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: 15 August 2017

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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5872
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 29 Nov 2017 12:13

Deejay,

You have got it right. There absolutely nobody who is marketing the Tejas.

I will give you figures from on the ground. With 3000 ltrs of external fuel, Tejas Mk1 LSPs can easily manage a ferry distance of about 2400 km. This is without IFR. They have never even tried to find the max endurance because these are not marketing guys. These are scientists and engineers who literally believe in "the product should speak of the qualities". The FB and website has come out after much internal strife "what's the need?"

So, with three fuel tanks it can hang around safely for about 3 hours. It still has space for 4-6 A2A missiles, or 2 LGBs. May be the endurance will come down to about 2.25-2.5 hours with the latter. What is the meaningful combat radius you can achieve with 2-2.5 hour sortie, around 500 kms. And this is the norm worldwide. Standard combat sorties hardly span more than 2-2.5 hours.

Singha sir, there is no combat jet made in the history of mankind which can take three large EFTs and be supersonic. If the latter is true then the plane is horribly inefficient when flying without the tanks. Laws of aerodynamics state supersonic fuel tanks cannot increase the cross sectional area significantly. Otherwise wave drag just shoots up. That's why supersonic tanks are narrow and very small. Not even the French can sweet talk around that.

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9164
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Hari Seldon » 29 Nov 2017 12:20

^ Just a suggestion:

Why not a few knowledgeable BRF gurus create a FB page for the LCA and do some FB mktg? Just saying. Doesn't have to cost a dime, besides.

And there'll be this awesome repertoire of ideas, facts, figures, marketing polish - all the Tejas desperately needs. Only.

P.S. The IN is the most desi friendly of the 3 services. Wonder how the N-LCA project is coming along. only.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9278
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Nov 2017 12:34

srai wrote:
shiv wrote:This is like saying:


The word range means nothing unless the following information is specified
1. Is it internal fuel only?
3. How much external fuel is being carried?
3. Is it a combat sortie, if so is it hi-hi-hi, or hi-lo-hi, or lo-lo-hi etc
4. Is it a ferry flight
5. Are combat radius and "range" being mixed up deliberately or out of stupidity

That was the whole point :)

HAL in its website states LCA radius of action as 300km whereas Dassault Aviation states best figures for Mirage-2000. See below:

Code: Select all

Loiter time at 150 N.M. from the base at Mach 0.8/25,000 ft (3 external tanks + 6 MICA) ......... 2hr 40 min
Rayon d’action / combat à M 0,8/15 000 ft (6 Mica, external tanks dropped prior to combat) ......... 830 N.M.


So would like to see what would be LCA Mk.1 best figures that can be "promoted". Then get everyone to talk up those figures everywhere.


Hmmm HAL website says Payload of 5.3 tonnes, thought LCA payload was only 3.5 tonnes

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 29 Nov 2017 13:12

Hari Seldon wrote:
P.S. The IN is the most desi friendly of the 3 services. Wonder how the N-LCA project is coming along. only.

Going by the flight testing, NP1/2 are seating on the ground for past 6 months. One of them can be considered to be undergoing changes for arrestor hook tests. But even very optimistic thinking, I cannot stop feeling that NLCA is crawling at best, if not fully on pause. While LCA Mk1 is doing 60-70 test flights a month now.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 29 Nov 2017 13:19

Indranil wrote:Deejay,

You have got it right. There absolutely nobody who is marketing the Tejas.

I will give you figures from on the ground. With 3000 ltrs of external fuel, Tejas Mk1 LSPs can easily manage a ferry distance of about 2400 km. This is without IFR. They have never even tried to find the max endurance because these are not marketing guys. These are scientists and engineers who literally believe in "the product should speak of the qualities". The FB and website has come out after much internal strife "what's the need?"

So, with three fuel tanks it can hang around safely for about 3 hours. It still has space for 4-6 A2A missiles, or 2 LGBs. May be the endurance will come down to about 2.25-2.5 hours with the latter. What is the meaningful combat radius you can achieve with 2-2.5 hour sortie, around 500 kms. And this is the norm worldwide. Standard combat sorties hardly span more than 2-2.5 hours.

Singha sir, there is no combat jet made in the history of mankind which can take three large EFTs and be supersonic. If the latter is true then the plane is horribly inefficient when flying without the tanks. Laws of aerodynamics state supersonic fuel tanks cannot increase the cross sectional area significantly. Otherwise wave drag just shoots up. That's why supersonic tanks are narrow and very small. Not even the French can sweet talk around that.


My understanding is, as a rule of thumb is we can consider, about 1000kg of fuel for Taxi, TO, approach, landing, climb and emergency divert. Rest is available for cruise. From that we can get some idea of possible range based on most efficient mach/altitude cruise flight for max max range.

IR/Deejay, can you comment on that..?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 29 Nov 2017 14:04

The very fact that you can buy 2 new LCAs for the price of just one M2K upgrade is sufficient proof buying the LCA in droves even as an alternative to lathe 36 extra Rafales-.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 29 Nov 2017 14:08

^^ If the Tejas can cruise like Mig 21 at 900 kmph, then with a flight time of 1:00 hr it can have a range from origin of 450kms at least if we consider a worst case of Clean Configuration and max endurance at cruise speeds maxing out at 900 kmph.

Broadly: Range Radius of action of aircraft is the maximum distance it can travel from the point of origin and return in clean configuration with maximum fuel and no fuel left for diversion. This definition can be further defined to limit payload to mandatory crew only and ISA conditions.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
Range is The maximal total range is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft

Ferry range means the maximum range the aircraft can fly. This usually means maximum fuel load, optionally with extra fuel tanks and minimum equipment. It refers to transport of aircraft without any passengers or cargo. Combat range is the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance. Combat radius is a related measure based on the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves.


1000kg of fuel for Taxi, TO, approach, landing, climb and emergency divert - this is NBAA ranges with IFR reserves in American civil aviation parlance. Just add hold fuel for 40 mins at 10,000 feet :) .

Added later the tect in quote quote and changed Range (mentioned earlier) to Radius of Action. Thanks to my friend who read this and directed me to correct it. Definitions quoted are from wiki to get a common base for assumptions. Apologies. :)

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 29 Nov 2017 15:56

Since I posted on HAL that marketing is poor for Tejas, I must bring this out that it is not so bad either. It could still be better and the brochure from 2017 can be made available but there is this site:
http://www.tejas.gov.in/

I may have missed it the Tejas range figures are not quoted on this site. I am in agreement with this. In case a definitive figure is not available or if one feels that "Range" is not a strong point for the aircraft, then no point mentioning it.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 29 Nov 2017 17:43

deejay wrote:^^ If the Tejas can cruise like Mig 21 at 900 kmph, then with a flight time of 1:00 hr it can have a range from origin of 450kms at least if we consider a worst case of Clean Configuration and max endurance at cruise speeds maxing out at 900 kmph.

Broadly: Range Radius of action of aircraft is the maximum distance it can travel from the point of origin and return in clean configuration with maximum fuel and no fuel left for diversion. This definition can be further defined to limit payload to mandatory crew only and ISA conditions.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
Range is The maximal total range is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft

Ferry range means the maximum range the aircraft can fly. This usually means maximum fuel load, optionally with extra fuel tanks and minimum equipment. It refers to transport of aircraft without any passengers or cargo. Combat range is the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance. Combat radius is a related measure based on the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves.


1000kg of fuel for Taxi, TO, approach, landing, climb and emergency divert - this is NBAA ranges with IFR reserves in American civil aviation parlance. Just add hold fuel for 40 mins at 10,000 feet :) .

Added later the tect in quote quote and changed Range (mentioned earlier) to Radius of Action. Thanks to my friend who read this and directed me to correct it. Definitions quoted are from wiki to get a common base for assumptions. Apologies. :)


Actually I think I read that number in in some article, coming from fighter pilot. Some rough calculations show that that's a correct ballpark. For example, rule of thumb - 1000lbs per min when on A/B per engine. Say you TO in 20sec total on A/B, then that's about 150kg fuel. Add such components to Taxi, TO, climb, approach, landing, taxi and unusable fuel component and some min divert fuel requirement and 1000kg looks reasonable for a fighter jet.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 29 Nov 2017 17:52

Yes, JayS. They are reasonable and in a normal sortie profile, I would plan like that. As I said that is standard flight planning as per even FAA or DGCA rules. But I thought we are discussing Brochure ranges here. Max ranges are not calculated for a normal operation. Operational ranges then have other factors coming in like configuration, mission profile, etc.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 29 Nov 2017 18:19

Indranil wrote:...

I will give you figures from on the ground. With 3000 ltrs of external fuel, Tejas Mk1 LSPs can easily manage a ferry distance of about 2400 km. This is without IFR. They have never even tried to find the max endurance because these are not marketing guys. These are scientists and engineers who literally believe in "the product should speak of the qualities". The FB and website has come out after much internal strife "what's the need?"

So, with three fuel tanks it can hang around safely for about 3 hours. It still has space for 4-6 A2A missiles, or 2 LGBs. May be the endurance will come down to about 2.25-2.5 hours with the latter. What is the meaningful combat radius you can achieve with 2-2.5 hour sortie, around 500 kms. And this is the norm worldwide. Standard combat sorties hardly span more than 2-2.5 hours.

...


With mid-wing pylons also able to carry 800ltr external tanks, the ferry range would be further now. Imagine all five wet pylons loaded with external tanks :twisted:

  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> mid-wing
  • 2 x 1200ltr external fuel tanks -> inner-wing
  • 1 x 725ltr external fuel tank -> centerline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 4725 ltr external fuel capacity

  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> mid-wing
  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> inner-wing
  • 1 x 725ltr external fuel tank -> centerline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 3925 ltr external fuel capacity

All in all LCA ranges with external tanks will closely match Mirage-2000 ranges with its external tanks. Won't be too far off. Difference would probably be within the 200km mark of best brochure figures.
Last edited by srai on 29 Nov 2017 18:22, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 29 Nov 2017 18:21

deejay wrote:Yes, JayS. They are reasonable and in a normal sortie profile, I would plan like that. As I said that is standard flight planning as per even FAA or DGCA rules. But I thought we are discussing Brochure ranges here. Max ranges are not calculated for a normal operation. Operational ranges then have other factors coming in like configuration, mission profile, etc.


Ah. I see the confusion. Sorry for not being clear about that. I just want to have a common ground to compare various jets. Its difficult to compare various brochure figures since we don't know what the heck they are applicable for. I think it's better if we define 2-3 missile profiles and compare how various jets work for that. I just wanted to see if my assumption makes sense or not. I am trying to collect data. F-16C flight manual is available on internet. One can practically calculate parameters for any mission profile. Its a good source to get the feel of numbers and how they vary based on mission profile. LCA has limited data available. I cannot find any real data for Gripen. SAAB is really good with marketing and have consistently been quoting same figure of 3500km ferry range for Gripen A/C everywhere since two decades.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 29 Nov 2017 18:22

srai wrote:
Indranil wrote:...

I will give you figures from on the ground. With 3000 ltrs of external fuel, Tejas Mk1 LSPs can easily manage a ferry distance of about 2400 km. This is without IFR. They have never even tried to find the max endurance because these are not marketing guys. These are scientists and engineers who literally believe in "the product should speak of the qualities". The FB and website has come out after much internal strife "what's the need?"

So, with three fuel tanks it can hang around safely for about 3 hours. It still has space for 4-6 A2A missiles, or 2 LGBs. May be the endurance will come down to about 2.25-2.5 hours with the latter. What is the meaningful combat radius you can achieve with 2-2.5 hour sortie, around 500 kms. And this is the norm worldwide. Standard combat sorties hardly span more than 2-2.5 hours.

...


With mid-wing pylons also able to carry 800ltr external tanks, the ferry range would be further now. Imagine all five wet pylons loaded with external tanks :twisted:

  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> mid-wing
  • 2 x 1200ltr external fuel tanks -> inner-wing
  • 1 x 725ltr external fuel tank -> centerline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 4725 ltr external fuel capacity

  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> mid-wing
  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> inner-wing
  • 1 x 725ltr external fuel tank -> centerline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 3925 ltr external fuel capacity

All in all LCA ranges with external tanks will closely match Mirage-2000 ranges with its external tanks. Won't be too far off. Difference would probably be within the 200km mark.


5 EFT is too crowded.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 29 Nov 2017 18:26

^^^
We are talking best brochure values :wink:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3684
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 29 Nov 2017 18:34

How about LCA as a buddy-to-buddy air refueler?

  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> mid-wing
  • 2 x 1200ltr external fuel tanks -> inner-wing
  • 1 x UPAZ-1 refueling pod -> centerline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 4000 ltr external fuel capacity

  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> mid-wing
  • 2 x 800ltr external fuel tanks -> inner-wing
  • 1 x UPAZ-1 refueling pod -> centerline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 3200 ltr external fuel capacity

Any takers :twisted:

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 29 Nov 2017 18:54

JayS, manufacturers as a practice do not put such figures in public domain. Only pilot operations handbook/ flight manuals will have those. Even those are graphs where one needs to figure out consumption based on configuration and temperatures.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 29 Nov 2017 19:28

Indranil wrote: Standard combat sorties hardly span more than 2-2.5 hours.
Less, Except for US

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 29 Nov 2017 20:12

deejay wrote:That is why I keep saying HAL needs a marketing team. Marketing folks won't make such errors. They put out the best. In the same HAL link by SRai above, Take off distance is given as 1700 mtrs. I have seen LCA take off in lesser distances.
.

I have seen a take off distance figure of 600 meters. I can believe that. Watch this Bahrain video.
https://youtu.be/2NRNCVQRJWs

Tejas unsticks in 12 sec after brakes off. Assuming a take off speed of 200 kmph a simple calculation gives me a takeoff distance of 330 meters. Too short.

If takeoff speed is 300 kph then distance is 500 meters
600 m sounds reasonable

1700 meters would be in Leh

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 29 Nov 2017 21:02

Runways have distance to go markers at 1000 feet interval. Roughly 3000 ft is 1000mtrs. Till this Jan from my high perch in Yemlur I saw numerous Tejas take off in less than 3000 feet.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 29 Nov 2017 21:42

Begaluru elevation 900 m . Hot n high

1000m = abt 3300ft
<3000 ft is <900 m

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 29 Nov 2017 23:53

Deejay my understanding is radius of action includes safety fuel and is synonymous with combat radius.

In short, the 500 km is combat radius, it means flying to that range with a useful payload, engaging in some brief maneuvers and returning with a margin of safety.

From wiki itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_of_action

Radius of action, or combat radius in military terms, refers to the maximum distance a ship, aircraft, or vehicle can travel away from its base along a given course with normal load and return without refueling, allowing for all safety and operating factors.[1]

A given aircraft's radius of action varies according to the altitude of its flight plan, amount of weight (ordnance in a military context) it is carrying, and whether or not it carries external drop tanks full of fuel.

An aircraft engaged in low-level (lo) flight will have a smaller radius of action than the same one engaged in a high-level (hi) mission, due to higher fuel consumption at lower altitudes (higher atmospheric pressure / air density).
An aircraft with more and heavier load (ordnance in military terms) will have a smaller radius of action (combat radius in military terms) than the same one with less and lighter load, due to higher fuel consumption at heavier weights.
An aircraft with drop tanks will have a greater radius of action than the same one without.

In military aviation, the combat radius of an aircraft is often given with its mission profile (without in-air refueling). For example:

The F-16 Fighting Falcon's combat radius is 550 km (340 mi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 450 kg (1,000 lb) bombs.
The F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 537 km (330 mi) on a hi-lo-lo-hi mission.

The radius of action of an aircraft is always smaller than its maximum range, the furthest distance the aircraft can fly with maximum payload and without refueling, or ferry range, the furthest distance the aircraft can fly with drop tanks, no load or ordnance and without refueling. The rule of thumb is that the radius of action is one-third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. In military aviation, this assumes a trip out and back, plus one-third of fuel for combat operations.[2]

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2017 00:06

Philip wrote:The very fact that you can buy 2 new LCAs for the price of just one M2K upgrade is sufficient proof buying the LCA in droves even as an alternative to lathe 36 extra Rafales-.



Spoken like a bean counter!!!!

And two LCAs will give you more flexibility than one M2K in load, capability etc. etc.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4122
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 01:12

ramana wrote:One thing that HAL can do is immediately appoint a retired IAF officer to be in charge of the LCA program and show they get it.

Fighters in the Sky
http://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/fig ... 37172.html

Henceforth, IAF must have a dedicated Directorate at Delhi’s Air Headquarters or in Bangalore as a fighter division. It must be headed by a serving (and proven ace pilot) Air Vice Marshal or Air Marshal. He must, in coordination with the human resources and perspective planning branch, chalk out a detailed “actionable deployment plan” of IAF personnel to be with HAL or any other designated fighter manufacturing enterprise for at least five to seven years compulsorily, before being considered for career progression. Pilots, navigators, engineers, technicians, maintenance personnel, all will have to contribute and work shoulder-to-shoulder with HAL and DRDO. It cannot be left to a single department or branch of the Government to bear the responsibility for the success or failure of indigenous fighter development programme.

It, therefore, becomes axiomatic that HAL ought to be headed by either a serving three star Air Marshal fighter pilot or a serving (at least one star) aeronautical engineer par excellence. All the naval war ship building facilities in Mumbai (Mazagon Dock); Kolkata (GRSE); Vishakhapatnam (Hindustan Shipyard); Cochin are headed by naval officers (although retired). They are normally given a five-year tenure, even after retirement. That gives a semblance of continuity and steadfastness. In the past, HAL was headed by serving three-star officers like Air Marshal P.C. Lal (the victorious chief of 1971 Indo-Pak war); Air Marshal L.M. Katre both of whom were not only ace fighter pilots, but went on to become four-star Chief of Air Staff. Then there was another HAL chief, an ace pilot, Air Marshal M.S.D. Woollen.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nam » 30 Nov 2017 01:35

Let me post a different suggestion.

HAL should be lead by a CEO with professional manufacturing background. Not babus, not ex-IAF.

A CEO who knows how to get funds for HAL and how to find market for his products. Someone who believes in his company's product and knows the value of product support.

In short, a snake oil salesman.

Just like any other professional company.LM or Boeing are not led by ax-USAF.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4122
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 01:44

nam: good suggestion. But that CEO will have to wear three hats -
1) pilot/aeronautical engineer
2) strong experience in manufacturing
3) Snake Oil Salesman.

You may get a combination of two, but all three would be hard pressed to find. Better off having 1 or 2 as the CEO and 3 (and 1 or 2) reporting to him.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2017 01:52

Nam,

You want our defense industry to be beholden to:

A snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is a fraud, quack, or charlatan.


Come on.

This is not a snake oil salesman
A CEO who knows how to get funds for HAL and how to find market for his products. Someone who believes in his company's product and knows the value of product support.


You are using a pejorative term for a strong technologist who is also savvy at business.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4122
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 01:53

Karan Saar, my bad. Edited my post as well. Thanks.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2017 02:02

ramana wrote:
Philip wrote:The very fact that you can buy 2 new LCAs for the price of just one M2K upgrade is sufficient proof buying the LCA in droves even as an alternative to lathe 36 extra Rafales-.



Spoken like a bean counter!!!!

And two LCAs will give you more flexibility than one M2K in load, capability etc. etc.


I think it is essential that we now bring back some sort of fiscal cap on these large programs, sort of a never exceed price. Most large procurement programs have some sort of an internal cap which is applied to vendor responses. That budgetary cap should be decided by MOF, MOD and services all sitting together and coming up with a prospective plan. That is if IAF wants gold plated Rafales, it cannot have as many IFR or Phalcons and hence what is a judicious mix. Right now, its MOD saying tell us what you want, the IAF does so, MOF says no money, and MOD sits on the file and IAF keeps asking for newer stuff. Its a recipe for not getting anything done.

IAF too is completely driven by what MOD is telling it, and is unwilling to cut its cloth per perceived budget because it is unwilling to accept the fact that MOD + MOF relationship, hitherto, has been completely dysfunctional. And IAF planners likely feel that if they let go, "their funds" will end up in IA or IN procurement.

All in all, its a very big mess.

There is no way the LCA can replace a Rafale one to one for long range missions. But surely more LCAs for TSP theater where a 500 km ROA is sufficient can free up Sukhois and give more funds for upgrade etc to bring them to Rafale level and beyond for the PRC theater. The rest of the savings can be spent in IFR, Phalcons etc.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4122
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 06:01

Singapore Defence Minister praises Tejas once again
http://www.sentinelassam.com/story/news ... h9QSrSplQM

Singapore Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on Wednesday once again heaped praise on indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in which he flew on Tuesday, and said he was impressed by the aircraft as well as the pilot. “It’s not very often that Defence Minister of another country can get the privilege of being flown in the light combat aircraft Tejas and as I said yesterday I am utterly impressed with your pilot and the aircraft,” Ng said. Ng was flown in the Tejas aircraft at Kalaikunda airforce station in West Bengal, where two Tejas aircraft had been brought in from Bengaluru. The Project Director for Flight Testing at the Aeronautical Development Agency, Air Vice Marshal AP Singh was the pilot who flew the visiting Singapore minister on an around half an hour sortie. Ng had called Tejas a “very good plane” on Tuesday but did not say if Singapore was interested in buying the fighter jet. Indigenously developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency, and produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Tejas, as a fourth generation aircraft, can fly at 1,350 km per hour and is comparable to the world’s best fighters, including French Mirage 2000, American F-16 and Swedish Gripen.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5891
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nachiket » 30 Nov 2017 06:09

Indranil wrote:Deejay,

You have got it right. There absolutely nobody who is marketing the Tejas.

I will give you figures from on the ground. With 3000 ltrs of external fuel, Tejas Mk1 LSPs can easily manage a ferry distance of about 2400 km. This is without IFR. They have never even tried to find the max endurance because these are not marketing guys. These are scientists and engineers who literally believe in "the product should speak of the qualities". The FB and website has come out after much internal strife "what's the need?"

So, with three fuel tanks it can hang around safely for about 3 hours. It still has space for 4-6 A2A missiles, or 2 LGBs. May be the endurance will come down to about 2.25-2.5 hours with the latter. What is the meaningful combat radius you can achieve with 2-2.5 hour sortie, around 500 kms. And this is the norm worldwide. Standard combat sorties hardly span more than 2-2.5 hours.

Maybe it is time for the ADA (not HAL) to come out with a press release rebutting the figures in the India Today article, and providing the correct ones. This bogey of the LCA having "only 300km" range needs to be struck down once and for all. This is not the first time we have seen this bandied about in the DDM. And now it appears that at least some int he IAF actually believe the nonsense (from what you and Dileep saar are saying).

I can understand bad or non-existent marketing, but this goes beyond that. This is a concerted attack on the whole project that can have far reaching implications if not rebutted. Why should this rebuttal be left for private citizens like you or Dr. Shiv to carry out? Surely the ADA understands this? Are their hands tied?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5095
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 30 Nov 2017 07:16

ADA is not going to rebut it. They are "sitting with a smug smile" onlee.

It makes a lot of sense to moi onlee.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5872
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2017 07:37

Here is my worry. This is not based on my chai pe charcha. Just my gut feeling. The "balance" will be struck as follows:
1. IAF gets SEF
2. ADA gets AMCA
3. HAL gets Mk1A

All I can say is that there is a lot of talk about 1A and AMCA, but nothing about Mk2.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2817
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Nov 2017 08:49

srai wrote:^^^
Can anyone do a fuel consumption rate Mirage-2000 and LCA Mk.1? Let's see if the Mirage-2000 with M53 can indeed have those ranges with full-load of external tanks, what would the LCA's range be with F-404?

Why is the LCA Mk.1 range quoted as 300km while the Mirage-2000 as 1500km? Let's do the math.

Tejas would have similar ranges if not better, if it could carry proportionate levels of fuel

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2817
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Nov 2017 08:53

Indranil wrote:Here is my worry. This is not based on my chai pe charcha. Just my gut feeling. The "balance" will be struck as follows:
1. IAF gets SEF
2. ADA gets AMCA
3. HAL gets Mk1A

All I can say is that there is a lot of talk about 1A and AMCA, but nothing about Mk2.


Well that was the entire idea anyways right. After all it was the Navy that really needed the mk2, not the iaf for whom the mk1a should be more than enough. I expect more orders for the same though.

Ideally it would have been good to have an LCA mk2 program along with the AMCA but I think ADA will have to choose between the two and I'm glad they want to choose anca

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1455
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby manjgu » 30 Nov 2017 08:55

was kidding..
Last edited by manjgu on 30 Nov 2017 16:34, edited 2 times in total.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5095
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 30 Nov 2017 08:59

Indranil wrote:Here is my worry. This is not based on my chai pe charcha. Just my gut feeling. The "balance" will be struck as follows:
1. IAF gets SEF
2. ADA gets AMCA
3. HAL gets Mk1A

All I can say is that there is a lot of talk about 1A and AMCA, but nothing about Mk2.


400% agreement onlee.

Let me repeat. "MK2 is dead. Long live MK2".

ADA/HAL are not able to show a defendable plan to IAF for supply of the numbers demanded by them. So, the deal is struck, where IAF will buy whatever HAL can produce, and they are allowed to buy the rest from abroad.

The reason for "smug smile" is because they know how long it takes to push the SEF proposal through the red tape. Meen-avial, they can build whatever capacity they can and churn out planes at the best pace they can.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2817
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Nov 2017 09:04

Dileep wrote:
Indranil wrote:Here is my worry. This is not based on my chai pe charcha. Just my gut feeling. The "balance" will be struck as follows:
1. IAF gets SEF
2. ADA gets AMCA
3. HAL gets Mk1A

All I can say is that there is a lot of talk about 1A and AMCA, but nothing about Mk2.


400% agreement onlee.

Let me repeat. "MK2 is dead. Long live MK2".

ADA/HAL are not able to show a defendable plan to IAF for supply of the numbers demanded by them. So, the deal is struck, where IAF will buy whatever HAL can produce, and they are allowed to buy the rest from abroad.

The reason for "smug smile" is because they know how long it takes to push the SEF proposal through the red tape. Meen-avial, they can build whatever capacity they can and churn out planes at the best pace they can.

Sounds like great news.... So the ball now is in the court of the ADA HAL combine .

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2017 09:04

Dileep wrote:The reason for "smug smile" is because they know how long it takes to push the SEF proposal through the red tape. Meen-avial, they can build whatever capacity they can and churn out planes at the best pace they can.

Absolutely. Nothing about SEF is going to happen soon.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 714
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby kvraghav » 30 Nov 2017 09:17

^^ And the way the Congis are going after Rafael fighter, bye bye any imported plane. We can truly pursue Indian products.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 30 Nov 2017 09:18

Dileep wrote:
Indranil wrote:Here is my worry. This is not based on my chai pe charcha. Just my gut feeling. The "balance" will be struck as follows:
1. IAF gets SEF
2. ADA gets AMCA
3. HAL gets Mk1A

All I can say is that there is a lot of talk about 1A and AMCA, but nothing about Mk2.


400% agreement onlee.

Let me repeat. "MK2 is dead. Long live MK2".

ADA/HAL are not able to show a defendable plan to IAF for supply of the numbers demanded by them. So, the deal is struck, where IAF will buy whatever HAL can produce, and they are allowed to buy the rest from abroad.

The reason for "smug smile" is because they know how long it takes to push the SEF proposal through the red tape. Meen-avial, they can build whatever capacity they can and churn out planes at the best pace they can.


If Dileep Sir is right, then its sad. We will see inventory levels fall. Not good from a defence perspective. We are looking at a few empty airbases in mid '20s.

Also dissapointed at no Mk2.

However, in all this noise, Tejas has got nicely positioned in the F16/M2K bracket. :)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Akshay Kapoor, ashishvikas and 47 guests