Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 31 Dec 2013 10:21

NRao wrote:Here you go, from the horse that opened his mouth:

Air Cmde. (retd.) Parvez Khokhar wrote: Maintenance practices in the Tejas are probably among the most primitive in this class of aircraft and certainly not conducive to operational efficiency. The Gripen requires all of 33 minutes to replace the engine. The Tejas takes a couple of days because of poor estate management of ancillary connections on the engine.
Granted it is a HUGE issue, but it is correctable.

from where this '33min' gripen engine change time has emerged?? here is a story in the libyan episode which speaks of more than 3hrs for the actual and 36hrs from the order in that incident -

The Gripen engine change procedure famously beat the hour during the Indian Air Force trials for the MMRCA. A recent requirement in Sicily for an engine change for a Swedish Air Force JAS 39 demonstrated how the aircraft manages to clock in a changeover time of a couple of hours even in the most complex of situations and the ribbing among engineers that happens when it takes a little more. For an aircraft that commits itself to availability, the Sicily episode was yet another confirmation of the commitment.

Here are some excerpts from the action on the ground from the Swedish Air Force from a write up by Johan Brolin (Google translate has been used for translating the story).

“Thursday, July 14 technicians said that an engine change on one of the JAS planes in Sicily had to be implemented. On Friday night at 20:15, the new engine arrived in a C-130 Hercules. Activity began immediately after the engine arrived in order to have the plane with the replacement engine in operation at the earliest. It’s incredibly impressive to see, and one can almost feel the energy that exists among the staff around the plane during the engine change.

When the job was finished at midnight and it was found that the work took about three hours, ie little longer than normal, the staff jokingly agreed that it was partly due to the boss who had taken part!

After an engine change, a trial run of the engine is done to check that everything is as it should. Back in Sweden, the testing is done in special places that are prepared for just this purpose. These include devices for anchoring of the plane that allows it to be tested at full power. In Sicily it is a bit different. We must go to a special plate where there is a huge heavy wire fastened to the ground as we switch on our equipment on. From the time the engine was ordered until it was replaced and tested, it took about 36 hours. Good job.”

while still good, has ADA spoken or has somebody confirmed how much it is for LCA for the actual change of engine?? is it possible 2 days may include the ferry time for the engine?? we are just going by someone's word, who happened to work on LCA loooong back!!

CJ, can you clarify it from ADA? thanks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 10:23

Fun times:

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 10:28

from where this '33min' gripen engine change time has emerged??

Original from Force magazine.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 10:42

pragnya wrote:from where this '33min' gripen engine change time has emerged?? here is a story in the libyan episode which speaks of more than 3hrs for the actual and 36hrs from the order in that incident -

The Gripen engine change procedure famously beat the hour during the Indian Air Force trials for the MMRCA. A recent requirement in Sicily for an engine change for a Swedish Air Force JAS 39 demonstrated how the aircraft manages to clock in a changeover time of a couple of hours even in the most complex of situations and the ribbing among engineers that happens when it takes a little more. For an aircraft that commits itself to availability, the Sicily episode was yet another confirmation of the commitment.

Here are some excerpts from the action on the ground from the Swedish Air Force from a write up by Johan Brolin (Google translate has been used for translating the story).

“Thursday, July 14 technicians said that an engine change on one of the JAS planes in Sicily had to be implemented. On Friday night at 20:15, the new engine arrived in a C-130 Hercules. Activity began immediately after the engine arrived in order to have the plane with the replacement engine in operation at the earliest. It’s incredibly impressive to see, and one can almost feel the energy that exists among the staff around the plane during the engine change.

When the job was finished at midnight and it was found that the work took about three hours, ie little longer than normal, the staff jokingly agreed that it was partly due to the boss who had taken part!

After an engine change, a trial run of the engine is done to check that everything is as it should. Back in Sweden, the testing is done in special places that are prepared for just this purpose. These include devices for anchoring of the plane that allows it to be tested at full power. In Sicily it is a bit different. We must go to a special plate where there is a huge heavy wire fastened to the ground as we switch on our equipment on. From the time the engine was ordered until it was replaced and tested, it took about 36 hours. Good job.”

while still good, has ADA spoken or has somebody confirmed how much it is for LCA for the actual change of engine?? is it possible 2 days may include the ferry time for the engine?? we are just going by someone's word, who happened to work on LCA loooong back!!

CJ, can you clarify it from ADA? thanks.

Bwahaahaha ....so much for engine change in 33 mins (all measured using Rubidium time clock onlee)..

Well party secretary Phillip notarized it.

It is there in black-n-white. Nothing anyone can do about that now.

And that is it! All the fault of the worthless Indians onlee, and their overweight good for nothing LCA, Yanqui running dawg GE and also dastardly HAL/ADA etc.

Another barrage of old copy pasted f-articles expected to yell at worthless Indians..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Dec 2013 10:46

NRao wrote:Fun times:

https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 1101_n.jpg

Clearly, this shows how bad the LCA is because there is no pic showing pilots sitting on its weak composite wings. HAL fault onlee. ADA fault onlee. IAF fault onlee.

PS: This is why AL55I was not delivered on time with required MTBO.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2013 10:51

Karan M wrote:
NRao wrote:Fun times:

https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 1101_n.jpg
Clearly, this shows how bad the LCA is because there is no pic showing pilots sitting on its weak composite wings. HAL fault onlee. ADA fault onlee. IAF fault onlee.

PS: This is why AL55I was not delivered on time with required MTBO.

Well, that is the latest and greatest from Mother Russia.

IF you look very closely, just around those three oranges blocks, you should be able to see the latest in dual fly-by-wire technologies. As the story goes, if the current in that wire does not make the flaps move, the pilot has the option of tugging at the wire to make it move - a back-up or dual FbW system.

______________________

evidently a very, very slow and cold night out here folks.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 31 Dec 2013 12:03

Being year end, I don't want to call anyone except for wishing. Since engine change time is being debated, we should be ideally looking at MK-11 engine change time as it is being redesigned.

Its premature to say things about its maintenance as the IOC was just handed over.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 31 Dec 2013 14:59

LCA is expected to have the best of every plane flying out there. e.g. load of Su-30, land attach capability of Mirage and Jaguar, air to air capabilities of Mig-29, speed of Mig-21, turn around time of Gripen, range of B-2.

It is OK to expect a best fighter but accept it what it can. It is getting tiring to see .... anyway no use of repeating same lines.

Anyway .... wishing everyone a prosperous, healthy, successful and happy new year 2014.

srin · Post by **srin** » 31 Dec 2013 18:10

Just 10 days ago, our Shooklaw posted this

While the spotlight plays over the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) that will, on Friday, be certified fit for induction into the Indian Air Force (IAF), another India-built aircraft is at the cusp of readiness. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has revealed that its Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT), which has been in development since 1999, is now “just weeks away from certification”.

And now I read in another report that it is going to be mid-next year. Some journo - and while I don't know who, track record says it is our Kernail sahib - got scammed by the "sources".

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 31 Dec 2013 18:27

To all Gurus, Can we Standardize the Gun across all Aircraft ?
Gsh 23 - LCA, Mig 21
Gsh 30 - Mig 27
ADEN - SHAR, Jaguar
DEFA - Jaguar, Mirage
Gsh 30-1 - Mig 29
Gsh 30-2 - Su-30 MK

The LCA version has decent reliability and light weight , and it seems made by OF Trichy. Frontier India has a paper by ex-IAF person along the same lines

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Dec 2013 18:32

dinesh_kumar wrote:To all Gurus, Can we Standardize the Gun across all Aircraft ?

Gsh 30 - Mig 27
Gsh 30-1 - Mig 29
Gsh 30-2 - Su-30 MK

The Mig-27 carries the Gsh-6-30 which is a different beast than the Gsh-30-1 or Gsh-301 used on both the Mig-29 and Su-30. The Su-30 does not use the Gsh-30-2 which I believe is only used on the Su-25.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 31 Dec 2013 19:19

You are right Sir.
Wat you think abt a Single Gun Platform ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2013 20:05

I read in TOI a further large purchase of Heron uav has been cleared by cabinet. the ones we have are also scheduled to get some MLU soon.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 31 Dec 2013 20:59

To be fair, the HJT-36 was a great achievement by HAL when they rolled it out in 2003 after a surprisingly short development period. Had we not goofed up with the engine, all its other quirks could have been ironed out and the plane would have been operational with the IAF now.

The original Larzac engine was already being used in the twin-engine Alpha Jet and was a proven engine although its 14 kN proved inadequate in a single-engine trainer, which is simply an indication of our incompetence. The Ukrainian Ivchenko AI-25 that powered the Czech L-39 Albatross could have been chosen as a replacement or even the Garret TFE731 both of which had the required 16kN+ thrust. The Albatross was an outstanding success throughout the Warsaw Pact and the Garret was used in the Karakoram K8. (The Chinese had already reverse engineered the Ivchenko engine for their version of K8 trainer.) But for some insane reason, we decided to pay the Russians to develop a new engine only for ourselves which made almost no sense. It wasn't even a co-development project. The only rational explanation is that it was a scam and a large amount of money changed hands. Now it is probably too late as the IAF has two brand new trainers that can probably carry the entire training regime forward for at least a couple of decades. It makes no sense to foist a third trainer on the IAF along with its own separate support and maintenance stream.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Dec 2013 21:39

IAF has committed to purchase 73 IJT already; so we can set aside the talk of discarding the requirement for an intermediate jet trainer. The bifurcation of pilots into various streams happen post stage 2 on IJT; fighter pilots go onto AJT while transport and helicopter pilots go to their training centres. So, requirement in numbers exceeding AJT in IAF service exist for a IJT and something not as advanced as AJT; AJT would be overkill in terms of specs and price/unit would be an issue as well.

However, if the HAL does not get it's act together, then something else will be roped in to do the task. I don't think PC-7 or PC-21 fills the role because of jet aircraft requirement. But you never know. Kiran have been retained because of IJT delay but I don't think there is much leeway here as time is fast running out for these venerable machines. HAL needs to get it's act together ASAP.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 31 Dec 2013 21:54

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, PVSM, AVSM, VM, ADC assumes command of the Indian Air Force. He is an ace MiG-29 pilot.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jan 2014 00:53

Ha!Ha! So now it is Russia's fault for not informing HAL about TBO time! So HAL choose engines at the "lucky dip" stall at the carnival! When was HAL born,yesterday? Dear me,HAL are building their first aircraft or what? They've decades of interaction with Russia for such a wide variety of Russia origin aircraft which has served the IAF well and have licence built numerous Russian aircraft engines of the MIG and Sukhoi series.I am simply amazed at the sheer bias of some members against Russia and absolving the incompetence of a DPSU ,HAL in this particular programme.I repeat.Who formulated the specs in the ASR,the IAF or HAL,and what were the TBO specs mentioned?

If the Russians have goofed ,please penalise them.If it has not been done why? Secondly and more importantly,the IJT suffers from inherent design flaws which BAe has been roped in to extricate HAL from. Those who want to pretend that they are non-existant are living in dreamland.The IAF will not accept the IJT in current form period.The time is now for HAL to deliver or have another project rejected like the BT.

PS:A happy New Year to all!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Jan 2014 01:02

Philip, in what universe is an MTBO of 100 hours even remotely acceptable for an aircraft engine? And you are blaming HAL for not specifying that they need the engine MTBO value to be at least half decent. Do you think if the Russian AF was depending on this engine, that they would have tolerated this sh1t? Vlad would have threatened to ship off the Saturn engineers to a Siberian Gulag if they didn't get their act together. More likely, they would have taken care not to eff up so badly in the first place. But this was an IAF only affair and they had our testimonials in their hands, just like during the Gorshkov affair.

Your fulminations about DPSU's and design flaws in the IJT is a typical attempt at deflecting blame that most of us here have come to expect from you. You aren't fooling anybody. Whatever flaws there exist in the IJT airframe have nothing whatsoever to do with the obvious flaws in the AL-55I.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jan 2014 01:15

Secondly and more importantly,the IJT suffers from inherent design flaws which BAe has been roped in to extricate HAL from.

Thanks for that observation.

Makes sense. After the experience with the AL-55I they had better rope in a better, more reliable, partner. A reliable seller would inform/warn a buyer that the specs he has defined are bad.

Absolutely I would blame the Russians on this one.

Besides there is a trend out there - this is not the first time. We shall wait to hear the gory details of the FGFA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jan 2014 02:18

2008 :: Intermediate Jet Trainer certification by 2010

The AL-55I, which has a higher thrust rating than the French made Snecma Larzac 04H20 engine that is currently flying one of the two IJT prototypes, has been built in keeping with the Air Force’s air staff requirements and is a scaled-down version of the AL-31FP engine that flies the Su-30 MKI combat aircraft.

and

Sukhoi Su-30MKI

The mean time between overhaul for the AL-31FP is given at 1,000 hours with a full-life span of 3,000 hours.

So, why exactly does the 55 have such a low number? It should have come out-of-the-box with a much higher number.

Then:

undated :: Russian Engine AL-551 Proves Satisfactory For Homegrown HJT-16 Trainer Aircraft

Seems to be around 2010.

Russia signed a pact with state-run HAL wherein the service life of the AL-551 engine will be increased by 500 hours. NPO Saturn will be pursuing the contract further and continue its research to optimize the potential of the engine.

________________

Seems to me that it was half baked when it first came out. And everyone knew it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Jan 2014 09:09

nachiket wrote:Philip, in what universe is an MTBO of 100 hours even remotely acceptable for an aircraft engine? And you are blaming HAL for not specifying that they need the engine MTBO value to be at least half decent. Do you think if the Russian AF was depending on this engine, that they would have tolerated this sh1t? Vlad would have threatened to ship off the Saturn engineers to a Siberian Gulag if they didn't get their act together. More likely, they would have taken care not to eff up so badly in the first place. But this was an IAF only affair and they had our testimonials in their hands, just like during the Gorshkov affair.

Your fulminations about DPSU's and design flaws in the IJT is a typical attempt at deflecting blame that most of us here have come to expect from you. You aren't fooling anybody. Whatever flaws there exist in the IJT airframe have nothing whatsoever to do with the obvious flaws in the AL-55I.

Except himself apparently. Oh wait..
- LCA is a bad plane, WIP, takes 3000 years to change the engine
- HAL sux
- ADA sux

Russia rocks.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Jan 2014 10:17

Karan M,

Is there another engine that may be suitable? Maybe the question cannot be answered with info at hand, in which case, please ignore.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jan 2014 12:45

Examine the history of the IJT and reason out why the sh*t has hit the turbofan,pardon the pun! Don't blame the Russians or the French if their engines didn't have enough power,or TBO time is pathetic. They can only build/provide according to specs. provided by the client and HAL is no new born baby in the aircraft industry,having built/assembled a thousand Russian engines at least.If the aircraft is overweight it is the fault of the designers,and this was no JV with anyone.Obesity in desi designs seems to be a recurring problem and is not unusual worldwide,except that advanced nations have more experience than us to rectify the problem and in quicker time.

For example,the LCA MK-1 is also overweight and it has affected its performance,therefore a MK-2 is in the works with a more powerful engine which will be the definitive avatar.A legit Q can be asked given the long gestation time for MK-1s IOC and the obesity problem long known,why the more powerful 414 wasn't fitted onto a prototype long ago? It could've advanced the definitive aircraft by a few years? There are numerous reports about the obesity problem and engine options,here is a 2008 report:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/ ... 80797.html

BANGALORE: A nine-member delegation from Eurojet Turbo, leading European military aero-engine consortium, on Wednesday concluded a three-day “workshop” for the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), on the feasibility of their engine being used to power the underpowered Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

The workshop could be a precursor to the ADA — designers of the LCA — deciding on a new engine for the Tejas.
The workshop comes in the wake of an Air Force communication to the Ministry of Defence that the Tejas, with its present engine — the General Electric manufactured GE F404 IN20 — cannot meet air staff requirements. The Air Force’s reasons that the thrust (with afterburner) generated by the GE F404 IN20 — 85 kilo Newtons (kN) — is adequate for an aircraft of eight tonnes, but with the Tejas being overweight by nearly two tonnes it requires a much more powerful engine. The Air Force wants an engine that is capable of delivering a thrust of 100 kN.

Eurojet, which had made available sophisticated data on the EJ200 to the ADA, has offered to transfer all technology — including the key core technology — on the engine to India. The engine will eventually be manufactured in India. It also claims that the EJ200 meets the Tejas’ technical requirements and very little modifications will be needed to house its engine. Though Eurojet is confident that its engine will be chosen by the ADA, it will have to beat the challenge from GE, which had made a preliminary presentation on the GE414.

Sources in the ADA said that while the EJ200, with a thrust of 90 kN, brings in the latest technology in combat aircraft engines and is lighter and smaller, the heavier GE414 is capable of producing more thrust (97.5 kN). But Eurojet officials said the EJ200, which is the only five-stage compression engine in the world today, has the potential to meet the Air Force’s requirement of 100 kN.

The workshop was also an indication that the ADA has accepted the Air Force’s contention that the Tejas in its present configuration is unacceptable.

:

Now whom do you blame for this? GE and the US for an underperforming engine ? By the same arguments used about the Russian engine for the IJT and its TBO ,surely the equally "incompetent" 404 should've made the grade? Why didn't GE tell us that the engine would not perform as expected? This is an absurd line to take as how can any engine manufacturer guarantee performance if the aircraft is "two tonnes" overweight!

The hard truth is that we refuse to accept our own shortcomings (here in design) and are ready to blame someone else. Secondly,it is only when the problem gets critical that we invite a foreign entity to bail us out.It's my opinion that as far as the LCA is concerned,instead of simplifying its mission ,we've tried to turn such a small fighter into a multi-role mini-Sukhoi,Rafale,whatever and are suffering the consequences.Had MK-1 been brought out as fundamentally a superb air defence fighter with LR BVR and SR missiles,with a secondary strike role it would probably have been be in service a few years ago. The gun firing tests have yet to be done according to recent reports .

Anyway,the LCA at least has turned the corner and we hope it will be downhill from now on,but the IJT is still in the doghouse.

PS:Tx NR for those engine facts.How was the Saturn "satisfactory" some time ago and now found inadequate? I agree about the half-baked product.The flaw to me is that a design was created (which still has its own inherent flaws) and then the search for an engine took place,or if the French was all along the intended,it was a gross miscalculation by the designers.Even the second-choice Russian engine arrived 2 years late.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 01 Jan 2014 13:31

why is it that GE F404 is good enough for Gripen & even made it to super-cruise , but is not good for tejas
below are Gripen stats

General characteristics
Crew: 1 (2 for JAS 39D)
Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in); two-seater: 14.8 m (48 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,800 kg[232] (12,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan (version of 404)
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)

LCA stats

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg[125] (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,200 kg[125] (29,100 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[128] (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 89.8 kN (20,200 lbf[129])
Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
External fuel capacity: 2 x 1,200 litre drop tank at inboard, 1 x 725-litre drop tank under fuselage

empty weight for gripen is more than tejas & wing area is also less

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jan 2014 14:11

Drag due to stubby short fuselage it is alleged.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 01 Jan 2014 14:33

See, I told you guys, that Philip (and an ex-BR Admin to boot) is so deeply and irreversibly into the “Mother-Russia-losing-out-revenue-from-Indoos” related anxiety/depression, that we will have to put up with these kind of abundant stinks (he calls them "researched-posts" though), for god knows how long.
The recent AL-55I lemon-delivery triggered another bout of that sinking-feeling due to a possible Russian-revenue-loss and we have these pages-after-pages of stink.

So, to others my humble request is, pls take some pity on Philip’s diseased mind, and go easy on him ... "beemar hien bechara" to quote the infamous Munnabhai.

To quote ...

Philip wrote:Examine the history of the IJT and reason out why the sh*t has hit the turbofan,pardon the pun! Don't blame the Russians or the French if their engines didn't have enough power,or TBO time is pathetic. They can only build/provide according to specs. provided by the client and HAL is no new born baby in the aircraft industry,having built/assembled a thousand Russian engines at least.If the aircraft is overweight it is the fault of the designers,and this was no JV with anyone.Obesity in desi designs seems to be a recurring problem and is not unusual worldwide,except that advanced nations have more experience than us to rectify the problem and in quicker time.

For example,the LCA MK-1 is also overweight and it has affected its performance,therefore a MK-2 is in the works with a more powerful engine which will be the definitive avatar.A legit Q can be asked given the long gestation time for MK-1s IOC and the obesity problem long known,why the more powerful 414 wasn't fitted onto a prototype long ago? It could've advanced the definitive aircraft by a few years? There are numerous reports about the obesity problem and engine options,here is a 2008 report:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/ ... 80797.html
....
<snip>
....
Now whom do you blame for this? GE and the US for an underperforming engine ? By the same arguments used about the Russian engine for the IJT and its TBO ,surely the equally "incompetent" 404 should've made the grade? Why didn't GE tell us that the engine would not perform as expected? This is an absurd line toi take as how can any engine manufacturer guarantee performance if the aircraft is "two tonnes" overweight!

The hard truth is that we refuse to accept our own shortcomings (here in design) and are ready to blame someone else. Secondly,it is only when the problem gets critical that we invite a foreign entity to bail us out.It's my opinion that as far as the LCA is concerned,instead of simplifying its mission ,we've tried to turn such a small fighter into a multi-role mini-Sukhoi,Rafale,whatever and are suffering the consequences.Had MK-1 been brought out as fundamentally a superb air defence fighter with LR BVR and SR missiles,with a secondary strike role it would probably have been be in service a few years ago. The gun firing tests have yet to be done according to recent reports .

Anyway,the LCA at least has turned the corner and we hope it will be downhill from now on,but the IJT is still in the doghouse.

Now, for others, pls ponder the following points:

1) What has got a platform gaining weight (in case of LCA it was due to ASR change, which in a multi-decade program is quite understandable) to do with the engine TBO parameter?
GE F-404 TBO was perfect (actually the404-IN version has improved TBO over the baseline 404 version that ADA/IAF would have happily lived up with) for powering the platform that it was chosen for irrespective of it being overweight or not.
AL-55I didn’t – it failed so abysmally on the TBO front, that in it’s current form, it is not usable.

2) Chronology of events:
a) LCA 1st flight with GE F-404 was in 2001.
b) ASR change, that led to increased weight of the platform (e.g. R-60 being junked in favor of much heavier R-73 in the outboard pylon etc), was in 2004/2005.
c) By that time LCA had almost 600 odd hours of flying hours and test-point validations under it’s belt.

So, thank god ADA/IAF is not infested with Philipsique folks, and they went ahead with certifying the airframe with same old proven-engine – a decade long testing period is normal, and you do NOT change something as vital as an engine midcourse and start all over again.
Plus instable platforms with FBW, are quite easy to tinker with additional weights and moments on all 3 axis (of course, upto a certain acceptable level) provided the basic FBW system (so both software and the hardware) has been certified and baselined.

The relatively shorter path to MK-II from MK-I is exactly because you have a platform with a baslined FBW and other proven systems (e.g. hydraulic systems, actuators, ADCs etc etc) – and no, as much as Philip may try to fool others that MK-II is all about adding GE-414 only, it’s not so. The area-ruling aspects, the provisioning for a heavier AESA-based front-end, increased internal fuel volume, OBOGS, comprehensive internal Self-Protection suite, etc etc are quite important evolutionary steps that most platforms goes thru – and LCA is no exception (e.g. ditto in Gripen).
But adding each of these, will add weight penalty (and more subtle, but more complex issues of “force-torque and moment” mgmt. issues in all 3 axes) and a higher thrust (so more frontal area to cater to larger mass-flow, more weight due to a larger core) regime coming from a different engine maybe.

That’s exactly what has happened and is going to happen in the LCA programme.
Bringing it into a AL-55 TBO issue of the IJT programme is a huge FUD and only diseased mind like that of Philip can conjure up.

Now coming back to AL-55 TBO issue per se – some facts:
1) AL-55 is a de-novo engine development, the perf parameters of which were drawn up by HAL/IAF et all. It seems it meets all other perf parameters but not the TBO parameter.

2) The risk mitigation (aka the lemon selling Russians sold to HAL/IAF/MoD was) that it will be a cut-paste job of the core of the AL-31FPs being mass-produced, so it’ll be least risky towards timely delivery and performance-parameter meeting aspects.

There’s no other way for the Russians to make HAL/IAF/MoD junk the French Larzac engine on which IJT was deep into flight testing (1st flight - March 2003, decision to go for AL-55I in 2005-end) then.
And, true to its character, Russians were late (by 2 years atleast) and delivered an engine with 100h TBO (I can’t imagine that TBO value from a copy-paste core job – but that’ll be a diff discussion some other day).
And more true to it’s character, now that IAF/HAL/MoD is stuck with AL-55, Russians are asking for more money to increase the TBO value (Groshkov saga redux really).

IAF/HAL/MoD is stuck as the flight-testing upto IOC is almost done and, going for another engine, would surely mean re-doing it (or at least a major part of it – for example, the engine Fan and the air-intake marriage related tests) – resulting in more schedule slippage in an already very late programme.

And it doesn’t let HAL/IAF/MoD off-the-hook completely – it’s suicidal for HAL (and MoD and IAF to allow them of being led on that garden path) for having not realized the risk of a de-novo engine on a de-novo platform and that too in the middle of flight testing regime and swallowing the dangling lemon from our all-weather-friends.

PS: Betw the diabolism of Philips thought (he calls them "hard truth") is not lost to anyone, I hope.
Just like the IJT and Russians screwing us now saga, see how he advocates change of engine in the middle of flight testing phase of the LCA citing over-weight issues. The thinking surely is, ensure LCA never completes the flight-testing so that MiG 21/27 replacements (and thus the attended revenue) remains with the mother Russia. Nice try, I must say, though!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jan 2014 15:08

Ha! Ha! Diabolic Philip will strike yet again.Unfortunately some can't see the wood for the trees.Nitpicking without examining a project in its entirety is akin to myopia. Let's simplify the issue.

The IJT has inherent design flaws,is overweight ,required an alternative engine which unfortunately has a v. poor TBO,but presumably has enough power.Fundamental fact,who designed the aircraft? What were its weight specs in the ASR and why is it obese? Why was the French engine chosen in the first place? As far as the power issue is concerned,this is exactly what happened with the LCA,a whopping two tonnes overweight! In neither case is the engine manufacturer to blame as both birds are overweight.In the case of the IJT and Saturn,I repeat,what were the specs given to the Russians for the engine's TBO? Neither HAL nor the IAF (which has insisted on a better TBO) can plead ignorance.If the Russians are at fault,hang then,penalise them as I've been saying.Where am I protecting a supposed sub-standard product ? However,sub-standard design and project management is being protected only because it is desi and a few feel that DPSUs must be protected at all costs regardless of performance!

Back to the LCA.If 5 years ago the obesity problem was well known and that the MK-1 would not meet the IAF's requirements,why did it take so long to decide upon the engine for MK-2 which is supposed to be the definitive version? Surely MK-2 designing should've begun at that time well knowing that MK-1 would only be built in limited number? BRites will remember many Qs being asked for about 2 years after it had been announced that either the EJ or 414 would be chosen,and why there was a delay in the decision .At least a couple of years could've been saved if timely decisions had been made.As it is the aircraft is a decade late.Kalam promised us 200 LCAs by 2010 remember? If one goes through the chronology of the LCA one finds that it was only when the DM and air chief openly criticised the undue delays and gave final deadlines that events happened.There are some who may remember the BR meet when Rakesh Sharma and the CO AM of one of the commands were present and the topic was the LCA and RS warning us about the pace of the project and the challenges ahead.

These issues have nothing to do with the origin of engines for either programme ,but underscore the fundamental which we never learnt after the HF-24 experience,to first choose a suitable engine and keep within its weight limitations.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 01 Jan 2014 15:29

Philip wrote: ...<snip>
The IJT has inherent design flaws,is overweight ,required an alternative engine which unfortunately has a v. poor TBO,but presumably has enough power.Fundamental fact,who designed the aircraft?

Answer the following question:
How is the IJT platform being overweight got to do with poor TBO of AL-55I?

And how that poor TBO values of AL-55I is a HAL/IAF/MoD issue?

What were its weight specs in the ASR and why is it obese? Why was the French engine chosen in the first place? As far as the power issue is concerned,this is exactly what happened with the LCA,a whopping two tonnes overweight! In neither case is the engine manufacturer to blame as both birds are overweight.

Where have you seen (except maybe in your imginary domain) anybody blaming the Engine manufacturer for platform TWR deficiencies resulting out of an overweight platform? WHERE?

Rest as usual is FUD ... no point in tryign to answer those and wasting time.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Jan 2014 17:11

Philip wrote:LCA Blah di Blah, Bad Bad Indians blah di blah etc etc etc.

Please stop with the spin and answer the question.

What does engine TBO of the IJTs engine have to do with your fevered interpretation of thrust requirements for the LCA?

And why are the Russians unable to live upto their deal?

In fact, given your notable performance, I wonder why the HAL team didn't consider your pindi chana to power the IJT.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 01 Jan 2014 22:01

* Was there a contract for the AL-55I?
* Do we know what TBO the contract asked for?
* Were there any penalty clauses in the contract?
* Did we pay everything up front or did we insist on graduated payments on completion of benchmarks?
* Why didn't we choose an existing 16kN+ engine? (they were available afaik).
The answers will shed more light on this fiasco.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 01 Jan 2014 22:08

Isro junks IAF's Moon mission claim
Is this for real? If not, can TOI be sued in court? If true, who will pay with his head for this idiotic public spectacle? Will anyone in ISRO be fired if IAF produces said document? Will anyone in the IAF be fired for lying?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 01 Jan 2014 22:26

^Also, what about ToT if any for AL-55I.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2014 02:20

Karan,I will stop when the IJT sorts out its "spin and stall" problems,not the fault of any engine manufacturer but poor design.On the other hand It is past time for apologists of incompetence in our DPSUs to stop defending the indefensible.And please,for the umpteenth time,if the French or Russians have welshed on the TBO engine specs,contract whatever,penalise them.If they have done so,why isn't it being done?

And why have programmes like the LCA and IJT been delayed? One key fact is that both these aircraft were overweight thanks to their designs,leading to the inability of the original engine chosen to deliver,neccessitating an alternative.If the IJT hadn't been overweight,there would've been no need whatsoever for the "incompetent" Saturn-and who chose it?!

This incompetence in our DPSU establishments like the ADA,HAL,GTRE,etc.,to deliver on time and within reasonable extra cost is why the DM and IAF (and many before these two worthies)are p*ssed off with HAL and rightly so ,and apologists refuse to accept the liability and responsibility of HAL for decades of delays!

"...“That (IJT) project is delayed, delayed, delayed.."

IAF-HAL tiff threatens to shatter indigenization quest
Rajat Pandit, TNN Jul 31, 2013,

NEW DELHI: India's quest to indigenize its military aviation sector has taken a sharp nosedive, with a bitter battle raging between the country's only aircraft manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and its primary customer IAF on projects ranging from trainer aircraft to the futuristic fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).

The defence ministry, however, seems to be twiddling its thumbs in masterly inaction. IAF is aghast that HAL has proposed "surrendering 30% of its 50% work-share" in jointly developing the FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA with Russia, while remains hell-bent on developing a basic trainer aircraft (BTA) that the force does not need.

The crucial FGFA project, which will see India spending $35 billion over the next two decades to acquire over 200 of the stealth "swing-role'' fighters, has run into turbulence with Russia jacking up costs, as was first reported by TOI earlier this month.

"HAL is shirking away from a strategic project like FGFA but wants to manufacture a BTA when IAF is already inducting Swiss Pilatus PC-7 trainers. IAF simply cannot have two BTA to train rookie pilots, with duplication in spares, maintenance, infrastructure etc," said a source.

HAL has a dismal track record of huge time and cost overruns in projects ranging from the ongoing 14-year-delay in the Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT) to the light combat helicopter and light utility helicopter. "Yes, indigenisation is critical. But operational requirements cannot also be compromised," he said.

IAF wants MoD to scrap HAL's project to develop the BTA dubbed HTT-40, which is on the drawing board stage and will take several years to materialise and prove much costlier than the Pilatus trainers already being inducted.

IAF has sought approval for acquisition of 37 more Pilatus trainers immediately, and an additional 68 at a later stage to meet the overall requirement, to add to the 75 such planes ordered for Rs 2,896 crore last year. Citing all these, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne has written to defence minister A K Antony to ask for "foreclosure" of the HAL project, say sources.

IAF on Tuesday stated the HTT-40 would prove to be "62% more expensive from 2017 onwards", when it will be ready, than the Pilatus. "Conversely, the first 75 Pilatus will be delivered by 2015. And if the option clause is exercised, 37 more Pilatus could be delivered by 2017," it said.

When the Swiss aircraft was ordered in May 2012 after a global selection process, it cost Rs 31 crore per plane. "Even at the 2011 price levels, each HTT-40 would cost Rs 43.59 crore, around 40% more than Pilatus," it added.

HAL, however, has its own set of figures to hold the HTT-40 will prove much cheaper than the Pilatus in the long run, apart from generating indigenous expertise. Amid the wrangling, MoD is showing no signs of resolving the dispute taking place right under its nose.

AKA's angst:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 010_1.html

In the LCA ‘Tejas’ project, he said the DRDO was preparing for the second Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) of the indigenous fighter. He, however, added: “I am impatient for the Final Operational Clearance (FOC).” The LCA is about 20 years behind its schedule. After getting the FOC, the aircraft would be ready for operational deployment by the IAF.

The minister also expressed anguish over the delay in the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) programme being developed by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). “That (IJT) project is delayed, delayed, delayed... You must focus on that project and by the next conference, that should be ready,” he said.

PS:And AKA's angst is now almost a year old with little sign of the IJT making the grade!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 02:37

Yada, yada, yada...................... People will never stop complaining.

The fact remains that the LCA is still the cheapest project for such a plane and has taken the normal time taken by such an effort. Early 1990 to 2013 is a very good time.

The problems the Indian Labs have faced are those faced during natural progression - nothing new there. All such labs have faced similar problems - check out the engine for the PAK-FA, the definitive one is still not there and will not be there for another 7 years - if they get there (on Indian funds). Does not mean that the Russian Lab employes a bunch of idiots.

Muddying the waters and constantly repeating the sun rises from the south will not make it the truth.

The IJT will come when it comes. But, the fact remains that the Russians provided an engine with very inferior MTBO. Sadder is the fact that the Russians want *more* money to improve the MTBO to yet another number that the IAF finds inferior.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Jan 2014 02:57

Philip sir,

I fail to understand your logic. Saturn does not deserve any blame to design its engine because HAL failed to complete the spin recovery tests! What kind of logic is this. Both are to blame for their respective failures. But if I understand the situation correctly, there is every chance that HAL will complete the spin-recovery tests within 2-3 months. In fact the planes are going through the tests, you can see the modifications done to undergo those tests. But NPO Saturn ...

@Others,
Is there any news on why the engines are failing to deliver the required MTBO? They are providing the required power. And Saturn definitely has access to the materials required. Then why?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 03:39

Then why?

I *think* it is worse. The engine this engine was derived from *has* a MTBO of 1000 hours. I would have thought that the derivative would not be 10 times worse in MTBO. But who knows.

Having said that it seems to me that the Indians were aware of this low MTBO and accepted it.

On the other hand what were the Russians thinking I wonder?

May be both sides figured that the low MTBO was acceptable for the time being. Recall the Russians had still some work to do on the engine - it did not come problem free.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2014 04:00

What was the need for an alternative Russian engine in the first place? The IJT was never intended to be powered by a Russian engine,it was the French first.Why didn't we castigate the incompetent French for an underpowered engine then? If we want better TBO performance from Saturn's, if it was not in the original specs demanded by us (1000 hr TBO?) ,then we will have to pay more for modifications,just as we are going to pay more for the 414 replacing the 404 on the LCA!

Now here is a point that deserves some explanation.The IAF wants at least a 1000hr TBO while HAL is asking the Russians only for 1/3rd of that.What gives? Are the two,the IAF and HAL speaking the same language? Was the 1000hr TBO specified for the French engine? If so then Saturn cannot plead ignorance of the expected performance on this point.
Here is a 2004 media report on the change from French to Russian which may throw some more light on the issue.

---
Russian engine to power HAL jet trainer
Sridhar K Chari
Tribune News Service

Bangalore, May 6
The intermediate jet trainer (IJT) being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), as a replacement for the Kirans, currently in service with the Indian Air Force (IAF), will be supplied with an advanced Russian engine with more thrust and superior technology, from the same family as the Sukhoi -30 engines.

The engine, known as the AL-55 I, has many commonalities with the famous Lyulka-Saturn thrust vectoring engine AL-31 FP, powering the Sukhoi-30 MKI.

The IJT’s first flight in March, 2003, was with a Larzac O4-H20 engine made by the French Snecma Moteurs, which used to power the twin-engined Alpha Jet advanced trainer. While the IJT was generally well-received, not least because it took just 21 months for HAL to move from ‘‘metal-cutting’’ to “first flight” in a general scenario of much-delayed gestation periods, one key inadequacy that was noted was that the engine was not sufficiently powerful.

Snecma had proposed to develop a more powerful version of the same Larzac, but the cost factor became “alarming” in the words of HAL’s Chairman N.R. Mohanty. He told The Tribune: “We decided to invite bids, and the Russian proposal was much cheaper.”

India already has a deal with Saturn-Lyulka to produce the AL-31 FPs at HAL’s Koraput division, as part of the $ 3.3 billion deal to produce under licence 140 Sukhoi - 30 MKIs in India.

The AL-55 I will also be made at Koraput. Its modular engine, and like the AL-31FP, has single crystal blades which can survive high thermal stress. It generates 1727 kg of thrust, and has a thrust to weight ratio of 5.59. Even a small 12 to 15 per cent of extra thrust can make enormous difference, especially in a training aircraft being flown by rookie pilots. Mr Mohanty said under the deal, HAL will have all rights over the engine, including the right to export it. “It will be completely ours.”

The second prototype of the IJT flew recently on March 26, 2004, with HAL Chief Test Pilot Sqn Ldr Baldev Singh and Sqn Ldr S. Sapra, and the two prototypes between them have completed over 50 flights.. HAL has an order for a Limited Series Production (LSP) of 12 IJTs, while the final order is expected to be around 200. The IJT was designed and developed in a record time, benefiting from many of the technologies being developed for the LCA.

So from this report it is clear that it was HAL that chose the AL-55 engine,"owns it" and the responsibility for engine specs lies at its door.If the Russians have failed to deliver,penalise them.If not HAL cannot pass the buck.Regarding the inherent design flaws,"spin and stall" etc.,the designer HAL also "owns them"!

As for support for desi projects,pl. read what I've said in the LCA td.,that given the huge impending drop in numbers in the IAF's inventory,the goal should be 300 LCAs by 2030,not 200,a ROP of 20/yr,not at all an impossible figure if we concentrate and focus upon the key priorities like the LCA,FGFA,etc. instead of reinventing our versions of the Wright Flyer with our trainer turkeys.

PS:Indranil,the IJT 's new engine has a poor TBO.The key Q here is what performance specs did we demand from Saturn? That is an issue by itself.Secondly,the design has flaws regardless of the engine.Both combined has bedevilled the programme.It would be interesting to compare TBO time for similar trainers ,both western and eastern.

To put our efforts into perspective,and why delays and setbacks occur,perhaps the words of the late AM Mally Wollen,who was Chairman of HAL gives us the reasons.

Points of view

In the late eighties India's aircraft Industry was not as advanced as Sweden's; and yet India follows a more arduous design/development route for its LCA, compared to Sweden for its JAS-39 Gripen. The Gripen embodied a far higher percentage of foreign, off-the-shelf technology, including its RM-12 engine (improved GE F404). France (Dassault Aviation) built and exhaustively flew a demonstrator aircraft (Rafale-A) before embarking on construction of Rafale prototypes. Over 2,000 flights were completed by September 1994 when first Flight of a production Rafale was still 20 months away. At that point of time, Dassault Aviation had built or flown 93 prototypes, of which at least fifteen went into production Sixteen years elapsed from ‘first-metal-cut' of the Rafale demonstrator to entry into service. Current plans for the LCA is ten years. And what of India's past record? Just a hand-ful of trainer aircraft designed and productionised. The story is similar for the Typhoon (earlier Eurofighter 2000). It was seventeen years from 'first-metal-cut' (EAP) to squadron entry in 2000. One more timeframe needs to be noted. It took Gripen six and a half years from first flight (prototype) to entry into squadron. For the LCA, four and a half years is the target!
The quantum of test flying hours required to attain Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) is about 2000 hours; an impossible task in four and a half years. Concurrent production will shorten service entry time, but this will not enable the present target to be reached.

The LCA remains a high-risk project. All too often glitches occur in development of a fly-by-wire FCS. The Typhoon is an example; this, despite vast experimental work for over a decade by leading aircraft manufacturers in the UK and Germany (Jaguar, F-104, EAP). Engine development is the most complex of all activities. There are sure to be problems during flight development of the Kaveri, GTRE's first engine. Teething problems after service entry will occur; and major reliability improvements will be required in the first decade of its exploitation. Engines of the Russian fleet of fighters operated by the IAF (MiG-21 BIS, MiG-23BN/27M MiG-29) have this in-service history. Proceeding from this, four points emerge:

(a) India has its best designers, engineers, scientists, academicians working on/contributing to the project. In the main, they are devoted and tireless in their efforts to success-fully complete the project. They need support (not blind sup-port) of the polity, defence services and bureaucrats. Public support will follow, provided there is honest transparency;
(b) Costs of the project will escalate. (checks and balance are necessary, but let there be no inordinate delays, as have occurred in the past;
(c) The future of the aircraft industry, military and civil, depends on success of the LCA (and ALH, Saras, HJT-36) project; and,
(d) It is unlikely that the LCA will attain initial operational clearance (IOC) before 2010 When it is achieved, it will be an industrial success of magnificent proportion, and is sure to receive the acclaim it deserves.

A few words on final operational clearance (FOC). The entire avionics and weapon systems are con-figured around three 1553 B data bus. Mission oriented computation/flight management is through a 32 hit computer. Information: from sensors (e.g. multi-mode radar, IRST, radar/laser/missile launch-warning receivers); from the inertial navigation System with embedded GPS; from targetting pod (FLIR, laser designator) are presented to the pilot on a head-up-display and head-down-displays. A helmet mounted target designator steers radar and missile seekers for early target acquisition (during a 'close-in' air-to-air engagement with a Vympel R-73 missile, currently the best dog-fight' missile in the world). Laser guided bombs and TV guided missiles, require a pilot to initially 'zero-in' the laser designator or missile-mounted TV camera, on the ground target. Considerable engineering effort and expertise is necessary to achieve avionics-weapon integration and to prove the integration by live trials. Success here means FOC. Depending on what is stated in the (updated) ASR, it could take two years and around 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to FOC.

There will he setbacks in the flight development phase. All major engineering projects suffer them e.g. India's first two SLVs failed disastrously. The Prime Minister was present at the first launch at Sriharikota; so was this author. Disappointment was everywhere, but no recrimination; only determination to get it right. Loss of a demonstrator aircraft or prototype could take place, lives could he lost, leading to questions/debate. Therefore, let the recent transparency in tile program continue, even intensify; let it he honest, 2010 is not far, for a first' program of this magnitude and complexity.

The author, Air Alarshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd) was chairman Hindustan Aeronautics Limited from September 1984 to March 1988.

If time was a flexible constant ,one could drift along and accept delays as inevitable.Unfortunately,the IAF need replacements and upgrades across the board and cannot afford the luxury of time,esp. in the key role of training ."Time and tide wait for no man..."

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Jan 2014 04:21

We really have no data on what MTBO was agreed to with Saturn when they signed the agreement for the engine. I don't think both HAL & IAF who finalized the spec for the IJT engine would have agreed to 100 MTBO. At the minimum, the IAF would have specified at least the AL-31 MTBO hours, which is around 1200.

It is not HAL's alone to specify the engine parameters, as IAF would have had a major say in it. So I don't think HAL/IAF would have agreed to 100-300 hours MTBO for the engine. It appears that Saturn is not able to fully satisfy the agreed upon parameters. Maybe they will come up with changes in due course. When IJT received IOC, I don't think MTBO will be more than 300-500 hours, per all available sources.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 05:44

* LCA: Most cost effective and either better than average or average time to deliver. Why is there confusion on those?

the IJT 's new engine has a poor TBO.The key Q here is what performance specs did we demand from Saturn?

Whatever was required of a good engine that was derived from another engine that India believed in, which had a MBTO of 1000 hours. Russia met all aspects other than the MBTO, which we now seem to agree is an issue.

Both combined has bedevilled the programme.

Hope Russia can resolve the issue without asking for more funds. Seems to be Gorky all over again. A bad trend.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 06:04

May 6, 2004 :: Russian engine to power HAL jet trainer

Snecma had proposed to develop a more powerful version of the same Larzac, but the cost factor became “alarming” in the words of HAL’s Chairman N.R. Mohanty. He told The Tribune: “We decided to invite bids, and the Russian proposal was much cheaper.”

Since they requested bids, there is absolutely no way that India could have specified a low MBTO. The Russians were not the only party to respond to that bid request.

So, the question about what the MBTO may/could/would have been is not a valid one.