LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7932
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2015 00:59

The F414 is not just an increase in thrust compared to the F404, it also incorporates a lot of changes to improve reliability that directly translates to mission availability and a lower life cycle cost.


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7776
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2015 03:16

Brar sahab,

I have very little knowledge about RCS. But your comments on canards and RCS is interesting. It is right that the canard is demonized more than it should when it comes to RCS, but there is some grounds too.

1. Canards are useless if they are inline with wing, so they add to frontal area.
2. If it is a fixed canard, then it can be blended with the fuselage. But if it has to move, then all those gaps, edges, nooks and corners increase the radar signature. For the elevator this is not a problem as it is tucked behind the wing.

Would like to know your thoughts.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7932
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2015 03:46

^^ I agree challenges are there, but what i was referring to was the fact that with the RCS goals that existed and in fact that exist for future projects (or appear to exist based on preliminary Request for information) designers had and still continue to come up with designs that incorporate canards. This points (at least to me) that stringent RCS goals can still be complied with with canards designs as was the case with both the Northrop designs, BaE designs from the JSF and with Boeing's preliminary 6th generation renderings. SAAB apparently also was able to meet its internal RCS targets with a canard design at least in the conceptual phase of its design efforts. The Boys in St Louis get the same threat briefings from the services as the boys in Palmdale so one would assume that the Boeing designs are designed around the same RCS requirements (usually from a customer perspective they spell out the threat and leave it to the vendors to design survivability and then put both designs on a pole) as Lockheed did with theirs, so that gives me some confidence in assuming that you could still get a fairly stealthy designs (even for post 2030 design) and still have canards.



As far as them moving and exposing RCS, I guess you could come up with a mechanism whereby you have to limit their movement/deflection unless overridden (as in a dogfight) as was the case with the F-117 and the B-2 irrc. I am no specialist aero person, but it does surprise me that even 5th generation and 6th generation designers did consider and still consider canards as an option.

I was however surprised that Boeing had the confidence to eliminate vertical tails (on their 6th gen concept) based on McDonnell Douglas's work on the Tailless Fighter Agility Research (X-36) and rely solely on TVC for yaw (based on the X-36). I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed the canards out in further refinements of their design. They also changed the wing quite a bit since 2010. I guess in the end its the aero ability coupled with RCS and there are number of ways to achieve a balance depending upon what you wish to highlight as a strength of your designs compared to what you feel is the need of the hour.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_26622 » 07 Jan 2015 04:57

ravi_g wrote:
Nobody has time for Pakis. Only Amerikhans focus on Pakis because they are idiots.

If Mk-1 is good for China then it represents an overcapacity against Pakistan. LCA Mk-2 is going to do everything that Mk-1 does and far far more at way less cost, per kg x per km x per bang, than anything out there. And even a count of 200 Mk-1 + Mk-2 will be overburdened by the workshare if an actual war starts with China.



I was envisioning LCA MK-1 for purely defensive operations along the himalayas and supporting Army CAS needs. Range to Chinese airfields would be relevant for offensive operations - MKI and LCA MK-2. Having LCA MK-1 in high numbers relives and allows us to focus MKI and MK-2 for offensive stints (along with Brahmos and Prahar).

No point in thinking that we can go on the offensive against China for intruding in to India. Our FOREX war kitty is a tenth of what China can field.

@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7932
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2015 05:12

@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!


At the end of the day it comes down to how much risk one wants to assume when dealing with targets. If you look at Boeing's early designs they clearly are a continuation of their work (as MD) from the two NASA program they participated in (Phantom Works) and other vehicles that they internally funded (bird of prey). So they as a design group have quite a lot of risk-reduction activity already performed based on which they can confidently come up with a configuration that does not carry such a large risk so as to get them eliminated. This happened to Northrop/MD and GE in the ATF for example. Similarly, Lockheed has a long standing work on stealth, materials (the head of skunk works is currently a materials guy) and providing Low RCS even at very high supersonic speeds. The latter is extremely important because from a design perspective it is much easier to design a fighter with the top speed of mach 1.6 (F-35) to meet stringent RCS goals, than it is to design a fighter that has a cruise speed in excess of Mach 1.7 and a top speed in the mach 2 class (f-22). For HAL to assume that much risk on an LCA has to be traded off with timelines, and if you look at Miss February from lockheed, they have retained the tails but no doubt their design would be damn hard to beat at the pole as was the case both with the Have Blue and the Senior Peg. Each design team/house builds upon its own research that it has experience in that is why it is quite amusing when someone mentioned the fact that after the Super hornet the uS would only have lockheed to do fighters and thereby erode the base. They fail to realize that historically airframe design teams are kept funded by the DOD, and lockheed under Kelly had no luck in fighters (towards the latter half of his career) yet the company after his departure turned around and won both he ATF and the JSF competitions.

In the end, there is plenty of stuff that ADA/HAL can do on the AMCA program without resorting to very high risk changes (no tail) and yet produce a very competitive product. Complex aerospace programs are about risk-management as much as anything else.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Jan 2015 05:35, edited 1 time in total.

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, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vina » 07 Jan 2015 05:13

As I keep saying, this is for the IAF to answer, in word or deed. [gabbar]Hum ko kuch nahi pata[/gabbar].


Purrfect. In fact, there was a political party in the US named (very aptly I suppose) as " Know Nothings". Maybe you should start the India chapter of that ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 07 Jan 2015 05:36

@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!


Original "MCA", predecessor of the current AMCA:

Image

Late 1990s or so.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2323
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Prem Kumar » 07 Jan 2015 05:55

Newbie pooch. Not an aero-guy by any stretch of imagination. When I went to Googal & Wikipedia to compare LCA versus Gripen C/D, I saw this:

Ferry Range: LCA = 1700 Km; Gripen = 3200 Km
Combat Radius LCA = 300 Km; Gripen: 800 Km


Are these apples-to-apples comparisons? If so, what's the reason for such a big difference - Gripen just seems to outperform LCA by a wide margin, for similar'ish aircraft using same engine?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1462
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Thakur_B » 07 Jan 2015 06:09

Victor wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:
Seriously victor, do you even bother to read when you punch keys on keyboard ?

Wiki tells me:
M88: Length 139'', diameter 27', dry wt 1997lbs, dry thrust 50kN
404: Length 154", diameter 35", dry wt 2282lbs, dry thrust 48.9kN

ie. M88 is smaller, lighter and has more thrust than GE-404

Since you asked in such a dismissive tone, I expect you to do your bit and post what you find from other credible sources.


The max thrust levels on GE F404 IN20 go up to 89.8 KN vs 75 KN on M-88. GE F404 IN20 is the most powerful version of the family, thus its dry thrust must at least be equal to RM-12.
http://tejas.gov.in/specifications/powerplant.html

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1462
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Thakur_B » 07 Jan 2015 06:13

Prem Kumar wrote:Newbie pooch. Not an aero-guy by any stretch of imagination. When I went to Googal & Wikipedia to compare LCA versus Gripen C/D, I saw this:

Ferry Range: LCA = 1700 Km; Gripen = 3200 Km
Combat Radius LCA = 300 Km; Gripen: 800 Km


Are these apples-to-apples comparisons?


No. You would find last 3-4 pages of discussion handy.

member_28932
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28932 » 07 Jan 2015 09:45

Prem Kumar wrote:Newbie pooch. Not an aero-guy by any stretch of imagination. When I went to Googal & Wikipedia to compare LCA versus Gripen C/D, I saw this:

Ferry Range: LCA = 1700 Km; Gripen = 3200 Km
Combat Radius LCA = 300 Km; Gripen: 800 Km


Are these apples-to-apples comparisons? If so, what's the reason for such a big difference - Gripen just seems to outperform LCA by a wide margin, for similar'ish aircraft using same engine?



There are many subjective interpretations of these combat radious etc. There can not be such a large difference in range of 2 planes almost same in weight and dimension carrying same fuel using same engine. FIgure of gripen may be with some external fuel Tanks attached. Same is the confusion with weight. Some says empty weight includes 2 A to A Missile and some other stuff.

I remember news quoting a scientist saying that Tejas has an exceptional fuel efficiency.
Last edited by member_28932 on 07 Jan 2015 13:18, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2015 10:20

Gripen has better brochures I am sure

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Pratyush » 07 Jan 2015 10:43

Or may be in the absence of the real experience some one transposed the Mig 21 capability on the LCA. Thinking that the LCA was just Mig 21++.

Thus the urban legend was born.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2015 11:03

Prem Kumar wrote:Newbie pooch. Not an aero-guy by any stretch of imagination. When I went to Googal & Wikipedia to compare LCA versus Gripen C/D, I saw this:

Ferry Range: LCA = 1700 Km; Gripen = 3200 Km
Combat Radius LCA = 300 Km; Gripen: 800 Km


Are these apples-to-apples comparisons? If so, what's the reason for such a big difference - Gripen just seems to outperform LCA by a wide margin, for similar'ish aircraft using same engine?


take those Gripen figures with a massive bag of salt. The Swiss evaluation report clearly mentioned that the endurance, range and payload of the Gripen were its weak points..the payload of the Rafale and Typhoon were obviously larger, but the range/endurance figures being better despite having twin engines does indicate that these massively inflated figures that are floating around for the Gripen are figures that are just brochure figures that don't bear out in real world scenarios.

You can read the Swiss evaluation report here

If those range figures were true, no air force on earth would consider range/endurance to be a Gripen weak point. The Gripen C didn't even meet their basic requirement for air policing.

In the suitability assessment, only the Rafale and the Eurofighter were able to accomplish OCA/AI/DA missions with satisfaction. However, the Eurofighter would need some improvements especially in the EW and Sensors domain.

The Gripen has been assessed unsatisfactory for this type of mission. The main weak points of the Gripen were its insufficient Range/Combat Radius and its aircraft performance.

The best effectiveness was given by the Rafale followed by the Eurofighter. Both outclassed the Gripen.


So the Gripen couldn't surpass the F/A-18 C/D in Offensive Counter Air/Air Policing/Defensive Counter Air (Escort) missions.

Brochure specs, coupled with regular doses of articles extolling manufacturer provided specs have grown the Gripen legend to truly immense size. The reality is quite different as the leaked Swiss evaluation report clearly shows.
Last edited by Kartik on 07 Jan 2015 11:13, edited 2 times in total.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby PratikDas » 07 Jan 2015 11:04

From Vivek Ahuja's blog post dated April 12, 2009:

Image

Image

Image

Image

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby symontk » 07 Jan 2015 12:46

went for lunch today, saw the Hack coming to land at 1230PM, also heard the LCA take off noise few mts afterwards, it came back around 130PM

member_28640
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28640 » 07 Jan 2015 12:54

symontk wrote:went for lunch today, saw the Hack coming to land at 1230PM, also heard the LCA take off noise few mts afterwards, it came back around 130PM

The bird is going for a lot of sorties nowadays saar I saw one executing a pitch perfect turn after take off... This was monday... I heard one taking off on Friday last week.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Philip » 07 Jan 2015 16:12

Is the comparison with the Bison? Second point is that we do not have enough refuelling tankers.AM Reddy,The head of our IDS said that we should be prepared for a two-front war. The demand for in-flight refuelling is going to be intense and acute.If the LCA has to "go the distance",there will have to be a sacrifice in payload with drop tanks carried. If we also factor in the growing threat of a third front,an IOR maritime conflict with the PLAN,as PLAN subs appear to be making a second home in the IOR these days,docking at Colombo,hunting for gold deep beneath the sea,the number of tankers that will be needed will dramatically increase.

It would be more worthwhile to do a comparison between upgraded Jaguaras and the LCA as far as strike missions are concerned,rather than MIG-21s which are primarily interceptors.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 07 Jan 2015 16:57

Philip sir,

'Should be prepared for two front war is great'. Before the current CIDS a lot of Chiefs have said that. Its obvious that we should be prepared but unfortunately highly unrealistic to think that we will be ! We spend under 2% of GDP on Defence - 36 Billion, China spends at least 250 billion (I don't believe its public figures of 180 billion), Pak economy is all about defence + they get 1-1.5 billion a year from the US. Even Saudi, UK, Japan, France and Germany spend far more than us.

Budgets aside, our defense ministry is dysfunctional, we tie ourselves up in knots for decades to do any purchase...take the jaguar engine upgrade for example... or subs (close to your heart). Even our legal system is merrily used by external interests to stop modernization...take the MAFI Phase 1 which was held up by an Indian court for 3 years IIRC. We are fast running out of training and firing areas etc etc. And most importantly our intellectual elites have no appetite for the hard decisions needed for national security.

Our planning and tactics should be grounded in reality. LCA is not designed for that role and to my mind inflight refueling on LCA is suboptimal. We will have 6-8 tankers for the foreseeable future and their best use is heavier fighters and AWACs. Navy will also need inflight refueling even in a 1 front war.

We can't put everything on the Tejas. Just my 2 bits.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Philip » 07 Jan 2015 17:05

Exactly my point.A retd. AM said that at best the LCA would be good for point defence /close support,replacing the role of the MIG-21s,with the MKIs looking after "heavier" duties. Range,endurance and payload appears to be increasingly a worry of the IAF,why it would prefer more expensive MKIs to smaller ,cheaper MIG-29s in case the Rafale deal crashands. However,given its cost,a concerted effort must be made to ramp up development of MK-2 and production,so that as many LCAs can be churned out to join sqds that have been numberplated.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 07 Jan 2015 17:11

That is exactly the role its designed for - replacing 21s. Expensive MKIs also need 2 pilots. How will we attract so many new pilots when an armed forces career is already a rock bottom choice for years. And the cost of all the other issues during the service like housing, career management, medical and post retirement issues. Senior officers sometimes forget ground realities or rather ignore them because they don't have the guts to tell the public and political masters that this (nation defended in a 2 front conventional war) cannot be done at this funding.

Agreed MK2 has to be come fast and in greater numbers.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28108 » 07 Jan 2015 17:51

Tarmak007 Ananthakrishna says that NLCA2 has completed crucial wing tests and is being prepared for test flight.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby PratikDas » 07 Jan 2015 21:00

Armchair warriors here are saying inflight refueling is suboptimal and that inflight refuelers won't be available to the LCA. Why the hell is the IAF, which is by extension obviously stupid, asking for the inflight refueling probe for the Mk 2?

It seems like import lovers will only see failure when it comes to domestic products. One post before I posted the combat radius from Vivek Ahuja's blog post, the LCA's combat radius was being shown in poor light to the Gripen. People didn't bother to check that the Gripen's figures had the payload-reducing inclusion of drop tanks as well. Vivek's work gives you the combat radius with drop tanks. Now that the combat radius is no longer something to :(( about, the LCA is then compared to the MKI. :lol:

The nation's intellectual elites have the appetite for hard decisions. The IAF, and those here representing the IAF, also need to have the appetite for intellectual integrity. I don't see much so far.

You want an air force with a mix of heavy air-dominance fighters Like the MKI and Su 35, all of which are prohibitively expensive when scaled to large numbers. You can't have it. Deal with it. Time for those hard decisions that need to be made.

<sitting back and awaiting the imminent logorrhoea>

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_26622 » 07 Jan 2015 22:54

@AkshayKapoor - You are highlighting a fact shared by every single armed force in the world - Developed countries like US and Euro-clan are worse off due to better opportunities in private sector. Indian armed forces have better picking because of our economic shambles. Don't cloud the economics without considering zero out of pocket expenses when serving 'for the nation'.

A pilot in armed forces has great exit opportunities - in private aviation. Most US airlines depend on this feeder to lower training costs. These are super well paying jobs.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_26622 » 07 Jan 2015 23:03

brar_w wrote:
@ brar_w - Your comment on Boeing eliminating vertical tail by relying on TVC caught my notice. Imagining an LCA without tail and TVC will be close to Boeing design (less canards). We might have a winner here!


At the end of the day it comes down to how much risk one wants to assume when dealing with targets. If you look at Boeing's early designs they clearly are a continuation of their work (as MD) from the two NASA program they participated in (Phantom Works) and other vehicles that they internally funded (bird of prey). So they as a design group have quite a lot of risk-reduction activity already performed based on which they can confidently come up with a configuration that does not carry such a large risk so as to get them eliminated.


Great point about risk reduction - It points to our total absence of 'technology demonstrator' programs funded by IAF (if they ever get over the import mafia smokescreen). We can today 'afford' to build incremental technology demonstrators in a fast track fashion (no IOC, FOC mania). At some point a design can be finalized for production - this continuous development is one area where ISRO does a better job (Thanks to almighty sanctions - love them or hate them - doesn't spoil the kids at the end).

If IAF is serious about been a top notch fighting machine then they would run these tech demonstrator programs (through ADA, DRDO with HAL support) to maintain their cutting edge, otherwise the nation (including IAF) will pay the price.

Some wise men said it's better to sweat in peacetimes than bleed in war times.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 07 Jan 2015 23:10

Nik,

I am not clouding anything, I am ground talking ground reality, something service HQs struggle with every day. Anyway I don't want to get into a discussion on this. You are welcome to your views.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Sid » 08 Jan 2015 00:30

nik wrote:Great point about risk reduction - It points to our total absence of 'technology demonstrator' programs funded by IAF (if they ever get over the import mafia smokescreen). We can today 'afford' to build incremental technology demonstrators in a fast track fashion (no IOC, FOC mania). At some point a design can be finalized for production - this continuous development is one area where ISRO does a better job (Thanks to almighty sanctions - love them or hate them - doesn't spoil the kids at the end).

If IAF is serious about been a top notch fighting machine then they would run these tech demonstrator programs (through ADA, DRDO with HAL support) to maintain their cutting edge, otherwise the nation (including IAF) will pay the price.

Some wise men said it's better to sweat in peacetimes than bleed in war times.


Highlighted part is desirable, but does IAF has funds or clout in Gov or DRDOto do it? They got their AJT after 12 years of negotiations, no MMRCA in sight, basic trainer after they could no longer fly. What about IJT?

Do you think IAF started thinking about LCA today or about AMCA? Has anyone stopped ADA from doing early prototyping for AMCA?

All these prototyping and pragmatic approach also requires that the said agency has full authority to take needed decisions.

Again, its a desirable objective and doable too. But requires a dramatic change in IAF/MOD/DRDO culture.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 08 Jan 2015 02:28

Anyone know how many pilots have gone through the LCA fleet in the ten years -- a few navy, a few dozen air force over the ten years I presume?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7776
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 08 Jan 2015 02:51

^^^ 16 have flown the 1st flight of the manufactured aircraft.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 08 Jan 2015 05:38

indranilroy wrote:^^^ 16 have flown the 1st flight of the manufactured aircraft.


So basically about a squadron has trained, gone back and told their friends about it. At keast some must have risen to middle ranks. A few others are probably rotating in. This has to trickle up.

Raising a squadron cant be that hard now given there are so many now have 100+ hours on the craft. One presumes the airmen must be getting their peek/poke sessions.

Even if they moved on, the 100+ hours annual training was basically free to IAF (except for salaries, who pays on deputation to HAL? HAL like the UN peacekeeping forces?). Its almost like maintaining an extra squadron upto normal flying standards. One day they will name it 45 or whatever, but they are doing what they will do in any case.

If only the production numbers crept up to a couple dozen a year. You need a light and a heavy joining each year for 20 year retirement and 42 total.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby P Chitkara » 08 Jan 2015 12:31

It is not just about pilot training. The support personnel/airmen need to get familiar with the aircraft and its maintenance procedures. Logistics trail also needs to be established and be kept well oiled.

Being a new type, there are bound to be teething issues that typically raise their head only when the type goes to regular service for the very first time.

Even if raising the first squadron may not be difficult in light of the mentioned factors, it will not be a walk in the park as well.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 08 Jan 2015 13:13

^^^ No. It is never easy, not even to convert between types. However, if all answers lie in bangalore thats a considerably shorter tail than paris, DC, or moscow for all aspects. and far fewer hurdles to push through a needed change/supply/material.

Anything that arrives today will obviously take a while to be operational -- but clearly the rafail types dont even offer these advantages.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 08 Jan 2015 22:09

if IAF has frozen Mk2, then we should ramp up on those specs. I'd think exciting times ahead on Mk2. Any news on Mk2 is jilebi!

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby chackojoseph » 09 Jan 2015 07:02

Sid wrote:Highlighted part is desirable, but does IAF has funds or clout in Gov or DRDO to do it?


Yes. They don't do it. Navy funds tech demonstrators like KTMG, AIP etc.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 09 Jan 2015 10:55

IAF doesn't fund the TDs, MoD does. IAF has not been mandated to develop India's MIC nor does its budget provide for this role. It is still merely a customer, albeit an involved one since it is the only customer. It does however make suggestions to MoD for creating a viable MIC, one being to bring in the private sector which is being resisted tooth and nail by the PSU lobby.

Regarding "clout" in the MoD and DRDO, both of these entities exist only for the armed forces, not the other way around.
Last edited by Victor on 09 Jan 2015 10:57, 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, 22-Oct-2013

Postby chackojoseph » 09 Jan 2015 10:57

Navy does from it's own budget or asks for allotment for more budget.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby P Chitkara » 09 Jan 2015 13:58

Chacko's point yet again demonstrates the institutional difference in attitude between the two forces. Navy gets smallest share of the pie but, that doesn't stop it from funding or pushing for more funds on these in-country programs.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby chackojoseph » 09 Jan 2015 14:18

Infact once when funds were short, especially in 1980's, navy never stopped building, investing and loaning personnel in DRDO / R&D projects. They are reaping the benefits of those investments. The country possesses finest ships in their class, totally suited for India's own need and naval doctrine. They plan for new requirement 10 - 20 years ahead. While they get the basics like the tonnage etc get correct, they also foresee the weapons trends.

Nuclear submarine project is the best example where they invested in systems like panchendriya etc, tested in foxtrots, evolved into mark II etc to get inducted into Arihant. Same with EW systems and many other.

They even allowed OFB to absorb technologies, used them in ships for standardisation, even though they are not the latest. They know that the next generation of the weapon will come out of India only if they take this step.

For LCA, DRDO took this step of creating the right platform when IAF took an adversarial stance of show us the platform first. The platform today is really current and gives us insight into 5th generation. kaveri with it's constant thrust was also very good thought, unfortunately did not fructify.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Sid » 09 Jan 2015 18:18

chackojoseph wrote:
Sid wrote:Highlighted part is desirable, but does IAF has funds or clout in Gov or DRDO to do it?


Yes. They don't do it. Navy funds tech demonstrators like KTMG, AIP etc.


But have they funded prototyping of next gen platforms? Agreed they have better planning and know what they need as per future threat perception. It can be argued that they are better system integrator then other arms in defense. But most of the technologies on these platforms are still imported, from propulsion to armament.

IAF and IA asked for LCH, and there is zero fuss about it as HAL is delivering on it. Who is funding that project? They are ready for Avro replacement and no one is stepping forward. MTA project is in limbo for a long time. Even Navy is struggling with NLCA (with their full backing).

Still we are not arguing about good or bad, but if the said arm had the authority to fund and manage their next gen requirement? If one has taken initiative (even without the mandate) good for them.

IA/IAF/IN are not design or research agencies nor it is their mandate. And they have every right to act as an end-user and crib if their requirements are not met. You can say that IN is a little bit more flexible end user then others.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shreeman » 09 Jan 2015 19:39

^^^^ Gents,

The F35 will not fire its gun for another 3 -5 years and the sky is not falling. We have to take a mature view and understand that the R part of the R&D is much larger in the indian context. And its grossly underfunded, undercut and understaffed.

The problems of waste, inept and corrupt work are 3 orders of magnitude larger in developed military research complex for the odd compomise to make it to production, then with brochure specs and compromises. They just dont have the option to import.

Like the missiles in India. Love for shiny toys apart, it can nit be a one or the other approach in anything -- basic trainer or heavy.

Arguing that your brother is a bad person does get you another brother or let you divorce him. The reality of HAL today, requires a non USSR breakup approach. This should be obvious.

The silliest thing I have seen in my time is the basic trainer situation. And that is saying a lot.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests