LCA News and Discussions

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 11:44

Neshant wrote:if the kaveri fails, someone needs to be shot

You mean promoted , We are not the Soviets we don't shoot scientist

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 13:09

Beyond the euphoria of EJ200 winning , it is important to continue working on Kaveri since this is very important for our own long term good and will build an industry that can develop a flight worth engine and manufacture it.

Even if the Kaveri turns out to be as good as the GE-404 which powered the TD it will be a fantastic achievement.

EADS are not going to give as any technology that will come at the cost of their industry and what they will hand us down is Lic prod deal which we have been doing since years.

It should be remembered that the TOT for AL-31FP and lic production has not really helped us in Kaveri project , EADS deal will meet the same fate.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Sep 2010 13:19

exactly. EADS isnt about to transfer citizenship of 600 RR and MTU engineers and have them wave the tricolour thereafter!
all we will get is license production and associated with that "some" tools and technology (mainly imported) to make "some" parts locally.
but one forget about the material science and "hot section" aspects, those are the crown jewels under the silk kimono.

Kaveri has to go on and become a godavari or arkavathy but it must eventually deliver prototypes and products and variants.
its is the ONLY vehicle through which we can master turbofan engine design, manufacture and test.

the only way in which we *could* gain more is if EU sold us say a 20% stake in eurojet and EADS

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Sep 2010 13:37

Why can the same not be acquired with an "Investment" of say 1 billion $.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 21 Sep 2010 14:02

Austin wrote:It should be remembered that the TOT for AL-31FP and lic production has not really helped us in Kaveri project, EADS deal will meet the same fate.

How has it not helped us? I too have the same conclusions though. Else, we would have been in the current position viz-aviz Kaveri a couple of years earlier.

I was asked the same question in the LCA thread but didn’t have a source to quote. Do you have inputs, even if the source cannot be quoted or pointed on the web?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 21 Sep 2010 14:36

>>>if the kaveri fails, someone needs to be shot

Ahem...ISRO Chief Radhakrishnan is still alive!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 16:16

P Chitkara wrote:How has it not helped us? I too have the same conclusions though. Else, we would have been in the current position viz-aviz Kaveri a couple of years earlier.

I was asked the same question in the LCA thread but didn’t have a source to quote. Do you have inputs, even if the source cannot be quoted or pointed on the web?

Well for one on Single Crystal Blade technology the Russian imposed a restriction that we can use only to build it for AL-31FP and all the machining tools etc were bought from Russia and done under supervision , its nothing short of Lic Manf I think.

The most important thing is eventually we have to make mistakes , try out stuff and learn how to build things , TOT even if faithfully provided by phoren vendor will not teach you that , your learning curve is only limited to TOT and a proven working engine , not the build , make mistakes, learn and get better methodology.

So that is the reason we should continue with Kaveri project because that gives an opportunity to fall and learn , even if what we learn is not the greatest in the technology now but it is one step closer that will lead us there at some point in time.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2010 17:34

geeth wrote:Ahem...ISRO Chief Radhakrishnan is still alive!

Geeth sahab what do you plan to do

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 21 Sep 2010 17:37

IMHO, indigenous technological base is being developed albeit slowly. The problem is that the Armed Forces (not MoD babus) want the latest technology touted by anyone on the planet to be available near simultaneously in India. China is where it is today by copying and slowly learnign the ropes themselves. So long we want the latest, we'll be importing. It is near impossible to get ahead of the curve by buying rather than investing.

Even if we develop the tech for single crystal blades, we'll be atleast 15 years behind the curve. And when we do achieve that, I'm sure something new will be available from somewhere else that'll still make the newer Kaveri avatar rather useless to IAF "needs". (Beerbal ki khichdi!)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Sep 2010 20:44

Pratyush wrote:Why can the same not be acquired with an "Investment" of say 1 billion $.

China has been tossing billions at their engine programs, yet the J-10 and JF-17 are still powered by Russian engines. The research requires investment of both money and time.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Sep 2010 20:59

^^ China still needs Russian engines for even JF-17 fighter.

http://defensenews.com/blogs/farnboroug ... 7-engines/

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 21 Sep 2010 22:24

No flight test in past 2 days !!

LCA-Tejas has completed 1431 Test Flights successfully. (19-Sep-10).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-165, PV3-229,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 09:05

JTull wrote:IMHO, indigenous technological base is being developed albeit slowly. The problem is that the Armed Forces (not MoD babus) want the latest technology touted by anyone on the planet to be available near simultaneously in India. China is where it is today by copying and slowly learnign the ropes themselves. So long we want the latest, we'll be importing. It is near impossible to get ahead of the curve by buying rather than investing.

That is the crux of the problem. some one has to come down either the armed forces accept what industry can develop and be innovative with what they can get or they keep importing and expect indian industry to catch up and by the time the industry does the world has moved to another level and import keeps happening.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 22 Sep 2010 10:59

kmc_chacko wrote:No flight test in past 2 days !!

Couldn't it be that they haven't updated the site yet? Hasn't any Bangalorean here seen/heard it fly by? JMT

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Sep 2010 11:26

Aren't 5 LCAs supposed to be taking part in the sea trials in Goa? I guess the count won't be updated till they are back?

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 22 Sep 2010 12:58

kmc_chacko wrote:No flight test in past 2 days !!

LCA-Tejas has completed 1431 Test Flights successfully. (19-Sep-10).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-165, PV3-229,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6)

Why does PV-2 have so less of flight time?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Sep 2010 13:37

We have reportedly blown up $8 billion on the CWG,an 18 timnes increase in the cost,so funding $1 billion for an aero-engine development centre shouldn't be a problem.Japan has threatened to increase its def. budget by 10% because of Chinese aggro,China is increasing its own budget significantly,therefore the least worry for us should be funding as we too are reacting to outside developments.In fact,an RTI should be sent for the funding costs so far for the GTRE and Kaveri.I am sure that it will be found that underfundoing was not a major issue.The answer is that each branch of the Indian defence banyan tree operates on its own turf as a maharajah and is answerable to none.Thus any project which involves several DRDO agencies and PSUs is at the mercy of its slowest delivering unit.SA they say,"a chain is as strong as its weakest link",and as far as the LCA is concerned,the "weakest link" has been the GTRE.

Ps:As for squandering money and misplaced priorities,we are shortly to spend $10 billion on C-17s,deal to be signed when Obama visits!

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 22 Sep 2010 14:02

>>>Geeth sahab what do you plan to do

What would you want me to do? shoot him for his/ISRO's failure?? If yes, pls direct your question to the cowboys.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 22 Sep 2010 14:10

Philip wrote:We have reportedly blown up $8 billion on the CWG,an 18 timnes increase in the cost,so funding $1 billion for an aero-engine development centre shouldn't be a problem.Japan has threatened to increase its def. budget by 10% because of Chinese aggro,China is increasing its own budget significantly,therefore the least worry for us should be funding as we too are reacting to outside developments.In fact,an RTI should be sent for the funding costs so far for the GTRE and Kaveri.I am sure that it will be found that underfundoing was not a major issue.The answer is that each branch of the Indian defence banyan tree operates on its own turf as a maharajah and is answerable to none.Thus any project which involves several DRDO agencies and PSUs is at the mercy of its slowest delivering unit.SA they say,"a chain is as strong as its weakest link",and as far as the LCA is concerned,the "weakest link" has been the GTRE.

Ps:As for squandering money and misplaced priorities,we are shortly to spend $10 billion on C-17s,deal to be signed when Obama visits!

Why, this GTRE bashing Sir?

Look at the Russians, with 50-60 yrs of experience of Jet Engine Development are manufacturing Jet Engines with Thrust to Weight Ratio of 7+ , incomparison to Eurojet's EJ 200 with Thrust to Weight Ratio of 9+. In addition, it seems the Russian Engines are smoky engines.

Being, a critique of GTRE does not help much. GTRE needs the help,support and encouragement from Scientific Organisations, Defence Forces (IAF), GOI and above all , all of us. Mind you GTRE has developed a workable engine.

We need to create a positive impression about our Scientific Organisations, which in turn will force the GOI to do the necessary funding. Rs. 2,500 Crs doesn't help in developing a cutting edge Jet Engine. Even consultancy for Jet Engine development cost thrice that amount.
A root cause analysis needs to done as to which components of the Kaveri are becoming the hurdles in the development of a cutting edge Kaveri Engine.

Solutions for such Issues needs to be found. I am sure our Indian Scientists are capable of finding this. May be with Knowledge Transfer, May be with TOT, May be with hands on experience of manufacturing a foreign Engine in India. May be with out right buy out of off the self Technology, May be with further trial and error. But, all these will require funding from GOI.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Sep 2010 16:48

GTRE "bashing" because they have lied for years about Kaveri's status (see earlier posts),and despite all the decades of work have yet to produce just one engine! But the GTRE alone is not the problem.There is no holistic approach to the engine requirements of the air force and here every agency including the IAF are guilty to an extent.The IN follows a more realistic approach and of the three services has had the best track record of indigenisation,even though it too has faced many problems.At least it has designed several classes of warships -improved Leander,Godavari,B'putra,Delhi,Shivalik,numerous patrol craft,etc.,which are in production.What types of aircraft has the entire aeronautical establishment of the country,HAL,ADE,ADA,XYZ,whatever, designed and are in production?

The answer is not simply throwing even more money to the GTRE ,just like the CWG in the hope that it will "one day" succeed! A thorough tech audit is required of the establishment to see what its shortcomings are ,but as said before an entirely new aero-engine centre working on many types for aircraft,combat and transport,helos,UCAVs,missiles,is required.The revamped GTRE can be but just one division within this new edifice.International aero-engine majors can be roped in for this task in providing a masterplan and whatever assistance is required. It is pathetic to see that barring Kaveri for the LCA,what other engine is being developed indigenously for any of the other projects for the IAF for aircraft and helos? Accountability must be there,time deadlines have to be met.

The services aren't interested in defence PSUs reinventing the wheel,but delivering weapon systems that can go into battle and perform to their touted capabilities.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 22 Sep 2010 16:49

Heard roar of flying today and yesterday too, but could be Jagaurs.

Today afternoon, around 1.40PM, saw one green paint one landing, could be again Jagaur. I saw it from car so couldnt recognize it properly

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 Sep 2010 11:07

Today also, I heard 3 takeoffs and one landing. Couldnt see them

The "beasts"

make lot of noise, I was having early morning meeting, so was at home

Tomorrow also I will be at home, thanks to Ayodhya issue, but not sure I can see them since there are several meetings scheduled, need to attend all of them

sathyaC · Post by **sathyaC** » 23 Sep 2010 11:34

Today also, I heard 3 takeoffs and one landing. Couldnt see them

The "beasts" make lot of noise, I was having early morning meeting, so was at home

Tomorrow also I will be at home, thanks to Ayodhya issue, but not sure I can see them since there are several meetings scheduled, need to attend all of them

LCA is not in town i was not able to see them in the runway they are
testing the jags

from my office i have a birds eye view of the run way,
only a 15ft road is between my office and airport, more over my cabin is in the 2 floor

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Sep 2010 13:53

What use is knowledge if you cant use it? You could keep the kaveri program on indefinitely and they can keep delivering engines that are a generation or two older than current state of the art, which cant be used in any aircraft program(which would have to rely on foreign imports). Then would it make any difference if such a R&D program ever existed?
Foreign collaboration I feel is the only way to assure some level of results for our efforts and resources. BTW people who keep bringing up "screw driver tech" I have a question to ask- amongst the following (non having any 'legacy experience')who is in a better position to develop and implement a certain technology-
> one who is starting with a 'clean slate'
> one who has been assembling this (or a prior generation of that technology) and may be making at least some components(may be some even critical) i.e. having "screw driver tech" or
> perhaps one who has spent a lot of time reverse engineering that technology

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Sep 2010 16:20

I think a very simple comparison to be made here is with the Indian auto industry,which is very dynamic and is experiencing a boom just like the aerospace industry which frankly will be the new "sunshine" industry in India for the next two decades at least.In the auto industry,we have the whole spectrum ofdirect imports,"screwdriver tech",local production/JVs and totally indigenous.But the key factor here is that it is driven by the private sector!

manum · Post by **manum** » 24 Sep 2010 17:14

only difference of motivation in private and government, makes the difference...Ministry must say...whatever be the difficulty, now take your time tell us a deadline yourself...we'll discuss the deadline...and if the objective don't meet at deadline, we must close you down...
and so must we supplement them with proper facilities and whatever is required to beat the stress, of strict deadlines...
no-one must take the time for granted, because they are working for national interest...or they think, no one can afford to throw engine guys out...
I think alternatives should be shown to everyone,and alternatives should be kept as well...(like Mig and Sukhoi) and that should be done by the Ministry itself...or there should be proper mixing of organizations to keep things boiling...

there had been serious miscalculations, again and again...we must generate alternatives...finally whoever is there, there are many things at stake...and time loss is what hits hardest...

situational management is necessary...

delay in one project always hits the other future projects...its criminal to waste time knowingly or due to ignorant miscalculations...

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 25 Sep 2010 10:03

tejas flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1442 Test Flights successfully. (21-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-172, PV3-233,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6)
LCA-Tejas has completed 1431 Test Flights successfully. (19-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-165, PV3-229,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Sep 2010 10:35

suryag wrote:tejas flight test update
LCA-Tejas has completed 1442 Test Flights successfully. (21-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-172, PV3-233,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6)
LCA-Tejas has completed 1431 Test Flights successfully. (19-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-165, PV3-229,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6

7 flights in 2 days for the PV2. Great work!

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 25 Sep 2010 17:51

suryag wrote:tejas flight test update
LCA-Tejas has completed 1442 Test Flights successfully. (21-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-172, PV3-233,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6)
LCA-Tejas has completed 1431 Test Flights successfully. (19-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-165, PV3-229,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6

Questionable thing is, why LSP-1, LSP-3, LSP4-6 are legging in terms of number of test flight? since this all new final configured jets should clock highest number of test flight.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Sep 2010 20:12

Bihanga wrote:
LCA-Tejas has completed 1442 Test Flights successfully. (21-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-172, PV3-233,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6)
LCA-Tejas has completed 1431 Test Flights successfully. (19-Sep-10).
* (TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-165, PV3-229,LSP1-60,LSP2-159,PV5-17, LSP3-15,LSP4-6
Questionable thing is, why LSP-1, LSP-3, LSP4-6 are legging in terms of number of test flight? since this all new final configured jets should clock highest number of test flight.

Why leave valuable engine life in the older jets unused?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 25 Sep 2010 22:48

^^^In addition to that i think PVs have valuable diagnostic instrumentation put in. PV-3 was the one that fired the aam ? and since the set of tests to be undertaken include weapon separation and flying performance it is helpful to go with the pv for the first runs. The LSPs could possibly be used after analysing data from the PVs and since all this is happening in Goa, some BRFite partying there now could click some pics for us

manum · Post by **manum** » 25 Sep 2010 23:04

so are we going to keep PV's or dismantle them after IOC or FOC...and same with LSP's...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Sep 2010 23:45

PratikDas wrote:
Bihanga wrote:Questionable thing is, why LSP-1, LSP-3, LSP4-6 are legging in terms of number of test flight? since this all new final configured jets should clock highest number of test flight.
Why leave valuable engine life in the older jets unused?

It doesn't work that way..this is not about using up engine life on older prototypes just to make up hours. They would've set up a schedule for the prototypes depending on the particular tests that are required to be carried out, which will depend on what all has to be completed before Dec 27 IOC. We know that high AoA trials and weapons/weapons carriage trials were scheduled as well and maybe PVs can do that without any problem.

if PV-2 or 3 has no radar on it, then the test flights carried out were likely related to other aspects, and when the radar trials will be carried out, LSP-2 or 3 will likely be the ones that will do the bulk of the flying. And tests are quite often followed by long periods of grounding, while issues noticed during flight tests are sorted out. sometimes parts can be damaged during flight tests and need to be re-ordered or custom-built, which takes time. There is plenty of data analysis that will be on-going in the background that has to make sense of the data that is being gathered by flight testing. Sometimes that pace can lag behind the flight test pace (because it is no child's play) and then it requires periods of non-flying.

Since no one here knows the intimate details of what exactly is happening in the test flight regime right now, its best to keep quiet and wait till someone gives some insight into that eventually.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Sep 2010 00:08

manum wrote:so are we going to keep PV's or dismantle them after IOC or FOC...and same with LSP's...

They will likely be kept as test vehicles. The TD variants were far too different both internally, avionics and architecture wise, as well as airframe wise and so it possibly was too expensive and time-consuming to bring them both to PV standards which is possibly why they were retired. PVs can be brought to LSP standards with some cost being expended so then they could be used for further weapons, avionics, and flight tests. It is standard practice that the company that develops the fighter generally keeps 1-2 aircraft as test-beds and uses them for further variants' development. Maybe the PVs could serve the purpose for being initial prototypes for the Tejas Mk2 variant as well. Will probably save some time and money. Although there was some mention that one of the LSPs will serve as a test vehicle..maybe that one is ear-marked for conversion later.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 26 Sep 2010 05:38

Philip here is a hypothetical question. Let us say the LCA program was given to Tata,s in 1985 and Kirlosker was asked to develop an engine for this aircraft with whatever expertize was available in the country and to get foreign help if and when necessary . What do you think we would have been looking at in 2010? Here is what I think. We would have a working fighter plane already inducted and flying for the IAF. With all the shenanigans and excuses of Common wealth games "organizing Committee"and considering that all this going on right under the noses of the prime minister and his govt do I need to say more.

Oh just a word about the capabilities of our civi govt that just to make a small flyover bridge they have to call in the armed forces. God bless India

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Sep 2010 06:12

you don't need to ask a hypothetical question, it actually happened, rajiv gandhi asked the pvt sector to come on board in developing the LCA, all of them refused since they didn't have the capability.

it would help if you actually tried to find out the real situation and the tech bottlenecks instead of passing overblown opinion of pvt sector's mythical strength as fact. do you think that if the idea of foreign help occurred to you, the DRDO people who do this for a living are so stupid that it didn't occur to them ?
was foreign tech help forthcoming ? is it now ? why should anyone part with their hard earned tech knowledge ?

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 26 Sep 2010 06:30

Of course they do not have the capability because they are never given the chance. What excuse does the govt have after L and T has spent a large sum of money and they are not being given the contract to build the subs.

DRDO and similar govt units which have existed for over 50 yrs had there chances and they blew it. How about making the playing field even and see who wins, the mythically strong private sector or the wonderful public sector defense units like DRDO. Most Indians know the answer to that question.

As to tech transfer do you honestly believe that we built that nuclear sub without significant technical help from Russia ?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Sep 2010 08:37

snahata, did you actually read what Rahul posted?

rajiv gandhi asked the pvt sector to come on board in developing the LCA, all of them refused since they didn't have the capability.

So what "chance" are you talking about? The L&T sub contract has nothing to do with the LCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Sep 2010 09:27

snahata wrote:Of course they do not have the capability because they are never given the chance.

snahata - the fact is that critical technologies for aerospace are protected by those who have them. So if the GoI departments did not have those techs - Indian private companies also did not have them.

By technology I mean that knowledge of aerodynamics, materials sciences and designs cannot come from books but only by actually doing it and figuring out what works. For example a senior (60+ year old) designer in 1985 would have known right away what was possible and what was not possible because of experience in the field from 1950. In 1950 he would have worked under his guru who has seen aviation from 1920.

Neither of these was true for India so there was no way it could happen, Companies like McDonnell, Douglas, Boeing, Dassault, Bell and Hawker Siddeley were the products of decades of design experience in private hands even back in 1950 itself. L&T and Kirloskar were babes in the wood with no in house research and nobody would have given them the designers or the material tech. Kirloskar particularly was very small - I have some family connections with the Kirloskar group from the early 1960s and have a good idea of what they had.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 26 Sep 2010 22:59

snahata wrote:Of course they do not have the capability because they are never given the chance. What excuse does the govt have after L and T has spent a large sum of money and they are not being given the contract to build the subs.

DRDO and similar govt units which have existed for over 50 yrs had there chances and they blew it. How about making the playing field even and see who wins, the mythically strong private sector or the wonderful public sector defense units like DRDO. Most Indians know the answer to that question.

Strawman arguments..Rahul clearly said that the pvt. sector was INVITED to participate in the LCA project and REFUSED. What part of this do you not understand ? Your "hypothetical scenario" of Kirloskar and Tatas building the LCA and its engine is bunkum. They have neither ANY experience nor ANY expertise in the field of aircraft design and manufacture or gas turbine design and manufacture. It doesn't come overnight and has to be built up over time. Blame the GoI which was socialist and didn’t bring in private sector players into aircraft manufacture and design in the 1970s. Maybe if they had done that then, they might have been of some use for the LCA.

The fact is that even HAL was not full willing to go and develop the LCA on its own which meant that the ADA had to be formed and work farmed out to several DRDO labs, many of which did a fine job within the budget and time. Making statements like "DRDO and similar govt units which have existed for over 50 yrs had there chances and they blew it" is so general that its quite clear that you have done no real in-depth reading on this subject and are just making some wild claims..that argument can be turned around to say that the private sector had the opportunity to participate on the LCA and they blew it. Even today, the only way in which a private major like M&M can acquire expertise in aircraft building is by going and gobbling up some tiddly widdly Aussie unit that makes 5-10 seaters. HAL has had more expertise than that for decades. .The L&T submarine issue is a totally different case and there is no case for bringing that example into the LCA argument. L&T, Tatas , M&M, Kirloskar, etc. none have any relevant experience in this field whatsoever.

Possibly the only advantage they have is that if they cannot do something within the country they won't waste money on R&D but will go "tie-up" or do a JV with some European country or outsource the work to them instead. Good luck doing that and keeping to your budget, that too if its not some critical technology.