LCA News and Discussions

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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 02 Mar 2011 23:38

ramana:

Well that is in BR, and not what our DRDO labs does to IAF as a user. unless, we have indirect posters posting right from inside the labs.

The user [from ddm reports] generally are bashing the makers that it ain't yet ready, and never so in time. Furthermore, beyond BR scope, no where this is projected or heard. It was always the case that we are failing to deliver in time.

The defects are identified, and time is now to rectify and not to blame each other. Blaming the babooze is always the right thing to do, and would be highly correct, true, consistent and valid at all times. :mrgreen:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Mar 2011 23:53

I am mostly a watcher in all of this, but here is my understanding after many years of reading this thread and reading the back and forth between the supporters and the critics.

It seems that the ADA was out to build a technology base, necessarily a trial and error process, prone to delays, disappointments and challenges. The IAF on the other hand wanted an asset. The type of asset, they think they need changes based on threat perceptions from a replacement of Mig 21 to challenge F16 and now a 4.5+ generation fighter.

In many ways, it seems to me, in hindsight, the ADA took on more than it could chew, coupled with events not in their control like sanctions and lack of adequate budgetary and organizational support.

It may have been less risky, but acceptable to the IAF, to go for a more traditional approach for the air frame, as apposed to a tail less, compound delta with no canards. A lower level of composites, could have sped up things. Digital FBW could have been phased in. Maybe the first iteration should not have been a single engine aircraft, in some ways more complex to pull off. A twin engine would be more forgiving to weight additions, especially an indigenous engine being done for the first time.

Not saying that the choices made were wrong but that they added to the risk, risk of time.

So, instead of the slogan "the most light weight, smallest fighter with tail less, delta and quadruplex FBW", a program to produce a modern fighter, with an evolving meaning of modernity should have been a less risky approach.

The benefits of this reduced risk, would have been a less "modern" but acceptable product. Unless, the experts here feel, that there was NO other way but to make the same choices that the ADA did and the only way to get to a fighter, that would be accepted by the IAF to meet their threat perceptions. The ADA should have under promised and over delivered.

However, the responsibility for this type of product planning and management belongs to the IAF and the MoD. The IAF has no case to complain, if they are not even on the table as a co-owner from 1983-2005.

In a project of this national importance, the MoD should have forced the IAF and ADA to work together and be joined at the hip to come up with a plan(s) and design(s), that is acceptable to the IAF and within the confines of what the ADA could produce/acquire in acceptable time and cost estimates. The tragedy is this project was not even budgeted for till 1993.

The MoD woke up way too late to make this happen, i guess sometime around 2005. When IAF was forced in?, saw what they have in hand and said, oops, let us make these changes, so that we get something acceptable (now based on 2005 standards). Result: The IAF does not have a usable product today (in their view) as it will take another 5-7 years to get there.

The responsibility for this failure to manage a product belongs to the MoD and the IAF. Unless, we have heard something to indicate that the ADA did not want the IAF "messing" around with the technocrats view of what the product should be or that the MoD for some reason did not want the IAF to be a co-owner. I have not read anything here to that effect and hence the responsibility to not manage belongs to the IAF and MoD.

This is the cost that the nation has to pay for misgovernance, and it squarely belongs at the highest levels in the MoD and the government.

OT: The LCA saga, is a prime example, of my belief that the powers that be in India are not interested in building a military-industrial complex.

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby aditya.agd » 03 Mar 2011 00:23

Nice post Shaurya.

Your conclusion seems to be every correct that the political masters driven by their selfish desires and motives do not want India to develop an indigenous military-industrial complex. Because then the kick-backs and other ways of earning money will be stopped. Also, given the Indian intellectual capacity the foreign military powers also do not want India to grow in this space.

The problem with india is not the capability often, rather the administration. God save India....

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 03 Mar 2011 00:37

Gurneesh wrote: <snip>
Well if they wanted to make a f-16 level fighter, Tejas should have been heavier and larger from the get go.

not a tejas level fighter but one that could fight against it. not the same thing.

and please
a) don't quote a large post for a one line comment
b) learn to use the quote feature.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2011 01:14

Also, if one looks at the time spent since 1983 to 1989
wiki wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas_timeline


Nothing was with ADA control. Babooze were holding everything. So, take off 6 to 7 years from a realistic schedule.

Lot of snecma directions have happened. I hope, we can dig more into what really we benefited from Snecma.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 03 Mar 2011 09:16

rohitvats wrote:Again, it is your simple comprehension issue - can you please tell me where I wrote issues with technologies on Mk-1?

Better still, since you have all the facts in place - can you, or anyone else, eductae me, what was the timeframe given by the ADA for first flight of TD-1 and subsequent roll-out of PV-1 and IOC and FOC? And please feel free to list the reasons for why the same were not met.


I will rest it to you for backing up your statements like "IAF says that ADA made it complex (what else was the option)" and "If its going to be inducted in 2014, then it comes with latest technology (without telling what is obselete in Mark 1)." Also my questions "which other trade other than "technical" is capable of completing a complex project like making a fighter aircraft" and other questions I have asked.

Also, I would like you to enlighten me what the time table set for TD-1 and LCA development which was not met. Also how ADA could have pulled out a rabbit from hat after its software and equipment were confesticated.

I regret geting personal because, I feel that you always try to run away from reasoning, indulge in questioning and then act as a interrogator. It's my personal opinion that youare a good poster and a respected member, however, I don't agree with your style of debates, which I feel can be avoided and does not suit you. I hope someday, you stop questioning and counter questioning for a question and attacking others as a strategy. If you think, "its my comprehension of understandin" you seem to be wrong as it is you who have failed to communicate with me and others based on the subsequent dabate.

If you respond with another round of questioning and other gimmicks, I will stop wasting my time.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 03 Mar 2011 10:40

^^^CJ - let it rest.

I can say exactly the same things about you but I have no inclination to get into sparring match with you.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 03 Mar 2011 10:41

rohitvats wrote:^^^CJ - let it rest.

I can say exactly the same things about you but I have no inclination to get into sparring match with you.


Ok . lets call it quits.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby merlin » 03 Mar 2011 11:02

ramana wrote:It must be some arcane details the finer points we mere mortals dont comprehend? I gave up.

To me the arguments seems like bash the IAF for not going gungho with the LCA development team's efforts.


Why should they not be gung-ho? Is the IAF content to keep importing aircraft after aircraft and not support indigenous efforts since they can happily import? Is the job of providing support to build an aerospace infrastructure only the governments?

ramana wrote:While at the outset it looks like that but one has to recall they have to fight and not be just flyboys.


If they are content to just fight I would accuse the IAF of a lack of vision.

ramana wrote:Once the concept was proven they swung behind it.


Reluctantly I might add. Witness the recent statements by the COAS. Which other country disses its own aircraft and that too with such ill grace at a public event? Is this just lack of judgement?

ramana wrote:I recall RayC was also bashed for saying INSAS had some shortcomings! And he was user.


Which weapon system does not have shortcomings? There is none in the world. And inspite of these shortcomings, there have been more than a million of them produced.

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 » 03 Mar 2011 11:26

Witness the recent statements by the COAS. Which other country disses its own aircraft and that too with such ill grace at a public event? Is this just lack of judgement?


Absolutely not. It was by design . The entire idea was to make what should have been a dignified IOC ceremony with ribbon cutting and a warm handshake and congratulation and good job done kind of thing into a wailing heavens have fallen and a miserable failure thing.

It was calculated to make the IOC into a Aiyooooo See :(( :(( :cry: :cry: :cry: , Amma, these scoundrels have been scr*wing us kind of thing.

jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby jai » 03 Mar 2011 12:10

ShauryaT wrote:
In a project of this national importance, the MoD should have forced the IAF and ADA to work together and be joined at the hip to come up with a plan(s) and design(s), that is acceptable to the IAF and within the confines of what the ADA could produce/acquire in acceptable time and cost estimates. The tragedy is this project was not even budgeted for till 1993.

The MoD woke up way too late to make this happen, i guess sometime around 2005. When IAF was forced in?,

The responsibility for this failure to manage a product belongs to the MoD and the IAF -the responsibility to not manage belongs to the IAF and MoD.

This is the cost that the nation has to pay for misgovernance, and it squarely belongs at the highest levels in the MoD and the government.

OT: The LCA saga, is a prime example, of my belief that the powers that be in India are not interested in building a military-industrial complex.


Good analysis ShauryaT....MOD needs to display leadership for doing everything needed for the defense of this country - a responsibility they have due to their position in the scheme of things but perhaps are not aware of, or better still, do not want to take on seriously.

This lack of defense ministerial leadership is the real cause of all things going wrong in defense forces, where there is certainly no lack of military leadership.

Given the sensitive nature of the outcomes of this lack of leadership, I think its time for Mr Clean or MMS to shake up the defmin and put in more responsible ex servicemen or serving officers and soldiers in MOD. The MOD needs to see itself as the key support and service arm of their key customer - the three defense forces and not as their lord and master.

Mr Clean needs to clean his own house first.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby merlin » 03 Mar 2011 14:16


dipak
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby dipak » 03 Mar 2011 14:19

No one denies the faults, problems or areas of improvements those are there in desi maal.

Its the attitude and double standards of the armed forces with regards to desi vs. foreign maal, which gets the goat.
And the trend is identical if you replace LCA and IAF to Arjun and IA.

For firangi maal - the faults and problems are tolerated, cooperated, looked in a positive way and handled in mature manner (like ...all products have problems initially, we will sort them out in due course of time)

For desi maal - "...what faults and cooperation etc ...we are the ones who fight and pay for with our lives, so we want the best, we don't care how you do it or from where you get it, but give me the best. And don't forget - deliver it in time! Else, on every possible occasion, I am entitled to blame you for the delay, I can blow it out of proportion and keep harping on it endlessly. Remember, its me who pays for his life for this delay."

For desi maal - if other issues are sorted out and there is not much to criticize for, delay becomes a top factor.
"Ok, when did you promise to deliver? And when you actually delivered, can you go back and check?"
For firangi maal - "well, we are floating the RFP for the last, may be, 7-8 years, still nothing conclusive ...lets finalize by this year and start getting the delivery in another 1-2 years time."
"Delay - what delay? Ok, its around 9 years to boot to get the first delivery, but that's acceptable for firangi maal."
But for 17 years for the desi-maal, its too much - not acceptable.
"So what if similar products have been developed in west with similar or higher time-frame, I am the one who is going to fight the war - I will not tolerate the delay, 17 years is too much for LCA."
9 years is nothing for a firangi-maal.
"And, well, I will not publicly criticize this delay. We have to cooperate with the due process. The process of selecting right vendor and product is not joke, you know. It takes time. So 9 years are fine."

In short, for firangi maal, 9 years are ok but for desi maal, 17 years are way too high - not acceptable!

Here, it looks as if armed forces are partnering with the firangi company and taking, sort of, ownership of the product and working closely.
No snide remarks are passed in important public events. No comments are leaked that its the armed forces who are to pay for with their lives for so and so shortcomings in the product or any thing less than the best.

But similar faults and problems become bane of desi maal.

Suddenly, nothing short of the best becomes compulsory to be delivered from desi product, and that too, in stringent time frame. It will not be considered if the required infrastructure available or not with the developing agency. They don't seem to care a bit when sanctions hit the project taking away their data and systems. Was it the fault of ADA that India conducted the nuclear tests and resulted into immediate sanctions? When was the last time we heard even a sympathetic acknowledgment from the user for this fact, which was an important factor in the delay and a source of additional complexity in the project? Are they not aware of it? Or, they are trying to consciously downplay it?

Lot of debate is going on about the Mil-Ind Complex, that IAF is not bothered about creation of the MIC and all they are concerned with is timely delivery of the proposed fighter.

Fine.

But pray tell me, how is it possible to deliver a fighter without creating the basic MIC? When they floated the ASR with ADA, were they not aware that at least a basic MIC has to be built first in order to get the fighter to be delivered? Will you create MIC first and deliver a fighter later, or you deliver a fighter first and create the MIC later? Which should come first? That is a given. In fact, that has to happen in parallel and simultaneously. Once that is done (MIC in place), future projects, upgrades and customization might take lesser time and effort, imparting more confidence to the developer as well as user.
And who will be primary beneficiary of all this infra and capabilities - not the IAF? Why do they seem to lack simple foresight and vision? So, how can anyone get away for saying that creating MIC is not IAF's priority while they are the primary beneficiary of creation of MIC in India?

Do IAF propose any other way out to develop desi fighter? Hope not like Marut, right?
Actually, there is no alternate for the projects of these kinds of national importance that the user has to partner and be a stakeholder with the developer, not being merely a distant watcher.
Hope they would understand that sooner than later.
Of late, there has been some realization and post 2005-6, a better synergy is spotted between the two (IAF & ADA, user & developer).
But even now, in 2011, this synergy does not prevent from our esteems COAS from declaring 'Mig-21++' comment! This leaves us realizing that still IAF need miles to go.

/Sorry for the rant.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2011 16:55

Well, it is getting developed in parallel.. the only aspect is the time, and phase difference between these setup and use. We are like that onlee.

The same is true for production facility, but you heard Arjun facility to sleep for 30 months lately right? We don't want that news (ddm?) to repeat again.

We can easily blame and rant, but when it comes to solution just like that, we have no ideas for the future. Everyone fears to take leadership role, and work up a detailed dos and don'ts list, and act on the possible loopholes. The rightful stakeholder is our armed forces. They can't runaway from this (by criticizing) is what they have to know. Faults have to be corrected, and asap in the project definition stage, and involve with r&d right from the beginning.

Pure management aspects, where we are eons away. We (forces not with us) still think DRDO labs are purely suppliers from firang land.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 03 Mar 2011 18:12

for those who may be interested, T/W ratio of LCA in comparison to J10 based on the same assumptions of my past similar posts. J10 specs from -

http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... specs.html

both @ full internal fuel -

LCA mark 1....................J10

0.88.............................0.85

LCA mark 2 at full internal fuel and J10 @ half internal fuel -

LCA mark 2....................J10

1.16.............................0.99

Indaruta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 21:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Indaruta » 03 Mar 2011 18:26

dipak wrote:No one denies the faults, problems or areas of improvements those are there in desi maal.

Its the attitude and double standards of the armed forces with regards to desi vs. foreign maal, which gets the goat.
And the trend is identical if you replace LCA and IAF to Arjun and IA.

For firangi maal - the faults and problems are tolerated, cooperated, looked in a positive way and handled in mature manner (like ...all products have problems initially, we will sort them out in due course of time)

For desi maal - "...what faults and cooperation etc ...we are the ones who fight and pay for with our lives, so we want the best, we don't care how you do it or from where you get it, but give me the best. And don't forget - deliver it in time! Else, on every possible occasion, I am entitled to blame you for the delay, I can blow it out of proportion and keep harping on it endlessly. Remember, its me who pays for his life for this delay."

For desi maal - if other issues are sorted out and there is not much to criticize for, delay becomes a top factor.
"Ok, when did you promise to deliver? And when you actually delivered, can you go back and check?"
For firangi maal - "well, we are floating the RFP for the last, may be, 7-8 years, still nothing conclusive ...lets finalize by this year and start getting the delivery in another 1-2 years time."
"Delay - what delay? Ok, its around 9 years to boot to get the first delivery, but that's acceptable for firangi maal."
But for 17 years for the desi-maal, its too much - not acceptable.
"So what if similar products have been developed in west with similar or higher time-frame, I am the one who is going to fight the war - I will not tolerate the delay, 17 years is too much for LCA."
9 years is nothing for a firangi-maal.
"And, well, I will not publicly criticize this delay. We have to cooperate with the due process. The process of selecting right vendor and product is not joke, you know. It takes time. So 9 years are fine."

In short, for firangi maal, 9 years are ok but for desi maal, 17 years are way too high - not acceptable!

Here, it looks as if armed forces are partnering with the firangi company and taking, sort of, ownership of the product and working closely.
No snide remarks are passed in important public events. No comments are leaked that its the armed forces who are to pay for with their lives for so and so shortcomings in the product or any thing less than the best.

But similar faults and problems become bane of desi maal.

Suddenly, nothing short of the best becomes compulsory to be delivered from desi product, and that too, in stringent time frame. It will not be considered if the required infrastructure available or not with the developing agency. They don't seem to care a bit when sanctions hit the project taking away their data and systems. Was it the fault of ADA that India conducted the nuclear tests and resulted into immediate sanctions? When was the last time we heard even a sympathetic acknowledgment from the user for this fact, which was an important factor in the delay and a source of additional complexity in the project? Are they not aware of it? Or, they are trying to consciously downplay it?

Lot of debate is going on about the Mil-Ind Complex, that IAF is not bothered about creation of the MIC and all they are concerned with is timely delivery of the proposed fighter.

Fine.

But pray tell me, how is it possible to deliver a fighter without creating the basic MIC? When they floated the ASR with ADA, were they not aware that at least a basic MIC has to be built first in order to get the fighter to be delivered? Will you create MIC first and deliver a fighter later, or you deliver a fighter first and create the MIC later? Which should come first? That is a given. In fact, that has to happen in parallel and simultaneously. Once that is done (MIC in place), future projects, upgrades and customization might take lesser time and effort, imparting more confidence to the developer as well as user.
And who will be primary beneficiary of all this infra and capabilities - not the IAF? Why do they seem to lack simple foresight and vision? So, how can anyone get away for saying that creating MIC is not IAF's priority while they are the primary beneficiary of creation of MIC in India?

Do IAF propose any other way out to develop desi fighter? Hope not like Marut, right?
Actually, there is no alternate for the projects of these kinds of national importance that the user has to partner and be a stakeholder with the developer, not being merely a distant watcher.
Hope they would understand that sooner than later.
Of late, there has been some realization and post 2005-6, a better synergy is spotted between the two (IAF & ADA, user & developer).
But even now, in 2011, this synergy does not prevent from our esteems COAS from declaring 'Mig-21++' comment! This leaves us realizing that still IAF need miles to go.

/Sorry for the rant.



One reason could be the past experience PSU's are not known for there consistent quality...and MIC are typically private companies.
You need top dollars to get the best people.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 03 Mar 2011 18:29

merlin wrote:Relevant to this thread The Iron Bird Team: A Tejas story never told before!


We may be happy with the participation of private industry in the field of aeronautics, but the crude fact is that whenever an aerospace company or a venture has been established, it has eaten away the cream of the industries like HAL, ADA, and ADE etc. There are many who have been offered plum positions and fat salaries for similar work in these private establishments. And believe it or not, some of the delay in the Tejas project can be attributed to this very fact also. People of the level of project director, AGM etc. had redefined their loyalties and jumped to a world of leisure and comfort. In spite of these alluring offerings to the core people associated with the Tejas program the program had continued without much deceleration and the ‘Tejas Loyals’ came out with flying colours. Most of these crazy people have even never seen their salary slips from past many years. Ask them their basic pay even today and they will start looking at the skies, not for a clue but to tell the world, Tejas is our actual pay that we have earned. The soldiers at the borders have the obsession of dying for the country, we, at Iron Bird live with that and are always ready to die with that furore.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 03 Mar 2011 18:35

pragnya, it always makes more sense to calculate these characteristics at 50% fuel.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 03 Mar 2011 19:02

Rahul M wrote:pragnya, it always makes more sense to calculate these characteristics at 50% fuel.


agreed but for tiny birds like gripen/mig 21/lca the internals are less and IMO it does make sense to look at full internals. in any case in all my calculations i have taken all birds @ equal footing and @half or full, it will still go up/down proportionately.

in the case of J10 if i do it @ half internals - LCA mark 2 t/w ratio will get to unbeleivable level. (1.36 vs .99) :wink:

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12519
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Mar 2011 19:16

Please who say 17 years is too long should look up how long it took to develop the EF, Typhoon, F-22 and the kind of funding given to these programmes.

Besides we had no industries to help in this and no prior experience. No indegenious supplier for High Quality Mettalurgy Composites, FBW software, radar Software, Jet Fuel Starter, Aircraft Design etc. besides the 1 Lakh parts which go into an aircraft.

All these had to be developed , a TATA can today build airframes , this was hardly possible 10 years ago.

Besides the Babudom and Arms lobby was trying to kill the Project.

Former Airforce Officer, IOC Chief Suresh Kalmadi went to the extent of using all his strings with MP's to have a resolution tabled in Parliment to kill the Porject, Luckily this was shot down.

It took TATA 8 years and 1200 crore loses before the Indica car ( India's First Indegenious car) could be Launched commercially.

Today we may take it for Granted but only after the Indica started becoming commercially viable did Maruti started making Engines and Gearboxes in India, for 20 years these were imported from Japan.

Regarding Firangi Maal could have been bought in 1993-95, such Firangi maal would hardly have many of features which is there in Tejas MK-1 today and would be going through a Mid Life upgrade which would again take 3-5 years today and tonnes of Mullah

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 03 Mar 2011 19:31

50% internal fuel figure is chosen because that is around the typical 'operating zone' for a fighter.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 03 Mar 2011 19:58

Rahul M wrote:50% internal fuel figure is chosen because that is around the typical 'operating zone' for a fighter.


i do not disagree with you if you are referring to normal cruise speed with no A/B. but in a battle, IMO if at all, it applies more to a medium/heavy fighter. or is that a norm?? anyway i would be happy to be corrected.

my understanding is this -

a heavy fighter with high internal fuel has the luxury of shedding it's internals by half for a reduced range/reduced flying time 'but still' comparable to a lighter aircraft with full internals. a lighter fighter with smaller range/lesser flying time simply can't afford that in a faceoff with a heavy as it will run out of fuel in no time - unless ofc they have recourse to a tanker. fwiw.

brvarsh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 03 Mar 2011 20:29

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby brvarsh » 03 Mar 2011 20:35

It is wrong to say LCA program was late by decade(s). Looking at the infrastructure this country had when this program started and time it takes to build it, LCA was late at most by 4-5 years. And we should all be very proud of what is built. I am sure this sentiment is not new and has been many a times shared by BRFites. The key to its success would be how we build upon this achievement? We would be foolish to make it another Marut.

palash_kol
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:07

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby palash_kol » 03 Mar 2011 23:26

brvarsh wrote:It is wrong to say LCA program was late by decade(s). Looking at the infrastructure this country had when this program started and time it takes to build it, LCA was late at most by 4-5 years. And we should all be very proud of what is built. I am sure this sentiment is not new and has been many a times shared by BRFites. The key to its success would be how we build upon this achievement? We would be foolish to make it another Marut.


@brvarsh : You 1st post is very matured.... :)

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby dipak » 04 Mar 2011 01:21

Indaruta wrote:One reason could be the past experience PSU's are not known for there consistent quality

That's fair.
However, this lack of good quality etc, did not stop IN from getting it what it required ..by working closely with them instead of being in lamenting mode.

Why IAF couldn't emulate the same? The answer IMO is simple - there was always an easy way out - to import!
(In case of IN, the budget allocation made it difficult, which they realized very early. And led them to establish their design arm.
Pure foresight and vision IMO.)

Indaruta wrote:...and MIC are typically private companies.
You need top dollars to get the best people.

You are right. However, in our context, it is the infra and ecosystem capable to deliver the product - whether its PSU owned or pvt owned. We can't follow the example of LM or EADS ...

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Baldev » 04 Mar 2011 07:23

Lets get to the even more interesting part, weight - the Zhuk ME, weighs 220 Kg. The LCA MMR required specifications? 130 Kg (http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/acig_aero05_lca.htm). Note the interesting thing (combined signal processor, data processor and also combined receiver/exciter). In contrast, for Su-30 MKI radar, there is Signal processor, two separate data processors (supplied by India) and separate, receiver/exciter.

The weight of Bars radar is 650 Kg, 250 kg antenna, so 400 kg rest. So just see the comparison here, for the AUW of the MMR at 130 kg, including the antenna even when comparing to the rest of the Bars radar!! The lightest version of the ELTA 2032 is quoted at around ~100 Kg per Avionics Journal, more capable ones will weigh more. So here you have the MMR which has performance expected at the RDY-2/Zhuk ME level and is expected to have a large dia antenna, high speed scanning, all the advanced features, and yet be lightweight.

The Israelis when they were brought into "fix" signal processing for A2G issues, were reportedly surprised at the demands made of the radar sets!! Only when the IAF got its Kopyo, did it realize how unrealistic the MMR was in terms of specifications, and that they could do well with lesser! Kopyo 21 has 57 km range, much lesser against small target).

So as Rajkumar implies but does not openly specify, we went to the Russians for it, after he had a discussion with the then IAF chief (i think it was Krishnaswamy, who was relatively reasonable, having a test flying background, so was willing to hear out Rajkumar). The Russians if you recall were advertising Kopyo-M with "enhanced range" - only 75 km!! But even there, the Russians put their foot down, bureaucracy/who knows what, and that didnt occur. Ultimately, we went to Israel and have the set working now. Point is the IAF specs were very ambitious, and are today, achieved with sets that are either heavier, or more powerful (power), and are on larger, more powerful aircraft. The LCA being a MiG21 replacement, and has to have radar which is double the range (even more actually) than MiG-29 (65 kM range vs 5Sq Mtr) and MiRAGE 2000 H (same level) and modes which were not there in any, such as SAR (later added) and modes which were there only on one type (Mirage 2000) - A2G - Doppler Mapping, Ranging, and TFR (which some dont even credit RDM with having). This is just ONE example, of how IAF requirements are so hard to meet.
those requirements put by air force for MMR were just rubbish they wanted too much out of LCA,MMR,

air force using russian aircraft forgot that whenever russian had technology but faced miniature/power/cooling/range problems they just made aircraft bigger just like zaslon on mig31,bars which was the easiest way to deal with all problems but knowing this our air force guys who throw such stringent requirements in front of those who never ever created an aircraft fire control radar sounds peculiar.

zhuk me,rdy2 were available 10 years ago so air force should have upgraded mig29/27 and m2000 10 years ago with these radars but instead doing that they put such requirements for LCA.

this also shows russian or other foreign radars are not designed to meet our specifications that we need that many kilometer range from this much power but it is also interesting that why MMR if its ready not made part of mig29,m2000 upgrade and was the back end processor from kopyo not available for MMR.

and for zhuk me russian have not done much improvement on slotted array radars except software upgrades in last 10 years,its 180 kg lighter than the terrible N019 radar and great improvement according to them.they are more focused on AESA/PESA.
Last edited by Baldev on 04 Mar 2011 07:44, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 04 Mar 2011 07:32

:rotfl: So, we can kiss good bye the fiction that IAF wanted simple aircraft and ADA made it complex. IIRC, the fact that IAF and ADA disagreed was on the airframe. Airframe, as we know the history was never the problem and ADA made it within specified time after it got all the funds and necessary approvals.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 04 Mar 2011 08:19

Because LCA was home grown, IAF could ask for changes in spec and get them in the final aircraft. Guess what would have happened with a foreign vendor?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 04 Mar 2011 08:42

about the Tejas EW version:

I recall someone (jcage or late bharry?) posting on BR about the existence of Mig21FL / Mig23 units in the IAF equipped with a Saab jammer for escort jamming role. some photo was also posted which a old salt promptly id'ed the saab jammer.

so it looks like this lot (maybe 30-40 ac spread all around) is due to retirement and Tejas can obviously fill the niche in a better way all-round, being a superior airframe and payload/eqpt choices. would expect a separate order for this Tejas-J in a couple years hopefully.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 04 Mar 2011 08:47

How about Tejas-S (SEAD)?

Does Interceptor role still valid in ops since the advent of BVR capability?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 04 Mar 2011 08:53

Do we know if Tejas was flown by IAF test pilots only?

Reason why I ask is the IA wanted a third party to monitor Arjun trials which resulted in the title Desert Ferrari. So was the IAF also in similar mode?

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 04 Mar 2011 09:00

ramana wrote:Do we know if Tejas was flown by IAF test pilots only?

Reason why I ask is the IA wanted a third party to monitor Arjun trials which resulted in the title Desert Ferrari. So was the IAF also in similar mode?


Naval pilot/s too.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 04 Mar 2011 09:07

> Does Interceptor role still valid in ops since the advent of BVR capability?

to launch any missile you have to reach there in time with favourable height and speed to within 30km of the enemy for favourable bvr right? so speed, endurance, climb rate, low drag , turn and roll rates will never go out of fashion...somewhat like shoes...shoes and sandals have been in use for 1000s of years and keep changing but remain in place. the era of the Mig21 style limited endurance 'point defence' bird is gone though..strike a/c now have the range to take longer routes and mount standoff weapons , so interceptors have evolved too.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 04 Mar 2011 09:11

And BTW ramana,

Army invited Israeli's because it faced criticism that it is not "capable" of evaluating a heavy western tank and not because Army needed a third part opinion.

The above is a myth like "Army has asked for MK2 in second 124 order."

IAF flies both western and Russian a/c and is very capable of evaluating high tech planes.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby bmallick » 04 Mar 2011 10:15

I believe this whole discussion of IAF not being supportive of LCA, technocrats being too ambitious with the program etc is correct. However it is equally correct that because of certain decisions ( which has to some extent contributed to the delays ) made in the last two decades, we too now have in place the requisite experience and knowledge to make world class aircrafts. There is no point in beating around the bush pompoming any particular view. The need is to learn that such complex projects require more stringent management. Also it is important to learn that such projects probably more often than not have delay in-built in them. So plan accordingly.

However I believe the IAF should learn something from the IN, that yes your home grown product may not be what you want, you have every right to demand better, but do not do so publicly and only by being a supportive parent can you teach your toddler how to walk properly. For example, the IN does not go about telling the press during the induction ceremony of its destroyer that they are Kashin++. IN would definitely wanted to have a System like Aegis and associated long range SAM in its destroyers. But thats a desire. It was pragmatic enough to understand that such a capability would eventually come and work has to be done to get there. So we have the P-15B destroyer in line, which would be hopefully inducted soon. Also it is a known fact that indian shipyard take far longer time to make ships compared to foreign ones. However we do not see the IN castigating and openly saying projects are delayed, import. Is it not important for the navy to have timely delivery of vessels, of course it is. But resent about it, if need be lambast some official from MDL, for example, but all behind closed doors and thats what the navy I believe has done always. This is something the IAF or for that matter IA should learn the most from the IN. Even if the local product is not upto your standards, say so to the designer behind the scenes and not publicly. Also be a partner to your designer. On a lighter note an example of the above scenario is, if your wife is a bad cook, you do not go around publicly saying so do you and also you do not eat out everyday. You either learn to eat that food and get used to it or you can start cooking with her and teach her to make better food. The choice is yours. Some would say change the wife, but you are partners for better or worse right.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Mar 2011 12:01

posting after a long time...

Karan_M fantastic post mate....

Pity left journalism and Bangalore before things became exciting...

Anyhow the LCA and Arjun reinforce views of thought processes of many senior offr met....

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sanku » 04 Mar 2011 12:27

IA/IAF would love to work in IN mode, it basically gives them overlordship of DRDO for their projects (read tsarkar's post on difference in Naval R&D management vs other forces)

The question is, would DRDO?

The first time (and over and over) there was bad blood on LCA was precisely because of that, and MoD did not play its role of owing up.

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 » 04 Mar 2011 12:35

IA/IAF would love to work in IN mode


Like to and CAN DO are totally different things.

The IN actually built an officer corps of Naval Architects and technical folks with ranks upto Vice Admiral.

All the IA and IAF have done until now is Harrumph and snigger at "Bah Civilians" and allowed dashing worthies like the DGMF and other brass (who are great as fighters and commanders, but totally unsuited as weapons designers and planners) to throw their weight around and pretend to be great product planners/engineers and the result is all we have is a Huffy and Tuffy kind of oddballs that they have to show for their Harrumphing.

If they can come up with anything better than Huffy and Tuffy, lets see it before they start running down the "Bah Civilians"

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby geeth » 04 Mar 2011 14:14

>>>The question is, would DRDO?

Would DRDO..what?

NSTL, NPOL etc ar DRDO labs working directly under the supervision of Navy. Also, Navy Officers do research work in these labs. There is close interaction between Navy and DRDO during design and development / trial stage of SONARs, Torpedos, depth charges etc etc.

Not only that - there are scientists from DRDO who are deputed to Naval College of Engineering, Lonavla as lecturers. The principal invariably a scientist. Later in life, when these officers interact with these very same scientists, they are more like Gurujis to them than a mere colleague.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Mar 2011 14:18

Tejas as EW platform - my first reaction was that its quite a small airframe to carry a lot of jamming gear, but it if it is a mix of internal/conformal and podded - might be quite interesting
i also expect that the TD's could be good research vehicles for AMCA future designs


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests