LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

samirdiw · Post by **samirdiw** » 10 Oct 2017 06:58

Does it make sense to create a Mk1b in parallel with Mk2 that will contain all the improvement envisioned in Mk2 excluding the 414 engine?

Improvements that were to made are
1. weight reduction
2. aerodynamic improvements
3. flight controller upgrade
4. EW improvements
5. avionics upgrade
6. retractable refuelling probe
7. obogs
8. modify air intakes
9. increased length(?)

Posting selected parts from an article by AVSM Pervez Khokkar that was posted in the forum earlier in 2013. He seems to think that there are benefits in doing the same.

A Viable Alternative

The rationale of making the Tejas MK II is centered around the Indian Navy’s requirement of having a greater initial acceleration for deck operations. Hence, the choice of a more powerful and bigger engine, the F414. The IAF has piggybacked on this solution since it promises a greater all-round performance.

The navy’s requirement is well focused on the engine, though they would not be reluctant to avail of any other benefit that this aircraft would bring as a bonus. The IAF’s configuration for the MK II, though discussed internally, is still not frozen. Therefore, to consider a viable alternative is not too late.Give a serious thought to modifying the Mk I with all the changes envisaged for the Mk II, other than the engine change. The only major challenge is to redesign the air intakes to ensure optimum pressure recovery. The rest would entail only modifications and improvements.

The question that comes up is whether a serious study has been done to explore this alternative. It would not need rocket science to presume that the time, effort and money required to do this would be far less than design and development of a ‘new’ aircraft.

The prime focus will have to be on ensuring that the rated thrust is allowed to be produced by the engine. The Swedish version of the F404 is the RM 12, made by Volvo. Some tweaking by Volvo has enhanced the dry thrust from 49.9 kN to 54kN and in the after burner regime, from 78.7kN to 80.5kN. It has also strengthened fan modules to withstand bird strikes. The F404-IN-20 also incorporates these modifications, but the Tejas Mk I intake design does not allow this full thrust to be built up. Hence, it is mandatory to redesign the intakes. Both the Gripen and the older version of the F-18 have air intakes that permit optimum pressure recovery. Can ADA not consult both Saab and Boeing to overcome this problem?

The other unresolved issues that have defied a solution are not because of ADA’s capability, but their reluctance to address them, since it is far easier to sweep them under the carpet, to be looked at later. ‘Later’ has arrived now and procrastination cannot be condoned any further. The work force, which is familiar with the MK I and is relatively unoccupied, can now be gainfully diverted to carrying out structural and other reviews to resolve pending issues, instead of waiting to tackle the MK II, as and when it emerges.

Has ADA measured what the static thrust of the engine is in the MK I as of now and determined how short it falls of the manufacturer’s figure? Unless that is known, how can we aim to achieve the latter? A comprehensive study would provide the answer. In the event that the enhanced initial thrust still falls short of the navy’s requirement, the F 414 may be the only answer (Well we now know that Navy has rejected LCA altogether so reasons due to Navy can be ruled out).

By working on this in parallel we can have a Mk1b much earlier than a Mk2 is out thus reducing the risk associated with the mk2 project and continue more numbers of LCA.

Would this be a sensible thing to do by ADA?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Oct 2017 07:01

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917070853321277440 ---> ACM Dhanoa today said that the induction of the ALH, Akash, Astra AAM & AD radars were some of the success stories of defence indigenization...

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917071020615335936 ---> ....But the biggest success of all would be if the Air Force can bring in at least 300+ units of the HAL Tejas into its ranks.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Oct 2017 07:02

Directed at people who believe the Mk2 is a Tech Demonstrator

https://twitter.com/zubin49/status/917083866422173696 ---> There seems to be focused lethargy not to develop the MKII...imperative for progressing technologies simultaneously for the AMCA.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Oct 2017 07:06

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917511448099667968 ---> The easiest way to ruin the serviceability prospects of a system is by placing piecemeal orders for it & that too only sporadically.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Oct 2017 07:07

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917274540425617409 ---> What flies is more vulnerable to sanctions than what floats or rolls. Which is why dalals always focus there.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Oct 2017 08:10

samirdiw wrote:Does it make sense to create a Mk1b in parallel with Mk2 that will contain all the improvement envisioned in Mk2 excluding the 414 engine?

Improvements that were to made are
1. weight reduction
2. aerodynamic improvements
3. flight controller upgrade
4. EW improvements
5. avionics upgrade
6. retractable refuelling probe
7. obogs
8. modify air intakes
9. increased length(?)

Posting selected parts from an article by AVSM Pervez Khokkar that was posted in the forum earlier in 2013. He seems to think that there are benefits in doing the same.
A Viable Alternative

The rationale of making the Tejas MK II is centered around the Indian Navy’s requirement of having a greater initial acceleration for deck operations. Hence, the choice of a more powerful and bigger engine, the F414. The IAF has piggybacked on this solution since it promises a greater all-round performance.

The navy’s requirement is well focused on the engine, though they would not be reluctant to avail of any other benefit that this aircraft would bring as a bonus. The IAF’s configuration for the MK II, though discussed internally, is still not frozen. Therefore, to consider a viable alternative is not too late.Give a serious thought to modifying the Mk I with all the changes envisaged for the Mk II, other than the engine change. The only major challenge is to redesign the air intakes to ensure optimum pressure recovery. The rest would entail only modifications and improvements.

The question that comes up is whether a serious study has been done to explore this alternative. It would not need rocket science to presume that the time, effort and money required to do this would be far less than design and development of a ‘new’ aircraft.

The prime focus will have to be on ensuring that the rated thrust is allowed to be produced by the engine. The Swedish version of the F404 is the RM 12, made by Volvo. Some tweaking by Volvo has enhanced the dry thrust from 49.9 kN to 54kN and in the after burner regime, from 78.7kN to 80.5kN. It has also strengthened fan modules to withstand bird strikes. The F404-IN-20 also incorporates these modifications, but the Tejas Mk I intake design does not allow this full thrust to be built up. Hence, it is mandatory to redesign the intakes. Both the Gripen and the older version of the F-18 have air intakes that permit optimum pressure recovery. Can ADA not consult both Saab and Boeing to overcome this problem?

The other unresolved issues that have defied a solution are not because of ADA’s capability, but their reluctance to address them, since it is far easier to sweep them under the carpet, to be looked at later. ‘Later’ has arrived now and procrastination cannot be condoned any further. The work force, which is familiar with the MK I and is relatively unoccupied, can now be gainfully diverted to carrying out structural and other reviews to resolve pending issues, instead of waiting to tackle the MK II, as and when it emerges.

Has ADA measured what the static thrust of the engine is in the MK I as of now and determined how short it falls of the manufacturer’s figure? Unless that is known, how can we aim to achieve the latter? A comprehensive study would provide the answer. In the event that the enhanced initial thrust still falls short of the navy’s requirement, the F 414 may be the only answer (Well we now know that Navy has rejected LCA altogether so reasons due to Navy can be ruled out).
By working on this in parallel we can have a Mk1b much earlier than a Mk2 is out thus reducing the risk associated with the mk2 project and continue more numbers of LCA.

Would this be a sensible thing to do by ADA?

This was discussed to great lengths when this article first came out. The premise of this article is that Mk1s inlet is not optimized for the 404s. This information was correct but dated. I have talked to multiple people who have confirmed this. The inlet has since been optimized with inputs from GE.

By the way, even Mk2s inlets were optimized with GE's inputs. GE had even made a statement regarding this. Have to dig it out.

Mk1A is what the late commodore had proposed.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Oct 2017 09:34

A lot of us on this thread are frustrated at what seems to be the iafs penchant for imported birds. But based on the wise words of shri vidur who is himself a part of that Byzantine bureaucracy we call babudom, if should be obvious that there are bigger boys at play, and amongst all the players, unfortunately it seems the iaf is hardly counted as one of them.the current goi has its own designs too and the babus are only too willing to want all things in triplicate. Add to this the power of the import lobbies and corporate houses.

The iaf is foremost concerned about the short term security of the nation's skies. As such it wants to get a bird that comes with as few teething issues and as much combat readiness as possible. Hence it's eagerness for dependable western birds ...rafale, and even gripen in the latter's absence. Note it's utter ignorance and even disdain of the Russian birds. Note also it's reluctance although not to the same levels, of the U.S. fighter. It's experience with the PSUs does not give it much confidence hence it is happy at the possibility of getting another effective bird in it's arsenal. This does not however mean that it is doing this at the expense of the tejas. Once hal starts deliveries on schedule, the orders are bound to go up.

Yeah the sef deal is stupid, we all know that, but the decision to go this route is hardly the IAFs doing. So all this rnd about it not doing enough for the tejas can be spared.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 10 Oct 2017 09:57

^^^ The idea that a SE fighter should be imported when we are manufacturing one in country is preposterous. Just as preposterous as importing tanks or a prime minister.

This is a policy decision and policies can only be changed by the GOI.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Oct 2017 10:25

Private Lobbies Are Trying to Stop Indigenous Defence Production: H Mahadevan

Newsclick speaks to H Mahadevan, all India Working President of the AITUC and former General Secretary of the HAL Employees’ Association, Bangalore, on Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the LCA project and the motivated campaign to discredit Defence PSUs in order to facilitate privatisation.

https://newsclick.in/private-lobbies-ar ... -mahadevan

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Oct 2017 14:27

Indranil wrote:The maneouvre in Top Gun is not a good example though. That just shows the capability of the aircraft to pitch up instantaneously to bleed off speed (while letting go off the thrust). The slow speed pass is much more involved. By the way, Tejas would be great at the maneouvre.

Agree, the Topgun maneuver is bad, because it leave the aircraft a sitting duck for the duration it takes to gain speed. I used it because it would have most recall among members.

Indranil wrote:They need another stab at it to derive the best out of this platform. Mk2 will be much better in every aspect. I do not have an iota of doubt in my mind regarding that.

Yes, iterative development is essential to evolve to better platforms. Without Mk2, there will be no AMCA. Or a tortured development route like LCA.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Oct 2017 15:52

We have been talking Mk2 since 2011 yet there is no prototype of Mk2 or Mk1A yet. Has the plug been pulled?

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Oct 2017 16:14

Thats what Dileep saar had been saying sometime back

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Oct 2017 16:18

A surprisingly honest article on the true combat capabilities showcased by Tejas. This needs to be saved and re-posted often.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 994074.cms

HINDON AIR FORCE BASE: With vertical climbs, loops, turns and more, indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas on Sunday left spectators spellbound as it flew over the Hindon airbase at a function to mark the 85th Air Force Day.

Poor visibility failed to play spoilsport for the indigenous fighter, the most recent one to join the Indian Air Force, as it took off right in front of the area where the parade was held, with a vertical climb followed by a loop.

The fighter jet was being flown by Group Captain Madhav Rangachari, an ace pilot of the IAF who has been involved with the LCA since its test flights.

The 'Vertical Charlie' was meant to be a salute to the Air Force Chief, and the steep climb displays the aircraft's ability to to quickly climb to heights to combat enemy fighters.

From the vertical climb, the Tejas took a loop along the runway, followed by a 'maximum rate turn’, a manoeuvre that demonstrates the aircraft's ability to change direction in the shortest possible time. It is an important ability for a fighter jet in air-to-air combat, to chase or escape the enemy fighter.

The next was an 'outside turn', a display of the ability of the aircraft's fuel system and its ability to handle prolonged negative G flight. Negative G is the acceleration when an object is falling towards ground, or going downward.

The aircraft then took a ’minimum radius turn’, an important manoeuvre to gain advantageous position against the enemy aircraft in combat situation. The fighter also showcased its slow flying capability at mere 125 knots speed, with a high angle of attack, which indicated the engine's strength.

The final manoeuvre for the day from the indigenous fighter jet was a series of rapid rolls, leaving the spectators enthralled.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Oct 2017 16:24

shiv wrote:Video

Shiv, thank you for your extensive repository of the 80's & 90's data, photos & videos. It is indeed a labour of love.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Oct 2017 16:31

Single Engine Fighter is US's pound of flesh for support at UN Security Council against Organization of Islamic Cooperation and China. As are the less capable Russian frigates & SAMs for Russia's vote. There will be zero ToT for Single Engine fighter. For Su-30 too, we still dont have the capability to build a Sukhoi from the scratch because of lack of true ToT. Like MiG-21s, we're dependent on Russian supply chain for key components.

Whether Single Engine Fighter or Su-30, just blocks and ability to machine some parts from blocks, blueprints, jigs & screwdrivers.

Not much different from model planes being contemplated a few posts above.

ashthor · Post by **ashthor** » 10 Oct 2017 16:51

For the pound of flesh lets buy more of C130s and P8Is instead of SE.

samirdiw · Post by **samirdiw** » 10 Oct 2017 17:53

Indranil wrote: I have talked to multiple people who have confirmed this. The inlet has since been optimized with inputs from GE.

Thanks Indranil

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Oct 2017 17:56

tsarkar wrote:Single Engine Fighter is US's pound of flesh for support at UN Security Council against Organization of Islamic Cooperation and China. As are the less capable Russian frigates & SAMs for Russia's vote. There will be zero ToT for Single Engine fighter. For Su-30 too, we still dont have the capability to build a Sukhoi from the scratch because of lack of true ToT. Like MiG-21s, we're dependent on Russian supply chain for key components.

Whether Single Engine Fighter or Su-30, just blocks and ability to machine some parts from blocks, blueprints, jigs & screwdrivers.

Not much different from model planes being contemplated a few posts above.

If this is how we are operating bin in the international diplomacy then we will forever remain importers. I guess we should in order to maintain this level of international support shut down all domestic weapons procurement program.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 10 Oct 2017 22:00

ramana wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote: perhaps BRF logo would be a good to have on it too , after all many of us spend more time here than listening to SHQs

No. What have we done for the LCA?

IAF roundel would be nice and have Dileep present it to 45 Squadron as memento from fans.

Dileep do you want to contact Gagan for rendering files for the 3D or you want to start from scratch?

Making it from scratch would take too much time off my team (which I am required to sell for good money), so need the 3D. We can do small modifications ourselves.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Oct 2017 23:19

tsarkar wrote:........ For Su-30 too, we still dont have the capability to build a Sukhoi from the scratch because of lack of true ToT. Like MiG-21s, we're dependent on Russian supply chain for key components.

.

There is always RE - may not be to the "exacting standards of the original" but still capable. RE should be attempted on the MKI (to prepare a spares inventory).

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Oct 2017 09:20

^^ India cannot RE every single component of the Su-30MKI. Try RE the AL-31FP engine.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Oct 2017 09:23

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917650131582836736 --> Only true 'Make in India' is the uninterrupted production of Tejas variants with continuous refinement.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Oct 2017 09:25

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917716623363948544 --> The only way for India to break the game related to the arming of Pakistan by India's own 'friends' is indigenization.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917718016833470465 --> Be certain, that if India pursues indigenization & imports dry up, all of our 'friends' may play the 'Pakistan card'. But we must bash on.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917718395004510208 --> Because the industrial strength that will come from indigenization will help us arm the enemies of our friends as well.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Oct 2017 09:28

Pratyush wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Single Engine Fighter is US's pound of flesh for support at UN Security Council against Organization of Islamic Cooperation and China. As are the less capable Russian frigates & SAMs for Russia's vote. There will be zero ToT for Single Engine fighter. For Su-30 too, we still dont have the capability to build a Sukhoi from the scratch because of lack of true ToT. Like MiG-21s, we're dependent on Russian supply chain for key components.

Whether Single Engine Fighter or Su-30, just blocks and ability to machine some parts from blocks, blueprints, jigs & screwdrivers.

Not much different from model planes being contemplated a few posts above.
If this is how we are operating bin in the international diplomacy then we will forever remain importers. I guess we should in order to maintain this level of international support shut down all domestic weapons procurement program.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917729229474635776 --> The Indian foreign policy mindset is attuned towards getting something from somewhere. It now has to reorient itself.

And lines of credit cannot substitute for actual indigenous hardware that can be sold at softer prices for influence --> https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917729434383220736

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917730820122542080 --> There can be no independent foreign policy without a military armed with indigenous hardware.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917731008786477056 --> And it is high time that the Indian military itself started harping that India cannot become a global power without indigenization.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/917731365956739072 --> Such a huge military machine cannot afford to be content with just putting up 'requirements' based on the political brief they get.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Oct 2017 11:14

Rakesh wrote:^^ India cannot RE every single component of the Su-30MKI. Try RE the AL-31FP engine.

Not true. AFAIK, HAL has RE-ed many components. But nothing of significance. We don't need to RE Al-31. We actually have a decent engine - Kaveri. And Kaveri has a easier path to a generation better than Al-31. All we need is a massive investment in testing facilities and manufacturing technology. Without that, you cannot even RE.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Oct 2017 11:36

Good show Saurav Jha! Absolutely agree about the loss of sovereignty due to dependence on imports (BTW - I have a copyright on this line of thnking - check with the BR ADMINULLAHS who have threatened to send me to the nether worlds for such ideas). The traitors among us connive to keep India weak and dependent on their foreign masters for a few dollars more. Stop respecting these persons, support domestic systems like Arjun, LCA, Arihant, AMCA, ATAGS, Dhanush, Vikrant, Shivaliks, INSAS. Armed with these systems, Indian armed forces will be feared around the world and Pukis will be finally put in their place.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Oct 2017 11:38

Rakesh wrote:^^ India cannot RE every single component of the Su-30MKI. Try RE the AL-31FP engine.

Admiral sahib - with today's age of available tech, RE is not as challenging as it used to be. If HAL was given TOT for SC blades then what is the problem with RE of the rest of the parts? I am not an expert in this field although I have rubbed shoulders with several experts that perform RE of aircraft parts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2017 11:40

Kaveri? Everytime it was tested in an Ru aircraft it blew up! It has been the biggest fraud by GTRE upon the nation.Ditched officially for the LCA,said to be optioned for the UCAV Ghatak/whatever,and we' still waiting about a decade for the much touted marine version of Kaveri to power our FFgs.I have a pal who developed desi blisks for it and is languishing years afterwards without a single order from the DRDO.He curses the day he believed in it.

For the cutting edge tech we require,unless we have the scientific skill,labs,huge amts. of money for R&D and a "hire and fire" boss at its head,we will not be able to go it alone indigenously.Ask why BMos has succeeded so spectacularly in a JV-read Dr.Pillai's book on how to achieve goals using the BMos mantra. Yes,even for a JV we will have to pay hard cash but it will help us avoiding reinventing the wheel,leapfrogging over obsolete tech.
The problem is ,just like what's happening in Britain,is that it is outsourcing most of its defence ware to the USA,neglecting its own once thriving world class mil.industry.It had so many aircraft manufacturers,etc. It now makes just two aircraft,Typhoon along with EU partners with few orders and the Hawk,which was developed 30+ yrs. ago!

But I agree with Jay on the engine situ.Said often,we need a whole new engine R&D centre for all types both fxd. wing and rotary.If we have to get firang partners in a JV so be it,to save time, A former VCoAS said that he ws mystified why we did not set up an engine testing centre at BLora/HAL-this was a decade ago,when the Kaveri had to go to Russia every time for testing. If e are going to buy the SE based upon a foreign policy decision,than the Dear Lord save us .It would've meant our independence struggle a colossal waste of time and lives of tens of thousands off freedom fighters,betrayed by a later generation. Neither the US or Russia is going to fight our wars.Both will only want to sell more weaponry.Even the French and israelis charge a bomb!The intelligence is to get from whoever he best that they can offer without strings at reasonable cost,with no threat of future sanctions,etc.

I might add here that the abdication of desi UAVs has been a great scandal. For over 2 decades we've bene seeing the same old Nishant,etc. at air shows,even smaller UAVs are now being built by pvt. industry,but most of the major drones bought from abroad without even a squeak from the desi lobby.I mentioned earlier about a report about an unmanned LCA soemwhere in the works.When I asked years ago about converting our huge stock of MIG-21s,etc. into UAVs,many laughed.We're still trying to covert naval Chetaks into unmanned helos for shipborne ops.Its al talk now of Sea Guardians and predators...yes,the predators from the US and others are certainly laughing all the way to the bank!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Oct 2017 11:46

^^^ Kaveri blew up or was it sabotaged every time? So that dependence on roosi maal could continue?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2017 11:54

That's a sick joke.It's beneath contempt.Our boffins were there every time it as tested. It simply failed to make the grade.If there was any thought of sabotage,the GTRE could've sent it anywhere else.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 11 Oct 2017 12:05

Philip wrote:Kaveri? Everytime it was tested in an Ru aircraft it blew up! It has been the biggest fraud by GTRE upon the nation.

Dear Philip, kindly control the language.
I have met Kaveri scientists. They are highly respectable and nationalists like all of us here.
Kaveri has not succeeded. And they have to bear that.
They also have the same grouse as us all - that Kaveri project is/was underfunded.
GTRE may also have suffered from lack of focus, by successive missile-focused DRDO heads.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Oct 2017 13:19

Not only underfunded, it is ridiculous that there is no wind tunnel facilities or aircraft testing facilities in India. Then it is obvious that the whole Kaveri project was a setup to fail

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Oct 2017 14:45

Vivek K wrote:
Rakesh wrote:^^ India cannot RE every single component of the Su-30MKI. Try RE the AL-31FP engine.
Admiral sahib - with today's age of available tech, RE is not as challenging as it used to be. If HAL was given TOT for SC blades then what is the problem with RE of the rest of the parts? I am not an expert in this field although I have rubbed shoulders with several experts that perform RE of aircraft parts.

DMRL chose not to go with Russian SC technology because its tedious. They consciously chose to go with the western approach (DMRL materials scientist told me a lot of details in AI-2017 but I forgot most of it now). Clearly there are shortcomings in the Russian technology. Another thing that I read on one Russian site in an Russian article is that the ToT for Su-30 is restricted not to be used anywhere else, as per contract (I looks like it fits in the picture, the way Russians have forced HAL to keep their stuff away from their other work, Nashik plant was specifically made away from BLR on insistence of Russia I am told. Even the new plant for Ka226 would be kept separated from HAL Heli division's other work). And we know our penchant for making lope-sided contracts and then honoring them no matter how much it affects our national security.

The problem is not know-how in engines, its the know-why. RE can generate know-why only if you have nice testing facilities where you can play with design variations and understand why any design feature exists. Unless this is done, you will end up creating only clones. That's not true RE. Problem is we neither have testing facilities nor good manufacturing base. It took GTRE three years to get through all the hoops and get Kaveri to test fly in Russia. After that they could see issue with compressor and AB. If it takes 3yrs just to uncover basic problems in design, imagine how long it will take to finish design iterations. GTRE lack knowledge on systems integration and rotordynamics. There is no book or research paper which can help there. All the knowledge is closely guarded trade secret (not academic but industrial). No amount of CFD would also get you there. Only way is run various designs for hundreds of thousands of hours in test rigs. It costs billions of dollars for this. Companies like RR spent billions of dollars in research every year on top of the other billions of dollars worth research that they get from government institutes freely. We will have to pour in at least $5B quickly to get anywhere in the ballpark. GOI is clearly not serious on engine development. Money is not an issue, will power is.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Oct 2017 14:47

Philip wrote:Kaveri? Everytime it was tested in an Ru aircraft it blew up! It has been the biggest fraud by GTRE upon the nation.

When did it actually blew up in flight test..?

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Oct 2017 15:26

JayS wrote:
Vivek K wrote: Admiral sahib - with today's age of available tech, RE is not as challenging as it used to be. If HAL was given TOT for SC blades then what is the problem with RE of the rest of the parts? I am not an expert in this field although I have rubbed shoulders with several experts that perform RE of aircraft parts.
DMRL chose not to go with Russian SC technology because its tedious. They consciously chose to go with the western approach (DMRL materials scientist told me a lot of details in AI-2017 but I forgot most of it now). Clearly there are shortcomings in the Russian technology. Another thing that I read on one Russian site in an Russian article is that the ToT for Su-30 is restricted not to be used anywhere else, as per contract (I looks like it fits in the picture, the way Russians have forced HAL to keep their stuff away from their other work, Nashik plant was specifically made away from BLR on insistence of Russia I am told. Even the new plant for Ka226 would be kept separated from HAL Heli division's other work). And we know our penchant for making lope-sided contracts and then honoring them no matter how much it affects our national security.

The problem is not know-how in engines, its the know-why. RE can generate know-why only if you have nice testing facilities where you can play with design variations and understand why any design feature exists. Unless this is done, you will end up creating only clones. That's not true RE. Problem is we neither have testing facilities nor good manufacturing base. It took GTRE three years to get through all the hoops and get Kaveri to test fly in Russia. After that they could see issue with compressor and AB. If it takes 3yrs just to uncover basic problems in design, imagine how long it will take to finish design iterations. GTRE lack knowledge on systems integration and rotordynamics. There is no book or research paper which can help there. All the knowledge is closely guarded trade secret (not academic but industrial). No amount of CFD would also get you there. Only way is run various designs for hundreds of thousands of hours in test rigs. It costs billions of dollars for this. Companies like RR spent billions of dollars in research every year on top of the other billions of dollars worth research that they get from government institutes freely. We will have to pour in at least $5B quickly to get anywhere in the ballpark. GOI is clearly not serious on engine development. Money is not an issue, will power is.

Sir, so we can assume that despite all the laughing we do on the status of Chinese engines (WS10 etc)., they are on the right track and will get there eventually (since they seem to be doing whatever you have listed as must do for success)?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Oct 2017 15:33

More than under-funding, under-staffing is a more serious issue.

Due to GoI freeze on staffing - that should've been directed to bloated department & ministries - there is an acute shortage of manpower across projects. Today ADA is focussed on Mk1 FOC, so not much work has happened (jointly with HAL AR&DC) for Mk1A. Even less work has happened for Mk2. One of the reasons I was told Navy withdrew its support for Tejas Navy Mk2 is because of lot of design work to achieve desired outcomes is unfinished.

Mk1 FOC, MK1A, Mk2 IAF, Mk2 Navy, Trainers....these require multiple teams.

Not expanding ADA - and overall DRDO - staffing for the sake of financial austerity is another sense of misdirected priorities.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Oct 2017 15:35

sum wrote:
JayS wrote:
DMRL chose not to go with Russian SC technology because its tedious. They consciously chose to go with the western approach (DMRL materials scientist told me a lot of details in AI-2017 but I forgot most of it now). Clearly there are shortcomings in the Russian technology. Another thing that I read on one Russian site in an Russian article is that the ToT for Su-30 is restricted not to be used anywhere else, as per contract (I looks like it fits in the picture, the way Russians have forced HAL to keep their stuff away from their other work, Nashik plant was specifically made away from BLR on insistence of Russia I am told. Even the new plant for Ka226 would be kept separated from HAL Heli division's other work). And we know our penchant for making lope-sided contracts and then honoring them no matter how much it affects our national security.

The problem is not know-how in engines, its the know-why. RE can generate know-why only if you have nice testing facilities where you can play with design variations and understand why any design feature exists. Unless this is done, you will end up creating only clones. That's not true RE. Problem is we neither have testing facilities nor good manufacturing base. It took GTRE three years to get through all the hoops and get Kaveri to test fly in Russia. After that they could see issue with compressor and AB. If it takes 3yrs just to uncover basic problems in design, imagine how long it will take to finish design iterations. GTRE lack knowledge on systems integration and rotordynamics. There is no book or research paper which can help there. All the knowledge is closely guarded trade secret (not academic but industrial). No amount of CFD would also get you there. Only way is run various designs for hundreds of thousands of hours in test rigs. It costs billions of dollars for this. Companies like RR spent billions of dollars in research every year on top of the other billions of dollars worth research that they get from government institutes freely. We will have to pour in at least $5B quickly to get anywhere in the ballpark. GOI is clearly not serious on engine development. Money is not an issue, will power is.
Sir, so we can assume that despite all the laughing we do on the status of Chinese engines (WS10 etc)., they are on the right track and will get there eventually (since they seem to be doing whatever you have listed as must do for success)?

Please no Sir or ji for me.

Obviously China is doing a lot of right things. Otherwise it wouldn't be in a position it is today. I feel we have had an advantage over China which is quality vs quantity kind of thing. But we have lost the initiative and soon China will catch up in quality too. There is no alternative to hard work in areas like Jet engines.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Oct 2017 15:53

tsarkar wrote:More than under-funding, under-staffing is a more serious issue.

Due to GoI freeze on staffing - that should've been directed to bloated department & ministries - there is an acute shortage of manpower across projects. Today ADA is focussed on Mk1 FOC, so not much work has happened (jointly with HAL AR&DC) for Mk1A. Even less work has happened for Mk2. One of the reasons I was told Navy withdrew its support for Tejas Navy Mk2 is because of lot of design work to achieve desired outcomes is unfinished.

Mk1 FOC, MK1A, Mk2 IAF, Mk2 Navy, Trainers....these require multiple teams.

Not expanding ADA - and overall DRDO - staffing for the sake of financial austerity is another sense of misdirected priorities.

Agreed, I have pointed out this issue myself many times. ADA has only about 700 scientists working. A lot of whom are into program management. Any organization such as this should have at least 3x highly qualifies man-power.

Even for DRDO, only about 7000 scientists are on staff. As I have mentioned multiple times on BRF, in 2014 DRDO said they have 2000+ unfilled posts. I was very hopeful that Modi government would lift ban on DRDO placements. But it never happened. GOI tried to use an approach which is more suitable for lethargic babus in Zilla Parishad offices than highly qualified white-collar workforce. It was never going to work. No real structural changes have happened in past three years which will empower DRDO for tomorrow's projects.

Another issue I have with our RnD establishment's recruitment policies in hiring of temporary workers at peanuts as salary and making them work on menial jobs only. And gross absence of lateral placements. This way they become a closed echo-chamber kind of place with not much new ideas or ways of working being introduced nor they can retain talent properly. They hire a guy at 15k salary, spend time to train him, use him for 2 years and then fire. How will they even get any decent quality of people in that amount..? Even some good folks who go there due to lack of jobs elsewhere are let go in a year or to. This is a significant erosion of manpower. There is neither quality input nor any consolidation of whatever good that comes in. Only a very small percentage would get absorbed.

But lets not forget, recruitment comes with funding. Even now DRDO's demand for funds is 20k Cr while GOI only provided 15k Cr and this is almost 50% increase in budget compared to 3yrs ago. Look at the example of CSIR. Modi government left them to fend for themselves. Now CSIR has declared financial emergency. They have literally no money left for work after paying salaries. I think next year they will not be able to pay even salaries. And CSIR is our most premier research organization with overwhelming majority of total national research output coming from CSIR. I simply don't understand what is Modi government thinking while doing all this non-sense. They seems totally clueless on what needs to be done. My biggest contention with Modi government is that they neither seems to know how to handle technology areas (particularly the long term things) nor they are willing to delegate it to people who could do it. We can't wait until 2019 elections for every big change.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Oct 2017 16:22

JayS wrote:I simply don't understand what is Modi government thinking while doing all this non-sense. They seems totally clueless on what needs to be done. My biggest contention with Modi government is that they neither seems to know how to handle technology areas (particularly the long term things) nor they are willing to delegate it to people who could do it.

I wrote about this LONG ago, after talking to folks at IISc (Senior People) and that was the consensus. Folks @ IITs will tell you the same thing.

Modi appointed Smriti Irani, who was best described by Ram Guha as "Deadly combination of arrogance coupled with ignorance" . She picked fights with everyone who had some gray matter between their ears and who opened their mouths (with Kakodkar , can you believe it ? , with the IIT Directors , with IISc folks) with her penchant for harangue , brow beating talking down at people who are way out of her league in terms of accomplishment, education , research and knowledge in education.

On top of it , the govts expanded scholarships to OBC students and instead of funding the scholarships , they ordered the institutes to pay for the expanded scholarships (which is now 50% of student intake) out of their own pockets, and this put severe strain on the institutes finances , WTF are they doing with all the education cess they have been raising ?.. (one more reason why contributing to the corpus must be after due care and safeguards.. you build a $1b corpus, it will go down the drain in these kinds of doles and payouts and wasted).

This same thing got replicated in CSIR ,when they were told to become "self funding" . Crazy. You can ask them to be more industry oriented and do more applied research. But wholesale self funding ? Generate revenues to fund scholarship for 50% of undergrad class (so, the other 50% and the research and consultancy income pays for it?) ? What kind of any longer term payback or no pay back research and development can happen at all in such circumstances ?

chola · Post by **chola** » 11 Oct 2017 17:02

Aditya_V wrote:Not only underfunded, it is ridiculous that there is no wind tunnel facilities or aircraft testing facilities in India. Then it is obvious that the whole Kaveri project was a setup to fail

Because we never did the needful and took the foundational steps in engine design and, especially, manufacturing. And testing facilities are just the start of it. We do not have the correct machine tools and forges for the engine parts, especially the blades. The Kaveri’s signature problem was a tendency to “throw” turbine blades. The engine did not “blow up” during the Russian tests but parts, again most importantly the blades, came off. There was a fire at one test where the core was was punctured.

The manufacturing and testing base should have been set up long ago before we tackled a turbofan. They would have been created step by step as we progressed from piston —> turboprop —> turbojet —> turbofan.

Instead, we skipped the first three steps and decided to go with the state of the art. We are missing the first three rungs on the ladder and our legs are no long enough to get to the forth.

We have not even a fvcking piston to power Rustom I. No turboprop for Saras. We never had a turbojet that actually powered an aircraft.

The reason for this delay (I won’t call failure until after Snecma) is obvious : We did not do the needful.