LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Apr 2015 22:49

Expedite? Doesn't the IAF want new nose cones and IFR probes? IAF wants FOC before SP doesn't it? Then why talk about HAL and ADA?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 28 Apr 2015 22:55

Vivek K wrote:Expedite? Doesn't the IAF want new nose cones and IFR probes? IAF wants FOC before SP doesn't it? Then why talk about HAL and ADA?

Sir this is not the root cause of the problem. However under ideal condition with IAF on board and subservient to HAL and ADA wishes, how quick can HAL start churning out MK.1 and ADA / HAL combine come up with MK.2. Any concrete details or only IAF bashing

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Apr 2015 23:21

Dhiraj,

What is the root cause of the problem?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 28 Apr 2015 23:36

Cybaru wrote:Dhiraj,

What is the root cause of the problem?

Sir, is nose cone and IFR the root cause ? do u agree ? lets leave the root cause aside for now .
I had a simple question for which any concrete and objective details will be helpful [lets also leave the past behind which cannot be changed].

under ideal condition with IAF on board and subservient to HAL and ADA wishes, how quick can HAL start churning out MK.1 and ADA / HAL combine come up with MK.2.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Apr 2015 23:50

Indranil:

Have a look at this paper. Rather poorly written and misleading title. But it gives some numbers for deflection of some delta wing design with LCA's payload on one wing.

Design and Structural Analysis of Delta Wing Payloads of Light Combat Aircraft (TEJAS)
http://www.ijedr.org/papers/IJEDR1404017.pdf

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 29 Apr 2015 00:22

indranil: Thanks for the link.

shiv: I am no Aero guru - so put me in the orthogonal complement (but I am confident I am not g***u either). My interest in the paper was because CFD results are verified using wind tunnel experiments. Some of these will give a rough idea of stopping criteria to simulation folks.

In general if the (relative) error threshold is high (i.e. loose threshold), algorithms - especially iterative ones - can be speeded up, the argument being that there is no need for the simulation to solve to a higher accuracy than what is adequate from engineering point of view.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 29 Apr 2015 01:12

nileshjr wrote:Indranil:

Have a look at this paper. Rather poorly written and misleading title. But it gives some numbers for deflection of some delta wing design with LCA's payload on one wing.

Design and Structural Analysis of Delta Wing Payloads of Light Combat Aircraft (TEJAS)
http://www.ijedr.org/papers/IJEDR1404017.pdf

It is also a very rough model and the analysis can be done almost in a week - start to finish. Carbon fiber material is assumed to be isotropic, non-linearities not taken into account. Also why are they not using codes developed by NAL?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Apr 2015 02:01

I agree. That paper does not have much weight. It reads more like the report of an homework assignment.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 29 Apr 2015 02:28

In fact, ANSYS has a layered element which allows up to 99 layers.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Apr 2015 03:52

Dhiraj, HAL will start churning out LCAs one the IAF commits to the fighter. Give an order of 200 not 20 and then ask this question. What sort of manufacturing facility does one set up for 40 units? Pilot scale/ Lab scale. This is the same question that Mr. Philip keeps asking about the Arjun without the IA committing to one of the best Tanks in Asia at this moment.

Did India back of from the Gorshkov or even the Sukhois because they were years late.? Let me understand your question - what you're wanting is to abandon domestic Industry and R&D in favor of making other countries rich and then begging them for spares for the next 4 decades?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Apr 2015 04:34

^ Come now Vivek, there is more to this than the IAF''s attitude and we all know it. Where are the birds from the first batch of 20 IOC aircraft? Can we at least see a couple of these? IOC II was achieved in 2013 - all we have seen is one SP aircraft so far. If I am reading this right, HAL's production ramp up was so slow that it happened to coincide with (no surprise) a delayed FOC date.

Overpromise and under-deliver seems to be the name of the game with the HAL/ADA combine, no wonder end user and program watchers are ticked!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Apr 2015 04:38

Vivek K wrote:Expedite? Doesn't the IAF want new nose cones and IFR probes? IAF wants FOC before SP doesn't it? Then why talk about HAL and ADA?

No, not for the first 20 IOC standard birds - there was no such stipulation. IFR probes et al., were only a requirement for the FOC std. and since IOC II SPs are nowhere in sight, now we have 36 of the 40 birds ordered at FOC standard. Forget the 36, can HAL please show us the first four IOC LCAs?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Apr 2015 04:51

That is a very valid criticism of HAL/ADA. If one starts setting up the line after IOC-II is achieved, there is no way, one can see serially produce aircraft before 2-3 years. HAL/ADA was fully aware of this and yet it kept making promises which it certainly could not keep.

But CM, there is a factual error in your posts. The aircrafts produced since IOC-II are: LSP7, LSP8, SP1, PV6 and NP2. Anyways, this is far from satisfactory.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Apr 2015 05:32

Come now CM, barring the C-17s and the P-8s not a single piece of hardware with the Indian armed forces (Russian/ French or from other sources) was received on time. So why the double standard for the LCA. Yes it is a point that HAL can be criticized for. But IAF should work with HAL to overcome problems like they do with foreign vendors instead of pooh poohing HAL from the sidelines.

Or select the option of begging the French and the Russians for spares.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Apr 2015 06:13

I think that is a rather false comparison - Are you forgetting that the order for the first 20 LCA was given in 2005 with a follow on order of another 20 declared? When was the last time a fighter ordered by the IAF took so long to come through?

As far as handholding OEMs goes, after 2005, the IAF has been quite proactive. IIRC they appointed a 14 member team to work with HAL/ADA around the same time. Question remains - how many times has the LCA been delayed? I think most of us have stopped keeping track. Perhaps a better question might be when have HAL/ADA ever met their deadlines (self appointed ones by the way).

Having said this, we all know what a monumental effort the Tejas has been. Not saying that the IAF can't have done better, but laying the blame squarely on the IAF is ridiculous.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Apr 2015 06:44

Well you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. The order for 20 was given with the rider that they will be to FOC standard. Then FOC was shifted to suit a better nose cone.

Now we have AM Matheswaran stating that "Right now, the LCA is going the same way as the HF-24.Two major failures of the programme,the engine and AESA radar".

Was the AESA radar a part of the GSQR? Sure it must be in the upgrade/MLU path for the aircraft but to expect the world and make it contingent for FOCs and delay SPs and then complain about delay in aircraft has to be the most ridiculous aspect of it all. This is just like IA claiming that the Dhanush had a faulty barrel by using faulty ammo with it.

Try mating the Astra to the Rafale and see what it costs!! We've just completed a useless upg of M2ks (without engine upg) for more than what new M2ks would have cost.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Apr 2015 08:12

Vivek K wrote:...

Now we have AM Matheswaran stating that "Right now, the LCA is going the same way as the HF-24.Two major failures of the programme,the engine and AESA radar".

..

This gent has retired and if I am right he is some sort of advisor in HAL.

Btw, you are so anti IAF, that countering you is a waste of time and yet I am on a rant. Attitudes like yours, both in IAF and HAL, over a long period have ensured that the relationship will remain where it is.

Whether you like it or not your (and mine) Air Force is among the better Air Forces in the world. The difference in opinion and all the heartburn is because of procurement.

At a time when in last 03 years alone IAF has stood out for its Search & Rescue, Relief and Disaster Management Operations. The attacks on the IAF and statements like -

Buy a lot of Gnats/Mig 21s for IAF to do fly-pasts.
Make sure that stall and spin for fly- past display is added requirement!!!!

are but a reflection of the seeds sown in the mind by poorly thought of posts like yours. What you are doing here is what Matheswaran is doing elsewhere. Hopefully, we won't have war but know it that if it happens the IAF will load up even Mi 17s with rockets and go to fight. There is a memorial to that ar Satwari, Jammu. Or maybe folks could go to Bahadur, or where Obe dug his grave or where Daryll did that!!!

Go ahead! counter but you would do well to treat institutions which have served with utmost sincerity with some respect. Folks like Matheswaran would do well to treat HAL with sincerity. Criticism where it is due is a must. Most criticism but with an eye for reasons of criticism.

People on this forum would do well to remember that the IAF has its share of Matheswarans but it also has its Rajkumars. Trust you got up from the right side of bed.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 29 Apr 2015 08:32

I think no one is being critical of IAF on everything. But one has to be critical when it is required. I am Mango here, yet just on money front we all know that we can not have the numbers required by costly imports, money spent on local production stays in India and helps to create infrastructure, capabilities etc. I am sure the top people in I.A.F. also knows it. But we hear statements like there is no Plan B for Rafale and no statements like there is no plan B for LCA. IAF can not complain on lack of numbers and show mark lack of support to LCA which will help it to make the require numbers and increase capabilities significantly at the same time.

True that there are serious problems with HAL. Supporting LCA and attacking HAL can be done at the same time. IAF can directly say that LCA si required urgently and for that it needs to be made in private sector etc. But we do not hear that.

If IAF the user and expert do not support the LCA then how does it expect any commitment or actioon from GOI?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Apr 2015 09:11

deejay wrote:
This gent has retired and if I am right he is some sort of advisor in HAL.

Boss, I wouldn't go into fortune telling if I were you!!

Btw, you are so anti IAF, that countering you is a waste of time and yet I am on a rant. Attitudes like yours, both in IAF and HAL, over a long period have ensured that the relationship will remain where it is.

If telling it like it is anti- IAF, then so be it. It is just like wanting Arjuns for their better capability and armor protection saves lives of tank crews and is good for national security but is anti- IA. I would rather be anti-IAF and pro-national interest and security.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Apr 2015 09:17

Vivek K wrote:
deejay wrote:
This gent has retired and if I am right he is some sort of advisor in HAL.
Boss, I wouldn't go into fortune telling if I were you!!

I checked it, just in case I want to be a fortune teller:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/muthumanic ... /4b/96/7b7

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Apr 2015 10:01

I checked it, just in case I want to be a fortune teller:

Does that profile include "consulting" assignments /retainer with S and maybe D ?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Apr 2015 10:06

^^^ Good question. His own profile is in third person.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Apr 2015 10:09

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/l ... 151067.ece

LCA delivery way behind schedule: IAF

In a submission made before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, the IAF said it has got only one LCA as of date though it has been promised this aeroplane since 2009.

“In January this year, they had given one LCA… which had not completed its flight testing. They handed over the papers to us. We do not make a squadron with one aeroplane. That is where we are. They had been promising us since 2009. This is 2015 and we have not been able to form a combat squadron. These steps are not really in the hands of the Air Force. There is nothing we can do,’’ the Vice-Chief of the Air Forc

Any business orgn. will realize that IAF needs fighters in numbers and cheap , in quick time. IAF cannot go for any other single engine fighter apart from Tejas until and unless in the range of $ 30-50 million . Given such a enticing business case if an orgn. does not take proactive measure to en cash this business opp. then something somewhere is really wrong.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Apr 2015 10:32

Look,it has been grudgingly admitted officially not too long ago,that HAL while developing the LCA,took its eye off the equally important job of setting up the production facilities.Most/all of the prototypes,were bespoke built.This explains why despite orders for 20+20 MK-1s series production progress has been slow apart from development issues,testing,etc. It is a fact that the IAF was less than enthusiastic about the LCA earlier as the programme seemed to be drifting and the economy was doing well .Large imports (MMRCA) seemed assured. When the economy tanked,and the realisation set in that it was going to be "dal and roti" as staple food ,it put its hand to the wheel. Right now there is simply no alternative esp. with the new mantra of MII .Whatever HAL can deliver asap,the GOI/MOD/IAF will have to accept.

There is also a v.limited supply chain in India for the aerospace industry,which is clearly the sunshine industry and should be given the max support from the GOI for both public and pvt. industry.We don't have as in the US ,EU or even Russia (state ind.) a long list and chain of aerospace OEM and component manufacturers.AWST's annual directory is a revelation. In fact in the US,the raw material availability is taken care of well in advance.I remember an article some time ago about an anticipated crisis in non-availability of certain strat. materials/metals which would affect civil aircraft production and the measures being taken to meet a crisis should it occur.

HAL as the only aircraft manufacturer of the LCA can also demand a guarantee of "X" number of aircraft for its first production run and set up a supply chain of essential components. In some respect,it is a chicken and egg situation,but development delays and the reasons for them are well known. The Q now being asked by some is that the earlier envisaged "one-for-one" replacement of LCAs for MIG-21s,etc. may not be entirely possible because the demand of the IAF is for more capable fighters than a "lightweight" fighter with the current and future challenges .

The "40+" sqds goal beggars another Q.40 sqds of what mix of aircraft? Is there any light on this mix from the IAF/MOD? With a shortfall even now of at least 200+,an LCA built at low and affordable costs will still have relevance as far as numbers go. They should be quite capable of beating the sh*t out of the JF-17 which appears to be the mainstay, numbers wise of Pak's fleet in the future. When it comes to meeting the challenge from China,then we need a more potent mix of aircraft.

I've just seen the above post.Depressing.It looks like a case is being made for another interim import or manufacture of more MKIs.

PS:Dhiraj,An editorial today in a paper used the same words I've used many a time for better performance from the babus."Perform or perish",demanding accountability from civil servants.The same must also take place in the DPSUs. We have the unique situ where as far as space and missiles are concerned,we have outstanding successes,but lag far behind in other defence industries. Surely the same management strategies must be enforced for the latter,where as in the former,the heads of space,etc., have direct access to the PM!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 29 Apr 2015 10:38

Dhiraj & Philip sirs, Please try to create infra without any orders or any scope for orders in a high risk project like fighter AC? What is the amount needed for infra? How much interest is to be paid per year in case there is no acceptance for the product and no orders?

Even if HAL is a private company it will not take such a risk.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 29 Apr 2015 11:24

vayu tuvan wrote:
nileshjr wrote:Indranil:

Have a look at this paper. Rather poorly written and misleading title. But it gives some numbers for deflection of some delta wing design with LCA's payload on one wing.

Design and Structural Analysis of Delta Wing Payloads of Light Combat Aircraft (TEJAS)
http://www.ijedr.org/papers/IJEDR1404017.pdf
It is also a very rough model and the analysis can be done almost in a week - start to finish. Carbon fiber material is assumed to be isotropic, non-linearities not taken into account. Also why are they not using codes developed by NAL?

Yeah. Looks like these guy/s did Bachelors thesis work in HAL. One guy at least (saw his LinkedIn profile) was bragging that he did some major redesign project successfully on LCA wing.

Anyways, I had saved the paper just because it mentioned "Tejas Manual" in its reference. The wing that they have "designed" is almost useless as its so thick at root and the airfoil shape looks like a generic supercritical airfoil. Still it gives 8cm of deflection only under wing load. I was wondering what would happen at 9G loads to it?

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 29 Apr 2015 12:22

dhiraj wrote: ...
...
Any business orgn. will realize that IAF needs fighters in numbers and cheap , in quick time. IAF cannot go for any other single engine fighter apart from Tejas until and unless in the range of $ 30-50 million . Given such a enticing business case if an orgn. does not take proactive measure to en cash this business opp. then something somewhere is really wrong.

But but, there are other "business orgn" in private domain, both national and international, who "given such a enticing business case" is also not taking any "proactive measure to encash this business opp" - so, would you then agree that there's "something somewhere is really wrong" with them as well?

I mean why can't Dassault + Reliance-of-mota-bhai setup a parallel 16platform/year production-line, all in anticipation of an order by IAF, in say 2017-18?
(though, my secret desire

, had always been HAL+Dassault+IAI combo, since Dassault with it's current fin state would pickup the entire 49% tab).

Truth be told, in cold-business-RoI vs Risk calc, nobody would want to touch LCA with a barge-pole given the end-user attitude displayed towards it - not until the order book states minm 120odd platforms of what has been already baselined (as opposed to some mythical Mk2-first-create-and-then-we-will-see type "prospects/vapour-ware" etc).
After all, Pvt business houses, unlike our DPSUs (who doesn't have a choice, and thank god for that) are not some philanthropic orgs, who would simply jump-in, maybe after some rousing speeches by some mantri in Dilli (and a few here in BRF).

mody · Post by **mody** » 29 Apr 2015 12:27

HAL not setting up a production line in time, citing business risk is unacceptable. However, apart from HAL the fault also lies with the program management. Whoever was overall responsible for the program should have insisted on the production line at HAL making progress. The concerned people at MoD should have also kept tabs on the progress. Everyone involved clearly missed the bus and maybe the program structure itself was also at fault as maybe it didnot have an overall program director who could review ADA, HAL and all other agencies involved with the project, including IAF.
unfortunately in India, no one really cared about the LCA program and most never expected it to be fully successful.

I have said this many time before and will say it again. As the things stand, the success of LCA lies mostly in HAL's hand (as long as ADA can get the FoC done before March 2016, at the latest). If HAL starts churning out IOC level aircrafts, then even with its shortcomings, IAF will have to make do with the aircrafts and further improvements to the plane would be added in due course. LCA MK1.5 and MK2 will happen only if HAL can get IAF 1 full squadron worth of planes by end of 2016 (at least 16 planes). If not, its going to be curtains for LCA.
The Gripen NG-MKI will morph into LCA MKII and the rest will be history.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2015 13:05

I am getting a strong feeling PMO will finally lose patience with some of the things going on, the HAL & ADA top mgmt might get replaced by people from outside in an attempt to improve the overall dependency and project mgmt for mass manufacturing readiness.

the breaking point will likely be in the Autumn when HAL & ADA wrings its hands and says no can do FOC by Dec 2015 and no sign of the SP1-SP4 either.
IAF will likely cancel its support to Mk2 as well and complain to the DM/PMO bitterly.

secondly I think its time to merge back the NAL, ADA and HAL and not permit three parallel empires and factions to form. only russia has this division of TSAGI and Sukhoi/Mikoyan. all else have design and manufacturing under one roof. design for manufacturability and repair is old hat in the automobile industry. toyota lexus design engr took input from veteran assembly line workers how to design parts easy to reach in and repair, the right tools etc.

and appoint a Khal drogo type to be the CMD of this unified entity and bash heads as needed. a khal of khals leading the unified Khalasar of the dothraki

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Apr 2015 13:11

Singha wrote:I am getting a strong feeling PMO will finally lose patience with some of the things going on, the HAL top mgmt might get replaced by people from outside in an attempt to improve the overall dependency and project mgmt for mass manufacturing readiness.

Both Parrikar and Modi lost patience with HAL very early when they couldn't come back with a plan to increase and accelerate LCA production. It seems, Modi's way is to create a parallel setup to drive competition and efficiency. In the end, competition from private sector should get HAL to pull it's fingers out of it's .... Changes in management haven't achieved much in established public sector in India. Only fear of losing the gravy train has.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 29 Apr 2015 13:13

mody wrote:HAL not setting up a production line in time, citing business risk is unacceptable. However, apart from HAL the fault also lies with the program management. Whoever was overall responsible for the program should have insisted on the production line at HAL making progress. The concerned people at MoD should have also kept tabs on the progress. Everyone involved clearly missed the bus and maybe the program structure itself was also at fault as maybe it didnot have an overall program director who could review ADA, HAL and all other agencies involved with the project, including IAF ...

Errr ... isn't that there's a guy called V Sridharan, who had earlier set-up the production line for Hawk in HAL, whose team has been doing so from 2013.
The said production line comprises of 28,000-square metre facility in four massive hangars in HAL, Bangalore, Kerala!!

I thought, all over the world building up production lines and then standardizing the production process takes time and delivery is always staggered - the cycle, at a very high level, is initial learning-production, Stabilisation and Steady-State.
for e.g. in case of Hawk, the production schedule was, "After building just two aircraft in the first year, seven were built in the second year. In the third year, HAL built 18 Hawks, and the remaining 14 Hawks were produced within months".

The schedule for LCA, given then, was 2 in 2014-15, 6 in 2015-16, 9 in 2016-17 and then Steady the production rate of 12 platforms/year.

Now given IoC-II was achieved in Dec 2013, a total order book of 20+20 and IAF's attitude that will not allow "their" line-pilots even come close to the LSPs to gain some platform-familiarity etc, why do you think the above production line setup and stabilising production schedule etc doesn't measure up vis-à-vis "HAL not setting up a production line in time, citing business risk is unacceptable" etc.
Reference: One amongst many links

PS: I would request deejay to comment on my above assertion viz. "line-pilots not allowed to come close to the LSPs to gain some platform-familiarity" vis-à-vis what happens, in the initial 30-50hrs (say) of flying time, when they transition from M/HOFTU to their specific platform-based-squadron duties.
To make the question specific to LCA LSPs - I guess what I'm asking, is how much diff (in flying parameters only and not some maitenance aspects etc) would a LSPs be (from the SPs), that the basic platform-familarity oriented intial flying can't be taken up on LSPs at all.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2015 13:13

but I thought Namo does not like to demolish, sell or close PSU/Govt undertakings that are not in optimal shape...he likes to fix them from within and make them perform.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 29 Apr 2015 13:13

Just out of curiosity, how much will a license produced Gripen NG cost(rough estimate) vis a vis Tejas Mk1 and the mythical Mk2? I understand that a lot of work needs to be done to integrate our weaponry/avionics to the Gripen, plus all imported spares cost should lead to a high LCC.
Considering all that we have heard from most IAF folks putting down Tejas Mk1 capabilities, do not be surprised if there is a demand for a MMRCA type shootout involving the Tejas - or that the Gripen simply gets renamed as Tejas Mk2.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2015 13:19

^^ its going to happen as night follows day if HAL does not atleast deliver 4 airframes soon and ADA complete FOC activity by Dec2015.

brazil says $4.5b for 36 jets
http://www.ibtimes.com/brazilians-arent ... ts-1514618

$125 mil - this would no doubt include some training, initial support pkgs,some weapons .... so perhaps $100 mil for a useless empty bird with no support or payload. Murika even line item charges for documentation!

comparisons are hard the Tejas Mk1 with weapons and internally billed support would likely weigh in around $60 mil. the Mk2 would be about the same as Govt agencies like HAL->IAF likely do not have cushy profit margins and price hikes built in.

we are going to get raped over a barrel. that much is sure. I am keeping the tube of KY ready to ease the pain.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 29 Apr 2015 13:33

Even if we get Gripen, i.e. we will only get airframe designs and related FCS and some automatic composite manufacturing technology.
- Airframes will be manufactured in India, so does the associated landing gear tech, so we may have to pay for license fee for those.
- Engines and Ejection seats are common.
- May get some sensor and communication tech that is being used in Gripen.
- Radar will be Elta. By going with Elta radar, we can cut off time consuming process of integrating with Russian/Indian/Israel AAMs and armaments

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 29 Apr 2015 14:18

Dont think that what he told can be taken so seriously. The intention must be to tell HAL and ADA that govt means business and that Tejas need to be produced in numbers and given to IAF.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Apr 2015 14:58

The MOD should make the position clear. Tejas or bust, no more imported solutions, for 4th + gen platforms. Let PakFA be the last combat jet buy.

If any short comings are present they must be resolved in service. After user feed back.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 Apr 2015 15:35

maitya wrote:...

PS: I would request deejay to comment on my above assertion viz. "line-pilots not allowed to come close to the LSPs to gain some platform-familiarity" vis-à-vis what happens, in the initial 30-50hrs (say) of flying time, when they transition from M/HOFTU to their specific platform-based-squadron duties.
To make the question specific to LCA LSPs - I guess what I'm asking, is how much diff (in flying parameters only and not some maitenance aspects etc) would a LSPs be (from the SPs), that the basic platform-familarity oriented intial flying can't be taken up on LSPs at all.

Maitya Sir, I am only guessing sans actual information. I am guessing based on practices I saw / knew while still in IAF. In my opinion SP 1 handed over in Jan 15 was a single seater, hence initial pilots to convert would QFI, FSL / FCL types. May even be ASTE TP's only so far (possibility). Once the aircraft is here and I am assuming pilots and ground crew have done their technical course (TETRA), one or two pilots will very slowly (low frequency) start taking up the aircraft for flight.

Line pilots will only convert on Trainers. No single seater conversion for them - Flight Safety and a clean record will be critical here. If the LSP's are not exactly like the SP's in any manner, best leave the LSP's to Test Pilots and not get the line pilots close to them. Cockpit variations, weight variations can have an impact which is best avoided. As long as some one from the IAF is flying and the hours keep building up, it is OK.

I have not heard that the aircraft has moved to Sulur, so I am assuming that they are based here in Bangalore and the first 1 or 2 pilots who are not regular line pilots will be flying/ slotted to fly now. Also, have not heard any night flying lately (I am in Bangalore since March and am in vicinity to hear those engines).

With other aircraft imported recently a set of crew 5/7 pilots, at least 02 engineering officers and a set of ground crew would go for training for about a month. The pilots were always all QFIs for the helicopters at least.

I would say a nucleus of 04 aircraft should see the Sqn at Sulur start buzzing. I am not sure when, if training is to take place, it would begin.

The only fighter Sqns raised in my time were the Su 30's but their the sqns filled up fast and only more experienced pilots were routed to those sqns at least initially.

Also, a lot of work now would be on ground on the manuals. Studying them, formulating the role specific one etc. For the IAF, the challenge is to keep pilots posted to this sqn and keep them on ground waiting. For the pilots, they are just twiddling thumb and this loss of flying opportunity may / can affect their future prospects. For HAL, it is that proverbial monkey on the back which must get offloaded soon. The way I see it the present situation is not good for anyone.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 29 Apr 2015 16:54

deejay wrote:
maitya wrote:...

PS: I would request deejay to comment on my above assertion viz. "line-pilots not allowed to come close to the LSPs to gain some platform-familiarity" vis-à-vis what happens, in the initial 30-50hrs (say) of flying time, when they transition from M/HOFTU to their specific platform-based-squadron duties.
To make the question specific to LCA LSPs - I guess what I'm asking, is how much diff (in flying parameters only and not some maitenance aspects etc) would a LSPs be (from the SPs), that the basic platform-familarity oriented intial flying can't be taken up on LSPs at all.
Maitya Sir, I am only guessing sans actual information. I am guessing based on practices I saw / knew while still in IAF. In my opinion SP 1 handed over in Jan 15 was a single seater, hence initial pilots to convert would QFI, FSL / FCL types. May even be ASTE TP's only so far (possibility). Once the aircraft is here and I am assuming pilots and ground crew have done their technical course (TETRA), one or two pilots will very slowly (low frequency) start taking up the aircraft for flight.

Line pilots will only convert on Trainers. No single seater conversion for them - Flight Safety and a clean record will be critical here. If the LSP's are not exactly like the SP's in any manner, best leave the LSP's to Test Pilots and not get the line pilots close to them. Cockpit variations, weight variations can have an impact which is best avoided. As long as some one from the IAF is flying and the hours keep building up, it is OK.

I have not heard that the aircraft has moved to Sulur, so I am assuming that they are based here in Bangalore and the first 1 or 2 pilots who are not regular line pilots will be flying/ slotted to fly now. Also, have not heard any night flying lately (I am in Bangalore since March and am in vicinity to hear those engines).

With other aircraft imported recently a set of crew 5/7 pilots, at least 02 engineering officers and a set of ground crew would go for training for about a month. The pilots were always all QFIs for the helicopters at least.

I would say a nucleus of 04 aircraft should see the Sqn at Sulur start buzzing. I am not sure when, if training is to take place, it would begin.

The only fighter Sqns raised in my time were the Su 30's but their the sqns filled up fast and only more experienced pilots were routed to those sqns at least initially.

Also, a lot of work now would be on ground on the manuals. Studying them, formulating the role specific one etc. For the IAF, the challenge is to keep pilots posted to this sqn and keep them on ground waiting. For the pilots, they are just twiddling thumb and this loss of flying opportunity may / can affect their future prospects. For HAL, it is that proverbial monkey on the back which must get offloaded soon. The way I see it the present situation is not good for anyone.

deejay thanks!!
So basically, for inducting any new aircraft the 1st step is to get a critical mass of QFI (and maybe FSL/FCL) be build-up. And then get the 2-seaters to start building up the sqn strength by converting/type-certifying the line Pilots around this QFI nucleus.

Makes sense!!

LCA is impacted as no 2 seater types available as yet (apart from PV6, the final configuration 2 seater trainer) to train the line pilots. And none of us would be aware if the designated LCA-QFI set of pilots could use the user evaluation trials (UET) LSPs (LSP-7 and LSP-8) alongwith the SP-1 to start framing the type-OCU "syllabus" etc.
(Also not sure, but I seem to remember having read somewhere that for multi-role platforms, even getting the right-mix of QFIs can be a challenge - as, IIRC, even between the QFIs some are more "specialised" than others in A/G or A/A roles - this apart from the basic handling, formation flying, tactical flying etc.
And while the initial OCU syllabus etc are being framed, *both* type of QFIs are required to not only frame it comprehensively, but also later "implement" it with the line pilot conversion. Also AFs tend to get around this QFI-mix-availability problem by "sequencing" the OCU between various such "modes".
But since, speaking from memory, I could have gone completely wrong on this).

And only when this nucleus of QFIs are in place, the line pilots will slowly trickle in and start getting their flying experience on 2-seaters (IIRC, again approx about 9 sorties are required on dual-seaters, alongwith a QFI, before beling allowed to fly solo - but then again, that was so for the FLs/27s etc).

Ofcourse TETRA etc also needs to happen simultaneously ... and the just mindlessly raking up flight hrs in the iron-bird or similar simulators, wouldn't make sense, in absence of near-simultaneous real flight experince to validate the "simulator learnings" and internalise it.

Anyway, thanks a lot, for your response deejay - appreciate it!!

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Apr 2015 20:03

Anywhere in the world, it takes 3 years from confirmed orders (of fixed standard/version) to first lot delivery. LCA IOC-2 was only achieved in Dec 2013. It is only then HAL could realistically produce a plane matching that standard. SP1 & 2, which had started partial production back before IOC-2 was achieved, had to be rebuilt to IOC-2 standard but there are some minute differences. The IAF has said that for squadron formation they are not going to use SP1 & 2 because of those variations.

Having said that HAL is also at fault as well for providing unrealistic delivery schedule. The IAF needs to order more LCA Mk.1 to benefit fully once the production lines are stabilized in another 2 years. It would be a grave mistake to wait for Mk.2 for more orders. Production lines would be idle and gains made would be eroded if that were the case.