LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 21 Mar 2017 10:13

MK1A won't wait for Uttam. Mk2 yes. I hope the Hack is still around for some testing as well.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2017 10:22

srai wrote:Compressed timelines. Decision was made to go with an already proven product Quartz radome from Cobham. Saves on qualification time. Later on, you can R&D a radome that meets or exceeds that. Lessons have been learnt on the Kevlar radome EM properties. Back then MMR was being developed concurrently.


The case of Radome and Radar not being in sync is classic case of bad project management, something which has hobbled almost every aspect of LCA program. The guys who made the radome did not talk to guys who made the radar. Things were expected to work out on their own. Well, they did not. And we had to go for an import. Hopefully, going forward, we'll have our own product.

BTW, there is a very insightful post by Vsunder ji on how the radome can impact the performance of the radar.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4544
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 21 Mar 2017 10:34

Sid wrote:Why we are not qualifying it on a Su-30, with ample power and space for future growth. That will save us a ton of money on any future Su (IRBIS) upgrades.

Uttam's interfaces and SW must have been written so as to be compatible with LCA (lets ignore HW issues for now). The radar has to be integrated to the mission computer, weapons system and perhaps few other things. To do it for Su30 would take some time and might even need OEM support. Though HAL has designed a lot of avionics on its own its bound to take significant time and efforts to integrate Uttam to Su30. Doing that only makes sense if we want to put Uttam on Su30 eventually. Also a few things like power, cooling, weight and its effect on aero config etc are aircraft specific and would need to be done on LCA only.

Ideally LRDE should have had their own flying test bed, a fighter is preferred, but small transport aircraft also could have been used for partial envelop. With flying test bed where interfacing is already worked out, testing new radar is much less ardous task. They need to test the radar at high speeds aperently. And that part is remained to be done. Majority of SW debugging would have happened there. We should perhaps have a separate program to create all sorts of flying test beds for our own requirements.

As such in Aero India, LrDE folks seemed very upbit. They said it would take them 2yrs once Uttam is integrated on LCA to fully qualify it. They have done one full qualification cycle using helicopter on a smaller AESA radar previously. Whats new for them is the high speed, and perhaps weapons firing.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Mar 2017 10:43

the radar and other systems of JSF were tested on this bird . it needs to be somewhere near the top speed of eventual platform to test high speed tracks (ie better not to be a turboprop) and have same ceiling hence commercial jet.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom ... 2_thmb.jpg

its high time LRDE, BEL anyone who develops airborne systems be given a couple of shared Emb145 with OEM support pkg to fit blisters and fairings.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 21 Mar 2017 10:51

Singha wrote:the radar and other systems of JSF were tested on this bird . it needs to be somewhere near the top speed of eventual platform to test high speed tracks (ie better not to be a turboprop) and have same ceiling hence commercial jet.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom ... 2_thmb.jpg

its high time LRDE, BEL anyone who develops airborne systems be given a couple of shared Emb145 with OEM support pkg to fit blisters and fairings.


There is another airborne platform as well:
Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 21 Mar 2017 11:04

Indranil wrote:MK1A won't wait for Uttam. Mk2 yes. I hope the Hack is still around for some testing as well.


Wondering where the global tender for AESA radar is at and how much time customization would take compared to fully qualifying Uttam AESA that has already been customized for the LCA. AeroIndia presentation by P Radhakrishna sounded pretty confident about Uttam. If global vendor, then a safe bet would be Elta EL/M-2052 since they already have customized EL/M-2032 for the LCA.

Anyways, it would seem ADA needs to make multiple LCA platforms available for integration both to the Uttam AESA as well as foreign AESA radar.

India Floats Radar Tender For Light Combat Aircraft
December 20, 2016

Indian state-owned military aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has floated global bids to procure around 100 state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar systems for an improved variant of the HAL Mark-I Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), dubbed Tejas Mark-IA, according to local media reports.

“The tender in the form of Expression of Interest (EoI) was floated on Wednesday to five of the global firms,” a HAL representative told The Economic Times on December 15. According to the representative a U.S. defense contractor and an Israeli firm are the top contenders for the contract.

Bids have reportedly been issued to U.S. defense contractors Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, the French company Thales, the Israeli defense company Elta, Swedish aircraft maker SAAB, and Russia’s Rosoboronoexport.

The estimated contract value is $1.85 billion.

“We cannot wait for Indian companies to develop and build these proven systems, and they will be bought off-the-shelf from overseas,” an Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) official told Defense News. The deadline for the submission of bids will be February 15. A final decision is likely to be announced by April 2017.

“The imported radar will require customization to suit the LCA’s requirements and this will be done jointly by the ARDC HAL’s Aviation Research and Design Center] and the vendor,” the HAL representative notes. “It is not yet clear whether some of the radars will be manufactured in India or be a totally off-the-shelf purchase.”
...

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3662
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby suryag » 21 Mar 2017 11:15

^^^ Chalo another mention of project management, this PM term is becoming as annoying as the scooter helmet stuff or handover the damn thing to private sector. RV ji am not presuming anything on your background and dont consider this an aspersion of any kind, pardon me. Let us rewind back a little bit on the MMR and Radome thingie. Am not a RADAR guy but having worked on a different RF system for a long while and have also built some things from scratch for fruit cos(including what you might be using today) I take the liberty to make some comments in this regard. So we all agree that this was MMR was an ab-initio development.

<naatakiya rupaantar> Everyone, looks around and says what data do we have today from existing systems to build a radar - Mig21(ussmein tho saala radar hee nahi tha in the early 90s), Mig29(saab woh tho chalta nahi hai) okie M2k? (haan this one is good). So open the damn thing up and then characterize the radome and the T/R modules in LRDE. So far so good. Lekin saala we dont know the front end signal processing algorithms and their MIPS requirements(indirecty the heat dissipation of the DSP). Okie one smart fella says i have read papers in IEEE trans and these are the algos. The team would have then started hunting for a DSP that can do this(but market mein tho koi nahi bech raha hai given you did atmii dhamaka), okie the lead decides let us take a power PC and do DSP algos on a control PC(with mathematical opts/fixed point implementations from whiz kid Dr.Bandhopadhyaya). Now that things are progressing, the team would have gone back to the M2K rig and characterized the transmissivity of the radome at different power values(angles etc) and corresponding RX gain values for the reflected beam for different target types. They would have then extrapolated to the proposed number of T/R modules in the proposed MMR. On the other side assuming a certain radome characteristic the MMR team would have started work on the PA and RX modules. All good until now and we mark all of this in the architecture spec of the system. The lead says abbey team mates we need to also have a link level sim(again this sim would have been built ab-initio) as we need to continously check the software from that SDRE Rao for degrades/performance. While this is happening the MMR team embarks on building to the frozen config and then realize OhhhF*** my power consumption(and corresponding heat dissipation) is going through the roof because my PA behaviour is not linear at these power levels and i need these power levels because IAF saab said now we need to detect drones too. Arrey koi better PA in the market(saari saar no one selling to us). Back to drawing board and someone says let us take a relook at optimizing the signal processing algorithms(say improve the performance of channel equalization on the RX side or better doppler est/freq tracking) and as usual a lot of these algos show promise on LL SIM but in field will still meet only 90% of the requirements. MMR team says we have hit a roadblock, we cant increase TX power due to heating and the processing capacity is not enough as the DSP/or whatever controller being used is running short of MIPS for these low RX SNR cases. Meanwhile, the results are presented to IAF and they are not happy about it. Then an audit is commissioned and an independent observer Dileep sir says arrey itna karne sey accha check if you could get a radome(all this while the whole MMR team knowing fully well that radome change is the way to go was waiting for someone to say that the emperor is naked) and then quick decisions are made and the radome change is requested.</naaatakiya rupaantar>

While all of this is happening techno whizzes in peeareff and Math+Phy+Chem mein failure Journos say that PM bad hai/design mein deficiency hai/LRDE fellows are slackers/project is super delayed etc. We also conveniently forget that all BKMs in companies are collated only after the first project is completed. PM alone is like a catalyst it cannot cause a reaction it can only accelerate one and yes we fail to see the BKMs bearing fruit as in the case of Netra or Swathi or Arudra or whatever. Could we have done it better ofcourse yes, but we didnt know it back then how to accelerate the way that we do now.

My humble 2 paisas

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Mar 2017 11:26

What happened to our much awaited desi AESA radar unveiled at the previous air show? Is it now a goner or meer tech-demonstrator"

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10042
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sum » 21 Mar 2017 12:10

<naatakiya rupaantar> Everyone,...... requested.</naaatakiya rupaantar>

Saar, thank you for the post. Was very informative on the steps involved in the design.

However, the pooch i have is:
Isnt your scenario valid if the Radar was the MMR/Uttam/xyz which was facing the shortfall issues?
Why did we change the Radome for the existing 2032 which is a well established and working radar with such urgency? If the Radome was decent enough, wouldnt it have done the deal with the much better 2032?

Or is it that the 2032 also had some shortfalls since i assume the specs of the proposed MMR would have been similar to the 2032 which means same radome should have done ok for both?

Please forgive if these are dumb Qs since wasnt able to wrap my head around the Rqadome struggle when we have built much more complex stuff

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3662
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby suryag » 21 Mar 2017 12:38

Sirjee - the MMR is not a plain vanilla 2032, it is some sort of hybrid as much as i know. Again, this 2032 being well proven is like the deep TOT, yes it is proven but did we prove it is the question? Israelis did it on different aircrafts and intentionally/unintentionally this tribal knowledge that the Israelis had may not have been shared with us and add to it the fact that the PA/power supply to the T/R modules and front end signal processing algos may have been our secret sauce. We dont know entirely what happened but the whole point i was trying to make is that no amount of Project management would have changed the situation dramatically given the abinitio nature of the effort. Now if they screw up again string them up and give gyaan

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10042
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sum » 21 Mar 2017 12:48

^^ Thanks for the pointers. Indeed, whatever you said makes sense

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 21 Mar 2017 14:40

rohitvats wrote:
The case of Radome and Radar not being in sync is classic case of bad project management, something which has hobbled almost every aspect of LCA program. The guys who made the radome did not talk to guys who made the radar. .....


Bad program management is true in all aspects of DRDO life but in the case of radar vs radome it does not come into play.

Why the radome guys need to be in sync with radar guys??? Does a combine harvester manufacture need be in sync with the fertilizer company?

A radome provides protection to electronics but it attenuates the signal, and if a new material is developed for radome that reduces the attenuation then it will help any x-band radar.

Radome is material science and machining, while the radar is electronics, power amps, wave guides, antenna...there is no relationship and no need to be "in sync"

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Mar 2017 18:44

there is from an internal geometry and structural loading point of view
rest of it in the myriad forms of testing...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 21 Mar 2017 20:00

RV started a discussion which is not true. It was not an integration problem. The radome was not permeable enough to the signals. So it was a failure of one lab to come up with the right product.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Sid » 21 Mar 2017 20:29

JayS wrote:
Sid wrote:Why we are not qualifying it on a Su-30, with ample power and space for future growth. That will save us a ton of money on any future Su (IRBIS) upgrades.

Uttam's interfaces and SW must have been written so as to be compatible with LCA (lets ignore HW issues for now). The radar has to be integrated to the mission computer, weapons system and perhaps few other things. To do it for Su30 would take some time and might even need OEM support. Though HAL has designed a lot of avionics on its own its bound to take significant time and efforts to integrate Uttam to Su30. Doing that only makes sense if we want to put Uttam on Su30 eventually. Also a few things like power, cooling, weight and its effect on aero config etc are aircraft specific and would need to be done on LCA only.

Ideally LRDE should have had their own flying test bed, a fighter is preferred, but small transport aircraft also could have been used for partial envelop. With flying test bed where interfacing is already worked out, testing new radar is much less ardous task. They need to test the radar at high speeds aperently. And that part is remained to be done. Majority of SW debugging would have happened there. We should perhaps have a separate program to create all sorts of flying test beds for our own requirements.

As such in Aero India, LrDE folks seemed very upbit. They said it would take them 2yrs once Uttam is integrated on LCA to fully qualify it. They have done one full qualification cycle using helicopter on a smaller AESA radar previously. Whats new for them is the high speed, and perhaps weapons firing.


Thanks JayS.

<OT>
I was under the impression that mission computer on Su is Indian made, similar to LCA (MC-486 and DP-30MK by DARE). That's why we were able to plug Astra/Brahmos on MKI without Russian assistance. Which theoretically should allow us to integrate our own radar on MKI and should speedup development of Uttam without all bottlenecks.
</OT>

Although I do agree that LRDE should have their own airborne platform for flight testing and qualifications.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 21 Mar 2017 21:35

Indranil wrote:RV started a discussion which is not true. It was not an integration problem. The radome was not permeable enough to the signals. So it was a failure of one lab to come up with the right product.



Sorry to nitpick, it's not "permeability" which has a specific meaning in EE for magnetic flux. It's attenuation plain and simple (like a resistor) but at x-band...following says it could be up-to 5.4dB !!

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... operations

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 21 Mar 2017 22:05

Oh nice! I learnt something new today.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 21 Mar 2017 22:56

That could be true. But there are better ways of going about Testing engines. Developing a high performance platform for testing only one engine + inlet combo is a very wasteful way of going about this business.

It is time for India to invest in a proper engine testbed.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vasu raya » 22 Mar 2017 02:42

Singha wrote:the control system and comms links / base stations developed would surely help Aura and other uav projects. as it stands we are making heavy weather of rustom2 which is a relatively simple uav. if HAL can develop some successful building blocks it will help all projects.

amrika has 100s of POC projects that are never productionized or that never even reach POC stage. that builds the data banks and skills of engineering so when the time comes they can cobble together some solution like they usually do with new radars and missiles - they have a lot of blocks ready to go.


HAL would need exports of products that they already make and can then allocate funds on their own. DRDO being just a research house is entirely reliant for funding.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 22 Mar 2017 11:05

For once I agree with HAL to let students come up with imaginative ways of coming up with requirements for an unmanned LCA.

[Deleted. No fratricide.]
It's Indian penchant to criticize any and all new thinking... God save us.
Last edited by ramana on 22 Mar 2017 22:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited ramana

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JTull » 22 Mar 2017 14:36

There's nothing wrong for a LCA prototype to be diverted for developing unmanned version. We need to iron out any tech issues before Aura comes online. If the tech was so easy we'd have hundreds of Rustom-2 flying by now.

So this is not an issue of IAF requirement or whether an unmanned LCA is a suitable platform for any operational roles.

LCA is definitely suitable as a test platform as the digital control laws give predictability of flight regime as compared to aircraft such as HTT-40 which may be cheaper, less complex and easier to modify.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4544
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 22 Mar 2017 15:01

Sid wrote:
<OT>
I was under the impression that mission computer on Su is Indian made, similar to LCA (MC-486 and DP-30MK by DARE). That's why we were able to plug Astra/Brahmos on MKI without Russian assistance. Which theoretically should allow us to integrate our own radar on MKI and should speedup development of Uttam without all bottlenecks.
</OT>

Although I do agree that LRDE should have their own airborne platform for flight testing and qualifications.


No Ji for me please. I am just a nanha mujahidin.

HAL could definitely integrate Uttam with Su-30, but it will take time and resources. This is not really an HAL project. And there is no Spare Su-30 that can be used for this work, unless IAF donates one for this purpose. Whereas LCA has a bunch of LSPs now which will be available post FOC. And the interfaces are already done as per LCA requirements. So it makes all the sense to just go with LCA. Had there been a gap of 2-3yrs between Uttam's readiness for flight testing and availability of LCA, then it might have made sense to put extra efforts on putting it on Su-30 IMO.

GOI could just order 1-2 Su-30 from HAL which can be used as fighter test beds may be.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 15:23

HAL should just pay itself from its cash surplus to produce 2 more su30 this year and use them as flying testbeds for engines and avionics and other ideas.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 22 Mar 2017 15:30

Was thinking exactly along the last lines, JayS!! Makes sense to use a capable platform like the MKI for these roles. The only downside is that the data cannot be analysed on the platform like in the Il76 test bed that TSAAGI uses or the B747 of RR. We would be completely dependent on telemetry for monitoring of the engine parameters.

Maybe the WSO position can be modified and set up for monitoring if key metrics while the rest is transmitted out to a telemetry station.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby chola » 22 Mar 2017 15:44

Singha wrote:HAL should just pay itself from its cash surplus to produce 2 more su30 this year and use them as flying testbeds for engines and avionics and other ideas.


Ha! If we could do that, we could build a whole line of Indi-Flankers just like the chinis did with their J-11/J-15/J-16 series (which were done with Russian acquiesence if not outright assistance.)

Nope, Ivana won't allow it and the babus at HAL and higher up will never think to break trust with our Russ "friends"(especially the blonde and fetching Natasha.)

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2968
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 22 Mar 2017 18:17

Photos of ASTE Birds here
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/ban ... 472395.ece

Different photos of same ASTE birds
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/11/ex ... -guns.html

The Su-30 are based at Nashik

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5832
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Dileep » 22 Mar 2017 18:26

The problem with radome was manufacturing related (as per the design folks). The attenuation was high, and non uniform in different directions.

Qualifying the radar is crazy with ten 'z's!! Anything and everything near the nose can and do modify the beam slightly, resulting in performance issues.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4544
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 22 Mar 2017 18:45

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:
No Ji for me please. I am just a nanha mujahidin.

HAL could definitely integrate Uttam with Su-30, but it will take time and resources. This is not really an HAL project. And there is no Spare Su-30 that can be used for this work, unless IAF donates one for this purpose. Whereas LCA has a bunch of LSPs now which will be available post FOC. And the interfaces are already done as per LCA requirements. So it makes all the sense to just go with LCA. Had there been a gap of 2-3yrs between Uttam's readiness for flight testing and availability of LCA, then it might have made sense to put extra efforts on putting it on Su-30 IMO.

GOI could just order 1-2 Su-30 from HAL which can be used as fighter test beds may be.


There are atleast two Su-30 test beds with ASTE used for BrahMos, Astra, SIVA HADP, ECM & MAWS development. Entire ASTE fleet are test beds.

I speculate Uttam is built to Western Interface & Electrical Power standards for LCA. Later a version built to Russian standards can be developed.

Elta 2032 for Western and Russian aircraft are built to different non-interchangeable standards.

Which is the reason why Astra will arm Su-30 & MiG-29UPG/K/KUB first and Tejas/Mirage 2000/Jaguar later.


Could be true about the non-compatibility of interfaces. But if we are hell bent on it, HAL can definitely integrate Uttam on Su-30 given enough time and resources, notwithstanding whether it makes sense or not. To me it doesn't in current scenario. Had LRDE already have a Su-30 test bed with the integration experience, it was a different story.

Correct me if I am wrong, ASTE aircrafts are already engaged with other projects that you listed. For Uttam LRDE will need a separate Su-30 for 4-5yrs with extensive help from HAL. Can IAF spare one for such work, especially when Uttam is not meant for Su-30 as of now..? If it was then it would have been different case again.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 22 Mar 2017 22:57

Sid wrote:Why we are not qualifying it on a Su-30, with ample power and space for future growth. That will save us a ton of money on any future Su (IRBIS) upgrades.


Near term need is LCA radar.

Su-30 improved radar can happen later.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vasu raya » 22 Mar 2017 23:58

there is a mention of using a small sized radar for testing using a chopper during the development of Uttam, why couldn't that test article be ported onto LCH?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2017 00:11

Jay,

Still the primary question remains unanswered: what is the utility exclusive to LCA UCAV. Obviously HAL should diversify. Look at the some very low lying fruits for HAL to take up. It is not blue sky, but it is still challenging. They have ready made markets.

Get a project abandoned due to bankruptcy and refine it state-of-art standards:
1. Turboprop RTA candidates ATP (Jetstream 61), IL-114, An-140,
2. Turbofan RTA: Dornier 528/728/928, Fokker 70/100, An-148/158, Kawasaki YPX
3. Cargo (20-40 Tons): An-178, modify US-2
4. License produce: Kawasaki C-2 (IMHO the 32 ton payload is more ideal to carry our upcoming FICVs).
5. Design the twin-engine, twin-pilot HJT-39 for mountainous CAS/COIN operation. When the time comes in 2030 when IAF starts looking for an AJT to replace the Hawks, present it as a ready made trainer solution.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 23 Mar 2017 05:09

Guys, everything on this heaven and Earth is possible. But, we should not miss any step. we can't be in cloud 9 without being in 8. we need to see some level of parallelisms/concurrency in projects but we need clear-cut mandates. See, the khaans are enjoying their 50th JSF in the squad. Do we need to be at some level.. no?

We can argue all we want, but at EOD, what the user is doing is the most important factor. The whole industry can be dumped if taken a wrong step or a crash or two. a very precarious situation we are in. misplaced priorities will hurt, and I am worried if this is all in wrong mgmt hands. Remember, defense projects have very little transparencies. Only when a report is read, we get to analyze.

Kaveri and NLCA teams should be burning midnight lamps
Last edited by SaiK on 23 Mar 2017 05:14, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 05:14

^^^

All the teams have been burning midnight lamps for a long time.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 23 Mar 2017 05:15

Time to look at efficiencies then

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 05:22

SaiK wrote:Time to look at efficiencies then


Problem has been unrealistic deadlines were set. Ever since, it's been playing catch up with no letup. Things are getting better now it seems.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gagan » 23 Mar 2017 19:37

Engine testing can't be done on a single platform alone.
Testing has to be done at different altitudes and at different air speeds.
An IL-76 or a commercial airliner test bed can't obviously test in the near supersonic or the supersonic speeds. Need a twin engine fighter plane for this - a mig-29 or a Su-30 type

Or if the HAL is feeling adventurous, they can create an LCA with two engines and use one kaveri on one of them. It can be done in 1-2 years onlee perhaps.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 23 Mar 2017 20:03

Gagan-al-takniki! Sir, it will likely take seven to nine years to first design, build, qualify the test bed itself. But a twin engine LCA will not be the same plane! It will have to be longer, wider and most LRUs can be reused but will change!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 23 Mar 2017 20:47

I think the Tejas UCAV is a distraction to this thread please do not post in this thread. We have the UAV thread for that.

Thanks,
ramana

PS: will transfer all those posts to the UAV thread.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 23 Mar 2017 22:03

Hunt on for next ADA boss with Tejas FOC at striking distance

http://english.mathrubhumi.com/mobile/n ... -1.1816448

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1680
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Khalsa » 24 Mar 2017 00:33

ramana wrote:I think the Tejas UCAV is a distraction to this thread please do not post in this thread. We have the UAV thread for that.

Thanks,
ramana

PS: will transfer all those posts to the UAV thread.


Agreed Saar.
Calling all BRFites with influence and friends in media.
Please push your contacts for more articles on FOC.

Mathrabhoomi has lit a fire.
Lets keep it going.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests