AMCA News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Dec 2013 10:51

Hehehehe ....................... Time to resurrect this thread.

Tejas all set to get certification for IAF induction

For the record:

20 years after funds were released for it, India’s indigenously designed and developed frontline fighter aircraft, Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, is all set to get the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC II) here on Friday that would pave the way for its induction into the Indian Air Force squadrons.

Mr. Rao, who has been associated with the project for 26 years, said “entire design and concept is ours and the Mach 1 LCA is better than its contemporaries such as Mirage 2000, F-16 and Gripen.”

Though Tejas have been equipped with GE engines, efforts are on to use Indian Kaveri engines on it. However, the lower thrust provided by the Indian engine remains an area of concern. The Indian engineers are also trying to develop their own radar system for the aircraft, which to begin with would be fitted with Israeli systems.

Pertinent to the AMCA, and, as I have been saying for ages:

Mr. Rao said while the development of Tejas has taken a long time, it has led to the creation of huge log data on problems faced. “We are now in a better position to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft, which come with stealth technology and super cruise, as also the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, which is at an advanced design stage.

As I have said before, the AMCA will come within the next decade or even earlier. It has to.

The FGFA experience would have helped - especially in the testing phases. But, I just do not see much "experience" being gained from the FGFA under the current circumstances. IMVVHO, India now has critical mass and really not much can stop it.

The AMCA team had requested $2 billion in 2010 and were expecting it to be released. For whatever reason they decided to start that work after the IOC-II of the LCA. SO, I for one expect those funds to be released soon. Perhaps not $2 billion, but a good deal will be released.

Will · Post by **Will** » 20 Dec 2013 14:13

What is needed more urgently is for the issues with the Kaveri to be sorted out and an engine be got ready for the AMCA. You don't want to end up with the AMCA flying with an imported engine. Any news on the AESA radar for the LCA Mk2?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Dec 2013 16:53

2 Kaveri engines with 50kn dry thurst each should be enough for 20 tonne fighter. No?

AMCA with its stealth clean dragless surface wouldn't need as powerful engines like 4th gen draggy fighters.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 21 Dec 2013 00:23

To supercruise it might

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Dec 2013 03:21

Dhananjay wrote:2 Kaveri engines with 50kn dry thurst each should be enough for 20 tonne fighter. No?

AMCA with its stealth clean dragless surface wouldn't need as powerful engines like 4th gen draggy fighters.

It is actually quite a misconception on what is more or less draggy. It is fine mixture pros and cons:
1. Form drag: Con: Actually all those sharp boxy edges are not good for streamlined flow. Pro: 5th gen planes generally tend to tuck away flight surface one behind the other (mainly elevator behind the wing). This decreases cross sectional frontal area presented.
2. Wave drag: Con: The 5th generation planes are fat because of their internal volume, so wave drag goes up.
3. Interference drag: Pro: Not so many surfaces at 90 degrees to each other hanging outside, so it goes down.
4. Skin drag: Pro: the skin drag of the plane goes up, but the overall skin drag for the plane + payloads go down.
5. Induced drag: Con: 5th generation planes are heavier because they have to have ejection mechanisms plus the amount of material required to cover its larger surface area is higher.

Actually GTRE is developing a 75/110 kN engine. I think that is going to be the engine for AMCA. It might also be used to re-engine LCA Mk1/Mk2 during their upgrades.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Dec 2013 03:43

indranilroy wrote: Actually GTRE is developing a 75/110 kN engine. I think that is going to be the engine for AMCA. It might also be used to re-engine LCA Mk1/Mk2 during their upgrades.

If they can design it to be similar in dimensions to the F414, they can buy some extra F414s for the initial prototypes. Something tells me ADA and HAL will have the first airframe ready before GTRE has the engine.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2013 03:52

nachiket wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Actually GTRE is developing a 75/110 kN engine. I think that is going to be the engine for AMCA. It might also be used to re-engine LCA Mk1/Mk2 during their upgrades.
If they can design it to be similar in dimensions to the F414, they can buy some extra F414s for the initial prototypes. Something tells me ADA and HAL will have the first airframe ready before GTRE has the engine.

huh! I wish GTRE does it!~.. the fact is NO.

See, when they call for RFI/EOI with:

Design of Fan, CAD/CAE Simulations & Analysis, Prototype Development, Performance & Functional Testing and Proving of the Fan. This includes certification level tests as per MIL 5007-E .

what that does tell about GTRE as an organization intentions?

This is the reason I am pissed with GTRE. They should doit by themselves. let them reorg, get people from ISRO or get kalam saab to head some agile practice group to get this going. do something, but don't ask for international orgs to help. it will not happen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2013 11:48

"There are no serious technology challenges ahead" says PS Subramanyam, Director ADA

SaiK wrote:^
lessons we have been saying long ahead - somethings our people read ahead:
Q. The navy is concerned at the lack of progress in the Naval LCA

The naval Tejas is a different challenge. We had incorrectly thought that deriving a naval variant from an air force variant would be easier. But, as we learnt, it is the other way round.

We began with an undercarriage built for the air force Tejas. But landing on an aircraft carrier involves a much higher descent rate, which means the landing gear must be much stronger. When the aircraft catches the arrestor hook, the deceleration is enormous. When we did the load analysis, the whole bottom gear had to be re-engineered.

I will not hesitate to say today that deriving a naval variant from an air force variant of the Tejas is a sub-optimal solution. But, having learnt this, the Mark II will be an optimal solution. We will not do any derivative from the air force version. It will be, ab initio, a naval design.
and we did wanted naval mca to be done first.

Would have loved to see a Naval AMCA. But, it does not seem to be on the cards. : (

Since he seems to be so confident about the FGFA, two things: first perhaps a naval FGFA? and secondly, a derated FGFA engine for the AMCA? But then he also talks of a "ab initio, or improve upon" engine. Which is a little befuddling - are they really that close to fielding their own engine? An "ab initio" engine? I did not think so. But, ..........

But, the very good news is that the IAF seems to be coming around. IF they can buy into the AMCA that by itself would be a huge leap of faith.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2013 11:54

it is on the cards, but not on the board. we need to sort out LCA first... and add on the tech capability by way of LCA being the test bed platform for AMCA, like how various agni versions happen with a version going production as the next version by program name, but actually in the works.

engine and mk-2 is vital. stealth skins and supercruise are major challenges as others we are more likely to meet earlier than later. if we sort out the engine challenge, then we will be in different league.. the feeling would be better than landing on moon or mars.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 21 Dec 2013 12:45

SaiK wrote:huh! I wish GTRE does it!~.. the fact is NO.

See, when they call for RFI/EOI with:

Design of Fan, CAD/CAE Simulations & Analysis, Prototype Development, Performance & Functional Testing and Proving of the Fan. This includes certification level tests as per MIL 5007-E .
what that does tell about GTRE as an organization intentions?

This is the reason I am pissed with GTRE. They should doit by themselves. let them reorg, get people from ISRO or get kalam saab to head some agile practice group to get this going. do something, but don't ask for international orgs to help. it will not happen.

It tells me that you have no idea of what you are talking about here. GTRE is a research organization not a manufacturing plant they are already doing whatever you are accusing them of not doing. Unlike public perception it is one of the most hard working organizations in DRDO.

Obviously when you are going to ask the industry to participate then you will want them geared for the technological challenge. If GTRE is not going to ask then how come the industry is going to learn ??? And no they don't want to create another jet engine manufacturing PSU having zero design capability hence the RFI/EOI states such.

Please educate me how come people from ISRO are going to help GTRE create a modern jet engine having no experience of making one themselves ????

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Dec 2013 15:56

I really don't know how much design/feasibility studies had been done for AMCA but expecting that it will be ready in 10 years is disaster recipe. Any decent plane take two decades before it goes into series production. They could make first PV flight in 10 years.

I thought ADA/NAL/DRDO learned their lessons but ...

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Dec 2013 16:42

Maybe the japenese might be a good candidate for AMCA / 2nd generation engine collaboration

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Dec 2013 16:56

Thanks Indranilroy for beautiful explanation.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2013 20:44

I am rather surprised about the comments regarding an engine, but other than that I would not be surprised - at all - if they have one flying around in 5-7 years. I feel that the 10 year time frame is rather conservative. I would like to see how much they get for initial funding - in 2010 they had requested $2 billion.

Also, 20 ton? Would have liked it to be a bigger plane.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2013 21:38

Sagar G.. which part of my post you think I had no idea in what I am talking about? I went back to my post.. I am crystal clear in what I am saying. perhaps we need open up a little bit and bridge the gap. can you please pin point?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 21 Dec 2013 22:38

SaiK wrote:Sagar G.. which part of my post you think I had no idea in what I am talking about? I went back to my post.. I am crystal clear in what I am saying. perhaps we need open up a little bit and bridge the gap. can you please pin point?

The portion where you are saying that,

SaiK wrote:what that does tell about GTRE as an organization intentions?

This is the reason I am pissed with GTRE. They should doit by themselves. let them reorg, get people from ISRO or get kalam saab to head some agile practice group to get this going. do something, but don't ask for international orgs to help. it will not happen.

Your anger here is completely misplaced since AFAIK this is the standard way of putting out an RFI/EOI. The help of international organizations are being sought because we are technologically weak in that field, what is your gripe with that ??? You are automatically assuming since they are asking about it hence they aren't doing it by themselves or don't have the capability to do that.

In my previous post I have mentioned why it is being done so if you disagree still, then pray tell me how would you like an RFI/EOI to be framed. Just give me some points that you will ask for in the same.

What's up with "bring ISRO" thing ??? Explain that as well.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Dec 2013 22:56

NRao wrote:I am rather surprised about the comments regarding an engine, but other than that I would not be surprised - at all - if they have one flying around in 5-7 years. I feel that the 10 year time frame is rather conservative. I would like to see how much they get for initial funding - in 2010 they had requested $2 billion.

Also, 20 ton? Would have liked it to be a bigger plane.

First PV in 5-7 years after official project section and fund allocations, may be yes as we have already seen some designs but will it be relevant in next 2 years after LCA MK2 LSP is in the air and test data from two different but close designs are there that we have to wait. I sincerely wish GoI release fund for it as soon as LCA MK1 FOC is achieved and not wait until Mk2 LSP is in air. Some might find it counter comments, it will take some time after GoI section project, release fund, teams are chosen, infrastructure is in place by then MK2 LSP will be in air and we already win a year of bureaucratic time required before R&D and development.

Regarding Engines:

I also hope ADA/NAL/DRDO take LCA-MK1 engine, yes GE-404 so that once AMCA air frame and other parameters are mature we can change it with our own local engine. We should not spend next 10 years for engine selection or learning the fine points of a new engine. Lets use what we know for some time.

Kaveri will have same or more thrust as of GE-404. During design phase just keep in mind the Kaveri air intakes, digital interface, engine length and width requirements and provide enough space and connections in advance. Rest should be plug and play.

It is easy said then done and lots of wishful thinking... just my PoV.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2013 00:10

we are not technically weak.. we are not really focusing our efforts on jet turbines in a big way. this is not an easy joke to establish nor to call for international players to part their technologies/ NONE will give you tech. period.

We have to toil hard.. remove the weakness, and not by sitting idle and issuing out EoIs. my gripe is at this behavior.

giddy up! reorg, get more players in. btw, I am not angry, but irritated only. we have way too much patience., and tolerance that must be thrown away. perhaps IAF chief has to visit GTRE every month and ask status I suppose to make people work up

then comes - oh yeah where is the money? now I ask where is the charter and scope?

goes back to board - reorg gtre. this is where ISRO comes in. their expertise in managing precision engineering to an extent. good management skills and expertise. some heavy weight honchos to reallign, redefine and get a big boost to the setup.

this is the need of the hour. and not RFI/eOI. wake me up if one international org accept to our needs? that is pure and simple no brainer. neither snecma, ge or pw will part or agree to these from GTRE. unless, GTRE gives up IPR, and rights.. and then what is the big deal about indigenization - might as well be dependent and work as slave consumer to firang supplies?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 22 Dec 2013 01:02

SaiK, yes we are technically weak when it comes to jet engines. Your non acceptance of this fact doesn't make India technically strong in this field. Thinking that you and only you know that nobody is going to give us the engine tech. and hence have to shout it out to each and every one in GTRE/DRDO so as to enlighten those poor souls is laughable. They have been in the business of working under tech denials for more years than the age of many BRFites and they know about this very well otherwise they wouldn't have been pushing for more and more indigenization all these years. It's absolutely disrespectful to preach to them as if they don't know about things which you and me know about even without having to work under such circumstances. How else do you think we have an engine under test without "toiling hard" ??? How do you know that they are sitting idle, do you know their day to day work routine that you are making such sweeping statements ???

Your comments about ISRO, IAF chief visit only shows that you have no solution to provide for the problem we face other than to throw some "popular beliefs" which themselves are based on flimsy grounds so as to balm your own hurt that you feel regarding the situation. But alas whining about it is no solution either.

ISRO providing good programme managers !!!

They should first learn to meet deadlines set by themselves and bridge the technological gap for which again they set the deadlines. An organization which can't even meet it's own deadlines without even having to deal with any tough customer would hardly be able to provide leadership in a field as challenging and complex as aviation engine. I don't mean any kind of disrespect to the scientists/engineers working there but please let's not daydream as well.

GTRE has been working with industry for decades and that must have created some amount of expertise in this field, so Indian companies are free to reply to the RFI/EOI as much as foreign companies. If foreign companies don't help us then no big deal as well, work is ongoing and Anthony said the same thing during the LCA IOC. Ultimately we are going to do it and then all the whining and cribbing will stop just like it has almost happened with LCA.

Here have something to calm your nerves down

GAS TURBINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY (GATET) INITIATIVE

New tailwinds for Kaveri engine

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Dec 2013 08:11

Some insight ............... Feb, 2013

I really don't know how much design/feasibility studies had been done for AMCA but expecting that it will be ready in 10 years is disaster recipe. Any decent plane take two decades before it goes into series production. They could make first PV flight in 10 years.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Dec 2013 10:16

From reports seen from IAF , the MOD is likely to approve AMCA program once Tejas Mk2 gets into production so likely time date for FSED would be around 2018 time frame , it takes around 12-15 years to put an aircraft into production after elaborate flight test program.

Sticking to realistic time schedule we can expect AMCA to come into service by 2030 if all things fall in place.

It takes around 18-20 years for new engine to be developed from scratch , considering the time frame we are looking it an ab-initio program to develop a 5th Gen Engine by DRDO/GTRE can be taken in right earnest and can be factored in to Mk2 model for AMCA.....the Mk1 model will have to rely on either F-414 or M88 or EJ200 to power it up considering AMCA is 20T aircraft .....I would say EJ200 is a better bet or advanced variant of M88

Hopefully the funding for engine get factored in and released much early by next year if we have too see it power some variant of AMCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Dec 2013 10:23

From reports seen from IAF , the MOD is likely to approve AMCA program once Tejas Mk2 gets into production

Which report? Do you have a url? Tia.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Dec 2013 10:37

This is based on writeup I have seen on FORCE magazine by IAF personal and IAF chief interview where he stressed on getting Tejas Mk2 going before venturing on other program. No url though from the site.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Dec 2013 10:49

Developing a contemporary turbofan engine requires something like USD 20 Billion or so

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Dec 2013 10:54

vic wrote:Developing a contemporary turbofan engine requires something like USD 20 Billion or so

By western standards but the price would vary for India or other country and it would be significantly lower.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 23 Dec 2013 10:59

Recently released info on ajai shuklas blog says that the AMCA programme is still pending official approval because of the failure of the kaveri engine to do 150kN afterburner

If this turbofan project doesn't reach breakthrough, indias ambition of flying a 5th gen squadron are going to remain a dream.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2013 11:34

I dont see why, use the same Phase 2 engine from the PAKFA and collaborate with them to replace all/any Khan sourced gear on the LCA with Russian kit. At least it wont be susceptible to the kind of armtwisting we see from EJ/NGO/lobby interests who seem to run Khan policy and harm ties.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Dec 2013 11:38

saab, that is a different class of injun.

sagar g, again.. we are not technically week on this front, but we have issues in planning, management and handling such precision engineering. pl remember, we are jumpstarting... that is a big no-no in turbines. we need to graduate.

you will see truth values in another 10 years if we don't learn now., and some people then would be discussing the same issue. history will repeat if we keep stepping on the wrong foot.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Dec 2013 11:38

Karan M wrote:I dont see why, use the same Phase 2 engine from the PAKFA and collaborate with them to replace all/any Khan sourced gear on the LCA with Russian kit. At least it wont be susceptible to the kind of armtwisting we see from EJ/NGO/lobby interests who seem to run Khan policy and harm ties.

Exactly. USA doesn't have to actually cut anything, but keep on threatening to or do that secretly. That's huge political returns for USA gears, bells and whistles without losing H&D and labelled blackmailer.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2013 11:48

they are running their export business on the back of their political ties. NATO, SoKo, Japan, Middle East all buy khan gear to pledge loyalty to khan for mil/political support and pay hundreds of billions of $ for gear they will barely be able to use or which is overpriced (check KSA buys for instance). khan also has an oversized domestic mil procurement system run on the basis of expeditionary warfare requirements. all of which is taking their money away from all other sectors, but since its the only key heavy-engineering plus technology industry they have left in which they are defacto world leaders (rest all went to PRC/Asia), they lavish care on it.

bottomline, while arms deals from india are icing on the cake, and useful to their business to make up for excess capacity or sequestration style issues which occur from time to time, they are still a drop in the bucket compared to the easy pickings from traditional purchasers.

what this means is while MMS and co have been busy opening up our strategic sectors (services procurement) to khan, there are groups/lobbies in khan who will argue for these purchases to be used as leverage points to influence indian policy, while brainwaves in nai dilli think the opposite will occur.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Dec 2013 12:06

Any country that wants to maintain an independent foreign policy has to stop depending on Khan for military products , if a country foreign policy is alligned with Khan or they are fine with getting arm twisted by them then it is fine to purchase military products from them .....they military products are excellent but the compromise a country has to go through is something each country has to decide and they can extend to not just Foreign policy but also economic ones like banking sectors etc.

If Indias see its long terms foreign policy is close to khan ( and by its extension NATO ) and dont mind getting its balls getting sqeezed hard if push comes to shove then it ... even NATO country have been squeezed by Khan when they didnt agree during second GW which was GWB invasion of Iraq

If we want to maintain an independent foreign policy then its best to develop our own MIC at the earliest and in the roll out period diversify our procurement to French and Russian and keep Khan product at the minimal.

During Syrian crisis we have seen how countries faced immense pressure from US and NATO allies and only China and Russia could resist the pressure and vote independently on it because they have their own MIC and by its extension an independent foreign policy.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Dec 2013 12:24

Karan M wrote:I dont see why, use the same Phase 2 engine from the PAKFA and collaborate with them to replace all/any Khan sourced gear on the LCA with Russian kit. At least it wont be susceptible to the kind of armtwisting we see from EJ/NGO/lobby interests who seem to run Khan policy and harm ties.

Keeping discussion technical , its not easy to replace engine midway .....so changing engine on LCA either with Europe or Russian is not at all feasible due to cost and time over run it would cost probably ending up killing the project.

AMCA being a clean design it has choices available , you can rule out Russian 2nd phase engine as its in 17-18 T class built for heavy fighter and there is no other 5th gen engine under works for medium class.......that leaves Snecma and EJ .. M88 and EJ200 are both suitable engine for AMCA having potential to upgrade and even 3D TVC is an option atleast EJ has done some work on it.

We can work with Snecma for a 10T class engine aiming for T:W ratio of 10:1 same as EJ with 20 % upgrade potential , keeping the dimension similar to M88-2/3 so that we can replace MMRCA engine during major upgrade .... get the IP , TOT and export right and that should be good to keep independence without fear of sanctions just in case though french has been reliable partners there.

To start with AMCA can be powered by same engine as Rafale being procured for MK1 and for Mk2 we can target an Indian engine.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2013 12:36

150 kN ?? that sounds a humungous figure for a jet originally meant to do 81kN.

problem with russian engines is that they have no modern engine in the that thrust category. the al-31's are big and the PAKFA engines even bigger.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2013 12:45

I meant the AMCA for the engine and to replace the remaining less complex stuff on the LCA with other items - but worded the whole thing in a confusing manner, anyways, I wouldnt mind a LCA MK3 with a Russian engine. i think if need be we can scale up the AMCA. this entire business of keeping AMCA in between LCA and HCA is driven by IAF requirements but has a political aspect as well (dont step on FGFA toes etc).

i am not too happy with a french/euro engine as well, as they too tend to act preachy and sanctimonious publicly over issues like indian social clashes etc which are basically indian internal issues but some of these countries think they have to preach to everyone else. this after being the cause of turmoil the world over.

we dont share borders with russia, nor is the russian orthodox church into conversion/missionary activities. ergo, our chances of foreign policy dissatisfactions with russia are the least. at most from time to time, the russian establishment will crack down on hare krishna and other movements and we can sort that out privately if it gets too far.

net, russia is a price gouger, is proven to be unreliable in TOT in some deals (t-90) even as it has been better in others, but thats still ok compared to the asinine political issues we face with several others arms providers.

long term, we have to develop our own internal MIC, and that will hopefully happen once MMS is sent off next year

a nationalist govt like the NDA is 10x preferable to the bunch of folks running the game now

apart from st antony, rest less said the better.

and antony is so afraid of any corruption claims and also habitually indecisive, so tends to eschew any proper steps towards private manufacture, slow down procurement and cannot even ensure that DPSUs invest in proper modernisation. instead, we only have a rising arms import bill of stuff we can and should be making inhouse.

the AMCA procurement needs to be driven as much by hard nosed decisions as technology. unfortunately the LCA was driven by flawed politics and we have paid the price there in sanctions and lost opportunities.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Dec 2013 12:54

Austin wrote:Any country that wants to maintain an independent foreign policy has to stop depending on Khan for military products , if a country foreign policy is aligned with Khan or they are fine with getting arm twisted by them then it is fine to purchase military products from them .....there military products are excellent but the compromise a country has to go through is something each country has to decide and they can extend to not just Foreign policy but also economic ones like banking sectors etc.

If Indians see its long terms foreign policy is close to khan ( and by its extension NATO ) and dont mind getting its balls getting sqeezed hard if push comes to shove then it ... even NATO country have been squeezed by Khan when they didnt agree during second GW which was GWB invasion of Iraq

If we want to maintain an independent foreign policy then its best to develop our own MIC at the earliest and in the roll out period diversify our procurement to French and Russian and keep Khan product at the minimal.

During Syrian crisis we have seen how countries faced immense pressure from US and NATO allies and only China and Russia could resist the pressure and vote independently on it because they have their own MIC and by its extension an independent foreign policy.

Beautiful post, each word is dripping with wisdom. Every time people anybody on this forum has put their views taking the 'bad experience of sanctions' during Shakti Tests have been chided with things have matured and India has grown in stature since then. While the current arrest of Bhartiya Diplomat shows nothing has changed. The ruthlesness-contempt-disrespect for world's biggest democracy is for all to see.

Come the next tests and you'll see even greater-bigger sanctions and sabotages against us by US.

When we get a nationalist PM in 2014 the Govt. might even rethink on its decisions whether to still go for GE-414, Nuclear reactors OR even to extend the numbers of C-17, C-130, P-8s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2013 13:13

the problem is our so called strategic analysts are basically taken in by the development abroad and are unwilling to look at how badly our own policy has been messed up the dynasty/INC. what this means is that they think india will remain the same and hence needs a big brother to take care of it. a great name, whose kith and kin are now in diplo circles, was also stating how India and Khan were natural allies.

a self proclaimed foremost expert on defence procurement now publishing profusely was busy selling the idea that only foreign JVs were the solution & the EF etc proved that, never mind that RAND itself now admits thats joint procurement programs, which get too complex (too many nations etc each as a stakeholder) more often than not end up under performing because of politics.

many retd defence folks spend their time in baiting local MIC & publish/speak profusely, but don't even spend the basic time to research their opinions. the lack of a proper weapons development culture in most services, only slowly changing in IA due to multiple factors - organizational inertia, lack of effective leadership for the same, and vested interests means that they are more used to imports, put together as kits in DPSUs.

DPSUs are being held hostage by labor unions and dont care if R&D projects succeed or not, because after all, any import will be license manufactured. some have become so used to the gravy train, that QA has gone for a toss. take a look at the ammo rejection figures of OFB for instance. its all about meet year end quotas.

bottomline, these are all issues that can be tackled and are known.

there is nothing per se, that our system cannot be changed or be made to perform. it needs a strong hand at the wheel, a nationalist leadership convinced of making india strong and self reliant to its extent possible and one not compromised by the easy money that imports bring.

hitching our flag to somebody else's boat and then pretending that we are strong is plain stupid. but that is what we have been doing for decades, while eschewing economic growth, singing paeans (dirges?) about poverty/non violence etc and basically living in denial, where a nice nexus of politicians-kleptocrats have enjoyed the spoils.

with deliberate and systemic attempts to encourage imports & keep the gravy train chugging, india still has enough honest and dedicated people who still supported and pushed through ambitious programs, and then those from the r&d side, the services side who worked on these and got them to succeed. this when they were set up to fail in several cases.

if there is effective leadership then, the successes that can be achieved will be remarkable.

AMCA or HCA or what we wish, are then just outcomes of a process that is both meant to, and funded to succeed

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Dec 2013 19:49

This is based on writeup I have seen on FORCE magazine by IAF personal and IAF chief interview where he stressed on getting Tejas Mk2 going before venturing on other program. No url though from the site.

True. Thx.

Do you recall when the article was published at least? TIA.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Dec 2013 19:50

SaiK wrote:sagar g, again.. we are not technically week on this front, but we have issues in planning, management and handling such precision engineering. pl remember, we are jumpstarting... that is a big no-no in turbines. we need to graduate.

you will see truth values in another 10 years if we don't learn now., and some people then would be discussing the same issue. history will repeat if we keep stepping on the wrong foot.

Yes we are technically weak whether you accept it or not. If not so then we would have had the engine by now which isn't the case and still we are fixing some issues with it.

2016 is the date given by GTRE when Kaveri will be mated with an LCA so till then there is no point whining about "management issues". Each and every programme has management issue but that doesn't mean that even after having all the technical knowhow the programme will fail because of poor management. This reasoning is lame. A lot is happening in the background regarding indigenous aviation engine which we have no/half an idea of.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Dec 2013 20:36

2016 is the date given by GTRE when Kaveri will be mated with an LCA so till then there is no point whining about "management issues".

SG,

That is the current Kaveri - as is. It will make the LCA fly, but not "power" it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Dec 2013 20:55

having achieved LCA kaveri with whatever level of power and capability and keeping it not ported to LCA TD is a very big project/product/program management failures of India. The data collected from kaveri on board is so vital for learning? technical feedbacks happen only from data collections and metrics. lack of total quality management is vivid, and unpardonable.

remember lca was termed 3 legged cheetah.. and there was tussle, and then we aired our views here, and IAF promptly heard it.. took up stakeholder stand like IN.. and we are in IOC2. lab boys need to worked up!

now, kaveri is all legs chopped cheetah, on iv drips.. all because of poor management.