LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Jan 2018 22:08

Tsarkar sir,

What thunder? It is all fine onlee.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2018 22:22

Vidur wrote:There is some confusion in the article. He is confusing the decision for MK1A orders with the Single Engine Fighter requirement. There has never been any doubt on the MK1A orders. The presentation was made in context of a further evolution of Tejas. I cannot say more than this.

This is very, very true.

The question to be settled is the residual of the 126 MMRCA of which 36 Rafale were procured.

The contention is which planes for the remaining MMRCA:
- LCA Mk2
- F-16
- Grippen

The presentation did not think the LCA Mk2 would materialize.

Unfortunately instead of stating this they made colorful facts which the press ran with for their own agenda.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2018 22:27

While Tejas ( I am going to refrain form calling it LCA!) could use favorable publicity it should be factual to stick.

Agree with tsarkar.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2018 22:28

Indranil wrote:Tsarkar sir,

What thunder? It is all fine onlee.

As Akshay says the competition is between masala chai and Ole Monk.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 17 Jan 2018 23:24

prasannasimha wrote:It is imported. Typically from Japan.
Prasanna

From what I recollect Reliance Industries managed to get a ToT for the same and have setup a plant for the same. Low profile but still significant. I am however not able to locate the link to the article on this.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 17 Jan 2018 23:51

Shiv sir , a short introduction of Mahindra sir will be in order.

Mahindra · Post by **Mahindra** » 18 Jan 2018 00:02

Thank You, Shiv and Ramana, for the hearty welcome!
I hope to live up to the high standards of BR. I have great admiration for those who started and maintain this forum. It is a national resource.

I must say our PM and MoD Chief have done a good things by supporting home grown defense products, especially the Tejas. They know that successful home grown defense products give them more diplomatic options. I hope they can fight off the naysayers, and stay long enough in office before the crooks get back in. Such decisions will help expand and nurture an aerospace culture and related workforce across the country, which itself will be of great value in developing other products.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jan 2018 00:09

I wonder if you are the same Mahindra that I am thinking of. If yes, shashtang pranam !

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jan 2018 00:13

Vidur wrote:There is some confusion in the article. He is confusing the decision for MK1A orders with the Single Engine Fighter requirement. There has never been any doubt on the MK1A orders. The presentation was made in context of a further evolution of Tejas. I cannot say more than this.

Quite a few of us are having our mouths shut only sir. The question remains: should such a presentation be made for an imported SEF in lieu of developing Mk2? IMHO, a big NO.

Vidur · Post by **Vidur** » 18 Jan 2018 00:36

IAF is following their mandate and it’s not their job to root for an unmade untested article. They have been quite supportive and patient. The article has many misrepresentations.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Jan 2018 00:40

On IAF's front, some more pilots I know of, are saying positive things vs negative from a year back.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 Jan 2018 01:04

Vidur wrote:IAF is following their mandate and it’s not their job to root for an unmade untested article. They have been quite supportive and patient. The article has many misrepresentations.

What is the IAF mandate? Is it defined somewhere? Does it not take techno-strategic issues into consideration? (Genuinely curious how this is laid out.. and how it is interpreted by the service.)

Technology and ownership of technology shapes the modern battlefield as much as the mythical 'high ground' did in the olden days. I am sorry to say this, but **IMHO**, services do not appear to understand how to midwife 'ownership of technology' to varying degrees. Navy is the best, Army the worst.

Technology is like a building, you build the latest generation atop the work done in earlier generations. If every desi product is compared with the latest gizmo from abroad and is discarded because it does not match or overmatch the latest & greatest, we will never be able to catch up. If the service says 'not my job to root for an unmade untested article' then they will never be able to design/use technology to shape the battlefield.

They can take a risk management approach towards unmade/untested articles, but again **IMHO** it should be a part of their mandate to shape the technological lay of the battlefield as much as it is part of their mandate to shape the physical lay of the battlefield.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jan 2018 03:51

sudeepj, What you say is for the RM to take into consideration.
The problem was the presentation core idea was to say LCA is not the SEF and Mk2 prospects are slim from track record POV.

However it used polemic language which gave the media something to bash HAL, ADA, DRDO and IAF itself.
All are GOI.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 18 Jan 2018 08:15

deleted

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 Jan 2018 09:36

ramana wrote:sudeepj, What you say is for the RM to take into consideration.
The problem was the presentation core idea was to say LCA is not the SEF and Mk2 prospects are slim from track record POV.

However it used polemic language which gave the media something to bash HAL, ADA, DRDO and IAF itself.
All are GOI.

Ramana ji, RM is a non specialist. Their role is to set out very high strategy.. To define what our core interests are etc. and to deal with the political economy of conflict. Dealing with the technology landscape needs an organization with specialist warrior-sage personas that IMHO we are lacking. DRDO and the scientific advisor to the PM/RM do don these roles, but they are usually technology sages first and warriors far later. Perhaps whats needed is some direct interaction between Brigadiers/Field commanders and DRDO liasons to get the collaborative lifeblood flowing..

IMHO, Only the smallest service has been satisfactory when it comes to dealing with/adopting/developing technology. Other two have been content to kick down and poke holes in foundational technology projects, such as the Arjun or the LCA.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Jan 2018 12:02

We have had discussions on this very many times. Like IN, IAF and IA needs to develop its own technical/engineering cadre as well as highly specialized acquisition and program management cadre. A lot of admin power needs to be shifted to the Forces from MoD babus.

Ideally the system should have worked properly with expected synergy between various stake holders, but we don't leave in ideal world.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 18 Jan 2018 14:51

deleted

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 18 Jan 2018 17:24

Indranil, anything new to share for SP5 ? We have been waiting for it since long.

And also what's next - SP8 ? Kab tak ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2018 17:48

The DGs of the various branches of the IA like arty., AAD AVs, etc. and their corresponding colleagues in the other two services, who are responsible for their acquisitions, must also be embedded-their orgs.,into the DRDO/DPSU entities responsible for developing desi alternatives.Look at the US JSF programme.Now headed by an admiral after Gen.Bogdan retd.Similarly the LCA now should be headed by an IAF AM and not by civvies.Arjjn by a Lt...Gen.

This is eminently possible when you have the precedent in the IN, where the ATV programme was/is headed by a 3* Admiral.This is needed to also ensure that the end-user comes aboard desi efforts to supply them with the best systems possible.The practical experience of the end-user ( alleged LCA maintenance, time and difficulty in removing components, etc. being improved with quick release fasteners, etc. in MK-1A) will assist the dev. agency refine their designs to suit operational requirements.

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Jan 2018 18:03

ks_sachin wrote:
JayS wrote:We have had discussions on this very many times. Like IN, IAF and IA needs to develop its own technical/engineering cadre as well as highly specialized acquisition and program management cadre. A lot of admin power needs to be shifted to the Forces from MoD babus.

Ideally the system should have worked properly with expected synergy between various stake holders, but we don't leave in ideal world.
Jay we dont live in an ideal world. But tbat does not mean we do not aspire for tbat. My fear and experience is that we have few who can envision the ideal world - and this is not just the forces but the entire defence construct!

What steps are the IAF and IA taking to model after the IN? Are they taking any?

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 18 Jan 2018 19:33

srai wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: Jay we dont live in an ideal world. But tbat does not mean we do not aspire for tbat. My fear and experience is that we have few who can envision the ideal world - and this is not just the forces but the entire defence construct!
What steps are the IAF and IA taking to model after the IN? Are they taking any?

Are they taking any?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Jan 2018 20:36

ks_sachin wrote:
JayS wrote:We have had discussions on this very many times. Like IN, IAF and IA needs to develop its own technical/engineering cadre as well as highly specialized acquisition and program management cadre. A lot of admin power needs to be shifted to the Forces from MoD babus.

Ideally the system should have worked properly with expected synergy between various stake holders, but we don't leave in ideal world.
Jay we dont live in an ideal world. But tbat does not mean we do not aspire for tbat. My fear and experience is that we have few who can envision the ideal world - and this is not just the forces but the entire defence construct!

We don't live in an ideal world, and that why we need a system which works in real life. I really don't think existing thing will ever work as intended and I do not see AFs getting significant representation in MoD in authoritative positions any time soon. The AFs cannot rely on IAS cadre and politicians to get the best that the country can give them. They cannot hope to do much better even if they are given authority with existing intrinsic capabilities. They need to embark on a task to develop intrinsic capabilities and side by side start asking for more control of the programs. Even if they don't get authority, they still only have to gain with these specialised capabilities I mention. For example they can formulate much realistic SQRs and provide much better roadmaps for tech development and support accordingly. If you see some of the documents from the forces on future roadmap, they do not inspire much confidence. I do not want to be demeaning to anyone but some of them look amateurish and more like college seminar reports. I am sure they can do better. They need to do better for their own good.

Of corse there are pieces of the puzzle which rest with other stake holders like DRDO and GOI. Nor its responsibility of only the AFs. But I feel Forces need more authority and they need more specialised capabilities to make best use of that.

IA/IAF do send some of their officers for higher studies. But I feel the direction is not the one we are referring to and is not getting consolidated.

I won't say more here on this since we are going OT. Some other thread may be.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jan 2018 00:09

ashishvikas wrote:Indranil, anything new to share for SP5 ? We have been waiting for it since long.

And also what's next - SP8 ? Kab tak ?

SP5 has turned out to be the trouble-child of first-time parents. In the latest HSTT, some oil leaks were reported. The aircraft has now been re-assigned to Line 1 for rectification.

Line 1 is now delivering an aircraft in less than 2 months. The last one was delivered in middle of Dec. So middle of Feb will be a good approximation for the next one from Line 1. SP5 has been almost ready since last July/Aug. It is assumable that the next aircraft from line 2 must also be near ready now. But, it is understandable that they want to hold on to LSTTs/HSTTs till they find out what they were doing wrong with SP5.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jan 2018 01:55

Thanks for the updates IR.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Jan 2018 02:53

@Indranil, @all
SP-5 was the first aircraft coming from Line 2, correct ?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 19 Jan 2018 02:57

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jan 2018 04:19

Cybaru wrote:On IAF's front, some more pilots I know of, are saying positive things vs negative from a year back.

+1. Perceptions are changing.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Jan 2018 04:26

critical mass will be when enough trainers are delivered for evaluation rides to many senior IAF people from different bases.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jan 2018 05:21

Cybaru wrote:critical mass will be when enough trainers are delivered for evaluation rides to many senior IAF people from different bases.

Easier to convert mindset of rookies than senior people, IMO. Change happens slowly and better to catch them young. Their positive experience will be reflected in their decisions and choices they make throughout their careers.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Jan 2018 05:31

^^^ whole heartedly agree.
Flood the fields with Tejas !!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Jan 2018 05:37

srai wrote:
Cybaru wrote:critical mass will be when enough trainers are delivered for evaluation rides to many senior IAF people from different bases.
Easier to convert mindset of rookies than senior people, IMO. Change happens slowly and better to catch them young. Their positive experience will be reflected in their decisions and choices they make throughout their careers.

Both is needed bro, because the senior guy teaching the rookie on fancy pilatus is telling them rookies about time when they learned on a HAL product and it sucked so bad (insert your horror story here). Biases are and can also be taught unfortunately, whether wittingly or unwittingly. It's not even their fault, the old platform sucked from all the stories I have heard. Waiting on HTT40 to cut that whole cycle out and allow HAL to redeem itself.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jan 2018 05:49

Yes, both are needed.

As the saying goes, you can train an old geezer a new trick or two but when the time comes they will revert back to their old ways

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 19 Jan 2018 10:46

Khalsa wrote:@Indranil, @all
SP-5 was the first aircraft coming from Line 2, correct ?

Yes.. as far as we know.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 19 Jan 2018 10:52

Indranil wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Indranil, anything new to share for SP5 ? We have been waiting for it since long.

And also what's next - SP8 ? Kab tak ?
SP5 has turned out to be the trouble-child of first-time parents. In the latest HSTT, some oil leaks were reported. The aircraft has now been re-assigned to Line 1 for rectification.

Line 1 is now delivering an aircraft in less than 2 months. The last one was delivered in middle of Dec. So middle of Feb will be a good approximation for the next one from Line 1. SP5 has been almost ready since last July/Aug. It is assumable that the next aircraft from line 2 must also be near ready now. But, it is understandable that they want to hold on to LSTTs/HSTTs till they find out what they were doing wrong with SP5.

Thanks for update Indranil.

So, now we can expect maximum 1/2 more(SP8 & SP9) from Line 1 and may be SP5 gets rectified as well by March-18.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jan 2018 12:01

Don't worry about these initial teething problems. It will all get normalized by year end.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 19 Jan 2018 12:23

I hope there are more IOC/FOC variant orders to start a 3rd line, so that we can get the numbers up in the future periods.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2018 12:55

Indranil wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Indranil, anything new to share for SP5 ? We have been waiting for it since long.

And also what's next - SP8 ? Kab tak ?
SP5 has turned out to be the trouble-child of first-time parents. In the latest HSTT, some oil leaks were reported. The aircraft has now been re-assigned to Line 1 for rectification.

Line 1 is now delivering an aircraft in less than 2 months. The last one was delivered in middle of Dec. So middle of Feb will be a good approximation for the next one from Line 1. SP5 has been almost ready since last July/Aug. It is assumable that the next aircraft from line 2 must also be near ready now. But, it is understandable that they want to hold on to LSTTs/HSTTs till they find out what they were doing wrong with SP5.

A question if I may with the objective of increasing my knowledge. Was something new being done with SP 5. Wouldn’t the new line just be a carbon copy of the old line and employ the same processes and practices. Is it a question of trained staff and new staff being trained for new line and working in a new team ?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 19 Jan 2018 19:42

It seems in last 10 months only one LCA has been produced by two production lines? The total LCA that are expected to be produced in 2017-2018 is around 3. Hence my past comments, hated by everyone here, that HAL production capacity is only 4 per annum and even that limited production line is incomplete, is coming true by empirical evidence.

2017-2018 -3
2018-2019-4
2018-2019-5
2019-2020-6
2020-2021-7
2022-2023-8
2024-2025 First MK-1A might fly.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 19 Jan 2018 19:59

Set up HAL unit in Salem: CM Edappadi K. Palaniswami to Def min Nirmala Sitharaman

Declaring that Tamil Nadu is aiming at achieving 30 per cent share of aerospace and defence sector in India through its proposed policy, Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami on Thursday demanded that the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) set up a facility to manufacture Light Combat Aircraft in Salem.

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/ ... raman.html

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 19 Jan 2018 20:05

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Indranil wrote: SP5 has turned out to be the trouble-child of first-time parents. In the latest HSTT, some oil leaks were reported. The aircraft has now been re-assigned to Line 1 for rectification.

Line 1 is now delivering an aircraft in less than 2 months. The last one was delivered in middle of Dec. So middle of Feb will be a good approximation for the next one from Line 1. SP5 has been almost ready since last July/Aug. It is assumable that the next aircraft from line 2 must also be near ready now. But, it is understandable that they want to hold on to LSTTs/HSTTs till they find out what they were doing wrong with SP5.
A question if I may with the objective of increasing my knowledge. Was something new being done with SP 5. Wouldn’t the new line just be a carbon copy of the old line and employ the same processes and practices. Is it a question of trained staff and new staff being trained for new line and working in a new team ?

There is no easy convincing answer for this. Both men and machines need some time to fine tune for new work (or in this case new man/machine for old work, but for them this is new work anyway). That's true even when men are seasoned and machines are very well known factors, let alone being newbies. Aircraft assembly have simply too many steps. Its almost impossible to get them all right in first attempt. But obviously setting up second line is easier than setting the first one. This current first line is being operated for well over a decade now while it grew slowly. For second one the starting curve is steep due to compressed time despite being copy paste job. Give it an iteration or two to get in the groove.