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.
Locked
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Sid »

An Audit had to be done against a set of approved specifications and processes.

For all these observations by CAG, did HAL had approval on all said deviations in timeline and costs? If GoI said "make facility by 2006", did HAL went back to MoD asking for revised timelines even in 2007 with stated reasons which auditors could have referenced. They cannot refer to media reports/blogs/BRF if I am not wrong.

CAG report is not correct in its facts, but is it their job to objectify the facts which HAL/ADA should have done. Instead of saying "by mid/end of next year" every year, HAL/ADA could have done a better job at communicating their deliverables.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by shiv »

Mihir wrote:That CAG report should be read in conjunction with Shukla's excellent rebuttal: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/05/ ... -many.html
Shukla blames the IAF but most of what he says is well known on BRF.

The article reminds us of how the LCA was required to fire the R-73 and in 2016 the requirement is AESA + BVRAAM

there is a huge amount of info that is missing which would give us an idea of the nature of the water that has flowed downriver in this saga.

For example Shukla says:
the IAF could grant initial operational clearance only with 20 permanent waivers and 33 temporary concessions
What were these "permament waivers". These would hold a clue to the dysfunctional confrontations between HAL and IAF. I do know that the IAF has been as uncooperative and scathing as possible about the LCA in the past and the reason I have remarked earlier that today's IAF pilots do not know or need to know the compromises made while accepting the Vampire, Gnat and MiG 21 when they came. The IAF has managed with what it got as long as they were shown a readymade plane that was flying abroad and took it with its deficiencies. But Tejas has definitely suffered from bickering between two arms of government a PSU and the air force.

While I was typing the above paragraph I suddenly had an "aha" moment. Let me put it down. The IAF has lost pilots in unforgiving Gnats and unforgiving MiG 21s but yet loved those planes and blamed HAL for accidents. With the LCA - ADA/HAL are going out of their way to make a plane where the pilot cannot make mistakes and exceed parameters that have killed dozens in the Mig 21. It is a sort of thumbing of manufacturer's nose at user. You see once a plane crashes no one knows why it has gone down
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by sivab »

https://twitter.com/rajatpTOI/status/795645683189452800
Rajat Pandit ‏@rajatpTOI 40m40 minutes ago New Delhi, India
Defence Acquisitions Council just gave initial approvals (Acceptance of Necessity) for proposals worth Rs 82,117 crore. THEY ARE NOT DEALS!
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by sivab »

https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 1175302144
Nitin A. Gokhale ‏@nitingokhale 38m38 minutes ago
Nitin A. Gokhale Retweeted Narendra Joshi
Incorrect info, IMHO
Narendra Joshi @narendrapjoshi
@band318 @nitingokhale 86 Tejas ordered / cleared by DAC today ! Decks cleared for Lockheed Martin / Grippen deal in next 45 days !
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Gyan »

DAC Can only sanction a negotiation with HAL for 83 aircraft. Deal has to first cleared by CCS then awarded. Arjun Mark-2 was cleared by DAC in 2011.
Hemanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Hemanth »

Finally! :D

MoD clears defence deals worth over Rs 82,000 crore, procurement of 83 Tejas jets and 464 tanks

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 295197.cms
NEW DELHI: India today cleared major defence proposals that will greatly boost its air and land power and future combat performance.

The proposals which have been cleared today are of the procurement of close to 100 indigenised fighter jets, helicopters, about 600 mini-Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and more than 400 tanks. Altogether worth more than Rs 82,000 crore.

The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) led by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today approved the procurement of 83 Light Combat Aircrafts (LCA) Tejas MK1A.

The LCA is the smallest and lightest multi-role supersonic fighter aircraft of its class. It is designed and developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force and Navy.

The DAC also approved the procurement of 15 light combat helicopters. It also approved the procurement of 464 T-90 tanks. The T-90 is a third generation Russian battle tank. It is in service of the Russian armed forces. India had first purchased T-90s from Russia in 2001.

“The DAC has also approved the purchase of 598 mini-UAVs under the ‘Buy Indian’ category. These UAVs will be for the infantry,” said an official. The UAVs will be used for aerial surveillance of areas upto five to seven kilometres ahead of the area of responsibility.

Six regiments of the Pinaka multi-rocket launcher for the Indian Army were also approved today.

During October last year, the DAC had cleared the 3rd and 4th Pinaka regiments. The Pinaka has been developed by DRDO. It saw service during the Kargil conflict. It has a maximum range of 65 km and can fire 12 rockets within a minute.

The previous DAC meet on October 20 this year had ensured the progress to the final stage of acquiring the 145 number of Ultra Light Howitzer artillery guns from the US. The DAC had cleared the variations present in India’s demands regarding the artillery gun made to the US and what the US in turn offered.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by sudeepj »

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/manh ... 03569.html
The 83 LCAs, expected to be cleared by the DAC, would be procured from the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and would make for the Mark 1A version of the plane. The project cost is expected to be over `48,000 crore, senior defence ministry sources told Mail Today. The IAF has already placed orders for 20 LCA Mark 1 aircraft which would be more of technology demonstrators but the IAF was more interested in having the LCA Mark 2, which would be a more capable and upgraded version of the indigenous plane in the making for the last over two decades. The HAL would first deliver the Mark 1 aircraft to the IAF and then would produce the Mark 1A in the interim till the time it is ready with the Mark 2 version. The project would give a strong push to the indigenous fighter aircraft industry as this would be the first major bulk production order for the plane.
48,000 crores / 83 = Rs 578 Crores per plane. = $88 million per plane. Something doesnt add up. :eek:
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

When will the usual DDM rudalis start their R&D over 32yr late three-legged plane costs $90Mil per piece, when Rafale comes at $95MIl per piece and has two engines instead of only one ( :(( ) in LCA..Wanna bet? :P

PS: Just saw the previous post...
Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Bheeshma »

Why the Tin-can 90? Why not 400 Arjun-Mk2?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

Sid wrote:An Audit had to be done against a set of approved specifications and processes.

For all these observations by CAG, did HAL had approval on all said deviations in timeline and costs? If GoI said "make facility by 2006", did HAL went back to MoD asking for revised timelines even in 2007 with stated reasons which auditors could have referenced. They cannot refer to media reports/blogs/BRF if I am not wrong.

CAG report is not correct in its facts, but is it their job to objectify the facts which HAL/ADA should have done. Instead of saying "by mid/end of next year" every year, HAL/ADA could have done a better job at communicating their deliverables.
But but...
GoI constituted (June 1984) Aeronautical Development Agency 2 (ADA) as a
dedicated institution for the management of LCA project. MoD, besides
sanctioning funds for LCA project, is involved in the decision making process
through the General Body and Governing Body of ADA. The General Body of
ADA presided by Raksha Mantri annually reviews the progress of LCA
project,
while the Governing Body chaired by the Secretary, Department of
Defence R&D manages all affairs and funds of the society. Thus, Ministry had
pivotal role to play in overall implementation of the LCA project. Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited 3 (HAL), a Defence Public Sector Undertaking is the
principal contractor for the LCA project.
Not counting innumerable review meetings happened since 2002 where every single stake holder organisation chief sat through around the same table. Apart from CAG everyone was informed routinely. :P

I don't know whether CAG can refer media reports or BRF or not but this is what they referred.
The sources of Audit Criteria were:
- The Air Staff Requirement of 1985;
- Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) sanction letters and approvals of Cabinet
Committee on Security (CCS) including papers leading thereto;
- Procedure for Design, Development and Production of Military
Aircraft and Airborne Stores (DDPMAS) – 2002;
- Minutes of meetings of General body, Governing Body of ADA,
Empowered Committee, Programme Management Team of IAF, HAL
Board of Directors etc.;
- Memorandums of Understanding, Consultancy contracts, supply orders
entered into by ADA and HAL and MoD contracts with HAL for
supply of LCA;
- Papers relating to the Work services and IAF preparedness for
induction into IAF and operation of LCA;
- LCA trial reports, reports of various committees and certifying
agencies;
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by SaiK »

sivab wrote:https://twitter.com/rajatpTOI/status/795645683189452800
Rajat Pandit ‏@rajatpTOI 40m40 minutes ago New Delhi, India
Defence Acquisitions Council just gave initial approvals (Acceptance of Necessity) for proposals worth Rs 82,117 crore. THEY ARE NOT DEALS!
You only deal with Firangs! not family members. :D
Bheeshma wrote:Why the Tin-can 90? Why not 400 Arjun-Mk2?
Modi can be cheated too!
Last edited by SaiK on 08 Nov 2016 00:05, edited 1 time in total.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

shiv wrote:From the CAG report that I cross posted & quoted above - I am going to take 2 paragraphs and reverse their order

<snip>

As per this audit report, the GoI sanctioned in 2001 the construction of facilities to deliver 8 LCA's, including 4 to be delivered by May 2006

LSP 1 was delivered in 2007 - but LSP 1 to 4 should have been delivered by 2006

What I do not understand is as follows: If design changes were made in 2006, by which time not even one LCA was delivered, what was happening between 2001 and 2006 - by which time 4 LSPs should have been delivered? OK after 2006 there were design changes - but those should have caused delays from LSP 5 onwards, because 4 should already have been delivered. Why were those 4 not delivered? So were there design changes still going on from 2001-2006?

If design changes were made between 2001 and 2006
1. Why does HAL not say so in its reply?
2. How did HAL accept the monies for 4 LSPs when the design was not frozen and they were in no position to actually deliver even 1 let alone 4.

<snip>
Draw your own conclusions from following quotes from the report. I will state mine:

Page-9
While FSED Phase-I was in progress, MoD, Department of Defence R&D
submitted (November 1999) a Note to CCS seeking an interim sanction of
FSED Phase-II towards developing remaining three prototypes including one
trainer variant (PV-3, PV-4 and PV-5) at a cost of `666.34 crore, on the
ground that some of the work centres had already completed the activities
assigned to them under FSED Phase-I and it was necessary that the remaining
tasks were also assigned to them to avoid idling of facilities. Accordingly, GoI
accorded sanction (February 2000)
for Interim FSED Phase-II, specifying that
this sanction would merge with the final FSED Phase-II sanction.


Later, Department of Defence R&D, MoD submitted (October 2001) a Note to
CCS for sanction of FSED Phase-II which included apart from the three
prototypes sanctioned under Interim FSED Phase-II, completion of Initial
Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) using all
the LCA prototypes by December 2008. The Note also sought (October 2001)
creation of production facilities at HAL at the rate of eight aircraft per annum
and concurrent production of eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft
(for IAF use), in order to address technology transfer issues involved in the
transition from development to production and also to reduce production lead
time.
GoI sanctioned (November 2001) the proposal of DRDO for FSED
Phase II at a total cost of `3301.78 12 crore (FE `1526.49 crore) with a
probable date of completion (PDC) by end December 2008.
Page 10
PV-3 First Flight - Original date: July 2003 - Actual achieved - Dec 2006
PV-4 First Flight - Original date: Dec 2003 - Actual achieved - Dec Nov 2014
PV-5 First Flight - Original date: Oct2014 - Actual achieved - Nov 2009
PV3/4/5 were supposed to be finished before LSP could start delivery in 2006. They themselves got late pushing things ahead.
As per the MoU (June 2002) entered into between HAL and ADA, HAL was
to manufacture and supply eight LSP aircraft between 2006 and 2008. Against
this, HAL supplied seven LSP aircraft during April 2007-March 2013 with a
delay ranging from 4 to 51 months, mainly due to design changes by ADA,
which resulted in equipping each of the LSPs with different configuration
(as
discussed in Chapter IV Para 4.5.1). We also observed that ADA had utilised
these LSP aircraft towards flight testing/evaluation for achieving IOC/FOC,
instead of handing over these aircraft to IAF, in contravention to the
commitment given (October 2001) while obtaining GoI sanction for building
these LSPs under FSED Phase II.
When reasons for using the LSPs for flight testing/evaluation instead of
handing them over to IAF were enquired (July 2014) in audit, ADA stated
(October 2014) that due to shortcomings on TD/PV aircraft (discussed in Para
2.1), LSP aircraft were built in a phased manner with specific capabilities. As
such the transfer of technology to the production agency (HAL) was executed
in batches by identifying the LSP-1 to LSP-8 to resolve design issues and
conduct the flight test towards finalization of standard of preparation (SOP)
for production
.
Note LSP-1 was delayed buy only 4 months. The delay went on increasing as a cascading effect, since there was no revision on the plan on every delay.

Page 48:
From the Given Data:

LSP# ESOP release date Actual Delivery Total time for delivery after ESOP

LSP1 12/2005 04/2007 16 months
LSP2 05/2007 06/2008 11 months
LSP3 07/2007 04/2010 33 months
LSP4 10/2008 06/2010 20 months
LSP5 02/2010 11/2010 8 months
LSP6 Not made
LSP7 09/2011 03/2012 6 months
LSP8 08/2012 03/2013 7 months
Why HAL said "changes after 2006" because they delivered LSP1 only 4 months late which was supposed to be delivered by 2006 end. after that ESOP didn't come in time for them to finish the 8 LSPs before planned 2008 date.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Indranil »

Folks, no rona dhona today. Today is a great day. Let's celebrate the clearing of the decks for the procurement of 83 LCAs.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Marten »

+1
A great day indeed.
Is this AON acceptance or go-ahead for placing of indent (basically clearing 20% to HAL as the initial payment against new contracted specifications).
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Karan M »

123 LCAs as the first step.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Karan M »

Marten wrote:+1
A great day indeed.
Is this AON acceptance or go-ahead for placing of indent (basically clearing 20% to HAL as the initial payment against new contracted specifications).
This next goes to CCS.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Marten »

That should be another three months given the current focus on pushing through MOD decisions.
Hopefully this will also shut the critics who have been raving and ranting about HAL not having a 16/year output line. It is only 6 months from now that we would expect this line to be funded. Any better and HAL Tejas Division would have to be commended for its excellent work.

Cheers again to all involved.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

RKumar wrote:^ All this info is in public domain there is nothing secret. Otherwise, it should not be on BRF :mrgreen:
I didnot see anyone saying that SP1-3 won't be part of IAF. Or I missed atleast.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by suryag »

what a great day today!!! thanks to MP for straightening out execution issues and also to HAL's enterprising attitude in building up the MK1A configuration. Hope they have a roadmap for MK1B and MK2 built up. Am pretty sure NaMoji storms back to power in 2019 there will be another 120 order for MK2. Meanwhile, looking at the cost number it is most likely for the entire lifecycle of the plane. Hope GE delivers the engines quickly and HAL ramps up the line to 16 and then to 24. By 2028 if we have 120 MK1A(1B) and 120 MK2s for the IAF this program would be a resounding success. Congratulations to HAL and ADA and hope HAL delivers this time. Meanwhile, ADA should get all these learnings into MK2 and AMCA. Jai hind
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by SaiK »

when was the order for F404-GE-IN20s placed (83+)?
RKumar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by RKumar »

JayS wrote:
RKumar wrote:^ All this info is in public domain there is nothing secret. Otherwise, it should not be on BRF :mrgreen:
I didnot see anyone saying that SP1-3 won't be part of IAF. Or I missed atleast.
Please check ioc2 certification statements from IAF, talks were on for sp1 and sp2. But latest news is sp4 onwards will see active service. But sp1-3 will be used for foc. That's why I thought foc is closer then we think. I hope it helps
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Sid »

Goals set for MK1A are a bit ambitious by HAL/ADA standards, even though HAL chief promised concurrent engineering for this variant.

With firm orders in place let's hope they deliver this time. Godspeed India.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by fanne »

What is the total number 123 or 103 or 83? (Not counting till lsp)
hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5168
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by hanumadu »

The 83 order seems to be forced by the criticism of abandoning LCA for MII single engine fighter. Otherwise, there was no need to confirm orders until mk1a came about.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Atmavik »

^^ So all the ranting we did on the MII single engine fighter thread has had a positive results :D . Today's news is a happy one
hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5168
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by hanumadu »

^^And on social media.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Marten »

SaiK wrote:when was the order for F404-GE-IN20s placed (83+)?
From what I understand, the orders can now be placed. Before this, I do not think HAL would have had the funds or approval to do so.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

Atmavik wrote:^^ So all the ranting we did on the MII single engine fighter thread has had a positive results :D . Today's news is a happy one
hanumadu wrote:The 83 order seems to be forced by the criticism of abandoning LCA for MII single engine fighter. Otherwise, there was no need to confirm orders until mk1a came about.
Right. And the fact that the IAF and MOD spoke of procuring 120 birds (40 + 80) has nothing to do with it - bunch of fekus I suppose. Wonlee folks on BR are true patriots.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Khalsa »

Bheeshma wrote:Why the Tin-can 90? Why not 400 Arjun-Mk2?

He He He :lol:

Found that a bit funny
Bheeshma says why not Arjuns instead of Bheeshma ?

BTW I agree with you. I wish we had cleared another 3 regiments.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Khalsa »

Indranil wrote:Folks, no rona dhona today. Today is a great day. Let's celebrate the clearing of the decks for the procurement of 83 LCAs.
Indeed +++++
Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Rishi Verma »

Sid wrote:Goals set for MK1A are a bit ambitious by HAL/ADA standards, even though HAL chief promised concurrent engineering for this variant.

With firm orders in place let's hope they deliver this time. Godspeed India.
DAC has sanctioned (said OK to spend), there is no firm or soft order in place.

As ShivJi had said, true that past performance is no guarantee of future performance but if things don't change (at HAL), their screwdriver-giri and delays are bound to screw up the LCA project royally.

Even as DAC sanctions money, HAL needs to be at least slightly proactive and should begin preparing for 16/year (their own Max capacity) TODAY.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Austin »

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... t-projects

83 Tejas cost 7.69 USD Billion , each tejas cost $ 92 million USD

Including spares support infra etc ?
Ramu
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 17:05

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Ramu »

I think cost and price can be 2 different things.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by Pratyush »

SaiK wrote:when was the order for F404-GE-IN20s placed (83+)?
The nation wants to know.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

Pratyush wrote:
SaiK wrote:when was the order for F404-GE-IN20s placed (83+)?
The nation wants to know.
Let HAL first order 24 F404s for the 20 FOC config SPs. :P
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

Someone was asking about Chaffs in LCA few days ago right?? Here is the picture of CMDS cartridge made by BDL for LCA. LCA has two of these I suppose. Each of the slot in this contains one shot.

Been posted on BRF by someone in past. Reposting:

Image
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by putnanja »

JayS wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
The nation wants to know.
Let HAL first order 24 F404s for the 20 FOC config SPs. :P
Those orders were already placed in 2007. Check out the GE Press release from 2007
BANGALORE, INDIA -- Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has ordered an additional 24 F404-GE-IN20 afterburning engines to power the first operational squadron of Tejas fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force. Value of the order is in excess of $100 million and follows an initial 2004 purchase of 17 F404-GE-IN20 engines to power a limited series of operational production aircraft and naval prototypes.

Earlier this year, the F404-GE-IN20 was trial-installed in Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) as part of final evaluations toward flight-testing, scheduled for mid-2007. The F404-IN-20 engine has generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust and has completed 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing, which is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation.

The F404-GE-IN20 succeeds F404-F2J3 development engines used for nearly 600 flights, cumulatively covering eight engines.

Based on the F404-GE-402, the F404-GE-IN20 is the highest rated F404 model and includes a higher-flow fan, increased thrust, a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system, single-crystal turbine blades and a variety of single-engine features.

The F404 fighter engine family is one of the most successful in military aviation history. More than 4,000 F404 engines power a number of combat aircraft flown by the United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, plus countries throughout Europe, Asia and Africa.

GE Aviation, an operating unit of General Electric Company (NYSE: GE), is one of the world's leading manufacturers of jet engines for civil and military aircraft. GE also is a world-leading provider of maintenance and support services for jet engines.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

^^That's for 20 IOC batch. I said 20 FOC.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote:Someone was asking about Chaffs in LCA few days ago right?? Here is the picture of CMDS cartridge made by BDL for LCA. LCA has two of these I suppose. Each of the slot in this contains one shot.

Been posted on BRF by someone in past. Reposting:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pe3ROA8moWE/T ... penser.JPG
Looks like imported/screwdriver

The stencilling looks phoren and the 1" x 1" is suspicious. Indian Stds are SI units - not imperial units
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Post by JayS »

^^ Could be. CMDS is designed by BDL, components could be imported. Karan posted about it in 2013. Used for Jaguar as well and supposed to be adopted for entire fleet.
Locked