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.
Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 30 Nov 2017 10:14

manjgu wrote:deleted


It's just a call for marketing... Why the slap? A little crude maybe, but the general idea that we need to sell and create demand and news around the product still stands.

Hal needs to defend it's territory so that others don't get chance to invade.
Last edited by Indranil on 30 Nov 2017 16:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: removed quote

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 30 Nov 2017 10:20

4. IN gets F-18?

And no PAK-FA, no new imported twin engine fighter for IAF, and no more Rafales cause surely we can't afford them on top of the others?
But maybe some AWACS, Refuelers, and other force-multipliers?

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.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5885
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2017 10:22

Poof. Not required any more.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 30 Nov 2017 11:03

Well everyone from SAFRAN to MKU has good looking women manning their stalls :roll:

Deejay saar,
Squadrons numbers will fall in the 20s. Don't think there is a silver bullet to arrest that fall, even if we agree to the SEF deal. Unfortunate but that is the reality. Quickest way would be more Rafales but I doubt anybody wants that tbh.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2824
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Nov 2017 11:12

Not going to happen imvho.... More Tejas are a given. ACM already said....give us all you can

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 30 Nov 2017 11:28

Prasad wrote:Well everyone from SAFRAN to MKU has good looking women manning their stalls :roll:

Deejay saar,
Squadrons numbers will fall in the 20s. Don't think there is a silver bullet to arrest that fall, even if we agree to the SEF deal. Unfortunate but that is the reality. Quickest way would be more Rafales but I doubt anybody wants that tbh.


Actually it is not sad. It is scary. at 80% serviceability with 25 Sqn total, we will be down to 20 Sqn effective.

It gives me the shivers.

Oh! and the women bit is not the only thing you need to do to make a strong product pitch.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 30 Nov 2017 12:21

If whatever Dileep saar said is true then I feel really sad for IAF. ADA and HAL are comfortable with the status quo and happy with the pace, knowling that IAF will have no option but to come back to them. If this is their attitude still, both HAL and ADA need a hard kick in their butts. But sad truth is the one who can do it, MoD, couldnt care less.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3685
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 30 Nov 2017 13:51

JayS wrote:If whatever Dileep saar said is true then I feel really sad for IAF. ADA and HAL are comfortable with the status quo and happy with the pace, knowling that IAF will have no option but to come back to them. If this is their attitude still, both HAL and ADA need a hard kick in their butts. But sad truth is the one who can do it, MoD, couldnt care less.

Basically, the blame game goes around in circles ... all friendly fire only :((

There are uncertainties of the LCA program going forward. Production of the next lot of 20 FOC Mk1 is at a critical point and if FOC completion is awaited fully before commencing on the production then there will be some gap. Remember this would be at a time when production rates would be hitting 16/year and 5 Tier-1 private partners delivering their components. Then the whole Mk1A program is also waiting for the FOC completion before qualifications can take place. So that means the next lot of 83 are on an uncertain production target dates. Who is to blame (or at fault)? We can keep going in circles on this. More than anything it shows the dysfunctionality of the whole Indian setup. IMO, the entire Indian defense apparatus needs to work together if they want to succeed in indigenization and fulfilling requirements.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33993
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2017 14:40

No need for anyone to feel sad. I think we have filled up 125 pages of the SEF thread saying why it should not happen and why all investments should go towards Tejas. Someone is reading BRF and BRF is ahead of curve. Happy days are here again.

We should be dancing and cheering loudly now that it is certain that single engine fighter is not going to come anytime soon. I was not expecting so many unhappy reactions. I thought it was good news. At least for those who have argued against SEF - 125 pages over 1 year

I was wrong of course: From page 1 of the SEF thread I have been saying we need SEF and Tejas. I am behind the curve. I don't apologize but I congratulate those who were right all along.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2017 16:31

The Statesman piece about a 3* IAF AM to head programmes just as is done with IN projects is what I and others have been saying for aeons.Unless the end-user is the lead manager of "his" baby matters will drift.Even in the US Gen.Bogdan headed the JSF progr. and after he retd. Admiral Winter took charge.The urgency of the need spurs faster action and quicker results when the feeling that the project is yours happens.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3685
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 30 Nov 2017 16:37

The main thing is with the LCA line it should continue to churn out whichever specification/version is ready for production. No gaps in production. Continue to increase production capacities to 24/year and beyond.

Last thing to see is another Arjun MBT saga. Instead of continuing production of Mk.1 beyond 124, the production was halted for 118 Mk.2 which is still under development & trials for one reason or the other. Meanwhile, the production line has been sitting idle for 5-years now. If the lines were kept busy at 50/year capacity that was attained, the IA would have had another 250 Arjun MBT Mk.1 in its force by now. So that is a lesson not to be repeated here for the LCA!!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5885
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2017 16:55

I am against IAF men heading HAL or for that matter any other organization. Why would a HAL man toil if he knew he could never get to the top? There has to a different mechanism for overseeing with real powers.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2017 17:01

Indy, then who is best qualified to head a programme? Let's look at similar programmes globally.Why has the US had milmen as JSF bosses? Why is only the IN heading its own projects? The ADA,HAL,IAF - making up the rear , structure hasn't worked well with the LCA.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5885
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2017 17:07

In US, milmen do not make lateral transitions and become bosses of private organizations overnight. Their military has a separate wing which looks into acquisition. They form the liason between military and the industry. They finalize specs, run the competition, select and the order the product. In some cases, mil men do head some programs. But those are individuals who have worked their way up. No private enterprise will employ an individual at a very high place without relevant experience in managing such teams.

Why should a retired air marshal or even air chief marshal become the head of a manufacturing company? What experience does he have to head that organization, or a manufacturing organization as such? By that token, should he also become the CEO of a chair making company? Because he has used the very best of them!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33993
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2017 17:16

Retired senior forces people are regularly selected by companies for exec posts because senior forces ranks are people management positions and senior officers come with great experience of that.

HAL has a long history of IAF people at the top or near the top.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5885
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2017 17:20

Which is perfectly alright. If there is an opening and there is a candidate from the military who is the strongest candidate, they should be chosen. There should no concessions made for an industry-man or a military-man. It should be the best man for the job.

There should be no automatic postings. Will IAF allow say the chief of ADA lead the BRD? No! Why not?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33993
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2017 18:49

I think an engineering cadre needs to be developed in the Air Force, with a good career path for them to be embedded in industry. Since HAL/ADA etc are all public gormint sector as are the forces - the post that the Air Force man in industry holds can be planned - with a specific role for the air force engineers to coordinate with industry. .That means engineering graduates can be picked from the civil sector for a career in the air force. They will never be pilots and they will be joining as engineer officers. Like doctors I guess. The navy has done something of the sort. Because of the unique requirements of the forces I think the reverse is not possible - i.e putting industry people in uniform.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 30 Nov 2017 19:22

Indranil wrote:I am against IAF men heading HAL or for that matter any other organization. Why would a HAL man toil if he knew he could never get to the top? There has to a different mechanism for overseeing with real powers.


HAL BoG already have x-IAF officers. BoG is the one which drives company policy. CEO/MD/CMD are for day-to-day operational work. A person who is familiar with business should hold the position.

Heading a program is a different thing altogether. The program spans thousands of organisations literally. Should IAF head all of those organizations..? We always talk about misplaced responsibility, authority and accountability of decisions and duties in our system. IAF has responsibility and accountability of Defense but has no authority. MoD has authority but no real responsibility or accountability. RnD has responsibility and very limited authority and very limited accountability. Thus it makes sense to put all these three things distributed with each of the stake holders. All three should hold some of part of all three. To me it makes sense that IAF holds the money and command over what is to be developed under given program as the head of the program because they are finally putting their lives on line at the end of the day. But at the same time they do not have technical capability to do so. So they need specialized cadre to be raised within in technical, financial and program management/procurement to take care of it. And at the same time some IAF guy heading HAL like organization as CEO/CMD is an absurd idea.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 30 Nov 2017 19:26

shiv wrote:Because of the unique requirements of the forces I think the reverse is not possible - i.e putting industry people in uniform.

Why not..? In fact IAF and IA should do exactly the same in short time. Building a capable cadre from within is going to take decades. No need to wait until then. Kickstart with whatever is available. They can always be selective with very stringent criteria. We have huge population to offer them the luxury. But their are definitely people who would be happy to work in AFs and use their skills for the good. And they don't really need to be soldiers. Not an idea solution but not the worst one to start with.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15870
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 30 Nov 2017 20:13

SEF was Parrikar's (and then Carter's) idea.

With Parrikar out of the picture it is Big Bang and creation all over again. Who knows which DNA evolution will pick up this time? What seems certain is it will take time. Evolution.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3685
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 30 Nov 2017 20:27

NRao wrote:SEF was Parrikar's (and then Carter's) idea.

With Parrikar out of the picture it is Big Bang and creation all over again. Who knows which DNA evolution will pick up this time? What seems certain is it will take time. Evolution.

Parrikar's idea?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2017 20:29

Prasad wrote:Well everyone from SAFRAN to MKU has good looking women manning their stalls :roll:

Deejay saar,
Squadrons numbers will fall in the 20s. Don't think there is a silver bullet to arrest that fall, even if we agree to the SEF deal. Unfortunate but that is the reality. Quickest way would be more Rafales but I doubt anybody wants that tbh.


It will have its own long lead time and expensive as hell.

If its numbers only then add more Su-30MKIs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2017 20:31

NRao wrote:SEF was Parrikar's (and then Carter's) idea.

With Parrikar out of the picture it is Big Bang and creation all over again. Who knows which DNA evolution will pick up this time? What seems certain is it will take time. Evolution.

Parrikar might have articulated it but the need is an IAF one.
The history is 126 M2ks after Kargil.
France refused to restart the production line.
MMRC competition selected Rafale.
Price was too much more than F35.
Two squadrons were bought.
The remaining was termed SEF.
Carter thought nice way to embed US planes as an option.
By making it SEF only two Grippen and F16 were in the pot.
Either way US wins and Indian industry loses.


What we want is India to win also.

Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A will equal M2K the original requirement.
Tejas Mk2 will exceed M2K.

One big catch is the Kaveri with M88 core and gives required thrust.
I hope it stays with in the LCA envelope for size and weight.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby VKumar » 30 Nov 2017 20:49

Prasad wrote:Well everyone from SAFRAN to MKU has good looking women manning their stalls :roll:

Deejay saar,
Squadrons numbers will fall in the 20s. Don't think there is a silver bullet to arrest that fall, even if we agree to the SEF deal. Unfortunate but that is the reality. Quickest way would be more Rafales but I doubt anybody wants that tbh.

I am confident of AT LEAST 2 more Rafale squadrons. It's only sensible. Personally would like to see 126 plus but it depends on economy. Maybe creeping acquisition, one squadron per year in the next decade.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2017 20:58

Indranil wrote:I am against IAF men heading HAL or for that matter any other organization. Why would a HAL man toil if he knew he could never get to the top? There has to a different mechanism for overseeing with real powers.


Indranil, I brought up this suggestion in this thread in the context of Tejas Mk1A and 2.

IAF currently has no confidence in HAL ability to deliver the Tejas Mk1 or Mk1A.

So having an IAF officer of AVM rank to head the LCA program in HAL will give them accountability and responsibility to ensure things happen in a timely manner. I would prefer a serving officer for he is under the IAF chief. A retired officer could care less. This is the unity of command principle. Have all aspects of the Tejas production program under this program manager.

If AVM rank is too high then an Air Commodore from the Vice Chief of Staff office for such an officer would have insight into perspective planning of the IAF.

Earlier IAF officers as liaison to HAL on LCA program did not work as they have no line authority. Just advisory role.


I am not suggesting all of HAL to be under IAF even thought earlier it was.

BTW ADA got a jump start when AM Wollen seconded all the necessary designer staff to it from HAL.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15870
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby NRao » 30 Nov 2017 21:02

Parrikar might have articulated it but the need is an IAF one.


Pardon.

Who else is there, at the user end? All this re/write of history is for the IAF only.

The history is 126 M2ks after Kargil.


126? Modi has stated 200+!!!!!!! For SEF alone!!!!!

This is MMRCA++.

srai wrote:
NRao wrote:SEF was Parrikar's (and then Carter's) idea.

With Parrikar out of the picture it is Big Bang and creation all over again. Who knows which DNA evolution will pick up this time? What seems certain is it will take time. Evolution.

Parrikar's idea?


Again, pardon. I am an evolutionist and have my own theories (which typically come true).

Parrikar made the Mk1A. That inadvertently killed the Mk2 in both forms (please check my pre-dawn posts when I stated the Mk2 will not come).

Next came the engine for the AMCA via the DTTI. Tied to that was the purchase of a plane from the US - else India would need to pay in other ways. Parrikar split this into SEF and a twin engine fighter (TEF) (ref AI 17 vids of Parrikar). AND Parrikar set up the "Strategic Partnership" concept. SEF was tied to SP under him - one and the same, packaged as MII. All these *were* tied under Parrikar.

Parrikar's falling? Was not to include the Modi Group as SPs. PMO, on the fly, made the Rafale decision and Dassualts played the Modi card by selecting Ambani.

Anyways, that is all in the past.

What we are witnessing now is the framework set up by Parrikar coming apart. He had willed that framework. Which did not sit well with his boss. And the current powers, trying to build a new framework, are facing the normal forces.



I think I agree with IR. With one addition: we will not have a Strategic Partner in the near future.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4151
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 21:21

ramana wrote:One big catch is the Kaveri with M88 core and gives required thrust.
I hope it stays with in the LCA envelope for size and weight.

Ramana-ji, let us assume Snecma is unable to make the Kaveri with M88 core (Kaveri88) work.

There is always the engine the Mk2 is designed for. The fact that the GE F414 engine is now going to be license produced in India is a big bonus for the Tejas program, but specifically the Mk2 variant. If the Mk2 does not come on board and it is only the Mk1A, those birds will fly with GE F404 engine. Any future tranches of Mk1As will feature the same engine.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4151
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 21:30

To Everyone: Please do not believe the statement that Modi had anything to do with deciding how many single engine fighters the IAF needs. Or how many twin engine fighters as well. That is NOT the Prime Minister's job. That is some concocted lie to justify F-16 and F-18 imports.

No offense to anyone, but the Prime Minister is largely unaware on single engine vs twin engine. He is the Prime Minister, not a serving or retired IAF officer. He cannot and will not participate in the IAF's ORBAT planning. If the Prime Minister has come out and said that the IAF needs this X number of single engine fighters and X number of twin engine fighters, is because he is repeating what the IAF or the MoD has told him. Force planning is the IAF's job. His job is foreign policy and domestic policy.

This is purely a numbers game. 126 fighters were needed. 36 were bought. 90 are remaining. That 90 number got bumped up to 100 aircraft.

36 Rafales + 40 Su-30MKIs = 76 aircraft, that leaves 50 aircraft.

Out of the 50 remaining, the option to go in for 36 additional Rafales (way cheaper than SEF) exists. The IAF knows this, the GOI knows this, the MoD knows this and even the OEMs in the SEF competition know this. This whole Rafale drama that is going on right now in India is because they want to kill the deal and make way for the SEF to enter.

If a repeat order of 36 Rafales come, you are left with 14 aircraft. What validity does SEF have at that stage? 14 birds? Add that to the 83 Mk1As and be done with this.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 30 Nov 2017 22:04

Agree with the Admiral. PM has to mouth what he is advised. PM can set policy and that is it.

Scrap the Rafales and buy LCAs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2017 22:07

NRao, I don't want you bringing in unsubstantiated rumors into the LCA thread.
Please delete the refs to PMO.

Rakesh, If SAFRAN doesn't make Kaveri work they need to return the offset money.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4151
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 30 Nov 2017 22:24

Ramana-ji: I was about to dissect that part of the post, but I saw your above post. So I am going to refrain myself. But I will say that the time stamp mentioned does not correlate with reality.

Safran has the technical ability to do so. How much they are invested in the success of the Kaveri program remains to be seen. Regardless, I believe Safran will have a prototype flying by Aero India 2019.

2018/2019 will be giant leaps in the Tejas program in getting key components (i.e. turbofan, radar) certified and production will be ramped up. Even the Mk1A variant - although less technically capable than SEF contenders - poses a significant threat to SEF acquisition. I say again, this is purely a numbers game right now.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 30 Nov 2017 22:34

Rakesh the best case is Kaveri-M88 comes through and Tejas Mk1A sheds some weight.
HAL has been saying they will do the later.

The GE F414 will need modifications to fit in Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A.

Its slightly heavier than the GE F404.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F404

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)


Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight


ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 3,490.0 mm (137.4 in)
Diameter: 909.3 mm (35.8 in)
Dry weight: 1,236 kg (2,724 lb) [Goal: 953–1,111 kg (2,100–2,450 lb)]


So if Kaveri-M88 develops the right thrust its a home run.

Can some one start monitoring the progress of the Kaveri-M88 integration?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3685
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 01 Dec 2017 02:54

NRao wrote:...
Parrikar made the Mk1A. ...

?
I think you are reading too much into one man and what he can do ;)

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 531
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby krishna_krishna » 01 Dec 2017 05:47

NRao wrote:...

Massa passand D 'lals and their 20th century thinking. Out of touch with changing world and new realities of a new era (where massa is receding power, although a world power though). One can understand with old age some thinking will never change too bad world has changed so quickly for the old ones.

The engine for AMCA is : Safran - Kaveri or nothing else
SEF is probably dead, with only hope if some private player start production, I would bet it be Rafale given massa has offered planes that are old in terms of technology ( not ready for any tech transfer.) and did not pass the MRCA muster I don't see sweeds progressing either.

I bet IAF is trying to squeeze with old airframes Malaysian migs, French jaguars, additional Su MKI and Tejas.

AMCA collaboration will depend on how it goes with FGFA with Russia. I see future of IAF as Rafale/Su30/Tejas/AMCA and FGFA
Last edited by krishna_krishna on 01 Dec 2017 07:33, edited 2 times in total.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 01 Dec 2017 07:09

Rakesh wrote:....


Mr Modi is details guy. Would have known in first few questions - how many engines. Being a Gujju Bhai would know how much each would cost. Of course he is not going to decide how many are needed.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3685
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 01 Dec 2017 07:12

I had this Dream :)

20 x LCA Mk.1 IOC-2 -> safe and combat capable (upgradeable to FOC)

20 x LCA Mk.1 IOC-3 -> IOC-2 plus whatever capability has been certified towards FOC (upgradeable to FOC)

20 x LCA Mk.1 IOC-4 -> if full FOC takes longer

60-80 x LCA Mk.1 FOC

120 x LCA Mk.1A

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4151
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 01 Dec 2017 07:15

ramana wrote:Rakesh the best case is Kaveri-M88 comes through and Tejas Mk1A sheds some weight.

That is the ulitmate goal and should be worked at in earnest. At the end of the day, a certified turbofan is the goal. Arguably, the turbofan is more important than even the aircraft itself. Everything is tied to the turbofan (AMCA, Ghatak, Tejas, etc, etc). This is the *MOST* important project that India needs to complete. Failure is not an option here. Fail here and we will forever import. We have overcome all other hurdles - airframe (design & manufacture), radar, sensors, weaponry, etc. Further R&D in those areas are necessary and are in the works, but more or less India has mastered the meat & potatoes of the matter. However a working turbofan is still out of our reach. The GOI needs to have a clear vision (lacking now) which will in turn result in an actionable plan which should result in allocation of funds and personnel with ENFORCEABLE deadlines. I will likely take flak for saying this, but success in the Kaveri program is just as important as the ATV (Advanced Technology Vessel) project and when direction was coming from the PMO.

In the words of Field Marshal Sam Mankeshaw, "Gentleman, I have arrived and there shall be NO MORE WITHDRAWLS." We Withdraw, We Die. Sorry for sounding melodramatic, but that is how serious this project should be looked at and worked upon. This is a prestige issue for India and when we succeed, India will have arrived. We cannot and must not rest on the hope that a license produced GE engine will forever be the answer. F404/F414 is only a stop gap till Kaveri arrives.

With regards to the Snecma project....I believe they can do it. The technical hurdles are not of concern. It is how far Snecma is willing to go, to ensure they fulfill their offset obligations and ensuring the success of the Kaveri program. Snecma's reputation is on the line here (it was their idea in the first place, to revive the Kaveri turbofan) and I believe they will see through the project. But as you know, engine tech is a closely guarded secret. The secret sauce will be done by Snecma behind closed doors and they will not share it. But the key is - just like the Turbomeca Ardiden 1H (known as Shakti in India) turboshaft model - we will be making the turbofan in India. The success of Kaveri88 will have a direct correlation to the above. So it is important that from our side there is proper and regular oversight on the program.

The turbofan comparisions you provided are great. I am adding the M88 to the list. I thought F414 was longer than F404? If not, what are we modifying in the airframe to accomodate the F414?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F404

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)


Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight


ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 3,490.0 mm (137.4 in)
Diameter: 909.3 mm (35.8 in)
Dry weight: 2,724 lb (1,236 kg) [Goal: 953 – 1,111 kg (2,100 – 2,450 lb)]


ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

Code: Select all

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 353.8 cm (139.3 in)
Diameter: 69.6 cm (27.4 in)
Dry weight: 897 kg (1,978 lb)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4151
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 01 Dec 2017 07:44

Rishi_Tri wrote:Mr Modi is details guy. Would have known in first few questions - how many engines. Being a Gujju Bhai would know how much each would cost. Of course he is not going to decide how many are needed.

That is not the issue here. No Prime Minister sits in his/her office thinking, "Hmmm.....I wonder how many single (or dual) engine fighters my air force needs. Eureka! 200 SE Fighters and 100 DE Fighters. And I know just who to get it from - AMREEKA!!!!"

That is a nonsense theory and is being put out there to justify imports. Very nice - put the onus on the Prime Minister and if the deal goes south, palm the blame on him. The IAF tells the MoD and Raksha Mantri what its needs are. The GOI goes out shopping, based on those needs. The IAF conducts the trials, selects the best product suited for its needs and the GOI handles the negotiations. This 126 MMRCA number is an IAF requirement. It is not a BJP, Congress, NDA or UPA creation.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 01 Dec 2017 09:22

Indranil wrote:Which is perfectly alright. If there is an opening and there is a candidate from the military who is the strongest candidate, they should be chosen. There should no concessions made for an industry-man or a military-man. It should be the best man for the job.

There should be no automatic postings. Will IAF allow say the chief of ADA lead the BRD? No! Why not?


Hi Indranil, absolutely in agreement with the sentiment. There should be no free tickets for IAF guys anywhere and IMO, it does not guarantee results anyways.

However, wrt the bold above, IAF has no authority on this. Recruitment in IAF are controlled as per Air Force Act. BRDs may be manned from people of ADA background provided that the law is changed. IAF is not in control on this.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 01 Dec 2017 10:23

Does it matter who is the top honcho when systemic issues abound? If you have a program office, headed by whoever, that is empowered to take decisions and whose word will be final in all decisions related to said particular program, then you can have success. When you have 3 organisations with their own turf to defend and nobody at the wheel, nothing works and each end up blaming the other when RM calls for a meeting in delhi.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests