LCA News and Discussions

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 06 Feb 2013 23:31

on target Ramana garu - i guess that is what he meant

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Feb 2013 07:50

ramana wrote:he must have some insight which we dont get from pictures.
Maybe the thrust wasn't adequate for full load or some such thing.

From the livefist latest pic, apparently, two of the pylons were not loaded (dunno if it make any diff though).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jTfYm3UHifc/U ... 721457.jpg

some more browne points here:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... %20Failure

Even the Su-30, when it was taken to Leh, it had to be modified. So, the LCA will have to be modified. It has to do the retrials," he was quoted as saying.

so the pointer is here.. now dig and fish for what they changed in su-30? anyone?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Feb 2013 08:26

pandyan wrote:may be he is saying GE engine did not meet the needs and asking for Kaveri-NG

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2013 10:31

afaik the weather conditions in Leh last month were 0C peak daytime and -15C low night time.
right now even the max daytime is around -8C for next few days
http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Leh-w ... ir/IN.aspx

we know any form of battery tends to suffer in such temps.

there is one "cold soak" test in which plane is left in the open all night and started in morning. maybe due to some reason with its internal or external starter kit it failed such "cold" tests and had to be worked on to get going.

all the MRCA contenders were also subjected to this...albeit in the summer of 2012.

khan being the leader of the horde has built itself a massive facility in florida(!) for subzero testing.
here is a boeing 787 being soaked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCdVO7QJaE
when it comes to test infra khan is light years ahead of anyone in speed x mass.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 07 Feb 2013 10:41

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 1995 Test Flights Successfully. (29-Jan-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-348,LSP1-74,LSP2-239,PV5-36,LSP3-95,LSP4-57,LSP5-122,LSP7-18,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2006 Test Flights Successfully. (05-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-349,LSP1-74,LSP2-242,PV5-36,LSP3-96,LSP4-61,LSP5-124,LSP7-18,NP1-4)

LSP3/5 undergoing tests elsewhere

Please bhailog someone post the video of the tejas

Broadsword writes

And when the DRDO-built Tejas Light Combat Aircraft screamed off the runway and stunned the gathering with a brand new repertoire of aerobatic manoeuvres --- including loops, barrel rolls, high and low speed passes and a climactic vertical Charlie --- there was a palpable sense that this was now a combat machine, not just a DRDO pastime.

Waiting for a video of the above

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 07 Feb 2013 10:45

“Everything is a test till the system is perfected,” said Suneet, about the recent failure of the LCA in high-altitude tests. “We didn’t fail but we found faults and now we can make the system better,” he added.

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 07 Feb 2013 11:22

I wonder if they've tested the FBW from the aircraft for spin recovery.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Feb 2013 11:28

suryag wrote:
“Everything is a test till the system is perfected,” said Suneet, about the recent failure of the LCA in high-altitude tests. “We didn’t fail but we found faults and now we can make the system better,” he added.

surya, which article is this from? Can you please link it? interested in reading more.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 07 Feb 2013 11:35

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 375777.cms

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Feb 2013 11:38

suryag wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 375777.cms

Cool! thanks!

Hope by AI-2015, there will be at least 12-18 LCAs at Sulur with FOC.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 07 Feb 2013 15:06

viveks wrote:I wonder if they've tested the FBW from the aircraft for spin recovery.

Me too asking this question for quite some time but no answeres

Could anyone please confirm in the AI 2013 if already tested or whats the plan for it

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 07 Feb 2013 15:11

there seems to have been some basic testing done...spin tunnel test

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Feb 2013 15:40

viveks wrote:I wonder if they've tested the FBW from the aircraft for spin recovery.

One guy at the HAL stall said that LSP 6 is flying. So is IJT. HTT 40 is being pursued by HAL with our without givet support

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 07 Feb 2013 16:31

shiv wrote:
viveks wrote:I wonder if they've tested the FBW from the aircraft for spin recovery.
HTT 40 is being pursued by HAL with our without givet support

IMO, that seems to be a wastage of taxpayer's money given that it will never be purchased by IAF. They are 10 yrs too late in trying to pursue the trainer project without govt. support.

They are better off actually using their resources on something more useful.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 07 Feb 2013 16:44

HAL's own skunkworks!

By abandoning projects at whim we are where we are today. Let them build HTT-40. Atleast some engineers will learn something. We cannot always start from scratch and then expect the state-of-the-art capability developed in lower cost and lesser time than others.

I'll applaud HAL for having the balls to continue. Perhaps they will manage to sell some to flying schools and small countries.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2013 16:53

JTull wrote:HAL's own skunkworks!

By abandoning projects at whim we are where we are today. Let them build HTT-40. Atleast some engineers will learn something. We cannot always start from scratch and then expect the state-of-the-art capability developed in lower cost and lesser time than others.

I'll applaud HAL for having the balls to continue. Perhaps they will manage to sell some to flying schools and small countries.

I suppose it will be a good project to train people on all apsects of a new plane with low cost and zero end user pressure.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Feb 2013 17:04

Well, having HTT-40 in the same weight class as PC-7 doesn't make sense now. OTOH, the efforts need not go waste. A slightly heavier, but still lightweight turboprop that can carry 1-1.5 ton of munitions and max speed of 300-400 knots with a couple of hours of loiter time and can do STOL operations can be very interesting CAS aircraft for the army.

The army incidentally has been dropping hints that it might look for fixed wing aircraft too - so this would be right up the alley for its CAS requirements, complementing its chopper fleet.

Similar to the US LAAR programme ...

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 18:30

Singha wrote:
JTull wrote:HAL's own skunkworks!

By abandoning projects at whim we are where we are today. Let them build HTT-40. Atleast some engineers will learn something. We cannot always start from scratch and then expect the state-of-the-art capability developed in lower cost and lesser time than others.

I'll applaud HAL for having the balls to continue. Perhaps they will manage to sell some to flying schools and small countries.
I suppose it will be a good project to train people on all apsects of a new plane with low cost and zero end user pressure.

Don't Want Or Need HAL's HTT-40 Trainer: IAF Chief

HAL must not waste taxpayers money when "proven aircrafts" are always available.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 07 Feb 2013 19:41

Sagar G wrote: HAL must not waste taxpayers money when "proven aircrafts" are always available.

Is that so. Then I think they should scrap LCH, LCA, Kaveri, what else..hmm I think they should scrap the whole HAL for that matter.

Can't you get it! There is a huge difference in developing tech indigenous than buying foren maal.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Feb 2013 20:05

Sagar G wrote:
Singha wrote: I suppose it will be a good project to train people on all apsects of a new plane with low cost and zero end user pressure.
Don't Want Or Need HAL's HTT-40 Trainer: IAF Chief

HAL must not waste taxpayers money when "proven aircrafts" are always available.

Face it - research is inefficient, a lot of paths lead to dead-ends after sucking up time and money. A little inefficiency is good for the system.

After HF-24, "proven aircrafts" were available, but did we learn anything ? Only LCA has shown us what we don't know and it turns out to be quite a lot.

HAL has been producing turboprop Dornier for ages, but it still isn't the same as designing a new aircraft. HAL may manufacture Hawks, but still has problems with IJT - for instance, the engine issue is an R&D project management lesson that needs to be learnt.

HTT-40 may turn out to be twice as expensive as the Pilatus, IAF may never buy even one of them, HAL may never produce anything other than LSPs, but that isn't the point. The point is to master aircraft design and development. We lack at that - what better to do than to learn on a project where there are guns held against the head forcing them to do IOC in a strict timeline. Also, possible that a young design team wants to hone its skills on a de-risked project than on a critical project such as AMCA or LCA or FGFA - all power to them.

ACM Browne is thinking short-term operational capability and he is right, because in that, HTT-40 doesn't have a place. HAL, instead, has suddenly developed a back-bone and is going ahead from a longer term view point.

As long as IAF doesn't forbid HAL from doing whatever it wants to, and HAL doesn't shove an expensive and immature product down IAF's throat (or diverts critical people from critical projects), it should be fine.

I only hope that the MoD is mature enough to fund HAL to do independent tinkering and not depend upon Services for everything.

manum · Post by **manum** » 07 Feb 2013 20:08

Browne is saying whatever he is saying for one primary reason....i.e.

Htt is expendable...While pilatus is procured...They must have waited for HTT for long...due to urgency with training issues...

It leaves a bad taste to see pilatus than HTT with IAF...but I think its still on HAL to pursue it...

If its about taxpayers money...then things get complicated with every new attempt we will ever make...

USA is making a bunch of countries wait for JSF...while IAF is speaking like jilted lover...

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 20:09

SagarAg wrote:Is that so. Then I think they should scrap LCH, LCA, Kaveri, what else..hmm I think they should scrap the whole HAL for that matter.

Yes they should afterall there is always "proven aircrafts" available and since Kaveri amma has already failed that should be scrapped as well. Why waste taxpayer money when scrapping is the easy way out ???

SagarAg wrote:Can't you get it! There is a huge difference in developing tech indigenous than buying foren maal.

So what costs will be too high, there is no need for all this. Buying from foreign vendors is the best thing to do. I am only extrapolating from what IAF chief has said. If you have any problem with this line of thinking go talk with the IAF chief.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 20:20

srin wrote:Face it - research is inefficient, a lot of paths lead to dead-ends after sucking up time and money. A little inefficiency is good for the system.

You Face It, HAL is turd world organization only and whatever it does will ultimately fail onlee and since "proven aircrafts" are available always then why shall we go for indigenization ???

srin wrote:ACM Browne is thinking short-term operational capability and he is right, because in that, HTT-40 doesn't have a place. HAL, instead, has suddenly developed a back-bone and is going ahead from a longer term view point.

In IAF's long term pov also there isn't any indication that they are willing to work towards indigenization and since "proven aircrafts" are always available then why shall we indigenize ??? I will now only vote for "proven aircrafts" from foreign vendors . Thank you IAF for opening my eyes.

srin wrote:As long as IAF doesn't forbid HAL from doing whatever it wants to, and HAL doesn't shove an expensive and immature product down IAF's throat (or diverts critical people from critical projects), it should be fine.

HAL will only do that since it is HAL hence anything from HAL must be scrapped since "proven aircrafts" are always available.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Feb 2013 20:24

manum wrote:Browne is saying whatever he is saying for one primary reason....i.e.

Htt is expendable...While pilatus is procured...They must have waited for HTT for long...due to urgency with training issues...

It leaves a bad taste to see pilatus than HTT with IAF...but I think its still on HAL to pursue it...

If its about taxpayers money...then things get complicated with every new attempt we will ever make...

USA is making a bunch of countries wait for JSF...while IAF is speaking like jilted lover...

There are two viewpoints and they are both right - just that both are trying very hard to ignore the other one too.

IAF wants aircraft that can win battles. It wants the best that it can get and it wants it now - you can never predict when the next war is going to happen or against who. Make no mistake, the ethos of services is such that they will fly/fight even with aircrafts that aren't the best (like training with the Kirans), but we will lose a lot of warriors - and no leader wants that.

OTOH, you have HAL or DRDO trying to ensure that we master the defence technology to preserve our sovereignity even in adverse situations (sanctions, ... EUMA, etc). That means catching up on the lost years and learning everything from scratch the hard way. No matter how much money we throw around, there are certain technologies nobody will give us, or even if they do, it will still not give us mastery. And frequently these are sciences that not the most "cool" on engineering campuses. Engine tech is one example. So - it takes time, sucks up R&D budget and the user is frustrated. But when it clicks, it really does - we were forced to develop strategic missiles ourselves, and now we see all sorts of missiles coming out of stables. We have completely surpassed most countries - including those that were Unkil's favorite poodles and had access to everything.

So - it is unfair for services to demand R&D orgs to meet aggressive deadlines on critical technologies, while it is also unfair for R&D organizations to tell the services to use a product that isn't good enough.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 07 Feb 2013 20:26

Sagar G wrote:
SagarAg wrote:Is that so. Then I think they should scrap LCH, LCA, Kaveri, what else..hmm I think they should scrap the whole HAL for that matter.
Yes they should afterall there is always "proven aircrafts" available and since Kaveri amma has already failed that should be scrapped as well. Why waste taxpayer money when scrapping is the easy way out ???

SagarAg wrote:Can't you get it! There is a huge difference in developing tech indigenous than buying foren maal.
So what costs will be too high, there is no need for all this. Buying from foreign vendors is the best thing to do. I am only extrapolating from what IAF chief has said. If you have any problem with this line of thinking go talk with the IAF chief.

Then I think GoI should stop using taxpayer money for developing anything. Those who have problem with anything be it infrastructure, medical, education, security etc etc. GoI should just issue a statement to them that they are free to settle and go wherever in the world which have all these facilities. They will not use the taxpayer money for development in the country as it is already developed and proven around the world. Right? Its simple " Apna apna hota hai aur paraya paraya", no amount of foren maal satisfies us more than to see an indigenous platform/tech.

It gives an added sense of pride and self-reliability.

I will feel more proud seeing 1 squadron of LCA Tejas than seeing 10 squadron of Rafale. That's my opinion.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 07 Feb 2013 20:30

I suppose some of these armed forces geniuses are gonna refrain from making kids of their own. Why bother? Just adopt an adult (too much trouble to raise a kid), they are after all proven, without hassle and readily available.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 20:35

SagarAg wrote:Its simple " Apna apna hota hai aur paraya paraya", no amount of foren maal satisfies us more than to see an indigenous platform/tech. It gives an added sense of pride and self-reliability.

Go and tell that to someone who is interested in indigenization. Doesn't seem to be the case with IAF.

SagarAg wrote:I will feel more proud seeing 1 squadron of LCA Tejas than seeing 10 squadron of Rafale. That's my opinion.

Rafale is a "proven aircraft" LCA is not case closed.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 07 Feb 2013 21:55

^^^^^^^

you fellows need to join the air force yourself or make your kids join it.

then tell us whether you prefer desi Fokker triplanes to fight China with or the rafale.

defence is freaking tech sensitive.

ask Ibrahim Lodi.. Babur... the British and the Chinese in world war two. ask the Arabs what they think about Israeli tech....?

my answer is clear. the armed forces get what they want. since they guard my family while they sleep peacefully away from the border.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Feb 2013 22:01

mahadevbhu wrote:
defence is freaking tech sensitive.

Defence is tech sensitive. The tech standarda are set in the west and the IAF getting all of that. Rafale. PAKFA. A 30 MRTT. C-17. Heavy lift helo. Missiles. Only radars and ALH are not working. The IAF is whining about the Indian stuff. The solution is to import. I am sure the IAF will be freaking happy about that.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Feb 2013 22:07

my answer is clear. the armed forces get what they want. since they guard my family while they sleep peacefully away from the border.

you present the absolute extreme as the only option and ask this question

so lets present the another extreme

what will your family do when spares are cut off??

China's 3rd gen crap will be flying while our high tech wonders might be grounded.

now what?

manum · Post by **manum** » 07 Feb 2013 22:12

Defence is tech sensitive till we are not sanctioned...and soon we'll end up cannibalizing these high tech toys, as well start presenting grand looking RC-planes to IAF...

and photoshop multiplying the productions...

There is no point being arrogant and just insulting an Indian effort in creating something...nobody opposed Pilatus procurement, but anyone having slightest awareness of benefit of Indigenous product will hate to see that comment Browne made...

Though I fully understand the background behind the comment...still I can not stop to hate it.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 07 Feb 2013 22:22

Surya wrote:
my answer is clear. the armed forces get what they want. since they guard my family while they sleep peacefully away from the border.
you present the absolute extreme as the only option and ask this question

so lets present the another extreme

what will your family do when spares are cut off??

China's 3rd gen crap will be flying while our high tech wonders might be grounded.

now what?

That is when we will use our in-built capability which no one has around the extremes of the world..jugaad

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 22:42

Surya wrote:what will your family do when spares are cut off??

Then the same set of guys who are passing lahori logic will quickly do a pawki and start blaming IAF for the situation.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Feb 2013 23:17

There seems to be an almost identical discussion between Pro-life and Pro-choice lobbyists (

) going on in the military aviation thread as well.

Looks like Browne's cut-the-crap comments have really gotten under the skin on BRF and stirred up a hornet's nest.

I don't know much about Browne, but he doesn't mince words, does he?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Feb 2013 23:54

I don't think IAF is thinking like you and me, and they are not ordained to think that way. So, it is okay Mr Browne says, he wants every damn thing working for him, and his operational and mission requirements. (if he intends, he can very well get them purchased otherwise).

Now, politics and corruption apart, there are other things to consider other than just plain old defense purchase.. it is about establishing a nation that can stand by itself. IAF/IN/IA are important customers for DRDO. They better include them from top to down, and ensure they are satisfied. OTOH, the customers must ensure, it is not dealing with a middlemen to buy something outright.. going by the future missions, I doubt Mr Browne will get F22 raptors either by cash, thought or process. It is beyond thinking. and not possible, as they are not available for sale to desh on our command.

Else, sign up as poodles, and listen to what unkill says. lick his boots, and fire weapons only against unkill commands, import everything. the choice is ours.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Feb 2013 00:07

SaiK wrote:IAF/IN/IA are important customers for DRDO. They better include them from top to down, and ensure they are satisfied.

This "including" and "satisfaction" thing is a two way street as well. As DRDO/DPSU's must engage with IAF/IA/IN similarly IAF/IA/IN must also actively engage with DRDO/DPSU's to sort out issues relating anything be it with design, quality, maintainability, reliability etc. IAF/IA seem to think that after making there ASR/GSQR there work is done and they won't touch the product till it is not picture perfect. This thinking has set in in such a way that now it has come out in the way of IAF coming up with a presentation for the purpose of humiliating the DPSU's/DRDO. If not reigned in right now by GoI this is bound to create a huge amount of bad blood between them for which ultimately India will pay the price.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 08 Feb 2013 00:08

shiv wrote:
viveks wrote:I wonder if they've tested the FBW from the aircraft for spin recovery.
One guy at the HAL stall said that LSP 6 is flying. So is IJT. HTT 40 is being pursued by HAL with our without givet support

This should be nipped in the bud, HAL is completely government owned and also almost its sole customer. If the government doesn't want it then its management shouldn't be allowed to waste resources on it. There are far more important things it can concentrate on. For example the Medium Lift Helicopter of which we have been hearing about since ages. HAL should have graduated to this after developing the ALH. Instead they go for the low hanging fruit of the LUH and duplicate what is already being procured from abroad anyway. This shouldn't be allowed to happen with the basic trainer.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 01:17

Sagar G wrote:
SaiK wrote:IAF/IN/IA are important customers for DRDO. They better include them from top to down, and ensure they are satisfied.
This "including" and "satisfaction" thing is a two way street as well. As DRDO/DPSU's must engage with IAF/IA/IN similarly IAF/IA/IN must also actively engage with DRDO/DPSU's to sort out issues relating anything be it with design, quality, maintainability, reliability etc. IAF/IA seem to think that after making there ASR/GSQR there work is done and they won't touch the product till it is not picture perfect. This thinking has set in in such a way that now it has come out in the way of IAF coming up with a presentation for the purpose of humiliating the DPSU's/DRDO. If not reigned in right now by GoI this is bound to create a huge amount of bad blood between them for which ultimately India will pay the price.

Just watched the whole presentation. IAF's current view on LCA is not at all motivating.

The speaker was just short of terming it as obsolete technology.

I just can't imagine being an HAL/DPSU's employee and sitting there in the audience.

It felt like a humiliation session for HAL/DPSU's guys.

Sorry to say this but that lady's voice felt like she was crying from inside while giving her viewpoint at the end of presentation. Instead of understanding it the IAF chairperson sitting there said We are the KINGS!! Its all your fault.

Just because there is no synergy between IAF/HAL these hard working talents have to suffer this kind of humiliation. This needs to change ASAP. IAF needs to be more involved in the whole process from scratch.

The speaker went on to say how IAF were fooled in believing that the tech being offered to them was proven. The IAF officer at one point said that don't ask for advance

The lady said that if felt like they were being demotivated from the last 3-4 presentations.And they clearly were. It clearly showed the lack of coordination/involvement between the two services.
Ridiculous.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 08 Feb 2013 01:26

SagarAg wrote:Instead of understanding it the IAF chairperson sitting there said We are the KINGS!! Its all your fault.

Now let's not misquote and make this situation more murkier than already it is. He said smiling "The customer is King do you agree" and she wasn't crying from inside her voice is like that only but yeah she wasn't happy about the presentation as well.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 08 Feb 2013 01:29

Very disappointing.