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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 15 Dec 2015 10:24

rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote:...

LCA Mk.2 has always been more of a naval requirement and a lot more design changes have been incorporated in that regard. The dimensions of the NLCA Mk.2 is that of a Mirage-2000-class "medium" fighter.


...

With respect to the bold part - this somehow has become an urban legend on BRF. CAG Report clearly states that when the LCA committee met for the first time (in 2007 or 2009), the IAF had straightaway raised issue with the weight problem. And from these discussions emerged the requirement for LCA Mk2.


Not an urban legend. Here is Kartik's conversation from Aero India 2013 with Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj. Take a look:

Kartik wrote:Next, I went to the ADA stall and just asked aloud if anyone could talk to me about the Mk2. A gentleman in a suit stepped up and said “Yes, what do you want to know about it? Which one, the IAF Mk2 or the Navy Mk2?” and I said “IAF Mk2” and he laughed and said “oh, you disappointed me, I was hoping you’d say Navy Mk2”..:D Turned out, it was Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program..I was blown away by this gentleman. Here was one of the top decision makers of the Tejas program and he was warm, friendly, forthcoming and genuinely interested in talking about the program without even asking me what my background was (till much later in my conversation). He was an engineer on the Sea Harrier, having served on the Viraat. Said he was rookie when Cmde Maolankar commanded the squadron. The salient points of the conversation with him were:

- The Tejas Mk2 is being lengthened by 0.5m only and not 1m as that big gasbag Prasun Sengupta was fibbing about. We really ought to never take him seriously at all. The reason cited were CG change primarily.
- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.

...


Full transcript here.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby maitya » 15 Dec 2015 10:43

rohitvats wrote:
maitya wrote:......"rohitvats" wrote:
......So, the date for LCA Mk-II first flight goes up from 2019 to 2021? Good we have had the LCA Mk-1A or it would've been another wild goose chase for the IAF.

Wrt the highlighted part above ... the below is what really happened:

Fearful of having to do something with the goose, once it's caught, IAF quite disingenuously dressed up an Falcon as a goose and asked the SDRE scientists to go-fetch.

Oh what an entertainment it was for the TFTA IAF, and it's assorted cheerleaders, watching the wild chase for the Goose by the SDRE scientists, for all these years.

Until ofcourse, the SDREs finally figured out the fast one being pulled on them and trapped the high-flying falcon-dressed-as-a-goose and delivered it to the TFTA IAF - however this did spoil not only the ongoing entertainment but also all hopes of showing-off their mastery over-a-videshi-eagle to all and sundry, that they had been cherishing all along.

Thus, all that is left now is the helpless snide remarks as above and jaziya-collection-spree-from-the-videshi-masters by certain worthies, for all clowning-commentary-sideshow services to the above wild-goose chase spree over the years.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So there ...


All valid points except for one minor details: The scientist promised to deliver a falcon when they'd not been able rear a sparrow! And inspite of the objections to contrary by those whose business is falconry, insisted on calling it a falcon. Finally, one some sense was knocked into the collective head of scientists and production agency, did they end up addressing the actual concerns. And thus, you've LCA Mk1A which ended up addressing IAF concerns which bedeviled the Mk1.

Lesson to scientists and 'patriots' on this forum: Unless you make a weapon system which addresses end-users requirement, it will remain a science project. And if you cannot achieve what YOU promised from the word go, say so rather than blaming the services for asking unobtanium.


Nah!! The actual lesson for the SDREs is to expose the RNI and Kabila-ness of these services, from the word go.

Just because somebody happens to wear stripes and stars on lapels doesn’t really make them automatically wanting good for the country at his/her heart. They can be as mentally enslaved as a RNI, and some more, as well.
This contradiction between the carefully concealed inner self/belief and the outer display of patriotism/professionalism etc is what needs calling out and exposed in public repeatedly.

It has already started happening, albeit in a small way. One can only hope this gets spread and far-and-wide and these worthies get called out repeatedly when the bleat out "no Plan B", "3-legged-cheetah" or "MiG-21++" type nonsenses.

================

Now as far as requirement specification etc is concerned, I must admit import-pasand/brown-sahib part of IAF cream/leadership outdid themselves on this one – they deserve kudos for this.

Sample this, the ITR is specified at 20-22deg/s at 8G and ~20-22 deg AoA - copy-pasted from shining M2K brochure*, then – all the while the intended replacement platform would give up approx. at 15-16deg/sec (with virtually no external stores). Now that's a full 30% scale-up.
(*Note - in an M2K you get it at ~28deg AoA – I’ll leave to the imagination and research of the readers the relation between somehow meeting a higher turn-rate at higher AoA in terms SFC levels etc. Also never mind the replacement platform would not survive those high G in a turning flight with any decent weapon-load).

But that’s not all.

Now since this level of unobtaniumness, didn’t assuage the inner palpitation wrt if SDRE’s somehow are capable of achieving it, by sneaking in some exotic plan-form – what then? Destined to fly-around on desi-maal – Nah!!

So make doubly sure, they fail – ask a complementary requirement of a STR to be of 18deg/sec or so it’s alleged (as 17deg/sec was deemed to be unsatisfactory and not meeting the requirement) – never mind what the intended replacement platform is capable of, in the 1st place - a full 50-60% jump.

As taken separately each would tempt the developers to try every bit of technology to meet each of them – SEPARATELY. And it adds to the glee-quotient when one watches with great amusement (and chorus tut-tuts) from the sidelines while the SDREs go about trying to achieve them - what entertainment it was, while it lasted for years!!

Is there similar jump expected from the other contemporary same-class platforms (e.g. Viggen to Gripen, F-5 to F-16, Mirage-3 to Mirage-2K etc)?

Absolutely brilliant method, of ensuring giving unobtanium requirements – and also the “duplicitous packaging” of various such unobtanium requirements to that of a single platform, is simply outstanding.


So yeah, a great exhibition of the falconry, one must admit.


The fact that this project has transitioned from a science project to a weapon-platform is not because of, but inspite of, IAF support – their current high khujli-level, of having to fly them in squadron services, is an unambiguous testament to it.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 15 Dec 2015 11:04

Karan M wrote:Chaiwallah input more: Lot of pressure on HAL to deliver. Regular monitoring and expectations from MOD also clear. <snip>

AF is also being asked to be rational. SQRs, needs being monitored. "This minister asks why do you need this". Big focus as has been posted on BR is survivability and serviceability of current assets. <snip>

Also proposal has been put that all 3 services must and should coordinate acquisitions. Right now RFI/RFP are still being delivered piecemeal.
Huge issue with unrealistic asks and changes is that there is no one person who remains in charge of the program. Multiple people are posted and rotated out. So original needs and why's and wherefores get lost.


Finally a defense ministry which is both actively thinking and positively acting. Someone had to make everybody sit, see eye to eye, resolve issues and most importantly bring some accountability. (Apolitical) Kudos to this RM and the free hand given to him by our PM.

The doers were lethargic and the buyers were spoilt for choices. Lack of resources naturally leads to efficient usage. But we needed the strong leadership to steer everything, good to see that its happening now.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Nick_S » 15 Dec 2015 12:32

abhik wrote:If we agree to the Israeli terms there will be no orders for the uttam for at least 5-7 years after it is slated to be completed, by which time I suspect it will be buried. I'd rather get the first few Mk1As with the current radar and ask the Israelis to FO.


As a comparison, Gripen NG AESA radar will only get FOC around 2023-25 and they have been developing it for quite a while now.

Ie, dont expect Uttam FOC anytime soon.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby uddu » 15 Dec 2015 14:35

May not be proper to compare our development with Sweden. Not always there have to be delays. One example is the DRDO AEWCS which was delivered on time. The customer is said to be extremely happy about it. From the reports it seems the radar development is going very well. So its better to go with Uttam after the first 20 or so.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby johneeG » 15 Dec 2015 15:09

maitya wrote:Nah!! The actual lesson for the SDREs is to expose the RNI and Kabila-ness of these services, from the word go.

Just because somebody happens to wear stripes and stars on lapels doesn’t really make them automatically wanting good for the country at his/her heart. They can be as mentally enslaved as a RNI, and some more, as well.
This contradiction between the carefully concealed inner self/belief and the outer display of patriotism/professionalism etc is what needs calling out and exposed in public repeatedly.

It has already started happening, albeit in a small way. One can only hope this gets spread and far-and-wide and these worthies get called out repeatedly when the bleat out "no Plan B", "3-legged-cheetah" or "MiG-21++" type nonsenses.

================

Now as far as requirement specification etc is concerned, I must admit import-pasand/brown-sahib part of IAF cream/leadership outdid themselves on this one – they deserve kudos for this.

Sample this, the ITR is specified at 20-22deg/s at 8G and ~20-22 deg AoA - copy-pasted from shining M2K brochure*, then – all the while the intended replacement platform would give up approx. at 15-16deg/sec (with virtually no external stores). Now that's a full 30% scale-up.
(*Note - in an M2K you get it at ~28deg AoA – I’ll leave to the imagination and research of the readers the relation between somehow meeting a higher turn-rate at higher AoA in terms SFC levels etc. Also never mind the replacement platform would not survive those high G in a turning flight with any decent weapon-load).

But that’s not all.

Now since this level of unobtaniumness, didn’t assuage the inner palpitation wrt if SDRE’s somehow are capable of achieving it, by sneaking in some exotic plan-form – what then? Destined to fly-around on desi-maal – Nah!!

So make doubly sure, they fail – ask a complementary requirement of a STR to be of 18deg/sec or so it’s alleged (as 17deg/sec was deemed to be unsatisfactory and not meeting the requirement) – never mind what the intended replacement platform is capable of, in the 1st place - a full 50-60% jump.

As taken separately each would tempt the developers to try every bit of technology to meet each of them – SEPARATELY. And it adds to the glee-quotient when one watches with great amusement (and chorus tut-tuts) from the sidelines while the SDREs go about trying to achieve them - what entertainment it was, while it lasted for years!!

Is there similar jump expected from the other contemporary same-class platforms (e.g. Viggen to Gripen, F-5 to F-16, Mirage-3 to Mirage-2K etc)?

Absolutely brilliant method, of ensuring giving unobtanium requirements – and also the “duplicitous packaging” of various such unobtanium requirements to that of a single platform, is simply outstanding.


So yeah, a great exhibition of the falconry, one must admit.


The fact that this project has transitioned from a science project to a weapon-platform is not because of, but inspite of, IAF support – their current high khujli-level, of having to fly them in squadron services, is an unambiguous testament to it.



Brochuritis seems to be a symptom of a systemic problem. For a moment lets assume that all the decision makers and workers are patriots, good-at-heart, uncorrupt, wonderful, efficient and knowledgable people without any conflict of interest and not succumbing to any temptations or corruptions during the decision making and working. Even then, what can be seen in this whole episode is that the system itself is flawed.

The main problem starts with asking the end-user to give specifications for the company to build. This is unjustified for both the end-user and the company which is going to build.

The end-user cannot be expected to know about the technical details, manufacturing capabilities, or economic feasibilities. The company cannot be expected to build according to flawed specifications of the end-user who does not know about all the issues involved. For example, if samsung were to ask the end-user what kind of cell-phone, they would like to have? Any end-user can come up with all sort of 'specifications'. And it will be brochuritis only. How can you expect a end-user to know all the design and manufacturing issues? They don't. The same applies to any end-user. Even IAF or IA are end-users. Maybe they are more knowledgable. But still, you can't expect them to actually give specifications for a tank or fighter jet. Thats not their job. By giving them a job which is not their domain, the problem starts.

I am not saying that their inputs should not be taken. But, giving a carte blanche type of responsibility on the end-user is not right during the design stage and building stage. A much better way is to ask the end user what his main need is. And also what bells and whistles like to have. And let the experts decide how they want to meet that main need and what bells and whistles they would like to add. More importantly, a user review is useful once they have actually used the product rather than trying to take users inputs during the time of design or before the product is even built.

So the problem is that even if we have the best of the people, the flawed system ensures problems. If the end-user is asked to make design suggestions, the end-user would make all sorts of suggestions which may not be technically feasible or economically possible. Of course, in a real world, there is no black and white. Real world seldom has perfect people. There is conflict of interest and inefficiency in all real world organizations. The systems should be created such that they are able to perform despite individuals mistakes. The present system under-performs even when every individual performs ideally.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 15 Dec 2015 15:20

^^^^ possible when you have a mature MIC with research groundwork and materials already available at a commercial level. What will be left is only a small delta with good project management to sail through. Lead integrators already have/know what is required to put together the product based on use case. Not possible in India until kids design rockets and airplane in their garages.

And the cost includes customization that goes into these products. Cant survive without an assured customer. Samsung phone will sell irrespective of a feature is include or not. A fighter aircraft may not sell despite your willingness to do 1000 customizations.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 15 Dec 2015 15:28

Nick_S wrote:As a comparison, Gripen NG AESA radar will only get FOC around 2023-25 and they have been developing it for quite a while now.

Ie, dont expect Uttam FOC anytime soon.


uddu wrote:May not be proper to compare our development with Sweden. Not always there have to be delays. One example is the DRDO AEWCS which was delivered on time. The customer is said to be extremely happy about it. From the reports it seems the radar development is going very well. So its better to go with Uttam after the first 20 or so.


Gripen E's radar is being developed by Selex ES (R&D at Edinburgh, Scotland), working as a subcontractor for SAAB. Just like the Gripen C/D's PS-05/A radar shared common roots with the Eurofighter's Captor, in the Blue Vixen (Sea Harrier), the Raven ES-05 and Captor-E also share common roots in Vixen AESA family.

Point being, if you want to see when the Gripen AESA effort started, you'll need to find out when the UK AESA effort began. And that'll take you to 1993 when the pan-European AMSAR program was initiated, producing an early tech demonstrator by 1998. And even with all that legwork and risk reduction, there's still almost a decade gap between the first actual prototype (DRAA, CAESAR) and an production ready model (RBE-2AA, Captor-E).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8864
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Dec 2015 15:33

Another point is that SAAB, Sweden or other current Gripen customers may not be looking to retrofit the AESA back into the current fleet in which case the IOC of the AESA essentially happens when the entire Gripen E as a system IOC's, so it would be next to impossible to attribute an actual date to when they can field a working AESA radar if they had to.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 15 Dec 2015 22:18

I would not tie Uttam development with LCA production. There is no time to wait. Produce Mk1A prototypes pronto, test fly and qualify it. Then start production at full-steam. Just go with the EL/M-2052.

In parallel, make as many test beds required for Uttam's development. In fact, all the PVs and LSPs can be diverted to this testing. Realistically, I don't see the Uttam being ready before 2020. So at most, it can be fitted in the last 20-40 of the Mk-1As. But for me, I prefer all Mk1As to be alike, i.e. with the EL/M-2052.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 15 Dec 2015 22:38

An Uttam derivative can be on AMCA now. Don't tie LCA to the radar.. we need to get the plane in service stat.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 15 Dec 2015 23:50

Kailash wrote:
Karan M wrote:Chaiwallah input more: Lot of pressure on HAL to deliver. Regular monitoring and expectations from MOD also clear. <snip>

AF is also being asked to be rational. SQRs, needs being monitored. "This minister asks why do you need this". Big focus as has been posted on BR is survivability and serviceability of current assets. <snip>

Also proposal has been put that all 3 services must and should coordinate acquisitions. Right now RFI/RFP are still being delivered piecemeal.
Huge issue with unrealistic asks and changes is that there is no one person who remains in charge of the program. Multiple people are posted and rotated out. So original needs and why's and wherefores get lost.


Finally a defense ministry which is both actively thinking and positively acting. Someone had to make everybody sit, see eye to eye, resolve issues and most importantly bring some accountability. (Apolitical) Kudos to this RM and the free hand given to him by our PM.

The doers were lethargic and the buyers were spoilt for choices. Lack of resources naturally leads to efficient usage. But we needed the strong leadership to steer everything, good to see that its happening now.


Some of the stuff I heard about HAL makes my head shake.. the whole freaking country was basically a no holds expense account for our first family

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 15 Dec 2015 23:59

There will be MLU in 15-years at which time Uttam and Kaveri etc could be explored for integration on Mk1 and Mk.1A. They don't need to happen right now.

Besides, Mk.2, AMCA and UCAV are on the horizon. Uttam could be targeted for those platforms initially. For risk mitigation, fly the prototypes (and possibly first lot) for those with EL/M 2052 or at least keep that as a fallback option. Development of radars and aeroengines have long gestation periods and are difficult to bring it to fruition. Until that is achieved, don't hold development and production of platforms like LCA and the rest as hostage.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 16 Dec 2015 04:10

Was just looking up some old articles on the LCA and AESA radars and way back during 2013, during Aero India, there was an article mentioning that the Elta 2052 would be used on the LCA. Somehow we didn't take it totally seriously, having had our focus on the Tejas Mk1 attaining FOC with the Elta 2032/MMR hybrid radar.

Now with the Mk1 A variant, this appears to finally be coming true.

The LCA will also carry the EL/M-2052 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar developed by IAI Elta.

Originally, the EL/M-2032 was selected but the new 2052 now available with a more compact antenna is best designed to fit the nose cones of LCA and Jaguar, offering enhanced capabilities for both fighters.
This agile radar, along with the DASH-3 helmet mounted display sight from Elbit Systems will enable a Tejas pilot to acquire targets at all combat ranges and engage them in full sphere, shooting the missiles by merely looking at the target, without having to maneuver the LCA toward the target, thus making the Tejas much more potent than the sum of its aerodynamic capabilities offer. In fact, such smart combat systems could provide the LCAs just that amount of survivability it needs to avoid trouble, safely carry out its mission and even win a dogfight if the situation ‘gets ugly’...


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 16 Dec 2015 05:04

My only worry is Massa. I remember them stepping in to stop Israel from selling the 2052 to India before. Therefore, Uttam development should continue unabated.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 16 Dec 2015 05:52

indranilroy wrote:My only worry is Massa. I remember them stepping in to stop Israel from selling the 2052 to India before. Therefore, Uttam development should continue unabated.


I'm a little sceptical about that story - if they had that sort of leverage they could have also stopped the Israelis from offering the Spike (resulting in smooth sailing for the Javelin). Unless they have partial IP ownership of the 2052. In truth, I'd have much rather seen a variant of the RACR or SABR integrated on the Tejas. They (NG/Ray) have got far more experience with radars of that size and the 2052's module count seems relatively low even accounting for a larger nose size (though I hope I'm wrong).


Licht declines to identify the customers or fighter types involved in the sales contracts. IAI has described the EL/M-2052 as generally suitable for single-engined aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16, Northrop F-5, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, IAI Kfir Block 60 and the Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas light combat aircraft.

The applications involved in the first two export deals appear to fall on the low end of the fighter market. The key enabling technology of the AESA radar is the transmitter/receiver (T/R) module. The Northrop APG-77, for example, is packed with more than 1,500 T/R modules, making the F-22’s radar among the most powerful AESA systems.

Licht described the export versions of the EL/M-2052 now in production as having two different sizes. One is equipped with “something like 512” T/R modules. The other export customer has “a little more than 300” T/R modules, as the antenna “was adapted to the nose of the fighter”.
- Flight Global


The 300 module unit is probably designed for the F-5E (or A-4s), with the 512 module unit installed on the Kfir CE. On the upside, it'll require less integration work for the Tejas MK1A allowing for quicker fielding, so there's that.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 16 Dec 2015 06:14

300 module for Jaguars? Their redesigned nose to house a radar is fairly small.

512 module would fit LCA Mk1A I would think since the nose section is relatively large for a fighter its size.

Image
Image

Image

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 16 Dec 2015 06:31

Viv S wrote:Licht described the export versions of the EL/M-2052 now in production as having two different sizes. One is equipped with “something like 512” T/R modules. The other export customer has “a little more than 300” T/R modules, as the antenna “was adapted to the nose of the fighter”. - Flight Global


Just on the number of TR modules, uttam seems to be way ahead. Maturity of h/w and s/w is a different matter though.

indranilroy wrote:My only worry is Massa. I remember them stepping in to stop Israel from selling the 2052 to India before. Therefore, Uttam development should continue unabated.


At that time, MMRCA had not completed. I am not sure if 123 was completed either. No military buys was finalized. To put it mildly, our relationship has evolved since and stakes are much higher for one party antagonize the other. Uttam is a bargaining chip which has to be alive, even if we never field it in a plane.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19584
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Dec 2015 11:01

TR Module count can be misleading. What counts is power per module and whether that module is actually made of multiple smaller modules.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 16 Dec 2015 12:52

While the new regime is doing great work in reducing decisionmaking time,getting DPSUs to report regularly,fixing accuntability ,the same must be done with the MOD "Babudom",which is the real root of the problem.Any acquisition takes months and months before approval is given,then price negotiations,etc.,etc. The 10 or so steps were revealed in a recent edition of IT.This results in non-availability of aircraft/weapon systems,etc. Red tapism must be drastically reduced. I remember an innovative sr. IAS officer,who solved the inter-departmental travelling file issue by getting all the various heads required for their dobhi mark sitting in one room ,at one table and passing the file from one to another!He saved the govt. months of unnecessary delays and cost overruns too.Unfortunately he has retired after reaching the top .

Some time ago I wondered why,given their size,a similar radar could not be used both for Tejas,the Jags and the Sea Harriers,then in healthier numbers.Weaponry could also be the same.I'm not sure about this but do the MIG-29Ks have a diff. radar from the 29UGs of the IAF?

Just for the record,the BRF/Wiki site here has some int. details about the 29 UGs and their aadvantageous capability against equiv western birds.
http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/MiG-29

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 16 Dec 2015 16:07

Philip wrote:While the new regime is doing great work in reducing decisionmaking time,getting DPSUs to report regularly,fixing accuntability ,the same must be done with the MOD "Babudom",which is the real root of the problem.Any acquisition takes months and months before approval is given,then price negotiations,etc.,etc. The 10 or so steps were revealed in a recent edition of IT.This results in non-availability of aircraft/weapon systems,etc. Red tapism must be drastically reduced. I remember an innovative sr. IAS officer,who solved the inter-departmental travelling file issue by getting all the various heads required for their dobhi mark sitting in one room ,at one table and passing the file from one to another!He saved the govt. months of unnecessary delays and cost overruns too.Unfortunately he has retired after reaching the top .

...


I have seen that in action ... all sitting in one room but files keep getting passed around and around and then into a pending pile ... that is until an under-the-table arrangement is made and then it's instant ;)

Need more transparency through digitization and automation as much as possible. This will trim down the bloated system.

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_24684 » 16 Dec 2015 16:32

abhik wrote:ELM-2052 in Mirages? Sounds ridiculous.


No way they just/currently retrofitted with RDY 2 Radars

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 17 Dec 2015 11:13

Philip wrote:While the new regime is doing great work in reducing decisionmaking time,getting DPSUs to report regularly,fixing accuntability ,the same must be done with the MOD "Babudom",which is the real root of the problem.Any acquisition takes months and months before approval is given,then price negotiations,etc.,etc. The 10 or so steps were revealed in a recent edition of IT.This results in non-availability of aircraft/weapon systems,etc. Red tapism must be drastically reduced. I remember an innovative sr. IAS officer,who solved the inter-departmental travelling file issue by getting all the various heads required for their dobhi mark sitting in one room ,at one table and passing the file from one to another!He saved the govt. months of unnecessary delays and cost overruns too.Unfortunately he has retired after reaching the top .


This is a very tough nut to crack. There is a saying, no politician is more corrupt than his bureaucrat; these guys are street smart and getting round them takes quiet a lot. There was an article recently in India Today on how the nexus between bureaucracy-politicians-individuals was broken on postings to lucrative departments in the central government. If this was done, I am sure, MOD can also be fixed, as long as it is on the govts list of to-be-fixed items. Most people miss the fact that it is the MOD that needs fixing first and foremost.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Will » 17 Dec 2015 13:02

+10000. That's where most of the money can be made. Its like sitting on King Solomon's Diamond mines . Everyone wants their share, whoever might be in power. Its going to be the toughest place to clean up. For all the flak we give AK and a lot justifiable, more than anything I think he was just incapable of cleaning up the mess. I have doubts whether anyone is ever going to be capable of doing that. :twisted: Parrikar is giving it a shot. Only time will tell to what extent he's going to to succeed.

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pkudva » 17 Dec 2015 13:24

Though much of the mess has been made, LCA can still glorify itself with the MK1-A Version.

The schedule of 2017 looks very tough and a ruthless will of work, round the clock at Vendor works with systematic supply chain availibility and testing can help it to join the IAF in Large Numbers.

IAF should also join ADE & HAL in developing the systems to ensure they get the best, however if they need to make an acceptable compromise they should do for making way for MK-2

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7043
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JE Menon » 17 Dec 2015 19:07

>>My only worry is Massa. I remember them stepping in to stop Israel from selling the 2052 to India before.

I believe we can be fairly confident that era is over. Going forwardit will only be a question of who will sell, not whether to sell. I would quietly expect some stunning developments in next 24 months. Remember 1998 was not that long ago...of course some stuff is off limits for sure. But what is not will open eyes worldwide. Just my thoughts of course.

>>Therefore, Uttam development should continue unabated.

Without a doubt, no matter how willing suppliers are.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Eric Leiderman » 17 Dec 2015 19:56

Do what the Isrealies do namely even though they get cutting edge stuff fm Khans
The continue developing their own stuff.
They have learnt their lesson fm the Levi

member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22605 » 17 Dec 2015 21:35

JE Menon wrote:>>My only worry is Massa. I remember them stepping in to stop Israel from selling the 2052 to India before.

I believe we can be fairly confident that era is over. Going forwardit will only be a question of who will sell, not whether to sell. I would quietly expect some stunning developments in next 24 months. Remember 1998 was not that long ago...of course some stuff is off limits for sure. But what is not will open eyes worldwide. Just my thoughts of course.



An IMU(worth 100000 in INR) for developing a small UAV was rejected outright and all further communication suspended and this happened 2 months ago

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 17 Dec 2015 23:16

Raghu,

Can you shed any light on the HTSE engine?
Does HAL now have the know-how to design the transmission in-house.
What is the state of the IMRH/NMRH program?

Answer whatever you can, if you can.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2609
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 18 Dec 2015 11:25

Raghuk,

IMU? How small an UAV? Can you shed some more light on this if possible?

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby adityadange » 18 Dec 2015 18:12

what is IMU?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54542
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 18 Dec 2015 21:14

Inertial Measuring Unit=IMU

bedrock of electronic navigation.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4546
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 18 Dec 2015 23:34

What's the big deal about IMU?? Looking at the price it doesn't even look like some uber-class stuff. There is one startup which makes such stuff in Pune - Nav.stik. They offer modules which has all the components that wiki says IMU has (at about $500). (The founder is good friend, he was telling me that our guys cannot source some stuff which he can provide easily. DRDO guys are interested but no concrete initiative from them. Neither is he very much willing to waste time with defence guys, he has burnt his hands in previous venture there enough already). Why can't we just get these things done in India rather than begging outside?? Unless of coarse we need some mil-grade TFTA h/w which only US govt can supply.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 18 Dec 2015 23:48

Israel can preempt Khan tech by preempting deals under DTTI initiative, and come up with more challenging and fantastic offers. But they can't! most components and blueprints are Khan origin by IPRs and funding. So, how can Elta go against Khans?

If Elta 2052s need to be on LCAs, then Khan blessing is mandatory.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 19 Dec 2015 00:18

Cybaru wrote:Raghuk,

IMU? How small an UAV? Can you shed some more light on this if possible?


8-10 kgs.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vishvak » 19 Dec 2015 00:19

So Khan's blessings necessary for radar too, the engine is American as it is. Not to mention engine for AMCA stealth jet could be American per reports. So Khan footprints everywhere, no wonder Americans don't mind progressive Indian defense sector just when Russians are recovering from USSR breakup.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8174
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 19 Dec 2015 00:58

LCA flight testing is again picking up speed. PV-5, LSP-3, LSP-4, LSP-7, LSP-8 and NP-2 have reported back to duty. For the past 3 weeks, there have been at least one flight a day.

Which plane was supposed to have the refueling probe and the new radome fitted to it?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3455
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby fanne » 19 Dec 2015 02:52

LSP -3?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 19 Dec 2015 06:56

If 2052 has been green lighted by massa, this can only mean one thing.
Uttam has cleared a critical bottleneck, or LRDE has the required TR finesse and algorithms to integrate and test it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 19 Dec 2015 07:38

Gagan wrote:If 2052 has been green lighted by massa, this can only mean one thing.
Uttam has cleared a critical bottleneck, or LRDE has the required TR finesse and algorithms to integrate and test it.


That should be a win-win? India should get a few ready made radars and continue to build her own. I just do not see others killing anything, it is more like some Indian service person + babus + a few other middlemen. Without these guys India nothing others can do.

Unless it is accompanied by a Putin fatwa. ??????


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests