LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 26 Apr 2015 06:54

shiv wrote:This is the director of NAL speaking. I still haven't understood how the design agency (NAL), the manufacturing agency (HAL) and the end user (IAF) can coordinate with each other. Of course I have read the oft repeated criticism that it was a bad idea in the first place to have design agency divorced from the manufacturing agency

correct. this coordination should have been the order of the day from day 1 but a host of issues which i don't want to repeat have ensured this did not happen.

The NAL man is talking about manufacturing issues and IAF complaints. In all these decades of hearing about LCA and even more decades following aircraft as a layperson jingo - this is the first time I am hearing the expression "international standards in end to end accuracy". WTF is that? Why is the NAL man coming up with that?

my own 'guess' is that he may be referring to the QC issues/manufacturing stability/zero variations from platform to platform arising out of the new facility - which is natural and bound to arise. you may recall IAF chief referred to SP-1 and SP-2 (link below in the linked post) and said there are some variations between the two but these will stabilise from SP 3 onwards. this leads also to the point of delivery which NAL chief is referring to - IAF wants 8/yr but unless the QC/standardisation issues are settled the production can not move on. but IMO these are 'not' issues which will hinder and linger for long to affect the production - as the order is not very big. however this is what i asked in my different post -

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1830833

quoting myself -

is he in his over enthusiasm, committing a mistake? while it would be great if it can happen, what if there are unforseen delays as happened already in procuring the radome/ifr kits? won't it only enhance the popular perception? wouldn't it have been better if he had stuck to the original plan of 20 IOC 2 std and 20 FOC std? shouldn't they be more worried about QCs arising out of the new facility or accounting for any minor feedbacks from the IAF so production stabilises, IAF gets platforms while FOCed machines will follow? will it not help their image if first 20 platforms are delivered on time? why complicate a schedule which has already been fixed?

also refer to another point in the link provided by dhiraj -

The aircraft handed over in January could take off with only restricted weaponry and sensors and tests with a full range of weaponry was yet to be done, he added.

nothing abnormal here because this is IOC 2 standard machine. this can fire LGBs, R-73s and other dumb bombs. BVRs were supposed to be for FOC and though functionally the existing radar has validated the process which is good enough for induction but ADA/HAL/IAF want to wait for the 'new' radome (which only improves the range) - so delay affecting the the prod run.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Apr 2015 07:13

pragnya wrote:
my own 'guess' is that he may be referring to the QC issues/manufacturing stability/zero variations from platform to platform arising out of the new facility - which is natural and bound to arise.

Maybe the man has just attended a course or conference where these words were being thrown about?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 26 Apr 2015 07:38

shiv wrote:
pragnya wrote:
my own 'guess' is that he may be referring to the QC issues/manufacturing stability/zero variations from platform to platform arising out of the new facility - which is natural and bound to arise.
Maybe the man has just attended a course or conference where these words were being thrown about?

good one that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Apr 2015 07:39

well quite clearly in this day and age we cannot have parts variations across the fighter fleet and need special bins of numbered parts for each airframe. will increase the complexity of even sqdn line repair for IAF as the need to stockpile so many more parts. this means from nuts and bolts to engine, everything has got to be sub-mm tolerances and almost zero deviation.

...though I hear the f22 also faced same issue and each f22 has atleast some unique parts. perhaps brar_w ji might know more on this and whether same problem for jsf.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 26 Apr 2015 07:58

N^3 once talked about panel alignments, build tolerance and margins and how he had offered some advice.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Apr 2015 08:05

Singha wrote:well quite clearly in this day and age we cannot have parts variations across the fighter fleet and need special bins of numbered parts for each airframe. will increase the complexity of even sqdn line repair for IAF as the need to stockpile so many more parts. this means from nuts and bolts to engine, everything has got to be sub-mm tolerances and almost zero deviation.

...though I hear the f22 also faced same issue and each f22 has atleast some unique parts. perhaps brar_w ji might know more on this and whether same problem for jsf.

Quality control is always a process that takes some time to master in a production chain. All programs, that look to produce industrial scale suffer from quality control issues regardless of whether you have 30 years of experience, or are a rookie. Its how you manage that that counts. How quickly you reach your QC targets and how good you are fault identification. There is a learning curve with the largest of producers and with the smallest of component makers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Apr 2015 08:39

a good description of what went into f22 manufacturing. a vast and complex system that HAL has to pull up socks and get a lot of funds to emulate

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 2-manu.htm

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Apr 2015 08:53

When was HAL given mandate and budget to set up production line for 8 aircrafts? 2006, ie only 10 years ago, what's the hurry have curry.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 26 Apr 2015 09:10

Gyan wrote:When was HAL given mandate and budget to set up production line for 8 aircrafts? 2006, ie only 10 years ago, what's the hurry have curry.

even if that was true, isn't it true 'production' can happen only on the basis of IOC 2 (2013) and FOC (dec 2015) taking into account feedback and QC issues?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Apr 2015 09:17

Pictures of SP in production was published in 2010, only 5 years ago. Anyway I am saying all's good. FOC will come in 2020 and 40 LCA in 2120.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Apr 2015 09:41

due to infusion of tech, we have made quantum leaps in manufacturing tech in half my lifetime....given enough funds HAL should be able to setup the production and systems needed.

Ambassador line - probably how the An32 and others of the ilk were hammered together, with a good bash with a mallet if things did not fit..I have read even the su27 skins panels were fitted like that in the old days in ussr...allegedly the chinese su27(j11) has better fit n finish since the cheen had good access to western production machinery and tools by then.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JsTC7RIjDl8/hqdefault.jpg
http://weroyalriders.com/sources/media/ ... 2359_o.jpg

Maruti line haryana - the soothing hum of precision robot welding
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dyna ... 78218f.jpg

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2015 03:09

I am back

Okay, all those interested in the LCA wing should definitely get their hands on the following paper: Improvement of High Alpha Aerodynamics for Compound Delta Wing Aircraft Using Leading Edge Vortex Controller.

I wish I could use the diagrams and texts from the paper, but I will paraphrase. Here is the abstract of the paper:

An experimental and numerical investigation of high alpha aerodynamics is reported for a generic compound delta wing fighter aircraft configuration in transonic Mach number regime. The aircraft considered here is a wing-fuselage-vertical fin tailless compound delta configuration with lower inboard and higher outboard sweeps and a close combat missile outboard. The basic configuration does not have any leading or trailing edge devices such as slats and flaps. This configuration is studied first to understand the flow physics causing pitch up phenomenon for the basic configuration. Subsequently, the use of leading edge vortex controller (LEVCON) is studied for controlling pitch up. Both Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel experiments have been used to describe the flow physics.

As is evidenced from the abstract, it is clear that the CFD analysis is on the plane minus the leading edge slats. However it is acknowledged that a multi-slat configuration is used to control the vortex dynamics at higher angles of attack (Unfortunately, I cannot access the cited document as it is an internal ADA report).

In the paper, the range of AoA is normalized to between 0 and 14. Everything in the rest of the paper and in this post is with respect to this normalized AoA. By studying the C-L curve and the rolling-moment curve against the normalized AoA, it is noticeable that the present configuration (without the multi-slat configuration) has both loss and gain in lift near the pitch-up region (about 6 degrees).

After the CFD has been refined using actual testing data, it is clear why the above phenomenon occurs. Up to 4 degree AOA, the airflow from the inner sweep region of the wing does not combine with the flow from the outer sweep region. However, at about 4 degree AoA, the flow from the inner sweep region starts to curl more and interact with the vortex of the outerpart of the wing, energizeing the later. This delays the vortex bursting. None the less, like any other vortex core, tis cores expands too. It starts becoming visible on the top part of the wing at about 5 degree AoA, and is clearly visible at 6 degrees AoA.

With the Levcons, they can affect the effective AoA of the inner sweep region of the wing. By deflecting it downwards, the effective AoA at the apex region is lowered and the curling is minimized. The flow continues energetically straight down the wing and the wing-body join. However, the lack of the interaction of the flows means that the vortex from the outer sweep region of the wing breaks down (shows what would have happened if the LCA had just a delta wing like the Mig-21). The higher the LEVCON deflections better the flow quality in wing inboard region at high angles of attack. At 30 degree deflection, they can completely mitigate the pitch-up tendency. This better flow in the inboard section compensates for the loss of lift due to the vortex breakdown. The LEVCON also improves the directional stability (the limiting factor of LCA's max AoA) of the aircraft by improving flow near fin region.

==========

The paper stops there. But one can ask:
1. What happens when the slats are added. The slats are pretty much like small levcons. They lower the local AoA at the leading edge. Albeit, the effect is not as pronounced as a levcon because the slats don't have as high a surface area. But as I had explained before, the effective AoA along the leading edge changes smoothly and continuously along the LE. Therefore the ideal slat would have be continuous, increasing in the deflection from the inboard section to the wing tip. However, this is difficult to achieve structurally. So they use three independent slats, which within some maximum AoA make 3 independent flows on the outerpart of the wing. Each slat is deflected such that the local AoA at the innermost point on the LE does not create a vortex in the flow. However, for the rest of the span of the slat, the local AoA is above this threshold, and a vortex is created. This vortex travels spanwise and interactc with the vortex generated by the next slat, energizing it. The net result is that the of onset of the vortex breakdown is delayed. As a result, it does not reach the TE of the wing for a higher AoA and thus pitch-up is also delayed.

2. Why is the LEVCON not being used on the IAF version of Tejas Mk2? I can't fathom it. It gives better L2D, it delays the onset of pitch-up, gives better directional stability. Such a plane will have better ITR by allowing higher AoA. It will have better STR, because of better L2D. Hmmm....

==========

Nilesh,

1. I agree with you that the LCA wing looks to have a conical camber and is attached at a positive setting angle.
2. I don't agree that the aeroelasticity does not play a role. Whenever I look at the CFD of the plane, presented from the front elevation (not just in this paper), the span of the wing looks perfectly horizontal. This is not the case in no load condition.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Apr 2015 05:11

While Indranil continues to add to the substance of the thread, yours truly will add a bit of masala to the peripherals.

How to kill a flying bird: An LCA that nobody wanted!

Reading between the lines from Shukla's report, Parrikars' remarks, and rumors of first 4 SPs being delivered only by end of March 2016, plus the Mk2 absolutely nowhere in sight, things are not looking good. There is a distinct possibility that the mk2 will look like a Gripen NG.

The main stakeholders in the Tejas seem to be all lukewarm towards it:

End-user IAF: lukewarm response from the beginning, esp. for the mk1. Quick to jump on mk2 bandwagon, knowing fully well that this will take a loong time.
Manufacturer HAL: only interested in screwdriver giri with adequate amounts of handholding by design bureau, wonlee too happy to extend deadlines one after another - providing plenty of fodder for IAF to say, "we told you so". So long as gravy train continues in form of license production of various birds, HAL order books look good - they have no impetus to work with ADA to figure out effective mass production of the bird. Will be only too happy if Saab comes through and they get another deal for licensed mfg.
ADA: Most interested party - but more concerned in doing some science project - wants to consider AMCA now. Is not particularly concerned about time-lines either.
The Swedish bimbo: Blonde, svelte and very streamlined. Only too happy to hand-hold HAL in production of ahem, "LCA" so long as cheque is good. End result of their audit/consulting = an LCA that looks surprisingly similar to the Gripen - doh!

Bottomline - if the LCA mk1 and mk2 keeps getting postponed, Parrikar's words are likely to come true.

Very disappointing. The rot is so deeply systemic that there is simply no motivation for anybody to make a change. I remember my hopes rising when Chanderji came along and mentioned getting the LCA up and running as his priority. At the end of two years, he too seemed quite stumped and asked for SAAB consultancy! Perhaps the AMCA will be a different story - hopefully will have enough of an Aero industry built up by then (which the LCA program has been instrumental in creating) that when the time for production comes, there will be more players than just HAL.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 28 Apr 2015 06:09

indranilroy: What is the name of the paper? Has it been published or it is in the pipeline?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2015 06:46

^^^Improvement of High Alpha Aerodynamics for Compound Delta Wing Aircraft Using Leading Edge Vortex Controller.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2015 07:13

I was wondering if we could have a separate thread for hi funda aerodynamics talk - something like "Aerodynamics for gurus and gandus" or "Aerody...by gurus for g..ndus"?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2015 10:28

Vayu-2/15.LCA feature by AM Matheswaran.Traces the evolution of it from HF-24/Gnat era. Fundamental mistakes in concept,a light aircraft that brings with it performance v.similar to the aircraft it is replacing ,MIG-21,with no great capability increase to meet current and future needs. Mk-1 doesn't meet the IAF's reqs. We're fooling ourselves if we think that a Mk-2 will be equiv to a Rafale or equiv.The two best "light fighters" in history,the MIG-21 and F-16. Asks whether the MK-2 should be single or twin-engined. Right now,he feels that the LCA is going the same way as the HF-24.Two major failures of the programme,the engine and AESA radar.On the latter,there was a recent item about the DRDO saying that "within 2 years" they would have our desi AESA radar ready and hoped that it would be used on the LCA,to replace the Israeli one. Here there is a more realistic possibility of this happening than the engine (Kaveri). Other tech achievements have been praised (composites,etc.),but our ability to put together a fully operational aircraft and get series production running smoothly has meant that the IAF has looked elsewhere for its needs.

If this represents a significant proportion of the thinking in the IAF,then it is going to be a hard struggle to get significant numbers of LCA manufactured and inducted and the ADA and HAL really have their work cut out. 4 series prod aircraft being delivered shortly will certainly help the IAF form its first sqd. in the near future,and hopefully from then on,the terrain is more downhill than uphill.

A Q.If MK-2 is going to take a while before it arrives,why not merge the MK-2 and AMCA programmes? Just improve Mk-1 to the max possible,order more and leapfrog tech and time with the MK-2/AMCA. Since the FGFA acquisition is also being fast-tracked from official reports,it will help if the AMCA is being developed in parallel,though behind the FGFA by about 5 years. We know that there is a serious shortage of human resources (scientists),money and a lot of tech to be developed.Even advanced nations like Japan,SoKo cannot afford multiple fighter programmes. We are now (apart from our medium aircraft upgrades,MIG-29 and M2K),also planning Jaguar upgrades,Super Sukhois,FGFAs,AMCAs,LCAs and poss. even manufacturing Rafale sin the future! Where is the moolah going to come from when the DM has asked the IAF to preserve its existing aircraft (50+yr old MIG-21s) v.carefully?!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 28 Apr 2015 11:01

Philips sir, F-16 Light wight AC? I thought it is Middle.

The problems which gurus above mentioned can be solved easily if there is political commitment is there.
Order 15 Sq LCAs total Mk1 and Mk2. Immediately.
Create a new company HAL Tejas Ltd. Transfer all production staff, infra etc to the new new company. Continue Mk1 production till Mk2 is not cleared for production.
Make IAF deeply involved in Mk2.
36 AC's per year production capability which means 10 years worth orders at full capacity.
49% disinvestment by IPO with good premium.
Open LCA Mk1 and Mk2 for exports.

Start work on enhanced Kaveri based LCA which we can export to any nation we please. With lot of Mig21 types set to retire all over world LCA can be a new Mig21 for many nations.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 28 Apr 2015 11:12

Matheswaran can say whatever he wants to, nothing can stop IAF from becoming a 27 sq force by 2022 if they don't order LCA.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 28 Apr 2015 11:19

sudeepj wrote:Matheswaran can say whatever he wants to, nothing can stop IAF from becoming a 27 sq force by 2022 if they don't order LCA.

Then there will be calls for emergency G2G purchase of F35.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 28 Apr 2015 11:20

Philip wrote:
Vayu-2/15.LCA feature by AM Matheswaran.Traces the evolution of it from HF-24/Gnat era. Fundamental mistakes in concept,a light aircraft that brings with it performance v.similar to the aircraft it is replacing ,MIG-21,with no great capability increase to meet current and future needs. Mk-1 doesn't meet the IAF's reqs.
...
...
Right now,he feels that the LCA is going the same way as the HF-24.Two major failures of the programme,the engine and AESA radar.
...
...
On the latter,there was a recent item about the DRDO saying that "within 2 years" they would have our desi AESA radar ready and hoped that it would be used on the LCA,to replace the Israeli one. Here there is a more realistic possibility of this happening than the engine (Kaveri). Other tech achievements have been praised (composites,etc.),but our ability to put together a fully operational aircraft and get series production running smoothly has meant that the IAF has looked elsewhere for its needs.
...

See the classic cases of dishonesty ... "Mk1 doesn't meet the IAF reqts" is std cut-paste stmt you will find.

Which aspect of the ASRs it doesn't meet?
Aerodynamic performances like Turn Rates, climb rates, TWR, roll off- roll on distances etc?
OR
Avionics aspects - Mech Radar perf parameters, RWR coverage, HUD Fov not good enough, PVI interface is an issue in so-and-so flight regime, ESM and ECCM not good enough etc?
OR
Maintenance aspects like Avg turnaround time, avg Maintenance freq, freq of std check (like C or D checks etc), time between overhaul at a platform level etc?
OR
Operational aspects like flexibility towards hot and high deployment, Line pilot type certification, Ops prep time etc

There'll never be an answer to all these points, and, if you are extremely lucky, the lordships that articulate (or pen down) these criticisms, would max provide a one-line std non-disclosure and "secrecy" requirement of ASRs as the reason for not providing these answers.
Truth be told, if answers like these are out in the open even qualitatively (e.g STR is not met by a very low/low/medium/large margin), will open up the Pandora’s box of counter-questions to the decades of incessant ridicule and self-pompous-and-utterly-prejudiced articulations that these worthies have heaped on this program. Too much of an H&D issue for these folks to withstand, I guess!!

So all you will get is the std stmt of "Mk1 doesn't meet the IAF reqts" and then immediately bring in either Kaveri or now Radar or both.

For the life of me, I haven't understood what has Kaveri failure got to do with operationalizing MK1. Are there any restriction in 404 imports, what is it?
And wrt Radar etc, the COTS nose-cone unavailability issue is well known - question that I've repeatedly ask how if the current hybrid MMR perf compare to that of Kopyo (wrt Track Range, TWS, multi-engagement, off-boresight Track ranges, various Air-Ground perf factors, reliability issues like MTBO etc).
Of course, there is this related aspect of having to answer stuff like, on one hand all these incessant wailing about replacing MiG-21/27 but were the ASR reqs that of a Su-30 is it?

I don't know what is more depressing, these articulations or BRF folks (which prides to be ahead of the curve etc) who would simply copy-paste them and sometimes even add their own spin/interpretation/prejudice to it and post here.

Continue pls ...

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 28 Apr 2015 11:36

Yagnasri wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Matheswaran can say whatever he wants to, nothing can stop IAF from becoming a 27 sq force by 2022 if they don't order LCA.

Then there will be calls for emergency G2G purchase of F35.

The economics of war plane manufacturing dictates that unless it is India that manufactures its own planes, we cant have the force levels that IAF wants to have. There are only two (or two and a half) countries/blocks in the world that can manufacture war planes at an industrial scale any more, and they are the US and China. All other blocks are now making boutique/cottage industry scale fighters in a few hundred scale. Rafale itself would have been capped at < 200 fighters if it were not for the IAF. Smaller scale of manufacture is in proportion to the (perceived) reduced chances of conflict by the elite and an aversion to wars in the populations. For instance, in a recent survey, 80% of Italians felt that they would not participate in an armed action by their country (!!). This smaller scale, combined with economies in stasis means costs that are spiraling upwards vastly in excess of either GDP rates or inflation rates.

This means that even a hypothetical $4 T Indian economy in 2025 can not afford a large fleet of such fighters, unless it is able to manufacture them with most of the value addition at home. As other posters mentioned, instead of claiming that 'Mk1' does not meet IAF requirements, people like Matheswaran should point out exactly on which parameters the MK1 falls short and even then, work with all strength towards an Mk2 and an MK3. To me, if we are to retain a conventional deterrent posture against China, we do not have any other solution.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 28 Apr 2015 11:40

Philip wrote:
Vayu-2/15.LCA feature by AM Matheswaran.Traces the evolution of it from HF-24/Gnat era. Fundamental mistakes in concept,a light aircraft that brings with it performance v.similar to the aircraft it is replacing ,MIG-21,with no great capability increase to meet current and future needs. Mk-1 doesn't meet the IAF's reqs. We're fooling ourselves if we think that a Mk-2 will be equiv to a Rafale or equiv.The two best "light fighters" in history,the MIG-21 and F-16. Asks whether the MK-2 should be single or twin-engined. Right now,he feels that the LCA is going the same way as the HF-24.Two major failures of the programme,the engine and AESA radar.On the latter,there was a recent item about the DRDO saying that "within 2 years" they would have our desi AESA radar ready and hoped that it would be used on the LCA,to replace the Israeli one. Here there is a more realistic possibility of this happening than the engine (Kaveri).

Something I've never been able to understand is the continued linking by the media as well as those who ought to know better, of the engine and radar to the main fighter program. Boeing and McDonell Douglas buy their engines from GE or Pratt & Whitney or RR or whoever and the radars from Raytheon, and the Europeans buy their engines from the same sources or maybe SNECMA, and the radars from other third parties such as Selex Galileo. Why then are we continuing to beat our breasts about the failure, delay etc. of these ancillary programs that in other countries are outsourced to third parties, when the main program is progressing?

Other tech achievements have been praised (composites,etc.),but our ability to put together a fully operational aircraft and get series production running smoothly has meant that the IAF has looked elsewhere for its needs.

Matheshwaran is shooting from the hip here. The manufacturing part belongs to HAL and not DRDO, and our esteemed AVM (Retd.) is very much a part of the former in his capacity as advisor. What do they say about people who live in glass houses?

JMT...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2015 11:53

Look,I'm reporting what an IAF AM has written, These are not my views.The Q i've simply asked asked is if that is the thinking of the IAF,or a significant part of it,then what is going to happen to the programme in the future? Many of us have predicted that once the IAF have got their hands on the Rafale, FGFA,etc.,there will be a lesser lust for the LCA and various shortcomings of it in comparison with other aircraft in the inventory and enemy threats will be brought up just as it was in the case of Arjun. His views simply can't be dismissed out of hand,they have to be refuted intelligently.

Secondly,he was tracing the history and evolution of the aircraft in the Indian context,where we are again reliving the underpowered engine performance as experienced with the HF-24.That's a fact. An underpowered engine and overweight MK-1 is what we have at the moment,otherwise,why is there a need for a MK-2 with a more powerful engine? Pl. read the entire article and then pontificate.

My view is that with the IAF's lust for the best with all the bells and whistles,plus the time and money that it will take for a MK-2,3 to be developed and then produced in series production,the design of this "lightweight fighter" may become obsolete and it may truly remain "lightweight" in content. If the AMCA is going to be taken up only after the LCA matures,then believe you me,we may see it only by 2030,that is those of us still alive by then!

The requirement for the AMCA to replace all the med. and other smaller multi-role strike aircraft exists. A larger,heavier MK-2/3 whatever is going to come closer to the performance demanded of the AMCA,so why not compress the two programmes into just one,the AMCA after LCA MK-1,IA,whatever,buildign upon the tech already developed for the LCA and borrowing what is relevant from the FGFA programme where we have at least a financial stake already. That may save a decade or so in development time and see the aircraft enter service around 2025 if we start right now.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Apr 2015 14:33

shiv wrote:I was wondering if we could have a separate thread for hi funda aerodynamics talk - something like "Aerodynamics for gurus and gandus" or "Aerody...by gurus for g..ndus"?

Good idea. May be a separate thread for LCA with only technical/factual info (good posts from archives could be copied there too). I don't feel like posting on this thread as the same cycle of posts is going on for last many years here. I was reading posts from 2001 the other day. You paste those posts here and they will blend in just like that. Same talk again and again. Only problem I have is all the genuine info is lost under the heap of this constant back and forth rant and ramble.

Indranil,

Can you point out the difference in the wing form that you are referring to?? You can simply compare on-ground and in-flight wing shapes. That should give you idea about the aero-elastic deformation.

There will be definitely some deformation, but the question is, is it large enough? And what is large 1cm, 10cm or 1m?? Without any info, I would put my money on ~5cm at the tip.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 28 Apr 2015 15:07

India should press for global ban on sale of fighter jets and all other Military planes. I think only then those wanting modern maal with bells and whistles agreeing to buy these. We will also see very good innovation and development like in Missile field

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 28 Apr 2015 15:44

Only thing that makes "make in India" workable is ban on all imports in certain areas. Like all systems needed for IA, design and making of all ships for IN, All light AC, trainers etc for IAF. Unless some restrictions are imposed there will be induction of Indian systems.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2015 16:34

rkirankr wrote:India should press for global ban on sale of fighter jets and all other Military planes. I think only then those wanting modern maal with bells and whistles agreeing to buy these. We will also see very good innovation and development like in Missile field

Like Pakistan asking for ban on arms aid to all.

Problem is there is huge competition between 4-5 nations to sell combat aircraft to the remaining 163 nations of the world. When those 4-5 nations want to ban sales they have a different system and the name of that system is "sanctions". We all know whether India is among those 4-5 plane exporters or the 163 plane importers. One way to dominate the world would be to call for such a ban and the 5 exporting nations might die laughing - leaving us as top dog and Pakistan as top bitch.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Apr 2015 16:49

We should test few Thermonuclear devices. And we will make progress by leaps and bounds in technology soon.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2015 16:59

nileshjr wrote:We should test few Thermonuclear devices. And we will make progress by leaps and bounds in technology soon.

Well this is exactly what China did. Everyone applied sanctions on them for being nuclear and commie so they had no brochures to compare.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 28 Apr 2015 17:14

It is all political will and leadership sir. When we have PM with some guts and understanding of defense matters all things like gora marketing dances and natashas will vanish. The problem is we need a long term commitment which is very difficult to get.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Apr 2015 20:52

nileshjr wrote:We should test few Thermonuclear devices. And we will make progress by leaps and bounds in technology soon.

I have mentioned this a number of times in the past especially during the MMRCA saga. Before opening the price bid let us burst a few nuclear devices. Let us see which country had the balls to sanction us.

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Apr 2015 20:55

Cain Marko wrote:While Indranil continues to add to the substance of the thread, yours truly will add a bit of masala to the peripherals.

How to kill a flying bird: An LCA that nobody wanted!

Reading between the lines from Shukla's report, Parrikars' remarks, and rumors of first 4 SPs being delivered only by end of March 2016, plus the Mk2 absolutely nowhere in sight, things are not looking good. There is a distinct possibility that the mk2 will look like a Gripen NG.

The main stakeholders in the Tejas seem to be all lukewarm towards it:

End-user IAF: lukewarm response from the beginning, esp. for the mk1. Quick to jump on mk2 bandwagon, knowing fully well that this will take a loong time.
Manufacturer HAL: only interested in screwdriver giri with adequate amounts of handholding by design bureau, wonlee too happy to extend deadlines one after another - providing plenty of fodder for IAF to say, "we told you so". So long as gravy train continues in form of license production of various birds, HAL order books look good - they have no impetus to work with ADA to figure out effective mass production of the bird. Will be only too happy if Saab comes through and they get another deal for licensed mfg.
ADA: Most interested party - but more concerned in doing some science project - wants to consider AMCA now. Is not particularly concerned about time-lines either.
The Swedish bimbo: Blonde, svelte and very streamlined. Only too happy to hand-hold HAL in production of ahem, "LCA" so long as cheque is good. End result of their audit/consulting = an LCA that looks surprisingly similar to the Gripen - doh!

Bottomline - if the LCA mk1 and mk2 keeps getting postponed, Parrikar's words are likely to come true.

Very disappointing. The rot is so deeply systemic that there is simply no motivation for anybody to make a change. I remember my hopes rising when Chanderji came along and mentioned getting the LCA up and running as his priority. At the end of two years, he too seemed quite stumped and asked for SAAB consultancy! Perhaps the AMCA will be a different story - hopefully will have enough of an Aero industry built up by then (which the LCA program has been instrumental in creating) that when the time for production comes, there will be more players than just HAL.

Moral of the Story

ALL the stakeholders want firangi maal

K

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Apr 2015 20:58

Yagnasri wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Matheswaran can say whatever he wants to, nothing can stop IAF from becoming a 27 sq force by 2022 if they don't order LCA.
Then there will be calls for emergency G2G purchase of F35.

That's exactly what a lot of people want !!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Apr 2015 22:00

Philip wrote:
Vayu-2/15.LCA feature by AM Matheswaran.

I hope Philip saar has paraphrased the report correctly. And if he has, then, I don't understand AM Matheswaran. I have always tried to respect him, but it has been very difficult. Because, I almost always see bias as I can't imagine him to be so naive or ignorant. AM Matheswaran is known for his great liking for the medium-weight fighters. He was the chief architect for the MMRCA requirement specification, because Su-30s were deemed to be too heavy and thus too expensive to maintain as the entire fleet. Well, I won't speak about the scope creep in the MMRCA, where Gripens to F-18s were allowed as medium weight

. But the same person says:
1. Gripen is a viable alternative, LCA mk2 is not!

2. Although the cost factor should be taken into account to understand why medium fighters are required along with heavy fighters, it should not be considered when going from medium to light fighters?

Now, let me take on the individual arguments. It is so full of contradictions that is not even funny!

Philip wrote:
Fundamental mistakes in concept,a light aircraft that brings with it performance v.similar to the aircraft it is replacing ,MIG-21,with no great capability increase to meet current and future needs. Mk-1 doesn't meet the IAF's reqs.

Just because the LCA and Mig-21 are of the same weight, LCA provides no greater capability increase.

Surely, the AM cannot be so naive!

And by the way, the Rafale/EF are very close to the the Mig-35, why are we chosing to pay at least 2 times more for each Rafale?

Philip wrote:
We're fooling ourselves if we think that a Mk-2 will be equiv to a Rafale or equiv.

Nobody believes that the Mk2 is a Rafale equivalent, except the dumb, and probably the AM himself!

Philip wrote: The two best "light fighters" in history,the MIG-21 and F-16. Asks whether the MK-2 should be single or twin-engined.

This is super funny, the world has seen two best light fighters, so should not manufacture any more?

And by the way his favourite light fighters (happens to be mine as well), came in many tranches.

Philip wrote: Right now,he feels that the LCA is going the same way as the HF-24.Two major failures of the programme,the engine and AESA radar.On the latter,there was a recent item about the DRDO saying that "within 2 years" they would have our desi AESA radar ready and hoped that it would be used on the LCA,to replace the Israeli one. Here there is a more realistic possibility of this happening than the engine (Kaveri).

I don't understand. Uttam is going great guns, but it is not tied to the development of the Tejas. It will be fitted when it is ready. The Kaveri is completely decoupled from the LCA!!! Even if mail traveled on mule-backs, it should have reached the AM by now!

Philip wrote: Other tech achievements have been praised (composites,etc.),but our ability to put together a fully operational aircraft and get series production running smoothly has meant that the IAF has looked elsewhere for its needs.

Thank God for small mercies. IAF can wait, support and accept foreign aircraft made by HAL. But ...

Philip wrote: A Q.If MK-2 is going to take a while before it arrives,why not merge the MK-2 and AMCA programmes? Just improve Mk-1 to the max possible,order more and leapfrog tech and time with the MK-2/AMCA. Since the FGFA acquisition is also being fast-tracked from official reports,it will help if the AMCA is being developed in parallel,though behind the FGFA by about 5 years. We know that there is a serious shortage of human resources (scientists),money and a lot of tech to be developed.Even advanced nations like Japan,SoKo cannot afford multiple fighter programmes. We are now (apart from our medium aircraft upgrades,MIG-29 and M2K),also planning Jaguar upgrades,Super Sukhois,FGFAs,AMCAs,LCAs and poss. even manufacturing Rafale sin the future! Where is the moolah going to come from when the DM has asked the IAF to preserve its existing aircraft (50+yr old MIG-21s) v.carefully?!

LCA Mk1 is the stepping stone to the LCA Mk2 which in turn is the stepping stone to the AMCA. If we had not built the Mk1 in numbers, and tested it to the hilt, we would have realized its shortcomings which are being subsequently fixed in the Mk2. This is the natural way of designing high-tech machinery. Look around and let me know one successful high-tech product to the contrary.

The same goes for AMCA. AMCA has even more advanced technology than Mk2. Without incremental steps, we will always be relegated to the fabrication of prototypes which are seperated by generations! A much larger question than money is the people. How do you expect people with almost no know-how to suddenly come up with 5th-gen aircraft?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Apr 2015 22:04

They would rather have the entire aircraft imported, but deride LCA having imported engine & radar ?? Strange logic. This is not 100% indigenous, so I want something 100% imported??

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Apr 2015 22:26

Sounds like the AM is announcing the death knell of the LCA. With leaders like him, we all need to be afraid/concerned about the future. IAF will only fly imported aircraft it seems and has no idea/concept of power projection using weapons that depend on others for availability.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Apr 2015 22:37

indranil,
Maybe test a few TNs & give them to IA. Buy a lot of Gnats/Mig 21s for IAF to do fly-pasts.
Make sure that stall and spin for fly- past display is added requirement!!!!

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 28 Apr 2015 22:41

putnanja wrote:They would rather have the entire aircraft imported, but deride LCA having imported engine & radar ?? Strange logic. This is not 100% indigenous, so I want something 100% imported??

<Sarcasm on>
Who knows, may be - and wild guessing here since no reasons are given - there might be issues with imported engines and radars, such as:
* GPS device in engines? (Unlike in stealth planes?)
* Safety record not up to the mark as set by the team testing Tejas! - this is not even a critique
* Imported radar not up to standards due to issues with imported canopy?
</Sarcasm off>

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 28 Apr 2015 22:42

What is ADA and HAL doing to expedite Tejas Mk.1 delivery and proto development of MK.2 . Please, any concrete details. Has there been any real attempt to prepone MK.2 timelines. What is the fault of IAF in case of IJT.