LCA News and Discussions

Bolasani · Post by **Bolasani** » 15 Jan 2012 20:41

indranilroy, Saik,

Is this the file you were looking for:
https://rapidshare.com/files/4147263709 ... -Tejas.pdf

It took me a little time to find it in my archives.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jan 2012 22:28

^^^ Thank you so much!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Jan 2012 23:41

Thanks Bolasani !

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 16 Jan 2012 11:51

Was this posted earlier?

During the user trials, the ‘angle of attack’ would be increased from the present 20°-22° to 26°-28° degrees and gravitation (G) limit would be raised from the present 6Gs to 8Gs.

Sources said if the aircraft are realised for user trials as per schedule, FOC could be obtained in two years.

can someone confirm if those are the latest numbers of AoA and G-forces tested on LCA?

nash · Post by **nash** » 16 Jan 2012 13:32

Kailash wrote:Was this posted earlier?

During the user trials, the ‘angle of attack’ would be increased from the present 20°-22° to 26°-28° degrees and gravitation (G) limit would be raised from the present 6Gs to 8Gs.

Sources said if the aircraft are realised for user trials as per schedule, FOC could be obtained in two years.
can someone confirm if those are the latest numbers of AoA and G-forces tested on LCA?

AFAIK it is LSP-6 responsibe for AoA and high G.
But it is still on ground, so may be they were talking about after LSP-6 flight testing FCS and other thing would be updated in LSP-7 & 8 which are the final configuration.
And till then LSP-7&8 can be used by IAF for other testing.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Jan 2012 13:59

Gentlemen, can someone educate me that parameters differential IOC from FOC? As in, what capabilities will be tested and OKayed between IOC and FOC. Thanks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jan 2012 14:04

rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen, can someone educate me that parameters differential IOC from FOC? As in, what capabilities will be tested and OKayed between IOC and FOC. Thanks.

Just 2 points i can think of among the many

1 ) Complete opening of Flight Envelop and much better AOA capability compared to IOC
2 ) Integration of Derby BVR at the end of FOC on Tejas Mk1 ( or on the second batch atleast )

nash · Post by **nash** » 16 Jan 2012 14:25

Austin wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen, can someone educate me that parameters differential IOC from FOC? As in, what capabilities will be tested and OKayed between IOC and FOC. Thanks.
Just 2 points i can think of among the many

1 ) Complete opening of Flight Envelop and much better AOA capability compared to IOC
2 ) Integration of Derby BVR at the end of FOC on Tejas Mk1 ( or on the second batch atleast )

For I point its all depend on when LSP-6 take its first flight.
Wish it happen early and by end of this year we get desired AoA and further opening of Flight enevelope.

For II we already have radar functioning on LCA , don't find any reason why it also can't be done by year end.May be Gurus can shed more light on what are the possible issues of integrating Derby with LCA and its firing.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 16 Jan 2012 17:31

Austin wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen, can someone educate me that parameters differential IOC from FOC? As in, what capabilities will be tested and OKayed between IOC and FOC. Thanks.
Just 2 points i can think of among the many

1 ) Complete opening of Flight Envelop and much better AOA capability compared to IOC
2 ) Integration of Derby BVR at the end of FOC on Tejas Mk1 ( or on the second batch atleast )

IMO, IOC-2 differs from IOC-1 in

1. More guided weapons firing (except BVR AA missile)
2. Wake penetration tests complete
3. Lightning strike clearance
4. All weather clearance

FOC differs from IOC-2 in

1. Complete envelope opened (High AoA, spin tests, higher Gs, etc.) - LSP-6 etc.
2. BVR AA missile qualified

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jan 2012 17:36

Tarmak reported the plans to test Astra from Tejas by 2013 end.

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Jan 2012 15:14

JSF Tail hook problem

This is the advantage in going for incremental upgrades.
We call it Agile testing in Software.

We can have other teams completing their work instead of waiting in a queue.
But it requires additional funding compared to sequential designs to support this parallel activity.

I hope NLCA and LCA Mk-II adhere to more of these design philosophies.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Jan 2012 15:27

Another of ooh la la, see how the mighty khans do it. When will the measly Indians learn.

Any way your post and mine are better suited to inferiority complex dhaaga.

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 18 Jan 2012 16:14

Another of ooh la la, see how the mighty khans do it. When will the measly Indians learn.

Any way your post and mine are better suited to inferiority complex dhaaga.

That is an extremely short-sighted view... We know we haven't done a great job time-wise(no matter how much we hide behind national pride), there is nothing wrong in learning a few tips and tricks from others... there is nothing inferior about learning from others something we haven't properly mastered...

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Jan 2012 16:19

Another of ooh la la, see how the mighty khans do it. When will the measly Indians learn.

Any way your post and mine are better suited to inferiority complex dhaaga.

Hehehe....
There is no need to feel inferior when you are a student my friend.

Don't you agree with me when I say HAL or DRDO are just students learning from the likes of LM or MiG.

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Jan 2012 16:22

^Add to that.
Most of the systems that are in the pipeline in our research industries are what Khan has achieved decades in advance of us. Let us give them little credit that they deserve.

No more OT from me.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jan 2012 16:26

but the funding/decision to produce the tejas prototypes very slowly and serially definitely hurt us.
if we had produced say 4 in parallel starting from LSP-1-2-3-4 or 4 PV things could have been pushed along faster.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jan 2012 18:26

Virupaksha wrote:Another of ooh la la, see how the mighty khans do it. When will the measly Indians learn.

Any way your post and mine are better suited to inferiority complex dhaaga.

not really. even if LM did screw up the jsf project in general, there is no harm in figuring out what they are doing and applying it if deemed suitable.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Jan 2012 18:43

Singha wrote:but the funding/decision to produce the tejas prototypes very slowly and serially definitely hurt us.
if we had produced say 4 in parallel starting from LSP-1-2-3-4 or 4 PV things could have been pushed along faster.

maybe the judgement was driven by risk management choices?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2012 18:46

It depends on how you take it up.. Not all 100% of the projects in the world are delivered in time, especially RT systems. If one looks from mango mind, then 150% of the projects are waste and late. From a technical mind, all projects are succeeded. From a business perspective, only that can fund for the time has been successful.

Basically, one has to be realistic enough in requirements, estimations and look at all constraints from human, hardware and components imported and other dependencies including from architecture, design to budget and babudom, etc.

coming to that JSF tail hook, I don't any type of agile method (this is one piece of methodology that is b@st@rdized like hell) would solve, if the design itself is faulty. I think it is a hardware issue reading that article.

looking into the future is what all architects and designers do. Not all are again 100% in the future.. all these designs has to satisfy current generation requirements as well.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2012 18:47

"GE,SNECMA,ELTA,EADS..." It looks like a classic case of "too many cooks ,spolis the broth"!

When it was apparent a decade ago that Kaveri was not going to 'make the cut",so to speak,to have kept the programme on schedule,we should've opened a tender for an engine within the engine parameters determined for the LCA from international manufacturers and for its licensed prouction.What was the harm in doing so, flying the aircraft with a foreign engine,when we built at home hundreds of MIG-21 engines? This way,a decade could've been saved,the LCA by now in service,flyng in MK-1 series,meeting the IAF's performance requirements and Mk-2 could've been kept open as an opportunity for Kaveri (development not stopped) should it mature in the intervening time,with a back-up foreign engine as alternative.With so many prototypes eing built,what harm is there in having two engines to choose from?

Anyway,the latest AWST article about a year's extra delay in the first sqd. being formed,plus NLCA delays too,is going to have its influence upon the MMRCA decision.Numbers are falling and the MIG-21 "filler",the LCA is still unavailable,increasing the urgency for an alternative.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2012 18:56

^philip, no.. tender for engine was a different game altogether. The whole K word started with a reduced requirement, and further with reduced thrust requirements. It is a total requirement issue. No damn agile method can solve this.

And in the the middle, nobody is going to help you in boosting up your requirements. They would say, why reinvent the wheel, take my engine.. you can do the screwdriver, while we supply you the parts, for 200% jack up in the price.. and all friends of the peachy world nod yes! firangi technology! look how mature they are! exactly fits our requirements!.. we indians suck big time!..

The funding for K started as prototype demonstrator.. I think where K is absolutely fine.. what it needs is, to get that K into LCA for the first 10 or so LCAs prototypes. Then start working on the K-2nd version for 100kN.. without any imported hands. That is the way to go. One has to understand what we are building here.

please.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Jan 2012 23:10

The questions which should have been asked:
Does anybody know what is the methodology being followed for LCA? NO. (whether the same process being "hoped" was already in use)
Does anybody know the constraints under which the particular methodology being used was developed? NO.
Does anybody know the advantages/disadvantages wrt to the methodology being followed? No.
Does anybody know whether all teams of LCA use the same methodology? No.
Does anybody know whether there were other constraints other these processes which are the bugbear and the process is simply a waiting loop for those constraints? No

Atleast nobody showed any knowledge above me.

nobody asked the questions which should have been asked, if one was really serious about "learning". But I have got a right to pee on LCA showing a piece from Unkil and saying that this is how it should be done, when infact the link shows how the Unkil failed in that project and had to redo it.
Nope, all I see is pontificating.

And as I already said, the whole series of posts are perfect for piskolizing in the inferiority dhaaga.

Don't you agree with me when I say HAL or DRDO are just students learning from the likes of LM or MiG.

Does anybody still have doubts?

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Jan 2012 09:22

Well...
Read my post again.
Tell me if you find the word "more" in it.

Now

Virupaksha wrote:At least nobody showed any knowledge above me.

I guess your post is more suitable to the I feel superiority dhaga then here.

Since you are already assuming how superior you are to the rest of the BR folks here, why don't you give us more insight in what you actually know regarding the methodologies or constraints you already know.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 19 Jan 2012 09:29

Virupaksha wrote:The questions which should have been asked:
Does anybody know what is the methodology being followed for LCA? NO. (whether the same process being "hoped" was already in use)
Does anybody know the constraints under which the particular methodology being used was developed? NO.
Does anybody know the advantages/disadvantages wrt to the methodology being followed? No.
Does anybody know whether all teams of LCA use the same methodology? No.
Does anybody know whether there were other constraints other these processes which are the bugbear and the process is simply a waiting loop for those constraints? No

Can you phuleese elaborate.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 19 Jan 2012 09:53

i agree with philip saar comment "GE,SNECMA,ELTA,EADS..." It looks like a classic case of "too many cooks ,spolis the broth"!
but i am not suggesting to worsen it further by adding Russian chefs . since things are not moving ahead or getting delayed in our LCA programme so why don't we just ask the Russians what we need ? at the same time why don't we send a team to NAPO SATURN and MIG to get trained in technical know how about engines ? at-least for NLCA design consultations rather than depending on Europe or khans . if the west is in noo mood in sharing the critical tech know how then Russians are the best option

just an opinion only

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 19 Jan 2012 11:11

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1765 Test Flights successfully. (11-Jan-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-327,LSP1-67,LSP2-196,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-59)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1764 Test Flights successfully. (10-Jan-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-327,LSP1-67,LSP2-196,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-58)

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Jan 2012 11:16

Suryag saab,
Could you bold the section that changes in your update going forward.
TIA.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 19 Jan 2012 12:01

SagarAg wrote:
Can you phuleese elaborate.

Agile, Scrum, Kanban etc etc are the methodologies/processes which are used generally in many industries for process improvement.

Without knowing/even asking for what is being used in LCA & then knowing/understanding its problems, I will abhor the gratuitous advices being given.

member_22512 · Post by **member_22512** » 19 Jan 2012 12:27

Thanks for asking vmohan, I've looked at some of the interoperability features incentivized by various program leadership within the AHASH systematics. Results are not encouraging despite up-drivers now getting closer to 20-25% for newer designs - notwithstanding propulsion over/under assessments normally trending in a downward roll versus pitch. But we have another three years on this contract and critical metrics could shift more favorably.

For great justice of course.[/quote]

Thanks for commenting & seems very encouraging for continuation. Still I believe in great sayings like, 'Appreciation' is the first instinct to unroll a bobbin. Let us keep our fingers crossed for that critical metrics to solve within contract period & not leading to further extension.
Still I quote Only "Healthy Monitoring System" is the only solution for problem diagnosis.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 24 Jan 2012 12:19

LCA flying past with a roar just now.

LCA thread back to the first page.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 24 Jan 2012 12:23

Kyun Rajan b sir why are you doing this to us

I am so tired of checking the usual suspect websites for updates everyday that i feel like

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Jan 2012 12:26

rajanb wrote:LCA flying past with a roar just now.

LCA thread back to the first page.

Can't be the mythical LSP-7, can it?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 24 Jan 2012 12:45

Aditya_V wrote:
rajanb wrote:LCA flying past with a roar just now.

LCA thread back to the first page.
Can't be the mythical LSP-7, can it?

Couldn't make out. It just roared past with its distinctive throaty roar. Or could it also be the NP1?

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Jan 2012 13:17

I think I saw two of them

One jsut took off and after few minutes another one landed. I beleive the second one is same as the fisrt one

Also saw a Mig 29 or Su30-MKI in between, couldnt make it out which one exactly

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Jan 2012 13:23

Virupaksha wrote:
SagarAg wrote:
Can you phuleese elaborate.
Agile, Scrum, Kanban etc etc are the methodologies/processes which are used generally in many industries for process improvement.

Without knowing/even asking for what is being used in LCA & then knowing/understanding its problems, I will abhor the gratuitous advices being given.

indeed - and if as i was about to board an aeroplane and someone told me that it had been developed using an agile methodology - i'd refuse to fly in it...

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 24 Jan 2012 13:30

suryag wrote:Kyun Rajan b sir why are you doing this to us I am so tired of checking the usual suspect websites for updates everyday that i feel like

Now, now. Not to worry. Remember there are a finite number of flights before it meets FOC. So one flight less, hopefully.

And if all the problems come at this stage, remember when it is in its battle colours, armed to the teeth, it will kick green and yellow @rse.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 24 Jan 2012 16:23

Hi people, it was neither the LSP-7 nor the NP-1, i had seen a PV-3, LSP-2 and an LSP-5 parked on tarmac, so should've been one of those aircrafts.
Cheers!

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 Jan 2012 16:28

Lalmohan wrote:indeed - and if as i was about to board an aeroplane and someone told me that it had been developed using an agile methodology - i'd refuse to fly in it...

Here, if it were not for the Agile, the plane you were about to board would likely be the size of a briefcase and in a wind tunnel, not on a runway threatening us.

It comes with a lot of challenges of course but that can be used to decrease lead times.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 24 Jan 2012 19:06

Welcome Raghuk. There was a time that I had the run of HAL, both at BLR and Nashik. Miss those days.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Jan 2012 21:53

koti wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:indeed - and if as i was about to board an aeroplane and someone told me that it had been developed using an agile methodology - i'd refuse to fly in it...
Here, if it were not for the Agile, the plane you were about to board would likely be the size of a briefcase and in a wind tunnel, not on a runway threatening us.
It comes with a lot of challenges of course but that can be used to decrease lead times.

have you ever used agile in a non-IT project?
or indeed in an engineering/control system IT project?