correct. this coordination should have been the order of the day from day 1 but a host of issues which i don't want to repeat have ensured this did not happen.shiv wrote:This is the director of NAL speaking. I still haven't understood how the design agency (NAL), the manufacturing agency (HAL) and the end user (IAF) can coordinate with each other. Of course I have read the oft repeated criticism that it was a bad idea in the first place to have design agency divorced from the manufacturing agency
my own 'guess' is that he may be referring to the QC issues/manufacturing stability/zero variations from platform to platform arising out of the new facility - which is natural and bound to arise. you may recall IAF chief referred to SP-1 and SP-2 (link below in the linked post) and said there are some variations between the two but these will stabilise from SP 3 onwards. this leads also to the point of delivery which NAL chief is referring to - IAF wants 8/yr but unless the QC/standardisation issues are settled the production can not move on. but IMO these are 'not' issues which will hinder and linger for long to affect the production - as the order is not very big. however this is what i asked in my different post -The NAL man is talking about manufacturing issues and IAF complaints. In all these decades of hearing about LCA and even more decades following aircraft as a layperson jingo - this is the first time I am hearing the expression "international standards in end to end accuracy". WTF is that? Why is the NAL man coming up with that?
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1830833
quoting myself -
also refer to another point in the link provided by dhiraj -is he in his over enthusiasm, committing a mistake? while it would be great if it can happen, what if there are unforseen delays as happened already in procuring the radome/ifr kits? won't it only enhance the popular perception? wouldn't it have been better if he had stuck to the original plan of 20 IOC 2 std and 20 FOC std? shouldn't they be more worried about QCs arising out of the new facility or accounting for any minor feedbacks from the IAF so production stabilises, IAF gets platforms while FOCed machines will follow? will it not help their image if first 20 platforms are delivered on time? why complicate a schedule which has already been fixed?
nothing abnormal here because this is IOC 2 standard machine. this can fire LGBs, R-73s and other dumb bombs. BVRs were supposed to be for FOC and though functionally the existing radar has validated the process which is good enough for induction but ADA/HAL/IAF want to wait for the 'new' radome (which only improves the range) - so delay affecting the the prod run.The aircraft handed over in January could take off with only restricted weaponry and sensors and tests with a full range of weaponry was yet to be done, he added.