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.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 24 Jan 2015 21:37

eklavya wrote:When the LCA Mk 2 is ready, it will be procured in any number that can be produced. Its obvious.


1. It'll be dependent on the same infrastructure that is serving the Mk1. Any additional production capacity will take plenty time to become available, in terms of infrastructure as well as for spooling up manufacturing.

2. The Tejas Mk2 will be available only by 2022 or so. At the current rate of production, delivering just 80 aircraft will take it to 2028 (if not later).

3. The argument used against the Mk1 today will then be trotted out to justify limited orders for the Mk 2; with the AMCA available by 2030, why bother ordering so many Tejas Mk2s? Focus on the AMCA instead and procure it any number that can be produced.


Chief of Air Staff, 2013:

As the programme gathers pace, we must remember that the final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Tejas Mk 1, but the LCA Tejas Mk 2. While the Indian Air Force will induct the Tejas LCA Mk 1, a demand for the LCA Tejas Mk 2 has already been raised, which the DRDO is working on. The LCA Tejas Mk 2 will have a better engine with higher thrust and improved radar system. (link)


Chief of Air Staff, 2022:

As the programme gathers pace, we must remember that the final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Tejas Mk 2, but the AMCA. While the Indian Air Force will induct the Tejas LCA Mk 2, a demand for the AMCA has already been raised, which the DRDO is working on. The AMCA will have stealth, supercruise, and advanced avionics.

I issuing a caution to you; don't indulge in such antics. You've made your point. Don't stretch it. - rohitvats.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 24 Jan 2015 21:46

MODERATOR NOTE: ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON RAFALE MIRAGE-2000 ON THIS THREAD WIL ATTRACT IMMEDIATE WARNINGS!

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 24 Jan 2015 21:48

^^^^
If the LCA Mk 2 "works" (meets spec and ops requirements) it will be procured in any number that can be produced. The IAF's bias is to procure as many as possible of a design that works. Common sense and obvious.

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

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

Postby SaiK » 24 Jan 2015 21:53

let us put it this way.. if we operationalize mk1, mk2 baseline will get verified and validated., and so on to mk3. it is important to be engaged in a lifecycle

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 24 Jan 2015 23:25

[Whine deleted by Moderator; forum is not a place to indulge in your pet-peeves - rohitvats]

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

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

Postby Victor » 25 Jan 2015 00:01

I've been trying to figure out what this "augmented" or "expanded" production line for increased LCA production is. A production line can turn out only what it is designed to turn out or less. If there is a need to double the number of LCAs then the only option is to set up another line, not extend the building and add more machines and people. OTOH, if we are dealing with aircraft produced one at a time by hand, extending the building and adding machines and people will help.

BTW, reports say the "LCA production line" is not ready yet and was still being worked on when Parrikar visited HAL last week. Only two years ago, they had asked for foreign help to set up a production line and if it is ready in under a year, hats off to HAL.

ritesh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 17:48
Location: Mumbai

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

Postby ritesh » 25 Jan 2015 00:45

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:When the LCA Mk 2 is ready, it will be procured in any number that can be produced. Its obvious.


1. It'll be dependent on the same infrastructure that is serving the Mk1. Any additional production capacity will take plenty time to become available, in terms of infrastructure as well as for spooling up manufacturing.

2. The Tejas Mk2 will be available only by 2022 or so. At the current rate of production, delivering just 80 aircraft will take it to 2028 (if not later).

3. The argument used against the Mk1 today will then be trotted out to justify limited orders for the Mk 2; with the AMCA available by 2030, why bother ordering so many Tejas Mk2s? Focus on the AMCA instead and procure it any number that can be produced.


Chief of Air Staff, 2013:

As the programme gathers pace, we must remember that the final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Tejas Mk 1, but the LCA Tejas Mk 2. While the Indian Air Force will induct the Tejas LCA Mk 1, a demand for the LCA Tejas Mk 2 has already been raised, which the DRDO is working on. The LCA Tejas Mk 2 will have a better engine with higher thrust and improved radar system. (link)


Chief of Air Staff, 2022:

As the programme gathers pace, we must remember that the final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Tejas Mk 2, but the AMCA. While the Indian Air Force will induct the Tejas LCA Mk 2, a demand for the AMCA has already been raised, which the DRDO is working on. The AMCA will have stealth, supercruise, and advanced avionics.


I issuing a caution to you; don't indulge in such antics. You've made your point. Don't stretch it. - rohitvats.

:shock: The way indigenous procurement is being handled, there is a high chance of this getting played out. Viv is not far off when he draws the hypothetical conclusion.

The most imp thing the Raksha Mantri should do is to BAN all imports, when substitutes are available.

Neither the chinese nor pakis can put up high quality stuff into skirmishes, whether short duration or long. Better to induct homegrown weapons, which are cheap/ competitively priced and not wholly depended on others.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 25 Jan 2015 00:58

Victor wrote:I've been trying to figure out what this "augmented" or "expanded" production line for increased LCA production is. A production line can turn out only what it is designed to turn out or less. If there is a need to double the number of LCAs then the only option is to set up another line, not extend the building and add more machines and people. OTOH, if we are dealing with aircraft produced one at a time by hand, extending the building and adding machines and people will help.

BTW, reports say the "LCA production line" is not ready yet and was still being worked on when Parrikar visited HAL last week. Only two years ago, they had asked for foreign help to set up a production line and if it is ready in under a year, hats off to HAL.


There are two ways of increasing the production:

1. Lengthen the pipeline by dividing the rate-determining step(s) of the pipeline. In this way the rate of production from of a single pipeline increases.
2. There is a limit to the above step, because at some point one reaches a rate-determining step which is atomic (financially, mechanically, or by supply-chain). If higher production rate is desired, the pipeline is duplicated.

The second method is obviously more expensive than the first as all the resources (machinery and human) have to be duplicated. Nobody sets up two assembly lines for 16 aircraft per year.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jan 2015 01:07

ritesh wrote:<SNIP> :shock: The way indigenous procurement is being handled, there is a high chance of this getting played out. Viv is not far off when he draws the hypothetical conclusion.<SNIP>


Can you list 10 'indigenous products' which are receiving short shrift from IAF and IA?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5213
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 25 Jan 2015 02:08

At the risk of OT, can you list 3-4 pIndian products which have been treated in the same way as imported maal like T-series, Migs, Sukhois, Bofors, Smerch, Tatra, BMP , Spyder among a few others?

Except for INSAs which was more or less orders from above and missiles (except Akash) which have been procured because imports aren't possible.

Nag, Arjun, Marut, Tejas, IFG, ?

It's common knowledge that import lobby in armed forces is among the biggest hurdles and this point will invariably come up in every thread every now and then. If you want to keep OT posts away, then please skip such comments.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23360 » 25 Jan 2015 02:41

^^^^^^^^^^^^ +1

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23360 » 25 Jan 2015 02:43

OT alert but DRDO had to install black box in arjun, that was a great shame ........

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 25 Jan 2015 02:51

Totally OT, but since the moderator asked:

Arjun,
LCA
Bhim
LUH - Doing same same with foreign vendors and local producers? Seriously? Even though LUH with Shakti will have the most powerful engine in its class.
Tank - EX aka Karan - Better than the upgrades from OEM for T-72 or whatever we ended up choosing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 25 Jan 2015 03:15

rohitvats wrote:And what exactly did IOC-1 achieve? Apart from photo-opportunity and press-statement?


These events are morale building activities and also to build a solid perception of the end program. By the same yardstick, what do different fighter programs worldwide achieve when each small certification or event is celebrated and their AF engages in promotional activities? Granted, export programs have a necessity, but there is definitely an element of both motivation (the carrot versus the stick alone, whcih the IAF seems to favour) and also a positive image for the program.

Contrast that to the manner in which PV Naik ran down the program in his appearance, referring to it contemptuously as a MiG-21++ and clearly indicating IAF displeasure at an event which had WW optics.

The MSM gleefully ran with the story & picked up on his body language as well & the leaks before & after the event were also obvious.

To be fair, IOC-2 saw the reverse. A positive performance by the then Air Chief who understood the gravity of the event and did a great job. Not to mention the solid release in favor of support of the program and how much it mattered & what it had achieved.

It went a way in reversing the damage the prior commentary had caused.

There are mixed messages from time to time. Matheswaran who was appointed to review the program, by all yardsticks sought to scuttle it - he admits as much in his interview & has only changed his message (somewhat?) after being appointed to HAL as an advisor. He also did a fair bit to run down the local industry and clearly has axes to grind.

IAF rtd personnel, who have been clearly briefed by AHQ have appeared at public events and played up the Rafale, dismissing the LCA in turn, clearly anticipating concerns that a mix of Su30s and LCAs could be cited as a lower cost option than the LCA.

In short, the IAF response at times seems confused. Two groups, one against the program, one grudgingly for. Both not too clear about unstinted support for the program and clearly looking forward to the next big ticket import, the Rafale.

Secondly, if DRDO itself says that IAF has been on-board since 2007, then I don't think the issue is with appreciation of a/c but that of project management at DRDO and now, HAL.


I think that was the IAF gent at NFTC who said that. He also admitted that "hundreds of RFA" have been released thereafter. The problem with that approach is late event scope creep adding to the problems the program has had in terms of expectations. So one can't put this issue on ADA and HAL alone since they have to now struggle to do in the next few years what should have been done in the prior decade.

Project Management cannot proceed without IAF input. The IAF has lost 15 years into the program, considering a start date of around 1992 & the development plan drawn up per IAF requirement, TDs to PVs with TDs being only tech demos was flawed to begin with, since it wasted a lot of time in moving to FSED once the IAF gave approval & the entire avionics suite had to be redone. ADA notes that it took 3-4 years for the SP level suite that is currently flying. While this is ok by WW standards (cycle time of 4-5 years depending on complexity), it was completely avoidable. To be fair, ADA messed up on Project Mgmt with the radar (HAL shouldn't have got it) but thats hindsight as at the time, LRDE was but new to the game & only HAL had experience.

But a lot of the stuff we have been reading up over the past few years directly relates to the "lost years". Wing change for R73Es for instance at the time of FSED. The TDs should have been all up developed vehicles to as much extent as possible & the FSED should have proceeded concurrently. IAFs high expectations are also another factor. The plus is we now have a state of the art avionics suite, but the IAF has only grudgingly admitted this, the fear clearly remains that if they consistently praise the program they are seen to be committed to it, so best to remain non committal. Issues of attitude apart (facts being we have LCA derived avionics on Jaguar, Su-30 MKI and MiG-27), there is also the element of ask nothing but the best even if its far more than what we get elsewhere.. eg the MiG-29 Upgrade has a core avionics suite which is behind that of the LCA MK-1. Its processing is running on Russian eqvts of Intel 486 chips. We didnt see the IAF ask for them to be replaced or brought upto current standards.

If thats not enough, LCA Mk2 is getting yet another avionics refresh. Point is IAF wants the LCA to be a fighter equivalent to the "best out there", but they dont particularly care about the challenges in achieving it and what is really necessary as versus gold plated. Standards are relaxed elsewhere.

Similarly, we had a senior IAF guy complaining about how a year away from LCA induction, documentation was not available & how that was unacceptable etc etc. This the same IAF that had no issues accepting Su-30s in much more constrained circumstances!!

All this really puts a doubt on the IAF's attitude towards indigenous inductions. They don't seem to have grasped the cost benefit aspect at all & only grudgingly look at local industry. An IAF senior at a public event once bemoaned that the IAF was now behaving like a child at a toy shop, purchasing everything assuming national funding was always going to be there & completely ignoring long term serviceability or support concerns.

This is particularly ironic considering the IAF menagerie in years past, but then that was political & often at friendship prices. When one considers the occasionally leaked issues about some fancy gear and the lack of support kit which is later contracted, one gets an inside look at whats going on.

Granted indigenoius industry is not there yet in many areas. But the IAF needs to work with them to get it done. The Israelis, French etc all do it. IAF wants decision making ability but wont commit to consistent support. Matheswaran typifies that approach when he says, if necessary we should be allowed to kill the program. And then what? Is the IAF committing to the AMCA with 100% support? No..This complete lack of strategic thinking seems to befuddle IAF decision making.

The Rafale deal is stuck for funds. The Su-30 serviceability was down partly due to funds. The Russians were clearly playing hardball. Matheswaran says the Rafale would allow us to diversify. That's fine, but at what cost? I mean, Tyagi at Aero India, four five years back, spent a lot of time cribbing about the funds required for the LCA etc. Thats $3Bn spread over the 90s to today.

Yet the IAF sees nothing unusual about a $10-20Bn commit for a single platform which is only going to be assembled in India (many critical parts will remain French for perpetuity and so will platform ownership).

This plus the blow hot blow cold stuff versus the LCA etc occasionally makes one wonder what's exactly going on. Similarly AEW&C. Two orders. Seriously? For a platform of that class, when requirements are so high and only 3 Phalcons are in service and each costs the equivalent of a huge chunk of our health budget?

On the plus side, SAMs and other programs seem to be going local. So clearly, the import stuff is mostly at the fighter platform level.

You could make a case for ordering at least one or two more Tejas Mk-1 squadron. To me, here IAF simply seems to be hedging its bets about ability of HAL to meet the delivery timeline. IAF could make a case for importing more Rafale (1 more squadron) of the shelf to arrest declining numbers.


If it wants delivery then it has 2 first commit to numbers. Cardinal rule of production, production follows indent, which leads to production orders which lead to infrastructure, subsystem commitment etc. IAF has committed to 40 Mk-1 & wants delivery at the rate suitable for a larger order (16/year) which HAL is willing to, but who funds it?

Now, GOI audit had suggested that IAF should pay for part of the costs of any new local platform (user incentive to contribute) so thats being done for the program per se. But without larger orders we will have an Arjun case. Idle infrastructure.

BTW - before people on BRF shout blue murder on this, this is something which is happening with Su-30 MKI as well. But guess who is ordering these a/c from Russia? Horror of horrors, it's HAL to meet the production delays in delivery!!!


What choice does HAL have? IAF compressed the order schedule with deliveries to be done faster as versus original. And ROE did what all arms vendors do. Held off on TOT so that we ordered more directly from them.

Actually, even I don't :mrgreen:

But then don't make it seem as if IAF was not accepting single a/c earlier and it was only MOD which made it do so and ergo, IAF is somehow against the LCA program. When the fact is that Parrikar had made a statement in Parliament in second week of January that 2 x Tejas (SP-1 and SP-2) will be handed over to IAF by March 2015.


Look thing is, clearly there are folks in IAF who seem to revel in applying metrics for the LCA which are not applied to imports. We haven't even seen a fraction of the leaks on the Bison upgrade for instance (whose issues were legion) as versus the leaks on the LCA etc slamming an indvpt program for not meeting constantly revised targets. Time was, we'd think it was all arms vendors. But its not. There are many IAF folks who constantly exhibit dual standards in these evaluations. Perhaps its generational & reflects the bias for imports as versus a local complex which only gave the "primitive" Kiran etc.

They may genuinely feel they are doing the right thing by trying to head off the LCA, constantly seek to have it cut off & then berating it in public. But its damaging to the national cause and frankly, this infighting has to stop.

I feel its partly because a weak MOD did not lay down the terms to IAF and HAL both to stop bickering and present a unified front. The HTT-40 fiasco f.e., what a PR mess. Was MOD sleeping to not have called up HAL and stopped Rs 350 Crores on a trainer while the money could be spent on R&D??

The FGFA leaks, likewise. IAF going public with "Theres no plan B only Rafale will do" per reports at the time - seriously, are you trying to hand Dassault all the leverage?

The IAF ok for SP-1 thanks to Make in India is perhaps a good start. A strong MOD will keep them all in line.

When the German AF chief landed in India to tout the EF, it was having serviceability issues so bad that 2 sqds or thereabouts were flight worthy. He didnt mock the program but was very measured in his approach. I think we in India need to learn from that. Solve your problems within, dont bicker in public to score points amongst yourselves.

Commit to a long term approach and dont be observers alone. IAF should be the one asking for funds for the AMCA and front ending the program. That'd go a long way in reducing the concern people have whether the LCA experience will not be allowed to wither away.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 25 Jan 2015 03:28

akshat.kashyap wrote:OT alert but DRDO had to install black box in arjun, that was a great shame ........


The bigger issue was this:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2008/06/a ... -club.html

But the establishment was quick to strike back. Barely three months after that report, the commanding officer of 43 Armoured Regiment, Colonel D Thakur, was confronted by then Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen DS Shekhawat. Eyewitnesses describe how he was upbraided for “not conducting the trials properly”. But in a career-threatening display of professional integrity, Colonel Thakur’s brigade commander, Brigadier Chandra Mukesh, intervened to insist that the trials had been conducted correctly.


The gent in question was of course the source behind this report.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/06/ ... -road.html

The latest round of user trials has made it clear that even after 30 years of development, Arjun Tank comes nowhere near meeting minimum operational requirements of the Army.

However, what is worrying the top brass is that DRDO’s insistence on inducting larger numbers of the indigenous tank will come in the way of a newer, better “Main Battle Tank (MBT) of the future” that is now required by the Army.

While Army HQ is not even thinking about extending its original order of 124 Arjun Tanks for two regiments, given that it is unacceptable for induction in the present form, the top brass is concerned that continued DRDO efforts on the Arjun will delay its requirement of a futuristic MBT.

The Army has now told DRDO that there is no point bickering about the past and the Arjun Tank should be treated as a technology demonstrator and a platform to work on a totally new tank design for the future.

There is a certain degree of urgency in the Army’s demand as it is aware of an increasing void in the tank armoury and its requirement of 3,500 tanks to replace the ageing T 72 MBT.

“After 30 years, the Arjun has not fructified, and now we need to start with a new design and a new tank. We have always said that a next (generation) tank has to come out in due course of time. We now have a base and expertise to start on the futuristic tank,” Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat, who till February was Director General of Mechanised Forces at Army HQ, said.


Note the entire tone of the report. It was clearly a determined attempt to head off the Arjun and to a degree it succeeded, with only a token order for Mk2s placed despite successful trials in reality.

There is a lot of stuff which has gone and is still going on.

Stuff like this:
http://www.strategic-affairs.com/detail ... ry&&id=627

Though the Agusta Westland, a part of Finmeccanica was originally a participant in the RFP for the helicopter but was thrown out of the race and its links to an Indian Army Brigadier is still haunting the MoD. Since a Brigadier was alleged to be influencing the deal, the MoD on the advice of the Army Headquarters has decided to postpone further acquisition steps till the probe is completed regarding the role of the Brigadier, who is presently posted at the Officers Training Academy at Chennai.

It is really strange that in spite of having a very honest spotless person at the helm of the defence ministry a small pawn can derail the entire process and the MoD looks clueless about fulfilling the needs of the armed forces.

Presently, the Russian Kamov-226 T and Eurocopter AS-550 C3 Fennec are locked in fierce competition but the Brigadier’s audacity has once again put a brake on the final process, reached after six years of lackluster efforts of the MoD guys.

The Brigadier was the officer in charge of the field trials for the light helicopters at the Udhampur based Northern Command. The document recovered from the residence of the Finmeccanica official in Italy has revealed that Brigadier Saini had in January, 2010 offered favor to Agusta Westland to eliminate the competition just before the field trials of the LUHs in the helicopter deal.

The Agusta Westland helicopter was kept out of the race without being influenced by the Brigadier and without any exchange of favors in cash of US$ 5.5 million. The Army has investigated the Brigadier, but has found no evidence to suggest his greediness and now wants further investigation by other agencies.

The Defence Acquisition Council was to discuss the report of the Special Technical Oversight Committee (STOC) on 2nd April, 2013. This committee was headed by Lt Gen Gurdeep Singh, but the sudden intervention from the Army Chief General Bikram Singh led to the postponement of the next and final steps for acquisition of the LUHs.


Meanwhile chopper replacement kept hanging on. In the past decade, things have been particularly bad.

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

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

Postby Victor » 25 Jan 2015 06:16

About IAF not liking desi planes, why would they want to take over HAL? Boggles logic doesn't it? Let's keep in mind that when the IAF suggested they take that responsibility, they already knew a thing or two about manufacturing aircraft in India with the HS748 being a much bigger and more sophisticated project than anything HAL had handled before.

Karan M wrote:..clearly there are folks in IAF who seem to revel in applying metrics for the LCA which are not applied to imports.

This is only if one sees clarity in hearsay, media gossip and mischievous innuendo. OTOH, it has been made amply clear by 1st person public rebuttals that the IAF has not been biased against local projects and has provided all the support needed. Maybe what you see as bias is actually the disgust that the IAF feels for HAL and its chalta hai attitude. (Wait, where did we hear that before?)

Similarly AEW&C. Two orders. Seriously? For a platform of that class, when requirements are so high and only 3 Phalcons are in service and each costs the equivalent of a huge chunk of our health budget?

And? Are you suggesting the IAF doesn't know what it needs but you do? If the IAF is so freaking stupid, which IAF chief has been fired by MoD so far?

Yet the IAF sees nothing unusual about a $10-20Bn commit for a single platform which is only going to be assembled in India (many critical parts will remain French for perpetuity and so will platform ownership).

First, the IAF doesn't hold the checkbook, MoD does and they are on board with Rafale. Second, we are spending this kind of money to spoon feed the DPSUs with Holy ToT for self-realization in "developing indigenous capability". It would be much cheaper and quicker to simply buy the jets off the shelf but IAF didn't go that route did they?

A strong MOD will keep them all in line.

True that. By all accounts, we now have a strong MoD backed by a strong PM and a strong rebuke has already been delivered. As I have maintained all along, none of us here knows the whole story and it's best to go by what The Boss does, not what the grapevine spews out or the DDM manufactures for money.

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

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

Postby Sagar G » 27 Jan 2015 18:35

Karan M wrote:looks like i missed some fireworks.

OT
sagar g, i was wondering what your comments on the deleted ones were. let me guess? that indian news report about f35 raptors over ombabas convoy?? :mrgreen: hence the deliberate wrong aircrfat descriptors etc?


He he he harmless fun saar now back to Tejas Super Flanker :mrgreen:

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

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

Postby Sid » 27 Jan 2015 20:13

Watch this old presentation by Commodore. Mao during 2011 Aero India. I am real great fan of this man, professional and committed to the cause. And similarly watch presentations by IAF officers (from 2011 Aero India), one can easily see the difference in body language, sense of ownership and commitment to the program.

Not at single point Commodore Mao cribbed about HAL/DRDO/scientists. Instead he was seen gunning for IAF (for correcting their mistakes) and foreign vendors for not sincerely helping them with NLCA program.



We can talk all day trying to defend IAF on this issue but we all know there is some issue here.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 27 Jan 2015 22:14

I really feel like saluting the Navy. This is what they can do with limited resources. GO NAVY!

I had not registered many things before:
1. NP-2 will have the letterboxes on the Harrier's intake. Makes sense.
2. Why the ventral store is such an important thing for the naval fighters.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 27 Jan 2015 23:01

Hey Victor, you are not worth my time. Go waste somebody else's.

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

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

Postby SaiK » 27 Jan 2015 23:10

back on the prod injunearing, concurrency and dependencies of LRUs and assembly line can be in separate pipes. So, sub-pipelines can be created for each LRUs. Control and project management becomes easier on time, number, size etc. so, that no two pipes is waiting on the third or on each other for dead lock.

there are different ways too. robotics can help both in streamlining and concurrency, plus improve quality of the product where humans may not be that precise, especially work to do with composite surface quality.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 27 Jan 2015 23:17

It seems GE 414 engine for LCA mk2 will have ede enhancement and if NLCA mk2 engine has emergency take off thrust of 10.7 T than take off weight from ski jump ramp of aircraft carrier will rise to 14.5T which I estimate to be the minimum MTOW of LCA mk2 air force version.

LCA MK2 empty wt 6.1T + 3T int fuel +0.5T canon ammo/pilot wt/pylons +4.9T external payload=14.5T

NLCA MK2 empty wt 6.7T + 3T int fuel +0.5T canon ammo/pilot wt/pylons +4.3T external payload=14.5T

NLCA MK2 will be as long legged as mig 29k and if two saddle CFT of 900 litres each can be designed to be carried it will free up pylons for carrying weapons.

Can anyone get the exact MTOW, empty weight, Internal fuel , external payload for LCA mk2/ NLCAmk2 from AI 015?
Last edited by sankum on 27 Jan 2015 23:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Victor » 27 Jan 2015 23:27

Karan M wrote:Hey Victor, you are not worth my time. Go waste somebody else's.

But that wasn't aimed at you. I'm just calling out your lack of clarity and obvious bent for others to note. Everything you write is bereft of rationale. And DRDO/HAL can parrot their stuff well enough without you trotting out their great work. It's out in the open what people who really matter think.
Last edited by Victor on 27 Jan 2015 23:35, edited 1 time in total.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Jan 2015 23:31

Yagnasri wrote:[Rant deleted, user warned and banned for 3-days. If you're reasoning behind issue(s) pertaining to Services and some indigenous product(s) is to question the 'nationalistic' credentials of the Services, then you need some other forum to air such views. Not here.

And this goes to everyone. Next time anyone decides to go down this route, the ban period will be longer. - rohitvats]


I am sorry to say that your missed the point I was making. What I wrote is against the establishment and the culture that we have inherited from brits. It still continues in the same way. There is no thrust of creating national capabilities at all. Services almost have no say in this. Hardly any reform is there to change this from GOI side. In fact GOI and the establishment do not want services to have any say in national security.

Navy is the exception in capability building. Navy is doing it in spite of the establishment and not with its support. Just see how retired Vikranth is junked how our Subs can not have batteries and Navy chief had to quit on such an issue.

If one of the moderators who has immense knowledge of the matter calls the the treatment towards LCA as step motherly, what does it indicates? It is not just me, many are posting the same ideas on why IAF is not supporting LCA or why IA is not supporting Arjun. Is there any logical reason for this?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby shaun » 27 Jan 2015 23:38

Ban big ticket imports , things will change rapidly. The argument that our armed forces should be equipped with the best weapons available just doesn't hold ground when there is indigenous alternatives available. I just can't fathom the idea why Army and Air Force are so reluctant when it comes in inducting indigenous weapons. N number of trials, changing requirements ..etc.

Look at the Armour and equipment level of our infantry who actually are fighting the "real" war and sacrificing their lives. here , no compromises should be made for security , safety and comfort of them even if it requires large amount of imports.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby shaun » 27 Jan 2015 23:41

Victor wrote:
Karan M wrote:Hey Victor, you are not worth my time. Go waste somebody else's.

But that wasn't aimed at you. I'm just calling out your lack of clarity and obvious bent for others to note. Everything you write is bereft of rationale. And DRDO/HAL can parrot their stuff well enough without you trotting out their great work. It's out in the open what people who really matter think.


Victor saab , i found no clarity in what you wrote .

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

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

Postby Victor » 27 Jan 2015 23:56

^ I don't expect anyone to have clarity if they're OK with bashing IAF while ignoring the facts on the ground. IAF doesn't and cannot act by itself and if someone can't see that, they need something more urgent than clarity. IAF reports to MoD and we need to look for MoD's actions for pointers. Let us not kid ourselves that we know what's going on because we don't. The day the MoD fires an IAF boss, I'll accept IAF's fault without hesitation.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Jan 2015 00:06

Victor wrote:But that wasn't aimed at you. I'm just calling out your lack of clarity and obvious bent for others to note. Everything you write is bereft of rationale. And DRDO/HAL can parrot their stuff well enough without you trotting out their great work. It's out in the open what people who really matter think.


Victor, the likes of you post two bit rubbish are in no position to call anyone out. A teenager would hesitate to post the kind of asinine rubbish you litter the threads with, with your awe inspiring knowledge of aerodynamics and what not. If that is the kind of clarity you have, everyone can do without it.

Anyone with an iota of sense would be ashamed & skulk away after being called out on your "performance" in the LCA threads. You persist. It would be hilarious but for your mendacity.

My post was in reply to folks like Rohitvats who actually matter a darn unlike you & can post seriously, not the juvenile prattle you come up with.

As regards DRDO/HAL and people who really matter within and without, folks like you wouldnt know a darn. Because you neither contribute to India and your behaviour is that of a mongel barking at the success of others. Doesnt matter a whit though to anyone who matters, including them.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby shaun » 28 Jan 2015 00:16

@victor
Why go defensive ?? and why are you waiting for MOD to fire an IAF boss ??

Try to understand , no one is bashing IAF for their professionalism , ethos and quality . The point here is about induction of indigenous equipment and in this case LCA . The question being raised is , LCA being far more capable than some of the other platforms that IAF uses. Why IAF can't be little biased for our own LCA even if it is yet to prove some of the other capabilities and it is also a norm else where.

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

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

Postby Victor » 28 Jan 2015 00:40

^ Darn it, I thought I was being aggressive, not defensive. Sheesh.

But the fact that is staring us in the face and some refuse to see is that the LCA is not "far more capable" than any IAF fighter yet. Do you really think the IAF is filled with desh drohi idiots who will not take a "better" plane if it is available? The insinuation is that they will not because they are against using Indian products, corrupt, stupid. That would also lead to the belief that the MoD is the same. How much sense does that make?

On the other hand if you accept that the LCA is not yet serviceable in an IAF squadron (it will get FOC after getting a nosecone from the British in a year :roll:) then the IAF's actions makes sense doesn't it? And how many people should the IAF keep lounging around to look after 1 (one) LCA at Sulur AFB?

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

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

Postby Victor » 28 Jan 2015 00:44

Well done karan m. looks like you do pay attention after all. But you don't have the stuff it takes to refute what I've written so on with the abuse and name-calling.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 28 Jan 2015 00:47

MODERATOR NOTE:
It is not worth anybody's time to go through the last few posts. All parties back off. victor sahab, your last post is nothing short of flamebaiting, take it off, or I will be forced to take action.

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

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

Postby Victor » 28 Jan 2015 01:06

Deleted
Last edited by Suraj on 28 Jan 2015 02:43, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Off topic

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Shalav » 28 Jan 2015 03:59

Victor wrote:^ I don't expect anyone to have clarity if they're OK with bashing IAF while ignoring the facts on the ground. IAF doesn't and cannot act by itself and if someone can't see that, they need something more urgent than clarity. IAF reports to MoD and we need to look for MoD's actions for pointers. Let us not kid ourselves that we know what's going on because we don't. The day the MoD fires an IAF boss, I'll accept IAF's fault without hesitation.


No need to blame others, IAF supporters here seem to be stating that it can't do anything by itself, however I have never heard of any instance where the IAF actually tried to do something which was shot down by the MoD! Any examples which will support this contention? So many leaks about the LCA and things they don't want, but NOT A SINGLE leak about anything they tried to do and was shot down by MoD, or HAL or any other entity.

I see the IN doing things which were not possible 20-30-40 years ago, and they're growing from strength to strength. At the same time I see the IAF does not seem to have taken responsibility for indigenization even 68 years after independence! We always hear it's someone else's fault that they cannot indigenize! I find this odd, and as an Indian citizen I think they need to pull up their socks and get on with indigenization process.

They've had plenty of time to set up infrastructure to start the game. Unfortunately I don't thing they have the set-up even now, and they're still don't seem to be showing the vision for it IMO. For example, is there a single lecture in the public sphere by an IAF R&D / Development team like the detailed one we got from the IN for the LCA above? It probably does not exist because the IAF may never have bothered to set up something similar to the IN.

The Navy has the lowest budget allocation, and yet has the best R&D / design and development infrastructure amongst the 3 services. Why hasn't the IAF got one as at-least as good as the Navy's? That's a question I have never heard asked or answered!

Instead of "guss-puss" rumour mongering newspaper leaks deriding the LCA, why isn't there a single professional presentation from an IAF officer, showing what they thought needed fixing in the LCA, and what they're doing to fix it with the DRDO/HAL? Where is their ownership of indigenization process?

Indiginization is a national imperative for India. The services have to make sure they follow national imperatives. It's time that we also look within the services and their commitment or indeed failure to indigenize; instead of always laying blame at DRDO/HAL/random agency or ministry which can be blamed.

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

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

Postby Victor » 28 Jan 2015 05:39

Shalav wrote:I see the IN doing things which were not possible 20-30-40 years ago, and they're growing from strength to strength. At the same time I see the IAF does not seem to have taken responsibility for indigenization even 68 years after independence!

Here's what the top Navy people have said:

...When I say take ownership, I meant the Air Headquarters should open a directorate of aircraft and aero-engine design and take over HAL and march up to the PMO and say we cannot have an aerospace industry without the biggest user being in charge. – Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash

...our thinking is that we should not allow this technology to be written off and take on from here and get on with Mk II, Mk III and use these aircraft for other purposes – for lead in fighter training or whatever. – Vice Admiral (retd.) Shekhar Sinha


No need to blame others, IAF supporters here seem to be stating that it can't do anything by itself, however I have never heard of any instance where the IAF actually tried to do something which was shot down by the MoD! Any examples which will support this contention?

The following was the biggest turn down and a major blunder IMO. Let's not go into why it was turned down in this thread. This shows that IAF was asking to take full responsibility for its own INDIAN MADE aircraft. You must be aware that the IAF manufactured the Avro well before HAL handled such large aircraft?

IAF seeks direct control of HAL to stem eroding combat-edge
With an eye on the future and fed up with the "bureaucratic culture" pervading Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), the country's only aircraft manufacturer, IAF now wants the control of the navratna defence PSU...

IAF's revolutionary proposal, on the face of it, makes a lot of sense. As HAL's biggest customer, it has every reason to be worried that most projects being handled by the PSU, which has a sales turnover of over Rs 13,000 crore, have been plagued by time and cost overruns...

IAF contends the HAL chief should be someone who "understands aerospace concepts" and can "transform" HAL into a cutting-edge company, capable of delivering on time

What HAL got was an ex-Railways guy to run it.

Indiginization is a national imperative for India. The services have to make sure they follow national imperatives.

Would you mind expanding on this with instances where they are not "following national imperatives"? I mean, IAF did use the excellent Kiran jet trainer and army did use the fncked up INSAS.

It's time that we also look within the services and their commitment or indeed failure to indigenize; instead of always laying blame at DRDO/HAL/random agency or ministry which can be blamed.

Please circle back to the beginning. IAF does indeed want and has always wanted to indigenize. The LCA was the IAF's idea but it has believed for some years that HAL is simply unable to do the needful, having demonstrated it's inability over several decades. You tie the IAF's feet and then ask them to jump, it won't happen.

The days of fudging the truth are over.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Shalav » 28 Jan 2015 06:02

Sirji

1. The IAF's business is defending the territory of India, not running factories. The same DRDO and HAL is doing quite well with the IN thank you very much. Just goes to show its not just about HAL or DRDO, the IAF should stick to their specialty, and let others do theirs.

You've not provided one credible instance of the IAF tasking itself towards indeginization. Hawa mein baat of taking over HAL is meaningless point scoring. At-least please point to one lecture which IAF's R&D/Development team has given about what they are doing to cooperate with DRDO and HAL. Where is their integration team exactly like the IN provided? Please give concrete examples!

Victor wrote:The days of fudging the truth are over.


Quite right. Its high time the IAF also provide credible reasons it has not been able to indiginize like the IN.


---added later---
One of the things they could have done was instead of waiting for the DRDO to come up with a design for future aircraft, they should have had their own design infrastructure. Just like the IN. I think they still haven't created one yet. Why not, after all the LCA troubles?

Instead of taking over HAL, why not start with the basics first, and create the office which will work and identify future designs, carry out studies for the same, and cooperate with the research and production agencies in fructifying them? That makes more sense than loosing focus and diversifying into (Fauji Foundation like) manufacturing.
Last edited by Shalav on 28 Jan 2015 06:35, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Jan 2015 06:34

I had made this argument earlier (in a diff way), but a Mod called it a rant. So ................... take it for what it is worth.

Each player has a scope, or radius if you will, of play. IF all of them have to do well then it is imperative that there is an overlap - however slight. A Venn diagram. Within their own circle they are single players. But, when each of them deals with another there overlap is inevitable. So accommodation is a must.

Seems to me that the Labs + IN have a good overlap.

So, the question really is does India (MoD + Services + Labs + Pvt Sector + anyone else) want a robust MIC. IF the answer is yes, then there is no question about who is at fault. They are all one.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Shalav » 28 Jan 2015 06:39

Quite true, anything as complex as the LCA where the wheel had to be re-invented multiple times, cannot succeed without the cooperation and dynamism of all agencies and personnel involved.

We see this happening wrt IN fleet procurement. It seems to me the Labs and manufacturers are quite happy to cooperate with the services if given a chance, but it looks like they have not been given this chance with the IAF and IA apparently.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 28 Jan 2015 06:44

Ah, the resident aerodynamics expert WBUH (wikipedia be upon him,) who can't convert miles into kilometers, is back punching keys at the keyboard. And I thought something major must have happened to see this kind of activity in the thread.
Last edited by Indranil on 28 Jan 2015 09:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: No need for this

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Shalav » 28 Jan 2015 06:52

Victor wrote:
IAF contends the HAL chief should be someone who "understands aerospace concepts" and can "transform" HAL into a cutting-edge company, capable of delivering on time

What HAL got was an ex-Railways guy to run it.



This is completely nonsensical - if anything a "railways guy" with public sector manufacturing experience is better as getting work output from the shopfloor, than a hypothetical AVM who has had his orders obeyed all his professional life, and not the first clue as to how to run a heavily unionised civilian factory.

What exactly is it about "understanding aerospace concepts" that will give that hypothetical AVM the experience to get the attendance up, plan shifts, make sure when critical production is coming up, that the right people are in the right shifts, RM is available, make an informed decisions about which machine must run, which can go for maintenance, and which must be replaced?

I'm pretty sure that if the "railway guy" they got has any sort of manufacturing / shop-floor BG, he'll be better than the hypothetical AVM with absolutely no experience in these matters.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests