A Tejas is born at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Bangalore! Would my alert readers like to identify this particular LCA?
Broadsword visitors!
I'm sure that many of you have --- like me --- encountered diverse and contradictory figures about how much it cost to develop the LCA. Very confusing.
Also, not having an authentic figure makes it difficult to gauge the true per unit cost of the Tejas, when it comes into service.
I intend to establish the figures authentically. May I request Broadsword visitors who have any thoughts on the matter (i.e. the true cost of the Tejas) to post their views. Also... please post links to the various figures that have come up in the public domain over the past few years.
I like this idea. Normally I publish an article and then you post your views. This time, we'll do it the other way round.
Looks like NP-1
ReplyDeleteAjay Sir...For a balanced analysis , apart from the cost, it would be great if you can also cover the returns. Also, compare the analysis with other similar fighters.
ReplyDeleteIt's an N-LCA. NP-2, if this is a recent photo.
ReplyDeleteSome of P domain figures
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMRCA
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4332/mmrca.png
WELL CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY OF THE LCA'S JUST BY LOOKING THEIR STRIPPED DOWN AIRFRAMES ?
ReplyDeleteCost per tejas varies on the number of aircraft being produced.
ReplyDeleteOf course we need to distribute the R&D costs first.
Also The imported engine to my knowledge woulbe be the major portion of the total cost, followed by the IAI Radar.
I will stick to the figure of 180 crore a piece from ADA on tejas.
Jet in the pic is NP-2.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if this is illusion or not but intakes looking bigger in z-axis(in jet's...forgive me, not having proper word for reference)
ReplyDelete35-45 Million USD, is what i have read, from the material that i found on the net(the links for which i do not have as of now)
ReplyDelete-Raj
What ever is spent in developing tejas would be immensely helpful in developing AMCA as the technology and infrastructure is in place and thus reduces considerably the price and time required to finish the AMCA considerably.Tejas would eventually develop to its full potential in next 10 years.The technology which we develop for Tejas is sanction proof technology and no restriction in the armaments or the add ons to be added to the basic frame that itself is a great achievement. I fell it is unfair to compare the cost escalation as it is lot more than what was expected from it during present designing.Tejas being develop gave designers and industry the confidence to complete such a complex project and faith that they can catch up with rest of the world and develop AMCA.
ReplyDeleteClash of the financial Wizards and Titans begins.
ReplyDeleteWHAT A BUNCH OF WANKERS!
ReplyDeleteI'M ASKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COST, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN INCURRED. I'M NOT MAKING SOME START-GAZING REQUEST FOR THE PER PIECE COST OF THE TEJAS.
IF YOU READ MY ARTICLE WRITTEN DURING AERO INDIA, I HAVE ALREADY QUOTED THE ADA CHIEF AS SAYING THAT THE TEJAS WILL BE BUILT AT Rs 180-200 CRORES PER FIGHTER.
BACK TO YOUR CALCULATORS....
Anonymous 17:59:
ReplyDeleteOf course I can. One look and I can tell you which one this is. This is....
Oops! I forgot. This is a quiz. You gotta tell me.
when you are estimating developmental cost , it will be more accurate if you can take into account inflationary measure.
ReplyDeletei am sure you have friends with economics background who can give you the required informations.
also it would be interesting to know similar figures for other countries.
though most of the countries which make fighter planes are doing so for very long time. only fair analysis may be with china - but i am not sure how reliable their official declarations are.
Ajay, can you do an inflation adjustment in any comparison? Also, you would need another adjustment for purchasing power in common currency. I know this is asking for too much! :-) How about..? Let's compare in 2011 Rupee value, if possible (ie) we cannot compare $30M from 1980 with $30M in 2011!
ReplyDeletehttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/At-Rs-17k-cr-Tejas-cost-zooms-3000/articleshow/6962283.cms#ixzz16cjfV8Fy
ReplyDeleteINR 17500 cr + cost of 99 ge-f414in + trainer NP2 + NP1 navy + Kaveri + Aesa + MkII + Pulse Dopler + 40 ge-f404 + ...
= (Equals to) Money Lost in 2G scam to the nation's exchequer = USD 40 Billion = INR 1,76,000 Cr
Not sure if I spot levcon, it may not be a naval variant. Cables hanging down in the front, must be for the radar. that rules out trainer variant. it is in much more finished state than previously published picture of Serial production aircraft. it must be either LSP7 or 8.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how everything was accounted, so for me I am entering a grey area.
A simple calculation would be to sum up all the funding released by GOI till now for this program and call it as program cost assuming the parties involved used up every penny and didn't return any unused money.
Project definition phase : (done with Dassault as consultant) figures not searchable from public domain.
Full scale engineering development - Phase I : Rs.2188 crores.
Phase II : Rs. 2,340 crores
Limited series production : figures not searchable from public domain.
Naval Tejas design and prototyping : Rs 900 crores from Navy (not GOI).
Also I will not include series production orders by IAF for 20/40 aircrafts into development costs as they will be just copies of LSP5.
I think going any further by getting into cost / benefit analysis or timeline for these funds, will lead to gripes and trolls. But still I can't resist.
So here is my guess, almost half of these fundings must have been spent on Dassault & Lockheed consultancy, engine purchase & radar components. The remaining money must have been spent on bringing up various labs and their infrastructure. Manpower and materials cost must be negligible compared to the rest.
IS this tejas mk2??i thnk cose i can probably see the mid air refuller probe groove in the right hand side of the aircraft.M i right?
ReplyDeleteWELL GOOD FOR YOU.... MEANWHILE COULD YOU BRING OUT MORE INFO ON FINSAS ... SOMETIME THIS YEAR?
ReplyDeleteYou mean to ask what is the cost of building, from ground up, a complete military aviation technological and industrial base, that India will benefit off of for eternity?
ReplyDeleteAny comprehensive analysis, which does a good job of cost vs. benefit analysis to the nation, will conclude that the development of Tejas has not really cost the country anything, but saved it billions of dollars in future cost of foreign acquisitions, as well as (and perhaps more importantly) unmeasurable cost in terms of strategic independence, technological know-how, an industrial base of cutting-edge technologies, employment in the public and private sector for thousands of people, etc. etc.
If you can't undertake this comprehensive analysis and evaluation, please don't try to do a shallow calculation of the 'cost' of developing Tejas. It would be a supremely useless exercise.
Some Points to remember here:
ReplyDelete1)The money is already spent and ordering lesser LCA does not mean you will save on the per piece price.
2)It includes the cost of the infrastructure also built from scratch(I think even ADA was constituted for LCA).
3)The cost has to be compared with say Grippens current developmental cost.
Ajayji,
ReplyDeleteI dont have them handy but iirc MoD Anthony presented a paper/status report in parliament on the LCA sometime back which included costs incurred, current status, production plans for the future etc. If you could get your hands on that one, i'm sure you can have a good starting point to determining how much we've invested in the project. Also investments into GTRE and other labs such as DMRL etc.
This is N-LCA for sure. Probably NP-2
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 17:59
If you know some basic differences between different Tejas prototype, You can.
Check out differences between Tejas, Tejas trainer, and N-LCA. It is a pretty clear thing once you will know the difference.
as per Air Marshal Rajkumar in his book "The Tejas Story" the full LCA program was funded in 3 separate grants from GOI.
ReplyDelete1983 : Rs 500 Crores were allocated to cover the costs of project definition phase (including paying BAe and Dassault for consultancy) and setting up the R&D infrastructure.
IAF issues ASR in 1985-86 and project definition is completed by 1989-90. project goes into cold storage for next 3 years.
1993 : Rs 2188 Crores were allocated (including the previous 500 crores) for FSED (full scale engineering development) and TD (technology demostration) phase including the demostration of 3 basic technologies, namely
a) digital cockpit
b) FBW flight control system
c) composite structure.
this was on recommendation of AM Krishnaswamy then the Director (plans) at Air HQ if memory serves right, who felt that the ability of ADA to develop these complex technologies had to be demonstrated first before the govt went ahead with full fighter development.
the TD phase was successfully completed in 2003-2004 with money to spare which was used to build the PV-1.
2004 : Phase III, full fighter development sanctioned with an initial allocation of Rs 3301 crores with an estimated finishing date of 2008.
this was later stretched to 2012 and allocation was augmented by additional funding of Rs 2475 crores.
To summarise
========================
========================
1983 : Rs 500 Cr for Phase I (project definition and setting up R&D labs).
status : finished by 1990 within budget.
========================
========================
1993 : Rs 2188 Crores (including the 500 cr) for Phase II (FSED and TD)
status : completed in 2004 with money to spare.
========================
========================
2004 : Rs 3301 Crores for Phase III (fighter development)
Status : over budget by Rs 2475 crores and late by 4 years (estimated.)
WHAT A BUNCH OF WANKERS!
ReplyDelete_________________________
LOL ! cool down man ! will my post do ?
"Bunch of Wankers"
ReplyDeleteNever expected that from you....shukla sahab!
ajai, you might also like to have a look at PS Subramanium's recent interview in the week.
ReplyDeleteThat a pretty reasonable price for a 3.5+ gen aircraft....we are talking of roughly 40-50 million dollars? Do you know how much of this money is spent on imported/ under -licenced components?
ReplyDeleteLCA NAVY baased on the LEVCONS
ReplyDeleteAt times the development cost of technology goes beyond the required budget. The cause for inflated budget could be either due to mismanagement or the topic of research is difficult.
ReplyDeleteLeaving the cost aside, the learning curve during research is not an increasing one but there are possible spikes in the curve. However, the asset developed through research cannot be compares with the money.
I have never seen media house support for home grown technology, all i see is we should buy technology for EU, Russia, USA, etc. Looks like the media house and the goons in Armed forces and politics are helping each other to swindle money to their respective swiss accounts.
Its LSP-7 or LSP-8
ReplyDeleteThe experience gained in developing tejas can never be counted any money as it gives the independence to develop the plane , avionics, radar and engine that is tremendous. One has to remember that the successful plane design teams identify the technology to be implemented 10 years in advance and then then they work on assembling the basic structure and then in next decade they develop the plane to its full potential. The experience gained would in next 5-7 years develop tejas to its full potential and help in expidating the AMCA with cost reduction in AMCA.The developed team is now priceless and what price tag would you place for this.
ReplyDeleteAjai sir, one request. IN floating tender for buying 6 submarines for $ 1.8 billion each. Thats too costly for even nuclear submarine. Pls raise the issue, waste of public money.
ReplyDeleteProtonRiver, Ramu: Thanks for your very useful inputs. Those figures tally pretty much with what I have.
ReplyDeleteNEXT PHASE OF THIS PROJECT: CAN PEOPLE PLZ POST RELIABLE LINKS THAT BRING OUT THE DEVELOPMENT COST OF THE GRIPEN.
ALSO, AND I REALIZE THAT THIS MIGHT BE DIFFICULT, THE DEVELOPMENT COST OF THE JF-17 THUNDER.
Manu: You have not been struck by some great original thought. Except for idiots, everyone is well aware that the Tejas budget has gone into building an Indian aerospace base.
However, your statement that, "Any comprehensive analysis, which does a good job of cost vs. benefit analysis to the nation, will conclude that the development of Tejas has not really cost the country anything, but saved it billions of dollars in future cost of foreign acquisitions..." is not analysis,
it is pamphleteering of the kind that has discredited the DRDO in the past.
Instead, try analysis: That would be along the lines of "While the Tejas programme has cost India a total of Rs XYZQ so far, and is likely to cost another EFGH crores over the next Y years, it has also paid for and driven the creation of an Indian aerospace industry. This knowledge and infrastructure base, which includes J, K, L and M, will spearhead the development of an advanced medium combat aircraft and the Indian component of the Indo-Russian 5th generation fighter aircraft.
Purely within the Tejas programme itself, the total cost (including development and acquisition costs) of some 200 fighters that the IAF and the Indian Navy will eventually field, is likely to work out to Rs QRSTU crores. That compares favourably with the hypothetical acquisition cost of a similar number of light fighters. Comparing with the projected Rs 42,000 crore acquisition cost of 126 medium fighters in the MMRCA tender, the cost of acquiring 200 4th generation light fighters from a foreign vendor would have come to approximately Rs $%^& crores.
That is analysis.
How would you divide the costs of stuff learnt from LCA experience, between LCA and subsequent endeavours AMCA, trainers etc ?
ReplyDeleteIs everything that we spent on learning expected to be the cost of LCA alone OR does some of it get into cost of making future endeavours too?
Re Ajai
ReplyDeleteAs usual a very good stab at our defense philosophy. I have made effort to calculate the US$ inflation adjusted value of development of LCA based on “type” of figures posted by Proton River. It comes to US$ 2.4 Billion till 2010 in current (2010) US$ values and future expense till 2018 comes to another US$ 1.2 Billion dollars in US$ 2010 Values.
It is not clear if the figures (also given by Proton River) include engine, radar, but it does seem so! Further it does include cost of setting up labs and “production line”, multiple variants also
Which means that only around US$ 80-120 Million dollars (in 2010 values) is spent per year till now and this amount will now have a marginal increase to US$ 120-150 million till 2018. Such low amounts means that we are unable to built all relevant labs in India or pursue multiple lines of attack for problem solving. As basically budget allocated is just for Revenue exp and screwing together imported components.
Now in comparison Snecma spent around US$ 2000 around 1980s just for M-88 engine which is roughly equivalent to US$ 4 Billion in 2010 US$ value. Value of PAKFA development is estimated at US$ 12 Billion with new engines and radar extra. Now for the shocker Rafale and Eurofighter development costs are estimated around US$ 40-60 billion or so (inflation adjusted??)
its lsp5....
ReplyDeleteMr.Ajay, Every time you visit a place or a company your thoughts are being shaped by the company/organization you visit. Even though your thoughts at the end reflect most of the guyz in DRDO and to an extent true also the context in which it has to be looked at is a bit out of place. Building an aerospace base in the country is fine. But building an aerospace space with only one public organization without any meaningful private participation is ridiculous. We need competition and efficiency and lower development cycle when so much money is spent. FOR THAT WE NEED PRIVATE SECTOR IN A BIG WAY... REPYING ON ONE ORGANIZATION FOR EVERYTHING THAT FLIES IS SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE...
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts on tryig to arrive at total cost of Tejas program:
ReplyDeleteOver the last few months there has been a spate of reports on the cost of the program. They can be referenced/debunked. Only question which i have is - do the budgetary allocations mentioned cover all the aspects i.e., cost of setting up of CEMILAC, NFTC etc? Also, has HAL set up the assembly line out of its own resources?
An attempt should also be made to assess the monetary impact of the industrial base created as it is one of key benefits which has not been quantified so far.
From a true TCO / Benefit Analysis perspective it shall be prudent to include an analysis of the cost of external purchases had Tejas program not gone through, as it is one of the hidden but substantial benefits realized and will be realized in future too.
From only doing an analysis of the cost incurred, if attempt is made to arrive at the complete TCO / Benefit picture, te article shall be invaluable.
I have been following your blog for a while and was grreatly disappointed to see your response to other comments on this blog and the use of the word "wankers". I feel this is poor form especially given that most of the comments posted on this blog have been genuine attempts at having a discussion.
ReplyDeleteso my question is why do the analysis....
whats spent on the LCA is a sunk cost. It should not influence any future decisions.
Also, you cannot just use the cost to come to a conclusion. A proper analysis would include the next best alternative for india in terms of procuring a fleet of the same numbers.
re Anon @ 19:24
ReplyDeletekaveri engine was funded separately. but radar and other sub-systems are included in those figures.
that's usually how it happens, the engines for rafale, F-22 etc are all developed by different companies from the aircraft developer and funded separately as well.
good work on the conversion though.
Anon @ 09:24, it would help if you just put in some name (any name) in stead of anon. :)
ReplyDeletekaveri program costs are officially available in the wiki page itself.
1989 : 382 Cr allocated
govt provided additional funding outside of this as well (mainly to cater for Rs inflation against $ from 1989 prices)
2004. 1300 Cr had been spent on the project, inflation adjusted.
now, total project costs are estimated at Rs 2839 Cr i.e $ 620 mn. this includes setting up lab infra, consultancy fees to SNECMA, tests at gromov, funding research in materials at MIDHANI and DMRL etc etc.
coolgeek, why don't you walk the talk ? stop wasting time on a keyboard and GO SET UP A PVT AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
ReplyDeleteCheck bellow links, it will help u greatly.
ReplyDelete1. For Gripen project cost... check:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/gripen-program.htm
AND
2. For Estimating the Real Cost of Modern Fighter Aircraft... check:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
Ajai sir
ReplyDeleteFirst of First this is Tejas SP-1 in the production line.
I am sending you 2 good links that give lot of details about JAS 39 Gripen NG/IN development cost.
1) http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a76e1b4a5-2302-4d04-99c9-869e490791f9
2) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
contd...
contd....
ReplyDeleteI am not much of a technical person but I wuld like to say few things that if India chooses Gripen in MMRCA, it will enjoy enormous benefits, like
1. Engine commonality with both Gripen and Tejas engine sourced from GE
2. Full TOT including source codes will give Indian scientist and technicians ability to do whatever tweak they want
3. Lowest cost over other MMRCA contenders and from a neutral country makes this a ideal deal without political compulsions
4. We are looking to replace Mig 21 single engine aircrafts and the Gripen is ideally suitd than its twin engine partners
contd...
contd...
ReplyDelete5. There is scope for further development on Gripen despite the fact that its under development since mid 90s, which is not the case for F-16 single engine planes that are at end of development cycle
6. The AESA radar of Gripen that is still under development will allow Indian technicians and scientists chance to work on its development and further develop a Indian AESA radar for AMCA, a 5th gen aircraft
Ajai sir
you proposed that India should go for JSF-35, same way I am taking liberty of proposing that post selecting Gripen, India work on developing a single engine 10 ton 5th gen aircraft to complement the 30 ton FGFA and the 20 ton AMCA, incorporating tech from Gripen and Tejas as also stealth.
contd....
contd...
ReplyDeleteI say this because stealth or not a 30 or 20 ton aircraft is useless for jobs suited for 10 ton aircraft. Its like using sword to cut a cake. All this put Gripen as the front runner for MMRCA.
Will be glad to hear your views on all these points.
Thanks
Joydeep Ghosh
Development cost for LCA also includes costs of setting up the infra for productin of materials in India , since this is being done for the first time the dev costs would be comparitovely higher but the next plane to be MADE IN INDIA would benefit from this already set up Infra.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to poke into numbers as they would never represent the "true" R&D cost of LCA.
If you compare with Gripen then do not forget:-
ReplyDelete1. Real R&D costs are difficult to judge as R&D costs and production costs were merged
2. LCA development included development of engine unlike Gripen + naval variants of engine
3. LCA development costs includes development of naval variants unlike Gripen
4. Future LCA development costs till 2018 would be equivalent to Gripen NG costs
5. Nobody pulled the plug on supply of components to Sweden
6. Sweden already had “aerospace” industry and it did not need to be developed from scratch unlike LCA development
http://www.cagindia.org/reports/defence/1999_book1/chapter6_p2.htm
ReplyDeleteWhile the total development cost of LCA over a period of eight to ten years was assessed in August 1983 at Rs 560 crore, the feasibility study assessed the development and production investment cost at Rs 750 crore in May 1985. As against this, the cost of FSED Phase-I alone was estimated to be Rs 2188 crore against which Rs 1449 crore had already been spent on the LCA programme till March 1998. The unit fly-away cost of LCA assessed as Rs 10.30 crore in 1985, is now estimated to cost between Rs 80 to 85 crore.
Rohan, Good GoD, don't you have a sense of humour? "Wankers" is often used as a term of friendly banter, which is how I meant it and how everyone else on the blog seems to have interpreted it.
ReplyDeleteBut, if I have offended your sense of decency in any way... my most profound apologies, Rohan Bhaiji.
And, for heaven's sake, don't take Bhai to mean what many in Mumbai interpret the term as....!!!
the pic is of LSP-7...u can zoom near the intake (left hand side) and see...its written LSP-7
ReplyDeleteAccording to a report, Out of every $100 USA spends on its defense buys from their domestic companies, $60 goes back to the US in the form of income taxes, number of support jobs created, dual usage of infrastructure, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat means the tax payer burden is only 40% of the cost. Can you please take this also into consideration while making cost comparisons?
All the benefits in these cutting edge technology research cannot be measured in money terms( at least not immediately). United States's initial investments in its freeway road system, wireless technology, internet, Civilian aircrafts, Space and satellites, Nuclear Energy etc are all by products of their defense research. above all their defense funding created worlds best universities. today's DARPA's projects are future civilian technologies.
If we spent some X amount on a certain project and failed, we need to look at the reasons why we failed and rectify them but not fold up completely. For a big country like India and with the kind of neighbors it has, indigenous defense systems are not a luxury but a must.
PAC Report extract by livefist
ReplyDeleteThe programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been initiated in August‟ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs 560.00 Cr. ………………The Full Scale Engineering Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April‟1993 at a cost of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983). ………………… While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles. The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs 3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov‟2001. ……….Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-Ã -vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31 Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop & productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds. ……………Committee after careful consideration of the projections made and taking into account the increase in the cost of material, manpower, additional activities to complete the IOC & FOC, maintenance of facilities and expanded scope of the programme etc., recommended additional fund of Rs 2475.78 Cr for completing FSED Phase-II activities with PDC Dec 2012, Rs 2431.55 Cr for developing Tejas Mark 2 with alternate engine (LCA FSED Phase-III Programme) and Rs 395.65 Cr for Technology Development Programme (Total additional funds of Rs 5302.98 Cr). Recommendations of the Cost Revision Committee was accepted by Government and in November 2009, sanction was accorded for continuing Full Scale Engineering Development of LCA till Dec 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5302.98 Cr.
from vijay
Ajay & ProtonRiver,
ReplyDeleteI'm able to price adjust using INR GNP deflator from World Bank. This means that 1983 1Cr INR --> Mid-2010 5.87 Cr. Based on PR's figures:
500Cr 1983-1990 (7yrs) = Rs 2382Cr (2010) = $521M
1688cr 1993-2003 (10yrs)= Rs 3109Cr (2010) = $680M
4492Cr 2004-2010 (7yrs) = Rs 5226 Cr (2010) = $1143M
1284Cr bal till 2012 (2yrs) = Rs 1284 Cr (2011) or $281M
Total funding at mid-2010 INR values = Rs 12,000Cr (exact!) or $2,625M
Assuming this is the entire budget for Mk1 & 2, $/fighter (say 200) = 13.1M.
Total cost for 126 LCAs Mark-2 with AESA
ReplyDeleteInflation adjusted development cost US$ 2.4 Billion + US$ 1.2 Billion = US$ 3.6 to say 4 Billion
AESA development cost = say US$ 500 -1000Million
Kaveri JV Cost = say = US$ 500 -1000million + 500 Million is spent costs
LCA = 126 x 45 million = US$ 5.7 to say 6.5 Billion
Total US$ 11-14 Billion dollars for 4 variants of IAF & Naval aircraft + simulators. Apart from benefit of developing aerospace sector with off shoots like IJT-36, avionics upgrade, drop tanks, pylons, naval engines etc for IAF fleet wide etc.
But the real savings come in costs of spares, repair and maintenance. For instance, as a thumbrule the cost of spares is 4 to 6 times the cost of fly away unit in 30 years.
Add to this the cost of upgrade, simulators, ground support equipment, weapon integration, war reserves etc then the cost to nation is 10 times of a unit fly away cost in 30 years.
So even 10% saving in US$ 6 Billion x 10=US$ 60 Billion will pay for the cost of R&D though I estimate that the savings will be around 1/3rd of US$ 60 Billion i.e. saving of US$ 20 billion in next 30 years compared to nearest competitor like Gripen
vijay
JF-17 program cost is valued at US$ 500 million by wikipedia. And as per sinodefence.com the Estimated cost is US$15~20 million : http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp
ReplyDeleteAs per http://www.defencetalk.com/fc-1-jf-17-thunder-16801/
Pakistan invested 75 million USD (half of the total development cost). Then the total development cost should be $150 million
Very varied figures.
“Don’t we need to substract the money generated through spin offs and also the saving we make on the future projects under development from the total development cost of LCA"
ReplyDeleteThe metamorphasis of Mig-21 under the Chinese should itself be a very very interesting topic. But it is better not to spend time on it.
ReplyDeleteRightly or wrongly, I believe JF-17 is a product of continues modification of J-7 (mig-21) Check the modification variants (J-7I, J-7I (modified), J-7II(replaced by a rearward hinged canopy jettisoned before the ejection seat), J-7IIA, J-7IIM, J-7IIH, J-7IIK, J-7III, J-7B, J-7B, J-7FS (under-chin inlet and WP-13IIS engine), J-7G, F-7FS, F-7P-sabre (side inlet) then to 'Saber II'. Saber II was continued to develop under new name FC-1”.
The FC-1 (j-17) design of today has little in common with the J-7 but again it is a unbelievable metamorphosis.
http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2009/05/jf-17-thunder.html
So both me and AA have reached the conclusion that amount spent on LCA till date is around US$ 2.4 to US$ 2.6 in current US$ values.
ReplyDeleteNow my further estimate is that amount spent on R&D of Rafale or Eurofighter is around US$ 25 Billion in current US$ values. These values are hidden and difficult to estimate clearly.
The R&D cost of Gripen is also hidden into production costs and difficult to estimate clearly
vijay/vijay
Pakistan spend some money on upgrading j-7FS to J-7 sabre (super-7). The project was cancelled due to spiralling cost (40%) and western relectence. The chinese went ahead with the uprgradation naming it FC-1. Later Pakistan joined the program with 50% stake, which is 75 million. It is very difficult to guage the cost of J-17. Pakistan statement that they 50% stake would be an eyewash. Let's go by the $500 figure. But I think, it is a culmination of long drone process which now known as j-17
ReplyDeletethanks AA.
ReplyDeleteSandy, 150 mn for JF-17 is tosh, 500 mn is more believable but still at the lower estimate.
we do need to keep in mind that many of JF-17's systems like FBW were developed as a part of the J-10 project.
china bought jf-17 design from russia post 1992. It is the mig 33 which was cancelled by them. No great metamorphosis. Show me one indigenous a/c by china.
ReplyDeleteI was not conviced about the Mig-33 relation with J-17, till I fould: http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/53816-mig-33-jf-17-inside-story.html
ReplyDelete"Product 33 became well advanced, it was not ordered due to the air force's reorientation towards multi-role aircraft - the lightweight Product 33 could be used for close air combat only. The basic Product 33 design was offered by Mikoyan to China as the FC-1 fighter. ". Well, nice to know my belief is trashed, thankyou.
bUT.. lEAVE IT.
I was just checking how many spin offs would have been generated during the development of LCA development and how much money they would have generated. And also, how development of LCA would have ineffect eased the development of other projects.
ReplyDeleteAll information given below are taken from various sources.
Software development has been a major spin-off of the LCA project. A number of Application Softwares have been developed, which have various no-aeronautical applications as well.
Graphical Interactive Three dimensional Applications (GITA) is a user friendly Computer Aided Design (CAD) package, well suited for mechanical, automobile, aeronautical and tool design industries.
Finite Element Structural Synthesis Expert (FINESSE) is a general purpose finite element analysis package. FINEGRAF is a powerful interactive graphics pre and post processor, making complex finite element modelling and results interpretation much easier.
AUTOLAY is a software system for design, analysis and manufacture of composites. It reduces design cycle time of high quality, robust laminated composite components.
PRANA is a Virtual Reality software tool which gives life to CAD and engineering analyses data in the virtual world.
Numerous packages for Computer Aided Manufacture (CAM) and Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) codes for aerodynamic analyses have also been developed.
Area of R&D & Outline of advances made in the field
ReplyDeleteAerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
CFD codes, various aspects of wind tunnel testing, development of Control Law, and control law simulation and testing facility, use of supercomputer to attack various aerodynamics issues, Finite Element Method codes, Aero Elasticity Studies.
Airframe including Carbon Fiber Composite {CFC) Wing and Fin
Precision machining of special metals like Titanium (challenging), Aluminum, Composites manufacture and machining, Carbon Disc brakes.
Propulsion System
Engine Design work at GTRE, design and manufacture of very high reliability sub-components like fan-blades, casings etc, for the Kaveri, JFS, Hydro-mechanical parts, Engine Control Unit, Nozzle Control Unit [51].
Mechanical General Systems and Manufacturing.
Landing gear, Brake Systems, AMAGB, Brake Parachutes , CAD-CAM software, Environmental Control Systems, Application software for Distributed Numerical Control, software to improve control over CNC instruments.
Flight Control System
Control Software, Iron Bird testing facility, Mini Bird, Cockpit Controls, Actuators and other components of Digital Flight Control System and computer [52].
Avionics and Electrical Systems
Design of Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), LCD, Antennae, Testing facilities like DAIR, Communication Equipment, Control and Coding Unit, IFF, Various cockpit systems and simulators, Mission Computer, Lightning test facility, Multi-Mode Radar.
Quality Assurance and System Effectiveness
Several quality assurance programs like Failure Mode Effect and Criticality analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, `Walk through check lists’ etc… were implemented [53]. Software like C-SCAN was developed to deal with QC issues in composites [54], Software Test Plan based on DOD standard.
ADA has had a profitable commercial spin-off in its Autolay integrated automated software system for the design and development of 3-D laminated composite elements (which has been licensed to both Airbus and Infosys). It was licensed to commercial aircraft maker Airbus Industrie for $3.2 million for use in its new commercial super jumbo project: A 380.
ReplyDeleteADA subsequently handed over Autolay along with the associated Intellectual Property rights to Infosys Technologies for an unspecified royalty. Infosys is mandated with further developing the software, enhancing its features to interface with other related tools and programs, and increasing applicability in related areas.
Hence, R&D expenditure of LCA is being subsidized by the sale of spin-off technologies.
The LCA development has also given spin off benefits like the development of heat exchangers, radars, auto locks etc.
ADA gained valuable experience in design and development of the LCA’s avionics suite and its integration with the flight controls, environmental controls, aircraft utilities systems management, stores management system, etc. are invaluable in terms of advancement of India’s indigenous aerospace capabilities.
The ease with which IJT was made was a culmination of the experience gained. It would be better to request DRDO to provided a list of spin-offs and the money generated through then. Hope they do not take 5 years to respond to that
A quote of Air Marshal Rajkumar, “Nobody knows of the half-a-million lines of code that our software engineers had to write or the 16 onboard computers that the aircraft boasts of. In short, nobody knows of the complexities of making the aircraft. The delay reinforced the belief in some that India could never make something new, that we were forever destined to be patchwork artists.”
Not to be mentioned, but needs to remind critics again and again India’s near and distant future military and civil aerospace demands will be so gigantic that the LCA programme will keep plant utilisation capacity of a few production units at high levels for several decades. All it requires is a little more national affection, priority and support.
LCA and Economics::::::::: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/sainis.html
ReplyDelete`LCA is about creating wealth for country' -- Dr Kota Harinarayana::::::: http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2001/01/13/stories/041367ju.htm
Tejas is no longer a mirage ::::::::: http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/732/
Arming The Dangerous::::::::: http://www.siliconindia.com/magazine/prnt.php?QOI766674637
LCA India’s soaring ambition and the sobering reality::::::: http://indianmilitary.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/lca-indias-soaring-ambition-and-the-sobering-reality/
India comes out fighting::::::::