LCA News and Discussions

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 11 May 2013 07:22

Philip wrote:Kartik's emphasis that the LCA is a "light fighter'" is the fundamental of this bird.The L in its name stands just for that.The F-16 was similarly meant to be just that,a light fighter,but was adorned with much matter that detracted from the purity of the original concept.Two articles,in VAYU and the F mag,in high praise of the simple MIG-21,still soldiering on 50 years after the type was inducted need to be read,extolling the virtues of the much upgraded and capable Bison which will carry on until 2020,equipped with BVR missiles,indicates the way forward .After all the LCA was meant to replace the MIG-21s at low cost.Trying to turn it into a scaled down multi-role M-2000 or Rafale is frankly a "role too far".4000kg of ordnance is far in excess of what 3rd gen. fighters carried,a very healthy payload.The constant tinkering and trying to fit into its small airframe a plethora of eqpt. ,which is being undertaken for Mk-2,carries its own penalties in further delays and weight.
Getting MIk-1 into service asap and even using it primarily in the air defence role would serve the IAF very well and keep its numbers happy.

+1

Normally I do not agree with Philip, but on this I do.

Get the Mk-1 in service fast to replace the retiring Mig-21s.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2013 09:25

Yes, the IAF needs air crafts - now.

However, if we are going to attach "fast", "asap", then the IAF better accept watered down IOC standards. That is the easiest way to get the LCA into service (and that is OK too).

I would like to think the people working on the LCA are going as fast and asap as they can - taking the least if not no risks. Saint Anthony can say he wants it yesterday and that it is taking too long, but let one crash and let us see how many will wake up and support the people making the real effort.

There are two sides to this coin: one is the IAF + MoD and the other is the industry that needs equal understanding and support. We cannot keep on harping on the declining number of aircrafts and not throw the nations weight behind the people trying to build the first aircraft. Especially when there is nothing new in the way the LCA is progressing.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 14 May 2013 03:21

Wonder how comfortable IAF would have been taking on the Chinese with 100+ LCA MKI today! Their will be a lot more learnings when a plane enters service, which is been delayed for no good reason.

Does the IAF believe that we will never fight a war? or the Chinese will be deterred by 100 Rafales? Chinese generals will respect us if we match their aircraft numbers and LCA offers our only hope of doing it without getting bankrupt.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 May 2013 07:55

There is a moot point to be underscored.Manoj Joshi in a piece today points out the inefficiency of our PSUs with respect to shipbuilding-the time taken for the Delhi's,where the follow on ones and the Shivalik's took more time and at greater cost than if built abroad.The same holds good for the SU-30MKIs he says ,being built in India at greater cost than those bought from Russia! He asks,what have we therefore learned from the Sukhoi programme as we are in the middle of a JV in developing the FGFA.

Let's not forget that the services do not have a "sliding budget" for their acquisitions unlike the DRDO on its project development! The fundamental truth is that the armed forces must have the weapon systems and eqpt. to fight a war at the shortest of notice,the latest Chinese 19km "incursion" ,the latest slap in the face of India by the dragon and a huge controversy whether India blinked in demolishing its bunkers,etc. as the Chinese demanded.

I think that with the LCA we are all of one mind,that the project must succeed as early as possible,and must prove itself as being a coist-effective solution to the replacement of the hundreds of MIG-21s to be phased out.Schedules have been revised umpteen times in the past and the induction is actually a decade late.We can only keep our fingers crossed that the latest schedules are met,and if not,a "hire and fire" policy must be taken by the GOI/MOD with regard to those responsible.Further delays and cost overruns will force the IAF to look elsewhere to keep its numbers and capability in a healthy condition.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 May 2013 20:35

Well, one can't look at cost effective solution to develop an infrastructure that is home grown to solve many problems - security, war time strategies of supplies and logistics, industrial base for manufacturing, developed infrastructure, resources and skills development, developing intelligence and maturity model, establishing capabilities of home grown technologies, all these don't come at just like a buyer-purchaser model. Be aware that the seller nation has all these pains too, and that is how they have established. They invested in them, and are now making profit by selling to dependent nations like India. We will be slaves for ever.

All it takes is china to be the numero uno nation who produces and consumes.. And after that, there is nothing to protect on the borders. Our sellers don't care to strategies our problems.. This is like selling your nation ahead of the war.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 15 May 2013 00:17

As a nation we are climbing up the learning curve. My hope is that we capitalize on our learning's and not let them while away aka Gnat.

Also, with a current account deficit of 15 Billion per month and 5% plus government deficits, I expect that all PSU's including defense will be privatized within next 5~10 years. The privatization pace will get faster as GOI PSU basket will be mostly rotten apples over time.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 May 2013 00:28

If the drivers don't come from the top, then the bottom will not survive. Fortunately, we have some form of democracy. I hope we can utilize that in some form to fight this massive corruption setup.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 May 2013 23:01

LCA Flight test update

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 2153 Test Flights Successfully. (08-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-264,PV5-36,LSP3-128,LSP4-74,LSP5-169,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2161 Test Flights Successfully. (14-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-267,PV5-36,LSP3-130,LSP4-74,LSP5-172,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 May 2013 18:56

From
LCA-Tejas has completed 2161 Test Flights Successfully. (14-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-267,PV5-36,LSP3-130,LSP4-74,LSP5-172,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

To
LCA-Tejas has completed 2164 Test Flights Successfully. (17-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-269,PV5-36,LSP3-130,LSP4-74,LSP5-172,LSP7-35,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

And not related to LCA but showing mirror to IAF/army. Who can say, our forces are getting their hands dirty with imperfect systems. Does mature systems fall from sky??

USAF may move F-35A IOC earlier

...
The Air Force’s decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly
....
The decision reflects the military’s desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed’s sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane
.....
“This is not just about replacing aging F-15′s or F-16′s; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points,” Wynne told Reuters in an email.
.....
he Air Force began studying the possible change several months ago. Lieutenant General Charles Davis told reporters in March that it might make sense to declare initial operating capability earlier than initially planned, given that the weapons on board would be suitable for basic war fighting needs.
....
Bogdan said it was not as clear that work on the final software package would be done in 2017, when the Air Force initially planned to declare IOC.
....
The final 3F software will support use of the aircraft’s full war fighting capability, with additional internal and external weapons, and more advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

Introspection :
Systems are rolling out even before IOC is declared and where are we even after getting IOC-1, post IOC-1 trial, pre IOC-2 trail, where we will be after IOC-2, post IOC-2 trial, pre FOC trial, FOC and post FOC trial. Now lets roll

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 May 2013 19:09

You can blame IAF, but looks like HAL is not ready to roll out LCAs even after LOC-2. IAF has been waiting for LCAs since mid-2012.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 22 May 2013 19:10

JF-17 and Lca Tejas: Difference in approach

Even above mentioned article puts how half baked pre IOC JF-17 was inducted into PAF.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 May 2013 19:15

Oh really, I thought IAF is waiting for 3 legged Mig-21+ since 1990 as well as Army is waiting for 3 wheeled T-90+ again since 1990.

I know, I am starting flame war but could not resist.

(PS : Don't bother to reply, I am not going to counter reply at any rate... going to take cover in tora-bora)

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 22 May 2013 19:15

It is no secret that LCA is not wanted by many of the imp player - for HAL - they would rather focus on 'their' programs like IJT or LCH, ALH (and now basic trainer) than ADA's LCA. I think slowly private player be introduced to make LCA fully made by non-HAL entities (in the long run). So design comes from ADA and production from that entity. Mayeb HAL can form its own design house and compete with ADA.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 22 May 2013 19:31

everyone knows IAF wants IOC-2 LCA , LSP-8 is IOC-2 aircraft, while world is ok in inducting Pre IOC aircrafts

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 May 2013 20:10

why not ADA+HAL+private industrial joint parternship establish a new venture? they can all go new with concurrent engineering approach. This would not only relieve HAL's pressure points, also, would help advance our engineering setup, especially catering to LCA++ needs.

see.. we have to create need now. forget the nay sayers and anti-self-reliance folks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 May 2013 22:07

I have taken a philosophic view of the LCA.It has skipped so many dadlines that even the story of the delays evinces as much interest of an obituary in the papers! Why am I philosophic? It is because with the advent of smart munitions and LR PGMs,simple platforms even combat trainers can carry sophisticated ordnance and deliver them in style. So,one must be patient like Indians have been down the centuries and while not giving the project an "elastic timeframe",work as hard as we can,stay focussed and expect results like optimists.The aircraft when it eventually arrives will be worth at least 120-180 aircraft.To make up for any further delays,the IAF must have a sound back-up plan.

Talk of fighting a two-front war with China and Pak,with lesser aircraft than what we truly need is a recipe for disaster.It smacks of the arrogance of that old Paki adage that "one Paki is better than ten Indians".In a two-front war,our limited number of aircraft cannot be everywhere everytime.The IAF will face a very severe task in stopping a Chinese ground offensive because of our poor infrastructure ,where it is expected to be the cutting edge of our counter-offensive force.The IAF must have a minimum strength of combat aircraft of at least 900-1000. Of this number, at least 10%-15% should be stealth aircraft in the future.The remaining 90% in three equal sections to be heavy and medium multi-role aircraft and the remaining 1/3rd of light combat aircraft. Secondly and ideally,there should not be more than 5-6 types of aircraft too.the period of transition where there may be several legacy upgraded aircraft serving along with new aircraft will gradually disappear provided that key procurement decisions are made in time,based upon definite strategic planning and not due to knee-jerk reactions..

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 22 May 2013 22:12

RKumar wrote:From
LCA-Tejas has completed 2161 Test Flights Successfully. (14-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-267,PV5-36,LSP3-130,LSP4-74,LSP5-172,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

To
LCA-Tejas has completed 2164 Test Flights Successfully. (17-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-269,PV5-36,LSP3-130,LSP4-74,LSP5-172,LSP7-35,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

And not related to LCA but showing mirror to IAF/army. Who can say, our forces are getting their hands dirty with imperfect systems. Does mature systems fall from sky??

USAF may move F-35A IOC earlier

...
The Air Force’s decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly
....
The decision reflects the military’s desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed’s sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane
.....
“This is not just about replacing aging F-15′s or F-16′s; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points,” Wynne told Reuters in an email.
.....
he Air Force began studying the possible change several months ago. Lieutenant General Charles Davis told reporters in March that it might make sense to declare initial operating capability earlier than initially planned, given that the weapons on board would be suitable for basic war fighting needs.
....
Bogdan said it was not as clear that work on the final software package would be done in 2017, when the Air Force initially planned to declare IOC.
....
The final 3F software will support use of the aircraft’s full war fighting capability, with additional internal and external weapons, and more advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.
Introspection :
Systems are rolling out even before IOC is declared and where are we even after getting IOC-1, post IOC-1 trial, pre IOC-2 trail, where we will be after IOC-2, post IOC-2 trial, pre FOC trial, FOC and post FOC trial. Now lets roll

If one had a nickel for everytime someone quoted the F-35 on BR to prop-up an LCA argument...but ironically fail to understand the fundamental difference in how the two programs are "managed" structurally which leads to the fundamental difference in outcomes.

Have underlined and boldfaced the key aspect, but the general obtuseness of the "pro-LCA" lobby on here, whether accidental or deliberate suggests this will be another lost cause.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 May 2013 22:56

I think around 500 F-35 would have been produced by the time it gets IOC.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 May 2013 23:11

RajitO wrote: If one had a nickel for everytime someone quoted the F-35 on BR to prop-up an LCA argument...but ironically fail to understand the fundamental difference in how the two programs are "managed" structurally which leads to the fundamental difference in outcomes.

Have underlined and boldfaced the key aspect, but the general obtuseness of the "pro-LCA" lobby on here, whether accidental or deliberate suggests this will be another lost cause.

My good sire, kindly give us a lesson or two on management. I will quote the full article and will do as requested.

The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force’s decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said a final decision had not been made and declined to comment further. A spokesman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office declined to comment.

The decision reflects the military’s desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed’s sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane.

“This decision gets that (U.S.) fifth-generation capability out on the front lines that much sooner,” said one of the sources familiar with the Air Force’s plans. “It also sends a message about confidence in the program to Congress and the international partners.”

Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said accelerating operational use of the new warplane would allow the Air Force to learn more about the F-35′s integrated battle management system.

“This is not just about replacing aging F-15′s or F-16′s; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points,” Wynne told Reuters in an email.

The Air Force, Marines and Navy must report to Congress by June 1 on their target dates for initial operational capability, or IOC, which marks the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed. Actual deployments usually lag IOC dates by about a year.

The sources said the services would send Congress a list of target or “objective” dates for declaring initial operational capability and a list of “threshold” dates, or deadlines.

The Marines Corps is sticking to its plan to begin early operational use in mid-2015 of its F-35B jets, which can take off and land like a helicopter. It will be the first of the three U.S. military services to start using the jets.

Its threshold is the end of 2015. The planes will run the F-35′s 2B software, which will give the Marines an initial war fighting capability that includes some air-to-air skills, the ability to strike targets on the ground and carry several internal weapons, including laser-guided bombs.

Lockheed on Monday said one of its F-35 B-model planes completed the first-ever vertical takeoff on May 10, demonstrating a capability needed for repositioning jets in areas where they cannot perform a short takeoff.

The Navy has set mid-2018 for starting operational use of its C-model F-35, which is designed for use aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. Its deadline or threshold date is early 2019.

The Air Force decision marks a reversal from its earlier insistence that it needed the final 3F software package and comes after a Pentagon report cited China’s development of two new fifth generation fighters over the past year.

The Air Force began studying the possible change several months ago. Lieutenant General Charles Davis told reporters in March that it might make sense to declare initial operating capability earlier than initially planned, given that the weapons on board would be suitable for basic war fighting needs.

The Air Force will have about 100 F-35s by 2016, when it plans to declare the planes ready for operational use.

The Pentagon’s program chief, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, told lawmakers last month he was “moderately confident” that the 2B software — and the associated 3I software being developed for international buyers — would be completed in time for the planned Marine Corps IOC in mid-2015.

The Air Force jets would use the 3I software, which will include a technology refresh with improved memory processors for some sensors on board.

Bogdan said it was not as clear that work on the final software package would be done in 2017, when the Air Force initially planned to declare IOC.

The final 3F software will support use of the aircraft’s full war fighting capability, with additional internal and external weapons, and more advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 May 2013 23:21

karan_mc wrote:JF-17 and Lca Tejas: Difference in approach

Even above mentioned article puts how half baked pre IOC JF-17 was inducted into PAF.

PAF does not need any reason not to induct the JF-17

Is IAF looking for excuses not to induct Tejas ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 May 2013 23:25

USAF has no other option but to accept the imperfect system and work with it to make it perfect. As they can't get fully developed and mature system from e.g. Russia/France.

But on the other side we have the habit and possibility to buy it from Russia/France/US.

In case of Pakistan, beggars can't be chooser.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 May 2013 23:28

aah! so USA has no option to accept the imperfect system (all home grown) and make it perfect, and we have none to accept an imperfect system on the same model, but would only rely mainly on firangie ones because of the existing relationship, and to maintain and entertain them.

we are forgetting about establishing capabilities.. USA systems are capability engineering based. there acceptance model is something we have to understand first.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 May 2013 23:31

Was it the newly elected PM to-be, the ex PM, of PakiLand who said (para phrasing) "At least you have a plane that can bomb"?

Talk of IOC.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2013 01:26

When we have best brains, and kept idle, we are as good as pakis.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 23 May 2013 03:34

NRao wrote:Was it the newly elected PM to-be, the ex PM, of PakiLand who said (para phrasing) "At least you have a plane that can bomb"?

Talk of IOC.

No, it was "Its not as advanced as your LCA, but it can drop a good number of bombs." Source

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2013 07:28

^^^holly molly smoke indeed.. and the author has to mention the frigging caste word in the article at the end and eff the gist of everything.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 May 2013 09:57

ALL LSP aircrafts are not same , so how can there be production line ? LSP-8 is IOC-2 aircraft , and IAF wants 20 Tejas MK-1 based on LSP-8 IOC2 aircraft and 20 Tejas MK-1 based on FOC aircraft which might be SP-9 or 10 , so IAF knew in advance benchmark aircraft LSP-8 is still few years away when they had ordered 20 Tejas MK-1 .

LSP-1 -- Older F404-F2J3 Engine
LSP-2 -- Newer F404-IN20 engine
LSP-3 -- First MMR Radar onboard aircraft
LSP-4 -- First aircraft with Countermeasure Dispensing System and an identify friend or foe electronic system
LSP-5-- Night flying sensors and capability added
LSP-6-- Yet to fly, to carry out higher AOA
LSP-7-- Aerodynamically reshaped APU intake
LSP-8-- IOC-2 Aircraft which will go in production (First 20 aircrafts)

First orders for 20 aircrafts were placed in March 2005 way before first LSP-1 which only flew in 2007 ,so they knew in advance that LSP-8 is yet least five years away from reality for production to start . IAF was in no hurry to induct Tejas from the word start .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2013 10:03

I agree with AG.There can be no excuse for neglecting the manufacturing set-up for the LCA when we have had decades of producing aircraft,from little Gnats to mighty Sukhois! We even produced around 120 HF-24s,our very first indigenous fighter,which for want of a more powerful engine was discarded.The claim in a report not too ,long ago,that every LSP aircraft differs from the other,is worrying.The struggle to get MK-1 into IOC casts a doubt on the schedule given out for the MK-2 version.

Just seen Karan's post and LSP details.That being the case,what was the schedule/ dates given earlier for the final LSP version ,or pre-production version to be perfected,if the IAF was in no hurry?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 May 2013 10:18

According to me , if my memory is serving me right , LSP-8 should have been ready by end of 2010 , so we lost 3 years , IAF placed first 20 orders way back in 2005 , so IAF knowing how HAL works should have expected delays and should have asked HAL to put LSP- 4 or 5 into production as Pre IOC aircrafts (10 aircrafts) and LSP-8 IOC-2 aircrafts into production later (last 10 aircrafts ) .

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 23 May 2013 12:12

RKumar wrote:
RajitO wrote: If one had a nickel for everytime someone quoted the F-35 on BR to prop-up an LCA argument...but ironically fail to understand the fundamental difference in how the two programs are "managed" structurally which leads to the fundamental difference in outcomes.

Have underlined and boldfaced the key aspect, but the general obtuseness of the "pro-LCA" lobby on here, whether accidental or deliberate suggests this will be another lost cause.
My good sire, kindly give us a lesson or two on management. I will quote the full article and will do as requested.

Beyond my paygrade to hand out lessons...the only request is to consider when quoting chapter and verse from US programs does it strike you that it is their "faujis" who front these programs? Their participation is fundamentally different both in orders of magnitude and underlying spirit - something again lost on folks when they attempt to pass of our "fauji" participation as equivalent.

Does that make it a magic wand? No. But when failures happen, and accountability has to be fixed then their faujis are often the first ones to get the sack - how about quoting the F-35 in that context?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 May 2013 14:04

SaiK wrote:aah! so USA has no option to accept the imperfect system (all home grown) and make it perfect, and we have none to accept an imperfect system on the same model, but would only rely mainly on firangie ones because of the existing relationship, and to maintain and entertain them.

we are forgetting about establishing capabilities.. USA systems are capability engineering based. there acceptance model is something we have to understand first.

could you please educate me which first exists chicken or egg?

Some things can't be learned in isolation, we have to do things wrong in order to learn what is right. I am really fan of these typical logic ... we are a poor country, we can't waste money ... we are worlds biggest arms importer and people complain for not having enough money for R&D. It is the attitude and have confidence, which we have to change. Why our missile or space programs are successful, because we have no other choice so user has to accept imperfect system. Give continuous feedback to developer, so that next iteration is better.

The problem is wanting to have but not willing to work to have it.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 May 2013 14:10

karan_mc wrote:According to me , if my memory is serving me right , LSP-8 should have been ready by end of 2010 , so we lost 3 years , IAF placed first 20 orders way back in 2005 , so IAF knowing how HAL works should have expected delays and should have asked HAL to put LSP- 4 or 5 into production as Pre IOC aircrafts (10 aircrafts) and LSP-8 IOC-2 aircrafts into production later (last 10 aircrafts ) .

Agree ,I would even go one step further Pre IOC aircrafts (20 aircrafts) , IOC-2 aircrafts into production later (20 aircrafts ) and FOC (20 aircraft)

If that was done, today IAF had already 20-25 planes in their service as compare to zero. I don't think they are gonna get anything until earliest end of this year or not even that middle of next year (2 SP planes huh)

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 23 May 2013 15:42

Take lca away from HAL and give it to TATA or L&T. LCA will become best aircraft in the world.

nits · Post by **nits** » 23 May 2013 16:06

aditya.agd wrote:Take lca away from HAL and give it to TATA or L&T. LCA will become best aircraft in the world.

Wow TATA & L&T have some magic wind to make it best aircraft in world

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 23 May 2013 16:21

@agupta , Problem i have with IAF is that orders placed for Tejas are very low to set up a full fledged Production line , LSP-8 was always a benchmark aircraft which will go into production so no way HAL will start working on setting up a production line in 2005 after orders were placed by IAF and keep it idle till LSP-8 flies .

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 May 2013 16:30

Well they don't have magic, and they wont want to get involved, getting into LCA means taking on the Arms agent lobby in Delhi, which will be using all skills to keep beaucratic hurdles which we do not hear about.

Suresh Kalmadi when he was a Rajya Sabha member, sponsored a bill with the approval of his party bosses to kill the LCA project, luckily that bill didnt pass through. You know on which side the country's leadership is when Suresh Kalmadi is passing such a bill

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 May 2013 18:54

karan_mc wrote:@agupta , Problem i have with IAF is that orders placed for Tejas are very low to set up a full fledged Production line , LSP-8 was always a benchmark aircraft which will go into production so no way HAL will start working on setting up a production line in 2005 after orders were placed by IAF and keep it idle till LSP-8 flies .

Sorry boss, I don't agree with you. LSP-8 or IOC-2 standard is what the IAF ordered in 2005. ADA HAL said it would be ready to provide the same from 2008. And that SPs would follow. This means that they were speaking of a concurrent setting up of the assembly line, so that SPs start rolling off after LSP-8 gets IOC. There is no voodoo in this. It is a global norm.

Today, it is 2013. Even if LSP-8 flew in 2013, HAL should have been ready to provide SPs of the assembly line immediately after LSP-8 flew. They cited this as the reason why production of LSP-7 was delayed. It was supposed to be the first aircraft of the assembly line for SPs. They seemed to have lied as there is no assembly line in sight. The fact is today, they are starting to write the service manuals!!!

But hey, if you want to believe that IAF is the only problem here, you won't be alone here!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 May 2013 19:26

I have some good news for you guys. LSP-6 is coming to town.

HAL has a tender out for AoA and AoSS indicator for LSP6.

Angle of Attack Indicator shall indicate the angle of attack in degrees in the range of -90° to +90°. The green band shall indicate in the range of -10° to +20°, the amber band shall indicate in the range of +20° to +30° & -10° to -15° and the red band shall indicate +30° to +90° & -15° to -90°.

Angle of Side Slip Indicator shall indicate the angle of side slip in degrees in the range of -25° to +25°. The green band shall indicate in the range of -5° to +5°, the amber band shall indicate in the range of +5° to +10° & -5° to -10° and the red band shall indicate +10° to +25° & -10° to -25°.

There are 2 things that caught my eye though:

Code: Select all

Sl    Types of tests          Severity           
No
2     Rapid              From 23000 ft (7 km) to
      Decompression      60000ft (18 km) in 15 sec

3     Acceleration –     10 ‘g’ in all 6 directions
      functional

      Acceleration –     15 ’g’ in all 6 directions
      structural

1. How can the No.2 situation arise in practice? The plane would be gaining altitude at 2640 kmph!
2. I think LCA Mk2 would be 10 'g' capable. I had read the same thing in another tender for hydraulic pump for Mk2.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2013 20:01

751.84mtrs/s or did I make a mistake? [1ft=0.3048 mtrs/google]

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2013 20:14

RKumar wrote:
SaiK wrote:aah! so USA has no option to accept the imperfect system (all home grown) and make it perfect, and we have none to accept an imperfect system on the same model, but would only rely mainly on firangie ones because of the existing relationship, and to maintain and entertain them.

we are forgetting about establishing capabilities.. USA systems are capability engineering based. there acceptance model is something we have to understand first.
could you please educate me which first exists chicken or egg?

Some things can't be learned in isolation, we have to do things wrong in order to learn what is right. I am really fan of these typical logic ... we are a poor country, we can't waste money ... we are worlds biggest arms importer and people complain for not having enough money for R&D. It is the attitude and have confidence, which we have to change. Why our missile or space programs are successful, because we have no other choice so user has to accept imperfect system. Give continuous feedback to developer, so that next iteration is better.

The problem is wanting to have but not willing to work to have it.

firstly, these are just a gyan.. it is upto to you to realize the truth.

few corrections on assumptions:

- Why our missile or space programs are successful, because we have no other choice so user has to accept imperfect system.

No. We are not accepting imperfect missile systems.. It is just that R&D cycle, we can afford to make mistakes and it is not that safety-critical as would LCA is. When you are in missile development, normally safety-critical aspects catering to human-machine interface is taken care and any accident preventions are preplanned and risks are mitigated properly. in the case of test launch and deviations like that happened for nirbhay, the safety aspect was engaged, and the missile system was destroyed.

The program logic is entirely different for LCA. The safety-critical aspect is orthogonal to missile system logic. Here, we have to be critical to provide systems to land the instrument and platform safe, and the worst case is to ensure the pilot safely ejects. Lot of critical aspects from oxygen sensors to precision decision support system that has only a delta time left for the system to either decide to save the human and destroy the mission.

could you please educate me which first exists chicken or egg?

It depends where you started the problem from.

Give continuous feedback to developer, so that next iteration is better.

maturity model has to happen, and process maturity has to take place.. it is hard uphill task, and we have to climb. no second option here.

The problem is wanting to have but not willing to work to have it.

That problem is political, and perhaps best dealt by our democracy setup. If we all change, the institutions will change as well.