Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jan 2020 02:37

Kartik, Aero simulation is really tough and I don't think there are enough computer cores in any cluster in India to do this efficiently.
Don't be taken away by the scholars rhetoric.
"If only you let me I will bring the moon" type pleadings.
This has bitten quite often.

I used to say many moons ago in the missile threads: One flight test is worth 100 ground tests.
It applies to simulations also.

The problem is you get the general average solution but its the 1:500 case that kills you.

Eg. No one thought the Python fins would get into flutter mode at the outer pylons and the test had to be aborted.
Same location the R-73 worked fine.

We don't know enough to simulate such nuances.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2020 02:44

ramana wrote:Kartik, Aero simulation is really tough and I don't think there are enough computer cores in any cluster in India to do this efficiently.
Don't be taken away by the scholars rhetoric.
"If only you let me I will bring the moon" type pleadings.
This has bitten quite often.

I used to say many moons ago in the missile threads: One flight test is worth 100 ground tests.
It applies to simulations also.

The problem is you get the general average solution but its the 1:500 case that kills you.

Eg. No one thought the Python fins would get into flutter mode at the outer pylons and the test had to be aborted.
Same location the R-73 worked fine.

We don't know enough to simulate such nuances.

No sir it doesn’t require super computers. CFD and FEM simulation software are widely used by ADA, NAL and HAL already.

Like I said, the simulations take care or bulk of the test cases that need to run, and are then verified through selective flight testing. You’ll always run into some issues that flight testing will reveal that wasn’t known through simulations but that is an accepted fact and doesn’t in any way reduce the importance of simulation software. The key aspect is knowing what to simulate and doing it well. I believe India has more than adequate capabilities in that regard.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jan 2020 04:25

No boss. The kind I am talking about needs super computing using many cores.
To do full coupled modeling of the flow field.
The CFD and FEM will give you pretty good idea.

I hope your last sentence is right for even massa worries about this.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2020 06:42

We are not talking about simulating a nuke test. We are talking about CFD and FEM analysis, which as you'd have seen in multiple papers presented by ADA and HAL folks, is common enough. It forms the basis for studies that are conducted in multiple areas of discipline that contribute to aircraft design.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Jan 2020 07:58

Ramana, you are categorically wrong there. Todays quad core Xeons are way more powerful that the whole pentium clusters of Param on which the original LCA simulations ran. Now even you and I can buy a bunch of blade servers and run them in cluster. I know for a fact that NAL do have a few behemoths that are more than capable. Even in the old Param days of mid 1990s, the simulation capabilities were great. Only that it took a long time to execute. My bro used to go in the morning to NAL to load, and return the next day or third day to collect results. This was at an age where 1.44MB Floppies where the only means of data transfer.

Now.. let me tell you what you guys all get it wrong. Understand the difference between "Experiment" and "Test"? Simulation is "Experiment". Flight Test is "Test"

Simulation replaces countless hours of "experiments", which include "flying experiments". But they never EVER replace testing.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Jan 2020 08:00

Oh.. and are you really sure that we do not simulate new clear science eh? Then whyfor yindoos build high power lasers of very tight line width hain jee?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jan 2020 08:08

Dileep, Read this. My first post on this subject.
viewtopic.php?p=2407035#p2407035

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Jan 2020 09:39

Ramana I was specifically answering to your statement which is, well, categorically wrong.

ramana wrote:I don't think there are enough computer cores in any cluster in India to do this efficiently.

We absolutely do!! And we put them into good use.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 10:12

ramana wrote:tasrkar is right about need for extensive testing. The Thresher failure was due to a inexpensive fitting that failed.

I dont think anyone is arguing testing is not important or extensive testing is not needed. In fact I always lamant we do too less testing and HW level iterations, including development testing as well as fielding equipement to gain reai life experience. That's I said a few posts back that I hope Indian Navy sticks to the plan of operationalising a handful of NLCA Mk1. Its absolutely essential to gain that practical knowlege and experience for de-risking TEDBF. We need a lot of data to refine TEDBF or NAMCA design and its an undisputed fact that any amount of development testing is never sufficiant and actual usage by the user throws a lot of unexpected things.

ramana wrote:Kartik, Aero simulation is really tough and I don't think there are enough computer cores in any cluster in India to do this efficiently.
Don't be taken away by the scholars rhetoric.
"If only you let me I will bring the moon" type pleadings.
This has bitten quite often.

I used to say many moons ago in the missile threads: One flight test is worth 100 ground tests.
It applies to simulations also.

The problem is you get the general average solution but its the 1:500 case that kills you.

Eg. No one thought the Python fins would get into flutter mode at the outer pylons and the test had to be aborted.
Same location the R-73 worked fine.

We don't know enough to simulate such nuances.

This was the feeling 50yrs ago, its still there today and it will remain there after 50yrs later too, that we do not understand enough and simulation capabilities are not advanced enough. But these are very generic sort of statements. In real life, simulations have come a long way. Yes, they do not predict accurate results even in simple cases, but that does not mean they do not add to the understanding of engineers about the product or that they have not significantly impacted development times and quality and complexity of design possible in given time and resources.

Any idiot can run simulations, throw bunch of values and colorful plots out of them. Thats how we have a large engineering services industry despite producing a lot of crap engineers without any hands-on knowledge on any real life products. But its takes a good engineer to interpret the simulation results, correlate them to real life experiences from the past and draw right conclusions with fair bit of confidence. A good engineer never takes simulation results as they are, at their face value. Do not forget the man in the loop while considering simulation capabilities. I don't think simulation will ever get so good that they can be taken at face value. Forget uderstanding turbulence or material properties properly and building simulations based on that, there is no commonly accepted theory exists which explains how lift is generated even today, but still we have been making and flying aircrafts for close to 120yrs now. Because we have been doing it by actually making something, testing it, tinkering it based on test results, testing it again and doing this over and over again till we make it work. But there is ever increasing level of understanding of theory and simulations which is slowly displacing the need to do actual tests and experienments. Its quite clear which direction the progression is.

Dileep wrote: Now.. let me tell you what you guys all get it wrong. Understand the difference between "Experiment" and "Test"? Simulation is "Experiment". Flight Test is "Test"

Simulation replaces countless hours of "experiments", which include "flying experiments". But they never EVER replace testing.

Actually thats not quite true 100%. Today a lot of certification points are covered based on simulations only. It depends on the ability of the OEM to convince the certification authority on reliability of their methods and accuracy of prediction. We are doing far less flight testing today compared to what would have been needed in 50s or 60s for the same kind of capabilities. This is partly due to better simulation capabilities, but also partly due to the accumulated product knowledge over the decades. A lot of it is available in public domain for everyone to learn from it.

Regarding availability of simulation resources, not all kind of simulations need large cluster. There was a tender for creating new cluster in ADA a couple of years ago. From what I remember off the top of my head, it mentioned their earlier cluster was among the top 500 clusters globally and they wanted similar ranking for new one by latest standard. This not including the resources existing in CSIR, DRDO labs, IITs et al involved in the R&D work related to our defense programs. A lot of work happens outside ADA too.

BTW there are multiple levels of simulations used typically by designers which have increasing fidelity. Even the very primitive methods which may actually be giving wrong absolute numbers, are still useful for the engineers if they capture the delta between the two iterations adequately and give results in within seconds. No one goes to the highest fidelity simulations possible in given resources for every thing. They are typically only reserved for verification analysis after the design is quite refined already. Also, typically the real life usage of simulations in the industry is much less intense in terms of fidelity and the level of details of physics captured compared to what Academicians or Computiational physicists typically use.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jan 2020 11:21

Jay, intense testing and if all is OK, order at least one sqd. of 20+ for the 2 carriers. With commonality with IAF's variants, the cost shouldn't be much more.Having a sqd. or more will both complement and provide reserves for the 29Ks on the 2 carriers, should we face any further problems with the 29Ks. Operating from the CVs would also establish its ruggedness for multiple deck landings being a new carrier bird.The experience and data obtained could be used for the NAMCA.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 14 Jan 2020 11:25

Philip, if we set aside the cost (which we cant in reality), what is the mission that you think this squadron of NLCA Mk1 that you are proposing will undertake for IN and in general, the Indian military?

Strafing and light CAS? LIFT/Training? Airshows? Maturing tech for TEDBF? That is what a lot of posters here are trying to figure out, because otherwise Navy will want it to remain as a stepping stone. Basicallt a TD

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 14 Jan 2020 12:22

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 14 Jan 2020 12:28

Every second on board INS Vikramaditya precious for NLCA, crew

When asked why NLCA did not undertake the ski-jump on the same day as it did the arrested landing, the
scientist said that it would have deprived them of the below-the-deck-experience.
"If we would have taken off immediately, we would not have been able to expose the aircraft to the
environment on and below the deck. Time on an operational carrier for a developmental aircraft is not only
precious, but very rare. So every second is precious," he added.

So it seems LCA Navy fits the INSVikramaditya's Lifts

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Jan 2020 12:30

^ @Kakarat thanks for the photo. Wow! What a sight!

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 14 Jan 2020 12:43

Kakarat wrote:

Just the front nose portion, canopy and intakes resemble F-18 somewhat.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Jan 2020 13:05

Kartik wrote:Once you know the model is quite accurate

In real life, it isnt, and a lot of flight testing is required even to properly identify the gaps.

Kartik wrote:Once you know the model is quite accurate, you can further simulate more test cases, easing the costs significantly and also the time taken.

Theoretically. Practically it took time from 2001 till 2017.

Kartik wrote:Clearly, within a short number of test flights, they demonstrated arrested landing and take off at SBTF.

Work for arrested landing has been going for the last two years. Its incorrect to think arrested landing effort started in September 2019 or a few more months earlier.

JayS wrote:That's I said a few posts back that I hope Indian Navy sticks to the plan of operationalising a handful of NLCA Mk1.

Atleast 6-8 NLCA Mk1 will be built to thorough test carrier flying across the full spectrum of operations. Navy has already paid for them in 2010.

JayS wrote:Today a lot of certification points are covered based on simulations only. It depends on the ability of the OEM to convince the certification authority on reliability of their methods and accuracy of prediction. We are doing far less flight testing today compared to what would have been needed in 50s or 60s for the same kind of capabilities. This is partly due to better simulation capabilities, but also partly due to the accumulated product knowledge over the decades. A lot of it is available in public domain for everyone to learn from it.

And this is what is horribly wrong with the global, especially US & European aviation industry, leading to public failures and avoidable loss of lives. Accumulated knowledge is useful generically but specifically airframes built with newer materials perform differently. The composition of even metals have changed over the years. Environmental conditions change. For example, in tropical waters of India, salinity in ambient air at sea and lower levels is high.

Simulation is a good starting point compared to starting from nothing, but a lot of flight testing is and will be required, not just for testing but for basic development.

If someone is attending Defexpo or Indian Science Congress, someone can ask Dr Deodhare or Dr Saraf how much simulations help reduce flight testing for development. 20-30% or 50-70%? (these numbers are random)

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 13:07

hnair wrote:Philip, if we set aside the cost (which we cant in reality), what is the mission that you think this squadron of NLCA Mk1 that you are proposing will undertake for IN and in general, the Indian military?

Strafing and light CAS? LIFT/Training? Airshows? Maturing tech for TEDBF? That is what a lot of posters here are trying to figure out, because otherwise Navy will want it to remain as a stepping stone. Basicallt a TD

Its imperative they operationalise MK1 from INS Vik, a full sq is not needed for this but at the very least 4-6 jets stationed onboard the AC. We need real life data on structural loads and performance data in year round weather at sea and all kind of ship motion, MRO feedback, performance of various materials in salty condition and so on. Its can definitely do point defense role at the very least. But essential point it to collect data to de-risk and refined design for TEDBF. Else we will end up in the same situation with TEDBF like we did with NLCA with its too heavy airframe and landing gears. Consider it as an investment in future.

And in longer term LIFT role makes sense, given it can be used for full spectrum STOBAR training capability as well as decent Naval warfare training capability with onboard radar and other quipement not available with any other trainer. This would help the IN conserve the precious airframe life of frontline fighters. And if its performance is satisfactory with given engine, may be a point defense aircraft for Naval Airbases is not a bad idea. At least in bases like A&N I see there is a good business case for a cheap point defense fighter while Su-30MKI could concentrate on strategic missions.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 13:25

tsarkar wrote: Atleast 6-8 NLCA Mk1 will be built to thorough test carrier flying across the full spectrum of operations. Navy has already paid for them in 2010.

And this is what is horribly wrong with the global, especially US & European aviation industry, leading to public failures and avoidable loss of lives. Accumulated knowledge is useful generically but specifically airframes built with newer materials perform differently. The composition of even metals have changed over the years. Environmental conditions change. For example, in tropical waters of India, salinity in ambient air at sea and lower levels is high.

Simulation is a good starting point compared to starting from nothing, but a lot of flight testing is and will be required, not just for testing but for basic development.

If someone is attending Defexpo or Indian Science Congress, someone can ask Dr Deodhare or Dr Saraf how much simulations help reduce flight testing for development. 20-30% or 50-70%? (these numbers are random)

8 on order, 4 trainers and 4 single seater. I have seen multiple references to this one. But I have not seen any official reference for the money actually been paid. Even for the FOC order of LCA there was a contract in place since 2010, but only a small portion of the money was given to HAL until quite later. It doesnt make sense to pay to HAL for something which is not even remotely close to manufacturing.

About simulations, I don't think anything I say is going to change your point of view. Which is fine. Sometimes I see the old timers in Aerospace Industry themselves have trouble trusting simulations. After a point it simply becomes a matter of what one is most comfortable with. But I think you are going in totally wrong direction here. What you think is horribly wrong it not with the Engineering or simulations at all. The fault lies with the changes happened in the corporate culture in US Aerospace industry that has come to pass in last three decades.

Sometimes I wonder if Kelly Johnson was working in today's world, could he ever be so successful.

If only it was not so painful posting pictures on BRF, I might have thought of putting up some examples from ADA publications on simulation results vs flight data.

jaysimha · Post by **jaysimha** » 14 Jan 2020 13:28

I witnessed IFR2001 https://www.rediff.com/news/ifr2001.htm flypast & parade from the roof top of Express towers.

later, came down running to see the "reverse parade"

Tejas had done 1st flight few days before. But that was enough for the navy to parade the model in all major events,,,,

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 14 Jan 2020 13:46

Simulation is not trusted for any safety or mission critical aspects. As per my understanding, none of the aerodynamic aspects are certified based on simulation. However, electrical simulations are sometimes accepted as means of compliance now. Of course, they are much simpler than aerodynamics. I have seen only a few line items that accepted (electrical) simulation among the thousands I have seen in my rather short experience in this field. We do not deal with aerodynamics, so don't have data on them.

Even RF simulation is not accepted.

CEMILAC/RCMA never accept simulation for domestic stuff as I know.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 14 Jan 2020 15:14

^^we did a similar thing in FS, NNs attempting to model it...eventually NNs and rest all plots were converging to what structural models were giving. However, the exercise required huge amounts of data. Not sure we will have that amount of data on testing.IN fS it is easy that you may end up losing money...but here it's money lives,data and credibility...

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 14 Jan 2020 15:51

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 9924081665

#NLCA NP1 has also completed arrested landing and take off in sucession now from #INSVikramaditya. It was piloted by Dax -- Capt Shivnath Dahiya.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 7497025536

Confirmations now come in that Dax made another landing on #INSVikramaditya flying NP1, minutes after his first touchdown. As this tweet flies out, hot refueling on ship is on for more sorties. Some action there folks!!

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/12 ... 0067688448

NP1 took off around 1.30 pm & did over shoots for practice followed by trap. Hot refuelled took off & did one more trap. Hot refuelled & returned to base. So 2 arrested landings & 2 ski-jump takeoffs from #INSVikramaditya in a single sortie.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Jan 2020 16:58

wow, that is some turn around....I doubt even many operational planes can do that. I would wager that LCA in IAF can do maximum sortie in a day compared to any other aircraft, including the erstwhile darling M2K and the new one - Rafale

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Jan 2020 16:59

Any video of takeoff. I have done enough refresh in the last 24 hours on many web pages. The fingers are hurting

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 17:23

Impressive show by NP1. Quite a bit of workload for one day. I suppose Capt Dahia was piloting NP1.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Jan 2020 17:31

Yup cpt Dhai it was!!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 17:33

Dileep wrote:Simulation is not trusted for any safety or mission critical aspects. As per my understanding, none of the aerodynamic aspects are certified based on simulation. However, electrical simulations are sometimes accepted as means of compliance now. Of course, they are much simpler than aerodynamics. I have seen only a few line items that accepted (electrical) simulation among the thousands I have seen in my rather short experience in this field. We do not deal with aerodynamics, so don't have data on them.

Even RF simulation is not accepted.

CEMILAC/RCMA never accept simulation for domestic stuff as I know.

I know examples of mission critical requirements certified by FAA based only on simulation results. Obviously all other civilian agencies mostly copy paste FAA certification, its true for most of them if not all. Structural simulations are particularly mature technology by now for many test cases. There are some test points, which are still too complicated for simulations, they need validation test e.g. FBO or are used as ultimate verification point for a whole set of test points, eg wing ultimate strength. The amount of test points covered by simulations are only gonna grow in future.

As I said previously, it depends on how much confidence the certifying agency has on the OEM's methods or how well the OEM can convince the agency. Its definitely a gray area, but Aerospace Engineering is quite conservative in nature as you would know already. So things are not taken lightly. We praise global OEMs all the time but then they get a lot of leeway from FAA. If FAA puts its foot down on each and every certification point to be verified in some real life test, I wonder if developing and certifying a Civil Airliner will even remain a economically feasible activity at all.

Typically first of the family takes longest. Later derivatives only need to recertify design changes, not full set of test points.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 14 Jan 2020 18:11

Look at the focus of IN...limited sorties...multiple test point (this is how you complete testing, not take a decade)
First sortie - Plane lands, taken through lift to maintenance bay. IN has experience/practices from 1960s on what checklist to run on a trapped plane. Did all that (and must have given ADA the idea what to improve/look out for. What panels to move for easier check up, what software driven self testing to put so that all checked fast...etc etc.). The plane was certified to take off the next day (as nothing extra was needed to be done).
The next sortie, the plane lands, does hot refueling (without going below deck, does 29 K have that), takes off again (29 K have to be inspected heavily as it does not do well after landing). In few hours, NLA generates 2 sorties...maybe in a day, in operational role, it can generate 5-6 sortie, providing 24/7 air cover to the carrier itself (if not at range, around it, and maybe just with AA missiles). It can beat any other plane that may have range and payload but maybe un available due to maintenance issues. Maybe that longer ranged plane forms the outer ring and a/g roles, while this one does AA duties strictly until TEDBF comes along.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 19:32

JayS wrote:
hnair wrote:Philip, if we set aside the cost (which we cant in reality), what is the mission that you think this squadron of NLCA Mk1 that you are proposing will undertake for IN and in general, the Indian military?

Strafing and light CAS? LIFT/Training? Airshows? Maturing tech for TEDBF? That is what a lot of posters here are trying to figure out, because otherwise Navy will want it to remain as a stepping stone. Basicallt a TD
Its imperative they operationalise MK1 from INS Vik, a full sq is not needed for this but at the very least 4-6 jets stationed onboard the AC. We need real life data on structural loads and performance data in year round weather at sea and all kind of ship motion, MRO feedback, performance of various materials in salty condition and so on. Its can definitely do point defense role at the very least. But essential point it to collect data to de-risk and refined design for TEDBF. Else we will end up in the same situation with TEDBF like we did with NLCA with its too heavy airframe and landing gears. Consider it as an investment in future.
.

From the link kakarat posted above,

Cmd Balaji says

"Whilst we can certainly design and develop a twin-engine deck based aircraft, I strongly believe that we should have a squadron of NLCA MK1 to operate from the aircraft carrier. This will help in understanding the aspects of consolidation of carrier-borne operations, maintenance, ground handling and development of procedures. I hope that the Indian Navy will favourably consider this," he said.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 14 Jan 2020 19:36

JayS, agree with Cmdr and your earlier post, hence my original post was more about what could be the options that Philip would consider the aircraft in its current form to do. Or maybe sub-consciously, I am trying to ward off that impending request for slinging BrahmosNG on NLCA Mk1 from dear Philip

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 19:50

LOL. B-NG on NLCA Mk1 ain't happening. The inboard wing pylon has space limitation and can take AAM at max. No other pylon would be suitable for B-NG. As I said, we will have to wait for for ADA to run through envelop expansion flying from the deck of INS Vik, before we can know what payload capability NLCA MK1 can carry. Its possible role will entirely depend on its MTOW and possible payload configs. As of now only point defense seems feasible.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Jan 2020 20:06

JayS wrote:8 on order, 4 trainers and 4 single seater. I have seen multiple references to this one. But I have not seen any official reference for the money actually been paid. Even for the FOC order of LCA there was a contract in place since 2010, but only a small portion of the money was given to HAL until quite later. It doesnt make sense to pay to HAL for something which is not even remotely close to manufacturing.

The financials are covered here.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... ality.html

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/09/ ... dmark.html

Allocation is milestone based, ie, next tranche is released after a particular milestone is achieved. Challenges are inflation and price escalation of components, manufacturing and services. No one is paid 2010 salaries in 2020. It was Rs 26 to the dollar when the project was started and now its upwards of 70. So money allocated in 2010 for 8 fighters can produce only 3.

Anyways we will see our 8 NLCA Mk1. Two are already flying. IN needs a fighter customized to tropical conditions and there will be no TEDBF without adequate number of NLCA Mk1 for development & operational testing.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 14 Jan 2020 20:24

JayS wrote:LOL. B-NG on NLCA Mk1 ain't happening. The inboard wing pylon has space limitation and can take AAM at max. No other pylon would be suitable for B-NG. As I said, we will have to wait for for ADA to run through envelop expansion flying from the deck of INS Vik, before we can know what payload capability NLCA MK1 can carry. Its possible role will entirely depend on its MTOW and possible payload configs. As of now only point defense seems feasible.

LCA Navy should be able to carry Harpoon/Exocet type Anti-ship missiles on its mid board pylon definitely from land but what it can do from the deck has to be seen and depends on envelop expansion by ADA as you have said. For now it can be used as a LIFT and BVR capable air superiority fighter based on tests from SBTF

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 14 Jan 2020 21:28

I would be happy if we just had one flight of NLCA as ordered generating data for the TEDBF. The experience we will get will be worth gold. Not many can claim that they have an indigenously developed aircraft that takes off from an indigenous aircraft carrier - Not even china. The only other countries that have the experience are USA, UK, Russia and France.

The navy will be better off pouring the money into TEDBF instead of a couple of Sqns of NLCA.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Jan 2020 21:46

A beautiful photo of Naval Tejas aboard INS Vikramaditya...by Deb Rana

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7RCZD2hv0Y/

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2020 22:51

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:8 on order, 4 trainers and 4 single seater. I have seen multiple references to this one. But I have not seen any official reference for the money actually been paid. Even for the FOC order of LCA there was a contract in place since 2010, but only a small portion of the money was given to HAL until quite later. It doesnt make sense to pay to HAL for something which is not even remotely close to manufacturing.
The financials are covered here.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... ality.html

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/09/ ... dmark.html

Allocation is milestone based, ie, next tranche is released after a particular milestone is achieved. Challenges are inflation and price escalation of components, manufacturing and services. No one is paid 2010 salaries in 2020. It was Rs 26 to the dollar when the project was started and now its upwards of 70. So money allocated in 2010 for 8 fighters can produce only 3.

Anyways we will see our 8 NLCA Mk1. Two are already flying. IN needs a fighter customized to tropical conditions and there will be no TEDBF without adequate number of NLCA Mk1 for development & operational testing.

This is grant-in-aid money given to ADA for LCA program. This does not include orders for serial production. IAF, for example, has separate contracts for IOC and FOC batch and that money went to HAL, not ADA.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 14 Jan 2020 23:31

The main landing wheel is not aligned with hydraulic restraints. The wheel is slightly towards right, almost facing towards the photographer. Or are my eyes playing tricks on me ??

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jan 2020 23:39

Kakarat wrote:For now it can be used as a LIFT and BVR capable air superiority fighter based on tests from SBTF

A Naval LIFT is probably the best bet. A naval, Carrier-launched point defense fighter is probably also possible..but where is the mission need? Against what carrier on carrier battle would the IN need this? Most carrier counter air is directed quite a bit distance away from the carrier, as the opposite force employs low flying long range strike options given the ability of the carrier to generate counter air sorties. So an ideal counter air platform would be medium to long range with the ability to maintain orbits at distance with enough endurance to engage in combat if need be (at distance). PAF/PN capability probably does not justify dedicated counter air mission aircraft as multi-role aircraft will suffice. I think the IN looked at this before it embarked on a twin engined 4+ gen. fighter requirement, both for the 57 imported aircraft and the TEDBF. Also, non optimized aircraft also have trickle down impact on other carrier aviation requirements. Currently the IN uses the MiG-29K as a recovery tanker. How is the recovery tanker mission impacted if you mix in a medium ranged carrier borne aircraft (29K) and a short-medium ranged aircraft into the operational mix? At the moment, the best bet is to field this aircraft as a naval LIFT, and use the experience and the lessons learnt as a stepping stone for a proper MiG-29K replacement, which If I were to guess, the IN can't wait to get.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Jan 2020 04:04

Dileep wrote:Ramana, you are categorically wrong there. Todays quad core Xeons are way more powerful that the whole pentium clusters of Param on which the original LCA simulations ran. Now even you and I can buy a bunch of blade servers and run them in cluster. I know for a fact that NAL do have a few behemoths that are more than capable. Even in the old Param days of mid 1990s, the simulation capabilities were great. Only that it took a long time to execute. My bro used to go in the morning to NAL to load, and return the next day or third day to collect results. This was at an age where 1.44MB Floppies where the only means of data transfer.

Now.. let me tell you what you guys all get it wrong. Understand the difference between "Experiment" and "Test"? Simulation is "Experiment". Flight Test is "Test"

Simulation replaces countless hours of "experiments", which include "flying experiments". But they never EVER replace testing.

+1.

And I don't believe that anyone suggested that simulation replaces testing. It only takes on the bulk of the cases that would simply be too time consuming and costly to perform in a real flight test.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Jan 2020 04:04

Rakesh wrote:A beautiful photo of Naval Tejas aboard INS Vikramaditya...by Deb Rana

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7RCZD2hv0Y/

WOW!

That's one beautiful fighter!