LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

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.
Post Reply
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

Mihir wrote: I don't buy this argument. Just because the performance can be increased by up to 40% by using new materials/technologies, doesn't mean that it should be foisted on the design at this phase. The priority should be getting an adequately capable fighter into service, instead of subjecting the design to constant changes. That's a sure-shot way of keeping things in a state of perpetual limbo.

The new radome can be tested as a possible retrofit option once the base Tejas Mk-I enters squadron service, instead of making it a requirement for FOC.
I think you forget that Tejas Mk1 in IOC-2 configuration IS entering service w/o all that which is supposed to certified with FOC.

And ADA was seized of this Radome issue since 2012. It is not some design change foisted on the plane at nth hour. I find it surprising that it never occurred to someone that such a huge jump in radar performance can be had due to factors external to Radar design.

Also, bits and pieces of information on the net say that ADA Radome had issue with lightening and rain-water ingress!

Here is the link:

http://www.aame.in/2012/12/ada-wants-yo ... e-for.html

Question that should be asked of ADA was why did it wait for this long to come up with request for external help?
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4308
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by fanne »

Maybe because team LCA may have tried to find a solution in house, tried for 2-3 years, failed and then went for external help. Sounds reasonable. What is surprising is that Radome of SU30MKI, naval Jaguars (with radar) etc is being manufactured (I assume with TOT) in house, how come they cannot replicate something similar for LCA. Maybe there is something more to this story.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

Yes understanding also is the original radome does not clear all tests and not just improved radar range
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4308
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by fanne »

Except for refueling, nothing is a show stopper, they should go ahead with the plane in current config. Refueling has a potential to break this program (if it is discovered that it cannot be done without major redesign or tweak to FCS which will take another 2-3 years), if it is bad, they should induct MK1 without refueling and try refueling in MK2). Also please order 100 LCA mk1 at least.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by abhik »

chaanakya wrote:I meant war with pakis. so 62 is not in consideration.

OT but didnt Banditjis Forward Policy trigger the war of 62?
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Sagar G »

pankajs wrote:Massive dhoti shiver in the DRDO community wrt LCA it seems. I still hope believe that Modi will give a big push to LCA.

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 42m 42 minutes ago >>

* Nowhere in the world does so much of the envelope have to be proven for FOC. IAF's policy with regard to this needs to be reviewed.
* To refine a combat jet. Everybody learns and the combat jet becomes better.
* Everybody tries to get their homegrown fighter into some sort of squadron service and series production first. Bcoz that is the real way.
* Our favorite R&D org is trying its best to complete hawa bahadur's changing requirements by end 2015.
* Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
* People at our favorite R&D organization are completely demoralized at the moment. They sounded quite dejected. Talked to them this morning.
* Any move to sideline Tejas with an imported design would be nothing short of the Weimar betrayal.
* Why does a radome need to be changed right at the end of a program? And how many jets have had to be IFR qualified before FOC ?
* I just hope the Tejas Mk-I does not end up going the BAC TSR.2 and CF-105 Avro Arrow way.
* We need some strong statements in support of the HAL Tejas. And the strongest statement would be an order for 4 more squadrons of Tejas MK-I
Relax Tejas is safe, this is a pressure tactic being used by Parikkar to push the project into completion and since first time Indians are experiencing such push from the top hence some :(( being witnessed. The present delay isn't much cause for worry since this is the last leg.

Guys, Fadnavis promised a defence manufacturing policy not a Gripen Next Gen. manufacturing plant so please get some hold over your nerves.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

Sagar G wrote:<SNIP> Relax Tejas is safe, this is a pressure tactic being used by Parikkar to push the project into completion and since first time Indians are experiencing such push from the top hence some :(( being witnessed. The present delay isn't much cause for worry since this is the last leg.

Guys, Fadnavis promised a defence manufacturing policy not a Gripen Next Gen. manufacturing plant so please get some hold over your nerves.
Finally, some sane words!!!
member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_20453 »

rohitvats wrote:And all this talk about 'some other' light weight fighter is total hog-wash...it's not some bloody tissue paper you're buying from a store!

What it seems has happened is that the for once, the R&D guys are having some explanation to do. The IITian at the helm of affairs does understand a thing or two about technology, unlike other worthies who've warmed that chair, and is asking relevant questions.

Actually, this is more like Navy model of dealing with DRDO - have your own chaps who understand technology so that DRDO does not take you for a ride!
I hear different, I hear an Indian 5th gen light weight fighter single engine concept design has been shared with the DM/Chief of DRDO, this could be the other single engine possibility that the DM talks about. So far the designer has had a few meetings, we will hear more in the coming months. All chatter points to a revolutionary new 5th gen design which is unlike any other anywhere. If this chatter is to be believed, we are in for a treat soon. The designer even had a high level meeting last week.

The other single engine fighter is certainly not the 'Gripen'
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chaanakya »

shiv wrote:
chaanakya wrote: Ever since 1948 war like conditions have always existed on the border with Pakistan with varying intensity. That is the situation making of pakistan. But actual war started only when India decided to fight it out.
This is what I mean by a "semantically accurate statement" Pakistanis use exactly your argument, worded slightly differently. "Ever since 1948 war like conditions have always existed on the border with Pakistan with varying intensity. Pakistan is under constant threat from Hindu India which has chosen its own dates to make war with Pakistan. Pakistan has won every war because Pakistan has thwarted Indian war designs every time"

I personally think you are twisting words to suit your argument. Everyone has a right to do that. Which is quite OK as long as you are happy with it. But it is nonsense and it would be OT for me to shove the argument about why it is nonsense down everyone's throat on this thread.
Hakim Saheb. 2008 is case in example when India did not choose to make war despite grave provocation from Pakis. And it is not semantically but also factually correct statement. And why I feel it is relevant in the context of LCA and Rafale is that NaMo has accurately assessed that India is in no position to force Pakistan to agree to its terms in the event of war and subsequent cessation of hostilities. It would divert attention from development which is required to build political, economic and financial wherewithal to force Pakis or carry out high profile operations and tell the world loudly about it like OsMama termination. So he has chosen not to take a path which would lead to war. i.e. he is setting the agenda and would decide when to go to war if Pakis continue to demonstrate their pakiness. After all he has chosen not to say a single word about beheading while breathing fire and fury during elections. Paki argument will be humbug as they are creating war like situation while India decides when to escalate to actual war. Pakis do it as they know what will happen to them in the event of war and try to test new threshold everytime. May be 2008 was trying to test Cold Start but it was frozen. They may again try to test it and NaMo is diplomatically maneuvering to postpone this test from Pakis to some suitable future date when India is ready for 2.5 front war.

And it would be OT yet educative to demonstrate , in some other thread, why India did not decide war dates. No new post on this from me in this thread as it would derail.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59853
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

SagarG, Parrikar right not Fadnavis?
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Mihir »

rohitvats wrote:
Mihir wrote: I don't buy this argument. Just because the performance can be increased by up to 40% by using new materials/technologies, doesn't mean that it should be foisted on the design at this phase. The priority should be getting an adequately capable fighter into service, instead of subjecting the design to constant changes. That's a sure-shot way of keeping things in a state of perpetual limbo.

The new radome can be tested as a possible retrofit option once the base Tejas Mk-I enters squadron service, instead of making it a requirement for FOC.
I think you forget that Tejas Mk1 in IOC-2 configuration IS entering service w/o all that which is supposed to certified with FOC.

And ADA was seized of this Radome issue since 2012. It is not some design change foisted on the plane at nth hour. I find it surprising that it never occurred to someone that such a huge jump in radar performance can be had due to factors external to Radar design.

Also, bits and pieces of information on the net say that ADA Radome had issue with lightening and rain-water ingress!

Here is the link:

http://www.aame.in/2012/12/ada-wants-yo ... e-for.html

Question that should be asked of ADA was why did it wait for this long to come up with request for external help?
Rohit, these are two separate issues.

Rainwater ingress is not a function of the material used for the radome. It can be addressed by using tighter tolerances and perhaps a different gasket design.

Improvement in radar performance requires a new radome, which is quite unnecessary until after FOC. If the ADA was "seized of this issue since 2012", then it was foisted on the design at the nth hour. And you're making quite an assumption when you say that it did not occur to scientists and engineers that they could achieve this jump in performance by using a better radome. Perhaps they new, and were denied access to the latest tech. Perhaps they tried to develop a solution in house and failed. Perhaps it was not seen as an issue because the performance of the radar met (or came close to meeting) the base spec. There are several plausible explanations that you're ignoring here.

If the IAF wanted a new radome in 2012 because a a "huge jump in performance", why stop there? Ask for new intakes. A new engine. New wings too, while they're at it.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chaanakya »

DM understands the meaning of english proverb " A bird in hand is worth two in bush" He should be reminded of technological sanctions regime which has hampered progress in many critical fields and tejas is one example.India has to develop critical technologies and processes which is a time consuming process. And Tejas has achieved critical milestones and is at the stage where it has realistic chance to be inducted in IAF. He does not come across as a man of careless words but very articulated and with lot of hidden force in what he says and leaves unsaid. He is not going to fritter away advantage of LCA. His message seems to me I will give immediate order of 100 Tejas. Give me delivery schedule. I will give more orders upon improvement. If you don't do we will get someone to do it or get some other craft. It is a mix of carrot and stick policy to cajole ADA and then HAL to rise up to the challenge.

From now on Tejas will have assured order 100+100 and if HAL failed to serialise production then some other organisation will do it. If ADA fails to make it to MKII someone else will be roped in. If that does not work then of course we will have no other option.

While keeping all options open he is telling how he will proceed if deadlines are not met. However process will be guided in such a manner that if one deadline fails next option is ready. So depending upon progress within each stage I expect a lot of overlapping and capacity building in parallel. NaMo is known not to depend on one set of options but to work in parallel on multiple choices.

So Tejas is very much live with assured orders. IAF may not have any choice as all decisions will now be G2G .

Moreover I expect Kaveri to be revived. AC had sent a file to close down Kaveri and it was sent to CCS in December. In Jan he was removed over NaMo unhappiness . In general NaMo is averse to extensions and relaxations and I have seen many examples of it but he does it when he feels that the person will deliver. The first file from AC was to close Kaveri line. So NaMo decided to close AC extension. Yet he was give extension upon extension to Seth ( he has other reasons as well beyond effectiveness of Seth)

NaMo will get persons with impeccable delivery records and positive attitude to head all these ventures.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chaanakya »

ramana wrote:SagarG, Parrikar right not Fadnavis?
Fadanavis promised a Maharashtra State Defence Manufacturing Policy while in Sweden on SAAB Gripen. I was like .... what the... :shock:
Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Raveen »

fanne wrote:Maybe because team LCA may have tried to find a solution in house, tried for 2-3 years, failed and then went for external help. Sounds reasonable. What is surprising is that Radome of SU30MKI, naval Jaguars (with radar) etc is being manufactured (I assume with TOT) in house, how come they cannot replicate something similar for LCA. Maybe there is something more to this story.
Cause TOT for HAL means we have the right size screw drivers
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

Mihir wrote: Rohit, these are two separate issues.

Rainwater ingress is not a function of the material used for the radome. It can be addressed by using tighter tolerances and perhaps a different gasket design.
How do you know they're two different issues? We know only about the radar performance issue - the bits and pieces about rainwater ingress and lightening have been collated from here and there. May be, rain ingress and lightening issue were serious enough and prime reasons for getting a new radome?
Improvement in radar performance requires a new radome, which is quite unnecessary until after FOC. If the ADA was "seized of this issue since 2012", then it was foisted on the design at the nth hour. And you're making quite an assumption when you say that it did not occur to scientists and engineers that they could achieve this jump in performance by using a better radome. Perhaps they new, and were denied access to the latest tech. Perhaps they tried to develop a solution in house and failed. Perhaps it was not seen as an issue because the performance of the radar met (or came close to meeting) the base spec. There are several plausible explanations that you're ignoring here.
Yes, all the 'Perhaps' have to be in favor of the R&D team because they cannot screw-up!

Considering that IAF is supposed to be composed of dolts when it comes to technology, can you throw some light on how they'd know that radar performance will improve through use of a radar cone with different material? VSunder gave an excellent explanation of why this is such a big thing and from that I could gather that only tests by R&D guys would throw up data for requirement of new

And this what the DRDO Air director says about Radome:
He said Tejas has proven multiple test-points related to its weapon release. "Functional aspects of the radar have been proved. Issues related to range will be fixed with the new radome," he added.
If the IAF wanted a new radome in 2012 because a a "huge jump in performance", why stop there? Ask for new intakes. A new engine. New wings too, while they're at it.
Yes, IAF should simply genuflect and say Thank You to the R&D guys and feel blessed about getting a plane!
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4670
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by putnanja »

ADA has a tender document on their website for new MFDs for LCA Mk-II. It says first delivery 18 months after purchase order placed. Tender response last date is Oct 30. So that means new MFDs won't come in till late 2017. When is the first flight of Mk-II scheduled? It is 2018?
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Mihir »

rohitvats wrote:
Mihir wrote: Rohit, these are two separate issues.

Rainwater ingress is not a function of the material used for the radome. It can be addressed by using tighter tolerances and perhaps a different gasket design.
How do you know they're two different issues? We know only about the radar performance issue - the bits and pieces about rainwater ingress and lightening have been collated from here and there. May be, rain ingress and lightening issue were serious enough and prime reasons for getting a new radome?
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02/ ... adome.html

It also appears that the agencies testing the Tejas are not entirely happy with the lightning protection system of the existing radome and that there is rain water ingress at the radome-fuselage junction in the current structure.

Do you seriously think that rainwater ingress at the seam is because of a radome material issue?
rohitvats wrote:
Improvement in radar performance requires a new radome, which is quite unnecessary until after FOC. If the ADA was "seized of this issue since 2012", then it was foisted on the design at the nth hour. And you're making quite an assumption when you say that it did not occur to scientists and engineers that they could achieve this jump in performance by using a better radome. Perhaps they new, and were denied access to the latest tech. Perhaps they tried to develop a solution in house and failed. Perhaps it was not seen as an issue because the performance of the radar met (or came close to meeting) the base spec. There are several plausible explanations that you're ignoring here.
Yes, all the 'Perhaps' have to be in favor of the R&D team because they cannot screw-up!

Considering that IAF is supposed to be composed of dolts when it comes to technology, can you throw some light on how they'd know that radar performance will improve through use of a radar cone with different material? VSunder gave an excellent explanation of why this is such a big thing and from that I could gather that only tests by R&D guys would throw up data for requirement of new
Wait, you were the one who found it "surprising that it never occurred to someone that such a huge jump in radar performance can be had due to factors external to Radar design". Why put words into my mouth?

The argument is not about "dolts" in the IAF or R&D teams that cannot "screw up". If there is an issue with the existing design, like rainwater ingress, then by all means, go ahead and flag it. But don't demand a change in materials at the last minute because it improves performance and then hold FOC hostage to that change.
Last edited by Mihir on 16 Apr 2015 20:11, edited 1 time in total.
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Eric Leiderman »

When your squadron strength is falling rapidly and cash is tight

"Yes, IAF should simply genuflect and say Thank You to the R&D guys and feel blessed about getting a plane"
It is a better plane than what your enemies will field to boot
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

on April2 a icelandair plane was struck by lightning in the nose, which is also composite in airliners.

the photo shows a considerable hole was gouged out of the composite dome!

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... g?enlarged

so I guess this is not a trival matter ...
Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 841
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Raveen »

Eric Leiderman wrote:When your squadron strength is falling rapidly and cash is tight

"Yes, IAF should simply genuflect and say Thank You to the R&D guys and feel blessed about getting a plane"
It is a better plane than what your enemies will field to boot

Or one that you currently field - only difference is it doesn't come with the smell of $ and natashas
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

rohitvats wrote: Yes, IAF should simply genuflect and say Thank You to the R&D guys and feel blessed about getting a plane!
Ironically - in the height of desperate inter European wars - this was exactly the situation that many European air forces were in. Aircraft of varying standards of excellence/incompetence were being churned out and being flown and crashed at a faster rate that we like to talk about.

The IAF missed all this and has been fed with what has been tested by others - with foreign test pilots having died and half ready planes passed. If you look back at the history of the Gnat and MiG 21, each of those planes had some very good points and each had some hopeless fail issues that needed correction. Indians have gone and stayed in God Forsaken places and been instructed in Russian and still not found out everything and have found faults on their own. The IAF has taken excessive pride in finding faults that Russia or Britain corrected for us, and then claiming "Hey we fly better than them". It is OK to genuflect when we are getting Russia or some foreign company to do the job. It is Indians in front of whom the Lord God IAF must not genuflect

Your descriptive language about the IAF's inability to genuflect may be perfectly accurate and honest about a military force that acts cocky and arrogant Ultimately such arrogance is stupid and unnecessary. Few people make the case that Indian manufacturing agencies are good - -but the Air Force need a kick up its butt for things like
1. Being a users air force with no insight into being a builders force
2. Being cocky buggers with an elite fighter jocks club who simply do not "want to genuflect" in front of their own colleagues and coursemates and will never allow a non flying cadre, a transport pilot or a helo pilot to become Chief of Air staff.

Thanks for showing up that cocky attitude in a beautifully illustraive post.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

Mihir wrote:<SNIP> It also appears that the agencies testing the Tejas are not entirely happy with the lightning protection system of the existing radome and that there is rain water ingress at the radome-fuselage junction in the current structure.

Do you seriously think that rainwater ingress at the seam is because of a radome material issue?
Honest answer is I don't know. But you chose to answer only the water-ingress part and not the lightening part which may well be a function of the radome material.
Wait, you were the one who found it "surprising that it never occurred to someone that such a huge jump in radar performance can be had due to factors external to Radar design". Why put words into my mouth?

The argument is not about "dolts" in the IAF or R&D teams that cannot "screw up". If there is an issue with the existing design, like rainwater ingress, then by all means, go ahead and flag it. But don't demand a change in materials at the last minute because it improves performance and then hold FOC hostage to that change.
I also attached a link by Director Aero, DRDO where he said issue(s) with Radar range will be addressed by new radome. May be, just may be, the performance of radar with existing nose cone fell short of the theoretical calculations and they realized that it was because of the radome material. And ADA design was as per some other set of calculations while how the MMR eventually evolved made the earlier assumptions and calculations redundant. And to get the performance for which MMR was designed, it required a new radome.

It is easy to pass the buck to IAF w/o bothering to look into the issue from other perspective.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

Let me remind everybody how the Russians accepted their the Mig-29s and Su-27s.

They placed trust in the Mig design bureau to the point that Mig-29s were ordered from the day the (on-paper) design was chosen. The setting up of the fabrication lines started along with the testing. Ditto with the Su-27. Interestingly in the case of Su-27, they realized half way through the testing that the current Su-27 design was too heavy, and too draggy to beat the F-15. Worse, it started to vibrate severely once crossed 10 degree AoA! But units had already been serially produced. Yes, they had to stop production midway and discard those aircrafts that they had serially produced. They went back to the drawing board and refined design which required major changes: wings, fins and NLG to name a few striuctural changes. This is how one builds up local design and manufacturing capability, not by importing. We help others build up and maintain theirs.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vivek K »

It is also very easy to find faults and put "Huge Delays" in weapon systems that are not the favorite toys of decision makers!! Water ingress as a cause for radome Change"! Wow!! No wonder India is backward.

Reminds me of a Devi Lal speech blasting a hydel project - "The congress wants to rob you of your rights!! Once they take electricity out of the water, what are you left with!! We cannot allow ourselves to be robbed!

Andher nagari........!!
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

RV,

There has been problems with Tejas project management. It is not because these guys don't know how to test or what to test. A different lab kept saying, I can build the radome, I can build the radome, and the management gave them a chance for far too long.

Radomes can be retrofitted any time! The same with the IFR probe. Infact in operational fighters, technicians open the radome to access the radar on a near regular basis. Almost all retractable IFR probes are also bolt-ons that is they can be added and removed with minimum fuss. Stopping orders for want of this is lunacy in aero circles! It is like saying, I can't place an orders for a car, because the racing pedals are not yet ready!
enaiel
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by enaiel »

For those people putting the blame on HAL for not ramping up LCA production:

Number of confirmed orders for Tejas MK1 = 40 (20 IOC-2 + 20 FOC)
Number of confirmed orders for Tejas MK2 = 0

Why would HAL invest money to ramp up production to 16 a year and then be idle after 3 years?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20783
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Rohitvats wrote:I think you forget that Tejas Mk1 in IOC-2 configuration IS entering service w/o all that which is supposed to certified with FOC.

And ADA was seized of this Radome issue since 2012. It is not some design change foisted on the plane at nth hour. I find it surprising that it never occurred to someone that such a huge jump in radar performance can be had due to factors external to Radar design.

Also, bits and pieces of information on the net say that ADA Radome had issue with lightening and rain-water ingress!

Here is the link:

http://www.aame.in/2012/12/ada-wants-yo ... e-for.html

Question that should be asked of ADA was why did it wait for this long to come up with request for external help?
I think you didn't get the testing & validation process. Each radome is tightly coupled to the radar the aircraft fields. Often, when a radar is changed, the radome goes with it. In our case, the radar is a new one. Its basically a complete hybrid. Indian scanner, positioner with Israeli electronics. The Israelis would have insisted that they own as much of the back end as possible as even running their software on an Indian DSP & a radar with different hardware would be time consuming to fix. As it was, they took a fair bit of time to assemble this system, test it in Israel & then shift it to India for tests. Our tests first only included the air to air mode from a ground installation. Flight trials were later. So, if range is then lesser than expected, the root cause teams start working - it would have taken enough time to figure out that it was the radome which was an issue & radar fixes could not compensate, and then find a vendor willing to work with us for it. Speaks volumes no Israel or Russian firm was chosen (Russians BTW helped us with missile radomes earlier on, till we got our own local variants in). So they didn't have answers either. This despite Elta being the chosen vendor to integrate the radar. Going external for the vendor beyond Israel and Russia BTW would be the last resort. One developed the radar, the other has significant non disclosure stuff with us so are fairly reliable. We would have to share many radar details and we would have been loath to do so. CSIR has a very capable radome design team. They were clearly dropped because of timeline issues. So this decision was taken after all possible alternatives were evaluated and rejected, which means time cost is a given. The entire issue arose because of our inability to make the radar program by ourselves a success at the end of the day. HAL mismanaged it, and it went abroad & these sort of teething issues are then a given.

Bottomline, the MMR was & is, one of the most complex facets of the LCA program & one which has caused us maximum pain. Its the fourth after engine and FBW (both complex, former has the edge because of hardware & manufacturing), the composite wings and finally, the radar.
This is why the AEW&C is such a vital program because finally we have a fast jet (relatively) testbed for fine tuning such stuff. The XV-2004 really doesn't count as much because its on a slower platform & the clutter issues are not as substantial (faster airframe + clutter issues are the real challenge).
The LCA is hence always on the harder path for most solutions because of indigenization & the size issue (e.g. volume available for radar assembly is lower than larger MMRCA sized platforms but ranges remain 100 km+ which means a decently powerful radar is required).

Net, you see this as some sort of "pick your vendor, get answers" sort of thing, which is not going to be possible with the LCA until & unless you drop all indigenous items (like a hybrid MMR) and go with a complete OTS package - OEM radar + radome + weapons.
Speaking to some vendors (foreign) about the LCA program, pretty much everything for it is custom designed. They can;t even use existing systems as a template so they feel that times they take to deliver are reasonable and reflect the problems they face in meeting our requirements too.
Last edited by Karan M on 16 Apr 2015 22:29, edited 1 time in total.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Picklu »

Or it could be from the left hands of Dassault and Saab to the pockets of Rafel and Chobam ... not to stop but just to delay enough ........
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20783
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Chobham supplies other items to the LCA team too but none as critical or sensitive as the radome.
Incidentally, the ADA has put out specs for even the radome in the public tender, but more details would be required above and beyond it to customize the radar. After all, its just a RFI.
DexterM
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by DexterM »

It is shameful that now we can simply say maybe that rainwater is so serious that the FOC must be delayed. Shameful and utterly self-deceiving. Worse, it comes from a mod. Either don't participate or don't moderate. That genuflection comment was a disgrace to the IAF as well.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4670
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by putnanja »

cross posting...

A very good interview by Defence minister in HT. Not sure if it was posted earlier:

IAF consulted on direct buy of Rafales: Parrikar
From an arms race in the Indian Ocean and the challenges of raising a mountain strike corps to the hurdles in scaling up border infrastructure and how the UPA regime ignored the military's needs, defence minister Manohar Parrikar opens up to HT in an exclusive interview.

Excerpts:

Q. Was the Indian Air Force on board when the government took the decision to buy 36 Rafale fighters under the government-to-government (G2G) route from France?

A. I consulted the Air Force to the extent it was required. They have no role in decision-making as ultimately it’s the Prime Minister’s call. I did discuss possibilities with the prime minister and he took a very bold decision which was required. If we had missed this opportunity, the entire matter would have gone into a spin and we might have had to re-start the whole procedure this year. And in another five years our requirements might have changed. Rafale induction could begin in about 18 months.


Q. You said the fighter acquisition process will be G2G now. Will India buy more Rafales or could it source fighters from other countries too?

A. I will say both options are open to us depending on reassessment of our requirements (after scrapping the tender for 126 aircraft). I will not spell out MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) role but it will be very effective in certain areas. Two people travel on a scooter, 4 in a car and 20 in a bus. But 2 people can also travel in a bus but that would be wasting resources. So, we will not deploy this aircraft where it is not required. I can tell you our light combat aircraft (LCA) is also a very capable aircraft and can replace MiG-21s more than adequately. It cannot be compared with the Rafale as the latter is a heavier fighter with two engines.

Q. So India will buy more Rafales after re-assessing requirements? Where does the LCA fit in the picture?

A. I feel that some more Rafale jets may be required but need to figure out how we can acquire them. But more importantly, we need large number of aircraft to replace MiG variants over the next 8-10 years, which is their extended life. So either we go in for large-scale manufacturing of the LCA or combine some other requirements and go for a medium-weight fighter under the Make in India plan.

Some of it can be replaced by even proper stockpiling of missiles. Nowadays, one can attack some targets by proper use of missiles.

Q. Will the remaining Rafales come under Make in India programme and will Dassault Aviation set up a unit here?

A. That decision will be taken after both India and France hold talks. It will also depend on what our financial outlay is. We operate various MiG variants, Mirage 2000s, Jaguars, Sukhoi-30s and we have the LCA now. All these warplanes have different capabilities and cannot be compared. Ultimately, we may also require certain number of Rafales but how many will hinge on the cost factor. Why just 126? I would want the IAF to have 500 planes, but the question is how much I can afford. We will have to do an analysis of minimum requirement and then take a decision.

Q. The 10 years of UPA is often referred to as the lost decade for the military with several key projects getting delayed or derailed. How do you intend to reverse the damage and speed up acquisitions?

A. My focus is on projects that are stuck at different stages. I have managed to speed up these projects by 25%. There are 339 such cases that need to be dealt with. The ministry has managed to bring 58 of these to final stages of completion. Nearly 100 projects may not be required now due to long delays or changed requirements and we are looking at dropping them or putting them on the back burner. The thrust is on accelerating critical projects.

Q. What stopped the previous regime from taking quick decisions: bureaucratic inertia or lack of leadership?

A. I always say bureaucracy is colourless like water. It takes the colour of the government so you cannot totally blame them (bureaucrats). Part of the blame surely lies with them. But, it is the duty of the government or the minister to ensure proper follow-up action to crucial projects. I do not know what the previous government was doing but as far as I am concerned, review meetings are held in South Block on a daily basis.

Q. Pakistan is on course to buy 8 diesel-electric submarines from China in what would be one of Beijing's biggest exports. How do you think it will change the dynamics in the Indian Ocean region?

A. Of course, a submarine in itself is a very powerful platform in the ocean. It may, however, not directly pose a threat to India. But it does become a weakness in your armour of controlling the ocean. We will have to match it. I do not see it as a big problem because we will have enough submarines by the time Pakistan gets these 8. By the time they get the deliveries, we can manufacture 15-20 submarines.

Q. You have said the UPA regime cleared the mountain strike corps project in the eastern sector without factoring in availability of funds? What outlay are you planning to set aside for it?

A. The previous government had estimated it will cost Rs 88,000 crore and will have 70,000 soldiers. I have frozen the cost at Rs 38,000 crore over next eight years. It will consist of 35,000 men. The CCS had cleared the original proposal, but where is the money? Rs 88,000 crore is the army's revenue budget. The CCS kept clearing projects worth Rs 50,000 crore to Rs 1,00,000 crore but where is the actual money? :rotfl: So you have to be selective. I have cleared a Rs 48,000-crore project for seven stealth frigates (P-17A), but I have factored in when the money will be required and at what stage.

Q. Are you satisfied with infrastructure in forward areas and the role of the Border Roads Organisation?

A. Much more needs to be done. Environmental clearances have come in 64 cases. But I will be able to take the issue head on only when we are in a position to deliver in terms of roads. BRO is now in the process of outsourcing. Government machinery, the BRO in particular, has never developed the technique of outsourcing. They are very poor outsourcers. They do not have conceptual clarity on outsourcing. We are in touch with the Confederation of Indian Industry and may appoint consultants to push it.

Q. Can you elaborate on proposed changes in the new defence procurement policy?

A. Different issues are being tackled separately and we are close to coming close to a conclusion. I think 8 or 9 main issues (including blacklisting and allowing agents) have been discussed extensively and decision-making is in an advanced stage. I am forming a committee that will go through all this material and do a final round of interaction (with stakeholders). It will then write a Defence Procurement Procedure which will be published after the ministry vets it.

Q. The Prime Minister has talked about skills as part of defence offsets but your ministry says skills cannot be a part of offsets.

A. It can be. They are going by what is written there. But if we change that, the same people will say it is possible. Currently, there is a ban on services in offsets as someone used services to give kickbacks. I intend to take it up at the next meeting of the defence acquisition council and lift the ban on services.

Q. What are your expectations from your visit to South Korea (April 15-19)?

A. The Prime Minister will be visiting Korea in May. The idea is to discuss some issues so that some agreements can be finalised and signed during the Prime Minister's visit. The Koreans excel in areas such as shipbuilding, electronics and metallurgy. They have also shown interest in the Make in India programme.

Q. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been without a chief for more than 2 months? What about appointing chief of defence staff?

A. The selection process for the new DRDO chief is on and will happen soon. DRDO will play a key role in boosting the Make in India programme. We will encourage it to tie up with the local industry in the development phase. As for creation of the post of chief of defence staff or permanent chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, I will take up that issue after two months as I already have my hands full with other issues. We do intend to create that post but if I take up everything together I will not be able to do anything.

Q. Coming back to the Rafale deal, you said your predecessor had himself put a question mark on it.

A. The previous defence minister had written that after the price negotiation is done, L1 should be verified again. But it did not come to that stage as it got stuck up because of interpretation of whether to take French man-hours into consideration for building the plane or Indian man-hours, which is 2.7 times the French number. I have not gone into too much detail on that, but my officers have expressed reservations about this 2.7-hour formula for local manufacturing.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vipul »

Fighter jet makers eye Indian riches after scaled-back French deal.

Foreign fighter jet makers see a multi-billion dollar opportunity in India's decision to scale back purchases of high-end aircraft from France, which may free up cash in the world's largest arms importer to buy a new fleet of mid-range planes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced last week that India would buy 36 French Rafale jets for an estimated $4.3 billion, in effect ending talks on a larger deal for 126 planes that would have sucked up some $20 billion and locked rivals out of the market for a generation.

Sweden's Saab and US Lockheed Martin are set to re-pitch their Gripen and F-16 planes, eliminated in the Rafale tender, as the kind of lighter, single-engine aircraft that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said on Monday the air force needed to rebuild its fleet.

"We are here and we are ready," said a source close to Saab. Saab was proposing to establish "fully-fledged production" of the Gripen in India alongside a local partner.

Lockheed Martin may also tout its F-16, one of the most widely used fighter planes in the world, as a replacement for Russian-made MiGs that are a mainstay in India's fleet, industry sources said. Lockheed Martin declined to comment.

"The light combat aircraft opportunity is going to be there in the near future because the MiGs have to be replaced really fast," said Delhi-based defence commentator and analyst Neelam Mathews.

Russia, traditionally India's largest arms supplier, is hopeful it can sell more of its Sukhoi Su-30s, a plane partly assembled in India, to tide over the air force while it waits two years to receive the first Rafales.

Foreign manufacturers have also welcomed India's decision to negotiate directly with the French government for further Rafales.

"What is positive about the announced Rafale deal is that purchase is supposed to be based on a government-to-government agreement. We have been asking the Indian side for a long time to get back to this practice instead of tenders," said one Russian diplomat.

Moscow wants to speed up the conclusion of talks with India for the joint manufacture of a new generation stealth fighter jet, the diplomat said.

India needs to replenish an air force fleet that has fallen to 34 operational squadrons, down from 39 earlier this decade and below the government-approved strength of 42 considered necessary to face a two-front challenge from Pakistan and China.

Parrikar said on Monday that India needed 100 new light combat aircraft within five years to replace the MiG-21s, and that the heavier and pricier Rafale was not the plane to do it.

His preference would be for the indigenously-made Tejas to fill the void. But Parrikar himself has admitted the jet, in development for three decades, has limitations while the latest version still awaits final clearance.

Either way, air force officials and industry sources say India is unlikely to buy anything like the 126 planes agreed in the original deal with France after all-in costs doubled to an estimated $20 billion.

Parrikar said he had not decided how many more Rafales he might buy. Manufacturer Dassault Aviation could also pitch its single-engine Mirage if India opts for something cheaper.

Foreign planemakers may need to join forces with an Indian state-run or private partner to win orders, especially if Modi is to realise his goal of developing a military industrial base.

Under the original deal with Dassault, 108 of the jets were to be produced at a state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) plant. But the two sides could not agree terms.

Such disagreements could open up opportunities for nascent private players to partner foreign manufacturers and build locally, experts said.

"This could be Rafale, or any other aircraft as long as the government is able to address the core issues of tech transfer, joint production and design collaboration," said M. Matheswaran, a former Air Marshal and adviser to Hindustan Aeronautics.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Sagar G »

ramana wrote:SagarG, Parrikar right not Fadnavis?
Fadnavis, from the previous page saar
kancha wrote:Looks like the Maharastra CM was at the SAAB facility in Sweden some time hours back.
Comments, gurus?

Image
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20783
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Parrikar shooting his mouth off about cheap light weight fighters has caused enough trouble. So much for nationalist DM and nationalist support for strategic programs. Yet another type for the IAF menagerie? All the hyenas are out in full force to eat off of our table including our own programs, and we have a strategic G2G decision of having purchased 2 squadrons of Rafales and at most a third, per AIN. Good going.
prat.patel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by prat.patel »

Sagar G wrote:
ramana wrote:SagarG, Parrikar right not Fadnavis?
Fadnavis, from the previous page saar
kancha wrote:Looks like the Maharastra CM was at the SAAB facility in Sweden some time hours back.
Comments, gurus?

Image
Very Interesting!!! :D
But still in the tweet he talks about "defense manufacturing policy" and not necessarily fighter aircraft. So could mean anything from component manufacturing for Saab to any other defense vendor.
But still very interesting post!!! :D
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Sid »

rohitvats wrote:............................

I also attached a link by Director Aero, DRDO where he said issue(s) with Radar range will be addressed by new radome. May be, just may be, the performance of radar with existing nose cone fell short of the theoretical calculations and they realized that it was because of the radome material. And ADA design was as per some other set of calculations while how the MMR eventually evolved made the earlier assumptions and calculations redundant. And to get the performance for which MMR was designed, it required a new radome.

It is easy to pass the buck to IAF w/o bothering to look into the issue from other perspective.
Rohit, since you have a better perspective of IAF's strategic needs, can you throw some light on what "can" be a solution to this predicament? Lets assume that LCA/AMCA are sidelined due to whatever reason, then what?

IAF knows how long import processes can be, i.e. AJT/MMRCA/FGFA/MTA. Even G2G contract for Apache and Chinook are stuck in limbo. So please base your predictions based on that.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by RoyG »

Karan M wrote:Parrikar shooting his mouth off about cheap light weight fighters has caused enough trouble. So much for nationalist DM and nationalist support for strategic programs. Yet another type for the IAF menagerie? All the hyenas are out in full force to eat off of our table including our own programs, and we have a strategic G2G decision of having purchased 2 squadrons of Rafales and at most a third, per AIN. Good going.
Jesus just wait till we get another official policy statement. We signaled our intent on buying Rafales and this interview came right after that. Everybody is getting so paranoid for no reason. He said that the LCA in its current config is much better than the 21's. I'm sure a big order will be placed.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20783
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Judging by some of the stunts the G-team and others have pulled, there is every need to be aware and concerned.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they ain't out to get you" etc.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by RoyG »

Okay. Can you shed some light on the stunts that G-team has pulled?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20783
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

campaigning against the LCA in Indian media. Getting rtd IAF types to run FUD against LCA. Proposals to make in India with only that type intended as the single type to replace all. List goes on and on..
Post Reply