LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Mar 2017 08:46

Excellent find enaiel. I loved the video!

Ten days to paint a Tejas is too long though. F-16 and F-35 take onlee 10 minutes due to robots in the production line

Can someone please look at that video and stop at EXACTLY 8:04! Is that a drill being used to attach that rivet or is he doing it by hand?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Mar 2017 10:27

This video has been posted on this thread before. Very nice video. Worth a watch for every jingo. We need documentary like videos like those documentaries on Discovery or National Geographic channels. Thats would be very good tool to make general public aware about desi tech achievements, especially the kids who would be our next generation.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 04 Mar 2017 13:08

Rakesh wrote:Excellent find enaiel. I loved the video!

Ten days to paint a Tejas is too long though. F-16 and F-35 take onlee 10 minutes due to robots in the production line

Can someone please look at that video and stop at EXACTLY 8:04! Is that a drill being used to attach that rivet or is he doing it by hand?

I doubt if it is a drill as high precision robots take care of the rivet holes.
Looks like rivets are attached by air guns. BTW, on the other side, the solid piece of metal being pressed on the frame is called a bucking bar.
Seen similar riveting in a A380 video .The BBC documentary was called "City in the Sky" and the A380 manufacturing was covered in detail.
The rivets were attached manually just as you see in the video above.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Mar 2017 14:34

Nice video overall but DDMitis is still pretty bad. Nose cone was being showed as fuel tank or was it vice-versa ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Mar 2017 20:19

Rakesh wrote: F-16 and F-35 take onlee 10 minutes due to robots in the production line

How long does the paint take to dry?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Mar 2017 20:56

Very good question Hakeemji!

Drying is immediate because of the dry heat in the robot factory. Since the paint on the F-Solah is Dutch in origin (see below), the onlee delay is the arrival of the paint from the Netherlands. Because of the global supplier base, the only non-issue is how long it takes the robots at LM to paint. Five robots per plane, ensures quick turnaround.

Dutch F-16s "Go Guard" for new paint job
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4515.html

The painters then paint the areas with an anti-corrosive paint which, ironically, is made by the Dutch company AkzoNobel.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Mar 2017 21:02

Neela wrote:I doubt if it is a drill as high precision robots take care of the rivet holes.
Looks like rivets are attached by air guns. BTW, on the other side, the solid piece of metal being pressed on the frame is called a bucking bar.
Seen similar riveting in a A380 video .The BBC documentary was called "City in the Sky" and the A380 manufacturing was covered in detail.
The rivets were attached manually just as you see in the video above.

Saar, you are obviously way more knowledgeable than I am in these matters. I was being sarcastic at folks who claim that Tejas is built by hand! People will say any bakwas and pass it off as truth.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Mar 2017 00:43

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote: I somehow believe that the Tejas-LCA admin may have misunderstood the question. The radome in this picture does appear to be the quartz radome.
No. SPs don't sport the new radome yet.

Oh..Any idea why that is so? The new one has been in testing for many many months now. Has testing not been completed?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Mar 2017 01:36

Third production line is planned for the LCA. (8 + 8 + 8 = 24 planes/year production capacity?)
But how long will they take to set it up. If they drag their feet on it, the LCA project is as good as dead.
Its really down to the wire with IAF threatning to import hundreds of foreign single engine fighter planes and kill off the LCA over time.

ADA/HAL need to deliver and soon. GTRE has already failed on its part of the project and heads need to roll there.

Roll the dice and set up a 4th production line even if it has to be privately financed. Its time to start thinking out of the box and move this project into high gear.

http://idrw.org/ccs-clears-3rd-producti ... lca-tejas/

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 01:38

No its 16 total. The 2nd and third is confusing part.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Mar 2017 01:39

^^ Ah crap.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 01:44

Yep, but they are trying to outsource everything and push the 16/yr to 25/yr by 2020. Supply chain optimization process saar!!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Mar 2017 01:49

How do they hope to export any of these planes if they can't even produce it fast enough for domestic needs by a long shot.
Absorb at least 500 of these planes domestically.

Let the private sector invest in setting up a 3rd and 4th production line. I can't believe that an MK2 production line would be that different from an MK1A or MK1. They really need to start thinking out of the box or the project will be a wash.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 01:53

Yeah, i think they will as soon as they get confirmed orders. It probably is a very expensive way to do business of committing a factory to produce without foreign demand.

Lets suppose Vietnam orders 36 and govt pays a private player to put in a line. What happens to the line after the 36 are delivered? Private players aren't going to be sitting like Avadi and HAL, they will want govt to keep buying no matter if they need it or not, isn't that so?

Then you get the situation like USAF, which buys even if it doesn't need and then puts them in the boneyard.

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 05 Mar 2017 02:17

Neshant wrote:How do they hope to export any of these planes if they can't even produce it fast enough for domestic needs by a long shot.
Absorb at least 500 of these planes domestically.

Where are the domestic orders for 500? As it stands, the orders are for 20 Mk1 IOC and 80 Mk1A. Based on Hal's current manufacturing schedule:

2014 - 2017: 4
2017 - 2018: 8
2018 - 2019: 12
2019 - 2020: 16

The 20 Mk1 IOC will all be delivered by 2018 - 2019, by which time the SoP for Mk1A will need to be finalized.
The 80 Mk1A will all be delivered by 2023 - 2024, by which time the SoP for Mk2 will need to be finalized.

The manufacturing schedule perfectly aligns with the number of orders and the development of Mk1A and Mk2 versions. Without increasing the number of orders it makes absolutely no sense for Hal to increase it's production output. Now if Hal fails to even meet these numbers, then please bring out the brick bats as they would totally deserve it.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 02:25

enaiel wrote: Where are the domestic orders for 500? As it stands, the orders are for 20 Mk1 IOC and 80 Mk1A. Based on Hal's current manufacturing schedule:

Small correction.

20 IOC
20 FOC
83 MK1A
---
123

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Mar 2017 02:26

Cybaru wrote: Private players aren't going to be sitting like Avadi and HAL, they will want govt to keep buying no matter if they need it or not, isn't that so?

Then you get the situation like USAF, which buys even if it doesn't need and then puts them in the boneyard.

Can they not repurpose it for the AMCA after its done producing MK2.
Can the AMCA not be designed with the layout of the MK2 plant in mind.

I find the entire argument that "you can only create a production line to produce one very specific item and then tear it down after completion" to be entirely bogus. For the most part the AMCA is just going to be a twin engined MK2 I'd bet despite all the hype about 5th gen.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 02:28

Neshant,

Good question. I have no clue whether a line can be built with multiple planes in mind. I leave that to others to answer.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Mar 2017 02:32

No Neshant you cannot do that. You cannot repurpose a F-16 line and adopt it for F-35. You cannot repurpose a Mirage 2000 line and adopt it for Rafale. HAL did not repurpose the MiG-21 line and use it for the Su-30MKI. Everything from jigs, tools (and everything in between) is different. Each production line is indeed tailored to one specific product. Do not confuse a building (where planes [or any product] are made under a roof) with a production line (where planes [or any product] are produced to certain specifications). There is a vast difference between the two. Even each station of the production phase is way different.

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 05 Mar 2017 02:36

Cybaru wrote: Small correction.

20 IOC
20 FOC
83 MK1A
---
123

If you watch any of the recent interviews, there is no mention of FOC SoP. I could be wrong, but I don't believe any Mk1 FOC will be manufactured.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 03:07

HAL chairman in interview said 123 aircraft.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 03:14

I guess Neshant what Rakesh says must be true otherwise LM and Dassault wouldn't have to scrap the old f16/m2k lines.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Mar 2017 03:19

Production processes, tooling, materials, and concepts are bound to change over 40-50 years when these were last looked at. Although you do introduce modernization at virtually all levels the broader architecture is closely tailored to the initial design or a subsequent overhaul. You could force your future projects to accommodate existing production infrastructure if you wan't to add a limitation to the program. It will no doubt result in trades being made to the hardware and production design.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Mar 2017 04:04

Very few things carry over as is, including skills. May be riveters, harness assemblers, etc. But even they have to be retrained. The F-35 has ridiculous tolerances, forcing machines to oversee the work of humans and other machines.

WRT the AMCA, it was supposed to be FBL, not FBW. If that is still the game plane, then pretty much everything changes. Nothing in common with the LCA as far as the nerve center is concerned. The AMCA will have no wires to seriously talk about. (On that matter, Dr. A. K. Ghosh has been at it for about 10 years now.)

My feel is that they will need another facility for the AMCA. And it will be a parallel effort.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Mar 2017 05:34

enaiel wrote:Not sure if this was posted before: "The making of IAF's Tejas LCA- NEWS9"

aren't those fuel tanks composite? I am seeing welded joints.
And nice to see the boys still doing hand drills rather drill presses.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 06:44

NRao wrote: WRT the AMCA, it was supposed to be FBL, not FBW. If that is still the game plane, then pretty much everything changes. Nothing in common with the LCA as far as the nerve center is concerned. The AMCA will have no wires to seriously talk about. (On that matter, Dr. A. K. Ghosh has been at it for about 10 years now.)

Nothing significant changes when we go from fly by wire to light. The end consumption of data and the data produced remain same. The medium carrying the data changes and the speed it is transmitted to and from producers and consumers of the data changes. The connectors that transmit and receive data change (as its optical now), but there is no significant change in upper layers (application layer) if the underlying physical transport layer changes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Mar 2017 08:20

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote: WRT the AMCA, it was supposed to be FBL, not FBW. If that is still the game plane, then pretty much everything changes. Nothing in common with the LCA as far as the nerve center is concerned. The AMCA will have no wires to seriously talk about. (On that matter, Dr. A. K. Ghosh has been at it for about 10 years now.)
Nothing significant changes when we go from fly by wire to light. The end consumption of data and the data produced remain same. The medium carrying the data changes and the speed it is transmitted to and from producers and consumers of the data changes. The connectors that transmit and receive data change (as its optical now), but there is no significant change in upper layers (application layer) if the underlying physical transport layer changes.

Weight, EMI and security were known for a very long time. Under security came redundant messaging, thus acting as a second harness - which saved more weight (in addition to the weight saving of going from wire to fiber).

With recent moves to use more "composites", the hardening that was used in the FBW is no longer needed, thus they can use more "composites" and save more weight.

Then comes bandwidth - the latest pet. Even the F-16 offered to India trumpets this claim. Combined with savings in weight, it allows for more gizmos to be added to a craft - sensors, as an example - which is bound to happen. Note that the IAF was looking for 360 for the FGFA, which it should get in the AMCA (and even perhaps in the LCA in a few years). This means a LOT more lines of code. The LCA app layer cannot be reused, the AMCA will need a brand new set of code.

Where that code resides would depend on the hardware arch they use. Thus this may contribute a major change.

In short, I expect, as compared to the LCA, major changes (which is what I meant by "then pretty much everything changes"). All this assumes that they will use the FBL for the AMCA.

The Japanese X-2, I just found out, uses FBL - articles on that should provide a good feedback. Crafts that do not have FBL, but use larger bandwidths use them for other features. The T-50 uses some of these (force-feedback - as a trainer that is good).

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Mar 2017 08:51

Rakesh wrote:No Neshant you cannot do that. You cannot repurpose a F-16 line and adopt it for F-35.

The MK2 and AMCA will be way more similar than F-16 and F-35.

For the most part, AMCA will be a twin engined MK2.

Forcing the designers to develop the AMCA around the same/similar production processes as the MK2 production will promote standardization and reduce cost. Standardization is the whole point of building planes domestically.

The reason the Mirage-2000 and Su-30 would have different factories is because they come from two completely different nations. We don't have that problem. There is no reason to be wasting a ton of money re-inventing the wheel (factory).

Build the MK2 factory now and design the AMCA's production around it as much as possible. If something needs to be added, it can be done later without blowing up the MK2 factory.

This is not some alien concept. Repurposing factories for production of different series of high tech commercial/industrial goods is done all the time.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 09:06

NRao wrote: Weight, EMI and security were known for a very long time. Under security came redundant messaging, thus acting as a second harness - which saved more weight (in addition to the weight saving of going from wire to fiber).

With recent moves to use more "composites", the hardening that was used in the FBW is no longer needed, thus they can use more "composites" and save more weight.

Then comes bandwidth - the latest pet. Even the F-16 offered to India trumpets this claim. Combined with savings in weight, it allows for more gizmos to be added to a craft - sensors, as an example - which is bound to happen. Note that the IAF was looking for 360 for the FGFA, which it should get in the AMCA (and even perhaps in the LCA in a few years). This means a LOT more lines of code. The LCA app layer cannot be reused, the AMCA will need a brand new set of code.

Where that code resides would depend on the hardware arch they use. Thus this may contribute a major change.

In short, I expect, as compared to the LCA, major changes (which is what I meant by "then pretty much everything changes"). All this assumes that they will use the FBL for the AMCA.

The Japanese X-2, I just found out, uses FBL - articles on that should provide a good feedback. Crafts that do not have FBL, but use larger bandwidths use them for other features. The T-50 uses some of these (force-feedback - as a trainer that is good).

Perhaps I dont understand what you are saying. Are you just listing the benefits of FBW vs FBL?

NRao wrote:The AMCA will have no wires to seriously talk about.

No WIRES? That is a interesting claim and possibly untrue! Its not wireless, its just an optical wire.

For eg if you change the ethernet cable on your computer from 10 mbps to 1 gbps or wireless, the underlying wire/method of communication may change, the connectors that transport the data between modules will change, but it will not fundamentally change the layers above that physical layer. Your computer/operating system doesn't fundamentally become different. It may get the benefits you list above like weight, shielding and that might be the reason to go that route, but it won't require a change to the above layers. Infact if you wanted you can go FBL today on the LCA, you can do so without much difficulty.

NRao wrote:Note that the IAF was looking for 360 for the FGFA, which it should get in the AMCA (and even perhaps in the LCA in a few years).This means a LOT more lines of code. The LCA app layer cannot be reused, the AMCA will need a brand new set of code.

What does that have to do with FBL? If you want 360/DAS/EW, you will need to add software and hardware to support it. How is this connected to the claim that introducing FBL will require a complete rework? They are two different things.

Let me share wiki Aunty on what it states as Fly by Light or Fly by Optics is

"Fly-by-optics
Fly-by-optics is sometimes used instead of fly-by-wire because it offers a higher data transfer rate, immunity to electromagnetic interference, and lighter weight. In most cases, the cables are just changed from electrical to optical fiber cables. Sometimes it is referred to as "fly-by-light" due to its use of fiber optics. The data generated by the software and interpreted by the controller remain the same.

And I don't think I need to state what FBW is on BR, but let me remind to just keep focus on the topic and not allowing addition of other side issues to this topic. "Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft's computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft, or prevent unsafe operation of the aircraft outside of its performance envelope."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Mar 2017 09:35

It doesn't make sense that Mk1a costs $92 M per puppy.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201612 ... c-warfare/ /dated

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 05 Mar 2017 09:41

It may be 92 mil, as the requested numbers are really low (just 83 for new version). That may include complete infra + integration + certification cost.

As the demand will go high, cost will go down.

srin · Post by **srin** » 05 Mar 2017 12:12

I'm thinking really hard on the need and urgency of LCA Mk2. Looks like the Mk1A is going to "good enough". Looks to me that a far higher priority for both IAF and IN is for a medium combat aircraft. So I think ADA should go for a similarly good enough twin-engined "BMCA" (Basic medium combat aircraft) without all the bells and whistles of FBL, supercruise, VLO etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2017 12:43

Even if single engine rather than a token 1m increase look for a new wet wing and a 2m increase and bigger fuselage to make it larger than m2k with big range on internal fuel. Look for a basic 8 astra and 4 python loading with astra in dual pylons or 8 x 1000lb lgb max....moveable shock cones in inlet for mach2 sprints.

This will be our mrca and replace retiring jags mig29upg m2k mig27 remnants all of them some 250 airframes.

Arrange for cft also and 360 dass etc....a big aperture uttam radar

We are lagging behind in munitions sensors and ew. A comprehensive igdmp is needed to fill every hole by 2025. Pockets of good work still leave ample gaps for foreign oem to rip our pockets.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 05 Mar 2017 12:46

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfk5lfh9Z0c

The Amazing Fighter Jet Race | Documentary On India's Single Engine Fighter Jet Procurement Program
Bharat Karnad is one of speakers.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 12:47

Sid wrote:It may be 92 mil, as the requested numbers are really low (just 83 for new version). That may include complete infra + integration + certification cost.

As the demand will go high, cost will go down.

And the Mk1A/Mk-2 design and testing costs are also probably in this number.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2017 12:49

The block60 airframe above is clearly undersized and just getting by on a massive leading edge engine. Will have the agility of a grand piano. A bomb truck and standoff amraam sniper thats all..but small aperture aesa and no more room to grow blisters all over.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 05 Mar 2017 12:53

Rakesh wrote:Very good question Hakeemji!

Drying is immediate because of the dry heat in the robot factory. Since the paint on the F-Solah is Dutch in origin (see below), the onlee delay is the arrival of the paint from the Netherlands. Because of the global supplier base, the only non-issue is how long it takes the robots at LM to paint. Five robots per plane, ensures quick turnaround.

Dutch F-16s "Go Guard" for new paint job
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4515.html

The painters then paint the areas with an anti-corrosive paint which, ironically, is made by the Dutch company AkzoNobel.

Why cant LCA use the paint used in PSLV / GSLV? Any knows any reasons? I thought they were using that

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 05 Mar 2017 14:22

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote: WRT the AMCA, it was supposed to be FBL, not FBW. If that is still the game plane, then pretty much everything changes. Nothing in common with the LCA as far as the nerve center is concerned. The AMCA will have no wires to seriously talk about. (On that matter, Dr. A. K. Ghosh has been at it for about 10 years now.)
Nothing significant changes when we go from fly by wire to light. The end consumption of data and the data produced remain same. The medium carrying the data changes and the speed it is transmitted to and from producers and consumers of the data changes. The connectors that transmit and receive data change (as its optical now), but there is no significant change in upper layers (application layer) if the underlying physical transport layer changes.

Not entirely true. There are stuff that only a strand of glass can effectively do. In the short term, look forward to much better sensor fusion and much simpler PVI. Long term, you are gonna see much better sensors to fuse data from. This is apart from the obvious pros of a)Simpler and lighter cable loom b)EMP and lightning immunity

BTW, don't expect to have any 'flying' by light for decades. Glass will poke into the sensor/display area first.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Mar 2017 14:27

Dileep wrote: BTW, don't expect to have any 'flying' by light for decades. Glass will poke into the sensor/display area first.

Like this Dileep? Watch from here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWbHKg ... u.be&t=367

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Mar 2017 14:42

Dileep,

I think in this discussion, there seems to be some confusion atleast to me, around fly by wire, fly by optics and mil STD busses.. In future we will see 1773/e1553 being used more frequently than 1553. That will certainly help more data pass through and better sensor fusion, but that is independent of fly by light or optics and the need for redesigning everything as nrao suggested.