Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 06 May 2016 09:56

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 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2012 17:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6928
Location: BRAFTA!
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: 6928
Location: BRAFTA!
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: 6928
Location: BRAFTA!
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 18:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 34106
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
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: 14623
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
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
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: 1545
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: 2831
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: 43684
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: 1045
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
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3998
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
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24
Posts: 2598
Location: Evolution is a circular firing squad and we all have bandanas
@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: 1545
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 01:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 1545
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
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24
Posts: 2598
Location: Evolution is a circular firing squad and we all have bandanas
@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
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2851
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: 13685
Location: The Deep State
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: 43684
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: 5382
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
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2851
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
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 12214
Location: Crime master Gogo naam hai mera !
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  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 06:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 5331
Location: Move JNU to Dantewada. Profs will be closer to field work and students close to recruiters
Quote:
Really? Old man will be happy to hear that.

I am sure he knows it and must derive a lot of satisfaction for having made his contribution towards that. I always remember him as a smiling, pleasant man and a very good teacher and researcher and of course highly respected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 08:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2831
ramana wrote:
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.
Even here they are consulted. Not just IITM.

Quote:
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?
Ramana saheb, There are regular meeting apprising of the situation and actions to take. Everyone is in the loop. But Naval Chief mostly don't go through the nitty-gritty. His role is more of a ringmaster. So his action is to see whether something happened or not. These things are part of the business and the only difference is that now he voiced that in public. Somebody made money by selling that as news. And we, ordinary people, burden ourselves on such news. I have to concede that he is polite compared to ex Air chief.

There are always theories on how to go about a project. I stress on theories becoz they are just theories which has not been put into effect. Otherwise if successful we will be following those. So these theories are bandied about on both success and failure of any projects by even members withing the development team who don't agree with what happened. So if there is success, there is going to be someone who is going to say, I told you so. And similarly there is going to be others who will say the same words when there is failure. These are part & parcel of any projects any where. Success has many fathers - a known saying.

Regarding 15% details, everyone can express their opinion in binary. But Proj Mgm team can't work based on binary answers. I can comment on how huge the work needed is or disagree that it needs more wrok, but i don't exactly know how much of work needed to finish that. But Proj Mgm team need details to work on the resources needed, timelines, series of actions to take etc. So in case of such uncertainties you fix on a point what is known as best possible and make projection based on that. So these 15%, 20% figures are based on that. To borrow a line, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. What kind of accurate projection one can give on unknown unknowns. So these comments like, "this project was sold or misguided on wrong commitments and everybody knows its not going to happen" falls into this category.

To bring out a live example, in Capt Maolankar speech at AI-II, he talks abot LEVCON and flatter approach speed curve Vs weight that was promised by designers but expressed that he doesn't believe in that. So what shall we do in this case? We take such opinions and burden ourselves to think its not worth the effort to make or criticize the team for not putting enough efforts to convince everyone beforehand? Or carry on with what we have, with what we know to learn and overcome any mistakes that comes by? You tell us which is the path these developers should take?

The whole comments surrounding this project is like this - half baked. Becoz no ones which one works correctly. Everyone struts around saying what they think is right. Since these kinds of projects which huge uncertainties always slips the timelines, everyone are very eager to pat their back saying, I told you so, as if thinking that they had some remarkable foresight. But when comes to fixing the project timelines/resources need, it is the same story.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 08:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 2019
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
negi wrote:
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. :)


No lynching - it is a fair opinion, and I happen to agree with it.
[RANT ON]I can understand the IAF wanted something smallish as a MiG-21 replacement and so they went with the LCA "smallest/lightest" goal. But what constrains the Navy from going slightly bigger? I would hardly be surprised if this is just the start of their problems for NLCA. It is hard enough to build an LCA for the IAF, and now we want to do the same for naval ops, that too STOBAR ops! Effin' nuts - is it any wonder that almost every CV operating today has twin engined fighters barring the Shar? And no, please don't cite the JSF- they are having problems enough - not to mention it is being developed by those who have a century's worth of experience in making fighters, not to mention it operates with CATs. Twin engined a/c are good not only in terms of safety but also tend to provide greater thrust - a critical requirement for STOBAR ops. This bird is going to need some v.serious power and fuel fraction. Even if they get the F414, it is going to be damned tight - perhaps they will use the EPE? What will that mean in terms of intake redesign?

NO, imvho - the development for the NLCA should've been around a twin engined design - start testing out with two GE-404s or even RD33s, and later progress to Kaveris. Something stable and known. Use the experience gained via the Mig-29K development in which the IN was such an integral part.

I think the IN is just as much to blame as the ADA in this - it wasn't just the ADA that wanted "lightest/greatest" this time - the IN too seemed all for it knowing fully well that by pushing for a tiny single engined bird, you are completely bucking the trend. The CNS can complain all he wants, but perhaps he should have complained a LOT earlier.

Sorry if I come across as cynical about the LCA - don't have much confidence in this. It was/is hard enough to get a decently powered landbased LCA for the IAF, and now they keep the same constraints where power is even more critical. Let us see...[/RANT OFF]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 08:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2831
^ CM, the basic constraint is the engine. Type of fighter you can field is dictated by the propensity for the engine you like to have. And i guess you know the background of LCA/Marut pgm. Seccond, it is made as a replacement of MiG-21 but on the lines of Mirage-2k. So a small a/c. Navy has to start some where to have their own ind. a/c. It is the smartest and easiest thing to cling on from AF LCA project. Once they made a start, they can go for what they wish. Naval LCA Mk2 will be to their expectations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 09:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 34106
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
the problem would be still nLCA using the leaky turbo engine ge-404 variant for the prototypes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 12:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2673
Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1776 Test Flights successfully. (08-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-63)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1774 Test Flights successfully. (02-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-63)

After a long time PV2 has flown. LSP4 after the weapon trials has flown now. The regular suspects PV3/LSP5 havent flown
Meanwhile, from the ADA website the MK1 director has changed from Shri Prakasha to Shri JJ Jadhav


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 12:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1945
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
Thanks SuryaG. Always look forward to your posts. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 14:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Posts: 2959
Location: Singampatti Zamin.Tall claims with Aruval. Rarely used.
News from yesterday: Naval aviation to hit new high with LCA NP-1 maiden flight | Taxi trials currently underway | Tech challenges almost ironed out

Quote:
“The overwhelming challenge of large structural loads, better over the nose vision has lead to heavier undercarriage and re-design of the front fuselage. Commonality was achieved in only few mechanical systems and avionics. The stringent naval requirements and rigorous ground testing of various systems is nearing completion,” say sources.
The modification of flight control laws, cabin pressurization including environment control checks, laser precision alignments and host of associated naval flight critical systems are in its final stages. “The landing gear with its high sink rate of 7.1 m/sec arising from ship deck requirement has imposed serious challenge to the designers, which has now been successfully circumvented. The NP-1 has completed its ground vibration test (GVT), structural coupling test (SCT) and extensive system integration tests with power plant using state-of-the-art facilities,” sources said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 14:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7352
Location: Peace out
The paint color is interesting..not the usual yellow that we see when they do first flight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 14:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 1045
More important than that news from Tarmak007 is the upcoming article detailing the technical challenges that were faced. Pic looks like some kind of static test on the landing gear assembly.. Awaiting details!


Last edited by Kailash on 10 Feb 2012 14:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 14:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 8107
[Self Delete]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 14:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7352
Location: Peace out
NP is probably what is slowing down LCA....esp with the comment that ADA/HAL is giving too much imp to IAF version

Good .. atleast they have learned a lot of lesson which will be helpful in FGFA / LCA MK2 ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 16:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2012 20:46
Posts: 160
Location: Aerospace capital of India
The NP-1 has a separate team and is in no way related to the AF team(on HAL's side). Infact each A/C has its own team of flight test engineers and my ex roomie works on the NP-1 and he has been busy ever since the roll out. I am not sure about the ADA guys but i believe they have a separate team too. The roll out actually happened with a lot of haste and my personal opinion(and my friend's too) is that it was done to maybe please the belligerent media. But now things are looking very good for the N-LCA, infact the NP-1 and PV-6 both have the same team and the PV-6 also is in an advance state of development and you may hear the good news soon(relatively). Side by side NP-1 looks sexier (and different mainly) than the PV-6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 16:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7352
Location: Peace out
PV - 6 ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 16:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2012 20:46
Posts: 160
Location: Aerospace capital of India
weaponized trainer!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 17:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Posts: 791
How is it going to be different from the regular trainer? I thought the trainer is combat capable just like any other Tejas?

Cheers....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 17:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2012 20:46
Posts: 160
Location: Aerospace capital of India
An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 17:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 8107
raghuk wrote:
An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4


RaghuK if not classified, what is common between our MMR and EL 2032? because there is lot confusion.

Has the r-73 tests been done at Goa. Will PV-6 be testing Derby integration?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2012 18:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 410
Assume the nLCA program had succeeded, was on time and in capability roughly equivalent to the AF LCA Mk-I. So for mumble billion dollars for the carrier, escort group and support tail we would be able to throw at the enemy - all of a couple of dozen nLCA.

Unlike the AF where the LCA would form the lowest part of the capability matrix - the nLCA is supposed to be the spearhead of the surface navy. Why was the navy willing to accept the low capability LCA to crown the umpteen billions of CVBG investment?

The case for AF LCA is clear. What was the argument for the nLCA?


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 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 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