LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 08 Aug 2015 11:38

Thanx SaiK.

Let us move to the R&D thread for more discussion.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Aug 2015 11:41

Hitesh wrote:From what I am understanding, IAF's biggest complaint about the LCA is the lack of sufficient airflow because the diameter of the intakes are too small and that leads to less than optimal thrust in which the engine cannot fulfill its maximum potential because of insufficient airflow.

Kartik wrote:Attended my first Aero India this Saturday. I won’t describe the difficulties in getting into the show, but once I did, it was quite alright. The highlight for me was the conversations I had with Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program and Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj (Deputy Project Director, NLCA). I was lucky to spot Mao sir alone and walked up to him, introduced myself and spoke of my association with BRF and then we had a conversation on the Tejas program for half an hour..he was incredibly frank, friendly, didn’t hold back any facts and only left when he got a call from someone..here are the salient points of our conversation, some of which we already know but am listing it anyway.

<SNIP>
- Mao Sir scoffed at the suggestion that the engine was choking at higher alpha. He said there is no such thing, but rather because it was designed initially for the Kaveri’s airflow and had to redesign it for the F-404. They have already tried various intakes on the LCA, with/without spring mounted doors on the intakes.
</SNIP>

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Aug 2015 23:24

Hitesh wrote:From what I am understanding, IAF's biggest complaint about the LCA is the lack of sufficient airflow because the diameter of the intakes are too small and that leads to less than optimal thrust in which the engine cannot fulfill its maximum potential because of insufficient airflow.

IAF never said that. Reporters who know very little about aerodynamics said that IAF officials said so. If you read about the Kaveri's airflow requirements vis-a-vis the F404, you would realize that an inlet designed for Kaveri doesn't starve a F404.

However, an inlet designed for the Kaveri will not be efficient for the F404. And that is where the 'real' discussion has been. It has been hinted that the pressure recovery is not adequate, which means that the F404 does not perform to its maximum potential with the current inlets. This has never been sufficiently rebutted in the open source.

Moving to the Mk2, the F414 has near identical airflow requirements to the Kaveri. Hence it has been asserted that this is a non-issue on the Mk2. Both ADA and GE have made official statements about the same.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Aug 2015 10:23

Dammit, any news on the tejas front? Any chai/paanwalla stuff? Can't wait...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Aug 2015 03:27

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 951_1.html

The Bengaluru-based public sector aviation monolith says its engineers are already stretched with existing projects, including the Tejas production line, design and prototype manufacture of a basic trainer aircraft, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40); and the testing and production of the Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT).

HAL has suggested that, instead of waiting for the Tejas Mark II the IAF should buy 80 Tejas Mark I-A, an interim fighter that would be more capable then the Mark I, but less than the Mark II will be.

Business Standard has learned of a heated debate under way between the user of the Tejas, the IAF; its designer, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA); and its manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).

The IAF has already committed to buying 40 Tejas Mark I. In addition, the air force has indicated it will buy four-to-five squadrons (80-100 fighters) of the Tejas Mark II when it is ready.

HAL worries about the future of its production line after it delivers 40 Mark I fighters by end-2019. It plans to build four Tejas Mark I by March 2016; another eight by March 2017; and crank up production to 16 fighters annually by March 2018. After 2019, the production line would idle till the Tejas Mark II enters production.

Senior HAL and ADA officials agree the Tejas Mark II is unlikely to enter production till 2023-24. Developing the Mark II involves fitting in a more powerful engine --- the General Electric F-414INS6 replacing the current F-404IN --- and upgrading avionics and weaponry. With prototype development likely to take till 2019, another three to four years would go in flight-testing the Tejas Mark II and preparing production drawings.

HAL, therefore, wants the IAF to buy 80 Tejas Mark I-A to keep the production line occupied from 2020 to 2023-24.

The Mark 1-A would be faster and more agile than the current Mark I. Developing it would involve shaving off 800 kilogrammes from the current fighter, especially from systems like the landing gear, which are currently "over-engineered", or built heavy, for safety. HAL also proposes to remove 300 kg of dead weight distributed across the Mark I to balance it evenly.

HAL argues that the Mark I's GE F-404IN engine, which generates 84 kiloNewtons (kN) of peak thrust, would meet the IAF's performance requirements, if one tonne is shaved off the Tejas Mark I's empty weight of 6,500 kg. In that case, the GE F-414INS6 engine's 98 kN of thrust would be needed only for the naval Tejas, which must take off from the short runway of an aircraft carrier deck.

The IAF and ADA are taken aback by HAL's reluctance to participate in developing the Mark II. Even though the Tejas project is managed by ADA --- a branch of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) --- HAL has developed important components. Besides many smaller systems, HAL designed the Tejas structure, its undercarriage and electrical supply system. It would have to upgrade these for the Mark II.

"We have completed the preliminary design of the Tejas Mark II, but now the detailed design will be done. HAL would have to refine and upgrade the systems it developed for the Tejas", points out a senior ADA official.

HAL's withdrawal stems from its deep-rooted concern over the Tejas assembly line, which was established at a cost of Rs 1,556 crore, with HAL paying half and the remaining shared between the IAF and navy. Keeping the line running is essential, so that skilled manpower does not have to be redistributed; and a steady flow of orders can be placed on sub-vendors.

HAL sees a four-year gap between the last Tejas Mark I and the first Tejas Mark II as seriously disruptive. Building 80 Tejas Mark I-A is a way of bridging that gap.

However, the IAF and ADA point to HAL's poor record of adhering to manufacturing schedules. They say HAL, which is more than a year late in building the Tejas Mark I, is unlikely to build and deliver 40 Tejas Mark I by 2019. So far, the Tejas line has built just one fighter.

"We can assure HAL that, if it accelerates the delivery of fighters to the point where it seems likely to deliver 40 Tejas Mark I before the Mark II is ready, we will certainly place orders for more Mark I fighters. The assembly line will not be kept idle. That is our assurance," says a senior IAF officer.

To overcome HAL's difficulties with building and assembling the Tejas Mark I, ADA proposes to adopt a new production model for the Mark II. The DRDO's aerospace chief, K Tamilmani, tells Business Standard that seven private sector companies will be chosen to manufacture the fighter's modules (systems and sub-systems). HAL will be responsible for integrating them and testing and delivering them to the IAF.

"If we have to accelerate production and build the Tejas Mark II to the requisite quality and quantity, HAL cannot be saddled with responsibility for everything. Instead, private companies will build modules, while HAL will be lead integrator," says Tamilmani.

--
HAL is really really outta control. India Strategic also mentioned HALs proposal to ask for the LCA vs ADA. Yet to fix IJT or HTT and now on this path.
Per se the Mk1A idea is a good bridge to the Mk2 but HALs desire to scuttle the Mk2 and own something it cannot fix is a problem

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2015 04:14

HAL was stupid to go by IAF's requirement rather their future requirements. They are not big thinkers..by the time Mk-2 comes, they will want Mk-3. what guarantees?

this nonsensical process must stop. we can't have 1 billion minds be cheated like this.. where is the commitment agreement to buy in tranches? get the RTI out on LCA project.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Aug 2015 04:29

^^^

...
"We can assure HAL that, if it accelerates the delivery of fighters to the point where it seems likely to deliver 40 Tejas Mark I before the Mark II is ready, we will certainly place orders for more Mark I fighters. The assembly line will not be kept idle. That is our assurance," says a senior IAF officer.
...

From the article, this is the first time the IAF has stated that publicly. Hopefully, it will keep its assurance and keep the line humming. To make their assurance more concrete they need to submit an intent for x-more to be executed upon HAL meeting certain deadlines with current orders. And this needs to factor in 36-month lead time of suppliers. The IAF can't wait till 2019 to place a follow-on order because that would be too late and the assembly lines would remain idle.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 13 Aug 2015 04:34

If IAF is sure HAL will not be able to deliver 80 by 2022, then why not order 80 instead of 40. And switch to LCA Mark II when it is ready.
It is local production, so the money will be saved anyways, if it is not produced and something better is available.
It is not like, ordering to some foreign company where it would be a penalty for cancelling or reducing the order.

At least IAF do this for honoring the people who toiled all these years to develop a plane they wanted. And from all indication it is a much better fighter than what our neighbors have.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 13 Aug 2015 05:38

In this situation, I agree with what HAL is asking for.

Placing orders now for 40 Mk1A to follow 40Mk1 is quite sensible. This to be followed by 120 Mk2.

It will keep the production line going and hedge against delays in Mk2.

If HAL does not deliver, there will be enough time to order imports.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 13 Aug 2015 06:28

HAL by its own admission does not have the resources to work on Mark II. The smart thing to do is to let a private player enter the game with Mark II and let this private player takeover the Mark I production line, in exchange for an order for Mark IA from the IAF. Kill two birds in one stone. Get a private player with a serious project and assured orders for the long term. Let the private player also invest some money into the game and build the private supply chain. The nation and the IAF gets an alternative to HAL. This is the best way to seed a serious private player into the game, which is not yet another screw driver company using foreign technology. Agreements can be formed to ensure that against assured revenues, a certain portion goes back into R&D with targets to achieve some milestones.

India can ill afford to have just ONE PSU for its massive needs.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Aug 2015 06:32

^this is likely to happen upon first foc delivery..

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 13 Aug 2015 06:49

I think this bit from the article points out HAL's giant boo-boo:

The Bengaluru-based public sector aviation monolith says its engineers are already stretched with existing projects, including the Tejas production line, design and prototype manufacture of a basic trainer aircraft, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40); and the testing and production of the Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT).

The LCA Tejas is now a proven design, with pending orders. The IJT has been a resounding failure to date and a clear and present indicator of HAL's ills. The HTT-40, HAL's current wet dream, is still a paper aircraft and will take time to design and realize. It also attempts to address a problem the IAF does not have, as their basic trainer needs are well served by the Pilatus PC-7. Both of these aircraft are also much lower cost and lower tech than the Tejas, which is a frontline fighter. If HAL does not get its ass into gear and deliver on the Mk.2, the alternatives would be of the order of $100 million+ per piece (Grippen et al). Good business strategy means focusing available resources where they are needed. This is especially true of a DPSU, which is expected to address national concerns first and profits later - not that they can expect much profit from either the IJT, whose sunk costs must be truly horrendous by now, or the HTT-40, especially in comparison to big ticket items like the Tejas.

In a history full of screw-ups, the decision to focus all available resources on failed projects and unwanted paper aircraft has to be the most monumental one of all for HAL. Worse, it affects the safety and security of the nation, which seems to be unimportant against the egos of HAL's leaders. If they're not able to get this, maybe the company needs a change of leadership right away.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 13 Aug 2015 06:52

ShauryaT wrote:HAL by its own admission does not have the resources to work on Mark II. The smart thing to do is to let a private player enter the game with Mark II and let this private player takeover the Mark I production line, in exchange for an order for Mark IA from the IAF. Kill two birds in one stone. Get a private player with a serious project and assured orders for the long term. Let the private player also invest some money into the game and build the private supply chain. The nation and the IAF gets an alternative to HAL. This is the best way to seed a serious private player into the game, which is not yet another screw driver company using foreign technology. Agreements can be formed to ensure that against assured revenues, a certain portion goes back into R&D with targets to achieve some milestones.

India can ill afford to have just ONE PSU for its massive needs.

This is the only solution to HAL's hubris. TASL and Mahindra are ready and waiting, and would love the chance to build a cutting edge aircraft like the Tejas. Even better, Tata now has experience of a modern aerospace production facility thanks to their JV with Sikorsky, so they will probably have a short learning curve.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2015 07:17

I hope PMO is aware of all this and applies the stick. we are an inch || away from disaster here followed by bankrupting ourself with a 60,000 cr gripen-NG or rafale order.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Aug 2015 08:25

HAL needs to keep the line going. A dead production line for four years is non-starter. What mythical world does the ADA and IAF live in?
And who is that senior officer to assure something which could be denied later. Four years from now he will writing farticles like his predecessors..

HAL better deliver the 40 and shut the line down and let IAF fly kites.

At same time, HAL is not the design agency and yet is proposing shaving off 1 tonne of empty weight casually. Being an unstable aircraft the whole flight test regime has to be undergone again with such a drastic weight change.

Just scrap the plane and let IAF fly transport planes for disaster relief which it likes so much.

Any way 36 Rafales is also going no where for the French know there is no Plan B.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 13 Aug 2015 09:09

Another option would be to sell tejas to friendly countries .

There are many who need to replace their old F-16's or start there Airforce with some good low maintenance planes.

Tejas has been tested to high altitude , cold , Hot etc etc conditions because of different landscape in our country.It will not have any problem to work anywhere in the world.

But Engine is USA-ian which makes it difficult.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Aug 2015 12:06

Ramana,

1.>>HAL needs to keep the line going. A dead production line for four years is non-starter. What mythical world does the ADA and IAF live in?
And who is that senior officer to assure something which could be denied later. Four years from now he will writing farticles like his predecessors..

2>>>HAL better deliver the 40 and shut the line down and let IAF fly kites.

3.>>At same time, HAL is not the design agency and yet is proposing shaving off 1 tonne of empty weight casually. Being an unstable aircraft the whole flight test regime has to be undergone again with such a drastic weight change.

...

Exactly the key points !! The lack of coordination, IAF's non committal stringing along, and HALs hubris. All 3 evident in full flow.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2015 12:22

instead of tinkering with landing gear, which is not too big on normal tejas...they could try removing that 300kg dead weight thats claimed and rebalance some of the stuff. if nothing it will improve the range and fuel costs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2015 12:23

HAL is not even a nodal design agency to propose weight reduction forget about like reducing 1 Ton from a light fighter like tejas something ADA would be seriously jealous of if HAL manages to even achieve a reduction of even 1/4 of what they claim

Oh I curiously clicked the article link when I read "Business Standard has learned" without quoting any names to the statement , Realised it is the same moron called Ajai Shukla who like quoting high level sources without naming them and then bad mouthing PSU or Services depending how it suits his pay master.

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 13 Aug 2015 12:24

Khalsa wrote:I remember viewing Cdr Mao's video.

So here is what I understood... will the gurus please add

My questions are

1 What are the key differences between IAF and IN trainer except for landing gear and carrier landing related stuff.
i.e. is the nose more stooped etc etc.

the attitude of both forces towards these machines.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Aug 2015 14:30

Interesting news posted by Karan.

The proposal by HAL for orders for 40-80 MK1A is logical. Keeping assembly line idle is not very bright idea. These gap filler 40 jets will keep HAL busy, make sure that transition from MK1 to MK2 will be smooth as far as manufacturing is concerned. It will also arrest falling strength of IAF squadrons. Also ADA can push few MK2 LRUs on MK1A itself and get them certified early, reducing workload on MK2 to some extent. It could be a win-win situation for all the stake holders if they show will to work together. IAF does need to sign in writing though that they are willing to buy 40 MK1-A if HAL delivers MK1s as promised. On the other hand, HAL needs to accept some penalties if they renege on their deliveries. Can't be only one way traffic.

I think NM and MP need to kick some asses in HAL and make them fall in line.

But I am not sure if they can reduce 1 ton out of 6.5 ton. If it was so easy they could have just reduced the weight and get the jet fulfill IAF requirements without going through all the hassle to make MK2. It could be very well that the structural design is a generation older and with new design tools and techniques they could shelve significant weight from the structural metallic components. Also they could introduce composite co-bonded co-cured wing components (NAL demonstrated some new technology in this field per there home page. So we have 2-3 years to make it work for MK1-A, if it is possible). But still 1 ton is too much to expect. 500kg reduction that too only in MK2 (because of the amount of efforts involved in it) looks achievable. Imagine if it was possible in reality and they could realize that 1 ton reduced weight in MK2. With 98kN thrust that beast will be nimble like anything. Alas!!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 13 Aug 2015 15:04

nileshjr wrote:The proposal by HAL for orders for 40-80 MK1A is logical. Keeping assembly line idle is not very bright idea. These gap filler 40 jets will keep HAL busy, make sure that transition from MK1 to MK2 will be smooth as far as manufacturing is concerned.

80 more LCAs would come in for USD 4 billion (@ 50 million a pop). IAF's main concern is that fresh commitments to LCA would be cuttign into money available for the Rafale deal. And they are right, as it is, close to 80% or more of budgeted capex goes towards funding committed expenditure and attrition replacements. Its chicken and egg right now - any big ticket fighter purchase makes the financial case for Rafale even more nebulous than today, while Rafale keeps getting negotiated (for 36, and a further 20, and then maybe another 10 etc).

This would need a political decision. MoD needs to tell IAF that there is no Rafale in the picture anymore, they need to have Plan B. Only then would the IAF look for an LCA/Su30-based alternative.

The other option would be for the govt to commit extra funding just for LCA - again that is tantamount to increasing the defence budget, not going to happen in a hurry.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 13 Aug 2015 15:57

Karan M wrote:http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 951_1.html

The Bengaluru-based public sector aviation monolith says its engineers are already stretched with existing projects, including the Tejas production line, design and prototype manufacture of a basic trainer aircraft, the Hindustan Turbo Trainer - 40 (HTT-40); and the testing and production of the Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT).

HAL has suggested that, instead of waiting for the Tejas Mark II the IAF should buy 80 Tejas Mark I-A, an interim fighter that would be more capable then the Mark I, but less than the Mark II will be.

Business Standard has learned of a heated debate under way between the user of the Tejas, the IAF; its designer, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA); and its manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).

The IAF has already committed to buying 40 Tejas Mark I. In addition, the air force has indicated it will buy four-to-five squadrons (80-100 fighters) of the Tejas Mark II when it is ready.

HAL worries about the future of its production line after it delivers 40 Mark I fighters by end-2019. It plans to build four Tejas Mark I by March 2016; another eight by March 2017; and crank up production to 16 fighters annually by March 2018. After 2019, the production line would idle till the Tejas Mark II enters production.

Senior HAL and ADA officials agree the Tejas Mark II is unlikely to enter production till 2023-24. Developing the Mark II involves fitting in a more powerful engine --- the General Electric F-414INS6 replacing the current F-404IN --- and upgrading avionics and weaponry. With prototype development likely to take till 2019, another three to four years would go in flight-testing the Tejas Mark II and preparing production drawings.

HAL, therefore, wants the IAF to buy 80 Tejas Mark I-A to keep the production line occupied from 2020 to 2023-24.

The Mark 1-A would be faster and more agile than the current Mark I. Developing it would involve shaving off 800 kilogrammes from the current fighter, especially from systems like the landing gear, which are currently "over-engineered", or built heavy, for safety. HAL also proposes to remove 300 kg of dead weight distributed across the Mark I to balance it evenly.

HAL argues that the Mark I's GE F-404IN engine, which generates 84 kiloNewtons (kN) of peak thrust, would meet the IAF's performance requirements, if one tonne is shaved off the Tejas Mark I's empty weight of 6,500 kg. In that case, the GE F-414INS6 engine's 98 kN of thrust would be needed only for the naval Tejas, which must take off from the short runway of an aircraft carrier deck.

The IAF and ADA are taken aback by HAL's reluctance to participate in developing the Mark II. Even though the Tejas project is managed by ADA --- a branch of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) --- HAL has developed important components. Besides many smaller systems, HAL designed the Tejas structure, its undercarriage and electrical supply system. It would have to upgrade these for the Mark II.

"We have completed the preliminary design of the Tejas Mark II, but now the detailed design will be done. HAL would have to refine and upgrade the systems it developed for the Tejas", points out a senior ADA official.

HAL's withdrawal stems from its deep-rooted concern over the Tejas assembly line, which was established at a cost of Rs 1,556 crore, with HAL paying half and the remaining shared between the IAF and navy. Keeping the line running is essential, so that skilled manpower does not have to be redistributed; and a steady flow of orders can be placed on sub-vendors.

HAL sees a four-year gap between the last Tejas Mark I and the first Tejas Mark II as seriously disruptive. Building 80 Tejas Mark I-A is a way of bridging that gap.

However, the IAF and ADA point to HAL's poor record of adhering to manufacturing schedules. They say HAL, which is more than a year late in building the Tejas Mark I, is unlikely to build and deliver 40 Tejas Mark I by 2019. So far, the Tejas line has built just one fighter.

"We can assure HAL that, if it accelerates the delivery of fighters to the point where it seems likely to deliver 40 Tejas Mark I before the Mark II is ready, we will certainly place orders for more Mark I fighters. The assembly line will not be kept idle. That is our assurance," says a senior IAF officer.

To overcome HAL's difficulties with building and assembling the Tejas Mark I, ADA proposes to adopt a new production model for the Mark II. The DRDO's aerospace chief, K Tamilmani, tells Business Standard that seven private sector companies will be chosen to manufacture the fighter's modules (systems and sub-systems). HAL will be responsible for integrating them and testing and delivering them to the IAF.

"If we have to accelerate production and build the Tejas Mark II to the requisite quality and quantity, HAL cannot be saddled with responsibility for everything. Instead, private companies will build modules, while HAL will be lead integrator," says Tamilmani.

--
HAL is really really outta control. India Strategic also mentioned HALs proposal to ask for the LCA vs ADA. Yet to fix IJT or HTT and now on this path.
Per se the Mk1A idea is a good bridge to the Mk2 but HALs desire to scuttle the Mk2 and own something it cannot fix is a problem

This reduction of 800 KG in weight really excite me. If we can do that with some work on wing redesign and better engine integration and some aerodynamic improvement, LCA can be a much better plane in its current Avatar also.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 13 Aug 2015 16:06

Argument is fine, now what can be acheived could be the removal of 300kg dead weight and possibly 100 more kilos. Other than that putting targets like 1000kgs etc will be unwanted and can only delay the already delayed program. I think the GOI must intervene and ask both HAL and IAF sit together and reach a consensus on the number of MK-1's to be build.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2015 16:28

I think, these are the flaws known to all by now
- HAL is not Boeing or LM and they have deep holes in their production engineering setup
- HAL must not focus on R&D. That was and is a disaster written all over their face
- ADA failed terribly to not think future ahead..
- IAF should know better what they should expect further from HAL.

+ privatization call to address HAL problems
+ ADA must think big
+ HAL must focus on concurrent engineering and integration
+ IAF clearly define tranche based requirements [critical to deliver in time for each block]

any schedule slip for more than 6 months must need a PMO intervention. perhaps replacing heads to start with.
unfortunately, the fear is the only key

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Aug 2015 18:24

SaiK How does privatization help when there is zilch experience in that field of aerospace?
Why this penchant for starting from zero every time an issue crops up?

All your suggestions imply the entities are organic independent with ample resources to spend as they deem.
Reality is everything is controlled by MoD.

Austin, Don't diss Ajai Shukla. He brought us information and data. Others are not even at the train station.

BTW if IAF is thinking of saving money for Rafale even that is not happening. The French want their pound of flesh which is not there to give.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 13 Aug 2015 20:07

ramana wrote:SaiK How does privatization help when there is zilch experience in that field of aerospace?
Why this penchant for starting from zero every time an issue crops up?

All your suggestions imply the entities are organic independent with ample resources to spend as they deem.
Reality is everything is controlled by MoD.

Austin, Don't diss Ajai Shukla. He brought us information and data. Others are not even at the train station.

BTW if IAF is thinking of saving money for Rafale even that is not happening. The French want their pound of flesh which is not there to give.

Privatization (of HAL as well) will bring two major improvements (hopefully) -

1. Accountability
2. Quality

HAL is trying their best, but in its current sarkari format it has limitations.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 13 Aug 2015 20:43

ramana wrote:SaiK How does privatization help when there is zilch experience in that field of aerospace?
Why this penchant for starting from zero every time an issue crops up?

All your suggestions imply the entities are organic independent with ample resources to spend as they deem.
Reality is everything is controlled by MoD.

Austin, Don't diss Ajai Shukla. He brought us information and data. Others are not even at the train station.

BTW if IAF is thinking of saving money for Rafale even that is not happening. The French want their pound of flesh which is not there to give.

Just like every other PSU, when you decide to privatize you do a full audit and you sell off select departments/labs/etc. Why is it that people believe that the experience will be zilch, when a private player will be taking over the entire production/design facility? The scientists, technicians, workers, etc. will all just do collective puja and quit their jobs with a change in ownership?

The gov can at least sell the production tech, licenses, etc for a price to a select group of companies and let them compete and let HAL whither away on its own. This is happening slowly with some non strategic programs. It's only a matter of time before fighter aircraft are snatched out of their domain as well.

In the case of LCA MK-1A, I would agree with HAL to keep the line going and induct more of the LCA in blocks. I think HAL and some other public players may be reluctant to partner with a private player for production of LCA b/c you'll be inadvertently building your future competitor.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Aug 2015 21:33

HAL saying that LCA Mk1 landing gear is over-engineered doesn't make sense. That is the case only on the Navy version. The LG on the Air Force version is fine. I'm going to take these claims of "we can reduce 800kg of weight" with several buckets of salt.

HAL made a complete mess of the IJT, and they are going to teach the ADA how to reduce weight from the LCA's design? God forbid.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2015 21:34

HAL also screwed the MMR project earlier.

LM and Boeing are strongly regulated by GOTUS. just saying, something that there is nothing wrong in learning from such empirical data

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 13 Aug 2015 21:50

I bet HAL HT-40 will go the IJT way

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Aug 2015 01:53

nachiket wrote:HAL saying that LCA Mk1 landing gear is over-engineered doesn't make sense. That is the case only on the Navy version. The LG on the Air Force version is fine. I'm going to take these claims of "we can reduce 800kg of weight" with several buckets of salt.

HAL made a complete mess of the IJT, and they are going to teach the ADA how to reduce weight from the LCA's design? God forbid.

HAL made the LCA Mk1 landing gear based on the Jaguar template. Its likely stronger, heavier than it needs to be.
There are also some 300 odd kgs of ballast in the aircraft.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 14 Aug 2015 03:29

Previous Picture, IAF had ordered 40 Mk1 and 100 Mk2 to follow on from there.
Total commitment 140.

Now this. Seems we want to retain talent + be viable + work to economies of scale.
Fine... it shows poor planning and lack of cohesion but Fine, let it be another challenge.
The path to Radiance is littered with obstacles.

Proposal for IAF and HAL and ADA
Mk1 16 + 4[Reserve/ Trainers] (1 Squadron) + 4 (TACDE) = 24
Mk1a 48
Mk2 68
Total Commitment 140

I am sure this MK2 will grow as the project matures.
To be honest 40 of Mk1 is too many as the project still seems to be improving the product every month or so with many more small wins identified.

However the news about the actual number of constructed on the assembly line so far needs to be analysed and looked at and reviewed periodically.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Aug 2015 05:12

Why not give the IJT and HT-40 to ADA to iron out?
They way the ADA has run the LCA project is nothing but exemplary from the Indian POV.

Let HAL do manufacturing / integration with private players. Let ADA do the R&D onlee.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 14 Aug 2015 06:25

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 927_1.html

finally a step in the right direction...

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 14 Aug 2015 10:03

ragupta wrote:http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 927_1.html

finally a step in the right direction...

Welcome change in attitude. I hope this is just a turning point

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 14 Aug 2015 10:17

Is the change of attitude stems from French refusing to integrate Astra with Rafale:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/495 ... tions.html

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 14 Aug 2015 12:25

Karan M wrote:
nachiket wrote:HAL saying that LCA Mk1 landing gear is over-engineered doesn't make sense. That is the case only on the Navy version. The LG on the Air Force version is fine. I'm going to take these claims of "we can reduce 800kg of weight" with several buckets of salt.

HAL made a complete mess of the IJT, and they are going to teach the ADA how to reduce weight from the LCA's design? God forbid.
HAL made the LCA Mk1 landing gear based on the Jaguar template. Its likely stronger, heavier than it needs to be.
There are also some 300 odd kgs of ballast in the aircraft.

But we can't remove this right ? Are there ways of weight reduction without major redesign and testing ? Indranil and other gurus would like your input

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 14 Aug 2015 12:30

Give LCA and Arjun to Chota Bhai and Big Orders will be placed for LCA Mark 0.75 and Arjun Mark 0.75 forget struggling to get orders for Mark-2.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Aug 2015 13:37

If ADA designed the LCA, ADA designed the landing gear too, not HAL. The fact that the landing gear is over engineered seems to have appeared after the navy looked at it in detail