Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Feb 2017 18:44

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... groundings

Although a $2.2 billion upgrade of India’s Dassault Mirage 2000 fighters is progressing, around a quarter of the fleet of 49 is grounded because a contract for spares has remained unsigned for years, AIN has learned from sources involved in the program.

“Bureaucratic holdups have caused delays. As a result, parts are being cannibalized and there are some aircraft [inactive] since 2010. Life of some parts, especially avionics, is expiring,” said an engineer not willing to be identified. Repairs of the Mirages are carried out at the base repair depot in Gwalior in the central state of Madhya Pradesh. The depot also does material planning and storage of primarily third- and fourth-line spares. The Indian Air Force declined to comment.


This is what I mean.

By the mix of MOD L1 tendering, and RFP business for even single vendor situations, IAFs declining Revenue budget which makes them order in trickle amounts, all these issues arise.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 15 Feb 2017 19:11

The entire thrust of the discussion is on 3 legged cheetah and hence the need to call the mirage some colourful names when that was inducted.

The person who made the remark is long retired. The remark had no material impact on any flight/fight parameter of the LCA.

Debating on these lines leads to pointing out of the actual facts wrt current capability of the LCA in operations service,which uber fanbois take as an attempt to"run down" the program

The IAF accepted non FOC a/c in service 50 years back and it did so in in 2016 too.
Not sure where Nd why is the Complaint.

An important development wrt the UTTAM AESA has been posted in the single engine thread.
Integration of UTTAM is expected "soon" on the LCA.
That news is HUGE.

This also explains why MoD sat on HALs AESA tender.Rather than the Conspiracy Theorey spun a few pages back that MoD by sitting on AESA is delaying/killing the LCA.

There's an urgent need to tone down everything LCA related with rose tinted glasses and everything wrt IAFs role with extreme prejudice.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Feb 2017 20:08

LOL here comes the "facts are immaterial" fellow again.. facts ka to pata nahin hain.. and out he comes talking of "facts as they currently stand.."

One news about Uttam (which is yet to be even flight tested) and it is equal to "explains why MOD sat on HAL's AESA tender". Is there any evidence anywhere of MOD sitting on the tender? As versus what Marten said of RFPs yet to be evaluated and a final decision yet to be made?

So spin conspiracy fables, make up asinine claims of unobtainium, then claim those weren't achieved and say "urgent need to tone down everything LCA related with rose tinted glasses". I am sure some Pakdef somewhere is missing its joker who agrees with similar line of thinking.. bray there please and spare us the rubbish.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 15 Feb 2017 20:21

Karan M wrote:LOL here comes the "facts are immaterial" fellow again.. facts ka to pata nahin hain.. and out he comes talking of "facts as they currently stand.."

One news about Uttam (which is yet to be even flight tested) and it is equal to "explains why MOD sat on HAL's AESA tender". Is there any evidence anywhere of MOD sitting on the tender? As versus what Marten said of RFPs yet to be evaluated and a final decision yet to be made?

So spin conspiracy fables, make up asinine claims of unobtainium, then claim those weren't achieved and say "urgent need to tone down everything LCA related with rose tinted glasses". I am sure some Pakdef somewhere is missing its joker who agrees with similar line of thinking.. bray there please and spare us the rubbish.


I've had enough of your non sense.Stop being a sanctimonious tool who thinks he's the authority on the LCA.

It was pointed out that MoD is delaying selection of AESA radar for LCA by sitting on it.

There's a recent development in which Balaji saars team will handover LSP2 for integration of UTTAM AESA.

So if I point out that this could be the reason, Mod would have been in the know what's actual progess of the UTTAM AESA and hence sat on foreign AESA is Conspiracy as per you.

But someone else saying MoD is delaying AESA tender deliberately to stall LCA is NOT conspiracy theory for you.

I mean seriously, this is gold standard qtiyagiri.

I've not engaged in personal abuse with you.
Please don't push it needlessly.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 507
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_P » 15 Feb 2017 20:40

<OT> Humble request from an earnest follower of this fascinating thread - please let's stick to facts and discuss/debate those points in a calm and civil manner (the cool professionalism shown by an esteemed poster in the JSF thread is to be truly admired and emulated).

Let's avoid the childish name calling and personal attacks which defines the deaf-n-dumb forum.

Why make it more difficult for the admins and have a repeat of the recent locking which was done to another fascinating thread.

Please, Gentlemen.</OT>


Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 775
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Feb 2017 21:38


Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Feb 2017 21:42

nirav wrote:
Karan M wrote:LOL here comes the "facts are immaterial" fellow again.. facts ka to pata nahin hain.. and out he comes talking of "facts as they currently stand.."

One news about Uttam (which is yet to be even flight tested) and it is equal to "explains why MOD sat on HAL's AESA tender". Is there any evidence anywhere of MOD sitting on the tender? As versus what Marten said of RFPs yet to be evaluated and a final decision yet to be made?

So spin conspiracy fables, make up asinine claims of unobtainium, then claim those weren't achieved and say "urgent need to tone down everything LCA related with rose tinted glasses". I am sure some Pakdef somewhere is missing its joker who agrees with similar line of thinking.. bray there please and spare us the rubbish.


I've had enough of your non sense.Stop being a sanctimonious tool who thinks he's the authority on the LCA.



Stop projecting and and you will stop being called out.

In this very thread multiple members have called you out for your lies and misrepresentations. Marten, Rakesh, Cybaru and I. All noted you constantly cook up claims. So, stop lying. And people will stop countering your lies.


It was pointed out that MoD is delaying selection of AESA radar for LCA by sitting on it.


Where. Show one credible source.


There's a recent development in which Balaji saars team will handover LSP2 for integration of UTTAM AESA.

So if I point out that this could be the reason, Mod would have been in the know what's actual progess of the UTTAM AESA and hence sat on foreign AESA is Conspiracy as per you.


LOL so you think a radar which is yet to enter flight trials would cause MOD to sit on a vital program. And this is not a CT.

But someone else saying MoD is delaying AESA tender deliberately to stall LCA is NOT conspiracy theory for you.


Where arethese credible sources alleging all these things?
I mean seriously, this is gold standard qtiyagiri.


As I said stop projecting and if you seek your own kind, I am sure your fellow track 2 types on pakdef will oblige.

I've not engaged in personal abuse with you.
Please don't push it needlessly.


Listen you dont get to call people names, and then act all high and mighty. Random louts use the kind of language you do and then pretend their internet tough guy BS counts for something.

Not impressive. I treat you and your fellow "standard" types the same way. Stop whining and stop misrepresenting national programs with cooked up stories and CTs.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5741
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vina » 15 Feb 2017 21:47

Karan M wrote:Hi vina, i think the report didn't mean what you said.. it meant the super 530 d had snap down capability unlike the 530 F predecessor. The RDM supposedly did have decent look down capability but the RDI was superior. The RDI was kept by FAF for themselves but they did give us the Super 530D.
Variety of A2G modes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_Dop ... tifunction


Not disputing any of this (though it is true that the look down modes sucked in the radar .. there must have been s/w upgrades that came along with the 530D to ameliorate it), I wrote that with tongue in cheek. However,

We recd our first batch of 7 M2Ks in in 25th Jun 1985 @ Jamnagar per this Vajras turn 30 this year

The Matra Magic II entered service in 1986 per this R550 Magic II . It is in French (I can just about follow French.. but you can get the gist) . The Super 530 D entered service in 1988 .

So for close to 2 years after the M2Ks arrived, it had NOTHING except the cannon..(Operation Poomalai/ Jaffna is June 1987, if at all the planes were armed with Magic IIs, they must have barely arrived and must have been literally factory fresh) .

But the broader point I was making is this. The M2K , with us as the first export customer was barely the fully "complete" airplane that it is made out to be.It was barely useable at induction into IAF service. It probably became fully useable , if one were to include targeting pod and full A2G stuff, probably in the early 90s, nearly a good 6 to 7 years after it landed first in India.

So in IAF parlance , going by what they termed the LCA @ IOC , it surely was only a 2 legged and half blind cheetah! Why the LCA at IOC has shown precision strike capability and ability to fire heat seeking missiles. It's radar probably doesnt need any upgrades like the RDM did.

My limited point is, if a far more useable LCA @ IOC is branded a "3 legged Cheetah", WTF should we not call out the IAF's hypocrisy and call out the M2K at the state at which it was inducted as a "2 legged and half blind Cheetah" , which it surely was . Why do we have to put up with the Hosannas and the peachy headlines about French Champagne ? Sure, the journalists and others flown out by Dassault would have had a good time in France and would have been plied with Cheese and Champagne and stuff , along with the IAF brass, while all they would get here in Bangalore would be Bisibele Bath and Rava Idli and Kaapi @ the HAL canteen, and if they wanted any better, they could have gone to the IAF officer's mess close by , but that really shouldn't blind us to reality.

The sheer Chutzpah of it all is unbelievable. Here with the LCA, MK1 (MMR radar) we are getting the technology equivalent of a M2K 2005 /2009, (with full glass cockpit, HMDS, ability to fire active radar guided missiles, precision strike), and instead of acknowledging that, it gets called names by some absolutely churlish boors in uniform.
Last edited by vina on 15 Feb 2017 21:56, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Feb 2017 21:55

Here is what one report states. LSP-2 is being modified for flight trials of one Uttam. That is it.

A typical radar takes years of testing. Does anyone sane think the MOD or ADA didnt know Uttam progress and HAL called out tenders for an integrated radar, EW suite just for the heck of it? Of course, the fact that radars and EW are closely integrated have nothing to do with it. The fact that DARE is yet to qualify any LCA capable pod or that a LCA ready RWR is not yet available is to be ignored.

Forget accusing journalists, we have folks on the forum spinning wild yarns and when asked to justify their bizarre statements, out comes the two bit gaali galoch.

When the HAL head states he is wairing for MID decision making on the LCA and HAL has submitted a plan, he is dismissed too. He'll also be told he knows nothing of the LCA unlike our brave internet poster.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 15 Feb 2017 22:25

Can someone clarify the production schedule and the total capacity of all three production lines? Second production line is supposed to be 3/4. What about first and third?

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 15 Feb 2017 22:44

Matra Magic 2 entered service in 1986 but biased people forget Matra Magic 1 was in service since 1980 arming Jaguar, Mirage 2000 and MiG-21 replacing unreliable K-13 and complementing R-60.

http://www.pakdef.org/forum/topic/1030- ... f-history/
In July 1979, only three months after the contract had been ratified, the first of 18 RAF Jaguar GR. Is and Us arrived in India on loan to the IAF, pending delivery of its own aircraft. These were designated Jaguar GR. 1(Interim) and jaguar T2(Interim). The single-seaters were serialled J1003 JIO18 and were respectively XX720,117,115, XZ397, 398, XX116, 728, 725, 111, 729, 736, 734, 737, 738, 740 and 118. The two-seaters were JI001 and JI002 (XX138 and XX143). No 14 Squadron was declared operational in September 1980. Two of the loan aircraft UI006 and JI011) were lost in service,one (JI005) was used for development and clearance of the overwing Matra Magic installation in India, and later for Display Attack and Ranging Inertial Navigation (DARIN) system development, and one of the two twin-seaters (JI001) was sold to Oman. The remaining 14 were returned to the UK between 1982 and 1984


MiG-21 with Matra Magic 1

http://www.oocities.org/hotsprings/2839/mig21.html

http://www.oocities.org/hotsprings/2839/mig21.jpg

Anyways, missiles are irrelevant to IOC that requires aircraft flight envelope opened up, tested & certified by CEMILAC.

Mirage 2000 flight envelope was certified, so whether it has Magic 1 or Magic 2 is irrelevant.

The Tejas flight envelope was not opened & certified before 2013 as per CEMILAC - a DRDO arm. Period.

If that hasn't happened, even if it fires BrahMos or launches 104 satellites, it does not attain IOC.

In engineering, students failing 1st year subjects are Allowed To Keep Term (ATKT) and move to 2nd Year with the caveat they pass failed 1st Year subjects in 2nd Year, otherwise they cannot progress to 3rd Year.

Often they pass 2nd year subjects without clearing 1st year subjects.

However such students not allowed to go to 3rd year until they clear 1st year subjects.

By the daft logic of some biased members here, so what if some students fail 1st year subjects, since they cleared 2nd year, they should be promoted.

After all, as per Madarssa Mathematics 2nd Year > 1st Year, so there is no need to pass 1st Year.

Tejas was precisely this ATKT case of passing 2nd Year without fully passing 1st Year.

It fired R-73 at Goa in 2007, LGBs etc but it's flight envelope, all weather clearance, was not reasonably opened up and certified before 2013.
Last edited by tsarkar on 15 Feb 2017 23:05, edited 4 times in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 15 Feb 2017 22:46

tsarkar wrote:replacing unreliable K-13


How bad was it?

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 22:52

Thakur_B wrote:


Too short. Want more.


I swear if they let me fly in LCA for 1hr, I would write an entire book on LCA... :lol:

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 15 Feb 2017 22:55

Cybaru wrote:
tsarkar wrote:replacing unreliable K-13
How bad was it?
It was the first Soviet AAM arming MiG-21 and licensed manufactured at BDL. As with all first generation systems, it's reliability was poor.

However, India's last fighter kill by F/Lt Aruna Kumar Datta flying MiG-21 was by using K-13 shooting down Jordanian F-104 Starfighter flown by Samad Ali Khan Changezi in 1971

His brother J P Datta is the film maker who made the movie Border.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4956
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 15 Feb 2017 23:18

tsarkar sahab,
You have the wrong impression that IOC-LCA-SPs do not have the capability to guide radar-guided missiles. All the hardware is in there. It is a matter of getting the clearance.

Karan,
Please go easy on Nirav. Point out his wrong assertions and leave it at that.

Nirav,
Please understand that if you make up stuff, people here will call you out.

rahul_r
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 04 Mar 2005 18:58
Location: U.S.A

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rahul_r » 15 Feb 2017 23:19

Thakur_B wrote:


Too short. Want more.



From the article: "Today's experience - and I will offer more reports detailing it - informed me that the time to criticize the Tejas project may be over."

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2316
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Feb 2017 23:20

tsarkar wrote:Anyways, missiles are irrelevant to IOC that requires aircraft flight envelope opened up, tested & certified by CEMILAC.

Mirage 2000 flight envelope was certified, so whether it has Magic 1 or Magic 2 is irrelevant.

The Tejas flight envelope was not opened & certified before 2013 as per CEMILAC - a DRDO arm. Period.

If that hasn't happened, even if it fires BrahMos or launches 104 satellites, it does not attain IOC.

In engineering, students failing 1st year subjects are Allowed To Keep Term (ATKT) and move to 2nd Year with the caveat they pass failed 1st Year subjects in 2nd Year, otherwise they cannot progress to 3rd Year.

Often they pass 2nd year subjects without clearing 1st year subjects.

However such students not allowed to go to 3rd year until they clear 1st year subjects.

By the daft logic of some biased members here, so what if some students fail 1st year subjects, since they cleared 2nd year, they should be promoted.

After all, as per Madarssa Mathematics 2nd Year > 1st Year, so there is no need to pass 1st Year.

Tejas was precisely this ATKT case of passing 2nd Year without fully passing 1st Year.

It fired R-73 at Goa in 2007, LGBs etc but it's flight envelope, all weather clearance, was not reasonably opened up and certified before 2013.


Nicely explained and informative post as usual Tsarkar sir, thank you.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4956
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 15 Feb 2017 23:28

Integrating Uttam into LCA is a ADA/DRDO project. Integrating a ready to use AESA radar on the Mk1A is a HAL project.

There are some great news on both fronts from AI-17.

1. I was pleasantly surprised that integration of Uttam into an airframe was only 1-2 years away. Also Uttam is not a completely new system. It leans heavily on the AEW&Cs AAAU unit.
2. There are now three competitors for the AESA-EW-jammer suite for Mk1A.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1806
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JTull » 15 Feb 2017 23:30

Cybaru wrote:Can someone clarify the production schedule and the total capacity of all three production lines? Second production line is supposed to be 3/4. What about first and third?

1. 8/yr
2 (ex Kiran). 3/yr
3 (planned). 8/yr

But HAL Chairman, on the eve of AI-17, went on record with the following (Link to full interview here)

We have planned our manufacturing capability at 18-20 fighters a year and have started subcontracting – the wing to L&T and central fuselage to Vem Technologies. If they start delivering, it’ll enhance our capability.

suryag
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2796
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby suryag » 15 Feb 2017 23:31

That Vishnu som write up was largely negative with all the usual barbs, saddest part of the entire thIng is the 33 year thingie, our technology challenged journos can't make the distinction between project definition phase and the commencement of project following sanction of funds

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2316
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Feb 2017 23:33

^absolutely great news. Any thoughts on when full capacity could be achieved? Hoping to see additional orders from iaf at foc

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 23:35

Cybaru wrote:Can someone clarify the production schedule and the total capacity of all three production lines? Second production line is supposed to be 3/4. What about first and third?


16/yr total capacity as targeted. They might better it, depends on how well they can speed up that main bottleneck step - the equipping phase, IIRC, as Indranil explained. 45days is target >> 8/yr from one line. two lines = 16/yr. If ths can be brought down to say 30 days they can make 24/yr from same number of jigs/fixtures and so on.

The way I understand it is, existing line was suppose to churn out 8/yr (at least that has been the plan and been said all along). But HAL is facing issues with speeding up the process per plane. So rather than doing things serially and waiting until everything is sorted, they opened up another small assembly line with capacity of 3/yr (I suppose it means one set of jigs). Now existing rate is augmented and they can hit the 8/yr rate in lesser time. Opportunity cost is the cost of setting up of new line (I think only the final assembly and equipping Jig is needed for this). So this recently opened small line can be called 1-prime. 2nd line is the one which is recently cleared by CCS. You can call it 3rd line, but I would count it as 2nd.

Anyone has better info can correct me.

BTW, One journo tweeted that HAL mentioned in today's media QnA that first 40 jets are to be delivered by 2019-20. Seems in line with schedule given by AKN few days ago.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4956
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 16 Feb 2017 00:30

JayS, both lines are currently producing 3 aircraft per year, giving the overall capability of producing 6 aircraft this year. Both lines will get to 8 per year, giving the overall production rate of 16 per year by 2018.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2017 00:47

Indranil wrote:JayS, both lines are currently producing 3 aircraft per year, giving the overall capability of producing 6 aircraft this year. Both lines will get to 8 per year, giving the overall production rate of 16 per year by 2018.


That's why this confusion.

The ex-kiran line is supposed to be 3/4 year according AK. Will this go to 8 as well?
This is all too confusing. How many jigs are there? If the exkiran line is one jig and it can produce three a year, are you saying currently we have only 2/3 jigs? That doesn't sound right.

For the sake of this argument.
1st line ...
2nd line is ex kiran line
3rd line is the newly ccs approved line.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Feb 2017 00:50

Indranil wrote:JayS, both lines are currently producing 3 aircraft per year, giving the overall capability of producing 6 aircraft this year. Both lines will get to 8 per year, giving the overall production rate of 16 per year by 2018.


The new line cleared by CCS is suppose to come up outside Bangalore somewhere, HAL has land identified already. I asked AKN over twitter, he replied 1st line can produce 5/yr, 2nd line 3/yr.

PS:

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/02/hal-sets-up-second-tejas-production-line.html

HAL awaits the crucial Cabinet Committee on Security nod for the third TEJAS production line. Around 30,000 sq meters of HAL land has been identified near Nekkundi for setting up structural assembly hangar, process shop and sheet metal shop, among others.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5426
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby disha » 16 Feb 2017 01:01

tsarkar wrote:
IAF pilots quickly put the machine to the test, as per ex Mirage-2000 pilot first year saw insane amount of flying by the squadron, aircraft not only participated in all major Airforce exercises in the year but aircraft was also tested to its limits in its Interception roles


tsarkar'ji - you just proved my point. It was the hard work of IAF that made the current M2K. Of course lot of love was extended to M2k and it is a lovely bird. And my further point is why was this love not extended to LCA?

One can go on and on and on and on about shortcomings from TD-1 to SP-3., but when the IAF chief himself says that it is a 3-legged cheetah., one can see the love that is extended to LCA. IAF never made its priority to own it.

And sir that is the point.

I am so glad that calling M2k rooster caught your goose., maybe you can extend the same empathy to the designers/engineers of LCA who toiled with their blood & sweat to bring LCA to current stage and was called a 3-legged cheetah. By the air chief. Not by a no-name poster in some remote corner of internet.

Added later:

Do you bother to check facts before posting? Compare with Tejas availability in No 45 squadron and flight hours logged. What kind of rooster would you call Tejas at best?


There are facts and then there are opinions.

A 3-legged cheetah is in the same class of opinion as a rooster. As long as the Air chief is entitled to the 3-legged cheetah opinion, I - a lowly poster will be entitled to the opinion of M2K as a colorful rooster on induction.

Moving beyond., the flying daggers got their 2-SP2 only recently (march 2016 was when the SP2 flew first) and the birds were inducted formally only on July 1, 2016. Now do you have data in the last 6 months on the flight hours logged and its general availability of SP1 & SP2 under flying daggers? If not, then it is another rhetorical opinion - in the same class as M2K was a colorful rooster on induction.
Last edited by disha on 16 Feb 2017 01:20, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 16 Feb 2017 01:10

Indranil wrote:tsarkar sahab,
You have the wrong impression that IOC-LCA-SPs do not have the capability to guide radar-guided missiles. All the hardware is in there. It is a matter of getting the clearance.


Sir, I'm aware of LSP-7 firing unguided Derby same time last year, and IOC SPs carrying fully functional Elta 2032.

However just having hardware and Software is NOT enough.

The envelope needs to be established via flight testing like this here. It is unique for each aircraft type and its associated weapons.

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-121 ... ies-17.htm

Weapon Envelope

The basis for an air-to-air kill is flying the aircraft to the firing parameters necessary to employ a selected weapon system successfully. Those parameters define the weapons envelope (Figure 3) in terms of range and angle off the tail (AOT—fighter position off the bandit’s tail). A weapons envelope around the bandit is three-dimensional and dynamic based upon fighter and bandit airspeed, altitude, g, and specific weapons capability. Firing from within the envelope greatly increases the probability of a kill (PK).The weapons firing envelopes for CNATRA are rear quarter envelopes only for snap guns, raking guns, tracking guns, and sidewinders (FOX-2). Figure 3 illustrates maximum and minimum ranges and angle off. The hot and cold sides are functions of angle off and bandit direction of turn (intercept geometry). The hot side refers to the area in the direction of turn relative to the bandit’s longitudinal axis. The cold side refers to the area away from the direction of turn. Hot and cold do not refer tothe heat source of the target; they are only a function of intercept geometry. The heart of the IR envelope is 1 nm at the bandit's six


The below envelope for Derby needs to be determined via flight testing and published to users.

It has been done for Derby on Sea Harrier and R-73E on Tejas. For Derby on Tejas, it still needs to be done.

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-121 ... ope-18.htm

Image

BTW, your comment precisely shows the gap between developers and users.

For a developer, guided flight of missile is the end state. For a user, maximizing PK is the end state.

After all, just launching & guiding missile wont bring down a Paki F-16. The PK needs to be maximized too for a successful shootdown.

It is precisely this gap in understanding that is the divide between IAF & ADA.
Last edited by tsarkar on 16 Feb 2017 01:33, edited 2 times in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2316
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Feb 2017 01:28

disha wrote:. It was the hard work of IAF that made the current M2K. Of course lot of love was extended to M2k and it is a lovely bird. And my further point is why was this love not extended to LCA?

Because saar, the lca was in no shape to be flogged the way the m2k was at the time the iaf received it..As tsarkarji is pointing out, the lca at ioc was nowhere close to having tested its entire flight characteristics, profile etc. Totally different from m2k or su 30k, which were completely flight tested and their characteristics and envelope was well known and certified, which in turn allowed the iaf to flog the birds to their limits. How can you extend the same love to a Plane that is not yet fully certified?

Despite this the iaf still ordered 40 birds. much more than they did for the flanker or mirage, which received orders only after their flight performance was fully certified.. As an analogy, It would be like ordering 40 pakfa two years ago. Fact of the matter is that the pakfa has seen no such love putting to rest the idea that the iaf is some traitorous import pasand farce. It is clear that the iaf has been much more supportive of the local effort and not the other way around. This is even more clear from the fact that the AF has ordered an additional 83 birds well before foc. But tbh, they should have ordered these at foc std instead of mk1a.

Again, This is not to say that it could not have done better but there were turf wars and ego issues on all sides.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 01:55

Karan M wrote:Stop projecting and and you will stop being called out.

In this very thread multiple members have called you out for your lies and misrepresentations. Marten, Rakesh, Cybaru and I. All noted you constantly cook up claims. So, stop lying. And people will stop countering your lies.


instead of multi quote drama, quote my exact post where i have "lied" or take that accusation back.


Karan M wrote:
nirav wrote:It was pointed out that MoD is delaying selection of AESA radar for LCA by sitting on it.


Where. Show one credible source.


This is the problem.You jump in into an ongoing discussion, take it out of context, post long assed BS and then ask for a "source".
But since you asked, im quoting the discussion that was going on in full.

Marten wrote:
If you have been following this thread, you will know there is a tender out for the radar. Closure of the deal is dependent on many factors. If MoD simply sits on the negotiation, or in fact on the file during the evaluation process itself, what can IAF or HAL do about it? Other than this, there are risks associated with the late approval for line expansion. Note the CCS has only approved it. After this, imagine the time until the plant is built and suppliers are ready to ramp up (24-30 months). Sane people would be expected to include that If. Especially if they are looking to receive their pension after retirement.

The path to self reliance is dreary and full of failures.


nirav wrote:MoD after arranging for the 83 in the first place will sit on its radar acquisition so that it messes up its own plans to not let LCA project terminate.

Don't you think it's quite far fetched even as a CT ?

I agree with you @ The path to self reliance is dreary and full of failures.


JayS wrote:
nirav wrote:MoD after arranging for the 83 in the first place will sit on its radar acquisition so that it messes up its own plans to not let LCA project terminate.

Don't you think it's quite far fetched even as a CT ?

:rotfl: :rotfl:
LOL they did exactly that. I am seeing news on HAL's proposal submitted to MoD since 2015 end. They have sat over countless other proposals over so many decades. Why is that so unimaginable..?? MP himself seems frustrated by the babus in MoD.



So when it was reported that LSP2 is slated for integration with UTTAM AESA, i wondered if thats the reason why MoD didnt go in for the foreign vendor AESA in a hurry and drop millions of dollars when they might have been in the know as to whats the EXACT status of the UTTAM AESA.

MK1A production has no chance of starting before 19-20. So if MoD have a sense that UTTAM AESA might be ready in time for equipping MK1A, it makes sense for them to sit on HALs foreign vendor AESA proposal and save up on a few hundred million dollars.

But in response, this is what you have to say.




Karan M wrote:LOL so you think a radar which is yet to enter flight trials would cause MOD to sit on a vital program. And this is not a CT.


So who exactly is running down a national program which is also on the cusp of maturing ?
you yourself are clearly being import pasand.

Indranil saar has this to say about UTTAM AESA.
Indranil wrote:Integrating Uttam into LCA is a ADA/DRDO project. Integrating a ready to use AESA radar on the Mk1A is a HAL project.

There are some great news on both fronts from AI-17.

1. I was pleasantly surprised that integration of Uttam into an airframe was only 1-2 years away. Also Uttam is not a completely new system. It leans heavily on the AEW&Cs AAAU unit.
2. There are now three competitors for the AESA-EW-jammer suite for Mk1A.




Karan M wrote:As I said stop projecting and if you seek your own kind, I am sure your fellow track 2 types on pakdef will oblige.


this is exactly the saas bahu mentality i spoke about earlier.hows the above even relevant to the topic at hand ?


Karan M wrote:Listen you dont get to call people names, and then act all high and mighty. Random louts use the kind of language you do and then pretend their internet tough guy BS counts for something.

Not impressive. I treat you and your fellow "standard" types the same way. Stop whining and stop misrepresenting national programs with cooked up stories and CTs.


Karan M wrote:
nirav wrote:Kya ukhada of the "support" ?


bahut ukhada.. tera nahin ukhada wohin bahut kiya..


The above was in response to me asking a simple question, IAF was "unsupportive" and Navy was "supportive", what does the navy have to show for the support ?

and this gem, the most ridiculous thing one can ever hear to my question, what did the navy get out of being "supportive"

Karan M wrote:navy has a chance to get a purpose designed operational NLCA Mk2 thanks to the TD LCA derived from the AF LCA. which is what happens when a program is joined late by its primary intended user which throws everything out of whack and soaks up any effort to do any super out of the box effort for the secondary partner.


Did navy ask for a "chance" of it asked for a carrier ops capable fighter jet ? When Vikrant needs to launch NLCA, but since its not available, will you tell them, hey the jet isnt here but you have a chance to get a purpose designed jet which will come.when we dont know, but atleast you have a chance.

so if NAVY buys foreign a/c to fulfill its operational needs since NLCA is not ready its okay .. they need the jets.

IAF has time bound operational needs or not ? but no, at the drop of a hat, import pasand, and what not ... why dont you go to AHQ and hawk your "chance" theory to AF. Might just get the much needed GPL. Heck i think even Naval HQ would be quite swift in dishing out that GPL if you go and tell them they have a "chance" to get a fighter jet for all their investment of time,effort,energy and most importantly scarce capex money.

talking about "random louts" and language,

Rakesh wrote:
Karan M wrote:looks like the rahul gandhi of brf really needs things dumbed down.

You know he is asking for thapad and you Saar are obliged to give it him. Bash on Regardless! The more he trolls like this, he is going to come into the eyes of an admin and his kahani will be khalas! Till then, many of us are watching with glee (I have my Jonnie Walker Red Label already open!) as you take him down. What a troll!


quite the "language".

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2017 02:13

tsarkar wrote:The envelope needs to be established via flight testing like this here. It is unique for each aircraft type and its associated weapons.


Since I have no clue, I am probably wrong here, but still curious. You can probably tell by the following questions that I am neither a developer nor a user.

Isn't the envelope of derby already known? Isn't a missile designed agnostic to a platform and then just qualified on it? I mean one isn't testing derby to understand what its sweet PK spot is correct? It's PK will probably not change if similar platforms fire it at same height altitude etc. The location of the target and its speed determines all that no? We are qualifying it on the LCA to see separation issues and how the platform itself deals with it right? So in sense, the developers of the aircraft will test separation issues, the radar developers and missile developers will help in ensuring that once the missile leaves the platform it finds its target no?

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 16 Feb 2017 02:18

disha wrote:
tsarkar wrote:IAF pilots quickly put the machine to the test, as per ex Mirage-2000 pilot first year saw insane amount of flying by the squadron, aircraft not only participated in all major Airforce exercises in the year but aircraft was also tested to its limits in its Interception roles
tsarkar'ji - you just proved my point. It was the hard work of IAF that made the current M2K. Of course lot of love was extended to M2k and it is a lovely bird. And my further point is why was this love not extended to LCA?


No, Dishaji, you didnt read clearly and completely misunderstood.

The "insane amount of flying by the squadron" was OPERATIONAL flying, in major Airforce OPERATIONAL exercises and OPERATIONAL interception roles.

None of the flying done by the squadron was DEVELOPMENTAL flying as wrongly inferred by you. All the DEVELOPMENTAL flying and work on Mirage 2000 was done by the French.

disha wrote:Moving beyond., the flying daggers got their 2-SP2 only recently (march 2016 was when the SP2 flew first) and the birds were inducted formally only on July 1, 2016. Now do you have data in the last 6 months on the flight hours logged and its general availability of SP1 & SP2 under flying daggers? If not, then it is another rhetorical opinion - in the same class as M2K was a colorful rooster on induction.


Well, since you asked for it, following is the operational performance of Tejas after squadron induction on August 10, 2016

Image

Image

http://www.hindustantimes.com/bhopal/te ... XRlrO.html

It was an unusual sight at Raja Bhoj airport in Bhopal on Tuesday afternoon, when the ground staff rushed in panic to cover the cockpit of a Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) apparently to prevent water leakage into the plane.

The fighter jet – one of the first two Tejas aircraft that were handed over to the Indian Air Force (IAF) for formation of the new ‘Flying Daggers 45’ squadron – was on its way from Pathankot to Bangalore, and landed at the Bhopal airport at 11:30 am for re-fuelling.

However, it did not take off as it started raining, and was towed to the state hanger at 4.21 pm. An airforce official told HT that the light combat aircraft was grounded because of bad weather.

Rain started minutes after the aircraft’s landing in Bhopal. The airport ground staff and some IAF men immediately rushed to the aircraft and tried to cover the cockpit with a yellow tarpaulin.

When the rain stopped, the two pilots of the high-profile LCA stood near the aircraft and ensured that the cockpit canopy was dried properly. But they looked nervous as it suddenly started raining heavily.

The two pilots insisted on another layer of tarpaulin to cover the cockpit. Later, another dark green tarpaulin was placed over it, as everyone had to ensure proper safety of the cockpit.


Tejas PV-6 (tail number KH-T-2010) made its maiden flight on 8 November 2014, after IOC-2.

However, because its build started before IOC-2, it was not built to all-weather-standards. It was inducted in No 45 squadron in July 2016.

As the incident shows, the plane was completely grounded with mission kill until it stopped raining.

Tell me one part of India or its borders where it doesnt rain? Or pilots dont fly into the clouds?

And you and others wanted 100's of Tejas inducted before IOC-2 was achieved because Tejas fired R-73 and dropped LGB.

If the Pakistanis attacked in the rain, and Tejas was the only fighter in vicinity, then, oops, we can fire R-73 and drop LGB but cant fly in the rain.

Refer the enlarged part about nervous pilots and panicked ground crew.

They're shit scared that lack of waterproofing in the aircraft doesnt damage the aircraft and scuppers their Leh deployment.

Do you want your pilots to go to battle nervous and ground crew panicking? In August 2016?

Atleast the Mirage 2000 was fully waterproofed in 1985 and could fly in all weather conditions.

Here is an account BRF Member Abhibhushan flying Hunters in monsoons in 1964

https://tkstales.wordpress.com/2011/01/ ... arma-vira/
The monsoon had arrived over the Punjab. The weather was atrocious. It had been raining incessantly for most of the past seven days.


Its the basic things that matters - like all weather clearance - rather than LGBs.

Atleast the pilots could simply fly, to borrow the Air Deccan motto.

The 3 legged Cheetah jibe was precisely for this reason - you can drop LGBs but not do basic stuff like fly in rains and clouds.

PS - Sorry Karan, just three words in large size, hope that's OK.
Last edited by tsarkar on 16 Feb 2017 03:08, edited 3 times in total.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1097
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby A Sharma » 16 Feb 2017 02:19

NAL Director Report
NAL report explain work done on LCA flight control within last year and on AMCA



nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 02:20

@ Disha ji,

I do not believe that either the AF or ADA/DRDO/HAL have haggled so much over the comment as much as we have in here.
However that cant be justification for name calling of IAF in perpetuity.

Simple reason being, the person who made that comment is long retired.Also, ACM Raha and ACM Dhanoa have showed their absolute support by actually flying the LCA, ordering it in significant numbers.

Theres this tendency on the board to either be REALLY shrill and out do each other in name calling or on the oter end singing hossanas..
If we castigate IAF for one ACMs comment, why not priase it to the moon for the most recent 2 ACMs actual actions ?

You rightly pointed out in your post earlier that with the LCA IAF is not merely buying a fighter jet but a system.
And i agree with that.The user has higher stakes in the LCA than the developer.Its re equipment plans are hinged on timely induction.

ACM Naik when he made that 3 legged cheetah comment,he also said that its capabilities will come up eventually as tsarkar ji pointed out.
One *must* acknowledge the fact that when he made that comment, MiG21 squadrons were really getting long in the tooth with retirement already having started.At that point in time, there was no clear idea of FOC. Fast forward Feb 2017, there still isnt.

6 years from when the comment was made, operational capability as of today is 3 jets inducted with IOC capability.
for the airforce to have a full FOC squadron, it will happen only in 2019-2020 assuming there are no further delays. That too after getting 50 odd waivers which we dont have much knowledge of.

I trust that the Air Chief then had way more access and knowledge about the current status of the program,more than all of the "authorities" on BRF combined. His outburst however cant be used to condemn a whole organisation in continuity and perpetuity.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3218
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 16 Feb 2017 02:23

Any video of the Tejas flying display at AI-2017?

And we need more news on the Tejas Mk1A and Mk2.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1806
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JTull » 16 Feb 2017 02:44

As a bystander, it seems to me that anti-LCA lobby is out in full force.

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 16 Feb 2017 02:46

Cybaru wrote:Since I have no clue, I am probably wrong here, but still curious. You can probably tell by the following questions that I am neither a developer nor a user.

Isn't the envelope of derby already known? Isn't a missile designed agnostic to a platform and then just qualified on it? I mean one isn't testing derby to understand what its sweet PK spot is correct? It's PK will probably not change if similar platforms fire it at same height altitude etc. The location of the target and its speed determines all that no? We are qualifying it on the LCA to see separation issues and how the platform itself deals with it right? So in sense, the developers of the aircraft will test separation issues, the radar developers and missile developers will help in ensuring that once the missile leaves the platform it finds its target no?


The cricket ball has same flight characteristics. But different bowlers lob the same ball in different ways.

Same for missile - different aircraft lob it in different ways.

Aircraft have different flying characteristics at different altitudes, depending on their design. Sea Harrier has very different flight characteristics at different altitudes than the Tejas.

Launch aircraft impart an initial velocity to AAMs and may pull different "g" that impact AAM launch.

If the aircraft is yawing, pitching or rolling during a dogfight, it impacts the way missile is launched. A yaw may impart a side velocity component.

The basic parameters are as listed below, in addition to specific weapon capability.

A weapons envelope around the bandit is three-dimensional and dynamic based upon fighter and bandit airspeed, altitude, g, and specific weapons capability.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 16 Feb 2017 02:51

Will its PK change if its on sea harrier vs Tejas ? If so will it change greatly that it fills unknown gaps in knowledge?

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 16 Feb 2017 02:58

Cybaru wrote:Will its PK change if its on sea harrier vs Tejas ? If so will it change greatly that it fills unknown gaps in knowledge?

Very generally, yes, the Tejas can impart a higher launch velocity, so during end game, Derby will have more energy than when launched from Sea Harrier.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4956
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 16 Feb 2017 02:59

Some sharp shooting.

Image

Image

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, abhijitm, Bing [Bot], Chinmay, Dileep, dkhare, ranjan.rao, Thakur_B, Yahoo [Bot] and 49 guests