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

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2017 17:09

Cain Marko wrote:Mongolsaar, why so suspicious? Does it have to be that the Navy, if they bail out, must obviously be because they are anti Desi products. Could it even remotely be possible that the product won't actually work for them? Imho, the reason for the Navy decision is the same reason that the IAF produced, but more relevant.... The bird is under powered. But of course my understanding of such matters is rudimentary at best, and there might actually be another better reason. But I find it rather suspicious that the one service which has been repeatedly commended even by jingos for being pro local products has suddenly grown an uncharacteristically unpatriotic bone and decided to abandon the project for flimsy reasons...


Cainji, I am sure the Navy leadership understands the implication of their "strategy": MiG-29 is beneath their standards. LCA is beneath their standards. This leaves - what? French and American Navy fighters Rafale or F/A-18, unless they are arguing for JF-17.

Let's see:
1. Admiral Ramdoss, fomer head of Indian Navy. Notorious anti-Indian, spends much of his time slandering India on behalf of foreign entities and commie-pakis. Apparently an enthusiast if not representative of foreign arms dealers.
2. Admiral "golf" Nadkarni, former head of Indian Navy: Spent much of his time during the LCA development, calling for its cancellation. When the LCA actually flew, came out with an article DEMANDING project cancellation, that was so bogus it should have been marked as criminal in its misleading nature.
3. Another Navy boss has been shunted out because his wife was running the Navy, not he. For relatives. By relatives.
These atrocities went on for years and years unchecked. So I think some skepticism by the public is warranted on IN decisions. LCA may not be export-ready, but the IN leadership Alumni Association certainly seems export-ready.

The I in IN stands for India. It is a fact of life that without procurement from the armed services, indigenous weapon development is doomed. So a decision to "have nothing to do with it" by one service, should be unacceptable.

IIRC, when LCA was brought out, the Prototype 5 which was the Navy version, was the most interesting and advanced, since it had several aerodynamic features that others did not have. Now the Navy says it does not meet it's requirements? Are Indian Navy ships somehow special in that the LCA cannot land or takeoff on them? Have IN ships become smaller in the past 10 years? Pilots less skilled? I don't see why. Do they have R&D projects to solve whatever special problems are encountered?

The engine is underpowered? India does not know how to make engines of suitable thrust-to-weight ratio and reliability. That is not fixed by cancelling requirements. Frankly I think the whole setup stinks. Why can't MiG and Sukhoi fighters' engines be adapted, or the LCA adapted, for a match? Ask the Admirals to lose weight and set an example for Navy pilots. Develop lighter weapons.

Meanwhile, China is coming out with aircraft carrier production, and sailing those things all round the world (OK< under tow most of the time..) They are using their own fighters, not French or American. Why does this not work only with India?

The right course of action is for the IN leadership to be invited to a private meeting with the civilian leadership, and given sailing orders. If IN leadership does not cooperate in LCA development, then it is the leadership, not the LCA, that needs to be cancelled. Maybe like the BCCI, Indian netaship could decide that IN needs Phoren Coaches to replace the present top layer?

Maybe a lot of the funds earmarked for Navy procurement should be re-directed to LCA development to solve the outstanding issues.

So yes, given the antics of past leadership, the dissatisfaction with the MiG-29 and now the LCA combine to paint a rather bad picture of IN. Maybe they need to bring back the Mysteres.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 31 Jul 2017 17:35

UlanBatori wrote:The engine is underpowered?


The engine is fine, the Mk1 Navy aircraft is heavy.

Historically the F-111B Naval Fighter powered by P&W TF-30 was similarly heavy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_D ... man_F-111B

During the congressional hearings for the aircraft, Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes, saying, "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"


The F-14 using the same P&W TF-30 engines performed fine.

UlanBatori wrote:Why can't MiG and Sukhoi fighters' engines be adapted, or the LCA adapted, for a match?


https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/f404-engine
F404-IN20

The highest thrust variant of the F404 family, the -IN20, deploys the latest hot section materials and technologies to power India's Light Combat Aircraft.


And Russian engines in the same weight class generate similar thrust -

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... Family.pdf
http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/airc ... 33-family/

Getting a new engine requires re-design like MK2.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
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 » 31 Jul 2017 18:37

The F-14 using the same P&W TF-30 engines performed fine.

It didn't. The TF-30 is a BOMBER engine and you cannot slam the throttle back and forth like during hard maneuvers . The TF-30 equipped F14 A/B were prone to compressor stalls, reliablity was piss poor. The performance inherent that airframe could never be realised with that engine.
From Wiki on F14 Engines and Structure
the performance of the TF30 engine became an object of criticism. John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy in the 1980s, told the U.S. Congress that the TF30/F-14 combination was "probably the worst engine/airframe mismatch we have had in years" and that the TF30 was "a terrible engine"

It is ONLY when the GE F110, which was developed as an ALTERNATE engine for the F15 & F16 was ported into the F14, the t:w ratio improved, and the F14 became capable of hard maneuvering and the airframe met it's full potential.

Notice , how the "sub par" F14 was inducted in decent numbers on carriers, saw service, flaws and all, until they were fixed in later batches.

Urban legends need to be given a quiet burial of course.
Last edited by vina on 31 Jul 2017 18:40, edited 2 times in total.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby jayasimha » 31 Jul 2017 18:39

Assume this may not be the first time being posted here ( MBD-If-RP)

http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... 7_2015.pdf

Design, Development, Manufacture and Induction of Light Combat Aircraft

In the end of page 72 it is mentioned

Total Indigenous content 61 percent
Total Import content 39 per cent

jai hind

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 31 Jul 2017 19:25

vina wrote:
The F-14 using the same P&W TF-30 engines performed fine.

It didn't. The TF-30 is a BOMBER engine and you cannot slam the throttle back and forth like during hard maneuvers . The TF-30 equipped F14 A/B were prone to compressor stalls, reliablity was piss poor.

Performance and Reliability are two different things that you getting confused with.

The TF-30 equipped F-14 took off just fine from carrier decks. It was designed to intercept cruise missile carrying bombers with extremely heavy AWG-9 radar and six 500 kg 100 nm (180 km) AIM-54 missiles at supersonic speed with long endurance and it performed that role quite fine. Reliability was an issue, as you pointed out.

Same with MiG-29K or most Russian equipment - performance is fine, reliability is bad.

With regards to Tejas Mk1 Navy, its a performance issue. There is a post here of a member meeting the LCA Navy team member in a Aero India where this was confirmed.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
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 » 31 Jul 2017 19:38

tsarkar wrote:Performance and Reliability are two different things that you getting confused with..

I see. The following are "reliability" issues.
1.Not being able to maneuver hard because you cant slam the throttle back and forth and transition between power settings in real combat
2.Lack of thrust (and hence t:w) ratio
3. Compressor stalls when firing missiles (leading to restrictions on missile firing in certain altitudes)
4. Compressor stalls under maneuvering leading to plane entering unrecoverable flat spins

Somehow, here I was thinking all these were actually performance shortfalls, that got filled when a higher thrust engine with carefree throttle operation and more robust compressor working line with higher stall margins developed for another program got put in.

The USN inducted 439 (per wiki) of these airframes with the TF-30 engines despite the performance shortfalls. Not a small number at all, and indeed probably as many airframes that India has in it's front line fighter fleet today!

The F-14s might have got inducted in the early 70s,but it was only by mid 80s (close to a FULL 15 YEARS after induction), they actually realised their full performance inherent in the airframe. Food for thought that.

As for the "famed" Rafale, the version the IAF is getting is the version later than the F3, again a nearly full 15 years after it first entered service.

Atleast the American and French planes get fixed. The Russian rubbish remain screwed forever, even 30 years after entering service. No wonder the Mig 29K is K for Kakkoose.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2017 19:52

"Its a performance issue"

If the dear thing can take off and land without killing anyone on the home team, and fire an occasional missile at the Pakis/cheens, then IN should induct it, precisely to get experience. If not, the IN is acting like prima donna types. As posted above, F-14 WAS inducted, warts and all, and actually sent several "enemy" aircraft to shaheed-dom in major aerial combat over Libya, Grenada, Panama etc. 439 inducted. Maybe because there was no way to swing a sweet deal to get a Mirage-3 instead from the French of that time?

Weight is always a problem on carrier-based craft - the tails, landing gear and basic airframe have to take greater impact stresses and they may need some additional gizmos like tail hooks and instruments. So don't carry as much armament until the engine grows up.

If IN gets suddenly smarter and inducts superior airplanes such as Thundaar, then they can always park the NLCAs at INS Cochin minus the tailhooks and use them for other missions.
BTW I have always wondered why the swing-wing F-14 was abandoned in favor of the F-18 where the tails used to fall off.
Also, wasn't the F-14 featured in "Top Gun"? Seemed to have a lot of high-AOA maneuvers? Maybe LNCA can be used in the Malloo Movie "Taap Gun" starring Sreesanth. Unless he has got as fat as all the other stars.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2017 20:58

marten, What Dileep is telling us is LCA Mk2 will be AMCA.
No point is waiting for a marginal utility plane. By moving the design folks to PAK-FA and on to AMCA ensures design expertise is built up and not lost.

LCA Mk2 is a chance to redo the plane all over again.

Should have done it when moving from TD to Mk1.
That mid section 1 meter plug thing will effect aerodynamics all over again.

Its time now not money that is the driver.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 21:41

UlanBatori wrote:Cainji, I am sure the Navy leadership understands the implication of their "strategy": MiG-29 is beneath their standards. LCA is beneath their standards. This leaves - what? French and American Navy fighters Rafale or F/A-18, unless they are arguing for JF-17.

Let's see:
1. Admiral Ramdoss, fomer head of Indian Navy. Notorious anti-Indian, spends much of his time slandering India on behalf of foreign entities and commie-pakis. Apparently an enthusiast if not representative of foreign arms dealers.
2. Admiral "golf" Nadkarni, former head of Indian Navy: Spent much of his time during the LCA development, calling for its cancellation. When the LCA actually flew, came out with an article DEMANDING project cancellation, that was so bogus it should have been marked as criminal in its misleading nature.
3. Another Navy boss has been shunted out because his wife was running the Navy, not he. For relatives. By relatives.
These atrocities went on for years and years unchecked. So I think some skepticism by the public is warranted on IN decisions. LCA may not be export-ready, but the IN leadership Alumni Association certainly seems export-ready.

The I in IN stands for India. It is a fact of life that without procurement from the armed services, indigenous weapon development is doomed. So a decision to "have nothing to do with it" by one service, should be unacceptable.

IIRC, when LCA was brought out, the Prototype 5 which was the Navy version, was the most interesting and advanced, since it had several aerodynamic features that others did not have. Now the Navy says it does not meet it's requirements? Are Indian Navy ships somehow special in that the LCA cannot land or takeoff on them? Have IN ships become smaller in the past 10 years? Pilots less skilled? I don't see why. Do they have R&D projects to solve whatever special problems are encountered?

The engine is underpowered? India does not know how to make engines of suitable thrust-to-weight ratio and reliability. That is not fixed by cancelling requirements. Frankly I think the whole setup stinks. Why can't MiG and Sukhoi fighters' engines be adapted, or the LCA adapted, for a match? Ask the Admirals to lose weight and set an example for Navy pilots. Develop lighter weapons.

Meanwhile, China is coming out with aircraft carrier production, and sailing those things all round the world (OK< under tow most of the time..) They are using their own fighters, not French or American. Why does this not work only with India?

The right course of action is for the IN leadership to be invited to a private meeting with the civilian leadership, and given sailing orders. If IN leadership does not cooperate in LCA development, then it is the leadership, not the LCA, that needs to be cancelled. Maybe like the BCCI, Indian netaship could decide that IN needs Phoren Coaches to replace the present top layer?

Maybe a lot of the funds earmarked for Navy procurement should be re-directed to LCA development to solve the outstanding issues.

So yes, given the antics of past leadership, the dissatisfaction with the MiG-29 and now the LCA combine to paint a rather bad picture of IN. Maybe they need to bring back the Mysteres.


Mongolsaar,
I can understand the suspicion wrt said gentlemen, but
I can't understand this.... Notwithstanding the antics of nadkarni types, it was the Navy under Arun prakash that funded the nlca and deputed the rather talented and Senior offixers like Cmdr Balaji and Maolanker to oversee the project. The Chiefs who followed also backed prakashs legacy. Btw, the support for the mk2 continues and MP is on record clarifying this.

After doing all this if the Navy finds that the end product does not work, they are the bad guys?

As far as the comparisons with USA and China are concerned, I'm not sure how they apply... if it works for these two countries, it should work for India? To my eyes Indian forces do not have the luxury of awaiting loong development cycles..... Not when they continually have extremely belligerent neighbors knocking on their door.

Having said this, I have to admit that I was rather surprised that the Indian Navy went with the mk1 design to begin with. To my layman eyes, it seemed like a doomed effort for stobar type ops when even the land based version seemed like it was underpowered.... The light single engine thingie leaves very little room for error and a twin engine design might have been a better way forward. Or at least a medium class design if it had to have a single engine ala fsolah. Spider sense tells me that same c crap will happen with the mk2 if they persist with a 10 ton engine for what is likely to be an 8 plus ton airframe. But then i am a mere layman enthusiast when it comes to such things.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 31 Jul 2017 22:01, edited 2 times in total.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6608
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Prasad » 31 Jul 2017 21:44

Then we're stuck with no indigenous plane for our carriers for the next 30-40 years. We're definitely not going to build a first-rate Naval variant of the AMCA if we can't even get the LCA-N on the carriers in the first place. In numbers and on active duty. Not as a one-off TD.

Design, produce, use, gather feedback, redesign/design new thingie. That won't happen. If that wont happen, you won't mature your building process or refine your design either. You will be shooting in the dark on a far heavier and dare I say more important plane if you don't go through the process, in relative peace, now.

This pie in the sky attitude is amazingly shortsighted that someone in MoD must step up to make people see the big picture. But MoD is apparently manned by clowns.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 31 Jul 2017 21:51

ramana wrote:marten, What Dileep is telling us is LCA Mk2 will be AMCA.
No point is waiting for a marginal utility plane. By moving the design folks to PAK-FA and on to AMCA ensures design expertise is built up and not lost.

LCA Mk2 is a chance to redo the plane all over again.

Should have done it when moving from TD to Mk1.
That mid section 1 meter plug thing will effect aerodynamics all over again.

Its time now not money that is the driver.

Would be happy to see AMCA FSED being funded first. 90 cr from what I was told. And even that is being criticized. I understand the reason but developing the second iteration single engine MK 2 would always be the shortest delivery path. Whether the IAF sees potential or gain is a different matter. If MK1a would meet IAF requirements for a single engine fighter, nothing like it. At the moment, it appears otherwise.

AMCA deserves focus and energy but one wouldn't be surprised to see it cast aside in five years. I simply cannot see ADA back pedal on the path breaking all aspect stealth and related technologies. My limited and perhaps illiterate point is that we can and should go in for another twin engine jet without the trappings of stealth. Let us rapid prototype what we can make with technology on hand. From MK 1, 1a and if it happens, MK 2.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 21:53

Prasad wrote:Then we're stuck with no indigenous plane for our carriers for the next 30-40 years. We're definitely not going to build a first-rate Naval variant of the AMCA if we can't even get the LCA-N on the carriers in the first place. In numbers and on active duty. Not as a one-off TD.

Design, produce, use, gather feedback, redesign/design new thingie. That won't happen. If that wont happen, you won't mature your building process or refine your design either. You will be shooting in the dark on a far heavier and dare I say more important plane if you don't go through the process, in relative peace, now.

This pie in the sky attitude is amazingly shortsighted that someone in MoD must step up to make people see the big picture. But MoD is apparently manned by clowns.


One may say that this attitude is exactly what the scientific establishment displays when it repeatedly makes tall claims and offers deadlines that are never met.... Pie in sky anyone?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 21:58

Marten wrote:Would be happy to see AMCA FSED being funded first. 90 cr from what I was told. And even that is being criticized. I understand the reason but developing the second iteration single engine MK 2 would always be the shortest delivery path. Whether the IAF sees potential or gain is a different matter. If MK1a would meet IAF requirements for a single engine fighter, nothing like it. At the moment, it appears otherwise.

AMCA deserves focus and energy but one wouldn't be surprised to see it cast aside in five years. I simply cannot see ADA back pedal on the path breaking all aspect stealth and related technologies. My limited and perhaps illiterate point is that we can and should go in for another twin engine jet without the trappings of stealth. Let us rapid prototype what we can make with technology on hand. From MK 1, 1a and if it happens, MK 2.


Marten Saar are you actually suggesting that a project continue without any application towards the need of the services?

Also what makes you think that the mk1a won't be meeting AFs needs. The IAF has already ordered 83 of them. I'm certain more will come when the bird flies as promised in the stipulated time period..

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1067
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sudeepj » 31 Jul 2017 22:04

F-14, F*** were all inducted in a time frame when vast parts of those countries entire economies were engaged in defense production and R&D. Indian economy is not engaged towards defense/offence in that manner. The US directed nearly 10% of GDP towards war fighting in the 60s and 6-7% after that till the end of the cold war. The hard reality is the Govt. of India has 1.4% of GDP directed at the armed forces. This means that the Govt. of India does not foresee India getting into a major war anytime soon. In the absence of a major war, where you need weapons TODAY, and when you always have an uncle Tom or mama Rodina or now brother Israel to ship you ready made weapons, I dont think the armed forces will accept anything short of a top quality weapon system. I think its shortsighted, but what do I know..

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1192
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby geeth » 31 Jul 2017 22:08

If the dear thing can take off and land without killing anyone on the home team, and fire an occasional missile at the Pakis/cheens, then IN should induct it, precisely to get experience


The present lot of a/c available to Navy is doing that job you described pretty well. Why spend time, money and effort to add another also ran type? I wish they made this decision earlier..but then the decisions were being taken by pappus till MP put some semblance of order.. As far as IAF is concerned, they wanted MK2 IF Navy is going to have only.

I personally feel what Ramana said could be the reason. Despite having a Large work force, DRDO is managing with a handful of designers. Many of the director level scientists are incapable, and some of them I personally know...It is like Pvt engineering college students..hardly employable.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 22:09

ramana wrote:marten, What Dileep is telling us is LCA Mk2 will be AMCA.
No point is waiting for a marginal utility plane. By moving the design folks to PAK-FA and on to AMCA ensures design expertise is built up and not lost.

LCA Mk2 is a chance to redo the plane all over again.

Should have done it when moving from TD to Mk1.
That mid section 1 meter plug thing will effect aerodynamics all over again.

Its time now not money that is the driver.


Thank you Ramana sir for capturing what seems to be, at least in my mind, the game plan of the powers that be. Although I'm not sure how far ADA will be in touch with pakfa, which would be Hals baby.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6608
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Prasad » 31 Jul 2017 22:14

Cain Marko wrote:One may say that this attitude is exactly what the scientific establishment displays when it repeatedly makes tall claims and offers deadlines that are never met.... Pie in sky anyone?

Surely you're not suggesting that everything was given to the LCA developers and they fell short? :) Even now, dripfeeding funding to r&d establishments isn't helping. How many times has the yakherder called for pouring money to build & destroy? It takes leadership to manage squabbling and variant ideologies and agendas and capabilities. Neither PMs not DMs have had it. Current setup doesn't even think we warrant a full time def min. Rotten from the top. Enough OT from me.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2017 22:29

Marten, This exactly what Ashley Tellis writes about "Arming with out aiming".
A weapon has to have a customer requirements.
Its not a case of build a widget and the world will beat a path to you.

ADA and HAL people will be working on the PAK-FA to lead to AMCA.

How do you expect FSED for AMCA at this stage?

Stealth is not the issue. Its the engines.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2017 22:31

Cain Marko, Thanks.
What triggered my mind is an AM level officer headed the panel that suggested investing in PAK-FA and noted the work-share part of it.

Not some academic nor a mfg MD.
Put yourself in IAF shoes.
Here comes a project where you can invest and get your engineers to get experience that can be leveraged into future AMCA and also hedges in case that one falls short.

And Su-30MKI line gets to be alive.

He is a genius.


Did you see T.S. Raju, HAL chairman remarks on what HAL will contribute to the PAK-FA and how that is most of the guts of modern airplanes: the avionics.

We can discuss on the other thread.....

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
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 » 31 Jul 2017 22:42

ramana wrote:A weapon has to have a customer requirements.


Well , this is the first time I am hearing that the Rafale was built to the IAF requirements. Also, so I assume that the F-16 in 1969 or whenever had the IAF's field performance requirement circa 2017 in mind when they specced it out for the "Single Engine, Make in India" requirement.

Surely you jest sir. I am not sure if the IAF has any requirement of it's own. I dont think it ever did and if they did, I havent seen it, nor has anyone else. When I say that they don't have a doctrine or cant come up with one , and hence a weapon concept to follow through on that, it gets people's back all riled up. But that is the truth! All they do is shop around in the global arms bazaar and indeed that is all the can do, given their organizational setup and culture

Look at their "requirement" for the mythical bird called FGFA which is a derivative of the PAK-FA. It doesnt exist and indeed, cant exist becuase the engines aren't there. The Russians havent been able to come up with a 5th gen engine yet and it is flying around with an interim "unstealthy" SU-35 engine for the PAK-FA.

For all the FGFA guys , all I can say is SHOW THE ENGINE. It doesn't exist in any useable form yet and I dont think the Russians have it in them to come up with a reliable , competitive engine to the P&W engines on the F22 /F35

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2017 22:46

No Rafale was built to French Air Force requirements and IAF tested it found it meets their requirements.
And hence the purchase.
What is difficult with this?

IAF does have a doctrine and its kill the enemy dead.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 23:24

ramana wrote:Cain Marko, Thanks.
What triggered my mind is an AM level officer headed the panel that suggested investing in PAK-FA and noted the work-share part of it.

Not some academic nor a mfg MD.
Put yourself in IAF shoes.
Here comes a project where you can invest and get your engineers to get experience that can be leveraged into future AMCA and also hedges in case that one falls short.

And Su-30MKI line gets to be alive.

He is a genius.


Did you see T.S. Raju, chairman remarks on what HAL will contribute to the PAK-FA and how that is most of the guts of modern airplanes: the avionics.

We can discuss on the other thread.....

I'm posting my response on the pakfa thread....

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 23:26

Prasad wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:One may say that this attitude is exactly what the scientific establishment displays when it repeatedly makes tall claims and offers deadlines that are never met.... Pie in sky anyone?

Surely you're not suggesting that everything was given to the LCA developers and they fell short? :) Even now, dripfeeding funding to r&d establishments isn't helping. How many times has the yakherder called for pouring money to build & destroy? It takes leadership to manage squabbling and variant ideologies and agendas and capabilities. Neither PMs not DMs have had it. Current setup doesn't even think we warrant a full time def min. Rotten from the top. Enough OT from me.


I concur with your overall point and I think that the need for a larger pie of the budget for defence needs is being chewed upon by the powers that be... The hope is that all the savings from demonetization, aadhar, gst etc..allows for this

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 31 Jul 2017 23:34

ramana wrote:Marten, This exactly what Ashley Tellis writes about "Arming with out aiming".
A weapon has to have a customer requirements.
Its not a case of build a widget and the world will beat a path to you.

ADA and HAL people will be working on the PAK-FA to lead to AMCA.

How do you expect FSED for AMCA at this stage?

Stealth is not the issue. Its the engines.

ADA Annual report 2015-16 contained the information that the AMCA configuration was agreed upon by IAF. PDC was extended to March 2017/ First few prototypes would be using the 90kn engine and thereafter whenever 110kn was available, they would move. The 2013-14 report clearly states that a current engine would be ideal and any new engine would entail additional delays. Basically if PSQR is approved, they should be in a position to request funds for FSED. Similar path was followed for LCA. Sorry for the OT.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2017 23:55

Repeating my question (curiosity only..)
If LCA is OK for IAF in Himalayan airfields (high altitude, short, no good climb/descent path) then why is it not OK for IN with sea-level takeoff guaranteed? Tailhook and stronger legs don't add that much weight? The answer to "why not hold out for the best?" is that it guarantees that Indian forces will always be "also-rans" instead of developing world-beating weapon systems. Actually IAF does have unique requirements. Paying friendly visit to Skardu, and across from Assam, are EXTREMELY demanding: "Top Gun" had nothing on these. So is operating with weapons load from Leh or returning to land in a blizzard there. Plus operate in the rain of Assam and the heat of Rajasthan. What does IN have that is so unique in requirements? No snow, no hail, no icing at takeoff... I just don't get it.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2017 23:58

The way I look at it, if each NLCA can carry ONE Brahmos mijjile low over the ocean another 300 miles and launch it, the BRAHMOS radius becomes greater by 300 miles. Currently cited BRAHMOS range is 290 km onlee. Add long-range tanks and get up to 500 additional miles? Get 45 LCA babies on an aircraft carrier and your potency is vastly improved. Surely the NLCA has enough performance to do a sea-skimming round-trip?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Aug 2017 00:10

And if that passes the BRF test, why can't a small strap-on turbojet be used to augment thrust I wonder. OK, just idle armchair musing, I know, but this casual dismissal of long-term R&D projects by the Unquestionable Uni(n)formed Patriots really galls me. IIRC, the Admiral Dinosaurov project is the one that dragged out for decades and cost $$B in overruns, all to get a glorified rustbucket to float out to the Arabian Sea where it can burn more crores of rupees as fuel. If the Indian taxpayer could afford to be patient through THAT, I see no reason to not be patient while developing an advanced fighter platform.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 00:22

UlanBatori wrote:Repeating my question (curiosity only..)
If LCA is OK for IAF in Himalayan airfields (high altitude, short, no good climb/descent path) then why is it not OK for IN with sea-level takeoff guaranteed? Tailhook and stronger legs don't add that much weight? The answer to "why not hold out for the best?" is that it guarantees that Indian forces will always be "also-rans" instead of developing world-beating weapon systems. Actually IAF does have unique requirements. Paying friendly visit to Skardu, and across from Assam, are EXTREMELY demanding: "Top Gun" had nothing on these. So is operating with weapons load from Leh or returning to land in a blizzard there. Plus operate in the rain of Assam and the heat of Rajasthan. What does IN have that is so unique in requirements? No snow, no hail, no icing at takeoff... I just don't get it.

Neither do I :D

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 01 Aug 2017 00:35

Dileep wrote:You people don't get it. MK2 ain't happening in any form. Plug, no plug, 0.5M plug, 1M plug, nothing. I get increasingly the feel that the mandate now is to finish the current platform. We have enough problems left with that one itself.

Maybe AamKa will get the required focus now, as some of the teams will be relieved from LCA side.

Dileep sir,

I know you can't speak of most things you know. But your sentences will be taken out of context here. Dooms day will forecasted. HAL/ADA would chastised. You know the drill :D

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 01 Aug 2017 00:38

Its pragmatic. I don't think of this as doomsday.
A development organization has to develop or it atrophies.

IAF panel has advised the GOI that its logical to fund PAK-FA development to gain expertise for later use.
And wonder by thunder GOI accepted that!!!!

Kushi ki baat hain!

Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2368
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Brad Goodman » 01 Aug 2017 00:45

vina wrote:
ramana wrote:A weapon has to have a customer requirements.


Well , this is the first time I am hearing that the Rafale was built to the IAF requirements. Also, so I assume that the F-16 in 1969 or whenever had the IAF's field performance requirement circa 2017 in mind when they specced it out for the "Single Engine, Make in India" requirement.

Surely you jest sir. I am not sure if the IAF has any requirement of it's own. I dont think it ever did and if they did, I havent seen it, nor has anyone else. When I say that they don't have a doctrine or cant come up with one , and hence a weapon concept to follow through on that, it gets people's back all riled up. But that is the truth! All they do is shop around in the global arms bazaar and indeed that is all the can do, given their organizational setup and culture

Look at their "requirement" for the mythical bird called FGFA which is a derivative of the PAK-FA. It doesnt exist and indeed, cant exist becuase the engines aren't there. The Russians havent been able to come up with a 5th gen engine yet and it is flying around with an interim "unstealthy" SU-35 engine for the PAK-FA.

For all the FGFA guys , all I can say is SHOW THE ENGINE. It doesn't exist in any useable form yet and I dont think the Russians have it in them to come up with a reliable , competitive engine to the P&W engines on the F22 /F35


Rafale costs Euro 74M (per wiki chacha) and LCA costs $25M (wiki chacha) so yes apples for apples Tejas does not meet Rafale in performance and gadgets but you can come up with the alternate strategies to use what you have in hand rather than complain about what you do not have with you. The WW2 example of German tanks Vs Russian tanks is classic example of what you can do with underperforming but large in number assets. I still believe Navy and Airforce should buy Tejas and work a strategy where this asset can fit the bill. I would work with tools in hand rather than dreaming about the tools in shop that I might never get access to.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2125
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby kit » 01 Aug 2017 00:56

Brad Goodman wrote:
vina wrote:
Well , this is the first time I am hearing that the Rafale was built to the IAF requirements. Also, so I assume that the F-16 in 1969 or whenever had the IAF's field performance requirement circa 2017 in mind when they specced it out for the "Single Engine, Make in India" requirement.

Surely you jest sir. I am not sure if the IAF has any requirement of it's own. I dont think it ever did and if they did, I havent seen it, nor has anyone else. When I say that they don't have a doctrine or cant come up with one , and hence a weapon concept to follow through on that, it gets people's back all riled up. But that is the truth! All they do is shop around in the global arms bazaar and indeed that is all the can do, given their organizational setup and culture

Look at their "requirement" for the mythical bird called FGFA which is a derivative of the PAK-FA. It doesnt exist and indeed, cant exist becuase the engines aren't there. The Russians havent been able to come up with a 5th gen engine yet and it is flying around with an interim "unstealthy" SU-35 engine for the PAK-FA.

For all the FGFA guys , all I can say is SHOW THE ENGINE. It doesn't exist in any useable form yet and I dont think the Russians have it in them to come up with a reliable , competitive engine to the P&W engines on the F22 /F35


Rafale costs Euro 74M (per wiki chacha) and LCA costs $25M (wiki chacha) so yes apples for apples Tejas does not meet Rafale in performance and gadgets but you can come up with the alternate strategies to use what you have in hand rather than complain about what you do not have with you. The WW2 example of German tanks Vs Russian tanks is classic example of what you can do with underperforming but large in number assets. I still believe Navy and Airforce should buy Tejas and work a strategy where this asset can fit the bill. I would work with tools in hand rather than dreaming about the tools in shop that I might never get access to.



You hit the nail in the head. Thats how military industrial complexes are born all around the world. You build and improvise and what you have , develop military strategies based on those capabilities and improvise and develop further .

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2125
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby kit » 01 Aug 2017 00:57

India has a huge demand for all sorts of weapons so it will afford economies of scale to whatever weapons it will develop.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby pandyan » 01 Aug 2017 01:26

UBji awesome set of posts! I do hope Dr VKS becomes the next defence minister. He seems to have a way to discuss complex issues in a logical and convincing way. He will be an excellent team builder with authority and a big stick

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 01:33

UlanBatori wrote:Repeating my question (curiosity only..)
If LCA is OK for IAF in Himalayan airfields (high altitude, short, no good climb/descent path) then why is it not OK for IN with sea-level takeoff guaranteed? Tailhook and stronger legs don't add that much weight?.... What is so unique about IN requirements

I suspect you already know the answer here, but I'll bite...
From what I can understand sir, the stobar runway is rather small and requires a pretty high twr for fighters to take off with decent loads. Skardu for example has a runway length of some 2600mts. That of vikad short run is 100 odd meters. According to the Indian Navy, this is where the NLCA didn't have enough oomph. I would

As far as naval fighters are concerned, they seem to be a good bit heavier than land based counterparts. Take for example the fulcrum k, it is a good ton to 1.5 tons heavier than the land based M counterpart. It is actually 2 tons heavier than the original fulcrum.

Similar difference between a vanilla flanker and the su33. The difference in rafale versions is a bit less dramatic with an increase ranging from 500 to 750kg between the variants depending on the sources you pick.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 01:37

UlanBatori wrote:The way I look at it, if each NLCA can carry ONE Brahmos mijjile low over the ocean another 300 miles and launch it, the BRAHMOS radius becomes greater by 300 miles. Currently cited BRAHMOS range is 290 km onlee. Add long-range tanks and get up to 500 additional miles? Get 45 LCA babies on an aircraft carrier and your potency is vastly improved. Surely the NLCA has enough performance to do a sea-skimming round-trip?


Brahmos on nlca: ground clearance issues?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Aug 2017 01:53

Hain! This from descendants of those who bridged the Palk Straits using boulders?

Mount one upside down on each wing? Or at least one above the fuselage. Launch with the aircraft upside down, so that it rises when after separation.
As they say:
Everything looks possible in Computer Graphics. Or from LaZBoy Chair.

CainMarkoji, r u saying that by dissing all available planes, IN is actually :(( for long-deck CVNs? Maybe "Yorktown" is available on sale from Charleston along with the full complement of Made In Japan cups featuring Battle Of Midway? Or new one being built at Kochi? Or Enterprise - fitting that it should live out its days in the Andaman Ocean - rename it Prayaschit.

BTW, didn't Adm Dinosaurovich come with a steam catapult or rubber band? AFAIK, very few aircraft of any type have significantly higher T/W with weapons and fuel, than the LCA. Putting solid rockets at wingtip is cheaper than getting new-gen engine - at least for the next 10 years.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48083
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 01 Aug 2017 01:57

Ok. There is a Naval LCA thread. Please take discussion there.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Aug 2017 02:12

O I C! Now I understand what "STOBAR" means. It cuts down the range and payload of all aircraft. Makes no sense to expect aircraft performance to go up enough to make up for that - in ANY scenario you are sacrificing range and payload, just for that takeoff thrust. (Landing is different, you can use Active Circulation Control to do that at not much cost). I think rocket assist ("RATO"?) is the most obvious solution, to enable full-load takeoff. The propellant weight is gone in the first 20 seconds. Boosting "wet thrust" somehow may also work, I don't know.

ramana: just saw above. Thx. Will do.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 03:09

UlanBatori wrote:O I C! Now I understand what "STOBAR" means. It cuts down the range and payload of all aircraft. Makes no sense to expect aircraft performance to go up enough to make up for that - in ANY scenario you are sacrificing range and payload, just for that takeoff thrust. (Landing is different, you can use Active Circulation Control to do that at not much cost). I think rocket assist ("RATO"?) is the most obvious solution, to enable full-load takeoff. The propellant weight is gone in the first 20 seconds. Boosting "wet thrust" somehow may also work, I don't know.

ramana: just saw above. Thx. Will do.

UB garu, I will reply to this in nlca thread...


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests