Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 Dec 2014 12:33

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2012 21:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
An excellent post about the LCA program on keypubs by Teer. It is worthy of being an article of its own.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost ... stcount=67


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2012 21:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 465
nakul wrote:
An excellent post about the LCA program on keypubs by Teer. It is worthy of being an article of its own.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost ... stcount=67


Almost all the point are echoed by many members here many time . but indeed a gem of writing by Teer.

Info about OAC is new to me.I Hope DRDO can indigenize more LRU,which will be further help full to bring down the cost and logistic issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2012 22:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
pentaiah wrote:
If tornado or F-111 were used as interceptor aia to air then Su-24 could also be used.

The Tornado was used as an interceptor. That version was called the ADV. Before the Typhoon came along, that was pretty much all the RAF had for a-to-a. Its foxhunter radar was apparently pretty good.

Quote:
I think F-14 Tomcat can also do A to A

The F-14 was designed to do A to A from the start. It had a big radar, an ultra-long range AAM and good maneuverability.

Quote:
F-8A super hornet can also do A to G and A to A

It had to replace botht he F-14 as well as the original F-18 in the USN. So both modes were equally important for it.

Quote:
A air craft designe to A to A can be converted to A to G
but A to G conversion to A to A will have limitation of speed.

This doesn't apply to the LCA. It was never designed as an A to G fighter. It was in fact designed as an agile interceptor with a decent sized radar. So just because it cannot do A-to-A so well right now because the radar and BVRAAM integration isn't complete doesn't mean it will have problems later. The IAF can start re-equipping their Mig-27 squadrons with it (they recently said they would retire all of them by 2017) as soon as IOC-2 is obtained even if the a-to-a capabilities aren't fully ready.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2012 23:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 May 2012 02:51
Posts: 132
nakul wrote:
An excellent post about the LCA program on keypubs by Teer. It is worthy of being an article of its own.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost ... stcount=67


An excellent post, +1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2012 13:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4604
Location: Duke Nukem
nakul wrote:
An excellent post about the LCA program on keypubs by Teer. It is worthy of being an article of its own.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost ... stcount=67


Why do you guys bother going to that forum at all, and more importantly posting links from there to here. That forum is largely populated by cretinous Pakis and half baked retards, especially in the India related threads. Not worth your time to look at it and I dont' know why folks like Teer even bother trying to talk sense to them. The best answer , if at all you want to waste your time is to post a couple of links from Benis threads there!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2012 14:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 673
Teer Jumps to the conclusion even before reading articles properly , IDRW report mentioned that since LSP are delivered years a part , This is leading to differences in aircraft , which is a problem since older aircrafts ( LSP-1/2/3 compared to LSP-7 ) will need to be pulled out from flights for upgrades effecting flight tests , He is trying to defend that LSP are supposed to be different but the Question is why HAL was able to deliver only 6 Aircrafts (LSP-1/2/3/4/5/7) in last 5 Years ?? , aren't PV Tejas supposed to be different but also LSP ? will IAF accept Difference in batches of SP Tejas ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2012 14:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
From poison extract nectar; wash, reclaim gold even if filthy,
Get knowledge from all – as a good girl in bad family may be

-Chanakya

Quote:
Teer Jumps to the conclusion even before reading articles properly , IDRW report mentioned that since LSP are delivered years a part , This is leading to differences in aircraft , which is a problem since older aircrafts ( LSP-1/2/3 compared to LSP-7 ) will need to be pulled out from flights for upgrades effecting flight tests , He is trying to defend that LSP are supposed to be different but the Question is why HAL was able to deliver only 6 Aircrafts (LSP-1/2/3/4/5/7) in last 5 Years ?? , aren't PV Tejas supposed to be different but also LSP ? will IAF accept Difference in batches of SP Tejas ??


Isn't having differently configured aircraft the reason behind so many LSPs? They could have stuck with 2-3 planes if the configuration was to be indentical. My understanding that different components are tested with different LSP aircraft. An aircraft configured for flight aerodynamics will be different from the one for bombing runs. These are just prototypes and they are supposed to be different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 04:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5797
karan_mc wrote:
Teer Jumps to the conclusion even before reading articles properly , IDRW report mentioned that since LSP are delivered years a part , This is leading to differences in aircraft , which is a problem since older aircrafts ( LSP-1/2/3 compared to LSP-7 ) will need to be pulled out from flights for upgrades effecting flight tests , He is trying to defend that LSP are supposed to be different but the Question is why HAL was able to deliver only 6 Aircrafts (LSP-1/2/3/4/5/7) in last 5 Years ?? , aren't PV Tejas supposed to be different but also LSP ? will IAF accept Difference in batches of SP Tejas ??


Hmm, that keypublishing link is not opening for some reason. Might be an ISP issue.

But IDRW is accessible and my adaware program says thanks but no thanks! Good then, that it is copied on this forum.

Their claims just dont make sense though. They clearly don't know much about the LCA, allusions to inside knowledge apart.

First, the LCA is in development & there are multiple reports stating that only the last few LSPs will be the standard the MK1s will be designed to! What talk of HAL taking time to make the LCAs when the aircraft are undergoing so many design revisions and tech insertions, which is after all the very basis of the program. That is, to develop a local aerospace industry.

We know that ADA/HAL effectively redesigned the entire fuel system after issues regarding possible flight safety concerns & leakage, and this was completed last year. We know that NAL supplied an autopilot which was incorporated into the LCA recently. Ajai Shukla's blog had the so called hush hush pics corroborating the MOD note that the LCA was receiving the local EW suite (a derivative of the MiG-27 suite). We know that an advanced OBOGs (MK2/3) is due for the LCA as well. That the radar issue was fixed just a couple of years back, and clearly Elta managed to deliver a functioning set with all the Indian components only recently since its now making its appearance on the LCAs..LSP 7 PR mentions it has an ILS as well.

Of course having different LSPs with different fits challenges the program. That is exactly the problem a country will face when developing subsystem after subsystem for the first time. With no program prior to have developed all these systems already, which could just be fit into the initial prototypes itself. And then making improved systems.

And limited funds to make a limited number of prototypes. Otherwise, yes HAL could have made 2-3 of each LSP-1, LSP-2 etc, but the advantages may not have accrued linearly. Take a look at the F-35 program. Concurrent engineering, build-fly-fix-fly, is proving more challenging than expected. So production rates have been slowed down, to fix all the issues to begin with, or as many as possible, and only then launch the aircraft.

Having said that ADA clearly adopted best in class procedures from worldwide programs where they could.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... /R3687.pdf

Mentions that TDs were used by Rafale & EAP (austere prototyping), Lavi & Gripen went for fully missionized test aircraft with sensors developed concurrently.

Lets go to the LCA.

So, the TDs were the austere aircraft to demonstrate aircraft functional capability, after which "Full Scale Development" aka FSED in Tejas parlance was granted, and these comprise of both the PVs and LSPs, which have full weaponization & sensor suites being iteratively added. It was the IAF which basically set the pre-condition that FSED would only be launched after the TD phase was demonstrated to their satisfaction. Add sanctions etc, and its a wonder the program continued.

No airframe is being wasted. PVs & LSPs are being used for A2G trials, while PV-1 took the full internal EW suite, and LSP-7 took off with a sensor fit close to the IOC standard. LSPs & SPs will be used to get to FOC as well, if PVs run out of airframe hours by that time.

So lets look at IOC/LSP intent.

Quote:
LCA Tejas LSP-7 Flies

DRDO Statement:

Tejas Limited Series Production - 7 (LSP-7) aircraft took-off for its maiden flight from HAL airport at 4:27 pm on 9th March 2012. This test flight is significant for the program, as LSP -7 build-standard is close to the initial operational clearance (IOC) standard. Accordingly LSP -7 aircraft, along with LSP - 8 will be offered to the Indian Air Force for user evaluation trials (UET).

The flight was also significant considering the fact that for the first time “Production Test Schedule” was used for the first flight of an LSP aircraft in this program. This is also the first time that maiden flight of the aircraft was not accompanied by the customary ‘chase’ aircraft, which is an indicator to the level of confidence in the machine.

Flight lasted 28 minutes with Gp Capt KK Venugopal at the controls in the cockpit and Wg Cdr Kabadwal of the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) as Test Director in the telemetry. During the test flight, performance of the aircraft systems including Multi-mode Radar (MMR), Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), Auto-pilot and Instrument Landing System (ILS) was satisfactory, providing a moment of pride for all the stake holders which include ADA, HAL, IAF, CEMILAC, DG AQA, ADE and NAL among others.

No new Tejas airframe has flown since November 2010 flight of the LSP-5 (the LSP-6 is a special airframe to achieve envelope expansion). Now, with final ground tests nearing completion, the airframe is finally ready for its first flight. The LSP-7 and LSP-8 will be the final two limited series production aircraft. They will be followed by series production (SP-1, 2 etc) aircraft.


They have kept LSP-6 for increasing the flight envelope & achieve maximum possible AoA with the current configuration. Makes sense to do so with an aircraft of the LSP series, which approach as closely as possible (with iterative development) to the IOC/FOC standard, then with the PV's, which will have differing aero-mass characteristics, different handling etc.

Next, IDRW claim that the current performance is no great deal or some such thing. Did they even do some basic comparison of weapons loads, sensor performance versus other IAF aircraft like the MiG-27 etc? They dont even appear to know the well known by now fact that full A2A capability is slated for FOC, as it always was! So what is new?

Looks like it is another publicity hungry site like that 8AK one which used to manufacture news to get publicity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 06:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34027
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I read somewhere around 80 JSF have already been manufactured?
are they all part of the test program or used in some trails role with armed forces ASTE type units as well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 07:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 464
Location: Troposphere
@ Karan, while criticizing the program because LSP's are different from one another is total BS, the time that LSP8 is taking to get ready is definitely worrisome.

LSP5 was supposed to be IOC standard and LSP7,8 and subsequently SP1-20 were to be of this standard. So, after LSP5 first flight one thought that LCA's would start coming off the production line at a fair pace. But then LSP7 took more than a year to materialize, which as we later found out was primarily due to the fuel line issue. So, when LSP8 does not fly many months after LSP7 flew, one wonders what new structural issues might be pending.

The need of hour is for HAL to bring out as many SP airframe as it can ASAP so that IAF can fly these and get comfortable.

In case of Arjun, we heard a lot of media reports about performance deficits before induction in strength. But after those trials and proper induction, we don't hear those type of reports anymore. This should apply to LCA also, but more importantly IAF seems to have put most of it's light fighter eggs in LCA basket so if HAL gets it's act together then there is very good future for LCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 09:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Posts: 604
Location: still settling...
Its pretty much evident that all the LSP's are WIP's...There is bound to be difference in them wrt body configuration and growth of additions, tweaking...hopefully they are upgrading all the LSP's as per current resolution in last LSP...

Even when I drastically modified my Enfield...It took me 3 years to bring it to full potential and remove all those nagging problems by identifying them over time...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 09:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 673
So what Gurus are saying is that LSP are WIP and somewhat no more than Prototypes ?? That explains why HAL only Delivered 6 aircrafts in 5 years , HAL is simply branding Prototypes has LSP and Pre-Production aircrafts . So if LSP-7 and LSP-8 are supposed to be same to meet IOC standards , why is HAL not put the aircraft in air by now ? or LSP-8 will have more changes compared to LSP-7 ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 10:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Posts: 604
Location: still settling...
LSP's are limited production models...and they are not 100% frozen configuration i.e. you cant simply put them in full scale production. Because it needs certain amount of exactness wrt what the client desires and is under pipeline...

There is also what the scientist and engineers can see achievable in near future but they are deciding as per what is in pipelime, what is going to be in pipeline...and what is the time when all things shall have to be on table.

Given we arrived at LSP-8, there is more focus on percentage of Indigenization because now this program has become vulnerable to external forces trying to arm twist us...one single module can cause further delay...

They might be pushing LSP-8 to the last detail of configuration, so that they don't waste anymore time...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2012 01:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2012 06:43
Posts: 797
With the SoC on the scene we see it being used on the missiles but not so much on the Tejas yet, is this being pursued as part of greater indigenization? the autopilot bit is really good news though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2012 23:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Are LCA flying nowadays or are grounded?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2012 05:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 3004
Location: gaganaviharin
vic wrote:
Are LCA flying nowadays or are grounded?


It appears so, atleast until the desired AoA is not achieved, the LCA is grounded. :P

It is going to be a slog match towards IOC II/FOC for LCA mk1. I am more interested in the news for the new GE 414 IN engines. Have they been delivered? When is the LCA Mk II going to fly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2012 05:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23799
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
No news of flying=news of no flying


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2012 13:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Posts: 254
As of reports currently LCA is at IAF base for weapon trials close to pokhran. Blackarcher have posted some snaps of the base on keypublishing tejus thread. May any one text the link here also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2012 14:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Posts: 604
Location: still settling...
keshavchandra wrote:
As of reports currently LCA is at IAF base for weapon trials close to pokhran. Blackarcher have posted some snaps of the base on keypublishing tejus thread. May any one text the link here also.


http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Gallery/Detachment-2012/25753672_NsJ6HC#!i=2129983842&k=vmZ8s9h


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2012 18:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Difficult to believe that all of ten or so LCAs have been grounded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2012 18:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34027
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I havent seen them flying in blr for a long time. its likely 2 are for ground test rigs, 2 are undergoing some rework and rest are with IAF bases doing tests in preparation for final exam in Jan 2013 firepower demo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 06:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
Why is the news on LCA status so confidential? I dont see what they have to hide. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 14:46 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 03 Apr 2011 08:03
Posts: 43
Nick_S wrote:
Why is the news on LCA status so confidential? I dont see what they have to hide. :(


It could probably be because there is no reason or benefit for ADA or anyone involved to actually publish all the information except for the benefit of Jingos like us. You would surprised to hear that even with a same defense complex the different teams do not know what the others progress and the work others do unless the teams are working together on the same stuff. It is very similar to say a IT company where most do not bother what the other teams release date is or what bugs they are facing.

It is not that things are very confidential (any sub-contractor working on it would more or less know the whole stuff except on things like encryption stack et al) , it is just that not many are first place interested in these stuff and the people who know the actual progress updates (mostly scientists 'E' and 'F') would not really bother to keep publishing status updates in open domain. For example during a trip to VRDE some years ago one of top scientist was surprised to hear that i knew that T-90 and Arjun tank went head to head for trails. These things do not make front page news in India and most don't bother to read about these things anyways. This is the basic reason.

It is very different to USA where funding has to got from congress, senate, president and everyone involved (plus a private MIC) and hence a running commentary in all the channels which we are used to and we tend to expect the same from Indian MIC (not that anything is wrong in our expectations).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 14:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26888
Location: NowHere
so especially for jingoes, LCA has entered a no-fly-zone or gone on stealth mode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 18:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 709
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
As per ADA website, currently
- There is no team except a project director (Shri J J Jadhav) working on LCA Mk-1. Most probably he is responsible for ToT from ADA to HAL (No screw drivers this time). It also appears that ADA achieved something important in July, 2012 in relation to LCA-MK1 with 1941 flights.

- There are three different teams including a project director working on
---LCA Navy - 1 + 3 project co-ordinators (2 from Navy and 2 from ADA)
---LCA MK-2 - 1+ 4 project co-ordinators
---AMCA - 1 + 9 project co-ordinators

Added Later : It is my analysis from ADA website regarding ToT. 3rd change -> Added links


Last edited by RKumar on 09 Nov 2012 21:01, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 19:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jan 2008 19:18
Posts: 130
Location: Bombay
^^^^ Which shows LCA Mk. 1 development is finished and winding down to production processes. The development work has shifted to Mk. 2 and Navy versions. On the other hand AMCA is hotting up and that is where most of the action is!!! :D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 20:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26888
Location: NowHere
I was thinking it requires FoC for the HAL prod shift to happen.. but i am happy since, the forces are happy that it has reached the 4th leg stage of the cheetah.

the only thing we have to hear is lca tejas firing at dummy A2A and A2G targets with the allowed and configured missiles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 21:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 465
RKumar wrote:
As per ADA website, currently
- There is no team except a project director (Shri J J Jadhav) working on LCA Mk-1. Most probably he is responsible for ToT from ADA to HAL (No screw drivers this time). It also appears that ADA achieved something important in July, 2012 in relation to LCA-MK1 with 1941 flights.

- There are three different teams including a project director working on
---LCA Navy - 1 + 3 project co-ordinators (2 from Navy and 2 from ADA)
---LCA MK-2 - 1+ 4 project co-ordinators
---AMCA - 1 + 9 project co-ordinators

Added Later : It is my analysis from ADA website regarding ToT. 3rd change -> Added links


If it is true then that would be high AoA, High G and further opening of flight envelope, so that it can use in A2A role also, apart from current A2G, which already done by Tejas in various test flight.

probably in the next year we shall see Tejas with missile firing in A2A and A2g mode.

Hopefully :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 21:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
they achieved something in July or possibly hit a big airpocket(like the fuel line issue) in July. I would like to have the rajanb-mig21 situation here where no updates means it is getting inducted smoothly but keeping my fingers crossed and looking towards mecca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 22:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 709
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
As per my logic if they hit a big airpocket, then they should have a team working on it. On the other hand if there is no work why keep resources assigned to a project. It is better to re-assign them where it is required. There might be minor issues, which will be handled by mk-2 team. Even in case of major issues, IAF will know either limitations of the platform (every system has some weak points) or if possible back port the solution from mk-2 to mk-1.

LCA-mk1 will be A2G or close support platform. MK2 will be multi role platform with better engine and further design improvements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 23:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23799
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Chill out folks. No air pockets I am sure. The real hurdle is going to be finding industry partners to supply stuff in bulk on a regular basis for mass production. That will take time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 00:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 242
Actually going from proven research and demo models to actual manufacturing is a very big jump even for veterans in the industry and it is i believe called as Valley of death by many 'technical' and manufacturing companies, as lot of products get lost/or get delayed in this valley. Anyone generally associated with such work can probably repond more, but I believe the time generally is given in years like 3 to 7 years depending on the maturity of the entity involved - Expectation on LCA is so high that in every department it is expected to hit a sixer. Hopefully ADA to HAL transition is well underway and happening smoothly with enough time and resources provided - expect some delays and heart burn in Jingos during this phase as in my opinion, HAL is a relative greenhorn in this area.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 16:52 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 05 Jul 2012 20:15
Posts: 38
With this planned production rate for LCAs, the first squadron inducted in 2016 with be almost obsolete and IMO the LCA MK1 would be immediately taken for upgrades with technology and systems infusion from MK2..

http://idrw.org/?p=15567

the production rate could have been better though :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 18:32 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31
Posts: 40
avinashpeter wrote:
With this planned production rate for LCAs, the first squadron inducted in 2016 with be almost obsolete and IMO the LCA MK1 would be immediately taken for upgrades with technology and systems infusion from MK2..

http://idrw.org/?p=15567

the production rate could have been better though :(


Can you kindly explain what in Tejas would be obsolete in 2016 or in Tejas MK2 in 2022. For all I know Tejas MK1 barring payload will be as capable as Mirage 2000-5 when it attains FOC. Specially our adversaries in West won't have anything significantly better which MK1 itself cant handle, and for our neighbour on East Mk2 will be good enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 10:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7110
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
F-16 should be absolute by now then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 12:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26888
Location: NowHere
if this is all production engineering and manufacturing issue, then i see our infrastructure weak points. this is going to be a big problem suddenly one wants to find genuine all indic small setups to help in advanced engineering at advanced level of support.

i hope they are taking step at a time.. spawning HAL is a good idea, perhaps with big private investments.. and then slowly create a new indic boeing or lm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 22:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56
Posts: 1889
Location: Nuked State of Denialistan
shiv wrote:
Chill out folks. No air pockets I am sure. The real hurdle is going to be finding industry partners to supply stuff in bulk on a regular basis for mass production. That will take time.


Correct Shiv.

In fact, tenders for manufacturing of various units were out a few months back.

In my days, the process followed by PSU's (HAL, NAL, ISRO) was to, in the pre tender days call certain vendors, which they had researched, to give presentations. This was their way of accelerating their learning curve. Then the various aspects of their discussions would be incorporated in the tender so to ensure they got the best. No news of the results thus far. But I would think, they would want to play their cards close to the chest.

Are they following the same policy as they seem to have done with the missile regime, in understating range and other capabilities?

I would. To give you a couple of examples:

a) the electronics in the MiG21/23/27.

b) The OSA class boats attacking Karachi.

Not to worry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 04:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 151
Location: Germany
RKumar wrote:
As per ADA website, currently
- There is no team except a project director (Shri J J Jadhav) working on LCA Mk-1

- There are three different teams including a project director working on
---LCA Navy - 1 + 3 project co-ordinators (2 from Navy and 2 from ADA)
---LCA MK-2 - 1+ 4 project co-ordinators
---AMCA - 1 + 9 project co-ordinators


Interesting and proves my point that our industry is already distracted by working on other projects, instead of getting at least LCA MK1 ready and inducted into operational service soon.
It's amazing how bad the LCA project is planned and managed, instead of keeping it simple and moving further step by step, they want to do anything at the same time.

Why on earth do they work at AMCA now, when LCA is not even close to be finished? We need fighters to replace Migs as soon as possible and not beyond 2025, so shouldn't the prime focus and any available team work on LCA MK1 and MK2 today?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 05:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11356
Location: India
The PSU babus have to ensure that there is a continuous supply of funds for the next decade of time-wasting! I absolutely agree that until the LCA MK-2 is perfected and is ins ervice qwhere we can compare it with other contemp. fighters,the AMCA should be left on paper.With the advent of UCAVs and their strikes being the preferred instrument of precision attack,using LCA tech acquired to produce a stealthy UCAV should be the top priority after the FGFA.No country in the world today is developing two stealth fighters as we are doing (other than super rich China and the US who have stopped F-22 production) ,with the FGFA and AMCA!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Nov 2012 05:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36
Posts: 2919
Sancho wrote:
RKumar wrote:
As per ADA website, currently
- There is no team except a project director (Shri J J Jadhav) working on LCA Mk-1

- There are three different teams including a project director working on
---LCA Navy - 1 + 3 project co-ordinators (2 from Navy and 2 from ADA)
---LCA MK-2 - 1+ 4 project co-ordinators
---AMCA - 1 + 9 project co-ordinators


Interesting and proves my point that our industry is already distracted by working on other projects, instead of getting at least LCA MK1 ready and inducted into operational service soon.
It's amazing how bad the LCA project is planned and managed, instead of keeping it simple and moving further step by step, they want to do anything at the same time.

Why on earth do they work at AMCA now, when LCA is not even close to be finished? We need fighters to replace Migs as soon as possible and not beyond 2025, so shouldn't the prime focus and any available team work on LCA MK1 and MK2 today?

Because if one wants to develop an aircraft in 2030, the requirements gathering should have started yesterday. The requirement gathering for LCA started around 1980 and here we are now 30 years later. Aircraft design and manufacturing is unfortunately not like instant noodles.

For creating an LCA, we needed to develop the carbon-structures, engine hot materials from Midhani and so on. These materials in turn are decided by how much temperature they should be able to sustain and their strenghts. These are inturn decided by how much engine itself has to output and the approximate weight. After one has ALL these basic materials, the actual engine/aircraft design can start. Developing those materials takes time, usually around 5-10 years. We do not have a parallel programs so that those materials already exist in our hand to cut down the over all time. Engine designers can only work with materials they already have in hand.

Any half decent company will always be in two modes. One team always works for leap frogging/next gen while other team will work on the nuts and bolts or current gen. Once the next gen team reaches a particular stage, it hands off or expands to include the current gen inside it. Almost parallelly an effort to seed the next next gen starts. For example in microsoft, by the time windows 8 came out and thus the primary effort starts to slowly move on to windows 9, there will be a seeding team for window 10 already on hand. (I dont know anything about MS.) Another example would be, the hardware team of Surface would have already started working Surface 2 (or whatever that is) by the time the software team reached the device into half usable state.

Example: The guys who have developed carbon-structures for LCA are not going to do anything for LCA from now on, their primary effort will be for AMCA. It is for giving these guys a move on the coordinators are working.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, arshyam, bijeet, Google Feedfetcher, Nitesh, Parikshit and 27 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