LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jul 2017 04:05

ramana wrote:There are parallels between Arjun and LCA programs: long development, multiple componnets and technologies developed from scratch and changing requirments. Doctrine and combat experience alter the path of development. Personalties and the pressure of war/adversarywar machinery accentuate different views and also effect development.
Technololy dictates the speed of development dictated by doctrine, combat requirments and funding profiles.

Plus the presence of a strong import lobby and other producers who are strategically trying to derail us way into the future to keep us a large captive market.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jul 2017 04:19

ramana wrote:There are parallels between Arjun and LCA programs: long development, multiple componnets and technologies developed from scratch and changing requirments.Doctrine and combat experience alter the path of development. Personalties and the pressure of war/adversarywar machinery accentuate different views and also effect development.

Gnat--> Ajeet --> Indian light fighter (80's) ---> LCA (1983)---> LCA Mk1 (with revisions, tech changes)---> LCA Mk1A... Mk2 (?)
Centurion/Vickers MBT ---> MBT program ---> MBT80 ---> Arjun MBT ----> Arjun MBT Mk2

Technololy dictates the speed of development dictated by doctrine, combat requirments and funding profiles.

I would say availability of Technology.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jul 2017 04:35

Great post Akshay, the funding part and MOD/MOF part is very worrisome. Hope it changes.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:I remember reading somewhere that a AOC n C designed some really good bombs in his garage or something and did not have financial authority to get his vast workshop complexes test them and produce prototypes. DRDO Would get angry. He had to go to DRDO and I don't know what happened. Read up on this.

Its a somewhat different story. The Air Marshal got full support from DRDO:
LINK

However, I suspect these weapons will remain proof of concept only, as developing a full scale weapon is very exhaustive.

2. Navy - Capt Lohana who was one of the first DGND ie Director General Naval Design was a close family friend. When I was a youngster he told me several times that 'we kept the DRDO far way from the navy that's why we had success'. He also told me that NPOL had made some excellent sonars but after that they rested on their laurels.

I guess the cooperation picked up later, because DRDO is key to IN's two "indigenous" sensor programs - both sonars & EW gear. We are now in our fourth (if i am right) iteration of EW gear on our warships and many of our frontline warships have DLRL developed EW suites. Both ESM and jamming. The latest is Program Samudrika for the next gen warships. In sonars too, we have many families of sonars now, but the key missing sonar system is a towed array unit, which is currently in trials and will finally round out what we have. Radars, we are now progressing and hopefully we will have more Naval radar programs in the future. Right now, IN is mostly using imports & relying on localized variants.

I have posted before my dear friend Commander Dheeraj Khanna was part of WESSE and testing the Kolkata for electrical compliance. BEL made stuff was terrible and he was pressured to pass a lot of stuff and refused. He resigned after that.

This is very much an issue with BEL's limited (in years past) focus on being an assembler of imported kit which would invariably have QA problems or just wouldn't work. IA ADC&RS C3I system for AD is also similarly stuck with some movement now.
Hopefully, with increasing focus on own R&D and capex, BEL's record will improve for its own items. DRDO stuff tends to go through stringent trials and mostly by the time BEL gets it out, it is ok. But BEL's own "indigenous" programs continue to suffer and its often rebadged Israeli or French gear integrated by BEL.

Navy has had success no doubt but only on the float component. Move and fight are still problems.

For move, I suspect it wll be license production for many years. For fight, I have hope that more sensors stuff and missile kits will be locally made.

Our problem is not design atleast as far as army is concerned. It's production. There was a lot of goodwill for INSAS when it was inducted and all kinds of stories on how a jeep went over it in testing and it didn't fail. But production let us down. I can't recount several stories.

Form the army perspective atleast we would trade robustness for ultra tech any day. A reliable system that does 80 pct of the job is fine as long as I know exactly how it will behave in all circumstances because then I can train for it and have appropriate tactics. The problem comes when the bloody thing does not work. And more hi tech the higher chance of a ****** up. Our problem is not design. It's mass production. Over time DRDO has done a decent job. LCA is great example. But sad to say we haven't been able to productionise it properly.

This is actually a very great point about why some folks would have pushed for T-90 ( heritage from T-72) over "complex Arjun". Only the russians ended up messing the electronics integration and some of the new engine stuff also has had issues. But at least the latter is getting rectified with new radiators. But great point about fancy versus good.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jul 2017 05:10

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Lastly even from a manpower perspective it's better to have more robust rather than hi tech stuff in army. Our troops are not as educated and frankly (I'm old school here) neither do we want them to be. So rather than getting a very complex system I would prefer a reliable and simple to use system any day. We have never lost a war for not having the most sexy equipment. We have lost because of tactical mistakes , huge strategic ****** ups and lack of ammunition and logistics. Army has always enjoyed fighting with robust weapons. Give the armed forces financial power and complete autonomy and I guarantee you will see leaps and bound changes in indegenisiaon. Criticise them after that if they don't deliver.

And yet the weapon specifications in the RFI/P seem to for the latest stuff. An example, Arjun MBT Mk.1 -> Mk.2 ... 94 upgrades and latest tech stuff. Mk.1 should have been fine.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jul 2017 05:39

KaranM wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote: I remember reading somewhere that a AOC n C designed some really good bombs in his garage or something and did not have financial authority to get his vast workshop complexes test them and produce prototypes. DRDO Would get angry. He had to go to DRDO and I don't know what happened. Read up on this.

Its a somewhat different story. The Air Marshal got full support from DRDO:
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/10 ... d-off.html

However, I suspect these weapons will remain proof of concept only, as developing a full scale weapon is very exhaustive.

True. Not very simple to integrate weapons on modern aerial platforms. Involves a lot of simulation and vibration studies along with wind tunnel proofing. Then avionics, adapter hardware and software upgrades on the aircraft to mate the weapon. Then flight tests to complete the envelop expansions for carriage and launch profiles. Requires a lot of resources.

To me, AM Deo's comment to Livefist stating that his weapons will be carried by MKI in a month's time shows how much they are not attuned to the complexities involved in the R&D of modern weapons.

Maybe this is start to the IAF forming its own research and design bureau on a similar line as the IN one.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jul 2017 06:19

Akshay Kapoor wrote: Our problem is not design atleast as far as army is concerned. It's production. There was a lot of goodwill for INSAS when it was inducted and all kinds of stories on how a jeep went over it in testing and it didn't fail. But production let us down. I can't recount several stories.

Form the army perspective atleast we would trade robustness for ultra tech any day. A reliable system that does 80 pct of the job is fine as long as I know exactly how it will behave in all circumstances because then I can train for it and have appropriate tactics. The problem comes when the bloody thing does not work. And more hi tech the higher chance of a ****** up. Our problem is not design. It's mass production. Over time DRDO has done a decent job. LCA is great example. But sad to say we haven't been able to productionise it properly.

I had mentioned this too, in a post a few pages back (may be in the SE thread). Taking even a simple product from the "lab" to production is complex. Then scaling it up is another bigger step. And that is what the LCA is facing - which is normal. As India rarely seeks timely outside help - even the consultations seem to be very minimal - she pays for it in time.

Even in the "design" phase, the LCA will have to transit through MMR - AESA - Uttam, the French assisted Kaveri and somewhere along the way Indian missiles. Leaving - as far as I can see - only the ejection seat and the gun that are major imports. Long way to go. BUT, that is not unusual.

Even if one were to focus ONLY on the Mk1A, that is a very long journey. But, one that cannot be cut short.

And, for each of them: production and scaling up. {The French are going to provide a certified Kaveri, mated with a LCA. They will *never* provide the secrets of production or scaling up. That would be another 72 Rafale}

Dileep wrote: Folks.. sorry to bring bad news again. Apparently, this MII eff-up solah has poisoned the waters terribly. MK2 injins are here, but people don't know what to do with them. Nothing is sanctioned. Nothing is moving. The only good thing that happened is, several scientists got promoted to Sc-H!!

{So, it is the F-16, eh? And not the Grip}

I was under the impression that both the IAF and IN were funding half of the Mk2 project. Even their funds are not there? But, as I have posted, connecting the dots, I just do not see any of the clients interested in the Mk2. Too late.

Not worried about the GE F414 INS6 engines. They can be used to support the AMCA prototype or tech demos.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 10 Jul 2017 06:24

Karan M wrote:Every AF has a mix of state of the art jets which undertake the deep strike, maximal risk roles & others which pull a variety of other roles.

It is hence folly to go for a 4 gen platform, inferior to your already chosen one (Rafale) when your opponent is well on the path to 5th gen, and your own 5 gen plans are in disarray. Get more Rafale, invest in spares and munitions for them and existing Su30 fleet, advance the LCA, MCA, FGFA effort while looking at a silver bullet buy of F-35s (as versus F-16s) if the 5G effort (FGFA/AMCA is far off). The savings from not buying yet another type to add to the IAF menagerie will be another plus.

.

My thought as well but I have a gut feeling F-16 may be coming due to political/strategic reasons

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 10 Jul 2017 08:39

Rakesh wrote:Both great reasons for the AH-64 in the IAF. I did not know that, so thank you.

OT
Task Force Normandy fired the opening shots of Desert Storm
/OT

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jul 2017 09:23

Dileep wrote:Folks.. sorry to bring bad news again. Apparently, this MII eff-up solah has poisoned the waters terribly. MK2 injins are here, but people don't know what to do with them. Nothing is sanctioned. Nothing is moving. The only good thing that happened is, several scientists got promoted to Sc-H!!.

But but Saar, what does mk2 injin or fsolah have anything to do with mk1a and foc delay. The priority is to get these two versions up and running..... From your earlier posts seems like there are major development issues that have little to do with mk2 or its engine. Bhaat eej cajing delay here won Lee? AF is waiting for the birds with urgent pheeling

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2017 09:56

CM, Please no Pingrezi here. What you are asking is not anything classified.
If there is delay it could be an excuse.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2017 10:05

Karan M wrote:Lets address the claims about range and MiG-21 comparisons.

Mk1 radius of action is
Ajai Shukla, IOC wrote: An evaluation of the Tejas’ combat capability must consider its flying performance, its avionics and the weapon load it carries. At IOC, it already flies at Mach 1.6 (2,000 kmph); operates up to 15,000 metres (50,000 feet); and carries 3,500 kg of mission payload, including weapons and sensors. Its combat radius is 400-450 km
Also see:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mAYtyHpTXJw/V ... LCA_05.png

Seven pylons - including one centerline and one special (LDP) pylon.
In contrast, MiG-21 has five.

Vast improvement in loadout flexibility there itself. This automatically means more range (3 tanks plus 4 pylons free for warload). In contrast MiG-21 can only do 3 tanks and 2 pylons or 1 tank and 4 pylons.

Current (non upgraded Mirage 2000-H) - again seen with seven pylons.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 3ea53a.jpg

IAF MiG-29 - ditto
http://www.geocities.ws/siddhuw2000/iaf-mig_29.jpg

Combat radius of IAFs premier AD fighter before Su-30 MKI, used at Kargil for escort?

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft’s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.
https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

Oops. 280 KM!

MiG-27 combat radius?

540 km (290 nmi; 340 mi) with two Kh-29 missiles and three drop tanks
So we have an idea of the standards LCA met or exceeded, for number of pylons and combat radius.

Given above, its fairly clear LCA Mk1 itself can play a very useful role in the IAF & with a Mk1 to Mk1A upgrade plan, the investment in Mk1s can be utilized for the Mk1A.

Add the flight safety of a Ge404 engine vs obsolete turbojets, most importantly the FBW and HOTAS controls plus autopilot, and the Mk1 itself is streets ahead of most IAF MiGs.

KaranM,

Can you put all this in a table?

Top horizontal all the aircraft in IAF inventory and add F-16
Left vertical column each of these features.
Put a tick mark or an X where the feature is met.
End result should be a table that shows LCA among the varied aircraft in IAF stable.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 10 Jul 2017 10:17

ramana wrote:CM, Please no Pingrezi here. What you are asking is not anything classified.
If there is delay it could be an excuse.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jul 2017 10:24

ramana wrote:CM, Please no Pingrezi here. What you are asking is not anything classified.
If there is delay it could be an excuse.

Okay, will drop pingrezi, but I'll have you know it took me ten years to get a handle on it. More importantly, what kind of excuse.. An excuse for what?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jul 2017 11:04

Dileep wrote:Folks.. sorry to bring bad news again. Apparently, this MII eff-up solah has poisoned the waters terribly. MK2 injins are here, but people don't know what to do with them. Nothing is sanctioned. Nothing is moving.

That reminds me of our conversation we had at AI , The Single Engine Fighter Program will be a death nail for Tejas program , It would just be a question of which nail they use an American or Swedish one .....The Hammer would ofcourse be Indian !

Now we dont have a Full Time DM , The Parrikar guy is gone he pushed Tejas and promised to get 120 plus by 2025 , Now even if they manage to get 75 % by 2025 that would be an achievement , Expect Teen or Gripen to replace the major part of IAF Single Engine Program .....bye bye Tejas

The only good thing that happened is, several scientists got promoted to Sc-H!!

Good For them .... they have their careers to look up for

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 10 Jul 2017 11:19

If we have to fight the Single Engined program, so be it.

For the sake of indigenous programs and for those who have toiled all these years. Been peppering PM / DM with messages on twitter.

If it calls for street protests, we should do it. Tejas needs as many hands on deck as possible, within the program and outside.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 10 Jul 2017 11:30

Austin wrote:
Dileep wrote:Folks.. sorry to bring bad news again. Apparently, this MII eff-up solah has poisoned the waters terribly. MK2 injins are here, but people don't know what to do with them. Nothing is sanctioned. Nothing is moving.
That reminds me of our conversation we had at AI , The Single Engine Fighter Program will be a death nail for Tejas program , It would just be a question of which nail they use an American or Swedish one .....The Hammer would ofcourse be Indian !

Now we dont have a Full Time DM , The Parrikar guy is gone he pushed Tejas and promised to get 120 plus by 2025 , Now even if they manage to get 75 % by 2025 that would be an achievement , Expect Teen or Gripen to replace the major part of IAF Single Engine Program .....bye bye Tejas

The only good thing that happened is, several scientists got promoted to Sc-H!!
Good For them .... they have their careers to look up for

Austin ji,
Solah or Gripen is the IAFs single engined fighter program.
50,000 crores earmarked for Mk1A is guaranteed to see 123 LCA in IAF squadrons.

The only issue is slippages in production which could be caused due to a whole host of factors. FOC and recertification of Mk1A.. for an 800kg weight reduction, control laws will need revisiting for sure and it's flight testing.

Infact the orders are confirmed for the LCA.
You never know what headwinds the single engined fighter competition might face.
Can't be sure of anything until it's a done deal.

The RM, Parrikar or anyone else cannot influence HALs per year output.money needed for 16/yr has been allocated. The ball is firmly in HALs court.

Why do you think it's bye bye LCA?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 10 Jul 2017 11:34

Rishi_Tri wrote:If we have to fight the Single Engined program, so be it.

For the sake of indigenous programs and for those who have toiled all these years. Been peppering PM / DM with messages on twitter.

If it calls for street protests, we should do it. Tejas needs as many hands on deck as possible, within the program and outside.

I'd posted the same a decade back for the Arjun tank.

What can PM/DM do more when they have done what's needed in 2015?

How the LCA moves forward and at what rate/yr is strictly in HALs court.

We protesting or not makes no material difference to the outcome.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 12:27

Last one from me for some time. A few years ago SQdn Leader Balooja who was MD HAL Nashik in the 80s told me about a sad incident. He was facing some problems with quality control and also design and said one was a labour and PSU issue and one was lack of skilled designers in INdia. HE wanted to hire some engineers and staff from Russia enmasse and do a real tech transfer - ie hire lots of human capital and nurture them here and cross fertilise. MOD Shot it down. Apparently engineers were available at pennies. There were some crashes of MIG 21s, pilots died and he and some of his directors reigned. That was a time when some accountability still existed in DPSUs. He was very distressed about the lack of accountability in HAL in later years and now production standards continued to drop. Asked him about LCA. And he said I don't know much but doubt HAL has will to make it. 'If you have to save IAF you have to give HAL competition. Unions are just too strong in HAL.'

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Jul 2017 15:46

Two crashed of J-15 within same month

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2400122
6 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2327652
27 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN

As per the following the links
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... -PRC/page4

Is the PLAN crying regarding bad quality or bad press? Now come think of IAF with two LCA crashes within same month, this program would have been closed for good.

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 Jul 2017 16:23

RKumar wrote:Two crashed of J-15 within same month

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2400122
6 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2327652
27 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN

As per the following the links
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... -PRC/page4

Is the PLAN crying regarding bad quality or bad press? Now come think of IAF with two LCA crashes within same month, this program would have been closed for good.

Not the best example to use in the case of the LCA.

The J-15 is a mature rip-off of the SU-33 which in turn is just a navalized Flanker which the chini already have made by the hundreds. Nothing like the LCA which is a clean sheet design and program.

A better example for the LCA is their J-10 program. They lost at least one prototype and many more from their first LSPs. Yet, they perservered and now they have hundreds inducted into their air forces and are going on to their "C" variant.

But the J-10 isn't even their most extreme examples of this perserverance.

Their AIP test submarine killed a test crew of 70 but it didn't keep them from pumping out AIP subs today (and exporting them to TSP and Thailand.)

Their turbo-prop KJ-200 AWACS prototype crashed and killed 40 -- incuding many of the designing team -- but it didn't keep them from pumping out turbo-prop AWACS today (and exporting to TSP.)

The chinis simply power through their programs no matter the costs. We can't make any assumption about the LCA because none crashed (knock on wood.) But the IJT is one where we lost years because of paralysis after crashes. So yes, the PRC's bloody minded focus on their projects deserves a review.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 10 Jul 2017 16:56

If it is a question of union's lobby in HAL, cant the govt simply dissolve them and fire all instigatirs who threaten strike or violence?? Or give them a part of HAL shares (non-control ones of course) and make them a party to the profit so generated and shut them up??

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Jul 2017 17:08

chola wrote:
RKumar wrote:Two crashed of J-15 within same month

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2400122
6 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost2327652
27 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN

As per the following the links
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... -PRC/page4

Is the PLAN crying regarding bad quality or bad press? Now come think of IAF with two LCA crashes within same month, this program would have been closed for good.
Not the best example to use in the case of the LCA.

The J-15 is a mature rip-off of the SU-33 which in turn is just a navalized Flanker which the chini already have made by the hundreds. Nothing like the LCA which is a clean sheet design and program.

A better example for the LCA is their J-10 program. They lost at least one prototype and many more from their first LSPs. Yet, they perservered and now they have hundreds inducted into their air forces and are going on to their "C" variant.

But the J-10 isn't even their most extreme examples of this perserverance.

Their AIP test submarine killed a test crew of 70 but it didn't keep them from pumping out AIP subs today (and exporting them to TSP and Thailand.)

Their turbo-prop KJ-200 AWACS prototype crashed and killed 40 -- incuding many of the designing team -- but it didn't keep them from pumping out turbo-prop AWACS today (and exporting to TSP.)

The chinis simply power through their programs no matter the costs. We can't make any assumption about the LCA because none crashed (knock on wood.) But the IJT is one where we lost years because of paralysis after crashes. So yes, the PRC's bloody minded focus on their projects deserves a review.

No way a rip off performs and looks exactly like the original especially for Naval fighter, it is nothing but a screwdrivered and renamed Su-33. But the fact that the Chinese media didnt label it flying coffin and asked for its abandonment unlike our Saras speaks volumes.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 10 Jul 2017 17:33

Bala Vignesh wrote:If it is a question of union's lobby in HAL, cant the govt simply dissolve them and fire all instigatirs who threaten strike or violence?? Or give them a part of HAL shares (non-control ones of course) and make them a party to the profit so generated and shut them up??

I've posted about this earlier -- all parties are involved in the Union business. The only way to delink from this situation is to treat the Tejas division as a subsidiary and move all employees as contractors with higher incentives than other divisions. No government will be able to shut down unions.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 17:40

rahulm wrote:@AK thank you very much for the post. Clears up many things incl the narrative about IAF a being import pasand. So it's not the IAF but the MOD and it's various arms that are preventing the scale up and deployment.

I have had several interactions with NFTC pilot(s) and unanimously they love the LCA/NLCA.

A question, if I may,is the MOD modus operandi and different when manufacturing licence/CKD products ? Thanks and much appreciated.

I know I said this is my last post but taking the liberty of answering this important question. Its complexity which is inherent in any self developed project that MOD cant seem to handle. Because the are configured to have to approve everything at every stage. Now with CKDs and SKDs, approval is needed only once beacasue you are doing no development. So once you go through that tortuous process of AON (acceptance of neceissity), RFI, RFP, down select, ananynous letter complaint, referal, final decison, MOD, MOF and CCS its done. But for our own development, there are several rounds of trial and error and development and testing right? Its a complex thing - lets say DRDO needs to develop a different LRU ...approval is needed. Now who will approve...IAS guy who has no clue of the matter. Lets assume the IAS guy actually cares about national defense (a huge assumption) but he has no domain knowledge. He will naturally ask seven other people for their opinion and file will go round and round in circles. Even assuming everyone is doing their jobs the system is set up to stop work not promote it.

Then this whole L1 thing. Then audits etc. vendor development, training, transfer of tech from DRDO to production, prviate sector tendering is especially viewed as massively suspicious by auditors and babus. If PSU screws up on a new contract its okay (apna hi hai) but god forbid if a new private sector player who got a contract screws up. So all approvers in the process will play it super safe.

Its a hard and thankless job for everyone....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jul 2017 17:55

AK,

That is the process. And, yes, that can be improved. In fact, some in the West are waiting for this generation, in India, to retire. They claim the younger Indians are far better at deciding (whatever that means)(and I wonder if it has to do with the colonial shadow - diff thread).

My posts deal with another issue. One that is pretty much common to all nations, creeds and castes. As an example, the problemS posed by "scaling up" are common to one and all. Even in a extremely efficient decision making system, they will face these "problems". R&D, design, production, at each stage of the product they will face the natural laws of those stages. No way around that. Then each product will have its own problems. Just because one scaled up an Arjun will not mean (it also may mean) that one can scale up a Tejas. (I had posted - somewhere - the problem Tesla - YES - is expected to face with scaling up their Model 3. Think about that for a sec. Cars have been manufactured for a 100 years and here we are in 2017 saying Tesla may not meet their numbers in Dec, 2017, because of ................................. inability to scale - a very well known problem in the automotive world. !!!!!!!!!! )

Then there are the imported items: radar as an example, where they come as "black boxes", with an "API". How much can one expect to tool around with an "API"? It is only an interface. One cannot make changes to the "black box" and improve it, etc. Design a local missile to deal with THAT and ONLY THAT "API". How far will such a missile progress?

Such things pose a lot of problems even in a very efficient system.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jul 2017 18:02

Marten wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:If it is a question of union's lobby in HAL, cant the govt simply dissolve them and fire all instigatirs who threaten strike or violence?? Or give them a part of HAL shares (non-control ones of course) and make them a party to the profit so generated and shut them up??
I've posted about this earlier -- all parties are involved in the Union business. The only way to delink from this situation is to treat the Tejas division as a subsidiary and move all employees as contractors with higher incentives than other divisions. No government will be able to shut down unions.

The only way to teach the unions at HAL a lesson is a private firm - Tata or Adani or whoever else - needs to make foreign fighters on Indian soil for the Indian Air Force. Steal orders from them and everything else will fall in line after that.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 18:07

Competition changes everything. We need competition.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jul 2017 18:08

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
rahulm wrote:@AK thank you very much for the post. Clears up many things incl the narrative about IAF a being import pasand. So it's not the IAF but the MOD and it's various arms that are preventing the scale up and deployment.

I have had several interactions with NFTC pilot(s) and unanimously they love the LCA/NLCA.

A question, if I may,is the MOD modus operandi and different when manufacturing licence/CKD products ? Thanks and much appreciated.
I know I said this is my last post but taking the liberty of answering this important question. Its complexity which is inherent in any self developed project that MOD cant seem to handle. Because the are configured to have to approve everything at every stage. Now with CKDs and SKDs, approval is needed only once beacasue you are doing no development. So once you go through that tortuous process of AON (acceptance of neceissity), RFI, RFP, down select, ananynous letter complaint, referal, final decison, MOD, MOF and CCS its done. But for our own development, there are several rounds of trial and error and development and testing right? Its a complex thing - lets say DRDO needs to develop a different LRU ...approval is needed. Now who will approve...IAS guy who has no clue of the matter. Lets assume the IAS guy actually cares about national defense (a huge assumption) but he has no domain knowledge. He will naturally ask seven other people for their opinion and file will go round and round in circles. Even assuming everyone is doing their jobs the system is set up to stop work not promote it.

Then this whole L1 thing. Then audits etc. vendor development, training, transfer of tech from DRDO to production, prviate sector tendering is especially viewed as massively suspicious by auditors and babus. If PSU screws up on a new contract its okay (apna hi hai) but god forbid if a new private sector player who got a contract screws up. So all approvers in the process will play it super safe.

Its a hard and thankless job for everyone....

You post is spot on saar.

I can very well co-relate to the last point, from my own experience - no afsar in government system wants to take risk or responsibility of doing something different or out of usual practice (and this is not only true for an IAS babu but even for a DRDO technocrat). Perhaps because if it goes well, 100s come forth to take credit, but if it doesn't give expected results the person can be made scapegoat for that easily. The system is such that, as you correctly said, it acts to stop work and particularly the work which is different than the norm. Again as you said, there is not much incentive for doing good but there is enough negative backlash for well meaning folks in case anything goes wrong as well. There is lot of freedom for one who wants to go in wrong direction. But for someone who wants to go in right direction, its tough headwind. Few can go against it. Most good folks balk. Some simply leave. It is almost impossible to improve this system.

BTW, regarding posting those circles on Google map, you could simply take screenshot and post it here. Jingos bahot duae denge aapko..

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 Jul 2017 18:23

Aditya_V wrote:
chola wrote:
Not the best example to use in the case of the LCA.

The J-15 is a mature rip-off of the SU-33 which in turn is just a navalized Flanker which the chini already have made by the hundreds. Nothing like the LCA which is a clean sheet design and program.

A better example for the LCA is their J-10 program. They lost at least one prototype and many more from their first LSPs. Yet, they perservered and now they have hundreds inducted into their air forces and are going on to their "C" variant.

But the J-10 isn't even their most extreme examples of this perserverance.

Their AIP test submarine killed a test crew of 70 but it didn't keep them from pumping out AIP subs today (and exporting them to TSP and Thailand.)

Their turbo-prop KJ-200 AWACS prototype crashed and killed 40 -- incuding many of the designing team -- but it didn't keep them from pumping out turbo-prop AWACS today (and exporting to TSP.)

The chinis simply power through their programs no matter the costs. We can't make any assumption about the LCA because none crashed (knock on wood.) But the IJT is one where we lost years because of paralysis after crashes. So yes, the PRC's bloody minded focus on their projects deserves a review.
No way a rip off performs and looks exactly like the original especially for Naval fighter, it is nothing but a screwdrivered and renamed Su-33. But the fact that the Chinese media didnt label it flying coffin and asked for its abandonment unlike our Saras speaks volumes.

Erh Aditya ji, dee SU-33 line has been shutdown for manee manee moons onlee which was why Roos Navy piggy-backed on Bharati welfare check for MiG-29K. No SU-33 modules produced to screwdriver together, saar.

But it is a ripoff being they bought T-50 prototype from Ukraine and used deep tech transfer of SU-27 to build J-15 with same flanker components as J-11B, J-16 and all the other chini-flanker rip offs at Shenyang.

We do not know anything of its performance only that it can take off and land on a Kutznetsov class.

In three months of watching I have become chini military expert onlee.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 18:26

Screenshot not posting here. Can you tell me how ? I have taken the screen shot and tested it on my email and on word. It works. But not pasting here.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jul 2017 18:37

From reading last few pages here, I think, we need to be mature ourselves as to what information would be right and what else would be chai-walaish. Dileep ji made a disrupting statement: "mk2 injins are here, and people don't know what do with it" and hypersonic ruckus began. Think hard folks! what would you do in an org like ADA/DRDO? And, there is also this puja aspect calling a panditji to begin integration/design around the new engine. We are talking going back to wind tunnels. No? where is the charter, blessings, etc?

Kaveri is still thrusting in dry conditions and decades of monsoons gone. We don't have Ames Research type of wind tunnel testing facilities. We are unstable on telling the world where our maturity stands. Our engineering is brilliant only up to a part (LRU) level. We haven't really integrated any big projects in real-time. We are constantly bothered by Chinese matching USA, but we are nowhere and we are like that onree. Too many pressures and we get depressed pretty easily as we operate in the virtual public domain.

At the EOD, it is always about failure and successes. It is okay to imitate (for learning), innovate and re-invent, and Chinese will step into their second stage of corrections when push comes to shove. If we want to race ahead, we need to think harder about holistic enterprise-wide thinking and not at component maturity levels that we have achieved at level 5.

Integration is when we come to thoughts like - oh ASR didn't call for this design, requirements don't change or has scope buffer, forces will wait any amount time as it is our own project and we can take time with extra chai-biskooti, we thought the data on R-73 was good enough for Python5, etc. I think, we have to collectively think, considering all aspects of stakeholders, changes, future changes, what best can be accommodated in a change ahead of time, where are the tolerances, RTFM back on empirical data, deep-learn from bigger nation's failures or successes, etc. We have a big problem in integration, and this is the crux of LCA program, and this is more important because of the fact our dependencies with firang suppliers increases the criticality of our projects.[still 30-40%, but I feel 80% is injins - as the airframe itself is designed around it).

Our problems are at enterprise level thinking right from planning to delivery.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jul 2017 18:41

Rakesh wrote:
Marten wrote: I've posted about this earlier -- all parties are involved in the Union business. The only way to delink from this situation is to treat the Tejas division as a subsidiary and move all employees as contractors with higher incentives than other divisions. No government will be able to shut down unions.
The only way to teach the unions at HAL a lesson is a private firm - Tata or Adani or whoever else - needs to make foreign fighters on Indian soil for the Indian Air Force. Steal orders from them and everything else will fall in line after that.

Not sure how much that will help shape up HAL and other DPSUs. IMO, below is an approach that has a better chance of fostering desired change.

x-cross posting

Austin wrote:Hectic moves within the defence ministry suggest the Modi government is working to end one of the government's last monopolies - ordnance factories.

Repainting the white elephant - Sandeep Unnithan

...

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jul 2017 18:48

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Screenshot not posting here. Can you tell me how ? I have taken the screen shot and tested it on my email and on word. It works. But not pasting here.

After taking SS, you can paste it in Paint and then save as jpg or png image. Then save the image on some free image hosting site and post link here. The way I prefer is to put it in my Google-Drive and post link here. You can get a sharable link form there. Of coarse that does not show the image here but only a clicky is given. But I am too lazy to create account on any image hosting site. Another way I have tried is to put it on own blog site and post link here. That gives embedded image here directly. Its little painful to post images on BRF.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 18:52

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Jul 2017 18:56

Akshay Kapoor wrote:https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ts ... PMM4U/edit

Small correction. You need to select option which allows anyone who has link can access. Right now its limited access, everyone will have to ask access and you will have to grant it separately.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 19:52

Yaar its too complicated. Spent alst 2 hours on this. On Blogger now.

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jul 2017 19:59

Sir you are funny.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jul 2017 20:06

Akshay use IMGUR and just share the image

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jul 2017 20:10

X-Posting from the AMCA thread...courtesy of Karan_M

-------------------------------------------

What LCA is bringing to the table.

Link:http://www.hal-india.com/LCA-Tejas%20Di ... ore/M__187

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is the principal partner in the LCA programme with Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) acting as the Program Co-ordinator.

LCA-Production Group (LCA-PG) was launched in 2002 at HAL as the designated manufacturing unit for manufacturing the indigenously designed 4.5 generation aircraft – Tejas being designed by ADA.

LCA PG was upgraded as a full fledged Division of HAL and christened as LCA Tejas Division, under Bangalore Complex in April 2014.

LCA Tejas Division took up the challenge of manufacturing the Limited Series Production (LSP) Tejas Aircraft in line with concurrent Engineering Philosophy mode, i.e. concurrent design & productionisation.

Production system at LCA Tejas Division are geared up to handle the state of the art technologies of the Fly by wire Tejas multirole combat aircraft. Being the lightest and smallest in a class of 4.5 generation, Tejas throws up immense challenges to the production units.

The key production drivers in the Tejas aircraft are :

High percentage of carbon fibre composite (90 percent by surface area)
Metallic components with complex geometries from Titanium, Aluminum, maraging steel
Stringent EMI/EMC requirements
Tightly packed Inboards
Fully Integrated avionics, flight control and utility management systems.

So far the 16 LCA (2 Technology Demonstrators, 5 Prototype Aircraft, 7 LSP Aircraft & 1 SP Aircraft, 1 Naval prototype) have been manufactured and more than 2758 flights have been carried out.

LCA Tejas Division has been certified for “AS9100 C & ISO 9001 “QMS by TUV SUD America INC effective from July 2014.

The manufacture of the Series Production Aircraft to be supplied to IAF has commenced.

Initial Operation clearance received on Dec 20, 2013 and “Release to Service Document” handed over to IAF
The First Series Production (SP-1), in the IOC configuration, has successfully completed its maiden flight on the 30th of September 2014 & second flight on 14 Oct 2014.

New structural assembly and Final assembly facilities at HAL have been established for the series production for IAF. Hangars have been created exclusively for the LCA program and structural assembly facilities are fully established to take up production of LCA Tejas aircraft.

Series Production aircraft are being built with assembly jigs calibrated using state of the art Computer Aided Measuring System (Laser Trackers), which is currently the international calibration practice. This will ensure consistent build quality of the aircraft with necessary Interchangeability of parts for ease of maintenance in the operating squadrons. The jigs have been calibrated to 80 microns (0.08 mm) tolerances with respect to 3D Models for inter changeability features and 0.2 mm for contours were used which would ensure high quality standard in structural build.

A state of the art wing assembly facility with a 5 axis CNC wing skin drilling machine has been commissioned to ensure excellent build quality for the Carbon Fibre Composite skin and reduced cycle time for the assembly operations of Wing. This would also ensure elimination of delamination of CFC Skins associated with manual drilling. ? Pylons and Composites Drop Tanks are manufactured in house. A drop tank test station with data acquisition and reporting system is commissioned.

Looms used in LCA are produced in LCA Tejas to stringent Quality requirements for catering EMI-EMC Specifications. Automatic Cable Testers are employed for checking and certification of looms, panels.

LCA Tejas Division has an elaborate Quality Assurance system to handle both in-house production and outsourced activities. A metrology department with coordinate measuring machines, Ultrasound Scanners complement the Quality assurance of parts.

5 Axis CNC Router
CNC Precision Turn Mill Centre
CNC Billet Cutting machine
CNC Vertical Milling centre
Radial Drilling machine
Lathe Cylindrical grinding machine
Universal Milling machine
Surface grinder

LCA Tejas Division is looking forward for subcontractors for the manufacturing programs for Defence customers in the following area:

Machining
Sheet metal forming
CNC / Manual Pipe bending
Surface and heat treatment
Structural assemblies and detail / assembly tool manufacture.

Consultancy in the area of :

Concept design of workstation for marking, drilling, counter sinking and fastening of all structural elements for construction of assembly jigs.
Solution to reduce cycle time for installation of looms on aircraft and upgradation of existing loom shop with state of the art facilities.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 10 Jul 2017 20:47

Glad my misery is giving you joy Admiral ! I dont have paint at work and cant download (admin access etc) so no way of converting screenshot into jpeg. Stumbled upon ppt route and tried that which is whats on blogger.

Karan..same issue cant create a pic. I can email you the screen shot and perhaps you can do it....