LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nirav » 25 Oct 2017 23:56

Gyan wrote:Who was the Gentleman you claimed from secret sources that OFB Dhanush malfunction caused Numeruous injuries to soldiers; from pvt sources and threatened anyone who wanted to disagree hmmmm.


Yes, who was it ?
Last edited by Rahul M on 26 Oct 2017 00:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: warned & banned for trolling.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1933
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Bala Vignesh » 26 Oct 2017 00:50

Niravji,
Let's me tell you an incident that occurred with me in AI'17. I was talking to one of the Engg officers of the Flying Daggers for a small research I am working on and asked him to clarify what was the max fuel that the Tejas would carry from an operational perspective and if a MAR is factored in, what would be the fuel offload to it from the tanker, on a typical air defence sortie. And, by thunders, he politely refused to answer my question and asked me to consult the ADA brochures. This after I asked him his opinion on the performance of the 404s from their maintenance perspective and his opinion on the Kaveri ( which he again politely refused). This in an air show, next to the static LSP that ADA had displayed with a clear mention of the fuel capacity in their standee there.

Moral of the story: No one shares anything they should not, irrespective of who is asking. And if something is shared, the one who has the info is all the more concerned about the security of the said information than the one who shared it because, as the name says it, we are Bharat Rakshaks.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3931
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 26 Oct 2017 03:22

There's this great interview with an RAF exchange pilot who flew Mirage-2000C for the French Air Force. His interview on Hushkit gives some great insights into the Mirage, how it was to fly it and his views on the airplane itself.

Obviously, being a delta wing fighter, some points can be extrapolated to the Tejas as well.

Mirage-2000 pilot interview- Hushkit

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby viveks » 26 Oct 2017 04:04

I would say the M2k would give the F-16 a big run for its money even today from what I have seen from videos on youtube of both aircraft. From what I have seen...I make it my best aircraft to get my hands on...if I ever get my hands on flying it. :D

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5842
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 26 Oct 2017 04:55

This thread will be cleaned up soon, along with the SE thread. Please, no more responses on the above or replies to the above.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 26 Oct 2017 07:48

nirav wrote:This Chai wala business, is what I'm going to write to the authorities. Needs to stop.

If you want to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rahul M » 26 Oct 2017 08:12

^^^
the poster you quoted has been banned permanently.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 26 Oct 2017 08:24

Rakesh wrote:This thread will be cleaned up soon, along with the SE thread. Please, no more responses on the above or replies to the above.


Thank you god, a return to the actual topic. Let me infuse a pic.
;-)

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_P » 26 Oct 2017 08:53

Always interesting to read experiences shared by actual service people. Thanks for sharing!


Kartik wrote:There's this great interview with an RAF
exchange pilot who flew Mirage-2000C for the French Air Force.

Mirage-2000 pilot interview- Hushkit

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 26 Oct 2017 10:14

Bala Vignesh wrote:Niravji,
Let's me tell you an incident that occurred with me in AI'17. I was talking to one of the Engg officers of the Flying Daggers for a small research I am working on and asked him to clarify what was the max fuel that the Tejas would carry from an operational perspective and if a MAR is factored in, what would be the fuel offload to it from the tanker, on a typical air defence sortie. And, by thunders, he politely refused to answer my question and asked me to consult the ADA brochures. This after I asked him his opinion on the performance of the 404s from their maintenance perspective and his opinion on the Kaveri ( which he again politely refused). This in an air show, next to the static LSP that ADA had displayed with a clear mention of the fuel capacity in their standee there.

Moral of the story: No one shares anything they should not, irrespective of who is asking. And if something is shared, the one who has the info is all the more concerned about the security of the said information than the one who shared it because, as the name says it, we are Bharat Rakshaks.


This illustrates an important point - the security paradigm is tighter in the services than in DRDO. There have been many instances where there has been leak of sensitive information from the DRDO some which have been reported in the press and others that haven't. This has been brought up and discussed at the highest levels in the Raksha Mantralya. There are various reasons for this - partly the natural R&D oriented DNA of DRDO which encourages discussion of technical matters vs the operational DNA of the armed forces who will use equipment in real life and every advantage over the enemy becomes crucial ; partly the fact that during R&D parameters are not always set in stone and partly lack of operational security in DRDO. This issue is a concern, there is an active effort by our enemies to get all kinds of information (even a small scrap helps to build a collage) and I would urge everyone to be extra cautious before they post.

My point is that just because someone is sharing information with you , it doesn't mean that they have thought through all the aspects. Our institutions are not the most robust and security parameters are not the tightest/ well developed so things do slip out. Thats why individual responsibility becomes even more important. If we have access to information then its incumbent upon us to be a little extra careful in what we post. And also the questions that trigger these posts. Ramana made a good point on this above.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby vina » 26 Oct 2017 10:30

Vidur wrote:This illustrates an important point - the security paradigm is tighter in the services than in DRDO...

, there is an active effort by our enemies to get all kinds of information (even a small scrap helps to build a collage)


What is the security "paradigm" of the MoD /Govt . Is it NONE ? . All govt depts leak like a sieve. Multiple ways this happens, including through journalists, agents, all kinds of people from top to bottom (from considerations ranging from a pittance to eye popping payoffs). Heck, they probably dont even need to do any James Bond kind of snooping around. Just plain middle man / agent kind of guy will get it for them.

How is that the vendors get competitor's bid and other information. How is it that bids get skewed towards one or another party.

In addition to our "enemies" , any intelligence agency will focus their efforts wholesale at Mod and other apex ministries where the information is collated and centralised. They can get the information wholesale, and can get the entire picture. No need to collect snippets and build a collage.

For e.g., most western and other agencies (definitely Isreali and US , French, European and others) would know EVERY details about the LCA and the Kaveri engine status and also the Radar status , FAR beyond what is talked about here, leaks or open source or otherwise. You went and share RFP details with them anyways, you invited them to come and kick the tyres and fix "problems" .

Talk about missing the woods for the trees.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 26 Oct 2017 10:40

deleted

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6922
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 26 Oct 2017 11:10

Vidur wrote:This illustrates an important point - the security paradigm is tighter in the services than in DRDO. There have been many instances where there has been leak of sensitive information from the DRDO some which have been reported in the press and others that haven't. This has been brought up and discussed at the highest levels in the Raksha Mantralya. There are various reasons for this - partly the natural R&D oriented DNA of DRDO which encourages discussion of technical matters vs the operational DNA of the armed forces who will use equipment in real life and every advantage over the enemy becomes crucial ; partly the fact that during R&D parameters are not always set in stone and partly lack of operational security in DRDO. This issue is a concern, there is an active effort by our enemies to get all kinds of information (even a small scrap helps to build a collage) and I would urge everyone to be extra cautious before they post.

My point is that just because someone is sharing information with you , it doesn't mean that they have thought through all the aspects. Our institutions are not the most robust and security parameters are not the tightest/ well developed so things do slip out. Thats why individual responsibility becomes even more important. If we have access to information then its incumbent upon us to be a little extra careful in what we post. And also the questions that trigger these posts. Ramana made a good point on this above.

I have to disagree with you sir. From personal experience, I have seen and heard more blurt outs from a pompous soldier proud of his equipment than from meek DRDO civilians who are not sure of the value of their product and err on the side of caution.

For example, is there a single instance of sensitive information about the LCA leaked into any public domain, forget this thread.

There are many things that can be inferred if you are from the trade or follow the trade carefully. The Tejas program is so unfairly maligned that occasionally I and some other posters have to spoon feed these inferences to outright wrong accusations. For people who are not keenly interested in aviation this seems like tantrik knowledge or sensitive information.

Let me give you examples:
1. Max AoA or max Gs is not sensitive information, exact corner speed at different altitudes is. Does any body know these values for Tejas?
2. Features that add and decrease RCS is not sensitive information, actual RCS values are. Does any body know that?
3. Radar frequencies, range?
4. data link frequencies, range

Give me an example of sensitive information of LCA which is in the open. In comparison, the whole capabilities of our Scorpenes ...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19618
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 26 Oct 2017 11:21

"Give me an example of sensitive information of LCA which is in the open. In comparison, the whole capabilities of our Scorpenes ..."

Yes,our stunning rate of production! :rotfl:
By the way,in a recent def. mag issue,there was an ominous note in that the MK-2 LCA has not yet been approved.Only the no. of MK-1As have been mentioned,another 80+.Given that there has to be much redesigning of the Mk-2's fuselage,etc. officials/spokesmen were "tightlipped" about MK-2.I fear that MK-2 is going to become the sacrificial goat in the future even if the prototypes eventually arrive ...in favour of a foreign goat. Knowing that it may take some time before a MK-2 is developed,and by then aircraft developments globally would've leapt many steps beyond what we have today,the LCA will increasingly look obsolete,inferior to other birds flying. It's why I've suggested fast-forwarding the AMCA instead of a MK-2 which won't have stealth as a core feature. Alternatively,MK-2 should be an LCA-S,a stealth variant similar in some respects to the (paper) proposal by the MIG corp. for an SE stealth light fighter. This could be developed at very low cost if we leverage the FGFA deal (hopefully in principle sealed soon) for tech or develop it faster in a JV with a willing firang partner. Post 2030,an IAF with all 3 divisions,light ,medium and heavy ,along with a stealthy UCAV,could be the mantra/inventory of the IAF for the future.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 26 Oct 2017 11:32

Indranil wrote:
Vidur wrote:This illustrates an important point - the security paradigm is tighter in the services than in DRDO. There have been many instances where there has been leak of sensitive information from the DRDO some which have been reported in the press and others that haven't. This has been brought up and discussed at the highest levels in the Raksha Mantralya. There are various reasons for this - partly the natural R&D oriented DNA of DRDO which encourages discussion of technical matters vs the operational DNA of the armed forces who will use equipment in real life and every advantage over the enemy becomes crucial ; partly the fact that during R&D parameters are not always set in stone and partly lack of operational security in DRDO. This issue is a concern, there is an active effort by our enemies to get all kinds of information (even a small scrap helps to build a collage) and I would urge everyone to be extra cautious before they post.

My point is that just because someone is sharing information with you , it doesn't mean that they have thought through all the aspects. Our institutions are not the most robust and security parameters are not the tightest/ well developed so things do slip out. Thats why individual responsibility becomes even more important. If we have access to information then its incumbent upon us to be a little extra careful in what we post. And also the questions that trigger these posts. Ramana made a good point on this above.

I have to disagree with you sir. From personal experience, I have seen and heard more blurt outs from a pompous soldier proud of his equipment than from meek DRDO civilians who are not sure of the value of their product and err on the side of caution.

For example, is there a single instance of sensitive information about the LCA leaked into any public domain, forget this thread.

There are many things that can be inferred if you are from the trade or follow the trade carefully. The Tejas program is so unfairly maligned that occasionally I and some other posters have to spoon feed these inferences to outright wrong accusations. For people who are not keenly interested in aviation this seems like tantrik knowledge or sensitive information.

Let me give you examples:
1. Max AoA or max Gs is not sensitive information, exact corner speed at different altitudes is. Does any body know these values for Tejas?
2. Features that add and decrease RCS is not sensitive information, actual RCS values are. Does any body know that?
3. Radar frequencies, range?
4. data link frequencies, range

Give me an example of sensitive information of LCA which is in the open. In comparison, the whole capabilities of our Scorpenes ...


I have just told you the reality that there are several cases of lax operational security from DRDO. One reported in the media was a whole breifcase of sensitive documents left in a car. My comments were not directed at you or your posts but a general caution about an important matter.

Re a pompous soldier well I don't know what you mean. I came on BRF for other reasons than to be part of such stuff so I will take some leave now.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby vina » 26 Oct 2017 11:35

Indranil wrote:Give me an example of sensitive information of LCA which is in the open.


Define "sensitive" information. What is sensitive will depend on the "person" .

For sane/civilized folks, sensitive information will be technology, IP, operational details, capabilities, etc.. etc.

For Baboons/Politicos/Hatchetmen/Scumbags/Scounderels/General Dilli- Scallawags (Lutyens to low level street types) / , "sensitive" means not exposing their double dealings, skullduggery, idiocy etc.. etc.. (and this extends to the brass when they drop the ball on stuff like say project management, requirements , specs, in programs like Arjun and LCA and IGMDP and others).

Common sense isn't always what those guys talk and think about. What is "right" for you can be "sensitive" to the other guy with an agenda , since you will be exposing the bright pink backside (like that of a Baboon.. google for pics the backside of one) and the danger that it can get whacked.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 26 Oct 2017 18:50

OK, vina we get the picture. Please get off the soap box. And no personal insults.

Vidur no taking leave. Please see where Indranil is coming from.
One ex-member had just accused and threatened him of posting sensitive information.
More from intimidation point of view.
So his post was defensive wrt that ex-member
thanks for the insight.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1069
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gyan » 26 Oct 2017 19:11

Huge amount of information on Scorpene was leaked but that was not considered a big issue. Some vague information given in Def Expo etc is sought to be restricted. I think this is not to help the defense but to prevent DRDO competing with imports. I don't see any import dalal being restricted from singing songs about his imported product. Nirav attacked Karan, for what? Karan is perhaps one of 5 people on this forum who writes positive things about domestic products. I think the tantrum was to prevent positive things being written about domestic products in garb of preventing leak of sensitive issues. DRDO people publicly criticized import lobby and that is the reason Akash is being ordered today. I think that import lobby is out in full force to muzzle Desis all across the board.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JTull » 26 Oct 2017 19:31

Actually, Scorpene example shows that we cannot control information for imported products as there are many other avenues of leakage. Re: desi products, if we can then we should control information.

There's a big difference in what ADA/DRDO/HAL are working on versus what capability is in squadron service. Jingos like to drool on small nuggets of info and there's no harm in knowing if a new feature is being worked on.
Last edited by JTull on 27 Oct 2017 00:09, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 26 Oct 2017 20:25

I suspect that this "discussion" is like the 6 blind men and the elephant. Everyone who has seen one aspect says what he feels is correct. Personally I know of two "types" of information hiding in India. the first type was my cousin late Suresh who was paranoid and used to lecture me on "need to know" and would not blurt out anything more than generalities.

The other "type" is a retired DRDO man who lives nearby who is good fun to talk to because he is deep into misinformation. He says that if foreign entities get to know details - they will instantly drop prices, or deny something if they sniff that it will be used for some advancement. So it is all smoke and mirrors. But then again he kept talking about a successful program which was progressing well and that program is indeed a success..

The problem with smoke and mirrors is that it can be looked at in two ways - the positive way is that there are great advances going on but the incompetence is a bluff. The other is that nothing great is happening. The truth may be in between because of some "honest and up front people" I meet.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6922
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 26 Oct 2017 21:15

I agree. All I am saying is that all kinds of people exist in all organizations. To say the DRDO civilian is more leaky than MOD civilian is less leaky than a guy in the forces is not true from my personal experience.

I will give you an example. A copassenger on a train and I started speaking. He was handling something really sensitive and started describing how they did it. I stopped him saying that we can't discuss this. He immediately stopped but later on kept waking me up all throughout the night. He felt I must be one of the guys in white clothes who are checking for leaky buckets. He was convinced because he felt I couldn't have known what I knew as a civilian. He was scared for his job in spite of me showing him my university iCard. What he inadvertently told me is a burden for me to carry.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3931
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 26 Oct 2017 22:46

Second part of the interview with Air Cmde Rohit Verma, former Director of NFTC and former LCA Test pilot

link to video on FB

Avtar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 22 Jan 2017 02:07

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Avtar Singh » 27 Oct 2017 01:21

Kartik wrote:There's this great interview with an RAF exchange pilot who flew Mirage-2000C for the French Air Force. His interview on Hushkit gives some great insights into the Mirage, how it was to fly it and his views on the airplane itself.

Obviously, being a delta wing fighter, some points can be extrapolated to the Tejas as well.

Mirage-2000 pilot interview- Hushkit


I know this chap, from dim and distant past!!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3931
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 27 Oct 2017 02:28

Another interview on Hushkit.net, this time with a Mirage III pilot, who talks about his experience with the jet and his impressions of the jet.

Mirage III pilot interview- part 2

This part stood out-

What was the cockpit like?

“It was narrow, as was usual in French aircraft of its time (the F1 cockpit was the same). I was always very surprised whenever I saw those Phantom pilots walking towards their aircraft with a big bag in their hands; there was not room enough for a sandwich bag in the Mirage III cockpit.

It’s almost as if ergonomics was invented after the Mirage III cockpit layout was designed.We had to push or pull at least two or three switches placed in different control panels to arm the weapons. Being good at twisting your torso was compulsory. I especially remember the starting button which was placed well behind the thrust lever and you had to push it by putting your left hand about 20 cm behind your back. The radar screen had insufficient brightness so they placed a plastic cowl about 30 cm long, which protruded towards your face (the display was in the centre of the frontal panel). As a result, ‘the ball’ (the attitude indicator) was displaced to the left. It was the first and only time I’ve flown an aircraft without the ball in directly front of my eyes. Added to this is the peculiarly French custom, of having the ball’s vertical reference at the bottom. Anyway, after a dozen of or so flights you were happy with the complicated dance your fingers had to perform around the cockpit. Instead of HOTAS we had ‘HATC’, (Hands Around The Cockpit)!”

What were the best things about the Mirage III?


“First it was beautiful, complying with the first Law of Aerodynamics: ‘beautiful aircraft fly well’ (the opposite is also true, ‘ugly aircraft fly badly’).The Snecma Atar 9C was a very reliable engine, very resistant to compressor stalls and almost immune to flame out in flight. It was very easy to fly if you had enough speed, and stable around its envelope. We always flew with two supersonic fuel tanks but the aircraft behaviour was very docile. It was also very strong. It had a landing gear that would have been strong enough for carrier landings and it wasn’t unusual to see 30 people over the wings and fuselage posing for a photo. We didn’t need any ground support to start the engine. Which was very good for detachments. It was very good at accelerating in a dive, no aircraft of that time could follow us. The aerodynamics were excellent but designed for high speed.

It had double speedbrakes coming up and down the wings adding stability if you had to deploy them, and of course an Stability Augmentation System for pitch and yaw (or in french ‘tangage’ and ‘lacet’.”

What were the worse things about the Mirage III?


“It was underpowered, very underpowered, so no close or turning dogfight was possible. Common word at the time said that the Snecma Atar was a development of BMW engines of Me 262, and sometimes it appeared that this was true! Power supplied was 6700 kgs with afterburner, while normal take off weight was around 11000 kgs. There were no flaps or slats which would have aided its dogfight performance. There was also nothing to compensate for the huge induced drag caused by the big delta wing, and the very long take off and landing runs. The approach speed was 185 knots (which would need to be adjusted to accommodate any extra weight). We always used the brake chute on landings. The engine was a plain turbojet and was as thirsty as hell with or without afterburner. When we pushed it into afterburner, as we would for a whole dogfight, the fuel burning rate jumped to infinity. To worsen this problem, the internal fuel tanks had a capacity of only 2980 litres which made for two dogfights near the airfield and 45 flight minutes. That’s why we always had those two external tanks 500 litres each.”



I'm posting this because it gives readers a view into the way pilots think, what they look for in fighters, how they judge its advantages and disadvantages. Someday, I really really hope to read something of this sort about our own bird, the Tejas.

The Mirage-2000 overcame many of the core deficiencies of the Mirage III design - lousy cockpit ergonomics, high landing speeds, lack of augmented controls, lack of slats, flaps and most importantly, extremely under-powered, thirsty engines. No wonder the Mirage-2000 was considered to be a superb machine (and the most beautiful by far);

And the Tejas has all of that which the Mirage-2000 has and more. Plus, we've heard from Tejas test pilots and IAF squadron pilots about how the Tejas is even easier to handle and land than a Mirage-2000. Sometimes, people overlook these simple facts- that 99% of fighter flying involves training flights, and reliability and pilot workload matter. Pilots appreciate jets that are easy to fly, have adequate power, have good ergonomics and have eyes, ears and teeth that make their mounts nasty in a fight. The Tejas has all of these.

Now, whatever design deficiencies are may be seen on the Tejas Mk1 cannot be fully overcome with the Mk1A. Only a follow-on Mk2 variant can address those design improvements. If, and I pray that it does happen, there is a Tejas Mk2, it will be one of those ultimate light fighters. I just hope the IAF and HAL see the wisdom in pursuing the Mk2 and taking the Tejas to its most logical design goal.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 27 Oct 2017 07:26

Indranil wrote:I agree. All I am saying is that all kinds of people exist in all organizations. To say the DRDO civilian is more leaky than MOD civilian is less leaky than a guy in the forces is not true from my personal experience.
...

+1

Generalization leads to stereotypes, which by nature are not-true (as when applied to a whole group of people). Leaks can come from anyone regardless of whichever organization he/she is affiliated to. Any individual can be susceptible to influence of sorts (i.e. bribes, other favors, or threats), or trickery. It would be the responsibility of each organization to have security policies which are imparted through regular training of its employees on what are considered classified, and how to avoid situations if approached/questioned, and who to go for help. Typical practice would be sensitive information are shared as on a need-to-know basis within organizations and are compartmentalized (i.e. information related to only a subset of the whole that a person is working on). Depending on the level of sensitivity, access to those information are given to individuals after they obtain certain level of clearance. A part of the clearance process would be training on classified data handling. Then there would also be security groups within organizations that apply security policies and monitor any leakages.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2017 08:08

Indranil wrote:I will give you an example. A copassenger on a train and I started speaking. He was handling something really sensitive and started describing how they did it. I stopped him saying that we can't discuss this. He immediately stopped but later on kept waking me up all throughout the night. He felt I must be one of the guys in white clothes who are checking for leaky buckets. He was convinced because he felt I couldn't have known what I knew as a civilian. He was scared for his job in spite of me showing him my university iCard. What he inadvertently told me is a burden for me to carry.

I am sure information is leaking all the time. That is the reason why "need to know" is implemented and it is because of "need to know" that the young people at stalls in Aero India appear to know nothing about lots of things. they are simply not privy to some information.

It is easy to reach general conclusions about secrecy or lack of secrecy, so let us look at some real life examples of information that is hard to come by but which could be useful information for an adversary nation. By all means ask around for this info and see what you can dig up.

For example:
1. What are the flight safety inquiry commission reports of the IAF accidents of 2015? By now they must have some reports for that year even of later accidents are still under investigation. This information is not going to come to you easily. You may get some info about particular accidents - but you will have to spend your time as a nosey spy to try and glean information about ALL the flight accidents in 2015

2. I post this query from the engines thread. This cannot be/should not be secret. Who makes gearboxes for the Dart engine that powers the HS-748? Someone please ask and tell me. I bet most BRFites will not have a clue. I bet most people will not have a clue.

So yes - while information is available in little bits from individual sources "intelligence" is about developing large numbers of sources - or alternatively sources at the highest levels - officers and bureaucrats

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby vina » 27 Oct 2017 10:40

Folks, let get back on track and away from some random stuff about "security" and "leaks" or whatever. None of that happens here , though I am sure the BRF is followed very closely by Military Intelligence, spooks of all kinds of all stripes for "analysis" /"spin"/ whatever you want to call it. In fact, the Indo US Nuke agreement text was link-posted FIRST here , and the TV and other types picked it up from here without acknowledging it.. (I still remember Boorkha Didi, "breaking" it without batting an eyelid, as if they sniffed it out.. but I digress) ..

So getting back to topic.

Kartik wrote:The Mirage-2000 overcame many of the core deficiencies of the Mirage III design - lousy cockpit ergonomics, high landing speeds, lack of augmented controls, lack of slats, flaps and most importantly, extremely under-powered, thirsty engines. No wonder the Mirage-2000 was considered to be a superb machine (and the most beautiful by far);


While I agree with everything ELSE you wrote here, I have to disagree with the engine part. The "weakness" of the Mirage 2000 , all versions is the engine and the deficiency in installed thrust. The thrust in the Snecma M-53P2 is 95KN thrust , compare that with the baseline thrust of the original F16 A/B and the latest blocks which top at at what 140KN ?

The M53 is a classic example of incremental design and refinements of an existing engine which reached it's design limit /pinnacle in the early 80s. It's origin is the BMW 004 engine that the French got their hands on from captured originals, along with the scientists and engineers who developed it (they were moved to France.. just like Dietrich Küchemann and his assistant Johanna Weber , moved to England and worked in Royal Aircraft Establishment), which was developed in to the Atar, the Atar was further modified/developed into the M53.

Just like the original BMW 003, the Atar is a single spool design , as is the M53. The bypass in the Atar was increased to realise the M53. At each stage of that, what enabled/drove the "improvement" as underlying material development. BMW 003 --> Atar , better materials, with higher TeT. Atar-->M53 , better materials with higher TeT.

Even with the M53, the original engines came with 85KN thrust. The materials developed for the Rafale M88 was back ported to M53 , to get the the M53 P2 with a 1 Ton thrust increase, ie to 95KN thrust.

With the M53 single spool architecture, they have reached the technological limits of the single spool architecture with the existing materials. They didn't bother developing a twin spool for that, because, France was moving to the Rafale (M88 is a twin spool design).

If there is a moral in this, when the Kaveri "basic" versions, with existing materials and all is flight tested and bugs ironed out, there is a huge amount of growth possible, with sustained investment (financial, engineering and R&D) over the next 25 to 30 years. Look at the direct descendent of the BMW 003. From wiki, it shows Atar, Japanese Ne-20, Heinkel HS-20, Metropoliten Vickers F2.. etc, basically half a dozen engines which are a direct lift from it. In any case, none of the nations who inherited that BMW 003 (by whatever means), developed that further, invested money and engineering in further versions, built new designs and developed their industries over time. All nations did it, except of course , India, where we seem to be content with "successive" imports and short changing sustained engineering and R&D and other investments.

That apart, coming to Tejas, it has a higher t:w than the M2K, has an engine with a better specific fuel consumption, and my guess , not sure, probably a higher degree of static instability. All that would theoretically mean better field performance, than the M2K. Range wise, my guess is that it is not very different from the M2K. It has a similar fuel fraction with an engine with better SFC.. On paper similar range ! And of course a radar that is a Generation ahead !

(will this rant/speculation also be reported to the "powers " that be ?) :rotfl: :lol:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19618
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 27 Oct 2017 11:08

back to the report I mentioned about less than great enthu from the IAF about MK-2.105 MK-2s costing $15B is the plan on the table.But a "senior IAF official" went on record to say that the MK-2 is a "far'fetched vision.The service wants improvements on existing LCA to address all issues of looms,improvement in performance,interchangeability,improved US-made GE 414 engines,improved avionics and missiles to be fitted on it".

HAL refused to comment if there was a plan to execute a MK-2 programme.The IAF expected the MK-2 (105 aircraft) ,to come with 5th-gen elements,improved propulsion,a mounted homemade Uttam AESA radar,and a payload of 5,000kg."Major design change would have to be made to accommodate a more powerful engine" .An MOD official said that the MK-2 cannot be abandoned as it is "an important Indian made project".He added that efforts would be made to bring the project "on track" for the IAF .

This underscores my suspicion spelt out earlier that the MK-2 will eventually be dumped in favour of whatever SE bird is chosen,since there would be considerable time for the MK-2 to be designed,prototypes to be built,tested again and eventually reach production status. By this time the SE line would be chugging along quite well with a superior bird while HAL would still be manufacturing MK-iAs. It's why I mentioned that a MK-2 should be an LCA-S,a stealth derivative-with as much stealth as poss.,which would fill a global req. for an SE light stealth bird to replace all the MIG-21s and F-16s in service at reasonable cost,say between $30-40M a pop.The JSF being in the "super-car" category price wise. Otherwise,dump the LCA at this point and concentrate upon developing asap the AMCA using LCA developed tech and whatever we get from the FGFA deal.

LCA-S.How do we achieve it? Considerable redesign of the fuselage,etc. One option,using similar underwing stealth pods as seen on the SU-57 to house WVR AAMs.The large delta wing of the LCA would allow such a feature.Alternatively,two larger underwing pods on each side since the ngine is in the entre,which can each carry two AAMs,one BVR and one WVR missile in each. The same bays could carry PGMs with the smaller AAMs underwing to reduce whatever RCS penalty occurs. There is another radical redesign feature,that seen on a poss. MIG SE fighter,where as in the MIG-21,the intake is a faceted pent/hexagonal-shaped nose around the radar cone.But thta would still require stealth pods/bays and would be almost a completely new design.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3549
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 27 Oct 2017 11:25

Philip wrote:back to the report I mentioned about less than great enthu from the IAF about MK-2.105 MK-2s costing $15B is the plan on the table. But a "senior IAF official" went on record to say that the MK-2 is a "far'fetched vision.The service wants improvements on existing LCA to address all issues of looms,improvement in performance,interchangeability,improved US-made GE 414 engines,improved avionics and missiles to be fitted on it".


Precisely this kind of thinking sets up our desi programs for failure. This leads to terrible program management.

PS: fixed bolding.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19618
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 27 Oct 2017 11:45

The LCA has suffered from birth becos there has been no Dir-Gen. of the ADA! Such a post carries with it supreme power to hire and fire and iron out wrinkles,glitches,etc. as the responsibility for success lies on his shoulders principlly. When a most reputed air force Sr. AM ,with a proven track record ,a former VCoAS , was repeatedly chosen by selection boards (including the PM!) to head it as such. Babudom and vested interests scuttled it becos he would be a "hire and fire" gent.not putting up with BS esp. from the GTRE who conned Kalaam.Instead the post of DG was never filled only project heads,directors,whatever.So as in committees generally,issues go round the table endlessly,with no time constraints,The former VCoAS was adamant from the start that the engine was the key to success and had to do the biz.A badly overweight LCA was put together in not perfect manner,which being obese hasn't met expected performance specs,that too after 3 decades of development. What the IAF is asking for the MK-2 is very reasonable.The Q is who is in charge?

Take the JSF programme for instance.Gen. Bogdan has been in charge for years ,recentyl retd. did not resorted to BS,acknowledging flaws,delays,etc.,but kept everyone in the loop and despite the delays,has turned round the programme to an extent.It is still hideously expensive,but the Yanquis can afford it after having spent a trillion+ already.

But most importantly the entire programme is headed by the military,experienced military men with proven track records ! HAL repeatedly refused to allow former Sr. AMs to be part of the org. or to head it.
Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to blame? This was the piece posted by Shiv in 2015.Anyyway,here's how the US manages to clean up its sh*t.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... successor/
WASHINGTON— Leadership of the F-35 program office is expected to change hands this year, with the current deputy director taking the reins of the program.

Navy Rear. Adm. Mat Winter, currently the F-35 deputy program executive officer, will be named head of the program when Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan retires this summer, the Pentagon announced. Winter will also be promoted to vice admiral.

Winter joined the F-35 office in 2016. Before that he served as the chief of Naval Research.

The F-35 will not be Winter's first experience managing a controversial, high-profile program of record. As the Navy's program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, he oversaw the development of the X-47, a stealthy unmanned aircraft that could autonomously launch from a carrier. He also was responsible for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program, which was cancelled after myriad problems including schedule slippage and changing requirements. UCLASS has now translated into a Navy program of record for an unmanned, carrier-launched tanker.

Winter has held several jobs inside the F-35 program office, even before his current job as deputy PEO. According to his Navy biography, he was executive assistant of the F-35 program director and chief engineer for joint strike fighter integrated flight and propulsion control.

Bogdan came aboard as JPO head in 2012, at a time when the F-35 program had earned itself a reputation as a programatic black hole, behind schedule and significantly overcost. In his first public comments after taking the job, Bogdan put the blame for that largely on the industrial partners, famously saying the relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin was "the worst I've ever seen."

Shortly after that speech, the relationship between Lockheed and Bogdan began to improve. Still, Bogdan carved out a reputation for himself as a hard-nosed negotiator, one who was canny in using public statements to keep pressure on Lockheed. Under his watch, the program got itself largely back on track, while costs have continued to come down.

*(3 cheers for Gen.Bogged-Down"!)

During his tenure, the F-35 achieved initial operating capability for the Marines in 2015 and the Air Force in 2016, with the Navy still to go. It also added several new customers among international partners.


PS:I strongly advise the MOD to get hold of Gen. Bogdan now retd. and "footloose and fancy free",like we did with Dr.Kurt Tank,and get him asap to oversee the LCA as a consultant,advising us on a roadmap for the future and helping choose a worthy DG to head the programme.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Viv S » 27 Oct 2017 13:07

Philip wrote:Take the JSF programme for instance.Gen. Bogdan has been in charge for years ,recentyl retd. did not resorted to BS,acknowledging flaws,delays,etc.,but kept everyone in the loop and despite the delays,has turned round the programme to an extent.It is still hideously expensive,but the Yanquis can afford it after having spent a trillion+ already.

Trillion dollars huh? Sure take the life-cycle cost estimate for 55 years i.e. upto 2070 and tell people that's the sum already spent. The problem commissar is that when you're making stuff up, as a matter of habit, people recognise the pattern, and even your truths will end up treated with the same contempt as the lies.
Last edited by Viv S on 28 Oct 2017 00:25, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2017 22:17

Philip, A few points.

- Until the Mk2 was announced there was no requirements for it.
- HAL has had many retired IAF officers as CMD E.g. AM M.S.D. Wollen (R) et al...
- Pentagon has military officers for running its weapons development and procurement process. So F-35 will have military officer.
- GTRE has been underfunded and under oversight even by IAF. If high officers were so agitated about the engine what was done?
- Kalam is not one who gets hood winked.

I can go on and on.


Really you should stop these rants as they don't bring anything for discussion.
Please don't do that again.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2017 22:24

The LCA Mk2 will mean the airframe gets extended/longer. That means the whole testing program redone.
Hence the so called Mk2 features other than that to be incorporated in the Mk1A.
Pleased don't go on polemics.

The SEF is a political decision to entice the US using the fighter shortfall. Its not LCA or SEF. its both.
This has been going on since the early 1960s.
US wants a lot of money with strings attached so planes are used for fly-past displays or as their auxiliary forces when needed in their gun boat wars.

They are not getting enticed and the corrupt Swedes (folks have bribed most of the arms procurements and don't get thrown out) have interjected into the competition muddying it.
That's the problem.

If US doesn't play then this Swedish offer is most stupid to take.
We spend money and don't get leverage.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2017 22:26

vina wrote:I still remember Boorkha Didi, "breaking" it without batting an eyelid, as if they sniffed it out.. but I digress) ..



How can one bat false eyelashes!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3931
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 27 Oct 2017 23:12

vina wrote:While I agree with everything ELSE you wrote here, I have to disagree with the engine part. The "weakness" of the Mirage 2000 , all versions is the engine and the deficiency in installed thrust. The thrust in the Snecma M-53P2 is 95KN thrust , compare that with the baseline thrust of the original F16 A/B and the latest blocks which top at at what 140KN ?

The M53 is a classic example of incremental design and refinements of an existing engine which reached it's design limit /pinnacle in the early 80s. It's origin is the BMW 004 engine that the French got their hands on from captured originals, along with the scientists and engineers who developed it (they were moved to France.. just like Dietrich Küchemann and his assistant Johanna Weber , moved to England and worked in Royal Aircraft Establishment), which was developed in to the Atar, the Atar was further modified/developed into the M53.

Just like the original BMW 003, the Atar is a single spool design , as is the M53. The bypass in the Atar was increased to realise the M53. At each stage of that, what enabled/drove the "improvement" as underlying material development. BMW 003 --> Atar , better materials, with higher TeT. Atar-->M53 , better materials with higher TeT.

Even with the M53, the original engines came with 85KN thrust. The materials developed for the Rafale M88 was back ported to M53 , to get the the M53 P2 with a 1 Ton thrust increase, ie to 95KN thrust.

With the M53 single spool architecture, they have reached the technological limits of the single spool architecture with the existing materials. They didn't bother developing a twin spool for that, because, France was moving to the Rafale (M88 is a twin spool design).

If there is a moral in this, when the Kaveri "basic" versions, with existing materials and all is flight tested and bugs ironed out, there is a huge amount of growth possible, with sustained investment (financial, engineering and R&D) over the next 25 to 30 years. Look at the direct descendent of the BMW 003. From wiki, it shows Atar, Japanese Ne-20, Heinkel HS-20, Metropoliten Vickers F2.. etc, basically half a dozen engines which are a direct lift from it. In any case, none of the nations who inherited that BMW 003 (by whatever means), developed that further, invested money and engineering in further versions, built new designs and developed their industries over time. All nations did it, except of course , India, where we seem to be content with "successive" imports and short changing sustained engineering and R&D and other investments.

That apart, coming to Tejas, it has a higher t:w than the M2K, has an engine with a better specific fuel consumption, and my guess , not sure, probably a higher degree of static instability. All that would theoretically mean better field performance, than the M2K. Range wise, my guess is that it is not very different from the M2K. It has a similar fuel fraction with an engine with better SFC.. On paper similar range ! And of course a radar that is a Generation ahead !


Agree on the M-53 and the M-53P2 not giving the Mirage-2000, F-16 level T/W ratio, but it wasn't as bad as the Mirage-III either. Great post BTW!

The Tejas Mk2 really should be the light fighter that the IAF settles on. It really is the last chance to perfect the single engine light fighter indigenously.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3931
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 27 Oct 2017 23:23

Philip wrote:back to the report I mentioned about less than great enthu from the IAF about MK-2.105 MK-2s costing $15B is the plan on the table.But a "senior IAF official" went on record to say that the MK-2 is a "far'fetched vision.The service wants improvements on existing LCA to address all issues of looms,improvement in performance,interchangeability,improved US-made GE 414 engines,improved avionics and missiles to be fitted on it".


That "senior IAF official" isn't talking sense. the GE F-414 engine can only come on a Tejas Mk2. That itself was what was leading to a Mk2 program. Existing Tejas Mk1 or Mk1A's cannot be re-engined with a higher thrust engine without significant amount of re-work. Mk1As are supposed to address some of the changes that the IAF wants. Interchangeability will come as production practices have improved to what is now world-class tolerances. Improved avionics? Like what? Missiles are being integrated and will continue to be integrated. Nothing stops that process from continuing.

HAL refused to comment if there was a plan to execute a MK-2 programme.The IAF expected the MK-2 (105 aircraft) ,to come with 5th-gen elements,improved propulsion,a mounted homemade Uttam AESA radar,and a payload of 5,000kg."Major design change would have to be made to accommodate a more powerful engine" .An MOD official said that the MK-2 cannot be abandoned as it is "an important Indian made project".He added that efforts would be made to bring the project "on track" for the IAF .


5000 kg payload huh? So they're basically setting the target to be just about what the Gripen E can achieve. Definitely possible, since the Gripen E has a F-414 engine variant only.

I'm amazed at the myopia that the IAF seems to be showing time and again. It's as if the past hasn't taught the IAF's senior hierarchy anything at all! To dump an indigenous program that could be made into one of the best light fighters in the world, that too completely tailored to the IAF's requirements, in favour of a foreign import license built in India, just because the indigenous program may take 3-4 more years to get into production is nothing but the most shortsighted, foolish approach the IAF could possibly take. This short-cut giri has to stop somewhere!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6922
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 28 Oct 2017 10:24

We should not confuse the opinion of a "senior IAF officer" with the IAF itself. I would be very happy if IAF clearly defines what it wants from Mk2.

But I hope it is not 5 tons payload from a light fighter when it has medium and heavy fighters. There is weight penalty of such a design which the plane has to carry whether it is carrying 5 Tons of payload or not. I would invest in more internal fuel instead.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7841
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Pratyush » 28 Oct 2017 10:50

Indranil wrote:We should not confuse the opinion of a "senior IAF officer" with the IAF itself. I would be very happy if IAF clearly defines what it wants from Mk2.

But I hope it is not 5 tons payload from a light fighter when it has medium and heavy fighters. There is weight penalty of such a design which the plane has to carry whether it is carrying 5 Tons of payload or not. I would invest in more internal fuel instead.


It seems that the officer wants Tejas to grow up and become super Tejas. Like it was done with the super hornet. But that became a separate design by it self. Inspite of having hornet name.

Even 414 will not support such growth. May be al 31 will. But it will be a 5 year development program at minimum if a start is made today for the first flight and another 5 for completion of test program.

While this activity is being conducted, the AMCA will be reaching conclusion. If a start is made today as well.

Interesting set of choices.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 810
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby neerajb » 28 Oct 2017 11:21


gunnvant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 05 Sep 2017 10:40

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby gunnvant » 28 Oct 2017 11:44

neerajb wrote:


Jingo is very-very happy. Thanks for share.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests