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.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Jun 2014 06:07

NRao wrote:

My feel is that India needs to seriously think about her future (which is sliding away pretty fast) and separate the two distinct topic: building number of planes for the IAF and building a solid MIC. At this point in time they are water and oil - they just do not mix.


Exactly. The MMRCA is a $30bn interim quick fix for decisions not taken/no plan for the last 30 years.

The way forward is to have enough IAF capability to deter the pakis and nukes to do the same for the PRC while grow your own over the next 10-15 years.

Build your own, improve, go the next step. The engines, the engines!

As HAL found out, production line manufacturing is a technology unto itself.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Jun 2014 07:31

disha wrote:Read this paper by students from virginia tech. No comments.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/AIAA2004-0415.pdf


Although the airplanes weren’t flown, the team did
make their final design presentation at WPAFB


Image

Apparently VT has an "anechoic wind tunnel" and a "open jet wind tunnel" whatever they are.

Ever so often I get to work with kids who have studied (Masters) satellites. Fascinating to be around them - breakfasts, lunch, dinners, brown-bags, what not ........................ sats. They are in the process of launching one of the latest sats that will change how we function on a daily basis!!!! The oldest must be around 35, tops. Rest -all - in their 20s. One Rhode scholar, handful traveled around the world with the USN. But all experts on something to do with sats.

Come across high schools with 4/6 axis CNC machines.

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 » 28 Jun 2014 08:09

NRao wrote:
Come across high schools with 4/6 axis CNC machines.


For exactly these reasons I think it is very important for educated Indian patriots and jingos to understand that the West's business is to stay ahead and they do that well. We make a mistake trying to start in 2014 to catch up with 2014 tech because by the time we get it, it will be 2030 and the West will have moved on to 2030 tech.

We need to create our own path with our own tech that may not be better than the West's 1990 tech. That means we may not get F-22 or F-35. But if we can make Eurofighter/Rafale tech in house we are doing well.

We will never catch up with Blisk/single crystal/composite blades and efficiencies and time before overhaul (TBO) of modern western engines. If we can reach 1980s level in engines entirely on our own, we will be doing well and probably better than China and all other countries of the world - including perhaps japan and South Korea.

India is not going to get Predators or F-35s soon with our tech level. We should not try to equal that. Get F-16 plus level tech now.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

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

Postby Avarachan » 28 Jun 2014 08:29

Cosmo_R wrote:
NRao wrote:

My feel is that India needs to seriously think about her future (which is sliding away pretty fast) and separate the two distinct topic: building number of planes for the IAF and building a solid MIC. At this point in time they are water and oil - they just do not mix.


Exactly. The MMRCA is a $30bn interim quick fix for decisions not taken/no plan for the last 30 years.


That is not true. The reason India is buying 126 Rafale's is because of the Tejas's success. Otherwise, India would be buying 400 Gripen's.

Regarding long-term planning, if one studies the Indian missile program, for instance, one is dazzled by the brilliance and audacity of India's long-term plans. Just think: from the Prithvi to the PDV in less than thirty years! That is an amazing leap.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Jun 2014 08:45

If - big if - India wants, India will get. As the example of space provided above. In fact, one if the original person in the lca program had suggested to reorg to space org in the 80s.

Seems to me that one arm of India is that of a world class body builder and the other is pilioed when it does not need to be.

Which is what is beginning to bother me. Even the progress being made is it seems in pockets. It is not a continuous, planned effort. ????? So, even if a F-16 is achieved things being disjointed the next effort will not be able to take advantange of the past.

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 » 28 Jun 2014 09:00

NRao wrote:Which is what is beginning to bother me. Even the progress being made is it seems in pockets. It is not a continuous, planned effort. ????? So, even if a F-16 is achieved things being disjointed the next effort will not be able to take advantange of the past.


True and the reasons for this are also well documented
1. Actual/REAL lack of tech and knowhow and underestimation of technical difficulty in achieving some goals
2. Poor leadership where established skills are underutilized in a chase after unachievable tech
3. Frittering away developed skills by ending/cancelling/not funding programs where goals have been achieved partially
4. Having design bodies like ADA with no knowledge of manufacturing issues making designs and then handing to manufacturing body like HAL that suddenly has to produce (mass manufacture) way out one-off ADA designs that they are ill equipped for doing.
5. Moving of goal posts by Air Force

Finally I do agree with Prof Prodyut Das in one statement he makes because that is exactly the statement made by fmr CAS Air Marshal OP Mehra in another article about Kurt Tank

Our engineering training is theory training, not hands on training. You will not find 6 axis CNC in most of India's engineering colleges and there are several thousand of them. But the students will do well in written entrance exams to go to USA.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 28 Jun 2014 15:15

One serious risk for the Tejas program seems to be the breakup of the numbers of Mk.1 and Mk.2 planned for induction in the services. IAF is planning 40 Mk.1 and remaining all has to be in Mk.2 config. and Navy has plans for only Mk.2 . By 2015 probably we have FOC for Mk.1 but with the current trend there seems to be a high possibility of Mk.2 not being available even by 2022 in the best case and Tejas production line remaining idle in between .
The reason being the following :
- Considering Gripen E as benchmark, the first demonstrator flight happened in 2008 and full development started ~2012 and planned induction is by 2018. Even after deciding on the purchase in 2013, still 5 year time for induction. Is it possible that we take less than the time Saab took ?

www.business-standard.com/article/econo ... 035_1.html
it was mentioned
The Tejas Mark-II, to be developed by 2014 and roll off production lines by 2018, will perform 40 per cent better than the current fighter
Meanwhile, ADA designers are working on the Tejas Mark-II, which Subramanyam says will fly by 2014, enter production by 2016, and obtain FOC by 2018. “Besides re-designing the airframe to accommodate the GE-414 engine, ADA will also grab the opportunity to upgrade key electronics, especially the flight control computer and some avionics, so that the Mark-II is a cutting-edge fighter when it enters service,” says the ADA chief.

So no roll-out by 2014 and no announcement yet, and considering the above as an over optimistic timeline , the revised timeline could probably go to 2022+ for rolling out from production line.

Further the concern about budget support the very same article mentions
As Business Standard reported earlier, Rs 10,397 crore have been sanctioned for developing the Tejas Mark-II for the IAF; and another Rs 3,650 crore for the naval Tejas, which would operate off aircraft carriers.

Compare it to the Gripen E development cost, the amount seems comparable or even higher
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-383850/
Saab has received a major contract to complete development work on its next-generation Gripen E multirole combat aircraft, with the new Swedish commitment worth SKr10.7 billion ($1.64 billion).


Finally even on arrival by 2022, how well it will compare against the Gripen E ? Please understand this is not a complain but a question :)
aviationweek.com/blog/thats-what-i-call-confidence
gallium-nitride (GaN) active electronically scanned array technology


aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability
The JAS 39E will be able to engage stealth targets with a fused, multispectral sensor suite

It will be able to cruise at Mach 1.25 without using afterburner, and will enter service in 2018 with a full suite of weapons including the MBDA Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile

the development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats
and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration


Hope ADA + HAL brings out something better and in a quick time

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 28 Jun 2014 16:34

AFAIK only 20 LCA Mk1s have been ordered by the IAF along with the 8 by the IN. The IAF is ok with Mig-21s serving till 2025, Jaguars serving till 2040 but LCA Mk1 is not good enough. In 2020 we might see Chinese stealth fighters in service and then we will see the goalpost being shifted again even the Mk2 will be declared a 'not good enough'.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 28 Jun 2014 20:24

abhik ji, I thought it was 40 LCA Mk 1 by IAF and rest MkII. Around 300 LCA total in some 14 sqns (source: wiki). Please do not use unsubstantiated data to push your point. Your point may be valid even without such data.

The 08 LSP's are in addition to this.

Naval requirement is 40 LCA which is in addition to this out of which they have ordered 06 Naval LCA.

Wikipedia may be wrong and your source may be right, but please let us know the source.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 28 Jun 2014 21:21

^^^
AFAIK an actual contract has been by the IAF signed for only 20 LCAs. As far as projections go it is only its 2 squadrons of MK1 and 4 of MK2 for the IAF. Plus the naval requirement which is at 40+. Overall projected number is < 200. The 300 figure for the IAF I believe comes from an Ajai Shukla article where he misconstrues some statement made in the parliament that the 14 squadrons of Mig-21 and 27s will be replaced with the LCA, no official source actually states that the IAF plans to induct 14 squadrons of LCAs.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7532
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 29 Jun 2014 08:28

shiv wrote:Our engineering training is theory training, not hands on training. You will not find 6 axis CNC in most of India's engineering colleges and there are several thousand of them. But the students will do well in written entrance exams to go to USA.


+1 to the bold'ed part.

And I do think one- does not need a 4-axis 6-axis 12-axis ... CNC machines to get started on hands on training. Balsa wood, paper, propeller and an engine will do with loads and loads of encouragement and incentive. If one has to do something, one can do with a slingshot and a glider! But are our students encouraged to think that way?

Point is that students need to get hands on and get dirty and that has to start from high school itself. The hi-hi tools like CNC machines can come later.

In the LCA thread, the reason I bring it is up is even if LCA Mk-1 is 40, it is mostly *our* forty planes. One can go from Mk-1 to Mk-II to Mk-III and go from LCA to MCA and not fritter away the base that has already been established.

<rant>
Heck, use the current Kaveri in its form and see if one can make a UCAV out of it. Let this be a national project spread among educational institutes., what are the IITs and NITs doing? Making their students prepare for TOEFL/GRE/MBA to go to US and later open a restaurant?
</rant>

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

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

Postby Gurneesh » 29 Jun 2014 09:06

disha wrote:
shiv wrote:Our engineering training is theory training, not hands on training. You will not find 6 axis CNC in most of India's engineering colleges and there are several thousand of them. But the students will do well in written entrance exams to go to USA.


+1 to the bold'ed part.

And I do think one- does not need a 4-axis 6-axis 12-axis ... CNC machines to get started on hands on training. Balsa wood, paper, propeller and an engine will do with loads and loads of encouragement and incentive. If one has to do something, one can do with a slingshot and a glider! But are our students encouraged to think that way?

Point is that students need to get hands on and get dirty and that has to start from high school itself. The hi-hi tools like CNC machines can come later.



There are a couple of issues at work here:

First is the inherent association of hands-on work as something that not so smart people do. This is especially the case in schools where the parents would say that they send their child to school to become doctors/engineers and not carpenters! So, why spend the time on carving wood when that could be spent on cramming books.

Second is money. Even the most basic hands on work will cost money, especially when we talk about machining and a lot of people/schools are not willing to take up that cost. This is also the reason why a lot of R&D in India is related to computations/software as opposed to experimental work. A PC and Fluent subscription costs a lot less to buy and maintain than a wind tunnel.

Additionally, exams are the easiest route for all. School has a set metric of grading and parents see a tangible quantity (scores in exams) to be satisfied that their money is well spent. In all this, who cares about innovation?

On the other had, at least in engineering colleges, the things have been changing in the recent years. All the FSAE, Baja, and various robotics competitions are providing good avenues for students to get hands on work. I have also seen a concept called SUPW in many Delhi schools, wherein the students pursue an extra-curricular activity for an hour two days a week. One of the activities was electronics, which included building simple electronic circuits. I am not sure if they have included a full-blown robotics section or not.

What still has to change, though, is the attitude of Indian mainstream which sees hand-on diy work as something that lowers your status in society.

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 » 29 Jun 2014 09:15

Gurneesh wrote:
There are a couple of issues at work here:

First is the inherent association of hands-on work as something that not so smart people do. This is especially the case in schools where the parents would say that they send their child to school to become doctors/engineers and not carpenters! So, why spend the time on carving wood when that could be spent on cramming books.

Second is money. Even the most basic hands on work will cost money, especially when we talk about machining and a lot of people/schools are not willing to take up that cost. This is also the reason why a lot of R&D in India is related to computations/software as opposed to experimental work. A PC and Fluent subscription costs a lot less to buy and maintain than a wind tunnel.


Gurneesh - nowadays colleges have a lot of money, but the teachers themselves have grown up and trained in an environment where they have no ability to teach hands on and the curriculum does not demand anything but book work.

Yes, that is changing - in fact there are some mush despised "private colleges" that are doing better than government colleges in this regard - but we have a long way to go. I think industry needs to tie up with colleges and colges need more than the 4 year undergraduate course which students breeze through and apply to go to US and then get married. We need better institutions with long term research staff. Every young engineering graduate I meet in Bangalore only claims that he or she had a great and easy time getting through the course - with plenty of spare time for festivals, romance and fun.

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 » 29 Jun 2014 09:20

An let us look at another fact

The US can suck in 30 to 50,000 engineering graduates a year. In 2014 they have changed the rules so that even spouses of educated immigrants will be allowed in.

With India training 400,000 engineers a year and only 100,000 of them being "employable" (as per many accounts) as many aas 50% of the top 100,000 engineering graduates will get their "hands on" training in America.

I am reminded of an old related saying:

Confucius say, when man 60 marry girl 25, like buying book for someone else to read


Indian engineering training is designed to help America and no Indian parent or student minds. Naturally. It is to their personal advantage and their right to do what they want.
Last edited by shiv on 29 Jun 2014 09:53, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Jun 2014 09:49

And, I thought we were talking of all this within a MIC framework.

Believe me MICs do *not* need a bunch of IITians. All a MIC needs is a few smarty pants, who dream and take risks, and a few great managers. Rest all do pure donkey work.

And of course, funds.

Btw, none of these guys who pass high slung exams get through s security clearance in the US for a while - even if they tried. 99% do not even try.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 29 Jun 2014 10:28

shiv wrote:...
With India training 400,000 engineers a year and only 100,000 of them being "employable" (as per many accounts) ...

Nitpick, AFAIK that number is well over 1,000,000.

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

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

Postby ArmenT » 29 Jun 2014 10:56

ravi_g wrote:shiv ji,

we can have the following permutations available to us:

chambers rotate barrel stationary - Gast gun, revolvers
chambers stationary barrel rotate - Puckle guns
chambers rotate barrel rotate - Gattling gun
chambers stationary barrel stationary - Other types of guns including Starship ray guns :)

Just correcting a few things in this post:
>> chambers rotate barrel stationary - Gast gun, revolvers
Yes for revolvers. Incorrect for the Gast gun. The Gast gun has two barrels and two actions and the way it works is that the recoil from the firing of one barrel is used to reload and charge the second barrel and the recoil from firing the second barrel is used to reload and charge the first barrel and so on. The idea is that since it has two barrels firing alternately, it can fire with higher rates of fire, without having jamming issues (e.g. if you're firing 1000 rpm, each barrel is only firing 500 rpm, which is actually pretty slow). See this link for details.

>> chambers stationary barrel rotate - Puckle guns
Puckle gun actually had a single barrel and rotating chambers. The mechanism to rotate the chambers was hand operated. It was sort of a precursor to revolvers. I don't believe there are any firearms where the chambers are stationary and the barrel rotates. The whole idea is to preserve the life of the barrel, so if the same barrel is rotating through multiple chambers and firing, it could wear out really fast.

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 » 29 Jun 2014 10:59

abhik wrote:
shiv wrote:...
With India training 400,000 engineers a year and only 100,000 of them being "employable" (as per many accounts) ...

Nitpick, AFAIK that number is well over 1,000,000.

:shock:

True. Just found out.

In fact we need to employ these people in India. OT

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 29 Jun 2014 12:04

^^ just engineers? Holy crap!!!

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 29 Jun 2014 14:50

DRDO claim on LCA Tejas export premature: Former top IAF officer


http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/drdo-claim-on-lca-tejas-export-premature-former-top-iaf-officer/article6159904.ece

Here we go again. BRF posters said this first, I guess. The IAF and DRDO / Def PSU's will never be on the same wavelength. :(

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19881
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 29 Jun 2014 16:09

>>“It is too early to talk about this as it has to be first inducted into IAF before we take a decision on selling these planes,” former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy said.

Three points:
1. He is retired, so he does not reflect the IAF official POV
2. There is nothing wrong with what he said
3. Kiccha is a long time LCA program critic, in how it has been run etc. So nothing new here.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 29 Jun 2014 16:40

I am confused about the LCA numbers, both the production numbers and the cost numbers. So, I did some research and have tried to draw a few conclusions below. I have avoided wikipedia and Ajai Shukla since they were same and overly optimistic. The 14 Sqns of LCA of the IAF occur in many sources but I have discounted those since the numbers have been questioned earlier. I have seen numbers like LCA MK II for IAF = 83 / 124 / 200 at various places and confirmed order or projected requirement getting easily replaced.

BRF numbers also vary but I will confess after initially trying I gave up on reading all posts. I opted for the numbers I found sourced directly to IAF Chief or close to GOI - Prasar Bharti. My nOOb experience levels may have erred in opting for the source but all this debate on cost benefits and assembly line production needs to start from some base numbers and the variance in those are presently high.

To begin with the starting point was:

AFAIK an actual contract has been by the IAF signed for only 20 LCAs. As far as projections go it is only its 2 squadrons of MK1 and 4 of MK2 for the IAF. Plus the naval requirement which is at 40+.


The statement in Parliament by then MOS Jitendra singh clearly says replacement of Mig 21 and Mig 27 by LCA. Ajai Shukla has used his own inferences to extrapolate the 300 LCA numbers (these may not be wrong).

What I understand from various sources - Contract has been signed for the first 20 LCA Mk I which were to be manufactured after IOC. 20 More will be procured after FOC (contracted / projected). This 40 LCA Mk I other than 08 L S P's are a given for IAF. The first two squadron locations are given in the Prasar Bharti report (after the Hindu report):

-
Tejas to officially replace MiG-21 FL

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/tejas-to-officially-replace-mig21-fl/article5451248.ece?ref=relatedNews

Shillong, Dec 12:

The indigenously developed light combat aircraft 'Tejas' would officially replace the MiG-21 FL fighter jet, Chief of Air Staff of the Indian Air Force, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne said today.

"One major phase has passed over and now we look toward the new induction into the force. The LCA will replace the MiG-21," Browne told reporters at the headquarter of Eastern Air Command here.

"We will get 40 aircraft and that will be the Mark-I type. Tejas will be battle ready by end of 2014," he said.


So the 40 MkI's are as replacement for Mig 21 FL's already retired.
At the Prasar Bharti site a report of an earlier date: http://newsonair.com/lca-tejas-birth-of-indian-fighter-aircraft.asp

The Managing Director of HAL Ashok Naik has informed that by December this year four aircrafts will be produced. All the 20 aircraft would be delivered by 2013 and the next 20 aircraft in about 2 1/2 years after that. The next batch of 20 Tejas Series Production Aircraft for second squadron will be produced after getting the Final Operational Certificate. The Final Operational Clearance of Tejas Mark 1 is expected in 2012. The Trainer variant of Tejas is likely to get its Initial Operation Clearance by end of this year. Development of Tejas Mark 2 aircraft with alternate engine GE-F414 has been initiated. Tejas Mark 2 with higher thrust engines would have its first flight by December 2014. Maiden flight of Tejas Mark 2 is planned during this time. Production version of Mark 2 is planned in June 2016. IAF has projected a requirement of 83 Tejas Mark 2 aircraft. Overall funds allocation for development and production of Tejas is of the order of Rs 25000/- crores. The supersonic fourth generation fighter will form a 200-strong fleet for the IAF to replace its ageing Russian-made MiG-21 fleet and increase the squadron strength to 10 as a potent strike force over the next two decades. The two squadrons of 20 Tejas each will be stationed at Sulur near Coimbatore and Kayathur near Tuticorin both in Tamilnadu.


That means a confirmed 83 LCA Tejas Mk II (04 sqns) as per Prasar Bharti (GOI mouthpiece) and a projection of 200 LCAs overall for the IAF. The Naval demand is separate. Add another 46 LCAs in Navy .

That makes it ~250 LCAs and the cost of development and production in Prasar Bharti article is Rs. 25000 crores. We have a 100 crore aircraft in the LCA then? Somewhere else I read Rs. 200 crores. Even catering for inflation it should not double across sources. But Rs. 200 crores and taking Rs vs. $ at Rs. 60 = 01 USD we have an average LCA price tag of USD 33.33 million and if it is Rs. 100 crores than USD 16.665 million. Even on a higher cost of Rs. 200 crores per aircraft the LCA is not very expensive when compared to other fighters and increased production would lower cost. But at the lower price range the LCA is an amazingly low cost fighter in its class and we should mass produce.

Conclusion: I am not sure on numbers yet but 1000 LCA's (all variants) will be a good number to manufacture. :D

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Jun 2014 17:16

I hope and feel that once FOC is complete, we may see more mk1s than the 40 nos being bandiee about. The mk1 should be far ahead of the bison and once the iaf sees this, falling sad strength might provide a compelling reason to get more mkls

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 29 Jun 2014 17:44

deejay wrote:That means a confirmed 83 LCA Tejas Mk II (04 sqns) as per Prasar Bharti (GOI mouthpiece) and a projection of 200 LCAs overall for the IAF. The Naval demand is separate. Add another 46 LCAs in Navy .

The piece first confirms 40 Mk1 and then talks about a 4 squadron requirement for the Mk2 from the IAF(so we are upto about 120) and then pulls out the 200 figure (from the mush?) without any explanitaion. bThe 300/14 squadrons figure is also way of the mark because then the squadron strength will reach 40+ even without the Rafale and FGFA.
That makes it ~250 LCAs and the cost of development and production in Prasar Bharti article is Rs. 25000 crores. We have a 100 crore aircraft in the LCA then? Somewhere else I read Rs. 200 crores. Even catering for inflation it should not double across sources. But Rs. 200 crores and taking Rs vs. $ at Rs. 60 = 01 USD we have an average LCA price tag of USD 33.33 million and if it is Rs. 100 crores than USD 16.665 million. Even on a higher cost of Rs. 200 crores per aircraft the LCA is not very expensive when compared to other fighters and increased production would lower cost. But at the lower price range the LCA is an amazingly low cost fighter in its class and we should mass produce.

HAL is asking for about 162 Crores for each of the first batch of 20 Mk1. For much higher rates of production the cost could be much lower.
Conclusion: I am not sure on numbers yet but 1000 LCA's (all variants) will be a good number to manufacture. :D

+1.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 29 Jun 2014 17:57

ArmenT wrote:>> chambers stationary barrel rotate - Puckle guns
Puckle gun actually had a single barrel and rotating chambers. The mechanism to rotate the chambers was hand operated. It was sort of a precursor to revolvers. I don't believe there are any firearms where the chambers are stationary and the barrel rotates. The whole idea is to preserve the life of the barrel, so if the same barrel is rotating through multiple chambers and firing, it could wear out really fast.


I don't read much of history but I think you are right. OMG there really are no guns where this arrangement is explored in practice. Stand corrected. It was just my wishes. So after all Puckle was just a big revolver.

So this arrangement would now in effect be only in a completely theoretical centrifugal gun (unless its a black project and somebody is testing it) or the movie props of Shanghai knights.

tushar_m

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

Postby tushar_m » 29 Jun 2014 19:31

how much structural difference is there between LCA single seat & LCA two seater trainer version.

i ask because if there is no major changes to be made then IAF can increase the LCA order now which in future could be converted for AJT roles (structural changes will be there off course). With induction of new fighters we would need Supersonic AJT's with agility,power,tech training .

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 » 29 Jun 2014 19:38

ravi_g wrote:
ArmenT wrote:>> chambers stationary barrel rotate - Puckle guns
Puckle gun actually had a single barrel and rotating chambers. The mechanism to rotate the chambers was hand operated. It was sort of a precursor to revolvers. I don't believe there are any firearms where the chambers are stationary and the barrel rotates. The whole idea is to preserve the life of the barrel, so if the same barrel is rotating through multiple chambers and firing, it could wear out really fast.


I don't read much of history but I think you are right. OMG there really are no guns where this arrangement is explored in practice. Stand corrected. It was just my wishes. So after all Puckle was just a big revolver.

So this arrangement would now in effect be only in a completely theoretical centrifugal gun (unless its a black project and somebody is testing it) or the movie props of Shanghai knights.


There is absolutely no use having a rotating single barrel for any reason.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 29 Jun 2014 20:09

how much structural difference is there between LCA single seat & LCA two seater trainer version.

i ask because if there is no major changes to be made then IAF can increase the LCA order now which in future could be converted for AJT roles (structural changes will be there off course). With induction of new fighters we would need Supersonic AJT's with agility,power,tech training ..


The LCA trainers are for initial conversion of Line Pilots to the aircraft and further currency training while in Sqn with an instructor.

LCA has delta wings but AJT will need straight or slightly swept wings. The requirement of AJT may be changed to LIFT but then LCA with delta wings would be unsuitable for even that. A wing design change and addition of a tail plane elevator wing section would mean an entirely new design making the current LCA totally unsuitable as an AJT or LIFT. A delta wing design is inherently unstable and is suitable for a supersonic front-line fighter role and not training.

The HJT 39 programme may be restarted for a desi AJT. These Hawks will last 25-30 yrs (I hope) enough time to develop something in house.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 29 Jun 2014 20:13

I hope and feel that once FOC is complete, we may see more mk1s than the 40 nos being bandiee about. The mk1 should be far ahead of the bison and once the iaf sees this, falling sad strength might provide a compelling reason to get more mkls


IMO, the IAF is gambling on the fact that LCA MK II will not take too long to happen. Which is why they are only planning to equip two sqns with the MK I and the rest with the more capable MK IIs. Their calculation probably is that by the time these 40 Mk I's are delivered the Mk II will be ready for production and hence no further need to buy MK I's when a far superior Mk II is available.

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

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

Postby anirban_aim » 29 Jun 2014 21:34

Gyaanis,

Noob pooch, please enlighten.

Please see these two links:

1st one from NDTV:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... topstories

India's Rafale Fighter Jet Deal in Final Lap, Awaits Government's Nod

"We have been hand-holding the LCA for a long time and will continue to support it. But it is not a replacement for a medium, multirole fighter aircraft. Its reach is barely 200 km while we need an aircraft with a reach of at least 1000-km if we have to pose any challenge in the Tibet Autonomous Region, where India expects a major threat to its air combat power in case of a conflict with China," said a top IAF officer.



Is the highlighted part correct? What does he mean?

Now the 2nd link from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

Performance

Maximum speed: Tested up to Mach 1.6 for IOC-I (1,350 km/h) (CAS) at high altitude,[127] theoretically capable of Mach 1.8[132]
Range: 850 km[133] (459 nmi, 528 mi)
Combat radius: 1300 km[133] (162 nmi, 186 mi)



Was surprised to see the quote from the NDTV article by Nitin Gokhale. I always believed the LCA had a combat radius of about 500 miles Thats atleast 800 KMs. So is this just DDM or am I missing something here.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 29 Jun 2014 21:50

LCA tejas combat radius = 300-350 KM
Rafale / Su 30 >= ~1500 KM

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 29 Jun 2014 23:04

deejay wrote:IMO, the IAF is gambling on the fact that LCA MK II will not take too long to happen. Which is why they are only planning to equip two sqns with the MK I and the rest with the more capable MK IIs. Their calculation probably is that by the time these 40 Mk I's are delivered the Mk II will be ready for production and hence no further need to buy MK I's when a far superior Mk II is available.

Light and cheap fighters make sense only when you buy them in numbers and fill up a large chunk of your squadrons. Now, about 1/3 of the IAF's squadrons are already (or will be in the near future) taken up by the heavies i.e the MKI. Another ~1/3 of the fleet (Mig-29, M2000 and Jags) do not need to be replaced in the immediate future but when they are, they will be replaced by heavier FGFA and AMCAs. The rest is going to be split between the MRCA and the LCA(about 1/6th of the fleet each). So long term you are going to see the IAF going from a mostly light to mostly medium-heavy. Quite clearly the IAF future plans do not hinge on the LCA, The 6 squadrons the minimum that the IAF can order and get away with. IMO they might be gambling on the Mk2 failing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19881
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 29 Jun 2014 23:05

That quote is incorrect, the IAF officer in question does not have all the details.

Actual quote from the LCA IOC:

LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat.


http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=102056

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

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

Postby Victor » 29 Jun 2014 23:12

anirban_aim wrote:Range: 850 km[133] (459 nmi, 528 mi)
Combat radius: 1300 km[133] (162 nmi, 186 mi)



Was surprised to see the quote from the NDTV article by Nitin Gokhale. I always believed the LCA had a combat radius of about 500 miles Thats atleast 800 KMs. So is this just DDM or am I missing something here.

According to HAL website, the LCA's "radius of action" is 300 km. One assumes this is with full combat load, else the word "action" would be misleading. With a less-than-full load, the radius would be greater. More than enough for action along the LOC with the pakis.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19881
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 29 Jun 2014 23:23

Problem is the HAL website hasn't been updated in a while (check the FGFA image). The 300 Km quote there was superseded by the IOC press release referenced above.

Thing is the IAF officer probably took the MiG-21s as reference, but the LCA is a class apart, literally, because

a) it has seven pylons (allowing four for weapons, 3 for fuel, the MiG-21 only had 2 for weapons and 3 for fuel, limiting it considerably) and
b ) it is slated to get IFR & OBOGS, which would give it far longer legs than it has currently.

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

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

Postby Victor » 29 Jun 2014 23:33

The IOC release says "500 km depending on nature and duration of combat" which doesn't contradict HAL's site. Less payload, more range.

In the end, it is our design goals for LCA which dictate range. The paki Thanda is bigger than the LCA, has a less powerful engine, less speed and less payload but a combat radius thrice as much as LCA. That doesn't make it better than LCA but it does what it needs to.
Last edited by Victor on 29 Jun 2014 23:39, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19881
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 29 Jun 2014 23:38

The problem is the same terms used which create confusion for those inclined to look at just range and not nuance. HAL should be managing its website better, oh well.

Regarding Paki thunder - forget that POS, the figures are just made up for most of its claims. Reminds me of when TSPians went to town claiming it had FBW, err... actually single channel. And that it was fully Pakistani, because a few TSP engineers went to China.

Look at the Gripen & its internal fuel vs the LCA's & ranges noted. The LCA ranges are clearly, as is usual with SDREs, done with an eye on all possible configs and conservative estimates.

And also, as noted when looking at the context, clearly @ IOC level, mentioned without other planned fuel tanks or IFR.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2752
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

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

Postby darshhan » 30 Jun 2014 08:12

The usage of composites in manufacturing LCA alone would suggest a much higher range than what has been indicated by the IAF officer.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2752
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

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

Postby darshhan » 30 Jun 2014 08:17

Also note the timing of such a statement which was released to justify the Rafale deal. clearly the rafale imort lobby is releasing this deliberate misinformation.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9947
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Jun 2014 12:29

Raffa is gone case due to price. India does not have money as of now and I do not believe NM who believed in "One ticket, two trips" will be willing to make such a costly purchase. Only chance raffa got is reluctance of GOI to revisit the decision in favour of Raffa.

On the other hand, LCA may find huge support as NM and others may be more aggressive to persue national products and systems.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests