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.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3782
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 19 Dec 2012 18:21

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 1957 Test Flights Successfully. (15-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-82,LSP4-56,LSP5-111,LSP7-6,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1959 Test Flights Successfully. (18-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-83,LSP4-56,LSP5-111,LSP7-7,NP1-4)

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3782
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 20 Dec 2012 11:41

[quote="suryag"]Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 1959 Test Flights Successfully. (18-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-83,LSP4-56,LSP5-111,LSP7-7,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1960 Test Flights Successfully. (19-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-83,LSP4-56,LSP5-112,LSP7-7,NP1-4)

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2095
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Picklu » 21 Dec 2012 13:10

Looks like the ADA website is quite efficient in terms of flight test update and our ire was misdirected. If there is no update, then the planes are not flying; not some poor website admin lazing off.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sagar G » 24 Dec 2012 21:14

X post from AVD Thread...

Mihir wrote:In vehicle manufacturing, you usually do not have separate "lines" to manufacture different vehicles. In fact, the very idea of a "production line" as a lay person understands it is flawed. It conveys the impression that the process is sequential with a single, well-defined starting point and ending point, and that each vehicle type is manufactured on a discrete and well-defined "line".

Instead, what you usually have in a plant (or across multiple plants) is a number of units that specialise in the manufacture of a specific subsystems. Engines, transmissions, bodies, and so on. Other units simply receive parts from suppliers and ensure that they are ready for assembly into the final product when required. They all feed into one or more assembly lines that assemble the final product from these subsystems and components.

Now each production unit is a smaller version of the factory itself, with separate shops or lines dedicated to the manufacture of different components, which are then assembled into the subsystem. That is, multiple parallel "lines" again feeding into one or more assembly lines. Quite often, you will see a single line manufacturing more than one type of product. For instance, a transmission unit may have a manufacturing line to produce gears, one to produce the housing, one to assemble the transmission itself, etc. The unit may produce three or four different transmissions for different vehicle types, and production will be scheduled to manufacture enough of each to meet the demand from the final assembly line itself (40 of A, then 25 of B, then 30 of C, then 20 of A again, and so on and so forth). One car factory I know of manufactured four different vehicles, more than three types of engines and transmissions, and four distinct body types, amongst other things. Each product unit had just one assembly line, and there was just one final assembly line in the plant. These lines all used a variety of highly specialised machine tools, some of them made in India, most purchased from abroad.

The design and commissioning of such a manufacturing set up is a highly complex operation involving people from multiple fields. The fact that any company will try its best to utilise existing assets and units to manufacture at least some of its subsystems, if not the whole vehicle itself adds even more complexity to the task. Now the core design of the production system may be done in-house, but not without heavy involvement of engineers representing the manufacturers of different machine tools, consultants specialising in initial set-up and optimisation, an independent team for check-out and commissioning, etc. More often than not, the whole project may be handled another company, even a foreign one. Whether the product itself is 400% homegrown or not has little bearing on the matter.

Now think about HVF in a similar manner. They have been manufacturing armoured vehicles of different types for donkey's years. So when they decided to make the Arjun, why would they acquire new tools to manufacture each and every part and effectively set up a new, independent, factory to cater to it's production? It would make much more sense to leverage existing systems and machinery as far as possible in addition to new equipment and tools. Not all of this equipment would have been made locally, and foreign expertise would have been be utilised whenever and wherever it is required. The same applies to the T-90. The production line is not "imported wholesale". It will differ substantially from what exists in Nizhny Tagil, and will incorporate machinery from India, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries in addition to the Russian stuff.

Now you see why the notion of a brand new Arjun "production line" built from scratch and locally at that, as opposed to the T-90 line, "something which is imported wholesale", is far too simplistic.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Dec 2012 00:14

generally true, but when you buy at SDK or ToT agreement, one has to sign up for agreements on production line setup as well. most likely, the seller of the product would ask you buy many of his tools and jigs. of course, we need to also ensure, that say if we buy this jig from france or germany or israel it benefits us in manufacturing these type of sub components that falls within the specifications.

there may be specific requirements catering to specific product line.. and these must be planned ahead in time. normally, it is not the case where such things are general in purpose except those CNC machines and tool & dye machinery. Other production line, the OEM ensures max bang for the buck here, and chew us the max possible for the production line setup.

This is where, we have to think hard on concurrency not only across multiple production lines, but across multiple product lines as well.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 26 Dec 2012 13:37

LCA FLIES AT IRON FIST - POKHARAN

http://idrw.org/?p=16792#more-16792

Which means, they woyld have tried it in the a2g role.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ArmenT » 26 Dec 2012 13:46

rajanb wrote:LCA FLIES AT IRON FIST - POKHARAN

http://idrw.org/?p=16792#more-16792

Which means, they woyld have tried it in the a2g role.

Not necessarily. The article is not very clear on what it did:
This was followed by a photo-reconnaissance mission by a formation of three Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft. Three waves of fly-past by a combination of Jaguar, Mig-21 Bison, Mig-27, Mig-29, Tejas and Mirage-2000 fighters followed before the armament delivery phase.

The armament delivery sounds like the A2G stuff, not sure what this fly-past is?

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 26 Dec 2012 14:08

iron fist was supposed to be held in late Jan/or in Feb 2013

why was it preponed? or was this just a rehearsal for top IAF brass? usually everyone from PM, down to foreign attaches gets to attend and they did in 2010.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3782
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 26 Dec 2012 14:17

Singhaji It was meant to be a rehearsal

IAF ready for biggest air exercise 'Iron Fist'

The pre-firing demonstration and rehearsal for the first ever day and night event will be in December last week. About 100 different aircraft Sukhoi 30, Mirage 2000, Jaguar, MIG 21, attack helicopters, UAV and high-tech AWACS will display their potential, an official said. The transport aircraft taking part in the exercise will include AN-32, Embraer, IL-76, IL-78 and C-130J while Mi-17V5 and Mi-35 attack helicopters will constitute the rotary wing ingredients.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rajanb » 26 Dec 2012 14:41

^^^^
it was mentioned in an earlier article that the LCA would participate in combat drills, during Iron Fist. That would have taken place during the rehearsals too.


suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3782
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 26 Dec 2012 19:10

Folks was the LSP7 provided to ASTE?

In this video on Saras then SqnLDR KK Venugopal @14:00 talks about flight testing of Saras
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxL7jRmiBMM

The same gentleman flew the LSP7 on its first mission. Interesting because he seems to be okie with transport and fighter aircraft

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 26 Dec 2012 20:10



Is that FLIR or RECON(TAS/IFF) on the port ?

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 26 Dec 2012 22:11

SaiK wrote:


Is that FLIR or RECON(TAS/IFF) on the port ?


I think that is a Laser Designator Pod (LDP), loadout would be 2 R-77, 2 LGB's, 2 Droptanks and 1 LDP

nash
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nash » 26 Dec 2012 22:15

i think it is R-73 or R-60..

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 26 Dec 2012 22:23

nash wrote:i think it is R-73 or R-60..


Oh ya R-73, R-77 is a bvr missile, my mistake :P

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sivab » 26 Dec 2012 23:01

http://idrw.org/?p=16801

Letters : HAL replies to Ajai Shukla’s columns

This refers to Ajai Shukla’s column “Making the Tejas fly” (Broadsword, December 11) and his report “Rs 1,500 crore more for combat aircraft Tejas as HAL fails to meet target” (December 9). We are pained that he has chosen to criticise Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) based on half-truths and comments made by a retired personnel.

Let us not forget that there are delays in aerospace projects worldwide. Singling out HAL is, therefore, not fair. Given the national interest involved, comments against HAL and its “monopoly” too should be taken with a pinch of salt. We can confirm that the project is under consideration for upgrade of facilities to enable HAL to ramp up its production-capacity. The benefit of the funding is not intended for the current order that HAL already has in hand, but the actual requirement will be for future orders.

It should be noted that Tejas is currently not produced to frozen designs, as it has been conceived as a concurrent design and manufacturing programme. Inputs from flight trails are utilised to refine the design of the various systems and are incorporated in builing the next aircraft. Hence, changes take place in the hardware (structure) and considerable effort is involved to absorb these modifications in the subsequent aircraft. It is not that HAL does not have the capacity for production of Tejas aircraft. The production facility is already in place and the manufacturing of LSP (Limited Seried Production) aircraft is under progress. Contrary to what is suggested, HAL and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) have cordial relations.



The writer says HAL-built Sukhois are costlier when compared to the job done in Russia. He ignores the “life-cycle costs”, though difficult to estimate at this stage, would be significantly higher if India depends on foreign suppliers in sustaining such sophisticated aircraft. After all, these Sukhois are likely to serve us, say, up to 30 years, and would need overhauling, repairs and upgrades that need to be carried out on Indian soil.

Gopal Sutar
Chief of Media Communications
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Bangalore

Ajai Shukla’s response:

My opinion piece argues, among other things, that poor production quality erodes the Indian Air Force’s confidence in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL)-built aircraft. These points are known, acknowledged internationally and accepted by credible analysts in the Indian aerospace community — the Indian Air Force, the Ministry of Defence, private sector defence companies and a growing number of people within HAL. I stand by the views expressed in my column.

The report in question is based on an official briefing by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), and multiple conversations with serving Ministry of Defence and Indian Air Force officials, who are obviously sensitive about being quoted. While rebutting nothing factual in the article, HAL wrongly says the report suggests bad blood between HAL and ADA. The report quotes ADA Director P S Subramanian to defend HAL. How does the article allege poor relations between HAL and ADA if it quotes the ADA chief defending HAL?

HAL does not deny that the Sukhois it builds are far more expensive than buying from Russia directly. Instead, it claims that building in HAL lowers the aircraft’s life-cycle costs. Actually, despite paying its workers less than Russian manufacturers, HAL is costlier in manufacturing, repair as well as overhaul. HAL also claims that delays are endemic to fighter production and, therefore, nothing need be said. In fact, HAL has long exhausted all the slack that the Ministry of Defence and Indian Air Force could cut for it. In the eyes of its customers, HAL’s delays can no longer be condoned.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 26 Dec 2012 23:50

It is a healthy debate between HAL and Ajai shukla, imo.. let them go on on that and it would only benefit us in the long terms goals.

Better engineering methods can reduce costs.. and reduced labor and cost can be taken as over heads, and we can also take occasional normal schedule slips but we can't handle substandard quality.. as long as that is maintained, it is all healthy, since as a developing nation, we have a long way to go in the catch up game.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gurneesh » 27 Dec 2012 00:00




FYI the LCA pic is an old one...

Another pic of the same plane/load-out shows 1 x LDP, 2 x Drop Tanks, 2 X Griffin LGB, 2 x R73

Image

more pics can be found at tejas.gov.in

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1152
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby A Sharma » 27 Dec 2012 20:03

HAL Connect

HAL Carries Ground Run Test of LSP-8 of LCA

For the first time, LCA-PG Division's production shop team was authorized to carry out the initial Engine Ground Run (EGR) on LCA(LSP-8) aircraft by National Flight Test Centre team (NFTC) and initial EGR was carried out by Shri Pradeep C Koppal on December 12,
2012.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Shrinivasan » 28 Dec 2012 02:18

A Sharma wrote:HAL Connect
HAL Carries Ground Run Test of LSP-8 of LCA
I was about to post the same :evil: ...
a very good development indeed. check out the magazine for many more nuggets of information... regular updates on LUH is encouraging.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3782
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 28 Dec 2012 13:23

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 1960 Test Flights Successfully. (19-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-83,LSP4-56,LSP5-112,LSP7-7,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 1963 Test Flights Successfully. (21-Dec-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-238,PV5-36,LSP3-84,LSP4-56,LSP5-113,LSP7-8,NP1-4)

Elsewhere(something to warm the jingos not sure if this has been reported here already apologies if in case) I read in the NAL director's(Shri Shyam Chetty) 2011-12 annual report that NAL had validated all wake penetration aspects for LCA during that year. So we had the IOC in JAN 2011 and the NAL director's 2011-12 report states that it was done during that year which means the wake penetration part was taken care of post the IOC. Jai Ho

Strangely NAL's website doesnt open now :(

nash
BRFite
Posts: 886
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nash » 28 Dec 2012 13:36

so apart from missile firing ,AoA(LSP-6) testing, what are the things left...

Does this test includes High G(8-9g) testing

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 28 Dec 2012 13:52

That most essential task of detecting an aircraft on the MMR, using IFF to classify it as foe, locking on to it, passing target information to the guided missile, and launching the missile.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12278
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 28 Dec 2012 13:54

Yes only then Tejas becomes a fighter

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1690
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 28 Dec 2012 15:00

Aditya_V wrote:Yes only then Tejas becomes a fighter


My dear Adhitya
I only quote you because you are comment #1 on page 37

Tejas is not going to become a fighter but a storm.

A storm in which all future cyclones and typhoons will be born.

We are going to mature all the principles of flight under this program.
Mark my words , as long as we don't ditch Tejas we are going to lay the carpet/ foundation of all future aircraft related developments.

The world shall bow to you sir ... the world shall bow to you.
Stick with it .... stick with it.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12278
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 28 Dec 2012 15:35

My quote was pun intended for the previous post regarding validation of the A to A role Tejas.

udy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 02 May 2005 21:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby udy » 28 Dec 2012 19:03


sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby sarabpal.s » 28 Dec 2012 20:17

Khalsa wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Yes only then Tejas becomes a fighter


My dear Adhitya
I only quote you because you are comment #1 on page 37

Tejas is not going to become a fighter but a storm.

A storm in which all future cyclones and typhoons will be born.

We are going to mature all the principles of flight under this program.
Mark my words , as long as we don't ditch Tejas we are going to lay the carpet/ foundation of all future aircraft related developments.

The world shall bow to you sir ... the world shall bow to you.
Stick with it .... stick with it.

++++++1

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3782
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 28 Dec 2012 20:35

Cmde Muthanna's paper doesnt bode well given he is embedded inside the program.
Tejas is a wonderful flying machine. It deserved to be in squadron service years ago. Remedial action on many of the shortcomings commented upon, if
implemented even now, will favorably impact timelines for IOC and FOC of the Tejas Mk 1 aircraft. Favorable impact on Tejas Mk 2 and other future programs will be enormous.


The tejas story doesnt seem to be going well :((

There also seems to be a slip in the timeline of the trainer

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 28 Dec 2012 21:48

It is necessary that a single political entity take charge of such projects to attribute responsibility and demand accountability. Even if private players become significant, interdepartmental co-ordination would be possible only by an informed and responsible political entity.

Comprehensive documentation
of the path to certification in this program will hugely benefit future programs.

The responsibility for, post deployment maintenance of documentation, software and their periodic up gradation remains open ended. Unless resolved, this story of an inconvenient marriage would be continuing saga and have adverse effects on the product during its entire lifetime.

extent. Originally a reluctant customer, the Indian Air Force involved itself sufficiently only after contracting for supply of the aircraft in 2006. It was late in the program and hundreds of ‘Requests for Action’ had to be raised in order to retrieve the situation to some extent, but this lead to time and cost overruns.

undertake a formal comprehensive evaluation of the prototype vehicles : SOP : limited series production aircraft are worthy of remaining test aircraft only and SOP of series production aircraft continues to evolve!

Avionics: Lack of operational requirements expertise in design teams led to replicating Mirage cockpit logic on the aircraft without exploiting the significantly advanced hardware architecture of this aircraft.

inability to meet manufacturing tolerances; non availability of correct jigs, fixtures and tooling to meet DAL requirements; non availability of suitable calibrating equipment; and, lack of trained manpower. These challenges directly affect the quality of manufacture.
{didn't we talk about this here?}

ground support equipment has to be suited well, be light and durable for easy employability and transportability. Such support is vital to deploy the aircraft quickly and repeatedly and thus exploit the inherent advantages of airpower. Development of mission support systems like planning & debrief systems, simulators etc have been lagging and will affect ease of deployment.

Generation of documentation deliverable to the customer has been hampered by the absence of a cohesive and sustainable structure.

BOT: new concept and years were lost in deciding whether funding would be on the capital route or on the revenue route. As a result there would be no representative flight simulator available for use by the customer aircrew. The situation will be aggravated by the non availability of a trainer variant
of the aircraft in the required time frame.

PM: CPM: {as discussed in BR.. Critical Chain suites HAL actually} path has to be continually identified and attended to. Cost and time overruns have to be tracked by professional program managers using powerful software. Only then can the customer be given a viable timeframe for deployment to enable his planning process. If he has to repeatedly throttle back, he will lose interest and look for alternatives. And that would be a tragedy for aeronautics in this country!

Favorable impact on Tejas Mk 2 and other future programs will be enormous.


^^ important notes from udy's post: (KA Muthana) Air Commodore

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sagar G » 28 Dec 2012 22:23

If he has to repeatedly throttle back, he will lose interest and look for alternatives. And that would be a tragedy for aeronautics in this country!


This is where the difference of thought lies between IN and the rest of our defence forces. IN is ready to get it's hand dirty i.e. involve itself in R&D or even wait so that things gets indigenized but IA and IAF are allowed to behave like spoilt brats who are ever ready to run to foreign arms dealer if there is a whiff of a problem in the program. Unless there doesn't come a hardheaded def min who won't give in to tantrums of IA or IAF and make them do the necessary to support indigenization both these services will keep on coming with excuses now and then to allow foreign arms import.

I bet behind the recent HTT-40 saga IAF "afsars" are involved.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 28 Dec 2012 22:29

I understand your angst and I share it. But please do not insinuate without proof. The report clearly said it was a financial thought.

First of all, imagine a force having two kinds of BTT and then the second type is twice as expensive as the first. Even if an IAF afsar would have started it, there are strong reasons.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sagar G » 28 Dec 2012 22:41

indranilroy wrote:I understand your angst and I share it. But please do not insinuate without proof. The report clearly said it was a financial thought.

First of all, imagine a force having two kinds of BTT and then the second type is twice as expensive as the first. Even if an IAF afsar would have started it, there are strong reasons.


You are saying that as if this is the last time IAF is going to buy BTT. When these BTT's that IAF is buying gets obsolete then what ??? Do they expect HAL or any other Indian aviation giant that may exist at that time to magically come up with a BTT out of thin air ??? What bloody cost analysis you are talking about the costs can be brought down by increasing indigenous contents step by step and if I am guessing right most of the cost must be going into purchasing the engine which could well have been developed in India itself if the douche bags in mod had the vision back then to ask HAL/DRDO to start a programme to achieve that goal. But now since the morons can't accept there fault they come up with some 30-60 cr. analysis and blame HAL for a big price tag. Wah bhaiya kya logic hain !!!!

And what about HTT-35 was it also too costly that nobody showed any interest ???

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 28 Dec 2012 23:49

I do not know who dropped the ball on HTT-35, do you? If yes, please speak up and I will listen. Otherwise don't bring it in to discuss the HTT-40.

Your logic is driven by passion rather than reason. Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! Think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40?

You spoke about engines and hence I would discuss it. The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine. And no, India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research. There is proper reason why it is the most successful engine in its class by a big margin.

By the way, these are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts. This is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!

So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.
Last edited by Indranil on 28 Dec 2012 23:56, edited 2 times in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 28 Dec 2012 23:51

And by the way, I have always been in favour of building the HTT-40. There is no other way than to bring up the aero industry without taking up smaller projects. Clearly, if our industry can't produce parts for a BTT, then it cannot produce parts for a AMCA, FGFA, MTA, NCA.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sagar G » 29 Dec 2012 00:13

indranilroy wrote:I do not know who dropped the ball on HTT-35, do you? If yes, please speak up and I will listen. Otherwise don't bring it in to discuss the HTT-40.


Exactly nobody except IAF/MoD know about wtf happened to HTT-35. It just vanished like magic and saying that it is not relevant to HTT-40 is wilful neglect of a project which would have completed the same set of requirements that PC-7 is going to do now, correct me if I'am wrong here.

indranilroy wrote:Your logic is driven by passion rather than reason. Why should an Indian built BTT be twice as expensive?!!! The PC-7 also uses a imported PT-6A engine (And no India would not be able to make a much cheaper engine than the PT-6A, and of its caliber. If you don't believe me, please do some research). In fact think about it, every part of the PC-7 is imported, then by your logic, why should it be half the price of the HTT-40? These are not cutting edge planes. These are all-metal basic trainers where one of the most expensive parts is integration of several small parts which is labour intensive and hence should be cheaper in India!!!


Guilty as charged won't contest you here I have a passion for indigenization and get massive khujli whenever foreign arm is brought to suffice our military requirements. Swiss have been manufacturing the PC-7 for years now they have long back recovered there costs gone into developing the PC-7 so HAL coming up with a costlier BTT is nothing surprising but it doesn't mean that since HTT-40 is costly now it will remain so forever. It has been said umpteen times that costs can be brought down step by step by increasing local content gradually. PT-6A can be the best engine available for now but can you say with guarantee that it will be the same in two decades from now ??? If we keep sitting on our asses thinking that we will never be able to come up with an engine like this or that, then why do we even make an effort for indigenization in the aerospace sector ??? Doesn't an aircraft get's built around it's engine ??? If we refuse to make or even try to make something as important as that then we have already lost the race here.

indranilroy wrote:So why is the HTT-40 TWICE as expensive?
1. May be the R&D is that expensive. However, there is no research involved. It is more of a design and integration challenge. Hence you see HAL starting to make HTT-40 in just 2-3 years on conception. It is not possible to do the same for a fighter aircraft or a modern airlifter. And one would imagine that over 106 aircrafts, this cost could be amortized substantially. This is not likely that this drives the costs up by 2 times.
2. May be HAL overestimated the costs for everything, and will revise the costs. (Most likely) in my opinion.
3. HAL is obfuscating the costs of HTT-40 to cover for some other expenditure.
4. HAL is utterly inefficient. I put this to exhaust all the options. I don't believe this.

Pick your choice.


Exactly no body knows how MoD or HAL came up with the 60 cr. tag. Till HAL clarifies we can indulge in guessing games only.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 29 Dec 2012 01:25

You still did not provide any reason.

Let me answer your theory about "aircraft being built around the engine" theory. That is only the case when your engine development precedes the aircraft development. It is not the case in India. Hence you see HTT-35/40 being developed without the selection of the engine. The same goes for LCA, LUH, AMCA, NCA. You name it.

And oh! for coming up a PT-6A engine in 20 years, India should start developing it today. Do you see any such effort? So who is to blame, IAF?

Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Sagar G » 29 Dec 2012 01:46

indranilroy wrote:You still did not provide any reason.


Indigenization isn't a strong enough reason for you. OK how about creation of tech base for further military research. You haven't either answered what will IAF do when Pilatus becomes obsolete and again it has a trainer requirement ???

indranilroy wrote:Let me answer your theory about "aircraft being built around the engine" theory. That is only the case when your engine development precedes the aircraft development. It is not the case in India. Hence you see HTT-35/40 being developed without the selection of the engine. The same goes for LCA, LUH, AMCA, NCA. You name it.


You mean to say LCA, LUH, AMCA all of them are being made without an engine being selected !!!! Would love to hear more on this from you, this the first time I am hearing such theory that an aircraft if being built without selecting an engine. Do give your reasoning on this.

indranilroy wrote:And oh! for coming up a PT-6A engine in 20 years, India should start developing it today. Do you see any such effort? So who is to blame, IAF?


Didn't the IAF knew what is required to be done so as to create an aviation industry here ??? You mean to say the IAF is all oblivious of the situation in our country and has got no interest in indigenization ??? I am ready to accept such view but it must come directly from the mouth of IAF that it doesn't support indigenization or has any interest in it.

indranilroy wrote:Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?


Wallah here come the Brahmastra "Operational Readiness". Hmmmm even after years and years of purchasing from TFTA lands why hasn't the IAF reached the operational readiness it desires ??? How many years of purchasing from TFTA's will make IAF operational ready ??? Without an indigenous aerospace industry wouldn't we always remain dependant upon TFTAs for our military requirements ??? Do these questions give you or IAF some specific kind of aaram or khujli ???

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 29 Dec 2012 02:18

Sagar G wrote:Indigenization isn't a strong enough reason for you. OK how about creation of tech base for further military research. You haven't either answered what will IAF do when Pilatus becomes obsolete and again it has a trainer requirement ???

IAF will require trainers to train its pilots. If HAL does not foresse those orders and get a plane ready in time, IAF will have to import again. I see no fault of IAF in this!
Sagar G wrote:You mean to say LCA, LUH, AMCA all of them are being made without an engine being selected !!!! Would love to hear more on this from you, this the first time I am hearing such theory that an aircraft if being built without selecting an engine. Do give your reasoning on this.

LCA was being developed from 1980s. F404s only selected in 2003 and 2008, we selected the F414. what is the engine selected for AMCA. Clearly design studies are in advanced stages. For LUH, HAL and Turbomecca had broken down due to inexorbitant consultancy fees from Turbomecca. So HAL was planning to fit the twin-engine shakti itself on LUH in a different configuration. It was also in talks with other engine manufacturers for an engine. For AMCA, I have no clue of which engine they are going for. Clearly the engine has not been selected. Kaveri has to go quite some way before it gets fitted into the AMCA. NCA will float tenders for engines.
Sagar G wrote:Didn't the IAF knew what is required to be done so as to create an aviation industry here ??? You mean to say the IAF is all oblivious of the situation in our country and has got no interest in indigenization ??? I am ready to accept such view but it must come directly from the mouth of IAF that it doesn't support indigenization or has any interest in it.

That is neither IAF's responsibility or job. IAF's only job is to defend the country. IAF can support Indian products, if they are ready in time. IAF can handhold the industry too, but you can't demand it of them.

Sagar G wrote:
Indranilroy wrote:Your khujli is in the right place. But you will have another khujli if IAF tells you that it is not operationally ready to defend India. So which khujli should it tend to?

Wallah here come the Brahmastra "Operational Readiness". Hmmmm even after years and years of purchasing from TFTA lands why hasn't the IAF reached the operational readiness it desires ??? How many years of purchasing from TFTA's will make IAF operational ready ??? Without an indigenous aerospace industry wouldn't we always remain dependant upon TFTAs for our military requirements ??? Do these questions give you or IAF some specific kind of aaram or khujli ???

Please read the comments properly before penning down long rants. I did not say that IAF is not operationally ready. I said, you given all this bhashan on your khujli, but you will give another bhashan on another khujli of yours IF IAF said that it is not operationally ready.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests