LCA TEJAS MK-I & MK-IA: News and Discussion

shade2 said:
Case by this twitter nibbiar to not give "users" control of fighter jet programs


View: https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1880106968200933677
Click to expand...

Users have to be project managers & also own the project. Who else will manage the project otherwise ? The case of Arjun & ATAGS is before you & even the LCA for quite some time between first flight & MP's intervention in 2016 laying the future road map of the LCA & AMCA program.
 
Azaad said:
Users have to be project managers & also own the project. Who else will manage the project otherwise ? The case of Arjun & ATAGS is before you & even the LCA for quite some time between first flight & MP's intervention in 2016 laying the future road map of the LCA & AMCA program.
Click to expand...

I also think this based on the "Navy Model" but the firestarter( same one as our forum? ) gives an example of the Israeli Airforce having control of IAI Lavi but they decided to can that project.

However one big benefit is "user control" will prevent any blame game because of "incompetent DPSU delay", blame will be squarely on shoulders of "user" as it is with Navy
 
shade2 said:
I also think this based on the "Navy Model" but the firestarter( same one as our forum? ) gives an example of the Israeli Airforce having control of IAI Lavi but they decided to can that project.

However one big benefit is "user control" will prevent any blame game because of "incompetent DPSU delay", blame will be squarely on shoulders of "user" as it is with Navy
Click to expand...
The "Navy model" has always been about incremental development. Ironically that's what the IAF followed as well in some projects viz the DARIN upgrades to Jaguars & the MKI project.

Why didn't they take a sympathetic view of DRDO building up an aerospace ecosystem for future programs is a mystery or maybe not so much of a mystery given that the LCA was supposed to be a straight forward replacement of the MiG-21 & the specifications like FBW / FCL , Kaveri TF etc were not needed in at least the initial iterations.

How did it come to be there is a mystery ! Quite obviously one of the agencies may have proposed it & the user accepted it. When realisation of tech didn't happen in a time bound manner , the blame game commenced.

There's always been this bad blood between the development department , the production agency & the user in the history of our indigenous arms products. You can see it across armed forces across time . What further gets the goat of our Armed Forces is that DRDO & HAL in case of the IAF , exercise a kind of veto on defence imports. According to the IAF they over promise & under deliver.

You can see it in the Pilatus vs HTT-40 case , various indigenous replacements of the MKI program & a very good ongoing example is the IJT - Sitara. It's been under development for almost 3 decades now. It was supposed to be inducted into service in the early to mid 2000s.

As of the present , It was supposed to clear trials & be certified last year according to HVT. We still don't know the reason it wasn't. Meanwhile the current IJTs in service with the IAF the HAL Kiran Mk-2 (?) IIRC are virtually on their last legs.
 
Speaking of next gen fighters, why can't we inculcate something like the originally conceived MCA programme? Dimensions, thrust and payload somewhere in between the AMCA and LCA with 85-95 KN engines based out of Kaveri? The Airbus render of FCAS platform with triple delta wing configuration with LEVCONS is an interesting choice. We already tested LEVCONS on Naval Tejas and delta wings are good for low speed loitering. Hence optimal for carrier operations too even without EMALS.1000149352.webp
 

Attachments

  • 1000149353.webp
    1000149353.webp
    28.9 KB · Views: 4
Azaad said:
The "Navy model" has always been about incremental development. Ironically that's what the IAF followed as well in some projects viz the DARIN upgrades to Jaguars & the MKI project.
Click to expand...

Incremental development is part of it but it is not the main part of the "Navy model"

Navy model is this :-

Navy WDB( user, spec-maker and designer ) --> BEL,BDL,Imports( suppliers ) --> DPSU Shipyard( assume MDL, builder/manufacturer )

In this model Navy has end-to-end project responsibility, they also get the retired officers to join your BEL, BDL and sit as directors on DPSU Shipyard boards, so all the more control on the production and armament of ships.

Any delays and Navy is blasted by CAG or whoever, there is no "incompetent DRDO and HAL" to get the direct blame.

Meanwhile on the other side :-

Airforce ( customer and spec producer ) --> ADA( Vendor, Design ) --> DPSU or Import suppliers --> HAL( Vendor, Production )

Here since Airforce is only the "buyer" they have no responsibility over the project which is under the ambit of ADA/HAL "vendors", whatever the vendors produce even after delay is then subjected to more spec changes, then they make the changes, go through over 9000 tests it ofc gets delayed and then the loop starts again.

At some press conference then the AF top brass will say " we ordered xyz in 1990, it is 2024 and not delivered :( ".

It is not the AF then that gets all brickbats, AF is innocent victim of "incompetent DPSUs", of course, since AF is only the buyer/customer you see who is buying ADA/HAL jet which is "forced upon" by the Govt

imo the only L from HAL/ADA's perspective is going at everything all at once, Deshi Radar, Deshi fly-by-wire system, Deshi Jet engine, should have gone for impoorts at first for the hard to do sub-systems and then indigenized everything gradually as MLUs for existing Tejas that they would produce.

The cure to his is ofc transition ADA to Air Force control and personnel gradually, they want a jet, they want it in certain numbers, they have to design it and get it built, full responsiblity with them, bulk imports are no solution for their whole force, Govt doesn't have that much money to spend, to be effective vs Chings we need to get on par in the numbers game.
 
The Navy’s end-to-end control—managing everything from design to production—ensures better coordination and accountability. Retired officers on DPSU boards strengthen this further, creating alignment between operational needs and industrial output. Any delays fall squarely on the Navy, driving them to deliver.

In contrast, the Air Force’s buyer-vendor setup with ADA/HAL creates a disconnect. The AF specifies requirements but bears no responsibility for delays or inefficiencies, which are often blamed on the DPSUs. This cycle of spec changes, endless testing, and delays reflects a lack of ownership.

You’re spot on about HAL/ADA trying to do too much at once. Starting with imported subsystems and gradually indigenizing through upgrades would’ve been smarter and faster. Transitioning ADA under Air Force control could mirror the Navy’s model, forcing the AF to take full responsibility for design, production, and timelines.

Bulk imports aren’t sustainable for India—pragmatic indigenization with a focus on numbers is the only way to stay competitive. The Navy model offers valuable lessons here.















shade2 said:
Incremental development is part of it but it is not the main part of the "Navy model"

Navy model is this :-

Navy WDB( user, spec-maker and designer ) --> BEL,BDL,Imports( suppliers ) --> DPSU Shipyard( assume MDL, builder/manufacturer )

In this model Navy has end-to-end project responsibility, they also get the retired officers to join your BEL, BDL and sit as directors on DPSU Shipyard boards, so all the more control on the production and armament of ships.

Any delays and Navy is blasted by CAG or whoever, there is no "incompetent DRDO and HAL" to get the direct blame.

Meanwhile on the other side :-

Airforce ( customer and spec producer ) --> ADA( Vendor, Design ) --> DPSU or Import suppliers --> HAL( Vendor, Production )

Here since Airforce is only the "buyer" they have no responsibility over the project which is under the ambit of ADA/HAL "vendors", whatever the vendors produce even after delay is then subjected to more spec changes, then they make the changes, go through over 9000 tests it ofc gets delayed and then the loop starts again.

At some press conference then the AF top brass will say " we ordered xyz in 1990, it is 2024 and not delivered :( ".

It is not the AF then that gets all brickbats, AF is innocent victim of "incompetent DPSUs", of course, since AF is only the buyer/customer you see who is buying ADA/HAL jet which is "forced upon" by the Govt

imo the only L from HAL/ADA's perspective is going at everything all at once, Deshi Radar, Deshi fly-by-wire system, Deshi Jet engine, should have gone for impoorts at first for the hard to do sub-systems and then indigenized everything gradually as MLUs for existing Tejas that they would produce.

The cure to his is ofc transition ADA to Air Force control and personnel gradually, they want a jet, they want it in certain numbers, they have to design it and get it built, full responsiblity with them, bulk imports are no solution for their whole force, Govt doesn't have that much money to spend, to be effective vs Chings we need to get on par in the numbers game.
Click to expand...
 

View: https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/status/1880082197903995355?s=19


View: https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1880152600189821371?s=19

Worth its weight in gold !

I'd urge everyone who's interested in knowing the reason the LCA program was so delayed & in between was almost in danger of being junked, to read this thread.

Also look at the spin offs that one project which built up an entire aero space ecosystem literally from scratch, yielded to other programs of the IAF.

Good comparisons with the Chinese approach & the Israeli AF too though once the US asked Israel to stop development of the Lavi it was essentially game over for with the kind of dependencies Israel has on the US there's no way they can go against the US .

Must read IMHO!
 
Spitfire IX said:
www.livefistdefence.com

HAL Under Fire: Narrative Or Fact? - Livefist

Photo source: Deb Rana By K. Singh for Livefist In recent days and weeks there has been a growing amount of rhetoric aimed at the Light Combat Aircraft’s (LCA) production agency Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL). On the face of it this appears to have been sparked by the public comments…
www.livefistdefence.com www.livefistdefence.com

I think that what he says makes sense. What I find curious is the implication that while the private sector needs orders before investing, the state sector does not. Do HAL invest in production infrastructure and facilities without knowing (a) how many fighters will be ordered (b) at what assembly rate (c) how much they will be paid?
Click to expand...
They invest in capacity proportional to the order, so when they had 16+16+8 they didn’t really get above 4-5/year because they had to modify jigs on an ad-hoc basis. I believe they have a separate line for the trainers now too.

But for 40 jets or even 2x that it’s not likely any private company is going to make the massive investments needed hence why every time the idea was floated to give a private company their own production line it’s been met with muted responses.

C- HAL has a peculiar history with this, as a state owned enterprise they will build and deliver without having dues cleared by the services
www.ajaishukla.com

HAL turnover to cross Rs 20,000 crore; but unpaid IAF dues of Rs 17,000 crore means HAL needs bank loans to pay employee salaries

www.ajaishukla.com www.ajaishukla.com

As I said HAL has almost by necessity had to look at diversifying its revenue streams because of this and hence have currently come to the quite surprising figure of 40% of their revenue originating from export customers (likely to drop as LCA MK1A payments start appearing on HAL’s books)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

johny_baba
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter
9 10 11
Replies
202
Views
16K
AbRaj
A
Azaad
SMC & Quantum Computing Technology & Industry Across The World : News & Discussions.
Replies
0
Views
50
Azaad
Azaad
Azaad
Civilian Shipping : News , Updates & Discussions.
Replies
9
Views
336
Azaad
Azaad
Azaad
Civil Aviation Sector : News , Updates & Discussions .
Replies
7
Views
314
Aaj Ka Hero
Aaj Ka Hero
Azaad
Sino US Diplomatic & Economic Ties : News , Updates & Discussions .
Replies
0
Views
141
Azaad
Azaad

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top