Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

[AbRaj]

Turns out not just me and Nutcracker, but Janes too agrees on the commonality...interesting
View attachment 25650

Its Airframe is totally different due to different requirements for carrier ops. LRU and component commonalities are irrelevant for the conversation

 

[Kontakt5]

Too expensive. New Build F35s are cheaper than new build Su30MKIs.

Let that sink in. HAL maxxed out its line at 18 birds a year. LM Fort Worth will deliver 189 F35s this year. Economies of scale are altogether another ballgame.

HAL is useless at maximizing economics.

HAL is not at fault for not being able to maximize economies of scale. It is the air force is at fault as it does not order in large batches. Production volume can only scale as long as the producer can see the assembly line and supply chains being operational for long time. It does not make any sense to produce 100 aircraft/year with an order of only 200. The US is able to make 189 F35's in a year because there are over 3,000 F35's on order in total globally.

 

[AbRaj]

HAL is not at fault for not being able to maximize economies of scale. It is the air force is at fault as it does not order in large batches. Production volume can only scale as long as the producer can see the assembly line and supply chains being operational for long time. It does not make any sense to produce 100 aircraft/year with an order of only 200. The US is able to make 189 F35's in a year because there are over 3,000 F35's on order in total globally.

Strange logic you got there. So its my fault that MacBook pro is so costly and that I should have funded Apple to build its factories to make Macs and IPhones cheaper ?

 

[GodEmperorDoom]

Too expensive. New Build F35s are cheaper than new build Su30MKIs.

Let that sink in. HAL maxxed out its line at 18 birds a year. LM Fort Worth will deliver 189 F35s this year. Economies of scale are altogether another ballgame.

HAL is useless at maximizing economics.

How is HAL useless at maximizing economies?

What production rate do they expect against a placed order of 40? Or 200? Is it 40 or 200 per year and then the line going idle. Any aircraft production generally runs 5 years at minimum for economic viability.

 

[Kontakt5]

Strange logic you got there. So its my fault that MacBook pro is so costly and that I should have funded Apple to build its factories to make Macs and IPhones cheaper ?

It makes zero economic sense to expand facilities, hire more workers, set up extensive assembly lines and supply chains, only to do build planes for 1-3 years and then close down. The Manufacturer will set up the most efficient assembly line in a given time frame based on how many orders it gets from customers. Consumer goods like MacBook do not apply to the same logic to defense contract manufacturing. Why would HAL overproduce 100 fighters per year if the IAF will only take in 300 fighters? It can't scale up from 0 to 100 immediately, it will start maybe 10, 1stt year, 20 next, 40, then 100. It takes many years to scale up production, if order book is too small there is zero logic to produce it in such short time frame, the facilities will be unused and many people will need to laid off and it the company will lose lot's of money. This is why Lockheed does not produce 1000 F-35/year for a 3000 order book but only ~100-200 per year. This make sures the assembly line and supply chains are operational for many years which makes back the cost of setting up such expensive facilities.

 

[trombone]

It makes zero economic sense to expand facilities, hire more workers, set up extensive assembly lines and supply chains, only to do build planes for 1-3 years and then close down. The Manufacturer will set up the most efficient assembly line in a given time frame based on how many orders it gets from customers. Consumer goods like MacBook do not apply to the same logic to defense contract manufacturing. Why would HAL overproduce 100 fighters per year if the IAF will only take in 300 fighters? It can't scale up from 0 to 100 immediately, it will start maybe 10, 1stt year, 20 next, 40, then 100. It takes many years to scale up production, if order book is too small there is zero logic to produce it in such short time frame, the facilities will be unused and many people will need to laid off and it the company will lose lot's of money. This is why Lockheed does not produce 1000 F-35/year for a 3000 order book but only ~100-200 per year. This make sures the assembly line and supply chains are operational for many years which makes back the cost of setting up such expensive facilities.

answer obviously is for HAL to have customers other than IAF alone, possibly from 'global south' if products are top notch.

 

[silentassassin265]

If IAF is so eager with F35, should we just take Rafales from IAF , modify them and give those to Navy ?
IAF can have a bigger fleet of F35 in that way with capex saved in Rafale-M purchase.
I guess it shouldn't cost more than 1.2B$ to convert AF Rafale to Marine, ~35M each.
@BON PLAN what do you think about the commonalities between AF rafale and Marine rafale.

F35B can actually do ski jump, so it makes sense to purchase it for navy too.
Regarding rafale we can buy 1 or 2 squadron more in case murrica sanctions us and F35 become unusable.

 

[AbRaj]

It makes zero economic sense to expand facilities, hire more workers, set up extensive assembly lines and supply chains, only to do build planes for 1-3 years and then close down.

Definitely it makes no sense for a company like HAL but It makes absolute sense to good companies like LM, Boeing, Dassault, TAI,SAAB, Airbus, Sukhoi, Mig, SAC, CAC and dozens of other who are not act like Giant MNAREGA scheme but proper aviation/aeronautical companies with proper future roadmap and competent management.

The Manufacturer will set up the most efficient assembly line in a given time frame based on how many orders it gets from customers. Consumer goods like MacBook do not apply to the same logic to defense contract manufacturing. Why would HAL overproduce 100 fighters per year if the IAF will only take in 300 fighters? It can't scale up from 0 to 100 immediately, it will start maybe 10, 1stt year, 20 next, 40, then 100.

It makes no sense for HAL to actually exist in its current state. Its a dysfunctional company leeching off on Govt money since decades. Other companies compete to make customers, HAL has a captive customer base. They just don't have the capability to make good products with decent quality that customers want, unlike all other mentioned above. Again its like Apple asking me to buy hundreds of MacBooks and Iphones to make them cheaper. Its just not gonna happen. They have to make desirable products and look out for customers to buy it.

 

[haldilal]

 

[Ayan Barat]

LM, Boeing, Dassault, TAI,SAAB, Airbus, Sukhoi, Mig, SAC, CAC...proper future roadmap and competent management.

I want you to read this part again, but slowly

 

[eastern_bhartiya]

Given the state of IAF now and in coming years, out best bet against pakis is :-

Overwhelming missile strength.

Target their economic hotspots.

Naval operations.

Bow down infront of America enough to that they deter china from opening up front in ladakh and AP.

 

[AbRaj]

View attachment 25653

Import Bahadur Ji, why you are asking us to buy 4th gen jet when your fav HAL is already making 4.75th gen jet at home.

 

[Kontakt5]

answer obviously is for HAL to have customers other than IAF alone, possibly from 'global south' if products are top notch.

It still has to secure the customers before it can expand and reap the benefits of scale. If no one else buys there no point in ramping up production before there are actually any customers. For example tejas is a good aircraft but it has lots of competition with global players. It doesn't help that IAF only orders small batches of tejas aircraft and prefers imports. If you were customer nation would you rather purchase tejas jet which even it's host country refuses to buy in bulk or from a well established manufacturer from europe and america with many jet sales and proven reliability. The Indian aviation industry currently is not set up well to appeal to global customers and for export. HAL's success is dependant on if IAF actually puts up serious orders for hundreds of fighters. This is a vicious cycle.

 

[AbRaj]

I want you to read this part again, but slowly

Please, be specific

 

[AbRaj]

It still has to secure the customers before it can expand and reap the benefits of scale. If no one else buys there no point in ramping up production before there are actually any customers. For example tejas is a good aircraft but it has lots of competition with global players. It doesn't help that IAF only orders small batches of tejas aircraft and prefers imports. If you were customer nation would you rather purchase tejas jet which even it's host country refuses to buy in bulk or from a well established manufacturer from europe and america with many jet sales and proven reliability. The Indian aviation industry currently is not set up well to appeal to global customers and for export. HAL's success is dependant on if IAF actually puts up serious orders for hundreds of fighters. This is a vicious cycle.

You know,F35, Su29/30, Mig29K, M2000 and even FC1 were exported even before mass induction into own air forces. Infact the list is quite long

 

[Kontakt5]

You know, Su29/30 and M2000 and even FC1 were exported even before mass induction into own air forces. Infact the list is quite long

Those aircraft are from well established companies with history of already making successful fighters with existing customer bases. Those orders also were political orders from allied nations. It’s disingenuous to compare tejas to these fighter planes. India is a new player in the industry. Tejas is a top notch jet but India doesn’t have the history of producing jets compared to the producers of export success.

 

[Kontakt5]

‘global south’ nations often don’t have very large budgets and need to weigh the risks. They usually have small order books as well. If you are small country it is a risk to buy from India which is new player versus buying from America or Europe. Even if HAL lands Tejas order from abroad it won’t be in the hundreds so this still won’t incentivize scaling up production. India is actually the largest aircraft import market, this is why many global players are rushing to sell to India. Other nations either have own programmes or are poor and cannot buy many fighters. If anything HAL should be rushing to sell to IAF but IAF won’t buy HAL in massive numbers. It is all so stupid in my opinion.

 

[AbRaj]

Those aircraft are from well established companies with history of already making successful fighters with existing customer bases. Those orders also were political orders from allied nations. It’s disingenuous to compare tejas to these fighter planes. India is a new player in the industry. Tejas is a top notch jet but India doesn’t have the history of producing jets compared to the producers of export success.

HAL is older than many of those and doing TOTi since ages and GOI is paying in hope that HAL will learn someday and make something out of it

 

[Ayan Barat]

Please, be specific

As you wish...

First something that I had missed

Its Airframe is totally different due to different requirements for carrier ops.

It clearly mentions "...has 80 percent structural...commonality" which incidentally means airframe only.
So I don't know from where exactly are you citing this data of them being totally different. Would be great if you can quote it

As for comparing HAL with other manufacturers, I hope you're matured enough to understand that in big ticket items like aircraft we can't just compare some firm as a whole to another; there are nuances. OFB not being able to churn out a decent pistol in decades is one thing, but comparing HAL and Boeing!!!

Just like you adviced me to be more specific, I'd like you to be more specific too.
Make a detailed chart of when exactly these companies were established, are they in a democratic country or an autocratic, how many different planes have they designed till now, what's the market share, do they've any civilian business to offset the R&D of defence department. Then do a comparison

You also mentioned proper future roadmap and competent management. Then how come Gripen is considered to a sub par project? Why has Mikoyan Gurevich lost its edge?

 

[Kontakt5]

HAL is older than many of those and doing TOTi since ages and GOI is paying in hope that HAL will learn someday and make something out of it

HAL is old company yes, but go look up how many aircraft it has exported to other countries. In terms of exports, HAL is still an infant child. Cannot be compared to global industry giants.