LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[Hobbes]

An interesting viewpoint from Vijainder Thakur at https://www.myind.net/rafale-and-ration ... ht-fighter:

India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM's announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.

The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.

"We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal."

Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.

In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.

Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!

Parrikar said, "Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that."

He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft's 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.

Rafale is a strategic purchase.

Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.

The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India's nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.

The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.

Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.

"Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under 'Make in India', that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21", said the minister.
Clear Vision

The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar's statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.

Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is 'Make in India' being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.
MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge

The MiG-21 fleet is large - almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.

It's true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1's performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2's uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn't consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE's failure to develop the aircraft's Kaveri engine; It's well known that the Tejas doesn't meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.

The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn't have the required edge over Pakistan's F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!

In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.

ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.
Make in India Remains Enduring Theme

During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that "Make in India" continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.

"Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries," he said.

In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal."If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?" he asked?

The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned 'Make in India.' What the government has done is not allowed the 'Make in India' concept to compromise the nation's security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?

[Hobbes]

Saurav Jha provides some important data points in his tweets of April 21 (the OP quoted this BR thread!):

Sanjay ‏@Sbmvv2000 Apr 21

@SJha1618 Here is the link:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=960 …
Any truth to that or is ITR/STR of Tejas Mk.1 much better than that anc close to M2K?
0 retweets 0 favorites

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Apr 21

@Sbmvv2000 As I have replied before Tejas STR is below 18 degrees. By how much I won't say.
0 retweets 0 favorites

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Apr 21

@Sbmvv2000 The design can definitely do with some drag reduction. It isn't fully optimized.
0 retweets 0 favorites


Link: https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/590749366853443584

[shiv]

@Sbmvv2000 As I have replied before Tejas STR is below 18 degrees. By how much I won't say.
0 retweets 0 favorites

Link: https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/590749366853443584

That matches the STR of the Dakota no?

[Hobbes]

@Sbmvv2000 As I have replied before Tejas STR is below 18 degrees. By how much I won't say.
0 retweets 0 favorites

Link: https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/590749366853443584

That matches the STR of the Dakota no?

What would you compare the M2000 to then - a Super Constellation?

[Hobbes]

As per http://hushkit.net/2014/01/09/the-top-t ... ssessment/ the Mirage 2000's STR is below 16 deg., which is the figure for the F-15. Dunno how reliable that site is though. If that is the case, the LCA is in good company.

[shiv]

Please pardonnez moi as they say in France. But I thought STR is "sustained turn rate" - and figures of 20 deg/sec and above are normal.

[Singha]

because of the 9G limit, the effective of su27/f15 seems to be 20 at subsonic and around 15 at supersonic

[Singha]

on another forum:
There is no fighter out there that can sustain a 9g turn indefinitely. I fly F-16s, and we can sustain a high g turn better than just about any aircraft in the world, including the F-15. In a clean configuration going into a max g turn at 500 knots in full afterburner, we can only sustain 9g's for a few seconds, then the g's rapidly begin to bleed off as your airspeed decreases. Like someone mentioned above, your instantaneous g will be much higher than your sustained g. Some fighters, have very good instantaneous turn rates, but crappy sustained rates (delta wing aircraft are like that). Others are terrible in both rates (Mig 23 and 25 for example). The F-16 is good in both regimes which is why it generally has an advantage over most fighters in a turning fight.
....
The F-15 has an instantaneous [turn rate] of 21 [degrees] and a sustained [turn rate] of about 15-20 degrees. The Raptor can sustain 28 degrees. - See more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... 7Wz8K.dpuf

[maitya]

Please pardonnez moi as they say in France. But I thought STR is "sustained turn rate" - and figures of 20 deg/sec and above are normal.

Shivji, of course STR of 20deg/sec is "normal" etc - onlee small praablem of the "conditions" under which such "normal" performances are achieved are also "normally" and conveniently not mentioned in those shiny brochures.

The conditions being Speed, "suspended weight of ammo/drop tanks etc", the G-force required and the Altitude (pls refer to Shalavji's post above) at which these turn-rates are being achieved - the parameters that normally impacts Turn Rates are
1) Load Factor,
2) Lift Co-eff
3) Air Density
4) but are inversely proportional to Wing Loading
i.e. a High Turn Rate requires Low Wing Loading, high Lift Co-eff and high Load Factor (and higher air density or lower altitude, but this can be taken to be a constant while comparing two diff aircrafts flying at similar altitude etc.). And by cleverly playing around with these conditions you can influence some of these parameters, so in turn influence the Turn Rates for the brochure publishing.
e.g. don't carry any load, and only that amount of fuel that is required for the Turn Rate demo!! etc etc.

You may want to also refer to this post wrt lay-man pov of Turn Rates etc.

But then again, since everybody is into merrily posting brochure/internet based "data" on Turn Rates of various platforms, I thought I should join also

ITR (Instantaneous turn rate)
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 degree , M 0.7 , 8 Gs
- M2000-5 : 23 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs
- Rafale : 25 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs

AND

STR (Sustained turn rate)
- M2000-5 : 17 deg/s , M 0.7 , 6 Gs
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 deg/s , M 0.75 , 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s , M 0.7 , 7 Gs

Note: See how the Mach Number and the Gs required to achieve these turn rates are mentioned - "conditions" as mentioned above

Fail!! Fail!! Fail!! Fail!! Fail!! ... M2K, F-16, Rafale ($125mil+) all failures.

But pls don't feel bad - here's something to make you feel better - the desi LCA, struggling to reach 18deg/sec STR, is then a absymal failure that way, isn't it?

Not feeling better enough ... let me tell you a story then:
If you are in the ASR framing business, and you are desperate to show a program as a failure ... here's what you should do, go the 1st lot (of ITR bunch above) and pick the top-figure and then come to the 2nd lot (of the STR bunch above) and again pick the top-figure there. And voila, the platform you wanted to fail so desperately, is on a wild-goose chase with guranteed failure, isn't it!!
But you should be careful, and cover your tracks carefully, for the future - so pls don't mix up the single-engined vs double-engined ones (there's something like addn reserve power being more available in twin-engined type logic etc).


After all in the immortal words of Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Naval Tejas program, to our own kartikji in a AI

... When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”.
...
When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.
...
He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don’t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared

[maitya]

An interesting viewpoint from Vijainder Thakur at https://www.myind.net/rafale-and-ration ... ht-fighter:

India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement April 10, 2015 ...
<snip>
The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.
<snip>
LCA Mk-1's performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2's uncertain development timeframe. The IAF doesn't consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE's failure to develop the aircraft's Kaveri engine; It's well known that the Tejas doesn't meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.
<snip>
The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant.
<snip>

Lobbywallah's on the prowl, looks like ... they better watch-out on the minefields (wrt the highlighted piece above) like these:

Air Commodore (Retd) Harish Nayani is a former LCA test pilot who has flown the MiG-21 Bison aircraft extensively and commanded a Bison squadron.
This is what Nayani had to say.

"There is absolutely no doubt that the Mk 1, even if limited to 20 alpha would be many magnitudes better than the venerable Bison on all fronts. Notably, handling, safety, pilot comfort, and performance in the subsonic and trans-sonic regimes"

Just a friendly advise onleee

[Philip]

Look,isn't it the missile on the mule that matters? For those advocates of BVR ,first shot wins,detecting the enemy first,launching first gives you the advantage. If BVR is countered or fails,then the battle enters the WVR phase where SRAAMs come into play and the agility of the aircraft in aerial combat takes precedence. The JSF was envisaged as a winner primarily due to its stealth and dogfighting abilities were supposedly limited to F-16 stds. A comparison of the performance of the BVR and WVR missiles used by the aircraft in Q would be more relevant than turn rates unless the battle has entered the "gunfighter" stage!

Maitya,I posted a while ago a quote from the UK's head of procurement,who said that it never amazed him how weapon systems when they finally arrived failed to meet the fantastic specs promised and cost far more than budgeted/envisaged. To get into the air a reliable aircraft worthy of combat as close to performance as envisaged,easy to maintain ,to manufacture and support,at reasonable cost should've been the IAF/HAL's concept of the LCA and still should be today.

[Aditya_V]

Tejas infererior to JF-17, the last Mig 21 variant. He is sure smoking something.

[Singha]

well blowing smoke up the backsides of key govt players is what some vested interests have been doing for years.

its a profitable enterprise.

[Abhay_S]

Please pardonnez moi as they say in France. But I thought STR is "sustained turn rate" - and figures of 20 deg/sec and above are normal.

Shivji, of course STR of 20deg/sec is "normal" etc - onlee small praablem of the "conditions" under which such "normal" performances are achieved are also "normally" and conveniently not mentioned in those shiny brochures.

The conditions being Speed, "suspended weight of ammo/drop tanks etc", the G-force required and the Altitude (pls refer to Shalavji's post above) at which these turn-rates are being achieved - the parameters that normally impacts Turn Rates are
1) Load Factor,
2) Lift Co-eff
3) Air Density
4) but are inversely proportional to Wing Loading
i.e. a High Turn Rate requires Low Wing Loading, high Lift Co-eff and high Load Factor (and higher air density or lower altitude, but this can be taken to be a constant while comparing two diff aircrafts flying at similar altitude etc.). And by cleverly playing around with these conditions you can influence some of these parameters, so in turn influence the Turn Rates for the brochure publishing.
e.g. don't carry any load, and only that amount of fuel that is required for the Turn Rate demo!! etc etc.

You may want to also refer to this post wrt lay-man pov of Turn Rates etc.

But then again, since everybody is into merrily posting brochure/internet based "data" on Turn Rates of various platforms, I thought I should join also

ITR (Instantaneous turn rate)
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 degree , M 0.7 , 8 Gs
- M2000-5 : 23 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs
- Rafale : 25 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs

AND

STR (Sustained turn rate)
- M2000-5 : 17 deg/s , M 0.7 , 6 Gs
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 deg/s , M 0.75 , 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s , M 0.7 , 7 Gs

Note: See how the Mach Number and the Gs required to achieve these turn rates are mentioned - "conditions" as mentioned above

Fail!! Fail!! Fail!! Fail!! Fail!! ... M2K, F-16, Rafale ($125mil+) all failures.

But pls don't feel bad - here's something to make you feel better - the desi LCA, struggling to reach 18deg/sec STR, is then a absymal failure that way, isn't it?

Not feeling better enough ... let me tell you a story then:
If you are in the ASR framing business, and you are desperate to show a program as a failure ... here's what you should do, go the 1st lot (of ITR bunch above) and pick the top-figure and then come to the 2nd lot (of the STR bunch above) and again pick the top-figure there. And voila, the platform you wanted to fail so desperately, is on a wild-goose chase with guranteed failure, isn't it!!
But you should be careful, and cover your tracks carefully, for the future - so pls don't mix up the single-engined vs double-engined ones (there's something like addn reserve power being more available in twin-engined type logic etc).


After all in the immortal words of Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Naval Tejas program, to our own kartikji in a AI

... When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”.
...
When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.
...
He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don’t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared

I find this post also very helpfull in understanding STR/ITR issue

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1775430

[Rishirishi]

One should listen to the defence minister. He is probably right. In any case he is going to decide the direction. India does not have very many options.

Basically it is the swedish Gripen (but it is US sanctions prone). Eurofighter is definately out, as is probably the F-16. JSF could be the other option, but it is Pricy.

Would not surprise me if they go for a large number of Rafaels, MKI's and PAK-FA. The small number of LCA's could be used for scrambling type of activities.

[putnanja]

Looks like the LCA testing phase has slowed down considerable. Only four flight tests in last one month.

· 2918h flight on 23 Apr
TD1 : 233 PV1: 245 PV3: 387 LSP1: 74 LSP3-255 LSP5: 285
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 100 LSP2: 303 LSP4: 167 LSP7: 139
NP1 : 38 LSP8 : 145 PV6: 14 NP2: 06

· 2914h flight on 14 Mar

TD1 : 233 PV1: 245 PV3: 387 LSP1: 74 LSP3-255 LSP5: 285
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 100 LSP2: 301 LSP4: 167 LSP7: 139
NP1 : 38 LSP8 : 145 PV6: 13 NP2: 05

· 2908th flight on 24 Feb

TD1 : 233 PV1: 245 PV3: 387 LSP1: 74 LSP3-254 LSP5: 285
TD2 : 305 PV2: 222 PV5: 100 LSP2: 299 LSP4: 167 LSP7: 139
NP1 : 38 LSP8 : 145 PV6: 10 NP2: 05

[Vayutuvan]

Would not surprise me if they go for a large number of Rafaels, MKI's and PAK-FA. The small number of LCA's could be used for scrambling type of activities.

Rafale $108-124 mil vs. $85 mil for F-35. Of course, from Wikipedia. I have no idea when large orders are placed. Offsets matter so does ToT, in-country sourcing, maintenance contracts, and ...

[brar_w]

Rafale $108-124 mil vs. $85 mil for F-35.

The current estimate (Around 5 Billion for the IAF Rafale) is very close to what South Korea paid for its F-35's. Having said that, the current fly-away URC for the F-35A is 108 Million dollars. 85 Million $ is the target at full rate of production.

[Vayutuvan]

But but but ... price for large orders can be negotiated down, couldn't they?

[brar_w]

But but but ... price for large orders can be negotiated down, couldn't they?

NO. In that particular program every customer pays one price for each variant procured. Move this discussion over to the appropriate thread please.

[shiv]

Looks like the LCA testing phase has slowed down considerable. Only four flight tests in last one month.

These reports about how many flights a month are something that initially excited me, later bothered me and now irritate me. They serve no purpose. Enthusiasts on this forum nave mentioned every number from 1 to 2900 for every LCA made and all it has done is make us anxious and more curious about what will happen next - a question that has never been answered in over a decade.

Someone please show me that I am mistaken and point me to updates on flight counts made every week or month by the makers of J-20, F-35 of PAK-FA. Why are they doing this to us? It is enough if they periodically announce milestones - but this report of flight numbers is getting tiresome

[brar_w]

Someone please show me that I am mistaken and point me to updates on flight counts made every week or month by the makers of J-20, F-35 of PAK-FA.

While not every month, in the case of the F-35 they do give a formal update around 3-5 times a year. Other updates are easily searchable from defense appropriation, and program oversight hearings in the US Congress. However, the OEM and/or the JPO does give regular updates on the activity of the program since the previous such update. Informally, a rather up to date figure is provided at every major milestone. Individual testing centers such as the Office of Naval Research (concerned with the B and C version, as well as the UK Ski Ramp testing) give their own annual project overview (activities of that year) and also have a presentation (sometimes more than 1) around middle of the year. Other organizations be it at Eglin, or at the individual squadron level give their own updates and the program leaders give regular updates at the "breakfast" sessions spread over the year in addition to major events such as the Air Warfare Symposium or international air-shows (Avalon in Australia being the last such update a few months ago, The Paris Air show will be the next big update although the entire program leadership has testified for over 1 hour on the program just over a week ago).

This is typical for all non-classified programs in the US.

[Singha]

Tejas team should keep test plan in google docs xls and update daily to keep all viewers in loop

[shiv]

Someone please show me that I am mistaken and point me to updates on flight counts made every week or month by the makers of J-20, F-35 of PAK-FA.

While not every month, in the case of the F-35 they do give a formal update around 3-5 times a year. Other updates are easily searchable from defense appropriation, and program oversight hearings in the US Congress. However, the OEM and/or the JPO does give regular updates on the activity of the program since the previous such update. Informally, a rather up to date figure is provided at every major milestone. Individual testing centers such as the Office of Naval Research (concerned with the B and C version, as well as the UK Ski Ramp testing) give their own annual project overview (activities of that year) and also have a presentation (sometimes more than 1) around middle of the year. Other organizations be it at Eglin, or at the individual squadron level give their own updates and the program leaders give regular updates at the "breakfast" sessions spread over the year in addition to major events such as the Air Warfare Symposium or international air-shows (Avalon in Australia being the last such update a few months ago, The Paris Air show will be the next big update although the entire program leadership has testified for over 1 hour on the program just over a week ago).

This is typical for all non-classified programs in the US.

With respect brar_w you have typed an entire paragraph without actually answering the question. I have never seen monthly updates of flight numbers with no other information. I see regular news items about progress of new engine programs or aircraft programs but never anything that says "A total 254 flights this week as opposed to 249 last week". These are uninformative fake milestones. You have written about "regular updates". I am asking why we are being fed with completely pointless and uninformative updates. Or is it us on BRF who are hanging on to these useless updates as if they actually mean something?

[brar_w]

With respect brar_w you have typed an entire paragraph without actually answering the question. I have never seen monthly updates of flight numbers with no other information

Are these official monthly updates?

[Vayutuvan]

NO. In that particular program every customer pays one price for each variant procured. Move this discussion over to the appropriate thread please.

Suggest. in any case I have only a few sentences worth of thoughts.

[shiv]

Tejas team should keep test plan in google docs xls and update daily to keep all viewers in loop

Singha I do not think it makes sense for a technology program to give the public 'daily updates". If they are honest then we may start seeing things like "Test postponed as director of XYZ who was to be preesnt for the test was called to Delhi for an urgent meeting"

You know how much takleef there was on BRF because the weather over Bangalore did not allow test fllying for a week or two some years ago. I think that the people who report test flight numbers and we on BRF have got involved in a Tango. They announce we watch. If they don't announce we fret. If we don;t like the numbers, we fret. But the information is totally useless. In 10 years we have clung on to to those numbers as if we will one day see a "magic number' that will say "LCA ready". But that is not happening. Readiness of the LCA and those numbers have no direct connection.

[Aditya_V]

Doc Ji, I think Singha was being sarccastic

[shiv]

Doc Ji, I think Singha was being sarccastic

I am tempted to start a Google docs sheet with "updates" - like

June 12: Bandh in Bangalore. technician not come. test flight postponed
June 27: Airspeed indicator malfunction. Flight postponed. Unit removed for repair
June 29: Air speed indicator manufacturer in US - to be contacted for repair
Aug 1: OEM of Air Speed indicator not contactable
Aug 7: OEM of Air Speed indicator has been sold and is no longer in business. Alternate supplier sought
Aug 15: Jai Hind
Aug 16: Review meeting: replace air speed indicator by using part from TD 2
Aug 18: TD2 in Chandigarh. Expected to be back on Sept 17th
etc

[Gyan]

And

Tender issued for purchasing paper for issuing tender for constructing Hanger
Tender issued for Hangar
Tender issued for cleaning hanger
Tender issued for A/c in tender


After 10 years, hanger found too small

[shiv]

And

Tender issued for purchasing paper for issuing tender for constructing Hanger
Tender issued for Hangar
Tender issued for cleaning hanger
Tender issued for A/c in tender


After 10 years, hanger found too small

Look at tender number 4 below
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/liveTenders.jsp

1200 Reynolds ball pen refills
400 Natraj sharpeners

I am surprised that the brand name is mentioned in the tender

[Gyan]

Pls read carefully the CAG report for Su-30MKI and you will see that almost USD 2 Billion wasted for accelerating production of aircraft but schedule was never actually advanced. We still have no idea of massive corruption in the system. Most of delay is for idiotic reasons like delay in civil works or translation. Either HAL management are brain dead morons or corrupt, take yr pick.

[member_23694]

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 779_1.html

The four aircraft may adhere to international standards on end-to-end accuracy," Chetty said, adding, further research was on to meet the parameters stipulated by the IAF.
IAF had some concerns with Tejas's end-to-end accuracy and efforts have been made to rectify it,
"The Indian Air Force wanted eight aircraft every year. We will be handing them four more aircraft by the end of this financial year," he said

The aircraft handed over in January could take off with only restricted weaponry and sensors and tests with a full range of weaponry was yet to be done, he added.

He also referred to some manufacturing issues concerning Tejas.

[Gyan]

So schedule advanced to 31st March 2016 already. Are they going to manufacture 40 aircraft within this century?

[member_28108]

http://rac.gov.in/content.php?lang=en&id=8

DRDO recruitment page

[Vivek K]

So schedule advanced to 31st March 2016 already. Are they going to manufacture 40 aircraft within this century?

What a biased statement. Everyone would like to see more aircraft manufactured every year, but with an order of 20- 40 aircraft what do you expect?

[shiv]

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 779_1.html

The four aircraft may adhere to international standards on end-to-end accuracy," Chetty said, adding, further research was on to meet the parameters stipulated by the IAF.
IAF had some concerns with Tejas's end-to-end accuracy and efforts have been made to rectify it,
"The Indian Air Force wanted eight aircraft every year. We will be handing them four more aircraft by the end of this financial year," he said

The aircraft handed over in January could take off with only restricted weaponry and sensors and tests with a full range of weaponry was yet to be done, he added.

He also referred to some manufacturing issues concerning Tejas.

This is the director of NAL speaking. I still haven't understood how the design agency (NAL), the manufacturing agency (HAL) and the end user (IAF) can coordinate with each other. Of course I have read the oft repeated criticism that it was a bad idea in the first place to have design agency divorced from the manufacturing agency

The NAL man is talking about manufacturing issues and IAF complaints. In all these decades of hearing about LCA and even more decades following aircraft as a layperson jingo - this is the first time I am hearing the expression "international standards in end to end accuracy". WTF is that? Why is the NAL man coming up with that?

[NRao]

It has to do with accuracy and precision. There are international "standards" in various areas. Air crafts are no exceptions (understatement of the century).

BUT, the questions is, why in 2015? Standards have always existed and such things were emphasized very early in the LCA project. One would have thought they would have established all these by now.

#disappointments?

[putnanja]

accuracy and precision of what? and what exactly is end-to-end accuracy and precision?

[Bade]

Maybe something like a 5-sigma standard on each input product from each vendor and similar constraints on the final QA of the end product. End-to-end usually means that in a general sense in other fields, where stringent QA is a requirement at each stage, not just on the final product.