Burma to Purchase Chinese-Pakistani JF-17 Fighter Jets

[SQ8]

Cmon now, hypocrisy is patented trait for us.

But on a semi-serious note, why cant countries like India or pakistan build all subsystems for an aircraft and has to rely on partner nations for subsystems. designing a component and reproducing the same, every production run is quite different.
Gear boxes are an example, the load transmission, reliability, bearing life, needle bearing consistency, surface wear, the level of technology needed was never available to begin with, thus we have to import those units to maintain an attractive price point. SKF bearings are a good example, the world uses them. BMW Mercs and even kia use SKF bearings on thier units, because it's just not feasible to setup a bearing manufacturing eco system. similarly in India, vis-a-vis HAL supplier quality issues leads to procurement from industry certified agencies and non-existent precision engineering technology results into the same. China faces the same problem when it come to reliability in their platforms, I won't sign my name on any product where reliability of subsystem is suspect. When you have to deliver on time, identifying a quality supplier is the key, and I suspect that is the reason for foreign content in ALH.

In my opinion ALH was a good experiment. Due to off the shelf elements in production and design the fruition of the project was extremely fast, on the other end of spectrum is LCA, where the opposite approach did not yield any favorable results wither.

[/quote]

Ill requote this from another thread. Compare performance of Indian-foreign weapon systems: DRDO | Page 4

A rather stark point was raised by "the man" in-charge of projects in a branch of the forces this side of the border in a conversation to me recently. The requirement for indigenous development cannot got to the lengths of paranoia since there is no point in reinventing the wheel if there is already one available to you now at the same cost. Local development has to be done on a need by need basis and not just for the heck of it.

 

[MilSpec]

Ill requote this from another thread. Compare performance of Indian-foreign weapon systems: DRDO | Page 4

A rather stark point was raised by "the man" in-charge of projects in a branch of the forces this side of the border in a conversation to me recently. The requirement for indigenous development cannot got to the lengths of paranoia since there is no point in reinventing the wheel if there is already one available to you now at the same cost. Local development has to be done on a need by need basis and not just for the heck of it.

true...

reinventing the wheel is not the route, but then some technologies do need to be mastered, airframe is a good example. I have the least interest in the design itself, but the skill sets it develops. It brings ability to manage different design teams working Bottom up from the traditional top design we have been used to. Same applies for Turbofan Engine, although the results weren't very encouraging from the expectation, but the exercise has indeed brought benefits which will pay off in coming years.

that is what is needed, these skills will proliferate into independent small business units manufacturing components, which is the bedrock of an indigenous industry.
Although it's not quite a chicken and egg situation, there needs to be identification of some technologies to be in-sourced based on business potential, security, and development potential.

Eg : FLIR's for a fleet of 700 with say another 200 UAV's I am looking at an order book of say 1000-1500 units over 10-15 years, no entrepreneur will touch that with a 10 ft pole. So why not just buy them off the shelf. But when it comes to a BVR missile, you are looking at order book of roughly 4000-6000 units with a shelf life. it makes sense to pursue it.

 

[Donatello]

Cmon now, hypocrisy is patented trait for us.

But on a semi-serious note, why cant countries like India or pakistan build all subsystems for an aircraft and has to rely on partner nations for subsystems. designing a component and reproducing the same, every production run is quite different.
Gear boxes are an example, the load transmission, reliability, bearing life, needle bearing consistency, surface wear, the level of technology needed was never available to begin with, thus we have to import those units to maintain an attractive price point. SKF bearings are a good example, the world uses them. BMW Mercs and even kia use SKF bearings on thier units, because it's just not feasible to setup a bearing manufacturing eco system. similarly in India, vis-a-vis HAL supplier quality issues leads to procurement from industry certified agencies and non-existent precision engineering technology results into the same. China faces the same problem when it come to reliability in their platforms, I won't sign my name on any product where reliability of subsystem is suspect. When you have to deliver on time, identifying a quality supplier is the key, and I suspect that is the reason for foreign content in ALH.

In my opinion ALH was a good experiment. Due to off the shelf elements in production and design the fruition of the project was extremely fast, on the other end of spectrum is LCA, where the opposite approach did not yield any favorable results wither.

[/quote]

The BMW/Merc example is a wrong one here, in a flawed analogy. They are big private corporations and can choose whatever way they have to get the edge. No where do they claim that their product is indigenous, just the brand logo in front and rear. This is the problem with Both India and Pakistan, where claims are made of Indigenous and ToT without realizing what it actually means. Yes, the effort and concept can be native to the country, but not the whole product.

 

[MilSpec]

The BMW/Merc example is a wrong one here, in a flawed analogy. They are big private corporations and can choose whatever way they have to get the edge. No where do they claim that their product is indigenous, just the brand logo in front and rear. This is the problem with Both India and Pakistan, where claims are made of Indigenous and ToT without realizing what it actually means. Yes, the effort and concept can be native to the country, but not the whole product.

I dont really care about made in India LCA/ALH or LCH... I'm more interested in HAL LCA, HAL LCH and HAL ALH...

 

[Donatello]

I dont really care about made in India LCA/ALH or LCH... I'm more interested in HAL LCA, HAL LCH and HAL ALH...

Then people should not be making indigenous claims. More like collaboration/venture.

 

[MilSpec]

Then people should not be making indigenous claims. More like collaboration/venture.

see, incorporation of subsystems from vendors do not make a system collaboration/venture... Like JF17 is not called a Russo-Pak venture... i hope that clarifies.

 

[Donatello]

see, incorporation of subsystems from vendors do not make a system collaboration/venture... Like JF17 is not called a Russo-Pak venture... i hope that clarifies.

Actually it is a Russian-Pak venture. It's not like Pakistan bought rd93 engines from somewhere else. They needed Russian blessings to go ahead. Russians trained our crew on the maintenance and technical aspects and since it is slightly different to rd33, it can be termed as a venture.

 

[MilSpec]

Actually it is a Russian-Pak venture. It's not like Pakistan bought rd93 engines from somewhere else. They needed Russian blessings to go ahead. Russians trained our crew on the maintenance and technical aspects and since it is slightly different to rd33, it can be termed as a venture.

ok.

Actually it is a Russian-Pak venture. It's not like Pakistan bought rd93 engines from somewhere else. They needed Russian blessings to go ahead. Russians trained our crew on the maintenance and technical aspects and since it is slightly different to rd33, it can be termed as a venture.

you sure about that, it also uses GBU10 by usa, matra durandal by france, mar1 by brazil.... the point being the collaboration or venture for topic at hand is on involvement on product development. If I design a heat ex-changer and select a french company to manufacture it to my specs it doesn't become my-french venture, also If I decide to use a VFD from US doesn't become a US - venture. Subsystems can be integrated/swapped out as deemed fit.

 

[Donatello]

ok.


you sure about that, it also uses GBU10 by usa, matra durandal by france, mar1 by brazil.... the point being the collaboration or venture for topic at hand is on involvement on product development. If I design a heat ex-changer and select a french company to manufacture it to my specs it doesn't become my-french venture, also If I decide to use a VFD from US doesn't become a US - venture. Subsystems can be integrated/swapped out as deemed fit.

You're off on a wrong tangent here, sandy. Think. GBU10, matra durandal, mar-1 do not make up JF-17. We're talking about JF-17, the aircraft itself, not what can be carried on the hard points. Engines and ammunition are two different entities in this case. JF-17 can fly without the latter, but not the former.

 

[MilSpec]

You're off on a wrong tangent here, sandy. Think. GBU10, matra durandal, mar-1 do not make up JF-17. We're talking about JF-17, the aircraft itself, not what can be carried on the hard points. Engines and ammunition are two different entities in this case. JF-17 can fly without the latter, but not the former.

Well engines too are swap-able, Hopefully Chinese will develop the engine sooner, will pakistan still stick with the rd33 variant? they probably might until thorough reliability tests. If PAC want's they can stick in a m88 snecma or a FG404 and still fly the JF17. Same goes for radar, lwr, maws, hmd, hud, servos, actuators,

The point I am trying to put forward is Gripen is Swedish project, despite it's american powerplant and it's euro avionics. When there are off the shelf components available, i dont see the need to build an industry, as there is not incentive in doing that. Like you wouldn't want to setup an 30mm GSH cannon factory for production run of 200 units, instead buy from russia,. India makes the same gun under tot because there is a book order of 1200+ units for the same. Even though building the rifle factory doesn't present a good business sense, manufacturing the 6066 stamping, or setting up Al profilers, or actuator machine shop will make sense. same applies to ALH, for a limited order book, setting up a gearbox in-sourcing project wouldn't have been feasable, but with ALH, LCH and LUh order book building up, it now makes more financial sense to do so. because now we are looking at 1500 gear boxes compared to 200 units in the past.

 

[Donatello]

Well engines too are swap-able, Hopefully Chinese will develop the engine sooner, will pakistan still stick with the rd33 variant? they probably might until thorough reliability tests. If PAC want's they can stick in a m88 snecma or a FG404 and still fly the JF17. Same goes for radar, lwr, maws, hmd, hud, servos, actuators,

The point I am trying to put forward is Gripen is Swedish project, despite it's american powerplant and it's euro avionics. When there are off the shelf components available, i dont see the need to build an industry, as there is not incentive in doing that. Like you wouldn't want to setup an 30mm GSH cannon factory for production run of 200 units, instead buy from russia,. India makes the same gun under tot because there is a book order of 1200+ units for the same. Even though building the rifle factory doesn't present a good business sense, manufacturing the 6066 stamping, or setting up Al profilers, or actuator machine shop will make sense. same applies to ALH, for a limited order book, setting up a gearbox in-sourcing project wouldn't have been feasable, but with ALH, LCH and LUh order book building up, it now makes more financial sense to do so. because now we are looking at 1500 gear boxes compared to 200 units in the past.

I don't disagree with what you say. I already know what you just wrote there.

What i meant to say was, no need to claim it as indigenous. I think you're a bit confused about what it actually means, and that's all i wanted to discuss. There is no ego being lost in accepting that it was a joint project/collaboration/tech transfer rather than claiming that as India's own or Pakistan's own.

 

[gslv mk3]

What i meant to say was, no need to claim it as indigenous. I think you're a bit confused about what it actually means, and that's all i wanted to discuss. There is no ego being lost in accepting that it was a joint project/collaboration/tech transfer rather than claiming that as India's own or Pakistan's own.

LCA/ALH is none of these .

Actually it is a Russian-Pak venture.

And China ?

Nope, the R&D staff had to be brought back from Russia and they brought back those ideas .

I was not aware of such a development.

 

[Lil Mathew]

Indigenous? Dhruv advanced light helicopters are '90% foreign' - The Times of India

An indigenous product and component indigenisation are different. For example a painting done by an artist is his product. But the components of paintings like paper, brush, colours etc are produced by others. Artist can buy paper, brush, colours as his wish to produce his product.

Now read the above article. CAG states that "As against the envisaged indigenisation level of 50% (by 2008), 90% of the value of material used in each ALH is still imported from foreign suppliers...
Now read next paragraph for clear picture "Even though ALH has been in production for 10 years, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has not been able to identify alternative indigenous suppliers,"

That is the indigenous product becomes component indigenous if we identify indigrnous component suppliers.
Conclusion is Druv is indigenous no matter contains foreign components and Su 30 is russion no matter all the components are indian.

 

[SQ8]

An indigenous product and component indigenisation are different. For example a painting done by an artist is his product. But the components of paintings like paper, brush, colours etc are produced by others. Artist can buy paper, brush, colours as his wish to produce his product.

Now read the above article. CAG states that "As against the envisaged indigenisation level of 50% (by 2008), 90% of the value of material used in each ALH is still imported from foreign suppliers...
Now read next paragraph for clear picture "Even though ALH has been in production for 10 years, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has not been able to identify alternative indigenous suppliers,"

That is the indigenous product becomes component indigenous if we identify indigrnous component suppliers.
Conclusion is Druv is indigenous no matter contains foreign components and Su 30 is russion no matter all the components are indian.

I wonder if you would give the same courtesy to Pakistani products then?

 

[In arduis fidelis]

Overload this is Hammer2,Thread has been derailed,i repeat thread has been derailed.