Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[Austin]

From what i read Chief and Marshal are fit to fly solo or in two seater but they are not cleared to pull high G .

[srai]

^^^

ACM Tipnis flew the MiG-21 back in 2001 when the media were labelling the MiGs as "flying coffins".

IAF chief flies MiG-21 to make a point on safety

IAF chief flies MiG-21 to make a point on safety
Sanjeev Kochhar, TNN Dec 4, 2001, 11.29pm IST

chandigarh: less than a week after defence minister george fernandes informed parliament that the indian air force had lost over 100 mig 21s and 50 pilots in air accidents, chief of air staff air chief marshal ay tipnis sought to make a point by flying a solo sortie in a mig-21 bis fighter during a brief farewell visit to this airbase monday. shortly before, he had flown a tandem seater trainer version of the mig-21 with commanding officer of 21 squadron wg cdr m dhanraj, who cleared him to fly solo. at 62, this, perhaps, makes tipnis the oldest pilot to fly the ageing mig-21 which forms the mainstay of the iaf. even as it is among the largest flown fighters by several air forces, mostly east european, it has the dubious distinction of recording the worst flight safety record in the iaf. however, tipnis has during his three-year tenure as air chief been regularly flying the mig-21. soon after a spate of accidents last year, tipnis made it a point to fly solo in a vintage mig-21 (fl) before the media during a visit to bareilly airbase on october 24 last year. he had then said he had done so ''to send a message to the boys'', while terming the mig-21 a ''very fine aircraft''. the 1960s technology mig-21 is meant to be replaced by the much delayed indigenously developed light combat aircraft, a prototype of which is currently undergoing flight trials. the mig-21 has among the highest touch down speeds of 300-310 kmph, which compares high by 100 kmph to an advance jet trainer (ajt). the ajt, a trans-sonic aircraft, is considered a crucial element in helping young pilots to transform from sub-sonic to super-sonic fighters. yet due to delays in acquisition of ajts, the mig-21 (fl) is doubling up as an ajt for young pilots freshly graduating from the academy. it was hence not without reason that soon after completing his solo flight, tipnis said, ''it required tremendous skill, knowledge, confidence and a very high sense of handling airplanes while landing''. during his farewell speech to iaf personnel posted at 12 wing and 3 base repair depot here, tipnis said the iaf was poised to turn into a super air power. describing chandigarh as a unique iaf station, tipnis observed how it was an operational base as well as a base providing air maintenance facilities to ladakh, including the siachen glacier, and the sugar sector located along the sino-indian border in eastern himachal pradesh.

[Sanku]

When it comes to execution of orders, if you are one of the private sub-contractors, are you going to purchase raw materials, other inventories, manufacturing infrastructure and workforce when no firm orders have been placed? Ok, let's say you do put up your own money or borrow the money to get ready for such a "hypothetical order" but they don't come through, or is delayed indefinitely, or orders are placed intermittently with huge production gaps, or you lose out on a bid and get no orders. You are going to incur huge losses. Who will pay for these losses and will you stay in business?

Before I begin, I would just like to point out that I do not disagree with any of the above, all the above considerations are valid, what I was saying was the use of those considerations in trying to create a order can be done is good ways with good management, or bad ways with bad management.

Ok first and fore most, DPSUs are not really businesses and there profitability is all hand waving magic. They are fully owned and controlled subsidiaries of their customers, the MoD. The whole money business with DPSUs is MoD taking money from its left pocket (the service budget) and putting it in its right pocket (the DPSU budget)

So there is no DPSU money in the first place anyway, its merely a accounting construct.

Secondly there is just 1 degree of separation between the DPSUs and their customers viz the services, through MoD, and considering that MoD is the one which is overseeing there is pretty much NO separation at all, so visibility into orders is as high as it can be. All the claims to the contrary are usually CYA exercises post sleeping on the job by some one. (usually the Mod, then followed by DPSUs and sometimes also services)

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

Now coming to PRIVATE sub contractors of these DPSUs, the whole problem of ensuring that they have
1) Sufficient orders
2) Sufficient lead times
etc...

Is for the nodal manufacturer, viz the DPSU to handle, for example if HAL knows that it has to make a order of 20 LCAs in 2013-15 timeframe, it must farm out orders in 2010 (say) so that the pvt companies can give them the needed inputs by 2013.

For the above to happen, all HAL needs to know is what they need to make and when.

It DOES NOT need HAL to start making what is, effectively a different plane, in 2005. In any case the subsystems etc would have/could have changed significantly, so would the business space and the number of pvt companies.

So HAL sleeping on the job (not getting itself ready for the production in time) -- can not be addressed by trying to wake it up by a different order 5 years ago.

They are different and unlinked problems.

[Austin]

India's MoD Says No to Joint Heron Development With Israel

NEW DELHI — India has shot down an Israeli proposal to jointly develop an advanced version of the Heron UAV in India, a rarity for projects between the two nations.

This month, India’s Ministry of Defence rejected the codevelopment and coproduction proposal by India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), MoD sources said.

During a meeting this month, senior MoD officials said DRDO should concentrate more on the Indo-Israeli Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MRSAM) program, which is behind schedule and has technical problems.

IAI executives here were not available for comment.

This rejection illustrates the new thinking among India’s MoD, which is concentrating more on sustaining existing DRDO programs than on paying for new projects, the source said. In 2009, India and Israel agreed to jointly develop the MRSAM for use by both militaries. One prototype failed in December, the source said.

DRDO signed the codevelopment contract with IAI after the MoD failed in its efforts to procure the MRSAM through competition. No vendor was prepared to transfer technology for the system.

The Indian Air Force’s requirement is for 18 MRSAMs, estimated to cost around US $1.2 billion. The MRSAM would be a low- and medium-level, quick-reaction missile system capable of moving with mechanized forces. The system would be able to engage manned and unmanned aircraft, missiles and all types of airborne targets.

The MRSAM will have a range of more than 50 kilometers, and its warhead will have self-destruct capabilities to avoid unwanted collateral damage on the ground. The system will have an active seeker with the option of a passive seeker and an electro-optical system will be provided, which would enable the system to track targets in hostile electronic countermeasures environments.

As for the Heron, the Indian MoD has around 60 and requires more, although it hasn’t said how many.

In its proposal for the joint development of Herons, DRDO claimed it has developed a broad spectrum of knowledge on UAV subsystem technologies, including aerodynamic design, composite materials, telemetry and propulsion. The advanced Heron would have featured greater range and endurance.

The Indian Army plans to procure a variety of UAVs, including micro and nano UAVs. The Army also plans to acquire weaponized UAVs, which can be armed with precision missiles.

[srai]

Yes it does--35 inches diameter for both. You'll have better luck if you stick to authentic sources. Lay off the riffraff sites and head straight for GE Aviation.

thank you for the advice, but look a little more into the details and you'll get the real information. Like I said earlier, I was told this by none other than Cmde Sukesh Nagaraj. Now, you may choose to belittle me, but I know whom I'm going to believe.

And this was what I had posted earlier about the differences in the F-414 and F-404 diameters.

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.

I think that's too much reading for Victor. He likes short ticker tape headlines i.e. sound bites only

[vina]

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.

Ouch! You say that the F414 has a larger fan than the F404 ? Wiki says the same thing on the [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414] F414[/url]. In addition it says that it has a new high pressure turbine with a 66 deg increase in Turbine Entry Temp. Net net, it means a next gen engine (higher bypass ratio,higher overall pressure and higher thrust) in the same footprint as the F404 . So usually more efficient next gen engines deliver more thrust AND better SFC than the older ones dont they ? So F414 -->more fuel automatically ?

Maharaj says Victor is armed with "facts" and is not thumping table. Well, what do I say. Ask the Maharaj about the smell of noxious effluvium from the "farts" oops "facts"!

[arijitkm]

And Zero for DRDO. Bharat Karnad

[Kartik]

Mig 21 has only payload of 1 ton and Tejas 4 tons.

I'd actually like Victor to give us this info since he was the one claiming that it cannot carry a meaningful payload.

How much payload does the MiG-21 Bison carry?

I won't ask for a payload-range chart (which could be taken for a MiG-21Bis and considered close enough for the Bison), but if I did, I'm guaranteeing you that the Tejas Mk1 will easily better that. The F-404 was called a "fuel-sipping" engine by a Test Pilot and would definitely have a far better specific fuel consumption than the much older generation R-25 turbojet on the Bison. So, really, while the MiG-21 is a very capable older generation aircraft maneuverability wise, its payload is not its strong suite- the Tejas Mk1 even with payload limitations will comfortably exceed the Bison in this regard.

[Viv S]

Ah , but Sirjee, your own favorite , the Eurofighter (EuroFarter?) first entered service with a block of concrete in the nose where the radar should have been.

It didn't. You're probably thinking of the Tornado F.2 that was forced employ concrete ballast because of problems with the Foxhunter radar.

And mind you, this Eurofighter was a pure air superiority fighter and had zero A2G capability (very limited today even after all these tranches), and did some namby pamby fly bys and had limited G capability.

It was a pure air superiority fighter, but so was the Rafale initially. As a matter of fact even the venerable F-16 was purely an air-to-air fighter at the beginning.

It lacks ALCMs today, but aside from that has a decent air to ground/swing-role capability.

And many versions dont even have a gun. So, tell me, what could the initial ones in service do except take off and land and do some lazy fly bys, and how was it inducted into service some nearly 10 years ago ?

All versions have a gun. The RAF initially planned to replace the Mauser with ballast but scrapped the plan. It then decided to keep the gun without utilizing it (saving on training, ammunition, spares etc), but scrapped that plan as well. The gun is operational on all aircraft today. A handful of twin seat Block-1s were delivered without the gun or refueling probes but they were retrofitted with it just two years later.

Compared to that the LCA at IOC is actually a useable weapon with a full A2G role, much larger part of the envelope opened , has a radar, self protection suites and has some A2A capability!

The EF had a significant A2A capability by 2004 (IOC was mid-2003) and a similar flight envelope at IOC.

The IAF is going to operate large numbers of Jaguars all the way upto 2030 and is currently considering extending the phase out date for the MiG-21 past 2017, so I agree that the induction of the Tejas is not just deserving but necessary. The allegation of the Tejas being 'unsafe' clearly deserves to be scoffed.

That said, there appears to plenty of cause for introspection as well. You rubbished one of the points made by Victor that did have substance - the Gripen with just a slightly higher empty weight has a considerably more capable airframe (-3/+9G, Mach 2, 25 deg+ AoA, dispersed EW antennae) albeit with lower composite content. Perhaps we can explain that away as a result of far greater design experience and a more aggressive development program.

A better comparison may be made with the South Korean T-50 Golden Eagle. Aside from a design inspired by the F-16 (as opposed to the Mirage inspired antecedents of the Tejas), the program has a lot in common with the LCA. Similar empty weight, similar MTOW, similar power-plant and similar radar. Both programs were sanctioned at the same time (92-93), both suffered pitfalls initially (financial crunch in SK, sanctions in India), both took to the air roughly at the same time. The TA-50 lacks critical fourth generation capabilities like the Tejas' EW system, automated self defence suite and HMDS, but it does have 130 confirmed orders (90 or so delivered) including 28 for export and is in contention for hundreds more.

The T-50 was supported by a far more capable civilian industry (at least at the time), an ROKAF committed from the get-go, and had arguable greater support from Lockheed Martin (which unlike Dassault in India had a financial stake in the project). But at the same time, KAI appears to have been better managed than HAL and was much more realistic about its capabilities. As a result, the Black Eagles fly the TA-50B while the IAF has to face up to the ridiculous prospect of equipping the SKAT with a British aircraft.

[Kartik]

Vina, your incredibly long and entertaining fart up there ignored the fact that I was merely summarizing and restating what the LCA's first test pilot had said. It was news to me too. I guess it's way beyond your capabilities to go back a few pages to find out what's going on. Never mind. You're an engineer no doubt. A really stupid and ignorant one because you added exactly zero, zilch, crap to the conversation with your hot air. Go back and read then come here to engage in debate instead of mouthing off like a high school kid with ADD.

No, to be honest, what you did was to take 1 line- yes 1 line that AM Rajkumar mentioned and based on that, inferred that the entire Tejas Mk1 program is a failure. I could bet that if AM Rajkumar were to look at your arguments and your claim that you were summarizing his statement, he'd be aghast.

Read his book on the Tejas to know a bit about him and about those from HAL/ADA who worked on the Tejas- he's blunt, but he's fair. He spent years toiling on that program when no one in the IAF, not even ACM Tipnis, could care less. they believed that he was given an easy posting to Bangalore and held it against him when time for promotions came- as if working on developing a fighter just for the IAF is somehow less important than being an operational pilot. he is the last person to be so blithely dismissive of the efforts of HAL. So don't hide behind his one statement- what we've seen over the last 2 pages is your own bias against HAL pouring out.

The way in which you are dismissive of others efforts (yes they have made efforts that deserve praise, just as they've done stupid things that deserve criticism) is just awful. And AM Rajkumar would rip that argument to pieces. Again, I ask you to read his book to see and judge for yourself what kind of a learning curve those HAL/ADA guys along with the handful of IAF deputees managed to scale on the Tejas program's initial years. Not giving excuses for the delays, but dude, get a perspective!

How can one forget how you somehow equated building kit built planes to designing/testing and certificating a BTT? Perhaps if you were more aware of the scale of effort and complexity of even a BTT program (like the Hurkus, where 150+ TAI engineers worked on it), you wouldn't be so derisive and dismissive of the HTT-40 and compare building one to building a kit built airplane. Its not like a supersonic fighter program, but its not a flying club aircraft either.

[vina]

You rubbished one of the points made by Victor that did have substance - the Gripen with just a slightly higher empty weight has a considerably more capable airframe (-3/+9G, Mach 2, 25 deg+ AoA, dispersed EW antennae)

The point I rubbished is on is this, where the engine thrust is crucial. Given the hypothetically same engine (the Tejas has a higher thrust version, the IN20, which should be fine), will the Gripen A/B/C/D meet the STR requirements of the IAF requirements for Tejas ? Of the two which will have a higher climb rate on paper , given that the Tejas has a much lower wing loading (and also , cruise thrust requirement and also sustained turn rate and lower turning circle) . The g limit and angle of attack are related, and the full envelope for the Tejas in that part is not opened and certified yet. If the Tejas cant meet the IAF STR requirements, I am willing to wager Rs10 that the Gripen can't either.

To pull it around in that kind of STR requirement, you need massively excess installed thrust (think Mig29, and F-15 kind of thing , with T:W above 1.1) . It is important to realize where the requirement for a more powerful engine comes from (STR and acceleration during takeoff run which is a pure T:W game , there are no magic bullets that the Gripen can pull out here ) , based on hard engineering ,rather than shoot one's mouth off based on half baked Googling and frothing in the mouth and sloganeering of "Social" Engineers .

[Kartik]

Sir-ji; once more, kindly discuss the topic and not the poster. many can play this game and the result is not pretty.

sirji, your arguments lack any foundation. thats the problem. So what do I discuss when your mind won't change any way, since its dead set against DPSU?

[Kartik]

Sirjee if Eurofighter is what it is being bench marked against then ADA should have taken the criteria from NATO na whats the point in involving the IAF in the first place and agreeing to whats being put on table.

If ADA could not achieve what IAF wanted in the time line that it did , it should have said plainly and squarely that this was not possible to achieve since we are constrained by resources and experience , so lets stick with PV1 or PV5 as the desired goal for squadron service.

Not the desired goal for squadron service- the eventual aim would be to concurrently change the first batch of built Tejas- to bring those to the LSP-8 level, which is considered the final production level and then the ASTE could go ahead and test SP1, SP2, etc. Instead of having lost 1 more year while SP1 is still being assembled, they could have saved that time and many more IAF pilots and technicians could've cut their teeth on the SPs from 2013 onwards itself.

This block type iterative development was used for all other 4th generation fighters, with capabilities added on with each block. The IAF however seems to have forced ADA/HAL into giving them nearly all the capabilities at IOC and then all capabilities by FOC. By comparison, the Typhoon achieved FOC with A2G capabilities several years after it had already entered service as T1 tranche Typhoons. The IAF has such standards (or inflexibility) that even a Typhoon program would've been considered a failure by them.

Infact ADA chief has clearly stated in interview that 2012 FOC was possible , so it knew what was expected of Tejas before squadron induction as per its understanding in 2011 and was confident of achieving it , even if these glitches are purely technical in nature and takes time to resolve lets accept it as part of learning process and move on , why blame IAF to accept something that it cannot with expectation was set right in the beginning and was known to all the stake holder.[/quote]

[Kartik]

Gotcha Sanku. I've shot you up before and you have done the same to me. I appreciate that we never behaved like screwed up kids on crack.

oh its so nice to see you both bonding !

[Sanku]

Sir-ji; once more, kindly discuss the topic and not the poster. many can play this game and the result is not pretty.

sirji, your arguments lack any foundation. thats the problem. So what do I discuss when your mind won't change any way, since its dead set against DPSU?

No Sir, my mind is not set against anything. I am perfectly neutral. You are being biased against me I am afraid.

If you notice, I have consistently said that defense production esp of higher end items can and must be done only through DPSUs. So your criticism does not hold water Sir. I have rarely offered private sector as a pancea of all ills.

India needs a strong MIC and DPSUs are the ONLY option we have.

In fact I am not even criticizing HAL in this case (ok only marginaly) -- my point is that the responsibilities of a DPSU can not be subsumed by IAF, either through proactiveness or any other means.

The issues that exist in DPSU space, need to be solved in the DPSU space.

[Sanku]

Wow, before any one jumps on me, I dont necessarily agree with BK, etc. But BK being BK, there are valid points here which i will attempt to highlight.

May be a shake up like BK harangue is what is necessary for Indian MIC?

And Zero for DRDO. Bharat Karnad

Snipping some minor criticism of IAF and going to where B Karnad has been harshest

So criminally negligent has HAL been that in all the years it assembled a variety of MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and the Jaguar, and the power plants for each of these aircraft at its Koraput factory, it failed to maintain a dat­abase. In other words, for all the licence manufacturing it has done over the years, by failing to compile how every component in the aircraft and in the engines does what and how, it has learnt nothing.

Had HAL maintained a database of all the items it has put together, the country by now would have had the built-up capability to manufacture the Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II on the run. But this defence pu­blic sector unit has red­uced its­elf to an adjunct of supplier companies. That top HAL leadership has not been brought to acc­ount on this score and that the Indian taxpayer continues funding such profligacy only reflects the state of things.

DRDO, on its part, has prospered by creating illusion. Other than in certain areas, such as in writing sophisticated software and devising complex algorithms to drive military systems, DRDO projects are mostly scams. Behind every project that’s touted for realising “self-sufficiency” lies imported technology in some guise. In fact, it has been so grossly inept in not insisting on total transfer of technology from its partners that foreign defence firms happily strike deals in which Indian monies fund the development of state-of-the-art technology in other countries but get nothing out of it except finished high-cost products.

It is not the fault of the supplier firms that DRDO has proved so inattentive, gullible, and plain reckless with public monies. Take for example the advanced medium-range and long-range missile systems supposedly being collaboratively developed with Israel. Except in striking a contract for `15,000 crore, DRDO settled for only a work-share arra­ngement and that too to fabricate the low-value backend of these missile systems, with the Israeli company retaining the intell­ectual property rights on all the technology so developed.

A similar deal for a short-range missile system with Dassault Aviation has just been signed and another `30,000 crore is consequently going down the drain. Because in this business suckers are not given an even chance, the foreign companies can hardly be blamed for exploiting DRDO’s unwillingness to leverage India’s financial subsidy to obtain full proprietary and production rights for all technologies generated in such projects. So what is the department of defence finance doing other than sleeping on the job?

If DRDO brass were to be hauled up, it would be like pulling out a foundational stone that could bring the whole fraudulent public sector defence industrial edifice that, notwithstanding its claims, has produced no original technology after the Marut HF-24 in the 1970s, tumbling down. It is the reason why the Naresh Chandra Committee’s recommendation that the offices of scientific adviser to defence minister, head of DRDO, and secretary defence R&D be separated, may never get implemented. There are too many vested interests in the armed services, DRDO, and DPSUs who have it good to want this situation to change.

Coming back to Rafale, had Reliance Aerospace gone about it the right way it could have emulated Larsen & Tubro (L&T), which has indigenously developed the engineering, tooling, and manufacturing capability to locally produce everything from nuclear-powered and conventional submarines of any design to artillery systems. This proactive attitude to build up its all-round capability means it is in a position to benefit from “transfer of technology” portions of deals for high-value weapons platforms India has signed in the past two decades, and very quickly to absorb foreign technologies India pays for but which, owing to the complete inability and incompetence of defence public sector units, has to-date not capitalised on. We are talking cumulatively of waste now reaching the thousand billion dollar-level.

If the L&T business model is too onerous, Reliance Aerospace, instead of turning itself into a mere cog in the Dassault Aviation machine by channelling payoffs to the right quarters in the ruling party to lubricate the Rafale deal, could have tried to buy off large chunks of the Rafale-maker, Dassault Aviation itself, as the Tatas have done by purchasing the South African company Denel’s entire 155mm/52 calibre Howitzer line. That might have been the second-best strategy to become a commercially viable defence production entity in double-quick time and do right by the country as well.

[member_20453]

I think all these farticles claiming old retired or unnamed sources are hogwash. The reality is the pilots who fly the LCA love it, they know its is very capable. No one is asking our pilots' lives to be risked in the LCA, rather the quality of the aircraft is such that I would rather have pilots in LCA than even in proven MKIs, Rafales, 29s, 27s, Jags and 21s in terms of safety. The rigorousness of testing on the LCA has been exemplary and in some cases outlandish. The aircraft in its current form is already far more capable than many of our existing birds. All it really needs now is a BVR test with R-77 or Astra. It can deploy a variety of dumb and guided bombs. We can expand on missiles while in service. It think its best that IAF takes delivery of the birds asap and goes on further to operate and hone the fighters.

So far the testing and evaluation has been on limited aircraft, we need a lot of usage generated by the end user on a alot of aircraft and then we'd have some issues popping up in the field and they can be resolved. Waiting for FOC will only delay the finding of these issues which can never be found in a test environment. Operational usage day in day out will provide new knowledge. Furthermore, we need tactics to be developed and they take a while.

[Sanku]

So far the testing and evaluation has been on limited aircraft, we need a lot of usage generated by the end user on a alot of aircraft and then we'd have some issues popping up in the field and they can be resolved. .

No we dont, not right now. All testing is done is staggered manner, first basic tests are done, once all the feedback is given accumulated and then rolled back in, next level of tests is done.

At this juncture more tests are actually counterproductive

1) The users will each of them rediscover the known issues.
2) The designers/manufacturers are already saturated with the task of rolling in first set of feedbacks, they have no bandwidth for next level problems,
3) It is not safe, frankly, for a a/c which is not cleared for flight by non-test pilots to the regular pilots.

So no, at this juncture, broad based testing is absolutely not a good idea.

[Manish_Sharma]

When you have the facts on your side, thump the facts......

Now victor has put Tejas' capabilities equivalent to mig 21 without any facts & you have supported him saying "you can't compare 60s plane with 2013 plane" please provide the chart or parameters which show Tejas = Mig 21

This is fare request under "thumping the facts......" claim.

[NRao]

The GE web site states:

Max Diameter (Inches): 35

That should NOT be taken to mean that all engines have the same diameter.

[Manish_Sharma]

That said, there appears to plenty of cause for introspection as well. You rubbished one of the points made by Victor that did have substance - the Gripen with just a slightly higher empty weight has a considerably more capable airframe (-3/+9G, Mach 2, 25 deg+ AoA, dispersed EW antennae) albeit with lower composite content. Perhaps we can explain that away as a result of far greater design experience and a more aggressive development program.

See gripen's double crash story............ first the plane crashed and there was controversy then to prove how safe gripen was they did another show and boooooooommm , the plane again crashed there and then.

still the swedes went ahead with the program.

while the day Tejas completed IOC 1 the porki undie tv channel's retard vinod dua went "have you seen anyone reinventing the wheel? well thats what DRDO has done and proceeded to show other countries' jets to show how stupid it is to make your own fighter jet."

It is these people:

1. Corrupt politicians like kalmadi who don't want Tejas would even go to parliament to dump the program.

2. Arms supplying countries' agents in media, who will shamelessly do hit jobs.

3. Some MoD babus and sena's DGMFs

4. rodina/natasha fan boys, the more I see on the forum, the posters supporting US systems or western european systems aren't against indigenous programs, but natasha fan boys are scathing against any indigenous program. They'll go to any length defending gorshkov delay, Tin Can's gun barrel ToT not being given despite taking the money, or having to put in french systems in tincans due to russki system's failure.
classic example over rodina missiles failure: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1447736


But any small delay in PSU projects and you'll have long posts lamenting how bad the program is.

[member_20453]

No we dont, not right now. All testing is done is staggered manner, first basic tests are done, once all the feedback is given accumulated and then rolled back in, next level of tests is done.

At this juncture more tests are actually counterproductive

1) The users will each of them rediscover the known issues.
2) The designers/manufacturers are already saturated with the task of rolling in first set of feedbacks, they have no bandwidth for next level problems,
3) It is not safe, frankly, for a a/c which is not cleared for flight by non-test pilots to the regular pilots.

So no, at this juncture, broad based testing is absolutely not a good idea.[/quote]


You misunderstand, I do not mean broad based testing rather, production and extensive usage. By that I mean daily flights, by the IAF in operational conditions. I mean during operational life, they're bound to discover certain issues with spares or the way maintainance is done etc. I am saying such issues cannot be discovered in tests rather in daily operational use.

The aircraft already has IOC 1 and soon will get IOC 2. I am saying best not to wait till FOC for full induction, they can begin accepting aircraft as they are delivered. I am saying IAF should go ahead and order more of the MK-1 specially twin seaters since it is an ideal LIFT trainer.

I am also saying HAL should use the modernization budget to have a higher production rate of well over 24, around 30 aircraft should be a good number.

[Mihir]

Just wondering if folks can enlighten us about the process regarding the JSF's induction in the USAF despite being a 'turkey' and still in the test phase and still maturing. What does it tell us about IAF's support for Tejas in contrast?

I don't think the "concurrent acquisition" as is happening with the JSF is a good example for the IAF to follow. Working on the development of a platform where everything is a big departure from past practice carries great developmental risk as it is, and there's no point adding more risk by procuring more than a squadron's worth of aircraft before they are fully tested.

The JSF and LCA are remarkably similar in that they both represent a venture into uncharted territory for LockMart and ADA. The USAF is finding out at great expense that concurrent acquisition is not working. Frank Kendall went as far as calling it malpractice. We had best not repeat these mistakes at this stage. It may work with the Mk.2, but not with the Mk.1.

Kartik, excellent posts, as always! One always ends up learning something new

[Singha]

tweet by shiv aroor: Indian MoD clears IAF requirement for 9 COMJAM/SIGINT Aircraft

==
depressing to know the kind of stuff P4/israel had for decades we are thinking of getting now.

[NRao]

tweet by shiv aroor: Indian MoD clears IAF requirement for 9 COMJAM/SIGINT Aircraft

==
depressing to know the kind of stuff P4/israel had for decades we are thinking of getting now.

You do realize that this actually is destroying all the CBM efforts, right? : )

[Indranil]

I think we have reached a point in this discussion where nothing else will come out of it except name-calling. So this will be my last post on this topic the topic of what could IAF have done to accelerate the operational-ization of the LCA.

1. Imagine what getting Tejas after LSP-8 means, something which you and the IAF has been calling for. Accepting ONLY a fully mutli-role plane, which is completely tested to the brims of its flight envelop. How many times has this happened for the recent planes.? Su-27, Su-30 (not even a new airframe), Mig-29, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, Tornado, EF, Rafale, JF-17, J-10, J-11, Gripen - which one has been accepted ONLY AFTER it's complete flight envelop is opened and multi-role capability validated?

2. As to the safety record of Tejas, it is second to none in the history of aeroplane making!!!!

3. So probably, ordering only A2G versions of it in 2003 is not that absurd an observation.

May be we can talk all of this in hindsight. and most certainly ADA/HAL has to share a lot of blame because in 2003, I think they said that they would role out LSP-8 by 2008 and serial production will start from 2008. So, IAF placed an order in 2005 for 20 planes. Probably, things were clearer in 2007, or 2008, or 2009. But every damn year ADA promised LSP-7 and LSP-8 soon. So how was the IAF supposed to know and now the year is 2013 and LCA SP-1 is still to roll out, and assembly line is yet to be put together.

But perhaps with common ownership, ADA and IAF could have settled for the first milestone at PV-5 standard (nothing wrong, remember Su-30 trainers that IAF inducted, no canard, no TVC). The LCA story would have been accelerated by at least 3-4 years and IAF would have got a better plane when LCAs were serial produced.

No more from me on this when and what IAF should have ordered.

[Victor]

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.

So along with your earlier post, the only change in LCA2 is a 0.5mt increase in length and the wings are to be merely pushed out a little in order to compensate for the 2.9" larger diameter of the intake due to the F414? I tried and failed to make any sense of this because the wings on the LCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the intakes which are free-standing beneath the wings. Regardless, a 3" increase in intake diameter on either side in inconsequential.

What does make sense is AM Rajkumar's assertion that all the extra weight on LCA2 caused by F414 will ideally require a pretty substantial redesign of the airplane, including "a wider chord on the wings to generate more lift" and that this is a good opportunity to get a fighter that will truly "fulfill its operational role".

So why is ADA saying the changes will be minimal when clearly that will likely not be the case? It looks suspiciously like we are headed for another "ooops!" moment a couple of years down the road that will cost us crores more and throw the IAF's plans into further disarray. Not to mention put another dent on India's defense preparedness. The PSU should fess up and say it will need a comprehensive redesign. We have had enough of false promises and both the IAF and MoD sound like they are fed up. Even if it takes a little longer, we want a fully capable fighter, not something the IAF will keep rejecting.

please be advised AMs do fly, solo even!

I was referring to test aircraft. ACM Arjan Singh also flew the MiG-21 solo back in '64-'65.

[Surya]

Indranil

We have one guy in this thread with expertise in aerospace in the Industry and the rest ....

and everyone is frustrated but no one knows whats going on

so what did you expect?

[NRao]

So along with your earlier post, the only change in LCA2 is a 0.5mt increase in length and the wings are to be merely pushed out a little in order to compensate for the 2.9" larger diameter of the intake due to the F414? I tried and failed to make any sense of this because the wings on the LCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the intakes which are free-standing beneath the wings. Regardless, a 3" increase in intake diameter on either side in inconsequential.

Yes, it is inconsequential WRT the wing (which is why he said pushed out), but not the inlet.

What does make sense is AM Rajkumar's assertion that all the extra weight on LCA2 caused by F414 will ideally require a pretty substantial redesign of the airplane, including "a wider chord on the wings to generate more lift" and that this is a good opportunity to get a fighter that will truly "fulfill its operational role".

That interview is old - way before the MK II was even designed. So from that PoV he was speculating based on what he had then and what he thought.

[Indranil]

So along with your earlier post, the only change in LCA2 is a 0.5mt increase in length and the wings are to be merely pushed out a little in order to compensate for the 2.9" larger diameter of the intake due to the F414? I tried and failed to make any sense of this because the wings on the LCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the intakes which are free-standing beneath the wings. Regardless, a 3" increase in intake diameter on either side in inconsequential.

Victor sahab, that is not the intake of the plane, but the intake of the engine!!! The fuselage of the plane will have to be 3'' wider.

What does make sense is AM Rajkumar's assertion that all the extra weight on LCA2 caused by F414 will ideally require a pretty substantial redesign of the airplane, including "a wider chord on the wings to generate more lift" and that this is a good opportunity to get a fighter that will truly "fulfill its operational role".

So why is ADA saying the changes will be minimal when clearly that will likely not be the case?

ADA is doing a fuselage extension, it is doing wave drag reduction. It is getting newer components. The only thing it is not doing is increasing the chord of the wing. May be the found out that they don't require it. This is completely believable as Tejas has the lowest wing loading of any fighter to start with. Tejas has half the wing loading of a F-16 block 30, regarded by most pilots as one of best A2A machines, if not the best.

It looks suspiciously like we are headed for another "ooops!" moment a couple of years down the road that will cost us crores more and throw the IAF's plans into further disarray. Not to mention put another dent on India's defense preparedness. The PSU should fess up and say it will need a comprehensive redesign. We have had enough of false promises and both the IAF and MoD sound like they are fed up. Even if it takes a little longer, we want a fully capable fighter, not something the IAF will keep rejecting.

Don't you think that is alot of and hyperbole!

[Victor]

I'd actually like Victor to give us this info since he was the one claiming that it cannot carry a meaningful payload.

Not me claiming anything but quoting AM Rajkumar: the Indian Air Force (IAF) in its wisdom has said that they are not happy with the performance of the LCA with its current engine.
To me this sounds like F404 is not enough for LCA to carry enough weapons load and still fly like a fighter. Keeping in mind that a DC-3 can carry a good load but not fly like a fighter and that LCA could perhaps fly like a fighter but not carry a useful load. Whichever way you read that assertion, it's not good which is why we have LCA2.

The point is: let's not make a hash of LCA2. If it needs more time and money, let's give it more time and money. We have no alternative. But let's not try to hide weaknesses that are apparent to the entire planet except for some self-appointed perfessers here.

And Zero for DRDO. Bharat Karnad

But of course BK is a numbskull, anti-national hack paid off by foreign aerospace companies. The only people who agree with him are the stupid Indian Air Force and MoD who don't know as much as self-appointed perfessers.

That interview is old - way before the MK II was even designed. So from that PoV he was speculating based on what he had then and what he thought.

Of course. But it still makes sense today than any of the rubbish floating around here. Wonder why. As I mentioned earlier, it contained some gems and explains very well why the IAF publicly rebuked and embarrassed these PSUs.

[NRao]

The PSU should fess up and say it will need a comprehensive redesign.

AMCA anyone?

But it still makes sense today. As I mentioned earlier, it contained some gems and explains very well why the IAF publicly rebuked and embarrassed these PSUs.

well, perhaps that is what you read into that interview - rebukes, embarrassments, etc and that could explain all your posts (and that is OK too).

However, the MK II is "out" - at least as far as that interview goes. So not much should be left to interpreting that interview. Everything should be out - chords, inlet size, outlets, weights, thrusts,............ Nothing should be in the realm of speculation as we post. Fly, fly away ...... to infinity and beyond.

Could PSUs HAVE done far better? Certainly. But the future is not as uncertain as it was even a year ago. As I always said that circumstances will force India (and PSUs) in the right direction (or collapse). The LCA and Arjun will do fine IMHO.

[Kartik]

Although you'll find that the F-404 and F-414 engine diameter is given as being the same (35"), that is actually the max diameter at the aft end of the engine. The inlet diameters on the two engines are not the same. That on the F-404 the inlet diameter is 27.7" and the F-414's inlet diameter is 30.6". An increase of 2.9" over the width of the Tejas Mk1/NP1 and NP2 is more than offset by the 19.685" (i.e.0.5m) increase in length of the Mk2 over the Mk1. Overall, the fineness ratio will improve for the Mk2.

So along with your earlier post, the only change in LCA2 is a 0.5mt increase in length and the wings are to be merely pushed out a little in order to compensate for the 2.9" larger diameter of the intake due to the F414? I tried and failed to make any sense of this because the wings on the LCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the intakes which are free-standing beneath the wings. Regardless, a 3" increase in intake diameter on either side in inconsequential.

At least you now accept that you were wrong on what you said earlier- go to GE Aviation page and find F-414 and 404 are same to same, copy to copy only, ok? don't go to riff raff sites..

And no, I said the inlet diameter of the F-414 is more than that of the F-404. That implies a change in the fuselage dimensions and consequently the wings get pushed out a bit.

A 3" increase in diameter is inconsequential? Really? Am I misunderstanding your point here?

The intake diameter is increasing by about 10mm. You'll now call that inconsequential too I suppose.

What does make sense is AM Rajkumar's assertion that all the extra weight on LCA2 caused by F414 will ideally require a pretty substantial redesign of the airplane, including "a wider chord on the wings to generate more lift" and that this is a good opportunity to get a fighter that will truly "fulfill its operational role".

Why do you keep repeating this yaar? It's really tiring now. He wrote that article in 2010, back when there were a lot of speculative things being said about the Mk2. Some HAL chairman (Baweja?) claimed bigger wings and that must've been why AM Rajkumar speculated on the chord increase. It's NOT happening. It's confirmed, so please drop this line of reasoning of yours.

So why is ADA saying the changes will be minimal when clearly that will likely not be the case? It looks suspiciously like we are headed for another "ooops!" moment a couple of years down the road that will cost us crores more and throw the IAF's plans into further disarray. Not to mention put another dent on India's defense preparedness. The PSU should fess up and say it will need a comprehensive redesign. We have had enough of false promises and both the IAF and MoD sound like they are fed up. Even if it takes a little longer, we want a fully capable fighter, not something the IAF will keep rejecting.

Groan...

[Indranil]

Very welcome and significant development from HAL-Connect Issue 67.

HAL Top Brass Meets IAF Commanders

The HAL's Board of Directors led by Dr. R.K. Tyagi, Chairman, interacted with the IAF commanders as part of the bi-annual IAF Commanders' Conference, chaired by the Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, PVSM, AVSM, VM, ADC, at Air Headquarters on April 18, 2013. The conference is sub-part of bi-annual “Combined Commanders' Conference” of armed forces, on the issues of national security and apex policy matters related to services.

Traditionally, HAL and IAF have been the partners in the Indian military aviation for over seven decades and regular interactions at various levels are a part of ongoing relationship. Though HAL has interacted with the IAF commanders earlier, the practice was stopped for some time. In the midst of modernization of IAF and intense activities at HAL with new projects, HAL Chairman proposed the need to revive the interactions at apex level. It was for the first time in the history that the Chairman and all functional directors were part of the “IAF Commanders Conference-Apr 2013”.

Welcoming the HAL top brass, the CAS appreciated the support rendered by HAL during its “Exercise Live Wire' spread over the northern and western frontiers and the “Exercise Iron Fist” over Pokharan. The CAS termed the interaction with HAL as 'a necessity' and the HAL's support has a direct bearing on the operational preparedness of the IAF. Thanking the CAS, Chairman HAL said “HAL is as much a part of forces in meeting its national obligation and takes pride in serving the armed forces”. HAL is aware of the IAF's requirements and is taking all necessary steps to meet them, he added.

During the interaction, issues of mutual interest were discussed in detail. IAF commanders projected their areas of concerns and HAL Directors briefed them on the actions in hand and the plans to handle them. These actions were amidst the constraints of obsolescence and difficulties faced in the transfer of technology (ToT) from the foreign vendors. Dr. A.K. Mishra, Director (Finance) apprised the commanders on the “myth” of advances of funds held by HAL. Shri P Soundara Rajan, MD(HC), Shri S. Subrahmanyan, MD(MiG) and Shri K. Naresh Babu, MD(BC) briefed them on the ongoing projects of manufacturing aircraft, helicopters and their respective facilities for repairs and overhaul (ROH). Shri S.K. Jha, MD(A) briefed them on the activities related to maintenance of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), radars and preparations on the maintenance transfer of technology (MToT) of newly inducted Pilatus trainer. Shri T. Suvarna Raju, D(D&D) spelt out the progress made on the development of IJT, HTT-40 and FGFA. He was positive about obtaining the initial operational clearance (IOC) for IJT by Dec 2013.

For enhanced support and better day to day interactions, HAL delegation projected the need of sharing mutual data on-line and IAF's long term strategy on maintenance/replacement of equipment heading towards obsolescence. It was also projected that participation of HAL in finalisation of contracts with foreign vendors towards obtaining ToT for manufacture / ROH is essential. HAL also proposed a common talent pool deployment and some changes in the current working modalities for more effective results.

Encouraged by the outcome, CAS told his commanders that interactions with HAL would henceforth be a part of both Commanders' conferences every year.

HAL needs to sell more ALH abroad. It needs the FAA, EASA, CASA, and FAA certifications.

HAL Impresses FAA for ALH Certification

The “FAA – Asia Pacific Bilateral Partners Meet” organized by DGCA was hosted by HAL recently at GhatgeConvention Centre , Bangalore with main focus on aircraft certification. On behalf of HAL, a presentation was made jointly by Shri V.G. Gupta, AGM(CS) Helicopter Division and Shri Stanly Chako, Manager (D-Cer), RWRDC on the “Road map for FAA certification of DHRUV (ALH)” on April 13, 2013 . The presentation covered a brief on HAL , an overview on Dhruv International Certification Status, Road Map and Shadow Certification proposal .

This must be critical to Tejas mid-air relight procedures. Wonderful innovation shown.

AERDC Design Team’s Idea Recognised
The requirement of three consecutive starts for LCA main engine has been a long time need. The JFS (GTSU-110) was modified for improved lubrication to achieve three consecutive starts with a time gap of 75 seconds between two successive starts. The demonstration could not be done till now because the flywheel which was connected to the output shaft of the GTSU-110 takes six minutes to come to stop.

The AERDC team members K. H. Venkatesha, Manager and S. Esakki Muthu, Senior Manager(Design) came out with an innovative method
to brake the flywheel with air impingement on the fir-tree section of the flywheel to stop it within 70 seconds of time. The novel idea was executed in one week and three consecutive starts were demonstrated in front of the committee members from IAF, ADA, RCMA(E) and ORDAQA(E). HAL has recognised the work and Certificate of Commendation was given to the team members during the AERDC Culture of Continuous Learning function.

P.S. Personally, I hate this way of writing and culture though. There is too much emphasis on which boss did what. Looks like makkhan maroing. But then, who am I ...

[Kartik]

So along with your earlier post, the only change in LCA2 is a 0.5mt increase in length and the wings are to be merely pushed out a little in order to compensate for the 2.9" larger diameter of the intake due to the F414? I tried and failed to make any sense of this because the wings on the LCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the intakes which are free-standing beneath the wings. Regardless, a 3" increase in intake diameter on either side in inconsequential.

Victor sahab, that is not the intake of the plane, but the intake of the engine!!! The fuselage of the plane will have to be 3'' wider.

[Indranil]

Not me claiming anything but quoting AM Rajkumar: the Indian Air Force (IAF) in its wisdom has said that they are not happy with the performance of the LCA with its current engine. To me this sounds like F404 is not enough for LCA to carry enough weapons load and still fly like a fighter. Keeping in mind that a DC-3 can carry a good load but not fly like a fighter and that LCA could perhaps fly like a fighter but not carry a useful load. Whichever way you read that assertion, it's not good which is why we have LCA2.

Please Victor sahab. Don't make it look ridiculous. Yes LCA is under-powered with the 404. But that is also a relative term. LCA can't fly like a fighter while carrying meaningful load is . Power, is but one factor of a plane's aerodynamic performance (for example the TWR with LCA with 404 is still one of the highest).

Name one fighter plane in the history of fighter planes which got it right all right in the first iteration. If you can't. please stop this rona-dhona. Just saying. If you always criticize with or without basis, then your criticism with basis will get drowned in the cacophony.

[NRao]

Shri T. Suvarna Raju, D(D&D) spelt out the progress made on the development of IJT, HTT-40 and FGFA. He was positive about obtaining the initial operational clearance (IOC) for IJT by Dec 2013

Nice.

Next stop HTT-40.

[Victor]

The LCA and Arjun will do fine IMHO.

I have no doubt about that either. Sooner with changes to the current design/manufacturing dispensation.

that is not the intake of the plane, but the intake of the engine!!! The fuselage of the plane will have to be 3'' wider.

Check. Still, how does that effect the wing? The entire fuselage is "hanging" below the wing and a minor increase in fuselage dia should not affect the wing at all, specially if the pros have decided it doesn't aerodynamically need to be. Let's wait and see what actually happens but whatever it is, LCA2 or whatever it morphs into has my best wishes.

If you can't. please stop this rona-dhona.

The only reason for the continuing rona-dhona is the IAF bashing that is going on while giving the PSUs a clean chit. If you notice, everybody who matters is blaming the PSUs. It doesn't matter what we internet warriors think.

While it is good that the PSUs have been made to trot over to Vayu Bhavan for a chat, it is worthwhile noticing that it is not the IAF that had to go to Bangalore. All this nonsense could have been averted if the IAF had been given direct responsibility of overseeing the projects meant for them. Maybe stuff would still be effed up but then we wouldn't have the need for embarrassing public spats at least.

[Indranil]

that is not the intake of the plane, but the intake of the engine!!! The fuselage of the plane will have to be 3'' wider.

Check. Still, how does that effect the wing? The entire fuselage is "hanging" below the wing and a minor increase in fuselage dia should not affect the wing at all, specially if the pros have decided it doesn't aerodynamically need to be. Let's wait and see what actually happens but whatever it is, LCA2 or whatever it morphs into has my best wishes.

No Victor sahab, the wing-body blending on the top gives that feeling. Tejas has a mid-mounted wing. Probably, this image will help you.

The only reason for the continuing rona-dhona is the IAF bashing that is going on while giving the PSUs a clean chit. If you notice, everybody who matters is blaming the PSUs. It doesn't matter what we internet warriors think.

While it is good that the PSUs have been made to trot over to Vayu Bhavan for a chat, it is worthwhile noticing that it is not the IAF that had to go to Bangalore. All this nonsense could have been averted if the IAF had been given direct responsibility of overseeing the projects meant for them. Maybe stuff would still be effed up but then we wouldn't have the need embarrassing public spats at least.

I can't speak for everybody. And I understand what you are speaking. There is the other side of the spectrum who in their patriotic rants can't see anything wrong with the DPSUs (I blame hakeem for this. His piskologies have generated some extremists as well )

I have maintained IAF can't be blamed for the delay. Only ADA/HAL can be blamed for it. IAF can be blamed for not trying to accelerate it. And in this respect, I have been a strong supporter of IAF been given direct responsibility of overseeing the project from day 1. And I have been taken to the dogs for that . But hey, that is my view. HAL's higher ups must be seeing that as a hindrance to their growth. And quite frankly, their stand is also understandable. What is not understandable is the ball-less-ness of MoD to foot its foot down for what is best for the country.

[Victor]

Indranil, that image did not post but if you are referring to a cutaway, I know what you are saying. It still doesn't make sense to increase even the fuselage dia. First, the engine extends only about 1/3 the length of the fuselage from the back and the current fuselage "tube" is wide enough to fit the fattest part of the F414 (35") so the inlet should not cause any changes. My level of understanding (as an enthusiast that has the time and inclination to dawdle on internet forums) causes me to be suspicious that there is something else going on, that IAF knows it and is a bit leery to put it mildly. MoD too. AMCA/Indo-Israel UAV etc being cancelled says volumes about the thinking.