LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[tsarkar]

If they had wanted, they could have inducted the LCA some 3 years ago

That is not factually correct. The final Standard of Preparation was shared by ADA to HAL in the last few months. Which is one of the reasons for HAL not able to manufacture more Tejas.

[JayS]

Karan, Indranil & Nilesh,

Nowhere did I imply that just bulging the canopy was a magic wand. That would be a very myopic interpretation of my post.

My PoV in that post was that whatever were the initial design considerations, as the situation changed (weight gain due to excess margins in structures), then it was clear that the initial design considerations no longer hold good. Could they have been revisited earlier? Was aerodynamics optimized or kept at a "good enough" level in the belief that the available engine thrust was sufficient.

Read the Marut Reheat example quoted by me, especially the bolded part, where the designers gave aerodynamics a pass in the belief that extra thrust of the reheat engines would compensate for it. Unfortunately, it didn’t. And sadly for Marut project, the aerodynamics was not revisited.

Agree with Indranil's PoV that all aircraft have different design consideration. Any or all the points cited by Nilesh could’ve been the case.

Even as NP-1 flew, IN & HAL immediately went into re-visiting the design of the landing gear.

Lastly, if an observation is made, it necessarily does not infer criticism.

Almost every discussion here degenerates into a pointless debate of A vs B or X vs Y or for/against or IAF good/bad or ADA good/bad or HAL good/bad.

Apologies if you feel insinuated. But the tone your post gave was that of oversimplification - "Its such a simple thing, why the hell entire ADA/NAL/HAL couldn't think of it earlier??" You can say we were playing Davil's advocate. Anyways...

A lot of issues are not apparent until you are well into flight testing. A good example is of F-18 tail fatigue failure issue which came into picture only after it was in service already (Once the Americans learned why, they made sure every future twin-tail fighter is checked for that issue in preliminary design stage itself). We don't know when exactly ADA realized that they need to work on drag reduction urgently. They might not have realized it until they flight tested the jets in FSED-I. Then we don't know when they first undertook area-rule study. We don't know why they decided to implement it now only (We are in fact still not sure which version this will come up in). From personal experience I can tell you that sometimes you know there is an issue in design and you know solution but for some reason you simply can't apply it. And Tejas is light years ahead in terms of complexities than the stuff I work with.

Don't know much about Marut to comment on it factually, but how would the design engineer know a priori that a certain judgment call he takes based on available data will backfire in future?? Hindsight is 20:20 not the foresight, which comes with experience/experimentation, both of which have been lacking in our organizations for n number of reasons. You want to work on n number of parameters in design but you need to prioritize based on available time and resources. You decide on best available data. If it backfires, go back to drawing board and improve. Thats how it works. Sadly we quite Marut development. Regarding NLCA LG - they designed for higher sink rate than necessary. Now why they chose higher sink rate, again we don't know.

In the absence of any solid information such questions/discussions are rhetoric at best. We can speculate only, we are not gonna get any authoritative account of things. At least I would keep thinking there would have been a proper thought process regarding what they did unless proven otherwise. I am pretty sure there will be issues unearthed when IAF will push LCA to its limits. Then again such questions will come, why ADA didn't think of it before.??

We have absolutely no account of what conspired during formative years of LCA. No record in public discussing why they chose what they chose. One book by P Rajkumar is there but he does not talk about anything before his time. A book or two by someone like Kota Harinarayana would have been a delight.

[Singha]

other than Marut, whose users have long retired, IAF does not have a institutional memory of working with a domestic fighter and bringing it up to par jointly with OEM in tranches. the Marut also did not see its mk2.

whenever we license build or outright buy something, it comes in FOC form with all weapons integration, radar, IFR, engine , production all sorted out and manuals ready. canberra, hunter, mystere, ouragon, sea hawk, alize, HS748, jag, mig27, mig21, mig23, mig29, m2k, su30, hawk, pilatus, sea king, ka28, sea harrier, ka31aew, alouetteIII, Llama, Mi17, Mi35, Mi26, An12, An32, IL76, C17, C130, chinook, apache, P8 ...no other a/c we have or had in service or license built here was immature when we purchased it.

this pattern might be why IAF expects the same from tejas. they simply have no more memory or prior experience of working with a domestic OEM. when OEM says "ready" to them it means ready to fight after the pilots are trained up.

Dhruv had a fairly long gestation period from 1st flight in 1994 and only after 2010 was accepted as a munna and huge orders given, LCH approved etc. the soothing turbomeca ardigen stamp got it going, plus no other product able to perform at those heights.

PS: "issues" seen with supposedly combat-ready kit the 802 adour engine on jaguar, the mig29, mig21 et al are deftly swept under the carpet.

[shiv]

production all sorted out and manuals ready.

Manuals, cockpit instrumentation in Russian

[srai]

^^^
Russian must have been a second-language of the IAF

[Karan M]

Karan, Indranil & Nilesh,

Nowhere did I imply that just bulging the canopy was a magic wand. That would be a very myopic interpretation of my post.

If you make misleading posts, then please don't blame others if they are interpreted in that manner. Take the below for instance:

My PoV in that post was that whatever were the initial design considerations, as the situation changed (weight gain due to excess margins in structures), then it was clear that the initial design considerations no longer hold good. Could they have been revisited earlier? Was aerodynamics optimized or kept at a "good enough" level in the belief that the available engine thrust was sufficient.

Read the Marut Reheat example quoted by me, especially the bolded part, where the designers gave aerodynamics a pass in the belief that extra thrust of the reheat engines would compensate for it. Unfortunately, it didn’t. And sadly for Marut project, the aerodynamics was not revisited.

This is probably the most interesting commentary yet. So Kurt Tank , Raj Mahindra and co gave aerodynamics a pass thinking that extra thrust would compensate and didn't know about XYZ or bulging canopies or whatever. With commentary like this, what is one to say?

Heres the Marut, bulging canopy and all



In short, there is zero data or actual information to infer that the Marut's aerodynamics were an issue. As matter of fact, it is the lack of thrust which is stated by most knowledgeable folks to have killed the program, along with HALs issues with production engineering & spares sourcing.

This is widely known and accepted by anyone associated with the program or any serious source quoting the program and its troubles.

Here's an academic link:
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_I- ... ed&f=false
Note the amount of effort India went to source alternative engines including getting RD-9s from the Soviet Union which performed below expectations.

Heres one which pulls together relevant data from multiple sources including BRs article on the Marut.

Marut's wing was highly swept and thin and large - all three characteristics for an interceptor. The sweep and thickness together determine the planes ability to fly across the speed of sound - greater the sweep and thinner the wing the lower is the thrust to weight ratio needed to get the aircraft supersonic. However, on the flip side, the greater the sweep and thinner the wing the higher becomes the landing speed and the less stable and maneuverable is the aircraft at low speeds below 250 knots (450 kmph). The Marut wing is a well balanced compromise of adequate sweep to get supersonic (provided the engines develop the thrust) and the thickness was enough to maintain moderate landing speeds and low speed stability. The wing bestowed on the HF-24 an acceleration and low altitude speed that the Pakistani Sabres and Indian Hawker Hunters could not match. In fact the Marut was one of the few, if not the only, frontline aircraft that could cross Mach 1.0 without afterburners - albeit just about at high altitudes.

There is wide consensus about excellent handling characteristics of the aircraft. Most pilots who have flown the aircraft describe it as pleasant to fly and excellent for aerobatics with fine control responses. And its ability to out-accelerate the Sabre jet, especially at low levels, was a useful asset in 1971. The Marut offered a stable weapon delivery platform and packed a formidable punch. While the Marut's pilots expressed an understandable desire for more thrust than the Orpheus 703 offered, they were unanimous in their view that the aircraft proved itself a thoroughly competent vehicle for the low-level ground attack profile. One defect which, I believe, remained was malfunction of roll control aerodynamic surfaces and the canopy flying off when all four 30mm cannons were fired simultaneously and the impact the recoil had on the electrics of the aircraft. HAL, I believe, claimed to have cured the problem but the IAF decided to be safe and blanked off the two upper cannons and operating only with the lower two in squadron service. The Marut was a robust aircraft with extremely good visibility for the pilot, and was aerodynamically one of the cleanest fighters of its time.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercia ... ghter.html

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ung.22755/

Today, 50 years later, the IAF has no indigenously built aircraft of any worth. The enthusiam that was associated particularly with Marut died a natural death because of a combination of two factors: import pressures in general and under-powered engines for the aircraft.

Retired IAF officers told Deccan Herald that neither Air Headquarters nor the Ministry of Defence pursued the indegenisation programme beginning with Marut manufactured by the then Hindustan Aircraft Ltd, later christened as Hindustan Aeronatics Ltd (HAL), with gusto. According to Wg Cdr (retd) Praful Bakshi, Maruts Achilles heel was its engine.

This did not help because the frame was designed for Mach 2-3 speed and the engines were grossly under-powered, another retired IAF officer said, adding that with no significant help from western countries in developing the Marut’s engine, the plan to manufacture more of the HF-24 was dropped.

According to Wg Cdr Bakshi, the Marut was the only aircraft which flew supersonic without an afterburner, an aspect which our planners never gave importance to.

After the GNAT started flying, Kurt Tank (a German who had earlier designed the Focke-Wolf) designed the HF-24 which was a remarkable aircraft but fell short because of the lack of a proper engine.

This did not help because the frame was designed for Mach 2-3 speed and the engines were grossly under-powered, another retired IAF officer said, adding that with no significant help from western countries in developing the Maruts engine, the plan to manufacture more of the HF-24 was dropped.

According to Wg Cdr Bakshi, the Marut was the only aircraft which flew supersonic without an afterburner, an aspect which our planners never gave importance to.

Besides, the defence establishment never thought that this was a great tactical advantage. Senior personnel did not want to fly this aircraft because the worksmanship of HAL was not up to the mark, he notes.

The IAF was happy because nobody wanted an indigenous programme even though the Marut could do 640 knots, fly low level with four tanks (comparable to the American F-22).

Most retired IAF officers Deccan Herald spoke to faulted the Maruts engine whose under-performance was the main reason why production of the aircraft was grounded.[/b]

Agree with Indranil's PoV that all aircraft have different design consideration. Any or all the points cited by Nilesh could’ve been the case.

Even as NP-1 flew, IN & HAL immediately went into re-visiting the design of the landing gear.

Lastly, if an observation is made, it necessarily does not infer criticism.

Almost every discussion here degenerates into a pointless debate of A vs B or X vs Y or for/against or IAF good/bad or ADA good/bad or HAL good/bad.

Kindly don't blame the audience if some commentary is sought to be put under the file of "the other guy doesn't know what they are doing" when facts contradict that claim.

Now its Marut and aerodynamics.

[shiv]

^^^
Russian must have been a second-language of the IAF

Learning Russian was mandatory for initial batches of trainees who went to Russia. They would teach what was necessary. The rest was developed back at home. I just wonder if there are now Indian manuals in English for the Bison. In fact I don't even know if Russia had comprehensive manuals like the US of A.

[JayS]

other than Marut, whose users have long retired, IAF does not have a institutional memory of working with a domestic fighter and bringing it up to par jointly with OEM in tranches. the Marut also did not see its mk2.

whenever we license build or outright buy something, it comes in FOC form with all weapons integration, radar, IFR, engine , production all sorted out and manuals ready. canberra, hunter, mystere, ouragon, sea hawk, alize, HS748, jag, mig27, mig21, mig23, mig29, m2k, su30, hawk, pilatus, sea king, ka28, sea harrier, ka31aew, alouetteIII, Llama, Mi17, Mi35, Mi26, An12, An32, IL76, C17, C130, chinook, apache, P8 ...no other a/c we have or had in service or license built here was immature when we purchased it.

this pattern might be why IAF expects the same from tejas. they simply have no more memory or prior experience of working with a domestic OEM. when OEM says "ready" to them it means ready to fight after the pilots are trained up.

Dhruv had a fairly long gestation period from 1st flight in 1994 and only after 2010 was accepted as a munna and huge orders given, LCH approved etc. the soothing turbomeca ardigen stamp got it going, plus no other product able to perform at those heights.

PS: "issues" seen with supposedly combat-ready kit the 802 adour engine on jaguar, the mig29, mig21 et al are deftly swept under the carpet.

Well, this lack of institutional support to product development, as you put it, is detrimental. The kind of user input IAF could be by actually using an aircraft would be most valuable. Even test pilots cannot unearth all the issues regarding the aircraft simply because the tests are planned/well thought of. They cannot not bring into picture the intensity, the uncertainty and the creativity that a final user brings in while using the product. We are missing this crucial element of product development phase. And its setting back the overall product development cycle. We need to institutionalize this process in our organizations.

I am thinking of the way an F-1 driver is involved in the process of R&D and fine-tuning of the car. Before each race they would have lot of test runs where the driver - the final user - will actually drive the car and help the R&D team in fine tuning the systems if the car for upcoming race. This feedback in invaluable in the overall process.

Bajaj launched new Pulsar about 3 years ago. It was a whole lot different than their existing line-up new engine and all. I know they had done extensive test drive, even gave few bikes to bunch of pro bikers who rode the bike to every corner of India before launch. Even then the product had lot of nagging issues. Over an year they took a lot of feedback from the users through many many user camps where Bajaj design engineers would interact to the end users, examine their issues etc. I see they implemented a lot of improvements/suggestions from that feedback. The new version after about 3 yr was even more refined. I can imagine from this how much more efforts an aircraft project would be needing.

[Gyan]

After my first euphoric view, I noticed that in the interview, in the initial response Air Chief said 6 squadrons of MK-2 but corrected himself or just made it vague in answer to the follow up question. What if there was no follow up question? Or should we take the refusal to clearly say MK-1 a suspicious omission?

[Singha]

the Marut if developed properly with the avionics and new engine would be a far better product than some of the JH7/J8 type planes china started work on in that time frame . they pressed on due to no other options and deployed them in some good number.

[tsarkar]

If you make misleading posts, then please don't blame others if they are interpreted in that manner. Take the below for instance:

Read the Marut Reheat example quoted by me, especially the bolded part, where the designers gave aerodynamics a pass in the belief that extra thrust of the reheat engines would compensate for it. Unfortunately, it didn’t. And sadly for Marut project, the aerodynamics was not revisited.

This is probably the most interesting commentary yet. So Kurt Tank , Raj Mahindra and co gave aerodynamics a pass thinking that extra thrust would compensate and didn't know about XYZ or bulging canopies or whatever. With commentary like this, what is one to say?

Karan, your post yet again highlights your ignorance in the heat of your zealousness. My post is completely factual and I’ve quoted a qualified test pilot.

In your zeal, you failed to read or comprehend that I was referring to the Marut Mk.1R project, the R referring to Reheat, which was Marut fitted with afterburning turbojets.

After you failed to read or understand clearly that I’m referring to the Mk1R project, you verbosely go completely tangential and off track with a long post on the overall Marut project.

Let me illuminate you on the Marut Mk1R project, that was after Kurt Tank left the project in 1967. HAL fitted the Marut with Orpheus afterburning engines. While fitting those engines, the carefully area ruled design of the original Marut was disturbed. Ideally the HAL designers should’ve redesigned the entire airframe around the new engines, but they didn’t. And thus, despite reheat engines, the aircraft did not live up to its full potential and the Marut Mk1R was scrapped.

To quote Group Captain Kapil Bhargava again for your education, and hoping you read & comprehend properly this time
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... dents.html

Its performance was less than it would have been if the rear fuselage had not simply been enlarged by HAL to house the larger engines and their nozzles. The nice area rule of the original design had been vitiated badly.

Let readers assess what is factual - your meaningless off track tangential verbose ranting or factual assessment of a test pilot.

You didn't even properly understand that I was referring to the Marut Mk1R project before making that verbose post of yours.

You didn't know or even bothered to check that Kurt Tank left the Marut project in 1967 and was not associated with Marut Mk1R project before verbosely typing.

You do have a lot of time in your hand to write verbose posts, but no matter how many pages you fill up with verbosely rants, facts will remain facts - that Marut Mk1R just force fitted the larger engines that compromised aerodynamics, probably because the designers did not have the time for a long redesign.

This is probably the most interesting commentary yet. So Kurt Tank , Raj Mahindra and co gave aerodynamics a pass thinking that extra thrust would compensate and didn't know about XYZ or bulging canopies or whatever. With commentary like this, what is one to say?

To answer you, yes, that was precisely the case. For the Marut Mk1R, the designers actually compromised on aerodynamics. Whether they knew about bulging canopies is irrelevant.

Your saying I’m wrong wont make me wrong when I post facts that state the truth.

You remind me of the chorus boys characters of the book Lord of the Flies, who incessantly bully others into conforming to their point of view.

Unfortunately, facts speak for themselves. You can verbosely delude yourself & others, but facts on the ground wont change, and you'll stay delusional.

Excessive zeal to the point of distorting facts actually hurts the cause.

There is a saying for such over-zealous people, "My country, right or wrong. My mother, drunk or sober".

[tsarkar]

Nilesh,

I completely agree with you that aircraft design is evolutionary, and often design needs to be refined after flight testing. In many cases, design needs to be refined after service entry.

And no, I was not patronizing by saying they overlooked simple things. Rather, I just stated that as structural weight grew, then whether it was possible at that point of time to optimize aerodynamics and drag.

I quoted the Marut Reheat example to explain how design choices can go wrong.

Also, I wanted to correct the misconceptions of many members who incorrectly think that -

1. Tejas design was perfect from inception and IAF should've inducted 100's in TD/PV standard in 2001/2005. No, the design was still evolving then.

2. Tejas aerodynamics was perfect from inception and IAF should've inducted 100's in TD/PV standard in 2001/2005. No, aerodynamics is still being refined. The final Standard of Preparation for IOC standard was completed only a few months ago.

3. Designers are perfect. No, Kapil Bhargava points out areas where Kurt Tank could've done better. Because of design flaw, one pilot ended up doing 10.2 g and miraculously survived.

https://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/11 ... gava-retd/

The major complaint I had against Tank’s design philosophy was to provide only one hydraulic system for powered controls. His idea was that up to Mach.0.95 it would be possible to fly in manual. To my question about what would happen if hydraulics failed at supersonic speed, he responded by saying that he had catered for it. He said that the pilot should use airbrakes to slow down and then once it was subsonic comfortably fly in manual. I pointed out that when an aircraft goes supersonic, its centre of pressure of lift moves back. This movement invariably causes a pitch down. Secondly, using airbrakes could also give a pitch change. Would the pilot be able to manage these after losing his powered controls. He remarked quite scathingly that I had been flying old technology aircraft.

Tank claimed that his design had wings with a low thickness/chord ratio (6%?). Thus going supersonic or reverting to subsonic would produce little or no pitch changes. I did not tell him that I had already flown aircraft with that ratio and they all behaved as I was apprehending. About the airbrakes, he said that he had placed them at right angle to the fuselage below, either at or very close to the centre of gravity. They would not cause any pitch change at all. The truth came home to roost later. One day (then) Winco Suranjan Das (Dasu from now onwards) flying at high speed at low altitude had failure of hydraulic up-lock of airbrakes and they dropped out due to gravity. The result was dramatic. The aircraft pitched up sharply. Dasu blacked out until he recovered his sight up side down, much higher at a low speed. The aircraft had recorded +10.2G. My other concern did not occur as we never had the engines to power the aircraft to sustain any supersonic level flight. Dives are easy to manage.

An example of the evolution is the cooling air intake at the root of horizontal tailfin in Tejas that has undergone multiple design iterations.

Even the first order for Su-30 was 40 aircraft. Only after the MKI design was refined to a certain degree of maturity that the 140+18+40+42 additional aircraft were progressively ordered.

[chaanakya]

AFAIK IOC-1 was on 10 Jan 2011 and IOC-2 was on 20-December-2013, not a few months ago as you have stated.

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=102056

Multi Mode Weapon multirole capability of Tejas was demonstrated during its participation in Iron Fist. Air to Ground mission and Air to Air missions were demonstrated by dropping Laser Guided Bombs and R73E firing in single pass. Laser Guided Bomb firing has been achieved for IOC-2 to user’s satisfaction.

Aircraft readiness for missions in terms of its readiness and Operational Readiness Platform (ORP) and Turn Round Service (TRS) and easier maintainability has been achieved as per requirement thus enhancing operational readiness of the aircraft. Tejas has passed all the tests for “All Weather Clearance” of the aircraft. The Aircraft has been cleared for fly without any telemetry support.

IOC-2 shall enable Air Force to carry out air superiority and offensive air support missions, forward air field operations, all weather multi role operations, Electronic counter measures and night flying operations

Only four issues that were identified to be sorted out ( besides 57 deficiencies of which 45 rectified) Radar, IFR, Missiles (BVR, Derby, Python) and EW Suite as indicated in IAF Chief's press conf. Had IAF committed itself to more of Tejas, production lines could have been set up and delivery be faster. And you agree that development is always progressive. but it isn't like ordering something from Russia or France or EU or USA , all of them have advanced MIC. These orders would enable India to develop its own MIC in aviation.

[chaanakya]

https://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/11 ... gava-retd/

The major complaint I had against Tank’s design philosophy was to provide only one hydraulic system for powered controls. His idea was that up to Mach.0.95 it would be possible to fly in manual. To my question about what would happen if hydraulics failed at supersonic speed, he responded by saying that he had catered for it. He said that the pilot should use airbrakes to slow down and then once it was subsonic comfortably fly in manual. I pointed out that when an aircraft goes supersonic, its centre of pressure of lift moves back. This movement invariably causes a pitch down. Secondly, using airbrakes could also give a pitch change. Would the pilot be able to manage these after losing his powered controls. He remarked quite scathingly that I had been flying old technology aircraft.

Tank claimed that his design had wings with a low thickness/chord ratio (6%?). Thus going supersonic or reverting to subsonic would produce little or no pitch changes. I did not tell him that I had already flown aircraft with that ratio and they all behaved as I was apprehending. About the airbrakes, he said that he had placed them at right angle to the fuselage below, either at or very close to the centre of gravity. They would not cause any pitch change at all. The truth came home to roost later. One day (then) Winco Suranjan Das (Dasu from now onwards) flying at high speed at low altitude had failure of hydraulic up-lock of airbrakes and they dropped out due to gravity. The result was dramatic. The aircraft pitched up sharply. Dasu blacked out until he recovered his sight up side down, much higher at a low speed. The aircraft had recorded +10.2G. My other concern did not occur as we never had the engines to power the aircraft to sustain any supersonic level flight. Dives are easy to manage.

Wow, Marut had 10.2G and survived. Kudos to both Pilot and the craft.Perhaps we should have continued and tried to improve the design.

[JayS]

Wow, Marut had 10.2G and survived. Kudos to both Pilot and the craft.Perhaps we should have continued and tried to improve the design.

What was the HF-24's certified G limit?? 7G?? I couldn't find the number with quick googling. F-16 was first 9G fighter jet AFAIK and before that 7G was standard. So its safe to assume Marut was 7G or below. A 9G jet is designed for 12G ultimate load. The jet would sustain up to 12G once, but it will have irreparable damage (theoretically) then you have to write off the airframe or at least do thorough inspection for cracks and all before you can be sure that its flight worthy. I don't know what would be ultimate load for a 7G aircraft. 10G sounds about right and considering ancient analysis tools they had in those days its most probably over-designed by today's standard. So I think 10.2G is very much in the design envelop of HF-24. I don't know if that particular airframe was written off or flown again. If it was deemed airworthy then that's impressive but not unexpected I would say.

Kudos to Pilot for sure.

[ramana]

I like tks deadpan slaps!

"My other concern...."

[tsarkar]

AFAIK IOC-1 was on 10 Jan 2011 and IOC-2 was on 20-December-2013, not a few months ago as you have stated.

When a test aircraft successfully completes IOC tests, them production aircraft don't come out magically from an assembly line.

When a test aircraft successfully completes IOC tests, then Equipment Standard of Preparation (ESOP) and Drawing Applicability Lists (DAL) are prepared. This SOP document states standard specification of the aircraft to be manufactured. DAL is system wise blueprints. SOP & DAL is drafted by the design agency and sent to manufacturing agency.

That doesn't happen overnight. It takes time.

Based on the SOP, the manufacturing commences.

There are media reports that the complete & final SOP & DAL blueprints for production were shared by ADA to HAL in the last few months. The news reports should be there in this very thread.

Posted on 5th September 2015 on this thread

Some tweets from @SJha1618 twitter TL from today afternoon

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 23m23 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
The LCA Mk-1 blueprints are frozen.

Had IAF committed itself to more of Tejas, production lines could have been set up and delivery be faster.

There is a recurrent misconception going around in this forum that more IAF orders would speed up development and thereafter production.

Whether Pandu orders 5 babies from Kunti or Dhitarashtra orders 100 babies from Gandhari, the gestation period would still be 9 months. Dhitarashtra's higher number of orders does not speed up gestation from 9 months to 6 months.

Similarly, whether IAF orders 40 Tejas or 120 Tejas, without blueprints being frozen, how could production be accelerated?

[JayS]

And no, I was not patronizing by saying they overlooked simple things. Rather, I just stated that as structural weight grew, then whether it was possible at that point of time to optimize aerodynamics and drag.

Your point is noted. Yes it is possible to review design. But typically it happens only if your design targets are critically off the mark. Then also you would evaluate the proposed changes with expected gain vs available resources.

But I precisely wanted to point out that we do not know at what stage the drag reduction using area ruling became urgent. Can we prove this wrong with authentic info that - 'ADA actually considered optimization of aero-config at the starting of FSED-1 and weighed the pros and cons of the modification and decided against it based on the situation at hand at that point of time'?? For all we know, this issue only could have popped up much late into flight testing, so late that modification was not possible or even ADA had no time at all to give it attention with available resources and priorities.

ADA had opened up the full envelop only after IOC. Till then they might have thought that at full envelop LCA could still achieve required performance parameters with given configuration. So they never looked for any solution for the problem which had not "articulated" itself completely till that time. I can give you many such possible scenarios to drive my point home - we cannot presume that this particular issue was known and still ADA ignored it.

I guess we will not achieve anything from this discussion - let it rest for now.

I quoted the Marut Reheat example to explain how design choices can go wrong.

Also, I wanted to correct the misconceptions of many members who incorrectly think that -

1. Tejas design was perfect from inception and IAF should've inducted 100's in TD/PV standard in 2001/2005. No, the design was still evolving then.

2. Tejas aerodynamics was perfect from inception and IAF should've inducted 100's in TD/PV standard in 2001/2005. No, aerodynamics is still being refined. The final Standard of Preparation for IOC standard was completed only a few months ago.

3. Designers are perfect. No, Kapil Bhargava points out areas where Kurt Tank could've done better. Because of design flaw, one pilot ended up doing 10.2 g and miraculously survived.

https://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/11 ... gava-retd/
.
.
.
Even the first order for Su-30 was 40 aircraft. Only after the MKI design was refined to a certain degree of maturity that the 140+18+40+42 additional aircraft were progressively ordered.

I disagree with you here. Noted that LCA was far from perfect in 2001-05. But this was partly due to the TD phase. They were given money and mandate only for TD. We can't really expect them to come up with full fledged fighter jet with that, now can we?? Had they been given task to build PV/LSP right from the starting, things could have panned out differently. Now I know there is a valid argument about lack of confidence for IAF towards ADA/HAL establishments. But then by keeping their hands off they indirectly added to the overall delay. If the scientists were being stupid and unreasonable, IAF could have acted like a responsible big brother and still given them support. By not doing this they lost the moral high ground.

Second point - no aircraft is perfect - neither Su-30MKI nor Rafale nor F22, they are just a decent compromise. There is always scope for improvement. LCA aerodynamics was actually quite mature at TD level by any standard. How much changes we have seen in it since then?? Very minimal - that intake at tailfin root is not a significant point from full aircraft configuration POV. Even if you count that there is hardly any other noticeable change in aero config. I do not see why IAF should not have inducted at least half a squadron with basic A2A or A2G config whichever was quickest with 2001 config. Its our first truly indigenous 'aircraft design' effort (not counting HF24 which was headed by experienced Kurt Tank) and so getting a decent aircraft up in the air at the earliest was the most important thing. A Decent one not the best one. It would have gone a long way in terms of confidence building in IAF cadre and giving feedback from final user POV would have accelerated a lot of things. I have explained what I think about user feedback in another post above.

Third - No designers are not GODs. I don't think anyone is claiming here as such. They make mistakes. But you cannot blame them for each and every mistake. Some are engineering judgement calls, some are compromised under given constraints. They are bound to fail somewhere or other. So yes designers are not perfect, but neither they are abject failures. And so is true for IAF personnel. They are neither perfect not abject failure. As much I trust that IAF is one of the most professional force in the world, I also trust that our designers are also quite capable. This precise fact makes my point imperetive that they should be working hand in hand right from starting for any successful project. Your quote (BTW I have read it previously) shows how a user can correct a designer. But what if that user feedback is absent?? How would designer know about it?? Similarly designer can make user understand that not everything that a user might like to have, is doable in reasonable resources. There are limitations.

Forth - your point about Su30MKI kind of corroborates what many here on BRF think. IAF showed enough patiences for Su30 to be mature. They bought half baked Su-30, toiled hard over it, and over time came up with stunning MKI. They didn't show similar attitude towards LCA. If they had, they would have bought few LCAs at 2001 config (with basic capabilities which could have been inducted in 5-6 years from then) and then worked hard on it along with ADA to make it a world class fighter over time. Lets not conveniently forget that Su-30 had history of about 30 years at that point while LCA was a suckling babe and thus needed much more pampering. We tend to love our baby even if its ugly as compared to neighbour's cutest baby, don't we? Same logic should have been applied for LCA.

I am thinking about objections IAF could have. Some of them are valid but finally when they are weighed against long term gains, they don't seem so insurmountable. IAF has always had lesser squadron numbers than sanctioned strength. They could have definitely had 0.5 or 1 LCA squadron side by side the mainstream force. Having something is better than having nothing. Some money would have gone towards that but it would have saved a lot in future. I don't know how that would affect pilot's careers' but things could have been worked out.

If you think I an against IAF and pro-R&D establishment - then may be I am - but to me R&D establishment needed certain critical barrier to be crossed to become competent and world class. They had many challenges on technology front which cannot be bypassed. IAF was already a competent and world class organisation. They had no such barriers apart from lack of trust. I honestly think IAF was in a much better position to be the big brother. MoD's role as incompetent/drunkard father who couldn't/wouldn't hold his family together didn't help either.

[srai]

+1 nileshjr

[Gyan]

+1 Nilesh

[SaiK]

-1 tsarkar.

kunti did try out a TD baby earlier... and all the rest 5 MK1a were majick too!
gandhari babies were chinese clones! and it was not 9 months. she was pregnant for 2 years! majick! sage vyas did a mono-clonal proxies and genetic mutations to flesh out 100 chinese copies.



----

production was actually decelerated due HAL scheduling issues and investments. Having given the impetus for 80 odd, they have to do the job!

pandyan, no: SJha has gone hyper onlee on f-solahs.

[Singha]

>> IAF showed enough patiences for Su30 to be mature. They bought half baked Su-30, toiled hard over it

it was full baked Su27 + additional ground attack modes on delivery day itself. it had fully functional radar, IFR, EW , weapons integration. and china flies 100s of planes purchased at that std. we too used it for 10+ years.

so as mentioned, other than perhaps Marut whose integration team retired long ago, there is no memory in IAF of working with a raw tranche1 type of plane esp as 4.5 gen fighters tend to take a good long time to reach full maturity compared to earlier simpler fighters.

[tsarkar]

Noted that LCA was far from perfect in 2001-05. But this was partly due to the TD phase. They were given money and mandate only for TD. We can't really expect them to come up with full fledged fighter jet with that, now can we?? Had they been given task to build PV/LSP right from the starting, things could have panned out differently.

Not quite. From ADA itself http://www.tejas.gov.in/history/genesis.html

Phase 1 - TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION STAGE (TD-1 & 2) The focus in this phase was on ‘proof of concept’. It entailed the development and testing of two technology demonstrator aircraft. These aircraft were called TD-1 and TD-2. The decision to move forward was to be taken after the successful completion of this phase. This would be followed by the production of additional prototype vehicles.

Its basic program management that unless a PoC is meets parameters, one cannot take a decision to move forward. So asking them to build PV/LSP from the start before completing the PoC first goes against basic program management.

And you can see from the ADA quote, the roadmap and funding for PV’s was there once a decision was taken after successful completion of PoC.

One of the recurring misconception is the lack of funding delaying the program. For programs of nation interest like Tejas or ATV, funding was never a constraint.

I do not see why IAF should not have inducted at least half a squadron with basic A2A or A2G config whichever was quickest with 2001 config.

You’ve answered your own question here

ADA had opened up the full envelop only after IOC.

How can one induct an aircraft whose envelope is unknown & hasn’t been opened up?

your point about Su30MKI kind of corroborates what many here on BRF think. IAF showed enough patiences for Su30 to be mature. They bought half baked Su-30, toiled hard over it, and over time came up with stunning MKI.

The Su-27PU had been flying since late 80s. So basic flight envelope was known. MKI added TVC, canards & Israeli+French+Indian avionics. In case of Tejas, the flight envelope was not known and needed to be opened. Which is why forward calls could be taken on Su-30MKI. As the Tejas matures, we'll surely have more orders. There is no way we can meet the 42 squadron number without significant numbers of Tejas.

Let us look at Tejas development timelines vs orders placed.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/history/genesis.html

By 2005, the Tejas had proven itself in the testing phase and the first order for 20 Series Production aircrafts was placed. A follow on order for an additional 20 SP aircraft was placed in 2010.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/history/milestones.html

2005
1st December - PV-2 made her successful maiden flight.

2010
6th June - TD-2 made her successful maiden flight.
23rd April - LCA Tejas LSP-3 made maiden flight. LSP-3 is close to the final configuration including the new air-data computers.
Multi Mode Radar, new communication and navigation equipment and radar warning receiver. With this the LCA programme has completed 1350 test flights logging about 800 flying hours.
2nd June - First Flight of LCA Tejas LSP-4. Flight. In addition to the LSP-3 standard of preparation, the aircraft also flew with the Countermeasure Dispensing System.
19 November - First Flight of LCA Tejas LSP-5.

So we can clearly see that when the program was in development, the first 20 orders were placed. When LSP close to final configuration with radar started flying, the next 20 orders were placed.

So from ADA website itself, it is clear that orders were placed as early as possible.

If you think I an against IAF and pro-R&D establishment - then may be I am - but to me R&D establishment needed certain critical barrier to be crossed to become competent and world class. They had many challenges on technology front which cannot be bypassed. IAF was already a competent and world class organisation. They had no such barriers apart from lack of trust.

Nilesh, I do not judge people or their views on whether they are for or against anything. However, I wish people be factual rather than emotional. I completely agree with the part your post that says critical barriers needed to be crossed. I also agree that media bashing of the program by a section of serving and retired IAF personnel could have been done without.

However, it’s a misconception that more orders could’ve expedited development and production. No, both these functions have their own gestation periods.

[Vivek K]

+1 Nilesh

[tsarkar]

production was actually decelerated due HAL scheduling issues and investments. Having given the impetus for 80 odd, they have to do the job!

How can production decelerate when it didn't even pick up? Do you even think before blindly typing words?

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 23m23 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
The LCA Mk-1 blueprints are frozen.

Saik, Gyan, srai, Vivek K,

Can you kindly educate the forum that when SOP/DAL were finally frozen in September 2015, that too of IOC standard, how could production & induction of 100's of Tejas could've happened earlier?

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/h ... hters.html

Walking around the Tejas assembly line, Sridharan explains that the sixteen Tejas prototypes HAL has built are each different from the other. As the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) incrementally refined and improved the fighter, each new prototype incorporated improvements and additions........“As a result of all these changes, a panel from one Tejas would not fit another. Now we will implement absolute standardisation, with identical components, assemblies and panels,” explains Sridharan.

Also explain that with 16 prototypes at different standards, with panel from one not fitting another, which one among the 16 should have IAF ordered in 100's?

Repeating incorrect pet biases again and again and over and over with as many + & - while selectively ignoring facts wont change the situation on the ground.

[member_29089]

-1 tsarkar.

kunti did try out a TD baby earlier... and all the rest 5 MK1a were majick too!
gandhari babies were chinese clones! and it was not 9 months. she was pregnant for 2 years! majick! sage vyas did a mono-clonal proxies and genetic mutations to flesh out 100 chinese copies.
...<CHOP>.

OT Post;

SaiK with the above post you are trying two things: A ) with incomprehensible text you are trying to prove you are a genius B ) Mixing MKI, Chinese, and characters from Mahabharatha you are trying to showcase your universal knowledge. But after 31K+ posts it's not working. Will you kindly type simple English? Try it, it can be done. Thank you

</OT>

[srai]

tsarkar, I didn't -1 your posts

Anyways, you can read one of my posts where I've described production in relation to IOC-2 timelines.

[shiv]

I think nilesh and tsarkar have now entered into a spiral of rhetoric in which each person's ego will prevent him from not responding

Here is an example of "rhetoric" that is only designed to aggravate. The highlighted part is designed to insult. Actually I like responding to such stuff but it does not contribute to this forum. It amounts to pooping on the forum and almost no one is interested in this sort of hair splitting argument. Pooping on the forum is impolite and inconsiderate

How can production decelerate when it didn't even pick up? Do you even think before blindly typing words?

The admins cannot really stop this sort of nonsense and it is difficult evn to go back and see who started it - so boring is the discussion. As a forum member I am making a request.

In the interest of this thread may I request the two of you to simply stop? Nothing is going to change if either of you proves that the other is wrong. It is best to simply post opinions and let others decide what they want to believe. There is no need to let the fact that someone disagrees interfere with one's ,mood, ego or self image

[tsarkar]

Srai,

The +/- doesn't matter, everyone is entitled to their views.

While the process of preparing and sharing SOP/DAL started much earlier, it was completed only now. It is only now that production can ramp up. And the IAF has placed 80 additional orders concurrent to blueprints being frozen.

Shiv,

The discussion between me & Nilesh is quite parliamentary, and I don't think either of us is bringing our ego into the discussion. I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong. I'm interested in only getting the facts right. And incase anything I post is incorrect, I would be more than happy to be corrected by anyone.

The part highlighted by you was in response to another member making a gibberish post.

[vina]

While the process of preparing and sharing SOP/DAL started much earlier, it was completed only now

In this day of PLM and CAD/CAM software like CATIA , all this SOP/DAL business sounds like a Kafkaseque nightmare of the command control / Baboon sitting in Dilli and rubber stamping rubbish days.

You do realise of course that this blue print business is not as if someone drafts out tonnes of drawings using draftsmen like in the old days and is carted on a mini truck from ADA to HAL! .

The point is not when the config was frozen recently or just now. It is that if the IAF wanted to deploy it, they could have frozen it 3 years ago and had a production run after this SOP/DAL whatever baboongiri. Instead they kept asking for changes and this and that and that is where my comment came from.

[chaanakya]

Had IAF committed itself to more of Tejas, production lines could have been set up and delivery be faster.

There is a recurrent misconception going around in this forum that more IAF orders would speed up development and thereafter production.

Whether Pandu orders 5 babies from Kunti or Dhitarashtra orders 100 babies from Gandhari, the gestation period would still be 9 months. Dhitarashtra's higher number of orders does not speed up gestation from 9 months to 6 months.

Similarly, whether IAF orders 40 Tejas or 120 Tejas, without blueprints being frozen, how could production be accelerated?

Well I am not sure and perhaps you can clarify if it takes 4 years from IOC-1 to freeze Standards of Manufacturing designs for LCA? If yes, then IAF should not complain. If not then we should be finding out what took so long after IOC-1 was certified? Whether any outstanding issues resulted in standards not being frozen. Whether outer envalope or internal space and weight distribution was still being reconfigured? I would assume so given the discussions in this thread. So HAL could not proceed with the setting up assembly line for LCA. But pray tell me why orders of 40 in IOC-1 and IOC-2 were given to HAL without IAF freezing the design? just wondering.

As regards Pandus and Kurus, I am sure gestation period would have been same and thanks for clarifying that. but unfortunately manufacturing does not work in the way a human womb works where all materials once delivered , is more or less self sustained for production. In Assembly manufacturing, cost per unit would come down, large orders would ensure economy of production and private suppliers would have viable order base to set up units. is that so complex to understand? of course beyond a certain point there would be marginal improvements in costing.

[chaanakya]

While we are at it , why not order 20 sqdrns upfront to be delivered in incremental version. Time for production, as per tsarkar, would take same time.

[JayS]

>> IAF showed enough patiences for Su30 to be mature. They bought half baked Su-30, toiled hard over it

it was full baked Su27 + additional ground attack modes on delivery day itself. it had fully functional radar, IFR, EW , weapons integration. and china flies 100s of planes purchased at that std. we too used it for 10+ years.

so as mentioned, other than perhaps Marut whose integration team retired long ago, there is no memory in IAF of working with a raw tranche1 type of plane esp as 4.5 gen fighters tend to take a good long time to reach full maturity compared to earlier simpler fighters.

What I meant is it was half baked "Su-30MKI". IAF did not get final uber-class MKI that we see today in the first go. Sorry for ambiguous statement. IAF certainly do not have much experience of Product Development in nascent phases as you point out, particularly with Aerodynamics/Flight mechanics/propulsion systems. But sure they have decent experience of weapons systems and avionics now through Su-30MKI, Mig-29, Jaguar, M2K el al upgrade programs. Hope this experience will play good role in future development of LCA from now on.

[tsarkar]

Well I am not sure and perhaps you can clarify if it takes 4 years from IOC-1 to freeze Standards of Manufacturing designs for LCA? If yes, then IAF should not complain. If not then we should be finding out what took so long after IOC-1 was certified? Whether any outstanding issues resulted in standards not being frozen.

Here is the clarification on what took so long and what were the outstanding issues http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=102056

The Initial Operational Clearance-1 (IOC-I) for ‘Tejas’ was achieved on 10 Jan 2011. In IOC-I, the Aircraft had a few limitations in terms of Combat performance, turn around time and its weaponisation which had to be refined and improved through Research & Development process. In addition to this, Wake penetration trials, all weather clearances were planned beyond IOC-1.

Coming back to the original question, could Tejas SOP/DAL been frozen and built in quantities without completing Wake penetration trials and all weather clearances?

IOC-2 happened on 20th December 2013. SOP/DAL was frozen in September 2015. Less than two years to interpret the final test data, analyse & make changes, and thereafter prepare & complete the documentation.

In Assembly manufacturing, cost per unit would come down, large orders would ensure economy of production and private suppliers would have viable order base to set up units. is that so complex to understand?

There are two parts to this. The Tejas production line was set up by MoD independent of orders. And IAF put money into the production line.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/h ... hters.html

The ministry of defence (MoD) has sanctioned Rs 1,556 crore for HAL’s high tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year. The funds will come from the IAF (25 per cent); the navy (25 per cent), while HAL will put up half the money.

The second part of supplier base is indeed dependent on orders. However, supplier base cannot be set up unless SOP/DAL are frozen. On what basis will suppliers build components?

The point is not when the config was frozen recently or just now. It is that if the IAF wanted to deploy it, they could have frozen it 3 years ago and had a production run after this SOP/DAL whatever baboongiri. Instead they kept asking for changes and this and that and that is where my comment came from.

How can SOP/DAL be frozen 3 years ago (September 2012) when wake penetration trials, all weather clearances were still being carried out?

And is wake penetration trials and all weather clearances something exotic that IAF is asking? Isn't it part of normal development trials of any fighter aircraft?

Without completing these tests, how could SOP/DAL be prepared and aircraft ordered into production.

Assuming for a moment the aircraft were ordered 3 years ago, and then testing showed design changes were required, can you imagine the quantum of work required to modify the aircraft already produced?

From the PIB Link

The Aircraft has been cleared for fly without any telemetry support.

Before December 2013, the aircraft was not cleared to fly without telemetry support. And certain members wanted that aircraft to be ordered and built in 100s.

[srai]

^^^

...SOP/DAL was frozen in September 2015...

Wasn't that for FOC?

[NRao]

>> IAF showed enough patiences for Su30 to be mature. They bought half baked Su-30, toiled hard over it

it was full baked Su27 + additional ground attack modes on delivery day itself. it had fully functional radar, IFR, EW , weapons integration. and china flies 100s of planes purchased at that std. we too used it for 10+ years.

so as mentioned, other than perhaps Marut whose integration team retired long ago, there is no memory in IAF of working with a raw tranche1 type of plane esp as 4.5 gen fighters tend to take a good long time to reach full maturity compared to earlier simpler fighters.

What I meant is it was half baked "Su-30MKI". IAF did not get final uber-class MKI that we see today in the first go. Sorry for ambiguous statement. IAF certainly do not have much experience of Product Development in nascent phases as you point out, particularly with Aerodynamics/Flight mechanics/propulsion systems. But sure they have decent experience of weapons systems and avionics now through Su-30MKI, Mig-29, Jaguar, M2K el al upgrade programs. Hope this experience will play good role in future development of LCA from now on.

Is that right? I thought they always had the best they could place on the table: Russian + Israeli + French + Indian stuff.

I am sure you know integration is not a small effort. BTW, the Brahmos integration is an Indian solution - not a small feat (understatement).

Also, why would the IAF be in PD? Missing anything?

The MIC is starting to crawl (in the right direction). Need funds.

[tsarkar]

^^^

...SOP/DAL was frozen in September 2015...

Wasn't that for FOC?

Without testing the quartz radome that has just been delivered, test firing the Derby, on what basis would SOP/DAL for FOC be frozen?

[srai]

^^^
Quote:
...SOP/DAL was frozen in September 2015...

Wasn't that for FOC?

Without testing the quartz radome that has just been delivered, test firing the Derby, on what basis would SOP/DAL for FOC be frozen?

Well ... take a look at page 5 on the LCA brochure from Dec 2013:

DRDO-ADA - LCA Tejas IOC2 Brochure Final - Dec 2013

...
Production Equipment Standard of Preparation & Drawing Applicability Lists (SOP/DAL) released
...

That was at IOC-2.

[Bob V]

Fascist evil Modi bans import of phoren maal

[Austin]

Modi government wants IAF to make do with 'struggling' LCA Tejas