LCA News and Discussions

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 07:53

I feel that these development programs, Arjun, LCA etc have had a progressively increasing complexity added to them as the initial targets were achieved.

We tend to look at these projects as a single project and whine about the end product not being ready, while we over look the fact that each time the specifications were upped, literally a next gen version / an upgrade had to be developed.

So both the LCA, the Arjun have in their long development histories, have covered the work of a few upgrades along the way. The specifications for the end product were constantly raised by the buyers and the R&D team had to constantly upgrade to meet them.

There has been an incremental learning and development process already underway.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2010 08:34

shiv wrote:On the topic of lifafa journalism - I had once spoken to the publishers of both Indian Aviation and Vayu (separately) about "sponsored" articles. (This was around 2001-2). They said that it was a fact of life. No journal can survive without them. So one must always be wary of articles in the media.

Well at the end of the day Defence Business is not a charity business or out there to provide relief and succor to the needy , when there are hundreds of billions at stake people would bribe , use sponsored article and all other means to promote ones product. All and sundry are part of this web.

My experience with media has been if they do not go for sponsored stuff they will fade away due to funding issue , I know of a defence media I was associated with they did not fall for sponsored stuff due to ethics and eventually had to shut shop.

At the BRF level it is quite easy to blame any one as sponsored , lifafa etc but thats the way the business runs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Oct 2010 09:22

Austin wrote: My experience with media has been if they do not go for sponsored stuff they will fade away due to funding issue , I know of a defence media I was associated with they did not fall for sponsored stuff due to ethics and eventually had to shut shop.

This is the exact truth.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 22 Oct 2010 11:56

Katare wrote: He simply says -
A light fighter means a palne equipped with less gizmos. You can't take an MKI or F15 and scale everything down to 50% and end up with a light combat F15 or MKI. You have to start from other way and say what is minimum I must have to be competitive and relevant and let go rest of it aka tata nano, sold in same showroom as Luxary Jaguar, Safari and Land rovers.

But Professor saab was suggesting to scale down mig 29 and make it a light fighter in last vayu issue,if i remember correctly

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2010 13:07

There are a number of very valid points made by the prof.Regarding composites.In another extensive article on the Dhruv in the "F" mag,the HAL boffin interviewed expressed the difficulty in obtaining raw material for composites-manufactured lcoally,where about "80%" of raw material was imported.Now this could be a critical factor in a crisis if such imports are unavailable.HAL admitted delays in manufacture because of unavailability of raw material.IN warships have suffered delays too,the IAC-1,has also experienced delays because certain specs of steel were unavailable.When such exotic materials are unavailable,the Chinese use metallic alternatives and produce aircraft that are flying and in service.

About incremental development of an aircraft.The best example in the Indian context is the MIG-21 Bison,which did extremely well against US F-15s.The Ajeet was overburdened with extra responsibilities and failed.That appears to be the case with the LCA too,keeping on adding to its capability which is bordering on the role of an MMRCA! The point that Das is making is that we must get our priorities and concepts right,at the very start and stick to it.What was the LCA meant to be when conceived? What is turning out to be? I posted earlier,comments made by the top UK defence procurement individual,who said that it continually suprised him how weapon systems,seemed to always experience delays,come in late at inflated cost and underperform.This was mainly due to trying to factor in revised parameters while development was still going on. If you look at the Nano as an example,there was a clear brief and a roadmap was evolved to get to the goal of producing a decent one-lakh car.If the makers wanted to add ABS,EBD,XYZ,sat TV,4WD,etc.,etc.,you know what would've happened! But the difference is that the Nano is a corporate private enterprise whereas the LCA is "owned and run" by the GOI which is unaccountable to anyone,except its ego.

Kartik,about Kaveri and GTRE,if they knew that they would have great difficulties in producing the engine,why did they keep on bullsh*tting when asked? I have a first person account (by the AM seated next to him) where Kalam was reviewing the LCA situ when the GTRE representative stated that the engine would appear within three months! Now that was ages ago when Kalam was CSA.He was asked by the AM (who was appalled at this lie and infomed him of the true picture) whether the GOI was serious about the project.The AM had for years repeatedly stated that the project would be delayed by its weakest link,the engine, and we are still in the same boat today.
Had the project managers and the client,GOI,fixed deadlines for developing certain key components like the engine,radar,etc.,and had alternatives in hand if indigenous attempts failed to meet the deadlines,like acquiring a foreign engine (not an underpowered GE-404),the LCA would be in service today.

Let's remember that we did not always have qualitative and numerical superiority over Pak and China respectively.In '65,Pak had Sabres and Starfighters while we had our Gnats and a few MIG-21s.In '71 Pak had Mirage-3s while we had MIG-21s,venerable Gnats and SU-7s instead.Our qualitatively inferior aircraft "did the business" for us and we should not look down upon less exotic aircraft that our enemies possess and will have in future in large numbers.We are going to face joint Sino-Pak adventurism and require both capability and required numbers.The LCA was and is expected to be that hope of an indigenous light fighter available in large numbers at reasonable cost.If those at the helm of LCA decision-making keep that goal in mind,we can still accelerate its induction into service in large numbers and later on see what improvements can and must be made for the aircraft to remain relevant for the next decade.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 15:45

The raw material for carbon composites used to be imported from Japan. But the Agni-3 nosecone changed all that specially since that missile could reach Japan.

Last year there was a news piece which said that Reliance has set up a subsidiary plant to produce the fibrres needed close to its refinery in Gujarat. I suppose that when this plant is up and running, another instance of foreign dependence and tech and material denial will be taken care of.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 15:59

This article by Prof Das, is truly unique IMHO.

NOWHERE in the world do journalists do hatchet jobs on aircraft being developed by their own nations, Nowhere, except in India. How close to the truth this article is, I will leave to the experts.

Now, based on the premise that lifafa journalism is omnipresent in the world, it shows two things about India:
1. The media is truly free, in fact it is a free-for-all free.
2. GoI does not give a damn to give journalists lifafas themselves.

Because in the west their governments give their journalists the lifafas, so that their aircrafts are always the 'best' in the world. In India our poor journalist community have to look to foriegn shores for their lifafas.

The problems that the LCA program had to overcome are not unknown. But to only look at delays and missed targets and then start pointing fingers, instead of delving any deeper to know why, is callous. In this instance, the honerable professor is attempting to change the course of the MMRCA procurement contest even as he disparages another aircraft project.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2010 16:29

And why is the good professor cribbing about delta wings hain ji?
All the eurocanards, the Chinese J-10 are all delta wings with a canard.

What is the problem?

Whom should we believe? Four different (nay five including HAL) aircraft manufacturers with different design philosiphies going in for delta wings or one good professor?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 22 Oct 2010 17:14

Philip wrote:we can still accelerate its induction into service in large numbers and later on see what improvements can and must be made for the aircraft to remain relevant for the next decade.

Completely agree. All major combat a/c (including the one's in MMRCA race) have gone through their own MKs/Tranches/Block upgrades before their full potential was realized. We should follow the same path else, we will continue chasing a moving target.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 22 Oct 2010 17:55

shiv wrote:On the topic of lifafa journalism - I had once spoken to the publishers of both Indian Aviation and Vayu (separately) about "sponsored" articles. (This was around 2001-2). They said that it was a fact of life. No journal can survive without them. So one must always be wary of articles in the media.

Prodyut Das knows more than I do. I am under no obligation to accept what he says - but nevertheless he says things that nobody else will say. If you ignore his comments about the LCA (which the entire world, with Indians in the lead, seem to curse and mock) you find that Das is saying nasty things about other non Indian designs and designers as well. That makes a change from the standard lifafa rahrah boys singing the praises of F-16, F-35 etc. And although late, Das often rips a new one about aircraft that were touted as latest and greatest in the 1960s and later.

Shiv, well said.

Growing up, my grandfather often said -- "don't complain if you cannot propose a workable solution and a complete one at that". My rebuttal to comments by Prof. Das are these -- the argument he makes for higher numbers of less capable aircraft and costing less hides more than it reveals. The proposed solution solves some individual fighter level problems, but propagates numerous additional problems into manpower, maintenance, logistics, operational availability, etc.

Yes, LCA has problems -- we have been talking about them for years now on BR. We have suggested changes/approaches to existing LCA but none as radical as he is proposing. Prof. Das has essentially proposed a completely different aircraft configuration. IMHO it is disingenuous to lend a perception of complete analysis, when what he has addressed is only very small part of the problem. I think it would have been fitting and appropriate of him to at least lay out the questions that need examined about wider implications of his suggestions.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 22 Oct 2010 18:07

Forgive my ignorance but has Prof Das contributed to Tejas or the Indian Aviation industry in any way? (this is a question. I dont know.) If no then we can easily ignore him as we do with most lifafas.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 22 Oct 2010 19:44

At the risk of inviting a fair amount of wrath, I think the armed forces must take the brunt of the blame for the incompleteness of projects like the LCA and Arjun - there seems to be very little pragmatism in their thinking and a good deal of brochure-itis. The consideration never seems to be, "What equipment do we need?" but "What's the best in the world today? Let's get that! It sounds great!" The complete inability to freeze a design and refrain from asking for new toys is a big problem.
Basically, if the IAF, for example, had been more sensible with the LCA, we'd have had pretty much the JF-17, but ten years earlier. By now, with our MiG-21s mostly replaced and some breathing space, we could've been looking at a nicely updated LCA-2, pretty close to world standards, and we'd have had 10 years of experience with the plane and much less of this headache with falling numbers.
I'm in the creative field, so I understand the desire to not let something go until it's perfect, but you have to draw a line somewhere. This is criminal.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Oct 2010 21:12

Gagan wrote:And why is the good professor cribbing about delta wings hain ji?
All the eurocanards, the Chinese J-10 are all delta wings with a canard.

What is the problem?

Gagan - he has actually answered that question wrt to LCA on page 54.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 22 Oct 2010 22:04

Gagan wrote:And why is the good professor cribbing about delta wings hain ji?
All the eurocanards, the Chinese J-10 are all delta wings with a canard.
What is the problem?
Whom should we believe? Four different (nay five including HAL) aircraft manufacturers with different design philosiphies going in for delta wings or one good professor?

About four different manufacturers choosing Delta-wings, those manufacturers also had prior experience
with FBW. Viggen had FBW, so did M2K.
J-10 has FBW and delta wings. But then look at the protracted development history of J-10 and the
fact that they lost a prototype because of FBW.

In case of delta wing and FBW, nobody has refuted the Prof on technical grounds yet.
And his point about Mig-29A having static stability and excellent maneuverability without FBW is pretty good.

All I have been able to find on LCA's wing is the statement
'"The LCA wing gives good performance, we understand its aerodynamics well, and would like to retain it for the MCA," says Dr. Harinarayana '

~Ashish

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 23 Oct 2010 01:20

awesome... but hes right about the manufacturing capabilities.

which reminds me , where in God's name is LSP-5. It was promised for July with the honorable director saying that they will be shipping out around 1 LCA a month. Lockheed has turned out more C130s in this period than HAL has turned out LCAs.

Come to think of it , even the project of 12 LCAs a year is way too slow. How are they gonna build a 140 planes before obsolescence at that rate.

but seriously, wheres LSP5 ..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Oct 2010 05:41

While reading about the Lavi's engine, I found some very interesting info that most might not have been aware of. Israel was looking to upgrade its F-4E Phantoms and alongwith McDonnell Douglas, initiated a test program named Kurnass 2000.

Apparently, the F-4E was tested with the Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofan (developed from the F100 engine for the Lavi) and they flight tested it by replacing one of the J79-GE-17 turbojets on the F-4E with the PW1120. The PW1120 was more powerful than the J79 and also more fuel efficient (being a turbofan). And it brought about some amazing changes to the F-4E.

The PW1120 powerplant was more powerful, and more fuel efficient than the General Electric J79-GE-17 turbojet normally installed in the F-4E.

The structural changes included modifying the air inlet ducts, new powerplant attachment points, new or modified powerplant bay doors, new airframe mounted gearbox with integrated drive generators and automatic throttle system.

It also included a modified bleed management and air-conditioning ducting system, modified fuel and hydraulic systems, and a powerplant control/airframe interface. It was first flown on 30 July 1986.

Two PW1120 powerplants were installed in the same F-4E and it was flown for the first time on 24 April 1987. This proved very successful, allowing the Kurnass 2000 to exceed Mach 1 without the afterburners, and endowing a combat thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.04 (17 per cent better than the F-4E). This improved sustained turn rate by 15 per cent, climb rate by 36 per cent, medium-level acceleration by 27 per cent and low-level speed with 18 bombs from 1,046 km/h to 1,120 km/h.

It was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show in 1987 carrying the show number 229 and civil registration 4X-JPA. However, McDonnell Douglas refused to approve the modification, because it offered a flight performance equal to that of the F/A-18C/D, and endangered any future sales of the F/A-18C/D.

I hope that the F414-INS6 engine brings about a similar improvement in the Tejas Mk2's performance over the Mk1.

BTW, the LCA production run has been decided by both the IAF and HAL. The production run will ramp up from 8 to 12 and then eventually to 20 per year. This is per a Parliamentary Committee on Defence report.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Oct 2010 09:50

The article written by Prof something is based on a “wrong premise” and he ignores the context of 1980s when LCA was to be developed. Note in 1980s we were already license manufacturing Mig-21, 27, Jags and it was reasonable assumption that manufacture of Mirage 2000 will be taken up. While Prof is saying that we should have developed Gen 2.5 to Gen 3 tech, the idea was to develop Gen 4-4.5 tech, which is the LCA, to come level with the world after Mirage 2000. But yes, nobody could have anticipated the economic crash of 1990s which wiped out a decade from Defense Procurement and R&D. If we had fiddled around with the design of Mig-21 or GNAT then licensing nations would have ended co-operation with us, Note we could not have antagonized Russia in mid-eighties. Also Note – Chinese F-17 is a development of Mig-21. It started in 1980s (alongwith LCA) as Super Saber or Super -7 or something like that as development/evolvement of Mig-21 design with cooperation of USA. USA pulled out and some Russian help came in. It is ONLY now coming into production alongwith LCA, but it is a generation behind LCA and Chinese still don’t have an engine or a Radar for it. So the advice of Prof dick was tried by Chinese but they failed. Test of pudding is in eating. But I agree that we should have multiple programmes to deal with failure/delay of one. Our present defense budget is piddly and our allocation of ONLY Rs. 5000 crores for AMCA is a sick joke. We have to allocate something like US$ 30 Billion from 2010 to 2025 to develop and manufacture AMCA. I recommed around US$ 1 Billion per annum for first 5 years, then US$ 1.5 Billion per annum for next five, followed by US$ 2.5 for last five years to set up manufactering line for plane, engine, radar, avionics, weapon etc (and yes, adjusted for inflation)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Oct 2010 10:25

^^^ I have but one request. Please be careful with your nomenclature ... He might have written something which is not palatable ... but that doesn't mean that you start calling him Prof D**k. He might hold a view contrary to yours but there is no denying that the man is a knowledgeable, respected and elderly man.

For god sake maintain your dignity.

P.S. Chinese aren't our role models, are they?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 23 Oct 2010 11:59

Gagan wrote:The raw material for carbon composites used to be imported from Japan. But the Agni-3 nosecone changed all that specially since that missile could reach Japan.

Last year there was a news piece which said that Reliance has set up a subsidiary plant to produce the fibrres needed close to its refinery in Gujarat. I suppose that when this plant is up and running, another instance of foreign dependence and tech and material denial will be taken care of.

Yes, it has been taken care of.

Local production of carbon composites by Kemrock and subsequently by Reliance would reduce dependence on imports over the next few years, when production begins largely for Saras and a five-seater passenger plane designed jointly by NAL and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/1323581 ... -make.html

Cheers....

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 23 Oct 2010 12:15

I feel the problem with professor's article is wrong time... majority of his points might have been relevant in mid 70 to late 80's.

Had we done some work on variants of say HF 24, Ajeet or Mig 21, we would have been in better position to start LCA by early nineties (Anyways, it practically started then)...

However, now the context is entirely irrelevant... I mean why the heck would one go back to primitive age... After a lot of efforts, persistence and lot of pains we took (dwindling numbers, pressure from US/USSR to go for their aircrafts instead), we have developed a lot of technology and infrastructure may of which equal or even better than the best we have...(Our contribution in avionics and mission computers of PAKFA/FGFA is a testimony to the same.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 23 Oct 2010 13:33

India expels Eurojet arms dealer

A well-known German arms dealer has been expelled from India after he audaciously attempted to manipulate a mega defence contract.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 23 Oct 2010 13:42

AdityaM wrote:India expels Eurojet arms dealer
A well-known German arms dealer has been expelled from India after he audaciously attempted to manipulate a mega defence contract.

It explains everything. It explains nothing.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 23 Oct 2010 13:52

Had the prof focused on just the delta wing part and the capabilities of the aircraft , it would have been received better. Instead the professor choses to be all over the place. And consider this : "If it is not a looker, it will probably not be a performer". Now what kind of argument is that? And the fact is, he is dead serious about it. How and Why - no explanation.Let me take a jab at what the prof thinks - he probably has the opinion that the rest of the countrymen have no clue about aircraft design and he considers himself to be the authority on it. I cannot think of any other reason why someone would write something like that without any backing whatsoever.

Attributing the dorsal intakes to "inability" and "disinterest" - is that palatable? In the LCA video, P Subrahmanyam states the aircraft design and handling is exactly as the customer wanted. That is also mentioned by the test pilots in the video released just before AI09. Of late, we have had the Air chief speaking kind words about the aircraft as well. Surely the design team was driven by what the IAF wanted which resulted in this aircraft. And the IAF determines what it wants in the aircraft it procures. Is the Prof telling the IAF what they should be procuring then? Then why take it on the ADA ? Clearly, the prof has lost the plot and has no clue about financing, customer needs and the real world.
Like I said, had he written this article a decade back, he would have been a visionary. And he could have said " I told you so" and we would have nodded.

I think what the Prof. should do now it write about MkII or about the MCA and what it should do. We can then see what the IAF wants, then compare notes to judge if the prof can make a call on today's fighter aircraft trends.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Oct 2010 13:59

Neela wrote:Like I said, had he written this article a decade back, he would have been a visionary. And he could have said " I told you so" and we would have nodded.

I think what the Prof. should do now it write about MkII or about the MCA and what it should do. We can then see what the IAF wants, then compare notes to judge if the prof can make a call on today's fighter aircraft trends.

I remember dozens of articles on main page of prominent newspapers when ASLV failed. Prof Something falls in same category. His praise of Chinese and Swedish planes is suspicious. Let him tell us how many decades of struggle it took Chinese to manufacture Mig-21 clones? What was the availibility, life and sortie rate?

Let him write a visionary article on T-50, AMCA, UCAV etc rather then penning points (in a article perhaps written with foreign joint venture??)

manum · Post by **manum** » 23 Oct 2010 14:01

deleted.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 23 Oct 2010 15:55

shiv wrote: Nobody can know the truth - but what Prodyut Das does is to ask if huge investments and long periods of time chasing the unattainable cannot be replaced by doing what is achievable reliably today and asks why nobody among the defence research set up are even looking at that possibility.

No, what the professor is engaging is academic castle building in the sky which goes in for what is "correct" as per a academic syllabus without any regard for the end user. The Professor obviously thinks he knows more about aircraft than the IAF: certainly he knows the theory more than the IAF and may fancy himself the next avatar of Bernoulli, but I would seriously doubt if he knows the operational aspects better than the IAF.

He has little knowledge of the practicalities involved in todays operational scenario, and callous disregard for what IAF wants. The job of ADA is NOT to build a aircraft that ticks all the boxes in a text book, but rather build something what IAF wants, especially when cost to the exchequer is involved.

What he is doing is akin to a plumber recommending building a mud pit as a toilet in your house because it is environmentally sound, low cost, low maintenance when you as the owner of the house is asking for a decent commode and a wash basin and then cursing you because you have no sense.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2010 18:06

I think some time ago Vayu has a fine a feature about the lost generation,that is the vacuum in Indian aircraft design after the HF-24.I remember seeing pics of the model of the HF-73,etc.Had we as some have said, continued with development of types in service and even new prototypes,we would've had better "engineering" capability as Prof. Das keeps on pointing out.What he has been trying to do in his numerous articles is to point out the pitfalls in aircraft design which have plagued many foreign aircraft and the temptaion to make every new design be the equivalent of a multi-armed deity,incorporating the latest "fashions" as they come along each season! He has pointed out which designs worked and which failed.Let's respect his analysis.Ultimately,what the end user,the IAF require are capable cost-effective aircraft in service and in numbers,easy to maintain and operate.

Given the inordinate time it has taken for the LCA tree to bear fruit and there is still a lot of "grafting" planned for MK-2 ,wings,fuselage and engines(!),the faster that MK-1 gets into service the better.Let it be conceived as primarily an air combat fighter,with BVR missiles if the radar and missiles are available and perfect it for that job and build at least 4-5 squadrons of it asap.As I said before,if it can kick the sh*t out of the JF-17 and Pak's F-16s,then it would've been worth the wait! We can use all our upgraded M-2000s,MIG-27s,MIG-29s,Jaguars for multi-role ops until Mk-2 and the MMRCA arrive.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2010 18:30

Actually Prof Das argues that delta wings have inherent weaknesses that can only be addressed by FBW. Of course he has to "rub it in" by saying that even FBW only partially addresses the particular weakensses of the delta wing. Also he makes no mention of the advantages of the delta wing which can be Googled by anyone interested.

But the point Das seems to be making is that the choice of pure delta+ FBW ties the Indian designers down because they cannot do hack jobs that the Americans did by increasing the tail surface area of the F-16 (which I know nothing about) - simply because there is no space to ad a tail. According to Das, this disadvantage will manifest itself at a later stage when, for example more more pylons may have to be added - perhaps on a bigger wing which will mean rewriting of the entire code. The particular criticism he tags on to this is that the "advisers" that India has were changed from the French (who are the most experienced in pure deltas) to the Americans.

I simply do not have the expertise to say whether he is right or wrong. But to be very frank only jingos on the net are defending the LCA and pointing out Prodyut Das's strawmen. For example the inner part of the "double delta" is spoken of as serving the same purpose as a canard (again by enthusiasts on the net). No official Indian from the team has actually bothered to explain if this might be so. Perhaps that will only attract more criticisms from the naysayers, but even jingos need some "official information" as "meat" to talk about. In the absence of that the crticism of Das become difficult to defend without anger and rancor at the man In fact simple answer may be that Das spends a lot of time picking on the weaknesses with a conoisseur's eye without spending a minute arguing for the other side and saying why some choices are good. Clearly some choices were made because they were right when they were made.

For example Das says "Oh pure delta is bad because it ties you down to FBW". Even if he is 100% correct in saying that delta may tie you down to FBW the original thought process may have been the other way around - i.e "We need a light FBW aircraft"

Having decided that the choices could have been various configurations including pure delta/double delta. If Das now asks "Why did they not anticipate all the things that I know now like the way the Americans hacked the F-16 because they wanted more pylons" I am sure the answer would be more kind to the LCA design team than Das is. But who is trying to answer it that way - i.e the way it actually panned out - with the choices they had back then. Who is defending the choice of delta wing which has its own inherent advantages? Nobody is doing that. Nobody is saying - even as a mere documentation of the history of Indian aviation design , why this choice was seen as appropriate. And after so many decades the "distinguished scientists" (Whom Das reserves special ire for) are all retired with their Padma Bhushans or whatever leaving the current LCA team to answer questions about decisions they made 2 decades ago.

As always victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. When the LCA is the most "Liberally Criticized Aircraft" in the world it hurts to hear a "Prof" throwing more stones. But what is required is not a dissing of the man himself but airing of alternative views.

For example a brief search on the net for Delta wings reveals why the French chose delta for Mirage III and why many designers moved away from delta. In any case the design of the LCA is unique. The thought processes need to be documented. But what is getting documented are the criticisms (from Das and others) and the angry murmur of jingos who do not have the knowledge to fight back on Das's terms.

The fact is that the Indian aeronautical stable has only a few publicly known designs to boast. And even fewer explanations of why those designs were chosen. Except IMO the ALH where the thinking was clear and revealed right from the outset. This LCA debate now reminds me of the Indian nuclear bomb yield debate where a critic gets airtime because the people in the know are not saying as much as the critic wants him to say. In both cases it is the relative opacity of the Indian design teams (ironically the DRDO/GoI in both cases) that is used by critics.

But this is where I am a fan of Prodyut Das. The India nuclear design team pointed out that no nation had been so open about details as India, but it was only the Indian team getting flak. But Prodyut Das hits out at non Indian design choices too and that is what makes me ignore his criticism of the LCA and drool over some of the other things he says. He certainly tears open choices made by other as well.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2010 18:39

Spot on Shiv!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2010 18:47

I am not sure where the US was when the first F-16 came out. Did anyone in the US think that the F-16 would be what it is today?

My feeling WRT the LCA is that if the IAF wants more pylons the IAF would get a MCA/AMCA. Tweeking the LCA beyond the MK-II would - IMVVHO - be more of an educational exercise. With the kind of funding numbers we are seeing today, I very much doubt that India would be forced to take the LCA to the "next level". I would think they would plunk all those billions (millions is a forgotten thing it seems) and invest it in a much more meaningful way. Perhaps at THAT time and during THAT effort Prof Das could be of great value. ?????? He would have a project where he could infuse his wisdom from ground up and not be fidgeting with power packs for ejection seats.

I would like him to do a write-up on what the MCA should be like.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Oct 2010 19:41

The MCA, if strated today will be an Indian interpretation of the Refaal IMO. Like the concept work in the late 1990s.

The AMCA if approved will be a different matter.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 23 Oct 2010 19:42

The thought processes need to be documented. But what is getting documented are the criticisms (from Das and others) and the angry murmur of jingos who do not have the knowledge to fight back on Das's terms.

If this metric is to be applied, then the only persons who should be debating are the likes of Narayanan and other aeronautical faculty. More to the point, the good Professor should have published it in a aeronautical technical journal on the lines of IEEE journals, rather than a general magazine.

Usually, most large engineering designs have various options to reach the end goal, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, sometimes equally good. Designers adopt one, and try to get around the disadvantages, and they succeed to an extent, assuming competent engineers. Given that the LCA is flying and gives decent performance, it is fair to assume that ADA is staffed by competent engineers and not nincompoops. In that situation, it is a bit presumptuous to imply that the Prof alone has all the engineering sense in the world and other designers are stupid.

BTW, given that having " knowledge" is a pre-requisite to counter Das, here is a question: was Prof Das privy to the full range of IAF requirements that were given to ADA? If others are expected to have "knowledge" , then so should Das with respect to IAF operational requirements. It is only fair.

Who is defending the choice of delta wing which has its own inherent advantages? Nobody is doing that. Nobody is saying - even as a mere documentation of the history of Indian aviation design , why this choice was seen as appropriate

By the same standards, has Das yet shown one statement or case where the IAF has said that it was willing to accept a 3rd gen fighter, and was willing to make the gap with quantity? If Das is making the assertion that IAF must be given a lower technology fighter, than it is up to him to show a statement that IAF is willing to do so. PAst IAF acquisitions have shown otherwise, from the M2K, Mig 29 to Su30MKI.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2010 19:51

Tanaji wrote:
The thought processes need to be documented. But what is getting documented are the criticisms (from Das and others) and the angry murmur of jingos who do not have the knowledge to fight back on Das's terms.
If this metric is to be applied, then the only persons who should be debating are the likes of Narayanan and other aeronautical faculty. More to the point, the good Professor should have published it in a aeronautical technical journal on the lines of IEEE journals, rather than a general magazine.

Saar statements like "should have", "should be", "should have done" are exactly what Prodyut Das is doing - except that is he backing it up with aeronautical gobbledygook that no jingo can understand or give an adequate reply. So what to do? Sometime, somewhere someone with inside knowledge "should speak up". Until then it will be equal equal to nuclear yield tamasha. Sit back and yenjaai. What will happen will happen Das or no Das.

Added later: Could there be some reason why the likes of Narayanan are silent? They are not silent in private though.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Oct 2010 20:00

>>He simply says -
A light fighter means a palne equipped with less gizmos. You can't take an MKI or F15 and scale everything down to 50% and end up with a light combat F15 or MKI. You have to start from other way and say what is minimum I must have to be competitive and relevant and let go rest of it aka tata nano, sold in same showroom as Luxary Jaguar, Safari and Land rovers.

I think this argument might find some echo within the establishment, i mean the line,"A light fighter means a palne equipped with less gizmos". But the definition of what is considered as "light" has moved on. It is the sole discretion of IAF to define that and in the age of 5th gen a/c, having 4th gen a/c can be taken as light fighter.

LCA is not meant to find market in the global arena but to fulfill a role for the IAF. It is designed with Indian tech for the IAF for meeting current & future threats.

If anyone other than IAF indulge in the business of defining how LCA to be built, let them come forward to put their money to build an LCA of their like.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Oct 2010 20:10

>> For example Das says "Oh pure delta is bad because it ties you down to FBW". Even if he is 100% correct in saying that delta may tie you down to FBW the original thought process may have been the other way around - i.e "We need a light FBW aircraft".

>>For example a brief search on the net for Delta wings reveals why the French chose delta for Mirage III and why many designers moved away from delta. In any case the design of the LCA is unique. The thought processes need to be documented. But what is getting documented are the criticisms (from Das and others) and the angry murmur of jingos who do not have the knowledge to fight back on Das's terms.

===========================================================

Some facts: LCA is not a pure delta. There are many officials(Gov & IAF officers) explaining its significance, including test pilots.

To negate the problems arising out of pure delta, yes, FBW and double delta was adapted. LCA is not the first a/c to have double delta. A similar a/c to LCA is F-16 XL.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2010 20:15

Tanaji wrote: By the same standards, has Das yet shown one statement or case where the IAF has said that it was willing to accept a 3rd gen fighter, and was willing to make the gap with quantity? If Das is making the assertion that IAF must be given a lower technology fighter, than it is up to him to show a statement that IAF is willing to do so. PAst IAF acquisitions have shown otherwise, from the M2K, Mig 29 to Su30MKI.

Tanajigaru, here is what Das says in the last page: (I am not going to reproduce all the text)

Twenty seven years is no small time span. The entire HF 24 program went from concept sketches to retirement within that time.. 560 crores was no small change in 1983: It was the price of 500 MiG 21s.

You are asking of the Air Force was willing to accept a 3 gen fighter? Do you see the irony? It is exactly as Das said. Because the designers aimed so high - the IAF is still left with the MiG 21, and still looking for a replacement. The IAF is forced to make do with 3rd Gen even today because India has not yet made 4th gen.

I will be going off topic if I point out that DRDO's "hyperplane" was shown as a model in 1999 Aero India. Where are we 11 years later? Where was the test that was supposed to be done? Surely money is not the problem. The aims and objectives of those on top, according to Das, were the problem. Are things still the same? The same government awards and pensions for people who have merely grown old in an organization.

I just heard from a young friend of mine. No he's no longer all that young. He has finally got a job in a major aero engine company in the US - which is what he always wanted to do. 17 years ago, in Bangalore, he was in GTRE working on the Kaveri. He used to say that the whole thing was a sham then as a young engineer. He must be 45 or 47 now. We must listen to young critics. If we allow them to grow old they become Prodyut Das types. But we don't. The criticisms of the young in India are shut out by the bureaucracy headed by Dr Pompous Trumpetwala, Padma Bhushan, Chief designer, Laser weapons dept, DRDO

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2010 20:23

I think the LCA has a lot of plus points. What I would like to see is for India to stick with it and produce 200 of them. In parallel with MRCA and 5th gen whatever. We have too much invested in the LCA to throw it away.

India cannot afford to dither with "either this or that". We need all of it.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 23 Oct 2010 20:32

shiv wrote:
I just heard from a young friend of mine. No he's no longer all that young. He has finally got a job in a major aero engine company in the US - which is what he always wanted to do. 17 years ago, in Bangalore, he was in GTRE working on the Kaveri. He used to say that the whole thing was a sham then as a young engineer. He must be 45 or 47 now. We must listen to young critics. If we allow them to grow old they become Prodyut Das types. But we don't. The criticisms of the young in India are shut out by the bureaucracy headed by Dr Pompous Trumpetwala, Padma Bhushan, Chief designer, Laser weapons dept, DRDO

Not much to disagree regarding Trumpetwala and GTRE. But unlike the GTRE that delivered a product that does not meet the original requirement, the ADA guys have delivered something that IAF is ready to use. That is what makes Das' comments a bit strange.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Oct 2010 21:17

shiv wrote:I think the LCA has a lot of plus points. What I would like to see is for India to stick with it and produce 200 of them. In parallel with MRCA and 5th gen whatever. We have too much invested in the LCA to throw it away.

India cannot afford to dither with "either this or that". We need all of it.

Very true another thing they should pursue is to make sure that they do not tinker with design of present production variant of Tejas Mk1 for the new engine , tinkering should be to the extent that is needed bare minimum for the new engine.

One thing that worries me on Tejas Mk2 is that there are talks of bigger wings , larger fuselage , larger intake[ this may be justifiable though ] , more HP and more ding doing.

The greater we tinker with Tejas design the more time we will spend flight testing and validating the new design and all that goes into it which means greater are the chances of more delays.

If the airforce needs more thrust to compensate for the lower thrust in existing engine , then they should just deliver that and get weight reduction done ( ~ 500 kg as PS mentioned in that interview ) , the remaining they should just keep it to Mk1 level.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Oct 2010 21:34

The Mark-1 is not good enough hence the IAF asked for Mark-2 with better thrust , most likely to compensate for the added weight that has some effect on 1 or 2 flying qualities of Tejas as PS pointed out in that interview.

Which is my point as well , if IAF needs more thrust and PS says that he can get the weight down by 500 kg over Mk1 , then just give them that dont tinker with the rest in the hope of bigger and better.