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.
Post Reply
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Post by Prasad »

Better pictures ADA, come on!
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Gyan »

Vivek K wrote:The AM's writing is a clear indication of lack of strategic thinking in the IAF and the IA. If a need is felt for a twin engined aircraft then a new program for a definite strategic niche should be started with different goals and strike roles than the LCA. The writing by the AM is clearly an attempt to try and derail a program that is near to success and potentially will be the foundation for a local Military Indian Complex.
An indicator on the way of thinking of IAF. They wanted ITR of Mirage 2000 and STR of F-16/Mig-29 which meant super maneuverablity better than the super best of bestest of the conteemporray aircraft by combing their best features. They also wanted ADA-DRDO to throw in radar better than Gripen and ground attack capability (which Mig-29 does not have till date). So the best of the best of all features of contemporary aircraft rolled into LCA while having no problem living with non-upgraded Mig-21 which is 50 year old design. This intelligent behaviour is still continuing with Nag, Pinaka, Arjun, HTT-40, ATAGS, 120mm Mortar, Small Arms, AMCA, FGFA, IMRH, LCH Etc While no such problem with Smerch, T-90, Mirage 2000 upgrade, Apache etc.
vdutta
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by vdutta »

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Post by vishvak »

vdutta wrote:More pics here

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/
Amazing pics.

Last 4 pics of people gathering and cheering the pilot post flight are superb.
shravanp
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2551
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by shravanp »

Cool pics. Was it a short-take off? The facility didn't have the triangular blocking pieces to hold the aircraft untill it achieves a full throttle.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

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

Post by rgsrini »

^^Tarmak says
Bengaluru, Dec 20: India on Saturday created a slice of naval history when the first home-grown naval jet Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Naval Protytype-1 (NP-1), a trainer, took off from the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) at INS Hans in Goa for the first time. As reported by OneIndia recently, the NP-1 was piloted by Cmde Jaideep Maolankar, Chief Test Pilot of National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) situated in Bengaluru.

The SBTF replicates a static model of the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) being built at the Cochin Shipyard in Kerala. The aircraft undertook the ski-jump (take-off) 300 meters away from the ramp – having a curved upward shape at one end. The telemetry feed of the crucial trial was also available at NFTC, which was closely monitored by an expert team.

Sources who witnessed the NP-1 event at SBTF told OneIndia that the aircraft accelerated more than expected. “We were hoping for a 150 knot safe fly away at a climb rate of 6.4 degrees. But, the aircraft had a higher acceleration with a climb rate of around 11 degrees, which showcased the confidence of the pilot on the platform,” an official said.

Naval history created, says DRDO D-G: Dr K Tamilmani, one of the visible faces of DRDO and its Director-General (Aero) told OneIndia that NP1 smooth take-off during the first attempt itself will give a huge boost to the programme. “There have been delays which are justifiable if you have tracked the programme from close quarters. We were dating complex technologies and NP-1 scripted naval history at INS Hansa,” Dr Tamilmani said.

He said as part of the current campaign, NP-1 will have five more tests at SBTF (only ski-jumps) to meet all mission parameters. “Based on the test points achieved, we will schedule the next leg of trials. The aircraft will undertake ski-jumps 90 meters from the ramp, with all weapon stores in place,” Dr Tamilmani added.
There are a couple of videos of the takeoff in Tarmak. Enjoy!
shravanp
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2551
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by shravanp »

Thank you sir.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Post by Victor »

I don't understand all the vitriol against the IAF. If people think that everyone else knows better than IAF what IAF needs, we are in deep trouble. And if the belief is that IAF is a bunch of uncontrolled, corrupt rogue elements out to torpedo India's home-grown aircraft industry, we are truly up Sh!t creek. Everything will make sense if we simply shift our thinking to the fact that IAF is one of the most efficient and professional outfits in India, it has only one job and it will do what is necessary to achieve that--defend India's skies.

IAF is not asking to dump the LCA but to improve it via LCA2 quickly so it can be used as a frontline fighter which the IAF needs. LCA in its present form is simply not usable even when it achieves FOC, period. What's the problem with this? Is it a PSU ego thing or should we be more concerned about defense of our airspace?

Those who suggest that IAF is made up of blustering pilot types with no clue about aircraft engineering and design are only displaying the depth of their ignorance. IAF has enough aeronautical, mechanical and electronics engineers, both pilots and otherwise, to know what is real and what isn't and they know it with flying experience unlike the PSUs.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by Cybaru »

IAF just doesn't seem to have any long term vision. That seems to be the problem. As a user it makes demands that cannot be fulfilled and then it cries/cribs/whines till it gets the toy it needs. It is competent at playing with the toy, but not working towards defining, working with other players to make that toy. It needs to move from child/teen to a grown up adult.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

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

Post by rgsrini »

^^Victorji,
The vitriol against IAF is because the statements coming out of them is adversarial and not collaborative. Similar to Army's behavior (not written in a negative way) in the case of Arjun. While they may not actually be against indigenization efforts, unfortunately, the public perception is like that. Indian public expects more from institutions whose grounding beliefs are rooted on patriotism. Most, if not all, expect these institutions to be in the forefront of supporting indigenization and improving indian capabilities, rather than sitting back and complaining (at least that is the perception).

Even if our products fall short of the absolute best (which it will for a long time), the way to improve it is not by just sitting back and pouring contempt at the people who are actually doing something about it. The expectation is that they collaborate, understand the shortcomings, understand the knowledge gap that exists in Indian industry and research bodies, extend their expertise, and become part of the plan and struggle to indigenize the whatever. Like the Indian Navy, for example.

If the esteemed IAF and IA are not actually being difficult or corrupt, then they should work hard to change these perceptions. Because it pains a lot of people to hold on to these perception and ultimately affects the confidence that people have in them.
Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

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

Post by Raveen »

Victor wrote: LCA in its present form is simply not usable even when it achieves FOC, period.
Based on what? The fact that exceeds Mig 21 in its current form says otherwise
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

Gyan wrote:
Vivek K wrote:The AM's writing is a clear indication of lack of strategic thinking in the IAF and the IA. If a need is felt for a twin engined aircraft then a new program for a definite strategic niche should be started with different goals and strike roles than the LCA. The writing by the AM is clearly an attempt to try and derail a program that is near to success and potentially will be the foundation for a local Military Indian Complex.
An indicator on the way of thinking of IAF. They wanted ITR of Mirage 2000 and STR of F-16/Mig-29 which meant super maneuverablity better than the super best of bestest of the conteemporray aircraft by combing their best features. They also wanted ADA-DRDO to throw in radar better than Gripen and ground attack capability (which Mig-29 does not have till date). So the best of the best of all features of contemporary aircraft rolled into LCA while having no problem living with non-upgraded Mig-21 which is 50 year old design. This intelligent behaviour is still continuing with Nag, Pinaka, Arjun, HTT-40, ATAGS, 120mm Mortar, Small Arms, AMCA, FGFA, IMRH, LCH Etc While no such problem with Smerch, T-90, Mirage 2000 upgrade, Apache etc.
I have heard this on fora before but have never seen any source that documents this IAF demand for an uber unobtainable bird. As per VKS, who was deputed by the IAF to study the LCA requirements, it was entirely the opposite.

Also, by 1995 remember, contemporary fighters were eurocanards and raptor, viper, fulcrum et al., were. Old hat for development programs.

The one thing that caught my attention in the stratfor videos was AM Barbora's point that the IAF's attempts to take charge ala.the IN was scuppered by the DM himself. About Matheswarans one sided analysis, it could be a case of sour grapes as well. Personally, I would like to see an IAF person at the highest levels in a defense related psu like HAL
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Post by Victor »

Cybaru wrote:IAF just doesn't seem to have any long term vision. That seems to be the problem. As a user it makes demands that cannot be fulfilled and then it cries/cribs/whines till it gets the toy it needs.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Words like cries, cribs, whines don't fit the IAF attitude but exasperation and impatience do. There was a time when IAF saw the problems ailing HAL and wanted to get fully integrated with it's senior people at the top. This would have removed a lot of the so-called cribbing because they would have no one to blame but themselves. But they were denied by the political bosses in fear that IAF will take over a political milch cow and of course by the fear in HAL's babus themselves that it would finally have to become disciplined and accountable. So IAF is damned if they do and damned if they don't. It is irresponsible and naive to compare what the Navy is doing with what the IAF is when the IAF is not even allowed to do it.

Talking about vision, IAF simply does what it is told and makes recommendations. It does not have the power or mandate to do anything else. Tomorrow if it was told by PMO that it MUST order 300 LCAs do you think it is in a position to refuse? But that hasn't happened, has it? Have you wondered why?
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Post by Victor »

rgsrini wrote: Most, if not all, expect these institutions to be in the forefront of supporting indigenization and improving indian capabilities, rather than sitting back and complaining (at least that is the perception).
Then give them the power to do so. Let IAF have its top officers running HAL.

But more seriously, are you suggesting that IAF is not supporting indigenization right now? Why does it have so many of it's pilots risking their lives testing the LCA? What you call complaining I see as suggestions. When they see rank incompetence, they will call it because the MoD supports them. Have you stopped to think why MoD never castigates the IAF but only the PSUs? They are the ultimate bosses, no? Point is, there is so much going on away from public view and so much FUD being spread by the PSUs thru paid media (which IAF cannot do) that it is pointless for IAF to try to fight it other than to let go in public.
Even if our products fall short of the absolute best (which it will for a long time), the way to improve it is not by just sitting back and pouring contempt at the people who are actually doing something about it. The expectation is that they collaborate, understand the shortcomings, understand the knowledge gap that exists in Indian industry and research bodies, extend their expertise, and become part of the plan and struggle to indigenize the whatever.
Which is what they are doing right now. How do you see it otherwise? I don't recall seeing where they wanted LCA to have the same capabilities as the F-35 or even the Rafale.
Like the Indian Navy, for example.
There you go. Why was IAF not allowed to run HAL? Do you think they will every respect some engineer who has never sat in a cockpit let alone fly an airplane? It just doesn't make sense.
If the esteemed IAF and IA are not actually being difficult or corrupt, then they should work hard to change these perceptions. Because it pains a lot of people to hold on to these perception and ultimately affects the confidence that people have in them.
Then feel free to make some suggestions--how does the IAF prove that it is not corrupt and against indigenization? By ordering 300 LCAs which will never be used? And why did IAF insist in making the Avro replacement a private effort leaving out HAL? Are Indian private companies not Indian enough?

Finally, you need to realize that the public perception of the IAF that you paint is only prevalent among internet ninjas fueled by paid media reports. It should be a matter of concern that this view also helps our enemies. The real Indian public, thank God, has the highest regard and respect for the IAF, much higher than the other players.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by Cybaru »

I had lunch a sqd leader from IAF couple of years ago. All he talked about was how much he hated his current platform ( whatever it was ) and wanted to fly F22/f35. He is not yesterdays cadet. We talked a bit about building capacity at home and he had nothing but contempt for anything that wasn't the above imported tools. He couldn't care two hoots about the work being done locally. He just didn't care and didn't even want to know. Sorry until you have attitudes like this prevalent in the force, it is not going to be able to grow. It can fight a two pronged war and all, but it won't have a dominating strategy to win all wars. It will continue to be a "effective reactive force", but not a "decisive, dominating, strategically commanding force". There is a wide gulf between those two outcomes. I do wish that we become the latter, but we are far from it.
Last edited by Cybaru on 23 Dec 2014 23:01, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

vdutta wrote:More pics here

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/
5th pic from top..LCA?
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

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

Post by Sid »

SaiK wrote:
vdutta wrote:More pics here

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/
5th pic from top..LCA?
Sea Harrier.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by Cybaru »

Victor wrote: Talking about vision, IAF simply does what it is told and makes recommendations. It does not have the power or mandate to do anything else. Tomorrow if it was told by PMO that it MUST order 300 LCAs do you think it is in a position to refuse? But that hasn't happened, has it? Have you wondered why?
Are you saying there is only one and only one reason that the leadership hasn't ordered 300 LCA's? And that is that it is a inferior product?
Does that not assume a perfectly well informed political leadership that is not swayed by the offers to line its own pocket? :)

There will always be people who resist growth. Who will want to keep status quo same and not put in any effort, even if the change is for their own good. There is a lot of inertia for change, and I repeat, even if it is good change. IAF shows the same symptoms. It keeps trying to get perfect outcome or no outcome, rather than some positive outcome & inching towards the goal of perfect outcome. It does not have sound principles in place to deal with emergent changes to its strategy/vision due to such a binary or hard requirements. It has to either scrap the tender and change the goal post, which we see often as tendering keeps on taking 5-20 years to fulfill and all it does during the 5-20 years is complain through unnamed sources that we are not there yet or this or that or blah is holding them back from greatness. It has continuously refused to believe in our own capabilities to create anything meaningful at home. We are all cut from the same cloth. If we can't create something what makes you believe they can use the next gen toy effectively without having the infrastructure in place to use it like khan does.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

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

Post by rgsrini »

Victorji,

1. to collaborate, you (IAF) don't need power, or the authority to run an organization. If they insist on being the boss to collaborate, then I don't think they understand the meaning of collaboration ( I also think it is just your reasoning and not that of IAF). You (IAF) just need willingness, an open mind, an understanding of each other capabilities and mutual trust. In such projects of massive national interest, a single minded determination to fight through challenges, shortcomings, and failures. It is not you vs me. It is us. IAF should also understand that it will take several maturity cycles for the products to get to a stage that they want. In the mean time, they have to accept less than complete product and put it through the rigour of normal use and bring the feedback back into the development cycle. That is what every country in every industry is doing. India has no shortcuts to directly jump into the final stages, especially when we have such a huge technological, engineering and knowledge gap in these areas.

2. I don't buy that PSUs are using paid media to portray IAF in bad light. There is no evidence IMO. In fact most of the article in Indian and foreign media shows DRDO/HAL in extremely poor light, painting them as bumbling idiots who can never meet any deadline or budget.

3. I am not even going to dignify "Do you think they will every respect some engineer who has never sat in a cockpit let alone fly an airplane? It just doesn't make sense". That is your condescension speaking and hopefully not that of IAF.

4. Is Indian Navy running the DRDO/HAL/ADO, for it to collaborate and invest their own money into the development. Why is IAF different?
member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_28840 »

SaiK wrote:
vdutta wrote:More pics here

http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/
5th pic from top..LCA?
Sea Harrier of INAS 300. note the White Tiger squadron emblem/nose art on the bottom right. The Distinctive single seat bubble canopy and the high placement of the Intakes also give it away.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

Stop the bickering and enjoy this:

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Post by Surya »

dont we have proof of similar behaviour in the Helo thread - where a poisonous incorrect article was fed to the media and our test pilots were indignant at the nonsense

Seriously wish a couple of LCA test team joins this thread

meanwhile for years we did not have even front line aircraft with refuelling probes

hell the IAF removed the ones from some

and now it is an absolute must for FOC :P

Shiv said it right - the Navy will turn out to be the saviour of the LCA

Indranil - nice!!
arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4570
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by arshyam »

I wanted to post this except from Saurav Jha's detailed article, in case it was missed.
Ivanev wrote:http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... india.html
Final operational clearance

However FOC for the Tejas Mk-I is now expected to be achieved only by late 2015. This, according to Dr K. Tamilmani, Director General (Aero),DRDO, is chiefly on account of delays in receiving two significant parts from an overseas vendor that will need to be certified for FOC acceptance. These are of course a bolt on inflight refuelling (IFR) probe and a new quartz nose cone radome, both of which are being procured from different divisions of UK's Cobham. While the Tejas program was earlier expecting to receive the IFR probe by September 2014 and the quartz nose cone by November 2014, it seems that the probe will only reach Indian shores by the end of January 2015 and the first of a total three units of the new nose cone will arrive a month or so later. It is understood that IAF teams have been making visits to Cobham to lean on them to deliver these items faster.

'If Cobham had kept its delivery timelines, the idea was to wrap up ground check outs for the IFR probe in October-November and then commence flight trials says. Some 20-25 day/night flights at different altitudes and speeds would be needed to clear the IFR system and had the probe been delivered in September, it would have easily been cleared before mid-2015', says Dr Tamilmani . He also says that adding the probe itself and flying it is not an issue since it has already been integrated on the hi-fidelity Tejas simulator developed by DRDO's Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and has even been flown by test-pilots on it.

Now the new quartz nose cone supplied by Cobham replaces an indigenous one and is expected to help the Mk-I's multi-mode radar (MMR) (which has an indigenous antenna and scanner but an Elta EL/M-2032 processing back end) achieve 60 per cent more range than with the latter. The indigenous nose cone has of course already been fully qualified for all modes of the MMR but the current loss through this composite part limits the MMR's detection range to around 50 kms for a fighter sized target and this is expected to increase to more than 80 kms with the new quartz nose cone.

According to Dr Tamilmani, the first nose cone that Cobham made 'had problems' with appreciable losses which led them to making a second cone that is still undergoing structural load tests in the UK. This second nose cone will be supplied to India only in February 2015 and besides spot checks some 50 sorties will have to be flown to qualify this new nose cone. Though three Tejas flight vehicles outfitted with the MMR are ready to receive the new quartz nose cones, the delivery schedule is staggered with the remaining two being delivered at an interval of a month each after the first one. So as per Dr Tamilmani, there are no technological issues deferring FOC but merely process related ones subject to the vagaries of the foreign supplier for the two aforesaid parts.
I may be wrong in my reading of the above, but it seems to me that we are tying up the FOC on the competence of a foreign OEM, since most of the other dev work on the mk-I seem to be complete. Can gurus clarify some of my doubts?

Generally, what happens at FOC?
a)Is it just a process thing, or
b)is that the point when the plane can go on frontline service, i.e. base it at Ambala or Leh (say), or
c)is that when IAF starts playing around with it at Sulur (only)?

Regarding the IFR:
- If the FOC were to be achieved declared without IFR, what would be the impact? I understand IAF will still need the time to fly the plane and work out the kinks, and establish processes around operating a new type and get a handle on the maintenance aspects. These would be done in a peaceful Sulur, far away from the front lines. Can the IAF not do these things mentioned above in parallel, and integrate the IFR probe when it is ready?

Nose cone:
- Looks like we are taking a dependency on a foreign OEM to declare FOC. This OEM has delayed once already with the nose cone and the IFR probe, and to top it, had supplied a sub-par nose cone. They are still working on the 2nd cone, and we don't know for sure if this will be per spec. Till we get our hands on the components from the OEM, pushing FOC again past Dec 2015 is a possibility we have to consider. So that will push out induction further. What will be the implications of this?
- Given that the desi nose cone has been 'fully qualified' for all MMR modes - again, can't IAF declare FOC and start the process of integrating the fighter in far away Sulur, while having ADA complete the integration tasks when the components arrive?
- What was the desired MMR range in the original spec - 50km or 80km?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

Btw, what is happening with the Astra?.any news? I vaguely recall Chanderji stating that 2013.was the year of the Astra, now.it is almost 2015 and no news?
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by Cybaru »

I don't see how the nose-cone or the IFR should hold anything back. Attach em when they arrive and are done with testing. Get the 4 handed over to IAF and start the process of getting the training/manuals/procedures/qualifications going. Don't engage anything outside a 50KM range if you do take it to pokhran.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Post by Surya »

Read the CAG report on what the army made the Arjun go through - one wonders what a similar study of IAF procurement will result
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

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

Post by PratikDas »

pandyanji, quoting Dileepji:
Who flew her, never complained about her
Who complained about her, never flew her.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Post by Victor »

rgsrini wrote:
1. to collaborate, you (IAF) don't need power, or the authority to run an organization. If they insist on being the boss to collaborate, then I don't think they understand the meaning of collaboration
Absolutely true. And the IAF has always cooperated and is cooperating now, are they not? They suggested (different from "insisted" which they cannot do) that they take a much deeper role in the management of HAL after the latter's lengthy record of non-performance and under-performance became a serious worry. You're right in that the IAF does not consider that "cooperation", it is called "taking charge" which includes taking full responsibility, something the PSUs have no idea about.
I don't buy that PSUs are using paid media to portray IAF in bad light. There is no evidence IMO.
Look no further than this very forum where our friend Col Shukla was castrated in public by IAF top brass. It was an out-and-out hack job paid for by HAL which boomeranged. Hope HAL got its money back.
most of the article in Indian and foreign media shows DRDO/HAL in extremely poor light, painting them as bumbling idiots who can never meet any deadline or budget.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to hide the fat guy squirming under the blanket in spite of our best efforts. What to do.
Is Indian Navy running the DRDO/HAL/ADO, for it to collaborate and invest their own money into the development. Why is IAF different?
First of all, what do you mean by the Navy's "own money"? It is all "Indian taxpayer money" doled out by MoD as it sees fit. From where do Navy and Air Force earn money? And hasn't IAF ordered 40 LCAs "from its own money" even though they don't meet required standards of performance? We can be sure that they are making suggestions on design changes behind the scene also but maybe HAL/ADA are not listening. That's the feel I get from the IAF's periodic outbursts. Matheswaran is simply putting the frustration into words after he has left office.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

Matheswaran is being unprofessional in his utterances. Come all this way and now ask for the LCA to be twin engined? Wah! The IAF had only ordered 20 LCAs yet. As far as the LCA not meeting their standards, can you list which standards it does not meet?
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Post by srai »

Victor, Your last post is ridiculous.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Thakur_B »

Cain Marko wrote:Btw, what is happening with the Astra?.any news? I vaguely recall Chanderji stating that 2013.was the year of the Astra, now.it is almost 2015 and no news?
User trials to begin this year (hopefully).
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

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

Post by uddu »

Astra MK-I was tested in June against simulated target that too at a range of 65 km.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 134417.ece
There will be many more trials.

The Mark-II ground test was supposed to take place this month. Still more days to go. Hopefully this month or early next year as a new year gift.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

I don't think DRDO should blindly accept user requirements without commitment on certain block purchase from the user. It is important because, only a use-case base one could really improve on platforms. LCA-I and LCA-II, should have its due course of squadron intakes, no matter how many future versions, twin engine walas etc. we end up designing for our needs.

Comments for future needs SHOULD NOT be considered as being negative for current needs. /2c. After all, everyone needs to be in business., and this is very important for us to understand. Programs and its charter can't be blind to this. This is a public visibility aspect concern.
member_28233
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_28233 »

I am largely on the IAF side on this one --they were, and are, far more sinned against than sinners. They have been lied to, repeatedly, in a bald-faced manner. The engineers and decision makers from DRDO & HAL have treated the IAF as a bunch of dumb neophytes and then hidden behind the skirts of numerous RMs and the MOD to spare their blushes.

Let's look at some of the lies and boneheaded mistakes that the IAF has had to deal with:

[*] DRDO, in 1989, promises, via GTRE, to design, build and have *production ready* a GE-F404 class engine in 7 years flat! :eek: Hence they persuaded the MOD to sanction the LCA to be built round the Kaveri! As an air marshall said at the Stratpost conference, that isn't possible, from scratch, for a GE and yet that was the promise from an organization that had never produced any commercial, or widely used jet engine!

[*] Choosing Lockheed Martin for the FBW consultancy. As the airforce gent, responsible for the Mig-21 Bis upgrade specs in 1993, said: the IAF made sure not to include American components --they expected American sanctions. Pity the uber smart fellows at DRDO did not, and then chose to whine about it causing a 2 year delay.

[*] One of the air marshalls was sat in the cockpit of the 1st LCA TD and told that it would be ready to fly by the end of the month --it first flew 2+ years later.

[*] LCA, powered by the Kaveri, was supposed to be ready by the early 2000s --10+ years later FOC has not been achieved.

[*] In 2008, at a review, the IAF was promised that a FOC cleared LCA would be ready by 2012. When the airforce questioned how that was going to be possible with so many test points left to be covered, they were told not to worry. Of course, then 2012 --> then 2013 --> then 2014 -- then 2015!

[*] As Philip regularly points out, they even convinced/fooled Dr. Kalam to make the outrageous promise that 200 LCAs would be flying by 2010!

As for one of the latest reasons for pushing back FOC, blaming Cobham as follows:
Now the new quartz nose cone supplied by Cobham replaces an indigenous one and is expected to help the Mk-I's multi-mode radar (MMR) (which has an indigenous antenna and scanner but an Elta EL/M-2032 processing back end) achieve 60 per cent more range than with the latter. The indigenous nose cone has of course already been fully qualified for all modes of the MMR but the current loss through this composite part limits the MMR's detection range to around 50 kms for a fighter sized target and this is expected to increase to more than 80 kms with the new quartz nose cone.
The above reeks of failed management and in particular having a risk mitigation strategy. How about, say, ordering 8/16 nose cones from Cobham, *while* making your own. If your own is satisfactory, stop further orders from Cobham. Otherwise, as is the case today, order more. But at least you would have hedged against further delays caused by an area in which you lacked experience.

Lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outrageous delays by DRDO & HAL are easily glossed over, if not forgiven --they are trying to build India's MIC, don't you know. Let's blame the IAF for everything instead.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Post by Yagnasri »

The problems are everywhere. With IAF for not supporting and with HAL for making mess of things as usual. Worst of all with MOD which failed to show leadership in many times and areas. This failure of leadership with MOD can/shall be cured immediately. Rest will fall in line in a short time.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Cain Marko wrote: I have heard this on fora before but have never seen any source that documents this IAF demand for an uber unobtainable bird. As per VKS, who was deputed by the IAF to study the LCA requirements, it was entirely the opposite.

It is true CM. I distinctly remember reading that article but now am not able to find it. The ITR was that of the Mirage-2000 and the STR from the MiG-29. the ITR part has been achieved but a large delta wing hinders getting upto 18 deg STR..btw, AM MSD Woolen wrote an article (and its available on BR archives page) that the STR target as per the ASR was 17 deg per sec.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Post by SaiK »

most importantly, process maturity is needed! men may come and go.. this is critical. let us get certifications for capability and maturity models from international institutions. this will reduce 99% of the finger pointing aspects. for all we know, it might be just the process only!
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Post by mody »

Well with regards to FOC, if the IFR and the new nose cone are needed to get FOC, then so be it. IAF has already placed an order for 20 LCA, as per IOC standard and the production of the same and handover to IAF can continue. There is nothing stopping HAL from progressing on this front.
At the current point in time, if all technical issues have been sorted out and only some procedural issues related to the IFR and nose cone are the only ones remaining, it doesn't make any difference if the FOC is delayed by 6 months or so. The LCA program on the whole is not getting delayed by the same amount of time.

I would be more interested in knowing if the IFR and FOC are the only two issues remaining, to achieve the FOC or are there some other issues as well. What about the gun firing trials? Are all other test points finished and targets met?
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Post by rohitvats »

[quote="mody"<SNIP>I would be more interested in knowing if the IFR and FOC are the only two issues remaining, to achieve the FOC or are there some other issues as well. What about the gun firing trials? Are all other test points finished and targets met?[/quote]

Another important point which needs clarity is production schedule of first lot of 20 IOC-2 standard Tejas.

The delivery of SP-1 and SP-2 is itself running one year late as per initial timelines given by HAL.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

mody wrote:Well with regards to FOC, if the IFR and the new nose cone are needed to get FOC, then so be it. IAF has already placed an order for 20 LCA, as per IOC standard and the production of the same and handover to IAF can continue. There is nothing stopping HAL from progressing on this front.
Indeed and that is why SP-1 rolled out and flew. the first 20 are built to the IOC-II spec and will eventually get the IFR probe and the new quartz radome.
At the current point in time, if all technical issues have been sorted out and only some procedural issues related to the IFR and nose cone are the only ones remaining, it doesn't make any difference if the FOC is delayed by 6 months or so. The LCA program on the whole is not getting delayed by the same amount of time.

I would be more interested in knowing if the IFR and FOC are the only two issues remaining, to achieve the FOC or are there some other issues as well. What about the gun firing trials? Are all other test points finished and targets met?
You're right. As things stand, since HAL is building Tejas Mk1s to the IOC-II spec, whether or not the FOC is delayed by 6 months or not doesn't hamper the delivery of the first 20 Tejas Mk1s, which itself will take 2.5 years.

And since the FOC standard doesn't change the specification of the longest lead items on Tejas Mk1 (landing gear for example), even a 6 month delay in attaining FOC will not hamper the on-time delivery of the next 20 Tejas Mk1s that will be built to the FOC spec.

But yes, AI-'15 will be when we will get info on when the gun trials will be conducted and when the BVR integration and firing will happen. As per the original FOC schedule, these were supposed to have been completed by March 2015- which gives us a timeline of 3 months more. Obviously the wind tunnel tests and FEM/CFD for weapons carriage and separation of the Derby would have been completed if the original March 2015 was going to be adhered to.

Nevertheless, that work should carry on regardless of the delay of the IFR probe and the new quartz radome.
Post Reply