Philip wrote:Bolded gems? The truth does hurt esp. for the taxpayer.
Suryag and others, tx for the criticism accepted in good grace but consider the following.
Just imagine that the ADA does not exist ( it never did when we built the HF-24) and that there are only two parties to the programme.End-user and manufacturer.They can cooperate and sort out design/ dev. issues themselves, division of roles without any interlocutor agency that only adds to the bureaucratic pile-up , like a multiple vehicle crash on a foggy, smoggy day on a Delhi expressway! Plus abolishing the ADA will save enormous amounts of money by avoiding duplication of staff, time in communications between the end-user and industry, not to mention the reduced MOD red tape, thus accelerating project completion and bringing huge savings to the project cost.The ADA simply adds another unwanted layer of bureaucratic control over the core aspect of a product's design and dev. which is best handled by the end-user or industry.
There are no ADA equivs. either in Europe, the US or Russia in the aircraft industry.There are design bureau's like Sukhoi, MIG,Tupolev, etc. in Russia and huge defence MNCs like BAe, Dassault,Lockheed or Boeing in the West who do not have an interlocutor in between telling them what to do for their aircraft programmes.In both the US and Russia, design bureaus compete for a defence requirement.Take the one for the USAF fighter won by the F-16 .The loser, F-17 was redesigned into the USN's F-18.Likewise the contest between SU and MIG for Russia's 5th- gen bird.MIG's I- 42 lost out.
I still strongly feel that the ADA must be dissolved or totally absorbed by either the IAF or HAL.Less duplication of management and non- essential staff too.
Trying to reform its structure will be another great opportunity for babudom to delay matters and yet again ensure its control over an entity that has proven to have been detrimental as far as the LCA is concerned.
Are we not at the same stage as the HF-24 when it comes to a suitable engine for a desi aircraft? At least the HF-24 also came with its guns! The LCA has yet to test this vital component , essential for both dogfighting and GA/CS.
Then there's the little issue reg. radar? Is Uttam going the same was as the Kaveri?
We've mastered production of MKI TVC engines entirely from Desi raw material, 50 built so far out of a total of 350+ produced with varying degrees of desi %. For the AMCA we could easily manufacture a derivative of the TVC engines being used on the MIG-35 ,or as said many a time the TVC option of the same EJ engine used on the EF Typhoon.The TVC EJ should also be considered for future improved LCA variants .
The success of the AMCA will be its engine.We must first decide upon the engine/s, have a second prototype flying with an alternative too, before embarking upon the rest of the design.Oncd the powerplant details are known fixing the design /dimensions, etc. of the aircraft will be easier accomplished otherwise choosing the engine first and trying to shoe-horn it into a fixed design will result in another underpowered LCA fiasco. The new 414 engine for the MK-2 will effectively result in a new design!
Again, while I have myself have advocated merging ADA with some private company and do not favour separate design and mfg organisations, its difficult to take you seriously if you cannot see the simple fact that ADA was in fact created to avoid red tapism in our system. Despite being notionally under DRDO it functions very autonomously. It was formed with creme layer taken from all government agencies such as DRDO/HAL/ISRO/NAL. ADA is quite lean and agile compared to any government entity, much like ISRO and work-cuturewise, I daresay, better than even majority of private companies in BLR. If not for ADA, LCA would have been crawling even worse. The real problem with the set-up was that ADA was given only money and responsibility of project management and execution but no authority over other stake holders such as HAL. And since 2006 its the combined ADA-IAF-HAL committee chaired by the RM which governs the LCA project, not ADA. A simple fact that ADA was very easily sidelined over MK1A vs MK2 issue should tell you how much say ADA exactly has in LCA's decision making.
If only you can dispense with those gems, your posts would be much more pleasure to read. Find SEF partner who will ensure export of LCA..really..?? Who da **** will kill their own orders..?