheel as it is available and look forward to next technology things.

An example Safransied Kaveri may do a 65/98, how about upgrading it further to second level of 72/110 Kn with Safran together.

Then think is future planes going to use a similar engine tech with advancements or a far better newer propulsion technology. Allocate research for that and use the building blocks available from our MIC to work together towards that.

F22/F35 is not just bcz of one or two major companies. Its the synergic work of whole MIC which grew step by step with spendings from a lot earlier time and learnings. I agree we should have done the same but now trying to walk the same path is "impractical". We need to be smart and look forward to the same

An example to go with my rationale is in the next post where i will try to say how Offsets if properly managed can help this MIC creation

 

[Aashish]

@Milspec

A good write again.

Perhaps first thing that comes to my mind is Indian by nature dont understand what is truly in lucid words a Proper Project Management.

Second the R&D budget and timeline is another field which certainly we dont have good grasp. From the time of genesis of the project, we thing that the whole funding requirement will be frugal, resource allocation limited and funds released even worse as per benchmarks achieved.

The truth is LCA Tejas as project has its own shares of issues with biggest problem being lack of accountability for the whole system. Right from Day 0 till date the whole system from Administrators, bureaucrats , the channel to DPSU officials and many more have done little to be really deserving their superannuation benefits on time. Of course they will not agree to this view point of mine. Nonetheless the lack of accountability crippled from Top to bottom and seeped through the ecosystem which got formed as well.

Good thing is we as a country have changed a bit in last few years. Thus there is a greater scrutiny and awareness that the whole system cannot shrug it off and final product be termed sub optimal. LCA MK1A+/XX better iterations are a due to learning of such poor project management that plagued our past but still the changes to really reflect will still take time. The ecosystem should see a upswing in next decade due to these changes.

An example is this
View attachment 136
Source http://www.hal-india.com/Common/Uploads/DMS/Items intend to be Outsourced.pdf
According to HAL site, they are looking at outsourcing the parts of LCA even more which is good and in line with what they should have done good amount of time back


View attachment 137


This thought process should have flown in case of HAL long back but as we suffer from systemic issues, the steps taken were too meagre and slow. We are still moving towards it but unless there is a drastic push for the same, the whole structural rejig may take too long time..

And that is where opportunity for "imported" weapon systems are present.

A quick look at the full budget of a DARPA program in last 1 year versus R&D funds allocated over last decade or two will show whats our real position.

Let me quote here from a article i refer a lot for general R&D spending plaguing our whole country


Link : As Scaling Effects of Research Productivity Diminish, India Must Step up R&D Investment - The Wire

Thus, there are limitations and thats being honest but then i still believe the MIC can benefit a lot with the proposed opinions. Instead of trying to master everything with such a frugal R&D spending we should concentrate on some limited fields and be master in that. I dont mind the GTRE Kaveri becoming Safransied Kaveri bcz of actual waiting and R&D spending + requirements of additional stuff being never sanctioned. I am comfortable seeing Safran coming in putting the M88 Core over Kabini and getting the work completed. Same lies with other portions.

What i am looking forward too is not reinvent the wheel further up, rather use the wheel as it is available and look forward to next technology things.

An example Safransied Kaveri may do a 65/98, how about upgrading it further to second level of 72/110 Kn with Safran together.

Then think is future planes going to use a similar engine tech with advancements or a far better newer propulsion technology. Allocate research for that and use the building blocks available from our MIC to work together towards that.

F22/F35 is not just bcz of one or two major companies. Its the synergic work of whole MIC which grew step by step with spendings from a lot earlier time and learnings. I agree we should have done the same but now trying to walk the same path is "impractical". We need to be smart and look forward to the same

An example to go with my rationale is in the next post where i will try to say how Offsets if properly managed can help this MIC creation

In continuation to above

Please find below tailored approaches to build indigenous MIC via offsets. Credit to Ernst and Young for the same


Among the success stories, the name of Israel is referred a lot and was studied for our own tweaking of offsets.

The simple objectives were
1. The aim was creating Israeli products and sell them to different customers via bilateral or multilateral agreements

2. Emhasis was on creation of R&D base and generate a lot of employment leading to Skilling the manpower via job creation of all types

3. Further the international cooperation in different R&D to complete the stalled, imperfect and not able to meet performance parameter domestic MIC products and move them to Step 1

4. Encourage formation of a technological fund for start ups and young entrepreneurs in turn fueling up creation of small and medium sector companies

5. A big emphasis on collaboration of Industry with Academic institutes through specialized programs and training.


Now this kind of approach in India may not work completely bcz of constraints like

a. We dont have that many adequate platforms which can warrant huge purchases owing to incomplete projects or performance issues aka LCA , Arjun etc

b. Our Manufacturing Ecosystem is inadequate as well so the ecosystem support is not fully there.

c. The whole governments setup and chain is not so easy. The offsets Implementation is not governed by an independent body outside MOD nor have any control over the execution by different departments.

d. ROI for any new company indian or foreign is meager with no future prospects clarity

e. Cubersome documentation process with repetitive pillar to post running mechanism



So i do see some challeges here to develop the MIC via offsets but it can be done via

1. Having a independent body to solve the major issues

2. follow the israeli model in full compliance and spirit bcz Make In India, Skill India and trying to develop the manufacturing base points to this clearly.

3 The Offsets by itself should be broadly divided like this

Credit to E&Y again for this wonderful thinking

When you see above, you realise how beautifully from screw driver tech as we keep on saying , we can migrate to a proper MIC Ecosystem creation.

This is the reason i always like Rafale plan of offsets of components manufacturing+MRO in DRAL + R&D projects with DRDO+ finishing projects like GTRE Kaveri + Civilian Falcon Jet Line +others. You see new Qatar fresh orders and future orders may carry DRAL components as well.

In essence this is the Rafale offset implementation step is similar to Israeli Model. With the prospect of pairing the Dassault, Thales and Safran associating into LCA program and DRAL into LCA ecosystem, this is the best possible plan for the furture.

Hence you also saw i did not talk about FGFA but talked about better iterations of LCA and Proposed AMCA via a JV route again.

I hope this helps you with clarifying my position of why i have always proposed and endorsed France and Rafale procurement and association of the same with our LCA

@Abingdonboy @halloweene @Picdelamirand-oil @nair @Arpit @Bon Plan @Ashwin @Hellfire @Tarun @Manmohan_MMY @randomradio @vstol Jockey

 

[Milspec]

In essence this is the Rafale offset implementation step is similar to Israeli Model. With the prospect of pairing the Dassault, Thales and Safran associating into LCA program and DRAL into LCA ecosystem, this is the best possible plan for the furture.

I have my doubts with the above due to mindset of our dpsu/mod/forces combined. The culture of piggybacking is going to seep in, every one involved will raise their hands saying "not my job", and the french will go home with a bitter taste in their mouth. The only remote chance that this conglomerate works is to get a consortium of Indian Private players involved in the mix. I am not as optimistic at this stage.

Little thought is given to the engine, but has bigger strategic impact than that of 400 LCA's AMCA's + other platforms combined and the magic numbers that seem to be of grave concern.