LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

[Indranil]

HAL is in charge of Mk1A. AFAIK, they are only planning to make structural, avionics and panel changes. They are not going to undertake anything that changes the CG/CP or the external aerodynamics (which is a pity).

IIRC they were trying to reduce drag as well - nothing as major as the plug, but minor tweaks to reduce drag (which seems to be the biggest issue with the LCA).

How? Other than induced drag?

Please don't feel obligated to share if you shouldn't.

[JayS]

Hmm. I am interested to know, how would a 3000h life fighter would compare to a 6000-8000 airframe life fighter in terms of airframe weight, given same level of optimisation.

most mil aircraft don't even complete 2000 hrs in a twenty year time frame.

I have seen choppers which have not even touched 2000 hrs in 20 years.

when the hans copy built their first shenyang MiGs which they even exported to the pakis, the total airframe life was only 120 hrs. The pakis nursed them along for another 30 hours to barely complete 150 hrs before it was scrapped.

The hans copied almost everything but at that time, they just couldn't hack the russian metallurgy.

Sir, no arguments there. But I don't really get your point. Now a days, Product life cycle of a Fighter is well in the 40-45yr slot. On the other end of the spectrum, there are fighters which have completed their design life in operation and have got extensions on life. Our MiG-21s are a good example. Some of the F15 and F16 have got life extensions. With increasing acquicision costs Air Forces want to utilize the most out of their available fighters. Also high component life numbers reduce MRO costs significantly.

[Indranil]

Jay,

It is true that LCA was designed for 3000 hrs, and those are based on estimations. What structural design charts would ADA have had on composites when they started this thing? They must have erred on the side of caution.

The following two lines are educated guesses which I can't corroborate any further:
1. LCA Mk1s life is more than 3000 hrs
2. LCA Mk1A SPs would be lighter than Mk1 SPs by about 400 kgs.

[JayS]

Jay,

It is true that LCA was designed for 3000 hrs, and those are based on estimations. What structural design charts would ADA have had on composites when they started this thing? They must have erred on the side of caution.

The following two lines are educated guesses which I can't corroborate any further:
1. LCA Mk1s life is more than 3000 hrs
2. LCA Mk1A SPs would be lighter than Mk1 SPs by about 400 kgs.

I remember I have written a long post once explaining design process and justifying how it was OK for ADA to have overshoot the weight target. SO I understand that part perfectly. And I was among the firsts who ridiculed that claim of 800kg weight reduction when it first appeared. Even today I don't think its practical. But I keep wondering if its possible theoretically or not. No OEM in the world would reopen airframe design for optimisation at this stage unless its do or die situation. But it doesn't hurt to challenge your own thinking and ask why not, every now and then. The more I think about it, the more I feel its possible to shave off significant number off the airframe weight if proper optimisation loop it rerun. But I know it will not happen. Its not feasible. It will not happen even for Mk2. Thus I expect Mk2 weight to go up only. We will rather see weight kept same/similar and life number hiked in due time.

Guess my thoughts have become incoherent. I should probably go to lurking mode for a while.

[Indranil]

I am with on you on those. 400 kgs will deploy my lungi. 800 kgs and I will hurl it over my head

[Cybaru]

Will any saving between 0-400 kgs mean addition of more fuel by the same amount?

[ks_sachin]

Will any saving between 0-400 kgs mean addition of more fuel by the same amount?

Not necessarily. amount of fuel in internal tanks in constrained by the size of the tanks

[Kartik]

Guys, please read this paper that was published by HAL Aircraft Upgrade Research Design Center on Optimised Cockpit Heat Load Analysis using Skin Temperature using CFD and validated using thermal mapping to improve the Performance of a Fighter Aircraft.

The aircraft in question is the Su-30MKI, and there are some amazing improvements in performance that are being predicted theoretically at least, by doing this analysis and optimizing the ECS, and engine bleed air. Being an HAL study, I really hope that as part of the Mk1A development studies, the Tejas cockpit head load analysis will also be conducted and a similar optimization of the ECS for the Tejas will likely be carried out. If HAL reduces weight even by a couple hundred kgs and then if the engine thrust increases due to reduced engine bleed air and engine SFC reduces, then it'll make for a very significant performance benefit for the Tejas Mk1A. Keep an eye out for any news on this possible optimization.

one of the gentlemen that wrote the paper works at HAL's AURDC and received a SODET Award for his work on the MiG-27 upgrade's ECS work. My understanding is that the Tejas' ECS was also developed by HAL originally.

Designing of optimum environmental control system (ECS) plays a major role for increasing performance of fighter aircraft depending upon requirement of engine bleed air for running of ECS. Accurate estimation of cockpit skin temperature for obtaining optimised cockpit heat load helps
in estimation of engine bleed air for ECS. Present research evolved a methodology for comparing the theoretically calculated skin temperature with
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis to obtain optimum skin temperature. Results are validated by flight tests under critical flight conditions
using thermal crayons. Based on which the optimized heat load and bleed air requirements has been computed. Uncertainty analysis of skin temperature measurement for thermal crayons have been undertaken. The results indicate that the theoretical skin temperature is -26.70 per cent as that of CFD estimated skin temperature.

Optimized average cockpit heat load at critical flight profiles is 0.74 times the theoretical cockpit heat load, leading to reduction of bleed air requirement by 26 percent as compared to theoretical. Due to this literature survey has predicted the increase in performance parameters like increase in bleed air pressure by 78 percent, increase in thrust by 60 percent, and decrease in specific fuel consumption (SFC) by 40 percent
to improve the endurance of aircraft.

The research has generated governing equations for variation of cockpit heat loads w.r.t aircraft skin temperatures.

[yensoy]

Guys, please read this paper that was published by HAL Aircraft Upgrade Research Design Center on Optimised Cockpit Heat Load Analysis using Skin Temperature using CFD and validated using thermal mapping to improve the Performance of a Fighter Aircraft.

The aircraft in question is the Su-30MKI, and there are some amazing improvements in performance that are being predicted theoretically at least, by doing this analysis and optimizing the ECS, and engine bleed air...

Or, of course, we could go the modern aircraft way and build a no-bleed system for ECS, de-icing etc http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_4.html.

[chetak]

most mil aircraft don't even complete 2000 hrs in a twenty year time frame.

I have seen choppers which have not even touched 2000 hrs in 20 years.

when the hans copy built their first shenyang MiGs which they even exported to the pakis, the total airframe life was only 120 hrs. The pakis nursed them along for another 30 hours to barely complete 150 hrs before it was scrapped.

The hans copied almost everything but at that time, they just couldn't hack the russian metallurgy.

Sir, no arguments there. But I don't really get your point. Now a days, Product life cycle of a Fighter is well in the 40-45yr slot. On the other end of the spectrum, there are fighters which have completed their design life in operation and have got extensions on life. Our MiG-21s are a good example. Some of the F15 and F16 have got life extensions. With increasing acquicision costs Air Forces want to utilize the most out of their available fighters. Also high component life numbers reduce MRO costs significantly.

JayS ji,

It is not a simple matter of product or design life. Its a matter of actual usage too. Life extension programs have a different objective altogether. Rarely is life extended because airframe/engine life limitations have been breached.

All airforces want high airframe and engine hours but actual usage belies the fact that life consumed is far less. This is more so in NATO airforces where very little actual flying is done per pilot but a huge amount of training is simulator based and therefore more cost effective. A pilots normal workday is more than likely to use a simulator rather than an actual aircraft for the sortie.

The effectiveness of the pilot and the results of simulator based training is evaluated in a few live sorties. Any deficiencies found is again fixed on the simulator before re evaluation on the actual aircraft.

Sims are very expensive beasts too but nowhere as expensive as an actual live sortie on the mil aircraft. Mil transport and tanker aircraft sim training are more slanted toward commercial practices as opposed to highly specialized fighter sim training.

Helicopter sims are a different ball game all together.

There is a spillover of the lessons learned in mil training methodology to the civilian side and that makes for very sophisticated commercial simulators as well as a more adaptive training methodology.This has been refined right down to expensive psychological tests prior to commencement of sim training that help select "compatible" training crew pairs who actually reinforce each other in the cockpit as far as the actual and effective assimilation of training goes.

This expensive testing + selection results in more effective crew training that actually results in reduced simulator time as well as more effective crews that are more capable and consistent in their performance in high stress situations.

Also "high component life numbers reducing MRO costs" is debatable because more often than not, components are replaced not based just solely on mere flying hour numbers alone but also on their calendar life. Usage or otherwise is not the sole criteria when the calendar life kicks in and replacement is anyway mandated.

A very large part of a mil aircraft's life is spent sitting on the ground, awaiting servicing, replacement parts, in storage. For instance, a trip to a PSU for servicing can often take upwards of a year to complete and most of the this time is spent in waiting for MOD approvals, waiting in line for their turn, being postponed to the next "financial" year because the PSU has completed it's yearly contracted servicing quota, yada yada.

[JayS]

Guys, please read this paper that was published by HAL Aircraft Upgrade Research Design Center on Optimised Cockpit Heat Load Analysis using Skin Temperature using CFD and validated using thermal mapping to improve the Performance of a Fighter Aircraft.

The aircraft in question is the Su-30MKI, and there are some amazing improvements in performance that are being predicted theoretically at least, by doing this analysis and optimizing the ECS, and engine bleed air. Being an HAL study, I really hope that as part of the Mk1A development studies, the Tejas cockpit head load analysis will also be conducted and a similar optimization of the ECS for the Tejas will likely be carried out. If HAL reduces weight even by a couple hundred kgs and then if the engine thrust increases due to reduced engine bleed air and engine SFC reduces, then it'll make for a very significant performance benefit for the Tejas Mk1A. Keep an eye out for any news on this possible optimization.

one of the gentlemen that wrote the paper works at HAL's AURDC and received a SODET Award for his work on the MiG-27 upgrade's ECS work. My understanding is that the Tejas' ECS was also developed by HAL originally.

Designing of optimum environmental control system (ECS) plays a major role for increasing performance of fighter aircraft depending upon requirement of engine bleed air for running of ECS. Accurate estimation of cockpit skin temperature for obtaining optimised cockpit heat load helps
in estimation of engine bleed air for ECS. Present research evolved a methodology for comparing the theoretically calculated skin temperature with
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis to obtain optimum skin temperature. Results are validated by flight tests under critical flight conditions
using thermal crayons. Based on which the optimized heat load and bleed air requirements has been computed. Uncertainty analysis of skin temperature measurement for thermal crayons have been undertaken. The results indicate that the theoretical skin temperature is -26.70 per cent as that of CFD estimated skin temperature.

Optimized average cockpit heat load at critical flight profiles is 0.74 times the theoretical cockpit heat load, leading to reduction of bleed air requirement by 26 percent as compared to theoretical. Due to this literature survey has predicted the increase in performance parameters like increase in bleed air pressure by 78 percent, increase in thrust by 60 percent, and decrease in specific fuel consumption (SFC) by 40 percent
to improve the endurance of aircraft.

The research has generated governing equations for variation of cockpit heat loads w.r.t aircraft skin temperatures.

The "predicted" increase in performance is unbelievably high. Something is not right.

[JayS]

Sir, no arguments there. But I don't really get your point. Now a days, Product life cycle of a Fighter is well in the 40-45yr slot. On the other end of the spectrum, there are fighters which have completed their design life in operation and have got extensions on life. Our MiG-21s are a good example. Some of the F15 and F16 have got life extensions. With increasing acquicision costs Air Forces want to utilize the most out of their available fighters. Also high component life numbers reduce MRO costs significantly.

JayS ji,

It is not a simple matter of product or design life. Its a matter of actual usage too. Life extension programs have a different objective altogether. Rarely is life extended because airframe/engine life limitations have been breached.

All airforces want high airframe and engine hours but actual usage belies the fact that life consumed is far less. This is more so in NATO airforces where very little actual flying is done per pilot but a huge amount of training is simulator based and therefore more cost effective. A pilots normal workday is more than likely to use a simulator rather than an actual aircraft for the sortie.

The effectiveness of the pilot and the results of simulator based training is evaluated in a few live sorties. Any deficiencies found is again fixed on the simulator before re evaluation on the actual aircraft.

Sims are very expensive beasts too but nowhere as expensive as an actual live sortie on the mil aircraft. Mil transport and tanker aircraft sim training are more slanted toward commercial practices as opposed to highly specialized fighter sim training.

Helicopter sims are a different ball game all together.

There is a spillover of the lessons learned in mil training methodology to the civilian side and that makes for very sophisticated commercial simulators as well as a more adaptive training methodology.This has been refined right down to expensive psychological tests prior to commencement of sim training that help select "compatible" training crew pairs who actually reinforce each other in the cockpit as far as the actual and effective assimilation of training goes.

This expensive testing + selection results in more effective crew training that actually results in reduced simulator time as well as more effective crews that are more capable and consistent in their performance in high stress situations.

Also "high component life numbers reducing MRO costs" is debatable because more often than not, components are replaced not based just solely on mere flying hour numbers alone but also on their calendar life. Usage or otherwise is not the sole criteria when the calendar life kicks in and replacement is anyway mandated.

A very large part of a mil aircraft's life is spent sitting on the ground, awaiting servicing, replacement parts, in storage. For instance, a trip to a PSU for servicing can often take upwards of a year to complete and most of the this time is spent in waiting for MOD approvals, waiting in line for their turn, being postponed to the next "financial" year because the PSU has completed it's yearly contracted servicing quota, yada yada.

Saar, no need for ji or things like that. I am nanha mujahidin wonly.

I have little to say anything to counter what you are pointing out. But the fact of the matter is there is a global trend where ASQRs are specifying higher and higher lifing numbers. Its up to the user to set the requirement ultimately. They are asking for more and more life. Even Russians have switched to the western design philosophy of high life numbers.

[ks_sachin]

Jay it is a function of the signal to noise ratio - the usage of ji or sir!!!

[JayS]

Jay it is a function of the signal to noise ratio - the usage of ji or sir!!!

[chetak]

JayS ji,

It is not a simple matter of product or design life. Its a matter of actual usage too. Life extension programs have a different objective altogether. Rarely is life extended because airframe/engine life limitations have been breached.

All airforces want high airframe and engine hours but actual usage belies the fact that life consumed is far less. This is more so in NATO airforces where very little actual flying is done per pilot but a huge amount of training is simulator based and therefore more cost effective. A pilots normal workday is more than likely to use a simulator rather than an actual aircraft for the sortie.

The effectiveness of the pilot and the results of simulator based training is evaluated in a few live sorties. Any deficiencies found is again fixed on the simulator before re evaluation on the actual aircraft.

Sims are very expensive beasts too but nowhere as expensive as an actual live sortie on the mil aircraft. Mil transport and tanker aircraft sim training are more slanted toward commercial practices as opposed to highly specialized fighter sim training.

Helicopter sims are a different ball game all together.

There is a spillover of the lessons learned in mil training methodology to the civilian side and that makes for very sophisticated commercial simulators as well as a more adaptive training methodology.This has been refined right down to expensive psychological tests prior to commencement of sim training that help select "compatible" training crew pairs who actually reinforce each other in the cockpit as far as the actual and effective assimilation of training goes.

This expensive testing + selection results in more effective crew training that actually results in reduced simulator time as well as more effective crews that are more capable and consistent in their performance in high stress situations.

Also "high component life numbers reducing MRO costs" is debatable because more often than not, components are replaced not based just solely on mere flying hour numbers alone but also on their calendar life. Usage or otherwise is not the sole criteria when the calendar life kicks in and replacement is anyway mandated.

A very large part of a mil aircraft's life is spent sitting on the ground, awaiting servicing, replacement parts, in storage. For instance, a trip to a PSU for servicing can often take upwards of a year to complete and most of the this time is spent in waiting for MOD approvals, waiting in line for their turn, being postponed to the next "financial" year because the PSU has completed it's yearly contracted servicing quota, yada yada.

Saar, no need for ji or things like that. I am nanha mujahidin wonly.

I have little to say anything to counter what you are pointing out. But the fact of the matter is there is a global trend where ASQRs are specifying higher and higher lifing numbers. Its up to the user to set the requirement ultimately. They are asking for more and more life. Even Russians have switched to the western design philosophy of high life numbers.

JayS ji,

Regardless of what the ASQRs say, the trend is towards increasing simulator usage to deliver targeted training solutions more economically and safely. Dead pilots and wrecked aircraft in training accidents is an extremely expensive proposition.

Such ASQRs actually bump up the asking prices and are no good to anyone except the manufacturers and designers and the supply chain organizations.

Hefty premiums are often charged, simply to keep aged manufacturing facilities running and one time buys have become prohibitively expensive to acquire as well as stock because apart from huge carrying costs, there are very heavy inspection and periodic servicing charges associated with long term storage options. Facilities themselves are becoming increasingly sophisticated with many having moved to permanent climate control and that is a very very costly infrastructure to build as well as maintain and staff.

For mil grade hardware, obsolescence sets in very quickly and changes are often forced, based on what the opposition acquires or even upgrades to. So new acquisitions, even knee jerk upgrades can be forced upon you when least expected or even when least affordable.

As with everything in life, the balance will only come from a risk based tradeoff.

[Kartik]

From LCA Tejas's FB page

LSP-7 (KH-2017) Rolling out for a test sortie in night thereby paving way for future night operational clearances..

And as regards night operations, here is what the admin had to say to a question on when night operations started with the LSPs.

When was the first night sortie flown?


LCA Tejas Admin - That was way back in 2009. But the actual evaluation started on an operationally compatible platform like LSP-5 onwards recently.

[symontk]

Yesterday saw four of them taking off and then landing back

[putnanja]

A new HD video of LCA from ADA, posted on FB LCA page.

[chola]

^^^Wonderful. My impression of the LCA is it seems very polished, especially after watching the flight sequences. It doesn’t seem like a first effort. Am I wrong in this impression? It seems incomprehensible why we need to go with the SEF and 57 Naval RFI and not pour those billions here and develop the Tejas and its variants. It is around $12 billion for the 57 naval fighters and at least that for the SEF. With 20 plus billion USD, what can’t be done?

[Rakesh]

Chola, the navy does not want the Tejas as an operational naval fighter. They have made that call. Twin engine fighter is what they want and that is what they will get.

[nam]

Need to raise the production rate to atleast 30-40 per year, with variation MK2/MK3/Mk4 rolled out every 3-4 years.

So fundamentally you will have 90-120 jets of each variant.

35 million per jet. 10 years, 14-15 billion in production cost, 2-3 billion in development cost for all the variant.

overall 17 to 18 billion. 400 jets, 3 variant, 10 years.

[Rakesh]

^^^ And *almost* all that money stays within the country. Money well spent.

[srai]

Need to raise the production rate to atleast 30-40 per year, with variation MK2/MK3/Mk4 rolled out every 3-4 years.

So fundamentally you will have 90-120 jets of each variant.

35 million per jet. 10 years, 14-15 billion in production cost, 2-3 billion in development cost for all the variant.

overall 17 to 18 billion. 400 jets, 3 variant, 10 years.

Indigenous solution is in front and center. The entire Indian aerospace ecosystem with many public and private Tier-1/2/3 and vertical integrators (i.e. multiple final assembly lines) can be realized with the indigenous LCA platform. It is up to the parties involved to make it happen instead of the continuous whine-fest (and time-waste) for imported solutions.

[Vivek K]

LCA is the last chance for self reliance, for Indian dreams to flourish, for Indian children to stay home and work to enrich the country than to go abroad and work for the benefit of others.

[Philip]

I doubt that the LCA will be sacrificed now that it progresses with every day.Don't worry.Babudom will seal the fate of new imports with years of red tape .Buying more of a type already in service or ordered like Rafales unavoidable.The ball is in HAL and the ADA's court.They now have to deliver esp. in faster production without any lessening of quality.Remember an AM's remarks about HAL canopies differing in size...

[ks_sachin]

That sir was in LSPs as IR has pointed out. If as IR and Jay have pointed out that SP build quality is good then the IAF should be able to do a merry go round with the canopies!!!

[jaysimha]

You might try here


https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/whatsnew/W ... k-Fair.pdf

DRDO at World Book Fair - 2018
DESIDOC on behalf of DRDO will participate in the World
Book Fair 2018 during 06-14 January 2018 at Pragati Maidan,
New Delhi. All DRDO Scientists, Officers and Staff are requested
to visit Stall No.20 in Hanger Lake Side. DESIDOC will showcase
the complete array of DRDO Publications during the fair.

I sent email to desidoc. No reply so far. Going to Delhi is not feasible just for that. Dont have anyone in Delhi currently to pick it for me too.

May be you have to send a Sharkari sthyale love letter printed on company/institution library letter head through speed post with acknowledge due with CC to MRM

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... ochure.pdf

[Mahindra]

My questions for the stalwarts here is on materials and manufacturing technologies. Do we import the composite tape/fiber? if so, are there any ongoing efforts to make these in India. How does the tape/fiber compare with the latest used for commercial or military aircraft? Are we using tape or fiber laydown machines (CTLMs or Fiber Placement machines)? Is someone making or trying to make these in India?. Are there still restrictions on importing (both materials and equipment)?

I suspect these issues may be important in light of the make in India emphasis and as the LCA production rate increases, and for future projects.

[prasannasimha]

It is imported. Typically from Japan.
Prasanna

[fanne]

My question to learned folks, is LCA more 'successful' than Arjun in their respective roles?

[Khalsa]

My question to learned folks, is LCA more 'successful' than Arjun in their respective roles?

I apologise for still answering, even though I am not that learned.
NO

They are equally successfull.
IAF is more driven to bringing out in force now because of the airframes that are about to reach end of life.

IA has T-90s. They have reserves of T72s and engines that can be replaced easily.

The need to operationalise , the drive to operationalise is more within the IAF now than the IA
although the latest Video report by Vishnu gives me heart.

[fanne]

Khalsa ji, you may be right, I suspect the same reason. It is direness of the situation that is driving these decisions.

[Rakesh]

Khalsa-ji is actually spot on, IMHO.

However direness of the situation will translate into not just user acceptance, but user confidence.

And that **Confidence** is the MOST important key. The user must have confidence in the platform...to exploit it (doctrine and tactics), invest in and further develop the platform (follow on variants).

It also creates a synergy between the services and the agencies that developed the platform. That does not happen right now, because each time India is close to perfecting a major indigineous system (such as a tank or a fighter aircraft)...foreign vendors, foreign govts, import lobbies (we have a few on BRF too), local media, curropt govt officials, etc kill the platform. That cycle has to end.

The IAF's dire situation will likely pay dividends. Ironic, but Tejas induction is happening because of the malaise of our MoD in inducting a foreign platform. Only in India, can a local product germinate and grow because of the inefficiency of our bureaucracy. Mera Bharat Mahan and I do not mean that sarcastically.

In the Army's case - as Khalsa-ji pointed out - the situation is not dire. Stop the supply of Russian tanks and then Arjun will come.

[putnanja]

My questions for the stalwarts here is on materials and manufacturing technologies. Do we import the composite tape/fiber? if so, are there any ongoing efforts to make these in India. How does the tape/fiber compare with the latest used for commercial or military aircraft? Are we using tape or fiber laydown machines (CTLMs or Fiber Placement machines)? Is someone making or trying to make these in India?. Are there still restrictions on importing (both materials and equipment)?

I suspect these issues may be important in light of the make in India emphasis and as the LCA production rate increases, and for future projects.

As far as I remember, for LCA, hand-layup was being used, given the low production rates. NAL was exploring automatic layup, but I don't think we are using it. I believe we are using tape laydown, in manual mode. The composites are made in India, some company in Gujarat if I recall. NAL has developed the technology for co-curing, layup, autoclave etc and has transferred these to private industry. You will have to dig around in NAL website, its slow, but has the papers on these issues.

[prasannasimha]

The raw carbon thread was being imported and the laying /curing etc is done in house. They were trying to get the carbon thread manugactured in India. Its all about volumes.

[putnanja]

The company is Kemrock Industries, which was subsequently acquired by Reliance.

Kemrock, HAL create carbon fiber prepreg joint venture

Kemrock, a manufacturer of fiber-reinforced plastics and composite products and has set up a carbon fiber manufacturing facility at Vadodara, Gujarat, having obtained technology from CSIR-NAL.

Use Of Composites In India's Aircraft Programs - SARAS & LCA Tejas

...
Technology for making the Carbon fibre polymer matrix composites has, subsequently, been transferred to the Gujarat-based Kemrock Industries & Exports Limited [KIEL], for mass production to meet the needs of Indian programmes, and export the surplus. As part of the technology denial regime, sale of carbon fibre technology to India was/is an "international crime". So India developed means to make its own.
...
ADA had, in fact, developed a software called AUTOLAY for this very purpose. It calculates and simulates the orientation of layers of fibre [laminate] that would develop the required strength upon curing [controlled heating under specific pressure], with the ability to interface it with the fibre tape laying machine to transfer the motion of lay. The tape laying process used to build composite structures for the prototype aircrafts are being done manually in India, currently. Automation would become viable through economies of scale.
...

[ramana]

Thete was a lady scientist who pioneered this carbon fiber technology in India.

[Philip]

Years ago there was a co. which was the pioneer in the country for frp.The co.also pioneered making intl. std.cadet class sailing boats.I know that they formerly supplied rhibs to the IN and CG from their Cochin boatyard, I had a good look at them some years ago and even on their request inspected a Colombo boat builder regarding his capability for an intl. order.They also supplied aluminium hulled craft for a foreign order based upon an Oz design..I must ck with them whether they did any composite work too.

[Khalsa]

Khalsa ji, you may be right, I suspect the same reason. It is direness of the situation that is driving these decisions.

Please fanne. No Ji.
Khalsa is just fine.

Khalsa-ji is actually spot on, IMHO.
However direness of the situation will translate into not just user acceptance, but user confidence.
In the Army's case - as Khalsa-ji pointed out - the situation is not dire. Stop the supply of Russian tanks and then Arjun will come.

Dear Admiral. Did you see something in that video report by Vishnu about Arjun tanks.
His father was the CO when the tank was inducted and now he is the CO.

Which means a child's father inducted the tanks (he must have been teenager or in NDA) and now this chap runs the 43rd AR.
Which means we are almost seeing a point around which there could be a change in the psyche of AR officers which come into Army used to Arjun from day one.

This will soon happen with 45 squadron when it recieves its first crop of young flight officers.
After that game over for the import lobby my friend.

[ks_sachin]

Dear Admiral. Did you see something in that video report by Vishnu about Arjun tanks.
His father was the CO when the tank was inducted and now he is the CO.

Which means a child's father inducted the tanks (he must have been teenager or in NDA) and now this chap runs the 43rd AR.
Which means we are almost seeing a point around which there could be a change in the psyche of AR officers which come into Army used to Arjun from day one.

too small a number and then the Arjun will be long in the tooth.
The current CO probably asked for a PC at the IMA and was commissioned into the regt his father commanded. If I had joined I would have been the 3rd generation commanding the same Battalion. (If I reached those heights!!!)
These traditions are maintained.

On the contrary having such a small holding of the Arjun is a PITA for the two regiments no? How effective is the regiment if the engines have to be sent to Germany for overhaul. How is the spares supply chain?