LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 04 Sep 2017 13:03

JayS wrote: Who will stop it saar..?

We can only hope Nirmala Sitaraman does it.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Sep 2017 14:25

I believe policy will be made at PMO level and will be implemented at the MOD.

That is an assumption but if that is true a change in ministry will not change overall policy but only bring about better implementation, better coordination and more accountability with someone shouldering the responsibility with single-minded focus.

We must not confuse Modi era with Munna Mohan era were all minister did as they pleased, cut their own deals and ran their own fiefdoms.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 04 Sep 2017 14:48

First of all, she has to make out a case of a large number of LCAs production. If the RM can make out her case to the PM and PMO I am sure he will listen.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Sep 2017 15:04

She can certainly make a case for more focus and more funding for LCA but that will not stop the other track being pursued for single-engined fighters to push up the depleted IAF strength.

Building up of IAF to its full strength is as important as getting more LCA's into production. There will be a trade-off and GOI is also looking at 2 other objectives.
1. Build a second line of fighters.
2. Build up private sector in defense production.

Taken together all the 3 reasons make a case for an imported single-engined fighter.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 04 Sep 2017 15:44

Dileep wrote:We are talking about a few hundred crores of rupees here, for platform technology development. Worth to spend even if the master programme gets scrapped.

Paisa wise rupaiah foolish onlee.

Completely agree with you, Dileep. My heart goes out to those SME's who've invested their own money in the program.

I remember Project 71 was delayed after MKA prematurely launched it because he diverted funding to Congress Right to Food and other populist vote bank programs.

As I wrote in the Artillery thread, there are so many vested interests in India that it's a miracle whenever something right happens

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Sep 2017 15:49

Dileep wrote:We are talking about a few hundred crores of rupees here, for platform technology development. Worth to spend even if the master programme gets scrapped.

Paisa wise rupaiah foolish onlee.

I strongly believe not much has changed on the Arms Development side after 2014. A little bit here and there. Some low hanging fruits are pushed to score some brownie points (though its a good step only, I believe the intentions were as such to show more bulleted points in some PPT , report or some Speech). The more I see such incidences the more my belief strengthens. Yet to see any paradigm shift happening. Unless it happens we will have more of the same.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Sep 2017 15:50

Yagnasri wrote:
JayS wrote: Who will stop it saar..?
We can only hope Nirmala Sitaraman does it.

I am thinking she will push for SE MII. She doesn't have enough political weight or clout to push for any significant change in MoD.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 16:08

Rahul M wrote:regarding 2-engine LCA, AMCA is definitely the way to go. with the caveat that AMCA Mk1 should not have any dependency on tech we don't possess right now.
just re-size the LCA to accept 2 engines (F-414 if that's all we have) and re-use whatever subsystems you can from LCA.
forget all unobtainium tech, at most stealthy form factor and internal hardpoints. that's what the original MCA was

I mentioned the 2-engined LCA (the M4K concept ) as a way to focus attention on an incremental approach to AMCA. Don't go for the whole hog at the start. Begin with a new platform that has significant component commonality with the LCA so you can leverage the existing/emerging ecosystem but also one that can underpin the AMCA Block 2 when you have to fork it. This way you take your ecosystem with you and have a plan B in case AMCA Block 2 stretches into the 2040s.

I started the F-136 discussion nonsense here long ago when it was still alive and GE/RR could have been used as lobbyists for tech transfer to India. At this stage, it is about as feasible/relevant as dilithium crystals for warp drive.

We should avoid our natural inclination for science projects: the great is the enemy of the good enough. IMHO the way they are going about it with the LCA avatars is about right: build the ecosystem around a useful addition to the force.

The next step is where the anxiety sets in: make sure the AMCA Block 1 is not developed in a silo—a clean sheet design that ignores the LCA ecosystem.

JMT

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 16:12

tsarkar wrote:...

As I wrote in the Artillery thread, there are so many vested interests in India that it's a miracle whenever something right happens

More like innumerable mouths at the public trough. That's our food chain.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 04 Sep 2017 17:26

We will never go for the incremental, twin engine LCA path. For the Yindoo mind, 'economy at any cost' is the key. We tend to cram all advanced gizmoes into a single program, set impossible cost and time targets (to get it past the kanjoos babus), predictably fail in some, and get blamed. On the other hand, if you propose a realistic, phased development program, it will never get approved, since the output will not match the glossy brochures.

We are like this onlee...

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 04 Sep 2017 19:23

Dileep wrote:We will never go for the incremental, twin engine LCA path. For the Yindoo mind, 'economy at any cost' is the key. We tend to cram all advanced gizmoes into a single program, set impossible cost and time targets (to get it past the kanjoos babus), predictably fail in some, and get blamed. On the other hand, if you propose a realistic, phased development program, it will never get approved, since the output will not match the glossy brochures.

We are like this onlee...

I am reading book by Ben Rich on his stint at Skunk Works. They did exactly this kind of projects for decades - impossible time, cost and technology objectives, but with realistic program management. We have a lot to be learnt on Program management front. We do have a handicap with political and administrative apathy or even antipathy towards anything desi. But even if that is removed we still have a lot of ground to cover.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2017 20:29

Dileep wrote:We will never go for the incremental, twin engine LCA path. For the Yindoo mind, 'economy at any cost' is the key. We tend to cram all advanced gizmoes into a single program, set impossible cost and time targets (to get it past the kanjoos babus), predictably fail in some, and get blamed. On the other hand, if you propose a realistic, phased development program, it will never get approved, since the output will not match the glossy brochures.

We are like this onlee...

I think "Yindoo"s are risk averse. We want someone else to take the risk and hand over the end product at low cost.

JayS wrote: I am reading book by Ben Rich on his stint at Skunk Works. They did exactly this kind of projects for decades - impossible time, cost and technology objectives, but with realistic program management. We have a lot to be learnt on Program management front. We do have a handicap with political and administrative apathy or even antipathy towards anything desi. But even if that is removed we still have a lot of ground to cover.

IF one wants to take on leading edge techs, THAT is the *only* way to go. Jump from a 10 storied building and figure out how to grow wings on the way down. You need a dedicated team, that is isolated, that embraces failures. One has to fail multiple times to succeed once. Calculated risk, with no return on investments until the product is mature. The failures are never considered to be waste of funds. Elon Musk. Even he got laughed at by the gods of space!!!

I had posted this earlier, but did not think it was worth followign through. MCA WAS an incremental build of the LCA. Risk, though, was a secondary factor - they thought it was just a logical progression, on paper at least. But, the AMCA is a totally different beast. So, based on my understanding:

* LCA is FBW, the AMCA is FBL (unless it has changed)
* LCA has a centralized computing arch, the AMCA distributed
* 60-70% of the LO, in the AMCA, is via shaping
* I think the buses are totally different

A full scale model was supposed to be built and shipped to test for LO in 2017!!!!!

So ....................... what are they going to do with all these (AMCA related) developments IF we are recommending to revive the MCA and push for an incremental approach? An incremental process would mean a team for the incremental process AND a team for the AMCA as we know it from open source.

And, when that incrmenatl MCA is done, who is going to use it? Heck the Mk2 was supposed to come out thsi year (or was it 2018?) - now planned for mid 2020s.. Then the Mk1A was supposed to come out this year - now 2019. So, extrapolating, the MCA in 2035 and AMCA in 2050?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 04 Sep 2017 21:00

Even with a five to seven year cycle for the basic MCA, it would be unviable as time lines go. However, given the shilling we see for aged tired platforms that will take the same amount of time, perhaps the MCA or twin LCA would be a good developmental product. If only native projects were not dripfed to enable "more capable" acquisitions. This perpetual cycle of ask, blame, buy elsewhere is our failing. Of course this is only opinion of an obviously illiterate (tier 3 non specialist on BR) member stating the obvious.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Sep 2017 23:35

The jump from a high building and growing wings on the way down works in the US and nowhere else. FSU tried it for a while (design bureaus) and found it ruinous.

LM's and Boeing's Phantom works built on their companies' parts bin that came from aircraft in production and from reservoir of experienced talent they could cherry pick from.

If we'd kept up the effort on the Marut instead trying to starting again with the Jaguar, we'd have an aerospace industry today. Going into the AMCA with a timeline of the mid-late 2030s with the FGFA (as plan B ), which is to be based on the PAK/FA which in turn is not slated to be operational before the late 2020s will not be about growing wings on the way down, it will be about acquiring them after you hit the ground.

Incrementalism combined with rapid iteration is what made Amazon a trillion dollar market cap company. Start with a clean sheet every morning and it's akin to angels rushing in where fools fear to tread.

It is all about project management and that was Kelly Johnson's genius.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2017 05:25

Cosmo_R

Lets explore in OFB,DPSU thread the reasons why Marut was not followed up.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 05 Sep 2017 05:28

The best video of LCA cockpit I have seen so far.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Sep 2017 06:30

Part 1 - From the Cockpit of LCA Tejas: An Interview with Group Capt Suneet Krishna

Part 2 - From the Cockpit of LCA Tejas: An Interview with Group Capt Suneet Krishna

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 05 Sep 2017 07:38

Jump from the 10th story and and growing wings on the way down works if you are capable of dying hundred times and retry. Our problem is, we are expected not just survive, but walk away unharmed, or even stand up and fight a monster right away, like they do in movies.

I will also argue the other side. If we loosen the purse strings, 'fly by night' technology will appear. Yindoos are very good at that as well. I already know of someone who duped the AMCA project by selling vaporware. (This was not entirely fly by night. It was 'we got into this $hit with no clue, so let us try BS out of it' mode onlee IMO)

From the trenches, what I wish for is a good policy for entrepreneurial partnership, where the funding, goal setting and monitoring are realistic. Kota Sir used to do this properly when he was at the helm. That is because of his impeccable reputation. He could simply 'grant' a development project to a company and get things done. There were failures, but no one pointed finger at him. Because, well... he was Kota.

nash · Post by **nash** » 05 Sep 2017 11:28

Livefist‏Verified account @livefist 2h2 hours ago

STAND BY: The @IndianNavy opens fires at talk of 'bad blood' between officers killing the LCA Navy. Exclusive detailed report. Stay tuned.

Now, may be we know about the truth.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Sep 2017 11:31

Dileep wrote: From the trenches, what I wish for is a good policy for entrepreneurial partnership, where the funding, goal setting and monitoring are realistic. Kota Sir used to do this properly when he was at the helm. That is because of his impeccable reputation. He could simply 'grant' a development project to a company and get things done. There were failures, but no one pointed finger at him. Because, well... he was Kota.

This problem crops up because of lack of institutionalization of proper mechanism and procedures. In India, many times its a one man show. The person carries weight and charisma that he can get things done by cutting through red tape. But that's a rare thing. I have personally seen this issue where pvt companies are not given any funds for RnD. AFAIK there is no rule saying it can't be done but simply no one wants to take responsibility if it fails (one might get severely castigated for failures in our system, particularly if one is an honest guy). We can tolerate monumental failures by unpadh gawar politicians or incompetent babus causing the Nation billions of dollars or even compromising National interests but we cannot tolerate few crores spent on an unsuccessful attempt at some high tech solution even by well-meaning people.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Sep 2017 11:35

nash wrote:
Livefist‏Verified account @livefist 2h2 hours ago

STAND BY: The @IndianNavy opens fires at talk of 'bad blood' between officers killing the LCA Navy. Exclusive detailed report. Stay tuned.
Now, may be we know about the truth.

Previously I saw a story of how one officer sabotaged N-submarine operations just to give upper hand to his son in law and now this. I don't know the truth for sure of any of these incidences. But this does not reflect good on the IN. Given that IN's decision to reject even MK2 outright was too sudden and unexpected, something looks fishy. Hope things get clear soon. But I guess we may never know the truth.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Sep 2017 11:47

I understand IN's need to retort to the slanderous report. I just hoped that this report and the retort was not done in public. Completely unnecessary and detrimental to the program.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2017 21:40

No. Let them out and be transparent. Its the penchant for settling behind closed doors which will cause more Conspiracy theories.

Only don't just give an exclusive as that gives the person power to report what they want to report.
Need at least three sources. Two can adjust among themselves.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Sep 2017 21:46

I have seen NLCA taking off in Goa where they have made the sky jump on land. I am told the NLCA was tested regularly there. I posted that here also earlier. If we have some reasonable AC it makes no sense to scrape to like we did. Further is NLCA not having GE 414 eng? If that is the case, the modified NLCA with not so strong landing gear etc can be a Mk2 LCA type system. RIght? We do not know how this evolution would have benefitted us.

samirdiw · Post by **samirdiw** » 05 Sep 2017 22:24

NRao wrote: So ....................... what are they going to do with all these (AMCA related) developments IF we are recommending to revive the MCA and push for an incremental approach? An incremental process would mean a team for the incremental process AND a team for the AMCA as we know it from open source.

Good points indeed.

The important supporting questions are
1. Does this reduce the risk of delivery a reasonably good system? The answer is a resounding yes and this alone is reason enough.
2. What will be the cost for these two teams running parallel? For sure it will be less than all these imports.

Leave aside all the failure risk associated with jumping and developing wings and moving the self-reliance ball further down. The above 2 are reasons enough for parallel development.

NRao wrote: And, when that incremental MCA is done, who is going to use it?

The IAF should. The USAF is not flying only F-22's. Large numbers of non-5th generation aircraft that have legs will also be needed. These will provide the numbers and capability before and along when the AMCA comes along. They also provide the fallback in case the AMCA gets delayed (Which we all the supporters of incremental, import oriented and the jumping from roof types know will happen) in which case we again will all be discussing in a few decades (unless some of us are dead by that time) again how the PAKFA/F-35/F-22 is desperately needed. There will also be countries who look for 2 engine planes at lower costs than Rafale.

If the IAF chief doesn't agree then fire him and keep firing till a strategically oriented, self-reliant based person comes up instead of those interested in giving a 'bloody nose' to our neighbors in a 10-day war. Once a few cullings are done, the next in commands in the 3 structures will get the message pretty quickly and all those F-35s, Armatas will suddenly look very unappealing indeed.

Of course, along with this the privatization of the defense industries are needed.

This is all wishful thinking but no harm in us discussing the different paths here. Can't expect a new defense minister (who will be under this Jaitley wing who just passed the buck to the army chief to manage immediate imports) to take such forceful steps.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Sep 2017 22:33

Samir: You cannot fire a chief or any serving personnel over a rejection of an aircraft. Does not work that way. If that yardstick had to be used, Admiral Sunil Lanba should be out of service for saying that the Naval Tejas does not hit the mark and even the Mk 2 is not good enough. Not going to happen.

ashthor · Post by **ashthor** » 10 Sep 2017 09:19

http://idrw.org/hal-orderbook-of-rs-410 ... ore-147290

Quote from the above link.

45 Squadron has five aircraft and by the end of this year it will have 11. HAL is investing Rs 1,200 crore to enhance capacity of LCA production from eight per year to 16.” “In addition we have adopted a concept of contracting higher modules of the aircraft to the Indian Industry. If the industry starts delivering these modules like front fuselage, center fuselage and rear fuselage, it adds to the capacity of HAL of 16 aeroplanes per year, plus 8 so that we could deliver 24 LCA aircraft per year to the Indian Air Force.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2017 10:49

ashthor wrote:http://idrw.org/hal-orderbook-of-rs-410 ... ore-147290

Quote from the above link.

45 Squadron has five aircraft and by the end of this year it will have 11. HAL is investing Rs 1,200 crore to enhance capacity of LCA production from eight per year to 16.” “In addition we have adopted a concept of contracting higher modules of the aircraft to the Indian Industry. If the industry starts delivering these modules like front fuselage, center fuselage and rear fuselage, it adds to the capacity of HAL of 16 aeroplanes per year, plus 8 so that we could deliver 24 LCA aircraft per year to the Indian Air Force.

End of year is March - 2018 I suppose.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 10 Sep 2017 21:18

How many LCA has HAL manufactered in last 5 months of this financial year? 2?

Since when Hal has been talking about investing 1200 crores in additional production line of LCA without doing anything? 5 years?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Sep 2017 03:57

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 12 Sep 2017 10:07

According to above table LCA mk2 will have

MTOW-14755 Kg
Internal fuel- 2589Kg
Payload-4400Kg

Thus for a inferred empty weight of approx. 7000Kg.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Sep 2017 11:00

Many numbers on that chart are wrong.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Sep 2017 11:07

I sure hope so, where does the chart come from? Any ideas? Or did sengupta just make it up - looks like a chinese propoganda piece.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 12 Sep 2017 15:10

Gyan wrote:How many LCA has HAL manufactered in last 5 months of this financial year? 2?

Since when Hal has been talking about investing 1200 crores in additional production line of LCA without doing anything? 5 years?

Google about it and tell us too.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 12 Sep 2017 15:14

sankum wrote:According to above table LCA mk2 will have

MTOW-14755 Kg
Internal fuel- 2589Kg
Payload-4400Kg

Thus for a inferred empty weight of approx. 7000Kg.

Incorrect numbers. NLCA MK2 is targeted to have 16.5 ton of MTOW. AF version should have similar number. Internal fuel should be 3000+ kg I think. Thrust numbers are also off.

Anyway, by whose yardstick F16 and Gripen in LCA category..? Definitely not by IAF's..

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Sep 2017 15:52

JayS wrote:
sankum wrote:According to above table LCA mk2 will have

MTOW-14755 Kg
Internal fuel- 2589Kg
Payload-4400Kg

Thus for a inferred empty weight of approx. 7000Kg.
Incorrect numbers. NLCA MK2 is targeted to have 16.5 ton of MTOW. AF version should have similar number. Internal fuel should be 3000+ kg I think. Thrust numbers are also off.

Anyway, by whose yardstick F16 and Gripen in LCA category..? Definitely not by IAF's..

I do not remeber IAF saying LCA has a different category to F 16 or Grippen?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 12 Sep 2017 16:13

deejay wrote:
JayS wrote:
Incorrect numbers. NLCA MK2 is targeted to have 16.5 ton of MTOW. AF version should have similar number. Internal fuel should be 3000+ kg I think. Thrust numbers are also off.

Anyway, by whose yardstick F16 and Gripen in LCA category..? Definitely not by IAF's..
I do not remeber IAF saying LCA has a different category to F 16 or Grippen?

Perhaps, by virtue of inviting them as part of MMRCA (Medium category) vs. LIGHT Combat aircraft.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Sep 2017 16:26

Marten wrote:
deejay wrote:
I do not remeber IAF saying LCA has a different category to F 16 or Grippen?
Perhaps, by virtue of inviting them as part of MMRCA (Medium category) vs. LIGHT Combat aircraft.

IAF did not invite them. IAF cannot selectively invite them. IAF or more correctly MOD circulated a tender to which the OEMs responded with these products.

However, I have a different reason to find out if IAF has ever classified these aircraft (F 16 or Grippen) as Light or Medium or Heavy officially.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Sep 2017 16:50

Not knowing what the IAF's views are on this, but I wouldn't really refer to the F-16C as a light combat aircraft. I think the LCA, F/A-50, JAS-39C and JF-17 fit better into that category. Operators on the other hand are likely mission focused and would really be letting the requirements inform the design characteristics rather than the other way around.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Sep 2017 16:59

F 16 is definitely not Light Combat but a few years back a series of videos were posted where A M Mathesaran (Retd) classified anything above 30 tons as heavies. The MMRCA was designed to keep the Su 30 family out of contention of MMRCA with a weight limit of 30 tons max.

Now in the SE category if we spring a weight limit for fighters to restrict them to medium I suspect F 16 maybe the only one left in medium. This is where the QR modifications can destroy competition in the SE, Make In India pgme. Hence, I was curious if IAF has ever stated what is Light and what is Medium.

Any past citation can work against such categorizations, IMO.