LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2015 16:19

Chinmayanand wrote: As a mango man, i am pissed at IAF . IAF should be handed over to IN for proper maintenance and renamed to INAF.

To be fair the IAF only wanted more Mirage 2000s. It was the UPA government that said no, go for a contest - MMRCA. The IAF was promised the winner and it is the IAf that has been taken on a wild goose chase. Left to themselves they would have settled for Mirage 2000 a decade ago.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jul 2015 17:31

shiv wrote:To be fair the IAF only wanted more Mirage 2000s. It was the UPA government that said no, go for a contest - MMRCA. The IAF was promised the winner and it is the IAf that has been taken on a wild goose chase. Left to themselves they would have settled for Mirage 2000 a decade ago.

Actually the original RFI to LM, Saab, MiG and Dassault was sent out in 2001.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 19 Jul 2015 20:15

How big a deal is it to fix an "undercarriage failed to retract" issue?

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 19 Jul 2015 20:15

A Deshmukh wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Cost worry on Rafale and Tejas
"I wonder if you would go to a car showroom today," said the defence source, "and ask to buy a 1984 model Maruti."
I have to commute everyday 10 kms.
If I have the following choices:
1) walking
2) commuting on my scooter which is 25 yr old and prone to breaking down during my commute
3) buying a 1984 Maruti car
4) buying a imported Mercedes for which I do not really have the money and I can only purchase compromising my basic necessities like medicines and food and risking bankruptcy.

Given the above choices I will go with 1984 Maruti car.

No no no this is complete sacrilegious ... how can one forget the these "defense sources" favorite Renault 11.

Of course these defense-source gents can't go to a car showroom today and ask to buy a 1984 model Maruti ... while their collective heart is all set upon the 1987 Renault 11 (plus it's contemporary to the birth of a certain fighter they have their eyes firmly set upon).

Plus I hear they do come in various shades of light and navy blues ...

So pls go visit your neighborhood car showrooms and petition them to start importing the Renault 11's - these patriot defense-sources do deserve this much payback for their services, right?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2015 20:33

Kakkaji wrote:How big a deal is it to fix an "undercarriage failed to retract" issue?

It is the reporter's "brain failed to work as usual" issue that is more indolent and difficult to cure.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 19 Jul 2015 21:19

.

From Former Air vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur commenting about the undercarriage failure in the Tejas Test flight

‏@BahadurManmohan 8h8 hours ago

@SaurabhJoshi @reportersujan Don't worry abt undercarriage down flight -that can happen. There r othr major concerns

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 19 Jul 2015 21:35

Arun Menon wrote:
To add to the air force's worries about depleting force levels, a light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas that was recently in field trials in Jaisalmer returned to Bangalore with a major technical fault: its undercarriage was down.
I bet this has never happened to Rafale or any other foreign fighter. In fact it must the first time such a thing has happened in the history of aviation itself. This must mean that we must scrap the LCA program and import some white elephant right?

Filthy presstitute scum

This happened four days back. Imagine if the plane was LCA.

Missiles fall off British plane during landing

British air operations from a base in Cyprus involved in the campaign against Islamic State were temporarily halted on Wednesday after two missiles fell off a warplane during landing, forcing its closure to takeoffs and landings.

The Royal Air Base of Akrotiri is being used in operations against Islamic State insurgents in northern Iraq. Two Brimstone missiles fell off a Tornado jet during landing on Wednesday morning, spokesman Kristian Gray said.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Jul 2015 22:14

Viv S wrote:Actually the original RFI to LM, Saab, MiG and Dassault was sent out in 2001.

Must surely be upon the recommendation of a babu who advised DM George Fernanades that rules must be followed. One vendor competition is anathema to the MoD. Indian jugaad at its best!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jul 2015 01:26

shiv wrote:
Chinmayanand wrote: As a mango man, i am pissed at IAF . IAF should be handed over to IN for proper maintenance and renamed to INAF.
To be fair the IAF only wanted more Mirage 2000s. It was the UPA government that said no, go for a contest - MMRCA. The IAF was promised the winner and it is the IAf that has been taken on a wild goose chase. Left to themselves they would have settled for Mirage 2000 a decade ago.

Oh. You mean they wanted a 1970 model Citroen? Doesn't sound better than a 1984 Model Maruti. With due "respect" to the anonymous defence "source", sounds like one more IAF wallah leaking away for the Rafale.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 20 Jul 2015 02:09

Ignoring the rhetorical nonsense that the journalist added to that report, if there was an undercarriage retraction failure, it points to an issue with the hydraulic systems. Which isn't unheard of, and in operating usage, would've been an issue that would've led to investigations anyway. I guess its just that they took it more seriously in this case because Tejas is still in the middle of trials, so a pneumatic failure will probably lead to a more extensive investigation. I'm guessing thats why they decided to take it back to Bangalore to look into the issue. Its mostly just a case of better safe than sorry.

Of greater concern is the tweet that there were other more serious issues.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 20 Jul 2015 02:32

Hydraulic problems are 90% of the time (dirt) matter getting in the system.
I would not be too alarmed with this.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 20 Jul 2015 03:03

shiv wrote:
Chinmayanand wrote: As a mango man, i am pissed at IAF . IAF should be handed over to IN for proper maintenance and renamed to INAF.
To be fair the IAF only wanted more Mirage 2000s. It was the UPA government that said no, go for a contest - MMRCA. The IAF was promised the winner and it is the IAf that has been taken on a wild goose chase. Left to themselves they would have settled for Mirage 2000 a decade ago.

Bingo ....
Still remember they started out with a requirement to procure Qatari (??) mirages and refurbish them in France
+ build some more , before the manufacturing plant closed.

But IAF got taken for a wild ride thanks to successive dithering. Today they would have them flying and not be all over the show.

However this happens in many places.

Let me give you a New Zealand, they have 40 year old Hercules X 6 and 40 year old 757s X 2

They identified and started down a path to replace them.
They said they wanted C-130J (the ones IAF has) and perhaps 2 C17s.
The manufacturer said fine we will build them at the back of the Australian order.

Successive dithering has meant NZ Air Force neither placed an order for C130Js (manufacturing plant needs orders now) or C17 (manufacturing closed). Only once C17 is left on the shelf at US from what a RNZAF officer told me.

And now the government is trying to woo the manufacturer of the A400 to set up a maintenance shop here in the South Pacific to repair and regularly maintain the 1000s of A400s ordered by the Antarctic Air Force in addition to the 6 that may be ordered by the RNZAF

What the RNZAF wanted was replacement of dying C130s with new C130Js and 2 X C17 to introduce never before had strategic lift capability.
And RNZAF and Govt is going around in circles.

An old saying

Better to be present on the battlefield with 7 than missing with 4000.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jul 2015 03:07

SajeevJino wrote:.

From Former Air vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur commenting about the undercarriage failure in the Tejas Test flight

‏@BahadurManmohan 8h8 hours ago

@SaurabhJoshi @reportersujan Don't worry abt undercarriage down flight -that can happen. There r othr major concerns

Typical stuff from one more "eminent" member of the LCA baiting group to ensure more dirt sticks to the LCA. Don;t expect him to clarify anywhere what those "major concerns" are, except more muck raking.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 Jul 2015 05:59

One of the major concerns with LCA is that it cannot accurately deploy Natashas.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Jul 2015 06:47

Anujan wrote:One of the major concerns with LCA is that it cannot accurately deploy Natashas.

Solution is simple Saar. GoI should approve a portion of LCA budget to be used to bribe/KushiGoI (IAF is also GoI) officials. Natashas are available aplenty in Bolly/Tolly/Kolly-wood.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2015 07:09

Khalsa Please ask Pranab Mukherjee about Qatar Mirages.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 20 Jul 2015 11:02

shiv wrote:
Chinmayanand wrote: As a mango man, i am pissed at IAF . IAF should be handed over to IN for proper maintenance and renamed to INAF.
To be fair the IAF only wanted more Mirage 2000s. It was the UPA government that said no, go for a contest - MMRCA. The IAF was promised the winner and it is the IAf that has been taken on a wild goose chase. Left to themselves they would have settled for Mirage 2000 a decade ago.

Spares for M2000 would have been a problem by now, if IAF had opted for M2000. Its always better to get a new aircraft unless the aircraft is built by India PSU's who cannot dispose any machinery in time due to bureacracy

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 20 Jul 2015 17:45

LCA assembly line - for god sake, please crank up.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/903828/jf-1 ... ow-report/

PARIS: After high expectations for a deal to pull through, Pakistan was successful in securing its first ever export order for its JF-17 Thunder fighter on Monday at the first day of the International Paris Air Show.

Air Commodore and Pakistan Air Force officer dealing in sales and marketing, Khalid Mahmood said “A contract has been signed with an Asian country.” (Sri Lanka?). However the name of the country was not disclosed and deliveries are likely to begin in 2017.

The report added that 80 people were promoting the JF-17 in Paris this year, reflecting a significant marketing push. Due to security concerns and client sensitivities, Mahmood chose not to specify the name of the customer and the number of aircraft it will obtain from Pakistan

Further, speaking to AFP from the Paris Air Show by phone, Air Commodore Syed Muhammad Ali said an order for the plane had been finalised but declined to give details. “That’s the case, we’ve finalised the order,” he said, citing sensitivities for not naming the client, the number of aircraft or the date of delivery.

Mahmood further stated that the sales for the JF-17 had been delayed due to the political turmoil in numerous countries in the Middle East. Having brought three aircraft to the show this year, one of them will make its flying debut.

Commenting on the success of the show, Mahmood said the choice of venue in terms of meeting prospective customers from French speaking countries is a good one. Analysts believe the major selling point of the JF-17 is its cost, which is likely to be substantially less than the $16-18 million cost of an US-made F-16. The latest models of the jets, which are locally produced in cooperation with China, are lightweight multi-role aircraft capable of Mach 2.0 (twice the speed of sound) with an operational ceiling of 55,000 feet.

With a total 11 countries including Pakistan, China also markets the aircraft. Updating the guests and media on Pakistan’s induction of the type, he claimed that a total of 54 examples of JF-17 have been delivered till date. Out of which the first 50 were delivered in a Block I configuration and an update of these to a Block II standard is underway.

The Block II configuration features improved avionics and better software, and adds a fixed air-to-air refuelling probe. The JF-17 is powered by a single Klimov RD-93 engine.

An addition of Block III configuration with 50 aircraft and 46 aircraft delivered in the Block II configuration is expected to push Pakistan’s fleet to 150 examples, aiming to be delivered by the end of 2018. (150 JF-17 by end of 2018)

“Though the aircraft’s developers are still working out the specifications of the Block III aircraft, upgrades are likely to include an active electronically scanned array (AESA) or Passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar”, Mahmood said.

Further, the configuration could also include an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor, stations under the forward fuselage for various pods, and expanded precision weapons capabilities.

With the aim to serve mainly as a trainer, a two-seat variant is also planned by the developers. Pakistan produces 58% of the airframe and China 42%.

Pakistan was eager to secure its first-ever order for the JF-17 at the international event as Canada’s Bombardier is particularly hungry for sales, after its new C Series aircraft struggled through development delays and difficult market conditions.

Airbus has also confirmed it will display its A400M military transport plane for the first time since a fatal crash in Spain last month caused by a massive engine failure.

With air passenger numbers set to double to six billion annually by 2030, the world’s premier air show in Paris will next week focus on green issues even as the aircraft sales war remains centre stage.

The Paris Air Show brings together some 315,000 visitors and 2,260 exhibitors from 47 countries, with much of the attention focused on which big manufacturers, particularly Airbus and Boeing, will land the most orders.

Pakistan’s large and well-funded military has long been a major importer of defence equipment, particularly from China.

The Paris Air show runs from June 15 to 21, with the final three days open to the public

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 Jul 2015 18:37

A Deshmukh wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Cost worry on Rafale and Tejas
"I wonder if you would go to a car showroom today," said the defence source, "and ask to buy a 1984 model Maruti."
I have to commute everyday 10 kms.
If I have the following choices:
1) walking
2) commuting on my scooter which is 25 yr old and prone to breaking down during my commute
3) buying a 1984 Maruti car
4) buying a imported Mercedes for which I do not really have the money and I can only purchase compromising my basic necessities like medicines and food and risking bankruptcy.

Given the above choices I will go with 1984 Maruti car.

Even thats not the problem. It is a purchaser's mentality (I have so much money, what can you sell me).

The choice is between owning a factory that produces maruti which can change the car to any specification you want vs going to a dealer and buying a mercedes for which he is going to bilk you of your money and charge steep rates for servicing. Its not Maruti vs Mercedes, it is factory vs import.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Jul 2015 19:03

If the armed forces do not do a better job of freeing their decision making from its slavery to foreign vendors, then this aspect should be taken away from them and they should be given the weapons to fight with by MOD.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 20 Jul 2015 19:28

Karan M wrote: Typical stuff from one more "eminent" member of the LCA baiting group to ensure more dirt sticks to the LCA. Don;t expect him to clarify anywhere what those "major concerns" are, except more muck raking.

Just now reading about AVM Bahadur in Nitin G's Siachen book. He was from rotary wing side. He may have inside info but then again, from all public sources, the real air marshals (or for that matter generals) are as much prone to group think as chair marshals.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 21 Jul 2015 01:34

ramana wrote:Khalsa Please ask Pranab Mukherjee about Qatar Mirages.

(sigh) yes sir...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jul 2015 02:12

Khalsa wrote:
ramana wrote:Khalsa Please ask Pranab Mukherjee about Qatar Mirages.
(sigh) yes sir...

These could have been with IAF at Kargil time if Chotte Bhai Sahib had been tied up

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2015 02:30

Bhaskar Maybe Unknown Asian purchaser is India?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jul 2015 04:55

maitya wrote:Not sure why do you constantly claim that there was no weight-creep because of the scope-creep of R60 to R73 (~1.6 to 1.7 times more weight)?

Because there are no facts stating that this requirement added weight.

maitya wrote:pls point where in CAG report does it say there’s no weight-creep because of this CR? All it says that all these CRs added to delays to the program – where does it say there was no weight-creep because of this CR

Yes, indeed, can you point to any part of the CAG report, or any reliable report that says any IAF revised specifications in general or the R-60 to R-73E revised specification in particular added weight?

In the absence of facts proving IAF revised specifications added weight, the notion that IAF revised specifications is a false speculation

Absence of proof IS NOT proving of speculation.

Let me explain via the following example. Suppose someone makes an argument “There are rose bushes in Pluto”. Since no one has seen the surface of Pluto, then one cannot conclusively refute the argument. However, absence of proof IS NOT proving of speculation.

When we don’t know, its best to seek out the correct facts. Or wait for facts to emerge rather than needless speculation that is unscientific.

So just because CAG or any reliable report anywhere does not mention IAF specifications added weight, does not prove the speculation of “IAF specifications added weight correct.”

maitya wrote:So let me ask again, where does this say, in pg 14 or para 2.3.2* or elsewhere, that weight-increase of the platform is not due to these CRs?

Refer the data available on hardpoints. The inner wing hardpoint is stressed to carry 1200 kg, the middle wing hardpoint is stressed to carry 800 kg and the outer wing hardpoint is stressed to carry 150 kg.

Let go through each revised ASR.

R-73E weighs 105 kg while R-60 weighs 43 kg. So the stressing of the outer hardpoint had to be increased. We don’t know how much weight it added.

FAB 500 M-62 bomb weighs 500 kg, and the middle wing hardpoint was by design stressed to carry 800 kg. So this revised specification could not have added weight.

CMDS is manufactured by BDL and fitted in the wing root near the trailing edge.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pe3ROA8moWE/T ... penser.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VvDs0fRWm6k/V ... System.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6346/img2357e.jpg

Its weight is published in BDL posters at Aero India & Defexpo, but along with its controller, it weighs a few kilos. Anyone having that particular BDL poster photograph can share the specific details. The same dispenser system will be fitted to Mirage 2000 upgrade.

Lastly, Python too weighs 105 kg while Derby weighs 118 kg. So adding these cannot increase structural weight since these can be carried in all six hardpoints that are stressed for 1200 kg, 800 kg & 150 kg respectively.

maitya wrote:Common junta like us will not have access to what got specified by the ASR. But if you can’t then there’s only other option left … try to inference from what the basic details are available and then use ones basic science knowledge to deduce inferences from it.

Sir, I would request you to kindly enlighten me and the rest of the forum as to what basic details and basic science knowledge were used to arrive at the incorrect speculation that “Revised IAF speculations added weight.”

maitya wrote:I reject your assertion that “…Some forum members keep talking vaguely about scope-creep contributing to weight-creep but seem to be completely lost when asked to specify the scope creep …” ityadi ityadi.

Sir, unless you provide proof that revised IAF specifications added weight, my assertion that your statement is purely your speculation holds true.

maitya wrote:we are asking that why is the ASR not changed to revise the empty weight specification upwards, when this CR was asked for?

The empty weight ASR has been permanently waived off during IOC in December 2013. Again, we do not know that adding R-73E increased structural weight. Even if it did, it would be a fraction of the missile weight.

maitya wrote:why is this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place?

My direct response to this point is that your statement is a grossly incorrect speculation in the absence of facts that conclusively prove weight creep was due to scope creep.

The LCA Mk1’s weight is the way it is. And the LCA Navy Mk1 fighter will never be able to take off from a STOBAR aircraft carrier like INS Vikrant or INS Vikramaditya.

maitya wrote:What they can do however, is ensure it never get flight tested ever (no NFTC setting up by the good AM Rajkaumar, no nothing, just a “science project” which SDREs keep prodding along) and no feedback gets into the development lifecycle etc etc etc

Again, meaningless speculation.

HAL Test Pilots and ASTE thoroughly tested the Marut and are still there for the LCA program. And IAF actually set up NFTC in 2001.

maitya wrote:This exactly the user attitude what has bedeviled this program … going by your rational, it would completely divorced the user community of a program and that would have somehow “helped” it, is it?

No, none of my statements ever said so. What I meant was failures are acceptable in national projects that bash on regardless due to larger national interest. The ATV project was an even bigger disaster in mid 90’s before it turned around.

maitya wrote:constant disparaging and unfounded criticism by IAF of the program (while cleverly hiding the root-cause of those delays).

Firstly, it was a DRDO only show, who asked the IAF to lay off, that alienated the IAF. As very politely put here,
https://tkstales.wordpress.com/2012/04/ ... /[quote]If the DRDO is confident of achieving everything they have aimed at, God-Speed to them. We are however skeptical about their time frame of one decade. Therefore, we recommend that the effort of the DRDO be taken up as a national project not related to Air Force funds and plans. If the DRDO succeeds in its venture and a useable aircraft is produced, the Air Force can always induct that product as soon as it is available. [/quote]
Secondly, weapons specifications were not the only reason for delay. The development was not linear. There are still other issues to be rectified. From the CAG report

Present position RWR fitted on LCA Mk-I is having issues such as degradation of direction finding accuracy, reset in air, etc and DARE is in the process of resolving these issues.

Thirdly, DRDO & HAL have repeated given overly optimistic timelines over the past decades. I can fill pages after pages quoting these optimistic timelines, the latest ones being SP rollout timelines. What is the need to give out such optimistic timelines? No IAF pilot will want to join 45 squadron. Reason being in the absence of planes, how will he log flight hours to progress his career?

It is the bad blood created at the onset of the project that lingers today.

maitya wrote:But, I’d still point out a small fallacy in your argument (I’ve kept that one and snipped the others, but similar argument can be applied there as well) viz. IMO, the R-73 “introduction” to IAF should not be exactly matched to the induction-date of a platform (in this case you chose Su-30), and thus by implication, became “known” to the line pilots.

Again, your inference is wrong. Here is the correct inference of what I posted.

It does not matter when a weapon system is “known” or “introduced”. What matters is when a weapon system is “standardized”

With the Sukhoi Su-30MKI contract in 30th November 1996, IAF decided to induct 40+140 aircraft. 10 Indonesian Su-30K were added later. With such a large induction of 190 aircraft, it was clear that R-73E will be the largest serving CCAAM in IAF. Hence it was specified for Tejas in March 1997.

maitya wrote:R-73 as a weapon system was made “available” to IAF long back as a part of the 21-93 upgrade program proposals in circa 1991 (by MiG MAPO, after which a IAF-MiG-MAPO joint study was conducted and the proposal accepted) – though the contract signing happened (after the usual baboon-calisthenics-giri in MoD) on Mar’1994.

Here are the correct and complete timelines. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Bison.html

The Russian Counterpart – MiG MAPO indicated in August 91 that an upgrade of the MiG-21 can be carried out. After a joint study, it was decided to award the contract for upgradation to MiG-MAPO in in March 1994.

The proposal for 125 MiG Bis aircraft with an option to upgrade 50 more aircraft at a total cost of US$ 626 million was cleared in January 1996.

HAL dispatched two aircraft (C-2777 and C-2769) to Russia in May 1996 for modification. However the Air Force team could only reach in October 96.

The flight-testing and combat evaluation of the aircraft, which was scheduled to be completed by April 1998 was completed only by September 2000 after a delay of 30 months.

Again, while the missile was known, and indeed, even selected for MiG-21, it was an unknown quantity until the IAF team saw it first fired from Su-27PU/30. R-73E was actually tested from a MiG-21 Bison much later, after the Su-30 contract was signed and after it was specified for LCA.

maitya wrote:I think it was available via the MiG-29 procurement program even earlier, thoug I’m not sure if that was the check – need to check the archives),

No, IAF MiG-29’s were the earliest export MiG’s, and did not have ability to fire R-73E.

maitya wrote:So sure a line pilot would have “come to know” about R-73 and it’s capabilities starting from 1996

maitya wrote:but the IAF teams who would be writing-and-controlling the ASRs etc would have surely known almost possible details about in much earlier (via the 21-93 upgrade program atleast) around 1991-92, and thus it’s expected they should have asked for it much earlier, isn’t it?

“Known”, "Available", “introduced” or “come to know” is immaterial. What matters is when it was tested and standardized. In the case of R-73E, it was November 2006. In case of Derby, it was 2009 after Sea Harrier testing

Finally, on the question of ASR, I found a tantalizing fact in Abhibhushan Sir’s post.

Directorate of Air Staff Requirements (DASR) under Air Vice Marshal JW (Johney) Greene took over the actual conduct of the conference, as ultimately they would have to become the nodal agency for induction of an indigenous aircraft.

Now, Air Marshal Johnny Greene was one of India’s best most respected fighter pilots & leaders. His personal & team performance in 1965 & 1971 wars were highly distinguished, and he won a Vir Chakra in 1965.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Perso ... reene.html

Quite unfortunately, I missed meeting him, even though my wife was from his neighbourhood.

He is legendary for his integrity. I’m sure if his team drafted the ASR’s, then they would’ve been reasonable.

I’m sure Abhibhushan Sir would have known him well.

I would request Abhibhushan Sir to throw some more light on the ASRs for Tejas, especially with eminent personalities like Johnny Greene involved. Were the ASR’s reasonable, specifically the AoA, ITR & STR?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jul 2015 05:21

maitya wrote:For e.g. you go to a good/large BRD - you will see Cpl/Sgt ranks far outweigh the officer cadre wrt professional (mostly technical) qual etc. And it's far more evident on a day-to-day work-profile.
Almost ~2+ decades back, one witnessed the M53-P2 engine test being conducted, completely end-to-end, by a group of NCOs and other airmen (max rank seen was a MWO, but mostly were WO, JWOs and Sgts) - not a single tech aphsaar were on sight (guess they were too busy, signing-off various PL/SL/ELs, in triplicate and other std baboon-giri, that is normally witnessed in Dilli corridors). When enquired, the smiles were quite instructive of what those men felt about usability of these aphsaars.

Betw, When TSarkarji quotes about a shipyard and various labor-attitudes being displayed there and it's adverse impact on shaping IAF personnel's attitudes towards civilians. In the same vein, how about the above example (and there are many such examples) and it's impact on civilians attitudes being shaped. Though I have to admit, such interface is much less possible for a civilian population given the closed nature of the armed forces activities (by design).

Sir, in the IT industry, how many project managers do bug fixing? Or coding? Most PMI certified PMs do paper work & client meetings only.

Point being leaders are supposed to provide direction & guidance. Not do it yourself everything.

A project manager not doing bug fixing most of the time is not an indication of either his technical skills or leadership skills.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jul 2015 05:23

Anujan wrote:One of the major concerns with LCA is that it cannot accurately deploy Natashas.

Do you know, Anujan, that the Param Veer Chakra was designed by a Natasha?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 21 Jul 2015 08:39

Rajat Pandit strikes again !!!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 152959.cms

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Jul 2015 09:13

tsarkar wrote:
Anujan wrote:One of the major concerns with LCA is that it cannot accurately deploy Natashas.
Do you know, Anujan, that the Param Veer Chakra was designed by a Natasha?

and that justifies perpetual imports from abroad??

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 21 Jul 2015 10:13

Shaun wrote:Rajat Pandit strikes again !!!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 152959.cms

But the lightweight Tejas cannot fulfil the role of a medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) like Rafale or a "heavyweight" Sukhoi-30MKI. With a reach of just about 400-km, Tejas has just one-third the range and weapon-load capacity of a Rafale or a Sukhoi. So, Tejas cannot be used for deep bombing strikes, for example targets in China.

Seems like Mr Pandit doesnt even read TOI. There are half page ads by IAF with Tejas Pic and written as Tejas-The defender in point size 24.
Heck even a beginner like me can poke holes into his article, by just going through this forum!!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jul 2015 13:01

Anujan wrote:One of the major concerns with LCA is that it cannot accurately deploy Natashas.

tsarkar wrote: Do you know, Anujan, that the Param Veer Chakra was designed by a Natasha?

Pratyush wrote:and that justifies perpetual imports from abroad??

No, Pratyush, it doesn't.

Savitri Bai Khanolkar is one of Indian Military's most distinguished personalities. She was of Hungarian & Russian origin. She fell in love with an Indian officer undergoing training in Europe and came to India to marry him. Her life is exemplary, despite her Hungarian & Russian origin.

Presently, Indian Officers & Sailors deployed overseas are not permitted to have relationships with citizens there. If they do, then they either have to resign their commissions or take approval of HQ that is given in the rarest of rare cases.

The reason I bring her reference to this discussion is that people not of Indian origin have significantly contributed to our military ethos & history.

Certain forum members post baseless allegations of Foreign and specifically Russian Commercial Sex Workers influencing Indian military deals. If any member has any conclusive evidence, he is welcome to post.

However, baseless speculation of salacious nature only shows the perverted mindset of the poster, and digresses the discussion.

In that case, members should start a Military Speculation, Salacious Thoughts and Conspiracy Theory thread and post there.

Also, in the interest of fairness, the same members should also accuse Shri Modi of being influenced by Natashas to order Russian frigates without DAC & CCS oversight. However, the same Modi government has ordered INSAS Excalibur, so I understand members's ambivalence in accusing him of being influenced by Natashas to order Russian frigates. There is also the tantalizing possibility of a latest Russian Type 885 submarine lease, so a pound of flesh can be possibly paid as these frigates.

I understand member's anguish and frustration over the Tejas program, but one needs to stay rational & reasonable in difficult times, and work towards a logical outcome irrespective of circumstances.

Certain sections of the media make outrageous comments. Including service personnel, serving & retired. However, the answer to such unreasonable comments is not countering with further unreasonable comments.

Baseless speculation and salacious allegations achieve nothing. And best avoided.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jul 2015 13:53

Certain forum members post baseless allegations of Foreign and specifically Russian Commercial Sex Workers influencing Indian military deals. If any member has any conclusive evidence, he is welcome to post.

However, baseless speculation of salacious nature only shows the perverted mindset of the poster, and digresses the discussion.

In that case, members should start a Military Speculation, Salacious Thoughts and Conspiracy Theory thread and post there.

Hmm.. You obviously did see the photos of the Navy Officer overseeing the Gorshkov refit in the arms of a Natasha. The photos were posted in livefist (Shiv Aroor's blog!)

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 21 Jul 2015 13:55

========

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:Not sure why do you constantly claim that there was no weight-creep because of the scope-creep of R60 to R73 (~1.6 to 1.7 times more weight)?
Because there are no facts stating that this requirement added weight.http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... &p=1873120#
maitya wrote:pls point where in CAG report does it say there’s no weight-creep because of this CR? All it says that all these CRs added to delays to the program – where does it say there was no weight-creep because of this CR
Yes, indeed, can you point to any part of the CAG report, or any reliable report that says any IAF revised specifications in general or the R-60 to R-73E revised specification in particular added weight?

In the absence of facts proving IAF revised specifications added weight, the notion that IAF revised specifications is a false speculation

Absence of proof IS NOT proving of speculation.
<snip>
When we don’t know, its best to seek out the correct facts. Or wait for facts to emerge rather than needless speculation that is unscientific.

So just because CAG or any reliable report anywhere does not mention IAF specifications added weight, does not prove the speculation of “IAF specifications added weight correct.”
maitya wrote:So let me ask again, where does this say, in pg 14 or para 2.3.2* or elsewhere, that weight-increase of the platform is not due to these CRs?
Refer the data available on hardpoints. The inner wing hardpoint is stressed to carry 1200 kg, the middle wing hardpoint is stressed to carry 800 kg and the outer wing hardpoint is stressed to carry 150 kg.

Let go through each revised ASR.
R-73E weighs 105 kg while R-60 weighs 43 kg. So the stressing of the outer hardpoint had to be increased. We don’t know how much weight it added.
<snip>
maitya wrote:Common junta like us will not have access to what got specified by the ASR. But if you can’t then there’s only other option left … try to inference from what the basic details are available and then use ones basic science knowledge to deduce inferences from it.
Sir, I would request you to kindly enlighten me and the rest of the forum as to what basic details and basic science knowledge were used to arrive at the incorrect speculation that “Revised IAF speculations added weight.”
maitya wrote:I reject your assertion that “…Some forum members keep talking vaguely about scope-creep contributing to weight-creep but seem to be completely lost when asked to specify the scope creep …” ityadi ityadi.
Sir, unless you provide proof that revised IAF specifications added weight, my assertion that your statement is purely your speculation holds true.
maitya wrote:we are asking that why is the ASR not changed to revise the empty weight specification upwards, when this CR was asked for?
The empty weight ASR has been permanently waived off during IOC in December 2013. Again, we do not know that adding R-73E increased structural weight. Even if it did, it would be a fraction of the missile weight.

Let’s see the chain of argument building here …

Huge discomfort, (maybe more due to constant pleading by various serving and maybe even retired bum-chumps to “do something”, about their helplessness with the rising chorus about them being called-out – now this is pure speculation on my part) as forces are getting called out for specifying various unobtaniums, and the basic dishonesty of the logic used by them in disparaging the program.

You jump in and point out various pages of CAG report to prove there was no weight-creep due to R-60 to R-73 change in requirements.

When challenged, your logic got changed to since the CAG report doesn’t explicitly say there’s no weight creep for the changing from a R-60 to R-73, there must be none – and, by implication, insinuate that all of the weight creep of the parent platform (from 5500Kg to 6500Kg) is purely because of bad structural design etc.

Also, when it’s mentioned to you (and I did mention, in one of my earlier posts, in this very thread) that a structure (that is 8G stressed – betw do you know what would be the ultimate load levels to which a structure like these will need to be designed for) which will more-or-less behave like an cantilever, would have quite a bit of impact because of such load increment at the very-end-point of the moment arm.

In fact Ramanaji actually did the rough calculation and posted the value in this very thread.

But no, you will still come back and state stuff like …

tsarkar wrote: Yes, indeed, can you point to any part of the CAG report, or any reliable report that says any IAF revised specifications in general or the R-60 to R-73E revised specification in particular added weight?
…
In the absence of facts proving IAF revised specifications added weight, the notion that IAF revised specifications is a false speculation
…
Absence of proof IS NOT proving of speculation.

Well this is called straw-man argument building … first specify your speculation since that CAG report doesn’t explicitly say there’s no weight creep for the changing from a R-60 to R-73, there must be none.

And then ask others to prove that your above speculation is wrong.

What is more galling is when, in absence of direct quotable facts, a hint was given to try and argue wrt basic scientific knowledge and deduce inference etc … you come with a silly counter-argument like

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:Common junta like us will not have access to what got specified by the ASR. But if you can’t then there’s only other option left … try to inference from what the basic details are available and then use ones basic science knowledge to deduce inferences from it.
Sir, I would request you to kindly enlighten me and the rest of the forum as to what basic details and basic science knowledge were used to arrive at the incorrect speculation that “Revised IAF speculations added weight.”

So you didn’t want to comprehend what these basic science knowledge, to deduce inferences meant, didn’t you – but why do you assume other’s will be similarly challenged?

A hint, wrt simple moment-arm of a cantilever load bearing structure was given, if you can’t deduce inferences from it, it’s your problem – but others will be capable enough to do so.
But your unwillingness/inability to use basic science knowledge, to deduce inferences doesn’t automatically mean others, who are capable to indeed deduce some inferences with such exercises, would needed to be dismissed as “incorrect speculation”.

You know the sad part of this whole thing … I actually was thinking to post my own rough-cut structural weight-creep estimation* to arrive at a rough-cut % level of the weight-increment that may have happened.
-----------------------------------------------
(*Note: Which I failed to conclude - there’re just too many variables at play that are not published or I’m not aware of, and assuming too many values for them will skew the inference too much. For e.g. what is the total lift force generated and what is the rough distn of this counter-load force, what is the torsional-moment experienced due to this and what points etc.
It’s a different matter, as an offshoot, I’s able to build up a model which would provide a very rough-cut estimate the weight of the LCA wing, which would have helped me to roughly calculate the bending moment due to this weight, under Ultimate Load factor etc – so atleast personally that effort was not a complete waste, as I learnt something new.)

Now I wouldn’t …
Why should I feel obligated* to enlighten you and the rest of the forum – why is this sense of entitlement?
Let people like you and others, actually put that thinking and deducing effort and bring something worthwhile to the discussion table - some quantitative analysis that can be used to understand and debate a topic in a more minute detail
(*Note:no need of spoon-feeding, anyway that has been a BRF motto for a pretty long time).

Ofcourse, it’s much easier for you (and a few others) to continue to speculate, to defend the reprehensible attitude of IAF wrt this program, in verbose Ingliss, like above – which, by the way, a trait that is actually quite evident by the “logic” that emanates from various bum-chumps of yours when they denigrate LCA program to various media outlets (for e.g. “falling waaay short of ASR”etc).

But then again, it’s similarly much easier to counter such verbose arguments with more-verbose counter-arguments (time permitting, of course) – deducing inferences using basic science knowledge, be damned!!

Until we get a fact either confirming or contradicting it, coming from a source the authenticity/honesty of course will remain mutually agreeable.

=======================

Betw do you seriously believe the bolded part below ...

tsarkar wrote:Again, we do not know that adding R-73E increased structural weight. Even if it did, it would be a fraction of the missile weight.

So you mean if we increase the weight load to any pylon by 1Kg beyond the design limit of that pylon, the overall structural weight gain to counter that 1Kg additional weight will always be <1Kg.

And here I’s thinking that the bending moment on the wing-root T-joint may have just been breached, may have necessitated in strengthening of the whole load-bearing structure of the fuselage itself. Now since I don’t know what kind of thickness (and other geometry) and material properties (like Youngs Modulus, Tensile Strength etc) and other supporting structural infra) was used in the fuselage structure, it will be futile to speculative the increment weight creep in those aspects as well.

Silly me!!

==============================

Anyway enough verbose response related bandwidth/effort wasting, let conclude as:
So, notwithstanding your various verbose kalisthenics like speculation-non-speculation-speculation-non-speculation etc, wrt your quote below, let me state that,

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:why is this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place?
My direct response to this point is that your statement is a grossly incorrect speculation in the absence of facts that conclusively prove weight creep was due to scope creep.

My direct response to this point is that your counter-argument that overall weight creep was not due to this scope creep, is a mere incorrect speculation in the absence of facts that conclusively prove no part of the weight creep was due to this scope creep.

==================================

Ofcourse some examples were also given … such as,

tsarkar wrote:Let me explain via the following example. Suppose someone makes an argument “There are rose bushes in Pluto”. Since no one has seen the surface of Pluto, then one cannot conclusively refute the argument. However, absence of proof IS NOT proving of speculation.

If you’d given an example, I should also be entitled to one, right?

If you are driving a car and you know it will burn 10L of Petrol for running a distance of 130Km, seating 4 Passengers of avg weight of 60Kg – and for that your fuel cost will be Rs. 650 so, the total charge to the mukhia of those 4 person would be 650+300 = 950Rs.
But your assumption goes haywire as majority of the passenger turned out to be 80Kg+ and thus your re-calculated fuel-consumed amount amounts to be Rs 750 and thus you want to charge Rs. 1050 (tough luck, getting that amount, but that’s a diff discussion).

The point is, was the rationale behind asking for Rs1050 wrong – or was it, quoting you, “unscientific speculation”? Is there a proof, without undertaking that journey, that addn 100Rs worth of petrol will be burnt?

So, just like nobody has been to the surface of the Pluto (and thus can’t conclusively refute the argument that “There are rose bushes in Pluto”), similarly since nobody has seen the future, an argument that a fuel cost would remian same after the journey has been undertaken, irrespective of heavier passenger weights, can’t also be refuted right? More so, since any logic wrt basic science knowledge, to deduce inferences won't be allowed!!

WRONG … and why is it wrong, I’ll not waste my time and forum band-width explain it.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 21 Jul 2015 15:17

tsarkar wrote:
maitya wrote:For e.g. you go to a good/large BRD - you will see Cpl/Sgt ranks far outweigh the officer cadre wrt professional (mostly technical) qual etc. And it's far more evident on a day-to-day work-profile.
Almost ~2+ decades back, one witnessed the M53-P2 engine test being conducted, completely end-to-end, by a group of NCOs and other airmen (max rank seen was a MWO, but mostly were WO, JWOs and Sgts) - not a single tech aphsaar were on sight (guess they were too busy, signing-off various PL/SL/ELs, in triplicate and other std baboon-giri, that is normally witnessed in Dilli corridors). When enquired, the smiles were quite instructive of what those men felt about usability of these aphsaars.

Betw, When TSarkarji quotes about a shipyard and various labor-attitudes being displayed there and it's adverse impact on shaping IAF personnel's attitudes towards civilians. In the same vein, how about the above example (and there are many such examples) and it's impact on civilians attitudes being shaped. Though I have to admit, such interface is much less possible for a civilian population given the closed nature of the armed forces activities (by design).
Sir, in the IT industry, how many project managers do bug fixing? Or coding? Most PMI certified PMs do paper work & client meetings only.

Point being leaders are supposed to provide direction & guidance. Not do it yourself everything.

A project manager not doing bug fixing most of the time is not an indication of either his technical skills or leadership skills.

Indian IT PMs

Will not post in detail as it will derail the thread completely ...

True Leaders are also supposed to following a dictums like "Never ask your sub-ordinates to do something what you yourself are not willing to do" (IIRC ofcourse, the exact verbiage was actually very well constructed). And you've correctly pointed out the difference between "managers" and "leaders" above.

But that doesn't mean a leader would be doing everything themselves ... and those supposedly leaders were completely MIA means only one thing.

But I'll stop here ...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Jul 2015 16:34

^ Silly arguments as usual. In my 20yrs of ITVity experience, I came across less number of per-capita engineer leaders compared other fields of ITVity. IT project management is as ITVity as any other aspect such as product management, QA, business analyst, Software engineering or IT marketing etc.

What next President of India has to be a fighter pilot, navy sailor and tank operator before she can be commander in chief?

Given the land/apartment/acquisition scams and the likes of Ajay Shuklas and Admiral Sushil Kumar, the rot in armed forces isn't new but as old as the political rot.

Citizens/voters don't get offended when politicians are called names, but why ex- servicemen get so touchy when military personnel are criticized? Time for introspection in armed forces before more skeletons tumble out.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 21 Jul 2015 16:39

vina wrote:
Certain forum members post baseless allegations of Foreign and specifically Russian Commercial Sex Workers influencing Indian military deals. If any member has any conclusive evidence, he is welcome to post.

However, baseless speculation of salacious nature only shows the perverted mindset of the poster, and digresses the discussion.

In that case, members should start a Military Speculation, Salacious Thoughts and Conspiracy Theory thread and post there.
Hmm.. You obviously did see the photos of the Navy Officer overseeing the Gorshkov refit in the arms of a Natasha. The photos were posted in livefist (Shiv Aroor's blog!)

Web is littered with the photo and story. Just need to put Gorshkov, Russian Lady and Navy officer. This juicy bit pops up.
Who is to say convincingly that his judgement was not impaired due to this. Did he plan to marry her?
But one case does not mean that entire IAF is to blame for imports. I think those who want to see Indian fighter planes in IAF are sidelined and do not rise enough to become CAS. After Air Chief Latif , I don't know of any CAS who wanted LCA to succeed. They have been changing goalposts very often implying delay.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jul 2015 17:52

vina wrote:Hmm.. You obviously did see the photos of the Navy Officer overseeing the Gorshkov refit in the arms of a Natasha. The photos were posted in livefist (Shiv Aroor's blog!)

Yes Vina, I knew that this would the next post on the subject.

In that particular case, in the court of inquiry, it was established that his personal relationship did not affect his professional duties, nor did he make any favours. The gentleman in question was single, and he had a relationship. However, he was dismissed from service because he did not follow service procedures governing such matters.

There are other cases I know that are not in public domain. Many Indian Navy officers & sailors took voluntary retirement to marry their Russian wives. Or for that matter British or German or American wives. Not every relationship is a honey trap. In the days of the British Raj, it was quite common, as General Khanolkar's case, despite the ongoing Great Game between Britain & Russia.

And not every import is influenced by Natasha's. Otherwise, Modi (1135.6) & George Fernandes (Gorshkov), would be the biggest suckers in the honey trap.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 21 Jul 2015 18:40

what ever the reasons might be , FOC next year ( according to the great pandit) is a setback for us , jingos .

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jul 2015 19:28

Shaun wrote:what ever the reasons might be , FOC next year ( according to the great pandit) is a setback for us , jingos .

Whats the surprise in that article? The FoC was already moved to next year pending items from Cobham for radome and refuelling probe. Just a sensationalist hit job from a presstitute!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2015 19:34

In school in my days we used to have a thing called precis writing in which a long paragraph had to be condensed into a couple of sentences without loss of meaning. These journalists do a course in pureshit writing where they expand three words into a whole page without adding any meaning.