LCA News and Discussions

[Kanson]

I get that- but overstrengthened by how much ? In aircraft structures, even 1 lb of extra weight in a large part is considered excess and unless prohibitively expensive to be implemented as a weight reduction measure, they will reduce its weight. Here cost of material is just one aspect. It is the overall effect over the life of the part that is of bigger concern. The higher fuel burn as a result of 1 lb of additional weight or the lowered performance as multiple such 1 lb excess weight parts are added up.

And for that reason, a factor of safety of 1.5 for Ultimate loads is almost always the standard. There may be some variations here or there but the general value is 1.5. Aircraft are designed to FAR or MIL specifications and these factors are specified there.

While it may be judged majorly by the fuel economy, long range, cargo capacity or such factors for transport aircraft, it is speed, manoeuvres and then comes range & load for the fighters. It is a design choice. May be overstrengthening is done as part of design factor for increasing the safety, accommodation for system growth and for operation in adverse environments. Whichever way that can be termed, over strengthening is part of fighter design.

Fighters like LCA take more than a decade or more for development. During this time it is possible that the entire scope of the project could change and the empty weight take a flight. It doesn't matter whether it is LCA or F-35, growth of empty weight is common to all programmes. Depending upon the designers, they think throu' this and make accommodation for that so that it can still retain the safety factor of 1.5. Another way of solving is restricting aircraft to do less than set design parameters, like doing Gs less than 9, if it is designed for 9. Thats why you see some fighter jets Mark I ver are restricted to pull less Gs. Or the initial batch is restricted to carry less instruments/sensors or their missions restricted followed by block II with improved design.

FAR 25 refers to transport aircraft. Fighter aircraft frequently meet their design limit load of 9G and can do more with the override option compared to transport/cargo aircraft. There are pilots who can do 10G without G-suit. Fighters do that with the intention of doing that. Whereas transport do that by mistake or in some emergency situation. As you yourself mentioned below, with the design limit load set, both are having different profiles in flight characteristics.

For civilian planes, limit loads are themselves seen infrequently but fighters are different in that they will see the Limit loads far more often than civilian aircraft due to their mission profiles being different.

So how is that both should be considered with the same safety factor of 1.5 ? To me, it is like saying Martui-800, Humvee and BMW are one and the same. As i see it, it is just a guideline.

If i'm not wrong, the same FAR 25 says, scatter factor should be min 2. Is everyone restricting the scatter factor to 2 only? With service life expected to be, say 6000 hrs for fighters, by implementing the scatter factor to more than 2 are they not over strengthening the aircraft?

Even the two seat aircraft......!

The CH 2000 aircraft was certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 31, 1994 with the issuance of Type Certificate No. TA5CH. The CH 2000, as presently produced, is approved for spins, and when configured with the appropriate option package, is certified for IFR operation.

Certified in the Utility Category (+4.4 / -2.2 g at max. gross weight), the aircraft was designed with a design safety factor of two, compared to 1.5 for standard FAR 23 certified aircraft. The extra safety factor gives the aircraft +8.8/-4.4G ultimate load factor. Recently, the CH2000 was the first aircraft to be fully approved by the new European Certification Committee, certifying the aircraft in all European countries simultaneously.

The CH 2000 airframe has no " life time limit" since it has been proven that if an aircraft is designed by using classic construction methods and materials, and if the design safety margin is 2, it will not fatigue appreciably during its projected lifetime.

This might be semantics. But to go in detail-

Limit loads are not the loads being designed to. The Ultimate loads are the ones that you have to show your part as being good for withstanding. So, you don't look for your structure's margin of safety at the Limit load, but if you have little over zero margin of safety at Ultimate loads, it is considered acceptable. The structure should be able to withstand that ultimate load for upto 3 seconds and not fail. That is what Prodyut Das was talking about-100% is too little and 101% is too much and the margin of safety should be such that the part fails between 100 and 101%. By doing so it is automatically passing for Limit loads and just about passing for Ultimate loads.

As i said before, i really appreciate your reply for chipping in with precise terms, explanations, FAR rules and may ask you to do more in future as it may bring more understanding.

Many times i'm not following the official jargon/semantics as it is like straitjacketing myself to the existing thought process without any liberty. Anyway as you are in the know, you must also be knowing the convention of mentioning any load acting on the a/c or the load the a/c is subjected to in terms of Design limit load, particularly in doing the structural load test. So I think, I'm not wrong in picking the Prodyut Das's statement as i did.

[Kanson]

there are laws regarding it...means the structure must fulfill the minimum of it..so the safety factor of load to strength ratio is calculated through that "factor of safety"...that is subjected to rule book...having it beyond the law is a waste... or being too cautious ...which happened in LCA navy landing gear...
Like the hawda bridge of Calcutta...it was first bridge ever made by English to that magnitude...so it's safety factor was multiple times of the load, strength ratio...and hence it still survives today (but it was due lto ess knowledge if material behavior i.e.steel)

Good to know that. Infact i was not entirely correct when i mentioned the FOS for bridges. In my humble opinion, engineers interpret rules and follow standards but developers/designers/innovators set standards and define rules.

[manum]

Good to know that. Infact i was not entirely correct when i mentioned the FOS for bridges. In my humble opinion, engineers interpret rules and follow standards but developers/designers/innovators set standards and define rules.

I wont get into anymore...the way the words you use in same breath "developers/designers/innovators"...are you boxing in air?
there are by-laws for everything, and from those constraints you innovate...but I don't think most of guys do have much experience about designing...so they try to construct reality with blind eye and few feelers...and do blah blah...

and quote complex papers and try to interpret...there is a lot of difference when one belongs to design industry and one talking second hand opinions...and passing judgement to most humble ways of putting things...and there is no engineer, engineer if one is not a designer...and those engineers are whatever three words you put together...and in industry, of whatever form...
but leave it...

[putnanja]

deleted as the LSP5 article was posted earlier ...

[putnanja]

I wont get into anymore...the way the words you use in same breath "developers/designers/innovators"...are you boxing in air?
there are by-laws for everything, and from those constraints you innovate...but I don't think most of guys do have much experience about designing...so they try to construct reality with blind eye and few feelers...and do blah blah...

and quote complex papers and try to interpret...there is a lot of difference when one belongs to design industry and one talking second hand opinions...and passing judgement to most humble ways of putting things...and there is no engineer, engineer if one is not a designer...and those engineers are whatever three words you put together...and in industry, of whatever form...
but leave it...

manum, you don't make any sense at all. What are you trying to say? Can you please put in a cohert post? Kanson makes some good arguments, please rebuke them if you can factually. Are you in the aero-industry or engineering industry?

[Katare]

PPD is just talking about aggressive weight reduction practices. When he says design load, I don't think he means max laod exerted on that part by aircraft. Design load in product development means what test I should pass for my part to be accepted for the said aircraft. This test specification and test method is prescribed/approved by your customer and includes all safety margins. As a supplier of non-weight sensitive products a supplier also adds additional safety margin to ensure better yield and easier production processes. As per PPD in aircraft design you must come down as close to your design value as possible if you haven't made your weight goals for the end product. This you have to achieve by taking every extra ounce of weight that is giving you that additional safety margin that is not required of you.

[Kartik]

PPD is just talking about aggressive weight reduction practices. When he says design load, I don't think he means max laod exerted on that part by aircraft. Design load in product development means what test I should pass for my part to be accepted for the said aircraft. This test specification and test method is prescribed/approved by your customer and includes all safety margins.

Katare, it is all fine and dandy for an academician to say that a part must always fail between 100% and 101% of the Ultimate load (i.e 150-151% of Limit Load). In reality, things are not so easy and it requires a lot of skill and experience to be able to get FEM models, wind tunnel data, etc. so good and with such accuracy that all the loads are modelled as close to reality as possible so that the individual components whose loads are arrived at from the global FEM, are not over-designed. As was demonstrated by the A-380's wing failing before it reached 100% of Ultimate load- it failed between 145% to 150% of Limit load and a variance of about 3% from the FEM models was shown, which was considered to be excellent. The FEM models showed that no margin was there at the 150% of the Limit load but it was less conservative in reality. see this article on the A-380

But Airbus' experience in this issue is backed by more than 3 decades of knowledge and the best brains in Europe. India is still behind the curve as compared to them and to expect that if they were a little more conservative then it’s a failure is being too critical.

On the 787 it didn't fail at 150% of the Limit load (i.e Ultimate load) but they didn't go beyond that 150% Limit load to actually test it to failure. And we know that they're busy trying to shave off weight.

The point is that Prodyut Das can sit by the side and be critical but it is a time-consuming and a tedious task to reduce weight. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, and it will be done for the Tejas Mk2.

Design load is generally the Ultimate load. But on further thinking I realised that in some cases, the limit load is also analysed because the part should not yield for limit loads- for instance the part may show plastic deformation at Ultimate but the requirements state that the part should not yield at Limit loads, in which case it will be designed to not yield at Limit loads. Same goes for fastener patterns. In that case, the Limit load would be the design load (and in that sense Kanson would be right- those would be the Design Limit loads) since even if the part has yielded between 100% Limit load and 150% Limit load it might be ok as long as it is still within the plastic deformation curve of the material at 150% Limit load. If it can withstand that for 3 seconds it has been shown to be good for certification.

As a supplier of non-weight sensitive products a supplier also adds additional safety margin to ensure better yield and easier production processes. As per PPD in aircraft design you must come down as close to your design value as possible if you haven't made your weight goals for the end product. This you have to achieve by taking every extra ounce of weight that is giving you that additional safety margin that is not required of you.

Suppliers don't get to design the part on their own generally- the OEM does the design and assigns the part drawings to the supplier to build the part to those specifications, with built in tolerances. If the supplier cannot match those tolerances, then it is the OEM's responsibility to get them to do it. We've seen in Boeing's 787 case how badly new suppliers did and how Boeing had to eventually take back design work and do it on its own to make sure they were within weight targets. it was a blow to their model of having suppliers do specialist jobs that they were just not experienced enough to do.

In the LCA's case, the task of design of all sorts of avionics, avionics boxes, and other flight items was handed over to different labs. They might not have been as conscious about keeping weight to a minimum as organisations that have been in this business for a very long time, may have been. Even specialist organisations like NAL turned out a super heavy Saras when it first rolled out indicating that the Weights Group within these organisations are just not doing a very good job or are very inexperienced and not following up on initial weight targets.

I mentioned earlier as well that this whole "Do everything yourself" mantra on the LCA has led to even the more complicated structural parts like the landing gear being done within India instead of being sub-contracted to Messier Dowty, Goodrich or others who would've easily been lighter because they know the whole design and manufacturing process in and out. Every other fighter and civilian aircraft in the world does it that way and does that for a reason. After all landing gear weight alone can be between 3% to 6% of the total aircraft weight and if the design team is too conservative, they will add quite a bit of excess weight. I mean why spend such a big amount on consultation from LM or EADS on how to re-design the landing gear when MD or Goodrich would've designed and supplied the part to you from scratch and met your weight and timeline targets?

Unless one looks at the way in which the indigenisation goals have been set in the LCA program, one cannot really see why the final results fell short on both time-line and weight estimates.

[svinayak]

landing gear being done within India instead of being sub-contracted to Messier Dowty, Goodrich or others who would've easily been lighter because they know the whole design and manufacturing process in and out. Every other fighter and civilian aircraft in the world does it that way and does that for a reason.

design the landing gear when MD or Goodrich would've designed and supplied the part to you from scratch and met your weight and timeline targets?

Unless one looks at the way in which the indigenisation goals have been set in the LCA program, one cannot really see why the final results fell short on both time-line and weight estimates.

If countries where these landing gears are made impose sanctions and trade is stopped then this will not work

[Kartik]

landing gear being done within India instead of being sub-contracted to Messier Dowty, Goodrich or others who would've easily been lighter because they know the whole design and manufacturing process in and out. Every other fighter and civilian aircraft in the world does it that way and does that for a reason.

design the landing gear when MD or Goodrich would've designed and supplied the part to you from scratch and met your weight and timeline targets?

Unless one looks at the way in which the indigenisation goals have been set in the LCA program, one cannot really see why the final results fell short on both time-line and weight estimates.

If countries where these landing gears are made impose sanctions and trade is stopped then this will not work

And it will work to have imported engines for the entire Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 series, is it ?

[Indranil]

^^^ I see what you are saying. Obviously there is lot of sense in that. However when LCA was conceived of, they might have decided to get everything in-house. They intended Kaveri to be fielded and MMR to be ready. Today they are not and hence we have to go for the GE engines and Elta frontend.

However, I don't know what they thought about the missiles. May be they trusted Russia to always provide us the needful.

[Katare]

Kartik,

He is talking in the sense "how it should be" not that it is achieved everytime or doable by everyone in practice. The goal is to be between 100-101 but your sucess is measured by how much you miss it by, hitting bulls eye is rare for even good shooters. When you over design or go conservative because you lack experience, confidence and data than you end up over weight.

Up-side is over time you can get lighter as and when you have more date, confidence and experience

[NRao]

When India becomes part of the supply chain, just a matter of time, what kind of sanctions can any country apply?

[Pratyush]

India can only become part of the supply chain when it has inhouse experties to do the work needed by it systems. So in that way the work done in the Tejas is extreamly vital. Even if imported items are available for it. The ADA and the associated labs bust carry on the work to get a hundred % indiginisation for the project.

The question is not whether we can afford to do this.

But rather can we afford not to do this.

[Kanson]

Kartik,

He is talking in the sense "how it should be" not that it is achieved everytime or doable by everyone in practice. The goal is to be between 100-101 but your sucess is measured by how much you miss it by, hitting bulls eye is rare for even good shooters. When you over design or go conservative because you lack experience, confidence and data than you end up over weight.

Of course, as per theory, as we wish, this is "how it should be". Was this revealed for the first time by Prof Das that we don't know before? Even before Wright brothers shown how to fly, those who attempted were very well aware of this over weight. Weight consciousness was exhibited right from the earlier days when human attempted to fly.

Disagreement(to put it midly) with Das is not about for stating the obvious facts but how he carried himself in that article. Through out his article he didn't stop with criticizing Tejas design alone but went further in deriding the men behind it. You probably know that there is nothing called the best design. Usually well written critical articles in west discuss about the design but not the people behind it. He compared air scoop of Tejas with Kfir, without mentioning what he felt wrong with that, he went on to state this air scoop design is "symptomatic of entire design:disinterest or inability on details." Funny thing is he was not so sure of why ADA made such design changes through out the article, but he is so sure about the disinterest and inability of the design team. You see the irony?! It didn't stop here.

Up-side is over time you can get lighter as and when you have more date, confidence and experience

You say so. But Prof Das feels, ADA skipped the weight optimization restricting the structural load between 100-101% is due to pure bureaucratic upbringing of the people behind the programme. He doesn't specify where the problem is. He was not sure whether ADA attempted such weight optimization. But concluded, the fault he assumed is due to bureaucratic upbringing of design team and that too for want of better words. If not he could have used further mean words, i guess. Not sure whether this bureaucratic upbringing is the reason for every designers making their structure over strengthened!

Further, he makes such claim by twisting facts unbecoming to his title, Professor. So people naturally doubts about his motives behind such writings. So what this twisting facts? Decided to stack facts against over-strengthened wings, Prof Das quotes the example of Fokker E.V wing design. He states, E.V wing failed becoz of over strengthening.

So what we know about Fokker E.V. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII

The first production E.V aircraft were shipped to Jasta 6 in late July. The new monoplane was also delivered to Jasta 1, Jasta 19, Jasta 24 and Jasta 36. Leutnant Emil Rolff scored the first kill in an E.V on August 17, 1918, but two days later he was killed when his aircraft's wing collapsed in flight. After another E.V of Jasta 19 crashed, the Idflieg grounded all E.V aircraft. Pending the investigation of these wing failures, production ceased at the Fokker Flugzeugwerke. According to Fokker, the wing failures were caused by the army technical bureau, which had forced him to modify the original design by over-strengthening the rear main spar. This faulty design allegedly caused the wing to twist and fail. Fokker claimed that this defect was resolved by reverting to his original design.

According to most other accounts, the source of the wing failures lay not in the design, but in shoddy and rushed construction. Fokker had subcontracted construction of the E.V wings to the Gebrüder Perzina Pianoforte Fabrik factory. Due to poor quality control, the spar "caps", forming the upper and lower members of each spar assembly, had been placed too far apart during the fabrication. Because the resulting spars were vertically too large to pass through the ribs, excess material was simply planed away from the exposed upper and lower surfaces of the cap pieces, leaving the assembled spars dangerously weak. Other problems included water damage to glued parts, and pins that splintered the spars, rather than securing them.[1]

Tests showed that when properly constructed, the original E.V wing had a considerable margin of safety. Satisfied that the basic design was safe, the Idflieg authorized continued production after personnel changes and improved quality control measures at the Perzina factory.

Another link..http://www.roden.eu/HTML/004.htm[quote]The performance was impressive and pilots nicknamed the plane the "Flying Razor". But after two flying accidents on August 16 and 19, when a wing failed in flight, the type was immediately grounded for investigation. Production was stopped, and all previously made E.V's were returned to the Fokker factory.
The wing structure was strengthened, and workers were more careful with assembly procedures. The aircraft returned to the front during October as the "Fokker D.VIII".[/quote]

Another example:

PPD is just talking about aggressive weight reduction practices.

Aggressive weight reduction practices? Lets see how aggressive is he through his statements. You can be aggressive by restricting the strength and there by weight over 100%(Ultimate load) to bare minimum, so it will fail between 100 - 101%. To be aggressive, which one is smaller? 100-101% in ultimate load or the 150-151% in design limit load?
Say 10000 Units is the design limit load, then ultimate load is 15000 Units. Difference between 101 & 100 % of Ultimate load is 150 Units. Whereas the difference between 151 & 150% of design limit load is only 100 Units. To be aggressive, Prof Das should have expressed the load in terms of design limit load to show realistic he could be. Just a small matter only. But considering how he stack "facts" only to show Tejas in bad light, why not one should highlight his mistakes. May be I'm wondering his entire article is full of such mistakes.

[NRao]

India can only become part of the supply chain when it has inhouse experties to do the work needed by it systems. So in that way the work done in the Tejas is extreamly vital. Even if imported items are available for it. The ADA and the associated labs bust carry on the work to get a hundred % indiginisation for the project.

The question is not whether we can afford to do this.

But rather can we afford not to do this.

That supply chain belongs to the LCA. (That will not help the international SC that much.)

To be sanction proof, India will have to join an international supply chain. IMHO, that is one of the major selling points for the US companies.

[vic]

Prof something has made rhetorical statement like, 100% efficient but 101% too much but the point is that no equipment in a manned plane which will have a flying life of 5000 to 10000 hours has margin of only 1%. Further, margins have to calculated for a equipment based on actual flying and working profile which takes time and actual flying experience. So again it is “difficult” to calculate margin of safety. That is why we read about things like premature ageing of plane parts when they are flown aggressively and conversely we get things like flying hours increased by 4000 to say 8000 hours. Anybody can understand the utter nonsense spouted by the professor simply by asking him how to calculate that the safety margin of, say a Boeing 787 landing gear which per him should only be 1% and it should fail at only 1% overload. Words are easy especially when they paid for! Though I still say that the R&D budget for AMCA should be US$ 20 Billion over next 20 years.

[Katare]

Kanson,

That is your understanding of what he has written and your criticisim of the same. I do not see any thing wrong in your criticism of the person or his work. I also do not see anything wrong in the way he criticised LCA or people behind the project.

Also I don't think he can write anything that you or someone else like you would not know already. I myself do not agree with a lot of what he has written especially his extra imphasis on undermining technology but i do understand that in his own style he is conveying the message that a lot of folks get carried away with new techs. Most of these techs are mostly not useful for most countries for there requirements. So I choose to take the message and ignore the rehtoric and personal styles. You dislike it I am sure there is an anti-Kanson somewhere who loves that style.

[Juggi G]

DRDO Delivers Life Support System For Tejas Pilots

[Drishyaman]

Prof something has made rhetorical statement like, 100% efficient but 101% too much but the point is that no equipment in a manned plane which will have a flying life of 5000 to 10000 hours has margin of only 1%. Further, margins have to calculate for equipment based on actual flying and working profile which takes time and actual flying experience. So again it is “difficult” to calculate margin of safety. That is why we read about things like premature ageing of plane parts when they are flown aggressively and conversely we get things like flying hours increased by 4000 to say 8000 hours. Anybody can understand the utter nonsense spouted by the professor simply by asking him how to calculate that the safety margin of, say a Boeing 787 landing gear which per him should only be 1% and it should fail at only 1% overload. Words are easy especially when they paid for! Though I still say that the R&D budget for AMCA should be US$ 20 Billion over next 20 years.

Vic, I think I can see logic in your point. The Prof. probably did not consider the thing called “Fatigue” while giving his design suggestions.

Design load is generally the Ultimate load. But on further thinking I realized that in some cases, the limit load is also analyzed because the part should not yield for limit loads- for instance the part may show plastic deformation at Ultimate but the requirements state that the part should not yield at Limit loads, in which case it will be designed to not yield at Limit loads. Same goes for fastener patterns. In that case, the Limit load would be the design load (and in that sense Kanson would be right- those would be the Design Limit loads) since even if the part has yielded between 100% Limit load and 150% Limit load it might be ok as long as it is still within the plastic deformation curve of the material at 150% Limit load. If it can withstand that for 3 seconds it has been shown to be good for certification.

Kartik, I think the Prof. even didn’t consider the effect of “Fatigue” on “Plastic Deformation” of the material or did he ?

[Juggi G]

LCA Tejas To Lose "LCA" Tag In February 2011
LiveFist

When the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Tejas) flies at Aero India 2011, it will no longer be referred to as the "LCA", an acronym it has had since the project took birth in the early 1980s. The LCA tag will be dropped permanently, though a replacement HF (Hindustan Fighter) designation remains inexplicably delayed. The original plan was to have an HF designation in place by October this year ahead of initial operational clearance (IOC) in December. Will be posting in detail shortly on the various hurdles the team is still grappling with ahead of IOC. These include angle of attack, sustained turn rate (STR) and speed at low altitudes.

Base Image Copyright Pavel Romsy

[SaiK]

Will be posting in detail shortly on the various hurdles the team is still grappling with ahead of IOC. These include angle of attack, sustained turn rate (STR) and speed at low altitudes.

Would be interesting to know about these "grappling" aspects.

[sevoke]

I really dislike the font used for "Tejas". Also I feel the name should go on the tail. DRDO needs people who know philosophy of design and aesthetics.

[Indranil]

^^^ I don't think that they would mind if you send them an awesome one. Who knows you see Tejas /HF-xx painted the way you want it. You can always route it through Hari Nair sir

So go ahead my friend. Give us a wonderful design.

[rohitvats]

I don't know whether this is known but as per last issue of Force, the first Tejas Squadron will be formed by May 2011.

[Pratyush]

Rohit,

When people speak of Sq do they mean fully capable Sq or one used for providing training and developing tactics for the AC. I ask as have no access to force.

[srai]

...
LCA Tejas To Lose "LCA" Tag In February 2011
LiveFist

When the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Tejas) flies at Aero India 2011, it will no longer be referred to as the "LCA", an acronym it has had since the project took birth in the early 1980s. The LCA tag will be dropped permanently, though a replacement HF (Hindustan Fighter) designation remains inexplicably delayed. The original plan was to have an HF designation in place by October this year ahead of initial operational clearance (IOC) in December. Will be posting in detail shortly on the various hurdles the team is still grappling with ahead of IOC. These include angle of attack, sustained turn rate (STR) and speed at low altitudes.

Base Image Copyright Pavel Romsy

So far HAL has already used these numbers:

• HT-2
• HUL-26 Pushpak
• HAOP-27 Krishak
• HA-31 Basant
• HPT-32 Deepak
• HTT-40 (New Turbo Trainer)
• HJT-16 Kiran
• HJT-36 Sitara
• HJT-39 CAT (cancelled)
• HF-24 Marut

Numbers Not Assigned Yet:

1. LCA Tejas -> likely between HF-41-49 (logical from HJT-36->39->HTT-40 but will also denote 4th-Gen)
2. ALH Dhruv -> HHU-XX??
3. MLH -> HHU-XX??
4. LCH -> HHA-XX??
5. MTA -> HTA-XX??
6. FGFA -> HF-50 (similar to PAK-FA T-50 Russian designation) (5th-Gen)
7. AMCA -> HF-51-59?? (5th-Gen)

Note: Assuming number designations are not repeated.

[Willy]

Whatever the name. The LCA will continue to be refered to as the LCA by all and sundry.

[Nihat]

I doubt it'll remain a LIGHT combat aircraft for much longer, it move towards being a M2kish MRCA has been rather swift off late.

[Manish Jain]

LSP-5.. It was supposed to fly "anytime now" a week ago. What happened?

[rohitvats]

Rohit,

When people speak of Sq do they mean fully capable Sq or one used for providing training and developing tactics for the AC. I ask as have no access to force.

All it says is that the first Tejas Squadron will be formed by May 2011.

And even if it for training and development of tactics/SOP, it will have to be a squadron - something like induction of other aircraft in IAF.

[Pratyush]

Another question to any one who knows, when it reaches the IOC, wont that result in the creation (??) of a Tejas Sq at that stage it self.

[merlin]

Another question to any one who knows, when it reaches the IOC, wont that result in the creation (??) of a Tejas Sq at that stage it self.

It will be a very understrength squadron

[Pratyush]

but a sq none the less right?

[Indrajit]

HF-2000 would suit Tejas the most,though some would like to identify the nomenclature with M2K but still after HF-24 this designation would be the most suitable.JMT

[kuldipchager]

Marut 2000 will be nice.HF 2000 is agood as well.

[Yagnasri]

Naming game again started here.

[Jagan]

So far HAL has already used these numbers:

• HT-2
• HUL-26 Pushpak
• HAOP-27 Krishak
• HA-31 Basant
• HPT-32 Deepak
• HTT-40 (New Turbo Trainer)
• HJT-16 Kiran
• HJT-36 Sitara
• HJT-39 CAT (cancelled)
• HF-24 Marut

good post. the following are also used at some point of time

HF-73
HAC-33
HF-25
HT-10

[Rahul M]

HTT-34

there was also a HTT-35 I think.

[Austin]

HTT-35 was a beautiful turboprop trainer proposed by HAL but like CAT it got cancelled , now we are in the market for a similar trainer

[Rahul M]

HTT-40 is just HTT-35 15 years later with a new name.