LCA News and Discussions

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Aug 2010 09:58

Good one Kartik.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 12 Aug 2010 11:07

I always had a doubt about c****** following the elca program very closely.If it was failure why to watch it closely.Now i understand.Definitely LCA is going to me nightmare for our eastern neighbour

Cheers

Prabhu.G

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 12 Aug 2010 12:00

Telang wrote:prastor wrote:
I think the reason why some experimentally successful technologies don't make it to the production models is the cost-to-benefit factor. Maybe adding TVC and canards to LCA won't give it a justifiable increase in punch for the buck.
Prastor, I do not recommend TVC or Canards for LCA, you mistook the point. THERE IS NO CALCULATION OF PUNCH FOR THE BUCK OR BUCK FOR THE PUNCH. I AM RECOMMENDING ACHIEVING MASTERY ON THE TECH OF TVC AND CANARDS BY EXPERIMENTING ALL THAT ON LCA PLATFORM. THIS TECH MAY BE NEEDED ELSEWHERE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES. I hope I must have made my point clear.

I got your point Telang. I think it will make more sense do the experimenting on the more flexible AMCA platform and not the LCA platform like you suggested in your prior post. The LCA is already heavier than it should be and adding more stuff to it will turn it into a "JF-17" (ahem). That hardly serves the purpose of testing new technologies if the airframe is unable to handle the experiments.

I would be all for TVC, Canards, Stealth and other fancy stuff to be experimented on the AMCA program because it would have 2 powerful engines to handle the extra weight compromises that are inevitable with each added feature. The AMCA will probably need them anyway, to satisfy the future ASQRs.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 12 Aug 2010 13:10

What would have the motives of the Chinese beEN to cooperate on the LCA project? Gain an insight into the way we think? Our plans for future, technological capabilities? We will never know. But, it wouldn’t have been to develop the LCA for sure.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Aug 2010 13:22

I recall seeing a documentary where some experimental aircraft equipped with thrust vectoring in the US defeated an F-16 80% of the time in mock combat.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 12 Aug 2010 13:41

P Chitkara wrote:What would have the motives of the Chinese beEN to cooperate on the LCA project? Gain an insight into the way we think? Our plans for future, technological capabilities? We will never know. But, it wouldn’t have been to develop the LCA for sure.

They had a genuine need for a light fighter back then. We can't deny that. The plans for JV did not work out and they continued with their own projects. They ended up with FC-1 and J-10A (both copied) which did not meet their AirForce specs just like our LCA (at least not a copy) and so FC-1 was repackaged and sold to Pakistan as JF-17 "Thunder". Maybe we should learn from this and probably sell our Tejas Mk1 as LC-01 "Tiger Buster" to Sri Lanka.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 12 Aug 2010 13:47

Neshant wrote:I recall seeing a documentary where some experimental aircraft equipped with thrust vectoring in the US defeated an F-16 80% of the time in mock combat.

USAF has a huge ego block when it comes to changing its policies even if they find that they are wrong. They just don't budge. TVC was against their BVR tactics/policy.

The same thing is happening with the JSF program. They still stick to the JSF even though it's unit cost shot up 4 times its original estimate.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 12 Aug 2010 13:49

thanks Kartik,
Now I know Veena is Singh, secondly,
1994 is what 17 years ago, so at that time, assuming LCA specs were the same (forward looking) would not LCA eat away SAAB and BAE products?

No buddy including Ivan will ever share cutting edge tech, unless they have some thing wraped better ( shrouded in secrecy).
We have to do it ouselves even that the gora lobby will not allow with out throwing a spanner (even that not a right size, some metric some SAE).

Yes I wish I did not sell my Science Today Mags from 1964 to 1987 collection.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Aug 2010 18:10

Telang wrote: Shiv, I dont know how you missed the point I was making. The Americans and the Germans through X 31 have the tech in their shirt pocket. They may have not used it yet for the reasons best known to them and Prof Das. But, in the middle of the night, if they find that tech needed, they shall have it implemented by the day break. Most of NASA projects have no immediate application, but the mastery of the tech is safely deposited in the minds and hands of their scintists and technicians, to be drawn at will. That is long sight,

Correct. Nothing wrong in what you are saying except that I believe you have missed the point I have been making on two counts.

1) India has already missed out so much that we are still "catching up".

The problem with catching up is that you are always following someone else's lead. Someone else's lead does not come form magic or djinn power. It comes from earlier developments that he has made. And those earlier developments come from stil earlier developments. You are yourself saying exactly this, but are using different words.

But when we try to "catch up" we necessarily have to go through the cycles of failure and success that the "technology leader" has already been though over the past 70-80 years in some cases. So catching up by copying what the other guy has already done because you admire that as great tech is necessarily a drag on your time and resources.

2) The right way to develop technology in my view is not to try and copy exactly what the other guy has done "just for the experience" but to see what you have already developed and can do well. Look at what you already have and then be creative with that. My specific statement in this context was : "If you want to play with Thrust vectoring, it is better to start with a twin engined aircraft that we know through and through about from previous experience. Such an aircraft would be the HF 24. The HF 24 was a good design and stable to boot, Fitting fly by wire may not be such a big chore taking from the LCA experience. then try and develop a TV engine for that. The LCA has a single engine - which is always more risky when you are developing totally new tech"

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 12 Aug 2010 20:02

Shiv

Do you agree with Prof Das' castigating the ADA for using composite panels rather than Aluminium in light of your above view?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Aug 2010 20:41

Tanaji wrote:Shiv

Do you agree with Prof Das' castigating the ADA for using composite panels rather than Aluminium in light of your above view?

No. But he has brought up an interesting point asking how composites behave with battle damage. His latest article is even more radical and there is much to disagree - but it shows that a planner can go in ten thousand different directions and US tech is because the US has gone down some of those directions. Russia has gone down some other directions. India too should eventually find its own path. It may be neither the Russian path nor the US path. Meaning? Russian and US is not necessarily always the best and most appropriate for everyone. How many people actually even think of things in this way?

In fact my posting his article and views is not so much to agree or disagree with them but to point out that there are other enlightened viewpoints and how compromise in one direction is made for advantage in another. I post them repeatedly because few actually read them until it is forced down the throat. There is a download counter on Rapidshare where my file resides.

Only the really dedicated info seekers actually read such things. Most pick up info from here and there - often in forums and that allows the marketing hype to be seen better than anything else. Most people tend to point out the positive - because technology and marketing are interlinked. Any new technology is always sold as "better than the old" and it is worth having different viewpoints in such a biased atmosphere.

manum · Post by **manum** » 12 Aug 2010 21:23

@ shiv sir

so in these interesting times...after ussr and now usa....china had already realized the new path (or the crux of the matter) and is following...and we always remaining the studious types wid Tejas, Imagining the happy ending ?, sorry if I sound stupid...but its a big question in my head of...that after ussr story and now USA, stories now don't have happy ending, they only have interesting sum ups...(this question is also in relation to prof. Das's analogy on dependency...)

my 2 cents...if i understand slightly what you said above...that listen everyone carefully specially your critics...but do what sounds right to you...

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 12 Aug 2010 21:30

If you take the fighters that appeared post F-18, most have canards. For European fighters, canards are almost the standard. If (1) we are not following in that direction just because we do not want to ape the west blindly, and want to create our own substitute for it; the logic is in fourth dimension and beyond my comprehension. If (2) TVC is to be detested because of the logic at (1) above, or for the reasons of following the Americans in their desertion of TVC idea, it once again does not gel in my mind.

As for reviving Marut purely for the twin engine facility, or waiting for the day twin engined MCA to appear on the radar to be experimented upon with TVC, well that, as a prospect if sanctioned today, will see the light in 2030.

If X 31 did something 20 years ago, and we can ONLY HOPE to do the same in only 2030 (waiting for an assuredly risk free facility), either the tech is permanently irrelevant to us or we are sure of our incapability even to dare. My posts need to be read twice and translated into ENGLISH before they make any sense, I believe!!. I don't want to make it look argumentative, I AM JUST PLEADING TO DARE WITH WHAT EVER WE HAVE. I rest my point. (Period).........

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 12 Aug 2010 21:36

Shiv,

I think the ADA is actually going down their own path. For example, they are riveting the composite panelsn as if they are aluminum ones. Western aircraft would not have such rivets. Part of it may be due to lack of confidence in the joins, but they may also have thought that the added expense to form "Hema Malini" joins may not be worth it.

BTW what Rapishare file are you referring to? Link?

(You have so much stuff out there, especially on Youtube, you should consider getting your own domain!)

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 12 Aug 2010 21:43

For a light aircraft like the LCA, thrust vectoring is an unnecessary overkill that is only going to slow down the program even more. I mean, just look at the Gripen C/D with a fairly weak engine, and it's still quick as a fly when it turns! IMO thrust vectoring is only really necessary with a heavy aircraft (or if you have to much money to spend).

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 12 Aug 2010 21:45

More important than anything else
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/iaf-to-order-more-tejas-mk-1s.html

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 12 Aug 2010 22:17

Sorry for the OT Admins! But I have to express this feeling.

Ah...! How breathtaking!
Let us pause for a moment and enjoy the majestic beauty that is LCA, our very own Tejas. I am referring to the incredible photograph of our LCA taking off in the livefist link above. Man, What have the Indians done, what have we (poetic ownership) created here? I can't believe my own eyes. Blessed to have born in the country that can create this wonderful bird!

May such folks multiply. May such creation fill our lives.

Thankyou fellow Indians!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Aug 2010 22:20

indeed and I hate the word 'underpowered' for IN20. tejas has a better t:w with in20 than the upgraded chi chi mirages and most other single engined planes will ever have.

I think it had a better t:w even with the old ge404 too.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Aug 2010 22:26

Henrik wrote:For a light aircraft like the LCA, thrust vectoring is an unnecessary overkill that is only going to slow down the program even more. I mean, just look at the Gripen C/D with a fairly weak engine, and it's still quick as a fly when it turns! IMO thrust vectoring is only really necessary with a heavy aircraft (or if you have to much money to spend).

Whatever logic applicable for commerical a/c developement may not be applicable for the military one. I see there is a very valid reason for the TVC in Tejas from the Indian community. In military sphere everyone likes to overtake/defeat others with whatever marginal 'edge' that can be added to their a/c.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Aug 2010 22:29

Singha wrote:indeed and I hate the word 'underpowered' for IN20. tejas has a better t:w with in20 than the upgraded chi chi mirages and most other single engined planes will ever have.

I think it had a better t:w even with the old ge404 too.

True, it crossed the mach 1.1 mark with IN20. Even with old Ge404 it did 1.05 mach at sea level.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Aug 2010 22:39

I believe the proposed manufacturing rate for Tejas-mk1 is to keep the facility live till the Tejas Mk-2 kicks in. I think we can test additional features once we clear the IOC and also by increasing the LSP.

sharma.abhinav · Post by **sharma.abhinav** » 12 Aug 2010 22:46

Just my two cents on canards and tvc on LCA. As far as canards are concerned then the reason they are absent from Tejas is because IAF insisted on not having canards on Tejas, as they didn't have any experience with canards (Su-30 mki wasn't there when Tejas was being designed). People who have followed most of the threads on LCA development know this. I had read this here only. In fact a very earlier wind tunnel model of a supposed LCA had canards like Grippen but would have been dropped because of aforementioned reason.

Now for TVC, I guess it would make sense to design and build a working, risk free and proven jet engine for our aircraft's and then experiment with TVC on it.

manum · Post by **manum** » 12 Aug 2010 22:56

I think the ADA is actually going down their own path. For example, they are riveting the composite panels as if they are aluminum ones. Western aircraft would not have such rivets. Part of it may be due to lack of confidence in the joins, but they may also have thought that the added expense to form "Hema Malini" joins may not be worth it.

here lies the crux of our program...and our path...

thanks

astal · Post by **astal** » 12 Aug 2010 23:03

Bosses,

Based on the musings of members in the know like Enqoob, I was lead to believe that there are many additional parameters besides the T/W ratio that determine power.

1) Published thrust is for a plane standing still.
2) The airframe and inlet designs influence acceleration and aircraft performance in all regimes.

IAF was not completely satisfied with the performance of Tejas with IN20, based on its performance at sea level trials in Goa. It was determined that a more powerful engine would be required. In my opinion the delay in selecting the engine for Tejas is criminal negligence. Pick any damn engine out of the two but do it quickly. There would probably be some savings if we choose a common engine for Tejas and MRCA but this saving is not worth the inordinate delay. The delay is going the end up costing IAF and the Indian exchequer billions of dollars when we have to buy more MRCA or other aircraft.

Despite the MK1 being underpowered for some of the IAF needs, I would encourage the IAF to go ahead and order at least another 60 for the following reasons.

1) As a lead in flight trainer. (Tejas and MKI avionics are similar due to project Vetrivel).
2) To build a higher capacity assembly line for when the Tejas MK2's show up and need to be inducted in high numbers.
3) As supplementary mud movers in case of an incident while the current squadrons are reaching obsolescence and depleting.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 13 Aug 2010 01:06

Kanson wrote:
Henrik wrote:For a light aircraft like the LCA, thrust vectoring is an unnecessary overkill that is only going to slow down the program even more. I mean, just look at the Gripen C/D with a fairly weak engine, and it's still quick as a fly when it turns! IMO thrust vectoring is only really necessary with a heavy aircraft (or if you have to much money to spend).
Whatever logic applicable for commerical a/c developement may not be applicable for the military one. I see there is a very valid reason for the TVC in Tejas from the Indian community. In military sphere everyone likes to overtake/defeat others with whatever marginal 'edge' that can be added to their a/c.

The logic here is being realistic. Is TVC on a light aircraft such as the LCA really needed? Or is it just another thing that can go wrong? Get the plane working properly first, then on a future update add TVC when you've mastered everything else. What will a light plane as the LCA gain from TVC?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Aug 2010 01:51

sharma.abhinav wrote:As far as canards are concerned then the reason they are absent from Tejas is because IAF insisted on not having canards on Tejas, as they didn't have any experience with canards (Su-30 mki wasn't there when Tejas was being designed). People who have followed most of the threads on LCA development know this. I had read this here only. In fact a very earlier wind tunnel model of a supposed LCA had canards like Grippen but would have been dropped because of aforementioned reason.

I've followed the LCA thread for years and never heard anything of this sort, so please point us back to the discussion where this was stated. Anyway, its completely untrue that the LCA's canards were deleted because of the IAF. ADA's studies revealed no particular gain by keeping the canards but it added structural weight and complexity which meant that it was deleted.

It's true that both the Gripen and LCA original designs were to some degree based on a BAE P.106 concept dating back to 1983-84 which featured canard-delta configuration. The wind tunnel model that you refer to is none other than the BAE P.106 concept. Gripen carried on with that canard delta config and made some mods to the P.106's main wing (adding a dog tooth while removing the crank).

But, ADA hadn't frozen a design for the LCA and took liberal assistance from Dassault on the design including using their existing data banks. After that they arrived at the conclusion that the canards were not required and the LCA's final design did not feature any canards. This all dates back to the period between 1986-1987. Where does the IAF not having experience with canards even figure in this ? the IAF had minimum inputs towards the design during this phase, and simply laid down ASQRs. If the design could meet them, the IAF couldn’t care less whether it had canards or not.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 13 Aug 2010 05:13

IAF To Order More Tejas Mk-1s

The Indian Air Force is processing a contract for 20 additional limited series Tejas Mk-1 light fighters -- the ones powered by the underpowered GE F-404-IN20. This will be in addition to the 20 already contracted for a few years ago. While base infrastructure is coming up expeditiously at Sulur, first Tejas deliveries to the IAF will be based at the Bangalore-based Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE) for upto a year or more to iron out induction-related troubles. Once the IAF is satisfied that the fighters are well-supported, and all potential issues with HAL are sorted out, the aircraft will be shifted to Sulur. It has emerged that the IAF may choose to either base the second Tejas squadron also at Sulur, or even at nearby Kayathar, where it is in the process of building up a brand new air base. The Tejas is scheduled to achieve initial operational clearance/capability (IOC) in December this year, with the first squadron inducted by next year.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Aug 2010 09:21

I agree with kartik that I too haven't heard of anything of the sort in my years of following this project.
the other reason that was mentioned was that of increased radar signature due to canards, the trade-off was deemed not worth it.

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 13 Aug 2010 10:12

Craig Alpert wrote:IAF To Order More Tejas Mk-1s
The Indian Air Force is processing a contract for 20 additional limited series Tejas Mk-1 light fighters -- the ones powered by the underpowered GE F-404-IN20. This will be in addition to the 20 already contracted for a few years ago. While base infrastructure is coming up expeditiously at Sulur, first Tejas deliveries to the IAF will be based at the Bangalore-based Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE) for upto a year or more to iron out induction-related troubles. Once the IAF is satisfied that the fighters are well-supported, and all potential issues with HAL are sorted out, the aircraft will be shifted to Sulur. It has emerged that the IAF may choose to either base the second Tejas squadron also at Sulur, or even at nearby Kayathar, where it is in the process of building up a brand new air base. The Tejas is scheduled to achieve initial operational clearance/capability (IOC) in December this year, with the first squadron inducted by next year.

Tejas has better specs than the JF-17 even with the crappy GE404-IN20. Why is IAF being so damn cold to the local fighter? They can induct more than a mere 20 to help HAL establish a good production line that will be useful for the Mk2 version as well. I feel ordering just 40 Mk1 is a bit too fishy especially given the urgency for IAF to replace their old junk.

I want to repeat again that Tejas Mk1 is better than the JF-17.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 13 Aug 2010 10:17

IAF going in for massive upgrade of airfields, helipads

This is in tune with IAF's aim to have 42 fighter squadrons by 2022, up from the existing 32, with progressive induction of 270 Sukhois, 126 multi-role combat aircraft, 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat aircraft and the first lot of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft to be developed with Russia.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 13 Aug 2010 10:31

The Indian Air Force is processing a contract for 20 additional limited series Tejas Mk-1 light fighters -- the ones
Tejas has better specs than the JF-17 even with the crappy GE404-IN20. Why is IAF being so damn cold to the local fighter? They can induct more than a mere 20 to help HAL establish a good production line that will be useful for the Mk2 version as well. I feel ordering just 40 Mk1 is a bit too fishy especially given the urgency for IAF to replace their old junk.

I want to repeat again that Tejas Mk1 is better than the JF-17.

I would not compare bunder with tejas .And Tejas(in my understanding) is not build with JF-17 in mind.But it was the otherwise.So re-engine effort is not bad, but IAF has to retain the momentum on the project.
And i always felt that after the MMRCA trials the IAF top brass is more interested in LCA .

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 13 Aug 2010 11:03

I don't see this additional order of 20 Tejas as the final one! Just see how IAF went on procuring MKI. I think it's a good/practical move, albeit bad at PR. It gives IAF flexibility of going in for MK2 whenever it comes online and at the same time keep on ordering MK1, to keep the assembly line engaged/make up numbers, in small batches. Why order 100 of them at one go and book the assebly line for 8-10 years when you can easily have a much better version of the same aircraft 4-5 years down the line.

Cheers....

prastor · Post by **prastor** » 13 Aug 2010 12:09

prabhug wrote: I would not compare bunder with tejas .And Tejas(in my understanding) is not build with JF-17 in mind.But it was the otherwise.So re-engine effort is not bad, but IAF has to retain the momentum on the project.
And i always felt that after the MMRCA trials the IAF top brass is more interested in LCA .

I smelt it too Prabhu.

I am sure the IAF buffaloes found the grass greener on the other side at first and refused to ruminate on the local grass. But, when samples of the foreign grass were brought in for a close-up look, they probably found that the local grass is pretty good for our soil and weather... if you get the drift of my analogy

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 13 Aug 2010 12:39

It's the typical Industani attitude problem which refuses believe we have good engineers.My ex-manager in a MNC felt that my work was useless till his Amrikhan boss decided my approach was the only way head.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Aug 2010 13:10

Kartik – the article and your comments provide only part of the picture and not full.

BAe offered a design to ADA/HAL that we didn’t accept because it was perceived that approach did not involve any design work. In hindsight, the perception was incorrect because the Swedes and Chinese had to work a lot of the initial BAe and Lavi designs.

Secondly, ADA partnership request to BAe and SAAB was based on the premise that BAe/ADA chaps will work with ADA on design and other aspects, explain and help when stuck and transfer knowledge. Now, this knowledge is key IPR of both BAe and SAAB, and not worth the T&M fees paid by ADA.

The inherently flawed approach in LCA project is that it is overambitious. And that leads to high project risk. I doubt whether partnership would have helped.

I doubt the IAF GSQR specified composite construction. It was a decision taken by the designers hoping less weight will mean better performance. Not necessarily, if the aerodynamics don’t support. Stealthy duct too could never have been IAF requirement. It was overengineering.

Components like actuators were designed ground up. A less risky approach was to use existing reliable components from the open market. Or development side contracts given to existing experienced component manufacturers like sanction proof French Safran. Designing components like actuators ground up leads to the issue of ensuring reliability that leads to increased weight.

Today weight is an issue because the engine cannot keep up with. ADA could have used a higher thrust engine earlier once they realized the aircraft is grossly overweight

I am not even discussing the Engine and Radar.

The reason why Chinese planes are in service earlier is because they used whatever was available – engines, components, etc. This approach would have definitely been less risky for LCA.

Prastor – the LCA specs that you refer to are design specifications. Actual performance specifications are released in bits and pieces and are not very flattering.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 13 Aug 2010 13:33

tsarkar wrote: Today weight is an issue because the engine cannot keep up with. ADA could have used a higher thrust engine earlier once they realized the aircraft is grossly overweight

.

tsarkarji, this is some kind of a newbie pooch/view [ I dont post often but read every bit that is posted here].
I find the quoted part quite naive.

When do you think they realized the aircraft was overweight? With so many parameters to validate,prove and learn from, the ADA simply did not have the time. You are falling into the spec-creep trap if you try to do this even when you are trying to ensure every screw you put in there is working as intended.
Correct me if I am wrong , but with a more powerful engine, virtually every part of the aircarft will require tweaking ..from the CG, to the actuators , to the control laws etc. ADA could not simply afford the delay.
Your statement is possibly valid if the ADA does this again ...but for the LCA I think that statement is quite cruel.

IMO, the LCA is actually a proof of concept and the product rolled into one - because of financial constraints when it started. With such limitations, I believe what we have is a remarkable machine that has given us a very good reference book for the future.
In retrospect, everything could have been done better. But what really matters is how close they got to the specs!

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 13 Aug 2010 13:33

tsarkar wrote:Components like actuators were designed ground up.

Rajkumar Phillip has mentioned in "The Tejas Story" that the FBW actuators were imported from american company Moog, so don't know from where this bit comes from. The first TD used them, not sure what the current ones are using.

Cheers....

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Aug 2010 14:09

Neela wrote:With so many parameters to validate,prove and learn from, the ADA simply did not have the time.

Validations are a part of every step of the design process. Its not that you validate once everything is finished. Assessment during the design phase should have made the weight issue come out, it happened with the JSF as well and was handled in the development itself.

Lack of time would be a very bad excuse. I believe ADA never quoted lack of time as the reason.

Neeraj,

An indigenous actuator was developed, I have a HAL brochure and you should find these components exhibited in Aero India et al. Leaving individual examples aside, point I'm making is that ADA overlooked the need to mitigate project risk.

Anyways, this is an emotive issue, hands-off bystanders like me can make any comments without easing the troubles of those actually on the job

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 13 Aug 2010 14:19

I guess the problem arose after 1998 embargos. That is when they could no longer import the actuators from khan.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 13 Aug 2010 14:22

neerajb wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Components like actuators were designed ground up.
Rajkumar Phillip has mentioned in "The Tejas Story" that the FBW actuators were imported from american company Moog, so don't know from where this bit comes from. The first TD used them, not sure what the current ones are using.

Cheers....

Exactly. The only actuator that was designed from ground up was VSSC's rudder actuator. I don't know if that made it into production or if it even completed design.