LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2015 18:52

Rahul M wrote:Karan, I would go with Suraj here. once Mk1A has a foot in the door it would be much easier for the Mk2 to be acquired later.
not to mention IAF choosing Mk1A itself is a progress.

5 years down the line when there is a continuing shortfall in numbers, and quick eurocanard purchase not possible, Mk2 would be the choice of least resistance.


Yes, lets hope for the best.

Meanwhile I hope ADA and HAL thoroughly rework the LCA Mk1A. At least the aero improvements should be included. Make Mk1A itself achieve 99% of the oft discussed ASRs and what not.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2015 19:32

Rahul M wrote:Karan, I would go with Suraj here. once Mk1A has a foot in the door it would be much easier for the Mk2 to be acquired later.
not to mention IAF choosing Mk1A itself is a progress.

5 years down the line when there is a continuing shortfall in numbers, and quick euro-canard purchase not possible, Mk2 would be the choice of least resistance.


Isn't this going back to square one? Even after 30years of tamasha by IAF/HAL/MOD, are we not learning anything? Still holding hands back with "wait and watch" attitude?? We Indians can't talk to each other and resolve conflicts between ourselves?? (Rhetoric question, i know!! We are like this wonly... :roll: )

IAF will keep doing its rona-dhona for 5 more years for MMRCA. And (if we are lucky enough) when they can't get it, MK2 will be a choice after 5 years. Then IAF will come with new requirements for it after a great deal of design is done already. Media will say IAF was force-fed under-performing MK2 when they could have had uber 'fair and lovely' maal. ADA/HAL could not have deployed enough resources from starting since only 50 odd NLCA would make business case for acceleration of project. They will have their part of rona-dhona about lack of support from user and commitment of orders. Suddenly ADA will be told to come up with optimized MK2 for Air-force when they were focusing IN requirements who has been committed and deserve all the attention from ADA/HAL (we know there are significant differences in NLCA mk2 and IAF mk2, right from dimensions of a/c). HAL will be asked to ramp-up production out of blue. Same saga all over again. Its not gonna work.

Pity we have to say its a progress that IAF has thrown its weight behind LCA. But not fully it seems. Luckily AMCA seems a little better story. Guess they are realizing that FGFA is going downhill.

My opinion is IAF should put its full weight behind MK2 from now on. That way they will earn the right to put conditions on the deliveries and no one will be able to deride IAF for its intentions on desi tech. They can even ask for ownership of program like how IN has for its programs. If IAF/IN/HAL/MOD puts money for 200+ MK2 LCA on table right now, they can easily double the size of ADA team, start preparing for supply chain and assembly line in HAL (or pvt player if GoI wants it that way). Without firm commitment from IAF it ain't happening. It makes sense from IAF point of view as well, since with a fixed a/c to be coming, they can well plan their doctrines and infrastructure rather than eternally waiting for a dream aircraft. One bird in hand is better than two in bush after all. Every a/c has pros and cons. They can work around with cons of LCA and if they participate in the development program fully they can perhaps get what they want, Its our baby we can mold it anyway we want.

Only other way I can think of it, MoD underwrites the development cost and let ADA/HAL go full steam ahead. And let them Try for exports outside if IAF is not interested. Afterwards if IAF wants it they should be told to buy whatever is available on that day - no conditions accepted, No IOC/FOC tamasha.. All demands to be met in upgrades only.

Of coarse due whipping of HAL is needed side-by-side. I say make it an autonomous corporation to start with - as an ultimatum for privatization - if HAL employees are not willing to perform.

All hoped pinned on NM/MP now. Thoda he thode ke jarurat hai. :mrgreen:

Would like to add something regarding GE engine F414. From what I have heard (I haven't confirmed but its from people in the know so it is quite dependable info i would say), US Navy holds the MRO infra for F414, GE has nothing on its own. Obviously USN would not be interested in being commercial MRO supplier for non-US customers. So there is a possibility for someone else to get the MRO of F414 for the outside-US market. If India can lure GE with large order and demand a big pie in MRO as offset for Indian as well as 'non-Indian, non-US' markets it could be a good deal for us in long term. Some pvt firm from India can be given the responsibility. It would be a great learning for indigenous engine programs in future.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8290
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 05 Oct 2015 20:04

I don't understand all this rona-dhona and confusion. CAS said, without mincing words:
1. We will get 120 LCAs in its current form with four upgrades. No Mk1/MK1A tamasha. Give them to us as fast as you can. 20 in IOC config, 20 in FOC config and the rest in upgraded config. The first 40 will also be standardized using upgrades later.
2. Right now they have not asked for any Mk2.

But when Mk2s are available, I can't imagine the CAS (of 2022) saying "Mk2s are ready to be produced, flies better than Mk1s, is more capable in every field, costs almost the same to manufacture, is easier to maintain, but we will stick to the latter!" Also remember that orders for 99 engines for the Mk2 have already been placed.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1884
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby uddu » 05 Oct 2015 20:34

Completely agree. There is a huge requirement of around 330 aircraft to replace the Mig-21's and 27's in service. Even after completing the order of 120 there is still a minimum requirement of 210. :eek:
If we take into consideration the PLAAF's induction of 300 indigenous J-10's, the number of MKII's and it's variants will only increase. Even the requirement for the AMCA will be 200+ for the IAF to replace the Mig-29's and Jaguars in service.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2015 20:44

No one said simple meant easy.

They have simplified their thinking. But the future is still full of difficulties.

Simple.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14093
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Suraj » 05 Oct 2015 20:57

Karan M wrote:Suraj, the problem is that such a basic thing is itself regarded as a "huge concession" itself shows the gravity of the situation & how the IAF has played hardball with the LCA program to such a degree that even this is a breather. Parrikar deserves credit to stabilize the program but one wishes the IAF had committed to a Mk2 as well and did more for the light fighter segment. That is where my concerns are.

Like RahulM paraphrased me more pithily, this is about getting the foot in the door. On one hand we can moan about IAF's attitude, but that leads nowhere. On the other hand we can recognize a real breakthrough here - the IAF is now willing to take 6 (or 8 ) squadrons of the Mk1 in its present physical form. Weight reduction etc maybe, but the present form, not an enlarged fuselage and F414 that Mk2 entails. They're also sensibly willing to skip IOC/FOC circus dances for Mk1A.

If Parrikar can talk them into taking 120 of these now, despite their constant bleating for Rafales, or at least Mk2s, it's absolutely possible to envision that in a couple of years when their squadron count pressures exacerbate further, they'll agree to enhanced Mk1A or Mk2 counts. And of course, not make the LCA mistake with AMCA development. Like Singha said, the ball is in HALs court here to prove that - finally - with a large order count in hand, they can demonstrate a higher production rate rather than just claim they can.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 05 Oct 2015 21:28

srai, Look at Learning curve efficiencies from Mfg Engineering handbook data.
There is a huge drop in effort after 4 or five complex builds.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 05 Oct 2015 21:35

IIRC, the IAF pretty much said that the super viper was a platform without future at the end of MMRCA evaluation. Very surprising to hear about the F16 production line - i had thought the SHornet had a much better chance of coming in. Also, once the Mk2 is flying IAF will order those too - but HAL first needs to build atleast 1 squadron of sada LCA first. No more excuses left.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2015 21:55

To get any non Typhoon/Rafale into contention for a possible order you have to relax the IAF's performance criteria from the MRCA. This by itself is fine if done so for the interest of fleet strength, i.e. an 80% solution acquired at an affordable enough rate to mass procure vs an unaffordable mass purchase of the Rafale for example however this also throws in the LCA which is even more affordable and the IAF can have 100% ownership going forward so it basically comes down to the same that most folks here have been saying. The only Super-Viper would have been the F16U, which is out of contention since the test-and certification part would take a minimum of 5 years over and above whatever time it takes to fully design it given how radical a departure it was. This leaves an incrementally improved F-16 block60. There will be plenty of growth in terms of modern systems but not physical growth possible in terms of new equipment given the internal space is maxed out. Overall nothing that is a better value than the MK2 even if that means waiting a few more years while buying more LCA MK1 and MKI in the interim.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2015 22:20

brar_w wrote:To get any non Typhoon/Rafale into contention for a possible order you have to relax the IAF's performance criteria from the MRCA. This by itself is fine if done so for the interest of fleet strength, i.e. an 80% solution acquired at an affordable enough rate to mass procure vs an unaffordable mass purchase of the Rafale for example however this also throws in the LCA which is even more affordable and the IAF can have 100% ownership going forward so it basically comes down to the same that most folks here have been saying. The only Super-Viper would have been the F16U, which is out of contention since the test-and certification part would take a minimum of 5 years over and above whatever time it takes to fully design it given how radical a departure it was. This leaves an incrementally improved F-16 block60. There will be plenty of growth in terms of modern systems but not physical growth possible in terms of new equipment given the internal space is maxed out. Overall nothing that is a better value than the MK2 even if that means waiting a few more years while buying more LCA MK1 and MKI in the interim.


+1.

Whatever may be the truth, this F16 talk surely has made a lot of people to dhoti-shiver...including me.. :-?

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10842
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vayutuvan » 05 Oct 2015 22:46

Suraj wrote: If Parrikar could convince them this much within a year - quite a significant accomplishment in itself, he can convince them to order more LCAs later.

Very good insight. In fact I posit that MoD has already started on the improvement cycle and getting all the ducks in a line row.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 06 Oct 2015 01:49, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2015 22:52

Suraj wrote:
Karan M wrote:Suraj, the problem is that such a basic thing is itself regarded as a "huge concession" itself shows the gravity of the situation & how the IAF has played hardball with the LCA program to such a degree that even this is a breather. Parrikar deserves credit to stabilize the program but one wishes the IAF had committed to a Mk2 as well and did more for the light fighter segment. That is where my concerns are.

Like RahulM paraphrased me more pithily, this is about getting the foot in the door. On one hand we can moan about IAF's attitude, but that leads nowhere. On the other hand we can recognize a real breakthrough here - the IAF is now willing to take 6 (or 8 ) squadrons of the Mk1 in its present physical form. Weight reduction etc maybe, but the present form, not an enlarged fuselage and F414 that Mk2 entails. They're also sensibly willing to skip IOC/FOC circus dances for Mk1A.

If Parrikar can talk them into taking 120 of these now, despite their constant bleating for Rafales, or at least Mk2s, it's absolutely possible to envision that in a couple of years when their squadron count pressures exacerbate further, they'll agree to enhanced Mk1A or Mk2 counts. And of course, not make the LCA mistake with AMCA development. Like Singha said, the ball is in HALs court here to prove that - finally - with a large order count in hand, they can demonstrate a higher production rate rather than just claim they can.


Agree, the step in the door is positive, one way or the other. One thing though - the fuselage length increase may actually help with maintainance and also reduce drag which may make limited weight reductions sufficient. I hope that's part of the plan.
This was 6 years back. http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf
Hopefully practical implementations are part of the Mk1A design which can be implemented with minimal fuss and restesting of the flight code.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 05 Oct 2015 23:17

I thought IAF Chief clearly mentioned 8 sqdrns with 20 each. That means there is firm commitment of 160 A/cs to HAL and not 120 as being surmised. Aleardy orders for 40 A/cs in IOC 1 and FOC configs are placed with HAL. That is why we see HAL setting up Assembly lines, pictures of which was posted by Karan_M, at a cost of 1750 cr . half of it is being met by HAL and other half is split between navy and IAF. So money for first 40 is already committed. A serialised production means standardisation of all components or at least assembling practices.This order of first 40 would help HAL in doing exactly that.

I wish to see 25 sqdrns of LCA in IAF in various configurations.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2015 23:31

No sir..just see the video again...he began with 8 squadrons and corrected himself to 6 sq.. so 1 squadrons of Mk1 IOC, rest probably Mk1A, with all brought to Mk1A std

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 05 Oct 2015 23:45

brar_w wrote:To get any non Typhoon/Rafale into contention for a possible order you have to relax the IAF's performance criteria from the MRCA. This by itself is fine if done so for the interest of fleet strength, i.e. an 80% solution acquired at an affordable enough rate to mass procure vs an unaffordable mass purchase of the Rafale for example


Not just that, there is no way the IAF would voluntarily roll back its requirements for an MMRCA on a cost consideration. The F-16 & Super Hornet quite simply don't make the cut. They may be more cost effective but the capability is still well short of being 'Rafale-like'. The MoD might be able to force the IAF to accept one of them, but the IAF is very unlikely to push for it, on its own prerogative. (Fortunately, the MoD has chosen to focus on the Tejas instead.)

Personally, I felt the Eurofighter was a somewhat better fit for us than the Rafale, though they were both judged to be equally suitable by the IAF. However, they are close enough in terms of performance that it would make no sense at all to buy both. The only way the IAF would be willing to think beyond the Rafale ("I cannot say I only want Rafale. I want capability of Rafale type aircraft."), is if they were being offered superior capability.

member_28985
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28985 » 06 Oct 2015 00:10

I noticed quite a few people have mentioned F-16 in this tread, I was under the impression that LCA MK I (with some issues that needs to fixed) was a superior aircraft compared to F-16. Is this not so? If yes, then why the talk of F-16? Is it because HALs inability to manufacture LCAs in the numbers required?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 00:18

There is this eebil berson called rohitvats (may lice grow in his beard) who started this F-16 tangent. :(( :P

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 06 Oct 2015 00:21

Karan M wrote:No sir..just see the video again...he began with 8 squadrons and corrected himself to 6 sq.. so 1 squadrons of Mk1 IOC, rest probably Mk1A, with all brought to Mk1A std



yes, I think he is talking about tejas 6 sqdrns which are certified and have four improvements radar, EW, refueling and missiles. Still I would be happy with 120 in all to begin with. That's good news and HAL should ramp up production ASAP.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 00:23

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ligh ... 89651.html

So with 45 key changes already made, IAF is ok with the airframe

In a significant move, the IAF has scrapped the plan to develop an upgraded version of LCA "Tejas" and will settle for six squadrons of the existing aircraft with certain improvements - better radar, new electronic warfare suit, refueling capacity and improved missiles - in the existing form.

Sources said that existing LCA had 57 deficiencies out of which 45 have been addressed and with four key changes, it can be inducted in large numbers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 00:24

For the which is better crowd

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/504 ... tejas.html

The IAF is ready to take about 120 Tejas in the present configuration with some improvements in the radar, missile, refuelling and electronic warfare system. “We will induct them in the present shape in large number and not insisting on the Mark-II version,” IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said in his annual media interaction.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Aeronautical Development Agency have prepared a road map on these shortcomings which would be addressed in a time-bound manner. “We may have four-six Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) by 2016 end to raise the first Tejas squadron,” he said.

IAF officials said LCA Tejas is superior to China-made JF-17 aircraft, which will be used by the Pakistani Air Force.

The immediate priority is to rectify the flaws of Tejas so that it could be inducted quickly to make up for the dwindling strength. The development of Tejas-Mk II with an improved engine, for which the government sanctioned Rs 2,431 crore, would continue on a parallel track.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 00:26

Note the sober DD News presentation, no self loathing crap about Tejas etc

http://ddinews.gov.in/Home%20-%20Other% ... inIAF.aspx

Indigenously built Light Combat Aircraft Tejas is ready to be inducted into Indian Air Force.

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha on Saturday said Air Force stands by its order for 120 Tejas fighters, which will be inducted as it is and be upgraded later.

After a 32-year wait, first indigenously-built Tejas Light Combat Aircrafts are ready to be inducted into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

According to Air chief Marshal Arup Raha at least six Tejas Light Combat Aircraft will be inducted into IAF by the end of 2016.

Speaking on the modernisation of Indian Air Force, Arup Raha said the induction of 17 Globe Master and C-130 J Super Herculis into IAF has increased its operational capacity.

Air Chief Marshal further said that Rafale fighter jets that India is acquiring from France will enhance our aerial capabilities.

During his France visit PM Modi had announced the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets, which is expected to be inducted into IAF soon.

These fighter jets will not only enhance IAF's aerial capability,but will also boost its morale in challenging situations.

(AKS-03/10)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 06 Oct 2015 01:21

Ah ha!
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/3 ... 720748.ece

If the deal is good and the govt. decides, we need to have six more squadrons’

The 36 Rafale fighters that India is buying from France are not enough to meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha has said, adding that at least six more squadrons of similar fighters would be needed.

“Definitely, we would like to have MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) variety of aircraft. At least about six squadrons, to my mind. Let us see, there may be some other alternatives as well,” Air Chief Marshal Raha said, addressing a press conference ahead of the Air Force Day on October 8. He was responding to a question on the possibility of the IAF wanting more than the 36 Rafale fighters being negotiated now under a government-to-government deal announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his trip to France in April.

“I may wish to have Rafale. But there are equally good aircraft. So, if the deal is good and the government decides, we need to have six of similar squadron,” he said.

IAF sources said they were looking at two possible scenarios: Of ordering more Rafale fighters, or of filling the gaps with more indigenous LCA (light combat aircraft) Tejas and the proposed advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), which is an indigenous fifth generation fighter for which the feasibility study has been completed.

He estimated that the country had 15 years to develop the indigenous AMCA project, which is now gathering more urgency also because India’s joint programme with Russia to develop a fifth generation fighter has run into serious issues. Only a political intervention can now save the project, sources insist.

The IAF needs to add 10 more squadrons by 2027 to the current strength of 32 squadrons, according to its own projections.

The original plan under the MMRCA contract was to buy 126 fighters, for which Rafale was finalised and negotiations were under way. However, in April, Mr. Modi sprang a surprise in Paris by announcing the government-to-government deal.

Air Chief Marshal Raha claimed that the selection process of India that resulted in picking Rafale for the MMRCA was so impeccable that its French maker Dassault has been able to sell the aircraft to many other countries, riding on its victory in the IAF selection.

Sources said that the IAF had scrapped the earlier plan to develop an upgraded version of Tejas, and would now induct six squadrons of the present version with some improvements such as new electronic warfare suit, refuelling capacity, better radar, and better missiles. The present version of LCA was assessed by the Air Force to have 57 deficiencies, of which 45 have been addressed.

A senior officer said that the training of IAF pilots — the first batch comprises four of them — on the indigenous LCA has already started.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 06 Oct 2015 01:27

Karan M wrote:A senior officer said that the training of IAF pilots — the first batch comprises four of them — on the indigenous LCA has already started.


Thats the news I have been waiting to hear for a loooong time. Thank you!

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hitesh » 06 Oct 2015 01:31

What four key changes are being required before IAF would accept this current Tejas model? I am curious to know.

I am pleased by this news of IAF ordering a large batch of the LCA planes. It would provide a tremendous boost to India's indigenous combat plane manufacturing and send a shot across Dassault's bow to get real about the prices. In a way, Dassault is doing the necessary evil deed to poke the IAF into some proactive action in boosting up its number of combat planes.

Ramu
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 17:05

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Ramu » 06 Oct 2015 01:39

keeping technical merits and de merits aside, i just wanted to mention my 1 paisa worth opinion about Mk1A.
Someone managed to shift the goalpost by an inch or two when Mk1 was so close to completion.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2015 02:13

Hitesh wrote:What four key changes are being required before IAF would accept this current Tejas model? I am curious to know.

I am pleased by this news of IAF ordering a large batch of the LCA planes. It would provide a tremendous boost to India's indigenous combat plane manufacturing and send a shot across Dassault's bow to get real about the prices. In a way, Dassault is doing the necessary evil deed to poke the IAF into some proactive action in boosting up its number of combat planes.



Better Radar (Uttam), long range AAM (Derby), Electronic warfare system (pod vs distributed system, and In Flight Refueling probe (Cobham supplied).

Abhay_S
BRFite
Posts: 295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Abhay_S » 06 Oct 2015 02:19

Karan M wrote: The development of Tejas-Mk II with an improved engine, for which the government sanctioned Rs 2,431 crore, would continue on a parallel track.



This is good news as well. Not sure why TOI reported that Mk II is cancelled.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4813
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 06 Oct 2015 03:26

Abhay_S wrote:
Karan M wrote: The development of Tejas-Mk II with an improved engine, for which the government sanctioned Rs 2,431 crore, would continue on a parallel track.



This is good news as well. Not sure why TOI reported that Mk II is cancelled.


DDMs tend to have comprehension issues ... can't infer correctly :((

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2015 04:06

I promised this last week:

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/workplace ... -sabotage/






So you’ve just come from yet another meeting that, after sucking up an hour or two you’ll never get back, produced nothing useful — partly because somebody talked on and on about a topic that strayed far off the meeting’s agenda. Then someone else brought up doubts about a decision from the last meeting, and there was talk of referring it to a task force for further research. Still another team member questioned whether the decision was even this group’s to make, or if maybe it conflicted with something higher-ups had said they wanted.

If that sounds familiar, think about this: You’ve just witnessed four of the eight techniques outlined in a document called the “Simple Sabotage Field Manual.” Published in 1944 by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), it was a guide for European spies on how to undermine the Axis powers from within.


The handbook was classified until the 1970s, but Bob Frisch, managing partner of consulting firm Strategic Offsites Group, came across it just a few years ago — and found it eerily similar to what often goes on in workplaces now.

“We’re not suggesting that enemies are lurking in your midst,” write Frisch and his two co-authors, Robert M. Galford and Cary Greene, in a fascinating new book, Simple Sabotage: A Modern Field Manual for Detecting and Rooting Out Everyday Behaviors That Undermine Your Workplace. “But the odds are great that some individuals have unwittingly taken a page from [the OSS manual]. Left unchecked, their behaviors will undermine your group or organization, slowing down its — and your — best efforts.” (Italics theirs.)

Here are the eight tactics the OSS recommended for tripping up an Axis agency from the inside:

“Insist on doing everything through channels. Never permit short-cuts to be taken to expedite decisions.”

“Make speeches. Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your ‘points’ by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.”

“When possible, refer all matters to committees, for ‘further study and consideration.’ Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five.”

“Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.”

“Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, and resolutions.”

“Refer back to a matter decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.”

“Advocate ‘caution.’ Be ‘reasonable’ and urge your fellow conferees to be ‘reasonable’ and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.”

“Be worried about the propriety of any decision. Raise the question of whether [it] lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.”

These tactics proved “incredibly subtle, and devastatingly destructive.” Alas, they still are. But “rooting out these corrosive behaviors isn’t so simple,” the authors note, because “they are often mutant excesses” of habits that are actually helpful, like involving coworkers in decisions that affect them.

Complicated for sure, but not impossible. Most of Simple Sabotage is about four ways managers can keep (usually inadvertent) saboteurs from getting in the way of everyone else’s efforts. In some companies, the first step may be the hardest: “Spot sabotage as it occurs.” And then speak up.


Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3353
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kakkaji » 06 Oct 2015 04:10

Karan M

I think you are being unduly pessimistic.

Until this news about Mk1A came out last week, the word in general was that the IAF was adamant against ordering any more of the Mk1 beyond the 40 (IOC+FOC) already ordered. They were saying the LCA Mk1 does not meet their ASR, and that they will wait for a redesigned Mk2 with a new engine, however long it takes. The secret hope, perhaps, was that the Mk2 will take so long that, on the basis of operational urgency, they will be able to pursuade the Govt to fill in the gap with imports.

Now that the IAF Chief says they are willing to take six squadrons of various iterations of Mk1, with the same engine and fuselage, it is a big change for them. As Donald Trump would say - "This is huge -- huge" :) At the very least, HAL can now order 100+ GE404-IN20 right away instead of waiting for the Mk2 to meet some milestones and then order GE414.

Trust me, if they get the six squadrons of Mk1/ Mk1A on time, they will defintely order more -- Mk1A/B or Mk2. 120 can easily go up to 240. As time passes and the LCA matures in squadron servce, the IAF will realize it has no other choice that it can afford.

The key now is to get the first lot out so that the first squadron is formed and starts flying. Delay it beyond 2016 and the pressure for importing/ building F-16 or Gripen will grow.

The ball is now frmly in HAL's court.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vina » 06 Oct 2015 04:44

Trust me, if they get the six squadrons of Mk1/ Mk1A on time, they will defintely order more -- Mk1A/B or Mk2. 120 can easily go up to 240. As time passes and the LCA matures in squadron servce, the IAF will realize it has no other choice that it can afford.


Sorry. This IAF business is just so much Kakkoose. If they had wanted, they could have inducted the LCA some 3 years ago instead of indulging in active delay and sabotage like the play book of old going back to the AJT trainer business, where they waited for 25 years to get the BAE Hawk they identified as what they wanted.

This "climbdown" is because the Govt has told them in their face that this Rafale gold plated business is simply unaffordable, and from the looks of it the Russian PAK-FA is is in deep trouble and there is no newer gen engine for it (the rear portion of that plain is clearly meant to be replaced with a stealth package with a new engine.. without that it is a dead on arrival duck).

The IAF is up a s*it creek without a paddle and this they have no choice but to drop the , block and tackle, delay and sabotage game and fully induct the LCA and replace the way past expiry and obsolete Mig21s, 27s and Jaguars (this engine replacement business is such a fool's errand!, wtf are they thinking, just get rid of it and get the LCAs in, the range and payloads are similar for both, the LCA has 7 hard points while the Jaguar has 5!) . But no.. They would rather flog the obsolete stuff and put in a block and tackle and hope to get in the gold plated junk and some promissory note called the PAK-FA.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 06 Oct 2015 05:04

SO can someone tell me

how many ?

LCA Mk1: IOC
LCA Mk1: FOC
LCA Mk1A: FOC

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2015 05:10

20+20+80

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 06 Oct 2015 07:01

Vina sir's post is very true. IAF has painted itself into a corner and the Tejas is the ONLY way out, else they will be down to 20 fighter squadrons in a decade (just the Su30, upg Mig29 and M2k)

Image

the jaguar engine replacement btw is DOA . its not even talked of these days. maybe the airframe itself does not last that long given the demanding conditions in india and their low level flight. the only ones where it might provide some value is the paltry 39 new Jags, but they have new engines not at all due for replacement. its not a game changer.

RuS needs huge funding to complete the 5th gen plane...funds that are being used for war, navy, strategic rocket forces...

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4813
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 06 Oct 2015 08:40

Kakkaji wrote:...
Trust me, if they get the six squadrons of Mk1/ Mk1A on time, they will defintely order more -- Mk1A/B or Mk2. 120 can easily go up to 240. As time passes and the LCA matures in squadron servce, the IAF will realize it has no other choice that it can afford.

The key now is to get the first lot out so that the first squadron is formed and starts flying. Delay it beyond 2016 and the pressure for importing/ building F-16 or Gripen will grow.

The ball is now frmly in HAL's court.


Doing some research on what HAL told reporters over time and some elements of the IAF and media, it becomes more evident that HAL, while not stellar by any means, has been falsely scapegoated over "delay" in production of LCA. It would seem the IAF doesn't understand how long it takes to build an aircraft to standardization after order is finally released, and/or the media is repeating factoids on this matter.

Some info to ponder on:
  • Dec 2013 -> IOC-2 standard certified; now production of first 20 can finally begin
  • 2 to 2.5 years -> build time of LCA is two to two-and-a-half years; production and ordering of sub-systems must begin well in advance
  • 21 months have passed -> since IOC-2 (at this point in time)
  • 3 to 9 more months -> before it is that two to two-and-a-half years estimated build time
  • Jun 2016 -> would be 2.5 years of build time and where first LCA lot (SP-3 - SP-6) can be expected to be delivered

Now that's cleared, let's wait and see.

HAL has also been given an incentive to increase capacity now that all 120 aircraft are going to be of Mk.1/A variety. They will have until 2023 to deliver all of these before Mk.2 is ready. Expect max production capacity to reflect that timeline.

And as for some people advocating second LCA production line, 120 units on order is not sufficient for that. You need much more because of the huge upfront investment required. The best case would be to have more Tier 1 suppliers for LCA components where they have the capability to deliver a whole wing or fuselage to HAL for final assembly.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 06 Oct 2015 08:48

Singha wrote:the jaguar engine replacement btw is DOA . its not even talked of these days. maybe the airframe itself does not last that long given the demanding conditions in india and their low level flight. the only ones where it might provide some value is the paltry 39 new Jags, but they have new engines not at all due for replacement. its not a game changer.


right Singha.

IIRC these were inducted in the late 70s and must be at the fag end of their life except for those inducted post kargil. in any case this whole reengining is going to take a decade to complete or more which means they will be past their life by that time. so, reengining of only those 40 odd newer airframes makes sense (the existing engines can be used for Hawks, i guess :idea: ) just like the way it was done for Mig 27s. the money/time can be better used for starting another prod line for the LCA churning out a total of 32/yr replacing all migs21s/non upgraded Mig 27s/jags other than the 40.

sbhatia
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sbhatia » 06 Oct 2015 10:07

Hi Guys,

I have been long time reader (anonymous reader of the blog) and am a aerospace enthusiast.Well there is lot of speculation the NAVY LCA MK1 (NP2) has shown really good results related to the STR/ITR performance and some one is speculating that it this version (with reduced drag and some new internal avionics that would become LCA MK1a .What do you guys think .is it possible that IAF will order the LCA NP2 ?


Aslo regarding the new order ,correct me if i am wrong ,isn't the GE 404 line closed ? where is the engine ..last time i checked kaveri was scrapped and can't be used.I believe we should have tested it in the current form in LCA TD1 and probably upgraded it once the DMRL is able produce the production grade SCBs.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 810
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby mody » 06 Oct 2015 14:04

Getting license production for GE F404 and/or GE 414 will not solve our engine problems. What we need is the tech for the hot section. With license building we cannot modify the engine the way we please. For example for the AMCA if we want to add thrust vectoring to the 414 engine, that won't be possible with just license manufacture.

India had put the engine hot section tech as one of the items on the wishlist for defense co-op, during Obama's republic day jaunt.
It would actually be possible to get this tech, if we play our cards right.

The FGFA program is in deep trouble at the moment. The Russians are not going to share any tech or have DRDO partner with them in the development. Our work share for FGFA will be limited to something like MKI exercise. Even this will be difficult, if one assumes an all internal weapons bay. Also I think the russians won't even allow our own Radar to come in. As the radar interfacing with a whjole lot of other systems and the EW suite would get complicated. Russian themselves are strugling with Pakfa and with Indian R&D money gone and numbers for IAF down to about 60-odd, the price will be unaffordable and the timeline for the plane will go back by atleast 5 years.

In US gives us the engine tech, we can ditch the whole FGFA thing and go the whole hog on to AMCA. This way India gets firmly entrenched in the US camp and Russian Pakfa program suffers a major blow. 40% of the would be numbers for Pakfa/FGFA would go down, along with $6billion in R&D funding. This would severely constraint the program.
Reasons enough for US to part with the key technology. Offcourse they may probably ask us to buy upto 200 GE F414 engines before that and also pay a hefty 1 time fee for the tech, but it would still be worth it.

As many have rightly said, the 120 LCA MK1/MK1A will mostly only be the first step. If HAL gets it right and starts to deliver the planes as planned, IAF will see that the plane matches very well with their beloved M2K and sooner then later will realize the advantages that Indigenous programs bring to the table. The future will belong to LCA MK1A, LCA MK2, AMCA, AURA and Rustom2.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2015 15:38

mody wrote:Getting license production for GE F404 and/or GE 414 will not solve our engine problems. What we need is the tech for the hot section. With license building we cannot modify the engine the way we please. For example for the AMCA if we want to add thrust vectoring to the 414 engine, that won't be possible with just license manufacture.

India had put the engine hot section tech as one of the items on the wishlist for defense co-op, during Obama's republic day jaunt.
It would actually be possible to get this tech, if we play our cards right.

The FGFA program is in deep trouble at the moment. The Russians are not going to share any tech or have DRDO partner with them in the development. Our work share for FGFA will be limited to something like MKI exercise. Even this will be difficult, if one assumes an all internal weapons bay. Also I think the russians won't even allow our own Radar to come in. As the radar interfacing with a whjole lot of other systems and the EW suite would get complicated. Russian themselves are strugling with Pakfa and with Indian R&D money gone and numbers for IAF down to about 60-odd, the price will be unaffordable and the timeline for the plane will go back by atleast 5 years.

In US gives us the engine tech, we can ditch the whole FGFA thing and go the whole hog on to AMCA. This way India gets firmly entrenched in the US camp and Russian Pakfa program suffers a major blow. 40% of the would be numbers for Pakfa/FGFA would go down, along with $6billion in R&D funding. This would severely constraint the program.
Reasons enough for US to part with the key technology. Offcourse they may probably ask us to buy upto 200 GE F414 engines before that and also pay a hefty 1 time fee for the tech, but it would still be worth it.

As many have rightly said, the 120 LCA MK1/MK1A will mostly only be the first step. If HAL gets it right and starts to deliver the planes as planned, IAF will see that the plane matches very well with their beloved M2K and sooner then later will realize the advantages that Indigenous programs bring to the table. The future will belong to LCA MK1A, LCA MK2, AMCA, AURA and Rustom2.


Hot section Tech from US?? Ain't happening mate. Not until we have Kaveri with full tech paraphernalia (SCB el al) nearing certification. :wink: We can't give US enough money to convince them otherwise. Its peanuts for them. Unless they see that our rise in inevitable, they will not offer us Hot section tech. Forget about license production, even with an engine to call their own, the RM12, Volvo Aero gets to manufacture only 10-20% of the parts actually. GE does not allow them to touch hot section at all except for small tinkering in HPC initial stages. Even with manufacturing facility in India, GE will source the hot section components directly from US.

What we should aim from a venture with GE is to get feel for manufacturing set-up, training of skilled manpower and particularly MRO part. Apart from developing Jet engine technology one needs to industrialize it and set up MRO infrastructure. We can leverage GE venture for getting good deal for MRO and as much as possible for industrialization and apply that to Kaveri. If we get anything from technology it will be a plus but I don't think we will get anything that we don't have already.

I hope these are the last engines we ever buy from outside. We should plan for indigenous engine for AMCA. We have 15+ years for it and its doable now. The prototypes/first batches could use F414/EJ200 enhanced versions.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 06 Oct 2015 15:47

Karan, Indranil & Nilesh,

Nowhere did I imply that just bulging the canopy was a magic wand. That would be a very myopic interpretation of my post.

My PoV in that post was that whatever were the initial design considerations, as the situation changed (weight gain due to excess margins in structures), then it was clear that the initial design considerations no longer hold good. Could they have been revisited earlier? Was aerodynamics optimized or kept at a "good enough" level in the belief that the available engine thrust was sufficient.

Read the Marut Reheat example quoted by me, especially the bolded part, where the designers gave aerodynamics a pass in the belief that extra thrust of the reheat engines would compensate for it. Unfortunately, it didn’t. And sadly for Marut project, the aerodynamics was not revisited.

Agree with Indranil's PoV that all aircraft have different design consideration. Any or all the points cited by Nilesh could’ve been the case.

Even as NP-1 flew, IN & HAL immediately went into re-visiting the design of the landing gear.

Lastly, if an observation is made, it necessarily does not infer criticism.

Almost every discussion here degenerates into a pointless debate of A vs B or X vs Y or for/against or IAF good/bad or ADA good/bad or HAL good/bad.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests