Indian Naval Aviation

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jun 2020 01:45

rohitvats wrote:What's with posting one sided commentary from anon handles from Twitter? Or, is that your handle? Anyone can say anything on Twitter. Have you verified the accuracy of what the anon handle has written?

If it is incorrect, you can refute it or you have the option of ignoring it. He is highlighting the salient points of the article from the TP. Nothing wrong in that.

I see from an earlier twitter exchange, that the two of you had an exchange and you blocked him.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby rohitvats » 12 Jun 2020 01:53

Rakesh wrote:
rohitvats wrote:What's with posting one sided commentary from anon handles from Twitter? Or, is that your handle? Anyone can say anything on Twitter. Have you verified the accuracy of what the anon handle has written?


If it is incorrect, you can refute it or you have the option of ignoring it. He is highlighting the salient points of the article from the TP. Nothing wrong in that.

I see from an earlier twitter exchange, that the two of you had an exchange and you blocked him.

As for highlighting the points from HAL TP's article, you can do that yourself as well. Or just post the images. Why import garbage opinions along with it?

Coming to his and mine exchange, well, if idiots like him start calling everyone having a contra opinion as having an agenda, I guess I deserve the right to block him and not suffer his idiotic rants.
Last edited by Rakesh on 12 Jun 2020 02:19, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Post Edited. No Need to Get Personal

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Kartik » 12 Jun 2020 01:58

Karan M wrote:I dont think the tender should be cancelled. Let Naval Dhruv also participate and prove itself. If it meets the specs, take it. Eitherway HAL should also be asked to provide a guaranteed uptime and also a safety guarantee (the Naval guys are justifiably upset at their Gen1 machines) and focus should be on ensuring these choppers are cent per cent reliable. Also have Naval guys deputed to HAL w/decision making power. They should have the ability to flag any safety related deviations and counter them.


Commander Yashodhan Marathe's article was really scathing of the issues that the Naval Dhruv had. The Mk3 may address most of these, but the engineering and manufacturing mindset at HAL that he revealed is rather alarming.

The question is to what degree have all these issues been taken care of? Making sure that there is no Foreign Objects introduced into the assembly process is such a basic tenet, it is hard to believe that a company that had been assembling and manufacturing for decades would be so careless about it. Switching parts from other helis and then asking why does it matter? Parts failing and simply being replaced without doing a root cause level analysis to find out why it happened in the first place? It reveals a shocking level of callousness that I can only pray and hope is no longer true of HAL employees.

Having read his article, I am now inclined to believe that while the ALH Mk3 or 4 could be allowed to participate in the NUH, it should be held to the SAME standards in every way. If not, introduce penalty clauses, PSU or not be damned. And it may not be bad if a private sector player does get a foothold in the aviation industry in a way that truly challenges HAL to do better.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby rohitvats » 12 Jun 2020 02:08

Which class or types of ships will be mounting the NUH in the Indian Navy?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7907
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby nachiket » 12 Jun 2020 02:19

I would guess all the ships capable of carrying the Chetak currently. Depending on the mission they would set off with an ASW helo like the Ka-28/Sea-King or the NUH. The ones which can carry two might carry one Ka-28/Sea-King and one NUH. This would encompass all major surface combatants of the IN - Delhi Class, P-15A/B, P-17 and P-17A, Talwar class, P-28, Brahmaputra class and even the older Rajput class and the sole remaining Godavari class ship (INS Gomati).

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jun 2020 02:55

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaQXviNXkAM ... name=large ---> Exactly right. So as one esteemed former service member told me today the AUW limitation is there because of “rotor dynamics” but this isn’t an issue for the 16 MK.3s navy will use on shore? Or the 16 MK.3s tbe ICG will actually be embarking. It’s an entirely arbitrary restriction.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jun 2020 02:56

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 01121?s=20 ---> This is something I have been trying to nail down. The point that keeps being thrown around is that the ALH is too large to operate from the smallest naval ships (HAL can meet the required NUH stowability dimensions now) but what are these ships? No one seems to know.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jun 2020 02:57

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 68520?s=20 ---> Navy wanted 4.5t then this gets upped to 5t and the NSQRs modified accordingly. It’s this TP’s contention this was done to give the S-76 a chance in the NUH contest. In that case, as it seems to be arbitrary at this point. Why not up it so ALH (5.75t AUW) can take part?

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jun 2020 02:58

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 50146?s=20 ---> “Listen to the experts” we are told well here is THE expert on HAL helicopters. He’s flown them all including the latest ALH MK.3 and LUH. The ex-navy TPs who were quoted this week all admit they haven’t even seen a MK.3 up close let alone flown in one.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Kartik » 12 Jun 2020 04:32

Rakesh, who is KSingh? Is he an aviator or ex-services?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3773
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby suryag » 12 Jun 2020 04:56

Folks at times I feel we are too lily livered when it comes to project issues. Believe me, have run a couple of billion dollar programs and the first one was a nightmare and far worse than what the TP describes because we didnt have any established process, we had to work it out as we went and it took us 3 years in an environment where I had full freedom, now imagine what it would be with a bunch of officers and HAL technocrats each with their own ego and past history with one another trying to make this work. I dont find anything wrong with what the TP said(his frustration is understandable partly due to lack of experience in working with indigenous systems and HAL's behaviour is also understandable largely due to lack of experience in building and productizing full inhouse systems)

raghuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 00:38

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby raghuk » 12 Jun 2020 06:21

Kartik wrote:
Karan M wrote:I dont think the tender should be cancelled. Let Naval Dhruv also participate and prove itself. If it meets the specs, take it. Eitherway HAL should also be asked to provide a guaranteed uptime and also a safety guarantee (the Naval guys are justifiably upset at their Gen1 machines) and focus should be on ensuring these choppers are cent per cent reliable. Also have Naval guys deputed to HAL w/decision making power. They should have the ability to flag any safety related deviations and counter them.


Commander Yashodhan Marathe's article was really scathing of the issues that the Naval Dhruv had. The Mk3 may address most of these, but the engineering and manufacturing mindset at HAL that he revealed is rather alarming.

The question is to what degree have all these issues been taken care of? Making sure that there is no Foreign Objects introduced into the assembly process is such a basic tenet, it is hard to believe that a company that had been assembling and manufacturing for decades would be so careless about it. Switching parts from other helis and then asking why does it matter? Parts failing and simply being replaced without doing a root cause level analysis to find out why it happened in the first place? It reveals a shocking level of callousness that I can only pray and hope is no longer true of HAL employees.

Having read his article, I am now inclined to believe that while the ALH Mk3 or 4 could be allowed to participate in the NUH, it should be held to the SAME standards in every way. If not, introduce penalty clauses, PSU or not be damned. And it may not be bad if a private sector player does get a foothold in the aviation industry in a way that truly challenges HAL to do better.

Detailed analysis is carried out after every big or small component failure rr. The analysis results are shown to RCMA or DGCA and only post their clearance is the mod implemented on the helicopter. We are a professional company and we have regulatory authorities breathing down our neck all the time. Most of times customer pilots are not privy to the analysis but our test pilots are. Only after they are convinced, do they fly the helicopter. Why do you think they'd put their lives and that of others in danger. Sometimes even the designers fly along to understand what the problem really is (vibrations for example) . That is the level of confidence we have and that doesn't come out of bravado but solid analysis and testing.
As I said the navy pilot's article does not present the full picture.

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

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 12 Jun 2020 08:41

Kartik
...
The question is to what degree have all these issues been taken care of? Making sure that there is no Foreign Objects introduced into the assembly process is such a basic tenet, it is hard to believe that a company that had been assembling and manufacturing for decades would be so careless about it. Switching parts from other helis and then asking why does it matter? Parts failing and simply being replaced without doing a root cause level analysis to find out why it happened in the first place? It reveals a shocking level of callousness that I can only pray and hope is no longer true of HAL employees.

...

The issue is not just with HAL. It seems like one of those “open secrets” in the aviation sector. Read this recent article about Boeing 787 FOD issues:
Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet

One can’t look at Boeing the same way after reading that article!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2020 08:54

srai wrote:One can’t look at Boeing the same way after reading that article!


There are $$ at stake for Boeing when it makes these blunders. They've taken well over $ 4 Billion in charges and penalties on the KC-46. For comparison they could have closed the Embraer acquisition with the dollars they have already paid in charges or USAF penalties on the KC-46 program. So underpreformance has both strategic, and financial pain for them. Same applies for any deviation from commercial contracts on their airline clients which I'd assume would be even stricter since they have revenue that they can clearly cite as lost. The decision that Boeing management made to outsource a military program to its commercial division (instead of having it run by its military division which was the expected norm even on prior commercial derivative designs) has led to serious financial, customer relation repercussions and heads have rolled and shareholder confidence damaged. In short, the next time they decide to cut corners there would be some muscle memory of how painful this entire management experience was. That is if Boeing actually lives for a next time assuming that the culture that led to these issues isn't as widespread that its beyond repair. So it may be an "open secret" or what not, but you cannot keep taking these hits for the financial consequences of repeated customer dissatisfaction often means that you either go out of business, or you diminish in relevance in your industry. It usually starts a vicious circle of talent departure as the most talented leave first which makes things worst.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jun 2020 20:11, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 12 Jun 2020 08:58

When it comes to naval aviation, the IN is not a “builders navy” so it would seem. Requires a continued long-term engagement.

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1271103819091513345?s=20 ---> It doesn’t get more damning than this. So how exactly is NHQ making their decisions if they don’t have relevant up to date information? It’s like they got the answer they wanted (imports) in 2011 and shut down their ears since then. They’d rather push for another needless import.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaPeLYvXgAA ... name=large

Image
Last edited by srai on 12 Jun 2020 09:48, edited 1 time in total.

Shubham
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 01:06
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Shubham » 12 Jun 2020 09:37

Just few titbits about HAL vs Services debate and for all u like you can call it hearsay or ......

The first thing that is done to a helicopter received at a unit after total refurbishment is to open it up completely and do a thorough nd detailed servicing !! Of a supposedly brand new heli !! Bcos by experience you can't really trust the job done by HAL.

A kattapa moment in this tale is sadly many a times the test pilots of services (ETP/ PTP) who are attached to HAL do dance to the tune of HAL. Why you ask . Make your own extrapolation. If not how those pilots can clear the helicopter which is not performing as per the prevailing criteria. Ie you should not really clear a helicopter to be fit for delivery to service when it is not showing adequate rate of climb. But still it happens.

So all is not really well in HAL. Though personally I am all in for promoting our stuff but let's be clear - Nationalism can't be an excuse for unprofessionalism.

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

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 12 Jun 2020 09:40

^^^
I find truth to be somewhere in between typically. We have to look at perspectives from both sides. It’s not as black and white as some people want it to be. It’s gray :idea:

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3773
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby suryag » 12 Jun 2020 09:54

Sir I will narrate a similar instance, under pressure(Time, quarterly bonus, Annual performance appraisals, market announced goals) many times we ended up sending across a product(HW+SW) which was about 99% ready. Many times we got lucky that we were caught but the failure was small enough. Additionally, once we released something we started working on patch releases so that we could release it as an MR(maintenance). But few times we got our butt kicked pretty badly and this is about a product that is extremely popular with all of you.

What i mean to say is, this has happened so many times that it doesnt surprise me, btw many of you might have gone through similar experiences.

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

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 12 Jun 2020 10:03

^^^
If we look under the hood, we will find all sorts of things :wink:

A lot of it could have been better managed through managing customer expectations and fielding a dedicated Customer Support Team who liaisons between the navy and the designers/engineers/technicians. Typically, it’s best practice to avoid having customers directly talk to technicians/engineers. That can lead to a communication gap.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 12 Jun 2020 10:28

My 02 bits on this raging debate:

Bit 01- Forget HAL for a moment and turn attention on the competition. How good are they? I mean what are their internal stories?
Bit 02- HAL needs to get Marketing and Customer Centric management for it to cross bridges with all services. Presently only navy guys have been speaking. If IAF and IA guys also start piping up with their HAL stories it will be a bad scene in the press. The bitterness is there whether perceived or real is for individuals to decide. Marketing is not some unwanted MBA giri. It is required or these spats and bitterness will continue to happen.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Kartik » 12 Jun 2020 12:31

raghuk wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Commander Yashodhan Marathe's article was really scathing of the issues that the Naval Dhruv had. The Mk3 may address most of these, but the engineering and manufacturing mindset at HAL that he revealed is rather alarming.

The question is to what degree have all these issues been taken care of? Making sure that there is no Foreign Objects introduced into the assembly process is such a basic tenet, it is hard to believe that a company that had been assembling and manufacturing for decades would be so careless about it. Switching parts from other helis and then asking why does it matter? Parts failing and simply being replaced without doing a root cause level analysis to find out why it happened in the first place? It reveals a shocking level of callousness that I can only pray and hope is no longer true of HAL employees.

Having read his article, I am now inclined to believe that while the ALH Mk3 or 4 could be allowed to participate in the NUH, it should be held to the SAME standards in every way. If not, introduce penalty clauses, PSU or not be damned. And it may not be bad if a private sector player does get a foothold in the aviation industry in a way that truly challenges HAL to do better.

Detailed analysis is carried out after every big or small component failure rr. The analysis results are shown to RCMA or DGCA and only post their clearance is the mod implemented on the helicopter. We are a professional company and we have regulatory authorities breathing down our neck all the time. Most of times customer pilots are not privy to the analysis but our test pilots are. Only after they are convinced, do they fly the helicopter. Why do you think they'd put their lives and that of others in danger. Sometimes even the designers fly along to understand what the problem really is (vibrations for example) . That is the level of confidence we have and that doesn't come out of bravado but solid analysis and testing.
As I said the navy pilot's article does not present the full picture.


Thank you. Good to know that.

Do you have any idea about the issues that he mentioned about poor hygiene on the assembly floor? It was evident from the LCA line that this is not a problem there, but this was probably true in the past, since this isn't the first time we've heard this from Armed forces accounts. And swapping parts from one heli to another while the BOM for the former shows a different part number?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby rohitvats » 12 Jun 2020 13:01

I'm waiting for someone from IA Aviation Corps to speak up. All that has been written so far will seem like a walk in the park!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2020 13:06

deejay wrote:My 02 bits on this raging debate:

Bit 01- Forget HAL for a moment and turn attention on the competition. How good are they? I mean what are their internal stories?
Bit 02- HAL needs to get Marketing and Customer Centric management for it to cross bridges with all services. Presently only navy guys have been speaking. If IAF and IA guys also start piping up with their HAL stories it will be a bad scene in the press. The bitterness is there whether perceived or real is for individuals to decide. Marketing is not some unwanted MBA giri. It is required or these spats and bitterness will continue to happen.


The second part is the real issue. We need to get our fix in place irrespective of 1. In fact1 may be used by vested interests to stifle change.

I have the deepest respect for HAL TPs, HAL designers etc who do the heavy lifting and I am sure many sincere workers are in HAL too. But it is also a fact that HAL senior management was forced to be the under the influence of a MOD which was all about, in years past, of "show me the dividend and production numbers, I care not for the rest" which didn't truly support its own R&D teams and BUs, and a heavily unionized labor workforce which would not care for the middle management or the designers or TPs. HAL TPs have gone on record stating how cheesed off they were at some labor union type chalta hain types.

Solutions:

I want HAL to be freed from bureaucratic interference and given the same level of freedom the pvt firms enjoy with respect to its hiring policies, labor workforce management. I suspect most of the HAL insiders will welcome this.

I want transparent and open fault addressal and quality assurance by HAL, over and beyond what's necessary, with data openly revealed. I don't need production numbers. Just percentages and what services are ok with revealing re faults and what was fixed. But I want regular Std Committee, PAC reviews on this topic and I want services to get the requisite confidence in their primary supplier. The same level of detail for instance we have viz the F-35 or other in devpt programs whenever GAO decides to take a look at them. The services should have access to this, and we the public should be told whether they are satisfied or not, if ops security is an issue. And an independent auditor should be roped in beyond DGQA and CEMILAC to certify workfloor habits and practices.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 837
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rsatchi » 12 Jun 2020 13:08

raghuk wrote:
Rsatchi wrote: :roll:
Sirji
All same onleee no change;
Father-in-law retired from heli devision and quite a few stories to tell about work ethics.
Was castigated for sticking to rules and work ethics :lol: :lol:

Don't mind me asking,but what post did he serve in? In what department (design, production, marketing,IMM, etc) I'm asking because HAL is a huge organization and one department does not know what the other departments do and only a few designers know the product in its entirety. For example a production or an IMM guy would never in his lifetime know even the broad performance details. Also most retirees feel the Pvt sector is extremely efficient because all they see is IT guys slogging day and night and tend to equate this with efficiency.
Have nothing against your father in law though. Please thank him for his service.

Tool Designing retired as lower grade executive never progressed because of quoting rule book work culture/ethics :roll:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2020 18:05

brar_w wrote:
srai wrote:One can’t look at Boeing the same way after reading that article!


There are $$ at stake for Boeing when it makes these blunders. For reference, they've taken well over $ 4 Billion in charges and penalties on the KC-46. Same applies for any deviation from commercial contracts on their airliners. The decision that Boeing management made to outsource a military program to its commercial division (instead of having it run by its military program which was the expected norm) has led to serious financial, customer relation repercussions and heads have rolled and shareholder confidence damaged. In short, the next time they decide to cut corners there would be some muscle memory of how painful this entire management experience was. That is if Boeing actually lives for a next time assuming that the culture that led to these issues isn't as widespread that its beyond repair. So it may be an "open secret" or what not, but you cannot keep taking these hits for the financial consequences of repeated customer dissatisfaction often means that you either go out of business, or you diminish in relevance in your industry. It usually starts a vicious circle of talent departure as the most talented leave first which makes things worst.


Slight OT (mods feel free to move to an appropriate thread) but Elon Musk brought this Aviation Week cover, and its snide photo + tagline combo, during his podcast with them recently. The mocking headline bit wasn't lost on either him or AvWeek's space editor who interviewed him (he actually has this cover framed in his office). Goes to show what's at stake if you let a sub-optimal or even borderline toxic culture set in. Those who thrive in it are often not the most talented you want to retain and those who see that often depart for greener pastures. In case of Boeing, who Srai brought up, you can use Space X just as a proxy and replace them with any number of smaller companies that have been giving them trouble of late (Kratos being the most recent one). And it isn't like these organizations lack talent. In this case, Boeing has some very talented people who make it work (when it works) but when you let this type of culture set in retaining and attracting them (long term) becomes your biggest challenge. Nothing is permanent (even a government sector entity that is more insulated to competition than a private sector firm) so in the long term if there are gaps in how you perform and you continue to not mend them..then someone will eventually come out and pounce on the opportunity.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jun 2020 19:11, edited 1 time in total.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby pandyan » 12 Jun 2020 18:52

srai wrote:
Kartik
...
The question is to what degree have all these issues been taken care of? Making sure that there is no Foreign Objects introduced into the assembly process is such a basic tenet, it is hard to believe that a company that had been assembling and manufacturing for decades would be so careless about it. Switching parts from other helis and then asking why does it matter? Parts failing and simply being replaced without doing a root cause level analysis to find out why it happened in the first place? It reveals a shocking level of callousness that I can only pray and hope is no longer true of HAL employees.

...

The issue is not just with HAL. It seems like one of those “open secrets” in the aviation sector. Read this recent article about Boeing 787 FOD issues:
Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet

One can’t look at Boeing the same way after reading that article!

One has to take a public tour offered by boeing. if you are expecting a clean room style assembly line,you will be surprised to see how dirty the assembly areas is.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2020 20:04

Seriously. This was reported for our early MiG-29s too. Engines full of loose items.

Workforce hygiene is a pure question of management capability + ability to force change. How hard is it to give all the crew lockers etc so they can keep all items that can fall off pens, pieces of kit etc. And also color code all used tools and items. Put cameras everyplace for another level of accountability. Wont be perfect as there are people literally crawling around aircraft innards and who can detect a fallen washer or screw or connector, but at least better than before. Might need to run random audits and constantly have roving bands of inspectors. In fact, even processes exist to reduce risk of fallen parts. The fuselage is literally swirled around on a jig to ensure any loose items are brought out.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 20:15

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:No where in the paper is Air to Ground mode research described. Only ground clutter rejection in Air to Air mode is discussed. Both are fundamentally different things.
The paper may not cover each and every detail. Details come out via ancillary events elsewhere! It mentioned work done in fine-tuning the radar performance against clutter and developing ECCM modes.

If the research paper posted by you doesnt cover ground mapping capabilities, then why are you misleading the forum by projecting it as an "example" of ground mapping capabilities?

PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED.

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:No where in the paper is Air to Ground mode research described. Only ground clutter rejection in Air to Air mode is discussed. Both are fundamentally different things.
No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.

Lovely point - Algorithms for rejection of ground clutter in Air to Air mode "directly feeds into" Algorithms for Air to Ground mapping.


PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED


Karan M wrote:It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.

These are just jumbled meaningless words intended to confuse. Air to Air background ground clutter rejection and Air to Ground Mapping modes are COMPLETELY different things.

You also overlooked mine and brar_w that ground mapping is done in X, Ku & Ka band, that Uttam and UAV radars are being developed on, and not S Band of Netra program that makes it utterly meaningless to use even as a development platform.

PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED

Karan M wrote:That image which DRDO released some of the capabilities being tested. The gent who took the pic, attended the event was kind enough to provide details and share the link. All we are doing is figuring out they are running tests.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 92/photo/3


The first two slides do not mention Air to Ground modes in Netra program. And in the last slide, the presenter was showing serendipity. Serendipity like P-15 missile guidance radars fired by IN missile boats targeted Karachi oil tanks instead of ships in 1971.

Karan M wrote:The paper also does not mention air to sea performance either. But that is part and parcel of the actual AEW&CS! Guess which program developed that? The X band SV-2000 and XV-2004, but weren't you convinced technologies developed for other bands could not be ported over to other systems. Well, the developers disagree.


Objects that are bigger than intended targets - Eg Metal Oil Tanks have better reflectivity than Ships - will show up better on radar.

Similarly warships at sea with length ~ 150 meters and larger cargo ships will show up on a radar designed to track fighters 13.2-22 meters.

So Air to Sea detection is simpler than Air to Air detection (150 meters vs 15 meter target). Air to Ground tanks, trucks, jeeps at 10 meters or lesser size are difficult to detect.

Again you are attempting to showcase something basic (ships being detected by a radar whose primary function Air to Air) as something big.

The Mirage Cyrano, RDM radars of 70's & 80's could detect ships and Pakistanis had Exocet armed Mirages in 70's in their No 8 Squadron.

Su-30MKI original Bars radars in No 220 squadron is able to fire Brahmos against ships without any modification.

So if you're trying to communicate that Ship detection is a huge thing for an Air to Air radar, then it isn't because ships are much larger than aircraft.

Its like a hunter specializing in shooting lions and tigers wont have any trouble if an elephant comes along.

Karan M wrote:We now know for sure, that S-Band A2A, A2S modes can be ported on to X-Band Uttam.

But not air to ground. Also algorithms cannot used as is due to the difference wavelengths of bands.

Karan M wrote:We know your claim that the above GMTI mode was useless as it is not a "weapons quality track" was incorrect, as the mode shown above is a GMTI mode being finetuned on a radar testbed and the weapons quality track was actually the A2A High Precision Track. And GMTI is a wide area surveillance mode. Accusations that developers are "embellishing" have no locus standi, as they are merely demonstrating suitably sanitized work on these aspects to a technical audience.

There is no doubt that the air to air mode was a weapons quality track. However no where in the deck is it mentioned that Air to Ground mode is being tested on the same testbed.

Traffic on Hosur road is dense bumper to bumper and its actually like large metal snake kilometers long. I doubt any of the 3 services would give it as a test case. Using traffic on Hosur Road as a test case is HUGE embellishment. Maybe a set of 6-8 tanks in the desert or Punjab fields would be a better test case.

Its like asking for a system that tracks wolves and you're showing a slide that tracks elephants and saying my system works good in tracking wolves.

The other faux pas is the 10-22 km range. Tell me Karan, what is the range of Akash and similar missiles like SPADA and Buk in Pakistani & Chinese service? In that 10-22 range, you're putting a business jet with low maneuverability further reduced by Balance Beam or Belly Blister radar configuration within the range of EVERY Pakistani fighter, air to air missile and surface to air missile.

For air to air in the super extended mode the detection range is a very respectable 475 km out of range of the above threats.

For air to ground, why not wait for a few years to complete development instead of itching to release a slide to the world showing 10-22 km range.

Karan M wrote:We know that apart from A2A and A2S on AEW&CS, A2A, A2G, A2S is being developed for Uttam. A2G is being developed for Ku-band SAR. And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems, which any sane developer would do. So again, what is the issue?

A big NO. Unless for the same function, eg SAR, ISAR or GMTI, and the same band, algorithms cannot be happily swapped.

"Methods and Capabilities" are vague words used by you to confuse readers. What do you mean by "methods"? What do you mean by capabilities? By capabilities if you mean by marginal A2G capabilities in S Band being "happily swapped" to A2G capabilities in X or Ku/Ka Band, then no, its not "happily swapable"

Karan M wrote:And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems


This is another genius statement from you that you're using to debate but is completely untrue.

If Algorithms are just cut and paste and happily swapping, then why is Uttam or UAV radar development taking so long? After all, its simple swapping

Karan M wrote:here is the UAV variant being developed, the slant range is clearly well out of spec for the baseline SPADA http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t3bPr471WV8/V ... ayload.jpg

UAV radar is in Ku Band and completely unrelated to S Band Netra radar by every stretch of imagination. The discussion started because the Netra radar was given as a example of A2G capabilities.

Also 40 km slant range is design specification. Needs to be seen what is actually realized, whether more or whether less. Here people jump for joy on seeing design specifications without checking how much has been realised.

Karan M wrote:We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band




The exact words are

LRDE is also planning to develop a derivate of this radar for operations from manned reconnaissance aircraft including a maritime


The next page isnt showing. There is no mention of the derivative radar being X Band. The article talks about a UAV ground mapping radar deployed from a manned reconnaissance aircraft that you extrapolate and embellish to "maritime patrol radar".

BTW Ku Band is unsuitable for maritime reconnaissance. While the high frequency low wavelength radar is good for resolution required to detect ground targets like tanks or trucks, it lacks the range in 100's of km to designate targets for missiles like Brahmos, NSM, Sea Eagle or Exocet.

Which is why maritime radars are L, S and occasionally X Band.

Karan M wrote:So at the end of all this, may I ask, what exactly is your point?


My point is that you make dishonest & incorrect statements like

1. Air to Air ground clutter rejection being directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes

Karan M wrote:No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.


2. Swapping algorithms between A2A, A2S & A2G across different radar S, X, Ku & Ka bands
Karan M wrote:And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems


3. Conveniently making "a UAV Ku Band radar deployment from manned reconnaissance aircraft" a "X Band maritime patrol radar."
Karan M wrote:We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band


Karan M wrote:I am sorry but at this point I am not sure if you are serious. Forget the A2G testbed stuff for a moment. This opens up a whole new confusing can of worms.

I am very serious and very sure of what I know and what I type.

PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED

Karan M wrote:I mean you are claiming that wings will always come in the way and create blind modes for air to ground even at range? How do you think the radar addresses low flying aircraft flying just above the ground in the look down mode? So the wings would get in the way of all balance beam AWACS, conventional AWACS?


PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED

You see air to air radars in L, S & X Band detect at 300 km or higher ranges where the effect of blind spots from wings is minimal.

However, air to ground radars in Ku/Ka band have much higher resolution but much lower ranges, around 100 km. The DRDO UAV radar has a design specification of 40 km. At those lower ranges, the wings create blind spots that affects ground mapping modes like SAR, ISAR, STRIP SAR, SPOT SAR.

Karan M wrote:The AEW&CS tracks ships on the sea.

At very long ranges using L or S Band

Karan M wrote:But as a testbed, why wouldn't DRDO use every and any asset at its disposal.

Because in the balance beam configuration you cant test SAR, ISAR, STRIP, SPOT modes properly.

Ever wonder, why US J STARS and UK ASTOR/Raytheon Sentinel all have belly mounted radars. Can you show me one ground mapping aircraft or UAV with its radar mounted above the fuselage?

Karan M wrote:Now we have the gent in question who led program 1 (S band) openly stating they are using it to develop X band tech, you are bringing in wings. I just dont get this.

Can you show me a quote from this gentleman where he is freely swapping algorithms between radars operating in different bands and modes?
I will be happy to get on a call or video conference with him.

Karan M wrote:I am unaware of a single wingless AWACs operating anywhere. But they all seem to operate very well in tracking low flying targets at a distance. This is completely not of import at all.

Just because you are absolutely ignorant about radar frequencies, resolution, range and use in different applications makes you think radar placement is unimportant. Thank you for this pearl of wisdom.

I explained why every AWACS - E3, E2 Hawkeye, Phalcon, A-50, Saab Erieye, DRDO Netra has the radar above the fuselage while every ground mapping aircraft like JSTARS, Raytheon Sentinel, Heron, has the radar below the fuselage

L Band - Longest range (~300 km), lowest resolution. Used on all IN destroyers and Godavari/Brahmaputra RAWL radars and Israeli Phalcon AWACS to detect ships at very long range and large fighters at long ranges. Large size of targets makes negates lack of resolution.

S Band - Lesser range (~200 km) but better resolution than L Band. Used on Elta 2248/2238/Russian Fregat radars in IN Ships and DRDO Netra AEW&C to detect smaller aircraft

X Band - Lesser range (~100 km) but better resolution than S Band. Used on fighter radars like Uttam, Elta 2052, Elta 2032, Bars, RDY, Zhuk. Used to detect aircraft and cruise missiles. In ground mapping modes can detect large ground targets.

Ku/Ka Band - Lesser range (<100 km) but best resolution. Used on Ground Target radars like Apache Longbow, Elta 2055 used on Heron & Searcher UAV, DRDO UAV radar. Can detect small ground target like tanks and vehicles.

Ranges cited above are approximate to explain differences between radar bands in operations

I'll be happy to get on a call or Zoom with the gentleman who is happily swapping algorithms between different bands, modes and radars.

PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED

1. Air to Air ground clutter rejection being directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes

Karan M wrote:No, they are not fundamentally different things btw. It directly feeds into development of A2G radar modes and discerning a proper signal processing algorithm which can reject clutter and yet detect targets.


2. Swapping algorithms between A2A, A2S & A2G across different radar S, X, Ku & Ka bands
Karan M wrote:And per the developers themselves, they are happily swapping methods, algorithms, capabilities across all these systems


3. Conveniently making "a UAV Ku Band radar deployment from manned reconnaissance aircraft" a "X Band maritime patrol radar."
Karan M wrote:We also know the Ku-band SAR being developed for the UAVs was going to be used to develop a maritime patrol radar which was X-band
Last edited by Rahul M on 13 Jun 2020 17:53, edited 7 times in total.
Reason: PERSONAL ATTACKS DELETED

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 20:27

Kartik wrote:Rakesh, who is KSingh? Is he an aviator or ex-services?

K Singh is a Self Certified Armchair Warrior as per his Twitter Description

Rakesh, I'm not sure why are you pasting blow ups of Livefist article by Wing Commander Anil Bhambhani?

They are unnecessarily taking up space. Just post his comments and not the entire blowup image.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby pandyan » 12 Jun 2020 20:48

Karan M wrote:Seriously. This was reported for our early MiG-29s too. Engines full of loose items.

Workforce hygiene is a pure question of management capability + ability to force change. How hard is it to give all the crew lockers etc so they can keep all items that can fall off pens, pieces of kit etc. And also color code all used tools and items. Put cameras everyplace for another level of accountability. Wont be perfect as there are people literally crawling around aircraft innards and who can detect a fallen washer or screw or connector, but at least better than before. Might need to run random audits and constantly have roving bands of inspectors. In fact, even processes exist to reduce risk of fallen parts. The fuselage is literally swirled around on a jig to ensure any loose items are brought out.


TQM/Kaizen is well known and nothing new. you will also notice this in auto workshops (purely us experience) - compare honda and toyota tech in action and compare that with other third party service centers. I have seen several times where third party service center employees eat in the shop floor.

But if someone wants to intentionally sabotage - how do you handle it? that's a different issue altogether.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 20:49

ALH Mk. 3 doesnt have any naval specification fulfillment or improvements. Maybe manufacturing improvements. Yet 16 have been ordered. And since flight characteristics are exactly the same as Mk1, what difference that makes?

Also, INAS 322 Guardians are also the Intensive Flying and Trials Unit (IFTU) for Dhruv, so they would have flown the Mk3 before finalizing the order.

KSingh is making a stupid debating point of pointing out Cdr Marathe may not have flown Mk3 when IFTU would have flown the Mk3 extensively before the 16 orders and found it unsuitable for NUH requirement.

That shows KSingh's absolute ignorance of the fact that INAS 322 IFTU exists and he's making meaningless posts. Twitter and internet nonsense by KSingh_1469 doesnt solve the technical issues.

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1271167117132550146?s=20 ---> “Listen to the experts” we are told well here is THE expert on HAL helicopters. He’s flown them all including the latest ALH MK.3 and LUH. The ex-navy TPs who were quoted this week all admit they haven’t even seen a MK.3 up close let alone flown in one.

Image

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3773
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby suryag » 12 Jun 2020 20:57

Tsarkar Sir not answering for KaranM but any receiver is typically split into TRX front end, demodulator front end and demodulator back end on the receive path. Having designed radio systems that span from 167MHz to 5.5 GHz and then onto 28 and 37 GHz I havent ever made band specific algorithms except for minor tweaks and threshold adjustments. Defniitely there are changes in calibration tables, configuration sequences but never changes in algorithms. Baseband algorithms are mostly portable and are band agnostic

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 21:14

suryag wrote:Tsarkar Sir not answering for KaranM but any receiver is typically split into TRX front end, demodulator front end and demodulator back end on the receive path. Having designed radio systems that span from 167MHz to 5.5 GHz and then onto 28 and 37 GHz I havent ever made band specific algorithms except for minor tweaks and threshold adjustments. Defniitely there are changes in calibration tables, configuration sequences but never changes in algorithms. Baseband algorithms are mostly portable and are band agnostic

If the purpose is communications, then it doesnt change.

But for specific purposes, like ship detection in S Band or L Band, they require changes. Reason being improvement of resolution, discrimination, ECM. Each band has different range resolution dynamics.

Also signal processing algorithms isnt a one time activity in military radars. One needs to keep developing newer ones to improve resolution and ECCM. The Mirage 2000 has had radars from RDM-4 to RDM-7, RDY-1 & 2. All having iterative improvements.

Indian Navy WESEE does the iterative development work on Israeli/Russian/Dutch radars along with those companies

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 21:27

The space ahead of the hanger is the magazine for the rear LRSAM/Shtil-1/Barak-1 missiles. Also IN stores other equipment in the forward bulkheads. The two blade folding solution will require penetration into the LRSAM/Shtil/Barak-1 Magazine or the forward bulkhead. In the two blade solution, the forward blade isnt folded and increases stowage length.

The LUH solution hasnt been ported to ALH. Maybe HAL could do that for the 16 orders that it currently has.

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1271167098023301121?s=20 ---> This is something I have been trying to nail down. The point that keeps being thrown around is that the ALH is too large to operate from the smallest naval ships (HAL can meet the required NUH stowability dimensions now) but what are these ships? No one seems to know.

Image
Last edited by tsarkar on 12 Jun 2020 21:43, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2020 21:40

pandyan wrote:
TQM/Kaizen is well known and nothing new. you will also notice this in auto workshops (purely us experience) - compare honda and toyota tech in action and compare that with other third party service centers. I have seen several times where third party service center employees eat in the shop floor.

But if someone wants to intentionally sabotage - how do you handle it? that's a different issue altogether.


The reason that some aerospace mfg facilities get high marks or awards yet others get nothing or otherwise get penalized for shoddy work isn't usually because the latter don't know or don't have access to best practices on how to maintain proper facilities and how to set up an operation geared towards both efficiency and effectiveness. The problem is often work culture related, leadership related or about having the right incentives (rewards and penalties) in place.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3773
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby suryag » 12 Jun 2020 21:51

tsarkar wrote:
suryag wrote:Tsarkar Sir not answering for KaranM but any receiver is typically split into TRX front end, demodulator front end and demodulator back end on the receive path. Having designed radio systems that span from 167MHz to 5.5 GHz and then onto 28 and 37 GHz I havent ever made band specific algorithms except for minor tweaks and threshold adjustments. Defniitely there are changes in calibration tables, configuration sequences but never changes in algorithms. Baseband algorithms are mostly portable and are band agnostic

If the purpose is communications, then it doesnt change.

But for specific purposes, like ship detection in S Band or L Band, they require changes. Reason being improvement of resolution, discrimination, ECM. Each band has different range resolution dynamics.

Also signal processing algorithms isnt a one time activity in military radars. One needs to keep developing newer ones to improve resolution and ECCM. The Mirage 2000 has had radars from RDM-4 to RDM-7, RDY-1 & 2. All having iterative improvements.

Indian Navy WESEE does the iterative development work on Israeli/Russian/Dutch radars along with those companies


Sir with all due respect whether it is comms systems or radar the baseband receiver/transmitter management marginally changes you still have a mixer/lna/vga on the DL and encoder/modulator/PA/signalconditioning block on the UL. The points you mentioned come in as additional enhancements on baseline algorithms.

Let me give you an example(from my own personal experience of designing auto grade radars), there are two parts to a radar system, TRX front end
and baseband processing back end

TRX front end does the following
1. How do you manage your TRX pairs(real and virtual)
2. Time synchronization for azimuth, elevation, range, velocity resolution
3. Power management across the emitters

Signal processing backend
1. Managing algorithms that apply spatial/phase differentiation to resolve the four parameters above
2. Target tracking and id management
3. clutter differentiation and noise filtering(ECM etc)
4. Chirp management rampup/down sequence and feed to the front end
5. Online calibration
6. Objects classification is mostly post processing, what we get from the Signal processing backend is typically blobs/pointclouds and based on characteristics I can call it a truck/tank or whatever my post processing says

When I switched from 25-28GHz to 77GHz I didnt really rewrite the whole firmware to cater to the new band. It was largely managing the input/output parameters and post processing and interface changes with the RX Analog front end. Although, am not trivializing the work involved in switching to new bands what am trying to emphasize is that there is ~70% SW/FW commonality across the two radars. So in a sense the algorithms etc are portable if you talk about the 70% however they are also not portable if you concern yourself with the 30% changes you have to make. Whenever the Analog front end changes no sane engineer would rewrite the entire SW/FW and if he is doing that I can only pity his inexperience


==== btw i forgot this is not a radar thread lets stop discussion on this topic ====

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 21:54

This is not correct. INAS 322 being the IFTU for Dhruv would have test flown the Mk3 before the 16 were ordered. One doesnt need to keep TP & engineers on deputation to trial a helicopter. And most upgrade from Mk1 to Mk3 were IAF/IA related and not Navy related.

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1271103819091513345?s=20 ---> It doesn’t get more damning than this. So how exactly is NHQ making their decisions if they don’t have relevant up to date information? It’s like they got the answer they wanted (imports) in 2011 and shut down their ears since then. They’d rather push for another needless import.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaPeLYvXgAA ... name=large

Image

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3092
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby tsarkar » 12 Jun 2020 22:12

suryag wrote:
tsarkar wrote:If the purpose is communications, then it doesnt change.

But for specific purposes, like ship detection in S Band or L Band, they require changes. Reason being improvement of resolution, discrimination, ECM. Each band has different range resolution dynamics.

Also signal processing algorithms isnt a one time activity in military radars. One needs to keep developing newer ones to improve resolution and ECCM. The Mirage 2000 has had radars from RDM-4 to RDM-7, RDY-1 & 2. All having iterative improvements.

Indian Navy WESEE does the iterative development work on Israeli/Russian/Dutch radars along with those companies


Sir with all due respect whether it is comms systems or radar the baseband receiver/transmitter management marginally changes you still have a mixer/lna/vga on the DL and encoder/modulator/PA/signalconditioning block on the UL. The points you mentioned come in as additional enhancements on baseline algorithms.

Let me give you an example(from my own personal experience of designing auto grade radars), there are two parts to a radar system, TRX front end
and baseband processing back end

TRX front end does the following
1. How do you manage your TRX pairs(real and virtual)
2. Time synchronization for azimuth, elevation, range, velocity resolution
3. Power management across the emitters

Signal processing backend
1. Managing algorithms that apply spatial/phase differentiation to resolve the four parameters above
2. Target tracking and id management
3. clutter differentiation and noise filtering(ECM etc)
4. Chirp management rampup/down sequence and feed to the front end
5. Online calibration
6. Objects classification is mostly post processing, what we get from the Signal processing backend is typically blobs/pointclouds and based on characteristics I can call it a truck/tank or whatever my post processing says

When I switched from 25-28GHz to 77GHz I didnt really rewrite the whole firmware to cater to the new band. It was largely managing the input/output parameters and post processing and interface changes with the RX Analog front end. Although, am not trivializing the work involved in switching to new bands what am trying to emphasize is that there is ~70% SW/FW commonality across the two radars. So in a sense the algorithms etc are portable if you talk about the 70% however they are also not portable if you concern yourself with the 30% changes you have to make. Whenever the Analog front end changes no sane engineer would rewrite the entire SW/FW and if he is doing that I can only pity his inexperience


==== btw i forgot this is not a radar thread lets stop discussion on this topic ====


Suryag let me connect you with the IN Electrical Engineering and WESEEE so that you could understand the military perspective better. Can you send me an email on the forum as I am not able to send emails.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5310
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Kartik » 13 Jun 2020 02:34

pandyan wrote:
srai wrote:The issue is not just with HAL. It seems like one of those “open secrets” in the aviation sector. Read this recent article about Boeing 787 FOD issues:
Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet

One can’t look at Boeing the same way after reading that article!

One has to take a public tour offered by boeing. if you are expecting a clean room style assembly line,you will be surprised to see how dirty the assembly areas is.


I don't know what you're talking about. I've worked there, have been on the assembly area and never saw poor hygiene there. The Boeing factory tour in fact doesn't take you onto the factory floor and you only get to see it from up above and what you see is mostly the assembly not the manufacturing.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2535
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Prem Kumar » 13 Jun 2020 12:08

Here's the opinion piece from WingCo Bhambhani that the tweets refer to. He doesn't mince words when he says that the Navy's NUH specs are intentionally designed to keep ALH/LUH out. Balanced article, that says both the Navy and HAL must set aside past differences and sit down to work things out.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06/navy-dhruv-spat-lets-stop-fighting-hal-test-pilot-says.html

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1271167117132550146?s=20 ---> “Listen to the experts” we are told well here is THE expert on HAL helicopters. He’s flown them all including the latest ALH MK.3 and LUH. The ex-navy TPs who were quoted this week all admit they haven’t even seen a MK.3 up close let alone flown in one.

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BALAR025, Google Feedfetcher, kumarn, morem, pravula, sgopal and 68 guests