ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Steven Rogers]

I agree that imports are vital to plug the gaps and not just in defence, sometimes there is no alternative to import. This is why for our Metro projects the tunnel boring machines are still all imported and until we have firms such as BHEL, L&T and others making them here in India, the imports will continue.

ToT is a different beast altogether, no one will transfer the really critical technologies in any field and we have no choice but master them in house. Much of the so-called ToT has been nothing but licensed assembly or license manufacture. In the case of airframe parts for instance, critical metallurgy and alloy technology was by and large denied to us, though they were "manufactured and assembled" here.

Sometimes even that is not permitted and the parts have to be imported piece meal as a black box. Seekers and engines are but one example, where Russians and Israelis or for that matter anyone refused to share the knowhow. Recently, this was made quite clear by the LM American official. Russians also refused to transfer the know how for making tank barrels and armour and we need to import them for T-90s. What this kind of ToT does is push up the local manufacturing costs, since the critical sub-systems are still being imported. Today, a HAL made Su 30MKI costs more than Su 30 MKI imported from Russia.

And this is not confined to sensitive military tech. Till recently, even the auto biggies from Japan, Korea and other countries were importing key sub-systems such as gear transmission systems from their own countries. They never transferred that tech to us despite being here for decades. Most of the diesel engines in India are still supplied by FIAT.

There are numerous such examples.

We should get out this mindset that someone will transfer their painstakingly developed tech to us under any agreement. We have no choice but to ramp up our own in house knowledge-base, R&D and industrial set-up. Cheenis achieved all that with a very judicious mix of ramping up their own infrastructure, promoting R&D at a huge scale, industrial espionage, IP violation and reverse engineering. While we may question their methods, the results are there for all to see.

Tata is now making their own engines.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[mayfair]

Tata is now making their own engines.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Are they making all the key components? I understand they and probably Mahindra were working on their own gear box transmission.

But think of it, how long have TATA been in the automobile business? How long ago did they acquire Jaguar/Land Rover and how long it took them to get to this stage of being able to craft their own engines?

The challenge in aerospace is many times bigger, which is why Tejas and Saras are so important for us, even if they are seemingly less than perfect now.

 

[Sancho]

And this is not confined to sensitive military tech. Till recently, even the auto biggies from Japan, Korea and other countries were importing key sub-systems such as gear transmission systems from their own countries. They never transferred that tech to us despite being here for decades. Most of the diesel engines in India are still supplied by FIAT.

There are some historic reasoans for that too, but still both of these countries developed high level of industrial capabilities, "because" they used ToT and partnerships to improve themselves. Both also keep importing the necessary techs and weapons and both negotiate to get as much ToT or customization rights as possible, so why would the same be bad for us?
You actually pointed out 2 examples that we should follow and that shows the benefits of ToT and industrial partnerships.

We have no choice but to ramp up our own in house knowledge-base, R&D and industrial set-up.

That's a given, the problem is the naivety that we often have in our industry, to belive we can do things that others can, although they are decades ahead of us. The knowledge and experience doesn't come just like that and sadly the LCA programme is proof of that. So we need to be more realistic in our own developments to be successful. Risk reduction via off the shelf parts, JVs or even joint developments are crucial and the focus must be on the success of the programme, not the indigenous content => LCA MK1A

 

[Steven Rogers]

Are they making all the key components? I understand they and probably Mahindra were working on their own gear box transmission.

But think of it, how long have TATA been in the automobile business? How long ago did they acquire Jaguar/Land Rover and how long it took them to get to this stage of being able to craft their own engines?

The challenge in aerospace is many times bigger, which is why Tejas and Saras are so important for us, even if they are seemingly less than perfect now.

They entered in 1996, bought Jaguar in 2008, so a jaguar car has Tata's engine in that case coz everything of jaguar and Range rover was bought by tata. Coming to Indian scenario, they say indigenous and no country reveals the percentage, the most important thing is, they same indigenous design so the rights of the engine belongs to them, Revetron and Revertorque are the newest indigenous engines by TATA.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

There are some historic reasoans for that too, but still both of these countries developed high level of industrial capabilities, "because" they used ToT and partnerships to improve themselves. Both also keep importing the necessary techs and weapons and both negotiate to get as much ToT or customization rights as possible, so why would the same be bad for us?
You actually pointed out 2 examples that we should follow and that shows the benefits of ToT and industrial partnerships.




That's a given, the problem is the naivety that we often have in our industry, to belive we can do things that others can, although they are decades ahead of us. The knowledge and experience doesn't come just like that and sadly the LCA programme is proof of that. So we need to be more realistic in our own developments to be successful. Risk reduction via off the shelf parts, JVs or even joint developments are crucial and the focus must be on the success of the programme, not the indigenous content => LCA MK1A

No one at the moment is counting MK1A indigenous content, they wanting end product by the given time line.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[mayfair]

There are some historic reasoans for that too, but still both of these countries developed high level of industrial capabilities, "because" they used ToT and partnerships to improve themselves. Both also keep importing the necessary techs and weapons and both negotiate to get as much ToT or customization rights as possible, so why would the same be bad for us?
You actually pointed out 2 examples that we should follow and that shows the benefits of ToT and industrial partnerships.

Like I said before, the time was different. Over a century ago, the West got Japan to open up and in return they offered money, trade, unbridled access to technology (that they themselves were developing) among other things to make sure that Japan would be their bulwark against imperial Russia. Do remember, the Great Game was in full flow.

Once Japan got the access, they progressed rapidly and perhaps got a little too ambitious. At that time, the Brits allowed the Soviets, access to their jet engine technology, since Nazis were viewed as the bigger threat. In a few years, the Soviets became the biggest threat to the West.

Then after WWII, the West did not dismantle the Japanese tech base, rather the Amreekis, gave huge contracts to the Zaibatsu such as Sumitomo, Mitsui and Mitsubishi for the post-war reconstruction efforts. Auto companies, especially Toyota got huge contracts to supply vehicles for the Korean war. The objective at that time was to contain Soviet-Sino expansion into Pacific and Japan that was the enemy only a few years ago, was funded extensively with money and technology to stand up as a bulwark against the commies. Once Japan came into being as a tech power and the South Korean polity stabilised, they started taking over the Western auto and electronics market, much to the chargin of the Western companies. To save the US auto mobile monopoly, the infamous "Chicken tax" was introduced, where Japanese trucks (not cars) were slapped with a tariff of 25%.

When Japan matured as a economic powerhouse, they normalised relations with SoKo in 1960s. This normalisation involved HUGE amounts of money (~$10 billion USD in present money), setting up of the Pohang Steel Company (now known as POSCO) and other tech. SoKo under the leadership of Park Chung Hee, a former decorated soldier of the Imperial Japanese army, followed the Japanese template to transform from the poorest country in Asia in 1950s to a powerhouse by the late 1980s, so much so as to threaten and overtake Japanese in certain sectors- Samsung is bigger than any Japanese electronics company.

Japan also funded China with know how, money and infra and Chinese happily lapped up and stole what they could while cursing the Japanese all the time.

So the story is that all these countries for several reasons (colonial guilt, short-term business plans) transferred lots of money and unrestricted technology to nations that ended up rivalling or even surpassing them in some of their core areas.

Now, the countries are far more cautious, every worthwhile technology comes with huge checks and balances and restrictions. Emergence of strict IP laws was also in line with these experiences. Other tech will be outright denies to us as it was the case with missile development and space tech. We did get to see the designs of rockets and launchers etc. but the critical details such as engine tech, metallurgy, alloy composition, fuel etc. were off limits. ISRO scientists had to do all of this the hard way and this is why our first GSLV launch happened only recently.

That's a given, the problem is the naivety that we often have in our industry, to belive we can do things that others can, although they are decades ahead of us. The knowledge and experience doesn't come just like that and sadly the LCA programme is proof of that. So we need to be more realistic in our own developments to be successful. Risk reduction via off the shelf parts, JVs or even joint developments are crucial and the focus must be on the success of the programme, not the indigenous content => LCA MK1A

We have no choice but to take the long route and learn along the way. Of course this is not to say we cannot and should not learn from. We can learn from their experiences to perhaps leap frog the development cycle in some areas or avoid their mistakes in others. But eventually we'll have to get there on our own.

As you said, off the shelf commercial parts are important and it would be foolish to try and re-invent the wheel, where the tech is widely and unrestrictedly available and there's little threat of sanctions stymieing the process, because these stuffs are so widely used that restricting them is impossible without causing a cascading affect. BUT, all the JVs in the world will NOT allow for the transfer of sensitive tech, regardless of the status of our industrial sector. Not only because these companies do not wish to empower future competitor by sharing critical know how as many did in the past, but also because they fear a loss or theft of technology and it reaching places that would have very unpleasant consequences.

Experience will come only when we get our hands dirty and keep learning, innovating and improving along the way. Else we'll keep doing screwdrivergiri for the foreseeable future.

 

[abingdonboy]

Tata is now making their own engines.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

Not on their top end platforms. Hexa and H5X make use of fully imported engines

 

[Sancho]

We have no choice but to take the long route and learn along the way.

That simply is not true, neither for Japan, nor for us. Look at their F2 fighter, which is a custom F16 with own radar, avionics weapons..., basically a more advanced deal than our MKI deal. Their C2 transport aircraft was developed with help of US companies (we had at least the offer to be part of MTA), they now build a custom Meteor version with British help (we have Brahmos, Barak 8 and other custom weapons too).

And the most obvious proof that foreign help and parnerships are the key to a successful indigenous programme (at this point of our industrial capability), is the Dhruv and the Shakti engine! Designed, developed with foreign support, high foreign content, that gradually will be reduced and the know how base for all following indigenous helicopter.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Not on their top end platforms. Hexa and H5X make use of fully imported engines

Those imported engines are made in the facilities of Jamshedpur and Phaltan

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Rahul Singh]

is the Dhruv and the Shakti engine! Designed, developed with foreign support,

MBB's role during the design phase of ALH Dhruv was of a consultant only. And it's contract had expired just when first phase of flight testing has started.So noway it was part of Development period.

The only intention of MBB during that period was to use ALH project as a Guinea Pig for its own EC-145 project. Tune to 12:05.

 

[mayfair]

That simply is not true, neither for Japan, nor for us. Look at their F2 fighter, which is a custom F16 with own radar, avionics weapons..., basically a more advanced deal than our MKI deal. Their C2 transport aircraft was developed with help of US companies (we had at least the offer to be part of MTA), they now build a custom Meteor version with British help (we have Brahmos, Barak 8 and other custom weapons too).

And the most obvious proof that foreign help and parnerships are the key to a successful indigenous programme (at this point of our industrial capability), is the Dhruv and the Shakti engine! Designed, developed with foreign support, high foreign content, that gradually will be reduced and the know how base for all following indigenous helicopter.

Yes you are right, about all these examples. But you will also not that none of them have been exported, owing to special provisions in the Japanese constitution. Not sure they'll have enough buyers anyway- an F2 costs about the same a Rafale or even higher. Not too many customers at that point. Moreover, Japan was offered only a limited access to key tech and that too in exchange for access to any new tech they developed as a part of the deal. F2 are still powered by GE engines, an indigenous Japanese powerplant is yet to come on board (probably F-X will have it) and this is a country that was making jet engines on its own till the WWII. The F2 deal has been criticised for this very reason that Japan has had to share some of its own high tech, without really getting access to cutting edge US tech.

Moreover, these systems with Japanese self-defence forces, complement the existing US deployment in Japan. The two countries are much much more closely aligned than we are or we would like to be with anyone.

I am glad you brought up the point about Brahmos and Shakti engines. We still import the Brahmos ramjet engine and seeker from Russia, since they refused to share the technology with us. They also refused to share the source codes for the key guidance and flight control software, the tweaking of which allowed the range to increase from the absurdly low 290km to excess of 600 km being talked about today. This was done by Russians or at least reported only AFTER we had joined the MTCR.

The Shakti engine core remains the exclusive domain of Turbomeca, that tech was not transferred and we'll continue to be dependent on France for the engines in the future. One reason we could not export Dhruvs to Myanmar sometime back was that French and Americans (who supply some key components for Dhruv) refused to commit their support for their share of components.

Indeed we have indigenised high percentage of many peripheral components in many systems including Su30 MKI (MRF tyres), Arjun Tanks, Tejas etc. But we still remain dependent on others for the critical components including seekers, engines and guidance systems and no one, I repeat, NO ONE is ready to share the secrets with us regardless of the cost.

 

[cyclops]

Yes you are right, about all these examples. But you will also not that none of them have been exported, owing to special provisions in the Japanese constitution. Not sure they'll have enough buyers anyway- an F2 costs about the same a Rafale or even higher. Not too many customers at that point. Moreover, Japan was offered only a limited access to key tech and that too in exchange for access to any new tech they developed as a part of the deal. F2 are still powered by GE engines, an indigenous Japanese powerplant is yet to come on board (probably F-X will have it) and this is a country that was making jet engines on its own till the WWII. The F2 deal has been criticised for this very reason that Japan has had to share some of its own high tech, without really getting access to cutting edge US tech.

Moreover, these systems with Japanese self-defence forces, complement the existing US deployment in Japan. The two countries are much much more closely aligned than we are or we would like to be with anyone.

I am glad you brought up the point about Brahmos and Shakti engines. We still import the Brahmos ramjet engine and seeker from Russia, since they refused to share the technology with us. They also refused to share the source codes for the key guidance and flight control software, the tweaking of which allowed the range to increase from the absurdly low 290km to excess of 600 km being talked about today. This was done by Russians or at least reported only AFTER we had joined the MTCR.

The Shakti engine core remains the exclusive domain of Turbomeca, that tech was not transferred and we'll continue to be dependent on France for the engines in the future. One reason we could not export Dhruvs to Myanmar sometime back was that French and Americans (who supply some key components for Dhruv) refused to commit their support for their share of components.

Indeed we have indigenised high percentage of many peripheral components in many systems including Su30 MKI (MRF tyres), Arjun Tanks, Tejas etc. But we still remain dependent on others for the critical components including seekers, engines and guidance systems and no one, I repeat, NO ONE is ready to share the secrets with us regardless of the cost.

Brahmos' ramjet engine aside didn't Data Patterns win the contract for supplying the X-band seeker?

 

[mayfair]

^^ I don't really know about it, is their seeker now deployed in the current batch of Brahmos missiles?

Plus, was the seeker tech developed by themselves son their own or with inputs form Russians?

 

[Steven Rogers]

Brahmos' ramjet engine aside didn't Data Patterns win the contract for supplying the X-band seeker?View attachment 23135

Data patterns are working on phase 1, ie replacement of seeker in BrahMos and introduce the similar performing Indian one, seeker for BrahMos NG or future BrahMos is a dual mode imaging seeker been developed by drdo and private sector.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

Yes you are right, about all these examples. But you will also not that none of them have been exported, owing to special provisions in the Japanese constitution. Not sure they'll have enough buyers anyway- an F2 costs about the same a Rafale or even higher. Not too many customers at that point. Moreover, Japan was offered only a limited access to key tech and that too in exchange for access to any new tech they developed as a part of the deal. F2 are still powered by GE engines, an indigenous Japanese powerplant is yet to come on board (probably F-X will have it) and this is a country that was making jet engines on its own till the WWII. The F2 deal has been criticised for this very reason that Japan has had to share some of its own high tech, without really getting access to cutting edge US tech.

Moreover, these systems with Japanese self-defence forces, complement the existing US deployment in Japan. The two countries are much much more closely aligned than we are or we would like to be with anyone.

I am glad you brought up the point about Brahmos and Shakti engines. We still import the Brahmos ramjet engine and seeker from Russia, since they refused to share the technology with us. They also refused to share the source codes for the key guidance and flight control software, the tweaking of which allowed the range to increase from the absurdly low 290km to excess of 600 km being talked about today. This was done by Russians or at least reported only AFTER we had joined the MTCR.

The Shakti engine core remains the exclusive domain of Turbomeca, that tech was not transferred and we'll continue to be dependent on France for the engines in the future. One reason we could not export Dhruvs to Myanmar sometime back was that French and Americans (who supply some key components for Dhruv) refused to commit their support for their share of components.

Indeed we have indigenised high percentage of many peripheral components in many systems including Su30 MKI (MRF tyres), Arjun Tanks, Tejas etc. But we still remain dependent on others for the critical components including seekers, engines and guidance systems and no one, I repeat, NO ONE is ready to share the secrets with us regardless of the cost.

Japan don't have engine whose t/w is equal to Kaveri....but their engines are certified for flying.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Rahul Singh]

And the most obvious proof that foreign help and parnerships are the key to a successful indigenous programme (at this point of our industrial capability), is the Dhruv and the Shakti engine! Designed, developed with foreign support, high foreign content, that gradually will be reduced and the know how base for all following indigenous helicopter.

As a followup to my last post[http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...news-and-discussions.1/page-780#post-1404821]

Dhruv is nothing but a wrong example. A consultant is not even a design partner by the way. Its only role is giving suggestions whenever asked. And MMB consultancy did not last even until the completion of the first flight phase. Which is to say HAL learned the art of developing Helicopters on its own the hard way. Which in every case is the only way; though experiments and hit and trial.This the primary reason behind the success of follow up designs be LCH or LUH or to be IMRH.

One more example of how things really happen in real world. HAL is supposed to have full TOT of SU-30MKI. But when it wanted to get Brahmos integrated on SU-30MKI it had to go to NAL. Interestingly when NAL rescued HAL-IAF-Brahmos trio, it was its Tejas experience that came into play. Which it has learned the hard way, the only way, called experimenting and hit and trials.

In nutshell, all the talks regarding prospering through ToT is nothing but a beautiful Farce. No one is idiot enough to sell its Golden Egg laying poultry.

 

[Kharavela]

As a followup to my last post[http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...news-and-discussions.1/page-780#post-1404821]

Dhruv is nothing but a wrong example. A consultant is not even a design partner by the way. Its only role is giving suggestions whenever asked. And MMB consultancy did not last even until the completion of the first flight phase. Which is to say HAL learned the art of developing Helicopters on its own the hard way. Which in every case is the only way; though experiments and hit and trial.This the primary reason behind the success of follow up designs be LCH or LUH or to be IMRH.

One more example of how things really happen in real world. HAL is supposed to have full TOT of SU-30MKI. But when it wanted to get Brahmos integrated on SU-30MKI it had to go to NAL. Interestingly when NAL rescued HAL-IAF-Brahmos trio, it was its Tejas experience that came into play. Which it has learned the hard way, the only way, called experimenting and hit and trials.

In nutshell, all the talks regarding prospering through ToT is nothing but a beautiful Farce. No one is idiot enough to sell its Golden Egg laying poultry.

Enough of phoren maal and the farce called ToT.
When we were denied technologies for missile, our brains developed them in-house and today we have numerous missiles to our credit.
We must rely on our brains and provide them facilities they need. Instead of depending solely on DRDO, academic institutions & private companies must be roped in to get faster results.

Work hard in silence, let your success be your noise. - Frank Ocean

 

[Sancho]

I am glad you brought up the point about Brahmos and Shakti engines. We still import the Brahmos ramjet engine and seeker from Russia, since they refused to share the technology with us.

And that's the common misconception, that ToT means you get all the know how. They shared the design, the booster and the know how of how to integrate their parts of the JV with us, which gave us a weapon that we are not able to develop on our own.
So we cut down decades of own development to reach at that level, by forming a JV and customizing a foreign weapon instead. The same goes for engines, radars or other systems too. We have the access and can combine it with the limited capabilities we have so far, to get more advanced stuff and at the same time learn in a faster time. That's something that we sadly missed in the LCA programme, other than in the EW developments.

 

[cyclops]

^^ I don't really know about it, is their seeker now deployed in the current batch of Brahmos missiles?

Plus, was the seeker tech developed by themselves son their own or with inputs form Russians?

I cannot say for sure, I think they did it alongside DRDO and LRDE.

Another Data Patterns product.

 

[Steven Rogers]

DRDO HEMRL developed the booster on its own, it's not the part of JV. Stop giving un necessary credits to Russians, same goes for the Imaging seeker for BrahMos and monopulse seeker by data patterns.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk