Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to blame?

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by tsarkar »

Vina, that is exactly what separates science projects from operational projects, where designers make allowances for inevitable future growth, whether in terms of space for additional future avionics or higher structural tolerances for future weapons. Those allowances save redesign time.

The canard of revised-specs-adding-weight was floated by others, not me. There are many here who claim that the Tejas design is perfect and drool over design specifications that are not matched in reality by performance specifications.

My point always was that the initial structure was heavy, because of a lack of optimized design, despite using composites that are lighter than metal. The optimization is happening in Mk2.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by eklavya »

ramana wrote:Did IAF second an officer like Cdre. Balaji to ADA for work on LCA and did they stick around? On another note does IAF value technical officers in its ranks?

I Madras IIt, IN officers were attending M tech courses from long time that I know.
National Flight Test Centre is a key part of the LCA programme. IAF is fully represented. I'm amazed you are asking questions like this.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by vina »

tsarkar wrote:Vina, that is exactly what separates science projects from operational projects, where designers make allowances for inevitable future growth, whether in terms of space for additional future avionics or higher structural tolerances for future weapons. Those allowances save redesign time.

......My point always was that the initial structure was heavy, because of a lack of optimized design, despite using composites that are lighter than metal. The optimization is happening in Mk2.
Isn't the first part of your post and the second one oxymorons ? The LCA was heavy because it was not "optimised" (exactly what should they be optimising here?) and then you say,it is good because it has allowance etc..

Well,most airplanes carry couple of 100 kgs of ballast for that. The LCA carries 200 kg in it's nose now, and that is what is going to be used towards the internal self protection jammer and the AESA radar to come about in the MK1 improved version . So does that make it "optimised" with growth potential in your book ?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by tsarkar »

vina wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Vina, that is exactly what separates science projects from operational projects, where designers make allowances for inevitable future growth, whether in terms of space for additional future avionics or higher structural tolerances for future weapons. Those allowances save redesign time.

The canard of revised-specs-adding-weight was floated by others, not me. There are many here who claim that the Tejas design is perfect and drool over design specifications that are not matched in reality by performance specifications.

My point always was that the initial structure was heavy, because of a lack of optimized design, despite using composites that are lighter than metal. The optimization is happening in Mk2.
Isn't the first part of your post and the second one oxymorons ? The LCA was heavy because it was not "optimised" (exactly what should they be optimising here?) and then you say,it is good because it has allowance etc..
No, Vina, please do re-read carefully rather than jumping to incorrect inferences. My writings are crystal clear.

Not sure where you find me saying it is good because it has allowance etc.

I'll amplify what I said -

Tejas Mk1 designers never made any allowances for future growth, such as stressing the outer pylon for loads more than R-60. That reflects the designer's immaturity to operational requirements that change over the lifetime of the aircraft.

And despite not making allowances for future growth, and despite using composites that weight wise are lighter than metals, the airframe turned out heavier, that stands out in contrast to the designer's claim of 5500 kg empty weight. This too reflects the designer's immaturity.

Mk2 attempts to rectify the deficiencies identified in Mk1. Needless to say, Mk2 is evolving to be a different bird, with new engine and longer fuselage.

If Tejas Mk1 was optimum, then there was no need for Mk2.
vina wrote:exactly what should they be optimising here?
Among the things identified for improvement in Mk2 are aerodynamics, specifically drag, and structural weight.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 622
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by maitya »

Waiting period got over a couple of hour back, so I guess it ok to respond now ...
rohitvats wrote:
rohitvats wrote:And all this is basis assertion by one BRF member (@maitya) who has gone to the extent of claiming that IAF deliberately drafted performance expectations which can never be met and were meant to kill the LCA program ...
maitya wrote:<SNIP>
Betw nice try building consensus via falsehoods such as highlighted above ... the mood of the forum can easily be judged via open-minded reading posts of other forum members, even if it doesn't match the make-believe puny world of yours.

Rest of you post is not worth responding ...
Why snip the post at a convenient point? Why remove the context of the point made by me? The 'one' was specifically with respect to the alluding at ASR for ITR and STR came after looking at different brochures.

The least you can do is stand by your own post. And conviction.
As if I need your juvenile certificates to have to prove anything to you ...

Listen, the contradiction of specifying ITR and STR from two different aircrafts with two diff plan-form (and thus two diff design philosophies), in the ASR has been given multiple times. I can understand you haven't been able to grasp it, till now, but that's your problem.
But your inability to grasp such basic scientific logic, wouldn't automatically mean I would need to prove stuff like "The least you can do is stand by your own post. And conviction".

I know you are only good at name-calling, so continue ... others should be able to see thru the charade.
rohitvats wrote:BTW - You wrote this on 17th April 2015, didn't you?
KaranM-ji, as far as scope-creep is concerned, you know very well what happened back in 2003/4 … suddenly IAF mandated the outboard pylons would need to be able to carry 105Kg class WVAAM (R-73) from an original scope of a 45Kg class WVAAM (R-60).
Given a platform needs to be stressed to 12G atleast (9G load is for the pilot etc), safety margins included, you could do the maths as to the level of torque-stress withstanding that now needs building in to the airframe/wings.
But this also not only gives a chance to the IAF to whine about platform-weight-creep, and also effectively takes away whatever output thrust margin that was available on an ab initio turbofan development.
<snip>
But that also brings out an uncomfortable question:
Why was original requirement in early 90s (I know people will come out and talk about 80s when req were defined – most are incorrigible to argue with, so I don’t even try) from IAF talked about R-60 WVAAM? Was/Is IAFs ability to project/foresee battle-field scenarios limited to only a decade?
<snip>
So is it that, IAF simply wanted these SDREs to get off their back wrt this business of specifying requirements etc and get along along with some set of requirements on some “science project”? Specifying turn-rates of two different platforms with two diff type of wing-planform design are another such pointer (Cdr Mao-sir also alluded to it to Kartik in AI many moons back).
And when they got surprised, by the SDREs, with a working platform, having now to test it etc – quick comes out these types of IFR, new-radome, higher AoA type of requirement changes.

That’s the irony of all this!!
The 'mood' of the forum has been polluted by half baked assertions like above.
<snip>
Comments like IAF asking for last minute changes in Radome are but a small example. As is the example of IAF asking for R-73 missile change in 2004. Read that CAG Report - it was raised in 1997, acted on by ADA in 2004 and completed by 2006.
Expected from you, given the propensity to ask questions or make stmts, before thinking thru. I know you'll never be able to fathom the irony of this above stmt, so here's some clue:
IAF asked for an ordnance whose weight is ~2.5 times what was originally specified in the ASR. Now try answering the following questions:
a) There's something called a cantilever concept - read it first before understanding what amount of incremental bending force (moment) and shear stress this would entail?
b) What is the degree of increment to these above-mentioned force when it happens ~8m from the (instead of say ~4m which is anyway adequately stressed for actually far higher loads) root
c) Once answered a) and b) above, try understanding what is the corresponding force increment this would entail for a +8G stressed airframe
d) Once you have understood c) try and figure the strength and weight creep to the main load-bearing structure like the main spar, ribs (including rib density), stringers etc to have the delta shear, bending and torsion loads.

e) And no, I'll not bother you with advanced thinking required why I chose the term Cantilever in the current wing-design discussion context (and not other structural concept).

Good place to start building competence, before starting to comment, can be here and here.


But all of the above is related to logical technical causal-analysis type of exercise ... not your forte, so try answering the following question,
1) If changing the requirement to include heavier payload at the outboard station would have led to inevitable weight creep, why didn't IAF also simultaneously increase the empty weight part of the ASR as well?

2) Why is this demand to keep the empty weight at the same level while asking for a heavier payload capability at the outboard wing-section?

3) Were they not aware of the inevitability of empty weight increase due to this change?

4) Or were they hoping some djinn tech would mysteriously accommodate their change request while everything would remain the same way as before?

But far more important question is why today, every serving and retired aphsars and such assorted apologists cry about the 1.3T weight creep while comparing against their desire of an empty-weight platform from the pre-CR days?
Was it because of this earlier successful attempt to increase the unobtinium-ness of the specification - so that, in future when the inevitable empty weight increase happens, there's something to berate the program with and ask for import of their favorite toys?

One wonders ... betw was there some degree of truth in BK assertions, a few weeks back, after all!! Maybe shouldn't have outrightly rejected and moved on, then ... Hmmm!!
rohitvats wrote: But I did not see any discussion or breast-beating on delay in LCA Program due to MMR related issues or delay in work undertaken by various laboratories.
Your problem if you are not able to use the search feature of the forum … don’t expect me give you clues etc when and where the initial HAL-developed MMR initiative has been dissected and criticized thread-bare.

Go figure …

Betw, you may want to make yourself aware of the basic technical nuances of airborne-radars (here)before doing so, so that we don’t have suffer another of your ill-informed rants (like the R-73 vs R-60 one above).
rohitvats wrote: There is hardly any information which comes from official sources on any topic like LCA Program - more so from Services. In absence of this, we have wild speculations where it easier to blame the Services for all the ills of Indian MIC than undertake an objective analysis.
On top of it, we've the R&D establishment now leaking information through few people which gives the issue(s) a particular spin. Last was lamenting about LCA being made to do too much for FOC when the gem about Radome change appeared along with IFR!!!
Another desperate assertion while we have gems like “three-legged cheetah”, “Mig-21++” and all other assorted “Certificates” (more it inches towards success, more is the khujli-and-insecurity-combined feeling, and thus more is the degree in vitriol) and regular planting of views via assorted retired chum-buddies.

If anybody who has been cagey about giving out information it’s the R&D org actually – maybe because the hard-part of actually doing something is with them – as opposed to harrumph every now and then, public display of haughtiness befitting of the brown-sahibs that they are used to think of themselves and expect it to go unquestioned forever.

LCA being made to do much more at FOC, contrasted against IAF’s own standard of inducting assorted foreign toys, is so plain (and have been discussed in BRF multiple times as well), that it doesn’t really need anybody from R&D org to come out and stroke it.
rohitvats wrote: With worthies on BRF had their way, including Forum Moderator, half the IAF would have been already cashiered or faced Court Martial.
Any similar recommendations for those who utterly and completely misread India's and their own ability to produce a weapon system on time? And made the choices they made?
Nice strawman argument building, not worth responding to … it’s mods problem if they want to take cognizance of such verbiage or ignore it. Their problem, not mine …
rohitvats wrote: People talk fondly of Navy and DRDO and success of this relationship.
The reason? Navy does not go by what DRDO says can be done and in the given timeline! The technological base in IN allows it reign the flights of fancy in DRDO and stick to what can be done. There is a deep reason in Navy being 90% self sufficient in Float, 70% in Defense but only 30% in Offense
Not worth responding, except for pointing the irony of it in the context of this discussion …
With Naval-LCA, Navy is not going with what ADA says or does … they have a clear need in mind, and they want to specify a “realistic” ASR. But instead of hunting for best features in various brochures, they have a fully integrated team in the program, who has baselined the current indigenous capability and have forecasted what can be achieved realistically.

Based on which they have specified their requirements, and unlike IAF, continue to work with the project team to ensure their ASR is met. One such example is, the landing gear development aspect … by virtue of being so deeply involved there’s deep appreciation of the challenges involved in all such ab-initio endeavors – so much so, that when they got it over-engineered (inherent conservatism), there’s understanding of the reason behind it and allowing it to be re-worked.

No roof-top yelling of “2-yrs lost” “incompetent”, “import de do” etc as it ’s a daily affair with IAF.
Now all such things adds up to a term called “strategic leadership” and not some assorted harrumphgiri while constantly pointing to the stripped-lapels , when questioned.

Go figure …
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote:No, Vina, please do re-read carefully rather than jumping to incorrect inferences. My writings are crystal clear.

Not sure where you find me saying it is good because it has allowance etc.

I'll amplify what I said -

Tejas Mk1 designers never made any allowances for future growth, such as stressing the outer pylon for loads more than R-60. That reflects the designer's immaturity to operational requirements that change over the lifetime of the aircraft.
Err ..The LCA guys have to make allowances for all sorts of future growth in areas that can directly impact the weight & go against the ASRs? Where does this end? Should they budget for DEWs too?

Customer asks for x, developer does y on its own even if y causes challenges with x (eg allup weight, schedule issues)!
And despite not making allowances for future growth, and despite using composites that weight wise are lighter than metals, the airframe turned out heavier, that stands out in contrast to the designer's claim of 5500 kg empty weight. This too reflects the designer's immaturity.
Or the customers immaturity in that they asked for a 5500kg empty weight when it was unable to be met by the latest tech available.

This is a classic chicken & egg thing. Lets face it, IAF didn't know what it was asking for (MRCA class performance in MiG-21 specs) and ADA goofed up by agreeing to it. Both happily went on their waltz together & today, all that matters is fixing the issue.
Mk2 attempts to rectify the deficiencies identified in Mk1. Needless to say, Mk2 is evolving to be a different bird, with new engine and longer fuselage.
Which also means the IAF has agreed to relax the volume dimensions that the Mk1 was stuck to.
If Tejas Mk1 was optimum, then there was no need for Mk2.
The MiG-21, MiG-27 are anything but optimum vis a vis the LCA yet they are being Flogged on!
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by vina »

tsarkar wrote: I'll amplify what I said -

Tejas Mk1 designers never made any allowances for future growth, such as stressing the outer pylon for loads more than R-60. That reflects the designer's immaturity to operational requirements that change over the lifetime of the aircraft.
When the later blocks of F16s came (30 I think onwards), the wings were strengthened from the previous versions. So, were the F16 designers "immature" because they didn't allow for seamlessly fitting in Amraams in the outer pylons 15 years after they plane first flew ?
And despite not making allowances for future growth, and despite using composites that weight wise are lighter than metals, the airframe turned out heavier, that stands out in contrast to the designer's claim of 5500 kg empty weight. This too reflects the designer's immaturity.
Okay. Call rename the TD as MK 0 if you want and the MK1 as Mk1. Between the two there was a huge spec increase in terms of all up weight and payload and capability. So it is but natural the empty weight should go up. My grouse with the IAF is that they didn't step in during the TD days (when it was grounded after the roll out waiting for FBW) and say ,okay, we are revising the weapons specs , and since it is not flying, why don't we build this one instead ?
Mk2 attempts to rectify the deficiencies identified in Mk1. Needless to say, Mk2 is evolving to be a different bird, with new engine and longer fuselage.
Sure, later blocks of F16 evolved bigger empennages, a big ugly dorsal spine and stuff protruding from it from all directions. So if the BLK52 was optimum , was the original Blk10/15 not "optimal"
If Tejas Mk1 was optimum, then there was no need for Mk2.
When I asked you "What are you optimising ?" , I wasn't English or a JNU social studies ding-dong answer, but a precise engg answer. I remember this from my undergrad days in the Madrassa. One of my class mates signed up with a moron ass. prof back then because and he came up with a project which was titled "Optimisation of XXX " . He walked into the project review board with his topic thus titled, with wizened old Mullas with Hennaed beards sitting .

First question.
What are you optimising?
Our man had a shock and ..sputtered, looked at his guide and did "ba ba ba " . His bottom was beaten black and blue so hard that he couldn't walk for a few days after that.

So, in that vein, when I ask you what are you optimising , I am expecting an engineering answer.. "I am optimising the parameter a, b,c to be a minimum /maximum out of the parameters a, b,c,d,e, f, g, h , by trading off some in f, g, h, subject to constraints in this and that". NOT, oh, what they are doing in drag, and this etc. That is NOT optimisation.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by ramana »

Empty weight goal is kept keeping the engine thrust in mind. I think thrust partial is 3 kg thrust for 1 kg weight.

Vina as maitya brings out the wing root needs stiffening when outboard pylon has to carry more weight. Yet your contact said weight did not increase for that reason. Means the LCA structure was designed with margin. It was delay due to additional fabric laying.

R-60 is ~100 lbs and R-73 is 231 lbs. So moment increase by 2.3 times. and add 8-9 gs for aero loads.

CAG also says dumb bomb spec got changed. Added more delays due to recalibration of bomb release computer. Some thing like 16 months. All these were serial and not parallel tasks as requirements were given serially.

Again brings LCA to par with best.

I would optimize the metal brackets/fittings as they probably have more margin and get back better weight saving due to density effect.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 622
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by maitya »

Vinaji, "optimisation" against what "constraints"?

Optimisation, as opposed to maximisation (or minimisation), is always predicated against a set of constraints - what are they?
Are we trying to say "optimize" the wing-structure-strength against twin constraints of "no weight increase" AND "2.5 times of ordinance load weight creep", is it?

Sounds like those "travelling salesman" problems (in Linear Programming classes in the good old Madrassa) while the brof mischievously put the intra-city-distance in 100s of Kms, while also constraining the multiple city visit in a day - and stand in a corner and smile away at the haplessness of the folks trying to conjure up a convincing explanation for the already-solved math part of it.


Betw, on a related note, basic comparison tells me density is at 1.6-1.9g/cc for CFC vs 2.7g/cc of Al - while the Tensile strength stands at 600 Mpa for CFC vs 460Mpa of Al (both at 0 and 90degs) - so instead of taking the strategic route of CFC primary structure had ADA taken the Al route, as advised by the learned ASR-setting-aphsars of IAF, they would had brilliant "optimised" solution of allowing at a later date 2.5times of load creep at ~8m from the primary wing-boad attachment is it?

Silly ADA and DRDO SDREs, they don't listen to these learned souls ... :roll:
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Picklu »

eklavya wrote:
ramana wrote:Did IAF second an officer like Cdre. Balaji to ADA for work on LCA and did they stick around? On another note does IAF value technical officers in its ranks?

I Madras IIt, IN officers were attending M tech courses from long time that I know.
National Flight Test Centre is a key part of the LCA programme. IAF is fully represented. I'm amazed you are asking questions like this.
Commander Mao is the new head though :)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by ramana »

maitya its not helpful. Let facts speak and be silent.

tsarkar is one I respect.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Picklu »

tsarkar wrote: Tejas Mk1 designers never made any allowances for future growth, such as stressing the outer pylon for loads more than R-60. That reflects the designer's immaturity to operational requirements that change over the lifetime of the aircraft.
Sir, not being an insider, I would not know about the actuals. You might be absolutely right with the assertion never or it might be that they have kept a margin but lesser than what is actually required to carry R73 instead of R60.

Given the weight difference between R60 and R73, the margin required would be more than 100%. Anything less won't do.

That kind of margin is not normal in all engineering cases that I know of and any design having such margin would not be optimal, another quality you wanted in our bird. So it appears that there is a dichotomy in your thought process as well.

I am NOT completely denying the science project part, but this may not be the correct example to show it.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by vina »

Sir, not being an insider, I would not know about the actuals. You might be absolutely right with the assertion never or it might be that they have kept a margin but lesser than what is actually required to carry R73 instead of R60.
Well, from what I remember (SivaB was the poster here in BRF, who worked as structural engg at ADA before moving out to get his masters) say in his post here, was that there was not a big issue anyways in putting in the R73 or whatever.

If I remember his post correctly,the issue really was that in torsion, the margins were were not sufficient with the new weapon spec, and they needed to add a teeny layer of CFC at the right places. That is probably easy enough to do, but then, you need to do the entire verification, validation, testing and qualification of the wing afresh, a 2 year effort.

The LCA is well designed. The folks who designed it were very very very competent people and it would have gone through review boards which had great people like SR Valluri and his peers from all the insitutions who were absolute top drawer people and definitely not fools. So when I see stuff like this popping around,saying that design was not whatever, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

It sure as hell wasn't a "science" project, but each technology was carefully chosen, decisions made and baked in, because that is the only way to you could come up with a fighter competitive to the breakthrough F16 , out of the form factor and size it had. THAT is the optimisation (performance parameters of maneuverability, payload and range, with the constraint of a single engine light weight fighter) and if you want the F16 performance, YOU HAVE to have it's underlying tech. The only problem was that the AirForce wanted a TD stage before getting into series production. That kind of 1960s style serial milestones based program management was the reason why they directly couldn't strat withe a design close to PVs, but went through the TD stage.

Building a conventional aluminium airframe, statically stable and with a low t:w ratio engine will see the plane take off, fly over to Hosur from HAL, do a loop and a roll, do a bingo on fuel and head back and land. End of story.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by tsarkar »

vina wrote:When the later blocks of F16s came (30 I think onwards), the wings were strengthened from the previous versions. So, were the F16 designers "immature" because they didn't allow for seamlessly fitting in Amraams in the outer pylons 15 years after they plane first flew ?
F-16 as LWF was originally intended to fly with only Sidewinders. ANG asked for Sparrows that were added. After the USAF changed its view of the aircraft from a LWF to a multirole one, it got revised weapons and the C model was developed.

The F-16 was able to take Sparrows when ANG asked for it without major rework. I'm not referring to pylons, but the aircraft and avionics overall.

Similarly, CCAAM was a basic requirement for Tejas. So there a necessary operational imperative to change the R-60 to R-73E. Had necessary structural tolerances been there in the first place, then major rework could've been avoided.
Karan M wrote:Should they budget for DEWs too?
No, just keep an eye out for developments in the only category of AAM the Tejas was supposed to carry.

DRDO Advanced Systems Integration and Evaluation Organisation (ASIEO) before its name was changed to DARE worked on the MiG-21 Bison project. Thereafter MiG-21 started carrying R-73E instead of Magic & R-60.

ADE & DARE worked on the Su-30 Sukhoi-30MKI Project Vetrivale that also developed the mission computer.

So it was increasingly clear that R-73 was being standardized on Su-30, MiG-29 & MiG-21 Bison. Unfortunately, even between labs, developments are not shared. An intuitive designer would've thought about this and made provisions


I do agree that collaboration between IAF & ADA could've been better, but the prevailing attitude at DRDO towards IAF under Rajiv Gandhi's patronage was, "sit back, boys, and don't bother me. I'll give you the world's best & lightest."
vina wrote:Between the two there was a huge spec increase in terms of all up weight and payload and capability...So it is but natural the empty weight should go up.
Please quantify what were the exact "huge spec increase" that led to weight increase. I have heard this from many BR members many times, but no one gave clear answers on that these "huge spec increase" were. This is one incorrectness being spread on this forum. No performance specifications were changed, only very normal mission equipment was added to a lab project aircraft to make it a mission capable one. Otherwise what good is a science project in real life?
Karan M wrote:Or the customers immaturity in that they asked for a 5500kg empty weight when it was unable to be met by the latest tech available.
Can you prove that IAF ASRs asked for 5500 kg empty weight? This is another incorrectness being spread on the forum. Because IAF ASR's had only performance specifications and not weight or volume. The design specification to meet these performance specifications were arrived at by the designers. The designers came up with the 5500 kg empty weight as well as the "lightest fighter in the world" scientific victory, not IAF.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by ramana »

What surprised me was 5500 kg empty weight when all along many papers said it was to be 4500 kg. From there all the parameter went south slowly to recover.

R73 is good for now LCA pylons can carry many other AAMs like Python 5 usw.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Karan M »

Tsarkar:

No, just keep an eye out for developments in the only category of AAM the Tejas was supposed to carry.

Again, this is beyond explanation. The IAF SET the ASRs. The IAF SAID x is the missile that is needed to be carried, in a specific form factor ie extreme LWF (Forget the F-16 etc, we are talking of a fighter that is sub-MiG-21 class) and no practical designer will then bake further weight gains into the system for no reason.

It would be akin to ADA guy going over and saying:

"Hello saars we have made weight of plane higher because in future you guys might need xx missile, of course higher weight means worse perfornance not meeting ASRs" - what would the IAF reaction be?

Simple thing to prevent the above would have been for IAF to be part of team from day one & say (before FSED) - guys, guys lets revise this spec. We think things are changing. Tell us the tradeoffs.

They didn't do it.

That in short is the key dysfunction of the LCA saga. Disinterested user, siloed developer, disinterested manufacturer all of whom merrily trundled away on their different paths and there was no MOD interest in aligning all three together either.
DRDO Advanced Systems Integration and Evaluation Organisation (ASIEO) before its name was changed to DARE worked on the MiG-21 Bison project. Thereafter MiG-21 started carrying R-73E instead of Magic & R-60.
ASIEO did very little on the MiG-21 Bison.

MiG-21 Bison is 99% the work of Russkaya Avionika, MiG-Mapo and its Sokol plant and Phazatron.
ADE & DARE worked on the Su-30 Sukhoi-30MKI Project Vetrivale that also developed the mission computer.
Derived from the LCA's TDs and which the IAF had it changed to a full blown OSAMC for the FSED phase! Completely new mission avionics.
So it was increasingly clear that R-73 was being standardized on Su-30, MiG-29 & MiG-21 Bison. Unfortunately, even between labs, developments are not shared. An intuitive designer would've thought about this and made provisions
All this intuitive designer stuff is theoretical unfortunately. In the Indian system, the developers work to the specifications laid down by the user. In the case of the user, he wasn't bothered with the program.
Can you prove that IAF ASRs asked for 5500 kg empty weight? This is another incorrectness being spread on the forum. Because IAF ASR's had only performance specifications and not weight or volume. The design specification to meet these performance specifications were arrived at by the designers. The designers came up with the 5500 kg empty weight as well as the "lightest fighter in the world" scientific victory, not IAF.
I have it on record in my notes that the IAF asked for MiG-21 sized specs from the designers. Those along with all the other stuff we have been doing (and BTW theres a lot more than what the CAG wagehra report states) made these weight claims unsustainable is a given.

This 5600 kg weight is a pointless exercise btw. The bigger issue is not that the weight rose, its that we lacked a powerful enough engine & there was no interest shown by MOD or the powers that be, to solve the issue raised by GTREs Kaveri failure & come up with a long term solution.

Every other fighter program the world over has faced weight gains. Its a given. They compensate by solid propulsion compensation.

Sukhoi's designers had a famous story to relate. They walked over to the AL-31 guys and said "those avionics guys have been asked to raise their performance, so build some margin in your engine" and so it was. Our achilles heel remains the engine.

BTW I have had ample opportunity over the years to converse with people on high level non classified specifics on how the entire ASR was derived. It was a mix match of not just the MiG-21, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 specs but also many in DRDO/HAL were flabbergasted as the original ask which was being designed against was a point defense aircraft which became something completely different during AM Lateefs tenure. Of course many folks higher up the food chain kept talking of completely unreasonable in service dates while stating the exact opposite elsewhere!! Hardly a good thing, but then one hears of the political stuff to stop the Tejas and it becomes clear. All sorts of politics in a dysfunctional system.

If as you state the IAF put down no specifics in ASR, then it would fly in the face of every ASR they released over the years (they go so far as to specify radar ranges) and it only shows how high level their "asks" were without adequately researching what they actually wanted!!
Last edited by Karan M on 06 Jul 2015 02:25, edited 1 time in total.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Karan M »

>>>Please quantify what were the exact "huge spec increase" that led to weight increase. I have heard this from many BR members many times, but no one gave clear answers on that these "huge spec increase" were. This is one incorrectness being spread on this forum. No performance specifications were changed, only very normal mission equipment was added to a lab project aircraft to make it a mission capable one. Otherwise what good is a science project in real life?

Just ask ADA or one of their subsystem suppliers and there are enough high level details about the number of change requests raised between TD to FSED let alone PVs. Literally every other LRU has been redesigned because the IAF didn't specify clearly what it needed at the TD stage (which was the plan since it was to be a sequential TD to FSED move) and hence the PV's carry completely different systems in many cases than the original TDs. A thorough and complete waste of effort in terms of schedule because the IAF chose a "science project" approach of TD to FSED with PVs. All very well, to derisk and stop the program if the TDs didn;t work out but which meant that TDs were nowhere near operational asks and the IAF wasn;t involved either. From TD to FSED we have changed the entire mission avionics set up. We went from the Su-30/MiG-27/DARIN-1 style setup at the time of the TDs to an OAC setup for instance, 3 years worth of effort. That's just the tip of the iceberg. LCA suppliers note very few of the LRUs that were there or developed from the TDs carried over for PVs. They could have been designed for a different level on day 1 but the IAF wasn;t part of the program so actual combat pilot input as is now possible from NFTC was missing. Display pages on the MFDs? Change. Stick control positioning? Needed new inputs in FSED. List goes on and on and on. In other programs of this nature, the pilot/user inputs are constant & intense throughout the program from day 1 so most of the heavy lifting for basic configuration, aggregates is accomplished by the time, the aircraft reaches test flying. Of course, if too much concurrency is baked in you get a JSF style challenge wherein everything is changed on the fly. However with the LCA, many of the basic systems, aggregates were basically ok & could have been fixed earlier. The number of Change requests raised later into the program not only messed up an already convoluted management, it kept adding to schedule issues.

Now what's a big issue is if we follow the same approach for AMCA. That program has to be ruthlessly held to schedule with IAF involvement and high risk items need to be moved out and developed with JVs if possible. This cost conscious schedule delay approach is not feasible.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Karan M »

ramana wrote:What surprised me was 5500 kg empty weight when all along many papers said it was to be 4500 kg. From there all the parameter went south slowly to recover.

R73 is good for now LCA pylons can carry many other AAMs like Python 5 usw.
Gripen C/D is at 6800 kg empty weight. LCAs is at 6560 kg.
MTOW of Gripen C/D is 13500 kg. LCAs is ditto.
Max Payload carried by Gripen C/D is 5.3T. LCA is ditto.
Fuel carried by Gripen is 2400 kg. LCAs internal fuel is 2460 kg.
LCA has an engine which is more powerful in wet thrust.

Don't see what this big deal about weight is all about. How exactly is ADA so far behind??

Here's where it matters.
LCA Length is 13.2 meters. Gripen is 14.8 meters!!

Clearly, more space to pack LRUs in, be less worried about routing, design constraints and issues such as heat, venting and damage!! Yet ADA persevered.

Nobody knows whether Gripen C/D would meet IAF ASR for LCA or not. However, the Gripen is longer than the LCA. Its not constrained by any Gnat/MiG-21 sort of stuff & is essentially a clean sheet design in terms of overall dimensions. Its likely that its drag is a bit lower giving it a higher speed and possibly STR.

But that's about it.

Is this really even a decider in an era where the LCA is getting Python-Vs and HMS as well as Derby ERs and what not. As versus the ASR era when R60 MK (no helmet) and SARH BVR of 30nm class was a big deal?

In short ADA & Indian designers achieved Gripen level of packaging and weight performance in a much smaller airframe, relying mostly on Indian efforts (which started from minimal base) as versus Gripen team which used their NATO connection to full effect.

Now ADA is doing the same & still folks are talking about LCA optimization.

http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-syst ... gripen-cd/
http://hal-india.com/Product_Details.as ... y=&CKey=20

More details
LCA's internal fuel is ~2460 Kg (2458 kg per earlier reports) http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2330/feb20112.jpg

Gripen's internal fuel (not NG) is similar to the LCAs at 2400 kg (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...49E7518E9F.pdf).
http://i41.tinypic.com/67obo7.jpg

Empty weights of both aircraft - LCAs is 6560 kg. Gripens is 6800 Kg.

Engines are similar & variants of the family from the same manufacturer, but LCA wet thrust is more (GE404 IN 20 has 85Kn - max, installed may vary, vs RM12s 80.5 Kn see above link for Gripen and this for IN20 http://chaffandflare.blogspot.in/2011/0 ... -in20.html).
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Karan M »

tsarkar wrote:Can you prove that IAF ASRs asked for 5500 kg empty weight? This is another incorrectness being spread on the forum. Because IAF ASR's had only performance specifications and not weight or volume. The design specification to meet these performance specifications were arrived at by the designers. The designers came up with the 5500 kg empty weight as well as the "lightest fighter in the world" scientific victory, not IAF.
Here is Shri Matheswaran (no fan of the LWF or the LCA or all assorted non IAF groups)

http://www.stratpost.com/light-combat-a ... rrection-i

So much for incorrectness being spread on the forum.
By the late 1970s the IAF was looking for a replacement for its accident- prone and unreliable Gnat and its Indian version, the Ajeet. The requirement was a low-cost, conventional aircraft to replace the Gnat/Ajeet and the early MiG-21 fleet (Fishbed) by the late 1980s.

Based on its experience of the Gnat and the need for a low-cost fighter, the IAF projected the requirement for a small fighter of 5 tonnes empty weight. This would have left the aircraft only marginally larger than the Gnat and even smaller than the MiG-21.


This was a flawed approach and indicated that the Light Weight Fighter concept had not been studied in depth and could have been due to inadequate information at that time.

But that is only partially correct, as HAL did the feasibility study with consultancies from all leading aircraft design houses of Europe.

After the initial feasibility studies the IAF and HAL concurred on the plan for a conventional fixed wing fighter to be developed. The DRDO then stepped in to suggest that the fighter development programme be used to bridge technology gaps – Fly-By-Wire (FBW) control system, airborne radar, aero-engine and composite structures.

By the early 1980s this was agreed to and an ambitious plan to develop a fourth generation platform with high performance was put up to convince the government. The approval was followed up by the formulation of the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) in tune with the performance expected of a fourth generation fighter
.
In short HAL, IAF, ADA all went on the basis of information they had at the time and their consultant inputs and the weight was firmly in the 5Ton category with the MiG-21 and below dimensions!! No wonder its even lesser than the MiG-21s. The IAF agreed to the requirements once it got its hands on its 4th gen fighters - MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s and decided it wanted equivalent stuff. What happened thereafter we have discussed threadbare.

So IAF clearly wanted a fighter in the 5T, sub MiG-21/Ajeet class and everyone at HAL/ADA knew it, ASR or no ASR.

PS: Before we start now claiming that all the extra tech packed into the LCA is what makes it an issue, lets see what AM Muthanna says about the LCA, from memory:

LCA had a wonderful Air Staff Requirement that was ahead of the time and is relevant even three decades later.

In short, if it didn't have all those things like FBW etc, we would have made a JF-17 which the IAF would have not accepted. And so it goes.

So, the LCA is what it is, water has passed under the bridge, get it into service and that's that. Enough of the breast beating about how it could be this or that.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by tsarkar »

As I delved deeper, some helpful retired Air Force folks pointed me to http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2015.pdf

I would've posted this earlier, but the website was down because of General SQL Error.

Firstly, to correct myself, the ASR did specify the empty weight. (page 50 para 4.5.3). However, the IAF waived this requirement as a part of IOC
Consequently, ADA/HAL had to obtain permanent waiver towards this from Air HQ at the time of achieving IOC (December 2013). It is also pertinent to mention that increased weight of LCA had necessitated ADA going in for LCA Mk-II development with a higher capacity engine, as discussed in Chapter II.
Were the weight specifications properly set?

IMO, specifications should state performance. What it takes to achieve the performance should be best left to designers.

Did using lighter composites live up to the promise of being lighter than metal built planes?

An emphatic no.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/specifications/ ... mance.html

The higher percentage of composites using Tejas weights 6560 kg which is in the same range as Gripen C/D 6800 kg or JF-17 6586 kg.

So the decision to use composites did not yield any weight advantages over aircraft having higher percentage of metal.

Was there "huge spec increase"? Did continuous ASR revisions and scope creep add to empty weight?

No. As written in Page 14
There were no revisions to the ASR by IAF, except in respect of weapon requirements, as discussed in Para 2.3.2.
While no weight was added, delays were introduced.
delayed the programme schedules as follows:
Change of Close Combat Missile from R-60 to R-73E had resulted in redesign of integral wing and associated manufacturing and testing efforts involving delay of 14 months.
Addition of Russian 500 Kg (M-62) bombs necessitated design and fabrication of adopter and software development which delayed the programme by 16 months.
Addition of CMDS led to design modifications and software development with an additional time of 18 months.
And finally in 2009, Derby & Python 5 were specified that added 34 months, taking FOC to December 2015.

Equipment like CMDS is vital and not optional, as Kargil showed. Its certainly not "huge spec increase".

Point being LCA TD was just a TD. Actual work on building a fighter started thereafter.

Is Tejas something superlative or something horribly gone wrong?

No, Tejas today is as good or as bad as other aircraft in its category (Eg Gripen C/D) performance wise. The metal Gripen does equally well, whether going to Hosur & back.

In hindsight, better coordination among the user, developer & manufacturer could've led to a better program.
Air HQ also did not accept the contention of ADA that delay in identification of BVR missile by IAF resulted in extension of FOC schedule as even core issues such as design of avionics, all weather clearance, MMR evaluation, etc were
required to be resolved. ADA further replied (January 2015) that all weather clearance of the aircraft had no impact on BVR integration and avionics design did not have any issues.
Last edited by tsarkar on 06 Jul 2015 07:37, edited 2 times in total.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32278
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by chetak »

Could some guru consolidate and post the complete LCA saga and the inputs from IAF, ADA, HAL etc in one post. It would bring perspective to things and also clear the doubts of many on BRF.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by vina »

No, Tejas today is as good or as bad as other aircraft in its category (Eg Gripen C/D) performance wise. The metal Gripen does equally well, whether going to Hosur & back.
The Gripen is NOT metal. It has close to 35% composites . I had posted this in response to another known "puller out of factoids" and baiting the LCA person, who stated some ridiculous specs for Gripen (hint a former IITK and HAL person) and how that if done with Aluminium , the same result could have been achieved and that the LCA was structurally "inefficient", compared to Mig 21!.

If you read back through the posts which are archived, I showed that per his half baked measures that the Mig 21 is less structurally "efficient" than the Spitfire and that the Gripen would be less efficient structurally than the Mig 21 and that how the folks at Saab would be mortified if someone went and claimed that their plane was Aluminium and that it was less structurally efficient than the Mig21 and will probably do somersaults if someone said that whao.. despite the composites, your plane is less efficient structurally than the Mig21!.

Long point short. When you are comparing Spitfire vs Mig 21 vs LCA and Gripen , it makes sense to keep in mind the equipment levels, the range, payload and G levels they are designed for . Sure, the F16 (initial versions) were Aluminium ones, but the F16 is a bigger plane with larger engine etc and as everyone knows, economies of scale kick in structurally when you make a bigger plane.


Oh, and reading about Cmde Maolankar heading NFTC made my day again. A hard slap on the face of the old geezers in the IAF who were jockeying to do a "kabza" on ADA and HAL. Hopefully , the younger IAF folks at the NFTC are cut of a different cloth and from being in the ringside of the development and test effort, carry their knowledge and make some fundamental institutional changes in the IAF and help set up a competent and dedicated program office there which can do configuration and design studies (they will need to hire laterally from academia and industry as well for that) . Hah, will that happen ? Fat chance. The IAF record in doing that is piss poor, and has a history of kicking out of the power structure and growth prospects anyone who steps out of their "operational" duties and does stuff like NFTC or airframe development testing.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 622
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by maitya »

tsarkar wrote: <snip>
Did using lighter composites live up to the promise of being lighter than metal built planes?

An emphatic no.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/specifications/ ... mance.html

The higher percentage of composites using Tejas weights 6560 kg which is in the same range as Gripen C/D 6800 kg or JF-17 6586 kg.

So the decision to use composites did not yield any weight advantages over aircraft having higher percentage of metal.
<snip>
Sorry how is it so ... just because LCA and Gripen are of the same weight category, is it?

Well, Gripen uses ~35% of airframe weight of carbon-fiber composite construction while LCA uses 45% of the airframe weight.

But moreover, normally the max usage of carbon-fiber composites would be in the wings (world-wide) ... now LCA with a larger wing-area 38.4sqm (as opposed to 30sqm for Gripen), would mean the weight savings due to CFC would be of much larger % in LCA.

Betw the actaul link enumerating the advantages of CFC based construction of LCA is here - just a few tabs later from the one you posted above.

Furthermore, the actual weight savings in a carbon-fiber composite based wing (in addition to other advantages that comes anyway for CFC structures even if they are riveted together like Al sheet-metals in previous gen) comes out when they are produced via co-cured and co-bonded manufacturing tech - like the LCA tails. But for that we need bigger autoclaves (and the required manufacturing tolerance levels implemented) which would allow that to happen - question is, who (and why) would give us those autoclaves?

But by baselining the manufacturing tech of CFC based wings and tail-sections, such stuff can atleast be planned for (read somewhere, not sure where though, that's exactly what they are planning to do in Mk2 - so no dginn tech etc required to accomodate higher-weight engine, the required airframe modifications (not always visible externally)) etc.

How can all these incremental requirements would have been met in an all metal platform, otherwise?


[Added Later] I see vinaji has already posted wrt this ...
Last edited by maitya on 06 Jul 2015 10:00, edited 2 times in total.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by member_22539 »

^IMHO there is no greater humiliation to IAF than to have a Navy guy deemed as more qualified than one among them with regard to a fighter program.

IA must be counting its lucky stars that we don't have a Navy controlled Marine Corps or we would have seen the Arjun and FMBT programs headed by Navy personnel as well.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Philip »

Karan's statement:
The bigger issue is not that the weight rose, its that we lacked a powerful enough engine & there was no interest shown by MOD or the powers that be, to solve the issue raised by GTREs Kaveri failure & come up with a long term solution.
This is exactly what the good VCoAS repeatedly told APJAK that everyone was being taken for a ride by the GTRE's tall claims and that the project would succeed or fail on this factor alone. We know what happened.APJAK made his famous statement in 2003 about "200 LCAs in service by 2010". Now the search is on for an engine for the AMCA,latest news that the US is not all that forthcoming helping us and that the MOD is to release a global tender for the same.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by shiv »

I am currently reading a fantastic book - AM PC Lal's memoirs

AM Lal went to the UK to select a Vampire replacement. The aircraft that was "recommended" was the Supermarine Swift. Lal was warned that the engine may flame out in flight and told that the Avon was a useless engine. It did flame out during his test flight - but he managed to relight.

He then went to the engine factory and asked then why their engine behaved badly. The engine makers said that the engine was fine but the aircraft design was bad - causing engine airflow issues. They were right because (as per Lal) the engine worked perfectly well on the Canberra. The Swift was rejected.

Later they saw the Gnat quite by accident. The designer initially did not want to sell it to Indians thinking they were commies. Later he relented and apologized. They loved the Gnat and the rest is history.

But here PC Lal makes a comment about the HF 24 "It took a whole 11 years before one squadron came into service"

I thought that was a very interesting comment.

The Swift was a terribly accident prone aircraft, but was accepted by the RAF and kept in service with improvements as possible until the Hunter came. The Gnat was rejected. That means in the 50s the RAF was tolerant and sympathetic to the time overruns and accidents that the development of new aircraft entailed. They persisted with the Swift and waited for the Hunter. They rejected the Gnat as a fighter but accepted it as a trainer and did not condemn it and it went on to be exported.

it is always easy to pass comments with 20/20 hindsight but Lal's comment about the HF 24 taking "all of 11 years" and the eagerness with which they accepted the Gnat after rejecting the Swift suggests to me that even back in the 1950s the IAF were "fighter jocks" who wanted a great horse ready and waiting for them to ride. They did not understand or give a damn about the nitty gritty of design and development. That was for the eggheads I guess. The boffins/backroom boys.

That little nation Britain - by then had been through 2 great wars and had over 20,000 planes (maybe more) manufactured in Britain by then - some bad, some good, some indifferent.

I get the feeling that the iAF remains in that fossilized state where they want a ready made high power thoroughbred pre-tested steed to do their fighting and do not have the patience or foresight to nurture an aircraft industry.

As I have stated time and again I am a very pro IAF person - but I have now followed military aviation with keenness for five decades and I have reached a stage where I do know the history of aviation in general better than a whole lot of people in the IAF and feel I can pass some sweeping remarks as I have done. I think there needs to be a culture change in the IAF where they roll up their sleeves and get into the issues of future aircraft development as part of IAF doctrine. I am not saying that only the IAF is to blame - but I think part of the blame lies in the fighter jock culture of the IAF that supersedes the technical and non fighter people. I will make another related post about that in due course.
Last edited by shiv on 21 Jul 2015 19:03, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by shiv »

The latest issue of Vayu has a great article that I will scan and pdf for posterity. It is about an Indian ace in WW1 - Hardit Singh Malik. He survived the war, became a diplomat and a well known golfer.

But read what he has to say about becoming a fighter pilot. the "caste system" or fighter jocks being placed higher was there in the RAF at the time of WW I. It is fine for the Air Force to be led by fighter jocks - but they need to be made to understand the technical and technological difficulties but the strategic advantages of supporting local industry. The Air Force must be more than jockeys who win when they get the best horses. They must help breed those horses.

Image
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by member_22539 »

^This same desire for imported thoroughbred "steed" prevented Indians from breeding good war horses in the past, preferring imported ones from Arabia, resulting in a chronic shortage of those costly imported gold-plated "steeds," which in turn led us to bite the dust when the pissful hordes with their en-mass horse armies invaded.

Seems like history is repeating itself.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by nachiket »

Karan M wrote: Here's where it matters.
LCA Length is 13.2 meters. Gripen is 14.8 meters!!

Clearly, more space to pack LRUs in, be less worried about routing, design constraints and issues such as heat, venting and damage!! Yet ADA persevered.
That one constraint more than anything else could be responsible for many of the (non-radar-related) issues currently facing the LCA. It's not just less internal space for fuel, LRU's etc. The area-ruling must have been affected by it too, leading the "high-drag" issue that seems to be everybody's favorite stick to beat the LCA with.

But here's the thing, what exactly was the max-length specified in the ASR? If they specified the empty weight, they must have specified length constraints too. Wiki says the length of the Mig-21-93 is 14.5m more than 1m longer than the LCA. I have seen people say the original length constraint was because it had to fit in the same shelters as the Mig-21. But if the designers had 1 extra meter to work with, why didn't they use it?
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by fanne »

IAF is not organizationally equipped to handle development of planes/missiles etc. While IN has an directorate that handles indigenous development, USAF has a system command, IAF has nothing. IAF has fighter commands, transport, Heli, SAMs, HR even medical but no development command. They should have one, a permanent command, with adequate budget and people (and not punishment posting) that would permanently own (as in lead) all development work within IAF (similar to IN). E.g. LCA/MCA/MTA/ALAH/Sudersan/Akash....
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by NRao »

I get the feeling that the iAF remains in that fossilized state ...........
I am close to believing that it is true on the nation itself.

My feel is that Indians, in general, are very uncomfortable with risk and failure.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:
I get the feeling that the iAF remains in that fossilized state ...........
I am close to believing that it is true on the nation itself.

My feel is that Indians, in general, are very uncomfortable with risk and failure.
In other words "We are like that onlee".

Then we have to see ISRO, naval initiatives etc as just a flash in the pan and that the Air Force is merely the national norm. Maybe you are right, but I doubt it. My personal feeling is that there is a national attitude of distrust towards anything Indian which is reflected in the Air Force and Army's attitudes. In other words the distrust is an attitude of being more critical and condemning of Indian failures.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by shiv »

nachiket wrote:Wiki says the length of the Mig-21-93 is 14.5m more than 1m longer than the LCA. I have seen people say the original length constraint was because it had to fit in the same shelters as the Mig-21. But if the designers had 1 extra meter to work with, why didn't they use it?
Is the length of the MiG 21 with probe or without probe?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by shiv »

Cross post.

Probably wrong to compare US and India but I thought this was an interesting titbit about US Air Force being invested in technology and manufacture
brar_w wrote:
P&W, GE submit proposals for next-gen fighter engine development

The air force now expects to assemble two competing designs for engine testing before transitioning to a competition in the early 2020s for development of a sixth-generation “F-X” and “F-XX” fighter engine.
<snip>
“They’ve since taken a step back, because one of the things the air force is hot on is maintaining a competitive industrial base.”
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Gyan »

I think that we cannot restrict our discussion on HAL & IAF love affair only with respect to LCA. We need to consider what is happening in:-

HTT-40 - Dilution of GSQRs for Swiss Maal while HAL takes 10 years to select engine

LUH- HAL delays project by 5 years again on engine selection issue

LCH- Project struggling with weight issues, why cannot we induct a few LCH for plains/deserts first?

Saras- HAL is definitely not in hurry even after 10 years delay

MRH- IAF cannot decide GSQRs for last 10 (?) years

AMCA- super advanced 6th Gen requirements, 2040 for first flight is not far away.

LCA Mark-2 - Nobody seems to be in a hurry or in any worry!

LCA Mark-3- Is there one?

Rustom-2- HAL oh shit, we forgot to order actuators in last 20 years, pls believe us.

Rustom- Turboprop- why make one, when we can import from Israelis.

IJT- IAF, should we import? HAL, pls wait, it is only 10 years delay!
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by Gyan »

Oh, I forgot.

LCA Mark-1 - HAL & IAF, hum do Hamara sirf ek! Family planning to prevent excess LCA Mark -1 proliferating Indian skies. After all baaki 800 can be imported. Paapi peet ka sawal hai.
member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by member_28990 »

Gyan wrote:
LCH- Project struggling with weight issues, why cannot we induct a few LCH for plains/deserts first?
i always thought that weight issue was likely to come up for the LCH - has there been any open source news for this?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by JayS »

srin wrote:Just wondering if "agile" development is applicable to aerospace as much as it is in software. You develop a product in multiple iterations - at the end of each iteration, you have a viable product but not the end product you really need.
One issue that I can foresee is certification and re-touching all the testpoints at each iteration.
Won't work for many reasons, one of which you got correctly - certification. It takes months and months to re-certify changes. No short cuts can be taken. One other important thing is Aerospace product design is much more "coupled" wrt the disciplines involved e.g. Aero, Structural etc. You change one and all other get affected. So you need holistic approach for each iteration. Also extremely long lead times for mfg (2-3 years is very common) for some component means few parameters need to be fixed much early in design phase than majority others. Thus Mark/Tranche method work better for Aerospace projects. Even in one iteration you need very robust design process with rigidly defined gates/mile stones.

The point you made for incremental change is precisely what wise countries do through "Science Projects" - one step at a time. For ex before EF Typhoon there was EAP validating delta wing + canard aero configuration, before which there was Electric Hunter with experimental FBW and so on. Thing is we are not doing this. Even when LCA was being designed we did not put any money on any such science projects for next generation. Where are our science projects for 5th gen/6th gen?? We are trying to learn on-the-job.
tsarkar wrote:Vina, that is exactly what separates science projects from operational projects, where designers make allowances for inevitable future growth, whether in terms of space for additional future avionics or higher structural tolerances for future weapons. Those allowances save redesign time.

My point always was that the initial structure was heavy, because of a lack of optimized design, despite using composites that are lighter than metal. The optimization is happening in Mk2.
Saar, I agree with Vinaji when says that what you say seems contradictory. You can have over-design for future expansion or you can have optimized design but not both. With the same logic that you use to say that LCA designers were not visionary enough to have foreseen heavier missile coming, someone else could say that in fact it was IAF which was not visionary enough to have specified futuristic missile in the first place (afterall IAF is better placed to foresee which missile would be more relevant as its there paradigm). After all an aircraft is designed for 30-40 years and thus even if LCA was slated to come online in 90's ideally, it would have been in use after 2020 also. Or Sukhoi was not prudent enough to have considered Brahmos while designing Su-30. But of course thats ridiculous.

First we have to consider where the weight estimates come into picture from. Even if IAF had specified weight category its irrelevant as long as LCA satisfies requirements (IAF wouldn't have rejected LCA just because it was overweight despite it satisfying all other parameters). But infact the weight estimate for both IAF and ADA would have come from same source - historical data. When you start aircraft design for given requirements, you churn out some basic equations for basic parameters like L/D ratio, Thrust required etc. And then you match those with the past aircrafts made in same category - typically some empirical/graphical relations fit to available data to come up with weight estimations. So basically when I say my new aircraft will be 5.5 ton empty weight what I am really saying is that most of the aircrafts with similar performance in past have had about 5.5 ton weight (the number refined by additional considerations such as technical advances - but they are still rough estimates). Its rather difficult to come up with accurate estimate for expected weight since a lot of things differ from those old aircrafts considered in the data set. This is why most of the aircrafts exceed there initial estimated weights.

Now in case of ab initio development by a newbie agency such as ADA the challenge is even bigger. Since they are doing this design for the first time, they have no clear-cut idea of their own capabilities and how much they can achieve in reality - this is very much experience based, at least in Aerospace field. On top of it the data set they used for weight estimations is the achievements of the masters of the field which are definitely superior than the newbie agency. In such hazy situation its difficult to say confidently what is a realistic target. The best you could do it follow the best available procedure and take it as a starting point. Considering that someone like LM struggles routinely to keep weight under check, its very much likely for ADA to get into this trouble. On the other hand you have to consider weight savings due to technological advances that you are thinking of using. How do you come up with a number for weight saving due to replacement of metal components by composites without ever actually making metal thing and then replacing it with equally good composite thing?? You again look elsewhere for historical data. MY point is weight estimation is very challenging task and more so for someone who has no prior experience of building anything.

Second thing affecting weight is the precision of tools you have for design. If you see publications from ADA over the years you can easily notice how they started with primitive analysis tools and how to matured over the years to have come to a stage where their predictions match with the reality quite well. Ability to optimize depends upon how precise your tools are. You can't produce fine art with blunt tools. Its not outlandish claim to say that ADA's ability to optimize structural components (aerodynamics is even more challenging) was limited in initial stages so they ended up with overweight design (The NLCA landing gear is a good example where the designers had no experience to tell them what is the realistic factor of safety they should be using). Also please note that all design procedures used in Aerospace - particularly those where human life is at stake are ultra-conservative (as compared to other fields such as automotive). Thus you almost always end up in over-design. Thats how life-extention of airframes is possible. So more the conservative process you use more over-designed and less optimised your component is. This is how they are contradictory to each other. But the over-design is un-intended. Its merely because you don't have enough confidence on your analysis to remove that extra mm from the wing spar. So you keep it.

Now this un-intended margin is what engineers exploit in later stages. With time your analysis tools have improved and you now know that that extra mm was unnecessary and you now have more than required strength, meaning you can put more load on the structure (R73 instead of R60). But please note there was no "foresight" in that "over-design" in past. It was the ultra conservative design tools/processes that forced you to do that. In Aerospace you are working on very thin margins due to extreme coupled nature of parameters and creeping issues. Then there are stringent criterias which force you to be extra cautious. On top of it you have ultra-conservative methods/tools. So you never want to over-design than what is required to satisfy given set of requirements. Just as they say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Please also note that the design processes are improving rapidly day-by-day reducing the conservatism, increasing precision. So you will not see the degree of over-design that happened in case of F-16 in F-35. I do not expect to see F35XL version in future with the kind of quantum jump we saw from F16 to F16XL. Of coarse LCA which is designed practically in 2000's will have much less over-design than early F-16s designed in 70's.

I would also like to make one point, most of the modern aircrafts (or any aerospace project as such) see the kind of changes in requirements during their development time that LCA has seen (you know latest missiles, HMDS or whatever), but they do not interrupt their design cycles for every new thing coming. They continue with the current plan and accommodate new things in next design cycle. I believe we need very hard headed project managers for our defense projects who can put their foot down and make decisions and say, YES this change is very important and needs to be done right away or NO this change is too big and we can't do it now, we will do it in next iteration as an upgrade or MLU later on. Making changes which push project timelines for 20-30 months is shear non-sense. And here we need co-operation and commitment of user and developer. To emphasize on my point I will mention a true story from Aerospace - Company A makes a major (size/function-wise) part for OEM company B. The 1st design is shitty, ridiculously $hitty (Not 'LCA is $hitty as it does not meet STR' type shitty, but 'LCA is $hitty as its so overweight it can barely fly' type $hitty). What does co-B does?? It make do with the shitty components for 2-3 years while co-A redesigns the part. This is extreme example. But this is how Aerospace industry works. Hope we will learn some project management from the foreigners.
Last edited by JayS on 23 Sep 2015 03:54, edited 1 time in total.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by JayS »

shiv wrote:
nachiket wrote:Wiki says the length of the Mig-21-93 is 14.5m more than 1m longer than the LCA. I have seen people say the original length constraint was because it had to fit in the same shelters as the Mig-21. But if the designers had 1 extra meter to work with, why didn't they use it?
Is the length of the MiG 21 with probe or without probe?
Does it matter saar?? Would they be putting migs in hanger with probes removed?? or the shelters are open and probe poking out it al-right?? Genuine query, I have no idea.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to bla

Post by ramana »

Also to add to nileshjr's long post, there is always weight gain from prototype to production model due to many desires/requirements for electronics and other doodads. The engine has to have sufficient thrust margin to accommodate this weight growth.
Post Reply