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.
JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Feb 2017 18:09

Venu wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Nube question, the automobile industry is in the business of mass production. Which means that it can produce 100 of car's daily for an assembly line.

What's the minimum number of orders that are required for a Mass production of planes. So that a 100 can be produced per year.

More importantly is it even possible for aircraft manufacturing industry?


Very much. At the height of World war-II, factories were churning out aircrafts like potato chips.


IIRC the entire world together produced like 3.5 lakh aircrafts in WW2 within 5-6yrs.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Feb 2017 18:14

yes but complexity wise, they were not anywhere near our modern planes. lord beaverbrook (?) asked for ladies to surrender their aluminium pots so that more hawker hurricanes could be built

i doubt surrendering tavas would ensure more su-30s fly

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Feb 2017 18:24

Karan M wrote:yes but complexity wise, they were not anywhere near our modern planes. lord beaverbrook (?) asked for ladies to surrender their aluminium pots so that more hawker hurricanes could be built

i doubt surrendering tavas would ensure more su-30s fly


Yes. That's why you don't need them in so large number.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 18:27

JayS wrote:
vina wrote:Ok. Lets get back to topic. Any details about the LCA Mk2 in AI 2017 ? The IAF and Navy variants were different for the Mk2 as per the earlier AI. Is it still the case ? Is there going to be an AF Mk2 at all ? The fuselage for the Navy version was going to be wider. Is the 25% fuel increase over the AF version Mk2 ?


Will try to find the answer tomorrow. But I think, they should simply use NLCA MK2 config, stripped down with all naval related stuff. That bird would kick some assess in IAF variant and will have good range too.


Conservatives estimates would put the first squadron in Navy's hands not before 2030.
By then it would be expected to face air opposition of bandars,BLK 52 on paki side and Su-33 rip offs on Chinese side.

The possible air engagement with Sukhoi copies is a little unnerving without any other fighter support.

It just might be restricted to western sea board, with the MiGs and the other twin jet handling Chinese air threat from sea..

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1602
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 16 Feb 2017 18:33

^This should be on the Indian Military Aviation thread.

BTW, what do you expect IAF 272 Sukhois to do while you are unnerved by Sukhoi copies?

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 18:40

That argument makes the need for NLCA only redundant.

The MKIs are always going to be there, unsinkable a/c carrier...

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1602
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 16 Feb 2017 18:45

You are on the LCA thread. Talking about air opposition.
Where does the NLCA figure here? Please stop derailing the thread. The right thread is Indian Military Aviation.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 18:47

Marten wrote:You are on the LCA thread. Talking about air opposition.
Where does the NLCA figure here? Please stop derailing the thread. The right thread is Indian Military Aviation.


Boss,

Why don't you ask the other posters above me to take discussion on NLCA to the NLCA thread ?

I merely replied to them.
What's your problem?

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1602
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 16 Feb 2017 19:06

nirav wrote:
Marten wrote:You are on the LCA thread. Talking about air opposition.
Where does the NLCA figure here? Please stop derailing the thread. The right thread is Indian Military Aviation.


Boss,

Why don't you ask the other posters above me to take discussion on NLCA to the NLCA thread ?

I merely replied to them.
What's your problem?

OT: Off-topic trolling is.

ALL the others were discussing in context. ALL except you. Please take the conversation of unnerving Sukhoi copies threatening the NLCA and your peace of mind to the Indian Military Aviation thread, or if you feel strongly, the NLCA thread.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 19:10

Marten wrote:
nirav wrote:
Boss,

Why don't you ask the other posters above me to take discussion on NLCA to the NLCA thread ?

I merely replied to them.
What's your problem?

OT: Off-topic trolling is.

ALL the others were discussing in context. ALL except you. Please take the conversation of unnerving Sukhoi copies threatening the NLCA and your peace of mind to the Indian Military Aviation thread, or if you feel strongly, the NLCA thread.


I too have discussed and brought up an important point in context.
The LCA,NLCA aren't merely project but weapons of war.

Discussing timelines,eventual induction and expected threats it would face is off topic for you.

The whole discussion on mig21s,mirage2000, Sukhoi 30 components on the previous pages was NOT offtopic for you ?

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Feb 2017 19:27

nirav wrote:
JayS wrote:
Will try to find the answer tomorrow. But I think, they should simply use NLCA MK2 config, stripped down with all naval related stuff. That bird would kick some assess in IAF variant and will have good range too.


Conservatives estimates would put the first squadron in Navy's hands not before 2030.
By then it would be expected to face air opposition of bandars,BLK 52 on paki side and Su-33 rip offs on Chinese side.

The possible air engagement with Sukhoi copies is a little unnerving without any other fighter support.

It just might be restricted to western sea board, with the MiGs and the other twin jet handling Chinese air threat from sea..


You are being too conservative. Besides, it doesn't matter when NLCA is operationalized for IAF as long as IAF have their bird. You don't actually have to wait until NLCA MK2 to be inducted in IN before you strip it down and make and IAF version. I merely meant, keep as much commonality as possible rather than running two entirely different programs with different Aero config and all. IAF MK2 does not have any particular technical challenges.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby enaiel » 16 Feb 2017 19:31

For me, this was the best pic from AeroIndia2017

Image
Chethan Kumar ‏@ChethanKumarTOI #AeroIndia2017 Day 3: This baby knows what mummy wants him to be. (Syed Asif)

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 19:37

JayS wrote:
nirav wrote:
Conservatives estimates would put the first squadron in Navy's hands not before 2030.
By then it would be expected to face air opposition of bandars,BLK 52 on paki side and Su-33 rip offs on Chinese side.

The possible air engagement with Sukhoi copies is a little unnerving without any other fighter support.

It just might be restricted to western sea board, with the MiGs and the other twin jet handling Chinese air threat from sea..


You are being too conservative. Besides, it doesn't matter when NLCA is operationalized for IAF as long as IAF have their bird. You don't actually have to wait until NLCA MK2 to be inducted in IN before you strip it down and make and IAF version. I merely meant, keep as much commonality as possible rather than running two entirely different programs with different Aero config and all. IAF MK2 does not have any particular technical challenges.


I agree on the MK2 kicking ass in IAF version.

I btw was talking about the naval mk2 and its induction,deployment and my estimate was for the same, not IAF mk2.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby abhik » 16 Feb 2017 20:28

Pratyush wrote:Nube question, the automobile industry is in the business of mass production. Which means that it can produce 100 of car's daily for an assembly line.

What's the minimum number of orders that are required for a Mass production of planes. So that a 100 can be produced per year.

More importantly is it even possible for aircraft manufacturing industry?

Why not? At its peak 200+ f-16 were rolling of the lines every year (Here's a nice article on the with the breakup by year and assembly line http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article18.html). Commercial narrow body airliners like A320/B777 families have production rates of 300-400 and wide bodies like the 787 have 100+ per year production rate.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby abhik » 16 Feb 2017 20:36

Not sure if this was posted before: AeroIndia 2017 Promo - LCA Tejas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx74o49j20M

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6219
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Prasad » 16 Feb 2017 21:35

Beautiful. That Bahrain show airfield appears to bein the middle of nowhere. Perhaps that is the reason for the relatively tamer display at AI.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shiv » 16 Feb 2017 21:48

abhik wrote:Not sure if this was posted before: AeroIndia 2017 Promo - LCA Tejas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx74o49j20M

Superlative view for the pilot from the cockpit

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4168
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SBajwa » 16 Feb 2017 23:15

Rakesh. I have used gopher in pre internet days for searching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 23:41

Indranil wrote:
nirav wrote:As a moderator I will trust your judgement.i know you will be fair.
I encourage you to examine my posts in here in detail and in context.

That will only add to the unnecessary verbiage.

nirav wrote:I've received incredible amount of abuse for the same.
I trust you will scrutinize those posts/posters as well.

I know others have faltered as well. And that is why I feel it is wrong to act against you alone. But this has gone on for too long. And I am speaking to everybody here. If this unnecessary name-calling continues, I will have no problem to set aside my leniency.


Indranil,

I waited all day to see if you followed through.
Karan M displayed his best mawali behaviour after you posted this and has made numerous false accusations against me.

It leads me to think that his behaviour is being encouraged and condoned as official moderation policy..

It also saddens me that if i, on Bharat Rakshak,try to put forward the Indian Air forces reasons or rationale for its actions, I get abused and shouted off of the thread.

Senior posters like tsarkarji,rohitvats who try to put forward the forces perspective and their operational needs have been outshouted in the past and im afraid this has become the precedent in here.
This is nothing short of forum goondagiri.

I challenge all AF bashers to put forward their thundering to an actual Airforce person and see what happens.

Deeply disappointed with the way it has been handled.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Feb 2017 23:48

^^ wow. so after engaging in all sorts of the most pathetic name calling, ("tool", "qtiyapa", GPL") etc and claiming you wanted a "cease and desist" you continued to respond to my posts (which i ignored) & now off you come with more name calling "mawwali behavior" and then you have the gall to ask a moderator to support you.

not being allowed to engage in abuse = "forum goondagiri".

and you are "disappointed" with the moderator.

anyone else would have slunk off with a sideways glance after seeing all those antics were allowed to stand in a remarkable spirit of fair play, since folks responded to you and even your posts were not deleted.

and yet you complain!

un-frickin-believable and amusing at the same time.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Feb 2017 00:07

vina wrote:
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) .


Fair point & good on you for digging out the details.

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.

The interesting thing I learnt is in 1999, even the Litening was put on the aircraft on emergency basis & the 250lb spanish bombs were put in a rapid round of testing. So it seems that apart from the handful of heavy French LGBs & their associated day LDP, we likely had very limited A2G capability on the Mirage-2000 (bar the strategic role)

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.


But to be fair, the Mirage 2000 is a beautiful airframe that was upgrade ready at wartime.

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.


The IAFs frustration at HAL imo translated at least partly into the ire at LCA (and the fear that it would never be fixed). The attitudinal issues of our Indian society translate across the board & HAL's attitude is also to blame to an extent.

I think a big reason for a lot of the skepticism around the entire local effort is the lack of services involvement at HAL (and lack of ownership) which stopped after the era of MSD Wollen and (IMHO) was deliberately encouraged by an import friendly regime which kept the services & the production agency separate & the R&D guys too. There was no effort at the national level to sort out things.

We can make out the difference now when 2 years in, the DM sits and gets HAL, ADA and IAF to agree to the Mk1A & also moves HAL and Russia to get Su-30 serviceabilty to 63% from 46%.

One thing is that the average IAF guy will not have the time or inclination to get into who did what, at the end of the day, Su-30 is being made at HAL and no spares == HAL & Russia's fault with HAL being the local guy to get the bad rep.

The deeper machinations at MOD level etc disappear.

Having said that I have always maintained, te older MiG-21s ad MiG-27s can be replaced by the LCA MK1 if the MOD commits to it & the ADA/HAL show an upgrade path (for the deepest skeptics).

IMO, even an IOC limited LCA MK1 would be valuable in the A2G role vs TSP and PRC keeping air superiority out of the picture.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 17 Feb 2017 00:10

Indranil, I think its high time that Nirav be banned for constantly trolling on this thread and adding nothing to the quality of the conversation out here. Enough warnings have been given and his attacks against Karan M are going too far. Everyone on BRF who's been around long enough knows what Karan M brings to the table. Its time to act now and save this thread from being more derailed.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2017 00:14

Kartik wrote:Indranil, I think its high time that Nirav be banned for constantly trolling on this thread and adding nothing to the quality of the conversation out here. Enough warnings have been given and his attacks against Karan M are going too far. Everyone on BRF who's been around long enough knows what Karan M brings to the table. Its time to act now and save this thread from being more derailed.


Your sense of thread derailment didn't kick in when ACM Raha was being called an "idiot" ?

Why is it that no one can answer what did the Navy get in return for all its support ?
One misleading article was enough for people to start abusing the navy too.

Is this all "good discussion" to you ?

And pray tell, what's the morality in abusing a heckler who deliberately provokes "unacceptable" but abusing the Indian Air force acceptable?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 17 Feb 2017 00:40

Just stop derailing this thread and abusing respected posters already!! My last post on this matter. I've reported you for having derailed this thread for the past couple of days, that too when the most information can be gathered and assimilated.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2017 00:46

Kartik wrote:Just stop derailing this thread and abusing respected posters already!! My last post on this matter. I've reported you for having derailed this thread for the past couple of days, that too when the most information can be gathered and assimilated.


I will encourage you to check the sequence of posts.
Being a "respected" posters doesn't give anyone a right to abuse another poster with whom you might disagree.

I got back only after I was provoked and abused.

If you don't agree with what I have to say and do not wish to engage me in a debate, you are free to do so.
You are also free to ignore me.

Calling for a ban because you don't want to hear what I have to say in a debate is childish.

After Indranil called for'balance' I've just made a simple post on the UTTAM AESA.
From there on the "respected" poster got froth on his mouth abusing me.

The thread and forum does not belong to a coterie.
Stop trying to make it one.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ranjan.rao » 17 Feb 2017 00:56

^^JaySir, isn't substituting the engine , and change in dimensions of the plane not a technical challenge or is it just a time consuming job, genuine pooch, because based on what i read on this forum, that too is not an easy job.
Thanks in advance

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1465
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Sid » 17 Feb 2017 01:03

Any change which will have an impact on CLAW, will be a time consuming activity.

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 17 Feb 2017 01:03

Indranil wrote:I did not expect a seasoned poster like yourself to use this senseless news item just to win an argument.


Dear Indranil,

I measure my words very carefully before speaking or writing. I research extensively. Even when I learn from authoritative sources, I research to corroborate. I strongly believe in the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no wrong".

Let me explain below

Indranil wrote:Do you not know that Tejas has gone through intense testing for water seepage. And it is not about a wet seat and a cockpit. The old radome did not pass the seepage test. It was changed. Every panels, ram and ECU air intake has been tested as an unit and then on the plane as a whole against allowable amount of water ingress. And yes torrential downpour has been simulated even on the prototypes. Because nobody wants to lose the test article or their pilots. The entire fleet has been grounded numerous times at the slightest hint of a risk. Yes the product is late, but you can be damn sure that it has passed all tests that any IAF fighter has been put through and more.


There is a slight correction to what you wrote here.

NOT every Tejas PV & LSP has undergone the rain testing described by you.

Only the article that was used for all weather testing, viz, LSP-7 and thereafter SP aircraft built to IOC SoP are all-weather (Source: Page 48 CAG Report)


Trainers PV-5 (1st flight Nov 2009) and PV-6 (1st flight Nov 2014) WERE NEVER BUILT TO IOC SoP.

And which is precisely what I wrote earlier.

tsarkar wrote: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.


For normal squadron operations, one needs Operational Conversion Trainers built to IOC SoP.

However, No 45 Squadron has to use prototype vehicles for conversion.

I very deliberately used this example of IAF inducting prototypes into operational units - because trainers built to IOC SoP aren’t around and wont be around for quite some time

What I wrote is adequately covered in CAG report 2015 Page 14, 42 & 48.

And the Bhopal Incident in 2016 is COMPLETELY inline with CAG findings in 2015.

Indranil wrote:I can understand an ignorant reporter in Bhopal having no idea of fighter aircraft testing, drawing his own conclusions and sensationalizing a breaking news.


I started responding precisely because of statements like this.

If facts go against cherished beliefs, cognitive dissonance sets in, and there is a tendency to -

1. Shoot the messenger
2. Assassinate messenger’s character
3. Find conspiracy theories
4. Bury the facts
5. Distort the facts
6. Outright Lie

People in small town are incredibly more patriotic. The photo posted by me was from a vernacular report whose headline says “Tejas faster than JF-17 Thunder” :D Check the embedded video where the pilot praises the city of Bhopal :D

http://www.patrika.com/news/bhopal/indi ... t-1371899/

Secondly, the journalist, while ignorant, has very plainly noted his observations, including the colour of tarpaulin

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

The airport ground staff and some IAF men immediately rushed to the aircraft and tried to cover the cockpit with a yellow tarpaulin.

The two pilots insisted on another layer of tarpaulin to cover the cockpit.

Later, another dark green tarpaulin was placed over it


The photos taken corroborate that.

What do you get by character assassination of the poor journalist when CAG had published a report highlighting these very issues in 2015?

I deliberately did not post the CAG report a day back to bring out this cognitive dissonance exhibited here.

Think about it - a CAG report published 2015 and an ignorant reporter from Bhopal in 2016 observe the same thing.

Its a very deep CAG-Natasha-Bhopal Journalist conspiracy. Or just the plain truth.

Kartik wrote:ATC did not give permission to take off, due to bad weather. Not that the Tejas could not take off in bad weather.

So why did ATC not give permission?

I checked the weather forecast - there was no cyclone over Bhopal that day.

I checked the civil aviation flights that day from Bhopal - all scheduled airlines civil aviation flights flew

What is the reason Boeing 737 & Airbus A-320 can fly that day but Tejas PV-6 cannot?

Cybaru wrote:And yes, when you do enter and exit a cockpit in rain, if you are not under a canopy or hangar, rain water does seep in. The tarp was probably provided because the canopy couldn't be closed or something and it started raining.

As the pictures posted earlier show, the cockpit was fully closed and the pilots outside when the tarpaulins were being put. What is the "something" being referred to?

My apologies to everyone for hurting cherished beliefs - but its important to stay factual and truthful.

This example was just to show that IAF is going out of its way to induct the Tejas using prototype trainers to train pilots
Last edited by tsarkar on 17 Feb 2017 03:08, edited 9 times in total.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ranjan.rao » 17 Feb 2017 01:04

OT: Mods please delete the post if you feel like

Nirav sir, sincerely request you to please stop this baiting/trolling especially during aero india. I have no right esp on BRF to do anykind of policing or gyaanbazi, so again requesting you to please cool down, and put all the LCA related points whenever you feel like and come next week with all your complaints..

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2017 01:15

ranjan.rao wrote:OT: Mods please delete the post if you feel like

Nirav sir, sincerely request you to please stop this baiting/trolling especially during aero india. I have no right esp on BRF to do anykind of policing or gyaanbazi, so again requesting you to please cool down, and put all the LCA related points whenever you feel like and come next week with all your complaints..


Apologies Ranjan.Rao ji.

I agree the timing is not quite right.Whats happening is also not quite right.
I genuinely have no intention of derailing the thread or continuing the OT.
I was addressed by the moderator, I'm awaiting his reply.

@ tsarkarji,
Sau pranaams sir.

Thank you for posting the truth which goes against the narrative of IAF "not supportive" and explaining it so patiently.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5785
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby disha » 17 Feb 2017 01:20

Many missed the ADA announcements on NLCA. It should be carried in NLCA thread., but it does appear that NLCA Mk-II without the 'naval' part is the IAF Mk-II.

Tejas-Mk2 is going to be one kick-ass plane. And guess what., its naval variant (NLCA Mk2) will be a decade ahead of its Gripen competitor!

I am all for replacing all the Mig-21s with Tejas Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2 in phased manner. Just that the Mk2 will not come in time for the Mig 21-Bisons replacement :-(

Or it just may be. If Mig-21 Bisons can be extended till 2022., with first flight of Mk2 in 2019 - it is possible to have a good replacement of some 8-10 squadrons of Migs. That is another 160-200 Tejas Mk2. The remaining Mk1 and Mk1A can be converted to Mk2 as well!

And Mk1A with say Uttam & Astra can become an export platform. Vietnam will be interested in replacing its Su-17s and upgrading its air force! Also African Union will be interested and our own Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and Nepal.
Last edited by disha on 17 Feb 2017 01:43, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 17 Feb 2017 01:32

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/ ... -back.html

For starters, the team plans to move the wings outboard by about 350mm, increasing the space significantly between the fuselage and the wings. This would immediately optimise load transfer (the ADA has had weight issues with the landing gear) and free up the central fuselage for fuel. 'We believe the change will free up space for up to 700 kg additional fuel, providing about 22 minutes of additional time on task,’ Balaji tells Livefist.


The primary reason for fuselage stretch is to space out the undercarriage for more stability and better load bearing during carrier landings.

Narrow undercarriage of land aircraft like F-16 or Spitfire are unsuitable for carrier operations.

The Seafire version of Spitfire failed specifically because of narrow undercarriage not providing enough stability on pitching decks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire
Last edited by tsarkar on 17 Feb 2017 01:55, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Feb 2017 01:52

tsarkar - the issue though is this is a limited fix which was restricted to a few aircraft.

regarding the aircraft not being to the latest IOC standard, ok - but IN has faced other issues with many MiG-29Ks (their serviceability and non compliance to SQR was also noted by BRF posters who had the inside track way before the CAG report itself..).

plus the IAF has this record of its own MiG-29s..eerie replica of the MiG-29K challenges .. new problems, new stories.

the point i am making is the AF has made do with far far more restrictive issues than a couple of trainers not built to the finalized standard. of IOC, or FOC.

we routinely import "tried and tested gear" which is anything but. from mig-29s to kh-31s to rvv-ae's to initial crystal maze, elta recce pods... the list goes on and on and on..

in contrast, a couple of fighters yet to be manufactured to the latest standard ..its really not such a big deal (IMHO).

The Indian Air Force (InAF) MiG-29 Experience:

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India published on 31March1993 the results of an in depth study on the operational performance and reliability of the MiG-29 aircraft. This study was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology during 25July1994 (pg.49), and has been obtained by author from Mr. Pushpindar Singh, of the Society of Aerospace Studies, New Delhi.

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. [/b]Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of InAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the InAF with $300,000 in liabilities. In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.

Non-availability of radar and weapon system components also resulted in the grounding of seven aircraft for a period of six to twenty months. Two may have been damaged for life due to cannibalization. Besides this, a large number of subsystems and computers experienced unpredicted failures in the last four years which adversely effected the operational readiness of the squadrons. Some of the computers were field-repaired by specialists from the manufacturers, others were replaced. These repair costs were all in excess to the initial contract costs. It was noted that the 10 additional computers, which were imported, cost the InAF around $806,000. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units quickly became unserviceable during their warranty period and have been lying un-utilized and un-repaired for over two years.


The InAF Headquarters also noted in March 1991 report that a severe shortage of product support equipment had resulted in the decline of fleet availability by 15-20%, which in turn, took negative effect on operational readiness and mission requirements.

So in general, lessons learned from this first out-of-country operation of a Russian front line fighter were:

1. The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments.

2. There were significant shortfalls in the performance of the MiG-29 fleet resulting in operational and training inadequacies. The shortfall ranged from 20 to 65% in respect to combat aircraft availability and 58 to 84% in trainers between 1987 - 1991.

3. There was a mismatch between induction of the aircraft (1987) and the establishment of its repair facilities (end of 1994). Until that time engines had to be continually sent to manufacturers abroad at great monetary cost, reduction of one-half total life, and a significant stretch of schedule.

4. Non-availability of critical radar components and spares resulted in the grounding of significant numbers of aircraft. Five aircraft were out of action for over six months while two were in the hanger for over two years. Unserviceability of computers and the inability to fix them cost excessive amounts of money to rectify.

5. The pilot debrief Ground Data Processing Unit, imported at high cost, was left lying around unserviceable and unused since its reception in August 1990.

6. The lack of nose wheel mud guards had to be solved by importing upgrade kits and expensive local re-design after material deficiencies could not be overcome.


With a regional support capability in place (regardless of how tenuous it was) and having one of the few respectable MiG-29 operating legacies, the Indian aerospace companies, especially Hindistan Aeronautical Ltd. (HAL), and the InAF became natural partners for MAPO in consummating the sale of MiG-29's to Malaysia. They were offered the opportunity to get involved with providing training and logistics support for the new Malaysian MiG-29 program. India, of course, gives greater credibility to MAPO in convincing customers that the MiG-29 is a viable fighter candidate for Pacific Rim nations. It remains to be seen, however, what solutions the new joint venture brings to the Indian Air Force problems.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Feb 2017 01:54

what do you make of taking the NLCA Mk2 and AF'izing it? do you expect significant weight savings without considerable re-engineering (IMHO at best two sets of landing gear can be devised, but the main structures within will be common).

tsarkar wrote:http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/revealed-the-indian-lca-navys-big-fight-back.html

For starters, the team plans to move the wings outboard by about 350mm, increasing the space significantly between the fuselage and the wings. This would immediately optimise load transfer (the ADA has had weight issues with the landing gear) and free up the central fuselage for fuel. 'We believe the change will free up space for up to 700 kg additional fuel, providing about 22 minutes of additional time on task,’ Balaji tells Livefist.


The primary reason for fuselage stretch is to space out the undercarriage for more stability during carrier landings.

Narrow undercarriage of land aircraft like F-16 or Spitfire are unsuitable for carrier operations.

The Seafire version of Spitfire failed specifically because of narrow undercarriage not providing enough stability on pitching decks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Feb 2017 02:18

kartik

yeah, pretty interesting that right at the time of AI, when the LCA would have max press attention & india is undertaking an unprecedented campaign to attract international customers, gent in question chose to do his best to spread propaganda about the aircraft.

when people counter, out comes the unbelievable level of fourth rate gaali galoch - stuff like qtiyapa, GPL, you tools, you uber fanbois, this, that.. still skated by because of fair play and people responded to the bait!! but not enough. (this is the part that has me wondering if this is real or farce) disappointment at mods.

entitlement levels!!

and all this about navy and NLCA, i do wonder if this needs to be read every week by anyone before posting on the LCA. your own interview of the navy guys and LCA team which clearly brings out (four years back itself) how navy saw Mk2 as its "real" fighter and was the one who initiated the whole program with AF joining it later! the amount of work done on naval fighters in Mk1 itself to develop navy specific tech.

and now we are being told about how the navy was kept out of the loop, this, that. ADA chief to many key decision makers are ex-navy!

viewtopic.php?p=1795662#p1795662

for all those really interested in the LCA, please read the post in entirety. see the amount of effort put into NP1 et al for developing core naval fighter specific tech. that is the ultimate payoff of the effort which will culminate in Mk2.

there are no short cuts with the LCA. never were, never will be.

now ADA has come out with a realistic timeline of AMCA, understand that & be realistic. its good we aim for a firm estmate a decade from now as versus claiming all sorts of stuff, which with our multiple programs will not happen.

also LCA production by itself is a huge learning curve. its a big step forward for us. first fighter we are making on our own, no OEM to hand hold HAL. that in itself means LCA should be progressed and iteratively made in larger and larger numbers for ideal force accretion plus local knowledge

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2851
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 17 Feb 2017 02:35

Indranil: If you are reading this, I URGE you to kindly request nirav to stop posting. He is not providing anything valuable other than going round in circles. He is needlessly wasting valuable time from members like Yourself, Karan M, Marten, Kartik, Cybaru among others. Since I fought with him as well, if you want to ban me till his tamasha cools down...please do so. Ban Me Saar, but please get him off this board...even if it is temporarily. There is not a single thread where he has not derailed it with drivel.

Informed members - like the ones I mentioned above - have to waste time explaining things to him which is absolutely pointless. Valuable threads - with good info - is getting mixed up with his nonsense.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2017 02:38

Screw this.
Last edited by nirav on 17 Feb 2017 02:48, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Feb 2017 02:47

a bit too late in the day to sense the wind and blow with it.

you lost all claim to any civility whatsoever with prior usage of the most third rate display of uncouth street level behavior i have seen on this forum.

plus the complaining when other posters responded in even milder kind & then running to "teacher"!

hilarious! so much for tough talk!

please spare me the sudden change in heart and don't address any further posts to me. i and most of us have wasted enough time on your "posts" and the thread is now best served for whatever info comes out of AI.

thanks much.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1813
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2017 02:47

Screw it.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13941
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Feb 2017 02:50



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shravanp, Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests