Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 24 May 2013 02:39

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 08:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 17515
Location: NowHere
It is disheartening that there should be communication problems with the services and developers. I think, they should come out of this shell of humbleness and be point blank on where they stand, and how much time they actually require. No body is good at estimations, but I guess we have progress done [probability theory of past data of similar work /prediction intervals from actual data(hope they fill correct timesheets)], and have enough data on such projects to estimate it better.

I am sure there is an argument here to the fact, this is something different and new.. but there is also a fact in the database, that this not entirely new, and there is a baseline data. hence, my argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 08:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24
Posts: 319
That article by Tarmak, is probably a response to the Naval Chief outburst, it is dated Feb 9th.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 09:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Thanks Ramana guru. I was wodnering if any of our experts could figure out visually the changes made to the front fuselage based on the high res pics in the link. Btw was the F35 supposed to have a problem with fuel dumping ? If our guys have accomplished it kudos to them.

No word still on LSP7 though :((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 09:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Quoting Shri.Balaji during the roll out for posterity

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/07/lca-navy-chiefs-speech-on-np-1-roll-out.html

Quote:
In 2003, based on the progress made on the Air Force LCA Programme the Govt approved Phase-1 development of 2 LCA Navy Prototypes that would operate from an aircraft carrier with the concept of Ski-jump Take-off and Arrested Recovery (STOBAR). Navy actively supported this Challenging programme to design, develop, build and flight test a carrier borne aircraft for the first time in the country. The two prototypes under development would be used to demonstrate that the aircraft is capable of operating from a ship, i.e., carrier compatible.

The question often asked is ‘what are the changes in LCA(Navy) in comparison to the Air Force version?’ Typically the aircraft will get airborne in about 200m over the ski-jump on the ship as against a land based take-off run of about 800m. Landing on the ship is with an arrester hook on the aircraft engaging an arrester wire on the ship and the aircraft stops in 90m which is about 1/10th land based stopping distance.

Unlike shore based take-off and landing applications, typical ship borne requirements imposes large loads on the aircraft structure which entails new design. Also, the nose section of the aircraft is drooped down in order to have better pilot vision for ship landing. Whilst the external aerodynamic shape of the aircraft is same as the Air Force Trainer, the internal structure is entirely different due to larger loads resulting from carrier operations. However, all Mechanical, Avionics and Flight Control system layout are by and large common with the Air Force version. The design of LCA(Navy) has been performed in a 3Dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) concurrent engineering environment. A Digital Mock Up (DMU) of the aircraft was ultimately created which had all the internal equipment laid out. This helped in visualising possible areas of clash with various system groups and the structural interfaces due a possibility of ‘virtual walk through’. No physical mock up has been built. Due to first time design, there could be additional reserve factors taken as a conservative measure, but would be optimised based on experience in the future prototypes. This would result in significant weight savings.

Areas identified as challenges over and above the Air Force Version were structural design, Landing gear design, arrester hook, introduction of a new control surface (LEVCON) and ski-jump take-off. A case in point for Naval specific activities was the development of large sized landing gear forgings. Midhani had to develop the special tooling and processes and provide the special steel forgings. In addition, Bharat Forge, Pune provided the near shaped forgings of the major landing gear elements. These have been fabricated at private companies at Hyderabad and landing gears have been assembled at HAL (Nasik). Some of the typical challenges encountered during the development cycle, resulted in them taking longer than anticipated. However, today these have been resolved and we all await the aircraft’s rollout in the presence of the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri and the Chief of the Naval Staff.

In its primary role of Air to Air combat, the aircraft will carry both Close Combat Missiles (CCM) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Missiles. In its Air to Sea role, the aircraft will carry Anti Ship Missile (ASM). The aircraft can carry external fuel drop tanks to increase range and endurance. The aircraft can carry a wide variety of bombs based on role requirement.

To meet specific Naval testing, new test facilities have and are being developed. A new landing gear drop test facility has been created to handle testing to Naval requirements for qualifying larger landing gear loads. A hardware-in-loop simulation for flight control system testing called ‘Iron-bird’ has been set up and functioning. In this facility, entire hydraulics, flight control system and avionics would be integrated for the evaluation of the software. The Avionics and Weapon test rigs have been suitably modified to test the changes in system layout and architecture required for the Naval version. Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) to simulate an aircraft carrier with ski-jump and arrested recovery is being set up at the Naval Air Station at Goa. The ski-jump facility is expected to be ready by the last quarter of 2011 and the landing area a year later. Goa Shipyard Ltd is handling the complete structural work, system integration and operations. R&D Engineers and CCE(R&D) west Pune are handling the civil works. Specialised equipment supply is from Russia in order to have the same configuration as on the Vikramaditya.

It is critical to demonstrate carrier compatibility to infuse confidence in the Indian Navy that we indeed have a Carrier borne aircraft and towards that it is critical to demonstrate ski-jump take off and validate the simulations that have been carried out by the control Law team. Navy has defined the Mission and Performance requirements expected of the aircraft. As mentioned earlier, due to first time design, there may be shortfall in certain parameters with the current engine. Two more LCA(Navy) prototypes has been sanctioned by the Govt in Dec 2009 with a higher thrust engine to enable meeting the Mission objectives set out by the Navy.

The act of ‘Rollout’ is a significant milestone in the development process of an aircraft wherein it is structurally complete, equipment installed, plumbing and wiring completed. The aircraft is on its wheels and can be moved by assisted power and is a precursor to the phase of ground based system integration testing leading the engine ground run, taxi tests and flight. Every effort is being made by all the stake holders to have the maiden flight in 3 to 4 months time.

This day of NP1 rollout has been possible with the active involvement of HAL as the Principal Partner of ADA and support by DRDO, CSIR labs, CEMILAC, DGAQA, Public and Private sector industries, Educational Institutions and a host of other agencies. I wish to salute all of those who have contributed as a composite LCA Navy Team in realising this important milestone and look forward to the same spirit to take the aircraft towards its maiden flight at the earliest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 10:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4830
Location: Jatland
Well, what is quite obvious from the Tarmak article is that the work was not 15% different from IAF version....and that is where heartburn from IN lies. It seems it was a case of overpromise in when it came to development timeframe and underassessment of challenges....I was hoping DRDO would have learn from LCA saga so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 10:50 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30611
rohit, I dont buy that. There is a lot of difference between land based and aircraft carrier based planes. IN having operated aircraft should have realised it and insisted on comprehensive oversight. I can't imagine throwing some specs and wait for a plane to show up. Weren't there any periodical program reviews in the last few years? From both articles the plane is mostly new and totally new infrastructure for testing and mfg has come into place. Did all that happen without the IN senior leadership being unaware?

A chinese saying goes "When you point a finger, three are pointed to you!" I add the thumb is skyward towards chance or act of god.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 11:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26
Posts: 478
Well you have to make a proper case so that purchase of additional 80 Rafales can be justified.... don't we :?: :!: :shock:

[RANT Alert!]If we can spend half the money, which we are spending on imported fighters, on LCA we can make it a mini Rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 11:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31
Posts: 549
Ramana,

The CNS in his press interaction said the following..

Quote:
It is often said that there is only 15 per cent difference between both versions. The Navy has always maintained that it may be 15 per cent in terms of material and systems, but it is a substantial part. And they [ADA] underestimated it.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2012/02/in ... Defence%29

So it was not a case of the Navy underestimating the amount of work needed.

The Navy has typically had its own officers at site to not just monitor but also guide and push along DRDO projects - often cited as the secret of its higher success rate than the other two services. I cannot imagine that it would be different for such a critical and high profile project as the NLCA.

There is more to this very public exchange through the press than meets the eye. (e.g. could it be a case for garnering more resources for accelerating the NLCA program - the budget session of Parliament is nearing?) Or it is simply a case where the CNS said something that he thought was off the record and it got reported?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 11:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 6128
Location: All-forgiving now since "Katju hat on"
There seems very little chance that the forces will support indigenous development for fighters. Time and again, we are seeing examples of half-hearted efforts to fulfill the requirement "We always support indigenous development, but babooz and lazy PSU workers are inefficient so we have to plonk for imported maal onlee."

Everyone blaming HAL, ADA etc have to stop and think what these folks are being paid and why we expect them to have sacrificed pretty promising careers outside, and then have to take flak for "not being committed enough". SO hire folks who will be committed and pay them the right amounts and attention (and of course FUND the programs well enough) to ensure they can deliver. Piecemeal funding will result in delays, and that is a golden rule that no one from either side of this divide can deny. imho, ADA et al are to a lesser extent to blame for these delays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 12:30 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 03 Sep 2011 14:31
Posts: 2
What Ramana says is correct, there is lot of diff. in land based and carrier based aircraft like canopy, landing gear, arrester hook etc.
If this was not the case every aircraft in this world with minor changes would have been used on carriers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 12:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Why is the drogue chute cover yellow any relevance to it being carrier based ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 13:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Quote:
“It is scheduled to fly this month. Many challenges are new and we are taking them head on.”

The last statement in tarmak's kind of says that the first flight may not happen this month


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 13:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2558
Naval Chief statement on LCA delay has become comfortable for those who amplify the thinking of ex- Air Chief Krishnaswamy and has become ruse to naysayers to rise voice again to scrap the program.

First of all for those who blindly believe anything, Air Chief Krishnaswamy is currently working for a aero private industry. He has a direct stake if anything benefits private industry. His statements should be viewed as a person from that industry and not as ex- Air Chief. I don't want to talk ill of anybody but those who has links know how that industry is getting contracts.

"There is little demonstrated stamina to take these risks."

Demonstrated stamina? Where was he for the past 20 yrs.

And to Naval Chief:

"They [ADA] focused largely on the Air Force programme and the LCA [Navy] did fall behind…. There have been many promises made by the ADA but they failed us... It is often said that there is only 15 per cent difference between both versions. The Navy has always maintained that it may be 15 per cent in terms of material and systems, but it is a substantial part. And they [ADA] underestimated it."

There own Naval personnel don't know initially which way the cat will jump on timelines. So what is the point of putting entire failure stamp on the shoulders of ADA? Failed on what? The statement looks as if Naval LCA project is failed. On timelines, well, if JSF program can give nightmares to the best & well equipped aircraft industry in the world, any thing can happen to newbies like our own LCA project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 14:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 410
For people advocating more funds for the LCA program: Is the bottle neck for the LCA program insufficient funds?

Sridhar, this could be the usual case of 15% change requiring 85% additional work? Both IN/ADA look at the 15 percent number and take way very different things from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 14:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 4439
Is the NLCA so heavy that it wont even fly? :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 16:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4830
Location: Jatland
Marten wrote:
<SNIP>Everyone blaming HAL, ADA etc have to stop and think what these folks are being paid and why we expect them to have sacrificed pretty promising careers outside, and then have to take flak for "not being committed enough". SO hire folks who will be committed and pay them the right amounts and attention (and of course FUND the programs well enough) to ensure they can deliver. Piecemeal funding will result in delays, and that is a golden rule that no one from either side of this divide can deny. imho, ADA et al are to a lesser extent to blame for these delays.


Marten, what kind of nonsense is this? By the same yardstick, nothing should left the mother earth in case of ISRO and our armed forces should have been a bunch of 2nd class incompetent fools, Arjun should not have materialized and nothing from DRDO's stable should have seen the light of the day. :roll:

Please see this interview with Director ADA, PS Subramanyam:http://www.forceindia.net/interview26.aspx

Quote:
In hindsight, it would have been easier to design the naval variant first and then quickly move onto the air force variant and not the other way around. Our initial estimates on the amount of work required on the Naval variant were not quite accurate and the programme gave us some surprises


So, why is it so difficult to understand that the developers fvcked up somewhere? Or, are we to treat them as holy cows?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 16:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 6128
Location: All-forgiving now since "Katju hat on"
Rohit, you are fully entitled to your anger and opinions. My point is simply that blaming the developers for every delay is not right. Without funding on time, without client/user guidance, without clear goals and a fully staffed team, no large-scale project can succeed. This is borne from my experience, especially working on large-scale GOI projects.

Not sure what you mean by bringing in ISRO or Arjun? Were they not fully staffed or funded? Of course, they weren't... and that they succeeded is a testament to the teams involved. Surely you cannot claim the same for the LCA project, and one cannot blame the team for all ills. It's just what the DDM does, and I for one, cannot agree with Rajat Pandit or his followers on such views.

A balanced view of the project is all I ask of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 17:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4830
Location: Jatland
ramana wrote:
rohit, I dont buy that. There is a lot of difference between land based and aircraft carrier based planes. IN having operated aircraft should have realised it and insisted on comprehensive oversight. I can timage throwing some specs and wait for a plane to show up. Weren there any periodical program reviews in the last few years? From both articles the plane is mostly new and totally new infrastructure for testing and mfg has come into place. Did all that happen without the IN senior leadership being unaware?

A chinese saing goes"When you point a finger, three are pointed to you!" I add the thumb is skyward towards chance or act of god.


ramana, I don't come from engineering background but common sense tells me that following steps would have been taken when it came to Naval LCA - (a) Draw up the requirement for Naval LCA. (b) Compare the same with development work already undertaken on Tejas. (c) Identify the differences and newer areas of work/development required for Naval LCA (d) draw up capability profile - existing capability and gaps - to fill in the unique requirements of Naval LCA (e) start development on both-additional requirements for Naval LCA based on existing capability and gaining additional/newer capability to address areas where we lack.

Now, when it comes to providing the road map and timelines for development, it is the job of DRDO to appraise the IN. If DRDO says, "these are the challenges and given our capability profile and road map, we can do the job in x time frame"....you expect IN to audit that capability? Please read the interview with ADA Director in the light of what I've written. IN committed 900crores to the project - you think they'll just sit and twiddle their thumbs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 17:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4830
Location: Jatland
Marten wrote:
Rohit, you are fully entitled to your anger and opinions. My point is simply that blaming the developers for every delay is not right. Without funding on time, without client/user guidance, without clear goals and a fully staffed team, no large-scale project can succeed. This is borne from my experience, especially working on large-scale GOI projects.

Not sure what you mean by bringing in ISRO or Arjun? Were they not fully staffed or funded? Of course, they weren't... and that they succeeded is a testament to the teams involved. Surely you cannot claim the same for the LCA project, and one cannot blame the team for all ills. It's just what the DDM does, and I for one, cannot agree with Rajat Pandit or his followers on such views.

A balanced view of the project is all I ask of you.


Balanced opinions also mean that people don't throw muck at Services at drop of the hat. The same IN which was the darling of this forum because it has been trying since ages to be a developer Navy and working with local players is demonized the moment it says something about the Program. Don't you think that they could very well have reasons to say what they say? The interview with ADA Director is as clear an indication as possible that complexity of work was underassessed. Don't you think that it is perfectly logical that delays might well have accumulated? Please read the post by raghuk who it seems works on Tejas. His simple post clearly brings out the problem in the programme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 17:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4830
Location: Jatland
Badar wrote:
For people advocating more funds for the LCA program: Is the bottle neck for the LCA program insufficient funds?

Sridhar, this could be the usual case of 15% change requiring 85% additional work? Both IN/ADA look at the 15 percent number and take way very different things from it.


Exactly. People need to live in present and not past. Much water has passed under the bridge since days of lack of fund or support from services. As I wrote earlier, IN committed 900Cr from its budget for the Naval LCA program.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 17:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 6128
Location: All-forgiving now since "Katju hat on"
Rohit, who is denying that delays were accumulated or that they were unforeseen? My point is if the IN is directing the program as it does with all shipbuilding projects, the first risk being assessed/addressed would be related to skill and retention of personnel. In this case, we're blaming the team for this risk, while saying the IN was not aware or did not have to be aware of the risks. The delays could not have materialized from thin air, and the IN should/would be fully in the loop. At least that is what my expectation as a program manager would be. Do you disagree with this view?

PS: My grouse is with MoD as well - if we need world class projects/designs to succeed, we need world class personnel with enough buffer in terms of manpower. Am pretty sure this is not the case with the design bureaus. Perhaps it will take a private sector firm to bring in that kind of culture and pay, but it is sad that we see this situation continue in the present day and age.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 18:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 17515
Location: NowHere
Pratyush wrote:
Is the NLCA so heavy that it wont even fly? :P

It better not fly, if it can't meet the required basic performance characteristics. LCA has already flown with enough MTOW to satisfy the basics, and the problem here is not Navy not ADA, but bad estimations and management. People will go any extremes if one can't find an accountability point to factor in.. so, it is always easy to create story lines, and save both the forces and team LCA, from the hands of nasty dork media and bad public image.

There is a truth in what Ramana is pointing out, and at the same time there is a truth in the project management aspects too...perhaps that is not coming to surface because of the institutional politics, setup, and management style.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 19:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7510
Location: India
Let me throw a little light on the LCA "culture".AWST Jan 30th issue ,on "AURA grows",news of India's super secret UCAV programme,has this quote:

"Our approach has to be pragmatic",says the IAF officer."This cannot be an endless and aimless project.We cannot afford to see timelines like we did on the Tejas program.That's why we are already in consultations with several agencies and firms to see what we can develop quickly,what we can partner on and what we need to outsource entirely",the officer said.

Now this is what many of us have been saying for over a decade+! The "endless and aimlessness" of the program was explained many a time,as I've quoted extensively from a former VCoAS.The LCA was treated like an orphan for a long time,put in front of the cameras like a propaganda exercise from time to time,and only "took off" when it was found that the Sino-Pak JV,the JF-17 was going to be flying into service much earlier than the LCA,whose programme was launched way before that bird!

Had the project followed what is now being adopted for the AURA,as mentioned by the IAF officer,the LCA would be in service a long time ago.BK has given us details of how the NLCA's landing gear has been "tweaked" with USN help,where the IN took the initiative to seek USN help first.The CNS's critical statement indicates the frustration at tall talk from the ADA,etc.One reason for this is what the good professor writing in VAYU said some time ago, about the aero-engineering base being weaker in the country than abroad,resulting in the inability to solve key technical poblems at times,which resulted in delays,cost overruns,and failure to meet design parameters.Kaveri is a prime example,the "heart" of the LCA now discarded for a firang engine.

The question of the IN having a man "in the loop" or not was debated to the death in the armoured vehicle thread when I said something similar about the IA and Arjun.Semantics.Here too,one cannot say that the IN was not "aware" of the requirements/specs for the naval variant at the outset-from all reports,but was it truly "in the loop",as is understood by me,that is a 24X7 presence,not just as a "voyeur",but also being part of the entire process.The same disease that has afflicted the Arjun's development,we have seen with Tejas .The IAF are now waiting to induct the aircraft with lesser performance,on the assurance that the MK-2 version would fit the bill! Doesn't it also sound very similar to that of the Arjun
(but with one key point that eventually,Arjun proved itself in the trials and face-off with the T-90 )?

Therefore,the disease is the manner in which these key defence projects,critical to our holy grail of indigenisation,have been conceptualised,designed,managed,built and tested.These two projects (and there are other more abject failures like Trishul) have shown the large gaps that exist in our scientific nd industrial base ,which we thought we could close in a short time,underestimating the enormity of the tasks,the time required and the costs involved.Happily,with the quotes about "AURA",the lessons seem tom have been learnt.The pity iis that the report also says that with the approval of the project,the most secret after the ATV,information of AURA's progress will dry up of this "high-speed,self-defennding,reconnnaissance UAV with strike capabilities".

PS:Merlin in the post below has a point about manpower.There was a report some time ago,before the FGFA deal was signed between India and Russia, that due to a shotage of manpower,the IJT team had also been given the task of handling....the FGFA 5th-gen stealth project!


Last edited by Philip on 09 Feb 2012 20:35, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 20:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 1454
Location: NullPointerException
I think the issue would probably be not enough design and development manpower to work on both expanding post IOC-1 capabilities for the IAF Tejas and developing the Naval Tejas once it was realized that Naval Tejas required substantially more work. IAF Tejas was given more priority and hence Naval Tejas suffered in terms of timelines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 20:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 984
Location: mumbai
The issue is more of program management rather than funding or manpower, lots of bright engineers join ADA/HAL every year and money has never been an issue this century.

ADA/HAL follows a pyramid hierarchy and decision making loop is much longer. So a chap on the ground, rather than using his own brains, just implements "great scientist/leader's" vision. And no matter how vast and superior "great scientist/leader's" intellect might be, "great scientist/leader" cannot think of everything and do everything. And with all levels of the pyramid having a view and wanting a say on matters, information from bottom to top of the pyramid takes time to flow and worse, gets coloured with views of intervening levels of the pyramid. Likewise for the reverse flow. Hence the decision making loop & time is much longer.

(I have heard) one of the changes Tessy Thomas has been able to successfully implement is to have a collaborative approach and de-centralized team. This team learns quickly from mistakes, and knows what not to do next time around. Hence success quickly follows failures.

User gets cheezed off when "great scientist/leader" makes ultra optimistic statements, usually for political boss's benefit.

The CNS clearly says that challenges to developing a naval fighter were always known. Stopping atleast 6500 kg at 120 knots within 90 meters will require structural strengthening of most parts. It will definitely require more than 15% part change/redesign.

CNS/user angst is for trivializing that complexity by making bombastic statements like Naval Tejas will be realized with re-design of 15% parts. Like the designer who came up with empty weight 5000/5500 kg.

Because such overtly-optimistic statements impact further activities/development roadmap, and any error further magnifies further down the road.

The ASR never had any weight specifications/limitations, only performance specifications like range/speed/payload, etc. However, the over-optimistic joker who came up with the 5000-5500 kg number and consequently lesser thrust requirement put the entire development process into a tangent. And when ADA deliberating weight-reduction-redesign, it was IAF that suggested going for a higher thrust engine would be a simpler-and-rapidly-implementable-solution than weight-reduction-redesign.

The bane of older DRDO has been such time-based-promoted "great scientist/leader's" who’s image were much larger than their actual performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 21:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2558
Oh, the trend has started. Everybody finger pointing at others. When we are going to take collective responsibility?

When there was successful K-15 missile project, immediately there appears a news from Sandeep Unnithan/India Today that it is due to Navy's superior guidance that such a project could be realised, without realizing the contribution from other projects and step by step improvements and experience learnt from previous projects.

Now when there is a delay/problem, all of a sudden, this Naval LCA failure belongs to ADA poor managerial skills, huh? So tell us who is heading this Naval LCA project? Are there not Naval team working on this project?

Views expressed here are from their own perspectives and very simplistic in nature to really appreciate, gauge and comment on the work done on this project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 21:54 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30611
Philip, One major quibble about BK's remarks on status of aerospace engineering in India. The very same graduates of those programs are the leading lights in aerospace in US in both industry, teaching and Wall street.
Aerospace America puts IIT especially the one in Madras in one of the top aero institutes in the world in undergradaute teaching.


To me the real problem is shifting requirements from the customers. This causes delay in meeting the requirements.

A good project needs both the implementers and the customers to work in unison.

You cant clap with one hand.


Kanson, Looking in detail there is 15% commonality and not 85% as the perception. So why did the chief think only about the initial assessment? Wasnt he updated regularly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 22:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 976
First time projects like these are inherently risky and s**t happens which needs fixing.

IN had no need to go public, with such strong words, considering the delay is common knowledge. Secondly IN and DRDO should be sitting together and drafting a revised plan to achieve complete testing and induction. They have invest more men,money and material in the project. IN should also try shedding some features if a faster delivery is assured.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 23:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 2790
Location: Loud, Proud American
ramana wrote:
Aerospace America puts IIT especially the one in Madras in one of the top aero institutes in the world in undergradaute teaching.

Really? Old man will be happy to hear that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 23:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24
Posts: 952
@tsarkar ^^^: I agree with your POV on this. It has also has a lot to do with the 'guru' culture where the lowly but energetic/bright young person is taught not to question the great leader. The other factor is that there is a built-in system that neither punishes failure nor rewards success which is at the heart of the seniority system.

Not much is going improve especially WRT political bosses unless there is private sector involvement where you are betting the company and your bonus/job


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 23:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 984
Location: mumbai
To be fair, "great leader" syndrome is acute elsewhere, including the services, and the most glaring example I can think of is Kargil 99 where the Bde and Div commander stated "15-20 intruders who'll be brought down by the scruff of the neck". Quite a few patrols took unnecessary casualties because the leaders were unable to perceive the facts.

Anyways, here is a test pilots view on how much the designer/developer appreciates the user's view http://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/11/ ... gava-retd/
Quote:
When he asked me to be his official number two for the HF-24 project I refused his kind offer. He wanted to know why not and I said that it was because no one in HAL listened to the test pilot.
Same reason why IAF was rebuffed from participating in the early stages of the Tejas project.

Here is how HAL misrepresented fatal vibrations that cost a test pilot's life http://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/02/ ... the-marut/
Quote:
HAL had tried to clear the aircraft for four-gun firing. The vibration level in the aircraft when firing four guns was frighteningly high, almost violent, during butt tests. The traces of flight test records showed very high amplitudes. Yet HAL had cleared it.
I am sure the departed test pilot's widow will greatly appreciate forum member's comments that IAF does not support indigenous fighter development.

More here http://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/02/ ... ruts-guns/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 00:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 6128
Location: All-forgiving now since "Katju hat on"
tsarkar, it is disingenuous to correlate the sentiment with Marut development. In the current environment, there appears to be lesser support for indigenous development (as opposed to the earlier decade) than for outright purchases. If that is the fault of the development team, then the user must push for changes and/or raise a stink about how their support is not being utilized, and of course help set up an alternative design bureau. If the user pins (our) hopes on a single development agency and do not help them stand up and deliver, who loses overall?

Both parties are to blame here, no question about that. Apportioning all of it to any one side or claiming the others are divas is not helping at all. It only shows the divide between the user and the developer, which imvvho is most undesirable or even inimical to India's interests. All I want as a jingo is for IN/IAF not to continuously blame the development team in public - simply because we have not done enough for a development team (not just ADA, even pvt. sector) to grow their skills and help achieve success. If the ADA boffindom is such an issue, why not help set up a design bureau for future development? Oh, but that is MoD territory and we don't have any more funds, eh. Then raise a stink about that. I don't see hope for the defence aviation industry until there is more joint responsibility. ADA must yield to IAF/IN, and of course they in turn have to stop criticizing the product in public - this media war ain't pretty and will result in more bitterness.

PS: Is your post relevant to the current LCA development being conducted by ADA (vs. what happened in the past with Kurt Tank or HAL)? He was a genius in his own right and was not known to be friendly to his team, let alone pilots. That said, the very unfortunate death of a pilot due to HAL's underhandedness is unforgivable. I hope we do not see a repeat of such behavior ever again. How should that be brought about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 01:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 984
Location: mumbai
Marten wrote:
In the current environment, there appears to be lesser support for indigenous development (as opposed to the earlier decade) than for outright purchases.
My friend, that appearance is not correct. Both IAF and IN whole heartedly support the program, it’s the way it is run that is being criticized.

From my life’s experience, I feel discomfited when someone says “5500 kg” or “15% parts” or “15-20 intruders”. That to me is the first sign of something not going right.

India has no dearth of collective willpower, money, manpower or talent/knowledge. My suggestion would be not to dam this ocean saying only 0.01% Indians in Govt/PSU know what is best for India, excluding the remaining 99.99% Indians.

Let anyone (govt/private/univ) wanting to design/develop/build aircraft/fighters/ships do so freely. I’ve earlier described how Walchand Hirachand and Ismail Mirza established aviation industry in India in the 40’s. He didn’t require government funding, as didn’t our IT majors. The "funds-not-available" or "manpower-not-available" are lame excuses. Walchand Hirachand was not constrained by either. There were no IIT in the 40's, yet he built aircraft :)

What got me very disappointed was getting private shipbuilders build hulls for PSU shipbuilders to fit out. The private chaps won’t complain, since they’re getting business. But the taxpayer will pay more for the inefficient PSU plus the private chap’s profits. There is no competition because of this oligopoly. Lack of competition decreases innovation.

Enable people, drive innovation, create competition…these are the essence of success.

Marten wrote:
How should that be brought about?
Accountability. No one can be allowed to have-a-holier-than-thou approach. Or have a there-is-no-alternative-to-great-leader approach. No one is indispensible.

When someone says 5500 kg or 15% parts or 15-20 intruders, that person must be held accountable for his actions, because other’s depend on this assessment. If not held accountable, then you’re penalizing other’s who are depending on the person making that assessment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 01:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24
Posts: 952
@tsarkar^^: "But the taxpayer will pay more for the inefficient PSU plus the private chap’s profits. There is no competition because of this oligopoly. ..."

That's the key: competition. But as the retail FDI fiasco showed once again, darn the consumer, the objective is to protect the shop keepers from competition.

Same thing with PSUs. Ahluwalia is on record as saying that the policy WRT PSUs is to keep parallel tracks (PSUs + pvt). PSU unions are very powerful they have stymied competition on everything for eons first based on 'import substitution' and then on 'job losses'. The parallel track in turn bred crony capitalism: Bajaj was almost single handedly responsible for preventing competitors from making small cars and 2 wheelers and the list goes on.

The MMRCA offset program may be the LCA's salvation in terms of changing the mindset. If HAL is left to its devices, it will grind along at snails pace.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 03:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2272
ramana wrote:
rohit, I dont buy that. There is a lot of difference between land based and aircraft carrier based planes. IN having operated aircraft should have realised it and insisted on comprehensive oversight. I can't imagine throwing some specs and wait for a plane to show up. Weren't there any periodical program reviews in the last few years? From both articles the plane is mostly new and totally new infrastructure for testing and mfg has come into place. Did all that happen without the IN senior leadership being unaware?

A chinese saying goes "When you point a finger, three are pointed to you!" I add the thumb is skyward towards chance or act of god.


Ramana saab, that is precisely what even Capt Maolankar had stated during AI-11. He too said that the program was sold on the premise that some changes was required to make it carrier compatible, but not large scale changes of onboard systems and design of structures.

Had the LCA originated as a naval design with an Air Force variant developed from it, the reverse might not have been true- that is, it might have been easier than doing it the way it was done. Some people may say that the Super Hornet proves that even designing a land based aircraft from a naval aircraft will bring over some handicaps, but the F-18L was supposed to have done away with many naval design features that increase the empty weight of the SHornet.

And hasn't Commodore Balaji's work been appreciated quite a bit? Even a recent report mentioned how since he was the one that framed the requirements, and the contractual legalese, a lot of red-tapism was avoided and USN's help was provided as a result? the IN hasn't been just a spectator from the sidelines, but they may not have the same resources to lend to ADA that the IAF would have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 03:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 8168
Location: Illini Nation
There are no easy solutions. Perhaps expectation management would have helped a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 04:03 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30611
Yes in the end its managing expectations by constant engagement. Sound like mgt double speak but its true.
Cmdre rank is called Rear Admiral Lower half rank in USN. So thats a high ranking officer. Maybe his staff should have been on the ball talking to higher flag officers.


Any way hope its all is sorted out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 04:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 3826
The LCA was a response to an IAF requirement, not IN. When did the effort to create a naval variant actually begin?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 04:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2272
tsarkar wrote:
The CNS clearly says that challenges to developing a naval fighter were always known. Stopping atleast 6500 kg at 120 knots within 90 meters will require structural strengthening of most parts. It will definitely require more than 15% part change/redesign.

CNS/user angst is for trivializing that complexity by making bombastic statements like Naval Tejas will be realized with re-design of 15% parts. Like the designer who came up with empty weight 5000/5500 kg.

Because such overtly-optimistic statements impact further activities/development roadmap, and any error further magnifies further down the road.


have you thought of how these statements may be made just to get the project approved in the first place? This isn't very different from what Eurofighter and Saab say about how a naval variant of their land-based fighters would be not quite too hard. Perhaps they all lay the bait by promising that the work required is not much. They probably back it up with some study that will never go into the precise details. If you say that the effort required for an operational naval fighter will take $1 billion + 1 decade or more of work, then you'll likely lose the customer as an interested party.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 06:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 8441
Location: Ya kundendu tushar haar dhavala ..
Well N-LCA was definitely going to be a challenge , if one would follow the Rafale-M story one would know that when the French first took it for testing to Unkil land the Americans were themselves very apprehensive of an AC of such small size (as compared to it's payload) being adapted for carrier based ops.

The biggest constraint imho which we got ourselves into was trying to build the smallest yet lightest fighter specially when it was our first such venture ; what makes it even more technically challenging is unlike Ru/US we did not build an AC around already existing sub-systems (read Radar or even Engine) as even those were being designed in parallel (MMR and Kaveri) both of which imho are very ambitious in their own respect (I mean Kaveri on paper is more advanced than the GE404 and so is the MMR when compared to radars in service during that time). The RU built large ACs not because they were fascinated by it or for H&D purposes but simply because they lagged in area of Radar and electronics both the Foxhound and Flanker are designed and built around their Radars (which were heavy and placed a huge power requirement over the Aux powerplant). A small airframe obviously poses challenges as far as manufacturing tolerances and real estate management is concerned and imho the margin for growth too; case in point the F-16 A/B could fire both a sidewinder as well as 200kg+ Sparrow-7 (changes were required for the FCR though) from it's wingtips but we had to go through an entire wing redesign phase for switch from R-60 to R-73. Obviously it is unfair to compare India's first attempt at designing a 4th gen fighter with F-16 but imho it won't be unfair to say that for any country that has built or is in process of building it's first fighter AC a project with Tejas like specs can be easily classified as ambitious.

Btw before people lynch me; just wanted to clarify I do not think setting ambitious specs in itself was a bad thing nor do I think that doing everything on our own was a bad decision (might be not desirable from IN/IAF's perspective) but as a jingo I do appreciate that we dared to dream big on our first attempt, now the fact that those have contributed to the delay is a different matter. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Surya and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group