LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Apr 2017 00:03

So what does it take to design a extra large fuel tank? Why not do a study and come up with one.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 26 Apr 2017 00:20

On extra large maybe transonic external fuel tank papers are already out on 1332lt optimized EFT may be using the entire 1200Kg weight possible on both inward wing stations.

On supersonic tank 710lt centreline EFT paper was out.

So far no paper on large supersonic EFT for inward wing stations but talk about 720lt supersonic tanks to be designed was there.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 26 Apr 2017 00:53

Indranil wrote:
shiv wrote:Let them do what they want. We too can lift freely from them.
I know. I don't want to put watermarks on pictures derived from public tenders. But they don't even take the effort of finding the tender. They take my picture, add their watermark. They copy the posts from here and change the language a bit and present as their report. Whatever masala they add is horrible and often untrue. And then they add a legal notice of intellectual property at the end . I mean how dishonest and shameless can you be?

I think I am at the end of my patience. I have already stopped posting the links to the tenders (let them do their work). I will start watermarking my pictures. I will find out if I can use BR's watermark. I also probably adopt a BENIS like solution, and we can have a good laugh once a month.

Please post more about the Yakolev solution that will enable the Tejas to carry 7 tons.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 26 Apr 2017 01:26

Indranil Sir,
At the risk of committing sacrilege on the forum, I dont mind plagiarizing from BRF for two reasons
1. spreads the right ideas, enough Coupta's coup and DButt's misguided youth spreading kashmiriyat
2. Motivates esteemed BRF contributors to write articles which can be shared through BRF cabal.
Pardon the nanha mujahid for stepping on his own implanted IED

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Apr 2017 06:47

I don't mind your spreading the word. I am actually thankful for that. But whoever is writing those reports should cite their sources properly. IDRW seems to be give all kinds of names to their sources: industry, official, IDRW internal, exclusive etc. for reports which are basically reworded posts from here, that appear on IDRW a week or two after the post appears here.

Just say something like. "According to recent discussions on military forums", and add a link to discussion. Other alternatives include: "first uncovered here"; or "more details" or "further discussions". There are many ways of doing this right.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Apr 2017 07:03

ramana wrote:So what does it take to design a extra large fuel tank? Why not do a study and come up with one.

They are doing study after study. Truth be told, it is easier said than done. But it shouldn't take this long. There are similar stories with pylons etc. They let perfect be the enemy of the good. There are program managers who want to hog credit and stifle communication between groups till they can find the opportune moment for them to hog the limelight. Problem is that there is no real head of the program whose work is to see LCA integrated in IAF in hundreds and on time.

I really want to do honest criticism of the program here. But there are people here who can't get over discussing brochures, number of engines or what Dr. Kalam said 15 years ago.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Apr 2017 07:06

Indranil wrote:What is so great about carrying more loads. I will share something again that I had shared before. LCA's TO capabilities are amazing. It takes off so easily at Leh, that it has surprised all test pilots, and even the design team.
.

Indranil - it's my teeth again. I may be completely off here - but when you design a plane with a low wing loading, is it not, by definition, going to produce more lift per unit speed at high altitude - simply because - to use a tooth-gap expression - the huge wing area "catches more air".

Let me stick my longest buck-tooth out here by saying that with low wing loading a plane is more likely to be manoeuvrable at high altitude - I am not saying this in the "dogfight" air combat sense - but flying in narrow valleys at 20,000 feet in the Himalayas may suddenly produce a tall peak up ahead that needs to be cleared (unless one wants to crash into it). This is where high altitude manoeuvrability really comes into its own.

I repeat for the 2nd or 3rd time a story of a rule-breaker IAF pilot who flew his Jaguar low over the Staff college in the Nilgiris for the benefit of friends. After a particularly low pass his Jaguar was unable to pull up above a mountain peak up ahead and he crashed into it. For the same reason the Jag later did not work well in Kargil

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Apr 2017 07:14

ArjunPandit wrote:Indranil Sir,
At the risk of committing sacrilege on the forum, I dont mind plagiarizing from BRF for two reasons
1. spreads the right ideas, enough Coupta's coup and DButt's misguided youth spreading kashmiriyat
2. Motivates esteemed BRF contributors to write articles which can be shared through BRF cabal.
Pardon the nanha mujahid for stepping on his own implanted IED

For a long time I have felt that blogs and forums like BRF have helped move new ideas into the public domain because there are some things that cannot be said in the straitjacketed world of "media articles" (at least in the old days). Blurting it out on a forum and then having forum members echo it allows the information to be picked up by search engines - and later read by one of the straitjacketed people who cannot live it down ever if he admits that he got information from an anonymous internet forum. So he writes it like he thought of it. If the idea is good - let the bugger claim it as long as the idea is spread around.

Credit and attribution are all good but if I think of something new on BRF I gain absolutely nothing by claiming copyright after posting it on a public forum. But if I really want the idea to spread - I need to stop thinking about credit and let the idea do its job. I think many BRFites are guilty of having invented plenty of expressions and concepts that have become commonly used, if not mainstream. Who cares - "Put the credit on "Mahatma Gandhi's account" (or as Tamil speakers may understand "Gandhi kanak")

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Apr 2017 10:09

shiv wrote: Indranil - it's my teeth again. I may be completely off here - but when you design a plane with a low wing loading, is it not, by definition, going to produce more lift per unit speed at high altitude - simply because - to use a tooth-gap expression - the huge wing area "catches more air".

Let me stick my longest buck-tooth out here by saying that with low wing loading a plane is more likely to be manoeuvrable at high altitude - I am not saying this in the "dogfight" air combat sense - but flying in narrow valleys at 20,000 feet in the Himalayas may suddenly produce a tall peak up ahead that needs to be cleared (unless one wants to crash into it). This is where high altitude manoeuvrability really comes into its own.

I repeat for the 2nd or 3rd time a story of a rule-breaker IAF pilot who flew his Jaguar low over the Staff college in the Nilgiris for the benefit of friends. After a particularly low pass his Jaguar was unable to pull up above a mountain peak up ahead and he crashed into it. For the same reason the Jag later did not work well in Kargil

Yes. Another way to look at it is you can generate the required lift at lower speed and/or higher efficiency. However, there are no free lunches. Wing loadings achieved by just making a big wing is detrimental in many other ways. Shape of the wing etc. are all important criteria. And the most beautiful thing is that everything affects everything. That is why it is so interesting for me to study all these designs, knowing fully well that the designers are near geniuses.

The Jaguar is one of the most maneuverable and nimble aircraft at Nilgiri heights (and one of the worst at Kargil heights). It sounds like the young pilot was playing it by the ear, and erred. It was probably too close for any fighter aircraft.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 26 Apr 2017 13:56

Tejas-LCA admin at Facebook says "Plan is to have till Sp7 by this year end"

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 26 Apr 2017 14:17

ashishvikas wrote:Tejas-LCA admin at Facebook says "Plan is to have till Sp7 by this year end"

What does this mean? Please explain the rona dhona icon.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Apr 2017 14:42

Its too slow a rate. If they want to have 8/yr in 2017-18 as planned they should have at least till SP9 rolling out by this yr end. And then till SP12 by March end 2018.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Apr 2017 00:59

So why not ask status of SP-8 and SP-9 on the LCA Facebook page?

What % complete and when they are expected to roll out?

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Apr 2017 07:18

^^^

We should be able to extrapolate from Anantha Krishnan's reports.

March 24, 2016

SP-3 -> all set to enter the equipping and final assembly (first flight occurred on Sep 28, 2016)
SP-4 -> ready to go for coupling
SP-5 -> components are already on the jig
SP-6 & SP 7 -> some of the modules are entering the jig
SP-8 -> loading the components also on to the jig within a month

Assembly capacity is at 6 Jigs.

Jan 31, 2017

SP-4 -> moved to the final stages of systems checking (first flight occurred on Mar 3, 2017)
SP-5 & SP-6 -> in different stages of assembly and undergoing equipping
SP-7 - SP-11 -> different modules have hit the production floor now

Assembly capacity is at 8 Jigs.

Based on the above, this seems to be the pace of assembly (if it remains the same).

Beginning of component loading on jig to completion -> around 22 months (SP-8 as a guide if delivered by Mar 2018)
Some components entering the jig to completion -> 18-20 months (SP-6 & SP-7 as a guide if delivered by Dec 2017)
Components already on Jig to completion -> more than 14 months (SP-5 as a guide if delivered within the next couple of months)
All sets equipping and final assembly to maiden flight -> 6 months (SP-3 as a guide)
Coupling to maiden flight -> 12 months (SP-4 as a guide)
Final systems check to maiden flight -> 2 months (SP-4 as a guide)
Maiden flight to the IAF induction -> 3 months (SP-3 as a guide)

With outsourcing of wings, fuselage and fins, HAL is moving towards being the final integrator--meaning final assembly would follow SP-4 coupling-to-flight timelines of 12-months. IMO, the production flow rate of once a month (or once every two months) delivery would happen from 2019 onward.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Apr 2017 07:46

JayS wrote:Its too slow a rate. If they want to have 8/yr in 2017-18 as planned they should have at least till SP9 rolling out by this yr end. And then till SP12 by March end 2018.

When HAL talks about 8/year etc. they seem to be talking more about production capacity rather than delivery of product to end-user.

From my post above, it seems HAL has reached it targeted capacity of 8 LCA "jigs". They can manufacture/assemble 8 aircraft at a time. However, for those to reach completion (final assembly, flight checks and delivery to the IAF) in a regular manner we will most likely start seeing that in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Apr 2017 07:59

srai wrote:
JayS wrote:Its too slow a rate. If they want to have 8/yr in 2017-18 as planned they should have at least till SP9 rolling out by this yr end. And then till SP12 by March end 2018.
When HAL talks about 8/year etc. they seem to be talking more about production capacity rather than delivery of product to end-user.

From my post above, it seems HAL has reached it targeted capacity of 8 LCA "jigs". They can manufacture/assemble 8 aircraft at a time. However, for those to reach completion (final assembly, flight checks and delivery to the IAF) in a regular manner we will most likely start seeing that in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

8/yr was delivery plan for this yr. They have to finish IOC batch by mid 2018-19. HAL has already put up additional jigs because they cannot finish certain steps in targeted time. They should be delivering 8 jets this year. Anything less is backlog.

Even SP4 is not inducted by now.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Apr 2017 08:17

^^^
They seem to be at least a year (or two) out from meeting the "delivery" targets. They have only reached their "capacity" targets as of this year.

Regarding SP-4 induction to the IAF:
If we take SP-3 as a guide, maiden flight (Sep 28, 2016) to IAF induction (Dec 29, 2016) is around 3 months. So we can expect SP-4 (Mar 3, 2017) to be inducted into the IAF around June 3, 2017.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 27 Apr 2017 13:41

srai Sir, if the delays in approval of new spaces are taken into account, the schedule is not badly off. I mean the space constraint is what lead to the Kiran maintenance shed being taken over. Makes sense to expect a lag. Before FMs start another round of crying and cribbing, we need to figure when the SOP was last updated and how it affects the schedule.

Dileep saar already conveyed that the FOC itself is a year out. Perhaps there are elements that need to be worked on before more SPs are certified. Would be nice to hear what CEMILAC has to say too.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 28 Apr 2017 15:11

Indranil wrote:Landmark tenders for Mk1A from HAL's ARDC:

Supply of AESA Radar for Light Combt Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme

Main aspects:
3 aircraft for Trial Modification and certification phase and subsequently against anticipated orders for 80 aircraft sets for series production. HAL is also required to undertake the following during the series production phase:
a) Repair/overhaul/servicing of AESA Radar and connected items by HAL at its facilities under a Transfer of Technology (TOT) agreement. – TOT ROH to be signed with the selected vendor at the appropriate stage.
b) Phased manufacture of Radar systems under a Transfer of Technology (TOT) agreement.- TOT Manufacturing to be signed with the selected vendor at the appropriate stage.The series production is expected to commence from year 2019. The production of Radar systems is planned to be executed in a phased manner as follows.
- Phase-0: Direct purchase of 24 Radar system sets in fully formed condition.
- Phase-1: Manufacture of 08 Radar system sets by HAL based on Semi Knocked Down (SKD) kits to be supplied by the vendor.
- Phase-2: Manufacture of 48 Radar system sets by HAL based on transfer of technology to HAL by the vendor.
During this phase, vendor shall ensure that HAL work content shall be more than or equal to 40% by value of the unit price of each Radar system.
Vendor shall provide a comprehensive proposal for TOT-MFG for setting up of facility at HAL for manufacturing of the Radar system.
Supply of EW suite for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme

List of vendors: ELBIT SYSTEMS, ELTA SYSTEMS, SAAB, THALES, ELETTRONICA S.P.A, RAYTHEON, INDRA SYSTEMS.
Same idea: 3 aircrafts for modification and certification, 24 outright purchase, 8 in SKD and 48 under TOT-MFG. TOT-ROH to be signed separately.

Any news on these 2 Tenders ?? I don't see them on HAL site now, So they are closed after couple of Extensions.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 28 Apr 2017 21:46

Update from Tejas-LCA Facebook page:

Dr Girish Deodhare has been appointed as the new Programme Director of ADA. Under his able leadership, Tejas will see greater heights. Truly, a welcome step for the program.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 28 Apr 2017 23:37

Great news.

Dr. Girish Deodhare graduated with B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering and M.Tech. Degree in Control and Instrumentation, from IIT Bombay in 1984 and 1986 respectively. He earned his PhD in Control Theory from the University of Waterloo in Canada, in 1990.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 29 Apr 2017 10:33

Finally!!! The entire team was waiting for this.

dkhare · Post by **dkhare** » 01 May 2017 20:39

Awesome! Saw him with Cmd Balaji on NDTV's Walk the Talk with Team Tejas program - he was the Associate Program Director, ADA. Here is link if interested:
http://www.ndtv.com/video/shows/walk-th ... jas-434144

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2017 00:10

Dileep wrote:Finally!!! The entire team was waiting for this.

Yes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2017 01:18

HAL is outsourcing the manufacturing of LCA's AMAGB. In the EOI, the following tentative schedule is presented.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2017 01:56

So that's the production schedule for the 115 LCAs.

What is AMAGB please?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 02 May 2017 02:03

Indranil wrote:
Dileep wrote:Finally!!! The entire team was waiting for this.
Yes.

Why ? I mean was there a chance of someone else being appointed.
Any other reasons ...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 May 2017 02:16

ramana wrote:So that's the production schedule for the 115 LCAs.

What is AMAGB please?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2017 03:37

Indranil, Thanks.
My only gripe is IAF squadrons are 18 planes. HAL plans to deliver 16 a year. I wish they could pull two planes to the left to achieve 1 squadron year after the full rate is established.
But that would involve extra jigs, supply chain revamp etc.

I get SP are LCA IOC Batch 1.
Do they have a different alpha designators for the LCA FOC Batch 2?

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 May 2017 05:58

ramana wrote:Indranil, Thanks.
My only gripe is IAF squadrons are 18 planes. HAL plans to deliver 16 a year. I wish they could pull two planes to the left to achieve 1 squadron year after the full rate is established.
But that would involve extra jigs, supply chain revamp etc.
...

HAL has mentioned that after outsourcing of all major components like wings, fins and fuselage they will have space for 25/year capacity. Outsourced components are supposed to begin deliveries sometime in 2018-2019. That would be when jigs associated with those components would be removed/transferred and that would free up space.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2017 06:08

Ok. So can hope for better numbers once that happens.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 May 2017 06:28

Indranil wrote:HAL is outsourcing the manufacturing of LCA's AMAGB. In the EOI, the following tentative schedule is presented.

If the AMAGB are being delivered as shown in those years, we can expect at least around 12-months from that to LCA production completion. So if 12 AMAGB are being delivered during 2017-18, then those 12 LCA Batch-1 would be completed in 2018-19.

All signs indicate 2018-19 would be when LCA production will start delivering planes in regular intervals. Hopefully, there won't be delays with Mk1A qualifications otherwise that would disrupt the full-flow of production being achieved in 2020.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 May 2017 06:48

ramana wrote:Ok. So can hope for better numbers once that happens.

It would take around 2 to 3 years from that to see the deliveries increase. So 2020-21 would be when we start seeing those better numbers.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 02 May 2017 10:21

The above production plan for lca is already delayed by a year and the delay will be covered only when rate goes up to 25 lca/year.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 May 2017 01:09

Any chance that the Tejas Mk1 will be present at next month's Le Bourget Paris Air Show? it is one of the most high profile Air Shows and will bring a lot of attention to the Tejas program and I'm sure, a lot of interest from potential customers.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 09 May 2017 01:53

What is the status of procurement of AESA Radar + EW Suite for LCA Mk1A? Weren't the vendor bids scheduled to be opened in April?

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 09 May 2017 14:46

srai wrote:^^^
They seem to be at least a year (or two) out from meeting the "delivery" targets. They have only reached their "capacity" targets as of this year.

Regarding SP-4 induction to the IAF:
If we take SP-3 as a guide, maiden flight (Sep 28, 2016) to IAF induction (Dec 29, 2016) is around 3 months. So we can expect SP-4 (Mar 3, 2017) to be inducted into the IAF around June 3, 2017.

In a reply to one of questions on FB, Tejas Admins says 4 fighters have been handed over to IAF, which means SP4 have joined IAF by now.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 May 2017 14:50

4 comes from SP1,2,3 + trainer(dont think SP4 is inducted

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 09 May 2017 15:01

srai wrote:
Indranil wrote:HAL is outsourcing the manufacturing of LCA's AMAGB. In the EOI, the following tentative schedule is presented.

If the AMAGB are being delivered as shown in those years, we can expect at least around 12-months from that to LCA production completion. So if 12 AMAGB are being delivered during 2017-18, then those 12 LCA Batch-1 would be completed in 2018-19.

All signs indicate 2018-19 would be when LCA production will start delivering planes in regular intervals. Hopefully, there won't be delays with Mk1A qualifications otherwise that would disrupt the full-flow of production being achieved in 2020.

As the schedule is already running late, we should up the production capacity to 24 aircraft especially for Mk-1A

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 09 May 2017 15:10

SP4 was expected to be handed over to 45th Sq a week previous to last week (chaiwalla news). I was expecting some news or something. But nothing came. I think its done if FB admin says 4 are handed over.