LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

macaque wrote:One could very well make the opposite case, that the standards in auto industry are higher than in the aerospace industry. Think of the
lowly Maruti 800. It has to last 10-20 years with minimal maintenance, with no fuel quality control, no sheltered storage and driven
by mostly unqualified drivers ! The point is we do not acknowledge the reliability that auto components exhibit. If you
think of newer standards like ISO26262 (for sw and reliability) and the fact that safety critical systems in cars are approaching
aerospace levels, there is a case to be made for using auto components in aerospace.

IIT in fact is advocating using the same standards like ISO26262 and space grade SRIO interconnects in the auto and aerospace sector.
I frankly feel the distinction is arbitrary. My ABS better be as reliable as the fly by wire in the jet I fly in. There is no earthly reason
why they should have different reliability standards and no reason why aerospace grade systems should be expensive.

Time to a rethink on this issue.
You are going tangent to my point and perhaps you got mixed up in your concepts. I was referring to manufacturing specifically. I Don't agree what you say. Aerospace design requirements are far far more stringent than even the most extravagant sports car. I cannot overemphasize how much more reliable aerospace systems are as compared to cars. I know for sure as I design some. Don't be fooled by the longevity of Maruti800. A fighter which needs perhaps 20-30 man hrs of maintenance for every flight hr, doesn't mean its less reliable than a Maruti800 which runs many days without maintenance. The kind of operating conditions a jet has to face cannot be compared to anything that a car sees, ever. What would it be like to have a car which will never break down in the middle of the road for 25 yrs of rigorous use??

It would be absurd to use aerospace grade reliability standards for auto industry across the spectrum, since all it will do it make the design and manufacture too expensive. That ISO standard you refer to is much easier to apply to a car. Try using mechanical, material or manufacturing standards for auto and see what happens. Let alone airplane, just think of making a Maruti 800 as safe as a BMW or Ferrari in a crash. Would it still cost 3lakh?
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SanjayC »

I am open to export Tejas, BrahMos & Akash: Parrikar
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... s-1.956493
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1982
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by sudeepj »

LCA assembly line at peak production is going to produce 16 fighters an year. A car assembly line produces 16 cars an hour. They are two completely different manufacturing domains. A commercial aircraft production line such as the 777 or 737 may have more lessons to offer.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vivek K »

SanjayC wrote:I am open to export Tejas, BrahMos & Akash: Parrikar
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... s-1.956493
What about Arjun?
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vipul »

Exporting Tejas? First set up another plant (will be ready for production only after 36 Months) to meet the Indian needs.The present set-up is good only for 8-10 frames a year!!!
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by srai »

^^^

It goes beyond just production capacity. India would need to come up with a framework on how it wants to export its "big-ticket" products to define what is sensitive, what needs to be downgraded, MoU between G-2G, GoI financing scheme, potential offsets/ToT/licensed assembly and others like negotiated agreements with both domestic and international partners (and their governments) that supply various parts/components. This then needs to be followed up with marketing/sales plan that offers various types of packages including platform, lifecycle support, training, support infrastructure and weapons. Then, there is production and after-sales support that needs to be in place. India is nowhere near this as yet.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60255
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

The statement shows a forward thinking stance. Instead of limited orders for Indian armed forces the idea is to sell to the world. OFB used to sell 0.303 bullets to Gulf and part themselves on the back!
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5564
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

^kudos to M Parrikar for actually saying this....forward thinking indeed!
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6682
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Manish_P »

Good thinking indeed

IMVHO though fulfilling our domestic requirement must be the topmost priority... and to the extent possible let the export version be a 'down graded variant'.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by KrishnaK »

macaque wrote:My ABS better be as reliable as the fly by wire in the jet I fly in. There is no earthly reason
why they should have different reliability standards and no reason why aerospace grade systems should be expensive.
To illustrate the use of diversity in an aviation system, look at Airbus, in which diversity is employed at several levels. Diverse software is used in the Airbus A-310, A-320, A-330, and A-340 flight control systems [4, 5]. The A-320 flight control system uses two types of computers that are manufactured by different companies, resulting in different architectures and microprocessors. The computers are based on different functional specifications. One of four diverse software packages resides on each control and monitoring channel on the two computers. The controller uses N-version programming (NVP) to manage the diverse software, enabling software fault tolerance.
From Software Fault Tolerance Techniques and Implementation
member_28437
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_28437 »

Actually the requirements have pretty much converged. We have actually done work for controls in nuclear, aerospace and now
autonomous land vehicles. Designing for cars is actually the toughest since cost has to be low. Aerospace has some weight restrictions
but SW reliability and system reliability are identical. The operating conditions of a car in some sense is a lot worse. MTBF rates have to be
some an order or two of magnitude higher. You would be surprised to know that the physical electronics and the control software have pretty much converged. To the extent that in our work, we no longer design specifically for each sector. The control processor for a motorcycle for example
will be designed to be as reliable as the control processor in a fly by wire control processor in an aircraft. Think about it, why on earth
should an avionics system be more expensive other than handling g forces, lower temperatures and vibration. More ruggedized HW but the
system design remains the same. Used to design boards for Curtis-Wright almost a decade ago (yes from the Wright brothers !), more rugged
but not earth shakingly more complex.

To have a meaningful conversation on this, list the parameters which you think increases design complexity. Do you think MTBF should be lower for
automotive ? or is it environmental conditions ? So how come COTS has become so popular in aerospace. To give an example,
in the RapidIO standards, space qualification is basically an increase in error handling and toning down some features. It is
just a simple extension called part S. Now this is the difference between something used in a data center and something used in aerospace.
For auto, I will simply use the aerospace variant including the ruggedized connectors but cooling of the boards will be simpler.
You grossly underestimate the design complexity of the electronic systems that go in a high end car given the complexity
of the electronics we add nowadays. I am of course restricting my statements to avionics.

A Nasa presentation sheds light on this issue.
http://nepp.nasa.gov/workshops/etw2013/ ... 0Parts.pdf

Note that current generation processors can support radiation hardness at much lower cost. In fact these are recommended for
autonomous vehicles, the advent of which is what making the worlds converge. The rest of the concerns has to do with
qualification and testing methodologies. This is just binning and not designing specific aerospace components.
Check out NXP Qorivva or TI Cotex R5 parts.

So while you cannot just take an auto module and plunk it in a plane, it is not hard to get a high quality auto manufacturer to
supply aerospace components at lower costs. Th differential is not that great. In fact teh biggest pain is the 25 year supply
(typically 10-15 for auto) and
storage criteria. Can be done but volumes are not high enough to justify the cost. But if components are shared, it is a different matter.

nileshjr wrote:
macaque wrote:One could very well make the opposite case, that the standards in auto industry are higher than in the aerospace industry. Think of the
lowly Maruti 800. It has to last 10-20 years with minimal maintenance, with no fuel quality control, no sheltered storage and driven
by mostly unqualified drivers ! The point is we do not acknowledge the reliability that auto components exhibit. If you
think of newer standards like ISO26262 (for sw and reliability) and the fact that safety critical systems in cars are approaching
aerospace levels, there is a case to be made for using auto components in aerospace.

IIT in fact is advocating using the same standards like ISO26262 and space grade SRIO interconnects in the auto and aerospace sector.
I frankly feel the distinction is arbitrary. My ABS better be as reliable as the fly by wire in the jet I fly in. There is no earthly reason
why they should have different reliability standards and no reason why aerospace grade systems should be expensive.

Time to a rethink on this issue.
You are going tangent to my point and perhaps you got mixed up in your concepts. I was referring to manufacturing specifically. I Don't agree what you say. Aerospace design requirements are far far more stringent than even the most extravagant sports car. I cannot overemphasize how much more reliable aerospace systems are as compared to cars. I know for sure as I design some. Don't be fooled by the longevity of Maruti800. A fighter which needs perhaps 20-30 man hrs of maintenance for every flight hr, doesn't mean its less reliable than a Maruti800 which runs many days without maintenance. The kind of operating conditions a jet has to face cannot be compared to anything that a car sees, ever. What would it be like to have a car which will never break down in the middle of the road for 25 yrs of rigorous use??

It would be absurd to use aerospace grade reliability standards for auto industry across the spectrum, since all it will do it make the design and manufacture too expensive. That ISO standard you refer to is much easier to apply to a car. Try using mechanical, material or manufacturing standards for auto and see what happens. Let alone airplane, just think of making a Maruti 800 as safe as a BMW or Ferrari in a crash. Would it still cost 3lakh?
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1982
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by sudeepj »

The difference in cost of digital avionics vs anything else arises from economics of scale. A few thousand articles vs millions.
KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by KBDagha »

I don't know who comes up with such stupid PILs :roll:

PIL urges stay on test flights near HAL airport

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... n=COLUMBIA
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Kersi D »

KBDagha wrote:I don't know who comes up with such stupid PILs :roll:

PIL urges stay on test flights near HAL airport

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... n=COLUMBIA

Soem one who does not want Tejas to succeed
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

^^ Builder lobby
The PIL, filed by city advocate N P Amrutesh . . . also seeks for setting up of an appropriate authority to issue NOCs with regard to construction around HAL airport.
Fortunately judiciary is wise
Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee also sought to know from the petitioner as to how such a prayer can be sought in the light of the fact that HAL airport was visualized as a test flying airstrip in the first place.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

The place has mushrooming buildings on all sides already.
But I guess high-rises are prohibited on the glide path from.varthur lake to hal so that belt remains kind of unused..

Builder lobby at work.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Rahul M »

who came first, HAL airport or building projects ?
perhaps the PIL should be turned on its head by the justice and ask the builders to demolish their projects and move elsewhere, given the risks helpfully pointed out by the advocate.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

Rahul M wrote:who came first, HAL airport or building projects ?
perhaps the PIL should be turned on its head by the justice and ask the builders to demolish their projects and move elsewhere, given the risks helpfully pointed out by the advocate.
There are areas towards Murgeshpalya which have lived with the airport for ever and have never complained. The PIL must have come from the new housing that have come up near the airport boundary on the south side and east end.

South side has Rohan Jharokha project and Prestige has just started on a new project. Even these seem fine as they are clear of approach and take off.

At eastern end of the runway just outside the airport are two uber projects - one from Sobha and the other is called 77degrees. High price residential projects nearing completion but the folks have not moved in. Sobha project seems to be closer to completion. These are barely clear of the approach path and for them it will not just be the roar of the fighter but those close approaches that will bother them.

To me these constructions are either outright violations of norms or are borderline. The people who have complained (I am not sure who they are) have chosen their time to coincide with the completion of these projects.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

An32 do repeated touch and go night landing practice in hal also.

People who bought in were fully aware of all this.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

Singha wrote:An32 do repeated touch and go night landing practice in hal also.

People who bought in were fully aware of all this.
Not just AN 32 but even civil airlines do it. But so what?

The airport has always been here and was in much heavier use earlier. New folks buy property next to HAL airport and then expect to not have the associated noise with it. This is definitely false entitlement to an extreme level.
member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_29245 »

nik wrote:Quick question - How come Pakis can churn out the bandar so fast while our HAL is asking millions for dishing out 8 or 16 per year? Bandar might be a mig-21 with good makeup but at the end of the day both bandar and LCA are 'NOT' stealth fighter (which I expect need a big step up in tolerances and production steps).

How can we get 500 LCA's within 5 years? Need this kind of capacity to export to other countries and why are we not splitting orders with another local team like Tata, Mahindra or Reliance to deliver LCA's?
Can you cite some figures for pak investments in badat ndg line ? And then compare to HAL investments being asked for

Are buder mfg from ckds ? Or full mfg as in case of HAL tejas ?
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4654
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by hnair »

deejay wrote: At eastern end of the runway just outside the airport are two uber projects - one from Sobha and the other is called 77degrees. High price residential projects nearing completion but the folks have not moved in. Sobha project seems to be closer to completion. These are barely clear of the approach path and for them it will not just be the roar of the fighter but those close approaches that will bother them.

To me these constructions are either outright violations of norms or are borderline. The people who have complained (I am not sure who they are) have chosen their time to coincide with the completion of these projects.
Indeed, I am curious how Bangalore real-estate folks are getting over the AAI norms! Over here in Trivandrum, we had a few instances where AAI has asked building plans submitted to them, to be altered and the building heights cut drastically. In some cases, the real estate folks actually abandoned the plans, because without minimum number of flats, the project was considered not feasible and chopping off a few floors by AAI was the deathknell

Eg: the newly build UST Global tower is around 78mts high. I heard from the gent in charge that their original plan was to have 88 meters (2 more extra floors) and a spire topping off at 95+. The AAI denied permission, said it is within the "cone" and they chopped off the floors. This building is like 5.44 kms from the closest runway tip and is to the side of the approaches! I remember standing at the helipad of this building and watching the sooty trail of an An-32 climbing up and thinking how tiny it looked from this side. Similarly, there was this giant flagpole at Kanakakunnu Palace, which had to be shortened by 10 meters, which was about 5.77 kms away to the side. I heard similar stories from a pucca-flat builder, who is known to have good clout with local administration that the AAI folks are very stringent and are the only people he is wary of.

In that sense, Bangalore builders are in a class of their own. But, such chutzpah, in challenging India's national facility is unheard of
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7827
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

All buildings falling within a certain distance from any airport have to get the mandatory AAI clearance. The Master Plan document of Bangalore would very clearly mention the zones around the airport which fall under the influence of the airport. And this is not only with respect to the funnel on either side of the runway(s) but general area around the airport.

Many moons ago, I used to work in Embassy Golf Link park which is to west of the HAL airport. Sitting in our cafeteria, we could see the civil and IAF planes line up for the runway. From distance they would seem coming straight towards us! The actual approach was just north of my office and from my cafeteria window, I could see the outline of the pilot in a fighter a/c...those were the days.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Vipul »

A couple of planned 100 storied plus towers in central Mumbai did not come up as the requisite NOC was denied by the civil aviation ministry. The commercial/residential buildings in the BKC (Bandra Kurla Complex) commercial district cannot go above a certain height due to the proximity of the Sahar airport and these buildings are not even in the flight path of the aircrafts.
Nowhere are the stakes and earnings as high as in Mumbai so if the builders were denied permission in Mumbai how did it get done in Bangalore? A couple of babus need to be put on the lamp post if they have compromised on national interests.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

A PIL cannot be filed unless it sounds like a genuine reason. But if you read that news there are two contradictory things there. First it says new place for testing. That won't happen until we buy enough bullock carts to take new aircraft from HAL to the new airfield.

The second half in fact is what we are all saying: That there should be strict regulations for builders.

I know for a fact that the night golfing lights in KGA next to HAL met with serious resistance - but that got bogged down in some other litigation anyway. But there is no way builders can gain too much of an upper hand in a case of national interest versus public interest. And remember folks its in court. Prepare for a long haul. Expect AMCA before anything comes of this
member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_29245 »

Akshay Kapoor wrote:http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius/

This is the tool. What is the range of a S400 battery
400 kms I believe
member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_29245 »

ArmenT wrote:
chetak wrote: the production philosophy, safety standards and quality compliance techniques in aerospace and automobile sectors are very different, even though the end requirement of defect free product is the same. one is low volume / high cost and the other is high volume / low cost.

ISO/TS 16949 is the globally recognized quality management standard for the automotive industry as is AS 9100 for the aerospace industry. Indian aero PSUs and automobile companies follow them in India too.

what is being suggested has not been done anywhere in the world.

except Honda, Saab, give or take, there are no car companies making aircraft. Honda and SAAB have no connection whatsoever between their car and aerospace companies.
Actually there are a few more car companies with aero interests (not all are current): Rolls Royce (aircraft engines), Mitsubishi (WW-II zero!), BMW (hell, their logo is a propeller), Ford (now spun off as Ford Aerospace. They used to make the Ford Trimotor a long while ago), Volvo Aero (used to supply engines to Swedish air force, they got sold to some other company in 2012), Porsche (used to supply engines to Mooney aircraft in the 1980s, allegedly a modified version of the flat-6 that they put in their 911s), Fiat (at least until the 50s), Grumman (they still make fire-engines, post office and UPS trucks), BF Goodrich (they not only made tires, but they also made lots of aerospace components, until United Technologies bought them in 2012) etc.

Of course, these are large primary manufacturers, but there are also smaller secondary component manufacturers, who also tend to be somewhat diversified (at least in the US). For instance, it is very common for many second-tier manufacturers in the US to make precision aircraft parts as well as medical equipment. Other common side businesses are making power generation equipment or parts for oil and gas industry. Aerospace is one of those industries where demand fluctuates a lot and therefore, these smaller companies have to rely on other sources of revenue that need high precision manufacturing and have much more steady demand.
Tier 2/3 suppliers dispersion is also happening in India

There a lot of suppliers but they supply to foreign companies not Indian companies as there is not much market in India

Rajkot based suppliers supplies bearings to aero engine makers in us and Europe and also endine parts
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3176
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by JTull »

It's like an abattoir near an airbase claiming that the risk of an airplane crashing into them after hitting a bird attracted to the abattoir is too much risk for them and the airbase must be moved.
member_29350
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_29350 »

^ that exact problem is there with Delhi airport I think. AAI has been repeatedly requesting DDA to remove the abattoirs and I don't think that's happened
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34890
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

KBDagha wrote:I don't know who comes up with such stupid PILs :roll:

PIL urges stay on test flights near HAL airport

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... n=COLUMBIA

the faqers tried a similar stunt when they objected to the "excessive" noise levels when the UAV engines were being tested at ADE.

Claimed that their kids could not sleep.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

Vivek K wrote:
SanjayC wrote:I am open to export Tejas, BrahMos & Akash: Parrikar
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... s-1.956493
What about Arjun?
too many leopards and tigers in the same jungle. finding a new market is hard. no inquiries shows it is saturated for arjun class. OTOH, LCA has big inquiries [don't ask me for details].
Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Bhaskar_T »

April slipping away. No firm news of ground run tests etc. of SP2. :cry: Talking of exports or hundreds of LCA's is like Pakistan proclaiming "world proven leading force against terrorism".

Feeling very frustrated.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

You missed it. SP2 made its maiden flight last month.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5866
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by srai »

Bhaskar_T wrote:April slipping away. No firm news of ground run tests etc. of SP2. :cry: Talking of exports or hundreds of LCA's is like Pakistan proclaiming "world proven leading force against terrorism".

Feeling very frustrated.
Read this:
HAL on mission mode to ramp up Tejas production
jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by jayasimha »

This could be old info... ( or may be repeated and deleted if already posted)

BEL delivers critical systems for over 50 LCAs

Image

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 440436.ece

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) has completed the delivery of critical systems for more than 50 Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). In an interview to Express, BEL chairman and managing director Anil Kumar said that during BEL’s association with various labs of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) in the last 19 years, the company has built a strong technical base to address various technological challenges of LCA avionics.

“We are providing lifetime support (30 years) for all these systems, which will get into over 50 limited series and series production Tejas fighters. All the above systems have successfully passed the stringent qualification requirements of airborne platforms and type certificates have been issued by the Centre for Military Airworthiness Certification,” Anil Kumar said.

He said the exclusive Strategic Business Unit (SBU) for Electronic Warfare and Avionics (EW&A) set up at BEL’s Bangalore Complex in 2006, has now matured as a key arm of the company, with a AS9100 quality standard certification to its kitty. He said the equipment and systems being supplied for LCA are manufactured at this SBU, which boasts of a state-of-the-art infrastructure with anti-static layout.

Among the critical systems that went onboard LCA from SBU are: Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC), the most flight-critical and powerful LRU, Air Data Computer (ADC), Flight Control Panel, De-icing Current Sensing Unit, DFCC Interface Unit, Function Sensor Display Unit, Head Up Display and Integrally-Lit Cockpit Panel.

“We have been providing support during the development phase and flight trials of avionics systems of LCA by addressing changes in design and other requirements well beyond the warranty period. Our idea was to ensure expeditious completion of all activities required for LCA’s Initial Operational Clearance,” the BEL CMD said. BEL has also invested considerably on proactive development of many avionics systems such as Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) Mk-II, Air Data Computer (ADC) Mk-II, Universal Pylon Interface Computer (UPIC) and Radar Warner and Jammer, which has led to the improvement of system capability, reliability and cost reduction. Though BEL has remained an unsung hero throughout the LCA programme, Anil said the company has had a long journey in the last two decades to emerge as a development and manufacturing partner with the DRDO labs.
arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4632
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by arshyam »

Folks, are there any articles summarizing the challenges the LCA went through during its development? Especially the roadblocks/lobbying from outside sources? Need it for sharing...
VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by VKumar »

I am waiting for MOD to develop a make in India' passion and put a Kaveri in an LCA (with suitable dimensional modifications) and test it.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1814
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Khalsa »

Bhaskar_T wrote:Talking of exports or hundreds of LCA's is like Pakistan proclaiming "world proven leading force against terrorism".
What do you mean by "is like Pakistan proclaiming" ?

How else do you think they get their P3 Orions, F-16s, Frigates, UAVs, Optics, AH1 Helicopters
They are constantly kicking the ass of Talib Navy and Talib Air Force.
Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Bhaskar_T »

Thanks Indranil, I indeed missed SP2 flight news, while I was busy touring corrupt oil prolific Niger Delta witnessing oil theft/bunkering.

All,

From IAF perspective, this maiden flight (for test etc.) may just be a small milestone. What counts is handover of SP2 from HAL to IAF. Is this handover complete?

On another note, what is not clear from SP2 delayed delivery is that what exactly caused SP2 delay when SP2 was on the jig/rig for close to 1-2 years. And whatever caused this delay is not going to be the reason for possible delays in SP3-SP7 (currently on jigs). What makes HAL/ADA/IAF/DM believe that 5 more LCA's (SP3-SP7) will be delivered to IAF in next 8 months (May-Dec 2016) by HAL? A realistic target would be 2-3 LCA's delivered in 2016. I hope, I remember to come back to this post by Dec 2016 to see if HAL met its aspired target or realistic target.
indranilroy wrote:You missed it. SP2 made its maiden flight last month.
Locked