LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2015 22:08

analyzing the spread pattern of those bullet holes, there is more horz shift in precision than vert. if we reduce the spread to bulls eye, higher accuracy can be seen.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jun 2015 22:15

Nitesh wrote: Full report

http://www.oneindia.com/india/we-surviv ... 93008.html

When asked about the most challenging task he had to undertake as the Tejas project chief, the NIT Warangal top brain said: "I had no command on any of the stakeholders in the programme, barring ADA. Yet, I managed to get the support of everyone, which is what I am proud of."

That is amazing, isn't it. But moving forward, ADA has to given more control, or merged into an entity which has control.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jun 2015 22:20

He refused to name the people who were acting against Tejas project and ADA during 2007. "Names don't matter now as we have moved on. Let's focus on the current status of the project.

He should name them. We deserve to know the names of these worthies who are ok with taking our money and spending it on NREGA to imports but wanted to close Tejas.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 30 Jun 2015 22:24

Think chaiwalla speak who was the defence minister at at that time and guess the person who was exRM from UP ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jun 2015 22:31

OT but So UPA, tried to close LCA, 0 order for artillery, cancelled Denel Artillery manufacture, delayed 155mm manufacture at Nalanda, cancelled Denel upgrades, made 0 orders for Arjun, converted M-200-5 License manufacture to MMRCA fiasco, impoted Baretta sub machine gun, wanted import of multi caliber rifle, endless delays in Nag... This is what is in the public domain.

Its almost as if we were miltarily like before the Ghazni invasions. No wonder China is acting tough and Pakis Misbehaving. It will take 10 years to reverse this rubbish.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 30 Jun 2015 22:37

The bullet spread pattern can be thought of as a bivariate normal distribution to get the CEP. AS the gun is "ground stabilized" (I dont know what the correct technical term is) you can expect that the horizontal distribution will be more than the vertical one unless the plane was "jumpy" and a stable distribution would be expected to have a more horizontal ellipse distribution compared to a perfect circle. You can see that in the bullet distribution pattern. though the right gun seems to have drifted a bit more than the more accurate left gun.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jun 2015 22:37

prasannasimha wrote:Think chaiwalla speak who was the defence minister at at that time and guess the person who was exRM from UP ?

I am also reminded of one magnate who was busy asking what was the value of the LCA.
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/05/04/stor ... 871300.htm

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jun 2015 22:38

Aditya_V wrote:OT but So UPA, tried to close LCA, 0 order for artillery, cancelled Denel Artillery manufacture, delayed 155mm manufacture at Nalanda, cancelled Denel upgrades, made 0 orders for Arjun, converted M-200-5 License manufacture to MMRCA fiasco, impoted Baretta sub machine gun, wanted import of multi caliber rifle, endless delays in Nag... This is what is in the public domain.

Its almost as if we were miltarily like before the Ghazni invasions. No wonder China is acting tough and Pakis Misbehaving. It will take 10 years to reverse this rubbish.

Imports, imports, imports. Whatever we have has been running on gas fumes and air.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 30 Jun 2015 22:46

One person who saw to it that the LCA project was not sheleved was an ex DRDO person who occupied the highest post in the country. He openly has told about the attempt to nix the LCA in the past in various fora and again without giving names. Thing is it an open secret.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jun 2015 22:48

I remember a couple of jokers also stating that "LCA has been supported throughout why is it not there, it has been given bla bla funding". Such worthies even make it to BRF from time to time. No clue of what the reality was either.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Jun 2015 23:19

EX MP FROM PUNE OF CWG FAME

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2015 23:31

Guys we should track those turds in corruption thread.
Mr. P.S. Subramaniam is from NIT Warangal!!!!
He is B.Tech Mech Engg 1973 batch.

His face did look familiar!!!!

How much the nation owes the desis from non IIT backgrounds!!!!

The CAG reports also attest to the pressures on ADA from IAF and a passive MoD which did nothing to build the infrastructure.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 03:28

Bhaskar_T wrote:@Srai - The logic of starting the product delivery 36 months from IOC-2 (i.e. 20th Dec 2013) works when HAL themselves would promise so which is not the case. May I quote the project manager V Sridharan (the hand-chosen to build the LCA assembly line, powered with ~ 1000 Crores & who is reckoned for building Hawk trainer line) -

"By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters,"

So, by end 2015, 2 + 4 + 6 = 12 should be ready - 11 deliveries pending in next 6 months according to 1.5 years old promises by one of the Top Man accountable for IOC-2 standard delivery. This irony is little less or almost equally shameful when Abdul Kalam ji was given a vision that IAF will have 200 Tejas fighters by 2010 or so.

Reality check - SP-1 got delivered in Q1 2015 (1 year late delivery) and SP-2 is about a year late delivery as well as per Sridharan's deadline. Actually, it took our honourable Defence Minister Parrikar ji to announce that HAL will deliver SP-1 by March 2015, who by the way also said that SP-2 will also be delivered by March 2015. Thanks to the pedal pressure by DM which worked & IAF got SP-1 (amidst absence of Avinash Chandra).

Am not whining but simply trying to say that HAL cannot give the 36 months excuse since they are the ones who promised unrealistic deliveries (Am sure HAL does not remembers that order was given a decade back).

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 010_1.html

...

Valid point. For whatever reasons, these management guys at HAL, DRDO, OFB, etc over-promise on the delivery timelines and then get themselves in the hot-seat. That's bad project management 101. You have to be much more reserved when announcing timelines especially with unknowns; put in caveats and ample estimate padding; determine what could be the best case or the worst case scenarios and clearly communicate all that. Project management is about managing client's expectation. These managers are not helping their staff by underestimating efforts while over-promising on delivery. All it does is create lots of late-night shifts, blame-game and low-morale. Better to be on the conservative side on estimates and deliver on-time (or close to on-time). If deadlines are to be missed, admit mistake and re-estimate the effort left and correct the delivery schedule. Have some balls to push back on the user if need be.

Judging by the latest LCA production updates, HAL is roughly 1-year behind on the initial schedule they announced.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 03:33

Singha wrote:wouldnt a couple of slower firing higher caliber cannon cause more mayhem but retain more accuracy and less heat/vibrating than a light ciws type thing that can fire 6000rds/min but carries onlee 200 rds!!

I like the 2 x 30mm DEFA/ADEN cannon of the jaguars and widely used in all french a/c except the rafale.
rate of only 1300 rds per min but looks balanced and stable with two guns.

It goes back to the Germans. Faced with the bomber threat they wanted to destroy them thoroughly. So slower firing large caliber rounds were preferred. The 30mm Mk 108 was developed by them. Aden/DEFA are its modern versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

OTH USAAF wanted to destroy opposing fighters. So here rate of fire and flatter trajectory was more important. Hence the 0.5 Browning with overload cartridge which went on to equip even F-86 Sabres.

English wanted both and had 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon and machine guns.

I would like a future upgrade of LCA with the Su-30 MKI 30mm gun and more pilot protection.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 03:46

srai wrote:
Bhaskar_T wrote:@Srai - The logic of starting the product delivery 36 months from IOC-2 (i.e. 20th Dec 2013) works when HAL themselves would promise so which is not the case. May I quote the project manager V Sridharan (the hand-chosen to build the LCA assembly line, powered with ~ 1000 Crores & who is reckoned for building Hawk trainer line) -

"By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters,"

So, by end 2015, 2 + 4 + 6 = 12 should be ready - 11 deliveries pending in next 6 months according to 1.5 years old promises by one of the Top Man accountable for IOC-2 standard delivery. This irony is little less or almost equally shameful when Abdul Kalam ji was given a vision that IAF will have 200 Tejas fighters by 2010 or so.

Reality check - SP-1 got delivered in Q1 2015 (1 year late delivery) and SP-2 is about a year late delivery as well as per Sridharan's deadline. Actually, it took our honourable Defence Minister Parrikar ji to announce that HAL will deliver SP-1 by March 2015, who by the way also said that SP-2 will also be delivered by March 2015. Thanks to the pedal pressure by DM which worked & IAF got SP-1 (amidst absence of Avinash Chandra).

Am not whining but simply trying to say that HAL cannot give the 36 months excuse since they are the ones who promised unrealistic deliveries (Am sure HAL does not remembers that order was given a decade back).

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 010_1.html

...
Valid point. For whatever reasons, these management guys at HAL, DRDO, OFB, etc over-promise on the delivery timelines and then get themselves in the hot-seat. That's bad project management 101. You have to be much more reserved when announcing timelines especially with unknowns; put in caveats and ample estimate padding; determine what could be the best case or the worst case scenarios and clearly communicate all that. Project management is about managing client's expectation. These managers are not helping their staff by underestimating efforts while over-promising on delivery. All it does is create lots of late-night shifts, blame-game and low-morale. Better to be on the conservative side on estimates and deliver on-time (or close to on-time). If deadlines are to be missed, admit mistake and re-estimate the effort left and correct the delivery schedule. Have some balls to push back on the user if need be.

Judging by the latest LCA production updates, HAL is roughly 1-year behind on the initial schedule they announced.

These types of stories are what ,IMO, makes these guys over-promise on deliveries.

We survived strong moves to close Tejas project in 2007: Subramanyam

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 Jul 2015 03:57

ramana wrote:
Singha wrote:wouldnt a couple of slower firing higher caliber cannon cause more mayhem but retain more accuracy and less heat/vibrating than a light ciws type thing that can fire 6000rds/min but carries onlee 200 rds!!

I like the 2 x 30mm DEFA/ADEN cannon of the jaguars and widely used in all french a/c except the rafale.
rate of only 1300 rds per min but looks balanced and stable with two guns.

It goes back to the Germans. Faced with the bomber threat they wanted to destroy them thoroughly. So slower firing large caliber rounds were preferred. The 30mm Mk 108 was developed by them. Aden/DEFA are its modern versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

OTH UAAF wanted to destroy opposing fighters. So here rate of fire and flatter trajectory was more important. hence the 0.5 Browning with overload cartridge which went on to equip even F-86 Sabres.

English wanted both and had 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon and machine guns.

I would like a future upgrade of LCA with the Su-30 MKI 30mm gun and more pilot protection.

Ramanaji,

25-30mm HE shells will do the trick. If you are aiming for secondary CAS role, 27mm and above will suffice. We should be able to develop a revolver cannon in house. Wouldn't be a bad opportunity to open a tender for private and public companies instead of license producing the gsh-301.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 01 Jul 2015 06:42

The other part of the story no one tells is how project directors are ordered to announce particular time lines. It is not so simple as people make it out to be.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 01 Jul 2015 07:26

More updates from Saurav Jha on Twitter:

* The new quartz radome supposed to be delivered by Cobham is running into quality issues at its end apparently.
* The expected gain is yet to materialize. IFR delay is inexplicable. Overall there's some suspected politics involved in Cobham's delays.

Politics from whom? Vested interests in India, or competing aerospace firms who stand to lose a great deal if the Tejas succeeds?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 08:26

Hobbes Bharat Karnad wrote more specifics and we criticized it. Look a few pages back.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 08:29

There is a defence investigation unit. Parrikar needs to let them take a look.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 08:58

prasannasimha wrote:^ if you look carefully there are two concentric "target' circles

Yes - from two side-by-side cannon barrels

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jul 2015 09:15

Just for the asking,what is the radome material used by the Russians on the MKIs and 29s? Surely we could use that tech whatever it is for the LCA,esp. when MKI production aims for 100% material to be sourced from India. Why after decades of knowing what was required in the first place this issue has cropped up now defeats one.It smacks of absurd management.Moreover,the retiring ADA Director,does not have the power of a DG,which was intended at the beginning,deliberately sabotaged by the technocrat babudom,as it would've given "hire and fire" powers to one individual,who would also be responsible for success and failure. Thus the Bsh*tters were protected and handed out unachievable timeframes for dev. of key items like the engine,radar,etc.

Now that we are at the "finishing line",the DM must send an empowered task force to squat in BLR until the desired results happen. Our obsolete MIG-21s and 27s are being retired en masse with no replacements in sight.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Jul 2015 09:33

OT but look at this article https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875

This is from Massa with its military industrial complex. But what they'll do is to make F35 succeed. By sticking with it and patiently ironing out its kinks. Every new project everywhere is accompanied by alarmist article for every teething trouble (Remember the "Arihant has no reactor!!!" articles?).

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 Jul 2015 10:24

LCA MKII is going to be packing some serious heat. Y shaped inlets, RAM coating, high levels of composites, overall very small size, internal EW suite including jammer, LRAAM like the IDerby, Python 4-HMCS combo, etc. This thing will be practically invisible to radar and will be extremely difficult to spot even within 20 km of target.

If that pos mig-21 with the el-8222 pod coupled with the acher-HMCS gave the Eagle pilots the chills, then the Tejas is going to make them sh*t bricks.

Are there any plans to integrate an IRST? Better gun and improving the drag will make it even better.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jul 2015 10:42

the 0.5m increase in length will decrease the drag.

i was hoping they go like gripenNG and move the landing gear bays into the wing roots and away from fuselage, opening new spaces for internal EW gear, additional LRU housing for future and more fuel.

a fighter is not just its systems, its about persistence and sustained speed as well - all of which needs lot of fuel.

thats what makes the Raptors, Eagles, Foxhounds and Flankers the big dogs of the sky.....they carry a lot more fuel into the fight and can do long range T-shaped intercepts that would be impossible for a small fighter. plus a mach2+ speed to evade and escape when things head south..a clear 500kmph advantage of the tejas/F-solah types with no moving surfaces inside the air intakes to handle more than mach1.8....imagine turning tail from a salvo of long range BVR shots coming your way to burn them off and make them fall out...500kmph is a good thing to have.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 Jul 2015 11:16

Has the MKII design been frozen?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Jul 2015 11:31

^^ If P Subramaniyam is saying roll out is in 2018 then the designs are surely past preliminary design stage in any case. No aerodynamic or big structural changes can be expected at this stage.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 13:58

New video

The Best of LCA Tejas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4XBqNrzqak

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 15:49

Singha wrote:the 0.5m increase in length will decrease the drag.

i was hoping they go like gripenNG and move the landing gear bays into the wing roots and away from fuselage, opening new spaces for internal EW gear, additional LRU housing for future and more fuel.

a fighter is not just its systems, its about persistence and sustained speed as well - all of which needs lot of fuel.

thats what makes the Raptors, Eagles, Foxhounds and Flankers the big dogs of the sky.....they carry a lot more fuel into the fight and can do long range T-shaped intercepts that would be impossible for a small fighter. plus a mach2+ speed to evade and escape when things head south..a clear 500kmph advantage of the tejas/F-solah types with no moving surfaces inside the air intakes to handle more than mach1.8....imagine turning tail from a salvo of long range BVR shots coming your way to burn them off and make them fall out...500kmph is a good thing to have.

Small fighters have advantage over big birds when they are defending close to their home bases. They will be lightly loaded ideal for air combat. In that configuration, they will run circles around heavily loaded big fighters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jul 2015 16:29

i meant area air defence & long range escort vs point defence. both have their uses for cost optimization. even khan could not afford a force of entirely F-15 and fielded 3 times that number of F-16.

think of the spitfire/hurricane in ww2 vs the P37, P47 and P51

it was a unit of P37 that staged a long range ambush of the plane carrying Adm Yamamoto..none other had the range
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto#Death

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 01 Jul 2015 16:54

RoyG wrote:Has the MKII design been frozen?

I think initial design is frozen. But if you look at the feature set for MK II its a new plane with same skin.

That itself increases the risk manifold. If they are planning for FOC in 2021 timeframe then it should be in air right now. 2018 will be too late

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 18:36

Philip wrote:Just for the asking,what is the radome material used by the Russians on the MKIs and 29s? Surely we could use that tech whatever it is for the LCA,esp. when MKI production aims for 100% material to be sourced from India. Why after decades of knowing what was required in the first place this issue has cropped up now defeats one.It smacks of absurd management.Moreover,the retiring ADA Director,does not have the power of a DG,which was intended at the beginning,deliberately sabotaged by the technocrat babudom,as it would've given "hire and fire" powers to one individual,who would also be responsible for success and failure. Thus the Bsh*tters were protected and handed out unachievable timeframes for dev. of key items like the engine,radar,etc.

Now that we are at the "finishing line",the DM must send an empowered task force to squat in BLR until the desired results happen. Our obsolete MIG-21s and 27s are being retired en masse with no replacements in sight.

Philip,

1) LCA needs quartz radome material with cyanate ester resin to increase the RF transmissibility of the MMR with EL/M 2032 modules. This is the core issue.
MMR being based on EL/M 2032 the power output is already frozen or fixed.
Radomes for Jaguar etc are Kevlar as was the LCA first radome which is currently on the planes.
Kevlar has moisture absorption propensity. So every thing is just right to not work. All planets misaligned!

IAF wants the Derby on LCA which needs detection at 10-15% more than MMR.

This is hardnosed engineering. You find out what you don't know, when you don't know. (My trademark!)

They took a quick decision and went with Cobham (Formerly Flight Refueling) who is also facing difficulties per Dr. Tamilmani. First unit delivered had quality issues the Jan 31., 2015 article said.

Mk 1.5 will have MMR with EL/M 2052 a more powerful radar.

2) Now to come to your point about knowing for decades......
CAG reports are a goldmine of information and chronicle the saga if one has patience to read and more importantly understand the jargon.

ASL was chosen in 1989 to design the radome. From day 1 the option was Kevlar radome. All sketches show that.
They made radomes with Kevlar which flew on LCA TD-1 onwards.

No LCA radar to check it out!
HAL MMR was funded in 2006(?)
Radar didn't work. No question of integrating with Kevlar radome.

ELTA was brought in as consultant and MMR was made with EL/M 2032 modules.
Checkout showed Kevlar radome was not sufficient for Derby integration in 2014.
Hence Cobham alternative path chosen.

CAG also shows funding profile. Please read and see how LCA was always on a funding drip program form MoD and a Kamsa mode IAF. (From Bharat Karnad and Saurva Jha still going on with Cobham saga)

Its a credit like Krishna, Tejas emerged and will wield the Sudarshan.

P.S. Subramaniam navigated the choppy waters like Nanda brought us Tejas.

Empowered committee headed by CAS IAF and Secy, MoDP are running the show from 2006. Yet fingers are pointed at IAF. So what will a new empowered committee do?
Fire the real workers and parachute in fixers to claim the credit!

BTW in an engineering organization one learns from failures. That means those who were there are the knowledge keepers. Firing them will delay the system as new SMEs are required.

My advise (XX years of engineering of all sorts) always has been not to find the humans as the root cause but to find the systemic issues and fix them.

IF ADA had been forthcoming as PSS was, they would have more defenders.
-------
All, I would like informed criticism and not just rant and rave.

BTW if you read the CAG report you find the LCA can release 500 Kg Russian bombs also.
Wont find that nugget anywhere.
The outer pylons can fire the R-73 and thus the Python 5 now.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 18:45

Singha wrote:the 0.5m increase in length will decrease the drag.

i was hoping they go like gripenNG and move the landing gear bays into the wing roots and away from fuselage, opening new spaces for internal EW gear, additional LRU housing for future and more fuel.
a fighter is not just its systems, its about persistence and sustained speed as well - all of which needs lot of fuel.

thats what makes the Raptors, Eagles, Foxhounds and Flankers the big dogs of the sky.....they carry a lot more fuel into the fight and can do long range T-shaped intercepts that would be impossible for a small fighter. plus a mach2+ speed to evade and escape when things head south..a clear 500kmph advantage of the tejas/F-solah types with no moving surfaces inside the air intakes to handle more than mach1.8....imagine turning tail from a salvo of long range BVR shots coming your way to burn them off and make them fall out...500kmph is a good thing to have.

That's entire redesign. Why would you do that right now?

The planes you mention have to fight far from their bases deep into enemy country. The role model is the P51 Mustang flying from England and fighting in German skies. F-15 spec was drawn to be like that. Establish air superiority over enemy skies. Was LCA spec written like that? No.

Up till F-16/F-15 air study the emphasis was one short range jet fighters. In early 1970s one USAF officer with Vietnam experience was asked to lead a trade study and out of it came the requirement for F-15 and F-16. Flanker came as response to F-15.

Don't go into futuristic vision stuff as that is how DRDO goes into long delays.

IAF will overfly TSP (max width 350 miles) in one hour at slow speed. So what need for long range?

PRC is another matter.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 01 Jul 2015 20:09

ramana wrote: .....................................
...........................
ASL was chosen in 1989 to design the radome. From day 1 the option was Kevlar radome. All sketches show that.
They made radomes with Kevlar which flew on LCA TD-1 onwards.

No LCA radar to check it out!
HAL MMR was funded in 2006(?)
Radar didn't work. No question of integrating with Kevlar radome.
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................

Ramana, wasn't Avro Hack used to test MMR with same Kevlar random. MMR had algorithm issues, but range deficiencies should have been known at that time only.

Or range deficiency is due to LCA random and EL/M 2032 combo and wasn't there with MMR?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 20:19

Singha wrote:the 0.5m increase in length will decrease the drag.

i was hoping they go like gripenNG and move the landing gear bays into the wing roots and away from fuselage, opening new spaces for internal EW gear, additional LRU housing for future and more fuel.

a fighter is not just its systems, its about persistence and sustained speed as well - all of which needs lot of fuel.

thats what makes the Raptors, Eagles, Foxhounds and Flankers the big dogs of the sky.....they carry a lot more fuel into the fight and can do long range T-shaped intercepts that would be impossible for a small fighter. plus a mach2+ speed to evade and escape when things head south..a clear 500kmph advantage of the tejas/F-solah types with no moving surfaces inside the air intakes to handle more than mach1.8....imagine turning tail from a salvo of long range BVR shots coming your way to burn them off and make them fall out...500kmph is a good thing to have.

Why are you concentrating on "intercepts" like all jingo forums that I see? Attack is what sets a great air force apart from a defender only air force. Our planes will be over enemy territory to bomb the crap out of them. They will be heavily loaded and not instantly capable of agility or high speed. Accelerating to Mach 2 may be possible at high altitude but at medium and low altitudes such an escape may not be possible. Most of these Mach 2 plus aircraft do that at high altitude. Over enemy territory, depending on how long they have been on station they simply may not have the fuel left to turn on the burners and run. So the advantages of "big fighters" that you speak of may be more romantic urban legend than reality.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 Jul 2015 20:24

Why Cobham? Surely, Israelis had a radome that worked well with EL 2032. Why not buy from them or buy the tech to build from them?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Jul 2015 20:25

ramana wrote: BTW in an engineering organization one learns from failures. That means those who were there are the knowledge keepers. Firing them will delay the system as new SMEs are required.

My advise (XX years of engineering of all sorts) always has been not to find the humans as the root cause but to find the systemic issues and fix them.

Firing is not the solution as they are knowledge keepers. Great thought R Garu. We need to make some of then entrepreneurs by funding startups to provide LCA parts by locally setting up manufacturing units. Give them hand holding , training and funds and captive order. That would be a great way to build Supply chain around LCA and also translate knowledge into Industrial Know How and also keep it for posterity. I know of at least one person who worked with APJ and has setup very successful unit which supplies for ISRO rockets and also some cryo parts. He has used his knowhow (ISRO's) to diversify into many other products in related or unrelated fields.Now aged abt 70 as energetic as APJ himself and very much idealistic type. I asked him to sponsor something which I visualised and he simply brought that idea to reality in no time and it got mentioned in National Report of GOI. Such is the commitment from those Gents. I think from ADA we might get people like him to set up SMEs for LCAs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 20:28

From CAG and pardon me for my limited comprehension the MMR never did work. Hence they went for ELTA EL/M 2032 back end and HAL antenna. and That got ready by mid 2000s.
So when they put them together in 2014 found out the deficiency.

KaranM is the expert on chronology.

-----

Otgoing ADA chief says LCA MkII will fly in 3 years and enter IAF service in 6 years

Good article by Ajai Shukla.

Outgoing Tejas chief says Mark II will fly in three years, enter IAF service in six

'Fifth-generation medium fighter project to cost $4 billion'

Ajai Shukla | New Delhi
July 1, 2015 Last Updated at 00:08 IST

When a young P S Subramanyam joined the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in 1986, that nodal agency charged with designing and developing an indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had little more than ideas. Air force fighter pilots and ADA engineers were deciding on the capabilities they wanted in the aircraft that would later be called the Tejas. But a flying fighter was still years of struggle away.

On Tuesday, Subramanyam retired from ADA after a full decade at its helm. In six-eight months, after some 2,500 hours of test flying, the Tejas will obtain "final operational clearance", which certifies it as combat ready. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has received its first Tejas, while another 17 are concluding a flight test programme that has not seen a single accident so far. Under Subramanyam, ADA has built three LCA variants - a single-seat operational fighter, a twin-pilot trainer and a naval Tejas for aircraft-carrier deck operations.

On ADA's drawing board are two major projects that are critical for the IAF's future: The Tejas Mark II, with a powerful new engine and advanced avionics; and the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation fighter that will enter IAF service after 2025.

"I was lucky to be able to focus on just three Tejas variants," said Subramanyam, a trim, pleasant mannered, grey-haired man with a penchant for well-cut suits. "My successor will have to oversee five-six programmes simultaneously. That will probably require ADA to revamp its management structures and functioning."

Subramanyam tells Business Standard that a search committee, led by former Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) chief V K Aatrey is choosing his successor. The selection is likely to be announced within a week, he says.

"I hope it will be one of the existing ADA managers. That would ease the transition, since we are running a tight relay and I'd like to hand over the baton to a runner who is already warmed up. An ADA officer would be fully in the picture and running full pelt from Day-1," says Subramanyam.

ADA's outgoing director is well respected across the defence aerospace establishment for his skills at coordinating with the multiple agencies involved in the Tejas programme. These include Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which has designed important sub-systems for the Tejas, built all the prototypes, and established the assembly line for series production; the DRDO, which owns ADA but also oversees numerous other projects; the ministry of defence (MoD), which controls funding and final sanctions; and that most picky of customers, the IAF.

Subramanyam's retirement comes at a delicate time, with the DRDO chief - the ex-officio director general of ADA - also new to his job. S Christopher took over as Director General, DRDO (and ADA), on June 1. A month later, ADA is also getting a new chief executive.

MoD officials say Subramanyam's departure is in line with the government's policy of avoiding granting extensions to top officials. In any case, he had already been granted three extensions.

The outgoing director says the Tejas Mark II is on track. ADA's design challenge is to accommodate the bigger, heavier, more powerful, General Electric F-414 engine into the Tejas fuselage, which was built to house the current, smaller F-404IN engine. Subramanyam is confident this will not present a major challenge. "The preliminary design of the Tejas Mark II fuselage is already completed, without surprises. The detailed design will not cause delay. The fighter will make its first flight by 2018-19; and will begin joining the IAF fleet by 2021-22," says Subramanyam.

The outgoing ADA director is even more bullish about the AMCA, which the IAF is supporting enthusiastically - a change from its opposition to the Tejas. The AMCA's configuration is finalised, and preliminary design is about to commence. That would provide a clear indication of how much funding the AMCA project would need. "I am confident that the AMCA project would cost less than any fifth generation fighter project anywhere. My estimate would be in the region of $4 billion (Rs 25,000 crore)," says Subramanyam.

He was hardly a young engineer when he joined ADA. He already had 10 years with DRDO!!!! But he was there with ADA from the beginning.

Hope NaMo uses his coordination skills in a big way as after retirement he is not constrained to MoD type of setup. Maybe staff to Scientific Adviser to PM.
We need to use the coordination across multiple agencies skills in the right place.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 20:31

JTull wrote:Why Cobham? Surely, Israelis had a radome that worked well with EL 2032. Why not buy from them or buy the tech to build from them?

JTull, The key could be the number of emitters for the LCA version of EL/M 2032. Maybe not as many as the Israeli version. IOW could be lower power transmission mode.

Anyway quartz radome gives you 10-15% extra range. They say they need it for Derby.

We don't know the details but must be severe enough to seek it.
Quartz is much more expensive than Kevlar.

I am good with the decision.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 Jul 2015 21:54

ramana wrote:
Singha wrote:the 0.5m increase in length will decrease the drag.

i was hoping they go like gripenNG and move the landing gear bays into the wing roots and away from fuselage, opening new spaces for internal EW gear, additional LRU housing for future and more fuel.
a fighter is not just its systems, its about persistence and sustained speed as well - all of which needs lot of fuel.

thats what makes the Raptors, Eagles, Foxhounds and Flankers the big dogs of the sky.....they carry a lot more fuel into the fight and can do long range T-shaped intercepts that would be impossible for a small fighter. plus a mach2+ speed to evade and escape when things head south..a clear 500kmph advantage of the tejas/F-solah types with no moving surfaces inside the air intakes to handle more than mach1.8....imagine turning tail from a salvo of long range BVR shots coming your way to burn them off and make them fall out...500kmph is a good thing to have.

That's entire redesign. Why would you do that right now?

The planes you mention have to fight far from their bases deep into enemy country. The role model is the P51 Mustang flying from England and fighting in German skies. F-15 spec was drawn to be like that. Establish air superiority over enemy skies. Was LCA spec written like that? No.

Up till F-16/F-15 air study the emphasis was one short range jet fighters. In early 1970s one USAF officer with Vietnam experience was asked to lead a trade study and out of it came the requirement for F-15 and F-16. Flanker came as response to F-15.

Don't go into futuristic vision stuff as that is how DRDO goes into long delays.

IAF will overfly TSP (max width 350 miles) in one hour at slow speed. So what need for long range?

PRC is another matter.

I think he meant that it wouldn't hurt for the changes to be made in a MKII+ or III version. You're right that it wouldn't make any sense for the changes to be made now.