LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6876
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 12 Oct 2016 03:59

Jay,

I am not speaking of changing the layout in the fuselage. I am mainly speaking of the external shape. Yes there will be structural changes here and there. But designing an airframe around established components takes about 3-5 years. Boeing, Northrop Grumman stitched together airframes from existing components in less than 3 years for the USAF trainer program. For example, Boeing's entry has a twin tail, where there are no other examples of a single engined fighter with that config. Flight testing a new airframe only would probably take 3-5 years.

The only reason why we are asking for collaboration is because we want to get to producing these aircraft in 10 years. On our own we could have managed it in 15.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10994
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 12 Oct 2016 04:02

Cross posting from design your own fighter thread:

Why not a Silent LCA Mk-2?
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6876
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 12 Oct 2016 04:18

This is what I am speaking about

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 Oct 2016 04:34

shiv wrote:
ashbhee wrote:If they setup a F16 or Griphen asmbly line here won't that dampen Tejas's future with IAF?

Easy to give a smart aleck answer but I don't mean this is a nasty/facetious sense

Did the setting up of production lines for Toyota and other motor vehicles in India dampen Maruti's future? Provided there is enough demand, and the price is right it may not happen.

Let me do some math
.....

328 + 100 tejas + 36 Rafale = 464 aircraft.
We will still be 200 aircraft short

We will not have 100 tejas before 2021
We will not have 36 Rafale before 2021
We will retire MiG 21 by 2021


Exactly. And perhaps even more since the 165 MiG27s will also be retired by 2019

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1323
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 12 Oct 2016 05:07

ummmm we don't have 165 Mig-27s ......

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 Oct 2016 05:15

@Khalsa ^^^I got the number from here

"165 MiG-27Ms licensed built by HAL. Total 120 Upgraded Mig-27ML Active. To be retired between 2018 and 2020.[13]

No. 2 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 9 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 18 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 20 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 22 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 222 Squadron IAF[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-27

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1323
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 12 Oct 2016 08:51

@Cosmo_R
Thank you sir .... notedd.

And good god more retirements beginning from 2016 onwards. .....

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 12 Oct 2016 10:51

Khalsa wrote:@Cosmo_R
Thank you sir .... notedd.

And good god more retirements beginning from 2016 onwards. .....


Yes, IAF is in emergency. There is going to be major shortfall if all are retired. My guess is the retirements will be delayed. But I still feel that the replacement needs to be Tejas - simply because it is the most contemporary 4.5 gen single engine fighter out there and with Mk1A, Mk 2 there is a known upgrade programme. By the time Tejas lines will run dry of orders AMCA should be there to start production.

The gazillions that will go to import a foreign line should be tripled to expedite Indian Tejas line and even with that additional expenditure, Tejas will not cost more than an Eph 16.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21910
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 12 Oct 2016 10:58

The current Mig-27 fleet size in IAF is not more than 60 or 3 squadron , the rest have been numberplated or removed from service

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21910
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 12 Oct 2016 11:00

deejay wrote:Yes, IAF is in emergency. There is going to be major shortfall if all are retired. My guess is the retirements will be delayed. But I still feel that the replacement needs to be Tejas - simply because it is the most contemporary 4.5 gen single engine fighter out there and with Mk1A, Mk 2 there is a known upgrade programme. By the time Tejas lines will run dry of orders AMCA should be there to start production.

The gazillions that will go to import a foreign line should be tripled to expedite Indian Tejas line and even with that additional expenditure, Tejas will not cost more than an Eph 16.


+ 1 , current cost of Tejas per mod is $32-35 million , even at $40 million it will be cheaper than any of 4-4.5 gen peers

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 12 Oct 2016 11:03

Cosmo_R wrote:@Khalsa ^^^I got the number from here

"165 MiG-27Ms licensed built by HAL. Total 120 Upgraded Mig-27ML Active. To be retired between 2018 and 2020.[13]

No. 2 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 9 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 18 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 20 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 22 Squadron IAF[13]
No. 222 Squadron IAF[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-27


That list is only partially correct.

- We've only 2 x upgraded Mig-27 squadrons - 10 and 29
- No 9 (Wolfpack) converted long time back as third Mirage-2000 Squadron
- No 2 squadron flies Su-30MKI
- Of the balance three (18, 22,222), one has been number-plated already as of 2016.
- So, only four squadrons of Mig-27 left.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 12 Oct 2016 11:48

deejay wrote:
Khalsa wrote:@Cosmo_R
Thank you sir .... notedd.

And good god more retirements beginning from 2016 onwards. .....


Yes, IAF is in emergency. There is going to be major shortfall if all are retired. My guess is the retirements will be delayed. But I still feel that the replacement needs to be Tejas - simply because it is the most contemporary 4.5 gen single engine fighter out there and with Mk1A, Mk 2 there is a known upgrade programme. By the time Tejas lines will run dry of orders AMCA should be there to start production.

The gazillions that will go to import a foreign line should be tripled to expedite Indian Tejas line and even with that additional expenditure, Tejas will not cost more than an Eph 16.


I think getting lots of Tejas and deploying them against the PAKs with a few SU 30 MKIs sqdns is a good solution. With a 300 km combat radius (2 ton load) it can hit most of cold start targets and with a 1 ton load (4 - 6) AAM it can do a decent air defence especially if we have many to overwhelm their radar picture. If we can get some glide bombs integrated A2G range increases. For deep strike missions SU 30s are enough. Problem with Tejas induction as from what I hear it is HAL bottleneck. If HAL can be fixed or a pvt player brought in for a second line you will see a big push from IAF for it.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 12 Oct 2016 11:51

Deejay, whats your view on Tejas tactics in the western sector and can we take care of SWAC, WAC completely with Tejas, Mirages and 4-5 Su30 Sqdns ? Lets not forget Navy's 2 MIG 29 Sqdns that can be used with SWAC. Can we move the 3 Mig 29 , Rafales and rest of SU 30 (7-8) sqdns for EAC and CAC ?

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pkudva » 12 Oct 2016 12:01

Some time back there were talks on Identifying Pvt Players to Build the Tejas Fighter which would help in expediting the Deliveries.

Since then, no news has been heard or movement seen. HAL in no way looks to meet the dead line with the current set of Infrastructure and the Projects on Hand.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 12 Oct 2016 13:13

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Deejay, whats your view on Tejas tactics in the western sector and can we take care of SWAC, WAC completely with Tejas, Mirages and 4-5 Su30 Sqdns ? Lets not forget Navy's 2 MIG 29 Sqdns that can be used with SWAC. Can we move the 3 Mig 29 , Rafales and rest of SU 30 (7-8) sqdns for EAC and CAC ?


Sir Tejas is multirole, super maneuverable aircraft minus thrust vectoring. Short of Peshawar (and equivalent) it is a great deployment in all roles - Air Superiority, Ground Attack and EW missions based on configuration. Add capabilities derived of AESA and BVRs etc, Tejas is a very potent beast with a very affordable cost. It will allow us to expand to a 45 - 50 Sqn aircraft without bleeding money. There will be missions outside Tejas envelope and for that we now have Su 30s, M 2Ks, Jaguars. In future we have Rafales, FGFA and AMCA. That is an adequate cover for all except long range strategic bombing profiles.

Even for Peshawar / Quetta kind of distances, Air to Air refueling is a dynamic force multiplier and shove comes to push LCAs will be handy.

Saturation of skies with friendly fighters, inter operability of type from multiple WAC bases all across IB & LOC is fantastic plus.

Then there is the role of Strategic independence. Presently, our foreign policy and postures are constrained by our need to keep our sellers in good books. Fighter aircraft are a sellers product. The greater our freedom from foreign governments, the greater our ability to wield the weapons we have. I agree that because of the engines Tejas is not strategically independent but it still offers us the greatest strategic freedom.

Finally - Tejas comes with a capability and cost that none can match. None. It is our surgical sledgehammer in the hind end military export market. This is one huge avenue for not just revenue but an important foreign policy tool in influencing friendly states.

The advantages Tejas offers is immense. It is up to us to invest and scale up our investments in the project. It is not easy. Nothing is. As we say in fauj -" Difficult is routine, impossible is the challenge I like" - it is time for GOI to think like so.

Our technologists have delivered the product, the military has now given the initial leg up, will the ruling class (politicians and babus) take the final step.

My2Paise.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 12 Oct 2016 14:19

If we are required to compulsorily attack Peshawar area with LCA of with su 30 Mki or its derivatives then Pakis already lost most of the targets in pakijab either to bombing or ground action? In such a case it effectively lost the war.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 14:49

indranilroy wrote:Jay,

I am not speaking of changing the layout in the fuselage. I am mainly speaking of the external shape. Yes there will be structural changes here and there. But designing an airframe around established components takes about 3-5 years. Boeing, Northrop Grumman stitched together airframes from existing components in less than 3 years for the USAF trainer program. For example, Boeing's entry has a twin tail, where there are no other examples of a single engined fighter with that config. Flight testing a new airframe only would probably take 3-5 years.

The only reason why we are asking for collaboration is because we want to get to producing these aircraft in 10 years. On our own we could have managed it in 15.


I am having some thoughts regarding this, will just put it here.

While external shape is changed the internal structure is needed to be conformal to it. Problem is whenever there is change you have to recertify it. And it takes time. For example, even the already certified engine used for different aircraft need to be run through entire certification cycle and it takes 3yrs minimum for that. Similar case for Aero structure. I think you are underestimating the amount of changes required and time it will take to recertify all of it.

If you want only outer shape to be changed keeping it purely an Aerodynamic design for LO and minimal internal changes apart from engine change, why we need foreign consultant for that?? Haven't we already have enough progress made on that front in AMCA?? Surely LM is far ahead in the game but if we have done AMCA preliminary design I am sure we are in a position to do this design for LCA ourselves by 2020. (IMO internal weapons bay is impossible for LCA, we already know its crammed to death even no space for internal SPJ, no amount of cosmetic change on fuselage from outside will change this fact).

As such I am quite apprehensive that any OEM will be willing to take part in such shallow project. They have nothing interesting in this one (SAAB might do it but definitely not LM). And OEMs are generally not very enthusiastic about manufacturing. They would give out everything to Tier-1 companies.

As for manufacturing, wouldn't we be ironing out all manufacturing related bottlenecks in LCA by 2025 when this thing is suppose to go into Production?? Also since this project is not stopping F16/Gripen coming in IAF, we would have that facility as well in the want of new production order. Can they not take up this?? If we cannot produce this one in 2025-27 time period, how are we hoping to produce AMCA in 2030 onwards??

All in all, I am apprehensive about OEMs willing to come to India manufacturing LCA for us. Unless we buy their aircraft, we don't stand a chance of getting manufacturing in India. We can work with foreign Tier-1 companies to give out LCA modules but then it will not bring in any capability to Indian MIC.

Even if everything falls into place, GOI/IAF needs to give 200+ order written on paper upfront to make it viable. Would IAF buy so many of these?? We are talking about 2027-2030 time period. This is not stopping the F16/Gripen to come in. So IAF will already have 120 LCA Mk1A, 120+ F16/Gripen, FGFA coming in. AMCA will be only a short while away in future. Any number gap would be easily filled by LCA MK1A/F16/Gripen.

But we could rather have it as a science project. That we can develop our design know-why, de-risk technologies for AMCA by testing them on this LO LCA. Even put Kaveri on it eventually.
Last edited by JayS on 12 Oct 2016 14:56, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 14:54

deejay wrote:
Sir Tejas is multirole, super maneuverable aircraft minus thrust vectoring.

Just nitpicking. Super manoeuvrability is post-stall region manoeuvrability, isn't it?? By that definition LCA is not super-manoeuvrable.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 15:55

Gagan wrote:Cross posting from design your own fighter thread:

Why not a Silent LCA Mk-2?
Image


Some thoughts on this type of design from top off my head.

LCA does not have a nice place to put the twin tails. IMO some serious work will be needed here. An American company is better placed for this project IMO, if at all we want to outsource it, because they have the most experience with twin tails in the West. The twin tail has buffet issue due to the LE wing vortices, and they know how to deal with it now.

The wing of LCA is too low and the fuselage in too cylindrical. IMO, wing needs to be lifted up, fuselage must be extended outward, flattened and blended with the wing in much better way (like how it is in F22). (I would really love that. The current wing-fuselage blending on LCA is ugly.)

Since LCA is a single engine jet, we don't need to worry about one engine out scenario and the tails could be placed on the engine bay close to each other, avoiding wind structure redesign and also putting in near the wing vortex. We could even consider V tail with included angle >90deg.

Another point is adding tail there will screw up the Area ruling, we know the area curve is very steep in that region and adding tails will only increase the problem. So extending the engine bay slightly outward might be a good idea. It would also give higher lever arm for tails and so smaller tails can be used.

A bubble canopy would be great and along with redesigned air intakes it can be used to remove that kink in the Area ruling curve.

While implementing chin on the nose we need to make sure the chin vortices do not interfere/get coupled with the wing LE vortices at moderate to high AoA. Chin nose suppose to increase directional stability. Could help in reducing tail size further.

IMHO, we should explore tailless delta design by implementing more powerful engine with TVC. That could give us much cleaner configuration. Although it might prove quite challenging in terms of providing directional and rolling stability and TVC will have to be augmented very closely with the flight controls.

Comments are welcome on this.
Last edited by JayS on 12 Oct 2016 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 12 Oct 2016 16:29

Deejay wrote,

According to his sources IN is not interested in NLCAmk2.

This means that NLCA mk1 is performing better than expected.

With no wind over deck on shore based ski jump NLCAmk1 is taking off with 720lt centerline fuel tank with margin to spare which means take off weight of 11.9T for reported empty weight of 7.9T.

With 20 knots WOD on carrier MTOW will exceed 14.3T for full 200m take off run which means payload of 3.1T which is sufficient for IN AD role from carrier.

So expect 50nos NLCA mk1a order from IN instead of designing a totally new NLCAmk2.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 12 Oct 2016 16:40

deejay wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:Deejay, whats your view on Tejas tactics in the western sector and can we take care of SWAC, WAC completely with Tejas, Mirages and 4-5 Su30 Sqdns ? Lets not forget Navy's 2 MIG 29 Sqdns that can be used with SWAC. Can we move the 3 Mig 29 , Rafales and rest of SU 30 (7-8) sqdns for EAC and CAC ?


Sir Tejas is multirole, super maneuverable aircraft minus thrust vectoring. Short of Peshawar (and equivalent) it is a great deployment in all roles - Air Superiority, Ground Attack and EW missions based on configuration. Add capabilities derived of AESA and BVRs etc, Tejas is a very potent beast with a very affordable cost. It will allow us to expand to a 45 - 50 Sqn aircraft without bleeding money. There will be missions outside Tejas envelope and for that we now have Su 30s, M 2Ks, Jaguars. In future we have Rafales, FGFA and AMCA. That is an adequate cover for all except long range strategic bombing profiles.

Even for Peshawar / Quetta kind of distances, Air to Air refueling is a dynamic force multiplier and shove comes to push LCAs will be handy.

Saturation of skies with friendly fighters, inter operability of type from multiple WAC bases all across IB & LOC is fantastic plus.

Then there is the role of Strategic independence. Presently, our foreign policy and postures are constrained by our need to keep our sellers in good books. Fighter aircraft are a sellers product. The greater our freedom from foreign governments, the greater our ability to wield the weapons we have. I agree that because of the engines Tejas is not strategically independent but it still offers us the greatest strategic freedom.

Finally - Tejas comes with a capability and cost that none can match. None. It is our surgical sledgehammer in the hind end military export market. This is one huge avenue for not just revenue but an important foreign policy tool in influencing friendly states.

The advantages Tejas offers is immense. It is up to us to invest and scale up our investments in the project. It is not easy. Nothing is. As we say in fauj -" Difficult is routine, impossible is the challenge I like" - it is time for GOI to think like so.

Our technologists have delivered the product, the military has now given the initial leg up, will the ruling class (politicians and babus) take the final step.

My2Paise.


Thanks Deejay. The big advantage vis a vis Pak is lack of depth. And that's why Tejas is quite useful in WAC and SWac. And the strategic independence point is crucial. If I were IAF chief I would ask for 200 Tejas atleast and a second pvt sector line. Link it to closing the tanker deal and more Phalcons and radars, munitions etc. But the snake and ladder comes in. If we can change that then we can start taking sensible decisions. Make a very strong case to Modi.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 12 Oct 2016 17:12

sankum wrote:Deejay wrote,

According to his sources IN is not interested in NLCAmk2.

...


The above might be true, but I did not write that. :)

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 12 Oct 2016 17:14

JayS wrote:
deejay wrote:
Sir Tejas is multirole, super maneuverable aircraft minus thrust vectoring.

Just nitpicking. Super manoeuvrability is post-stall region manoeuvrability, isn't it?? By that definition LCA is not super-manoeuvrable.


Technical term wise yes, but LCA is the most unstable design and hence most maneuverable. I used TFTA Super Maneuverable and from hence forth LCA is Super Maneuverable. Anyone want to take me on this?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby kit » 12 Oct 2016 17:28

I think it is the time factor that is pushing GOI for two single engine fighters to fill the IAF requirements. The foreign collaboration will bring in numbers faster.
This scenario is exactly repeated in the IN submarine requirement .
Again same logic

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 12 Oct 2016 17:51

kit wrote:I think it is the time factor that is pushing GOI for two single engine fighters to fill the IAF requirements. The foreign collaboration will bring in numbers faster.
This scenario is exactly repeated in the IN submarine requirement .
Again same logic

Correct

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 18:24

deejay wrote:
JayS wrote:Just nitpicking. Super manoeuvrability is post-stall region manoeuvrability, isn't it?? By that definition LCA is not super-manoeuvrable.


Technical term wise yes, but LCA is the most unstable design and hence most maneuverable. I used TFTA Super Maneuverable and from hence forth LCA is Super Maneuverable. Anyone want to take me on this?

Understood Sir.. :D

I have been thinking on this most unstable business. The only written figure I have seen is 5% static instability so far. Now this number actually keeps changing based on many parameters but if we take design value as base, this number was not the most unstable (EF2000 I read has 8%). It seems, and as C.Balaji said, ADA has been playing safe and perhaps was restricting itself to this value until recently and now when they have enough confidence, they have increased the static instability margin somehow. And if its more than 8% then it shows that not only out FCS is world-class but the actuators we have for flight controls are also world-class.

LCA always had a pitch up tendency and ADA has done some work on taming it. May be earlier they wanted to keep it low but now they are confident enough that they can handle the higher pitch up tendency. If this is true then we can expect improved aerodynamic efficiency and some improvement in cruise flight range due to better trimming.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 12 Oct 2016 18:29

JayS wrote:...


No Sir guru ji. :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 12 Oct 2016 18:35

JayS wrote:
Gagan wrote:Cross posting from design your own fighter thread:

Why not a Silent LCA Mk-2?
Image


Some thoughts on this type of design from top off my head.

LCA does not have a nice place to put the twin tails. IMO some serious work will be needed here. An American company .......

Comments are welcome on this.


Would it not be much easier to take the AMCA as the base model and derive a single engine plane?

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 12 Oct 2016 18:48

Does no one see the logical fallacy in this lack of time argument?

Imagining an IAF tender process plus 5 year ramp up time for tier 1,2,3 suppliers will be quicker than hiring consultants to help set up another LCA line AND to address any possible reliability, availability issues along with this dope thing called experience of high tech manufacturing?

PS: If you still don't, I'd like 2 of whatever you're smoking. :D

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 18:55

If you take AMCA and make something out of it, you have to make it from scratch whereas if you make it based on LCA, you have a lot of things readymade.

I frankly do not think such aircraft has a place in IAF from whatever we see today, in a sense that IAF will not commit for it today. May be IAF will like it later and then we can build it by modifying LCA prod line when MK1A production run is finished.

If the whole idea is to hone the skills and build and test some LO tech, then LCA is a better platform because, you might be able to take one of the LCA prototypes and convert it to this new LO avatar and flight-test in short time. Make a crack team of few motivated young people from ADA/HAL/NAL/ISRO/IIT profs who can drive this, give some money and let them work on it totally separately for few yrs as a tech project. A lot of work can be given to students in colleges as thesis work, which will not only be very cost effective but also help a great deal in training manpower (at least most of the MTech students in IITs waste time and do nothing under TA ship, their TAship man-hours can also be utilised and this being interesting work, they also will feel motivated). A lot of things can be done and money should not be a big issue, but we lack imagination and agility. Even if the prototype flies for fre hundred hours we will get vast amount of invaluable data and experience.

So it make much much more sense to take LCA and run 2-3 such science projects like what NASA have done with F16 or F18.

Too much wishful thinking, I know.
Last edited by JayS on 12 Oct 2016 19:01, edited 2 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 18:58

Marten wrote:Does no one see the logical fallacy in this lack of time argument?

Imagining an IAF tender process plus 5 year ramp up time for tier 1,2,3 suppliers will be quicker than hiring consultants to help set up another LCA line AND to address any possible reliability, availability issues along with this dope thing called experience of high tech manufacturing?

PS: If you still don't, I'd like 2 of whatever you're smoking. :D

In the Single engine jet thread, some have already put forth this argument. But thing is it doesn't really matter what we think here at BRF. What GOI thinks matters. We can just put forth hypotheses regarding the same. In all probability Modi already has promised F16 line as quid pro quo for something, the decision has been taken, now only price negotiation is left.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JE Menon » 12 Oct 2016 19:13

Thank you for that fantastic post Deejay.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5242
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 12 Oct 2016 19:26

It was I who 'theorized' that Navy is no longer interested. It doesn't mean they are happy with MK1As, or going to buy that.

If you do think that "private players" can do a great job, please ask the sourcing team of an auto Tier 1 company how they manage to get stuff done by outside sources. It takes a lot of effort and motivation to get people build good stuff. This is not just pvt sector. This is everywhere.

A bunch of 'massas' riding around the farm, cracking whips and putting the 'overseers' and 'boys' in place would help a lot in setting things straight. Trust me, I go a long way in this field.

And yes, the place will go back to the 'jugaad' 'chalega' 'adjust maadi' culture in a couple of years after the masa leaves. We are like that onlee.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1323
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 13 Oct 2016 00:37

The Navy has learnt a really hard and a bitter lesson.
They are also very close and family like and somehow have a genetic type memory which the others lack.

A Naval officer whose mother is yet to be born will have the lessons of VikramAditya ingrained into him once he(or she) commisions into the Navy.

The Tejas will carry on with the Navy.
if the IAF wants to cut and run then so be it but I don't think they will either.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1323
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 13 Oct 2016 00:44

OMG 101 Pages .... are we archiving this or not ?

Oh Super Duper Admins ....where are you ? Kahaan Ho Bhai Log ?
:-)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 13 Oct 2016 01:49

With this new story about single engine fighter and timeline given for LCA MK1A, there goes my wish of having Tejas squadron in each of western AFBs. I've grown seeing visuals of Mig-21 on ORP duties. Wanted to see visuals of pilots running towards a parked and ready Tejas when ORP siren goes out. Sigh!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50403
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 13 Oct 2016 03:51

Locking this thread....

ramana


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests