LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2014 13:54

ravi_g wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:As per defencenews, IAF has put up a demand for 250 Tejas mk2 and the government is offering an equivalent of $12 billion to help set up a parallel assembly line from the private sector, basically creating a HAL competitor.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141004/DEFREG03/310040022/India-Offers-Spend-12B-Break-Monopoly


From the link:

But Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired air marshal and adviser (for strategy) to the chairman of HAL, said no private-sector aircraft facility could build the LCA.


I agree that no private player can build LCA starting from scratch. Our private companies can't make cars or bikes without significant gaps in body panels. Why doesn't GoI consider a JV between HAL and private player, with private management?? It would bring the HAL's technology expertise and private company's agility, project management, marketing expertise together. Also would help mitigating financial risks for the private company with GoI backing. Its a huge risk for them without proper future plans. Because just building parallel line won't be enough. GoI has to find ways to keep it functioning for long with more orders from import. Also future for it through manufacturing of AMCA.

BTW I don't understand, while we cry over the extended time lines, what stops ADA from hiring more scientists and accelerate the work?? I can't think of any logical reason.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28108 » 05 Oct 2014 14:04

BTW I don't understand, while we cry over the extended time lines, what stops ADA from hiring more scientists and accelerate the work?? I can't think of any logical reason.


Unfortunately ADA has not got that leeway. People are allowed only to be hired via contract basis and just when they manage to teach them and get them into the groove they leave.There is a request for more scientists but who will hear ? Imagine having to hire a temp, then ultimately having to do the work of both the temp and your work.That is what happens in these situations.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2610
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby abhik » 05 Oct 2014 14:05

Thakur_B wrote:As per defencenews, IAF has put up a demand for 250 Tejas mk2 and the government is offering an equivalent of $12 billion to help set up a parallel assembly line from the private sector, basically creating a HAL competitor.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141004/DEFREG03/310040022/India-Offers-Spend-12B-Break-Monopoly

The source is Defense News so take with a bucket load of salt. The deadline for the Avro contract had to be extended because there were no bidders, this looks even more unlikely.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby JayS » 05 Oct 2014 14:43

prasannasimha wrote:
BTW I don't understand, while we cry over the extended time lines, what stops ADA from hiring more scientists and accelerate the work?? I can't think of any logical reason.


Unfortunately ADA has not got that leeway. People are allowed only to be hired via contract basis and just when they manage to teach them and get them into the groove they leave.There is a request for more scientists but who will hear ? Imagine having to hire a temp, then ultimately having to do the work of both the temp and your work.That is what happens in these situations.



I know a bunch of real smart people who would love to work in ADA if given a chance, even leaving a better paying jobs in private industry. But there are no opportunities there. If ADA comes up with some opening in Sept, they interview in Feb. They don't tell you what is the job profile, they don't reply to mails. Their interviews are grossly inadequate for judging any candidate. Their whole process is broken. And mind you this is the best that you can get, DRDO/ISRO are much worse.

I don't see anybody taking up such issues. You can't improve performance without improving human resources. This is bigger hindrance than the technology itself.

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 899
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Nitesh » 05 Oct 2014 16:03

Just saw saurav jha's tweet, it says: "Just to be clear; There is "no" ejection issue with the HAL tejas MK-1. And there is no weight reduction target for the Mk-1 either.

Rest he predicts that under Modi ji's government the rate of production can be increased to 16 per annum

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ravip » 05 Oct 2014 16:15

shiv wrote:The media are all biased. They survive only because they are paid to publish biased articles on behalf of someone.

It is unfortunate that we choose to believe anonymous reporters and cuss the AF as being stupid and incompetent.

Having said that - these are golden days for BRF. When I was adminullah my motto was "adi kollu" which means "hit to kill" and used the Red "ban member" button liberally after two whiskies. I was the one who did away with the code for banning that required two admins to enter the code simultaneously before a ban. I must have banned some friends of mine as well. But I can't recall for sure. In those days no one was allowed to cuss the armed forces based on lifafa reports. :mrgreen:


Sir I know I have to respect armed forces, and I also know how mods will tear apart for commenting bad about armed forces. But I had put a caveat over there that the my comment is to be considered if the sources are genuine. I always fear rohitvats when I am commenting something ill about armed forces and more over if I had not been a military jingo I wouldn't have been on this forum, even as of today I aspire to join army as I am still eligible and I am writing my CDS this Oct.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby sattili » 05 Oct 2014 16:25

Victor wrote:Who is this "everyone"? The MoD, especially a BJP MoD, can and will tell the IAF to shut up and swallow the LCA without complaint as-is if it is convinced that is the best thing to do, and the IAF will have no option but to follow orders. That however has not happened, has it?

BJP govt will do that if it benefits Ambani or Adani, else have no illusions about their performance.

The people who know the real situation must realize there is a good reason to not go whole hog with the LCA Mk1. All reports point to the fact that it will not be fully ready for combat even after FOC in its current avatar.

What are "all those reports?" care to post references? other than the DDM reports there are no official ones which comes to this conclusion.

A huge part of the problem is that it was designed without due regard to production line processes and ease of maintenance and DRDO/HAL has admitted as much.

Can you post any references of such admittance by ADA/HAL? On the contrary there are several references on how LCA Tejas was designed from ground up to consist LRUs that could help in its easy maintenance. There were more than 500 LRUs in the TD planes which were now brought down to 358 at the time of IOC2. 53% of those are manufactured indigenously and efforts are on to increase that %. Source: https://www.ada.gov.in/images/ADA-IND.pdf


A more fundamental problem was our weird obsession with a "light fighter" concept in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods. This is a product of our pathetically misplaced loin cloth and lathi mentality that has resulted in an aircraft that is fit only for pilots with shoe sizes of 9 or less. We should hope that the Mk2 corrects the shortcomings of Mk1 asap but the full changes needed may be more than merely cosmetic. If that is the case, we need to be patient and not put pressure on DRDO/HAL. It is now even more urgent that we get this right and rushing the design will be a disaster.

This is BS.

Tejas is light fighter not only because of its size but because of efficient engineering. There were detailed articles in Vayu magazine about those optimizations carried out in design and TD phase. TD-1 had 10K components which were brought down to 7k in subsequent flights. It had more than 500 LRUs which were brought down to 358.

Coming to the highlighted portion- I had a :rotfl: moment after reading that sentence. LCA is not the first aircraft that had problems with its cockpit arrangements nor it would be the last. To give you a perspective:
1.Nirmal jit Singh Sekhon couldn't fit in the GNAT fighter's cockpit initially, he had to modify a bit. That didn't stop him from flying and earning PVC for that valiant fight over Srinagar skies.

2.Several years ago Shiv posted a link to the Air Crash investigation report for SU7 which details how a design flaw/issue on the SU7 cockpit sliding mechanism resulted in it hit the pilot's head when he is trying to eject. That report also points to incorrect height adjustment that the pilot is flying with. That didn't stop IAF from deploying it for combat duties.

3. Su30 MKI had some issues on how the switches are placed in way it was difficult for the pilots to see and operate. This resulted in a crash and later IAF sealed off those switches or changed their location.

These DDM articles that are coming out now are clubbing together the issues which were reported overall several years to paint a bleak picture about the LCA. Perhaps the handiwork of the arms lobbies to drive up the dhoti shiver by a notch. I haven't read any IAF chief proclaiming that LCA Mk.1 cannot be employed for combat duties. Neither the Mk.2 was a IAF original requirement. It is well established that it was a Navy requirement which IAF latched onto.

As Indranil pointed above, 2-3hour turn around time is not that bad as it made to look like. Talk about lack of documentation is proven wrong by none other Mr. Tamil Mani of CEMILAC. Hope better sense prevails in India's MoD and it pushes for the LCA Mk.1 induction in quick pace.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1777
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Zynda » 05 Oct 2014 18:23

nileshjr wrote:I know a bunch of real smart people who would love to work in ADA if given a chance, even leaving a better paying jobs in private industry. But there are no opportunities there. If ADA comes up with some opening in Sept, they interview in Feb. They don't tell you what is the job profile, they don't reply to mails. Their interviews are grossly inadequate for judging any candidate. Their whole process is broken. And mind you this is the best that you can get, DRDO/ISRO are much worse.

I don't see anybody taking up such issues. You can't improve performance without improving human resources. This is bigger hindrance than the technology itself.


+100. ADA recruitment system is broken...no transparency, incomplete or highly generic job description and absolutely no feedback on your profile. To be fair, even pvt companies (both in desh & abroad) do not provide status on job applications for all applicants.

I guess being a Govt Org, ADA have to follow certain procedures (like providing a window for aspirants to apply and wait till the window is closed before deciding to interview) which are not inconstant with pvt practises...IMHO, for hiring contract workers, ADA can outsource screening etc. to some job shop or HR management firm.

ADA has quite a few projects on its plate...Tejas Mk-1, Mk-2 (may be 3) and AMCA. Time to hire more people and help build competent aero HR ecosystem in desh :)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2014 18:37

To be fair, even pvt companies (both in desh & abroad) do not provide status on job applications for all applicants.


Cannot talk about other nations, but in the US, feedback could have legal issues, which is why the US companies refrain from a feedback. In fact most let you know only if you were selected for a position. Some could be because of shear laziness.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 05 Oct 2014 19:52

It would be prudent to not get into a rage basis what appears in media; basis my interaction with some of these worthies on Twitter, I am convinced that all they do is highlight the negative aspects about any indigenous program or DRDO/DPSU.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28108 » 05 Oct 2014 20:19

I know a bunch of real smart people who would love to work in ADA if given a chance, even leaving a better paying jobs in private industry. But there are no opportunities there. If ADA comes up with some opening in Sept, they interview in Feb. They don't tell you what is the job profile, they don't reply to mails. Their interviews are grossly inadequate for judging any candidate. Their whole process is broken. And mind you this is the best that you can get, DRDO/ISRO are much worse.

I don't see anybody taking up such issues. You can't improve performance without improving human resources. This is bigger hindrance than the technology itself


yes and who do you think puts spokes in recruitment ? That is the problem that people in these institutes themselves complain about and have to watch helplessly.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28108 » 05 Oct 2014 20:24

.IMHO, for hiring contract workers, ADA can outsource screening etc. to some job shop or HR management firm.

Actually it has outsourced this and that is precisely the part of the problem - turn over of hands who are outsourced. Once you work there, you are easily lapped up by other companies.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 05 Oct 2014 22:18

The Make in India push by Modi will bear fruit soon but one of the biggest blocks in the way are India's labor laws. Modi will have to find ways of changing those laws quickly and/or workable means of side-stepping them. After that it should take little time to put a competitor in place to run a parallel line for LCA. BTW, it would make better sense to locate a new facility outside of B'lore. Someplace like Nagpur or Kanpur would be good.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_26622 » 05 Oct 2014 22:35

Check this out http://www.defencenow.com/news/142/indi ... level.html

Second para starts > According to the Indian Air Force (IAF), the move to produce LCA Tejas overseas will enable timely result and also be of superior production quality than that of the state-run HAL.

Desperation is seriously growing in Import lobby, importing a 'desi' plane ? What a load of cr*p.

Another UK-London based news firm selling off to highest bidder...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2014 23:51

Good out-of-the-box thinking - something Modi stated he wanted.

This is essentially outsourcing, something India is very, very familiar with.

Since the LCA is a strategic asset, risks associated with this move have to be covered, a topic that was addressed by Dr. Chander in his 2nd interview with Jha.

Personally, at the moment I do not see any problems with implementing this. Especially if the MK-II comes on-line around 2020 and makes a run of 200 by 2025. Beyond that Indian industries should be able to support future models of the LCA.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 05 Oct 2014 23:59

-deleted- didn't see the date of that report.
Last edited by Victor on 06 Oct 2014 00:04, edited 3 times in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 06 Oct 2014 00:01


This news is from 2011. Much water has flown underneath the bridge since then.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kartik » 06 Oct 2014 11:34

The news report that stated that any pilot with a shoe size bigger than 9 cannot eject safely from the Tejas appears to be, to put it politely, inaccurate.

National Institute of Design (NID) guys were involved in the human engineering and ergonomics design of the Tejas cockpit along with ADA, several years ago. The whole idea was to be able to design the LCA for the 95th percentile IAF pilot..meaning that only 5% of the pilots would be larger than the size to which the LCA cockpit was being designed. Now I would be really really surprised if the 95th percentile IAF pilot had a shoe size of 9.

link to article


Apart from this, the NID team will work on the ergonomics and human factors engineering support to LCA's cockpit environment
. It will help in packaging and look into the user interface aspect of the indigenous GITA software for the aircraft.


Reminds me of how the F-16, when first introduced to South Korea, required adjustments, since the average US pilot was larger and heavier than the average South Korean pilot and it introduced higher ejection related stresses on the South Korean pilots.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3933
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby deejay » 06 Oct 2014 12:40

@Kartik: I wouldn't worry about Shoe Sizes too much even if it is true. All 9 size guys will learn to fit into size 8 given the lengths folks go to earn their wings.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kartik » 06 Oct 2014 13:03

deejay wrote:@Kartik: I wouldn't worry about Shoe Sizes too much even if it is true. All 9 size guys will learn to fit into size 8 given the lengths folks go to earn their wings.


ahem..the shoe size meant the general size of the pilot..the IAF won't have guys with shoe size 11 trying to fit into size 8 shoes.

egress from the cockpit during ejection would have been a parameter that would have been studied for sure when ergonomics was being looked at. 95th percentile would have meant that even guys with shoe sizes 10-11 would have been taken care of during the cockpit design.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1777
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Zynda » 06 Oct 2014 14:27

prasannasimha wrote:.IMHO, for hiring contract workers, ADA can outsource screening etc. to some job shop or HR management firm.

Actually it has outsourced this and that is precisely the part of the problem - turn over of hands who are outsourced. Once you work there, you are easily lapped up by other companies.


This probably is OT...can continue to discuss further in a different thread if mods see it fit.

Sir, at least in desh, among the folks who join ADA/DRDO/HAL/GTRE, there are those who want to be part of a complex product development life cycle (learning potential) at the expense of excellence pay and others who want just good enough experience to make a transition to the pvt sector. It is the former who needs to be identified, mentored & nurtured so that they can do the same to the next generation of aero human resources. Unfortunately it is difficult to identify which category a person will fall in to, in a duration of 1-2 hrs (Typical interview time). IMO, just because of attrition, it should not stop ADA from increasing headcount.

Do you know which firm handles contract recruitment for ADA? :) I know a few folks who have some good aero-engineering exposure and wanted to be involved in the LCA project. I might forward the information to them based on their current interest levels. We can take this offline if you are not comfortable posting the above info in an open forum

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28108 » 06 Oct 2014 14:44

There is (to the best of my knowledge) right now a Project assistant recruiting call right now. Please tell them to see the ADA website right now under recruitment.
I will get back to you regarding the outsourced hirers. Someone known to me was recruited through them.Will ask details.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3933
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby deejay » 06 Oct 2014 15:49

Kartik wrote:
deejay wrote:@Kartik: I wouldn't worry about Shoe Sizes too much even if it is true. All 9 size guys will learn to fit into size 8 given the lengths folks go to earn their wings.


ahem..the shoe size meant the general size of the pilot..the IAF won't have guys with shoe size 11 trying to fit into size 8 shoes.

egress from the cockpit during ejection would have been a parameter that would have been studied for sure when ergonomics was being looked at. 95th percentile would have meant that even guys with shoe sizes 10-11 would have been taken care of during the cockpit design.


Kartik wrote:
deejay wrote:@Kartik: I wouldn't worry about Shoe Sizes too much even if it is true. All 9 size guys will learn to fit into size 8 given the lengths folks go to earn their wings.


ahem..the shoe size meant the general size of the pilot..the IAF won't have guys with shoe size 11 trying to fit into size 8 shoes.

egress from the cockpit during ejection would have been a parameter that would have been studied for sure when ergonomics was being looked at. 95th percentile would have meant that even guys with shoe sizes 10-11 would have been taken care of during the cockpit design.


Essentially, the size problem exists in Mig 21 too. If it exists in LCA, not a new problem so it is OK. If it does not even then its OK.

And, it is probable, that shoe size means shoe size and not other things. I know guys shorter than me and wearing bigger shoes. This can be understood from the peculiarity of leg length measurement used for Mig 21's.

In the Mig 21's, there were separate measurements for thigh length, seating height but no shoe size limit (IIRC). And they were finicky to the last mm. The thing is based on the exit route taken by the ejection seat, and at that point none of your body should infringe with control columns / cockpit structures. SO based on the structure of the seat, if your head protrudes out, or your knees protrude or the shoe tips or a multiple of these will be the limiting factor.

So, generally all guys at 6ft and above were in trouble. But not always. Some made it through. But even in the Mig 21, us being SDRE the figures wouldn't be very off than the 95th percentile for LCA. Another thing, may be you may try noticing - vary few tall Fighter Pilots around (though I don't know of any official data, just some pilot discussion).

However, all this is unimportant as a few lost out in the past too but I see no complains on that.

Anthropometric measurements are critical and sitting height, thigh length etc are important and vary. Some facts of the past may be read here to understand (not relevant with LCA, but the importance of Anthropometric measurements in IAF) http://medind.nic.in/iab/t07/i2/iabt07i2p40.pdf

Sorry, my URL thingy was not working on the full editor.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4436
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby srai » 06 Oct 2014 17:19

deejay wrote:...
Anthropometric measurements are critical and sitting height, thigh length etc are important and vary. Some facts of the past may be read here to understand (not relevant with LCA, but the importance of Anthropometric measurements in IAF) http://medind.nic.in/iab/t07/i2/iabt07i2p40.pdf

...


Quick scan summary of that article:
...

* Sitting Height (SH) < 91.5 cm - Fit for all Aircraft (around 60% of pilots/trainees fall into this category)

* Pilots with SH more than 96.0 cm underwent cockpit trials for Trainer B, as a one time requirement. They were found fit and continued fighter flying. Otherwise, trainee pilots with SH more than 96.0 cm are recommended unfit for fighter flying (around 3% of pilots/trainees fall into this category)

...

The major reason for higher rate of rejection for Trainer A but and higher rate of fitness for Trainer B during cockpit / encapsulation trials is the difference in the ejection systems. Hence safety concerns for both the aircraft types are different. The type of ejection system available in the Trainer A is semi-capsular ejection system. This requires that the safety criterion of minimum 5 cm distance between top of the helmet and a metallic plate located little below the canopy and just above the helmeted head, must be strictly adhered to during cockpit trials [1]. Trainer B, on the other hand, has conventional ejection system where the sequence of ejection seat firing is activated after the canopy jettisons, on pulling the ejection seat main firing handles. In case of failure of automatic canopy jettison, it has to be manually jettisoned. Thus there is bleak possibility of a through-canopy ejection. Hence the existing safety criterion of minimum 3 cm distance between top of the helmet and canopy suffices. ...

...

... The study reaffirmed that sitting height is the determining anthropometric factor in selection of pilots for fighter training. Since IAF continues to use Trainer A, an aircraft with strict anthropometric requirements, chances of a higher rejection of trainee pilots for fighter flying shall persist. ...

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3933
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby deejay » 06 Oct 2014 17:31

^^^ Yes, thats why say that does not matter with LCA.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 293
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby pushkar.bhat » 06 Oct 2014 19:35

pankajs wrote:GOI can make it happen if feels strongly about the issue.

One of the easiest ways of doing it is to hive-off the LCA prod infrastructure along with the staff into a separate company. Offer the selected private partner 51% shareholding with the rest 49% remaining with HAL or GOI. This way things start with the current infra and staff under private management. Later on facilities can be re-located, re-built, re-tooled, etc.

HAL will have a vested interest in its success by virtue of its minority shareholding. GOI will have a vested interest both because of minority shareholding via HAL and the need to create competition for HAL. With 49% shareholding GOI can block any M&A not in the interest of the country.

HAL will never willingly consent to competition and will require a lot of political push.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You think that the government is a fool to develop that air craft manufacturing capability just to Privatize it. The govt of india could not do that for Maruti and someone is talking of breaking up HAL. Further who will re-staff and reequip HAL with the production line capabilities.. Get real my friend..

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13440
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby pankajs » 06 Oct 2014 20:04

LCA line should be just one of HAL's work centers and going by the present production rate a very small part at that. Hiving off such a small segment will not cause much loss of staff or production capacity at HAL.

And as I have stated before IF government feels strongly about competition then it is ONE of the easiest ways to achieve it without disrupting production. It not a question of being fools or otherwise but a question of priorities. Privatization of profitable business has been done before.

On Maruti the GOI has sold majority control to Suzuki Motors. So not sure what the "GOI could not do for Maruti" means.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2014 20:07

NRao wrote:Good out-of-the-box thinking - something Modi stated he wanted.
..
Since the LCA is a strategic asset, risks associated with this move have to be covered, ... Beyond that Indian industries should be able to support future models of the LCA.

can you name/provide at least one facility outside India who would be willing to do this, and at the same time our strategic & security requirements are fulfilled?

this can't be treated like surrogate mothers !

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2014 20:08

prasannasimha wrote:There is (to the best of my knowledge) right now a Project assistant recruiting call right now. Please tell them to see the ADA website right now under recruitment.
I will get back to you regarding the outsourced hirers. Someone known to me was recruited through them.Will ask details.


Please do so, and post here. Would be really helpful for those who really wanna go there.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shrinivasan » 06 Oct 2014 20:45

indranilroy wrote:The only take away from that article is that the toe-touch problem (first reported in AI-11) may not have been cleared yet.

Indranil, even this has been Pooh-Poohed by people in the know...There is no ejection Seat issue, no lengthening of the plane, no issues with placement of components (deep inside the plane). also turnaround time has been proven time and again to be in 1-2 hours timeframe by HAL mechanics in IAF bases (away from their home base of HAL BLR). When in the hands of IAF mechanics in BRDs, with all parts and tools readily available, this should be reduced further or maintained...not increased. There could be wait time as there would be a limited set of LCA certified mechanics in any base to start with... but then this is a problem with any fighter. the (f)article smells lifafa all the way in khanland.
I met a Lockheed guy couple of months back on a flight to Dallas. He had just come back from Desh in connection with the second order for C130Js, and he was raving about the LCA, HAL's manufacturing etc.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 293
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby pushkar.bhat » 06 Oct 2014 20:55

pankajs wrote:LCA line should be just one of HAL's work centers and going by the present production rate a very small part at that. Hiving off such a small segment will not cause much loss of staff or production capacity at HAL.

And as I have stated before IF government feels strongly about competition then it is ONE of the easiest ways to achieve it without disrupting production. It not a question of being fools or otherwise but a question of priorities. Privatization of profitable business has been done before.

On Maruti the GOI has sold majority control to Suzuki Motors. So not sure what the "GOI could not do for Maruti" means.


I meant breaking maruti into multiple companies so that we could have chote chote maruti who will compete among themselves to make the same car.. Hope that clarifies..

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shrinivasan » 06 Oct 2014 21:13

williams wrote:The competition is not between desi technology vs phoren technology. It is DRDO geeky technocrats vs Phoren marketing professionals who know how to breeze/grease our Babus and top brass. It would be better if DRDO does the research and prototyping while the private sector do the manufacturing and marketing. That is the only way to win this competition.
any domestic private player is going to take time to settle in, the interim period could be worse than what HAL is in... an easier way is (along with encouraging private players) is to disinvest in HAL to the tune of 20% ASAP and set a roadmap for the future to get them more agile. in the meantime Private players like Reliance, TATAs and Mahindra would be ready with their game...

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28722 » 06 Oct 2014 21:43

Expanding HAL facilities would be a better way to go. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Anyway LCA Mk2 production is 5 years away.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 06 Oct 2014 21:50

can you name/provide at least one facility outside India who would be willing to do this, and at the same time our strategic & security requirements are fulfilled?


The article provides a few names and I am sure by now there are a few more.

Which IAF plane is totally Indian designed/made to be that concerned about security issues? However, like I mentioned, Dr. Chander has addressed security + strategic concerns in Jha's second interview.



The key question is how fast does India want to field the LCAs - I and II. IF India can handle the numbers then one does not have to look elsewhere (for anything in fact). Concerns, especially today, can be addressed by various means.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby koti » 06 Oct 2014 22:01

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:Expanding HAL facilities would be a better way to go. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Anyway LCA Mk2 production is 5 years away.


It might not be just for LCA. Mirage/Jaguar upgrades, eventual MKI/MMRCA and LCA upgrades can also be shared.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28722 » 06 Oct 2014 22:46

MMRCA/Mki, yes, but IMHO it will be too late by the time private players set up for Mirage and Jaguar. Those two birds will probably be retired in next decade and there probably won't be any future upgrades to either
JMT

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 06 Oct 2014 23:45

Shrinivasan wrote:
indranilroy wrote:The only take away from that article is that the toe-touch problem (first reported in AI-11) may not have been cleared yet.

Indranil, even this has been Pooh-Poohed by people in the know...There is no ejection Seat issue, no lengthening of the plane, no issues with placement of components (deep inside the plane). also turnaround time has been proven time and again to be in 1-2 hours timeframe by HAL mechanics in IAF bases (away from their home base of HAL BLR). When in the hands of IAF mechanics in BRDs, with all parts and tools readily available, this should be reduced further or maintained...not increased. There could be wait time as there would be a limited set of LCA certified mechanics in any base to start with... but then this is a problem with any fighter. the (f)article smells lifafa all the way in khanland.
I met a Lockheed guy couple of months back on a flight to Dallas. He had just come back from Desh in connection with the second order for C130Js, and he was raving about the LCA, HAL's manufacturing etc.

1. I don't know enough about the ejection seat issue. I have heard both sides. I can't believe that ADA would design a plane where a guy with an average shoe size will not eject cleanly. At the same time, I was absolutely besides myself when they had to ground the LSPs in Dec'12 because the pilot's head would hit the canopy before the chair!!! How could they have missed this for 10 years of flight testing?!!!!
2. I myself said that there is no lengthening of Mk1.
3. Placement of components are not being tinkered in Mk1. But saying that there is no issue is falsehood. Given the volume, they prioritized what the layout of components. This is standard on fighter jets (These are high performance machines handled by experts). With increased volume on Mk2, they have higher leeway and they can bring more things to the periphery (easier access). They themselves say it. Seems the most reasonable thing to say.
4. I know that Tejas has a very fast turnaround time. Prototypes have flown up to 3 times a day. But I have never read about 1-2 hours turnaround time. Can you please point me in their direction? As far as I know 2-3 hours of turnaround time in the field is considered really good.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8063
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 06 Oct 2014 23:57

With 26 degree AoA (i don't think they are going to go any higher), I think almost the entire flight envelop is open. I am really looking forward to AI'15. By then we will probably see the refueling probe as well. In the meantime, a few pictures/videos of tandem bombs carriage and BVR missile firing is going to keep this ardent fan chuckling all the way.

Added later: And sharper pylons would be a real icing on the cake. Though this can be done after FoC.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 07 Oct 2014 01:20

I think the concern here with LCA is that it is not a screw driver kit as with other things HAL produces in large quantities. That is the problem HAL is facing. Now, the only other solution is expand or form a new organization to produce LCAs with guidance from ADA+HAL and perhaps a firang kompany. security issues will be the largest.. exporting production units, means high heckle time possibilities! (just imagine 2 years lost for LCA control laws and mission computers sacked by LM folks during sanctions - did they return back to India later,... yet?).

I would like the bigger giants to come forward to establish assembly lines in India. HAL need not be the solo place, is a welcome move.. but not totally getting it done from foreign land. against all possible thoughts one can think about modi gov.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Shrinivasan » 07 Oct 2014 05:33

indranilroy wrote:.. 4. I know that Tejas has a very fast turnaround time. Prototypes have flown up to 3 times a day. But I have never read about 1-2 hours turnaround time. Can you please point me in their direction? As far as I know 2-3 hours of turnaround time in the field is considered really good.

This was in some discussion around Iron Fist 2013, I am not able to find that source now, anyway.. multiple sources including IAF have confirmed that 3 Sorties of the same bird were conducted in a day. Everyone acknowledged that it had one of the best turnaround times, obviously they would have exceeded IAF's requirement on this, else we would have heard this before...


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests