LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16936
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 15 Jun 2010 19:48

people, this is NOT the thread to start a general discussion on IAF DRDO relationship. DO NOT discuss this issue here. it's absolutely unacceptable when senior members do this time and again.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19128
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jun 2010 03:19

rohitvats wrote:Mrinal, I'm trying to get an answer for a very straight forward question - Was the IAF ASR for LCA poorly/loosely drafted and hence, led to delays in the program? Did IAF ask for the moon, a case of BBC, something which was simply not possible given the maturity level of Indian Technological base? Or were those demand just from IAF POV but given our maturity level plus the geo-political situation as obtained after POK-II, there were delays.


You already have your straightforward answer above.

The LCA ASRs were way too ambitious for then technology, and the IAF expected far too much. Now if you want me to come out with specifications (say) of the MMR expected from what it is designed for, versus what the flat antenna scanner on the MiG-21 can achieve - I am sorry, I'd rather not get into those numbers you can work them out on your own, if you so wish, they are available however.

Take a look at the stuff that is on the LCA today, and see the size available to it (estate) and its painfully evident, far too much has been asked for. As things stand, more items are being added to the MK2 as well. The irony is that for the Su-30 MKI, when the IAF asked a lot more than is on it, the Russians flatly refused. No space, they said. Too much time.

The local developers have a problem here which they cannot but say yes to each time, if they want further orders.

This is a generic statement and while I'm aware of the GSQR fiascos, my question is especially wrt the LCA Story.


Hardly generic. You need to look at the exact thing I said and trace it. The LCA ASRs were and are a moving goalpost. The LCA MK-2 will come with another set of challenges. While the original aim was to meet LCA ASRs with revised internal fit & weight gain, there is no guarantee that the IAF may not ask for even more items added.


Funny thing is, ACM Barbora made a generic statement (about DRDO) and we had posters jumping up and down trying to defend the LCA (as if it needs defending) by giving unrelated analogies and throwing aspersions on IAF ASR - and somehow pin the blame on IAF for delays in LCA Development Story.


I dont know about the Barbora comment. I thought it was Krishnaswami who said something of the sort.

However, the question that needs be asked is are the words of Barbora or anyone else gospel that he needs to be taken so seriously as well? He is as wrong as he is right at times. While it is a plus to have a forthright person who can speak his mind as he did post 26/11, some of his other comments on Indian industry were not, well, accurate.

His comments on reverse engineering for instance! If India were to adopt his approach, the IAF can kiss good bye to its own pet project, the FGFA. If that is not enough, other ongoing procurement programs would be hit hard as well. His comments stemmed from what the IAF has done to maintain its current fleet by limited spares reverse engineering. What totally missed him was the realization, that the Russians are willing to overlook such attempts because they still got the $ 964 Million MiG-29 modernization contract, and they themselves dont fly the umpteen MiG-21/27s that we still keep around, and spares revenue there is but limited. But its a different case altogether here if we start copying other items and stuff!

Then he goes on at a public function to note HAL is making doors while China is making aircraft & creates another controversy. Did he investigate the amount of funding required for a large body jetliner, the barriers to entry, and the market situation that is leading China to go for this market? HAL already faces the challenge of raising $ 6 Billion (from both internal and external sources) to deliver the current orderbook, and deliver well on it, let alone having to make airliners.

The point is he & many others are as given to rhetoric when it comes to industry issues, but its not necessarily accurate or even possible to follow these suggestions.

Hopefully though, when it comes to procurement, they will be more keenly aware of the pros and cons and take others into discussion.

Now if you ask him about the targets that need to be struck in a certain hostile nation, the aircraft required, the logistics necessary, I am sure he will be on target, all the time. Because that is his job and from all indications, he does it well.

But the complexities of running a program - that the people at ADA know. The complexities of manufacturing & product support - that HAL will have more details.

But my point was, that unfortunately, when it comes to working with others, its still an "us versus them" or "customer-supplier" relationship which is often adversarial, and which can be harmful.

Four years back, I think, at a public function, the head of a prominent "organization" made a public plea for funds. He pointed out that it was needed to keep pace with technology. Then IAF Chief, SP Tyagi, in the next speech, cut down the previous speaker with usual comments (adversarial relationship). Now, his successor comes this year and remarks - "why is this not being worked on, everything should be Indian". Well sure, but where was the money?

And therein lies the problem where one side is focused only on one priority and sometimes, misses the woods for the trees.

In short yes, there is a problem with ASRs as drawn up by the IAF. Not always, but yes on occasion. Far too much is asked for, in less time and in less money. Such is not always possible. And this occurs because the organization is looking externally for all its problems in procurement and not within. If a dedicated IAF org was set up tasked with R&D or deputed to industry etc to keep aware of, technology on a constant basis, something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_ ... Laboratory

But more modest even and focused on procurement and not development, then the IAF's ASR's et al would be much more in tune with what was possible, and it too would have the resources to play a more active role in leading and shaping programs. These are currently left to sink/swim at industry level, with IAF resources coming into play in only a limited fashion till test flying starts.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 16 Jun 2010 09:57

You need to re-read ACM's statement, all I pointed out was there were instances in the past where IAF did induct aircraft in uncompleted shape


Why the Mirage 2000 itself was inducted into the IAF without the Air to air missiles like Super 530D and don't know maybe 550 Magic as well!.

In fact during operation "Poomalai" I think it was called when An-32s airdropped supplies into Jaffna in 1987 or whatever and the Mirage 2000s that provided support had just their internal cannons and maybe heat seeking missiles!.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 16 Jun 2010 10:09

Was checking out Grob aircraft after our diyar Karnail Shook Law's piece in business standard. Yes. It is a pretty impressive aircraft, all composite, including the structural members.

The surface is all single piece composite and the finish is an absolute marvel , with a mirror like finish. I think the LCA, apart from the wings did not go for all composite structure , especially in the fuselage. It is basically all composite skins riveted on..sort of replacing aluminium skin with composite.

Maybe, for MkII, to reduce weight, the ADA needs to consider an all composite fuselage..something on the lines of the Hawker Beechcraft Premer 1.

The fuselage is built without internal frames and is of graphite and epoxy laminate and honeycomb composite construction. The engines are rear mounted.

The elimination of the internal frames in the design of the fuselage increases the available cabin volume by nearly 15% and reduces the weight by about 20% in comparison to a conventional alloy construction.


For a first use on composites, going all composite was probably too risky. But now, with the LCA Mk1 under the belt , time to leverage the MK1 and Hansa experience and go all composite on the fuselage and probably knock off some 750kg to 1 ton off the weight, by going from the current semi monocoque design of the structure to a full composite monocoque in the MkII..

ajay_hk
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 09:11

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ajay_hk » 19 Jun 2010 02:55

Negotiations for Tejas aircraft engines soon
Financial Express

Posting in full for archival...

Bangalore: The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) is set to start commercial negotiations with aircraft engine makers Eurojet Turbo GmbH and General Electric Aviation for 99 aircraft engines for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas.

The two engine manufacturers had been shortlisted after expressions of interest for an alternate engine for the LCA were issued last year. Eurojet, a European consortium, is offering its EJ200 engine, which powers the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter plane while the American firm has put in bids for its GE F414 engine used in the Boeing F/A-18 E/F Superhornet. The new engine will power the Mark II variant of the Tejas, which currently runs on F-404 engines made by GE.

“Soon, we should be starting commercial negotiations, probably in a couple of weeks,” said PS Subramanyam, director, ADA. “The technical evaluation is over. I think both of them (companies) are good candidates.” The Tejas aircraft ,with its current engine and configuration, is expected to be inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) from March next year with state-run military plane maker Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd supplying 20 planes initially. The proposal for a second batch of 20 planes has been cleared by the defence ministry and negotiations are on, Subramanyam said.

The IAF has indicated the need for five squadrons of the Mark-II, which will feature the alternate, more powerful engine and upgraded electronics. “Wherever there is obsolescence setting in, in terms of advancement of electronics, we are going for state-of-the-art electronics in the Mark-II,” said Subramanyam. Even as the process of procurement of engines is on, ADA has begun two tracks of design based on the shortlisted engines so as to not lose time, he added. Meanwhile, a proposal by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to co-develop the indigenous Kaveri engine with French engine house Snecma, is under consideration.

An upgraded and more powerful Kaveri engine is being seen initially as a replacement engine for the first batch of Tejas aircraft, Subramanyam added.

“Every aircraft in its lifetime needs two replacements. Some of those engines are already looking for that. By the time Kaveri gets developed and demonstrated, those engines can start coming as replacement engines for the first 20, 40 (aircraft),” he said. “There is full scope of what their profile is. It is very clear in our mind. The Kaveri engine profile for the next 30 years has a very strong dovetailing into the LCA programme,” he added.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shukla » 19 Jun 2010 07:53



Finally! Looooong overdue.. Thanks for the update Ajay.

Initial suggestions were that Tejas would not need need any modifications with the EJ enginge..

Even as the process of procurement of engines is on, ADA has begun two tracks of design based on the shortlisted engines so as to not lose time, he added.


Is he suggesting that Tejas will need design tweaks irrespective of which engine is chosen?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 19 Jun 2010 08:03

I was wondering why Volvo Air + Ge combine are not participating. Swedish gripen program and LCA could have a common engine. Some in forum were claiming that GE cannot stop Volvo from bidding. JMT.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11651
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 19 Jun 2010 08:05

shukla wrote:


Finally! Looooong overdue.. Thanks for the update Ajay.

Initial suggestions were that Tejas would not need need any modifications with the EJ enginge..

Even as the process of procurement of engines is on, ADA has begun two tracks of design based on the shortlisted engines so as to not lose time, he added.


Is he suggesting that Tejas will need design tweaks irrespective of which engine is chosen?


Nope I think from I can make out, they are designing changes to the airframe for both engines, so irrespective of which Engine is Chosen, the design will be ready by that time rather than waiting for the whole process to be done. Given the track record of MOD finalizing deals.

When we talk of delays in Indian programmes we should understand DRDO, ADA & et all have to produce products while still dealing with the Indian beauracracy. For many who work in the private sector make comments like " DRDO lacks project Management skills" will not understand how difficult a job that is. BTW Shulka the last sentece was not for you but a couple of posters in other Threads who were making Blanket comments Like "DRDO lacks project management Skills" etc etc ( indirectly implying when one completes a project of whatever type in thier job they are much better than DRDO) without understanding the Technologicial Financial, Beaucratic, Human resource difficulties involved
Last edited by Aditya_V on 19 Jun 2010 09:25, edited 2 times in total.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shukla » 19 Jun 2010 08:11

^^ Fair enough..

The engine choice will also hint at which way the mmrca competition would be heading..although no direct relation, it would only make sense to have commonality of engines..

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 19 Jun 2010 11:02

Mrinal wrote:The LCA ASRs were way too ambitious for then technology, and the IAF expected far too much. Now if you want me to come out with specifications (say) of the MMR expected from what it is designed for, versus what the flat antenna scanner on the MiG-21 can achieve - I am sorry, I'd rather not get into those numbers you can work them out on your own, if you so wish, they are available however. Take a look at the stuff that is on the LCA today, and see the size available to it (estate) and its painfully evident, far too much has been asked for. As things stand, more items are being added to the MK2 as well. The irony is that for the Su-30 MKI, when the IAF asked a lot more than is on it, the Russians flatly refused. No space, they said. Too much time. The local developers have a problem here which they cannot but say yes to each time, if they want further orders.


Agree, Indian forces want water to freeze at 100*C, as they have no idea about the challenges involved. When they make ridiculus requests to foreign suppliers, they are bluntly told to get off.

His comments on reverse engineering for instance! If India were to adopt his approach, the IAF can kiss good bye to its own pet project, the FGFA. If that is not enough, other ongoing procurement programs would be hit hard as well. His comments stemmed from what the IAF has done to maintain its current fleet by limited spares reverse engineering. What totally missed him was the realization, that the Russians are willing to overlook such attempts because they still got the $ 964 Million MiG-29 modernization contract, and they themselves dont fly the umpteen MiG-21/27s that we still keep around, and spares revenue there is but limited. But its a different case altogether here if we start copying other items and stuff!



Diagree, IPRs have time limit say 20 years, then they expire. But the problem is that to "reverse engineer" one has to invest money in R&D + manufacturing plant, show me the color of money baby

Then he goes on at a public function to note HAL is making doors while China is making aircraft & creates another controversy. Did he investigate the amount of funding required for a large body jetliner, the barriers to entry, and the market situation that is leading China to go for this market? HAL already faces the challenge of raising $ 6 Billion (from both internal and external sources) to deliver the current orderbook, and deliver well on it, let alone having to make airliners.



Babus are as*holes. We have history majors as IAS but they still don't know that India got screwed for 1000 years because we got left behind in defense tech. They are refusing to put in money in DRDO but saving in US$ 250 Billion US treasury bonds.


But the complexities of running a program - that the people at ADA know. The complexities of manufacturing & product support - that HAL will have more details.

But my point was, that unfortunately, when it comes to working with others, its still an "us versus them" or "customer-supplier" relationship which is often adversarial, and which can be harmful.

Four years back, I think, at a public function, the head of a prominent "organization" made a public plea for funds. He pointed out that it was needed to keep pace with technology. Then IAF Chief, SP Tyagi, in the next speech, cut down the previous speaker with usual comments (adversarial relationship). Now, his successor comes this year and remarks - "why is this not being worked on, everything should be Indian". Well sure, but where was the money?

And therein lies the problem where one side is focused only on one priority and sometimes, misses the woods for the trees.



In short yes, there is a problem with ASRs as drawn up by the IAF. Not always, but yes on occasion. Far too much is asked for, in less time and in less money. Such is not always possible. And this occurs because the organization is looking externally for all its problems in procurement and not within. If a dedicated IAF org was set up tasked with R&D or deputed to industry etc to keep aware of, technology on a constant basis, something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_ ... Laboratory


Disagree, these are just minor niggles, the ultimate issue is money. If snecma needed US$ 2 Billion to make M88, we cannot do it for less. But Babu will pay Snecma but not GTRE. Everything is available for sex & money in this world. So stop cribbing and give DRDO money and authority to get tech.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 21 Jun 2010 13:44

ajay_hk wrote:An upgraded and more powerful Kaveri engine is being seen initially as a replacement engine for the first batch of Tejas aircraft, Subramanyam added.

“Every aircraft in its lifetime needs two replacements. Some of those engines are already looking for that. By the time Kaveri gets developed and demonstrated, those engines can start coming as replacement engines for the first 20, 40 (aircraft),” he said.


There are few issues with that quoted line -

1. Assumption that an uprated Kaveri would be available by the time of the mid life upgrade - i.e., ground tested, flight worthy, tested for endurance etc.

2. Since it is not the current version , question arises what changes the new version would be having in terms of size, performance, CG, weight etc.

3. An assumed low-risk of undoing the modifications done for GE-404 or redoing the modifications to fit the new Kaveri mk-II on to the LCA. This risk is for the IAF and not for ADA/DRDO - if IAF says no, Kaveri may not fly.

Kaveri has to stay de-linked from the LCA. They can put it on a TD-1/2 or initial PV series and test for just for research purposes. If that can be completed before the midlife upgrade of the first 20, and if DRDO can convince the IAF, then great.

ajay_hk wrote:Meanwhile, a proposal by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to co-develop the indigenous Kaveri engine with French engine house Snecma, is under consideration.


OK, they started talks, IAF had issues with using ECO core, they dropped it, now it is under consideration again. There is a possibility that EADS or GE can fill in the role of the consultant (based on the engine sale) replacing Snecma.

The whole article is very loose on the time lines. IMHO, lot of hot air

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 21 Jun 2010 16:39

>>3. An assumed low-risk of undoing the modifications done for GE-404 or redoing the modifications to fit the new Kaveri mk-II on to the LCA. This risk is for the IAF and not for ADA/DRDO - if IAF says no, Kaveri may not fly.

Even if GE-404 is replaced by Eurojet/GE-414 instead of kaveri, LCA has to undergo the necessary modifications. The risk will be mitigated by carrying out the modifications in one the LSPs before touching the LCA-Mk1.

Satyendra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 03:46

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Satyendra » 21 Jun 2010 17:08

people, will IRST be installed in LCA Mk 2
Last edited by archan on 21 Jun 2010 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: username changed. If you would like some other human sounding name, contact the moderators.

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SanjibGhosh » 21 Jun 2010 18:00

Tejas cockpit will be a pilot's delight
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/repor ... ht_1399182

The fifth limited series production (LSP-5) platform of Tejas, set to fly in the first week of August, will have an onboard “re-arranged and modified cockpit” to increase the comfort levels of the pilot.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Dmurphy » 21 Jun 2010 18:16

This is great. Going into the minutest details to get a perfect finished product signifies mastery in that trade.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Brando » 21 Jun 2010 18:41

Kanson wrote:Even if GE-404 is replaced by Eurojet/GE-414 instead of kaveri, LCA has to undergo the necessary modifications. The risk will be mitigated by carrying out the modifications in one the LSPs before touching the LCA-Mk1.


I don't work in Aerospace but when you are talking about replacing one physically smaller engine with a physically larger engine inside a rigid frame, doesn't that involve the redesign of the frame itself ? It is not a modification as in, changing a few lights on the airframe but rather deep structural and weight balance issues would have to be addressed. That involves a redesign from the CAD screen onwards. So, it would be easier to just build a new one from scratch than try to modify the LSPs or the Mk-1 aircraft.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Brando » 21 Jun 2010 18:42

Dmurphy wrote:This is great. Going into the minutest details to get a perfect finished product signifies mastery in that trade.

You could also call that as being anally-retentive behavior by engineers who have so much more significant things to accomplish.
Last edited by Rahul M on 21 Jun 2010 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: mind the language. user warned.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 21 Jun 2010 19:04

^^
I beg to differ. Cockpit plays a major role in any type of air warfare. If the cockpit display provides needed info with ease without much effort by the pilot while avoiding information oveload, it is a most welcome feature.
Last edited by Gaur on 21 Jun 2010 19:05, edited 1 time in total.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 21 Jun 2010 19:04

Brando wrote:You could also call that as being anally-retentive behavior by engineers who have so much more significant things to accomplish.


What kind of comment is this, sir?
It is through cockpit that pilots interact with aircraft, the usability of aircraft comes down to zero if the cockpit is not friendly enough. Also, I am sure that there are different design teams for each aspect and cockpit will have a dedicated team of engineers.

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby JimmyJ » 21 Jun 2010 19:07

Brando wrote:You could also call that as being anally-retentive behavior by engineers who have so much more significant things to accomplish.


You should ask an itty witty engineer the importance attached to these minute details. Engineers I have been acquainted with would prefer to jump on further development than rearrangements. This sort of changes would involve end user inputs than just anally-retentive behavior by engineers.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16936
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 21 Jun 2010 20:12

only someone that doesn't have the foggiest clue about the topic would make an asinine comment like that.

man-machine interface is a *very* important issue where every little bit counts a lot.if you go back and look at the f-35, typhoon etc programs, man machine interface is at the very core of those programs.

nukavarapu, yes about FBL(fly-by-light) per what I've been told. it's for AMCA.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 21 Jun 2010 20:24

SanjibGhosh wrote:Tejas cockpit will be a pilot's delight
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/repor ... ht_1399182

The fifth limited series production (LSP-5) platform of Tejas, set to fly in the first week of August, will have an onboard “re-arranged and modified cockpit” to increase the comfort levels of the pilot.

Can we expect voice interactive input and command option ? :mrgreen:

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 21 Jun 2010 20:40

Brando wrote:
Kanson wrote:Even if GE-404 is replaced by Eurojet/GE-414 instead of kaveri, LCA has to undergo the necessary modifications. The risk will be mitigated by carrying out the modifications in one the LSPs before touching the LCA-Mk1.


I don't work in Aerospace but when you are talking about replacing one physically smaller engine with a physically larger engine inside a rigid frame, doesn't that involve the redesign of the frame itself ? It is not a modification as in, changing a few lights on the airframe but rather deep structural and weight balance issues would have to be addressed. That involves a redesign from the CAD screen onwards. So, it would be easier to just build a new one from scratch than try to modify the LSPs or the Mk-1 aircraft.

You wont always get a 1:1 replacement unless you own a engine house which designs to our requirement and taste. We need to see how Kaveri progressess and what are the options available at that time of mid-life upgrade. Given the chances, we will be more interested in fitting the Kaveri even if it means more work. If you ask me, i'm expecting Kaveri available for the MK2, you can take this as my wish.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Brando » 21 Jun 2010 20:44

DELETED
Last edited by Rahul M on 21 Jun 2010 21:09, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: if you have a problem with my moderation contact the webmasters.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Brando » 21 Jun 2010 20:51

Gaur wrote:^^
I beg to differ. Cockpit plays a major role in any type of air warfare. If the cockpit display provides needed info with ease without much effort by the pilot while avoiding information oveload, it is a most welcome feature.


I agree that the cockpit is important too, but considering the amount of time expended on the LCA and still the amount of work to be done on the engines, the radar etc, key system which even with a redesigned more ergonomic cockpit, the LCA would not meet the satisfaction of the customer, i.e IAF. I'm just wondering aloud about their priorities .

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 21 Jun 2010 21:01

Brando wrote:
Gaur wrote:^^
I beg to differ. Cockpit plays a major role in any type of air warfare. If the cockpit display provides needed info with ease without much effort by the pilot while avoiding information oveload, it is a most welcome feature.


I agree that the cockpit is important too, but considering the amount of time expended on the LCA and still the amount of work to be done on the engines, the radar etc, key system which even with a redesigned more ergonomic cockpit, the LCA would not meet the satisfaction of the customer, i.e IAF. I'm just wondering aloud about their priorities .

What more major work is left for mk1? All the systems to be incorporated in mk1 version are already installed on lsp 4. The lsp 4 is the final configuration which will be delivered to the IAF. So, now that the lsp 4 is already flying, it seems to be a good opportunity to fine tune the cockpit in lsp 5 considering that it will not require any major testing.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16936
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 21 Jun 2010 21:18

the funny thing is that our resident herr guderian assumes that the same bunch of engineers work on MMI, radar, engine etc, so that if they are working on MMI they must be neglecting the others ! :rotfl:

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 21 Jun 2010 22:39

Brando wrote:
Gaur wrote:^^
I beg to differ. Cockpit plays a major role in any type of air warfare. If the cockpit display provides needed info with ease without much effort by the pilot while avoiding information oveload, it is a most welcome feature.


I agree that the cockpit is important too, but considering the amount of time expended on the LCA and still the amount of work to be done on the engines, the radar etc, key system which even with a redesigned more ergonomic cockpit, the LCA would not meet the satisfaction of the customer, i.e IAF. I'm just wondering aloud about their priorities .


Brando, my friend;
At the risk of going slightly OT, let me take the liberty of explaining project management 101:
1. Each component of aircraft has a dedicated team of engineers, carefully selected according to their expertise
2. The team for cockpit design, I am guessing, will have expertise in human-computer interaction and ergonomics design (maybe even non-engineers, like graduates from NID)
3. Given such a dedicated team; they are, as you would have understood by now, having little expertise in other areas like airframe design (which is a job for aeronautical engineering) and radars (which is a job for electrical/electronics engineer specializing in digital signal processing).
4. Now, as you much have guessed, the jobs of engineers are not interchangeable. You cannot ask a person writing software for target detection to work on materials engineering of aircraft.
5. A good design is very much within the specifications of IAF, if there are other points at which DRDO is struggling with, at least give them a cockpit which exceeds their expectations.
Finally, even though it has been mentioned so many times, yet I will repeat, cockpit design is IMPORTANT. A badly designed cockpit will ask the pilot to do bhujang-asan for firing a missile and sheersh-asan to fly the aircraft upside down - you don't want to do that, do you?

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 21 Jun 2010 22:59

nukavarapu wrote:
Rahul M wrote:nukavarapu, yes about FBL(fly-by-light) per what I've been told. it's for AMCA.


Thanks Rahul. Just one more question to answer from your knowledge. Though the backbone is optical, the processing power will be electronic. It will still be an obstruction and it will never be completely EMP proof. Does fly by light have any other advantages than being resistant to EMP?


I think the wires are replaced by optical fibers, which provide a higher bandwidth. So, I am guessing, there will be fewer wires required to transmit the same amount of data - might reduce weight to a certain extent.

As far as EMP proofing is concerned, I am not sure how effective it will be, because the processors will still be prone to pulses - unless you are casing the processors in some EMP resistant material.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 21 Jun 2010 23:37

Brando wrote:I agree that the cockpit is important too, but considering the amount of time expended on the LCA and still the amount of work to be done on the engines, the radar etc, key system which even with a redesigned more ergonomic cockpit, the LCA would not meet the satisfaction of the customer, i.e IAF. I'm just wondering aloud about their priorities .


please don't make a mockery of things you don't understand. There are different design teams working on different issues on any given aircraft design. Those working on the airframe, engines, avionics, etc all are different groups comprising of different engineers. If the cockpit is upgraded or modified doesn't mean that the rest of the guys go take a vacation in the mean time or that no other work is being in parallel.

It amazes me how people want to criticize something just for the heck of it. The same changes if made to a MRCA candidate and offered they'll be touted as a huge step forward. But when its done on the LCA instead of looking at the positives, we have bashers coming forth and talking about "priorities"..

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Anujan » 21 Jun 2010 23:43

I had posted earler

"Fly by optics is used for something else and is a natural evolution from hydraulic--> electrical --> optical control linkage:

It has 2 advantages.

It is lighter than conventional wiring which can get quite heavy. Typical fighters have over 20 miles of wiring!! Instead the idea is to replace electrical wires with a central optical bus which will multiplex signals (something like your trunk telephone cables being fiber optic and capable of carrying hundreds and even thousands of phone calls simultaneously). Add to that plastics used in FO cables are lighter than metal, less prone to corrosion. Secondly analog FBW systems (and even some digital ones) are susceptible to heat, electromagnetic interference from motors and actuators within the aircraft and electrical phenomena like lightning strikes and short circuits (this is a problem with cars too. If the voltage level in a wire controls the amount of braking for example, heating/cooling of the wire will produce increase/decrease of resistance and hence fluctuation in the signals)."

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 22 Jun 2010 00:53

Considerably low power requirement when compared to transmitting data via electrical signals through a wire come to my mind apart from what Anujan has listed. I don't know the EMP part though for the processing chip (some Military grade ones are shielded though) , power supply and the servo motors are all susceptible to EMPs unless adequately shielded.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2010 01:07

some Military grade ones are shielded though


even COTS.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 22 Jun 2010 01:16

The technology itself seems to be in a nascent phase. Sometime back I heard (in CACM and later on in http://www.betanews.com/article/Intel-Builds-New-Laser-Based-Processor/1158594956) that there are photon bases processors.
I guess the sixth generation aircrafts will incorporate this design - something for which we will have to wait beyond 2020.
I don't see any of these technologies being implemented even in MCA, let alone LCA.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2010 01:25

babbupandey wrote:The technology itself seems to be in a nascent phase. Sometime back I heard (in CACM and later on in http://www.betanews.com/article/Intel-Builds-New-Laser-Based-Processor/1158594956) that there are photon bases processors.
I guess the sixth generation aircrafts will incorporate this design - something for which we will have to wait beyond 2020.
I don't see any of these technologies being implemented even in MCA, let alone LCA.


For such techs to get implemented India needs the R&D base!!!!!!! (Which has been my beef. India seems to be going towards one-and-done without a R&D base.)

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 22 Jun 2010 01:42

NRao wrote:For such techs to get implemented India needs the R&D base!!!!!!! (Which has been my beef. India seems to be going towards one-and-done without a R&D base.)


I couldn't agree more. Such technologies cannot be evolved at DRDO alone (DRDO should, at best, provide funding) - the basic work needs to be at educational institutes and defense industry players. Sadly, in the name of research, our universities do a re-search (pun intended) and the I haven't heard of any company undertaking any kind of original, path-breaking research in India. At best, I have seen developing technologies indigenously which are denied by the west.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Anujan » 22 Jun 2010 01:49

babbupandey wrote:The technology itself seems to be in a nascent phase. Sometime back I heard (in CACM and later on in http://www.betanews.com/article/Intel-Builds-New-Laser-Based-Processor/1158594956) that there are photon bases processors.
I guess the sixth generation aircrafts will incorporate this design - something for which we will have to wait beyond 2020.
I don't see any of these technologies being implemented even in MCA, let alone LCA.


Actually they are talking about a different thing there. Usually fiber optics are used for transmission, but normal solid state electronics are used for processing. For example, if you send voice calls of a telephone through fiber optic lines, to "switch" to the correct destination, the fiber optic pulses get converted to electrical signals, then the address is inspected and the correct destination to take is determined and in that "port" a laser re-creates the light for it to transmit to the destination.

Now this Light--->electricity--->processing to determine destination ---> electricity ---> light has its disadvantages in the sense that there are limits to the frequency of operation of electrical circuits, which limits the bandwidth. Ofcourse there are limits to switching in laser pulses too, but these are higher.

Used to be that even repeating (or amplification) needed to be done this way: Light ----> electricity ---> amplified electricity ---> amplified light. But they solved that problem some time back with light----> amplified light. Now they want to solve the problem of switching and routing in light itself, without having to convert to electricity. Whereas these are needed for high speed long distance communications, and India needs to do R&D in this area too, nevertheless, these are not critical technologies to incorporate light-based communication in planes.

Kunal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kunal » 22 Jun 2010 01:52

The main point to note is that fiber has much lower latency and is a mature technology with lots of COTS suppliers. Weight reduction will be a minor improvement because of the short distances involved here and also because fiber comes with more complicated connectors. Fiber definitely has more bandwidth that can be channeled through per bus lane on the processing end. Depending on how much the b/w requirements are for actuator control and feedback data (which i'm guessing isn't much), this may lead to less clutter in the wiring. All the emp hardness and lightning protection gains should also be minor given the amount of work that already goes into these aspects over the entire aircraft.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 22 Jun 2010 02:04

Anujan wrote:
babbupandey wrote:The technology itself seems to be in a nascent phase. Sometime back I heard (in CACM and later on in http://www.betanews.com/article/Intel-Builds-New-Laser-Based-Processor/1158594956) that there are photon bases processors.
I guess the sixth generation aircrafts will incorporate this design - something for which we will have to wait beyond 2020.
I don't see any of these technologies being implemented even in MCA, let alone LCA.


Actually they are talking about a different thing there. Usually fiber optics are used for transmission, but normal solid state electronics are used for processing. For example, if you send voice calls of a telephone through fiber optic lines, to "switch" to the correct destination, the fiber optic pulses get converted to electrical signals, then the address is inspected and the correct destination to take is determined and in that "port" a laser re-creates the light for it to transmit to the destination.

Now this Light--->electricity--->processing to determine destination ---> electricity ---> light has its disadvantages in the sense that there are limits to the frequency of operation of electrical circuits, which limits the bandwidth. Ofcourse there are limits to switching in laser pulses too, but these are higher.

Used to be that even repeating (or amplification) needed to be done this way: Light ----> electricity ---> amplified electricity ---> amplified light. But they solved that problem some time back with light----> amplified light. Now they want to solve the problem of switching and routing in light itself, without having to convert to electricity. Whereas these are needed for high speed long distance communications, and India needs to do R&D in this area too, nevertheless, these are not critical technologies to incorporate light-based communication in planes.


I know, I should have put the thing in right perspective. When we are talking about light being EMP resistant, fiber optics alone is not sufficient the electronics too need to be EMP resistant - the processors would do just that (I hope).

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2010 06:11

May I just ask the reason for discussing EMP resistant electronics? I thought EMP resistance is required in case of conflict in which there is an air-burst of a nuclear weapon designed to fry electronics. That means nuclear war doesn't it? It is another matter that India is now wired up with fiber optic cables. Don;t know about EMP resistantelectronics


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests