MMRCA debate

[Dillinger]

U are wrong by a huge shot,,,there is nothing i need to do,we have enough planners and thinkers of that particular field.
I just have to have the balls to say yes when required.

Oh oh oh..LOL!

So you think, you think that saying "yes" will do it, you think implementation works that way!

 

[he-man]

And beside i doubt even my dog will do worse than antony....................

Oh oh oh..LOL!

So you think, you think that saying "yes" will do it, you think implementation works that way!

It surely does,,,do u really think the finance minister or defence minister thinks or makes any policy
All the work is done by the officers designated to that particular ministry,,,,,whaen the minister sitting above is either corrupt or dosen't take decision whose fucking fault is it??

 

[Dillinger]

And beside i doubt even my dog will do worse than antony....................



It surely does,,,do u really think the finance minister or defence minister thinks or makes any policy
All the work is done by the officers designated to that particular ministry,,,,,whaen the minister sitting above is either corrupt or dosen't take decision whose fucking fault is it??

Is that so? And I guess its fine tuned by some babu right? All well and good, and implemented by whom, same babu.

Well sahib, management if not your cup of tea it seems, leave it be.

 

[he-man]

And @Dillinger

U must have seen those videos,,,,did u think air force is unaware what needs to be done??
They know it well,,,1000 times better than us.

Do u think they don't raise the points with government??They sure do

So why nothing happens ultimately??On the ground?

Is that so? And I guess its fine tuned by some babu right? All well and good, and implemented by whom, same babu.

Well sahib, management if not your cup of tea it seems, leave it be.

Its under control of political boss ultimately,,maybe not in a coalition government but with such majority there should not be much problem.
Blaming only officers is plain childish and immature

 

[bloo]

I don't seem to understand a few things,

• DO THEY STILL NOT KNOW THE LIFE CYCLE COSTS?
  
• OR ARE THEY STILL CALCULATING IT?
  
• DO THEY NEED DASSAULT'S HELP FOR CALCULATING IT AND IS DASSAULT PROVIDING THEM SUCH?
• DO DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF LIFE CYCLE COST OF THE RAFALE?
  
• AND IF THEY HAVE IT WHY AREN'T THEY GOING FORWARD WITH IT?
  
• AND WHAT IN ALL THE WORLDLY F*#K DOES 44% AVAILABILITY MEAN? IT JUST LOOKS LIKE GOOD OL HYPOCRISY TO ME.

"A separate institution/establishment just to study defense acquisitions."- Brig.(retd.) Gurmeet Kanwal
Now that is something I feel we can do in in the near future, kicking HAL and DRDO back off their fat asses and giving them a taste of "accountability" may take some time.

 

[SQ8]

I don't seem to understand a few things,

• DO THEY STILL NOT KNOW THE LIFE CYCLE COSTS?
  
• OR ARE THEY STILL CALCULATING IT?
  
• DO THEY NEED DASSAULT'S HELP FOR CALCULATING IT AND IS DASSAULT PROVIDING THEM SUCH?
• DO DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF LIFE CYCLE COST OF THE RAFALE?
  
• AND IF THEY HAVE IT WHY AREN'T THEY GOING FORWARD WITH IT?
  
• AND WHAT IN ALL THE WORLDLY F*#K DOES 44% AVAILABILITY MEAN? IT JUST LOOKS LIKE GOOD OL HYPOCRISY TO ME.

"A separate institution/establishment just to study defense acquisitions."- Brig.(retd.) Gurmeet Kanwal
Now that is something I feel we can do in in the near future, kicking HAL and DRDO back off their fat asses and giving them a taste of "accountability" may take some time.

What India needs is a unified system like this
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

Like the good Admiral said: IAF needs to take ownership of the projects, what they want develop. Sitting on the sidelines have become their habit. Still no seriousness about LCA which is evident from the talk. Mindset is just give us what we want and not getting their hands dirty.

 

[shiv]

the travesty is DRDO and HAL works with absolutely no responsibility at all. And that is not their fault !

Let me add something .. The kind of business organisation you have and the operating environment and the reward systems greatly influence the way how much the firm would be effective in achieving its goals.

If you have a modicum of understanding of the bureaucratic form you will know that such a form of organisation is totally infeasible to tackle the complex and unstable challenges of an aerospace industry. We need very fast responsiveness and a major haul of the reward systems in it.

Point is, we haven't structured DRDO and HAL well enough so that it can function efficiently and live upto the challenges of the aerospace industry.

You should see the attitude ( in literal sense and not MTV lingo ) of people working there. They treat it just as a bread and butter job ( the anecdotal sarkari naukri ) where they have to be there for couple of hours everyday and their targets in life are not aligned with the organisational goals ( which is to deliver products every couple of years ).

The kind of commitment needed from an individual in such a industry will simply not be served by a 9AM to 5 PM schedule interspersed with samosa breaks and a guaranteed fixed emolument increase every 2 years or so.

IMHO these firms should be more horizontally structured and higher ups must be trained to not treat their younger counterparts as a threat to their job and we should create empowered roles where the responsibility of outcomes is shared among all.

Unfortunately even if what i say is implemented, it will be the first of its kind government organisation in India.

 

[he-man]

Guys all is lost,,,abandon ship...........

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

the travesty is DRDO and HAL works with absolutely no responsibility at all. And that is not their fault !

Let me add something .. The kind of business organisation you have and the operating environment and the reward systems greatly influence the way how much the firm would be effective in achieving its goals.

If you have a modicum of understanding of the bureaucratic form you will know that such a form of organisation is totally infeasible to tackle the complex and unstable challenges of an aerospace industry. We need very fast responsiveness and a major haul of the reward systems in it.

Point is, we haven't structured DRDO and HAL well enough so that it can function efficiently and live upto the challenges of the aerospace industry.

Nothing is gonna change if you don't have appetite for nurturing a product. Armed forces need to come out of their user mindset, develop capability based requirements and actively participate. Simple example is Navy and NLCA program where navy officers have been actively participating in designing and testing from day one. No product can be made world class in first iteration. DRDO is successful with missile programs thanks to lack of import alternatives.

DRDO started with not so world class Prirhvi missiles and IA inducted them without creating any fuss. Prithvi experience helped DRDO to take more challenging task of developing AGni missiles. Today, we have world class missiles like shaurya and k15, k04. All this was possible due to unhindered development and induction of systems over decades. And no whining from the user for imports citing not so world class missiles.

Guys all is lost,,,abandon ship...........

From the debate it seems that all is lost. 44% availability rate makes rafale a disaster like su30.

 

[shiv]

Nothing is gonna change if you don't have appetite for nurturing a product. Armed forces need to come out of their user mindset, develop capability based requirements and actively participate. Simple example is Navy and NLCA program where navy officers have been actively participating in designing and testing from day one. No product can be made world class in first iteration. DRDO is successful with missile programs thanks to lack of import alternatives.

DRDO started with not so world class Prirhvi missiles and IA inducted them without creating any fuss. Prithvi experience helped DRDO to take more challenging task of developing AGni missiles. Today, we have world class missiles like shaurya and k15, k04. All this was possible due to unhindered development and induction of systems over decades. And no whining from the user for imports citing not so world class missiles.

yes nurturing of product should start internally and inculcated first among the employees of the said organisations. They are the intellectual pillars of the organisation.

The involvement of IAF and armed forces comes later when the prototype has been conceived which is another big issue.

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

yes nurturing of product should start internally and inculcated first among the employees of the said organisations. They are the intellectual pillars of the organisation.

The involvement of IAF and armed forces comes later when the prototype has been conceived which is another big issue.

WHo nurtured the missile program? We have a world class Prahar missile in which your dear IA is not showing any interest. All the stake holders need to come together for the success of the project.

 

[MilSpec]

already watched,,,alarming n disturbing,,,as if that was not enough,they even dont have a consensus among themselves.
or maybe thats cause they primarily discussed problems n not solutions..
i am disapointed..
@sancho @sandy_3126

There cannot be any substantial objective debate on MMMRCA- Rafale period. The simple fact remains that there isn't enough information available on the subject.

Objective
The objective of mmmrca project (not the original mrca - mig29mki vs mirage 2000-5) was a three pronged strategy.
1> To get a platform that satisfies minimum operational requirements of forces (multi role, aerodynamic performance, detection range, BVR probability, radar resolution and noise, SPS, Sortie rate Engine turnaround time).
2> To obtain comprehensive technology transfer with material to product capability within the Indian manufacturing sense.
3> To select a platform which has the optimal lifecycle cost to performance (both flying and service)


Let me disagree with supposed experts fielded in the Indian defense circles by saying all three objectives are ambiguous, amateurish and unrealistic. The reason being objectives need to be "S.M.A.R.T" - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and with a given Time .

Lets look at inherent issues with these objectives:

Minimum operational conformance:
All 6 aircraft went through field trials, from minimum requirements and availability Mig35 was a given deletion as the aircraft did not exist, and gripen deemed not mature enough. There is no transparency why these decisions were taken, Mig 35 was exactly as real as the Su30MKI was when decided to procure, high altitude trials was also an issue for the mig 35 which was a real ding, but still wont be a deal breaker as I am privy to information that it was an easy fix but not allowed by the evaluation committee. It was a russian mistake and a comedy of errors for which russian ground staff was to be blamed, same happened for hot weather trials for the F/A18 SH. From the complete package perspective except the Mig35 Zhuk AESA, F/A 18Sh and F16 IN none of the aircraft's fielded had an operational aesa radar so could be argued as grounds for disqualification, but were given a lifeline. But no such considerations were done for the Mig35 or the F/A 18 SH engine issue. (even though both the test aircraft's had different engines than were offered on the package). why?

Comprehensive technology transfer:
It is laughable that evaluation of technology transfer was done by the Indian Air Force and Ministry of defense, Which has zero knowledge of the matter. The most experienced entity in the country for technology transfer, HAL was never consulted for scope of technology transfer. Even Tata or Mahindra has comprehensive knowledge of technology transfer paradigms like Vave, PED, PG1-3, etc, when has Airforce done any tech transfer to evaluate the efficacy of the bids and their ToT offer. In a bid I can claim to share Design data, and with-hold any of the following like material properties, or standard part designation or DFMEA data, of level of detail, or drawing standard mismatchs, or comprehensive Jigs and Fixture setup process as undefined in the bid and the evaluation team wouldn't know.

The air chiefs of stratpost are having a field day taking digs at HAL, completely disregarding the fact that Material to product transformation transfer has never occurred except probably in the case of Mig21 in the history of modern aviation. Looking at what fokker or samsung or mitsubishi has fone with F16 Subsystems, it is astounding what HAL has achieved in the same paradigm. But which Air chief marshal or Blogger would know that, when they can barely differentiate between a mill and a lathe.

Life Cycle Costs:

No verifiable data exists for lifecycle cost any of the aircrafts for the MMRCA. the simple fact remains is that US lifecycle costs of F16 CANNOT be applied to India. A Mil std rivet cutter costs $52 in US, the same costs $162 in India. Same applies to theAircraft grade Aluminium stampings, Steel billets, Titanium alloy, hardened bearing, so on and so forth. Also there is no transparency in the lifecycle costs submitted to the Airforce, especially for an aircraft like Mig35 which never existed in the first place. How did Airforce evaluate EFT and Rafale's cost when their respective radar and some of the key munitions did not exist in production? This raises a very big question in authenticity of the evaluation of Life cycle cost. Apart from that when did Air force become credible in evaluation life-cycle costs of capital equipment? I am extremely fascinated with the comparison with Mig29 debate when it comes to life cycle cost, especially when Indian airforce has done nothing to reduce it. Mig29's are a direct purchase from Russia, and maintenance was done by Base repair depot. The actual reason of serviceability of mig 29 is not the aircraft itself but gross incompetence of BRD's to maintain required spares and extremely poor skill level of BRD technicians. As a matter of fact if HAL nasik division stops supporting 11 BRD, it will close doors the next day, this is the real reason why Mig29 faced serviceability issues and in all reality the post UPG program all maintenance and overhaul will transfer to HAL.


We like to keep taking potshots at the LCA program and now I have started hearing this new turkey gobble that Funds have never been the issue, which is complete horse $hit. Revenue budget for ADA and HAL has been extremely poor, i wouldn't go into role of HAL in LCA program, as I have roared on and on about it in the past. But IAF and especially by the Ministry of Dufus have deliberately stifled the revenue budget for LCA program which hasn't allowed HAL or the ADA to hire the required numbers of engineers and technicians for all the phases of the LCA program. You do not provide any resources to the Indian agencies, and post useless retired airforce and army personnel to positions in manufacturing who cant read a simple drawing and then expect them to manage and expedite a manufacturing project with more than a million part assembly. What else can be expected from the program then.


regards

@sancho @Oscar @Capt.Popeye @Dillinger

 

[In arduis fidelis]

I disagree, a certain degree of transparency is required to keep things going, I believe it puts pressure on the people involved to choose the right option and with the proper price tag and in a timely manner or else who knows what backdoor deals will be used to compensate for national security

The very matter we are discussing sir,the soaring cost and lengthy delay due to this tedious processes.

 

[bloo]

The very matter we are discussing sir,the soaring cost and lengthy delay due to this tedious processes.

I'd rather face the humiliation of the ineptitude of our over hyped PSUs and cuss them till they get their $hit straight and suffer this tedious process, than not know what my tax money has bought.