All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Seems like you want to quote in your every post that you had been a student trainee at HAL. Ok Ok, I get your point.
On a serious note, in which year you had been training with them ?
Were you able to see the Tejas development as well with your own eyes ?
excuse me but i was no student trainee.I was an industrial trainee ie apprentice .Student trainee or summer trainee are not allowed to touch anything.I was in the overhauling and assembly department and did my project on the overhauling of RD-33 engine.
I did see the Kaveri engine and it's parts . i interacted with a lot of technicians as well as instructors who worked in the LCA program and most were not extremely optimistic about LCA.
Looks like people are very eager to jump the gun and join the Bandwagon of HAL/DRDO/Indic bashing anytime there is some negative news propping out. The point has already been stated that the work culture in HAL is shoddy and we have got that. Why reiterate it again and again, some meaningful info in this regard would help better.
The shear unprofessionalism and shoddy work in HAL comes from the fact that it is a non-profit company.So naturally who cares even if the company is making loss, the tax payers will bear the burden.They don't see that a much younger company like embraer can manufacture world class aircraft and that all of BRIC except for india has manufactured an airliner
Coming back to HAL/DRDO, they have given you weapons/fighters to fight 3 wars and win them, they are doing that till now. What have most of us really done in terms of contribution, today everyone is interested in joining some foreign company and when it comes to Indian industry, it's always someone else's job. And if that job is not done correctly, blame him till he drops dead. We should really learn to take responsibilities rather than blaming others for the paralyzed system.
but who is blaming DRDO or HAL. They are simply helpless at the hands of the govt.What can a DRDO do with a budget of mere 2.3 billion $ where as top universities in US like Harvard,Yale,MIT spend close to 20-25 billion $ on research.
abhishek-nayak wrote:excuse me but i was no student trainee.I was an industrial trainee ie apprentice .Student trainee or summer trainee are not allowed to touch anything.I was in the overhauling and assembly department and did my project on the overhauling of RD-33 engine.
I did see the Kaveri engine and it's parts . i interacted with a lot of technicians as well as instructors who worked in the LCA program and most were not extremely optimistic about LCA.
Not to undermine your big achievement
I wasn't referring to summer project either. But, you were a trainee none the less.
What was your duration of training and when ?
Why were they not interested in retaining you? You, have some kind of grudge against them? Grapes are sour, huh ?
You are bringing in so much of negative publicity for them and above all you are not at all grateful to them for your apprentice-ship. You never talked about anything positive about them ?
My better half is a Research Associate (same as trainee or so to say a rookie) in one of the CSIR lab currently.
I know how much of knowledge sharing the scientists does with the rookies and the kind (level) of assignments given to the rookies.
Now, that is some real dhoti shivering or rather dhoti wetting news!!
So, what more news you have ? Panda version of B2 on drawing board ? When will it fly for the first time ?
Panda has not been able to successfully copy the RD - 93 and AL - 31 engine despite license producing or dissecting it for so many years.
What critical technologies related to F22 has been stolen (if you can quote some) by Panda ? Are they able to successfully implement that ?
Stealing / Buying is something and successfully implementing that technology to their product is again a different story.
never underestimate your enemy and china is the last country on this planet which we can afford to underestimate.At-least they have been able to license produce AL31 , but let me tell you sir that India has not been able to do even that.Since the induction of SU 30 india has manufactured only one AL31 engine.
Sir never underestimate your enemy when they are 4 times bigger than you economically and have outperformed you in almost every aspect of life.China is not pakistan.
abhishek-nayak wrote:
but who is blaming DRDO or HAL. They are simply helpless at the hands of the govt.What can a DRDO do with a budget of mere 2.3 billion $ where as top universities in US like Harvard,Yale,MIT spend close to 20-25 billion $ on research.
And what are you planning to do about it or for that matter how are you planning to help?? Just typing in BR and putting the blame on XYZ is it!!! If there is nothing you can do, then its better to cut the criticisms down.
Not to undermine your big achievement
I wasn't referring to summer project either. But, you were a trainee none the less.
What was your duration of training and when ?
Why were they not interested in retaining you? You, have some kind of grudge against them? Grapes are sour, huh ?
You are bringing in so much of negative publicity for them and above all you are not at all grateful to them for your apprentice-ship. You never talked about anything positive about them ?
My better half is a Research Associate (same as trainee or so to say a rookie) in one of the CSIR lab currently.
I know how much of knowledge sharing the scientists does with the rookies and the kind (level) of assignments given to the rookies.
I was with HAL from Aug 2010 till july 2011. Industrial trainee are not permanent employees so once our training is over we leave.I don't have any kind of grudge against them but i am just sharing what they told me over the period of time.I cannot be blamed if they have a negative view of their own company.I am not talking about negative or positive things.I am talking rationally as some one rightly said "your critic is your best friend".
abhishek-nayak wrote:
Sir never underestimate your enemy when they are 4 times bigger than you economically and have outperformed you in almost every aspect of life.China is not pakistan.
Sir your advice is a patronizing lecture because tooo many people imagine that others are in the business of "underestimating China". May i point out a disclaimer I posted in April 2011 so that I would be allowed to say things without being lectured by some Indian that everyone else is in the business of underestimating China" http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1078197
To repeat what I know about Chinese military technology- I want to summarize this so that we all know and do not have to repeat these well known facts to each other.
China is rapidly progressing
Do not underestimate China
China is sitting on US$ 1 trillion
Quantity is quality
China is manufacturing world class electronics
You get what you pay for "You wan' cheap. You get cheap"
Helicopters, Planes, ships and chips may look like copies of Western or Russian stuff, but inside they are all different and far more advanced. The resemblance is purely coincidental.
How come so many Indians seem to go around thinking that everyone else is in the business of understimating China and over estimating India. Are we all that stupid? Not IIT level? Or do Indians think that they, as individuals, far outclass everyone else in being able to see China's strengths and understand Indians incompetence? What gives? Every few weeks we have someone coming on here and saying "Do not underestimate China"
Are we supposed to read that and think"
OH friggin heck! I never knew about China! I never knew things were so scary. We are screwed! Thank you. Thank you for telling us. Bloody hell What a cloud of ignorance I have been living under all these years. Not the curtain has been drawn! The lights are on. I must not underestimate China. Wow. What idiots we have been all these years not being able to see China's powers!!"
Last edited by shiv on 05 Oct 2011 16:57, edited 1 time in total.
abhishek-nayak wrote:Since the induction of SU 30 india has manufactured only one AL31 engine.
So exactly how did the Deep TOT with AL-31FP engine helped us in local manufacturing of engine for locally sourced raw material if what you say is true and we made just one AL-31FP engine ?
Another question i want to ask is how does TOT works in reality becuase we got the technology for Single Crystal Blade via AL-31FP so why are we looking for french help for SCB for Kaveri engine , if we have the technology we should be able to cross-polinate to other engine
Abhishek Nayak, You have tow threads to take your comments: Newbie thread or Whine thread in GDF. This is a LCA discussion thread. You have successfully wasted two pages of the thread. Dont do that again.
We seem to be very distressed by the Air Chief's comments as well as that of our fellow member who claims the ADA atmosphere is not conducive.
to get
My 2 cents (or paisas)
<del>
Again - we may not know of many issues facing HAL which prevents them to achieve a faster throughput (look at the way Boeing manages its production facilities for the c130j).
Could it be that the Air Chief is unhappy and rightly so on the preparatory work to mass produce the LCA (LSP7,8 always delayed) and is making a statement to ensure pressure on the govt to look into this or even consider the stewardship of a Dynamic IAF officer for HAL?
Pure speculation - but trying to be positive that we have a great aircraft but that will need to be built fast and in sufficient qty and thats not ADA....
Again - I post this as a discussion and not a factual statement - and I think this forum will provide a healthy debate
Best regards
Techguru
Username changed to Guru T.
deleted comparison. read the first post of this thread.
Last edited by Rahul M on 06 Oct 2011 12:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:username changed.
HAL is a cash rich co, a navaratna with a couple billion $ of orders booked at any time.
nothing prevents them from buying up the latest and best production machinery from anywhere around the world. nothing prevents them from appointing industrial design experts to reshape and retrain their production processes and QC.
however it is also a massive employer with strong labour unions probably and resistance from these are probably what prevents wholesale revamp and automation of the production line as people would fearful of job cuts?
some amt of lack of initiative and org inertia also plays its role?
Here goes another post which adds nothing!!! But what the hell the last two pages have added nothing.
Though I don't share a lot of Abhishek ji's idea, I don't completely agree with the two pages of people criticizing him either.
I mean he really doesn't need to say I was bla bla bla ... but then poster after poster has personally attacked him, his posts, his credentials, his contributions towards the country etc ... but absolutely none have put forward a single point countering his points ... why HAL can still produce a single AL-31, why is there negativity among the people who have work(ed) at HAL and in people who have never worked there, why did HAL miss out on sure shot markets like trainers/LOH ... how can Mahindra get a plane flying in 2-3 years while HAL/NAL drags it feet?
I don't intend to demean of HAL ... no sir, I am truly a well wisher ... Quite frankly I have berated anybody around me who has spoken against HAL/DRDO to the extent possible without physical blows ... as an Indian I see as HAL as 'mine' ... but I do remember something my mother always used to say to me about myself and my things, "don't congratulate yourself, leave that to the others" ... ... and I do believe that it should be possible to post on BR without being self-congratulatory all the time ... Also, criticism and bitching are two different different things ... we should distinguish between the same ... I congratulate HAL on aspects of Tejas, ALH, LCH ... but then I can't say the same things about trainers, utility planes, LUH etc. etc.
Also, China is not light years ahead of us and there is a requirement to arrest dhoti-shivering (my earnest regards to Shivji here) ... however, they are 5 -10 years ahead of us when it comes to aviation ... is anybody contesting that? The faster we gulp that and get down to work the better it is IMHO.
indranilroy wrote:Here goes another post which adds nothing!!! But what the hell the last two pages have added nothing.
Though I don't share a lot of Abhishek ji's idea, I don't completely agree with the two pages of people criticizing him either.
I mean he really doesn't need to say I was bla bla bla ... but then poster after poster has personally attacked him, his posts, his credentials, his contributions towards the country etc ... but absolutely none have put forward a single point countering his points ... why HAL can still produce a single AL-31, why is there negativity among the people who have work(ed) at HAL and in people who have never worked there, why did HAL miss out on sure shot markets like trainers/LOH ... how can Mahindra get a plane flying in 2-3 years while HAL/NAL drags it feet?
I don't intend to demean of HAL ... no sir, I am truly a well wisher ... Quite frankly I have berated anybody around me who has spoken against HAL/DRDO to the extent possible without physical blows ... as an Indian I see as HAL as 'mine' ... but I do remember something my mother always used to say to me about myself and my things, "don't congratulate yourself, leave that to the others" ... ... and I do believe that it should be possible to post on BR without being self-congratulatory all the time ... Also, criticism and bitching are two different different things ... we should distinguish between the same ... I congratulate HAL on aspects of Tejas, ALH, LCH ... but then I can't say the same things about trainers, utility planes, LUH etc. etc.
Also, China is not light years ahead of us and there is a requirement to arrest dhoti-shivering (my earnest regards to Shivji here) ... however, they are 5 -10 years ahead of us when it comes to aviation ... is anybody contesting that? The faster we gulp that and get down to work the better it is IMHO.
Please let us not derail this thread hereafter, we all would be interested in LCA news only here. About your queries or counter arguments, I am sure many of us can answer that, so please take it to some other thread and let us know. Thanks!
<Most of this post was moved by the author to the PSU dhagga, as per the request of Rahul M.>
<SPECULATION> To me, this situation indicates that the LCA is being prototyped on production jigs, rather than on prototyping jigs. If this is indeed the case (as I suspect it is), and also considering the simplicity and size of the LCA (smallest a/c of its class in the world, single engine, tail-less design, minimal control surfaces, monocoque construction, modular electronics, etc.), and the extensive use of production automation that has been mentioned more than once: all this says to me that HAL should be able to produce the right aircraft in the right numbers at the right time, as defined by the IAF, with the ability to quickly ramp-up output once a produciton specification has been frozen. 'Til now, we've seen 'Limited Series Production' (LSP), with no two a/c being identical. Once they figure out their ideals (for the variants, air-superiority, ground-attack, nuke-strike, naval, single/double seaters, whatever), they will already have all their tooling ready-to go and poka-yoke'd.
For all we know, HAL may already have kits ready and waiting for the 40 a/c in 'Tranche 1', which would make 'Serial Production' (SP) a comparatively quick affair. This is probably what satisfies the IAF about HAL -- they can see that it can be done. Why should the IAF want 40 a/c today, when they anticipate getting 40 *better* aircraft tomorrow, when they'll really need it? </SPECULATION>
Any official words that would fit/not fit with this LCA production scenario?
Last edited by Ravi Karumanchiri on 06 Oct 2011 13:09, edited 3 times in total.
there is a lot of misconception about this. a single Al-31 that is completely built in India from scratch (or as much as they would go, some items do not make sense to be produced in house).
they have produced Al-31's starting from kits and with increasing amounts of indigenisation. that's what the plan was all along, as with the Su30mki.
secondly why are we breast beating about HAL and LCA. LCA is primarily ADA's baby, not HAL's. most of HAL's problems do not apply to ADA.
_________________
Ravi ji, could you kindly move your post to PSU etc thread ?
Allow me to counter one of your points here ... I might be wrong and nothing would make me happier to proved so.
How come we have complete ToT to make a Al-31 class engine from scratch (if I remember correctly the words used were "from raw materials") ... and yet we struggle to build Kaveri? The major hurdles I last heard was about materials, it was not about the design, right?!
I can't prove it to you but only tell what I know.
struggled or not the point is we have built the kaveri and it is performing within striking distance of its target. the rest, as some recent birdies would have it is a matter of experience and refinement. materials is no longer as much of a bottleneck as we used to think.
the grasp of full AL-31 tech is itself a recent event. may be they have used that in kaveri, may be it is different and can't be used in kaveri. I don't know the details. what I do know is that AL-31 is being made from scratch including blisks according to some quarters.
Allow me to counter one of your points here ... I might be wrong and nothing would make me happier to proved so.
How come we have complete ToT to make a Al-31 class engine from scratch (if I remember correctly the words used were "from raw materials") ... and yet we struggle to build Kaveri? The major hurdles I last heard was about materials, it was not about the design, right?!
I think we are going around in circles here. the problem about engines is twofold. The first is the design and second the materials. What we get from Al 31 is design and certainly a lot of the materials. Even if we make all the materials in house the design cannot be changed without screwing it up.
What we are looking for in Kaveri is both design and material. The problem of having neither is that you make a design and find that your materials are not working. You make the materials work and find out that you cannot stick to design because the materials are too heavy/wrong specs. Then you finally get design and materials right and you find that fuel consumption and MTBF are not good. You tweak those and start having material failures . You redesign the material and find everything working but the required thrust is not generated/compression not good enough/temperatures too high or other failures
Once you get past these cycles for the first 3-4 engines then you have a working line of engines. There are some Western engines that are so good and so reliable we are unlikely to reach that standard anytime in the near future unless we get really lucky and hit the right combo soon.
But we have to keep working and never ever end the research and application. The biggest mistake was to give up on the HF 24 and its engine.
May I point out that someone on BRF today has mocked RamaY for quoting an unnamed source as saying that India had a spl forces plan for Bin Laden/or some Packee fugitive. We have heard nothing about such a plane. We know nothing of such a plan. We do not have a great opinion of our will and capabilities - so we mock and ridicule someone who says that.
But hey..look at our attitude to China.
We say they are making an engine. We have no idea of real thrust achieved. We have no idea of compression ratios. We have no idea of MTBF. We do not know the weights. We have no idea of how well the materials are working. We have no idea of fuel consumption. But we are happy to say that "China is ahead".
Does anyone see my point? Why is the spl forces story untrue but the China engine true? The data available is equally sparse in both cases. It is merely our own piskology of deriding our capability and admiring Chinese capability that makes us "accept" that they are doing great engines with NO PUBLIC DATA releaseed about what others should know! And cognitive dissonance will ensure that some people will get angry and accuse me of "underestimating China" and "Overestimating India" for pointing out something.
We keep going round in circles as Shiv has said,with indigenisation issues and the status of such prgrammes.Let's analyse why we face problems.
The holy grail is "indigenous design and production on time".Less dependence upon foreign suppliers.Projects/weapon systems are identified,parameters are drawn up.However,do the end-users have a key say at this stage? Secondly,do we have the req. tech available in house? Engine development capability for example? Composites? How much money is reqd. for R&D to develop systems within the specified timeframe? Often,the desi entities give extremely optimistic timeframes for dev. when they do not know the extent of R&D and costs involved.
If we have afterwards identified the areas of insufficient tech capability,we then invite foreign collaboration.Let's say engines and radar for aircraft.Taking a decision on which foreign entity to go with is another major bureaucratic exercise.Putting all the elements desi and firang together on time and then testing the whole animal is a gigantic task .If one key component is delayed then the entire project waits for it to arrive and is set back further.This is what happened to the LCA (engine delay and add US sanctions too).
Now,this is not unique to the LCA or just the aviation industry.A recent issue of the IMR on the Shivalik/shipbuilding has a CAG study/report that castigates the sorry state of indigenous warship building.We were supposed to have had 9 P-17s commissioned by 2011 and have only two completed/commissioned so far! Here,the delays have been attributed to lack of structural drawings on time,lack of supply of certain steel on time from abroad (Russia) or indigenous suppliers,lack of deciding upon what critical (weapon?) systems are to be used (!) holding up construction,lack of proper infrastructure in PSU yards despite a decade of time spent,etc.In the warship delays,the main reason appears to be indecision about key systems.We know how the Brahmaputra class arrived 10 yrs+ in the making,without Trishul (a failure) or its alternative Barak added on later.Now how can you build a huge warship without deciding upon its key weapon systems? OK,if a modular approach is to be used as systems are being evaluated,one must know what firang/desi systems are being considered and how much space (above deck and below),weight,power reqs. they need,planning for the largest,heaviest,most power consuming system of the lot and start designing/building.
If desi delays are between 5-10 years a warship,then foreign (Russian) ones for the Talwars are around 1-2 years.The cost overruns for indigenous warships has also gone upto almost a staggering 300%! Cost overeuns for foreign warships have also been experienced with Scorpenes ,and the Gorky.Because we ordered late,the price of the extra three Talwars which could've been acquired at old prices were supposedly lost.Clearly therefore,project manageent in PSU undertakings has performed poorly across the board,perhaps not in the design,development and production of tactical and strategic missiles.Our PSUs and their heads,without any accountability carry on regardless,employing people and comsuming ever-increasing budgets and keep on winning "Padma awards" as one uniformed worthy sarcastically put it!
FComing back to the LCA,what is evident from the above examples is that a PM team (involving the end-user too) for every project being built/developed is an absolute,to keep the project on time and costs within reasonable limits of escalation.Sufficient volumes also have to be awarded for the PSUs and now private desi defence contractors to offer economies of scale and
to reduce construction time.The GOI must provide the required money budgeted available at all times for a project and ensure that orders for components/materials are palced well in time during construction/manufacture.
Most importantly,who is the project head who can "hire and fire" and take/advise upon critical decisions to the bosses babu and political,MOD/GOI.A project head with such powers is rarely decided upon.There may be a team leader,but no "general" in charge,as his findings will adversely affect shortcomings in associated PSUs! So the "committee" approach is agreed upon,with layers of committees upon eahc other,all overseeing each other's "deliberations",while the end-users fret and fume! Unless this babu attitude changes and the end-user has his designated project head in right from the beginning,keeping an eye on progress and problems,lethargy and waste will occur again and again.The GOI must realise that it is the stakeholder or "owner" of the sytem being developed/built and is paid from the poor taxpayer's pocket.
The current status of the LCA ,though very irritating-as the IAF need replacements for the MIG-21 yesterday,is not reached its critical limit.The learning curve has been long and arduous and if there is a silver lining,it is that we now know how NOT to undertake such a project in future! We still have 8 years to go before the decade's end and I am sure that looking at those components which work and do not need tinkering with,the production of these items can be ramped up to save time as many of them (avionics,EW,etc) are also being used on upgrades of Jaguars,MIG-27s,MIG-29s,M-2000s,etc.If the engine for MK-2 has been identified,then a prototype must be built asap,to fly along with the Mk-1 aircraft at least to validate the flight performance as the fuselage/intakes reportedly may have to be modified.If the LCA is to be of credible use to the IAF,it must arrive faster and a Mk-2 team should be created apart from the Mk-1 team to get it into the air and into service by 2015/16 at the latest.We will then be able to produce about 80 MK-2aircraft at an achievable rate of 16 a year,which I think is what we are now achieving with the SU-30MKis.Along with the first sqd. of Mk1s,we will then be able to have about 100 in service by 2020.
Allow me to counter one of your points here ... I might be wrong and nothing would make me happier to proved so.
How come we have complete ToT to make a Al-31 class engine from scratch (if I remember correctly the words used were "from raw materials") ... and yet we struggle to build Kaveri? The major hurdles I last heard was about materials, it was not about the design, right?!
The "materials" (or anything else) WRT the AL-31 is JUST one data point in research. It is a ToT.
To be able to design/build another engine it take multiple such data points, which NO ToT can provide.
Even then - once the material are mastered - the manufacturing part comes into play. Again, the ToT provides JUST one aspect. It does not even provide what went into the thinking.
And, finally, it is crucial that one knows what failed and why. A ToT can never provide that.
So, as an example, India could mimic an AL-31 material and manufacturing process and fail going down a certain path (building a new engine), and waste all that time - all the time expecting to succeed based on the AL-31 ToT.
The chances of failure in an engine design are so huge that failures are near certain.
I thought the Russians were had recently approached the British for a civilian engine. No? Will have to look it up, but, if true, then time and cost are other factors that prevent designing new engines.
Thank you for your explanations ... I don't understand engines beyond knowing what high-pass and low-pass mean ... and I have never said that the Chinese are way ahead of us wrt engines.
But aviation is not just about engines. If you have airframes in the air, you learn small but critical things all the time ... and they have put airframes of all kinds in the air 5-10 years before us. Be it fighters, freighters, civilian planes, trainers, UAVs. I am crediting them for things which you see flying all the time.
The problem with Kaveri as is now, is not because of ADA or HAL, but GTRE. of course precision engineering complexity does apply, but organizational and management style was not appropriate for something like Kaveri. Besides, they were on meager budget. What else you would get?
They have done a commendable baseline job, and it is important responsibility of "us" jingoes to ensure there is enough public eye opening on Kaveri++versions, and more inputs to reorganizing GTRE, with extra funds.
If you don't do it now, you will never do it.. turbine change management is not simple.
......nothing prevents them from buying up the latest and best production machinery from anywhere around the world. nothing prevents them from appointing industrial design experts to reshape and retrain their production processes and QC.
YES Something prevents them form "buying up the latest and best production machinery from anywhere around the world"
Something called as L1. THE lowest bidder.
If they were to buy the best required form them at a higher price, the entire babudom (many with vested interest) will fall upon them. Instead of using the best machinery they will spend their time and energy trying to justify to a host of commitees and commissions.
sure they can do L1, but can't expect an A1++ technology products and setup.
L1 will work only for older technology products. All new technology products has premium.. and in the end, under the L1 board, by the time desh gets it, it would be really old, and qualifies for L1.
So, L1 qualifies by the methods and processes of procurement. That is is the change needed.
Guru T wrote:Again - we may not know of many issues facing HAL which prevents them to achieve a faster throughput (look at the way Boeing manages its production facilities for the c130j).
might want to get your facts right first- Boeing doesn't manufacture the C-130J. Lockheed Martin does.
Nikhil T wrote:6 months is not a huge delay by any chance. They can make it up in production if they want, so the date of say the induction of the 2nd MKII squadron will remain the same. Of course, no one knows if that is going to be the case.
Kanson wrote:
I said this before. Whichever aircraft is getting inducted during the time of MMRCA will have similar features & capabilities of that. Super-30 upgrade to Su-30MKI is in that direction. And i said before LCA-Mk2 once inducted will be rubbing shoulders with MMRCA. The timeframe of MMRCA induction, FOC of LCA MK2 and Super-30 upgrade are all around 2014.
FOC of MK2 is not possible in 2014 when the FOC of MKI will be in Mid-2013. AFAIK the MK2 design was frozen in July this year, the first flight of MK2 can be in early 2014 at best and that would be a stretch too. Even if the airframe is not going to be substantially changed, the new engine, the radar and the expanded inlets will need to be tested.
Oops! Missed a word while typing. TQ. For IAF one phase ends by 2014 and another phase starts after that.
Nikhil T wrote:Depends what you're comparing with. MiG-21's ? Yes. F-16 block 50/52 ? Nope. But we're getting there.
abhishek-nayak wrote:LCA Mk2 is still very much if's and butts.Seeing the work at HAL myself it's highly unlikely that MK2 will get FOC by 2014.
I have no comments to be made on HAL. BTW, if you notice, success and capabilities of LCA is in the hands of ADA and not HAL. HAL is just a production agency, just as BDL for missiles.
I'm not sure if "L1" always wins.The GOI from time to time have made decisions where the best item for the requirement was chosen.If L1 is the key criteria,then none of the two Eurobirds would be in contention for the MMRCA contest! I think "L1" in correct context means lowest bidder when all other factors/parameters are equal/met by all bidders.
LCA-Tejas has completed 1712 Test Flights successfully. (30-Sep-2011).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-208,PV3-301,LSP1-67,LSP2-188,PV5-36,LSP3-43,LSP4-41,LSP5-48)
LCA-Tejas has completed 1686 Test Flights successfully. (22-Sep-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-208,PV3-295,LSP1-67,LSP2-178,PV5-36,LSP3-43,LSP4-41,LSP5-38)
RKumar wrote:LCA-Tejas has completed 1712 Test Flights successfully. (30-Sep-2011).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-208,PV3-301,LSP1-67,LSP2-188,PV5-36,LSP3-43,LSP4-41,LSP5-48)
LCA-Tejas has completed 1686 Test Flights successfully. (22-Sep-2011).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-208,PV3-295,LSP1-67,LSP2-178,PV5-36,LSP3-43,LSP4-41,LSP5-38)
26 flights in 8 days
Thats pretty cool, we have about three planes flying majority of the sorties. So almost more than one sortie a day by lsp-5 & 2
