Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Nov 2014 10:51

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 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 10:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 6749
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: 25872
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: 11167
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: 2915
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  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2012 23:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 151
Location: Germany
Philip wrote:
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.


Exactly, even when you look at the numbers of fighters that needs to be replaced within the next 10 - 15 years, there is nothing left in IAF, that makes another stealth fighter type necessary, because FGFA will replace Mig 29s, M2Ks or remaining Mig 27s. At the same time it's way more important to add armed drones (Rustom varient) and stealth UCAVs (Aura), which are cheaper to develop, procure and operate than AMCA and more effective to replace the Jaguars in the ground attack roles.
One more reason why there should be a focus on getting LCA done as soon as possible. AMCA has only an importance for IN, since they don't have any 5th gen fighters cleared so far, but then it should be developed according to their requirements and not only as a navalised version of a fighter developed for the air force.

Virupaksha wrote:
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.


But why took it so long? Because we messed up many things during the development and it would be embarrassing if our next fighter development would take that long as well!
The point however is, that we need a base of know how and experience to develop a fighter or it's techs, that should be the prime lesson that we learned from LCA development and we need the same for AMCA as well. But we will gain these only during the next years, by finishing LCA on the one hand and also participating in FGFA development, or even benefiting from Rafale production and systems. Starting now with the same mindest of, we can do it alone, will lead us only to the next delays and failures.

Virupaksha wrote:
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.


Not really, necause they still have to figure out why LCA turned out to be 1t heavier than expected, or why drag seems to be an issue. They still have to find ways how to reduce the weight of LCA MK2, that actually gains weight with it's strechted size, additional internal fuel, a heavier engine and the other systems that might come. So they still have more than enough to do to finish this development and even then, there are enough other programs where thy knowledge is needed before AMCA. LCH, which is facing weight issues too, FGFA, where we add credible ammount of composites, even the upgrade of MKI should be include them and all these aircrafts will be inducted into operational service way before any AMCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 05:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1403
^^^

Without internal knowledge of how teams have been setup and distributed (and which individuals (and how many) are being reassigned), it's difficult to say what is ideal or not. This line of discussion started from someone finding a list of project managers on a website and then making a "stretched" inference on how the teams have been allocated.

Typically, on large R&D companies you'll find departments with various teams working on different task areas that are already well defined and scoped. Appropriate manpower would have been allocated to get these tasks completed in a given timeframe and in the sequence required. Any additional manpower assigned to these teams would be under-utilised. You'll also find project "sub-teams" in departments lead by very experienced individuals (i.e. technical architects) working on defining/scoping/designing future work areas. A lot of exploratory work needs to be done before actual implementation teams can be fully assigned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 10:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11167
Location: India
Granted that we must have an AMCA...for academic argument,the same fundamental will plague the AMCA as has plagued the LCA and HF-24,where is the engine for it? it is why we must use the scarce funds available to perfect the LCA MK-2 ( but within a final time frame,no point in perfecting it in 2025 at elastic limit costs when it will be obsolete) and the FGFA.As said before,a naval version of the FGFA should be acquired and there was some hint some time ago that the Russians have a plan to develop a naval version for their future carriers.Using the A&N islands and the unsinkable "INS India" as a carrier where larger aircraft like Flankers and FGFAs can operate from and extend their reach with aerial refuelling,for the current decade MIG-29Ks capable of being upgraded to MIG-35 capability will suffice aboard our medium sized carriers. for future larger carriers of 65,000t size,naval FGFAs and stealth UCAVs should be the right combo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 11:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11042
Location: Illini Nation
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?


What point does it prove?

The AMCA is in the design phase.

The MKII is somewhere between design and build and perhaps testing of some aspects.

MK1 is in the final testing phase.

Do you really expect us to believe that the AMCA design team is starving the MK1 test team of resources? IF we were to take people from the AMCA Design team and task them with testing the MK1 it would solve the MK1 problems?

India was willing to pay consulting fees to the likes of LM, etc for the testing phase. India has no experience in testing an aircraft, one of the major reasons to tag along with the PAK-FA project - supposedly it is expected to benefit the AMCA.

The MK1 is creating hear burns for sure. BUT there is really no way out. Testing - risk free testing that is - will take eons. Those nations that have tested lost a ton of aircrafts and lives. India cannot risk that much, so it will take time. Indians will not be in a position to predict how much time and the rest who have the experience will not help.

Quote:
or academic argument,the same fundamental will plague the AMCA as has plagued the LCA and HF-24,where is the engine for it?


So?

As long as India has not stolen the engine design India should be OK - within some limits.

India is not going to get an Indian engine for another 15-20 years. Not possible, unless India gets big time assistance from someone - perhaps France. Even then it will be one-of. The next gen engine will pose a set of similar problems. Funds and time will solve the problem, but the AMCA cannot wait for such a development. Better to rely on an outside (reliable - not the Al-55 variety please) engine than to place these projects in a deep freeze.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 13:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Posts: 662
Location: Gods own country
On saturday saw a low pass flyby of LCA by around 11.00AM around marathahalli side. it had an light grey underbelly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 13:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2513
It is a frustrating wait to see the LCA in AF colours. Until there is an official word it would be like waiting outside an operation theatre for jingos.
Btw MK1 is in maintenance mode(SW dev cycle) and as with any SW dev in that stage it wouldnt have too many dev members associated with it. People would have moved onto MK2 and AMCA. Hope this long wait ends quickly and we get some heartwarming news soon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2012 23:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25872
Location: NowHere
Even if India gets big time assistance in Engine works, it would not be able to make it in another 20 years.. But if whole of India considers Core Engine development is important investment, then it would only take another 2-3 years to get a flying start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 00:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 151
Location: Germany
srai wrote:
^^^

Without internal knowledge of how teams have been setup and distributed (and which individuals (and how many) are being reassigned), it's difficult to say what is ideal or not...


Fair enough, but when we look at the LCA development as a whole, a logical project management seems not to be the leading force behind it, rather than pretty wild decision makings. Starting from which Indian companies would be responsible for the engine and radar developments, to the worst decisions of not using proven foreign stopgap parts and linking LCA as a project to Kaveri engine development.
Our companies wants to too much and that even before they have finished at least one project, LCA / AMCA as mentioned, but it's not the only case. HAL is developing LCH and LUH and already plans for a medium class helicopter. DRDO has problems with the UAV developments, Rustom H is still in its initial stages and they want to go for AURA, no MMR for LCA, but DRDO CEO promises indigenous AESA for LCA MK2, the reports about single touchscreen display in LCA and even a stealth LCA, NAL with Saras and RTA, again HAL with IJT problems, but plans for an AJT,...

We have many things under development, but not much that really would be a help for our forces, infact all the delays, problems and failures are making them even weaker and that's the biggest issue when we don't get things done and dream about bigger things in the meantime!

NRao wrote:
The MKII is somewhere between design and build and perhaps testing of some aspects.

MK1 is in the final testing phase.

Do you really expect us to believe that the AMCA design team is starving the MK1 test team of resources? IF we were to take people from the AMCA Design team and task them with testing the MK1 it would solve the MK1 problems?


As stated earlier, their work is only done, when the design issues have been solved (MK1 drag, MK2 just entered design stage, with still a lot of work to be done during the prototype stage) and even then, there would be several other projects, where they are needed before starting AMCA.
When you look at Indias military aircraft projects and the reports about them, the issues of design are ore then obvious, be it LCA, LCH, Saras, IJT, all of them are facing weight and/or drag issues and your really think that simply going to the next project without solving the problems is the right way?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 02:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36
Posts: 2915
Wow, I have to question your expertise here, because you are belching absolute nonsense without half decent info.

Possibly you could answer about why does the material guy in Midhani today has to worry about MK1 drag?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 02:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 702
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
I don't understand ... why we are so low on self esteem? How you can learn from single iteration of LCA project to reduce drag and weight issues? There are too many sub-systems which are used first time. First and most important is make a system working and then do the fine tuning and performance analysis.

As far as LCA-MK2, is concerned it has more powerful engine which should compensate for weight and drag. And in the mean time if everything is working OK in real conditions, then they can think of further improvements in a couple of sub-system at a time. So chill and enjoy that LCA MK1 development is closing, although it might be having some minor or few major issues. Which will be handled with LCA-MK2.

Trust IAF has enough experience in maturing a newly system e.g. like they did with Su-30 MKI.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 03:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11042
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
your really think that simply going to the next project without solving the problems is the right way?


That itself provides a good insight.

Not too sure where to start. Let us try ................

Quote:
When you look at Indias military aircraft projects and the reports about them, the issues of design are ore then obvious, be it LCA, LCH, Saras, IJT, all of them are facing weight and/or drag issues


Yes weight issues, which translates into drag at some point in time. However, these weight issues are NOT design related. They are material related problems. They used to be distribution related problem - as in proper management of real estate within the LCA - which got resolved (by rearranging the innards).

You see India is not a leader in material sciences (MS) (and will not be for some decades). IF India had access to really good R&D in MS she would have had a decent chance to resolve such issue.

The second issue is related to testing - as stated above. One may have great designs, materials, sensors, etc, but if you do not have good test data you are starting from square one. You see there are no shortcuts here and dhekha jayega. IF you do not know the risk is huge - and one India is not willing to take - rightfully so. India cannot take. She would rather wait till the tests are right than to take a risk.

As far as I have heard the LCA is a near perfect aircraft - so the design has to be OK. My impression was that the MK2 was taking care of the weight related issues. No?

BTW, if the design is an issue, what do you expect a design team to do at this stage of the game? Redesign the MK1? Just curious.

Quote:
even then, there would be several other projects, where they are needed before starting AMCA.


Like which ones?

Also BTW, how much do you know about the AMCA?

__________________________________________

A few years ago I had suggested that the LCA be shelved after calling it a tech demo and take on the MCA (as it was called that then) seriously. I still think for a "LCA" (yes, the real one) to take shape it will take at least 2-3 iterations AFTER the MK2. I feel that the LCA is one of the best things to have happened in India. But, I also feel that with undue pressure it will never reach it full potential in EVERY respect. India I feel is mature in many respects - design being one - but has a way to go in many areas.

India needs an aircraft that is free of everything - politics, IAF pressure, etc. LCA should be that one. Make it, break it, learn from it, rebuild it, ........... only way out. Failures are a necessary part of this development cycle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 06:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25872
Location: NowHere
all said and done, if a/cs don't enter services, then we have no feedback for development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2012 09:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03
Posts: 3622
Then we will have no positive feed back from IAF which is like IA only interested to forin mal with % for all and sundry. We need to force things on the people who are not keen on having "Indian" products. Otherwise I fear LCA is already becoming like an other Arjun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2012 22:46 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3004
RFP out for parts of LCA MkII ... Due date is Dec 11 2012.
RFQ out for parts of LCA MKII ... Due date is Jan 22 2013.

They are planning to build the plane in 2013/14 (nothing new, just news about things proceeding according to timeline as of now)


Last edited by indranilroy on 22 Nov 2012 22:56, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2012 22:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2513
Where is it IRji?

btw why do we have specification for design and dev of Radome now?

http://www.ada.gov.in/EOI.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2012 23:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3004
suryag wrote:
Where is it IRji?

btw why do we have specification for design and dev of Radome now?

http://www.ada.gov.in/EOI.htm

No 'ji' please.

http://www.hal-india.com/tender_ARDC_tab_New.asp

RFP: D/IMM/COM3/LCA(MK2)/5461/03/13951/2012
RFQ: D/IMM/5461/7R/1069/2012

suryag wrote:
btw why do we have specification for design and dev of Radome now?

http://www.ada.gov.in/EOI.htm

On page 4, "ADA is looking for design and development of alternative radome for Light Combat Aircraft as part of their product improvement activity.

They don't want any geometry changes, only improved EM performance. If possible better lightning protection and better smoothness.

Info nugget: IFF dipoles are integrated into the MMR antenna. I used to think that they were the two silvery things above the nose, in front of the cockpit. (like in the F16).

P.S. Corrected formatting :-)


Last edited by indranilroy on 23 Nov 2012 05:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2012 23:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2513
Nice!! i missed that "alternative" thing. Lots of tenders for HTT-40 too on that page interesting times


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2012 02:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56
Posts: 586
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 6e826f&plc

Image

Quote:
At yesterday's roll-out of the 500th Super Hornet/Growler, Boeing program vice-president Kory Mathews confirmed that the F414 Enhanced Performance Engine would be the baseline for the company's offer to India.
...

The new engine offers up to a 20 percent thrust boost. That would take the EPE up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, giving it the best thrust/weight ratio of any fighter engine -- almost 11:1. Alternatively (an option understood to be attracting interest at Saab) the EPE could be delivered with a 10 percent uprate and very generous temperature margins, extending its life and reducing fighter life-cycle costs.

The EPE "will not make much difference at an air show", says Boeing chief test pilot Ric Traven, but dramatically improves the fighter's performance at high speed and altitude, halving supersonic acceleration times. For the Gripen, the extra thrust would translate into further-improved supercruise (supersonic level flight without afterburner) capability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2012 02:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18
Posts: 676
With a 11:1 thrust/weight ratio what is the probability of the LCA Mk 2 achieving super-cruise capability at altitude ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2012 06:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25872
Location: NowHere
we made a big mistake not choosing to partner with EJ200 rather Snecma... ideally, it would have been better if had GE 414 techs for colloboration.. but, we still have no idea what are the exact details of snecma deal, as the last interview with dr. saraswat only talked about deriving at what thrust requirements are needed based on the platforms they are trying to use.

standardarizing on F-414 platform would have solved many problems.. but we have no idea as to what was unkill politics.. and what is surprising is there was a screw driver tech transfer for 414 as well for mk-2. so, ideally, it would have been better with either GE or EJ200 which have already proven for near 100kN or greater than that thrusts.

snecma has long way to go to even near 90kN wet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 12:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2513
the thing that i feared the most

flight test update

FRom
LCA-Tejas has completed 1941 Test Flights Successfully. (12-July-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-237,PV5-36,LSP3-75,LSP4-56,LSP5-105,LSP7-4,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1944 Test Flights Successfully. (22-Nov-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-75,LSP4-56,LSP5-106,LSP7-5,NP1-4)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 12:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5600
Sancho wrote:
...Repetitive stuff snipped...

As stated earlier, their work is only done, when the design issues have been solved (MK1 drag, MK2 just entered design stage, with still a lot of work to be done during the prototype stage) and even then, there would be several other projects, where they are needed before starting AMCA.
When you look at Indias military aircraft projects and the reports about them, the issues of design are ore then obvious, be it LCA, LCH, Saras, IJT, all of them are facing weight and/or drag issues and your really think that simply going to the next project without solving the problems is the right way?


Dude, clearly you are confused about how product design & development works. At any given time, you don't just work on todays tech, you also work on tomorrows and the requirement gathering for even a generation after that. It doesn't matter if today's program is in progress and is facing challenges, if you don't start working on tomorrow's program now, you will lose the time advantage of starting the program earlier.
Different groups of people are often allocated to these programs, and detailed design and development is not required at the same level for the in development one, and the in planning one either.
That's how it happens.
So while the LCA certification and product improvement process is "ON", simultaneously, parallel teams have to work on the AMCA as well, finetuning it in the process. Otherwise by the time the LCA is done, to start the AMCA will take up several years of requirements gathering, definition, back & forth specification decisions, budgetary allocation fixing etc worth of effort. The whole supply chain extending back to development partners need to begin this process as well, not just the folks at ADA.

Right now is the perfect time to get this exercise done So that by the time the LCA MK2 is developed and production ready, the base groundwork for the AMCA is laid out, basics are in place and the manpower can then shift to the detailed D&D phase for at least the TD/Prototypes, with the FSED to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33404
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I think biggest benefit of Mk2 will be 1m longer fuselage giving it the right tapering shape to reduce drag and the EPE engine. might also increase the volume of any fuel tanks near wing root or inside the wing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6875
Singha-> quite frankly when will get the 414 epe engine, when will the LCA MK-II protytpes fly and God only knows when it will induscted in IAF. I feel the problems with LCA are not purely techical , but the arms agent lobby in Delhi which does not want this as a threat to its income. People like SUresh Kalmadi have passed resolution's in parliment to kill the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 14:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27
Posts: 367
SaiK wrote:
we made a big mistake not choosing to partner with EJ200 rather Snecma....


At the time that we were searching for partners only Snecma and Saturn were ready to give us what we wanted. P&W wanted the IPR. Dont think the EJ200 was on offer at that time. Ofcourse no deal has been signed yet but I think the Snecma deal is tied up but the Frenchies are holding it to ransom linked to the Rafale deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 14:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 151
Location: Germany
NRao wrote:
Yes weight issues, which translates into drag at some point in time. However, these weight issues are NOT design related.


Depends on which of the aircrafts we are talking, take LCH for example, the first design turned out to be too heavy and draggy as well, pylons, tail and air intakes needed to be re-designed.
Wrt LCA, overweight is an issue according to initial plans, but compared to other fighters in it's class, even LCA MK1 is pretty light and offers a good TWR too. So when it still has performance issues, what else than the design is the reason?

NRao wrote:
My impression was that the MK2 was taking care of the weight related issues. No?


I hope so, but they are actually increasing the weight by far, because of the changes that we know so far (streched fuselage, new internal fuel tanks, new engines and other systems), but it will be interessting to see what else will be changed.

NRao wrote:
BTW, if the design is an issue, what do you expect a design team to do at this stage of the game? Redesign the MK1? Just curious.


As stated, find out the problems and fix it for MK2, instead of simply going over to the next project. My problem is, that we have very poor planning and that we don't really finish our projects, before we already start to dream about others. We celebrate any baby step like the roll out of another prototype, while not a single fighter is in operational service yet, or would be useful to serve our forces and the security needs of India.

NRao wrote:
Like which ones?


As mentioned in my earlier post, LCA MK2, FGFA, armed Rustom, AURA UCAV, because all these aircrafts are meant to be in service earlier than AMCA and because they add more advantages to IAF too. The only field where AMCA really would be needed is, as a carrier fighter, because IN don't have a 5th. gen option, other than F35 so far. But then we have to develop it for the navy in first place and not only navalise a fighter developed for IAF.

NRao wrote:
I feel that the LCA is one of the best things to have happened in India.


I feel the same, that's why I want our officials to keep focusing on it and not beeing distracted from newer and shinier projects, without really finishing LCA. We need a reliable, cost-effective low end fighter that soon can be inducted to IAF, not dreams about a stealthy LCA MK3 or AMCA in 10 to 15 years.
On the other side, we don't need a "modest" (like IN itself describes N-LCA) carrier fighter in the short term, because we will have more capable Migs anyway. A naval AMCA in the long term would be more important and why anything beyond a N-LCA tech demonstrator currently is a waste of resources.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 15:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 151
Location: Germany
SaiK wrote:
we made a big mistake not choosing to partner with EJ200 rather Snecma...


Depends if there was ever an offer to partner with us on Kaveri, becaus so far that was reported only by the French and Russians.

Karan M wrote:
Dude, clearly you are confused about how product design & development works. At any given time, you don't just work on todays tech, you also work on tomorrows


Please read the post above, because I don't have an issue with working on NG developments in general, but that we don't finish our projects and that more important projects than AMCA should be done earlier!
AMCA now comes only because the delays and failures during the LCA development and not LCA was successfully inducted and is soon to be completed.

Karan M wrote:
basics are in place


Where?

- do we have knowledge in stealth design?
- do we have developed at least any multi mode fighter radar yet?
- do we have a working engine that could be used for AMCA, or at least a prototype?
- NG avionics, weapon systems?

Not really and that's why our contribution to FGFA is very limited as well. We still don't know which radar LCA MK1 will use, let alone MK2, the Kaveri co-development is still not fixed and the first use was meant to be an upgrade to LCA MK1. So when there is still so much to do to get a real base in our industry and with improving, why bother with AMCA at this point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 17:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Posts: 342
Good news from livefist
Tejas Mk.2 Build Begins
Quote:
Finally, HAL has begun the process to build the first Tejas Mk.2 air force prototype, envisioned as a slightly larger but much more capable fighter than the floundering Tejas Mk.1. On November 19, HAL's Aircraft Research & Design Centre (ARDC) floated the first of many requirements for raw materials -- alloys and such -- for the first Tejas Mk.2 (first pictures) prototype vehicle and other assemblies. More requirements will be put out over the next few weeks.

HAL is looking to put the Mk.2, powered by the General Electric F414-GE-INS6 turbofan engine, into the air in 2014. The highly anticipated Mk.2 programme will cost at least $542.44-million (Rs 2431.55-crore), comprising full scale engineering development. The IAF has put down an official requirement for 83 of the Mk.2s. Working on a detailed post on the Mk.2. No timeframe, though!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 17:33 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33404
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
yes definitely resources need to be devoted to give the Mk1 full spectrum A2G and A2A capability and its radar & avionics brought upto the mark. these things if left hanging now "dekh lenge yaar" will bite our ass again in the mk2.

astra mk1 is another black hole project, our hopes and queries go in and nothing comes out as news :shock: its a vital gap in our portfolio as also a IIR AAM which isnt even in the plans. sudarshan is supposed to be ready yet there is no news of confirmed orders.

and surely the kaveri snecma unless its a super secret ATV type help obtained from Rus is dead in the water, with 3 yrs gone and no official contract even signed, let alone any work done. we better get in line for the 414 EPE and hope Indo-US relations are sustainably good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 18:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25872
Location: NowHere
if the mk.2 frame is larger, they could consider retractable refueling pods.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 18:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 507
my understanding is the following from MK.2 perspective

Singha wrote:
A2G and A2A capability and its radar & avionics brought upto the mark


I have serious doubt with the radar part [AESA i mean] at least not before > 2018 since i don;t see a prototype or some test bed for its testing.
Thus a missing critical technology

Singha wrote:
astra mk1 is another black hole project

we have options for AAM from French / Israel/Russia , so if any delay then at least it does not block the progress

Singha wrote:
surely the kaveri snecma

Honestly i don;t see a top of the line reliable engine[single crystal etc] for Indian fighters at least in the next 10 years , and in worst case for ever

Don;t get me wrong or too pessimistic it is just based on the open source information of the last 15 years and more. So one of the
option is to get all the critical tech as part of Rafale and Pak Fa deal . These deals should only be seen from the perspective of the kind of tech. they provide, nothing more nothing less


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 18:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Nov 2011 22:31
Posts: 2924
Location: Jambudveepe Bharatvarshe, Bharatkhande, Sakabde, Mero Dakshine Parsve
LCA reminds me of the judgement - Sau kilo Pyaaj ya sau kode.

One of the difficulties with trying to play off one player against the other is that a third player can you by the balls.

Oh I see somebody is just as pessimistic about LCA as I am. Welcome bro to my miserable hovel. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 18:36 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33404
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the pgm has definitely lost momentum and perhaps managerial interest in the last 1 yr.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 18:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 669
Quote:
Sources have told idrw.org that Tejas MK-II will carry many of the 5th generation technology; advance variant of this will later find its way into AMCA, first Tejas MK-II aircraft according to sources will be ready by end of 2013 or early 2014 and will have its first flight in end of 2014 .

Work on Design aspect of Tejas MK-II is complete and F414-GE-INS6 engine will power the Mk II version, Tejas MK-II is one meter longer then Tejas MK-I , and will have a stretched nose and larger section behind cockpit for incorporating avionics components. Aircraft will be able to carry 1000 kg more on the external stores more than current 4000 kg carried by Tejas MK-I.


Link

Both articles point towards 2014 , Hope they show some urgency :roll:


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 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, MANNY K and 18 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