Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3465
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Tanaji » 02 Nov 2020 01:55

I am not sure your reply still addresses the core point.

What is wrote is absolutely correct in terms of quality but not correct in terms of standardization for mass production.


I am not sure you understand what I stated. If an item conforms to designed tolerances, by definition it is standardized. There are no ifs or buts to it, and should be re-usable across planes.

However, re-reading the report, could it refer to the manufacturing machines itself rather than the output of the process? I say this because of this:

He says the LCA Division developed ICY (interchangeability) tools for
all 147 panels and for 830 pipelines out of 934 pipelines within the
build of first seven SP Tejas aircraft itself.

“This is a huge shift compared to any other projects in HAL, that too at
such short span of time after the release of RSD (Release of Service
Documents). Even now, only concept of replaceable pipes is existing in
other projects. LCA has gone far ahead in the area of ICY compliance
through the dedicated efforts of its tooling department,” claims Sridharan.


The Matrubhumi article is very poorly written: the author does not specify what ICY stands for. A search of the web revealed a lot of manufacturing standards and guidelines, but none that abbreviated to ICY. But then, as I said, I am not an industrial or process engineer, so could be I do not undestand this. I did find a reference on the Strategic world forum to a guy called Gautam who seems to have authored this article.

The whole concept makes no sense to me. Mk 1A will have changes to plumbing and other changes to components. So if your hypothesis was true, the earlier ICY conformance (if one exists) is no longer valid....

Anyways, its one of those "agree to disagree" bit.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4439
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby kit » 02 Nov 2020 03:51

What is Interchangeability or ICY?

It is necessary that certain components are designed to be designed to an
interchangeable standard in order to achieve:
• Quick replacement following loss or damage
• Matching parts from alternative sources of supply
• Matching of mating parts
• An acceptable level of functioning

ICY can be defined in terms of:
• Mechanical requirements
• Aerodynamic requirements
• Electrical requirements
• Cosmetic requirements

ICY manifests itself in 2 forms:
1. Functional ICY – when a component can be physically interchanged without any
adverse effect on either operational or performance requirements e.g. changing
brake pads gives the same braking characteristics/stopping distances
2. Physical ICY – when a component can be fitted to any counterpart without
rework (other designed in adjustment) e.g. the brake pads can be directly
swapped because of careful dimensional design and build quality

( from leonardo )

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby tsarkar » 02 Nov 2020 13:45

Tanaji wrote:If an item conforms to designed tolerances, by definition it is standardized. There are no ifs or buts to it, and should be re-usable across planes.

Can you share any references that for Tejas, all items "conforms to designed tolerances" and "re-usable across planes"?

Be specific in your answer. You are making a generic statement "If an item conforms to designed tolerances, by definition it is standardized"

Please answer specifically if in the case of Tejas IOC & FOC birds, ALL items conforms to designed tolerances and standardized"

And conformity to designed tolerances can be there in parts built to different standards and specifications.

In the pipes and panels in SP-3 and SP-4 not conforming to ICY, they will be conform to design tolerances. Only they will not be standardized and interchangeable.

On Tejas, despite FOC SOP and Release to Service Documents certified by CEMILAC, both tooling and building parts to specifications is in work in progress and initial IOC and FOC birds are following earlier build specifications. This is what the Dynamatic twitter and interview of HAL personnel indicate.

Tanaji wrote:The Matrubhumi article is very poorly written

The quotations are verbatim from Sridharan and HAL officials. So instead of shooting the messenger (Murali Anantha Krishnan), please try to understand what Sridharan and HAL officials are saying.

Tanaji wrote:the author does not specify what ICY stands for.

HAL very clearly does.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/in ... -1.1373414

The SP-3 comes with more value additions with around 340 pipelines and 50 panels now achieving ICY or interchangeability standards. (ICY ensures quick replacement of a component without any design changes affecting operational performance.) “In the next aircraft, around 100 panels and 700-plus pipelines will be in the ICY standards,” says an official


It very clearly states the number of panels and pipes that are not standardized (in SP-3), and the further standardization in SP-4 and SP-7.

Tanaji wrote:The whole concept makes no sense to me.

My friend, if you fail to see the numbers provided by HAL and not Murali Anantha Krishnan or me, then what can we do?

Tanaji wrote:Mk 1A will have changes to plumbing and other changes to components. So if your hypothesis was true, the earlier ICY conformance (if one exists) is no longer valid.

Exactly. Which is why it will have a different designation Mk1A altogether.

MWF/Air Force Mk2 will have its own ICY standards
AMCA will have its own ICY standards.
TEDBF/Navy Mk2 will have its own ICY standards

During mid life refits, there will be an option of upgrading the Mk1 IOC and Mk 1 FOC to Mk1A.

We also planned to upgrade the 18 original Su-30K to Su-30MKI Phase 4 standards but given their wear and tear due to high hours of flying for training & post Kargil operations and Op Parakram, we decided to return them and ordered 18 fresh Su-30MKI replacements from Russia in 2007.

Even the remaining 32 Su-30MKI (SB019 - SB050) were not in the Su-30MKI Phase 4 standards and should have been retrofitted/being retrofitted.

This website gives the correct details of the various standards within Su-30MKI

http://sukhoi.mariwoj.pl/su-30-in.htm
1) Contract 11.1996 for 40 x Su-30MKI; 12.1998 extended to 50 x Su-30MKI
Su-30K:
- 1st batch 03-06.1997: 8 x Su-30MKI-I (=Su-30K) [SB001...SB008]
- 2st batch 1999: 10 x Su-30MKI-II (=Su-30K upgraded with french SAGEM avionics) [SB009...SB018] (tsarkar note: these were an Indonesian order that they couldnt pay due to 1997 Asian financial crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asia ... ial_crisis)
=========================
TOTAL: 18 Su-30MKI-I and MKI-II (=Su-30K).

Su-30MKI:
3rd batch 2002: 10 x Su-30MKI-III (=Su-30MKI) [SB019...SB028]
4th batch 2003: 12 x Su-30MKI-III (=Su-30MKI) [SB029...SB040]
5th batch 2004: 10 x Su-30MKI-III (=Su-30MKI) [SB041...SB050]
6th batch 2005: 16 x Su-30MKI-III (=Su-30MKI) [SB051...SB066]
48 aircrafts + 2 to prepare first Indian licensed Su-30MKI in 2004
Total: 50
2) Contract 12.2000 for 140 x Su-30MKI on licence production; realised in HAL since 2004.
3) Contract 2007 for 40 x Su-30MKI on licence production; realised in HAL.
4) Contract 12.2011 for 42 x Su-30MKI on licence production integrated with Brahmos missile, Irbis radar; realised in HAL.
=========================
TOTAL: 272 Su-30MKI, incl. 50 from Russia and 222 licensed production in HAL, excluding 18 Su-30K.


He got the marks wrong but the tail numbers and timeline is accurate. Correcting the marks -

1st batch 03-06.1997: 8 x Su-30K-I [SB001...SB008] (K not MKI)
2st batch 1999: 10 x Su-30K-II [SB009...SB018] (K not MKI, Indonesian order)
3rd batch 2002: 10 x Su-30MKI-I [SB019...SB028](I not III)
4th batch 2003: 12 x Su-30MKI-II [SB029...SB040] (II not III)
5th batch 2004: 10 x Su-30MKI-III [SB041...SB050] (Correctly mentions III)
6th batch 2005: 16 x Su-30MKI-IV [SB051...SB066] (IV not III) (These are replacements of the original 18K)

Rest following these are IV aircraft. There were news reports in late 90's & early 2000's that are no longer available now. But Kapil's report from 2002 is there on BR.

I'm not sure if the last 42 strengthed airframes for BrahMos are IV or have a new standard

I'm also not sure which standard the next 12 will be.

Is this so difficult to understand?

And no, its not a negative comment on Tejas since even the Su-30MKI and every other aircraft development program goes through this.

So requesting posters to be realistic and start seeing the different shades of grey (Phase I - IV) or IOC, FOC, Mk1A, or ICY of SP3, 4 & 7 that HAL officials have stated instead of writing things perfect in theory but not reflected in reality.
Last edited by tsarkar on 02 Nov 2020 14:24, edited 3 times in total.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2612
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby manjgu » 02 Nov 2020 14:02

tsarkar wrote:
Tanaji wrote:And conformity to designed tolerances can be there in parts built to different standards and specifications.



TRUE !!

OT ... I was reading somewhere that engines of japanese cars built in USA were not as smooth as original japanese engines. as long the parts machined in USA were within the specified tolerances say 0.1 mm , the USA manufacturing was ok...we are within the tolerances so go ahead. however, the philosophy in japan was to be within tolerance and also try to do things to reduce the margin ..lets try to get .01 mm

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 02 Nov 2020 14:13

manjgu wrote:
tsarkar wrote:


TRUE !!

OT ... I was reading somewhere that engines of japanese cars built in USA were not as smooth as original japanese engines. as long the parts machined in USA were within the specified tolerances say 0.1 mm , the USA manufacturing was ok...we are within the tolerances so go ahead. however, the philosophy in japan was to be within tolerance and also try to do things to reduce the margin ..lets try to get .01 mm


Japan went industrial robotic in the 1980s. The tolerance standards for Japanese electronics and cars were simply unmatched at the time. Because precision at certain levels is not humanly possible. Things that required extreme precision like the smoothing tech for submarine propellers to deaden cavitation came from Japan. Toshiba was punished by the US for selling a machine to the USSR that did just that.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby tsarkar » 02 Nov 2020 14:16

And before you make any further theoretical statements, Tanaji, please answer specifically the two questions I asked.

Tanaji wrote:The current SP series of planes of which there will be 40 should be alike.

Are all 40 Tejas SP really alike given that Sridharan and HAL officials have given the exact number of pipes and panels differing in SP-3, SP-4 and plans for SP-7?

Tanaji wrote:If an item conforms to designed tolerances, by definition it is standardized. There are no ifs or buts to it, and should be re-usable across planes.

Before you make any more theoretical points, please share references that for Tejas, all items "by definition it is standardized" and "re-usable across planes"?

Or for Su-30MKI-I, II, III & IV, all items "by definition it is standardized" and "re-usable across planes"

Aircraft design and manufacture is a complex process. Blaming IAF on BR Forums isnt going to reduce the development or manufacturing complexity.

And the exact stats are provided by HAL

Whether Su-30MKI or Tejas, mass production cannot start until standardization is achieved. Period.
Last edited by tsarkar on 02 Nov 2020 17:11, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 02 Nov 2020 14:22

---POST DELETED----
Last edited by Rakesh on 02 Nov 2020 22:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Post Deleted. Off-Topic Discussion.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby tsarkar » 02 Nov 2020 14:31

Self Deleted Off Topic Posts. My apologies to all members for the digression.
Last edited by tsarkar on 02 Nov 2020 17:12, edited 1 time in total.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2612
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby manjgu » 02 Nov 2020 16:36

--- POST DELETED ----
Last edited by Rakesh on 02 Nov 2020 22:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Post Deleted. Off-Topic Discussion.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby karan_mc » 02 Nov 2020 17:38

tsarkar wrote:....

According to my Database

SB001 TO SB018 Su-30MK PRE MKI Irkut 18 RETURNED
SB019 TO SB028 Su-30MKI Phase-I Irkut 10 IN SERVICE
SB029 TO SB040 Su-30MKI Phase-II Irkut 12 IN SERVICE
SB041 TO SB050 Su-30MKI Phase-III Irkut 10 IN SERVICE
SB051 TO SB068 Su-30MKI Phase-III HAL 18 IN SERVICE
SB101 TO SB193 Su-30MKI Phase-III HAL 93 IN SERVICE
SB200 TO SB250 Su-30MKI Phase-IV HAL 50 IN SERVICE
SB301 TO SB332 Su-30MKI Phase-IV HAL 32 IN SERVICE
SB401 TO SB436 Su-30MKI Phase-IV HAL 36 IN SERVICE
261

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 02 Nov 2020 19:24

All this ICY stuff is a distraction IMHO. While undoubtedly good to have from the IAFs perspective, doubt any of our MiGs ever had it. In fact world over most aircraft didn't. Only the latest 4Gen aircraft standardized on it as mfg tooling was improved. In short the LCA will be used even without the perfect ICY as its predecessors were.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-a ... 1701606283

They have 58 F-15 A/B/C/D s purchased over multiple batches.

In the end, the Baz 2000 initiative gobbled up an incredible 8,000 man hours per jet and ran from 1995 to 2005. Israeli technicians found that many jets was built slightly differently, so they could not just replace one black box with another, each jet had to be worked on in a one by one basis. The whole process was said to be a grueling one.


The F-15s are also Israel's preeminent strikers despite the F-35. Reach and payload. All this ICY stuff is good to have but not a deal breaker by itself.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2612
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby manjgu » 02 Nov 2020 19:33

I dont think tsarkar meant ICY stuff is a deal breaker.. i think he was explaining modern manufacturing processes wrt planes.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nam » 02 Nov 2020 20:17

LCA front fuselage with all the composite glory. I am pretty sure, the airframe life will be one of the best in the world, with this level of composites.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/El0tX2nW0AEca0C?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Open in another window for the full image.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 837
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Raveen » 02 Nov 2020 21:59

manjgu wrote:
tsarkar wrote:


TRUE !!

OT ... I was reading somewhere that engines of japanese cars built in USA were not as smooth as original japanese engines. as long the parts machined in USA were within the specified tolerances say 0.1 mm , the USA manufacturing was ok...we are within the tolerances so go ahead. however, the philosophy in japan was to be within tolerance and also try to do things to reduce the margin ..lets try to get .01 mm


Sounds like the Japanese didn't define their tolerances appropriately and counted on assembly line worker to go above and beyond instead of specifying the correct tolerances within engineering

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5872
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Dileep » 02 Nov 2020 22:07

chola wrote:
manjgu wrote:
TRUE !!

OT ... I was reading somewhere that engines of japanese cars built in USA were not as smooth as original japanese engines. as long the parts machined in USA were within the specified tolerances say 0.1 mm , the USA manufacturing was ok...we are within the tolerances so go ahead. however, the philosophy in japan was to be within tolerance and also try to do things to reduce the margin ..lets try to get .01 mm


Japan went industrial robotic in the 1980s. The tolerance standards for Japanese electronics and cars were simply unmatched at the time. Because precision at certain levels is not humanly possible. Things that required extreme precision like the smoothing tech for submarine propellers to deaden cavitation came from Japan. Toshiba was punished by the US for selling a machine to the USSR that did just that.


Actually, the real story is different. It is not car engine, but TV set tuning. It appears in Akio Morita (Sony's founder and chairman) autobiography "Made in Japan". TVs (the old analog ones that we oldies studied one whole paper for BTech) need a lot of tuning. When they took statistics, they found that the Japanese made sets showed a nice bell curve distribution, while the US made sets showed a flat inverted bathtub distribution. The reason is, Japanese technicians tuned to reach the set point, while americans didn't bother to tune if it met spec (and those were out, tuned to be within spec without care to be precisely in the middle)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 02 Nov 2020 22:38

manjgu wrote:I dont think tsarkar meant ICY stuff is a deal breaker.. i think he was explaining modern manufacturing processes wrt planes.


There was a lot of talk about the non ICY being used for training etc on previous pages. ICY or not these aircraft are going to be used on the frontline. We have a severe airframe shortage and no AF can afford to nitpick. HAL will just have to up its game on the support side.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 02 Nov 2020 22:41

chola wrote:^^^ Tsarkar ji, Aishwarya Rai and Sushmita Sen were both one-of-a-kind. And you are dating yourself, Saar!

manjgu wrote:BTW sushmita sen was quite attractive as a child ...stayed just 2 blocks from my house :lol: ... went around in a pram ...

Non-sensical posts that add no value to the discussion. Both of you are off for a month.

Both of you have been banned recently. Obviously, the message is not reaching either of you.

This is your *LAST* warning. Next time, it will be permanent ban.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 02 Nov 2020 22:46

Karan M wrote:All this ICY stuff is a distraction IMHO. While undoubtedly good to have from the IAFs perspective, doubt any of our MiGs ever had it. In fact world over most aircraft didn't. Only the latest 4Gen aircraft standardized on it as mfg tooling was improved. In short the LCA will be used even without the perfect ICY as its predecessors were.

Great find Karan. Thank you for setting the record straight on the ICY issue.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8305
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 02 Nov 2020 22:55

tsarkar wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Mk 1A will have changes to plumbing and other changes to components. So if your hypothesis was true, the earlier ICY conformance (if one exists) is no longer valid.

Exactly. Which is why it will have a different designation Mk1A altogether.

MWF/Air Force Mk2 will have its own ICY standards
AMCA will have its own ICY standards.
TEDBF/Navy Mk2 will have its own ICY standards

This discussion started because you said the reason IAF wasn't ordering the Tejas in larger numbers was because the production standardization wasn't complete yet. Since the Mk1A will have a lot of differences with the Mk1, HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 will have little to no bearing on the Mk1A. The process will have to begin again. All further orders of the Tejas are going to be Mk1A. So how does HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 SP's matter at all in terms of when and how many orders are placed for the Mk1A?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8305
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 02 Nov 2020 23:08

tsarkar wrote:Before you make any more theoretical points, please share references that for Tejas, all items "by definition it is standardized" and "re-usable across planes"?

Or for Su-30MKI-I, II, III & IV, all items "by definition it is standardized" and "re-usable across planes"

Aircraft design and manufacture is a complex process. Blaming IAF on BR Forums isnt going to reduce the development or manufacturing complexity.

And the exact stats are provided by HAL

Whether Su-30MKI or Tejas, mass production cannot start until standardization is achieved. Period.

The history of the Su-30 MKI actually goes against your point that large orders are placed only after ICY conformance is achieved to the necessary levels. The initial order for the Su-30 itself was 50 (10 more than the Tejas Mk1), when the MKI did not even exist. Neither were many of its components and avionics ready. The aircraft differed significantly in batches of 10 initially. Forget about interchangeability of components, some components you might find on one aircraft would not even exist on one from the previous batch. And this was before HAL started building them. Even that was divided in phases. Some avionics like the Bars radar were not even fully ready and would not be for some time. Despite that the initial MoU itself was for 140 to be built by HAL. This was in 2000, years before HAL ever built the first MKI. That is not a "limited" order by any means. Especially in the IAF for what is a heavy, high performance fighter the likes of which we had never operated or been able to afford earlier. ICY did not seem to matter in the least back then.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby k prasad » 03 Nov 2020 01:42

Re SP and ICY, I think it's pertinent to note that Design , component, and capability standardization and manufacturing standardization are different things. One can achieve design and capability standardisation. ICY goes beyond that, into production optimization.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3465
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Tanaji » 03 Nov 2020 02:32

nachiket wrote:
tsarkar wrote:

Exactly. Which is why it will have a different designation Mk1A altogether.

MWF/Air Force Mk2 will have its own ICY standards
AMCA will have its own ICY standards.
TEDBF/Navy Mk2 will have its own ICY standards

This discussion started because you said the reason IAF wasn't ordering the Tejas in larger numbers was because the production standardization wasn't complete yet. Since the Mk1A will have a lot of differences with the Mk1, HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 will have little to no bearing on the Mk1A. The process will have to begin again. All further orders of the Tejas are going to be Mk1A. So how does HAL meeting ICY standards for the Mk1 SP's matter at all in terms of when and how many orders are placed for the Mk1A?


Nachiketji, please check the post history, it was not me who made the assertion of IAF not ordering because of ICY, it was tsarkar.

tsarkar wrote:And before you make any further theoretical statements, Tanaji, please answer specifically the two questions I asked.


Are all 40 Tejas SP really alike given that Sridharan and HAL officials have given the exact number of pipes and panels differing in SP-3, SP-4 and plans for SP-7?

Tanaji wrote:If an item conforms to designed tolerances, by definition it is standardized. There are no ifs or buts to it, and should be re-usable across planes.

Before you make any more theoretical points, please share references that for Tejas, all items "by definition it is standardized" and "re-usable across planes"?

Or for Su-30MKI-I, II, III & IV, all items "by definition it is standardized" and "re-usable across planes"

Aircraft design and manufacture is a complex process. Blaming IAF on BR Forums isnt going to reduce the development or manufacturing complexity.

And the exact stats are provided by HAL

Whether Su-30MKI or Tejas, mass production cannot start until standardization is achieved. Period.



Either you fundamentally do not grasp how large scale engineering works or are deliberately ignoring it just to gain internet points. Given your earlier comment about quality I fear it is the earlier.

This whole discussion has started because you claimed that IAF was not ordering planes because currrently all planes are built differently and hence it is a maintenance nightmare. The implication behind this was that HAL was unable to produce planes that met a common standard which resulted in these issues. Please understand that in any engineering organisation the variance that you have listed above for Su30 or for Tejas which resulted in different planes would be classified as design changes and NOT an inability of the manufacturer to produce consistent interchangeable items that you would imply.

Most good engineering houses that produce items have a commitment to continuous improvement programmes. This improvement happens either due to feedback from manufacturing leads or by inputs from the end customer, more likely a combination of both. These improvements are fed back to the designer. This would be ADA if the change was significant, which does not seem to be the case here, pr in all probablity the HAL design leads that would sign off on the change. In any case, this would be a DESIGN change accompanied by a change in schematics and tolerances as the case may be.
My point still holds: as long as HAL is able to manufacture articles to a given tolerance, these articles WILL be interchangeable for a GIVEN DESIGN. If the design changes, everything changes.

Given that these changes are improvements, at least some of which originated from the end user, passing them off as the reason for not ordering more LCA seems to be a bit disingenious. Additionally you have also failed to point me towards a proper manufacturing standard of "ICY"

BTW, given that you have admitted that each Tejas variant will have its own ICY and have asked

Firstly, can you give me an example of any aircraft ordered in large numbers before production was standardized?


I would point to Mig 29K. Do let us know how many of these were produced serially by MIG-MAP before Indian Navy ordered 12 + 4 of them in 2004. As I stated in an earlier post, this "ICY" bit doesnt seem to apply to foreign fighters. Note that you cannot point to Mig 29 production for the ICY certification.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8305
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 03 Nov 2020 02:36

Tanaji, where did I say you made that assertion? I quoted tsarkar.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3426
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vips » 03 Nov 2020 05:40

Dynamatic Technologies Limited completes the First Front Fuselage Final Operation Clearance Configuration for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

Dynamatic has built the first front fuselage for the Final Operation Clearance (FOC) version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). This is the first time a complex fuselage section for a supersonic fighter aircraft has been built by a private sector company.

Dynamatic has been a preferred production partner for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for over three decades on all their major platforms.

The completion of the First Front Fuselage was witnessed by Mr. R. Madhavan, Chairman & Managing Director and other Senior Executives from HAL. The event was virtually addressed by Dr. Ajay Kumar, Defence Secretary, Government of India.

Dr. Ajay Kumar, Defence Secretary, said "I am really happy and honored to join this historic occasion, when the first front fuselage of LCA has been handed over to HAL. I would like to heartily congratulate Dynamatic and HAL LCA team who have made this joint partnership greatly successful. I think this is the model for PSU Private Industry partnership in Defence Aerospace sector and we hope that this example will hold good stead for several other partnerships by HAL and other PSUs as well.

The future generations of LCA will continuously grow. And we continue to see this as an evolutionary journey which will take India to newer heights in the fighter jet aircraft segment."

HAL Chairman & Managing Director, Mr. R Madhavan said, "Dynamatic has done it again by delivering the first front fuselage of LCA Tejas. The LCA program has a requirement of 20 Aircraft sets per year and will grow with MK2 and AMCA. Dynamatic is a known and reliable supplier for HAL, and we will also look for opportunities on trainer and UAV platforms."

Dynamatic Technologies Limited CEO & Managing Director, Dr. Udayant Malhoutra said, "Dynamatic has been privileged to be a production partner with HAL and the Ministry of Defence for three decades. The Industrialization of LCA has gone through many upgrades during the building process. This is the FOC version with a mid-air refueling probe, and is a tremendous success story both of indigenous defence production, and for public-private-partnership with HAL."

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 03 Nov 2020 23:13

A great day for India's aviation industry.

A private company in India, just built a fuselage section of a modern 4th generation fighter *WITHOUT* phoren help. Second tweet below is from Ajay Kumar, IAS, Union Defence Secretary of India. Having IAS backing is key for this project to move ahead. His tweet is most appreciated.

What is the need for screwdrivergiri of 4th generation phoren aircraft again? Was it to get the ball rolling in other sectors of the economy? :lol:

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/132 ... 08801?s=20 ---> JUST IN: India's Dynamatic Tech completes the first front fuselage for the FOC version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) -- the first time a complex fuselage section for a supersonic fighter has been built by an Indian private sector company.

https://twitter.com/drajaykumar_ias/sta ... 90272?s=20 ---> Great example of public-private partnership as India moves towards Atma Nirbhar Bharat in Defence. Congratulations HAL and Dynamatic Tech.

https://twitter.com/UTobyM/status/13233 ... 02432?s=20 ---> HAL CMD, R Madhavan said, “Dynamatic has done it again by delivering the first front fuselage of LCA Tejas. Dynamatic is a known and reliable supplier for HAL, and we will also look for opportunities on trainer and UAV platforms.”

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 03 Nov 2020 23:17

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 14337?s=20 ---> IAF wants HAL to raise the production rate of Tejas MK1A to at least 20/yr.

https://twitter.com/vigneshaero02/statu ... 42752?s=20 ---> Not happening, the MMRCA-2 deal specifies a production rate of of 14/year for a much larger order of 114, but they want 20/year for an order of 83.

:lol:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9716
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 03 Nov 2020 23:20

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 14337?s=20 ---> IAF wants HAL to raise the production rate of Tejas MK1A to at least 20/yr.

https://twitter.com/vigneshaero02/statu ... 42752?s=20 ---> Not happening, the MMRCA-2 deal specifies a production rate of of 14/year for a much larger order of 114, but they want 20/year for an order of 83.

:lol:


I don't know who these two users are in terms of their expertise, but it isn't uncommon for militaries to require a production rate (either a static number or an increase) without entering into a sustained multi-year procurement program or any sort of formal commitment to buy a set number of aircraft. If they are willing to carry the cost then who cares.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8305
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 03 Nov 2020 23:26

HAL's production rate of Tejas will depend on how much money is provided to them upfront to scale up the infrastructure and give out large orders to their private component suppliers (who inturn can use that money to scale up their own production facilities). If the government is willing to fork out the cash and quickly, anything can be achieved. HAL should tell that to the IAF straight up. Also, be prepared for all this investment to stop providing returns 4 years down the line when the production ends and no new orders are obtained. There should be no CAG audit done then admonishing everyone involved for wastage of resources.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9716
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 03 Nov 2020 23:33

I understand that. But it is rather amateurish of these twitter users to point to the MRCA deal and specs. If the IAF wants to recapitalize its fighter force at a set production rate for the MRCA and/or LCA then it is perfectly fine to do it that way. The efficiency vs effectiveness trade is different for military than it is for commercial businesses. So if they want to induct LCAs at a desired rate then they can make that case without necessarily increasing overall orders. It is then up to HAL to provide a bill to the MOD and to balance capacity, CAPEX and sun-set cost with export, new variants, and other measures that they can take to manage the industrial program. The point is, militaries very rarely sign up for the entire order book before asking for or getting commitment on a delivery rate. This is between IAF-HAL and MOD to manage.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4731
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Nov 2020 06:04

nachiket wrote:HAL's production rate of Tejas will depend on how much money is provided to them upfront to scale up the infrastructure and give out large orders to their private component suppliers (who inturn can use that money to scale up their own production facilities). If the government is willing to fork out the cash and quickly, anything can be achieved. HAL should tell that to the IAF straight up. Also, be prepared for all this investment to stop providing returns 4 years down the line when the production ends and no new orders are obtained. There should be no CAG audit done then admonishing everyone involved for wastage of resources.


I've been saying it for the longest time...order 40 additional Mk1s followed by 300 Mk1A over a 10 year period. Have the Tedbf ready by thereabouts...

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4541
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby putnanja » 04 Nov 2020 11:13

Does Dynamatics produce the composite skins too or is it supplied by HAL? I think the next step would be fitting in more items in the front fuselage and deliver to HAL for final integration

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby tsarkar » 04 Nov 2020 20:50

Karan M wrote:All this ICY stuff is a distraction IMHO. While undoubtedly good to have from the IAFs perspective, doubt any of our MiGs ever had it. In fact world over most aircraft didn't. Only the latest 4Gen aircraft standardized on it as mfg tooling was improved. In short the LCA will be used even without the perfect ICY as its predecessors were.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-a ... 1701606283

They have 58 F-15 A/B/C/D s purchased over multiple batches.

In the end, the Baz 2000 initiative gobbled up an incredible 8,000 man hours per jet and ran from 1995 to 2005. Israeli technicians found that many jets was built slightly differently, so they could not just replace one black box with another, each jet had to be worked on in a one by one basis. The whole process was said to be a grueling one.


The F-15s are also Israel's preeminent strikers despite the F-35. Reach and payload. All this ICY stuff is good to have but not a deal breaker by itself.


Thank you for the report highlighting the importance of ICY. Quoting from that report -

In the end, the Baz 2000 initiative gobbled up an incredible 8,000 man hours per jet and ran from 1995 to 2005. Israeli technicians found that many jets was built slightly differently, so they could not just replace one black box with another, each jet had to be worked on in a one by one basis. The whole process was said to be a grueling one. The result of the costly program...


Negatives of lack of ICY -
8000 man hours per jet during modernization
1995-2005 duration of upgrade program
grueling process
costly

But more than this is the lack of availability of aircraft for mission while they are undergoing maintenance.

8 Tu-142M served for 29 years and logged approx 30,000 flight hours.
8 P-8I served 7 years since 2013 and logged more flight hours than that.


Now, when it comes to sub hunting, both aircraft can do the job.

Because of ICY, P-8I were built to a consistent standard

Because of ICY, P-8I will have simpler and lesser maintenance leading to much greater availability, coverage and persistence

So P-8I provides persistent coverage of our sea frontiers to a degree much higher than Tu-142M did.

Coming to MiGs, each squadron used to have 21-24 aircraft to fulfill its taskings while a Mirage/Rafale squadron will require only 18 aircraft to fulfill its taskings.

Assuming each squadron is able to deploy 16 aircraft, the 3 Mirage squadron is able to deploy almost all aircraft while the 3 MiG-29 squadrons required 69 aircraft to ensure 48 are available at any point of time.

A Mirage/Rafale squadron has 16+2 reserves while a MiG-29 has 16+5/7 reserves.

The higher number of reserves is a clear indicator of higher maintenance needs to keep 16 aircraft available at any point of time.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 04 Nov 2020 20:55

Yes the benefits accrue. But the other side of the story is we have managed without it for ages. And the current LCAs will be deployed as is irrespective of ICY improvements.

The IAFs force structure is short of airframes as it is, and the amount of manpower a twin engine Jag or MiG29 would take in terms of MMH/FH is likely to be far higher than a LCA. Even single engine aircraft like the MiG-23 BNs were a challenge to maintain. Most systems were never designed for the kind of reliability a lot of the LCA subsystems have. We literally managed an entire FT program with a handful of actuators without even OEM support.

Plus, as it's made inhouse HAL is available to supply custom made parts if essential. We don't need to place orders on France or Russia and wait a year for the items to arrive. These ICY changes relate to airframe and cabling which we make locally. And if we wish to modify them, nor do we have to rush to a foreign design authority if we figure out a new mod to an existing structural item either.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Nov 2020 21:35

tsarkar wrote:Negatives of lack of ICY -
8000 man hours per jet during modernization
1995-2005 duration of upgrade program
grueling process
costly

Any particular reason why the manufacturer dropped the ball on ICY on this batch of F-15 production?

Or is the problem widespread across the F-15 fleet?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Nov 2020 21:40

Days of Cannibalizing Military Aircraft for Spare Parts Coming to an End
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... rts-to-end
20 Nov 2018

By Colonel John C. Johnson (Retd), USAF

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Nov 2020 21:45

Military Aircraft: Cannibalizations Adversely Affect Personnel and Maintenance
https://www.gao.gov/assets/110/108860.pdf
22 May 2001

Caveat: This article is nearly 2 decades old, but questions cannibalization which undermines the ICY argument.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Nov 2020 21:59

This pdf illustrates both the pros and cons of cannibalizations.

Appears to be some kind of post-doctoral research work done by a student. FWIW....

Cannibalization in the Military: A Viable Sustainment Strategy?
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... nowicz.pdf

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 04 Nov 2020 22:02

Rakesh wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Negatives of lack of ICY -
8000 man hours per jet during modernization
1995-2005 duration of upgrade program
grueling process
costly

Any particular reason why the manufacturer dropped the ball on ICY on this batch of F-15 production?

Or is the problem widespread across the F-15 fleet?


Can be "within tolerance", but still unique and earlier batches would have had more permissive tolerance limits to begin with per that eras manufacturing capability.

https://www.ang.af.mil/Media/Commentari ... aintainer/

F-15 maintenance; the relationship between jet and maintainer
By Tech. Sgt. Jefferson Thompson, 173rd Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published October 17, 2014

KINGSLEY FIELD, Ore. -- The life of a 173rd Fighter Wing maintainer at Kingsley Field, Oregon has fundamental qualities; first off you will be busy...really busy. The base routinely prepares 12 jets on a given day so 10 can fly in the morning and eight of those can fly in the afternoon. Every morning this creates a beehive of activity as numerous shops tend to the care of all 32 aircraft assigned.

But the number of aircraft ready to take to the skies is never 32. Why?

One of the challenges of flying in this day and age is overcoming the shortage of F-15 parts. Maintenance shops overcome this by parking at least one aircraft in a hangar and borrowing its critical parts for other airframes. They are called "CANN-birds" and they are used for a month or so before returning to the flying schedule. This cycle contributes to the busy pace at Kingsley, but the fact of the matter is it is normal for all flying units.

Any maintainer will tell you when it's time to put an aircraft back in the air after it has been a "CANN-bird" or has not been flown for some time it won't be as simple as replacing the parts and cranking it up.

No, it will require troubleshooting, working little kinks out here and there; it could almost be called massaging.
What makes this interesting is that theoretically it really shouldn't happen this way. All the parts are tested, calibrated, adjusted, and ready to go and the aircraft should crank right up; however, in reality some TLC is required.

"Every aircraft is different, if you use cars as an example every Mustang is different," said Chief Master Sgt. Joe McKenzie, 173rd Fighter Wing Maintenance Chief.

What McKenzie is saying is that two cars produced at the same time on the same line will still have differences. He relates that to the jets and says "we have to know beyond the broad guidelines in the T.O. how things should be set exactly to make each individual aircraft really perform...and each one is different."


He gives one example that speaks volumes about the level of experience needed to effectively maintain the jets.

"If you look at the sight windows on the IDGs (integrated drive generators) there are silver bands on them showing what the internal oil level should be; but I know, and everybody out here that's been crewing a jet for 20 years, knows exactly what level their aircraft should have. They are all a little different; too high and the generator can get hot and cause a heat failure and too low and it won't crank enough juice," says McKenzie.

He's talking about levels that are all within tolerances, within the indicated band on the sight window, and within the specifications of the technical order.


The complex systems that endure massive amounts of stress are kept in perfect working order by a maintainer's intimate knowledge of his jet; a bond between the maintainer and his aircraft.

With the recent iron flow into Kingsley Field--gaining five aircraft--the maintainers feel the frustration of having to make a new jet their own.

When asked what the hardest part of switching from one aircraft to another F-15 crew chief Master Sgt. Sean Campbell says immediately, "watching the jet leave."

That's surprising when he could have easily mentioned the laundry list of problems these "new" aircraft have--leaks, bad hydraulics, bad wiring, non-functional radar, and avionics systems and the list goes on.


Maj. Micah Lambert, the former maintenance squadron commander, says it takes about two years to get one of these new jets to the place where the 173rd Maintenance Group is satisfied with their performance. Think of it as two years for the maintainers to know their aircraft thoroughly.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10937
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 04 Nov 2020 22:07

Thus the evidence is clear, it is a widespread issue.

And I thought only Russi maal was bad :shock: :lol:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 04 Nov 2020 22:54

Its not that big of a deal TBH. The structural panels etc and cabling etc can be remanufactured at the time of the scheduled MRO. Only that it takes more time to conduct these activities as no two aircraft are exactly the same. As generations advance, and even within the same generations, so do the manufacturing standards and improvements. LCA will also see the same.

Most aircraft specific parts during regular activities and maintenance are stenciled with aircraft specific part numbers and stored accordingly. LRUs are usually interchangeable as they are within weight/volume/other functional specifications.

The IAF maintainers are "thinking ahead" which is great, only that these things shouldn't stop us from moving ahead especially when we consider the issues AF faced with their aircraft worldwide.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests