LCA News and Discussions

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2013 13:59

rajanb wrote: I won't mention names, but there are quite a few senior ex service wallahs haunting the corridors of power in Delhi. And they have been there for decades. They are the influence peddlers. Their companies, foreign ofcouse, spend money on PR and lobbying. So I find, ironically, that our procurement is actually influenced by foreign MICs and not by an Indian MIC, because we don't have any! And believe me, PR can be a very strong propangandist tool.

There are more DRDO wallas, retired IAS and PSUs wallas in the game than any service officers, not to mention people connected to political families.

I will also not mention any names.

amit · Post by **amit** » 02 May 2013 14:02

^^^^^

Oh but Sanku ji, I took the trouble of reading that article and quoting - pretty extensively - from it already. Is the fact that the Marut progam was a disaster - "And Oh Marut was a disaster, it flew, but just about that, and that was ages ago" - written in invisible ink? Or do you need a special kind of constipation to be able to deduce that?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2013 14:03

Marten wrote:
Lage raho! Jai Sankugiri onlee.

When you are done making personal remarks and can get to any meaningful contribution, let me know. I have listed three points to illustrate why the HF 24 program was a disaster. When ever you are up to contradicting any of them, I will be around. Preferably in mil aviation thread.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2013 14:05

amit wrote:^^^^^

Oh but Sanku ji, I took the trouble of reading that article and quoting - pretty extensively - from it already. Is the fact that the Marut progam was a disaster - "And Oh Marut was a disaster, it flew, but just about that, and that was ages ago" - written in invisible ink? Or do you need a special kind of constipation to be able to deduce that?

Congratulations on having read the articles.

Your quoting however is as always a mass of jumbled statements taken out of context and paraphrased by you.

So let me ask you a straight question. Did HF 24 meet its initial goals? Yes/no.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 02 May 2013 14:11

arnab wrote:
Sorry sir - your assertion that the IAF can deliver only when it has: sole responsibility; unfettered funding; and an R&D system only geared to respond to its beck and call, you have to acquaint yourself with the harsh realities of working in a democratic environment.

My assertion? Or the one-track discourse going on in your own mind. Please post a quote from me to that effect, it is one thing to let matters degenerate into a tutu main main but no way is it on to attribute things to people who haven't said them. This is the second time that you have done that so do reflect on why you feel the need to keep doing so.

amit · Post by **amit** » 02 May 2013 14:18

Sanku wrote:So let me ask you a straight question. Did HF 24 meet its initial goals? Yes/no.

Thanks for your congratulations. But you should do a two tiered congratulation. One is for having read it and the other is for having understood it. Unfortunately it's hard to congratulate you for the latter - not only here but on every thread.

Yes it did meet it's goals - it served creditably in India's last war and showed that even back in the 1950s India had the ab inito capability to design something as complex as a state-of-the-art fighter plane. It flew within 7 years of the most ambitious requirements framed by IAF. And it did so despite the fact that there was zero infrastructure and the number of experts/designers India had could be counted with one's fingers. (It's all there in the article, go ahead read it or if you don't have that kind of attention span read the excerpts I posted).

Can you list the number of planes which were flying at Mach 2 at 60,000 feet with 500 miles operating radius in 1954-55? For example how many fighter planed did the Russians have with that kind of specs at that time?

Given that and the fact that the GoI did not want to invest 13 million pounds on the engine on which the plane was designed it performed extremely creditably.

Let me ask you a counter straight question. Do you think a plane - the first effort by a impoverished, newly independent nation - which actually took part in the 1971 war and received commendation deserves the comment: "Oh Marut was a disaster, it flew, but just about that?"

If your answer is "Yes" then I'll have to question either your understanding, motive or a combination of both. And I think most folks here will agree with me.

And yes I agree with Marten. Ignoring you is an easy option but not necessarily the correct one.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2013 14:31

Moving to Mil Aviation thread.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1450794

amit · Post by **amit** » 02 May 2013 14:50

post deleted on Lalmohan ji's request.

I agree, let's get back to more interesting stuff. There's no point in countering Sanku.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 May 2013 15:08

amit - kill it please, let us get back to more intersting stuff

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2013 18:31

And after the first flight of lsp-8 (taken without the high speed taxi trials!/shows perfection there) we still are subdued with no video of it. why?

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 May 2013 20:56

Marut which participated successfully in 1971 war was replaced by Jaguars which failed in Kargill war.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 May 2013 21:01

No Maruts were lost in air combat in 1971; they were known for their sturdy build, notwithstanding the under-powered engines.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 May 2013 21:01

vic wrote:Marut which participated successfully in 1971 war was replaced by Jaguars which failed in Kargill war.

How did you come to such conclusion when Jags were bought for some other reason.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 May 2013 21:06

Sanku mama you need to take a step back and think over your stand and even arguments in general.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 May 2013 21:09

Oh dear. have I wandered into the wrong thread?

Maruts should be in Indian Military Aviation.

An honest question. Are some people trying to devalue BRF?

I will go so far to say that are their IP addresses from Pakistan or China? I am mad about the idiocy of all this. Or are they paid trolls?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2013 22:30

negi wrote:Sanku mama you need to take a step back and think over your stand and even arguments in general.

Negi-ji, I assure you, they are very considered. I believe that BRF should question some things taken as accepted wisdom, and this is not a pisko exercise, I genuinely believe that. Especially these days.

We have been setting the bar too low, for ourselves in many cases (not because x y z country does that)

(and hey I was against the trend about 123 and man mohan etc and was right after all wasnt I)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 May 2013 23:06

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 May 2013 00:17

Pl maintain sankutom sankutorium of this dhaaga. /request

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 03 May 2013 06:08

RajitO wrote:My assertion? Or the one-track discourse going on in your own mind.

OK RajitO ji, let us see what you have been saying (or inferring)

You said:

Yeah everyone is accountable and no one is accountable. How many people in any of these three verticals have been fired on the LCA program? The apologists who keep bringing up the F-35 fiasco, and it is one, should check how many got fired there. The irony is that if the IAF had been given a real stake in this program, it would have been the IAF top brass scurrying around defending the program

The inference is that IAF was never given a real stake in the program. My question – IAF was part of the verticals, what prevented it from taking a real stake in the program, instead of sitting on the fence and denigrating local efforts? Was it a fundamental lack of belief that civilians can actually do something? Or was it the cozy relationship developed with foreign suppliers? (Check out ISRO success stories – Can one speculate that if IAF had been in charge we would have still been using soyuz and launching from Baikonour? - because an IAF ASR for rockets in the 1960s would have asked for 'GSLV standards' and therefore PSLVs would be considered 'disasters' and not used - so better to stick to imports).

You said:

What is the bottomline about oversight? To hold regular meetings to show that oversight was done? To produce status reports about a program? To "recommend" action but not take it? Firing someone is an extreme step but it needs to be done in specific cases - and yes if you follow the fundamental direction of my argument, had an IAF program manager been put in charge, he would have been the first to get the sack.

You tell me. IAF was part of this oversight committee. Did anyone ask it to take a back seat? Is the inference here that only IAF are the ‘do-ers’ and all other verticals are basically talk-shops of which the IAF does not wish to be a part of? If so – can you prove it? Or was it that IAF negativity in these oversight meetings ensured that the program management lagged?

Regarding program management. Has IAF shown any capability historically in managing a defence program? (To quote the village idiot: You can’t give Rs1,0000,0000 to a 16 year old and turn him into Ambani. Well at least HAL has some experience to show for it. On what basis should the IAF be given the lead? On their proclivity to depend on imported stuff?)

You said:

What you consider as adequate IAF involvement/role and "silliness" may not be considered the same by other folks. What you consider as oversight and accountability may not be considered as adequate by other folks.

It is not for me to comment on the level of adequacy. IAF has to learn to engage within the boundaries and responsibilities of each of the verticals engaged in the development of the product. There is no god given rule that IAF will deign to involve themselves only if they think they have ‘adequate’ responsibilities (meaning what exactly? – leading the project? If so, on what basis?)

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 03 May 2013 08:47

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

RajitO wrote:
arnab wrote:
Sorry sir - your assertion that the IAF can deliver only when it has: sole responsibility; unfettered funding; and an R&D system only geared to respond to its beck and call, you have to acquaint yourself with the harsh realities of working in a democratic environment.

Still waiting for you to reproduce exactly what you say I said.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 03 May 2013 09:14

RajitO wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still waiting for you to reproduce exactly what you say I said.

Now that is a rather weak response

But basically I was defining the term "adequate" for you (afterall it is a sort of a weasel word). You did say the following:

What you consider as adequate IAF involvement/role and "silliness" may not be considered the same by other folks. What you consider as oversight and accountability may not be considered as adequate by other folks.

Clearly you (or 'other folks') do not consider the current level of IAF involvement (oversight) in the LCA program as adequate. I merely pushed the 'adequacy' envelope to maximum levels where the IAF takes over the role of the beancounter and the technocrat (the other 2 verticals) as well.

We can of course argue over degrees where you can say you only meant 75% control (as adequate) and not 100% - but the thrust remains the same (my response to your quotes in the earlier post).

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 03 May 2013 09:48

^^^^^^

Expending copious amounts of text does not make a response strong. Neither do risible attempts to evoke a response by terms like "weasel words."

We are not going to argue over anything - interpret that to your heart's content.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 May 2013 11:13

RajitO wrote:interpret that to your heart's content.

I must confess RajitO, that having one more person having suffered this game, normally reserved by a few folks for me, gives me great satisfaction.

Human failing I guess, but it is good to know that others have also felt your pain.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 03 May 2013 11:15

Sanku wrote:
I must confess RajitO, that having one more person having suffered this game, normally reserved by a few folks for me, gives me great satisfaction.

Human failing I guess, but it is good to know that others have also felt your pain.

Other similarities include: ignorance, a sense of victimhood and lack of data

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 May 2013 11:23

^^^^

Your forgetting a sense of self righteousness: I'm always correct!

Sanku ji slipped one of those in, strangely using tiny font. To wit: I have been proved right on my call during the Nuclear deal debate (123 and all that).

Boss you just can't even make this up.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 03 May 2013 11:26

amit wrote:^^^^

Your forgetting a sense of self righteousness: I'm always correct!

Sanku ji slipped one of those in, strangely using tiny font. To wit: I have been proved right on my call during the Nuclear deal debate (123 and all that).

Boss you just can't even make this up.

Yes one forgets how many times Sanku ji has self certified himself as being right

it is one way of staying ahead of the curve

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 May 2013 11:40

Excellent...

chor ki dadhi mein tinka

(thief has straw in beard)

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 03 May 2013 11:43

Oh please !! Last page was all about MBA management verticals, synergy crap and now this one is about Marut.
Can we please get back to LCA Tejas ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 03 May 2013 13:31

LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2139 Test Flights Successfully. (27-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-262,PV5-36,LSP3-123,LSP4-72,LSP5-166,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-2)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2146 Test Flights Successfully. (04-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-262,PV5-36,LSP3-126,LSP4-72,LSP5-168,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

PS: Sanku ji, a humble request please keep out of LCA thread, it has no relation with father Russia land. Others, please don't derail this thread by replying.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 May 2013 01:15

In order to help get back to technical discussions, here is my wishlist for Tejas Mk2.
1. Increased payload, larger internal fuel and IFR demands higher number and flexibility of weapons stations. (position unclear)
a. Increase the number of weapon stations to 9 (by upgrading weapon station L to a full fledged station and moving the gun into the fuselage).
b. Plumb weapon stations 3 and 4, so that 800 ltr supersonic fuel tanks can be moved to those stations freeing up stations 1 and 2 for large weapons.
c. Development of multiple racks for MRAAMs at weapon stations 1,2,3 and 4

2. Cockpit upgraded to Cockpit NG by HALBIT instead of 3 large MFDs. (position unclear)

3. Frameless HUD (Come on CSIO!)

4. IRST (most probably will not happen)

5. Better wing-body blending on the lower side of the wings where the MLGs retract into. Increased body width to be absorbed in smaller fairings for the hydraulics for flaps and flaperons. (Most probably not happening) {P.S. Instead of the wing-body blending, they are placing the MLG slightly outwards and lower, which creates something like a blister. Most probably, this will be accompanied with smaller cover for hydraulics. I think this might be a better solution as the blister lies behind the thickest part of the cross-section and thus does not increase wave drag. Also, they would not have to redesign the landing gear and the wing root to retract the wheels in a horizontal position into the base of the wing.}

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 May 2013 02:50

IR,

II or III?

The cockpit, especially, is from the AMCA the most likely root for the III i think.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 May 2013 03:09

NRao wrote:IR,

II or III?

The cockpit, especially, is from the AMCA the most likely root for the III i think.

The cocpkit is for AMCA. But since Esterline showcased its 4000 nextgen cockpit and HALBit showcased its Cockpit NG at AI'13, and China showcased its cockpit for its fifth gen planes at Zhuhai, there has been some flutter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 May 2013 04:55

Indi,is there enough room inside the fuselage for the gun?From earlier reports,space is supposed to be at a premium on the LCA.What about gun gas ingestion? How did we solve it on the Ajeet/Gnat? Another option,could we "liberate" and gain two extra hardpoints by adopting the overwing missile position for the close combat missiles?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2013 05:40

Philip wrote:What about gun gas ingestion? How did we solve it on the Ajeet/Gnat?

I can tell you how the missile gas ingestion and engine flame out was tackled in the MiG 21. The engine relight switch was turned on just in case and the plane had to do a 90 degree bank and turn away after the missile was fired.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 May 2013 08:42

Philip wrote:Indi,is there enough room inside the fuselage for the gun?From earlier reports,space is supposed to be at a premium on the LCA.What about gun gas ingestion? How did we solve it on the Ajeet/Gnat? Another option,could we "liberate" and gain two extra hardpoints by adopting the overwing missile position for the close combat missiles?

The gun is presently inside the fuselage only. With some imagination, I am sure it can be re-positioned to below the cockpit as in the Jags and Mig-29s, or over the wing like in the Su-30s. May be it can be housed just at the wing join, over the inlet. The Gnat solution would however not work as LCA's inlet walls are not think enough to house a barrel.

Overwing pylons have many short comings. The lift to drag ratio will drop. They can only be used for rail launched missiles. It is difficult to access for handlers on ground. They are also difficult to jettison.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 04 May 2013 09:47

Point 2 might not be good for redundancy. When the plane sustains battle damage and knocks off the only MFD how will the pilot fly the plane?

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 May 2013 11:10

I for one am against increasing LCAs payload; it should remain light and nimble for close combat and even interception. It does not have legs for deep penetration strikes and need not have them for we have MKIs, MRCA,PAKFA, M2K and AMCA in pipeline for that role. We need a modern lightweight no nonsense fighter with high availability and low maintainance downtime to serve as our workhorse.So from Indranil's list I will strike off '1' . Repositioning of the gun will be nice to have but I would like more emphasis to be given on AA role . Given LCAs small size and high % of composites it's main strength would be close air combat . I am not a big fan of swing/omni role stuff we will have enough of that type. If LCA can take on all of them in close air combat that should be good enough and given it's potential and capabilities it should be able to do that.

vic · Post by **vic** » 04 May 2013 12:15

If Marut was underpowered then so is Jaguar. CIA funded Govt killed indigenous development of Marut line and bought Jaguar. Indian endeavor to absorb German expertise was killed by preferring foreign dependence.

Our lack of backbone in spite of foreign imports is amply demonstrated by Chinese intrusion.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 May 2013 15:31

RKumar wrote:LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2139 Test Flights Successfully. (27-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-262,PV5-36,LSP3-123,LSP4-72,LSP5-166,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-2)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2146 Test Flights Successfully. (04-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-262,PV5-36,LSP3-126,LSP4-72,LSP5-168,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

PS: Sanku ji, a humble request please keep out of LCA thread, it has no relation with father Russia land. Others, please don't derail this thread by replying.

It will be interesting to note the speed at which LSP8 clocks more flights. Will give us and indication as to how well the production standard is flying.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 May 2013 20:36

negi wrote:I for one am against increasing LCAs payload; it should remain light and nimble for close combat and even interception. It does not have legs for deep penetration strikes and need not have them for we have MKIs, MRCA,PAKFA, M2K and AMCA in pipeline for that role. We need a modern lightweight no nonsense fighter with high availability and low maintainance downtime to serve as our workhorse.So from Indranil's list I will strike off '1' . Repositioning of the gun will be nice to have but I would like more emphasis to be given on AA role . Given LCAs small size and high % of composites it's main strength would be close air combat . I am not a big fan of swing/omni role stuff we will have enough of that type. If LCA can take on all of them in close air combat that should be good enough and given it's potential and capabilities it should be able to do that.

Good point. But having the capability allows it to take up the role if required. On pure A2A missions, it can fly light.

Second thoughts: Actually yours is a very good point. Increasing payload means increased structural strength meaning increased empty weight. But there is scope. The increase in empty weight will not be that major to affect the agility of the aircraft. Plus there is always that chance to optimize over designed parts and end up with increased capability with no increase in empty weight. It is doable. Though it will require more design and testing time. And that is my it is on my wishlist. It remains to be seen if the payload is increased (there have been reports of a 1 Ton increase in payloads).