HAL confronts Snecma in light helicopter project

[Joe Shearer]

Hi Boss -

PLease keep your posts precise, iam lost in keeping track of what ur saying....

I have one question to you.
If after 20-30 years of research on a damn engine, making tanks and missiles, making aircrafts....

We cant make a bloddy engine extension and pay half a billion dollar to a French company.

Then do hell with HAL.......thay always cry.

You haven't asked a question. Do you need another post to do so?

 

[Dash]

You haven't asked a question. Do you need another post to do so?

Whether you answer me or answer fellow members, its all the same.

Now I am not underestimating HAL. what Iam trying to say here that we have invested billions of dollar for R&D in several sectors.

If HAL cant do a small thing like this, then I will say all of that money is waste.

I believe we were talking about the same situation 2 pages before...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Whether you answer me or answer fellow members, its all the same.

Now I am not underestimating HAL. what Iam trying to say here that we have invested billions of dollar for R&D in several sectors.

If HAL cant do a small thing like this, then I will say all of that money is waste.

I believe we were talking about the same situation 2 pages before...

Let me put it to you in simple terms.

Do you drive a car?

If you do, and Heaven forbid, but you have a flat tyre one day, do you then open the bonnet and hammer the spark plugs with a road-side stone?

That is more or less what you are recommending.

One last time:

There is a minister, whom you have elected and brought to power. He decides what is to be done about the requirements that the Armed Forces have. He decides for instance that the Army's pressing requirement for mountain artillery is to be held up. He decides that a 20 year gap is not enough, some more is fine.

He manages two sets of people: the Ministry of Defence Production and other junior ministers, and the Chiefs of Staff.

The Cabinet is supposed to tell the Chiefs what is ahead of the country. If there is the danger of war, the Cabinet is to indicate this to the Chiefs and ask them to prepare for hostilities in an approximate framework.

The Chiefs keep informing the Minister of what their arm needs. The Minister's job is to take a decision and allow his subordinates to get things done. If he decides that guns will not be bought, nothing can be done. If he decides that the LCA will be used and not a light-weight alternative like the Gripen, nothing can be done. If he decides that the Army doesn't need a Leopard Mk2 MBT, and should wait for the Arjun, nothing can be done.

To decide, he asks his Scientific Advisor, who is head of the DRDO. This man tells the Minister what can be made, or should be made in the country, and what time and money it will take. His establishments get huge sums of money, for R&D, more correctly D&D, and for prototype development. They are responsible for taking the services specifications and building designs around those, and prototyping, and handing over approved prototypes to manufacturing undertakings.

The factories produce things.

Whether or not we have absorbed existing technology is the responsibility of the factories. So far, they have done well.

Whether or not we have developed new technology is the responsibility of the DRDO. So far, they have done - well, never mind. There is not enough space to spend on that.

For your information, even the advanced Chinese aviation sector cannot make an engine today.

Is it your opinion that the Indian aviation sector is more advanced?

Ponder over that and then decide what you want to think.

Want to know what I think - one more time?

THE INDIAN PUBLIC SECTOR, AND THE INDIAN DEFENCE R&D ORGANISATIONS CANNOT MAKE ENGINES FOR TANKS, AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTERS.

THE INDIAN PRIVATE SECTOR CANNOT MAKE ENGINES FOR TANKS, AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTERS.

THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

GTRE SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN TODAY.

DEFENCE PROCUREMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE DEFENCE MINISTER AND ASSIGNED TO A BOARD WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL PARTIES, THE SERVICE CHIEFS AND THE FACTORIES AND DRDO ON IT.

Is that clear enough for you, or should I try red ink as well?

 

[CONNAN]

i wish they dissolve MOD and they implement feild marshal post and hand over all the defence related matters to him. it will solve the problem

 

[Joe Shearer]

i wish they dissolve MOD and they implement feild marshal post and hand over all the defence related matters to him. it will solve the problem

A horrible suggestion.

In 1950, the Commander-in-Chief's position was abolished, the President became C-in-C, and civilian authority over the military was established.

If we had not done that, there is no guarantee that at some time in our dark times, some military adventurer would not have made a bid for power.

Just look around and you will see many reasons why we were right to do what we did.

Under no circumstances should India abandon civilian control over the military.

 

[Bhairava]

Secondly, the PLA made war on the Japanese - the same IJA that soon afterwards made mincemeat of western armies - with arms and equipment barely a step above agricultural equipment. Most of their equipment was what they had captured from KMT troops or from Japanese troops themselves.

It was the superior warcraft of the PLA that prevailed.

It happened again in Korea. Perhaps you may have heard of that war. The level of equipment of the PLA, or the section that was deputed to fight that war next to the North Koreans, was abysmally lower than that of the combined Allied forces, fresh out of WWII. Yet they flung them back, from near the banks of the Yalu River to the end of the peninsula, until the Inchon landing forced them back again. It was not equipment but strategy and doctrine that prevailed when they drove out the Americans, the British and all the others; it was not equipment but strategy and doctrine that in turn threw them back.

I am not disputing the fact that tactics play a crucial role in warfare.But can you dispute that superior weapons give an edge ,,an important edge.?

AK47s, yes, what else? What better armour? Armour was not deployed. What better equipment? Not even their HMGs or MMGs were as good as British equipment. Their mortars were the same as ours. So what - specifically - are you talking about?

Do you know or are you going around with a hazy notion and no facts?

So going into the battle will u have those reliable Kalashnikovs or the Lee enfields.

I will anyday choose the AK's.

And you cant possibly dispute the fact that the Indian Army infact had inferior or shortage in supply of winter clothing,footwwear and equipments.

Only, ONLY if the rest is in place. Without it, nothing. Ask the CRP; ask the Maoists. With it, everything. Ask the Greyhounds, or Walter Davaram; ask the Maoists.

Coming the other way around..even if everything is in place..You need proper equipment to win a war.

And it isn't about spy satellites; it's about pilot familiarisation. Whether the Chinese have one or more focussed on the NE is not the point - I'm sure they have, just as I know that we have accurate flight-path maps to every Pakistani and Chinese airfield based on satellite mapping - but it doesn't help a pilot navigating in the mountains.

For a sharp pilot how much time it will take to familiarise him to the surroundings.?.For the first few days they may loose fighters due to terrain familiarity.. but after that if you dont have that shiny new toy to oppose them..then BAM BAM.

And what exactly are the shiny new AWACS for ?? to provide real time guidance,command and control.

What are you talking about? Who's talking about SEAD? This is about how to fly a mission in the mountains. It has nothing to do with the half-digested mess you served up.

You didn get my analogy and decide to put ur HDM inside.

Let me explain - this was ur post:

Today, our fighters and ground attack aircraft are positioned in the Brahmaputra valley. And till today, there are no familiarisation exercises being conducted; if the Chinese attack in brigade strength tomorrow, the air force can't help, because the air force doesn't know the IA positions, doesn't have familiarity flying missions in those mountains, and doesn't know what to do when it gets there.

If they get there, what will they do? bomb the mountainside into rubble? They've tried that, in Kargil, it didn't work.

Yes they dont know the IA positions only till the first bullet is not fired..Once it is fired then your position is compromised.

this is akin to the popular tactics used by SEAD pilots who dont know abt the exact location of SAM installations - A lead pilot ventures out causing the SAM to function thereby lightening up its posiion to further HARM.

We are developing fighters because of the following history. While we were not favoured with aid and assistance, within some reasonable limits, acquiring weapons systems was not a problem. In 65, there was the first sign of hesitation, in 71, it solidified into hostility, and with the explosion of the nuclear device, we were under sanctions. According to the laws then in place, even a MAC mini could not be assigned to India. When we were working for the French aerospace sector, we had a few high-end systems; I was taken to see the equivalent facility in Singapore and they had wall-to-wall systems of a much higher capacity.

Then how come the Chines who themslves were under sanctions are so sucessful in manufacturing their own.?

BTW dont say copying - Reverse engineering too required hard work and commitment.

You just cant take a fighter ,put inside a xerox machine lo,behold - You dont have a new one.

It was clear that we needed to indigenise. It was very, very late in the day - China had begun to indigenise as early as the 60s - but that was when we started.

We are building fighters, tanks, armoured cars, small arms, naval vessels and other equipment because we do not know who will pull the plug tomorrow and leave us high and dry. Now we have enough know-how so that none of the three services is left on the beach in case of future sanctions.

Yes we are building,building and building but not inducting (with the exception of Navy).

To come to your specific point, the IAF decides what it wants, the MoD decides what it gets. The decision to make in house, in the country, or to buy is that of the Ministry. The IAF has hardly any voice in the matter. If it feels that the Ministry is wrong, it starts stalling a decision, by changing the QSRs. So, too, does the Army. Now think of the delays and try to figure out what happened.

In all this, a minor role is played by DRDO, which has to certify that a certain piece of equipment can, or cannot be made in-country by a certain time. Its role has been disastrous.

THe Army and the IAF are no saints in this too.

How many times in-between development the Army changed the specifications for Arjun and how many times AF changed for Tejas.

Why.? They first gave a specific set of requirements that were necessary for that period and with the never-ending delays in the primary development and newer technologies coming by the dat,the AF too kept changing its requirements so that the Fighter when developed is not obsolete for its time and this contributed again for the delays.

So go out and seek it. You have an MP, important plants - CVRDE in Avadi is one that comes to mind straightaway - and a lot of influence. Why don't you do something practical?

Do you think sounding off in a Pakistani defence-oriented site is the way to get the accountability that we all should get? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

What to seek..? Dont I have other jobs.??.Im not retired and getting my pension so that I can do these "accountability" jobs during the 10-6 gap..

why do I elect a government once in five years.?.?

To do all those you had mentioned above on my behalf.If I had to do everything then why should I elect those"people's representatives"? and what's the use of the term Democracy.?

 

[justanobserver]

^^
I'll have to go with Mr. Shearer on this, guys please read his posts before responding.

 

[Bhairava]

^ Buddy I am not here to score brownie points in debating over anyone.

Its just hurting to see my tax money going down the drain with no proper results in paper and no proper accountability.

All I can see from the whatever-u-name-it PSU is only time-delay ,cost overrun,not meeting perfomance standard etc etc.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not disputing the fact that tactics play a crucial role in warfare.But can you dispute that superior weapons give an edge ,,an important edge.?

No, not at all.

But that is so under 'ceteris paribus' conditions. If all other things are equal.

And my point is not about tactics. This is the second time that you are referring to it in isolation. If you want to participate in a discussion on matters related to defence, to war, I suggest that you pick up the essentials. You should at least know what is tactics, and what is strategy, and the difference between the two, and the other components of fighting a war, some of which, not all, I have suggested for your consideration in my earlier post.

Do you actually read them and try to figure out what I'm saying, or do you just assume that you know and immediately rush to reply?

If you even made a cursory attempt at looking up the background and the terms that are involved, you would find that all the components have to work together, like a weapons system itself. For instance, in the case of a weapons system, having a 5000 kg. bomb without a guidance system is a meaningless situation: it just weighs down the aircraft with nothing for the pilot to do but drop it into the bare landscape and hope very hard that something nice will happen.

So, too, with the management of war. Equipping soldiers with the latest, shiniest weapons and putting them into danger will result in dead soldiers carrying the latest, shiniest weapons - until the enemy takes them away and uses them.

Regarding my original argument, I had offered you certain examples to illustrate my point. Did you understand those examples? Do you dispute them? Do you see weaknesses in your position after reading them? Do you have counter-examples which bear out your point?

War is done, practised, waged. Not disputed in logical categories as you are trying to do. "Can you dispute....." Yes, I can, but it is sounder to give examples, as those examples relate to what people at war have done. Those examples are real; questions like yours, and rertorts like yours, are unreal. They are necessary only if you know nothing about the subject and want to protract an argument.

So going into the battle will u have those reliable Kalashnikovs or the Lee enfields.

I will anyday choose the AK's.

And you cant possibly dispute the fact that the Indian Army infact had inferior or shortage in supply of winter clothing,footwwear and equipments.

Again, try to understand what was argued, instead of picking out isolated facts and trying to build a case on those.

You will find that this is a perfect example of weapons not mattering, but leadership by leaders who understand warfare mattering.

Two armies faced each other. One was led by a leadership that did not realise that it would need large numbers, unexpectedly, because its original plans were so silly. That leadership argued in logical categories, instead of taking reality into account. It thought, and it said, the Chinese will not dare to move against India, because India has such moral force in the non-aligned movement. It failed to see reality on the ground, in military, rather than in mistaken diplomatic terms. It failed to see that the troops facing them were in vastly overwhelming numbers. It failed to pick up the signals, when isolated patrols were picked off. It kept very small numbers of troops in trenches and linear defences facing its opponents on indefensible ground. And the soldiers, not the leadership, paid the price.

When the Chinese attacked, General Kaul suddenly found that he had too few people on the ground. He was being overwhelmed by numbers that he had not anticipated. It was not human wave tactics alone, as our film-makers wrongly propagated, it was concentration of forces.

Suppose you have a 100 men on the ground, spread over 3 kms. Suppose the Chinese also have 100 men. If they put their 100 against 3 of ours, at one point, what do you think will happen? Will weapons matter? Will any other factor matter? Will bravery and courage win the day? Or will the Chinese win? Note that your other 97 men are too far away to help your original 3. Note also that you believe in linear defence; once your position of 3 men is gone, you either face the next position of 3 falling to the same 100 minus casualties of the Chinese, and then the next 3 and so on, or you fall back. First time, you fall back in good order. When it becomes dark, or when the defeat is of massive proportions, you fall back faster and in lesser good order.

That is what happened to the Indian Army.

Then the leadership, which had no doctrine of mountain fighting, which is a factor that apparently you have no time for, which had no strategy, whatsoever, an amazing thing in a military situation, as if policemen were being deployed with lathis to stop a mob from coming forward, which had no tactical appreciation of ground realities, panicked and got reinforcements from peace-time stations.

Since you are apparently Indian, and Tamilian as well, presumably you know the weather in October and November in India. The weather in the plains, the climate does not require heavy woollens. As you may have seen from pictures of the Army in Siachen, or in Kargil, or in the Kashmir front, or even from Nathu La recently, conditions in the mountains is different. So, when the reinforcements were ordered in at short notice, they were wearing wholly unsuitable clothes.

It was not that clothes were not available. It was more a case of bad planning and panic reactions. Even the available warm clothes could not be issued, footwear could not be issued, equipment could not be issued.

Jeeps and transport were among the equipment also in short supply. You may be aware of that. In October of 62, Lal Bahadur Shastri presided over a meeting in Calcutta where the politicians appealed for extra jeeps to be sent up. 200 jeeps were gathered and taken in convoy to Guwahati. There the person in charge got through to the staff officers of forward elements (I am not publishing formation names and positions for the sake of privacy, but these are available in confidence if anyone wishes to verify the facts), and asked what to do. He was asked TO TAKE THEM AWAY IMMEDIATELY. The roads were jammed.

I hope you get the point.

Coming the other way around..even if everything is in place..You need proper equipment to win a war.

And if everything is not in place, the best equipment will not win a war.

Your argument makes no sense.

Please look up the following and figure things out for yourself; it is not my job to spoonfeed you or others or offer Defence 101.

What was the composition of tanks of various types under the command of the German forces attacking France in WWII in their original offensive? What was the composition of British and French tanks?

Which tanks were superior?

Which side won?

Please do the same with aircraft, on the same front. Please repeat for the German assault on Soviet Russia. Please repeat, for aircraft and ships, for Imperial Japan against the US, in 41. Please repeat for the British 8th Army against the Afrika Korps.

I can go on. But unless you decide to read and open your own eyes, instead of arguing like the intelligent but ignorant student of war that you are, we won't come to a conclusion.

For a sharp pilot how much time it will take to familiarise him to the surroundings.?.For the first few days they may loose fighters due to terrain familiarity.. but after that if you dont have that shiny new toy to oppose them..then BAM BAM.

Are you a sharp pilot? Have you flown a plane?

Instead of clever answers, why don't you look up the opinion of pilots, opinions that are in print? If you ask in your public response to this mail, I will send you, in PM, a printed article that may set your doubts at rest. Written by a Group Captain with a distinguished record, it makes the points I have made, but in far more direct language.

And what exactly are the shiny new AWACS for ?? to provide real time guidance,command and control.

An AWACS for managing ground attack in mountainous terrain?

Are you serious? Do you write all this with some background knowledge, or do you just read a few words in a newspaper account and decide you know all about everything and can now talk with authority on all matters relating to defence? Army, Navy, Air Force - heck, throw in the Marines as well, what does it matter? Logic is all, knowledge is nothing.

Before I go to the next point you have raised, I ask you to look up the concept of ground clutter; to look up the differential capabilities of radar systems to be confused by ground clutter, or to be able to pick out targets through that; and to look up the capabilities of AWACS radar and its design and intended use.

Please don't rush into print before getting your facts clear.

You didn get my analogy and decide to put ur HDM inside.

Let me explain - this was ur post:



Yes they dont know the IA positions only till the first bullet is not fired..Once it is fired then your position is compromised.

this is akin to the popular tactics used by SEAD pilots who dont know abt the exact location of SAM installations - A lead pilot ventures out causing the SAM to function thereby lightening up its posiion to further HARM.

I suggest you talk to a pilot.

You may not be able to sit down for a week after that, but the pain will be worth it.

Have you any idea of how difficult it is to navigate in the mountains, AND then to spot military activity on the ground, AND then to distinguish friendly forces from the enemy.

Ask your pilot, BEFORE he loses his temper with you, to explain what is blue-on-blue engagement, and what has happened in the past.

If you decide to start learning, not from shiny new technical magazines that tell you how many megatonnes the latest gadgets can deliver at how many mach and how many thousands of kms away, the article I have in mind might give you information on that as well.

Or, better still, this is a Pakistani forum. If you ask the moderators nicely, or someone who is involved in their campaign in their own mountain terrain, you might fresh, current information that might help you to think things through.

Then how come the Chines who themslves were under sanctions are so sucessful in manufacturing their own.?

BTW dont say copying - Reverse engineering too required hard work and commitment.

You just cant take a fighter ,put inside a xerox machine lo,behold - You dont have a new one.

I have already answered your friend in detail. However, it has been my practice never to refuse information. If you give me examples of what you mean, I will explain what I mean. But don't make vague statements.

From the vague statement point of view, you already have data showing that Indian factories have also 'manufactured' planes. In exactly the same sense that the Chinese have.

Examples, please.

Yes we are building,building and building but not inducting (with the exception of Navy).

You have answered your own question partially below.

For the rest of it, read my comments below.

THe Army and the IAF are no saints in this too.

How many times in-between development the Army changed the specifications for Arjun and how many times AF changed for Tejas.

Why.? They first gave a specific set of requirements that were necessary for that period and with the never-ending delays in the primary development and newer technologies coming by the dat,the AF too kept changing its requirements so that the Fighter when developed is not obsolete for its time and this contributed again for the delays.

Now suppose the Indian Navy, which faces much longer build-cycles, were to do the same.

Why don't you think before you write?

What to seek..? Dont I have other jobs.??.Im not retired and getting my pension so that I can do these "accountability" jobs during the 10-6 gap..

why do I elect a government once in five years.?.?

To do all those you had mentioned above on my behalf.If I had to do everything then why should I elect those"people's representatives"? and what's the use of the term Democracy.?

Please explain how you think sounding off on a Pakistani defence forum is going to get you further ahead.

If you have no time to write to your own government, how come you have so much time to spout rubbish on a foreign forum?

On whose time are you doing that? Why can't you use the same time to follow up your own interests in your own country, with your own people's representatives? What makes you think that once you have voted, you can then put your democratic duty into cold storage for another five years?

Is that what people from other democracies, the Americans, the British do? Don't they ask questions? Don't they ask their Senators? Don't they ask their newspapers until the newspapers start asking the government, elected just as in here? Aren't there newspapers which have defence analysts, and don't they respond to questioners? Or ask these questions in public?

Think before you write. In fact, start right; start thinking. And after this has kicked in, start learning. The facts are important; by ignoring them and reading only gadget-columns and technical data sheets, you will achieve nothing. Technology does not win wars; intelligent leadership with concepts in place, practised and debugged through exhaustive training, wins wars.

If shiny new gadgets meant success in war, the KSA armed forces would be **** of the walk; Singapore would be more formidable than the PLA; Thailand should be making Vietnam tremble in its shoes. Strangely, the situation is the opposite in the real world. Wonder why.

Good luck; you will need it in your new endeavour.

 

[Dash]

There is a minister, whom you have elected and brought to power. He decides what is to be done about the requirements that the Armed Forces have. He decides for instance that the Army's pressing requirement for mountain artillery is to be held up. He decides that a 20 year gap is not enough, some more is fine.

He manages two sets of people: the Ministry of Defence Production and other junior ministers, and the Chiefs of Staff.

The Cabinet is supposed to tell the Chiefs what is ahead of the country. If there is the danger of war, the Cabinet is to indicate this to the Chiefs and ask them to prepare for hostilities in an approximate framework.

So where were these ministers when Army decided not to induct Arjun tank and kept pussing it away and even today then are not able to convince army. where were these ministers who couldnt convince IAF to take atleast 50 LCA in its own config , where are these ministers who dont even know what the forces want???..

I dont buy this logic.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So where were these ministers when Army decided not to induct Arjun tank and kept pussing it away and even today then are not able to convince army. where were these ministers who couldnt convince IAF to take atleast 50 LCA in its own config , where are these ministers who dont even know what the forces want???..

I dont buy this logic.

There was no logic involved. As I have said earlier, I am not interested in substituting hard facts on the ground with flights of individual fancy. Nor in others doing so.

If you look at the passages above, it cited a description of the organisation and structure of Indian defence as it is. Which part of this factual account do you find untrue - non-factual? And what, according to you, are the real facts?

If your objection is that the process doesn't work as it ought to, that's legitimate, but it doesn't mean that the process isn't exactly as described. Your buying into the logic is mysterious; neither was there any logic presented, nor are you being invited to buy. You have the choice either to accept the fact or to put up alternative accounts that you believe to be the facts. There is no third course.

Finally, I am amused to find that you have at last, after long and stressful efforts to show the situation as it is, concluded that the ministers and the services need to explain why the services cannot freeze their requirements for sufficiently long for the designers and builders to their jobs, and why the minister cannot discipline the services to do this simple thing.

This has been the point I have been making all along.

The earlier argument used, that the services QSRs are obsolete during the course of the development cycle itself, and therefore have to be revised, is untrue. We already know that from two pieces of evidence: if that were so, one of the three services would not have done so well, while the other two are still floundering. Second, that one service has involved itself in practical terms in design. It happens to be the smallest service, in terms of deployed staff strength, and it happens to have the largest single bits of capital equipment of all three. If they can succeed, then there is no reason why the others can't. The IsAF has been cited earlier. The way it succeeds in getting what it wants, when it wants, is by involving itself in the entire development cycle, in getting its hands dirty.

All the answers are with you. Just open your eyes.