Aero India 2013

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Feb 2013 15:03

The proverbial pagdi comes off in your honour, Abhibhushan ji.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 07 Feb 2013 15:58

lectures from the 'Maintenance' session

Swedish experience flight testing its Gripen NG fighter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1sMir_da-I

testing IR flares
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z33zFeqKubE

maintenance & upkeep problems IAF faces with indigenous system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8uxdSqADI

Scathing. Brutal. Mostly directed towards DPSUs, their workmanship. Being somewhat facetious about the LCA, though. Rohini Radars can't be moved around easily

vina · Post by **vina** » 07 Feb 2013 17:29

I did my first solo flight on a Tigermoth on 09 Feb 1952. Now, 61 years later, on 09 Feb 2013, I shall once again be near a yellow Tigermoth in Air Force Colours

Amazing. You should do more than just take a photo. You should ask the IAF to take you up for a spin in it!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Feb 2013 17:38

Wow, Salute You, I know very few 80+ persons who are Net savvy. I wish I could adapt to new technologies when I get older.

You were a pioneer then, you are a pioneer now

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 07 Feb 2013 18:10

Scathing, indeed. But I think the speaker also tends to ignore IAF's faults too. I think the first comment by the HAL person and the subsequent discussion brings out what I feel are the three big issue - Planning, Project management and Partnership failures. Remember the previous presentation about the ALH project, and how the ASR and Naval requirements were inconsistent, and it was too much to expect HAL to do all of this. Thats something the speaker seems to ignore. difficulties at that level always lead to difficulties at the lower level such as maintenance, etc. So its not totally unexpected. The services aren't blemishless either.

1) Planning the tech and the high end stuff is great, its 'cool', but very little brainpower is devoted to the smaller, but largely crucial things like maintenance and ease of use, a lot of which needs to be planned from the very beginning. This needs to change, and very quickly, since these issues play a large role in the actual deployed effectiveness of the platform. An unreliable weapon is as good as a dead weapon. But as long as maintenance or ease of use, etc are not seen as 'cool', there won't be as much effort attached to it. I'm guessing there is also a feeling that "Arrey pehle work ho jaye, phir yeh sab dekh sakte hain", which is partially valid, but causes issues later. Now that we are at a certain level of technology confidence, and have crossed the hump for the most part, one hopes that this feeling will not be allowed to creep into future programs.

2) There is also the problem of project leadership and management - We are still at an immature stage of product and systems development. We can develop great technology. Productionizing it and making it work on field are still problematic, and if we see recent issues, they largely stem from this.

a. Either its lack of foresight in predicting possible problems (something as simple as where a switch is placed is a big deal).

b. Or its in lack of understanding how the users actually use the system (for example, the burst fire mode was created on rifles because infantrymen had a tendency of being trigger happy, and expending bullets quickly. This is important, since design should never assume idealities in usage, but plan for idiocy - if i may be excused in using this term crudely)

c. Or worse, our project managers just don't know or understand what the system should do. They'll be great at understanding teh technology. But not great at understanding the system and its usage in the larger scheme of things. This needs to be solved through two ways - the civilian project managers needs to become more aware of larger issues and usage, so as to plan it better, and more closer and high level interaction with end users needs to be done - the services need to play a deeper role in the R&D of the system. Just handing over an ASR and telling the civvie engineers wont work. The force needs to be invested, and more than just monetarily. Don't expect civilians to understand combat and plan. Help them figure it out.

d. I think that in terms of overall program management also, we're getting more experienced and savvy at handling this. ALH, LCA, Rohini, etc - all of these are first time projects and crucial first steps in an incipient defence industry. A lack of maturity in planning and implementation must be assumed and budgeted for. Outside consultants will help, but only to some extent. Sometimes they might even harm, as seen from the ALH project. The users, the developers and the production houses are getting savvier, and smarter and more experienced in handling these. As long as theres a good interaction between them, a cordial and honest evaluation of defects and a genuine, ego-less endeavour to accept and fix these, things will get better.

3) Which brings me to the issue of interaction - the 3 parties have to be cordial and work together. Forces mess up on the specs, expect the moon, aren't committed to indigenization, and don't involve as deeply in the project (maybe i'm wrong here), the design houses don't know what the forces want exactly, they don't plan it properly, and are unrealistic about their ability to deliver, and the DPSUs dont get (or arent) involved in planning for production and quality controls, and are generally lethargic (i'll go so far as to call them lazy), antiquated (especially true of OFBs) and want to be spoonfed. There are all round faults. The kind of blamegame seen in that video in public can only be worse in private. This shouldn't exist.

Thankfully, it seems to be getting fixed. I hope it does.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2013 19:11

Pardon this rant for I'm a rookie in matters related especially to aviation. However, I do have some comments and doubts, so please bear with me.

k prasad wrote:<SNIP>I think the first comment by the HAL person and the subsequent discussion brings out what I feel are the three big issue - Planning, Project management and Partnership failures. <SNIP>

First comment by the HAL person was more about his experience and POV. What point did it bring out which could repudiate the comments and observation in the presentation by IAF officer? And as for the lady, she said she was doing certain things which were earlier not mentioned in the schedule. But pray do tell me, how did you reach a conclusion that it was IAF which asked them to do the 'said' thing which led to increased man-hours?And secondly, how can you deduce the 'cause-and-effect' with out knowing the full picture?

Remember the previous presentation about the ALH project, and how the ASR and Naval requirements were inconsistent, and it was too much to expect HAL to do all of this. Thats something the speaker seems to ignore. difficulties at that level always lead to difficulties at the lower level such as maintenance, etc. So its not totally unexpected. The services aren't blemishless either.

Again - does anyone on this forum know whose brilliant idea was it to get Navy to join the ALH program? And why? When the roles for which the chopper is required in the IAF/IA and IN differ, how will the ASR/GSQR and NSR be the same? Especially, the Naval Requirement given their unique operating environment?

So, on what basis are you blaming the Navy/Services by quoting the ALH example?

<SNIP>

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 07 Feb 2013 19:50

Rohitvats wrote:First comment by the HAL person was more about his experience and POV. What point did it bring out which could repudiate the comments and observation in the presentation by IAF officer? And as for the lady, she said she was doing certain things which were earlier not mentioned in the schedule. But pray do tell me, how did you reach a conclusion that it was IAF which asked them to do the 'said' thing which led to increased man-hours?And secondly, how can you deduce the 'cause-and-effect' with out knowing the full picture?

Hi Rohit... I haven't said they repudiated anything. If you read my comments carefully, I haven't denied the truth of any of what the speaker said. He is very correct. I was just trying to trace the reasons for them, which I could see some indications of from that discussion. Every one of the people who spoke in that video were speaking what they felt was the case from their point of view, from experience. We have to combine all of these to figure out what the elephant really looks like. If you read my last point, i've listed out what I see as general observed issues with all 3 groups.

Again - does anyone on this forum know whose brilliant idea was it to get Navy to join the ALH program? And why? When the roles for which the chopper is required in the IAF/IA and IN differ, how will the ASR/GSQR and NSR be the same? Especially, the Naval Requirement given their unique operating environment?

So, on what basis are you blaming the Navy/Services by quoting the ALH example?

Whomsoever's idea that was, ultimately, it was the Navy that released its requirements. Our helo designers were frankly, at that point, too inexperienced to know the actual difficulties that would make catering to all of these requirements impossible, and the consultants, from what reports suggest, didn't correct them.

Each service listed out its requirements as they wanted. Did someone go back and tell these guys that all of it couldnt be done? I dont know. Were they stubborn on not diluting these requirements? Maybe. Was it wrong of them to not dilute? I don't know. Maybe not. I'm not saying who was wrong. Just that in totality, mistakes were made. Simple as that. My comment above was about trying to figure out where these could've come in. We need to fix those mistakes going forward. One major way is far greater collaboration and interaction in decision making.

There is no villain here. Just mistakes and defects, which we need to fix. To use the LCA Leh Tests quote, "It didnt fail. There were some shortcomings, which we will need to fix hereon".

{Edit} P.S. : I guess I might've confused you into thinking that I meant that Planning, Project management and Partnership failures are the faults from IAF side. I didnt mean that. Rather, I was identifying these as larger issues with all 3 groups and their interactions with each other, which I explained in a little detail in the subpoints. Cheers.

rahuldevnath · Post by **rahuldevnath** » 07 Feb 2013 22:06

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 07 Feb 2013 22:24

Abhibhushan wrote:For all Rakshaks planning a trip to the airshow on saturday 9 feb 13.

I did my first solo flight on a Tigermoth on 09 Feb 1952. Now, 61 years later, on 09 Feb 2013, I shall once again be near a yellow Tigermoth in Air Force Colours. May I have the pleasure of a group photo in front of this aircraft with as many Rakshaks as possible?

TKS

Anibhushanji,

Wow!

I did my first flight in a Tigermoth in 1951. Strapped to my dad, who was the Chief Engineer of the Madras Flying Club. And the pilot was Uncle Khan, the Chief Pilot!

Out of Tambaram. In a silver Tigermoth! Wow. The feeling was brilliant and I still remember it. with mynimble little fingers of a 5 year old, I helped my dad build a static balsa model of the Tigermoth. To scale.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 07 Feb 2013 23:08

Abhibhushan wrote:For all Rakshaks planning a trip to the airshow on saturday 9 feb 13.

I did my first solo flight on a Tigermoth on 09 Feb 1952. Now, 61 years later, on 09 Feb 2013, I shall once again be near a yellow Tigermoth in Air Force Colours. May I have the pleasure of a group photo in front of this aircraft with as many Rakshaks as possible?

TKS

Abhibhushan sirji,
I will be present there on the 9th.. How can I get in touch with you prior to the show???

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 07 Feb 2013 23:15

Kartik wrote:People going to AI-13 today, please find out if the Tejas Mk2 is indeed getting a fuselage plug of 1m length or not..earlier reports indicated it was 0.5m then some reports said it was actually 1m..please at least confirm this if there are no info boards or brochures on that..if true that there is nothing on the Mk2, then I'm terribly terribly disappointed with ADA..

Not a 1m plug as that affects CG and needs extensive flight testing. There are very very few info boards on the MK II and the models are the same as that displayed in the last AI.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 07 Feb 2013 23:21

Merlin, Kartik: not to be disrespectful or anything regarding your questions/comments, but can I push my request for more pics ahead of yours?

BRF folks at AI-13: Pliss be to post more pics as soon as possible for us hungry mujahids unable to attend the desi hawai mela.

RajSingh · Post by **RajSingh** » 08 Feb 2013 00:15

Lots of pics here

https://picasaweb.google.com/1179903832 ... 4052707010

https://picasaweb.google.com/1179903832 ... 5/07022013

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Feb 2013 01:07

No CFTs this time on the F-16s

, and the overhead shot of LCH is awesome, very streamlined

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2013 01:12

saw an f-solah in the pics. did they fly it?

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

Did Mahindra and Gipps Aero have anything to show? Or Tata Advance Systems? There are a lot of small private UAV players. Nothing from them?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Feb 2013 01:54

vasu raya wrote:No CFTs this time on the F-16s , and the overhead shot of LCH is awesome, very streamlined

Yup, they bought the standard F-16 block 30/40 series, not the block 50/52 variant which was in the MMRCA competition.

SaiK wrote:saw an f-solah in the pics. did they fly it?

They flew her.. Crrently the only non-commercial foreign presence in the fighter line up..

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 08 Feb 2013 01:58

Another URL with more images.
http://defense-update.com/20130206_aero ... eport.html

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Feb 2013 02:01

Thanks Bala, any guesses to their rationale vs. when they brought the Block 52 with CFTs for the MMRCA trial?

On a different note, Mahindra should get production of Rustom-2 airframe as a leg up after their successful development or manufacture of Hansa

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Feb 2013 02:05

These F-16's are directly from USAF's Pacific command.. In fact the entire american contingent is from the Pacific Air Force command, representing the friendly relations between the 2 govts.. The F-16's are used to demonstrate the command's combat capabilities..

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Feb 2013 02:24

^^^

Its not the businessmen this time

, good to know Bala, Thanks!

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Feb 2013 02:45

You are welcome, vasu rayaji..

Here's my catch of the day.. The USAF C-17 which had accompanied the F-16 developed a snag in its outer starboard engine. Its seen here being prepared for the engine's ground run post service.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 08 Feb 2013 02:50

Karan M wrote: Yet another Astra config? Or model makers mistake?
https://picasaweb.google.com/1179903832 ... 0456247490

looks like a slimmer 9A310M1 used in Buk. Even the earlier, elongated fins sort of reminds one of the Buk

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Feb 2013 03:52

Some more shots from me
KC-135

Prop Cone reflection

IL-76 landing

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Feb 2013 04:07

merlin wrote:
Kartik wrote:People going to AI-13 today, please find out if the Tejas Mk2 is indeed getting a fuselage plug of 1m length or not..earlier reports indicated it was 0.5m then some reports said it was actually 1m..please at least confirm this if there are no info boards or brochures on that..if true that there is nothing on the Mk2, then I'm terribly terribly disappointed with ADA..
Not a 1m plug as that affects CG and needs extensive flight testing. There are very very few info boards on the MK II and the models are the same as that displayed in the last AI.

But are they elongating it or not? If not where will the additional fuel and other additions in Mk2 go?

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 08 Feb 2013 06:22

After watching all these pics and videos, literally itching to come to Bangalore

I envy all the guys, who are in Bangalore

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Feb 2013 06:29

Folks please please upload one tejas video,

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 08 Feb 2013 06:50

here you go, but quality is not good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD5hWfk0MBE

rahuldevnath · Post by **rahuldevnath** » 08 Feb 2013 07:49

Bala Vignesh wrote:
vasu raya wrote:No CFTs this time on the F-16s , and the overhead shot of LCH is awesome, very streamlined
Yup, they bought the standard F-16 block 30/40 series, not the block 50/52 variant which was in the MMRCA competition.
SaiK wrote:saw an f-solah in the pics. did they fly it?
They flew her.. Crrently the only non-commercial foreign presence in the fighter line up..

If I'm not wrong, thsese are the F-16 Block 50/52. Last time it was the UAE's F-16 Block 60 with CFTs!

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 08 Feb 2013 08:35

Well, all the blocks after 50 have the conformal tanks.. So while you are correct that last time around they had bought in the UAE Block 60, the official US representation was even that time by the PACAF Block 40's..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 08:55

cross post since it concerns aero India
Single crystal turbine blade story.

A gentleman from DMRL was very friendly and informative and took the wind out of my pompous sail just before I clicked an image of a dirty used component on display.

1.The image below shows the development of tech (in SDREland) from plain casting (labelled equaxed), to "dirtectionally solidified" to single crystal.

2. The image below is of examples of blades made by the three methods mentioned above

3. For single crystal blades to have a hollow honeycomb interior, a ceramic core is used around which the crystals are grown. The core is leached off later. The image below shows ceramic cores with the hollow part of a blade visible.

4. Here is a fully formed blade - the extra spiral bits needed for manufacture will be removed for finishing the blade.

5. From the HAL stall - a single crystal blade used in Al 31

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 09:21

1.This is where we are in engines: Our only engine used to fly something - the 380 kg thrust PTAE-7

2. This is where we need to be: M-88 (Rafale)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Feb 2013 09:51

I authorize the use of this photo by any prasun who wants to use it provided it is acknowledged as photo by shiv

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Feb 2013 09:58

Can some one geting information and pictures on the status update on Civil Aircraft Program in India mainly the 50-100 Seater RTA project.

And ask few question as to who will be the private partner and which airlines will be chosen as the first customer and other information.

Pictures of brochure or scale model will be great.

Thanks

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 08 Feb 2013 10:28

Chai walla news.Russian knights just airborne from Hindon after clearing Immigration.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 08 Feb 2013 10:34

shiv wrote:I authorize the use of this photo by any prasun who wants to use it provided it is acknowledged as photo by shiv

Source:Shiv Saar Photography)

Lovely click saar. Did you/anyone asked about the payload which LCA can carry with HAL representatives?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2013 10:35

shiv wrote:I authorize the use of this photo by any prasun who wants to use it provided it is acknowledged as photo by shiv

I think the highlighted part is where you broke the deal.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Feb 2013 10:38

great to see kaveri SCB on the show.. hopefully, our K10 will be energized!

make it so!
engage!

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 08 Feb 2013 10:53

^^^^^^^^^^^^
The SCB was for SU 30 engine right or for Kaveri ?
Or did i miss something . Is Kaveri using SCB ?