Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 17 Jan 2019 04:21

Electronic piece parts have ten year obsolescence timeline. Means you cant go to market and buy them.
Hence the need to have quantity buys or what is called life of type buy.
Obsolesent parts mean new parts need to be qualified and boxes built using them have to go thru original qual tests.
Very time consuming and thus costly.

With ADA in never-ending saga of completing development, and IAF not putting foot down, MoD watching parts become obsolete by end of production run.
Hazards of not making a plane in quantity for decades.
And not learning MoD system.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5610
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 17 Jan 2019 07:23

My workplace makes much of our money by solving obsolescence. It is there everywhere, and one need to plan for it. But what will you do when things take uncertainly long periods of time?

Most of the people do not realize the complexity of the systems and the dependency on each components. LCA have 300+ LRUs. Each LRU will have tens or even hundreds of parts that have limited or no drop-in replacement. The plane can't fly with any of those things missing. It is not just flight control, engine control and radar.

Let me give a real example: There is a small 'box' that sits between the ground power socket (where you plug in external power to the aircraft when the engine is not running) and the power system of the aircraft. This device makes sure that you don't plug in a wrong power source and screw up the plane. The plane will not roll out without this gizmo in place.

The EBOM for this device comes to 100+ line items. Out of which upto 10 don't have drop in replacement parts.So, what do you do if any of these parts go south and you can't find stock? You need to do a re-spin of the PCB (and do software if the controller is obsolete) and go through the whole qualification process again. Takes almost an year (if everything works FTR), and XXX amount of money (man effort and expenses).

Now, would you do this unless you have an order? Even if you are a govt lab, no.

The obsolescence is a REAL problem, not theory. The theory part is the connection between the canopy change and delay due to obsolescence.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 17 Jan 2019 07:27

Should be entitled - how not to run a project.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66606
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 07:57

In commercial ee industry there are commodity people who track eol notices and buy up enough parts to stockpile and meet projected future demand

Much cheaper than the redevelop Dileep mentioned

For sure much of the chips used in early 2000s lru wpuld be superceded now. Sometimes even smaller vendors die out

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby shaun » 17 Jan 2019 07:58

With obsolescence being talk of the Town here !! I wonder howz our decades old A/cs flying & fighting fit !!??

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66606
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 08:04

Iaf did not have to use the product design part of their brains until now. Dhruv being based off some mbb help did not need as much design thinking and requirements capture as tejas which is much more features and complex too

Iaf i have to conclude have no idea how to codevelop projects or phase it like rafale does

They are just an embarrassment at this point and still in buyers mentality. They need to recruit fresh people and set up program mgt offices and take training from foreign oem and our own automotive type industries to make passing grade

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 17 Jan 2019 09:00

Hmmm, this sounds like the nose cone all over again. HAL certified the indigenous composite nose cone them the IAF says it won’t because it doesn’t match up to the TFTA ones on the gora imports so we ended waiting for the ones from Chobham.

I don’t blame the IAF. It is really the GOI/MOD that must decide if a MIC is critical enough to the nation that the IAF must settle for systems from less experienced manufacturers. We cannot expect those manufacturers to matured unless the nation gives them a chance with initial products that will, in all likelyhood, be inferior to those from the goras.

The white man had industrialized the making of killing machines for a century and a half now. The desi cannot match this experience in the first round. But if he could survive the first few rounds he will gain enough experience to do better in the latter ones. Initial survival depends on the home market giving him a chance.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5610
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 17 Jan 2019 09:32

The old ACs are flying (well most of them anyway) because a) Their OEM are smart enough to support or b) We cannibalize other aircraft and c)Those are orders of magnitude simpler than Tejas, so a lot of repair is possible at BRDs. I mentioned elsewhere how they repair an autopilot unit at the BRD.

IAF does a lot of indigenization drive, but we stopped going there, because the attitude is "Here is the part. Here is the maintenance manual. We will buy from L1 if you supply a qualified product." This might work for machined metal parts, but not for Electronic LRUs.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5610
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 17 Jan 2019 09:36

Another things is mutual commitment. Companies like A/B will sign agreement where a)you commit price and volume for supplies till, like 2035 and b)they project volumes for the same period. With such agreements, we can do a lot of planning and de-risking. Companies will even mothball supplies for you in de-humidified environments long term.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66606
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 10:17

the talk of buying old M2K is to cannibalize. but still uae, taiwan, egypt , france have significant numbers in service so support is not a problem.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby srin » 17 Jan 2019 10:32

I'm a bit puzzled. Obsolescent components, stronger windshield, etc can easily be handled in Mk1A. Can we just get the FOC for Mk1 done ?
If they are so critical, why are they brought up now ?
If they aren't so critical, why the rush to fix them for the 40 Mk1 when you can fix them for the larger number of Mk1A ?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 17 Jan 2019 10:33

This project moves so ridiculously slow.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66606
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 10:51

the squadron seems to be managing ok with experienced pilots transitioning via simulators and single seaters?
all we need now is HAL wailing and howling they werent asked or paid to make trainers.

imo cancel clearly any prospect of getting more than 36 rafales (congis say its tainted anyway so use that hook) and only then tejas will get funded.

same for LCH - no more apaches beyond the 22 + 6 - not 1 more. either eat that and take LCH or eat nothing.

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby hemant_sai » 17 Jan 2019 11:46

I am just a curious guy following Tejas for more than a year now. What I have understood is, MoD, IAF/IA, PSUs(ADA/DRDO/HAL) have formed Chakravyuvha. We really need a strong pair of Krishna and Arjuna to break this and others might end up like Abhimanyu (Good Intent but Half Knowledge /Inability to read between the lines / Lack of cleverness to defeat cunning ppl around).
By Krishna i mean - adviser to Raksha Mantri and Arjuna is Raksha Mantri.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby tsarkar » 17 Jan 2019 12:22

chola wrote:Hmmm, this sounds like the nose cone all over again. HAL certified the indigenous composite nose cone them the IAF says it won’t because it doesn’t match up to the TFTA ones on the gora imports so we ended waiting for the ones from Chobham.

You've got your facts completely wrong here. HAL doesnt do any certification - CEMILAC does. And the old nose cone had significant attenuation accepted by ADA, IAF & MOD joint project steering committee. HAL as manufacturer had nothing to do with nose cone development. It was jointly decided by ADA & IAF to go for a Chobham nose cone. So no TFTA vs indigenous issue here. The old nose cone simply didnt work because of signal attenuation. This is well documented in 2015 CAG report.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5610
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 17 Jan 2019 14:05

I know for a fact that the MK1 builds have multiple obsolescence issues. I don't have enough data to tell whether those are solved/solvable.

So, it is likely that further builds of ANY VERSION may get delayed.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9917
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby sum » 17 Jan 2019 14:12

The old nose cone simply didnt work because of signal attenuation. This is well documented in 2015 CAG report.

Was there any improvement made on this or this slot was ceded away to Chobham for all future?
I would assume among all the complex stuff being attempted, this would have been a lower hanging fruit within our capabilities.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66606
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 14:33

how often do these LRUs and power / hydraulic comps fail and need servicing? i mean does a squadron need to stockpile a lot of spares or few?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2019 16:22

Dileep wrote:I know for a fact that the MK1 builds have multiple obsolescence issues. I don't have enough data to tell whether those are solved/solvable.

So, it is likely that further builds of ANY VERSION may get delayed.


I can state that some of the more critical ones were solved and some of the others (esp. those involving flight/mission critical systems with extensive debugging) had been put away for Mk2 and now pulled in for Mk1A. They are WIP.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2019 16:28

Singha wrote:how often do these LRUs and power / hydraulic comps fail and need servicing? i mean does a squadron need to stockpile a lot of spares or few?


Squadron exploitation will turn up the actual figures. All these items are developed to a certain number of cycles with standard figures catalogued, MTBF, MTBR etc. However real world usage is completely different from lab cycles and limited exploitation at HAL/ASTE.

This is where for instance, obsolescence management is an issue. IAF wants to move to a lean model wherein many spares can be ordered JIT type or are stocked at 2nd line (at HAL). If your subcomponents are either out of production and new-builds are not guaranteed (e.g. earlier gen Pentium processors), then your reliability, spares stocking projections take a hit, as do the guarantee that any of the items developed will work as promised (you don't know whether the SBC you ordered is as reliable as a new build with new components). A lot of 386/486 based components were turned over to newer Pentiums, then PowerPC.. but obsolescence management is a running target in any platform.

The mighty F-22 also flew with entire banks of "obsolete" electronics for a while till a replacement was funded.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5610
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 17 Jan 2019 18:39

Karan, thanks for the update. But "flying with obsolete electronics" is perfectly alright. Only ITVty folk will consider a 3 year old computer "obsolete".

Obsolescence in this context means you can't produce and repair the LRU because the component is no longer available to purchase (for whatever reason). This issue doesn't affect the working of the product that is already made (except parts for repair)

There are multiple ways we address this:

1. Tools like IHS will consolidate the market information and give heads up and warnings.
2. Actions to ensure availability like last time buy will be used.
3. Alternate parts may be chosen. This will often need full or partial re-qualification of the LRU.
4. Last resort is a re-design.

Having to get a more capable equipment is not really "obsolescence" in this context. The forced 'obsolescence' of PC/Phone/Consumer Electronics fall in this category. It rarely happens in avionics. The old i960 would have worked just fine to do flight control of Tejas. The primary reason why it was change was un availability of the part.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66606
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2019 18:51

how does the civilian industry deal with this matter? for eg the IA A320 are from mid 80s vintage and completed now nearly 33 years in service!
if we look back at that era, i486 PC XT was the superpawa and onlee 4th year seniors were allowed to even touch it, lest anyone might scratch it. 40MB hard disk and 1.44mb floppy. ..... since these A320 types never really go for HW MLU, i would imagine they are still working with all old hw (with defective ones replaced by identical spares?)

the huge volumes of boeing and airbus and their big sticks to both fund and beat parts chain might make it possible? their inventory and spares tracking system to track worldwide usage must be a gold std kit.

the FAA in murica was also said to be until lately using 60s era comps with special runs of "ferrite core" RAMs needed...todays java app-layer bacchas would not have read those in comp arch textbooks.
https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/ :twisted:

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Lalmohan » 17 Jan 2019 18:55

military and civilian obsolescence I think are slightly different. in military terms - equipment performance may no longer be appropriate for a combat role, e.g. radar doesn't pick up low vis targets --> new radar required
or analogue system cannot be reprogrammed with new targeting characteristics --> replace with digital

but things like power supply produces 50W output +/- 0.5W might be superseded by one that does +/- 0.25W but there is no real reason to change it
civilian aircraft upgrades are more to do with regulation or safety rather than competition

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2510
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 17 Jan 2019 20:19

speaking of obsolescence, minuteman missiles used to operate on 8 inch floppy drives as recently as 2016. My viewpoint on this, let's get the planes fast, and then upgrade later. Again complete layman's pov, that even an old gun is better than no gun

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Jan 2019 21:23

And as long as no one knows that the warhead inside the Minuteman is 400% pure cowdung, there is no problem at all. I wonder: isn't there something like an LCA Project Office whose job is to kick ass as needed and make sure upgrades, parts inventory etc stay ahead of needs? (Sorry i asked, apologies in advance). Hopefully run by an Air Marshal like the Wing Commander who did our Flight Test flights as yaks in IITKanpur many saal pehle.

OK, set up in glide. Start the stopwatch!!

What stopwatch, yaar?

JUMP OUT, YOU FOOL!
:shock:

Later on ground:
What happened?

Hhhhhe aaaasked mmmmmmmme tttto jjjump ooooout!


Then again, this guy, MS Eye Eye Tea, IS probably running Ech Ay Ell chai shop & design bureau as Head Babu. :roll:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 18 Jan 2019 02:29

Dileep has covered the obsolescence aspect for replacement avionics.
The problem comes when you get to replace them.
And can build to old parts as they are unavailable.
Degraded performance is aging not obsolescence. Different matter.
The way LCA program is running, the long development schedule ensures parts obsolescence and IAF insisting on changes is not helpful.

BTW folks please post the source of those videos.
A lot of hit jobs are being funded by arms dealers and willing journalist/experts are there to oblige.
For me any unauthorized source is bogus.
If not authorized why is the person speaking.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5610
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 18 Jan 2019 10:11

Commercial avionics work with proper planning and timely action.

When you sell an LRU to A/B, there are some very interesting points:

1. Your bid is a binding contract.
2. You give firm pricing and delivery commitment TODAY for deliveries in 2025 to 2035.
3. You give firm assurance that you will give service/support worldwide till 2055.
4. You are told that the OEM will always qualify at least two independent designs and split the production qty.

So, what do the supplier do? We in turn work with the suppliers to ensure that we select the chipsets in the long term support channel. Then we have backup plan to do last time buy. Then we have back-backup plan to do re-design and re-qualification in 2030 :twisted:

No wonder the LRU will cost tens of thousands of dallahs when we sell them. The risk cost forms significant portion of the cost.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 18 Jan 2019 10:29

Dileep wrote:Karan, thanks for the update. But "flying with obsolete electronics" is perfectly alright. Only ITVty folk will consider a 3 year old computer "obsolete".

Obsolescence in this context means you can't produce and repair the LRU because the component is no longer available to purchase (for whatever reason). This issue doesn't affect the working of the product that is already made (except parts for repair)

There are multiple ways we address this:

1. Tools like IHS will consolidate the market information and give heads up and warnings.
2. Actions to ensure availability like last time buy will be used.
3. Alternate parts may be chosen. This will often need full or partial re-qualification of the LRU.
4. Last resort is a re-design.

Having to get a more capable equipment is not really "obsolescence" in this context. The forced 'obsolescence' of PC/Phone/Consumer Electronics fall in this category. It rarely happens in avionics. The old i960 would have worked just fine to do flight control of Tejas. The primary reason why it was change was un availability of the part.


Dileep,

Agree. This is what I posted below to Singha.

"This is where for instance, obsolescence management is an issue. IAF wants to move to a lean model wherein many spares can be ordered JIT type or are stocked at 2nd line (at HAL). If your subcomponents are either out of production and new-builds are not guaranteed (e.g. earlier gen Pentium processors), then your reliability, spares stocking projections take a hit, as do the guarantee that any of the items developed will work as promised (you don't know whether the SBC you ordered is as reliable as a new build with new components). A lot of 386/486 based components were turned over to newer Pentiums, then PowerPC.. but obsolescence management is a running target in any platform."

In short, if we have a hybrid of different gens, with some items dating back to LSPs initial flights, then we either have to stockpile parts which are out of production (and then chew our lips on whether they are mint condition) or bite the bullet, spend the money and redesign.

Also, I would be surprised (pleasantly) if our establishment is speedy enough to do last time buys, that too with CAG et Al hanging over their head.

Corporates end up pushing all sorts of business justifications around to push inventory of assorted systems and then compare against their forecast projections..I mean, there is a process in place and even so, all sorts of boxes are ticked off. Here, we have a dozen odd prototypes, avionics and IIC/FOC in constant flux..I don't envy any PSU supply chain guy.

I understand IHS, iSuppli provide the numbers for component pricing and availability, but for systems which went out of availability even 5-6 years back, ADA etc Al will have to rely on 3rd party vendors to source the components and we would have to subject them to painstaking testing. Price gouging apart, how do we ensure they aren't compromised.

IMHO redesign was essential and I am just happy a plan was put in place for the core items, around the time of the PVs itself with IAF carping.

The new indigenization requirements for the imported LRUs hopefully all take into account planned obsolescence and are hopefully forward looking. Not jumping architectures and designs requiring substantial revalidation.

In corporate, to ask for even a screw to be changed, late in the program, leads to howls from engineering, red all over PPT, angry finger pointing, mass unrest in vendor communication with an aim to extract revised funding terms, and then terse updates from management about not meeting TTM.

I can't even begin to understand how ADA etc Al have been managing these constant changes and how the entire vendor ecosystem has to respond accordingly. If IAF does this with Dassault, their CEO will plan the company's future for the next 100 years as their finance is secured.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 18 Jan 2019 10:40

As to performance driven obsolescence, IAF has a few concerns about some LCA items, they need to be split between good enough, fix later and have to fix, today before LCA enters service. Tarang is case of the latter, dated design which has reliability issues and is being superceded by newer designs. It's lack of performance will cause a combat risk in the future and that's why it will be replaced. Putting a new PowerPC vs an Intel 486 in some display driver for the MFD is IMHO, a case of the former when the Su-30s, MiGs etc are flying around as is, without issues and even Russian upgrades which we signed for, utilized it. IAF unfortunately, saw no difference between the two initially and wanted everything in one go. Now with Mk1A and Mk2, we have some more rational decision making.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 18 Jan 2019 14:27

ADA folks are confident that they can affect the changes and get them certified by June.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Bala Vignesh » 18 Jan 2019 16:16

Indranil wrote:ADA folks are confident that they can affect the changes and get them certified by June.

The silver lining on this matter, for me.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 18 Jan 2019 16:45

tsarkar wrote:
chola wrote:Hmmm, this sounds like the nose cone all over again. HAL certified the indigenous composite nose cone them the IAF says it won’t because it doesn’t match up to the TFTA ones on the gora imports so we ended waiting for the ones from Chobham.

You've got your facts completely wrong here. HAL doesnt do any certification - CEMILAC does. And the old nose cone had significant attenuation accepted by ADA, IAF & MOD joint project steering committee. HAL as manufacturer had nothing to do with nose cone development. It was jointly decided by ADA & IAF to go for a Chobham nose cone. So no TFTA vs indigenous issue here. The old nose cone simply didnt work because of signal attenuation. This is well documented in 2015 CAG report.



Thanks for the correction, Sir. Especially on who did the actual certification. But it was my understanding from reading at that time that the composite nose cone was fully qualified even for the MMR. And waiting for the firang quartz nose cone from Chobham had delayed the project by at least two years.

https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/saurav-jha/the-radiance-of-tejas-a-bright-prospect-for-make-in-india-10879-748651.html

Now the new quartz nose cone supplied by Cobham replaces an indigenous one and is expected to help the Mk-I's multi-mode radar (MMR) (which has an indigenous antenna and scanner but an Elta EL/M-2032 processing back end) achieve 60 per cent more range than with the latter. The indigenous nose cone has of course already been fully qualified for all modes of the MMR but the current loss through this composite part limits the MMR's detection range to around 50 kms for a fighter sized target and this is expected to increase to more than 80 kms with the new quartz nose cone.


Anyhow, this new canopy requirement feels the same to me. A less than optimal but qualified domestic solution is passed over for a phoren solution at the cost of time and support for the local manufacture.

Practically every component we build will have a better gora equivalent. They’ve industrialized a century earlier than us. I feel that the GOI must make decision for the IAF accepting already qualified components to keep the project flowing. I worry most that Tejas will turn into another Arjun where a good fully functioning product is reworked to death with new requirements.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 18 Jan 2019 18:17

tsarkar wrote:
chola wrote:Hmmm, this sounds like the nose cone all over again. HAL certified the indigenous composite nose cone them the IAF says it won’t because it doesn’t match up to the TFTA ones on the gora imports so we ended waiting for the ones from Chobham.

You've got your facts completely wrong here. HAL doesnt do any certification - CEMILAC does. And the old nose cone had significant attenuation accepted by ADA, IAF & MOD joint project steering committee. HAL as manufacturer had nothing to do with nose cone development. It was jointly decided by ADA & IAF to go for a Chobham nose cone. So no TFTA vs indigenous issue here. The old nose cone simply didnt work because of signal attenuation. This is well documented in 2015 CAG report.


I think we should have a list of items on first page sticky post for each org which they can be or cant be blamed for. :mrgreen:

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 18 Jan 2019 18:51

Dileep wrote:Karan, thanks for the update. But "flying with obsolete electronics" is perfectly alright. Only ITVty folk will consider a 3 year old computer "obsolete".

Obsolescence in this context means you can't produce and repair the LRU because the component is no longer available to purchase (for whatever reason). This issue doesn't affect the working of the product that is already made (except parts for repair)

There are multiple ways we address this:

1. Tools like IHS will consolidate the market information and give heads up and warnings.
2. Actions to ensure availability like last time buy will be used.
3. Alternate parts may be chosen. This will often need full or partial re-qualification of the LRU.
4. Last resort is a re-design.

Having to get a more capable equipment is not really "obsolescence" in this context. The forced 'obsolescence' of PC/Phone/Consumer Electronics fall in this category. It rarely happens in avionics. The old i960 would have worked just fine to do flight control of Tejas. The primary reason why it was change was un availability of the part.


Thanks for explaining that part, was going to ask anyway.

The more I see Tejas program, the more my feeling gets cemented that this is all because of gross lack of pragmatism in Program management in all stake holders. Even with a combined steering committee, everyone still lives in their own silos and have not learned lessons from each other. Organizational egos perhaps.

A fighter is one of the most complicated systems that humanity has ever built. And it needs equally mature program management. Changes are constant but changes need to be planned and executed in a ordered fashion which would deal with issues like Obsolesce both in the context Dileep is talking about and in the usual sense that we understand i.e. performance and capability.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2350
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nam » 18 Jan 2019 19:50

To be fair, Programs like fighter build where timelines are in decade is not easy to program manage. Within this timeline, people change, experience is lost, suppliers vanish, technology become absolute.

Given that we are doing this for the first time and not having luxury of US/European style billions dollar budgets, we need to give ADA some leave way.

Say a processor. In 2001 it was the best that was available. By 2013 when CLAW was certified, it may not have produced anymore. Should ADA brought the processors for production already? How many of them, with failure rates included? What was suppose to be the production numbers? What is the budget? What justification to CAG for buying some many processors? How long should the processor be kept? Did we know in 2001, when LCA will go in to production?

What is the gurantee that a IAF requirement ( Sensor fusion?) would not require a processor change, making the entire lot waste of money? like the canopy....

Till 2015, LCA was "3 legged cheetah", with no future. How can be we expect ADA to program manage obsolescence.
Last edited by nam on 18 Jan 2019 19:56, edited 2 times in total.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2350
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nam » 18 Jan 2019 19:53

The same issue will effect AMCA. With IAF dilly dallying with numbers and wanting to introduce features on a whimp, what can ADA do?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 18 Jan 2019 20:08

Requirments freeze at time of final design review and any changes have to be re-planned in open and transparent manner.
Also IAF would help itself by have a single officer with project authority and not this rotational assignments and unknown spokesman who whisper to favored journalists.
We already can see journalist who put out positive stories and those who put out negative stories.

A recent speech by NSA Doval on how mis-perception on second five year plan led to negative outcomes.
the goal was to build a formidable industrial base in order to create a indigenous defense capability and import in the meantime.
Its mis-perception as unless there is a positive preference for preferring indigenous products and the alternative of imports is there it leads to distortion.


I think that the allowing imports caused the distortion of requirements creep. The best is the enemy of the good.
Now is this wilful or overzealous?
i think the over zealous at the proposal stage but to allow it to further delay induct ion wilful. Here the chief has to decide what do they want.
Fight or flight displays?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby tsarkar » 18 Jan 2019 23:25

chola wrote:https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/saurav-jha/the-radiance-of-tejas-a-bright-prospect-for-make-in-india-10879-748651.html

Now the new quartz nose cone supplied by Cobham replaces an indigenous one and is expected to help the Mk-I's multi-mode radar (MMR) (which has an indigenous antenna and scanner but an Elta EL/M-2032 processing back end) achieve 60 per cent more range than with the latter. The indigenous nose cone has of course already been fully qualified for all modes of the MMR but the current loss through this composite part limits the MMR's detection range to around 50 kms for a fighter sized target and this is expected to increase to more than 80 kms with the new quartz nose cone.

Dear Chola Ji, Saurav is the most accurate journalist out there. Going by his report, there is no mention of certification. The word he used is qualified. There is no mention of HAL doing the qualification either. Qualified means all modes of radar work. Like student getting 35% pass marks. But did the radome allow full range of radar to be exploited? No.

Rather than waste time on peripheral R&D, ADA took the right decision to appoint Cobham. One doesnt need to do everything.

Secondly as per my understanding FOC is not complete because some control laws pertaining to extreme maneuvering is not complete. However, airframe & wiring of FOC is complete and specifications released by CEMILAC to HAL and will not change FOC & Mk1A. Only software and systems will be updated.

So Hardware (Airframe, Systems & Wiring) FOC is completed in December 2018. Software remains.

This is also true for contemporary fighter development. Whether F22, F35, Rafale or Eurofighter, combat coded software lagged behind airframe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II
The USMC declared initial operational capability with about 50 F-35s running interim block 2B software on 31 July 2015


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-412762/
The air force expects its first squadron of 12 to 14 A-model F-35s in the baseline Block 3i configuration to be ready for combat in a limited capacity by August 2016. But each aircraft will need to be modified to achieve “full warfighting capability” with the full suite of armaments and improvements provided in the subsequent Block 3F and Block 4 upgrades.


The Marine Corps is in the final stages of F-35B operational testing aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp as it works to achieve initial operational capability in the Block 2B configuration in July. Those aircraft along with the early air force Block 3i jets will be capable of conducting limited air-interdiction and close-air-support operations with basic guided bombs and air-to-air missiles.


Block 3F adds all of the weapons qualified during the system development and demonstration phase including the Boeing Small Diameter Bomb I, Raytheon AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, AIM-9X Sidewinder and General Dynamics 25mm gun.


Other weapons being considered for Block 4 include Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II and Kongsberg’s Joint Strike Missile, among others. Block 4 might also include integration with the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb being developed by the US Air Force, National Nuclear Security Administration and Boeing.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -4-413070/
Those improved capabilities will be rolled out in Block 4, which will be delivered in cycles through the early 2020s.


So F35 FOC will come in 2020's.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby tsarkar » 18 Jan 2019 23:43

There is corruption at Air Marshal/Bureaucrat/Minister level as well. Commercial corruption goes via post retirement consultancy packages or offsets for non existent work. Other corrupt practice include seats in global education institutions for children and jobs. For example, a US aviation major may give Harvard a huge donation in return for 10 seats for it's nominees. Ofcourse kids going there need to be relatively smart.

Dumb kids would be accommodated in some global warming NGO via Georgetown and later write how Tejas or Arihant causes global warming.

Indian parents are maniacal about their children's education and jobs.

Tejas will take all of it away.

Mods: please delete this post if its too libelous.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2019 03:49

tsarkar wrote:
This is also true for contemporary fighter development. Whether F22, F35, Rafale or Eurofighter, combat coded software lagged behind airframe.



So F35 FOC will come in 2020's.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2315240#p2315240


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests