LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 14 Oct 2016 13:03

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:As IR said, Static instability has nothing to do with 9G capability.

Please. I need to understand this if possible in lay terms and this is related to my own games with model aircraft for many years.

A statically unstable aircraft will not fly, but if it is forced to fly it will perform the most unbelievable and uncontrolled "manoeuvres" before crashing. A stable aircraft cannot be made to perform those mad manoeuvres. So a statically unstable aircraft CAN be controlled by computer by forcing it to fly stably by keeping control surfaces oriented in a particular degree and direction. This would actually add to drag because the statically unstable plane, left to itself without those pesky control surfaces forcing it to fly stably, "wants" to perform mad manoeuvres and crash.

But when hi-G "mad" manoeuvres are required - the fly-by-wire system allows those movements to occur by reducing control over the control surfaces allowing the plane to depart from its stable flight regime to the unstable manoeuvre in a controlled fashion, while preventing complete loss of control.

To that extent it seems to me that Hi-G manoeuvres and static instability are inextricably linked. Instability is not needed for Hi-G manoeuvres, but it helps


I will write a longer post later, but a quick comment - when we say statically unstable aircraft, that means when it is flying in designed configuration at designed point with all the control surfaces in neutral positions. Of coarse this is unsustainable position and the aircraft will not be able to maintain it on its own (means no changes in control surfaces).

But when an aircraft is flying in say cruise flight all the forces are balanced, pass through CG and the aircraft is neutrally stable. You achieve this situation by deflecting control surfaces from their neutral position appropriately. For example, if you take typical civil airliner types simple configuration, the wing with positive camber aerofoil is always statically unstable on its own (ignore effects of fuselage) a tail is placed behind to make the whole aircraft statically stable by providing small force at longer lever arm. Now in this config it means a down force by the horizontal tail i.e. negative lift. Generally the HTail uses a symmetric aerofoil - no camber. So to get this negative force in design config without deflecting elevators or the HTail itself (if its all moving), the tail is mounted at a negative angle, just enough so that it will make the level flight sustainable without elevator deflection. When you want to pitch up you need unbalanced force which is created by elevator deflection. You deflect elevator, pitch up the plane and put the elevator back to neutral position (not entirely correct but let say so for simplicity).

In short static stability changes with changing configuration of the control surfaces. And as I said, static instability has no implication on whether an aircraft can do 7G or 8G or 9G. It only tells you how easily you can touch the limit. 9G limit appear, first and foremost due to the human endurance and second by the structural limits of the aerostructure, thirdly the max AoA/max C_l and fourthly by excess Thrust. Static stability margin just tells you how fast it can go from 1G to 9G.

Regarding trim drag, you can actually have less drag in cruise flight for unstable aircraft (this depends on config - for ex canard vs tail and so on). For example in X29, they wanted least supersonic trim drag, means the static stability margin must be almost zero or negative even. But since there is quarter-chord distance shift in Lift centre from subsonic to supersonic flight (so while LCA is statically unstable while subsonic its quite stable in supersonic flight), this design limit meant that X-29 end up having 35% static instability margin at subsonic flight..!!

FunFact - It is estimated that the Wright brother's 1st aircraft had a whopping -20% static stability margin.!!


@Vina,
Point 2 - Why nose down Sir, that would put the AoA to negative no??
Last edited by JayS on 14 Oct 2016 14:59, edited 2 times in total.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby LokeshC » 14 Oct 2016 13:08

prahaar wrote:LokeshC, sampling frequency does not necessitate operation at half the rate. I do not understand the operations described in the F-18 picture so cannot comment. But for example, audio sampled at 48KHz (A/D) contains all the audio frequencies. For example, if it is just stepper motor actuator information derived from A/D converter, it need not have the 40Hz upper limit.


I am sure you are aware of Nyquist sampling theorem? The reason audio is sampled at 40+kHz is because our auditory range ends at 20kHz (+1kHz guard band times 2 is approx 44kHz ). CDs are usually encoded in 44.1kHz for the same reason. But 48kHz is MORE than what is really needed. The reason for 48k is because it fits nicely (bitrate wise) into various video encoding schemes. Whole another discussion.

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prahaar » 14 Oct 2016 13:36

48KHz-44Khz (music, speech, etc.) /8KHz (speech) done keeping the input signal characteristics under consideration. But can you relate that to the actuation frequency upper bound in the control system diagram? This is not a rhetorical question.

Also there are methods where things can operate far below Nyquist rate (Compressive sensing is one method), although I am not claiming that is used here.

I am trying to understand why a simple A/D rate implies actuation frequency that is half of that.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby LokeshC » 14 Oct 2016 13:39

Maybe I was not clear. If the A/D works at X hz the signals of UPTO x/2 hz can be processed. Thats why I said:

LokeshC wrote:Yes, the 80hz a/d means the system dynamics that are being modeled at that point would need to be band-limited to 40Hz. In other words whatever those dynamics maybe (changing airflow, heat transfer etc), change no more than 40 times a second in order to achieve stable, effective control of the system.


It could as well change 1/2 times a second instead of 40.

Another clarification: Change x times a second should really mean: Frequency content of the signals are less than X hz.

Not trying to be exact here as you can see :)

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vina » 14 Oct 2016 13:45

I am trying to understand why a simple A/D rate implies actuation frequency that is half of that


I think you misread what we are saying. The actuator rate using common sense, cannot be anything like 30 or 40 hz. These are large heavy structures that operate against significant resistance and flapping them some 40 times a second will be physically a whopper. No way!

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby LokeshC » 14 Oct 2016 13:53

Let me add here:

Let us say the controller issues actuator commands faster than 80 40 hertz. That would imply a part of the system is somehow responding faster than the sensors can sample (which is what feeds into that 80hz a/d). I am unaware of such a system existing. I would be very interested to learn about any such system if it does exist.

One more caveat. The actual transducer may complete the action within say 1 millisecond (1kHz), but that has nothing to do with how often the transducer/actuator is issued commands by the controller.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby LokeshC » 14 Oct 2016 14:18

I thought of this a bit more: There is one way 10 - 20 hz can be achieved:

Multiple small control surfaces and very small quantized deflections. Something like 10 surfaces here and there, doing 30 - 40 hz and going from 0 to 0.5 degrees (no intermediate values). The mech side should be fairly easy to design. The total area is variable but the deflection is small and achieves the same thing as a single area with large deflection (and with intermediate values which might make the design very complicated).

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5688
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Dileep » 14 Oct 2016 14:53

The instability of the plane NOT analogous to a stick suspended off centre (which will pitch up, and can be stabilized by pushing down on the higher end.

It is analogous to someone balancing a stick on its end, by constantly adjusting the base, to be right under the CG. The plane adjusts the CP to be in line with the CG by moving the control surfaces.

Also, the notion of the control surfaces moving at 80Hz is wrong. The right way to say is, the control loop "updates at 80Hz". The actuator takes its time to catch up with the loop, but the whole system will be dynamically stable, since the actuator is capable of catching up before the whole body of the plane can move any appreciable amount.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 14 Oct 2016 20:50

A good program on Tejas being telecast right now on NDTV

asinh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 23:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby asinh » 14 Oct 2016 20:55

Yes. Chairman said can scale production beyond 16 eventually.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3415
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby suryag » 14 Oct 2016 21:32

<OT>Dileep sir may i have your email id, need a little guidance on industrial design vendors for enclosures for sensor systems

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 14 Oct 2016 21:32

vina wrote:1. When you remove ballast from the nose, the CG moves back and the airframe becomes MORE unstable , decreasing the static margin. ie. you are making it it MORE unstable.

Mathematically, you are right. I was explaining about the degree of instability, and hence said the magnitude will increase.

vina wrote:2. The airframe as it exists is full 9G capable. It is not a question of weight, and drag (the engine has enough excess installed thrust), but rather maturity of control laws. To pull the full 9G, in a sustained turn, the bank angle has to be 1.459 radians or 83.62 deg . That is the load factor. To generate the 9G lift, the AoA has to increase for the wings to produce 9 times lift. That will need an AoA of around 26 deg to 28 deg, depending on the CL curve . My submission is that the LCA is not YET fully certified for the designed angle of attack. Once that certified , the full 9G will appear on the display boards. Watch out for news of AoA achieved to be upwards of 26 deg. As of now, it is certified to 24 deg or so. The plane is hence currently limited to 8G or whatever due to the FCS preventing from pulling the required AoA.

I don't know of any aircraft that can pull 9Gs in sustained turns. Yes, 9Gs can be pulled in the corners. If you look at LCA's Cl curve, it increases almost linearly till 35 degrees AoA. We know that LCA pulled 8Gs at 24 degrees AoA at Bahrain. So aerodynamically, to pull 9Gs, it requires about a 27 degree AoA. 26 degrees has been talked about (infact reported as achieved in LCA's brochure). So if the limit is indeed aerodynamic, I think LCA Mk1 will become 9G capable. Let's see.

However, I am not sure if the current G-loading limit is due to aerodynamics or structural strength. LCA's empty weight grew by 15% from its design weight. Weight has a huge impact on the Gs that an aircraft can structurally pull. For example, carrying two 370 gallon tanks, the F-16 could structurally pull only 6.5 Gs and the pylon strength was not the limiting structural strength.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5688
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Dileep » 14 Oct 2016 21:53

suryag wrote:<OT>Dileep sir may i have your email id, need a little guidance on industrial design vendors for enclosures for sensor systems


dileepks on jeemeyil daat kaam onlee.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JTull » 14 Oct 2016 22:08

tsarkar wrote:A good program on Tejas being telecast right now on NDTV


Can you please summarise? thx

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shiv » 14 Oct 2016 22:42

Dileep wrote:Also, the notion of the control surfaces moving at 80Hz is wrong. The right way to say is, the control loop "updates at 80Hz". The actuator takes its time to catch up with the loop, but the whole system will be dynamically stable, since the actuator is capable of catching up before the whole body of the plane can move any appreciable amount.

There is an analogy in Cardiology (I am no cardiologist) there is a condition called torsades de pointes where the signal to cause the heart to beat the next beat falls exactly at a moment when the heart has completed the previous beat and the heart is unable to respond to that signal.

The question to me is - "Do the signals sent to the actuator come frequently to make small incremental movements, or do they come less frequently and provoke larger deflections" The point is - if a signal comes to the actuator to initiate one movement and if another signal comes even before that movement is completed would that second signal be held in buffer and implemented serially along with signals that follow or are 5-10 signals collected up in a buffer and the net actuator movement required calculated and fed to the actuator?

la.khan
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 05:02

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby la.khan » 14 Oct 2016 22:50

JTull wrote:
tsarkar wrote:A good program on Tejas being telecast right now on NDTV


Can you please summarise? thx

Coupta's Walk the Talk at HAL, Bengaluru with HAL head honcho Suvarna Raju. Also, featured a test helicopter pilot talking about Dhruv, Rudra, LCH, static display, outdoors.

Next, inside the Tejas assembly hall, HAL CEO Survarna Raju, chief test pilot Muthanna, talking about Tejas, had multiple Tejas aircraft, under various stages of assembly, workers fitting fuel probe etc. HAL working with private sector, L&T making wings, centre fuselage made by another pvt company (I did not catch the name), assembly at HAL, Tejas is almost a mini-Sukhoi, flies very well, Muthanna explaining helmet mounted display etc. Final piece was Coupta helped into the cockpit & sitting in the cockpit.

Nothing new said that posters already aren't aware of. What was new to me was the look inside Tejas assembly hall @ HAL, Bengaluru.

As an aside, what's come over Coupta these days? Back to back episodes extolling the virtues of HAL, indigenous products :-?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 14 Oct 2016 23:35

Link to the 'Walk the talk' show on NDTV

Walk the Talk with team of HAL

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1886
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakarat » 15 Oct 2016 00:18

Kartik wrote:Link to the 'Walk the talk' show on NDTV

Walk the Talk with team of HAL


In the video there are shoots of Refueling probe getting fitted to LSP-7 and the position seems to have changed to in between canopy and nosecone from earlier position

will try make a gif and post soon

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby maxratul » 15 Oct 2016 00:53

some very interesting tidbits in the video - talks of data fusion in tejas, stealth in the LCH...

Also, the reason for buying a mature platform in single engine category is becoming clear - "16 plus" tejas is the max realistic capability of the country right now for the foreseeable future.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 15 Oct 2016 01:07

Jay, Vina,

I can't believe that you guys believe that a plane which has a mean time to double amplitude of 200 ms can be controlled with control signals every 500 ms! Anyways, I would let you guys find out on your own. By the way, the actuators on the ABS of your cars cycle up to 15 times per second.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bhaskar_T » 15 Oct 2016 01:21

Cameraman was more focusing on CMD, Shekhar and Test Pilot. :-? Anyway, at least we know, from CMD himself and with pics, that structural integration of refueling probe is complete.

The Test Pilot says by FOC - "She will have carefree maneuvering, if a pilot makes an error, she will take over the control, correct the disorientation and will give back the plane to the pilot. She is a Mini-Sukhoi. Squadron pilots have already started loving her." 8)

The CMD says "Current capacity is 8/year and we are expanding it to 16/year. We are also asking Indian INC to participate and help HAL by being Tier1 and Tier2 suppliers. If you notice, the plane can be divided into 4 pieces, front fuselage, center fuselage, rear fuselage and wings. The wing is given to L&T, Center fuselage is given to Vemtec technology. We want to be integrator s. Anything which comes from industry is an additional capacity and it can be 16 plus. Seven decades back ,raw material used to enter HAL gates but now we want to be integrator's since now Indian industry is getting matured. We are totally open minded while working with private industry. It is our responsibility to create an eco-system in the country. We are trying to develop MK1A - Refueling probe (as FOC requirement), SPJ (external pod, since there is no place to accomodate inside), AESA radar ".

Shekhar - "Can you fit Meteor (Rafale wali) missile on to LCA".
Pilot - "It is too big for this aircraft". CMD chips in "Given a platform (any other) we can do it". Pilot adds "Sukhoi definitely".

I Googled VemTec technology (One BRF 2008 link came up discussing missile carrier tech and second one came up saying "AP Govt allotted 350 acres to VEM Technology Pvt Ltd G.O no;122. Dt;27.8.16 to establish Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) vehicle manufacturing unit worth of 2135 crore project first time in India, it’s very nearby our Kings Town venture at vatluru. Grab your plot before price hike. Hurry up @ 8466974999, 9866887788,7095670999" https://plus.google.com/102311298878756530307/posts/duecGZ9HYqW :rotfl:

The facility indeed looks TFTA. :mrgreen:

Image

Image

Some Missile replica was being uploaded.

Image

Fuel carrier drop tanks being loaded.

Image
Last edited by Bhaskar_T on 15 Oct 2016 01:50, edited 5 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Oct 2016 01:30

Look at the first video grab and read the irony. TEJAS, a world class aircraft, flies beautifully. And we are about to issue a RFP for phoren single engine fighters. WOW!!!

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohitvats » 15 Oct 2016 01:40

Rakesh wrote:Look at the first video grab and read the irony. A world class aircraft, flies beautifully. And we are about to issue a RFP for single engine fighters. WOW!!!


Rakesh - I think statement like above obfuscate the debate at hand.
The technical capability of LCA is beyond doubt; that part of the debate has been settled long time back.

We on BRF have for the first time been exposed to the larger problem(s) of our MIC. Till now, all the discussion and debate has been around a product under development and its merits, demerits and analysis of POV about the product of various stakeholders.

Even in this kind of debate, we've only been partially exposed to the ability of our MIC to produce some things. Till the CAG report on LCA program came out, lot of things about delay in LCA program were simply not known. Delays which were because of project management problems and lack of technological capability.

Same thing is now happening with production side. In fact, the same story repeated itself in case of Arjun as well. Its a different matter that larger issue rested with IA and production related problems simply receded to background. Which BTW, also impact the T-90 production.

Our problem is that the designer concentrated only on getting the R&D part correct - no one bothered to look at production aspect from the word GO. Or even quite late in the game. And we're where we are.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Oct 2016 01:45

You are absolutely correct Saar. Perhaps irony is the wrong word. Tragic is more like it. Sorry, but I feel a total sense of despair at the situation. Totally depressing. But you are right - no one bothered to look at the production aspect from the word GO. Let's hope we don't make this mistake again.


Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bhaskar_T » 15 Oct 2016 01:59

Shekhar - "Can we go up and look from top". After climbing up, CMD to Shekhar - "Why don't you sit in"

CMD instructs like a teacher - "First, put your hands here, put both the hands here"

Image

CMD - "Two Legs on the seat, ON THE SEAT :evil: ".

Image

CMD - "One leg down in the gap. Keep your hands here (on the glass), be comfortable, no problem. Keep this leg now down. Yes"

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18648
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Oct 2016 02:20

I wouldn't say people didn't look at the production aspect at all. They looked at it to the level funded & the program structure needs to be looked at.

The actual LCA today comes from FSED - Full Scale Engineering Development.
Before this, IAF asked for tech demonstration before FSED was cleared.
As part of FSED Phase -2, production was taken up.

Now heres the issue - sequential development and resource, tech crunch etc.
This is a challenge because until and unless you rapidly move from one to the other, there are delays baked into the program with bureaucracy and also approvals.

The second mistake is to disassociate TD from SP which comes after FSED. The challenge here is that you have built a TD, with many key items, LRUs etc but its not a fighter plane. The AF said ok, composite wings, glasscockpit, FBW etc - that they did. But it took FSED to add the bells and whistles which make a full blown fighter & FSED phase 2 (by which time IAF finally joined hands) to rectify even issues with original plans. These were met by EGRs- Engineering Change Requests.
The late joining of the IAF made many EGRs appear very late into the program.

If the IAF had been part & parcel of the program and at the same time, a more well funded and robust program was launched the FSEDs would not have to wait for the TDs & alternatives could have been scouted earlier for key challenges like the engine, the radar. This is classic funded related late CYA. In a well funded western or chinese program if the local alternative was not available, off they would go and get an imported solution, blank check - the J-10 got the AL-31F. Nobody knows how many Israelis worked in the Lavi to the J-10.
Ultimately for the radar we evaluated the Kopyo, the AN/APG-67, the EL-2032 and finally settled for a hybrid solution combining the working antenna for the MMR with the Elta radar. In terms of funding, Hack apart, we didn't have and still don't have a proper fighter to test our solutions on. This is simply stupid as the speed difference between a civilian turboprop and a fighter is significant. This is why Tarangs which test well on simulators and ground testbeds have issues when in flight at varying altitudes, phenomena and with each fighter planform being different. Its this lack of investment in basic infra which delays programs & causes us to run to countries like Israel and Russia for testing items.

The risk with taking the above approach, build and fix as you go, though is late changes can cause both financial & PR risk. The financial outlay can be huge.

Take the JSF program. Its not a linear program but where changes are incorporated on the production line. The problem is that as problems emerge, entire airframes have to be brought back to the flightline & reengineered. Some may have to be entirely reworked or scrapped depending on expediture.

In our case, we stuck to a very SDRE like budgeting of minimal airframes & followed a slow & methodical test plan. The latter is the most important issue because we all know what kind of forces were set against the program & why they were so careful.

Coming back to production, the program structure allocates a significant portion of FSED to HAL, while ADA provided digital mockups, HAL was to do the last line of production & set up the detailed lines.

Two issues here - one, the lines themselves were not as easy to scale up as envisaged. HAL dd it though. The lack of ownership by MOD was super evident here. HAL is giving dividends back to MOD/MOF. To generate these profits it has excess money parked.

They then asked GOI for money for capex build up which never happened.

IAF & HAL got into a spat over who would finance the line for 8 units/yr. Obviously, HAL as a MOD run DPSU did what its master (GOI) expected and focused on becoming a cash rich provider of funds (originally from GOI to whit) as return to sender.

Now the new GOI has done this.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -14-and-rs
Government to monitor PSU capital expenditure on monthly basis
HAL, which had a cash and bank balance of Rs 17,671 crore, had capex plans for just Rs 800 crore and long term borrowings of just Rs 4 crore. Its profit after tax (PAT) stood at Rs 2,388 crore


So the financial pressure to generate/mop up cash from PSUs has not fully abated but its being tracked professionally and programs like LCA will get the green light. Much better than before (one size fits all, no answers, just give the dividend already).

You get what you ask. If you ask PSUs to focus on giving you dividends, then that's what they will do. They aren't running funds but will soak up cash, use it to generate interest & then pay it back as dividend.

The MOD's mandate to HAL et al should have been on quality, complex programs and indigenization. Instead, it was dividends.

Second, the LRUs. PSUs like BEL stepped up and made critical items in LSP (and committed to SP) even for 40 units.
Problem is private industry cannot invest significantly for such a small production run.

This means the ADA launched an indigenization drive only post the IOC commit which meant firm orders for the LCA and because of which they could go to industry and ask for a partnership. Even so, the spares + original items for a 40 unit run are limited.

The program has achieved a fairly decent result so far, engine apart, some 60% LRUs are locally designed and integrated.

At the end of the day, local MIC can scale for LCA when it could scale for making a Su-30, with the designers and builders only sharing limited know how.
The ball is in MOD and IAF's court, both have to commit to the LCA beyond 120 & in turn ADA/HAL have to deliver.
Doing the 1-2-3-4 LSP jig will not be enough for the MIC to grow to substantial levels (for that we need bulk orders & Indian MSMEs to actually make money off of the LCA).

The MMRCA MII will be in contrast, much derided screwdriver assembly.
For 230+ Su-30s, HAL worked up to indigenization of 75% (with imported raw materials) only by Phase 4, some 40-60 airframes, this with TOT & huge investment in built up infra. Private sector firms simply can't afford that, and if GOI wishes to do the same level of indigenization (even LCA level) on MMRCA, it will not be a quick induction (defeating the MMRCA claim) & same as Su-30, overall cost spread across airframes + TOT cost will make the fighter cost astronomical.

India is just repeating some really pointless mistakes here & TBH, its not as if GOI is overflowing with money. There may be wheels within wheels (strategic goals etc), but building a MIC can only be done by Tejas & LCH not MMRCA or say imported Ka-226 type frames. That's nothing but the much derided model we have merely been following since ages & has significant vulnerabilities.

You can see the money is there. Parked with HAL. The challenge is that money will now go for MMRCA & not a LCA.

Parrikar got IAF to commit to 120 LCAs, and that is a huge achievement by itself, but given a country with the scale of India, we should actually be looking at double the number. If the IAF says that will raise the squadron cap over 42, so be it. India should fund the LCA as a strategic necessity.

China is not making a 100 J-10s and moving to J-20. The J-10 may not even be equivalent to a late model MiG-29 or the latest F-16. China doesn't care. They understand iteratively making more and more J-10s will establish a proper MIC.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18648
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Oct 2016 02:40

And this was HAL's original plan. From 2009.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/369 ... 25000.html

HAL plans mega Rs 25,000 crore capex in 10 yrs

So what happened? The UPA realized the PSUs were sitting ona pile of cash & instead of letting them release that into future programs (which made snse especially for the strategic sector), it became a game of dividends.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ranjan.rao » 15 Oct 2016 02:44

Karan sir(or madam with pre -BRF crash optimism) with all due respect for your immense knowledge and the value you bring to this forum, this (0)1-manush can't understand why we are going for this drama of acquiring another plane again. Please tolerate my exasperation and stupidity but I still can't get why we we can't ramp up to a much higher production rate.

Engine tech, slow production rates, less orders to this tuchhha prani are just excuses to just hide the lack of confidence we have in ourselves. Is it stopped by some laws of physics? I know we can't get this done overnight..but then we are also not going to war or getting planes tomorrow

Tejas has gone (or probably not yet) way beyond from being just a plane that IAF operated (80 different types) to something that I will my 5 month old son when he grows up and I guess many others would already be doing to their kids or grand kids (in case they are interested).

Hope at least I am able to tell a happy ending or a great story and not just a story of 120 aircrafts...

Sorry for the rant/trolling or whatever

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2016 02:50

Bhaskar_T wrote:Cameraman was more focusing on CMD, Shekhar and Test Pilot. :-? Anyway, at least we know, from CMD himself and with pics, that structural integration of refueling probe is complete.

The Test Pilot says by FOC - "She will have carefree maneuvering, if a pilot makes an error, she will take over the control, correct the disorientation and will give back the plane to the pilot. She is a Mini-Sukhoi. Squadron pilots have already started loving her." 8)

The CMD says "Current capacity is 8/year and we are expanding it to 16/year. We are also asking Indian INC to participate and help HAL by being Tier1 and Tier2 suppliers. If you notice, the plane can be divided into 4 pieces, front fuselage, center fuselage, rear fuselage and wings. The wing is given to L&T, Center fuselage is given to Vemtec technology. We want to be integrator s. Anything which comes from industry is an additional capacity and it can be 16 plus. Seven decades back ,raw material used to enter HAL gates but now we want to be integrator's since now Indian industry is getting matured. We are totally open minded while working with private industry. It is our responsibility to create an eco-system in the country. We are trying to develop MK1A - Refueling probe (as FOC requirement), SPJ (external pod, since there is no place to accomodate inside), AESA radar ".

Shekhar - "Can you fit Meteor (Rafale wali) missile on to LCA".
Pilot - "It is too big for this aircraft". CMD chips in "Given a platform (any other) we can do it". Pilot adds "Sukhoi definitely".

I Googled VemTec technology (One BRF 2008 link came up discussing missile carrier tech and second one came up saying "AP Govt allotted 350 acres to VEM Technology Pvt Ltd G.O no;122. Dt;27.8.16 to establish Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) vehicle manufacturing unit worth of 2135 crore project first time in India, it’s very nearby our Kings Town venture at vatluru.


- Out of total 21 Systems 17 are designed by HAL.

Which is this WEM Technology company? The one news about plant is AP said its Weapons Integration facility. DDM at work here?? I can't find their website. Get some IT related UK company site only.

BTW I am soo jealous of walkie talkie baldi...He got to visit the facility and seat in the cockpit. Have to give him credit he made the programs. I just wish the questions were more polished. But the target audience was of coarse the know-it-all urban fools. So..

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2016 02:55

indranilroy wrote:Jay, Vina,

I can't believe that you guys believe that a plane which has a mean time to double amplitude of 200 ms can be controlled with control signals every 500 ms! Anyways, I would let you guys find out on your own. By the way, the actuators on the ABS of your cars cycle up to 15 times per second.


Control Theory is not my forte Indranil. Frankly speaking my engineering mind cannot accept 80Hz actuation rate for an actuator with that kind of force. I have doubts over 2Hz as well. But 4Hz is more believable for me that 80Hz at this juncture. I am trying to get the actuation rate for US fighters (since its far easier to find data for those). I need to see it to believe it.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2016 03:03

Karan M wrote:And this was HAL's original plan. From 2009.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/369 ... 25000.html

HAL plans mega Rs 25,000 crore capex in 10 yrs

So what happened? The UPA realized the PSUs were sitting ona pile of cash & instead of letting them release that into future programs (which made snse especially for the strategic sector), it became a game of dividends.


Even current government is pulling in money. HAL alone bought back 4000+ Cr worth GOI shares.

http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/share-buyback-govt-receives-rs-4500-crore-from-hal-bharat-dynamics/

Imagine if those 4000Cr were left with HAL for investment in project speed-up for LCA/LUH/HTFE/HTSE etc. I am told LUH team is full on overtime mode for last six months or so. There is definitely manpower crunch there.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7220
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nachiket » 15 Oct 2016 03:08

Shekhar - "Can you fit Meteor (Rafale wali) missile on to LCA".
Pilot - "It is too big for this aircraft". CMD chips in "Given a platform (any other) we can do it". Pilot adds "Sukhoi definitely".

Meteor is very close to the size of Derby and Astra. It is heavier, but that wouldn't be a problem. But mating it to the LCA's radar would take time and effort and French cooperation. Not worth it in the short term. Far more important to qualify the Astra on the LCA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18648
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Oct 2016 03:22

JayS wrote:
Karan M wrote:And this was HAL's original plan. From 2009.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/369 ... 25000.html

HAL plans mega Rs 25,000 crore capex in 10 yrs

So what happened? The UPA realized the PSUs were sitting ona pile of cash & instead of letting them release that into future programs (which made snse especially for the strategic sector), it became a game of dividends.


Even current government is pulling in money. HAL alone bought back 4000+ Cr worth GOI shares.

http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/share-buyback-govt-receives-rs-4500-crore-from-hal-bharat-dynamics/

Imagine if those 4000Cr were left with HAL for investment in project speed-up for LCA/LUH/HTFE/HTSE etc. I am told LUH team is full on overtime mode for last six months or so. There is definitely manpower crunch there.


JayS, yes - which is why I said:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -14-and-rs
Government to monitor PSU capital expenditure on monthly basis

HAL, which had a cash and bank balance of Rs 17,671 crore, had capex plans for just Rs 800 crore and long term borrowings of just Rs 4 crore. Its profit after tax (PAT) stood at Rs 2,388 crore


The MOF has got "addicted" to soaking up such cash. Which is why the MMRCA sort of boondoggles are so dangerous.
They use up valuable money.

Having said that, note the nuance - the GOI is saying we will track on monthly basis - not "just give us the dividend". So there is a difference, if HAL makes the case, then the MOD will support it - of course, the MOF has to agree. But there is now an effort to meet capex needs, track what PSUs are doing - beyond just dividend soak, across all sectors.

A couple of the usual dividend providing companies are no longer sitting on piles f cash, they have taken significant loans too. Their financial ratios have suffered & we can't count on them just pumping out dividends. That could not have happened without GOI say so, so clearly a policy is being put in place to look at PSUs on case by case basis and not just dividend repatriation to GOI irrespective of sector or nuance.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18648
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Oct 2016 03:33

Ranjan, my take is this - and note this is just my take.

1. Parrikar got IAF to sign on for 120 LCAs. Commitment was 80 Mk1As with fancy AESA radar and basically finetuning in everything.
2. Quid pro quo was MOD signs up for MMRCA
3. Parrikar tried to a) interest private industry to take up Mk2 (didnt work out) and b ) stated the IAF could also look at LCA vs MMRCA
4. Immense pushback from IAF immediately with MMRCA under threat. I hardly need to even remember the number of folks, including ex-service who suddenly appeared on multiple shows loudly insisting LCA cannot replace the MMRCA etc
5. Articles by MMRCA selectors/those involved insisting on above
6. Parrikar said fine, MMRCA also - but Rafale is too expensive. We will see another MII type. Reports emerge of MMRCA competitors again meeting MOD
7. Modi goes to France, one key deal is nuke tech via Areva to be transferred to L&T. Sweeteners include SRSAM, Rafale, additional Scorpenes. SRSAM is stalled, additional Scorpenes very expensive & IAF repeatedly asking for Rafale. It got prioritized. I believe SFC angle swung the deal. Long term replacement for Mirage 2000 in nuke delivery role.
8. IAF still unhappy over "pending gap" and "only 36". Rafale is too expensive.
9. We need something now, ergo MII Line 2
10. I think this is mistake - personal opinion
11. Gripen NG & F-16 are the two contenders. F-16 is proven, Gripen is not. IAF personally prefers the Gripen is my perception.
12. F-16 is less of a threat to Tejas and if it comes in, there may still be a Mk2 - again my perception. With Gripen NG, I dont think there will be a Mk2


ranjan.rao wrote:Karan sir(or madam with pre -BRF crash optimism) with all due respect for your immense knowledge and the value you bring to this forum, this (0)1-manush can't understand why we are going for this drama of acquiring another plane again. Please tolerate my exasperation and stupidity but I still can't get why we we can't ramp up to a much higher production rate.

Engine tech, slow production rates, less orders to this tuchhha prani are just excuses to just hide the lack of confidence we have in ourselves. Is it stopped by some laws of physics? I know we can't get this done overnight..but then we are also not going to war or getting planes tomorrow

Tejas has gone (or probably not yet) way beyond from being just a plane that IAF operated (80 different types) to something that I will my 5 month old son when he grows up and I guess many others would already be doing to their kids or grand kids (in case they are interested).

Hope at least I am able to tell a happy ending or a great story and not just a story of 120 aircrafts...

Sorry for the rant/trolling or whatever

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2016 03:33

While there are capex targets of lakhs of crores of rupees in infra sector, I wonder what kind of capex targets Modi has set for Aerospace/Defense PSUs.

I say MoD should just mandate HAL to build 250 LCA as fast as they can do it with full support for Supply chain development. I said this in other thread too. If IAF wants additional number over and above 120 once the jets are ready, they are welcome, else HAL should try to sell them outside. If nothing happens, we should just gift them to Af or some SE country. The intangible geopolitical return itself will definitely outweigh the costs of those donations.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby LokeshC » 15 Oct 2016 03:41

JayS wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Jay, Vina,

I can't believe that you guys believe that a plane which has a mean time to double amplitude of 200 ms can be controlled with control signals every 500 ms! Anyways, I would let you guys find out on your own. By the way, the actuators on the ABS of your cars cycle up to 15 times per second.


Control Theory is not my forte Indranil. Frankly speaking my engineering mind cannot accept 80Hz actuation rate for an actuator with that kind of force. I have doubts over 2Hz as well. But 4Hz is more believable for me that 80Hz at this juncture. I am trying to get the actuation rate for US fighters (since its far easier to find data for those). I need to see it to believe it.


Indranilji,

ABS systems have actuators apply pressure (or force) perpendicular to the momentum (or in this case "angular momentum-like" thing). That is all they do is increase the friction coefficient by pressing against the brake disk without locking (and thereby causing skidding). Its an automatic implementation of threshold braking that people used to do long time back.

The force/power required for that is nothing compared to an actuator working in the same direction as the momentum. One example is regenerative braking. Regenerative braking works by sucking out energy from the momentum of the car by running the motor as a loaded generator which then charges a supercap or a battery. Problem is, it only really works well when the braking is slow (i.e. power extracted is small). In case of fast braking, the generator overloads and causes a lot of damage, so the heat has either gotta be radiated out or it a conventional braking system has to kick in.

The same principle holds for ailerons. If you are flapping it at 20Hz, the power budget would require that you have transducers that are bigger and heavier than if you have to flap them around at 2Hz, since the time is 10 times smaller, the transducers have to deliver power 10 times larger, and then that eventually ends up creating a problem of heat. Higher power transducers generate a lot of heat, especially if they work in continuous mode.

The numbers are really large. I will put up back of the envelope calculation here soon.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18648
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Oct 2016 03:44

Jay,

Modi and Parrikar inherited a disaster. Ammo stocks not there. Scams hinted in every deal. Economy in doldrums and hence dividend scam err scheme still required. So IMHO they have gone one by one. A) Fix economy and big ticket deals and items - 120 LCA comes in that as does Modi jetting around for FDI and MII and b) improve serviceability. Running to Russia for Su30 fix, T90 ammo deal signing, $3tn of deal signing comes there.

IMHO, its a mixed bag. I am one of those who wants 250 LCAs today. But BJP political capital is not infinite. Forces cannot be dictated to. IAF cannot be forced to buy LCA instead of MMRCA. And yet, Jaitley will cry bloody murder if additional LCAs are ordered and sq limit raised beyond 42. OROP agitation is not yet fully done - money is required there as well.. let alone things like BMD, this, that..

I completely agree about exports and my (modest) hope is that MOD finances Mk2 development post Mk1A. IAF will come around after Mk1A.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18648
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Oct 2016 03:52

JayS wrote:Which is this WEM Technology company? The one news about plant is AP said its Weapons Integration facility. DDM at work here?? I can't find their website. Get some IT related UK company site only. .


VEM Technologies
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YSEs8KRbsFI/U ... mblies.jpg

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Oct 2016 04:00

Karan M wrote:IMHO, its a mixed bag. I am one of those who wants 250 LCAs today. But BJP political capital is not infinite. Forces cannot be dictated to. IAF cannot be forced to buy LCA instead of MMRCA. And yet, Jaitley will cry bloody murder if additional LCAs are ordered and sq limit raised beyond 42. OROP agitation is not yet fully done - money is required there as well.. let alone things like BMD, this, that..

Saar I am naive on this issue, so I have to ask. Do the forces not report to the Govt in power? Who is the boss here? I realise that there is an acute shortage of fighter aircraft. But like ranjan.rao said we are not going to war tomorrow. Can the air force not be told that Tejas it is, warts and all.

The HAL video at 23:50 sums it all up. That was an excellent video by the way and the confidence shown by the HAL Chief and the Test Pilot is amazing. Wished Shekhar Gupta stopped interrupting the interviewees all the time.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests