LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 29 Jun 2015 19:42

ramana wrote:
I wish India doesn't come up its own acronyms for already existing ones. CCM what the hell is that?

True that. CCM apparently stands for Close Combat Mijjile

I would push for BVR and WVR, probably 'CCM' exists in ADA or IAF literatures?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2015 19:44

KaranM and srin, The ~70 odd pages CAG report on LCA is very illuminating. Highlights all the issues and delays and good news.
One good news of the delays is the IAF kept constantly upward revising the weapons fit that LCA must carry and this in turn caused further delays. But by the end it will make the LCA a real killer when FOC happens.

Reading between the lines, the Kevlar radome was the original spec from day one. Even when ASL was selected in 1989 it was only late 2000s when it finally got fabricated. Has variable thickness! So must be quite a few challenges along the way. I think they used resin injection molding and might not have got good resin fill thru. Finally when they used it with the EL/M-2032 modules in MMR found transmissibility issues. Hence the switch to Cobham quartz radome. But now radar is EL/M 2052!!!

I think Cobham is having resin fill thru issues as BMI sets very quickly.

And Derby 100 km and Python 5 for AAMs.

Meanwhile IAF also required 500kg dumb bombs which are integrated.

If only they can shave off 500 kg from the ~1360 kg extra weight it will suddenly become even more agile. We can even sell it to Swedes!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2015 19:47

Thanks narmad. When its over try to post it here. I want the aero gurus to look at it.
Especially vivek ahuja san.

Can you ask about STR numbers and plans for weight reduction?

20% cut in excess weight of 1365 kg could be achievable.

Most likely metal fittings are over designed for structural margin.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2015 19:50

And congratulate Mr. P. Subramanyam for his role in bringing LCA to this stage...And say its from BRF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2015 20:21

Well NEZ (no escape zone) of the Derby won't be 100 km but somewhere around a third of the range, perhaps more because its got dual pulse. Point I am trying to make is that with the current radar even at 50-60 km, they can test the Derby and integrate it. The max range engagement of the Derby can be tested later.
Provided IAF is ok with this and doesn't want everything verified and tested to max at induction.

Also, the interview makes no mention of RWR issues which CAG highlighted, and ADA says no further technological issues foreseen. That's positive. Do they mean the RWJ will be fitted back into the SPs? And not just Mk2. CAG just mentions DARE is fixing these issues.

The Tarang design had limitations on some platforms such as the Su-30 MKI & was superseded by R118, which was originally developed for the Su-30 MKI & even it had issues. DARE finally figured out it was due to blanking (long nose and canards got in way at certain times) and a new 6 channel version of R118 was developed and is now in flight trials for retrofit to the fleet. A digital variant (able to detect LPI/advanced future radars) is in advanced development and will probably enter trials soon too. More of an upgrade to existing R118. Point is that could be a possible replacement for the Tarang, if its a RWR issue and perhaps that's why ADA is sanguine?

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Jun 2015 20:21

brar_w wrote:
srai wrote:...

The IAF's definition of FOC is quite different from other nations that have experience with building their own aircrafts. For other nations, FOC has more to do with squadron induction and operational readiness (even with limited technical abilities like air-to-air only) whereas for the IAF it is fully developed aircraft that includes everything from fully featured radar, avionics, ECCM and diverse weapon integration at day 1. I guess the IAF doesn't plan to upgrade these planes for a long time. Other nations tend to do quite a few incremental upgrades to add more features and weapons plus they do one major MLU. They are willing to commit to early batches to support their industry. Their overall quantity purchase intent is made to be commercially viable and is sustained with tranche/block orders and production. Whereas the IAF is unmovable with its 40 Mk.1 order even though they need urgent replacement for much inferior MiG 21/27s. They would rather continue to wait for their Plan A -- Rafale and some LCA Mk.2.
I don't know how the Russians do it but the US services want a fully functioning aircraft with the list of capabilities they had specified in the development cycle before they declare FOC. IOC is something that is interim i.e. a "can go to war" configuration but the weapons system will not go to war unless an emergency (as many aircraft have done from the drone fleet to the JSTARS and even F-15E). FOC is declared when the entire requirement as specified in the EMD/SDD document signed with the vendor is provided and the deploying capability is met. The deployment capability is usually met during the interim between IOC and FOC and it is usually the capability delivery that determines the FOC date.

Its as simple as - Here is a list of things we want developed, once you are 75% through the list we'll aim for IOC, FOC comes when 100% of that capability (unless capability is deferred for budgetary or technical reason) is delivered we declare FOC.

Yes. FOC needs to meet certain criteria laid out/negotiated. But which of these nations have demanded as much of its aircraft before FOC? LCA, at FOC, will not only be able to fire the Russian R-73 CCM but also the Israeli Python-5 CCM! Both of these are mated to HMD as well. Plus, it will not only be able to drop 1,000lb American Paveway-II but also 1,000lb Israeli Griffin LGBs. Selection of BVR missile was also done quite late. Other things demanded quite late in the program were AAR and new nose cone. In any case, for a country new to this sort of combat aircraft development why set the bar so high which keeps delaying the program. Even countries developing combat aircrafts for many decades relax their FOC criteria. Take a look at EF or Rafale for example. Regular minor/major upgrades are done after FOC to give them true multi-role and additional capabilities.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2015 20:28

Its because of the trust factor. Most of these countries have mature, well developed aerospace industries. Ours is nascent and IAF asks world class stuff, so they are afraid the stuff won't be mature. So they are waiting till it gets certified A+ and then induct. As long as they induct, all this effort will pay off in the long run.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 29 Jun 2015 20:43

Everything seems to be coming together nicely.

We just have to focus on an indigenous engine and ensure that we get an adequate gun and minimize the vibration on the future variants.

Revolver cannon may fit the role. Maybe we can rope in BF or some other private for development.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2015 20:43

Arnav Pai Sir, when FOC for Mk1 has been achieved.... when will the first prototype for Mk2 roll out?

>> FoC by Mar 2016 MK2 roll out before 2018

Fawad Ahmad Sir with its range is quite small...... Why.....? Thanks
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 A ferry range of 1500 kms is not small.

Goutham Bala The degree of stealth in tejas ?
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Tarmak007 moderate

Aditya Podila What about internal jammer is MK1 having the power and space for decent internal jammer ?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 Later stage

Goutham Bala What's the level of composites on LCA ?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 40 per cent by weight and 90 per cent by surface area.

Vyshnav Prakash And sir ,what is the most realistic date for AMCAs first flight....?Really enthusiastic to see the next desi bird ..!
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 Can't say now.

Kiran Sharma Ips Sir.
Is our pilots satisfied with tejas performance..?they think tejas is satisfactory for all combats.?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 Yes. The pilots find this aircraft extermely pilot friendly in its handling qualities.
Like · 3 · 1 hr
Tarmak007 Yes

Kingsley Rufus Sir is LCA tejas is superior than f-16 block52 and jf-17?
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Tarmak007 They are comparable in performance.

Ravi BG LSP-6 was supposed to test max AoA. is that still the plan? Will it be tested to 28 degrees?
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 Progressively yes

Ravi Kumar Sir, could you share the timeline for rollout of next improved MK.1 as you mentioned earlier, Mk.2 prototype and AMCA prototype.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 MK1 improved version in another 2 years

Shiva Shivakumar Sir. Thanks for your reply,, compare to JF 17. , tejas will use for Interceptor or attack role
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tarmak007 In both the roles it is superior.

Vyshnav Prakash Would there be a scenario where HAL would partner with a private agency for Tejas production if the airforce orders upto about 200 Tejas mk2 combined with naval orders as even.with double production it would nof be easy to meet the order within time ,and the number of needed fighters estimated seems to be more too along with any export orders if recieved ..!
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 This is being explored.

Ratul Chakraborty Hello SIr, Great to be able to interact with you directly like this. I have two questions. FIrstly - how does the ITR and STR of Tejas compare to the F16 and the Gripen. Secondly, what is the status of the EW suite onboard this plane.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 ITR and STR is comparable for the same standard of preparation. RWR integrated.

Gladstone V. Rayen Is there any ways being studied to enhance Tejas range from the current radius of operation?.if so what are the modification to be incorporated in the design etc?.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 Drag reduction and carrying extra fuel

Kailash Rao Hello Sir, Can we have an overview of the Electronic Warfare Equipment going into tejas and how is it comparable with fighters of its generation ?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 We have got RADAR Warning Receivers and planning to have the self protection jammers in the next variants
Like · 2 hrs

Ravi BG Whats the max AoA,STR,ITR tested on LCA?Do they meet IAF ASR?When is airborne gun test scheduled for?Will BVR missile be tested with existing radar? Whats range of radar with current radome?
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 AoA is 24-26 degrees. Yes it meets
Like · 2 · 2 hrs
Tarmak007 BVR missile can be tested with existing radar. 80 Kms
Like · 3 · 2 hrs

Deepak Kelath Sir wat is the life span of a tejas aircraft?
Like · Reply · 2 · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 30 years or 3000 hours

Khan Mubeen Hello Sir, I just want to know, it is being reported that Tejas Mk2 will have its maiden flight by late 2018, what future upgrades we could see on Tejas Mk1 to make it more potent until Mk2 comes.?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 Increase the EW capabilities and maintenance friendly and reduction of drag and weight

Srinivas Nandiraju Good evening Sir, Have some queries
In order to male MK1 attractive to air-force and add more orders to current version, some issues were allegedly needs to be resolved e.g.
1. Suboptimal engine performance due to air intakes design issues. are they ge...See More
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Tarmak007 weight reduction is an ongoing process
Like · 1 · 2 hrs
Tarmak007 there are plans to reduce the drag even in MK1
Like · 2 · 2 hrs

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Jun 2015 20:46

ramana wrote:...

sankum, The current radar with kevlar radome has half the range per Dr. Tamilmani. So how will they integrate the Derby ER? Cobham radome is still awaited.

...

According to Tarmak007 FB chat, the Cobham radome will increase range by 10-15%. If the old Kevlar radome is only 50% range (40-50km), you are looking at 60%-65% range (48km-65km) with the Cobham radome. So clearly the Kevlar radome should be more than half the range otherwise the Cobham offers marginal improvements for Derby ER.

narmad wrote:Update from chat -

...
The Cobham Radome will increase the range by about 10-15%

...

Amit Verma Q. Uttam AESA performance & Integration with Tejas Mk1 or Tejas MK1.5
Tarmak007 : MK2

Vootla Chaitanya : Sir, what is the range of radar in tejas mk 1 and by how much will it be improved in mk 2?
Tarmak007 in mk1 approximately 80 - 100 kms. In MK2 it will be improved to 120 Kms.

...

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 29 Jun 2015 21:14

No offence to anyone but frankly how absurd is this IAF requirement, i mean you have your own guys for whom you cant guarantee their lives when they strap into a Mig21/27 cockpit and here you have an aircraft which is superior to your useless MIG21 kakoose(like Vina garu says) and still you don't want to give it full squadron service, wahhh maan gaye

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2015 21:18

srai, And quartz fabric is much more expensive than Kevlar and difficult to infuse the resin.
I think its tradeoff on MMR power and radome RF transmissibility. Some how they need extra 10-15%. and MMR power is probably already frozen.

Digging thru the Saraswat presentation linked in the Radome thread, they have quartz fabric with polyester resin infusion process under control.

There are various grades of BMI resin some more quick setting than others.

suryag, LCA is on the threshold of greatness no point is crying over road not travelled.

I would like some physics gurus to calculate the impact energy of a GSh 23mm round vs Gsh 30 mm round to compare the kill effectiveness of Mig-21 vs Su-30MKI!!!!

Take shell/round weight.
Take muzzle velocity.

1/2 (W/g) v^2

And compare ranges!!!!

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 29 Jun 2015 21:24

suryag wrote:No offence to anyone but frankly how absurd is this IAF requirement, i mean you have your own guys for whom you cant guarantee their lives when they strap into a Mig21/27 cockpit and here you have an aircraft which is superior to your useless MIG21 kakoose(like Vina garu says) and still you don't want to give it full squadron service, wahhh maan gaye

My thought is that the IAF doesn't trust HAL [may be DRDO] based on their experience and do not want to give FOC till every outstanding item is cleared.
In the chat session, the SP aircraft schedule of delivery was mentioned as : SP1 was handed over to airforce in jan 2015. sp2 will be in the last quarter of this year. By the end of financial year two more SP aircrafts.

I do not think IAF is in a hurry to give FOC. They have a whole year before they complete that squadron at Sulur.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 29 Jun 2015 21:45

ramana wrote:srai, And quartz fabric is much more expensive than Kevlar and difficult to infuse the resin.
I think its tradeoff on MMR power and radome RF transmissibility. Some how they need extra 10-15%. and MMR power is probably already frozen.

Digging thru the Saraswat presentation linked in the Radome thread, they have quartz fabric with polyester resin infusion process under control.

There are various grades of BMI resin some more quick setting than others.

suryag, LCA is on the threshold of greatness no point is crying over road not travelled.

I would like some physics gurus to calculate the impact energy of a GSh 23mm round vs Gsh 30 mm round to compare the kill effectiveness of Mig-21 vs Su-30MKI!!!!

Take shell/round weight.
Take muzzle velocity.

1/2 (W/g) v^2

And compare ranges!!!!

Israeli pilots when secretly testing the Mig-29 praised the Gsh-301. It's very accurate and devastating (requiring only 2-3 shell hits). It's also very lightweight compared to others in it's class including that of the Gsh-23L. Only problem is it needs to be frequently replaced and it may be a bit longer in length.

I was told that they were thinking of replacing the gun and putting it in a different place but looks like they are going to be sticking with the Gsh-23. They clearly didn't think this part through properly.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2015 22:41

Here is Indian OFB page on the Gsh-23 gun. Based on length and weight its the version with the muzzle brake to reduce recoil....

http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wmc/3.htm

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jun 2015 23:51

https://www.facebook.com/Tarmak007

let's start! post questions

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Jun 2015 23:59

SaiK wrote:https://www.facebook.com/Tarmak007

let's start! post questions

Its over. the chat was from 7:00pm-8:00pm IST.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2015 00:00

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 30 Jun 2015 00:16

We are all jumping on IAF for there attitude with respect to LCA

However, What is the hurry for FOC? first 20 aircraft will be IOC2++

How long will HAL take to complete this order of 20 planes? Not what they are claiming, actual nos inducted at squadron level? that is still an unknown.

If HAL can mantain a decent production rate and IAF is still behaving like so. Then there is a major issue to be solved, at this stage it is all white noise(Political bluster on IAF's part to get the best possible platform, applying max pressure before FOC since they can) Once FOC is issued IAF has limited pressure points against HAL ADA RDO etc.

For eg how CRVD is being left high and dry wrt Arjun.

The people who are actually suffering in this tamasha are the small scale suppliers, who cannot tool their operations to minimise costs and still have a decent gross profit.
Our MIC is a toddler and IAF is only looking at their niche not the whole picture. Time for Mr Big mouth on (6 month sabbitical) to Kick some bu..tt.
We need fixed timelines and realistic number of units to be produced.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 30 Jun 2015 01:54

^ We are not making chappatis here, there is something called lead time, freezing the designs and layouts, upgrading the tools, reprogramming and calibrating the machines, ordering more engines, spare parts, raw materials.... it all takes 2-3 years.

If it would be so easy why Rafale can be deliver only after 36 months? .... when production line is well established.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Jun 2015 03:09

RKumar wrote:^ We are not making chappatis here, there is something called lead time, freezing the designs and layouts, upgrading the tools, reprogramming and calibrating the machines, ordering more engines, spare parts, raw materials.... it all takes 2-3 years.

If it would be so easy why Rafale can be deliver only after 36 months? .... when production line is well established.

Yes, people forget that the LCA Mk.1 IOC-2 was only awarded on Dec-2013. Yet, we expect deliveries within a few months. World over from an established production line 36-months to start delivery is a standard.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2015 06:40

ramana wrote:
I would like some physics gurus to calculate the impact energy of a GSh 23mm round vs Gsh 30 mm round to compare the kill effectiveness of Mig-21 vs Su-30MKI!!!!

Take shell/round weight.
Take muzzle velocity.

1/2 (W/g) v^2

And compare ranges!!!!

Ramana - in any case both shells are designed to explode so the actual destructive power is greater than kinetic energy alone. Sometime after the 1971 war my late cousin had gifted me with a dummy/practice 30 mm shell from Hunter's 30 mm Aden cannon and had told me that just one live 30 mm shell can bring a plane down. Hunter had 4 cannon firing 20 rounds per sec. GSh 23 is twin barrel 30 rounds per sec.

I recall calculating that in the heat of a turning dogfight with a cannon shooting off 60 rounds per second, the chances that the plane will actually get hit with anything more than 3-4 shells is low. For a math-hobbled person like me - it would take me an hour of work to get any figures - but I made assumptions from 1/2 second burst (30 shells) while the target plane is in the center of sights for 0.2 sec and taking shell spread into consideration at say 500 meters range - only a few will ever hit the target.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2015 08:39

wouldnt a couple of slower firing higher caliber cannon cause more mayhem but retain more accuracy and less heat/vibrating than a light ciws type thing that can fire 6000rds/min but carries onlee 200 rds!!

I like the 2 x 300mm DEFA/ADEN cannon of the jaguars and widely used in all french a/c except the rafale.
rate of only 1300 rds per min but looks balanced and stable with two guns.

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Jun 2015 08:43

The weight of the Gsh-23 and Gsh-301 is about the same.
Reasons why we might have gone for the 23mm gun and not the 30mm
a) The additional weight of a 30mm round over the 23mm round is around 500g. So, if the plane carries 200 rounds, then it will have to carry additional 100kg in just the shells. And because the 30 mm gun will have higher recoil, it would require heavier mounts to absorb the extra recoil.
b) The OFB makes the Gsh-23 (because of Mig-23 licensing) and apparently not the Gsh-301. I'm a bit surprised, but google chacha hasn't been very helpful.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2015 09:02

Singha wrote:wouldnt a couple of slower firing higher caliber cannon cause more mayhem but retain more accuracy and less heat/vibrating than a light ciws type thing that can fire 6000rds/min but carries onlee 200 rds!!

I like the 2 x 300mm DEFA/ADEN cannon of the jaguars and widely used in all french a/c except the rafale.
rate of only 1300 rds per min but looks balanced and stable with two guns.

You mean 30 mm, not 300 mm

Slower firing is fine but essentially dogfights with guns is about filling the air with lead. It may not be possible to keep a plane within one's sights for even as long as a half second. I think modern gunsights allow one to press the trigger just about when the plane is nearly within the gunsight but the gun will let off a burst when the designated target comes within the circle. Or else there is a warning when the target is in the kill circle and a quick half second press will send out 30 shells (if the rate of fire is 60/sec).

If the shooting plane is turning at 10 degrees per second as it shoots at a turning target 500 meters away - the 60 shells in that 1 second will be spread over 10 degrees of the arc of a circle of radius 500 meters - i.e 90 meters. 60 shells covering a 90 meter line or 1 shell every 1.5 meters. If targeted profile of the enemy plane is about 10 meters across - only 6 shells can hit the plane even at 60 rounds per second. In practice all may miss or 2-3 may hit. Slower rate of fire makes this worse. The best case scenario is a plane seen from above and behind in level non manoeuvring flight which can allow a long burst as the target remains steady in the sight.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2015 09:25

I was thinking more of ground attack strafing runs, since we are some distance from cheap desi made submunition dispensers and SFW in bulk for all to attack soft targets like trains, convoys, barges, supply depots. there is a lot of soft fat targets moving around behind the front in any war.

in ww2 the typhoon(armed with cannons and rockets) and the mosquito (speed, long range, cannons, rockets) were as some kind of dpsa to go after ground targets . the mosquito even carried out precision raids on special targets like gestapo prisons using its speed to evade any fighters.

I will admit the mosquito is my favourite plane of ww2 and 2nd being the FW190 so I read up on these lo-lo-lo ops that caused a lot of collateral damage also due to mistakes and the nature of the op.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jericho
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Mosquito_raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carthage

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2015 09:32

Singha wrote:I was thinking more of ground attack strafing runs, since we are some distance from cheap desi made submunition dispensers and SFW in bulk for all to attack soft targets like trains, convoys, barges, supply depots. there is a lot of soft fat targets moving around behind the front in any war.

^^^rockets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey4RzWOvtog
(Explosion is fake

)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRvnQvw_vnY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhVjY48DRQU

Also cluster bombs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox9KmY5I4pQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0oegPHTyWA

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 30 Jun 2015 13:21

@Srai - The logic of starting the product delivery 36 months from IOC-2 (i.e. 20th Dec 2013) works when HAL themselves would promise so which is not the case. May I quote the project manager V Sridharan (the hand-chosen to build the LCA assembly line, powered with ~ 1000 Crores & who is reckoned for building Hawk trainer line) -

"By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters,"

So, by end 2015, 2 + 4 + 6 = 12 should be ready - 11 deliveries pending in next 6 months according to 1.5 years old promises by one of the Top Man accountable for IOC-2 standard delivery.

This irony is little less or almost equally shameful when Abdul Kalam ji was given a vision that IAF will have 200 Tejas fighters by 2010 or so.

Reality check - SP-1 got delivered in Q1 2015 (1 year late delivery) and SP-2 is about a year late delivery as well as per Sridharan's deadline. Actually, it took our honourable Defence Minister Parrikar ji to announce that HAL will deliver SP-1 by March 2015, who by the way also said that SP-2 will also be delivered by March 2015. Thanks to the pedal pressure by DM which worked & IAF got SP-1 (amidst absence of Avinash Chandra).

Am not whining but simply trying to say that HAL cannot give the 36 months excuse since they are the ones who promised unrealistic deliveries (Am sure HAL does not remembers that order was given a decade back).

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 010_1.html

srai wrote:
RKumar wrote:^ We are not making chappatis here, there is something called lead time, freezing the designs and layouts, upgrading the tools, reprogramming and calibrating the machines, ordering more engines, spare parts, raw materials.... it all takes 2-3 years. If it would be so easy why Rafale can be deliver only after 36 months? .... when production line is well established.
Yes, people forget that the LCA Mk.1 IOC-2 was only awarded on Dec-2013. Yet, we expect deliveries within a few months. World over from an established production line 36-months to start delivery is a standard.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 30 Jun 2015 17:37

+1

HAL is earning bad name because of underestimating the work which they have to perform. It could be a lack of experience or joy ride of the moment... I hope they announce more realistic timelines.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2015 18:21

the only realistic estimates anyone can do is based on their past metrics.

with that kind of data even arm-chairs can estimate it perfect-O!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jun 2015 18:42

RKumar wrote:+1

HAL is earning bad name because of underestimating the work which they have to perform. It could be a lack of experience or joy ride of the moment... I hope they announce more realistic timelines.

What irritates me most about HAL are their workfloors - no where as clean w/new kits & spaciously laid out as what TASL, Mahindras etc have implemented.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2015 19:58

HAL has a lot of political clout by virtue of being a huge employer in many states. like SAIL or railways.
with no competition domestically and being sole place for license making their existence is secure unlike a pvt player.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2015 20:26

From the online chat

Tarmak007 :

FOC is between Dec 2015 and March 2016. As of now SP-1 handed over. 19 more in IOC config.
SP1 was handed over to airforce in Jan 2015. sp2 will be in the last quarter of this year. By the end of financial year two more SP aircrafts.
FOC is an ongoing process and never stopped. We should be able to get access to complete hardware within a month.
MK2 roll out before 2018

T_Bhaskar a point to note.

Shiv, Its not math challenged. You have done better than most IT math enabled one.

BTW, Tarmak007 has target with holes as proof for ground test firing.
I asked him what distance and what was the width of the white strips?
And if LRUs are now qualified to the gun loads?

By counting the holes and knowing the GSh 23 rate of fire (300rounds/sec) we can back calculate the time of firing.

By knowing the distance we can calculate the dispersion.

You can see the two barrels output on left and right side groups.

Looks like about 60-70 holes in the white strip. So most likely less than a second of actual firing.

Also tsarkar what do you make o the holes in the wood on right side?
Mounting stiff enough?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2015 20:52

ramana wrote:

Nice touch - I love it! I only wish there was something to compare the diameter of the grouping.

On second thoughts - each hole is about 25mm in diameter. The grouping of bullet holes looks like a "binocular pattern" from the twin side-by-side barrels of the GSh 23. Each circle of the binocular is probably 40 cm across. This could be two half-second bursts. ~~The video that we saw showed a half-second burst. I think I timed it right - will check again.~~ - no it was a 1 second burst

Need to Googal for GSh accuracy. Can't be bad. After all same GSh shot down F-104 in '71 IIRC

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 30 Jun 2015 21:10

The integration of Astra MK-1 must be taken up in parallel with integration of the same with Su-30 MKI
The extra six months which will be spend waiting for the radome can be better utilized in completing such works. Atleast the captive flight trials be completed if not the test firing.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 30 Jun 2015 21:17

✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake 1h1 hour ago

Move to close Tejas project in the recent past? Stand-by for an interesting story. #Tejas #ADA #IAF #HAL

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2015 21:24

Shiv, I was going to take 500m as the distance and half width of the paper(1 meter width) as the circle diameter to get first order estimates of dispersion.

i.e. the groups are 0.5m circle diameter. Compared to 0.4m from your Mk1 eyeball.

If Deejay, tsarkar or other gurus can compare the circle diameter for other platforms like Mig series we get figure of merit for LCA mounting platform stiffness.

So if in less then 1 sec, it can fire on an opposing aircraft with ~60-70 shells. Should be good enough to slice it.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 30 Jun 2015 21:37

^ if you look carefully there are two concentric "target' circles and also on the upper right corner there is a board with ISI standard marks.These may provide some reference.It looks like the target was not big.Mostly they are palletes or crates on which the paper has been taped to.Another frame of reference is the sticky tape which generally comes in standard sizes (1/2.3/4" 1inch etc) If the bullets are 25mm then assuming minimal dispersion and clean entries unlike human tissue (ie wood) the shots and tape are approx i inch. People can extrapolate from that.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2015 21:43

GSh 23 uses 23 mm shells, which is about 0.9 inches close enough to 1" for our purposes.

So good insight about shell diameter and tape width being ~1".

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 30 Jun 2015 22:05

pankajs wrote:✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake 1h1 hour ago

Move to close Tejas project in the recent past? Stand-by for an interesting story. #Tejas #ADA #IAF #HAL

Full report

http://www.oneindia.com/india/we-surviv ... 93008.html

Bengaluru, June 30: Outgoing Director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and Programme Director (Combat Aircraft) P S Subramanyam says that there were massive efforts by a section to close the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas project in 2007. The Distinguished Scientist and the man who spearheaded the project for the last 10 years, was speaking to this Correspondent, probably his last interview to the media as the Tejas boss.

Subramanyam, retired from the services today after attending an official farewell organized by Team ADA at its Bengaluru facility near Old Airport Road. The soft-spoken man hailing from Vijayawada, spearheaded the programme from 2005, after taking over the reins of ADA from M B Verma.

Subramanyam is the second largest serving chief of ADA (10 years), after Dr Kota Harinarayana, who had served the project for 16 years till 2002. We bravely retrieved the project "Yes, I can tell you that we had to wade through several pressures while taking this project forward. In 2007, the programme saw one of its worst periods. It was almost like to be or not to be. I can proudly say that we bravely retrieved the project and gave the shape it is in now," Subramanyam said.

He said there were several meetings held virtually to close the programme. "I stood ground and gave the confidence to the government that it is a doable project and we will deliver it on time. The rest is history and we never looked back," he added. Admitting that the ‘2007 project closer move' came as a jerk to the team, Subramanyam said neither he nor his team ran away scared.

"Yes, we were shaken, but we knew we had a challenging task on hand. In the next two years (2007 to 2009) we demonstrated the capabilities of stores, sensors and weapon integration. He also revealed that there were several occasions in the past that many wanted to merge ADA with some other organisations. "So, while taking on the technology challenges of LCA, I has the head of ADA had to deal with other issues as well," he added. FOC will be in by March 2016 He refused to name the people who were acting against Tejas project and ADA during 2007. "Names don't matter now as we have moved on. Let's focus on the current status of the project. Nothing can stop the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) completion now. By 2016 March, the FOC will be done," he said. When asked about the most challenging task he had to undertake as the Tejas project chief, the NIT Warangal top brain said: "I had no command on any of the stakeholders in the programme, barring ADA. Yet, I managed to get the support of everyone, which is what I am proud of." He said the media never had the correct appreciation of the time and cost of the programme.

"With Rs 7500 crore making 14 aircraft and establishing a production line, is far superior than the expenditure twice incurred in any other programme of the world," Subramanyam added.