The Trash Thread in the Trash Can (Use 4545 to Merge Posts)

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 17 Jun 2010 01:50

dhiren k wrote:Is there any plan to change Tejas's overall airframe in MK 2 version to make it more aerodynamic,stealthy etc ?
If there has been so much delay in the MK1 version, will there not be any significant delay (upto 5 years) for the IOC of MK2 ?


I don't think there is going to be any delay, it is true that development of Mk2 will take time but that is normal, because development takes time.
Apart from this, I think IAF and DRDO would have developed a lot of synergies in development of Mk1, many communication channels would have been established and both the organizations would have learnt how they work and what they want. Plus, expertise and infrastructure is also in place. So development should not take a lot of time.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jun 2010 04:09

manjgu wrote:Mrinal,

whats wrong in ASR's being too ambitious ?


Whats not wrong? Requirements are supposed to come from operational needs not asking for the moon! Unless the ASRs are realistic, and grounded in a mix of pragmatism, you end up creating a perfect case for a monstrous design challenge which throws all projections into the dustbin.

the way IAF /DRDO are structured , how is the IAF supposed to know the technical abilities of DRDO ?


First - that is exactly the problem. The way the "IAF/DRDO are structured" is important. Because at least you mentioned the IAF. Because the IAF itself never does! If things are to improve, the IAF also needs to introspect on what it currently lacks. However, as things stand, they continue to insist everything is fine at their end, the fault is always at the "HAL/DRDO/DPSU/Foreign OEM" end. The result of these are over complex requirements, and attendant problems with programs.

The ASR's will be structured to address current/future threats and not the technical competence of DRDO. Isnt it for the DRDO to tell the IAF the feasibility/contraints/dependencies/timelines for implementing the ASR's?


The problem is the ASRs end up addressing threats which are unrealistic and also specify requirements that are very challenging, if not impossible to meet. The classic case of contradictory requirements. I have already mentioned the LCA form factor aspect. Kindly look it up. Look up the specifications expected of the LCAs avionics equipment and compare to in service and state of the art IAF upgrades for fighters such as the MiG-29. Then consider the challenge placed before. CNS Arun Prakash, in a rare break from the usual "we do wrong" approach that rtd professionals perforce have to take lest they be accused of breaking ranks, mentioned that products should be developed in Marks. The Mark 1, if it meets current requirements should be taken in hand and iteratively improved. This has hitherto almost never been done in India for a product such as the LCA.

The issue is of creating an organization, a competence if you will within the IAF that tracks technology on a constant basis and is well aware of current limits and thereof and which provides inputs to Air Staff at the time of such critical programs. It also leads and is an integral part of seeing what technology is required, forecasting & part of the Air Staffs own planning process. Currently, no such organization exists. Functions may be conducted in a manner, at different units. What this means is it is dependent on people, not the organization itself.

As such when a program like the LCA is launched, the IAF has no ownership in the program. Its "job" as it perceives it, is to come out with a huge laundry list of features and then ask XYZA etc to just deliver. The problem is some features on the list may even be way out of line, but who will bell the cat?

The developer never has the guts to openly confront the IAF or the user in the Indian system. Since there is no integrated Aeronautics Commission or the like which drives these programs, the IAF is the arbiter of the program feasibility. The only way the program gets launched is if the developer does not play hardball and agrees to as much as possible of what the IAF says, even if some of the specifications are not reasonable.

The same extends the other way as well. In the LCA, considering the huge lag that had developed between other nations and India after the Marut, and considering no programs were launched, the R&D community was desparate to bridge the gaps. As it stood, and still does, the R&D guys are desparate, for the technology gap to be bridged. It is a ridiculous state of affairs that such programs have to be literally begged for, or rolled up into an "all or nothing" approach.
They ended up taking far too many risks of their own, including the engine development program.

If there was an IAF design house/R&D house etc - which jointly managed or led the program or coordinated, these things would be avoided. Such overstretch (develop an engine AND the LCA) may have been split into different programs, without one being dependent on the other. The program developers could and would take a stand about what is possible and what is not, since a section of the IAF itself would be speaking with them. The IAF in turn would be more involved with the program from day one.

This is how the Navy, others here may have more details, does things. Long ago, it decided it would play a huge role in making its ships and so you have ship after ship appear, when the production facilities such as MDL or GRSE, are beset with many, many more problems than the ones the IAF has to deal with. Naval officers readily admit their ships have import content, have local and imported systems, design assistance and face challenges. But you will not see a single rtd Admiral mock the in development P15B or whatever, or even serving admirals try to challenge these procurements because these ships are their "own ships" and their is an entire unit of the Navy involved in their design and development.

The point is it takes two hands to clap. If reforms have to be done, they have to be done to enable proper work from both the user and developer end. Right now, what we have is a one way blame game viz programs like the LCA, and the import option makes sure the incentive to change is never there. Furthermore, it is too dependent on individuals versus national objectives. So a HAL guy is there who does not like the LCA, the program gets delayed, an IAF guy is in service who says fine, support - 20 get ordered, another does not like it and suddenly all manner of leaks come out how it is XYZ's fault..

In the process, the national aim goes into the dustbin.

unless these organizations are structured/staffed differently , i am sorry such problems will keep on cropping up.


Exactly the point which I have been making. You need both organizations to buck up and change. While the Rama Rao commission has suggested changes to focus the R&D side, I see no directive from the AF side to change things on their end. It continues to be the same stuff of "we have lots of inductions, we are focused on this" - yes, that is number one, agreed, but they need to look beyond! It is not the AF cannot find the manpower either from a mix of rtd, civilian employees and a limited number of serving personnel, nothing prevents them to create a lean "technology/management cell" if not a complete organization to complement the R&D setups (not supplant them). A unit, few hundred people strong can still make a huge difference to key programs, based on the golden 80:20 rule, with 20% of the key programs ending up with the maximal effect.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jun 2010 04:31

rohitvats wrote:Mrinal, give me some time...I'll respond to your post. You've made some strong statement and I would want to read up on the literature before I reply.


No issues. You may have to do your own guess-estimates as I doubt any book (even Rajkumars) addresses all these aspects. Ideally by now we should have had some 2-3 books on the program, considering its importance but all the other players are silent. Perhaps one day..

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 17 Jun 2010 04:36

Guys do we have the ASRs for Tejas handy ? At least we will discussing something on topic then . :)

I for one would be interested to see what does an ASR for combat AC look like.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jun 2010 04:37

negi wrote:As I see it there is no point in taking sides on this debate for both services as well as the MHC come under the Gobermund so when one takes a side and says oh DRDO and HAL do not have budgetary allocations on par with L&M or XYZ corp same holds true for the services as well their acquisition programmes like the HAWK (ok this is done but how much time did it take) , Artillery, Gorshkov, Scorpenes are all progressing at a snails pace , most importantly does India as on date have a template/guidelines which demarcate roles and tasks to be carried out by the either party when it comes to indigenous programmes likes Tejas/Arjun ?

Coming to IAF dropping the ball with regards to the drafting of the ASR the point to be noted is just like ADA and DRDO were designing their first ever combat AC, IAF too was getting into product development sphere which is completely different beast when compared to listing down requirements of a combat AC in a RFP floated for phoren suppliers.While DRDO & Co do design and development for a living the three forces in any point in time never had any exposure to driving a programme as complex as Tejas or even Arjun they have always been in the 'shopping' mode as far as weapons procurement is concerned, Navy has done well because if one would observe most of the shipyards have a lot of ex-IN personnel in the top level so Industry-service nexus/lobby or whatever one may wish to call it makes things easy as far as indeginisation is concerned.

All this talk about shifting goal posts, scope creep or even indifference towards the programme imo point to a more fundamental deficiency than mere animosity or bias against the desi stuff as far as services are concerned i.e. lack of exposure to driving a product development programme. Having said that I concede the fact that it is the services who have to walk that extra mile to make India's indigenous MHC a successful industry and if this means DM or MoD holding a danda behind then so be it.


You said it all!

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 17 Jun 2010 07:36

rohitvats wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:
Dear Rohitv....g proper logic and argument. Yes, the Defence Services have screwed up in many cases and please, go ahead and call a spade as spade. But let us not generalize and trivialize these things. Let us be very careful before we have the urge to pass a disparaging remark.


Sorry Sir, that is not how it is going to work out with me at least - every time you post something or make a claim, you expect people to shoot out an e-mail to you? Do you think that is practically possible? Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm sure there is enough material in the open space to prove what your assertions were.

This is the reason I asked you not to allude to "confidential sources" when asked for details.


True. I it is my mistake, extra inputs hence forth will not be available that involve me to be in tight spot. I am sure its not your mistake, its my karma getting back at me. I should be posting less that you will be having less issues with it. If you wanted open sources, as a ole jingo you already know.

As for the you naming LCA somewhere - you forget that your drew allusions to LCA ASR by giving example of AWECS. I actually hate doing this but this is what you wrote -

If you remember the DRDO AWACS story, it was the first time that DRDO was specific that it was late due to IAF (ASR capability). Also, we heard that it was due to the experience with IAF on LCA that DRDO was specific about it

What do you want me to make of it
?

You had asked me"how it relates to LCA programm" much before the post you mention.

Again, I had requested you to give both sides of the story - the above example is how the DRDO/people in-charge felt about it. There is no word why IAF wanted that piece of equipment during the LSP phase. And no, I cannot figure out the LSP, for I don't have the necessary technical background nor the required hold on the subject. And hence, I asked the question(s).

As mentioned, extra inputs are closed down and such issues won't arise. I do not endlessly want to give more info on what I already posted.

CJ, what do you want to me to make out this statement? What kind of argument is this?

There is a thing or two that I know about the Orbat and T&OE of the Indian Army. Some time back, I made an effort to put down the T&OE of the IA on BRF so that everyone could be on the same plane. Even now, when an article or reports comes out, or there is a development, I try and analyze the same and put it on BRF.

If I take your line of reasoning - I should have not even done that. For I know for sure, that expect for some ex-IA types or with link to IA (and good links at that) or with very good reading of militaty matters, most of the BRFites would have no way of knowing the T&OE of IA or the Orbat. Should I ask each and every BRFite about what he knows before I pen down my thoughts or reply? Are we not here to share and learn?

And as for the analogy argument - Good Sir, In case you know the answer to the question that I raised, you could have easily penned down couple of bullet points highlighting the so called short-comings in the ASR. And no, I don't need to know the exact ASR - for I'm sure no one is public domain has seen it, but broad points. And the fact is - you've not been able to do that. It does not matter what I know - I've already told you that I know zilch. And that is why I'm not passing judgement on the IAF and LCA Development Story. I did that in case of Arjun - but I ensured I know enough on the subject ( I read your website end to end) before I made the first post. So, tomorrow if someone asks me if IA erred in case of Arjun, I'll say yes. And I'll give my reasons for the same.

You've passed judgement on the IAF in LCA Story and you need to provide an honest and straightforward answer.


The above answer should suffice.

Sorry Sir, I don't know anything and hence, cannot be of any use in this case.

However, this is my last post on the topic - for this discussion is not going anywhere.

I have request for fellow BRFites - it seems that it has become fashionable to bash the Defence Services without bothering to read up on the topic and using proper logic and argument. Yes, the Defence Services have screwed up in many cases and please, go ahead and call a spade as spade. But let us not generalize and trivialize these things. Let us be very careful before we have the urge to pass a disparaging remark.


I apologise if it has hurt you and no such statement will be made.

I hope that clears up everything.

I have this to say to you rohitvats, THANK YOU :D

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 17 Jun 2010 08:51

Mrinal wrote:The issue is of creating an organization, a competence if you will within the IAF that tracks technology on a constant basis and is well aware of current limits and thereof and which provides inputs to Air Staff at the time of such critical programs. It also leads and is an integral part of seeing what technology is required, forecasting & part of the Air Staffs own planning process. Currently, no such organization exists.


Such an organization doesn't exist in the IAF and IA because there was no need for it. The IAF and IA were just "buyers" in the global arms bazaar. That comparison shopping is the easy part. All you need to do is brochure reading and trials and commercial negotiations and close. All along, of course there were opportunities for certain corrupt elements to get their share of kick backs and bed their share Natashas. The hard job of thinking how a future battlefield will be, what will be their strategy, how will they employ weapons and how can technology be leveraged to make a difference.. all that difficult "strategy" part of that was done by the foreign arms makers/military industrial complex and gets distilled into a weapons system.

The "innovation" in any by the IA and IAF is limited to new /better/smarter/innovative ways of deploying those weapons in different settings and strategy contexts.

Now , you are asking them to actually "develop" something. ie, use their brains to do some thinking and visualization on how a future battle will be, do see how future weapons can be deployed and technology used.

Problem is, the army has no brains really and can only "harrumph" and preen with it's oversized ego and "bah civilians" contempt, while the IAF has let it's brains atrophy. The easy way out is to ask for a "Death Star" that will shoot lasers and invisible beams and poofffff. all potenetial and future threats in the battlefiled and beyond as if by magic and shades of that appear in weapons specs /ASR/GSQR.

Now ideally such a forward thinking thinktank should be staffed with the best and brightest and most dynamic and forward looking senior brass with a flair for product development and getting hands dirty. But given our system where "Jarnail, Karnail and Prig-e-diyar" are measured by the size of troops under them, such a transfer to an "ivory tower" division can be a career limiting/killing move for most.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Jun 2010 09:08

vina wrote:The "innovation" in any by the IA and IAF is limited to new /better/smarter/innovative ways of deploying those weapons in different settings and strategy contexts.


A little unfair saar

What DRDO could not manufacture and phoren would not supply, the BRDs indigenised by jugaad

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_page.php?pg_id=215

We on BRF are so obsessed with pilots that we forget the people on the ground. Another example of that blinkered view is "Who gets credit for a kill? Pilot or WSO?" You ask the pilot or WSO he will credit the ground staff for making everything work.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 17 Jun 2010 09:48

shiv wrote:A little unfair saar

What DRDO could not manufacture and phoren would not supply, the BRDs indigenised by jugaad

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_page.php?pg_id=215


Yes.. But however, I would look at that "jugaad" a bit differently. This is a classic case study of the perils of buying propreitary foreign stuff, which are not based on our industry standards.

Now Indian civil industry is based on international western standards (ISO and their equivalents DIN, ASA, API, ASME etc..), and globally engineering is standardized on that . Now since the proprietary vendor collapsed, we really had to do "jugaad" because the civilian industry standards are incompatible and no civilian industry will tool up to provide these speciality components of such low volume (and also value etc, though they might be critical equipment) , and you set up a separate supply chain at great cost and uncertainty, that is not factored into the intial prices.

In fact without this "jugaad" the IAF and bulk of Indian defence will be simply grounded.

I think someone has to have the sense to come out with a standardization policy for India at a component and sub-component level and India goes the NATO stds ways and standardize around ISO and equivalent. This is ABSOLUTELY crucial.

That way, you can risk proof against an obsolescent standard, and being left high and dry if a vendor goes kaput (becuase there will be multiple vendors available) and also being held by the gonads by any particular single vendor because these are well known open standards and not proprietary.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sanku » 17 Jun 2010 11:38

I find the claim that the forces did not understand the future and battlefield hilarious, It is the forces and the ASRs which have given shape to LCA. The DRDO people were/are technologists but their understanding of how the final product really works and real life usage was abysmally limited when the program began (I was in ADA personally in that time frame) it is still quite poor now.

What people do not also know is that HAL to an extent DRDO were all seeded by IAF personel in their formative years anyway. They were the only ones who knew ANYTHING about aviation in India.

The thing, is no one is blaming DRDO for not being able to conceptualize a product; it was really done by the forces anyway, and it is their job.

However AFTER the forces have conceptualized a product -- DRDO needs to provide its inputs and run with it.

You may fault IAF for making a death star type ASR (I dont really but I take it for the moment) -- but what is DRDO's response to it? "Ho jayega, kal" (will be done, tomorrow) and then disappear.

This is the crux of the lack of confidence in DRDO -- if they told IAF, fine you want all the bells and whistles, either give us 15 years, or go buy it from outside, your call, but remember dont blame us for not making things in house. IAF would have said "Hell, ok, lets plan around the situation"

This situation came about (Not a knock) because of total lack of understanding on the part of DRDO about the technological challenges, it was learning curve for them coupled with lack of confidence to stand up to IAF wallahs.

Both MoD and IAF in turn did a huge mistake my taking DRDO at face value; they themselves had no experience with how engineering development is prone to overruns and unforeseen circumstances and what not. IAF were in the "Parade at 600 Hrs all will fall in line" mindset. MoD could not care less what happened.

Now IAF knows what DRDO can and can not do, in reality, first hand. Also DRDO has more experience behind it in its belt, lastly MoD is getting involved and giving forces oversight on civilians, something they resisted for a long time.

All in all things are moving in the right direction, blame game now is pointless exercise for total losers.

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby anirban_aim » 17 Jun 2010 13:52

Sanku wrote:
Now IAF knows what DRDO can and can not do, in reality, first hand. Also DRDO has more experience behind it in its belt, lastly MoD is getting involved and giving forces oversight on civilians, something they resisted for a long time.

All in all things are moving in the right direction, blame game now is pointless exercise for total losers.


I totally agree there. Just to quote what I had written some time back on another topic

India is a 3rd largest buyer of military hardware, the domestic industry simply can't ignore this huge oppurtunity for long. May earlier they didn't have the scale and the technologies, but all that is changing.

The reorganization of DRDO is a good begining. More things will follow. Just bide your time. No one can stop an idea whose time has come

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby K Mehta » 17 Jun 2010 17:24

It is very interesting to see people discussing the same old DRDO vs IAF. While the biggest problem the LCA project is facing is the indecision on the engine for mk 2 and the consultancy on Kaveri.

These are the current biggest hurdles which the LCA program is facing and the elephant in the room is not being mentioned. It is good to know about past mistakes and not make them again. but it is also very important to not make other old mistakes as well!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sanku » 17 Jun 2010 17:30

Very true K Mehta, very very true.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pushkar.bhat » 17 Jun 2010 17:54

Many many moons ago when I and my friend used to play with Lego blocks we used to create Toy F-16's (it had already come of age).. That was some 20 years ago I guess. That was the first time I had heard of the LCA, maybe it did not have a ASR when we first heard about it form some uncle's.

Many moons ago some of my friends had dreams of flying the LCA if they joined IAF like their dad's. That was over 14 years ago. Perhaps the ACM also has a dream of inducting the LCA into the Air Force hopefully before he retires and you can't blame him, just as you cannot blame a generation of indian kids from having a dream.

Its been a fairly long time since the DRDO and ADA said that they will deliver the LCA with Full Ops Clearance by a specific date.These dates have slipped on multiple occasions. Every one knows that the Project Management Capabilities of DRDO are nothing worth writing home about. Now that the LCA Project is partially out of the clouds its time that the development agencies learnt form their mistakes in the past and do a better job.

I think the blame game between RohitVats and CJ can stop. But DRDO should to not become a hindrance in making dreams come true.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Wickberg » 17 Jun 2010 18:17

What is ARS?

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pushkar.bhat » 17 Jun 2010 18:30

Wickberg wrote:What is ARS?


My Bad :roll: ASR - Air Staff Requirements

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Asit P » 17 Jun 2010 18:57

It takes two to tango and it takes two hands to clap. Therefore, there is no point in playing the DRDO VS IAF blame game. After all, DRDO and IAF don't compete with each other, rather they complete each other.

The LCA project may have been marked with many problems such as delays & cost over runs. But at the end of the day, we have a world class fighter with all the state of the art features that one can possibly expect in a modern fighter aircraft. This would have never been possible without the efforts of IAF and DRDO. For me, both DRDO and IAF are as bad the villains or as good the Heroes of the LCA project.

Its not the time for shadow boxing. Its the time to dwell upon our mistakes and shortcomings of the past, and come up with a better show in the future.

My wish list from IAF:
(a) A gardener type attitude towards indigenous products.
(b) A flexible approach and more involvement in R & D.


My wish list from DRDO:
(a) More focus and greater emphasis on PR
(b) Reduced bureaucracy and increased synergy with the end users.
(C) Ability to say no to irrational demands (if any).

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3019
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 17 Jun 2010 18:58

viewtopic.php?p=890014#p890014

Is this the case of picking the wound by the way of dressing...

Many moons ago some of my friends had dreams of flying the LCA if they joined IAF like their dad's. That was over 14 years ago. Perhaps the ACM also has a dream of inducting the LCA into the Air Force hopefully before he retires and you can't blame him, just as you cannot blame a generation of indian kids from having a dream.

I too have a dream so...and everyone can have their dream...so can everyone make claims to the LCA project in one way or the other..

Its been a fairly long time since the DRDO and ADA said that they will deliver the LCA with Full Ops Clearance by a specific date.These dates have slipped on multiple occasions. Every one knows that the Project Management Capabilities of DRDO are nothing worth writing home about. Now that the LCA Project is partially out of the clouds its time that the development agencies learnt form their mistakes in the past and do a better job.
Yeah..as this is about the dream of one Air Marshal, infact more genuienly young pilots and their parents dreamed of more than 20 years for a proper AJT to train. How much value did the IAF gave do their dreams....And how many died becoz of that decision.....and there are many "fairly long time" stories. Ok lets accept Project Management capabilities of DRDO are nothing to write about...so what did IAF brings to the table...lets discuss abt that...shall we?

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pushkar.bhat » 17 Jun 2010 20:18

Kanson, Trust me the Air force cared about loosing the boys just as much as their parents did and it hurt when a aircrew did not come back from a sortie. BR forum requires us to post basis publicly available and verifiable facts so I will not be able to substantiate when I say that the Labs have often over promised and under delivered. Barbora's statement needs to be looked at in light of the same and yes I did not say that it is his dream. You have construed it to be the case.

Also acquisition of the AJT was a political decision and not one pending with the Air Staff. Also note that the LCA would not have seen the day of light had the IAF not believed in the project.

Being self critical is the first step to improvement so let the DRDO introspect and be self critical about itself. You can't talk about giving time to people to do R&D when you have to fight a fire in your back yard. The geopolitical realities of cold war were different from those exist today. Keep that in mind. And Yes, I am open to a debate but not on this thread since it will be OT.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 17 Jun 2010 20:42

pushkar.bhat wrote:I think the blame game between RohitVats and CJ can stop. But DRDO should to not become a hindrance in making dreams come true.



Actually, I have a already apologised. between MMRCA and this thread, I find that I have to type carefully. It requires a lot of time which competes wit my time on my website and work. I will just concentrate on news and not opinion.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 17 Jun 2010 22:41

Also bear in mind - "You get what you pay for"!

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3019
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 17 Jun 2010 22:50

pushkar.bhat wrote:BR forum requires us to post basis publicly available and verifiable facts so I will not be able to substantiate when I say that the Labs have often over promised and under delivered. Barbora's statement needs to be looked at in light of the same and yes I did not say that it is his dream. You have construed it to be the case.
You did not say that...? Nice tuck up. Sir...your words...
Many moons ago some of my friends had dreams of flying the LCA if they joined IAF like their dad's. That was over 14 years ago. Perhaps the ACM also has a dream of inducting the LCA into the Air Force hopefully before he retires and you can't blame him, just as you cannot blame a generation of indian kids from having a dream.

pushkar.bhat wrote:Kanson, Trust me the Air force cared about loosing the boys just as much as their parents did and it hurt when a aircrew did not come back from a sortie.
I'm sure evey member here who value the pilot lifes and IAF must definitely 'cared' about losing them and their parents would have cared much more than anyone. So they too be making statements as, "we cared for their lives."

Also acquisition of the AJT was a political decision and not one pending with the Air Staff.

Nice. IF all the more efficient and highly skilled IAF with all the managerial qualities could pass the buck on this delay on 'political decisions' how far it is different for the poorly skilled drdo wallas to site the 'Government policies' for all the problems that you quote against them? Fair right?

If Air staff could care less for the pilot lives becoz of 'political decision' what is the use of their highly skilled managerial qualities which can be writen home about ? If you say IAF cared less for their lives many are willing to know what was the justification of the 'political decision' which allowed the procurement of other shiny toys...

Also note that the LCA would not have seen the day of light had the IAF not believed in the project.

Glad, you made this bold statement. Maybe people are willing to take a cue from your statment and may try to say, if IAF believed in this project much earlier it would have seen the day much more earlier.

Being self critical is the first step to improvement so let the DRDO introspect and be self critical about itself.

Ofcourse there is nothing for the IAF, i guess. And i know IAF is always right....Even though there are instance which can be quoted from the Philip Rajkumar's book, you know, IAF is always right. I know, in IAF dictionary there is no word known as 'self-critical'.
You can't talk about giving time to people to do R&D when you have to fight a fire in your back yard.

And i heard that it always the fire that keep the R&D ticking...Pls check back the global military history and tell us how many times, military has insisted to take the product on the dotted lines only when actually a fire fight was going on.
And Yes, I am open to a debate but not on this thread since it will be OT.
If you going to talk abt product management of LCA then this is the right thread. My last OT post in this thread.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 17 Jun 2010 23:12

chackojoseph wrote:
<SNIP>

True. I it is my mistake, extra inputs hence forth will not be available that involve me to be in tight spot. I am sure its not your mistake, its my karma getting back at me. I should be posting less that you will be having less issues with it. If you wanted open sources, as a ole jingo you already know.

<SNIP>

I apologise if it has hurt you and no such statement will be made.

I hope that clears up everything.

I have this to say to you rohitvats, THANK YOU :D


CJ,

You're a valuable member of this forum and I personally feel that you're doing a stellar role in the field of Military Journalism. I've myself used your website when I was researching material on the Arjun development story. So, please - do share whatever snippets of information you can (without compromising your sources). We, and I personaly, look forward to your posts/replies to topic of discussion at hand.

However, Sir, you carry far more responsibility on your soldiers than internet warrior like me. Lot of people look up to you for information on Defence matters - which otherwise is very difficult to come by in accurate measure. So, whatever you post on BRF or any other forum, needs to be that much accurate and backed uo by support data.

As for hurting me - no Sir, you've done no such thing. We're here to share and learn. However, I take utmost care before I post anything and I expect the similar behaviour from other forum members. Otherwise, this will also become another Hot Air Forum.... :P

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby anjan » 17 Jun 2010 23:53

vina wrote:I think someone has to have the sense to come out with a standardization policy for India at a component and sub-component level and India goes the NATO stds ways and standardize around ISO and equivalent. This is ABSOLUTELY crucial.

That way, you can risk proof against an obsolescent standard, and being left high and dry if a vendor goes kaput (becuase there will be multiple vendors available) and also being held by the gonads by any particular single vendor because these are well known open standards and not proprietary.


In my experience this is a theoretical pipedream. Even with an essentially non mechanical device like a switch or a router I've noticed that parts tend to differ slightly in specs between models and within batches. This creates situations where certain switches can be shelved only in certain ways and with certain screws.(And I've heard a hundred stories on the threading, metal used etc of the screws themselves, ). And this is just in the simple and non critical task of mounting of an electronic equipment with a simple bolt. I can only imagine what it must be like with an aircraft. My conversations with people in the supply chain business suggests this is a common problem and the USAF is not exactly immune either.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sanku » 18 Jun 2010 00:06

Can the poster(s) at least learn a modicum of language and stop typing in shorthand and other irritating juvenile manner?

If you are short on time, dont post here, simple!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sanku » 18 Jun 2010 00:14

Oh and one advice for all and sundry who are hell bent on dissing IAF for LCA.

Look at Rohitvats, critisism of IA on Arjun. (BTW I opposed him tooth and nail there)

That would be a good study on criticism as opposed to emotional outbursts which seems like nursing a personal grudge.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 18 Jun 2010 08:07

rohitvats wrote:CJ,

You're a valuable member of this forum and I personally feel that you're doing a stellar role in the field of Military Journalism. I've myself used your website when I was researching material on the Arjun development story. So, please - do share whatever snippets of information you can (without compromising your sources). We, and I personaly, look forward to your posts/replies to topic of discussion at hand.

However, Sir, you carry far more responsibility on your soldiers than internet warrior like me. Lot of people look up to you for information on Defence matters - which otherwise is very difficult to come by in accurate measure. So, whatever you post on BRF or any other forum, needs to be that much accurate and backed uo by support data.

As for hurting me - no Sir, you've done no such thing. We're here to share and learn. However, I take utmost care before I post anything and I expect the similar behaviour from other forum members. Otherwise, this will also become another Hot Air Forum.... :P


You have a mail. I am not quitting (never was quitter) or something. I am an internet warrior like you (once a paki said: BruteGorilla, you are the mightiest internet warrior this century :lol: ) Please do not take this conversation forward.

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby prabhug » 18 Jun 2010 11:35

O.k
Deleted
Last edited by prabhug on 18 Jun 2010 16:31, edited 1 time in total.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nikhil_p » 18 Jun 2010 13:41

Hi everyone...Can we PLEASE stop discussing non LCA related stuff on the LCA thread.
Almost every thread has been derailed.

Adminullahs please come out of the exile and use the hand of god! :)

jahaju
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 26 Apr 2008 18:40

Re: India vs Pak China : Can we win?

Postby jahaju » 18 Jun 2010 17:58

scenarios being discussed in "Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII"
IB4TL.

hailinfreq
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 21:27

Re: India vs Pak China : Can we win?

Postby hailinfreq » 18 Jun 2010 18:01

IBTL :)

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: India vs Pak China : Can we win?

Postby sathyaC » 18 Jun 2010 18:01

IB4TL

trushant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Jan 2009 18:02

Re: India vs Pak China : Can we win?

Postby trushant » 18 Jun 2010 18:07

IB4TL

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: India vs Pak China : Can we win?

Postby Bala Vignesh » 18 Jun 2010 18:31

IB4TL... Its raining IB4TLs this month...

ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: India vs Pak China : Can we win?

Postby ajit_tr » 18 Jun 2010 18:37

IB4TL

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Are We Ready for a Two-front War ?

Postby shiv » 18 Jun 2010 21:45

Rahul if we dumb down the causes to such a simplistic level we can dumb down the effects too.
Pak and China agree to war

Pak attacks

India in trouble

China attacks

India in more trouble

India loses


Or, if that is not good enough

Pak and China agree to war

Pak attacks

India in trouble

China attacks

India in more trouble

India nukes both.

Both nuke back

All in trouble


or

Pak and China agree to war

Pak attacks

India in trouble

China attacks

India in more trouble

India fights hard

Defeats China and Pak

Both nuke India

India nukes back

All in trouble

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7918
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby nachiket » 26 Jun 2010 23:59

indranilroy wrote:negi sahab. My questions to Vina were very simple

1. Why does she think that the bulges at just where the wing meets the fuselage lerx are carrots?
2. Also, if she knew/thought that the the fairing for the hydraulics/ actuators doubled up as carrots. Frankly they look quite big. Compare them with the Mirage for instance which has a very similar geometry for the wings, flaps and ailerons.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Not again!

manoba
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 01:02
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby manoba » 28 Jun 2010 18:34

nachiket wrote:
indranilroy wrote:negi sahab. My questions to Vina were very simple

1. Why does she think that the bulges at just where the wing meets the fuselage lerx are carrots?
2. Also, if she knew/thought that the the fairing for the hydraulics/ actuators doubled up as carrots. Frankly they look quite big. Compare them with the Mirage for instance which has a very similar geometry for the wings, flaps and ailerons.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Not again!


Don't spoil the fun. Let's have some quasi-she or pseudo-she in the forum. We don't have much women member in our esteemed BRF.

steve
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 21:27

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby steve » 28 Jun 2010 22:26

Hi Vina did not know that this forum has female members too. Very nice to know this fact.

Regards.
:)

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4128
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby pgbhat » 29 Jun 2010 00:49

:rotfl:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests