LCA News and Discussions

[Indranil]

^^^
I learnt about the S-37 and the S-55 only today. So I wouldn't claim anything.

But from whatever I read the S-56 was designed from S-54 http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/six5th_6.html. Don't confuse the S-37 mentioned in this article to the single engined S-37 we have been discussing.

More about the S-56 here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s-5456.htm.

[Rahul M]

I used s-55 for the whole series, s-54/55/56

[Indranil]

S-54 was supposedly derived from Su-27. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a/s-54.htm.

The planforms of the S-37 and the s-54 are significantly different. But ofcourse being from the same stables, commonalities can't be discounted.

[D Roy]

again OT,

but the Russki side of things on Secret Projects is almost totally based on what Grigory and Paralay bring.

[AnuragK]

Last edited by Rahul M on 19 Aug 2010 22:34, edited 3 times in total.
read the first post of this thread. I suggest that you restrict posting to the newbie thread for the moment and cut that arrogance by a fair margin, if you want to stay here that is. this is my last informal warning to you. you already have one.

I have definitely read the first post of this thread. There was no comparison to any other aircraft - characteristics, specs, or otherwise. Also, there were no suggestions for any additions, alterations, etc. in the a/c. Further, there was nothing pugnacious in the post about the aircraft or toward any poster.

While deleting is your prerogative, courtesy demands that you explain the reasons thereof in the light of the above. Please do have a second hard look at the post of which you should be having a copy even if deleted here.

What arrogance are you talking about????

Response still awaited.

[Rahul M]

you brought in the unrelated topic of the JF17 project, which is OT for this thread. the above post shows that you might have read the first post but did not understand its import.
the majority of people here are able to put across their varying views without being arrogant or combative, most of your posts however show signs of both. I'm sorry I don't have the time or inclination to point out instances of arrogance in your posts, you either understand it on your own or you don't. it was just a piece of advice on my part, so ignore it if you feel like. do keep in mind that I or other mods will still warn/ban you if you violate the CoC.
any further queries or responses regarding forum moderation should be in forum feedback thread and not here.

[K Mehta]

I have an observation to make on the LCA production so far,
Each prototype has been different from the other. And even though "limited series production" has started, each new plane being different from the other essentially makes it a different prototype. I was hoping that this would have ended with the LSP-5 but even here we get the news that it will have a different cockpit, again another change.
IIRC there was an earlier discussion that there was a problem in HAL built A/C(dont remember which one) earlier in IAF because even though they were produced from the same blueprint they were essentially different planes due to changes during production or due to hand made quality! Have we not learnt a lesson from that still?
I think its time that a particular design with particular features be frozen as LSP and whatever changes that need be carried out should be done in the Mk-2!

[Singha]

I agree. but production of parts and processes will never stabilize with just 40 a/c ordered. thats like 2 months output for mikoyan or lockheed in cold war days.

the tendency of engineers to tinker around and 'improve' things constantly does not dovetail into a Lexus type production line repeatability. its high time the stuff be frozen/

its a big leap from handmade prototypes to a full production line and HAL has only done it long back for marut and later for dhruv so far.

[merlin]

I think its time that a particular design with particular features be frozen as LSP and whatever changes that need be carried out should be done in the Mk-2!

Only when Mk-1 features are all in can design be frozen. Hopefully after the NV related cockpit changes (and some other ones), it can be frozen. What might concern IAF is if the 20 numbers after the LSP set have differences, LSP differences can be tolerated and once design is frozen all non-compliant LSP may be brought over to the final config (if not too costly or impossible to do so).

[K Mehta]

Only when Mk-1 features are all in can design be frozen. Hopefully after the NV related cockpit changes (and some other ones), it can be frozen. What might concern IAF is if the 20 numbers after the LSP set have differences, LSP differences can be tolerated and once design is frozen all non-compliant LSP may be brought over to the final config (if not too costly or impossible to do so).

Merlin the last change in cockpit is supposed to make the cockpit next gen etc, which is in my opnion a major change! wonder why they are doing it now!
regarding Mk-1 features being all in, I dont think that there has been a clear demarcation as to what makes up Mk-1 features.
I do think the last change was worth to be included in the Mk-2 and the need of the hour being to bring the production line in action and get LCA production started ASAP!
I am assuming that the delay in LSP-5 first flight might be due to this reason!
JMTs etc disclaimers apply!

I agree. but production of parts and processes will never stabilize with just 40 a/c ordered. thats like 2 months output for mikoyan or lockheed in cold war days.

the tendency of engineers to tinker around and 'improve' things constantly does not dovetail into a Lexus type production line repeatability. its high time the stuff be frozen/

its a big leap from handmade prototypes to a full production line and HAL has only done it long back for marut and later for dhruv so far.

I know that there has been a change to full production line, but my point is that having different components doesnt help maintainence, and in turn makes the A/c a maintainence problem, something which has badly affected HAL made a/c previously! I am just hoping that there are no new (major) changes in the next LSP and the priority is focussed to getting the aircraft in service and not continuous improvement of features.
If there is a improvement let that be done in Mk-2 or in production series, but get all the LSPs out of the line, Its been too long already!

[S_Pawar]

LSp 5 was supposed to fly by june end. That came and went and then ADA chief said it will be in the first week of august. That date passed too if we are not living in the future. Now they say the flight will be in the second last week of august. Hoping to see it happen atleast now.
I agree to Mehta's point that ADA is getting over ambitious and trying to build a AMCA by Dec end. This is what created a delay in the first place.

[Vikram W]

LSp 5 was supposed to fly by june end. That came and went and then ADA chief said it will be in the first week of august. That date passed too if we are not living in the future. Now they say the flight will be in the second last week of august. Hoping to see it happen atleast now.
I agree to Mehta's point that ADA is getting over ambitious and trying to build a AMCA by Dec end. This is what created a delay in the first place.

agree. The smart project manager knows when to agree to change requests and when to put them in the next release. Usually the customer realizes he needs a feature after a final product is delivered and that is why versioning, scope management and putting your foot down are such essential project manager skillsets.

[Telang]

I have an observation to make on the LCA production so far,
Each prototype has been different from the other. And even though "limited series production" has started, each new plane being different from the other essentially makes it a different prototype. I was hoping that this would have ended with the LSP-5 but even here we get the news that it will have a different cockpit, again another change.

This has happened even with Mig 21 supplies. The first one or two supplied Migs had guns, then there were incremental additions/ alterations, and then the configuration got stabilised. So, just calm down, new additions or improvements 'per se' are not adding any major slippages of time shedules, the delays are on many an account.

IIRC there was an earlier discussion that there was a problem in HAL built fighters (dont remember which one) earlier in IAF because even though they were produced from the same blueprint they were essentially different planes due to changes during production or due to hand made quality! Have we not learnt a lesson from that still?

That is damning statement. Why dont you give or quote the specific instances????

I think its time that a particular design with particular features be frozen as LSP and whatever changes that need be carried out should be done in the Mk-2!

All the aircraft that are otherwise short of the final version will be updated and brought at par.

[shiv]

The first one or two supplied Migs had guns,

They did not. Guns were added in an underbelly pod after a specific Indian request to mother Russia. The first MiG 21s had 2 K-13 missiles or 2 rocket pods.

[Aditya_V]

To add to what Shiv said the Mig-21's could not score a kill in the 1965 war was that there no guns and the first AAM's were pretty much useless. in fact a Mig 21 Pilot in 1965 war was tempted to ram his aircraft into a PAF Sabre after his missiles missed.

[shiv]

To add to what Shiv said the Mig-21's could not score a kill in the 1965 war was that there no guns and the first AAM's were pretty much useless. in fact a Mig 21 Pilot in 1965 war was tempted to ram his aircraft into a PAF Sabre after his missiles missed.

Absolutely true - the story is on BR
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... iG-21.html
Air Marshal Mally Wollen reminisces

With a good overtake speed, in a slight dive, I released a missile at around 1200 m, sighting through the 'fixed-ring and bead'; the radar cannot provide information so close to the ground. The missile sped towards the Sabre and exploded below it; perhaps ahead and on the ground.

In my excitement, I released the second missile when I was too close to the ground (90 m) and probably too close to the Sabre. For 0.6 seconds after release, the K-13 missile is unguided. During this time it headed downwards, started to flatten out and then struck the ground, not far ahead of me.

I engaged engine re-reheat, rapidly closed in on the Sabre, was tempted to brush against his fin and passed about six meters over the aircraft. Naturally, the PAF pilot was surprised/shaken. I asked Mukherjee to engage the second Sabre, but got no response. We 'rendezvoused' over Jammu airfield (above AA-gun range) and returned to Pathankot.

The "K-13" was a Soviet copy of the Sidewinder. A USAF sergeant is said to have loaded a Sidewinder on to a jeep in West Germany and defected to the east.

[ShivaS]

Quote:
IIRC there was an earlier discussion that there was a problem in HAL built fighters (dont remember which one) earlier in IAF because even though they were produced from the same blueprint they were essentially different planes due to changes during production or due to hand made quality! Have we not learnt a lesson from that still?

This true.

In one instance HAL made IAF HS748 (The Avro) transport plane required a door as replacement, IAF techies wanted to Take out the door from another grounded (moth balled) and fit it to service the a/c. The doors would fit because each HS748 were custom built (HAL kinda RR). The QC/QA was that good. Even today (not about HAL) it is common experience with Indian made engineering goods and tools.

(apologies I broke my word on not postin here), But will fade out soon.

[K Mehta]

So, just calm down, new additions or improvements 'per se' are not adding any major slippages of time schedules, the delays are on many an account.All the aircraft that are otherwise short of the final version will be updated and brought at par.

Telangji, I am calm , I know I have no say in what happens at HAL/ADA/IAF.
I wish it was a small "addition or improvement", but this appears to be a big improvement in the cockpit avionics! I dont have a source for this but my hunch is that this particular change in the cockpit is what is affecting the schedule! I know that the other aircraft would be brought to par, but even here such a major change would result in delays there as well! My opinion is that these changes should be brought about in the post LSP/post-IOC production models!
JMTs etc

That is damning statement. Why dont you give or quote the specific instances???

I had read about the Avro story, sorry for writing fighters there! My point however is that when an opportunity to standardize and start the production early exists, why try and tweak more and let there be further slippage!
I cannot say for sure that it is this change that is affecting the schedule, but my hunch is that it is. I would be glad to be corrected, if that is not so!

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

The "K-13" was a Soviet copy of the Sidewinder. A USAF sergeant is said to have loaded a Sidewinder on to a jeep in West Germany and defected to the east.

SHiv, there is actually a more interesting story about how the Soviets got hold of Sidewinder. From Wiki:

During the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1958, the Republic of China's (Taiwan) F-86 Sabres faced the much higher performance PRC MiG-17's. The MiG's had speed, maneuverability and altitude advantages over the Sabres, allowing them to engage only when they desired, normally at advantageous times. In response, the US Navy rushed to modify 100 of the ROC's Sabres to fit the newly introduced AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, the latest model being the "B" version. These were introduced into combat for the first time on 24 September 1958, when a group of MiG-17's cruised past a flight of Sabres, only to find themselves under attack by missile fire. This was the first instance of guided missiles being used in air-to-air combat

On the 28th, a similar engagement resulted in one of the missiles becoming lodged in a MiG without exploding, allowing it to be removed. The Soviets later became aware that the Chinese had at least one Sidewinder, and after some wrangling, were able to convince the Chinese to send them one of the captured missiles.[2] Gennadiy Sokolovskiy, later chief engineer at the Vympel team, said that "the Sidewinder missile was to us a university offering a course in missile construction technology which has upgraded our engineering education and updated our approach to production of future missiles."

There is another story of a Swedish Colonel leaking the secret - but this is denied as source of information.

[Telang]

K Mehta wrote:
I had read about the Avro story, sorry for writing fighters there!

ShivaS wrote:
The doors would fit because each HS748 were custom built (HAL kinda RR). The QC/QA was that good.

Now, the Avro story praises HAL quality. Mehta Jee, can you please elaborate your point on bad build quality of HAL?? This claim has not been clarified.

[putnanja]

Now, the Avro story praises HAL quality. Mehta Jee, can you please elaborate your point on bad build quality of HAL?? This claim has not been clarified.

I had a very close relative working in HAL, and I believe he said similar thing about Jaguar too. It wasn't just limited to Avros. Standardization wasn't a widely adopted process, and it was only the export orders which were made to stringent specifications.

Also, one has to remember that widespread use of CNCs weren't in use till late 90s at least!!

[Karan M]

Nowadays with a host of design software, CNC machines and end to end documentation, standardization in terms of tolerances in manufacturing is much easier. Why blame the HAL guys @ era when all they had to go on in in those days was a design drawn up by somebody else, so jugaad on the shopfloor would be necessary.

With the LCA and MMRCA both, such problems should not occur. In the case of the LCA the designers are inhouse as well as local. In the case of the MMRCA, modern fighters like the EF have tolerances measured in mm, so manufacturing precision is a given.

Now LCA aircraft currently are prototypes and LSP. The entire point of prototypes and LSP is to make design modifications as need be and validate them.

Series production will be a different case. In this case there will be two different blocks of aircraft, LCA MK1 and MK2 but this is not that much different from AF which operate different Blocks of F-16, different models of F-15 etc.

Even in MiG-21, there are different "Types" with differing spares.

[K Mehta]

Telang ji,
1)ShivaS forgot to put not ie
The doors would not fit because each HS748 were custom built (HAL kinda RR). The QC/QA was that good.

2) The point is not about build quality but about standardization! When an opportunity to standardize exists
I will try and find the source of the comment!
In the mean while please try to remain on the topic and tell me, whether a modification of cockpit as has been declared in the LCA would or would not be a major one?

Kind note to everybody who thinks I am bashing HAL! I understand their limitations at the time of manufacture of avro, the point I am making is about such differences leading to maintenance problems. The IAF will not say you guys had a tough time making such complex A/c, it will say the a/c is a maintenance problem!

[Telang]

K Mehta wrote:
In the mean while please try to remain on the topic and tell me, whether a modification of cockpit as has been declared in the LCA would or would not be a major one?

"Major modification not permitted and minor modification permitted" is your argument, not mine. I am of the opinion that any number of major or minor modifications can be carried out till serial production starts. We disagree on the basic premise, therefore whether the modification is major or minor is no matter to me.

[Surya]

K mehta

No need to be apologetic - especially with newbies who did not know the mig 21 - gun story


I think the door issue was also with initial helo manufacture.

Rupak - can you confirm??

[K Mehta]

"Major modification not permitted and minor modification permitted" is your argument, not mine. I am of the opinion that any number of major or minor modifications can be carried out till serial production starts. We disagree on the basic premise, therefore whether the modification is major or minor is no matter to me.

The question is not of permission but of priorities, I am suggesting that such a change at this juncture would affect the delivery schedule as well as retrofitting will also affect the uptime of the prototypes.
My main point is that the priority right now should be getting LCA inducted and not making further modifications at this point, Let the limited series production be inducted, then the next batch of 20 can have further modifications, next 20 some more etc!

I would like to ask production experts like Kartik, as to how many changes are supposed to be made during prototyping as compared to Limited series production and final series production. Because in my opinion Limited series production a/c should have similarity, whereas prototypes can have major changes from one proto to another.

PS: we are having discussion for the sake of discussion, nothing said here matters too much. Telang jee, it was you who wanted a serious discussion on issues affecting LCA now, I am raising one point here, its upto you to respond in a manner that pleases you!
Thanks and regards

Karan M ji,
The point is how much modification should be done at LSP stage and at what cost, should already late delivery schedules be further delayed? Should the December 2010 deadline be allowed to pass? How much will the retrofitting of the advanced cockpit to the remaining LSP affect the delivery schedule? Is that advanced cockpit such a desired feature? etc questions need to be asked!

[Jagan]

I heard the door issue existed for one of the fighter types that HAL manufactured . It was the Vampire. Essentially any fuselage panel removed from one aircraft would not fit on another. I was led to believe that this could be a frequent problem and thus all the panels are painted with the serial number of the aircraft on the reverse.

One thing I can confirm for sure is that each marut needed to have its own set of plans for maintenance - because the internals (Wiring, hydraulic etc) would differ from one aircraft to another. So more often than not, the IAF maint guys at Jodhpur would request HAL to send in the specific plans when they ran into maintenance problms.

Another frequent complaint was that tendency to push Aircraft production towards the fag end of the financial year so that targets could be met. The complaint was that such rushed an feverish activity resulted in poor QC and subsequent glitches with such aircraft.

Ofcourse this is all 50s, 60s and 70s stuff and nothing recent. But interesting tidbits nevertheless.

[saps]

K Mehta
"Because in my opinion Limited series production a/c should have similarity, whereas prototypes can have major changes from one proto to another.......My main point is that the priority right now should be getting LCA inducted and not making further modifications at this point, Let the limited series production be inducted, then the next batch of 20 can have further modifications, next 20 some more etc"

Well in my opinion should we not be thinking about what exactly we want to do post induction. IF there is lot of variance in that cockpit which you want pilots to train on to fight...do you suggest its acceptable to have such variance in every batch of 20 ac. How would that lead to in terms of cockpit habits....any opinions....

[kmc_chacko]

My question is, since HAL has confirmed order for 40 nos of LCA/Tejas from IAF and another 6-9 from Navy. Then why aren't we producing LCA/Tejas at faster pace than present 2-3 a year ?

HAL should have produced minimum 10-12 in first year (2010) and 15-20 in second year (2011) so that IAF will get 2 sq of fighters as stop gap for its depleting forces and HAL, DRDO, NAL & IAF could have speed up the valuating the performance of Mk1 for improvements just like F-16A block 10, 15, 20 etc.

Later after 5-6 years think of adding new modifications and upgradations and go for Mk2, otherwise it will be virtually waste. Just look at F-16 development from past 40 years from its induction in 1970’s to todays F-16IN. By strategy way we are facing wars at 2 front so presently we need indigenous equipments in quantitatively and not in top end qualitatively. (i.e., we need Su-35s not F-22s) Because our Adversaries are building army in numbers and not in qualitatively. We will have top end fighters by way of Su-30MKI, MRCA, PAK-FA (front line) & upgraded Mig-29s, Mirage, Jaguars (2nd line) so they should have added Tejas as fighter for 3rd line in large quantity.

But now I feel that IAF is straight away expecting for Mk2 for its second batch, which is totally foolishness. Because Tejas is unproven in all areas. So it is left to the end user to first get a basic model then test it to its maximum limits to expose its limitations and demerits, then upgrade it to its required modifications.

It is should be forgotten that LCA/Tejas is a test bed for India's self reliance in the field of Future Combat Aircrafts.

So it is responsibility of R&D men to speed up the project induct LCA in larger quantity for quick and easy evaluation.

[sarabpal.s]

Why hal need to turn TD1 in to showpiece cant they experiment on it to improve furthermore Basic structure's of LCA ??

[Telang]

Folks, we are presuming that the IAF is blind to what is happening. What if the upgradation while production is on is at the behest of IAF itself? Do you people think that hasty induction of 20 fighters with lot of scope for upgradation, to be stationed at the farthest point from the known enemies, is going to tilt the scales in favour of IAF's might????? I would say NO. Accept a delay of one or more years, and then have a state-of-the-art fighter closest to the serial production version in substantial numbers, to be followed by serial prodution with frozen design / specifications / avionics to sustain all requirement with no need of upgradation for atleast the next 5 years. Then at this stage start work on Mark I of the fighter to take it into 5th Gen.

[Telang]

K Mehta
"Because in my opinion Limited series production a/c should have similarity, whereas prototypes can have major changes from one proto to another.......My main point is that the priority right now should be getting LCA inducted and not making further modifications at this point, Let the limited series production be inducted, then the next batch of 20 can have further modifications, next 20 some more etc"

Well in my opinion should we not be thinking about what exactly we want to do post induction. IF there is lot of variance in that cockpit which you want pilots to train on to fight...do you suggest its acceptable to have such variance in every batch of 20 ac. How would that lead to in terms of cockpit habits....any opinions....

What exactly we want to do post induction?????? That exactly is the point.

[Telang]

The argument by K Mehta

The question is not of permission but of priorities, I am suggesting that such a change at this juncture would affect the delivery schedule as well as retrofitting will also affect the uptime of the prototypes

This would lead to a situation just identical to what Jagan wrote:
Jagan wrote:

Another frequent complaint was that tendency to push Aircraft production towards the fag end of the financial year so that targets could be met. The complaint was that such rushed an feverish activity resulted in poor QC and subsequent glitches with such aircraft.

What do we want?
(A) Rush and have a product not meeting the objectives of its use and have satisfation of inducting,
or
(B)wait and exhaust all available capabilities to upgrade and then have a near perfect fighter that can perform???

[Arya Sumantra]

(A) Rush and have a product not meeting the objectives of its use and have satisfation of inducting,
or
(B)wait and exhaust all available capabilities to upgrade and then have a near perfect fighter that can perform???

Incremental modifications have incremental gains only. You are not going to lose much if you sacrifice them( that is, save them for MK2). Consolidate what we have and now go for production in a big way of mk1.

For sake of consistency and repeatability from one manufactured aircraft to another in the stable, stay away from evolution and go for mutation. i.e. Jump strictly by Marks, mk1, mk2, mk3... only.

[Telang]

Arya Sumantra wrote:

Consolidate what we have

I said:

exhaust all available capabilities to upgrade

Do we mean differently????

[Pratik_S]

The only reason why the production of the first 40 fighters will be slow because the HAL would like to have a assembly line running till it gets a larger order of Mk-2. You can expect the production rate to well above 30units per year.

[S_Pawar]

Folks, we are presuming that the IAF is blind to what is happening. What if the upgradation while production is on is at the behest of IAF itself? Do you people think that hasty induction of 20 fighters with lot of scope for upgradation, to be stationed at the farthest point from the known enemies, is going to tilt the scales in favour of IAF's might????? I would say NO. Accept a delay of one or more years, and then have a state-of-the-art fighter closest to the serial production version in substantial numbers, to be followed by serial prodution with frozen design / specifications / avionics to sustain all requirement with no need of upgradation for atleast the next 5 years. Then at this stage start work on Mark I of the fighter to take it into 5th Gen.

There are going to be upgrades and changes need all the time but we must realise that we have a schedule to keep. That is what any company does. They try as much as possible to change and upgrade their product but as the deadline approaches they freeze the design and go for production. Any changes can be done in the next version. if we keep making changes and accept a delay of one year for now and then by the time this is done an other upgrade would be required. Now do we go back and postpone the IOC and FOC again??
This cant be done and should not be.

[Arya Sumantra]

Do we mean differently????

For you it's one of the two options, for others it is the only way forward. Why create a debate(a or b ) where there is none?

K Mehtaji and others are right. Freeze and clone in droves now. All improvements have to be quantized(batches of 20s, 40s or MKs). Tejas fleet can't be as diverse as India. The need right now is to create a very high production rate facility.

[Vivek K]

Order 250 GE engines. Make 250 a/c in 3 years. Position these in numbers on the front lines.

[Gaur]

^^
All this talk of producing hundreds of tejas in a few years is all well and good but such high production rate is financially feasible only when "thousands" of a/cs are to be produced. Even France, with all its infrastructure and production lines in place, has a production rate of 1 to 1.25 Rafales per month and even that is becoming too much too handle for france.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 09.xml[url][/url]

But Chairman and CEO Charles Edelstenne said March 19 that the current rate of Rafale production, 1.2 aircraft per month, is headed for a sharp drop.The rate will decline from 14 this year to 11 annually starting in 2010......

So, people who want 80-100 tejas mk1 to be produced per year should think about the cost of setting up additional production lines. And that additional cost will be reflected in the cost of tejas mk1 which would become a highly expensive a/c. And what will happen to the production line after those 200-300 mk1s are built? They will have to be closed and all that investment would be wasted.
So, there is a reason why IAF has ordered 40 acs and the production rate will be around 8 a/cs per year. Anything higher production rate will not be economically feasible.