Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[Singha]

initial Su30 were all in pune, and factory is in nasik. distance 4 hrs by road (210km)

The Su-30 MKI are built under license at HAL’s five divisions in Nasik, Koraput, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Korwa. These are later assembled, integrated, test-flown and delivered from Nasik.

[Kartik]

Those other improvements that he mentioned can be done in next iterations. it is very common in the airline business. The new builds of A380 will have a slightly more twist in the wings compared to initial ones built 5 years back. And all the improvements that he mentioned are the result of learnings from Mk-1, which is the same world over. F/A-18 E/F versions were a big jump over the inital A/B versions. Over time, feedback and experience is fed back into the product to make it better. The key thing is to accept initial versions flaws and all, and work with the designers/builders to make it better over time.

It's common in the civilian aircraft business to see the first couple of dozen aircraft heavier than initially expected and having issues with performance not meeting expectations. Happened with the Boeing 777, 747-8, 787 and will continue to happen. We used to work on change requests related to weight reduction even a year after the airplane had entered service. Concurrent engineering is common.

[Kartik]

Also, please don't confuse an airplane that doesn't have official clearance to those that have. F-18 and A380 along with all airplanes in service had to be certified in one way or another before they were allowed to operate in any way. In a civil airliner, the requirements are that much more stringent. No doubt all aircraft will undergo continued improvements but they must meet certain minimum requirements to step out of the development stage and become operational.

That's what YOU don't understand. IOC-1 is a certification clearance. Even the Bandar was in PAF service with a full squadron before it attained FOC.

[Kartik]

Instead of jumping to the defence of the useless DPSUs or on the IAF for doing something they have not done, it may be more productive to figure out in our own non-professional way what to do from here.

One way to make sure the LCA experience actually kills some enemies in future instead of becoming a parade ground backdrop is to rethink the entire concept and DROP THE STUPID LCA MONIKER. The main problem is power to weight ratio and one solution is to strap on double the power--make this thing a twin-engined warplane and forget the labels. Even if we enlarge the plane to accomodate extra fuel, a 100% increase in thrust will more than take care of even a 40-50% increase in weight. So what if we end up with a plane that is similar to the MMRCA or even Su30? Yes, it will be inefficient but it will be 100% Indian and most important, it will do the needful when the sh!t hits the fan.

I get it- this is the real issue. You hate DPSUs and consequently will always choose to look at the shortcomings and never acknowledge the good work they may do. All your posts over a period of time basically revolve around just this. I don't believe that any amount of arguing with you will make you feel any less disdain towards DPSUs or their products.

[Indranil]

Its not just few components like you said, it is fairly widespread changes.

Even with faulty components and a full overhaul, what is the time frame for a full overhaul of a/c? Almost a full year. And this is not even overhaul, this is for all practical purposes, a reassembly.
Why block precious resources to first make, then disassemble and remake it?

Fitting a radar, changing the canopy, changing even a lot of wiring due to hydraulic leaks in MLG. None of these require reassembly. Any other compenent that you know of which has changed from from PV-5 to LSP-8 which would require re-assemby?

You could not be more wrong on this one! It has got nothing to do with HAL. This is a global norm in the aviation industry.

Err On what?

Lead times for ordering things for running of a assembly line for aircrafts.

That is exactly what Kartik is saying. Instead of starting from now, when HAL has no idea. HAL should have started then. The only things left to be sorted out by now would be the components which changes since PV-5.

Which is fine, but what does IAF order come from there?

I agree with the above, that is why I am saying that prototype development and testing is independent of induction into IAF, this should be done by HAL, from its own budget, drawing on IAF as little as possible. They can absorb the elements from IAF on a permanent basis if there is shortage of manpower and talent, but the responsibility is theirs alone and needs for the basics to be in place before IAF is involved.

I have been saying this from a long time. IAF cannot be blamed for delaying Tejas (at least since 2005). But it can certainly be blamed of not encouraging it. IAF could have ordered prototypes. It has ordered Su-30s in the past. Hell, IAF did not order any Tejas till IN came aboard and funded the project in lean times. By the way the cost of 20 LSP-1 standard LCA, without the radar would be the cost 4 Rafales!

[Kartik]

Things such as the fuel piping location being shifted, ejection seat issue would have required some re-work but by now ASTE would have IOC-1 Tejas Mk1s in hand and soon enough an entire squadron could have been equipped with the Tejas Mk1, also at IOC-1 standard.

You think post construction addition of changes which are involved in the below step

it isn't the changes that are required to bring a PV-5 to an LSP-8 level that takes the most time

Would take some rework? It is practically taking the a/c apart and reassembling? And for what?

the parts that need to be ordered from suppliers and sub-contractors a year or more in advance.

Just to make sure that HAL gets its supply lines sorted out? That in itself is very tenous claim, that a supply chain cant be sorted out without a large order. Desiging a supply chain does not necessarily require orders, only a idea of what the order is likely to be.

Further, at PV 5 level, HAL anyway has only a limited idea of what the supply chain would be, since the a/c is changing, so in itself, that idea does not hold water.

A design related issue can not be sorted out by order size or timing, they are orthogonal parameters.

You just displayed how much you know or have read about airplane manufacturing in this one post. What I'm talking about is commonly done. Ok? It can be done. Far more major changes have been done such as re-manufacturing Gripen As into Gripen Cs. Similar thing is now being done on Rafale Ms from the first batch.

And long lead items take the longest to manufacture and those orders need to be placed by the customer nearly 2 and sometimes 3 years in advance. Large forgings made of titanium for instance are the first items to be ordered because they take a heck of a long time to be manufactured. Please don't just argue against HAL because you, like Victor have a pathological hatred of DPSUs.

[NRao]

What I'm talking about is commonly done. Ok?

Somehow the difference between lead time and large order is lost !! Among other things.

[Kartik]

Kartik, 2 things:
- The F-414 is a replacement for F-404 and has exactly the same length and diameter so if the wings are going to be pushed out, it will be for some other reason. F-414 is heavier and will require additional fuel which inreases the weight of the aircraft. If the calculation is that the same wing area will be sufficient for this added weight, I say good luck because they will need it.

No it doesn't have the same diameter. You think that the LCA Navy Dep PD won't know about this when he told that the diameters vary? I even verified this on google and so can you. I did write about this very matter back when AI-'13 was going on.

- My main grouse is the penchant to attack the IAF, the party that actually has to put its lives on the line, to explain away the PSUs' failings. Your cynical remark that IAF is not involved and happy just to get finished goods is a good example of the attitude that bothers me. You have conveniently forgotten that IAF was not allowed to take full responsibility because the civilian PSU no-goods p!ssed in their pants and went running to MoD chacha in fear that they may actually have to PERFORM. And then people wonder why IAF let loose on the PSUs in public?

Something thas got to change and I get the distinct feeling that it will very soon. Pressure is building up from all sides and showtime is near.

The IAF wanted its person to head HAL, not the Tejas program. Anyway, I fully support the IAF heading HAL, but facts are facts. The step-motherly treatment meted out to the LCA is rather well known, in fact something AM Rajkumar himself mentioned very openly in his book on the Tejas.

They are still not as involved as a primary stakeholder must be. There's a wait and let's see if we get a full spec Tejas or not attitude, rather than a lets fold up our sleeves and get this thing into service approach that a service like the USAF is showing with the F-35 or even the PAF showed with the Bandar.

[Sanku]

Fitting a radar, changing the canopy, changing even a lot of wiring due to hydraulic leaks in MLG. None of these require reassembly. Any other compenent that you know of which has changed from from PV-5 to LSP-8 which would require re-assemby?

Well unless the wiring is completely ducted, and the ducts themselves are unchanged, a wiring change would require significant reassembly, plus I have no idea why you think the whole list of fitting a radar, changing the canopy are "easy" items.

Lead times for ordering things for running of a assembly line for aircrafts.

Yes, lead time is needed, when did I say it is not. However, why is lead time a issue when the a/c is not ready for assembly? For assembly to start now, why worry about its lead time much earlier?

The point is you dont start assembling early because you cant figure out lead times. Your lead times are to be planned around assembly start.

I have been saying this from a long time. IAF cannot be blamed for delaying Tejas (at least since 2005). But it can certainly be blamed of not encouraging it. IAF could have ordered prototypes.

The prototypes are anyway ordered right -- those are the prototypes that ADA is testing with. The prototypes are for testing which is being done.

How does IAF ordering prototypes encourage LCA? and to what use? I dont buy the assembly line logic at all I am afraid.

[Indranil]

Well unless the wiring is completely ducted, and the ducts themselves are unchanged, a wiring change would require significant reassembly, plus I have no idea why you think the whole list of fitting a radar, changing the canopy are "easy" items.

They do not need reassembly. All canopies, wiring on all flying LCAs have been changed since last Dec. Fitting a radar is a highly modular job. In fact, all radars undergo regular check up. So much so that they have easy access through the radome.

Lead times for ordering things for running of a assembly line for aircrafts.

Yes, lead time is needed, when did I say it is not. However, why is lead time a issue when the a/c is not ready for assembly? For assembly to start now, why worry about its lead time much earlier?

The point is you dont start assembling early because you cant figure out lead times. Your lead times are to be planned around assembly start.

Depends on what you define as ready. If you define PV-5 as ready for the envelop as tested till then, then you just create your assembly line according to that. Tinker the assembly line to accommodate required changes as they become evident. If this was done. today, we would be delivering serially produced Tejas from an humming assembly line now. Instead of 2-3 years away.

The prototypes are anyway ordered right -- those are the prototypes that ADA is testing with. The prototypes are for testing which is being done.

How does IAF ordering prototypes encourage LCA? and to what use? I dont buy the assembly line logic at all I am afraid.

I am pretty sure you understand the difference between envelop expansion tests and tests for providing user-feedback. What IAF could have told ADA is I flew these planes day in and day out and I found, that my mechanics are finding this problematic, or that problematic. Or the longevity of this part is not upto the mark. From my experience, if you do this, it will be better. Fix these. Then, when serially produced Tejas would be built, these problems would have been sorted out. Alas, this will not happen now.

[Sanku]

[
You just displayed how much you know or have read about airplane manufacturing in this one post. What I'm talking about is commonly done. Ok? It can be done..

Kartik-ji; you should know by now that this sort of bluster does not work with me, if anything, it is counter productive. So lets keep our certificates aside and discuss rationally and civilly shall we.

Thanks in anticipation.

[Victor]

I get it- this is the real issue. You hate DPSUs and consequently will always choose to look at the shortcomings and never acknowledge the good work they may do. All your posts over a period of time basically revolve around just this. I don't believe that any amount of arguing with you will make you feel any less disdain towards DPSUs or their products.

Correct. I will qualify this by adding that I have nothing but admiration for the DPSUs before 1980. It is the 2nd generation DPSU leadership that are a complete waste and a national disgrace. I will also add that anything these guys "succeed" at is purely by accident because the setup is heavily prejudiced against success as the mile-long record shows. They are a grave danger to India's security and I would wish them to disappear asap. And yes, I believe they can be replaced overnight.

No it doesn't have the same diameter.

Yes it does--35 inches diameter for both. You'll have better luck if you stick to authentic sources. Lay off the riffraff sites and head straight for GE Aviation.

They are still not as involved as a primary stakeholder must be. There's a wait and let's see if we get a full spec Tejas or not attitude, rather than a lets fold up our sleeves and get this thing into service approach that a service like the USAF is showing with the F-35 or even the PAF showed with the Bandar.

Who is test flying the LCA and providing feedback? Hint: it is not a civilian in a dhoti and chappals. And if they don't have the authority to kick some faltu's ass out of the program because he is screwing things up, why should they "fold up their sleeves" to help the guy survive? BTW, you are on record here as suggesting that IAF is worse than PAF on aircraft development. I'm sure the def&dum forum and other pakis will find that very comforting. Good to know where you are coming from.

[Gurneesh]

But Gurneesh, it isn't the changes that are required to bring a PV-5 to an LSP-8 level that takes the most time- it is the long lead items, the parts that need to be ordered from suppliers and sub-contractors a year or more in advance.

Had the order been placed to built them to an earlier version, we might have been having HAL replacing the obsolete parts/software and they could have been brought to the same SoP as LSP-8. Things such as the fuel piping location being shifted, ejection seat issue would have required some re-work but by now ASTE would have IOC-1 Tejas Mk1s in hand and soon enough an entire squadron could have been equipped with the Tejas Mk1, also at IOC-1 standard.

I am copying the Tejas timeline from Wikipedia to help me explain better.

Firstly, as PV-5 is the trainer let us look at the latest fighter to fly before PV-5 which is LSP2 which flew on 16 June 2007. LSP2 then took part in various developmental trials like hot weather, bombing etc. and on 16 Dec 2009 (after around 1.5 years since LSP2 flew) GOI sanctioned funds to start LCA production.

It should be noted that at that time almost all of LSPs (3-8) were still to fly. But 2010 was sort of a golden year and we saw 3 new LCAs fly with the promise of rest to be delivered next year after IOC and the serial production also to start by next year end. So taking a conservative figure of 4 months per LSP, we are looking at 20 months (for 5 LSP a/c) advance notice to HAL for start of manufacturing. This IMHO is more than sufficient time to start serial production.

Therefore, this delay in setting up of an assembly line cannot be due to delay in placing of an order. In fact LSP7 and 8 along with the first 20 SP's were supposed to be identical to LSP 5. The improvements I think were always planned by ADA and did not cause delays in the first flights of LSP7 or 8. The fuel leak issue was a massive delay as IIRC they had to change the layout of not only the fuel lines but also the hydraulic lines. LCA being a very compact airframe would not have helped either. Also retrofitting all airframes for this fix would have been very time consuming.



I think this delay in serial production is mainly due to HAL sitting on it's bum till the last moment and then realizing that it cannot deliver the SP LCAs fast enough.

Code: Select all

2001

    Development assistance sought from Snecma on the Kaveri engine.[1]
    4 January - LCA’s maiden flight successfully completed by Technology Demonstrator TD-1, on 2001. Prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee renames LCA as Tejas.

2002

    6 June - TD-2 makes a successful maiden flight.
    MMR system was reported to be not working as per the criteria laid down in requirements.

2003

    25 November - PV-1 makes a successful maiden flight.

2005

    1 December - PV-2 makes a successful maiden flight.

2006

    13 May - The PV-2 went supersonic for the first time
    14 May - The PV-2 went supersonic again, but this time in a weaponised state (i.e., carrying weapons such as missiles and an internal gun).
    1 December - The PV-3 flew for the first time for 27 minutes at an altitude of 2.5 km and at a speed of Mach 0.8. The PV-3 was equipped with a more advanced pilot interface, refined avionics and higher control law capabilities compared with the previous versions.

2007
    25 April - The first Limited Series Production LCA (LSP-1) made its first flight and it reached a speed of Mach 1.1.
    PV-2 and PV-3 underwent sea-level trials at INS Rajali Naval Air Station, Arakkonam to study the effects of flying at sea-level, as all earlier trials have been conducted at Bangalore which is 3,000 feet (910 m) above sea-level.[2][3] The reliability of the LCA systems under the hot and humid conditions, as well as low level flight characteristics was tested.[4][5] It is due to this intense flight testing schedule that the LCA was not able to fly at the Paris air show-2007, as was originally planned.[6]
    7 September - Tejas Prototype Vehicle (PV-1) made a successful maiden flight with two 800 litre drop tanks.[7][8]
    25 October - Tejas PV-1 fired a Vympel R-73 missile for first time. The trials were conducted off the Goa coast at INS Hansa Naval Air Station.[9]
    11 December - LITENING targeting pod was successfully tested on Tejas PV-2.[10]

2008
    7 February - Tejas Prototype Vehicle (PV-1) made a successful flight powered by fuel from two 800 litre drop tanks. It made a one hour and 24 minute long sortie. On internal fuel LCA can perform a 40-minute sortie.[11]
    April - First Flight with HMDS[12]
    LCA Tejas prototypes PV-2 & PV-3 underwent hot weather flight trials at Air Force Station, Nagpur from 28 May 2008 to 4 June 2008. The trials were declared successful.
    16 June - Tejas second Limited Series Production LCA (LSP-2) made its first flight and it reached a speed of Mach 1.1.
    7 November - LCA Prototype Vehicle-3 made first successful night flight.[13]
    13 December - PV-3 and LSP-2 completed the high altitude at the Leh air base.[14]

2009

    22 January - Tejas completed 1000 flights.[15]
    February - the live bombs test were successfully carried out.[16]
    October - PV-3 and LSP-2 completed visual target elimination and air-to-ground weapons delivery trials.[17]
    26 November - Two seater (Trainer) version of Tejas(PV-5) made its maiden flight on 26 Nov 09.[18]
    7 December - Tejas passed flight flutter test diving from an altitude of four kilometers to almost sea level at 900 feet (270 m). Tejas recorded a speed over 1350 km/h. These tests were conducted at INS Hansa, Goa.[19]
   15 December - Indian government sanctioned Rs 8,000 crores to begin production of the fighter jet for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy.[20]

2010

    23 April - LCA Tejas LSP-3 Makes Maiden Flight. LSP-3 is almost the final configuration including the new air-data computers, Hybrid Multi Mode Radar, new communication and navigation  equipment and radar warning receiver. With this the LCA programme has completed 1350 test flights logging about 800 flying hours.[21]
    2 June - LCA Tejas LSP-4 Makes Maiden Flight. The flight marks the first time for a Tejas aircraft flying in the configuration that will be finally delivered to the Indian Air Force.[22] In addition to the Hybrid MMR, the aircraft also flew with a functioning Countermeasure Dispensing System [23]

    19 November - LCA Tejas LSP-5 Makes Maiden Flight. Goes supersonic in first flight. [24]

2011

    10 January - Certification for the Release to Services with assured safety and specified performance for IOC.[25]
    26 January - LCA Tejas participates in the 26 January Republic Day Celebrations by being paraded at New Delhi.
    September - LCA Tejas undergoes bombing runs at Pokhran Test Range.

2012

    09 March - LCA Tejas LSP-7 Makes Maiden Flight[26]
    27 April - 1st Naval LCA prototype NP-1 makes maiden flight.[27]
    27 June - HAL Tejas (LSP 2, 3 and 5) completed precision bombing runs in the desert of Rajasthan, for the second time.[28]

2013

    31 March 2013 - LSP 8 had a successful maiden test flight at Bangalore.[29]

[Indranil]

Gurneesh,

Kartik is asking for a PV-5 standard (he knows what PV-5 is. He is using it only as it is the last of the protoypes) to be used as Mk0 standard for serial production. For this to have happened. the orders should have been placed 3 years before that (i.e. in 2004) for 20 Mk0 version Tejas.

[Manish_Sharma]

Mig 21 has only payload of 1 ton and Tejas 4 tons.

[ramana]

PTI reports:

New Delhi: Considering the threat perception from both China and Pakistan, the Indian Air force (IAF) has upgraded its capabilities to meet any challenge from the two fronts simultaneously. These capabilities were tested successfully for the first time during the recent three-week war games 'Livewire' in which over 400 fighter jets participated, IAF sources said on Monday.

In the exercise, which commenced on March 18, the IAF created a simulated scenario of a challenge from both eastern and western fronts simultaneously. Testing its capabilities to meet the challenge, the IAF swiftly mobilised its frontline fighter and transport aircraft from Pakistan border to the eastern front, particularly the recently-developed Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs) in the Northeast, the sources said.

All the major aircraft of the IAF including the Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguars, MiG 29, MiG 27s and the MiG 21s took part in the war games. They said the force kept the required number of aircraft in the western front while mobilising the majority of its assets including the mid-air refuelling aircraft towards the eastern front, they said.

[Gurneesh]

Gurneesh,

Kartik is asking for a PV-5 standard (he knows what PV-5 is. He is using it only as it is the last of the protoypes) to be used as Mk0 standard for serial production. For this to have happened. the orders should have been placed 3 years before that (i.e. in 2004) for 20 Mk0 version Tejas.

IMHO in 2004 the Tejas program simply wasn't mature enough to be a baseline for serial production. At that time there was uncertainty about which engine to choose and the first 404IN20 contract was just signed (the second one for SPs was signed in 2007). Also at that time we had only three operational airframes of which two were TDs. The plane had not gone supersonic, had not fired a single missile or bomb, had no tests with drop tanks etc. But the most important thing is that at that time ADA was trying to understand the plane and its characteristics (aerodynamic performance, FBW performance and so on). From a build of materials point of view also it would have been very difficult to know what all components will be required a couple of years down the line as the design was changing so rapidly. There were very big changes from PV1 to LSP 2 and I don't think even ADA or HAL knew exactly what LSP2 standard will be in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007.

I think the initial plan of starting the serial production in 2011 end (funding released in 2009 end) was a very reasonable plan as it effectively gave HAL at least 20 months to perfect their assembly line and also acquire the appropriate materials. But since 2011 while ADA has been battling with some unforeseen technical issues, HAL has been sitting around apparently doing nothing. And now recently we had the DRDO chief complaining about how woefully obsolete the HAL assembly line is !

What this brings out is total lack of inter-departmental coordination as well as parallel development specially between ADA and HAL. HAL should have started working on the LSP7 and 8 as well as the SPs regardless of the technical difficulties discovered by ADA. For the fuel leak issue, HAL could have worked on the other parts of the plane while ADA resolved it. Even if it was necessary to delay production till the new fuel line layout is known, production should not have stopped for the ejector seat issue as the retrofit should have been minor in comparison to the time required to build a plane.

By the way, IAF placed the initial order of 20 aircraft in 2005 with an option to order 20 more.

[suryag]

Btw didnt HAL manufacture the LSP7 and 8 on its production line and do all the ground tests for these birds?

[Kartik]

Kartik-ji; you should know by now that this sort of bluster does not work with me, if anything, it is counter productive. So lets keep our certificates aside and discuss rationally and civilly shall we.

Thanks in anticipation.

It's not bluster, it's exasperation at your poking at what is a sound argument, something that is done worldwide in order to expedite manufacturing lines being set up.

Some people lose all sense of rationality when it comes to anything produced by DPSUs. They just have to be torn down, come what may. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change that, for whatever reason.

[vina]

OH MY God! in "Victor" We have another character on the mould of Sanku Maharaj , talking about engineering with a degree in Fine Art (Fart) or "History" or some such thing and zero, zilch nada of developing anything at all and no idea of how things work or at best a high school grad who flew planes for a living and hence fancies himself as an engineer, sort of like a truck driver thinking he can engineer a truck because he drove one for 30 years!

Let me take a bet, if there is a puncture in his car/ bike tyre, he wouldn't even know how to change the wheel himself, but call he nearest puncturewallah after parking the vehicle! Frankly he missed a great opportunity to shut up , or if at all you want to make noise, go the the armor thread and tag team with Sanku , there are other threads where there is still some sanity and actual sense and let us keep it that way.

Let us look at some fiction writing posted here.

The LCA Mk1 is not structurally and aerodynamically efficient enough to carry any meaningful loads while meeting basic combat flight characteristics (climb rate and acceleration), specially in hot & high conditions. It is hoped that a more powerful engine will solve this problem but there is no guarantee that it will because the aircraft will need to add even more weight (longer fuselage, bigger wings) to handle the new engine. This will result in a 25% heavier aircraft and may bring us back to square one.

Ah. Look at the gem of logic here , the aircraft is structurally and aerodynamically "inefficient" , so adding a more powerful problem will "solve" the structural and aerodynamic "inefficiency" (whatever that means).

Ah. And because you add a more "powerful" engine, you will need a longer fuselage and bigger wings (WTF? the LCA has already much larger wing area than most aircrafts of it's class, including Gripen and probably F16!, so if anything). and abracadabra , you have a 25% heavier aircraft!

It is also an extremely callous attitude for internet-enabled civilians to take and I am ashamed to see so many on BR suggesting that our pilots should put their lives on the line on an unproven aircraft. I think enough have died already because of the proven failings of our "aeronautical institutions"

A grand total of ONE IAF pilot called Suranjan Das was lost in the Marut episode, while orders more were lost in "proven" aircraft like Jag, Mig29, and not to mention the "widow maker" the much revered Mig 21! No one has suggested that the LCA is an "unsafe" aircraft mind you.

Putanja ,any future increases in length or wing area with current F404 will make the LCA even more heavy. Ergo, any changes at all being talked about are necessarily due to engine change. F414 -> more fuel needed -> more lift needed

Hmm. They rengine an IL-76 with new engines and get 40% more Range and 25% more payload! The reengine older planes like Jaguar and get better range and payload and here we have this dude saying F414 --> more fuel and somehow more lift needed (why ?, isn't there enough excess lift built in with that big wing area .. oh, I digress, it is like asking a truck driver about engineering).

If it is good enough for the Gripen, it should be good enough for the LCA.

Consider this statement. The implicit assumption here is that the Gripen A/B/C/D versions meet the IAF ASR requirements for the LCA (in terms of field performance) . Now with that untested assumption (I frankly dont think that the Gripen will meet the IAF ASR for LCA in totality, there will be shortfalls in certain corners of the flight envelope, just like the LCA), then we have glib garbage thrown out as "if it is good enough for the Gripen, it should be good enough for the LCA! Frankly, this guy along with Maharaj Ji , should stick to topics like Political "Science" or Social "Engineering" or Fine Art (Fart) or truck driving and leave pursuits which actually require some amount of analytical thinking and use of grey matter to others.

[Misraji]

In this exchange, I am completely lost on what IAF could have ordered more, to speed up the development.
(PV5 standard aircraft as opposed to insisting on LSP7/8 ?)
Could somebody please summarize that, lest I miss references to it in future discussions too.

WRT MK-1 vs MK-2 debate, I trust the ADA-IAF-HAL to have to come to a mutual agreement, because IIRC there haven't be any reports of any acrimony.

Regards,
Ashish

[Indranil]

In this exchange, I am completely lost on what IAF could have ordered more, to speed up the development.
(PV5 standard aircraft as opposed to insisting on LSP7/8 ?)
Could somebody please summarize that, lest I miss references to it in future discussions too.

WRT MK-1 vs MK-2 debate, I trust the ADA-IAF-HAL to have to come to a mutual agreement, because IIRC there haven't be any reports of any acrimony.

Regards,
Ashish

Misraji,

This is my stand (quite in common with Kartik's stand).

I am not absolving DRDO/ADA/HAL of wrong doing. They certainly overpromised. Nobody them taking so much time to roll out all the LSPs. They did not account for any problems and gave timelines which required a lot of stars to line up. According to ADA/HAL SPs should have been rolling out now at 8 aircrafts per annum. I would be very happy if that is the case at the end of 2014 now.

Anyways, IAF could have ordered a squadron worth of LCAs at PV-5 standard. They would have got an aircraft without A2A facilities, without drop tanks and with limited envelop. But they would have been able to provide feedback on operationalizing the Tejas. This would have 3 benefits.

1. The assembly line would have been set up by now and would be generating a stead flow of SPs now!
2. All feedback from IAF would have been incorporated in the SPs.
3. If they would have ordered the trainer version, they would never need these aircrafts to have radars etc. and 2 of each of these planes could have been sent to the 10 envisaged Tejas squadrons for type-conversion training after the squadrons started forming in 2013.

Now IAF will start getting LCA Mk1s from 2014, the first of which will have some problems, because the supply chain has not been streamlined and assembly line being erected in a hurry. And no user feedback will be incorporated in the SPs at least till the first overhaul!

I am not blaming IAF for delaying LCA. I am blaming it for not encouraging the LCA. They never showed any ownership of the project. I rest my case.

[Misraji]

---SNIP---

Oh. I see. Interesting point.
Thanks.Never thought about it that way.

Let me read up on that.

--Ashish

[Victor]

Vina, your incredibly long and entertaining fart up there ignored the fact that I was merely summarizing and restating what the LCA's first test pilot had said. It was news to me too. I guess it's way beyond your capabilities to go back a few pages to find out what's going on. Never mind. You're an engineer no doubt. A really stupid and ignorant one because you added exactly zero, zilch, crap to the conversation with your hot air. Go back and read then come here to engage in debate instead of mouthing off like a high school kid with ADD.

[vina]

I was merely summarizing and restating what the LCA's first test pilot had said

Ah. That is the state of the primary and secondary school education these days I suppose. There used to be exercises back in the old days asking you to summarize a paragraph and state the gist .

So you claim that none of what you said is your thought /analysis , but regurgitation of somebody's puke.

If I can do some "summarizing" of my own on all that you wrote, all it will take is one word : Garbage .

[Austin]

Anyways, IAF could have ordered a squadron worth of LCAs at PV-5 standard. They would have got an aircraft without A2A facilities, without drop tanks and with limited envelop. But they would have been able to provide feedback on operationalizing the Tejas. This would have 3 benefits.

Sirjee but then one can also argue that IAF should have adopted a PV-1 or PV-2 standard Tejas and they would have got a squadron and get rest of the stuff going without waiting for parital,full IOC or FOC later.

The counter argument to it is given by P Rajkumar who said that criteria for minimum requirement are studied well and laid by AHQ , that is what IAF needs bare minimum to build the first squad and that is something even ADA understands ....these would be laid out well ahead of what needs to be achieved known to all the stake holders.

Now if you read ADA interview even 2 years back they said FOC would be achieved by 2012 link

So if the IOC itself gets delayed and consequently FOC would it be fair to ask IAF to ask to induct a squadron without reaching the agreed upon goal post by one and all in this game would be an unfair one.

[Sanku]

Kartik-ji; you should know by now that this sort of bluster does not work with me, if anything, it is counter productive. So lets keep our certificates aside and discuss rationally and civilly shall we.

Thanks in anticipation.

It's not bluster, it's exasperation at your poking at what is a sound argument, something that is done worldwide in order to expedite manufacturing lines being set up.

Some people lose all sense of rationality when it comes to anything produced by DPSUs. They just have to be torn down, come what may. I don't believe any amount of discussion will change that, for whatever reason.

Sir-ji; once more, kindly discuss the topic and not the poster. many can play this game and the result is not pretty.

[Victor]

If Air Marshal Rajkumar's opinion is "puke", your condescending nonsense is horse crap. You still haven't added a single line to the discussion. Are you going to engage or slink away? I'm waiting.

[vina]

Sirjee but then one can also argue that IAF should have adopted a PV-1 or PV-2 standard Tejas and they would have got a squadron and get rest of the stuff going without waiting for parital,full IOC or FOC later.

Ah , but Sirjee, your own favorite , the Eurofighter (EuroFarter?) first entered service with a block of concrete in the nose where the radar should have been.

And mind you, this Eurofighter was a pure air superiority fighter and had zero A2G capability (very limited today even after all these tranches), and did some namby pamby fly bys and had limited G capability. And many versions dont even have a gun. So, tell me, what could the initial ones in service do except take off and land and do some lazy fly bys, and how was it inducted into service some nearly 10 years ago ?

Compared to that the LCA at IOC is actually a useable weapon with a full A2G role, much larger part of the envelope opened , has a radar, self protection suites and has some A2A capability!

[srai]

If Air Marshal Rajkumar's opinion is "puke", your condescending nonsense is horse crap. You still haven't added a single line to the discussion. Are you going to engage or slink away? I'm waiting.

I think you need to carefully re-read AM Rajkumar's interview again. BTW, that interview is a few years old.

[vina]

If Air Marshal Rajkumar's opinion is "puke", your condescending nonsense is horse crap.

Oh. From test pilot it is now Rajkumar (whose total time in the air in an LCA is zero btw , so he was no the test pilot ) , I see.

You still haven't added a single line to the discussion.

I did add a word that said it all. I think the word was Garbage.

Are you going to engage or slink away? I'm waiting.

Don't bother waiting. None of what you posted makes any sense engineering wise, or basic plain facts and common sense wise. I have no intention in mud wrestling with you. If for a change you post something that makes sense, maybe . Until then, Adios.

[Sanku]

They would have got an aircraft without A2A facilities, without drop tanks and with limited envelop. But they would have been able to provide feedback on operationalizing the Tejas. This would have 3 benefits.

1. The assembly line would have been set up by now and would be generating a stead flow of SPs now!
2. All feedback from IAF would have been incorporated in the SPs.
3. If they would have ordered the trainer version, they would never need these aircrafts to have radars etc. and 2 of each of these planes could have been sent to the 10 envisaged Tejas squadrons for type-conversion training after the squadrons started forming in 2013.
.

Indranil-ji; as I mentioned before I think you are wrong in your above assesesment.

1) IAF can provide meaningful feedback only with a bird which is close to completion, in terms of more understood (it seems) software methods, Beta testing is not done at a large scale. Only a release testing is. At PV 5 point of time, LCA is between alpha test and beta test.

For the type of useful feedback that can be given on PV 5, enough prototypes exist. No one (including DRDO) has mentioned this as a issue.

So Sir, early testing usefulness is NOT borne out by real life case.

2) Assembly line -- why does there need to be a order for PV 5 in 2005/7/10 for a LSP assembly in 2013/14? All that there needs to be is visibility into order for LSPs. Which exist.

No one is stopping HAL from developing the assembly line earlier and experimenting, they had enough forewarning.

3) Using PV 5 as trainers -- a trainer has to be more reliable and advanced than the main a/c not less, one can not use a prototype for training, its too risky.

In anycase, the 10 Sqdns are years away, the prototypes would sit around gathering dust, rusting before they could be sent to a sqdrn.

I am afraid that all the -- early LCA order -- is a nice wish list -- but more dreamy and wishful thinking than actual use.

[Sanku]

Victor, you are being trolled, when the rational discussions can not be met, a number of posters tend to talk about redundant stuff often personal (your stance on hair and clear say) -- this is because your stance has more logical merit, and the technique of

When you have the facts on your side, thump the facts
When you have law on your side, thump the law.
When you have neither, thump the table

A lot of table thumping is going on here right now. My humble advise would be to not even respond to these -- other than point out that folks are thumping the table.

[Victor]

Oh. From test pilot it is now Rajkumar (whose total time in the air in an LCA is zero btw , so he was no the test pilot ) , I see.

My bad. Rajkumar was merely the head of the flight test center at the time. As an Air Marshal he was too senior to fly.

None of what you posted makes any sense engineering wise, or basic plain facts and common sense wise.

That's obvious. Your level shows in the informativeness of your foul-mouthed posts.

[Austin]

Ah , but Sirjee, your own favorite , the Eurofighter (EuroFarter?) first entered service with a block of concrete in the nose where the radar should have been.

Compared to that the LCA at IOC is actually a useable weapon with a full A2G role, much larger part of the envelope opened , has a radar, self protection suites and has some A2A capability!

Sirjee if Eurofighter is what it is being bench marked against then ADA should have taken the criteria from NATO na whats the point in involving the IAF in the first place and agreeing to whats being put on table.

If ADA could not achieve what IAF wanted in the time line that it did , it should have said plainly and squarely that this was not possible to achieve since we are constrained by resources and experience , so lets stick with PV1 or PV5 as the desired goal for squadron service.

Infact ADA chief has clearly stated in interview that 2012 FOC was possible , so it knew what was expected of Tejas before squadron induction as per its understanding in 2011 and was confident of achieving it , even if these glitches are purely technical in nature and takes time to resolve lets accept it as part of learning process and move on , why blame IAF to accept something that it cannot with expectation was set right in the beginning and was known to all the stake holder.

[srai]

...

the parts that need to be ordered from suppliers and sub-contractors a year or more in advance.

Just to make sure that HAL gets its supply lines sorted out? That in itself is very tenous claim, that a supply chain cant be sorted out without a large order. Desiging a supply chain does not necessarily require orders, only a idea of what the order is likely to be.

...

When it comes to execution of orders, if you are one of the private sub-contractors, are you going to purchase raw materials, other inventories, manufacturing infrastructure and workforce when no firm orders have been placed? Ok, let's say you do put up your own money or borrow the money to get ready for such a "hypothetical order" but they don't come through, or is delayed indefinitely, or orders are placed intermittently with huge production gaps, or you lose out on a bid and get no orders. You are going to incur huge losses. Who will pay for these losses and will you stay in business?

[Victor]

Gotcha Sanku. I've shot you up before and you have done the same to me. I appreciate that we never behaved like screwed up kids on crack.

[arnab]

Just wondering if folks can enlighten us about the process regarding the JSF's induction in the USAF despite being a 'turkey' and still in the test phase and still maturing. What does it tell us about IAF's support for Tejas in contrast?

[suryag]

Philip Rajkumar garu was Air Vice Marshall when he took over(not too old to fly but we dont know whether he was medically fit then to take to air or was TD/PV1 safe enough to be flown by an older pilot), one chief even flew the rafale solo 4 years ago?

[Kartik]

Yes it does--35 inches diameter for both. You'll have better luck if you stick to authentic sources. Lay off the riffraff sites and head straight for GE Aviation.

thank you for the advice, but look a little more into the details and you'll get the real information. Like I said earlier, I was told this by none other than Cmde Sukesh Nagaraj. Now, you may choose to belittle me, but I know whom I'm going to believe.

And this was what I had posted earlier about the differences in the F-414 and F-404 diameters.

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.