Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 06 May 2016 13:43

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: 27 Oct 2012 04:29 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 12277
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: 47607
Location: Gaius Bangaloricus - leader of 39th legion
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: 468
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: 686
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: 1119
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
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Posts: 4608
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: 28237
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
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: 261
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: 47607
Location: Gaius Bangaloricus - leader of 39th legion
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: 403
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: 53
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: 34106
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
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: 803
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: 136
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: 34106
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
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: 536
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: 2673
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: 803
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: 28237
Location: Sanatana Dharma: The binding force of South Asia
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: 250
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: 45
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: 7352
Location: Peace out
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: 34106
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
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: 1945
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: 152
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: 14627
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
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36
Posts: 3065
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: 152
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
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 2735
^^^

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: 14627
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: 13685
Location: The Deep State
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: 784
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: 2673
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: 34106
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
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  
 
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: ashthor, Austin, Kersi D, maxratul, nTripathi and 34 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