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.
Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 06 Dec 2017 21:34

That sounds logical. I hope IAF makes a wise choice.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 06 Dec 2017 23:57

Austin wrote:So if IAF knows the spares are needed to maintain as per OEM advise , Why is IAF going for PBL type arrangement for Rafale and US deals to maintain uptimes at such high cost ? They would any way know what spares are need and can keep a proper inventory as per OEM advise , Why pay Dassault more just to have 75 % guranteed uptimes and pay them upfront for it for 5 years or so ? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 019_1.html
Following the model of the C-17 Globemaster III procurement from the US, a large share of the Rafale payout is for “performance based logistics” (PBL). This means that for the first five years of a Rafale’s service, Dassault will supply all spares and components, including engines, and technicians needed to keep the fighter flying. The vendor is liable to ensure that 75 per cent of the fleet is available at all times.

The IAF has the option to extend PBL to 12 years, subject to a fresh contract being negotiated for the next seven years. Says a top ministry official: “We are currently getting 55-56 per cent availability from the Sukhoi-30MKI fleet. The Rafale will give us 20 per cent more.”


This is like the extended warranty scam in US for home appliances.
A high cost plane like Rafale should better perform for first 5 years.
Its after that that one needs all that mfg support.

I think IAF and MoD have scared themselves after the negligence in Su-30MKI spares non-purchase and supply line problems as FSU was transforming.

Its like how can I give you more money from my meager resources white master?

What will 75% availability of 36 planes do for the air force when you have ~300 Su-30 MKIs being improved from 55 to 75%?

300 Su-30 MKIs at 555 availability is 165 planes.
300 SU-30 MKIs at 75% availability is 225 planes.

i.e. improving the Su-30 MKI gives an extra 60 planes i.e. close to under strength 4 squadrons with 15 planes each!!!! Or three good squadrons with 20 planes each.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1015
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 07 Dec 2017 01:14

are the IAF squadrons a 16 craft or a 20 craft squadron ?
what does the IAF book say ...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 07 Dec 2017 01:26

Who said that the NLCA never flew? The IN rejected it becos it was supposedly 2t overweight , tested at Goa,which drastically affected its performance.Nevertheless, it is still hoping and waiting to see if an LCA MK-2 will resolve the situ. having already invested a lot of money. However, a SEF is less reliable than a TEF esp. for a naval carrier fighter.A TED can return without one engine, an SEF can't.Why the IN in the long run will ditch the NLCA esp. as an LCA MK-2 prototype arrival for the IAF is many years into the future, let alone entering production.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3495
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 07 Dec 2017 01:40

Austin wrote:The IAF would go bankrupt with OPEX if they have a PBL type arrangement for fleet strength in 100's , its not practically possible unless we are dealing with dozen or 2 of them and they too comes with very high cost.

The IAF may have low servicibility for a type during normal operations but that does not mean during war time it would have the same servicibility they would have huge war reserves in terms of spares weapons etc that wont use unless there is war like situation like that happened during Kargil where IAF maintained high sortie tempo for all the types it deployed and that was the worst days of IAF since entire 90's the funding was low.

Its a trade off IAF has to choose , It will boil down to investment



Agreed.

Just check the French Air Force's availability figures. They're ABYSMAL! Including for the Rafale and Mirage-2000. Consistently lower than 50% availability for both the Rafale and Mirage-2000 variants fleet.


Availability of French Air Force fixed wing aircraft

French posters on Keypub forums mentioned that this is due to the high operational tempo being maintained in multiple operations that the French AF participated in. Spares gets diverted to keep high availability rates for those fleets, whereas the fleet based at home gets less attention and can stay grounded waiting for spares for extended periods. In order to improve their availability figures, the French AF would need to spend a lot more on stocking spares, which it believes isn't really necessary. As long as the fleet that is seeing combat action is maintaining high availability figures.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Zynda » 07 Dec 2017 01:54

^^OT: Which parts of the world is French AF still combat active? Mid-East/Syria supporting Massa AF on fight against ISIS?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 02:02

Sub-Sahara Africa beating up tribes

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 02:17

What the IAF has basically done is force the MOD to commit to uptime for its fleet without having to go back asking for revenue expenditure and not receiving it. I presume one of the key conditions influencing this approval was also the unstated N-deterrent role

ramana wrote:
Austin wrote:So if IAF knows the spares are needed to maintain as per OEM advise , Why is IAF going for PBL type arrangement for Rafale and US deals to maintain uptimes at such high cost ? They would any way know what spares are need and can keep a proper inventory as per OEM advise , Why pay Dassault more just to have 75 % guranteed uptimes and pay them upfront for it for 5 years or so ? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 019_1.html


This is like the extended warranty scam in US for home appliances.
A high cost plane like Rafale should better perform for first 5 years.
Its after that that one needs all that mfg support.

I think IAF and MoD have scared themselves after the negligence in Su-30MKI spares non-purchase and supply line problems as FSU was transforming.

Its like how can I give you more money from my meager resources white master?

What will 75% availability of 36 planes do for the air force when you have ~300 Su-30 MKIs being improved from 55 to 75%?

300 Su-30 MKIs at 555 availability is 165 planes.
300 SU-30 MKIs at 75% availability is 225 planes.

i.e. improving the Su-30 MKI gives an extra 60 planes i.e. close to under strength 4 squadrons with 15 planes each!!!! Or three good squadrons with 20 planes each.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 02:19

ramana wrote:What will 75% availability of 36 planes do for the air force when you have ~300 Su-30 MKIs being improved from 55 to 75%?

300 Su-30 MKIs at 555 availability is 165 planes.
300 SU-30 MKIs at 75% availability is 225 planes.

i.e. improving the Su-30 MKI gives an extra 60 planes i.e. close to under strength 4 squadrons with 15 planes each!!!! Or three good squadrons with 20 planes each.


To add to Ramana's point:
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... r-4471113/

Serviceability of Su-30, helicopter fleet have risen over 60 per cent: Manohar Parrikar
"Customer satisfaction is so much important that in the first one year I was having complaints on a daily basis; today hardly any complaints come," Parrikar said.

Written by Avinash Nair | Gandhinagar | Published: January 12, 2017 9:04 pm

The serviceability rate of the Sukhoi Su-30 — a twin-engine multi-role fighter aircraft in service with the Indian Air Force — has risen to 60 per cent, said Union Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar at the Vibrant Gujarat Global Summit on Thursday.

The serviceability rate or the availability rate is the number of aircraft ready for missions at any given time. Parrikar while speaking at an aerospace and defence seminar at Mahatma Mandir said that along with the Sukhois, the serviceability rates of the helicopter fleet with the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force have also risen after Rs 400 crore was invested in setting up after-sales-service units for both Su-30 and the helicopters.


“When I became Raksha Mantri, I realised that the Su-30 (Sukois), the main fighter of Indian Air Force has a serviceability of 46 per cent. The helicopter fleet of the Indian Army and Air Force supplied through HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) had a serviceability of somewhere around 50 per cent. It is too low. The minimum international standards one expects is about 70-75 per cent. Sometimes you can even achieve 80 per cent-plus. Because making one fighter available more saves you the cost of buying a new fighter (aircraft). You have 300 fighters and only 150 or 140 are capable of taking on the task, I think you are not good. We decided to improve this,” Parrikar told to an audience that consisted of officials from the Ministry of Defence and firms operating in the defence sector.

“The biggest problem I faced was after sales service. Defence PSUs considered after sales service as an expense and not an investment. Virtually convincing them in setting up a after-sales-service unit at various Army locations, took us almost a year. Finally when the board agree and we set up the unit. Today I am happy to say that Su-30 has already achieved around 60 per cent of serviceability and the helicopter fleet is more than 65 per cent. That is an achievement simply by investing around Rs 400 crore,” he said.

“Customer satisfaction is so much important that in the first one year I was having complaints on a daily basis; today hardly any complaints come,” the minister said while narrating his experience.
Last edited by ramana on 07 Dec 2017 02:25, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added underlining ramana

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 02:21

Now Su-30 serviceability is around 65% and it will rise further (IMHO) as HAL is investing more in spares stockpiles + agreement with Russia, which means that 20% increase on a fleet of 270 aircraft is 54 aircraft, equal to roughly half the MMRCA procurement!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 02:28

It took an engineer to make them realize that with a Rs 400 crore which is a drop in the bucket to bring serviceability up to 60% for SU-30MKis. That's 45 planes which is 3 squadrons.

And no genius made a stink about this early on?
What's wrong with the picture?

Many CAG reports chastise the lack of spares that grounds weapon systems.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4107
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 07 Dec 2017 02:43

The MoD Babu only sees one side of the picture. So, the IAF needs x number of planes. So lets do a RFI, then RFP, then RFQ, then trials, then negotiations and then buy the plane. At the end of the year, MoD will release a glossy brochure saying what a wonderful job they did that year. The IAF has x number of new planes. India's airspace is now safe. Mera Bharat Mahan and Jai Hind!

What the Babu forgets to account for is that these planes require spares and critical components to continue flying. Not negotiated during the contract, until recently. Also, a detailed MLU plan to give the plane a technological edge (or match) over its lifespan. None of this occurs, which results in significant downtime and technological disadvantages which the IAF has to deal with. How many IAF pilots have needlessly lost their lives, over the decades, because the Babu cannot see beyond the rules of Babudom.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 02:47

No Cut/hafta for (Neta Babu et al nexus) comes form whole plane orders. Not from spares.

Parrikar changed that paradigm.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3662
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 07 Dec 2017 04:44

ramana wrote:It took an engineer to make them realize that with a Rs 400 crore which is a drop in the bucket to bring serviceability up to 60% for SU-30MKis. That's 45 planes which is 3 squadrons.

And no genius made a stink about this early on?
What's wrong with the picture?

Many CAG reports chastise the lack of spares that grounds weapon systems.

Get more with less so to speak!

Main takeaway from all this is that lessons learnt on servicibility rates are being applied on the LCA and other indigenous platforms. Hopefully, this will improve perception all around of indigenous products.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 650
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 07 Dec 2017 05:16

ramana wrote:It took an engineer honest and thinking RM to make them realize that with a Rs 400 crore which is a drop in the bucket to bring serviceability up to 60% for SU-30MKis. That's 45 planes which is 3 squadrons.

And no genius made a stink about this early on?
What's wrong with the picture?

Many CAG reports chastise the lack of spares that grounds weapon systems.

My CT is that IAF knows this thing very well, and like the indian businessmen crying "business down hai" to get more planes. For them it might be what i call "intellectual org&&m" to quants who keep pursuing the jazziest mathematical structure for the academic delight.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 07 Dec 2017 06:12

They should push for 80% availability at all times in the fleet.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3662
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 07 Dec 2017 06:16

Cybaru wrote:They should push for 80% availability at all times in the fleet.

Where is the money? India wants expensive imported planes (MMRCA/SEF/TEF) but budget hasn't increased to buy those plus keep them flying in high rates. Plus, from support logistics point of view it doesn't really help if you have 8-9 platforms (fighter-types) to maintain.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33924
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 07 Dec 2017 07:38

Cybaru wrote:They should push for 80% availability at all times in the fleet.

Sukhois had 100% availability in Red Flag but this is the LCA thread. Lots of OT posts that should simply go in a general aviation or IAF thread

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 07 Dec 2017 09:15

ramana wrote:It took an engineer to make them realize that with a Rs 400 crore which is a drop in the bucket to bring serviceability up to 60% for SU-30MKis. That's 45 planes which is 3 squadrons.

And no genius made a stink about this early on?
What's wrong with the picture?

Many CAG reports chastise the lack of spares that grounds weapon systems.


Sir, the stink was very high. Only we chose not to smell it. IAF had red flagged this issue pre 2000, specially for the Su 30.

Remember, MMRCA was anything but Su 30 because it is very costly to operate the Su 30.

PBL, as a concept is only entering service now. It is not like HAL was pushing for PBL and IAF was refusing it till a decade ago. Its good that it has happened now. We are copying the western models now.

PBL has negative shades and it is becoming visible. The OEMs are skimming us on C130 and C17. The hit on the budget is beginning to show. Can we do a PBL for the entire fleet? Not as of now, IMO.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 07 Dec 2017 09:28

Rakesh wrote:The MoD Babu only sees one side of the picture. So, the IAF needs x number of planes. So lets do a RFI, then RFP, then RFQ, then trials, then negotiations and then buy the plane. At the end of the year, MoD will release a glossy brochure saying what a wonderful job they did that year. The IAF has x number of new planes. India's airspace is now safe. Mera Bharat Mahan and Jai Hind!

What the Babu forgets to account for is that these planes require spares and critical components to continue flying. Not negotiated during the contract, until recently. Also, a detailed MLU plan to give the plane a technological edge (or match) over its lifespan. None of this occurs, which results in significant downtime and technological disadvantages which the IAF has to deal with. How many IAF pilots have needlessly lost their lives, over the decades, because the Babu cannot see beyond the rules of Babudom.


I would put it differently Rakesh. MoD (to me) feels like the proverbial monkey sitting in arbitration over the cats. The way it is structured, they have all the authority and no responsibility. The responsibility to deliver on the defence aspects rests with the Military and the responsibility for supply, r&d etc lies with DPSUs and DRDO. The MoD is also constrained in its expertise to understand either of the two. Yet, it wields authority over both.

Add to this the constant focus of scams on any defence procurement. Understand this that though scams have happened everywhere the focus of the nation on defence scams are highest. This in turn creates a paralysis/ option to delay everything for the MoD as no one wants to bell a difficult cat. New suggestions, opinions and view points pour in from all quarters even till the last moment. Work is repeated for a fresh round of explanations and justifications. Till 2014, a single anonymous letter would put a stop to all purchase / acquisition.

In the end nothing moves. One question is what it takes to destroy all plans and decisions previously taken. If I can borrow what Dileep sir had said - "Indelligence"! is the real reason for the mess we have made in all acquisitions. DPP, with all its flaws at least sets out a template. New concepts are getting introduced and overall MoD of 2017 is better than MoD of 2014. However, MoD is no where close to the efficiency BRF expects and I don't think it will ever get there. :)

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 07 Dec 2017 09:31

srai wrote:
Cybaru wrote:They should push for 80% availability at all times in the fleet.

Where is the money? India wants expensive imported planes (MMRCA/SEF/TEF) but budget hasn't increased to buy those plus keep them flying in high rates. Plus, from support logistics point of view it doesn't really help if you have 8-9 platforms (fighter-types) to maintain.


Indeed, Srai. The future constraint for IAF is more OpEx then CapEx. PBLs are sinking all plans. Ideal for US or China kind of budget. Terrible for us.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2941
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby suryag » 07 Dec 2017 19:10

Ananthkrishnan tweeted that lsp 8 has flown 44 forties with the IFR and wet contact in the first quarter of 2018.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 07 Dec 2017 20:12

ramana wrote:
Austin wrote:So if IAF knows the spares are needed to maintain as per OEM advise , Why is IAF going for PBL type arrangement for Rafale and US deals to maintain uptimes at such high cost ? They would any way know what spares are need and can keep a proper inventory as per OEM advise , Why pay Dassault more just to have 75 % guranteed uptimes and pay them upfront for it for 5 years or so ? http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 019_1.html


This is like the extended warranty scam in US for home appliances.
A high cost plane like Rafale should better perform for first 5 years.
Its after that that one needs all that mfg support.

I think IAF and MoD have scared themselves after the negligence in Su-30MKI spares non-purchase and supply line problems as FSU was transforming.

Its like how can I give you more money from my meager resources white master?

What will 75% availability of 36 planes do for the air force when you have ~300 Su-30 MKIs being improved from 55 to 75%?

300 Su-30 MKIs at 555 availability is 165 planes.
300 SU-30 MKIs at 75% availability is 225 planes.

i.e. improving the Su-30 MKI gives an extra 60 planes i.e. close to under strength 4 squadrons with 15 planes each!!!! Or three good squadrons with 20 planes each.


Ramana saar, lets not jump into the conclusion that PBL is bad or unnecessary or unreasonably costly. Defense contracts are not same as consumer goods which have take it or leave it sticker price. Def contracts are negotiated for months and years. There is always a price for offered goods and service which is reasonable from both the customer and the OEM's point of view. Who has stopped MoD to acquire required technical expertise for that reasonable price discovery and negotiations accordingly..?

It makes sense to opt for PBL for small fleet to let the OEM offer better price by leveraging the fleet elsewhere. Sweden offers combined MRO package to Gripen customers where the Swedish AF shares their buffer stock to maintain promised availability, thus reducing cost for the customer. Whereas it makes more sense to have organic home based ecosystem for spare supply for large fleet such as we have with Su30 becase there is scale available for supporting entirely separate ecosystem, plus strategic independance also comes into picture.

If MoD cannot negotiate reasonable price for the service, its our MoD's fault. Because once MoD has decided to purchase fleet based on LCC, the OEMs will automatically have to offer competitive prices for PBL.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3662
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 07 Dec 2017 20:21

IFR progressing despite rumors of otherwise.

Anantha Krishnan M
✈‏ @writetake
2h2 hours ago

#TejasUpdate #1
As a run-up to the FOC in 2018, #Tejas LSP-8 is optimising flight profiles with the in-flight refueling probe (IFR). Air-to-air refueling trials will begin early 2018. First dry contact followed by wet trials. So far, LSP-8 flew 44 sorties with IFR.
#DNKT

Image

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4997
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Dec 2017 20:30

ramana wrote:It took an engineer to make them realize that with a Rs 400 crore which is a drop in the bucket to bring serviceability up to 60% for SU-30MKis. That's 45 planes which is 3 squadrons.

And no genius made a stink about this early on?
What's wrong with the picture?

Many CAG reports chastise the lack of spares that grounds weapon systems.
When you have a structural issue at hand, someone doing the most obvious and correct thing is termed a "genius". Not to take anything away from MP but what is HAL's motivation to service and support and maintain service levels for the aircraft? None on their own, as normal motivations to service a customer or loose business do not exist. This issue is not limited to just service but every other activity linked with a commercial setup, including innovation, normal risk/investment decisions or the need to do more with less. Hire and fire as needed. Pay as needed to attract talent and much more. A commercial vendor-customer relationship is the only way to even hope to get a sense of normality.

On the other hand, it is not that IAF has never raised the serviceability issues. Apart from some structural adjustments between how and what the services get to decide on their budget priorities, we need some accountabilities on our public officials and let there be some public hearing by our so called defense committees where these issues be discussed. After all it is the public's money and these MP's need to earn their keep. A more informed MoD cadre can certainly help. These generalists are useless for the type of oversight and decisioning needed. KS Garu's suggestion of an NDU in the KRC report still remains unfulfilled.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 508
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby prasannasimha » 07 Dec 2017 21:04

^^Many assume that slapping the IFR probe is easy. The issue is not just the probe drogue attachment but rather the fuel redistribution when it is guzzling into the plane during flight which is a rapid event requiring significant rewriting of control laws after repeated flight testing to meet CEMILAC's standards. So the amount of testing etc and revalidation in various regimes.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 22:23

Doc, Excellent insight! IFR is not easy thing. It involves more than the piping especially with unstable configuration plane.
Fact that 44 test flights have happened would mean the
- Control laws have been updated.
- Flights doing the dynamic fuel distribution form existing fuel tanks is being tested.
- The final milestone will be to refuel from an aerial tanker a few times. Date: Early 2018

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 22:26

ShauryaT et al.
My point is the system : IAF, MoD, MoF, Suppliers( Domestic and foreign), Politicians have not worked together in solving the easy problem of ensuring the planes are in flyable condition. And it required minuscule funds to ensure this.

That is all my point was.

I am glad its being worked on.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 07 Dec 2017 22:46

srai wrote:IFR progressing despite rumors of otherwise.

Anantha Krishnan M
✈‏ @writetake
2h2 hours ago

#TejasUpdate #1
As a run-up to the FOC in 2018, #Tejas LSP-8 is optimising flight profiles with the in-flight refueling probe (IFR). Air-to-air refueling trials will begin early 2018. First dry contact followed by wet trials. So far, LSP-8 flew 44 sorties with IFR.
#DNKT

Image


Also, Indranil had mentioned actual in-flight refueling is not required for FOC. Does that still holds good ? (FOC could be granted after clearing all flight envelope with that Probe. 44 test flights not sufficient ?)

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 508
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby prasannasimha » 07 Dec 2017 22:57

As far as I know in flight refueling is one of the key requirements for FOC. People are working double time over it.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 08 Dec 2017 03:45

prasannasimha wrote:As far as I know in flight refueling is one of the key requirements for FOC. People are working double time over it.


That is very heart warming news! The double over time and the urgency which they are approaching FOC clearance.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1947
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 08 Dec 2017 03:51

deejay wrote:
srai wrote:Where is the money? India wants expensive imported planes (MMRCA/SEF/TEF) but budget hasn't increased to buy those plus keep them flying in high rates. Plus, from support logistics point of view it doesn't really help if you have 8-9 platforms (fighter-types) to maintain.


Indeed, Srai. The future constraint for IAF is more OpEx then CapEx. PBLs are sinking all plans. Ideal for US or China kind of budget. Terrible for us.
'

How is decided how much for OpEx vs CapEx?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 08 Dec 2017 04:33

Pl ck my latest post on upgrade cost for M2Ks in the IAF td.Illuminating...will make one's hair to fall out!

Rishi_Tri
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 08 Dec 2017 05:26

Philip wrote:Pl ck my latest post on upgrade cost for M2Ks in the IAF td.Illuminating...will make one's hair to fall out!


It is hair raising but not entirely unexpected. French products are one of the most expensive in the world. To top it all .. platform strategy .. make many times more money through after market sales.. upgrades .. than the original sale.. though to make the analysis complete should be added parameters on relative 'cost of unavailability' as in case of russian products.. this shall give clearer picture..

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2562
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kashi » 08 Dec 2017 05:36

Where exactly is the position of the refuelling probe. Will it interfere with pilot's view?

I cannot seem to find any images that show the view from the pilot's side. I think some front views may have been posted in this thread.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 08 Dec 2017 05:42

Right.Availability factor for French birds was just given by someone in I think the Raffy td. Pretty poor, but seems to be the universal problem of not maintaining sufficient spares in hand.Brar has given some facts for US fighters too.

Reg.A-to-A refuelling few., this was also done for the legacy MIG-29s now all upgraded.It appears that the IAF now want all aircraft to have this capability.The dawning in the mind (finally!) of the Chin threat is probably the reason apart from the increased Sino- Pak threat in the maritime sphere.LCAs are to be initially based in S.India and will need long legs to be effective given their inherent range-payload factor, inferior to MKIs, etc.But if the development of this is going to add yet more time , eventually the aircraft when it enters service in large number will be too late in the day with newer more capable enemy birds arriving.The obsolescence factor will kick in.

I don't think that our legacy MIG-21s came with refuelling probes so why can't we just bat on with the first 40 LCAs without refuelling capability as the bird was always meant to replace the MIGs? MK-1As could all come with the feature or if developed earlier the second sqd.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 508
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby prasannasimha » 08 Dec 2017 07:39

Philip this is the LCA thread. Please stick to issues wrt LCA

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5848
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 08 Dec 2017 13:23

Kashi wrote:Where exactly is the position of the refuelling probe. Will it interfere with pilot's view?

I cannot seem to find any images that show the view from the pilot's side. I think some front views may have been posted in this thread.

The probe was moved to a better position based on pilot feedback. ADA is working diligently on the probe and want o deliver it before FOC. But AFAIK, IAF is okay if that can't be delivered before FoC. It is not a show stopper. The gun would be. More ground testing coming up shortly. So is first flight of SP5.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 08 Dec 2017 14:51

one questions Mid Air Refueling:

I hope, Is it always n always planned on Ground that any specific mission/flight will be Mid Air Refueling one.

So, For Tejas & Mirage2000s, as we have Probe which is Not retractable, If they are not on a Mid Air Refueling mission - Is it possible they remove this Probe thing on Ground ? And only attach it to fighter whenever required ?

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 08 Dec 2017 16:00

ashishvikas wrote:one questions Mid Air Refueling:

I hope, Is it always n always planned on Ground that any specific mission/flight will be Mid Air Refueling one.

So, For Tejas & Mirage2000s, as we have Probe which is Not retractable, If they are not on a Mid Air Refueling mission - Is it possible they remove this Probe thing on Ground ? And only attach it to fighter whenever required ?


One is tempted to ask, will they be re-attaching it mid-air? The use case for refuelling is for long range missions, heavily loaded combat missions, etc. Basically, what a fighter is built for. Removing the probe for training and what else will have exactly zero use apart from making it more maintenance intensive.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chola, deejay, Nitesh, ravikr and 53 guests