LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

[tsarkar]

JE Menon...wings bent almost flexibly like a bird...

That is a deliberate design feature. Its a cranked anhedral and the only plane in the world to have it. Supposed to help with High AoA.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 867325.jpg
http://newsonair.com/feature-image/LCA-tejas-header.jpg

In plain visual terms, when seen from the side, the inner wing is at an angle to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. However, this wing angle or anhedral gradually reduces as we move spanwise along the wing. As we reach towards the outer span of the wing, angle becomes zero. The outer wing is actually parallel or in-line with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. In theory, when the inner wing starts to stall at progressively higher AoA, the outer wing will still be at a slightly lesser AoA and provide sufficient lift. I'm not sure whether flight test results on the actual performance of this wingform have been published, but it'll be interesting reading.

tsarkar,

I'm afraid that's not what anhedral is. Anhedral is the opposite of dihedral - it is, informally speaking, when the wing tips are lower than the wing roots when viewed head on. E.g., C-17 and IL-76 show pronounced anhedral. The primary reason for providing anhedral is lateral stability. Some high-wing swept-wing airplanes can be "too stable" and therefore difficult to maneuver because high wings and wing sweep both contribute to lateral stability. Anhedral decreases lateral stability. (In comparison, dihedral increases lateral stability.)

The phenomenon you are describing is called washout, when the sectional coefficient of lift is gradually reduced spanwise from root to tip. Washout can be geometric (where, the wing is actually "twisted" so the roots have higher angle of attack than the tips), or aerodynamic (where different airfoil sections are used along the span for the same effect), or (most often in today's airplanes) a combination of both.

Designers include washout for two reasons:
- As you correctly point out, it prevents the whole wing from stalling all at once.
- By having higher lift at the roots and lower lift at the tips, they are approximating an elliptical lift distribution along the span of the wing. The closer you can get the lift profile to match this elliptic lift distribution, the less your induced drag.

Regret the late response, too tied up on work & family matters. Raman, you're absolutely right on there being no anhedral, and its clear in the following photos -

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YUs4s-3sfGs/U ... 747029.JPG The trailing edge makes it clear there is no anhedral. Infact, when it comes to the tips, I notice a slight negative incidence. More clear here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... PV5-01.jpg & here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... PV5-03.jpg

My description of the anhedral came from a conversation I had in late 80's / early 90's with someone associated with the program (Yes, I've been following the program keenly since the early 80's). He is well respected & knowledgeable in aeronautical engineering, and he did describe the anhedral wing as giving better maneuverability. It might be possible that during a later design iteration, the anhedral was dropped.

The LCA as a planform was designed for maneuverability. Those days, the US was gifting F-16s to Pakistan with an initial tranche of 32, followed by a second tranche of 28 (later blocked because of Pressler Amendment) followed by third & fourth tranches that would have taken numbers beyond 100. We made some panic purchase of MiG-23.

So when I hear/read about LCA not meeting design specifications, I try to understand what caused the gap between design specifications & actually achieved performance specifications.

One interesting piece of information I read was here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X- ... nstability

The high pitch instability of the airframe led to wide predictions of extreme maneuverability. This perception has held up in the years following the end of flight tests. Air Force tests did not support this expectation.[5] For the flight control system to keep the whole system stable, the ability to initiate a maneuver easily needed to be moderated. This was programmed into the flight control system to preserve the ability to stop the pitching rotation and keep the aircraft from departing out of control. As a result, the whole system as flown (with the flight control system in the loop as well) could not be characterized as having any special increased agility.

In this case, the flight control system moderated the instability to keep the aircraft stable, and consequently made it less maneuverable.

[tsarkar]

One of the gospels in BR is that LCA has high percentage of composites that is supposed to reduce weight.

In theory, kg to kg, yes. But LCA despite having a high percentage of composites, still weighs 6500 kg instead of the design specifications at times quoted as low as 5500 kg.

Has anyone thought why?

One of the reasons being to achieve the structural strength required, the composite part might require more kg than a metal part of same structural strength. So having a metal part might be beneficial.

Also, higher tolerances might be built in, like landing gear for NP1, and this needed to be optimized as was done in NP2. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/l ... 869085.ece

HAL Chairman T. Suvarna Raju said a main contribution in it was the new and complex landing gear designed for NP-2 by engineers of the Aircraft Research and Design Centre.

I'll share my thoughts on Project Management on the "Poor IAF role..." thread

[deejay]

jagga, Thanks. Is that update on the LCA page at ADA website or is it another informed leak?

shiv, The MOD 2014-2015 report has details of IAF and DRDO cooperation in the chapter on DRDO.

Yes it exists now. Earlier it was not. However the IN-DRDO synergy seems more extensive. This despite most of the DRDO R&D budget goes to Aviation related items.

Will post page numbers later.

ramana sir, did you mean the passage on page 94

...

Policy for internal evaluation of DRDO developed systems by an independent team, before offering for User trials, has been implemented. This ensures that the product meets the User requirements in the first attempt. To review the performance of DRDO developed systems inducted by the IAF, DRDO scientists have been deputed to operational locations to get a firsthand feedback on utilization and to identify problems faced, if any.

[rsingh]

I wrote this earlier. LCA guys take so much time to perfect "advanced technologies" and to "integrate these technology for demonstration purpose" . We end up with outdated stuff. it is as if we have technology demonstrators onlee. They do not have to make the real stuff that work. WTF is it a science museum? DF has done right thing. Perform or go. Dimag kharab kar rakha hei.

How many years of research experience you have in aeronautics or in any field ???

Yep sala Biology me hi ulzha raha. I never know research takes 30 years. Hitting myself. But Saar my Haryanvi ulta dimag has habit of asking straight question. But I am learning sophistication with gurus here;

[chaanakya]

Unless we are going to war very soon IAF would have to wait as they have already waited for 18 years, last order being in 1996 for SU30MKI(rest are follow on)

LCA could be very near to FOC as we know.

HAL production could be ramped up if adequate funds are pumped into it and enough orders for LCA MK1 or 1.5 or whatever is given say about 100 with promise of another 100 for MKII. That makes for 11 Sqdrn of LCA.

That is an important question. Is "War" ours to wait for? Do we decide or have we decided the dates for the wars we've fought? What has changed that we can be sure that we will set the agenda?

If we can wait for the war and set a deadline for it, great. All else, can be worked backwards. Else, always have enough deterrent to make it unaffordable / undesirable for the enemy.

If there is matrix for this, which is used in terms of understanding deterrence in conventional terms we could extrapolate how much and what we need to have (minimum) to keep war off the table.

And if the position is, since we are nuclear, there will be no war, first cut down on that huge standing army and also air force. If we still need 42 sqns, ask why not 42 LCA or Single Engine sqns? We are OK when the IAF says it is effectively down to 25. There is no war, so why are we buying more?

Are we prioritizing correctly?

How long can IAF wait and what risks do we take in delaying by 18 years is a good question? Should we wait more? That is another good question?

If defence is a priority, why do we spend only 1.75% of GDP on defence and if Made In India is important why do we spend such a small amount of that 1.75% on local R&D? Yet we have one of the largest Standing Armies (not counting any reserves). Add BSF, ITBP, RR, Assam Rifles, CISF under MHA. Did I forget the TA? Why so many men in uniform if there is low threat perception?

I hope the answer is not this- we can afford to drop a few men of the roster but we cannot afford capital expenditure on defence?

(Apologies for the OT and discordant note)

Yep , we can decide on dates but need not tell the enemy. Given the preparedness level , NaMo must have thought, what the hell was going on?? How can I go to war with this level of readiness. And he would have heard the very reassuring statement that our Armed forces would give a befitting reply in full scale war. He must have asked army to start using it during border firing without escalating. While he is on political maneuvers to avert or contain any preemptive strike which will lead to Pakistan getting bashed up but India getting mauled in the bargain. That too without seeing Aman ki Tamasha type track thoo diplomacy.

Meanwhile economic and social agenda will dominate the govt policy. Dovetailed in this will be MII and MIC. Armed forced might have got some objective to achieve desired level of preparedness by say 2020 or 2030.In My opinion NaMo is not going to war with Pakistan howsoever we may desire. He will use all skills at his command to contain Pakistan without going to war. But he will prepare for it. And I don't wish to be wrong.

[chaanakya]

Except 1948 India has decided dates for all wars.

[Sagar G]

Your question is a non-sequitor. Such attitude does not help discussion.

One can easily see that DRDO/HAL gives out generic statements shifting milestones without accountability.
One doesn't have to have many years of R&D to see what's happening.

The question is have the milestones shifted or not if so why?

rsingh has a right to point out emperor has no clothes. Did the people ask if the little boy had been to Emperor's court before?

Its for you to claim they are invisible clothes to be seen with special glasses.

Shiv started two thread to find root cause. There is something rotten in the system that money and resources get allocated and spent and nothing comes out.
If they have difficulty own up and get help to solve it.

By not being transparent they are leading to much more problems like no Plan B.

How come making heavyweight statement while clearly lacking the knowledge about the same makes up for starting a debate ???

Giving out dates is a part of their job based upon their own optimistic projections. Here people go on to rant about missed dates as if India is on some uber technological level and we have such a flourishing R&D environment that missing dates is rare and should be looked down. Maybe people here should start looking around deeper and see where India effing "owns" actual technology.

A good "example" given by many prominent posters here of India's technological success story is our automobile industry. I would like to ask these people that which/how many Indian OEM figure in the top 100 list of suppliers in the automotive sector and I am talking about technology here. Technology like engine, like gearbox, like braking system, like interiors, like axles, like power transmission shaft. Tech. where you actually have to break sweat to be able to stand anywhere near the actual global OEM's. Go ahead find out how many parts in your favourite Indian car has been made in India with "Indian technology". And all this in a sector where technology isn't overtly restricted or reverse engineering isn't heard off. Don't even get me started about the other great Indian might "IT"

DRDO/HAL/OFB/rest of the DPSU's aren't perfect organizations and are basically reflection of the Indian society which people unsurprisingly find ugly and hence try to externalize this ugliness by cursing them as if they are some separate entity than India and all problems which beset our Mil-Ind complex is because of these "outsiders". If one is smart enough to figure out that something is wrong with Indian R&D infra then he must also be able to figure out that the problem doesn't lie only with DRDO/DPSU's but the entire environment surrounding it. Here the restructuring has to start from the top and reach bottom, the other way isn't going to work since the bottom is dependent upon top only and works per it's orders.

We can talk about being "transparent" and all when we reach a tech. plane equivalent to the west. Then I am all up for "transparency" and "critical reviews" but even before we learn to walk properly people here expect us to win olympic gold !!! Given the lame system that the people of this country have created I believe that our scientists and engineers have delivered their best while waddling through shit. Even after all the boo hoos thrown at them it's a fact that the only thing that holds India's border integrity and gives us an international heft is not a product of any defence academy but a scientific one and I acknowledge this and respect the people who have provided that.

I cannot fathom how you can say that nothing has come up from the system after spending money and resources when funnily because of the same system the western turds want to "partner" with us and are ready to "co-develop technologies which have been always denied to us, though still a lot is denied to us but their current behaviour is degrees apart from the one hardly a decade ago.

So pardon me if I don't agree with such views because I cannot see any logic driving them. All in all everybody deserve the danda, nobody in this mess can claim to be a doodh ka dhoola.

[Sagar G]

Yep sala Biology me hi ulzha raha. I never know research takes 30 years. Hitting myself. But Saar my Haryanvi ulta dimag has habit of asking straight question. But I am learning sophistication with gurus here;

Your "Haryanvi ulta dimaag" also must learn to give straight answers and this doesn't qualify as a straight one. Take another shot.

[deejay]

Except 1948 India has decided dates for all wars.

Seriously Sir, did we decide on dates of war for '62, '65, '71 & '99? Do you mean that the wars happened because India desired to be at war and on a given date?

AFAIK, even '71 there was some disagreement in the dates between political and military leadership. And even then did we have an option but to go to war? Did we create the circumstances where war would have to be fought?

I think, even in '71 we were forced to go to war and the timing was as asked by the Army.


Anyway, if we need to continue we can take it to another thread.

[chaanakya]

I meant war with pakis. so 62 is not in consideration. 65 , we will not officially acknowledge but IAF acted first. In 99 , aggression went unoticed. And when it was noticed, it was India that took it to War level. 71 , India decided to free BD from Pakis due to refugee problem and other issues. And yes dates of decisive first strike was decided by India.

And why did we not go to war in 2008. Because India decided against it. Reasons may be manifold.

[ramana]

tsarkar, Graphite -epoxy composites have high modulus and low density. So part for part they should weigh less. However could have overdesign for margin. At same time there is always weight gain from technology demonstrator to production machine.

In some old Aviation Week there was some discussion of engine weight being more lead to more structure weight. But I could have faulty memory on this.

[JayS]

Regret the late response, too tied up on work & family matters. Raman, you're absolutely right on there being no anhedral, and its clear in the following photos -

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YUs4s-3sfGs/U ... 747029.JPG The trailing edge makes it clear there is no anhedral. Infact, when it comes to the tips, I notice a slight negative incidence. More clear here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... PV5-01.jpg & here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... PV5-03.jpg

Saar, That's washout you are referring to. But I believe its not the usual washout by geometric twist as we find on normal rectangular wings, but it arises due to application of conical camber, which is a widely used feature for almost all delta fighters from F102 to Mirage and even on F-15.

My description of the anhedral came from a conversation I had in late 80's / early 90's with someone associated with the program (Yes, I've been following the program keenly since the early 80's). He is well respected & knowledgeable in aeronautical engineering, and he did describe the anhedral wing as giving better maneuverability. It might be possible that during a later design iteration, the anhedral was dropped.

The LCA as a planform was designed for maneuverability.

So when I hear/read about LCA not meeting design specifications, I try to understand what caused the gap between design specifications & actually achieved performance specifications.

Don't know if you noticed one reference I posted few pages ago on Anhedral. Its suppose to be from ADA scientist's publication. If it was quoted correctly (from where I got it), then LCA indeed had Anhedral on its earlier design. The paper says that LCA design has evolved "A three panelled wing with outboard anhedral, single pitch control surface and no leading edge device evolved into a two panelled wing with split elevons, no anhedral and a three piece leading edge slats on each wing". (see this old LCA image. It has 3 part delta with single large pair of elevons and no LE devices. Anhedral part is not clear though: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3248 ... tlcade.jpg). That fits well with your information.

BTW Anhedral is typically used to alleviate extra stability in roll arising out of certain configuration features such as high wings (e.g. Harrier). Roll instability by Anhedral compensates the inherent extra stability and make the plane just enough stable that it won't be too stiff in roll. In opposite case when stability is too less/ or its unstable (e.g. low wings) then you use dihedral to make it stable enough. LCA is more like mid-wing design in current configuration and thus do not particularly need anhedral or dihedral at-least from that POV.

One interesting piece of information I read was here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X- ... nstability

The high pitch instability of the airframe led to wide predictions of extreme maneuverability. This perception has held up in the years following the end of flight tests. Air Force tests did not support this expectation.[5] For the flight control system to keep the whole system stable, the ability to initiate a maneuver easily needed to be moderated. This was programmed into the flight control system to preserve the ability to stop the pitching rotation and keep the aircraft from departing out of control. As a result, the whole system as flown (with the flight control system in the loop as well) could not be characterized as having any special increased agility.

In this case, the flight control system moderated the instability to keep the aircraft stable, and consequently made it less maneuverable.

I am not quite sure what you wanted to convey from this. But its quite interesting fact indeed. I glanced through a paper on X-29 Flight testing, and as it turns out, the main reason for X-29 FCS's inability to use the agility to its fullest is due to the limiting actuation rate of the control surface actuators. For an highly unstable aircraft you need to deflect control surfaces in one direction to initiate the manoeuvre (e.g. Flaps down for pitch down) but immediately they need to go the opposite way to arrest the motion and limit it to intended level (otherwise it would keep moving in the same direction). So in the second actuation its much larger movement of the control surfaces which is required and if the aircraft characteristic is too much unstable (as is the case for X-29 - an astonishing instability margin of upto 35% at subsonic speeds ) then the time in which you need to move those controls is so small that even the state-of-the-art actuators cannot give that kind of rate. So it was really the actuator hardware limit which forced the FCS to limit the agility.

FYI, the Eurofighter Typhoon Designers aimed for 15% static instability in pitch but had to settle for 8% due to actuator limits. 8% is about the limit that current systems can handle satisfactorily AFAIK. OTOH LCA has 5% of static instability margin.

[RoyG]

DRDO/HAL/OFB/rest of the DPSU's aren't perfect organizations and are basically reflection of the Indian society which people unsurprisingly find ugly and hence try to externalize this ugliness by cursing them as if they are some separate entity than India and all problems which beset our Mil-Ind complex is because of these "outsiders".

Indian society is very resourceful, hard working, and innovative. I am confused as to how you cooked this one up . The things I've been witnessing on this thread ever since the rafale announcement are straight up bizarre.

[Cosmo_R]

...

..to acquire strategic reach and capabilities across the spectrum of conflict that serve the ends of military diplomacy, nation building and enable force projection within India’s strategic area of influence.

For us on BRF at least I think, for own understanding it would be a good idea to decipher the IAF's statement. I think some grasp of what the future of air warfare is likely to be would be a good idea.

The question about how the IAF should involve itself is a valid one. Has the DRDO invited the IAF to involve itself? Have letters been written? Has the IAF replied? Are the development plans based on the IAF's reply -or is everyone simply saying something and not actually communicating. This worries me in many ways.

The IAF quote (if they are the ones behind it) is lifted from SlideShare . If anyone still mentions 'nation building' in a sentence, they are smoking something. Iraq, Afghanistan anyone? What is our 'sphere of influence' and what nations would we seek to build? (Maldives?)

GoI does not take the services into confidence when it formulates its 'diplomatic vision' (if it has any) unlike the Pentagon or the PRC Politiburo. In its absence, the IAF and the other services (to much a much lesser extent the Navy) are all busily planning for the last war. This translates into interesting concepts like the Light/Medium/Heavy fighter concept, a mish mash of one of everything. The concept of jointness is totally missing (CDS?) .

Against this background, I don't blame the IAF or the IA for solely focusing on the next Kargil operation Gibraltar etc. That's the only clue they have been given. That calls for a short term focus.

JMVHT

[deejay]

..to acquire strategic reach and capabilities across the spectrum of conflict that serve the ends of military diplomacy, nation building and enable force projection within India’s strategic area of influence.

The IAF quote (if they are the ones behind it) is lifted from SlideShare . If anyone still mentions 'nation building' in a sentence, they are smoking something. Iraq, Afghanistan anyone? What is our 'sphere of influence' and what nations would we seek to build? (Maldives?)

No Sir, it is from the MOD annual report:

(from pg 46 40 of this http://mod.gov.in/writereaddata/AR1415.pdf MOD annual report)

Edited: Corrected the page number.

[Cain Marko]

Latest LCA Tejas Update<br abp="2044">

The LCA Tejas has completed hot and high & winter trials, including cold soak starting tests of its engine and ensuing flight performance. The success of the January 2015 tests allows the flight team to heave a sigh of relief given that there had been trepidation about full load trials at high altitude.According to ADA, “With three consecutive start-ups of its engine after overnight soak in extreme cold (around -15ºC) conditions of Ladakh, that too without any external assistance, Tejas, the Indian Light Combat Aircraft has achieved yet another rare distinction.Starting the fighter aircraft under such extreme condition without any external assistance or heating is a technology breakthrough.

<br abp="2045">

Nuckin futts! this is months old news being paraded as latest and greatest. There seems to be little to no news except for one ugly piece that suggests FOC is now beyond December 2015 - WTH! What is taking so long for FOC, last I recall the flight trials should have been completed (or very close to it) by now. Folks were even saying IFR system is done. They have enough experience in integrating the derby (SHAR) - so what is happening. It is this kind tareekh pe tareekh that might open the door to Gripen types although the Rafale should buy the Tejas some time.

[shiv]

Except 1948 India has decided dates for all wars.

Not true. The wars were decided for us and after the conditions for war were created we had to start fighting one day and there may have been some leeway in when we started fight a war started by Pakistan. I suspect that you have made an argument that can be defended by semantics, but it can also be torn down by semantics and rhetoric.

Strictly speaking what you say is wrong and what you say is exactly what Pakistan accuses India of doing - ie deciding on a date for war and waging war on poor ickle Shitistan

[vardhank]

Very interesting interview with Parrikar in HT this morning.
1. "We will probably need more Rafales."
2. The MiG-21s need to be replaced, we will either need mass production of the LCA or we might combine some other requirements and get a medium sized fighter. "
Plus plenty of other things.

I'm guessing the French and Swedes are wetting themselves in excitement.

[ajay_hk]

not sure how reliable this is ... this looks like chorgupta stuff so TIFWIW

LCA Tejas Update
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/04/15 ... as-update/
Posted on Apr 15 2015 - 12:33pm by IBC News Bureau

Progress on LCA Mk.2 cockpit config ::

The look and feel of the all-glass cockpit that the LCA Tejas Mk.2 will sport is fructifying with the Aeronautical Development Agency announcing that the main display will involve two 6—8 Smart MFDs and one 5—5 smart MFD in centre console based on the latest and best design technologies currently available in the market.

The ADA is looking for a full solution to its SMFD needs for the LCA Mk.2 programme. The capability exists in country, though a competitive process will now ensue. The ADA is looking for active matrix TFT color liquid crystal display SMFDs with separate LED backlight for day and night modes with redundancy for backlighting in both the modes, touch screen capability (will be the first Indian aircraft to sport touch screen panels), anti-reflection coating, full sun readability and night vision capability, compatibility as per NVIS Class B MIL-STD-3009B, EMI protectio, the bezel shall have push buttons, rocker switches and rotary knobs, auto brightness control (ABC) of the display using illumination sensors placed on bezel, capability for windowed image overlay driven by the display processors, dual channel video to support redundant display processors, continuous health monitoring with periodic built-in-test reporting along with its normal operation, provision for operator Initiated Built-In-Test, In-situ programming capability. Conduction Cooled with no external cooling for the entire range of operating temperature.

[DexterM]

VardhanK, it is probably a rehash of the same interview - some DDMs were on leave yesterday.

[Singha]

it does not really matter what ADA is doing with the Mk2. what gee whiz stuff is going in.

all that matters is what ADA+HAL is doing wrt to FOC and mass production. so far all they have done is hand built a set of fighters and there is no visibility on what is happening last three months towards FOC and how fast they deliver the SP planes in repeatable mass production mode, not each plane having diffs with the rest.

clearly people need to be brought back to earth and aligned with FOC needs. miss this FOC and the IAF/Gripen will have another huge stick to beat the tejas program with.

it should be clearly explained if Mk1 is a failure, so is the Mk2 and the entire division of HAL dealing with tejas and all of ADA would be wound up, disbanded and their staff given the option of leaving or transferring to other govt departments. there is no point in keeping such giant orgs on the payroll if all we have to do is keep importing due to delay in domestic efforts and unrealistic times given.

[pankajs]

✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake 3m3 minutes ago

#PlaneMorning Hate me, hit me, but you can't ignore me. Coming soon -- The Tejas Squadron. And, it's official! #FOC

[Dileep]

not sure how reliable this is ... this looks like chorgupta stuff so TIFWIW

LCA Tejas Update
https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/04/15 ... as-update/
Posted on Apr 15 2015 - 12:33pm by IBC News Bureau

Progress on LCA Mk.2 cockpit config ::

The look and feel of the all-glass cockpit that the LCA Tejas Mk.2 will sport is fructifying with the Aeronautical Development Agency announcing that the main display will involve two 6—8 Smart MFDs and one 5—5 smart MFD in centre console based on the latest and best design technologies currently available in the market.

The ADA is looking for a full solution to its SMFD needs for the LCA Mk.2 programme. The capability exists in country, though a competitive process will now ensue. The ADA is looking for active matrix TFT color liquid crystal display SMFDs with separate LED backlight for day and night modes with redundancy for backlighting in both the modes, touch screen capability (will be the first Indian aircraft to sport touch screen panels), anti-reflection coating, full sun readability and night vision capability, compatibility as per NVIS Class B MIL-STD-3009B, EMI protectio, the bezel shall have push buttons, rocker switches and rotary knobs, auto brightness control (ABC) of the display using illumination sensors placed on bezel, capability for windowed image overlay driven by the display processors, dual channel video to support redundant display processors, continuous health monitoring with periodic built-in-test reporting along with its normal operation, provision for operator Initiated Built-In-Test, In-situ programming capability. Conduction Cooled with no external cooling for the entire range of operating temperature.

The Request for EoI for this came out exactly an year ago. Samtel is already making them, and the EoI is just to get competition. They were displayed in Aero India, with actual screens etc.

[rohankumaon]

On reply on the time of induction into IAF, this is the reply given by Anantha Krishnan

"✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake 57m57 minutes ago
@BhaweshTiwari In an year. What ever it takes "

[kancha]

Looks like the Maharastra CM was at the SAAB facility in Sweden some time hours back.
Comments, gurus?

[rakall]

Looks like the Maharastra CM was at the SAAB facility in Sweden some time hours back.
Comments, gurus?

This taken along with "possibly another single engine airplane in MAkeInIndia route" as mentioned by RM. Manohar Parrikar in DD interview - it is not looking good for Tejas Mk2.

All hopes now only on LCA Navy Mk2 !!

[Neela]

MakeInIndia with a small sticker "For export use only"?
I see this in the lime pickle bottles. So just asking...dont shoot me.

Added later:
It could be for _manufactuing_ ->components<- onlee no?

[jagga]

Ramana ji, I found this article while googling latest news on LCA.

[Yagnasri]

If NM with all the talk of "make in India" is going to LCA project? I am not so sure.

[pankajs]

Massive dhoti shiver in the DRDO community wrt LCA it seems. I still hope believe that Modi will give a big push to LCA.

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 42m 42 minutes ago >>

* Nowhere in the world does so much of the envelope have to be proven for FOC. IAF's policy with regard to this needs to be reviewed.
* To refine a combat jet. Everybody learns and the combat jet becomes better.
* Everybody tries to get their homegrown fighter into some sort of squadron service and series production first. Bcoz that is the real way.
* Our favorite R&D org is trying its best to complete hawa bahadur's changing requirements by end 2015.
* Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
* People at our favorite R&D organization are completely demoralized at the moment. They sounded quite dejected. Talked to them this morning.
* Any move to sideline Tejas with an imported design would be nothing short of the Weimar betrayal.
* Why does a radome need to be changed right at the end of a program? And how many jets have had to be IFR qualified before FOC ?
* I just hope the Tejas Mk-I does not end up going the BAC TSR.2 and CF-105 Avro Arrow way.
* We need some strong statements in support of the HAL Tejas. And the strongest statement would be an order for 4 more squadrons of Tejas MK-I

[Singha]

>> Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
I had predicted it above. OEM foot dragging and disinterest.

lord only knows nearly every weapon needs some input from a2a or a2g radar modes now and if rafael shafts us on EL2032 support for adding new weapons, everything incl Astra is going to be a tough hike now.

likewise to test IFR is not that hard, but since the CG of a plane can dynamically change as the fuel flows in, it needs to balanced by moving fuel between tanks. again a first for us, and deceptively simple looking but poisonous and might need FCS algorithm changes. and then IAF has to depute a tanker to unit test this many times..when iaf is woefully short of tankers. they might grudgingly give 2 sorties but might be loathe to fly dozens of missions for this.



rafael (derby) + Elta (el2032) have to line up to support the derby integration. thats two OEMs.

[kit]

[User warned and banned for 01 week for offensive language against IAF - rohitvats]

[chaanakya]

Except 1948 India has decided dates for all wars.

Not true. The wars were decided for us and after the conditions for war were created we had to start fighting one day and there may have been some leeway in when we started fight a war started by Pakistan. I suspect that you have made an argument that can be defended by semantics, but it can also be torn down by semantics and rhetoric.

Strictly speaking what you say is wrong and what you say is exactly what Pakistan accuses India of doing - ie deciding on a date for war and waging war on poor ickle Shitistan

Ever since 1948 war like conditions have always existed on the border with Pakistan with varying intensity. That is the situation making of pakistan. But actual war started only when India decided to fight it out.In Kargil aggression was there but only when India struck it became known as Kargil war. In 2008 situation was similar and if India had gone to war country would have stood united but then it choose not to do so. Actually Pakistan gained territories in 1948 which India has never been able to recapture despite its vast "superiority" in Armed forces. So technically war is continuing since 1948 and in that sense it was initiated by Pakistan but in subsequent discrete events India has always taken initiative to defend remaining territories vis a vis Pakistan or contain it ( op brass tracks or op Parakram). In 2008 it acted with great measure of restraint so no war happened. LIC continued though till today.

Anyway it OT here.

[rohitvats]

Massive dhoti shiver in the DRDO community wrt LCA it seems. I still hope believe that Modi will give a big push to LCA.

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 42m 42 minutes ago >>

* Nowhere in the world does so much of the envelope have to be proven for FOC. IAF's policy with regard to this needs to be reviewed.
When you cannot meet your own self-declared deadlines, whine about the process! Never mind the fact that this whine about squadron service and incremental improvement is redundant because 20 x Tejas Mk1@IOC-2 are to be inducted; and FOC deadline has nothing to do with getting the aircraft into squadron service.
* To refine a combat jet. Everybody learns and the combat jet becomes better.
So, we would be doing all the learning with IOC-2 level Tejas Mk1 in first squadron being raised. How is FOC being held up because of this?
* Everybody tries to get their homegrown fighter into some sort of squadron service and series production first. Bcoz that is the real way.
And this real way of doing things is under progress with IOC-2 Tejas. Is it again IAF's fault that HAL will take its own sweet time to deliver the jets?
* Our favorite R&D org is trying its best to complete hawa bahadur's changing requirements by end 2015.
Someone please ask him to spell this 'change in requirement'...On the one hand, we've every hot-shot from DRDO saying that Tejas will meet the FOC deadline which has already been extended from June 2015 to December 2015. And on the another, we've this favorite plank of 'changing requirement by IAF' to deflect every blame
* Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
And what about the A2G and A2A gun-firing trials?
* People at our favorite R&D organization are completely demoralized at the moment. They sounded quite dejected. Talked to them this morning.
* Any move to sideline Tejas with an imported design would be nothing short of the Weimar betrayal.
* Why does a radome need to be changed right at the end of a program? And how many jets have had to be IFR qualified before FOC ?
Radome had to be changed because someone discovered towards fag end of development cycle that RADAR performance can be increased by 40% by simply changing the Radome of the fighter.
<SNIP>

More than anything else, it seems the danda from RM and PM has caused major takleef in the DRDO.

[sankum]

Its is unlikely that any new class of fighter will be ordered for it will cost too much except say more Mig 29s can be ordered of Mig 29k specifications as an interim buy.

It is better that HAL is privatized or at least production of Lca can be outsourced to private sector with 120 LCA mk1 to be produced by 2021-22 with increase in production to peak 32/year.

[rohitvats]

And all this talk about 'some other' light weight fighter is total hog-wash...it's not some bloody tissue paper you're buying from a store!

What it seems has happened is that the for once, the R&D guys are having some explanation to do. The IITian at the helm of affairs does understand a thing or two about technology, unlike other worthies who've warmed that chair, and is asking relevant questions.

Actually, this is more like Navy model of dealing with DRDO - have your own chaps who understand technology so that DRDO does not take you for a ride!

[Cosmo_R]

No Sir, it is from the MOD annual report:

(from pg 46 40 of this http://mod.gov.in/writereaddata/AR1415.pdf MOD annual report)

I'm suggesting MoD pulled it from SlideShare not you. None of the top level strategic goals are defined, discussed or debated. It's your standard B-School mission statement

[Mihir]

Radome had to be changed because someone discovered towards fag end of development cycle that RADAR performance can be increased by 40% by simply changing the Radome of the fighter.

I don't buy this argument. Just because the performance can be increased by up to 40% by using new materials/technologies, doesn't mean that it should be foisted on the design at this phase. The priority should be getting an adequately capable fighter into service, instead of subjecting the design to constant changes. That's a sure-shot way of keeping things in a state of perpetual limbo.

The new radome can be tested as a possible retrofit option once the base Tejas Mk-I enters squadron service, instead of making it a requirement for FOC.

[shiv]

Ever since 1948 war like conditions have always existed on the border with Pakistan with varying intensity. That is the situation making of pakistan. But actual war started only when India decided to fight it out.

This is what I mean by a "semantically accurate statement" Pakistanis use exactly your argument, worded slightly differently. "Ever since 1948 war like conditions have always existed on the border with Pakistan with varying intensity. Pakistan is under constant threat from Hindu India which has chosen its own dates to make war with Pakistan. Pakistan has won every war because Pakistan has thwarted Indian war designs every time"

I personally think you are twisting words to suit your argument. Everyone has a right to do that. Which is quite OK as long as you are happy with it. But it is nonsense and it would be OT for me to shove the argument about why it is nonsense down everyone's throat on this thread.

[Gyan]

My guess and interpretation of Defense Minster comments:-


Hal Su-30MKI vs Pvt sector manufactured Rafale

Hal Tejas vs Pvt sector manufactured Gripen NG

The strategy of Tejas Mk-2, AMCA & PAKFA will be decided later (?)

I think that when Modi said that they will not continue waiting for long delayed projects, he meant business. Zhor and jaatka, dheere se!