LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 18 Jan 2015 06:17

Karan, John, thanks. Very educational, as always.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 18 Jan 2015 07:09

Regarding patents, we at HAL didn't know that most of the work we do was worth a patent and only after Dr Tyagi insisted we looked at patents filed by international aerospace firms and found that there were hundreds and possibly thousands of patents that we could file. The credit for the patents filed so far and all those that will be filed should go to Dr Tyagi

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jan 2015 07:14

Raghuk, but whats the end objective. Are you guys using it as a method to protect your IP or as a metric to judge R&D output?
Also, whats the R&D scene. Money apart is there a serious focus on R&D now?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2015 08:05

what kind of patent will work on china?

member_28788 · Post by **member_28788** » 18 Jan 2015 08:58

Guys there are several ways to protect your intellectual property (IP). Filing patents is one of the ways. But in defence R&D its one of the worst ways because to file a patent you have to disclose all your technology in filling document. Infact the documentation for patent requires that it be of the standard that a person decently skilled in the field of patent should be able to reproduce it. If you've to be granted a patent you need that level of disclosure!

Secondly filling patents is nothing. You can file a patent for 3K. Granted patents is what matters and many patents get filed but get rejected. You can file a patent for anything for a pittance.

Thirdly is the legal enforcement- patent laws are not global- its a country level jurisdiction. A number of things that are patentable in US are not patentable in India like algorithms, business methods etc. Further in places like China patent and copyrights have little value.

Lastly, if a certain defence tech is being copied by a certain country you can do nothing about. Patenting it makes just easier to copy not better protected.

In terms of defence tech. non-disclosure is best. There is possibly no reason for defence tech patents, they only work well for civilian tech. These numbers are nothing but numbers built to impress but all these patents cant be of critical tech. If they are then we are giving away for nuts information for which otherwise countries throw everything at to get their hands on.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Jan 2015 19:49

Not just defence tech, patents are often not filed even for commercial products for similar reasons. Its too easy to copy or "improve" a process and too difficult and expensive to protect. Most of the time its just a matter of early advantage with the assumption that soon enough, others will catch on. DRDO/HAL would need a huge new legal division to police those filings, let alone any patents actually granted if the object were to protect.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2015 20:39

I was at the 100th aniv of the Wright Bros event in Dayton, OH. While talking with a WB historian (IIRC, their great-grand niece?), she happened to mention that after they invented and patented (as much as they could) the plane, they spent the rest of their life defending patents.

One of the two brothers was alive during the Berlin air lift!!!

member_28788 · Post by **member_28788** » 18 Jan 2015 20:54

There is one scenario where DRDO patents could be of slight use. Some defence tech are useful also as civilian use. Dual use technologies. If a technology that is sufficiently on the civilian side, available with MNCs anyways for a good payment, it might make some sense to patent. But then this scenario doesnt imply that we are also developing great tech suddenly, it only means that we are filing more.

<diversion+ extra info>
World Intellectual Property Organization however stipulates another way of protecting IP- through means of trade secrets. In this case IP is deemed a trade secret and it cant be disclosed by those having access to its knowledge. This is baked into the NDAs these persons may sign. If later it is found some one has accessed the IP/used it they can be legally challenged and be asked to pay for IP infringement. In this method you dont have to disclose IP but someone else if they reproduce it by their own means also have rights to it. Much of the trade secret method is common sense but in courts the stipulation allows you to defend them like IP technically.
</diversion+ extra info>

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 18 Jan 2015 20:59

@ NRao

Shivkar Bāpuji Talpade (born in 1864 in Mumbai) is an Indian scholar who is supposed to have constructed and flown India's first unmanned airplane in 1895., 8 years before the Wright brothers' Wright Flyer, the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight.

(How British Raj stole the details and had the Wright Bros on the job is another story)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivkar_Bapuji_Talpade
http://factsfootprint.blogspot.in/2012/ ... right.html

and we are quoting 100th aniv of Wright Bros, for defending patents ?

The importance of the Wright brothers lies in the fact, that it was a manned flight for a distance of 120 feet and Orville Wright became the first man to fly. But Talpade’s unmanned aircraft flew to a height of 1500 feet before crashing down and the historian Evan Koshtka, has described Talpade as the ‘first creator of an aircraft’.

(mods you can remove this post with justification/ or no-justification, i will not argue)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Jan 2015 21:03

MODERATOR NOTE: Gentlemen, please maintain thread focus and stick to LCA related topic(s). Thanks.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 18 Jan 2015 21:08

^^ Rohit

17 January 2015 IAF got its 1st Offical Production LCA, and there is no lunggi dance on BFR, I am amazed. (some exceptions are there)

I feel SAD, am i on the same BRF, I have been reading for past 12+ years?

and our MSM is projecting LCA induction in such a negative way!!! WHY?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Jan 2015 21:18

d_berwal wrote:^^ Rohit

17 January 2015 IAF got its 1st Offical Production LCA, and there is no lunggi dance on BFR, I am amazed. (some exceptions are there)

I feel SAD, am i on the same BRF, I have been reading for past 12+ years?

and our MSM is projecting LCA induction in such a negative way!!! WHY?

Couple of things - MSM's apathy driven ignorance about LCA is well know. So, no surprises there and we have the usual 'After 30 years.....blah blah blah'.

Coming to Lungi dance - I guess this is because of no visuals of the event. For some reason - and I suspect that reason is our new Defense Minister - there was no coverage of the event. May be, we'll see pictures taken by staff present at the ceremony or some official picture release but nothing of the sorts we have seen earlier. But new dispensation at MOD seems to have cracked the whip...more action, less talk.

So, it is a data-point in the LCA story. Now, awaiting the hand-over of SP-2 to IAF in March 2015.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 18 Jan 2015 21:31

^^ Rohit

Now days such visuals are available on DD not MSM and Blogs!!!

There were visuals for people who really followed the event. (not just on blogs and Pvt Channels,, 1-2 pvt chn also carried it)

Just a data point in History!!! (amen!!)

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 18 Jan 2015 21:45

d_berwal, Rohitvats,

Something else to munch on, for whatever its worth regarding the low-key hand-over ceremony:

IAF gets its first Tejas: Reluctant IAF finally toes the line

Interestingly, a top brass of Ministry of Defence (MoD), who was present during the event, told OneIndia that there were last-minute hand-holding between IAF and HAL ahead of the handing over ceremony.

"The IAF wasn't keen to accept just one Tejas and was insisting that they be given a minimum of four aircraft to justify the Squadron formation. In the interest of HAL and by respecting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Make in India vision, the IAF finally agreed to accept SP-1," the top official told OneIndia late on Saturday night.

HAL quoted the IAF Chief in a release as saying: "We are happy to receive the documents of the first series production of LCA."

...

For HAL Chairman Dr R K Tyagi, the dream of handing over SP-1 during his tenure was fulfilled on Saturday. Tyagi, who is set to retire on January 31, ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2015 22:30

wow! it would be hard to win future wars on dogmas

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 18 Jan 2015 22:40

vivek_ahuja wrote:d_berwal, Rohitvats,

Something else to munch on, for whatever its worth regarding the low-key hand-over ceremony:

IAF gets its first Tejas: Reluctant IAF finally toes the line

Interestingly, a top brass of Ministry of Defence (MoD), who was present during the event, told OneIndia that there were last-minute hand-holding between IAF and HAL ahead of the handing over ceremony.

"The IAF wasn't keen to accept just one Tejas and was insisting that they be given a minimum of four aircraft to justify the Squadron formation. In the interest of HAL and by respecting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Make in India vision, the IAF finally agreed to accept SP-1," the top official told OneIndia late on Saturday night.

HAL quoted the IAF Chief in a release as saying: "We are happy to receive the documents of the first series production of LCA."

...

For HAL Chairman Dr R K Tyagi, the dream of handing over SP-1 during his tenure was fulfilled on Saturday. Tyagi, who is set to retire on January 31, ...

The bolded part is exactly why the BRFite is unable to celebrate. Moving on,

We haven't heard of any additional commitments to the Tejas from the MoD-IAF-HAL meet yet.
We don't know if HAL's request for funds to setup a production line for 16 LCA per year will be accepted.
We haven't heard of any HAL + private industry partnership with HAL licensing its intellectual property for creating a faster and larger production plant.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jan 2015 23:45

Reading the media reports,the first yr. will see just 4 LCAs,followed by 8/yr afterwards.Until about 16-20 aircraft are built and a dedicated sqd. formed,the aircraft will not be in any way combat ready.The formation of the first sqd. ,combat ready,will therefore be only sometime in 2017 .The definitive MK-2 version with the intended capabilities which the IAF wants has yet to see the light of day. It has taken us 32 years to get this far.Let's hope that further progress will accelerate like a downhill racer!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Jan 2015 23:53

What is this "after 32 years finally handed over Tejas to IAF" stuff? Wasn't that done long ago at IOC-1? Isn't final/physical handover to IAF at FOC later this year?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Jan 2015 00:16

vivek_ahuja wrote:d_berwal, Rohitvats,

Something else to munch on, for whatever its worth regarding the low-key hand-over ceremony:

IAF gets its first Tejas: Reluctant IAF finally toes the line

Interestingly, a top brass of Ministry of Defence (MoD), who was present during the event, told OneIndia that there were last-minute hand-holding between IAF and HAL ahead of the handing over ceremony.

"The IAF wasn't keen to accept just one Tejas and was insisting that they be given a minimum of four aircraft to justify the Squadron formation. In the interest of HAL and by respecting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Make in India vision, the IAF finally agreed to accept SP-1," the top official told OneIndia late on Saturday night.

HAL quoted the IAF Chief in a release as saying: "We are happy to receive the documents of the first series production of LCA."

...

For HAL Chairman Dr R K Tyagi, the dream of handing over SP-1 during his tenure was fulfilled on Saturday. Tyagi, who is set to retire on January 31, ...

You forgot to highlight another part of the same report.

The part in blue above explains why a single a/c was handed over when the RM had made a statement in only couple of weeks back stating that SP-1 will be handed over by March 2015 along with SP-2.

http://www.oneindia.com/india/manohar-p ... 98000.html

"The first of the IOC standard Tejas (SP-1) has been built and successfully completed its maiden flight on September 30, 2014. This aircraft will be handed over to IAF by March 2015 after some upgrades," Parrikar informed Lok Sabha in a written reply.

I hope HAL shows same level of alacrity in actually meeting the delivery schedule.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Jan 2015 02:48

Weather hits Tejas upgrades

BENGALURU: As Team Tejas burns the midnight oil to integrate new weapon systems and upgrade other capabilities on the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas as mandated by the Indian Air Force (IAF), bad weather has taken away many flying hours, critical for testing such systems before certification.

From January 4, 2001, when Wing Commander Rajiv Kothiyal flew the first LCA prototype marking the maiden flight of the fighter jet to January 17, 2015, the day the first aircraft was handed over to the IAF, 2,850 trial flights of LCA have taken place.

If the first flight tested basic airworthiness, the subsequent ones have had greater challenges. Notwithstanding the nature of tests each of these flights carry out, ranging from weapon delivery to navigation, trial flights are crucial, senior IAF officials say.

However, Team Tejas was forced to abandon 80 scheduled flights last year, some attempting to even test the Russian Gun integrated with an LCA prototype. IAF has been pressurizing Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) which has designed LCA to have this feature on the plane.

ADA chief PS Subramanya told TOI: "Not everything is under our control. Last monsoon saw 80 of our trial flights get cancelled, which means that we have to fly them this year to check the efficiency of the systems and the performance."

Without these test flights, ADA cannot guarantee IAF of the performance, nor get certification. In 2014, a total of 350 test flights took place, about 150 less than 2013, which saw 500 flights. "...A few flights also had to be postponed because of technical reasons," Subramanya said.

The team, which is currently working on integrating mid-air refuelling capabilities on Tejas is looking at achieving more than 500 flights this year, which will prove crucial with a final operational clearance for LCA expected next year.

A total of 15 LCAs lie in the hangers of HAL, including the seven Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft, two Technology Demonstrators, three Fighter Prototypes, two Trainer Prototypes and one Naval Prototype. The LCA SP-1, which was handed over to IAF on Saturday is the 16th.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 19 Jan 2015 04:12

Congrats LCA team!!!
The trickle has started. May the deluge follow!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jan 2015 12:45

Unless real "nut-squeezing" pressure is applied to the "hanging fruit" of the DPSU heads,progress will remain IST. The requirement of a gun is an absolute for the aircraft.IT is short legged,will have to carry drop tanks until the refiuelling probe is installed on the Mk-2,and at the most will be able to effectively carry 4 AAMs.Its chief advantage is small size,low rcs and dogfighting ability,where the requirement of a gun is vital. Testing the gun from the aircraft is the most important,gas ingestion,vibration,etc. are factors that need to be sorted out. It looks like the ADA has been trying to fudge the issue. Time for the "nutcracker" to be used.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 19 Jan 2015 13:46

Philip,

Its pathetic DDM reporting. Coming from the toilet, I guessed even before I clicked the link. Why pay attention or give bandwidth to it. Worse of all why get upset? Take some time to setup investigative effort at AI2015, all of 20 days away. Between you and shiv alone, you can gouge a lot of meanungful info without relying on the young 'uns.

They will make some more noise re. LCA over 1/26. LSP2 and NP2 will likely show. All in all the LCA is a reality, the gun has been fired from the ground and its testing is a formality. The plumbing is there for the probe. No one should be concerned about them.

Frankly except for LSP6 related matters, now pushed to MK2, the rest is immaterial from a "getting upset" point of view. We should be askung --

- engines imported /received
- the 2nd squadron to convert -- numberplated or new?
- navy firm orders?
- tail hook testing
- ejection seats imported/ coming?
- rate of production
- radar indegenisation
- python/ derby integration
- rcs open source?
- weight reduction / lru integration
- networking
- jamming comparable to what?
- Is sulur ready? Housing? People conveniences? hangers? night flying? instrument ops?
- tail hook ops possible in goa with 29k? are landings happening? weight of the tail hook?

and so much more. with close to 20 craft now, it takes 1 sortie from each craft each week to both train a squad, and finish off 1000 hours over a year. Ignore the FUD. Its time to look beyond the 40 MK1.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jan 2015 17:45

60% of LRUs are local in SP-1. Fairly decent and emphasis should be on taking it to 80% as wished.

shravanp · Post by **shravanp** » 19 Jan 2015 19:15

Ever since I was in my high school, I used to dream of LCA being as Mig-21 replacement. Su 30s were nowheres in picture then. Finally the dream came true.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 19 Jan 2015 21:44

While l have been critical of IAF for their reluctance to give full support to LCA but the excuses for delay given by ADA-HAL are extremely pathetic and even childish.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Jan 2015 23:48

The % of local manufacturing v/s % foreign import is immaterial to IAF as it is, except of course logistics part.

All in all the LCA is a reality, the gun has been fired from the ground and its testing is a formality. The plumbing is there for the probe. No one should be concerned about them.

Great to know! Great job overall. I remember once reading somewhere that it took many countries about 30 years to build an aircraft - mostly first Gen ones or the latest Gen. Considering that few countries build latest Gen or from grounds up, 30 years is average. In fact, for India it is a great job overall. BAHUT GARV to see LCA in IAF colours. This time around Sankranti is great to hear a lot of developments in the defense area. There is need to now push a lot now to see these developments in line production.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 20 Jan 2015 00:40

skekatpuray wrote:Ever since I was in my high school, I used to dream of LCA being as Mig-21 replacement. Su 30s were nowheres in picture then. Finally the dream came true.

Amen brother Amen

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Jan 2015 00:49

Philip wrote:Unless real "nut-squeezing" pressure is applied to the "hanging fruit" of the DPSU heads,progress will remain IST. The requirement of a gun is an absolute for the aircraft.IT is short legged,will have to carry drop tanks until the refiuelling probe is installed on the Mk-2,and at the most will be able to effectively carry 4 AAMs.Its chief advantage is small size,low rcs and dogfighting ability,where the requirement of a gun is vital. Testing the gun from the aircraft is the most important,gas ingestion,vibration,etc. are factors that need to be sorted out. It looks like the ADA has been trying to fudge the issue. Time for the "nutcracker" to be used.

Philip,

Good post, some of my thoughts.

What does it cost to do Air to Air Refueling.
Given the high speed refueling probe of KC series for USAF the cost is somewhere between 25-40$ a gallon (atleast ten times than the cost of refueling on ground) (1). Given that we have 6 refuelers and it takes longer to offload, as we use a drogue based system, the cost to offload and ingest is also higher. Having said that, let me ask again. Given that we have 6 refuelers and it costs buku bucks to do air to air refueling, how many refueling sorties do you think they are going to task for the LCA while they bring up this squadron. Would they not get higher ROI just tasking the A2A fueling for the MKI/29s/2000 & the jag fleets?

For a forseable future, as the pilots get trained and bring the LCA fleet online and work on the manuals/protocols, there is no real need for A2A refueling. In a year or two surely they can start training doing refueling sorties. What would serve the forces very well, is a small canberra sized plane that works as a dedicated refueler for each squadron for practice runs. LCA pilots will probably do many cycles of Connect/Fuel for a few mins/ Disconnect cycle to get used to do doing this in the field under different conditions.

95% of the time, the fleet will fly with "External tanks" and it is more important to learn how the craft handles when loaded rather than A2A fueling at the moment.

1
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... ain/62654/
With all the talk about the capabilities of the KC-30 vs. the KC-767, no one has yet mentioned just what the real costs of air refueling is. The reason the USAF is interested in reusing the KC-135 infastructure is so they don't have additional costs associated with buying a new airframe.

Using the KC-135R as an example, it costs the USAF $25 for each US gallon of JP-8 delivered to the receiver aircraft. That is an average figuer based on a 2.5 hour tanker mission offloading 100,000lbs of fuel, at a distance of 500nm. The cost for each gallon delivered from a KC-10A flying the same mission is $34. Both the KC-767 and KC-30 will have a cost of more than $50 per US gallon of JP-8 as these airplanes have not been paid off yet. You can expect the costs for the KC-767 to drop into the mid $30 to low $40 range and the KC-30 to be about $3-$5 more after these airplanes are paid off.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jan 2015 02:44

Philip wrote:Unless real "nut-squeezing" pressure is applied to the "hanging fruit" of the DPSU heads,progress will remain IST. The requirement of a gun is an absolute for the aircraft.IT is short legged,will have to carry drop tanks until the refiuelling probe is installed on the Mk-2,and at the most will be able to effectively carry 4 AAMs.Its chief advantage is small size,low rcs and dogfighting ability,where the requirement of a gun is vital. Testing the gun from the aircraft is the most important,gas ingestion,vibration,etc. are factors that need to be sorted out. It looks like the ADA has been trying to fudge the issue. Time for the "nutcracker" to be used.

Mk-1s will have refuelling probes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2015 03:09

Khalsa wrote:
skekatpuray wrote:Ever since I was in my high school, I used to dream of LCA being as Mig-21 replacement. Su 30s were nowheres in picture then. Finally the dream came true.
Amen brother Amen

+108. We have lost many true real sons of the nation on the migs.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 20 Jan 2015 04:27

My continuing nitpick re. refuelers. All Su30, 29k and in the near future 29s can refuel. There is no delivering fuel at 500nm in the IN/IAF equation. There is no point in doung TFTA equal-equal unless wanting to go fight in south china sea.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 20 Jan 2015 04:46

Shreeman wrote:My continuing nitpick re. refuelers. All Su30, 29k and in the near future 29s can refuel. There is no delivering fuel at 500nm in the IN/IAF equation. There is no point in doung TFTA equal-equal unless wanting to go fight in south china sea.

I think the whole requirement for the in-flight refueling requirement for the LCA stems from the argument that the IAF wants to have the option for it, should the need arise. Does not mean, however, that they will be using it a lot.

Especially given a pathetically small tanker fleet, there is never going to be the luxury of refueling every fighter over the front-line. But if required, the LCA should have that option, no?

In-flight refueling is not just for ferrying flights at long ranges. It is possible that the aircraft engaged in combat and evasive maneuvers might be low on fuel even a couple hundred kilometers from the airbase. In flight refueling gives the pilot and air-force some options in that scenario.

But I do agree that it should be lower down the priority list. Certainly not enough to justify delaying the induction of the aircraft.

-Vivek

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Jan 2015 05:09

Vivek,

Agree with you. My argument is that it aint no show stopper and lets not call it one. We don't really have tanker fleet that can support 400 aircraft at war. Surely we need it and every type needs to be able to do it, but it certainly aint a show stopper like every news article claims it is.

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 20 Jan 2015 06:06

How many refuellers do we need to support 400 aircrafts at war times?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jan 2015 06:31

Indranil, Did the wake penetration tests occur?

Also is there a chart by ADA showing the tests and the objectives?

Thanks, ramana

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 20 Jan 2015 06:32

sarang wrote:How many refuellers do we need to support 400 aircrafts at war times?

Without getting bogged down in specifics, (and assuming that every aircraft needs to be refueled mid-air, which is not true!) it comes down to the following:

If you have ~400 fighters in your air-force, you *may* be able to get about 100 of them in the air for a major offensive. This assumes that for every airplane in the air on the front, some are either en-route, departing or on the ground for a turnaround (being rearmed or repaired).

Each tanker can, depending on the size and type of aircraft involved, refuel between 4-6 fighters for a two way mission.

So 100 aircraft at the front require around 15-20 tankers to keep the cycle going. Add to that the turnaround of the tankers themselves, plus the need to refuel much bigger aircraft such as AWACS etc., and that number becomes 25-40 for a major air campaign.

Now granted that the Indian air force is only going to fight the local war in its neighborhood, and that airbases will be available close by, the number comes down for the tankers. So about 10-15 tankers might do the job.

We have, what... 4-6 tankers?

As a data point to the above model, consider that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the USAF needed 182 tankers forward-deployed (not counting another 110 tankers that were supporting the inter-theater airlifts) to support ~1500 coalition aircraft in theater (not counting tankers). The ratio for shooter-to-tanker is somewhere around 8:1. Assuming the IAF had closer airbases, 100 aircraft (not counting tankers) would need about 12-13 tankers. So that it fits in the back-of-the-envelope analysis I posted above.

-Vivek

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Jan 2015 06:35

Sarang,

Dunno, but here is something to think about.

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123256315

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 20 Jan 2015 07:37

When will LSP 6 fly? What happened to the spin tests? Aren't they more important than other tests?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Jan 2015 08:00

ramana wrote:Indranil, Did the wake penetration tests occur?

Yes

ramana wrote: Also is there a chart by ADA showing the tests and the objectives?

No.

hanumadu wrote:When will LSP 6 fly? What happened to the spin tests? Aren't they more important than other tests?

There will be no LSP 6. All tests envisioned for it have been taken care of with other LSPs.