LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 23 May 2015 17:11

I am of the opinion that we should produce the LCA-MK1 till such time as LCA - MKII is ready for production. In the meanwhile, we shall have learnt a lot and developed additional features and instrumentation, both can be used on MKI as well as MKII.

I am also of the opinion that we should take KAVERI MKI and build an aircraft around it and fly that to get information and knowledge that will help us to develop MKII, hopefully for use on LCA MK II.

In Industry we would have used this approach.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 23 May 2015 21:42

Gents, please easy with the pinglish on threads other than BENIS.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 May 2015 22:59

[b I am also of the opinion that we should take KAVERI MKI and build an aircraft around it and fly that to get information and knowledge that will help us to develop MKII, hopefully for use on LCA MK II./b]

Instead of building a new plane, we could test the existing kaveri on a LCA itself after confirming its airworthiness. Designing another plane just for a less powerful Kavery is going to be a waste of time and energy.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 May 2015 23:01

Using Kaveri on a twin engine aircraft may be better.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 24 May 2015 01:51

That would be HF-25.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 02:06

geeth ji, you are on the bulls eye. The Kaveri specs were precisely drafted for mating with LCA. It would be like having to go via-agra and not to kiss your beloved begum if we don't mate Kaveri with LCA. We need to specifically capture metrics on Kaveri powering the LCA. The collected data is vital for Kaveri next gen. LCA is the only savior for Kaveri.

well, I don't have to say these in front of gurus, and experts here.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 24 May 2015 02:31

Its end of May and the news has been that Tejas is on track for FOC.
Therefore any further news on the Flying Daggers. Where are the core people coming from ?
TACDEs + existing detachments to ADA etc. ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 03:34

chola wrote:
SaiK wrote:Thx Singha ji.

India should follow the tried and tested spiral path to development, and churning a block every run. It took 4 blocks for Gripen to get where it is now

http://www.defesanet.com.br/site/upload ... 5/1112.jpg
DRDO and HAL are being forced down this path by the IAF and the CAG anyways. That single MKI sample sent to the IAF was dissected and thrown back in their faces as a deficient machine to be fixed by MKII. I don't see this process ending after because the IAF won't settle and I like that. Why should it?

chola, IAF should not settle for anything less than what it has drafted in its ASR. I like that too.

pushing words like deficient machine is absolutely wrong, in the sense, the requirements have changed as the LCA progressed. The requirements are needed, and must be delivered but what and how in which tranche is the point here.

Let us consider Agile phil for argument sake.. the consumer/user must accept the tranche as chartered in the ASR before the design of the platform begins. All significant changes can be incorporated in the next tranche, of course. only minimal changes that does not affect the schedule (+/- 10% is ok) should be acceptable. well, this product/project management (PLM) is not anything you all do not know. I am sure, you are not putting the LCA (life cycle analysis) into play.

By enabling the user to use LCA, in block mode is la Microsoft strategy. delivery with deficiency in tranche 1 (not really, but phased scope), and upgrade as you use enhances the DRDO-IAF (developer/consumer) relationship as well. The product matures faster as the user experiences the machine and participates in providing feedback, "after use". The key point is "after use", else the stories never take serious route and it appears that this is all a game plan (read chaanakya's post) by the dark forces who bank towards firangie machines where the middleman-ship takes precedence for his/her business transaction benefits. It is a clout system that we dealing here.

Modi mantra will happen, only when we start shedding this firang is the only way we can claim superiority. IAF and IA must take the extra step, to get cozier with the developer and encourage them with an acceptance plan. Otherwise, we are not building products., nor we are establishing an industry to flourish.

This pure user as only buyer relationship must end for IAF. sadly, under Modi gov, that is only way out... and IAF will realize that soon.

ps: you may win on an argument that IAF will deny anything that is not in 1995 ASR. quite valid. but, there is absolutely nothing wrong in upgrading LCAs Mk1 to Mk2 (read: DRDO has said, there is no air frame change required for using GE F414 IN20s)..which is quite possible. Besides that, having couple Mk1 squadrons and few real-time operations would go big way to LCA Mk2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 03:46

was this linked here earlier?

The Radiance of Tejas: A bright prospect for 'Make in India'
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48651.html

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 May 2015 04:38

Is it possible to do a synopsis of what we know about the Tejas' performance vs ASR ?

It is all well and good for media hacks to say it does not meet ASR for ITR/STR etc but how far off is it ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 May 2015 04:50

^^ SaiKji

Welcome back!

Using Agile model, IAF need not use the first round of LCAs themselves in wars. It can use them in exercises to learn how this platform integrates in existing operations/logistics paradigms.

Every iteration includes some feedback from previous version and at least one new feature addition towards better use of the platform.

In Agile model there is no (dead) end product because every iteration is at least a feature (can be more) better than previous one. The feature can be anything.

Given a proper architecture to be backward compatible (unless -ve value) w.r.t new features it would be built into the process for upgrading older versions of aircraft.

I would recommend IAF buys at least 1sq of LCAs for each iteration. I would put LCA iteration as 6months.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 05:22

sure.. but here, the agility should be focused towards capability of the platform that your are providing IAF. not, just focused on turn rates or some specific engine factor on dog fights.. such capabilities can be put to operational at a later time as we mature. like you said, we need to define capability stages: training, medium range air-air, air-ground, interdiction, reconn, fwd air control, SEAD, CAS, ... etc, and finally focus on swing role, multi role, mother of all roles in one pack etc. no mission of IAF is going to happen suddenly with all roles put into one mission or ops. well, how easy is to tailor the platform for multiple roles is a capability maturity that comes so late in the lifecycle of the platform when a country like India is building some advanced systems like LCA.

so, graduating capabilities should be in each block/tranche. Get IAF sign-off on what each tranche should focus on which capability. That way, it gives the developer variables to focus on each version. And IAF is satisfied exactly on what each capability that they want to prioritize and bookmark achievements, and have clear well defined force projection.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 May 2015 05:31

^ Exactly.

A feature has to have value to the user IAF. IAF can decide which feature it wants to add next (of course within acceptable limits).

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 24 May 2015 07:56

sanjaykumar wrote:but the prablam is retd am mathy sahib doesn't think so. he is the e-straw-err-jee add-wiser for mk2/hal.

At the risk of repetition, can we forgo the quantum cipher.

Repetition is redundancy or error detection. More repetition is more redundancy and hence errors can be even corrected.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 08:20

redundancy can be also used for improving performance and availability.
errors must be fixed! no second option there.

we cannot do quantum jumping but only can establish capabilities step by step. every operational need must be designed, v&ved, and deployed. If IAF is seeking MC/DC coverage, so be it! it must be done.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 08:59

another one of those mk2 models from thakur saab's web

note the intake/mid fuselage bulge!

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 24 May 2015 09:52

UlanBatori wrote:That would be HF-25.

Then this HF25 would be a better a/c than the Hawk anyday..IMO. With a marginal decrease in power, most of the tests of the engine and any new modifications to the a/c can be done on these test platforms. Not only that, we can test the future variants of the engines as well, once the platform with Kaveri is proven.

Only risk is, if there is a crash, there will be lot of howling from Media. But we need to learn to live with it.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 24 May 2015 10:44

software development and fighter development is not same thing . In broader sense any such high tech product development , be it software , automobiles , cell phones etc requires customer feedback to improve upon the product . Fighter a/c development comes with its inherent risk , so narrowing it to down s/w development is not correct.
The user here IAF is firmly involved in the programme as they are the one who are providing test pilots and in return giving and receiving the required feed backs.Tejas already flew from several bases and was part of EX live wire.

The iteration type of development we see with fighter a/c is also happening with tejas development too ,with first 20 MK1 a/c in IOC and the rest in FOC specs respectively. MK2 will fulfill most ASRs ( i am not privy to full ASR requirements ). But what is giving the max number of heart-ache here with equal number of arguments is about the slow production rate of tejas and that blame should squarely be put on HAL and ADA.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 May 2015 14:48

^^^

HAL over promised on the LCA delivery schedule. Realistic one would have been minimum of 36 months (2016) from design freeze (Dec 2013) as seen world-over from established production lines. The Indian designers, researchers and production agencies, who have gained a lot of maturity over the last 30-years, need to be much more careful about announcing unrealistic timelines. That's more of a rookie mistake.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 May 2015 15:22

What is the production capacity of Dhruv today at HAL every year ? They have been making Dhruv since nearly a decade now

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 24 May 2015 17:56

Dhruv is being produced at an estimated @28/year.

Last CAG report gave it @24/year.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2015 19:20

shaun, you not correct to assume we are relating software dev and rt-system on the same process. we are not talking about block mode for iterative programming to correct existing features.. well that may be a case for some LRU within the massive LCA system. (btw, the day in the future is all about narrowing differences between software and systems engineering.. future is so positive about having a chip in every metal piece that can be engaged to move or do some action).

we are not saying iterative.. we are talking about precision delivery of capabilities so that the consumer as a user is bought in to the program without too much hype or getting dissatisfied because time moved on, so ASR changed.. so go back and fetch me a different machine. well, that type of working is against system engineering too.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 24 May 2015 19:36

Saik sir, to be frank , i am not getting your point , will you please care to elaborate

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 May 2015 21:29

SaiK wrote:another one of those mk2 models from thakur saab's web

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gB6nj-fGFyg/V ... edium).jpg

note the intake/mid fuselage bulge!

You joined the party pretty late

. You can follow the discussion from here.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 May 2015 02:49

thx.

missed this one: http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/04 ... 41757.html
now the confusion about uttam from LRDE/Israeli tie up or this data patterns/kRET wala?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 May 2015 04:56

SaiK wrote:chola, IAF should not settle for anything less than what it has drafted in its ASR. I like that too.

SaiK: Great post, but I would like to point out one thing. I hope the IAF holds that same yard stick for foreign aircraft as well. Otherwise that is just hypocritical. The Mk.1 - in its current avatar - is way better than the MiG-21 it was designed to replace. Induct that first, but to wait for the Mk.2 to arrive because that is the only way you will be satisfied is foolhardy.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 May 2015 05:17

Absolutely rak bhai! Mk1 (call it ASR v0.1) must be inducted and IAF should provide more operational feedback to make it to Mk2 (ASR v.2) more robust in terms of capability enhancements. I am sure, operational feedback would add additional inputs in not just platform feedback, but ops feedback - maintenance, serviceability, LRU, MTBFs, etc.. The iterations from then on can only get more robust.

shaun - here the iteration means a block.

regarding firangie planes, they have no big liberty or role to call big shot on specs.. they have to take what is offered. of course, we did tweak the MKI. and many programs of LCA went favorable for MKI as well. LCA is our puppy.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 May 2015 05:48

Actually we wait for the foreign aircraft to come out and then we write up the RFP

By the way, why is everyone welcoming you back? Did you go on a pilgrimage or something? I don't want to be left out, so welcome back wherever you came from.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 May 2015 06:35

Rakesh you are the guy who has been on pilgrimage.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 May 2015 06:39

Self imposed exile for not being able to afford Mithai

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 May 2015 06:57

welcome back Rakesh!

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 25 May 2015 07:33

Yeah welcome back, all is forgiven.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 May 2015 08:12

I, for one, welcome back our webmaster over lord.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 25 May 2015 08:23

TSJ welcome back. The only one ... err ... two missing are Johann and SunilS (or did SS get banned for life?). In any case none of my business. Going back to dark kave dhoti shivering.

But my calculations show that Johann space is orthogonally complementary to TSJ space. Their direct sum covers the entire space of BRF.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 25 May 2015 08:39

SaiK wrote:Absolutely rak bhai! Mk1 (call it ASR v0.1) must be inducted and IAF should provide more operational feedback to make it to Mk2 (ASR v.2) more robust in terms of capability enhancements. I am sure, operational feedback would add additional inputs in not just platform feedback, but ops feedback - maintenance, serviceability, LRU, MTBFs, etc.. The iterations from then on can only get more robust.

shaun - here the iteration means a block.

regarding firangie planes, they have no big liberty or role to call big shot on specs.. they have to take what is offered. of course, we did tweak the MKI. and many programs of LCA went favorable for MKI as well. LCA is our puppy.

No ... what is more urgently needed is a benchmarking exercise of this ASR against the performance characteristics of the aircrafts that LCA is supposed to have replaced.
That 1993-95 ASR seems to a cut-paste job from various available "shiny" brochures - afterall, there's a difference between wish-list and requirement specifications!!

Why this sudden urge now, to convert a wish-list to a practical requirement specification - to paint it as a failure, is it?

LCA doesn't match up to the 18deg/sec of STR of F-16C Blk 50 (@M 0.75 , 7 Gs) ... fine ... why is it then again asked to match up the ITR of 23deg/sec of that of M2000-5 (@M 0.65 , 9 Gs)? The absurdity of all these is covered in a related post of mine on this aspect ...

Also exactly which of the aircrafts, that LCA is supposed to replace comes even close to match BOTH of these performance characteristics ... MiG-21/23/27/Jags? Which one?
Wrt performance of Mk1 compared to that of the Bison's, it's primary replacement, here's one quote to consider:

Air Commodore (Retd) Harish Nayani is a former LCA test pilot who has flown the MiG-21 Bison aircraft extensively and commanded a Bison squadron.
This is what Nayani had to say.
"There is absolutely no doubt that the Mk 1, even if limited to 20 alpha would be many magnitudes better than the venerable Bison on all fronts. Notably, handling, safety, pilot comfort, and performance in the subsonic and trans-sonic regimes"
(Note: This quote was made when Mk1 was limited to 20deg alpha, so maybe around 2012 timeframe - it has since achieved 26deg alpha at the IoC stage itself, IIRC - so other aero performance must have improved as well)

Granted, these being older design, you want a mark-up of a certain percentage (10%-15%-even 20%) in performance characteristics - but why ask 50%+ markup etc. Otherwise, how is the 11-12deg/sec STR of a Bison, starightway becomes 18deg/sec of a F-16Blk 50?
OTOH, if F-16Blk 50 is the benchmark, why specify for 23+deg/sec ITR ... why not 18deg/sec (@M 0.7 , 8 Gs) ITR figures of a F-16Blk50?

Ditto in the case of radar, avionics etc ... which of the said aircraft (barring Jags) have an IFR? Why is IFR not an optional feature at the FOC stage? Why can't a MLU, say after 3-4 sqns have been raised, where this can be made a firm requirement?
On Radar, all this 60% detection range enhancement etc with a new nose-cone etc is fine ... but why at FOC stage? The current mech radar on Mk1 with the C-C-composite nose-cone, has detection/tracking range exceeding those of Kopyo of a Bison (there are many other performance improvement wrt Kopyo as well ... for example azimuth coverage etc ... not because of the radar issue, but because of nose-cone-cum-shock-cone-air-intake imposed limitations of a 21).
Why can't FOC be gone ahead without this nose-cone (only to be MLU'd, say after 3-4 sqns have been raised)?

So except of the desi-sticker issue, all this talk about Mk1 shortfall is constraining IAF from ordering more MK1 sqns etc is pure hogwash - and if NaMo and MaPa (nice acronym, between) can't see thru this elaborate charade, and rectify it, how exactly are they different from the previous snow-white-mundu-at-all-cost regime?

[Edit Later: Fixed a few spelling mistakes and formatting issues]

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 25 May 2015 08:42

there should be a thread on pride in domestic products (or the sad lack of it) over imports. India needs engineering successes to attempt to keep its tryst with destiny!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 May 2015 09:16

The whip can come by way of budgeting, and there was an article from S Jha precisely on the same mentioning why the budgets kept IN on the higher priority compared to IAF and IA. There are specific problems we have to deal with now, to engage forces on the requirements from threat perceptions.. When modiji is making himself busy on business deals, commerce takes precedence over defence (of course there are thresholds), but the risk of an impending war is reduced. now, that is an indirect whip.

our main problem is pakistan, and we can handle them with ease (if unkill does not prod or go over experimenting.. he has limits too, and will be pulled by jackal and hydes). It will happen, and they have to forced to accept LCA, just to start using them. play useful role as a stakeholder rather a trigger happy buyer. IA had similar issues on Arjun, we all don't need any detail analysis here on that to understand the mindsets.

It is a paradigm shift! only a political whip can help. we can't be spending billions for nothing... both IAF and IA must sign up, and satisfy makeInDesh needs for success. The ASR precisely does not say, brand name or product number when they are drafted.. so that is enough rider for the lab boys to say, accept and tell us what more you want, for a modified version or block. let us take it on a predictive and progressive model for the future.

if we go on the benchmarking exercise route, we will lose the grip on them to begin comparison with other firangie platforms.. they give a heck for home grown capabilities when push comes to shove, to satisfy requirements.. remember, IAF has the edge here in that they have every right to change the threat perceptions, and hence the ASR. the rider may not be a replacement, but how it satisfies the future needs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 May 2015 09:20

Adm.Rakesh,for non-supply of mithai you will be court-martialled shortly!

Q: From the comments by some members eg. the ASR issue,is the IAF in their opinion guilty of "goalpost shifting" of the LCA as alleged of the IA in the Arjun programme? Or are they justified in limiting the number of MK-1s ordered?

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 May 2015 10:27

^^^

IMO, what's been lacking is empowered product and project managers who can control change management better. They need to educate and set expectations correctly for the both parties (user and developer) by bridging the gap in understanding between the two. If the user wants to add XYZ, then a feedback from developers need to be communicated stating that if that is added then it will take additional X amount of time/cost and will impact other development work.

What is really important and must-haves versus what can be added later on in another upgrade package? What's the sequence of work and unit of components that need to be prioritized?
Do both parties understand cause-and-effect of changes in requirements? What's the impact to costs and schedules? Is that acceptable to both parties?
Has some velocity of teams been established in order to estimate work better? What are unknowns and risks? Has appropriate padding to estimates been applied?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 May 2015 13:46

Maitya, I agree with you 100%. The thing is we don't even know how far short of the ASR targets Tejas is falling.

Say you demand STR of 18deg/sec and hit 16 deg/sec (very different from 10 deg/sec) - then IAF get real that is pretty fair.

Same with ITR - demand 23 deg/sec and say you get 20-21 deg/sec - again what's the complaint ?

To expect perfection in the first iteration of a project this ambitious is crazy.