
We aint getting no critical technologies from anywhere for any price. Other than whatever we lack, can be learned on our own by getting down to and doing it. This ToT thing is all bakwas.
Thanks for sharing Karan. Great article, with a lot of interesting material. It's also available in a video or PDF format:Karan M wrote:A beautiful article on the LAVI and how its developed.
http://john-golan.blogspot.in/2016/05/l ... ctive.html
Wish ADA works closely with IAF to similarly shape the next shape of IAFs need
Both are equally well resources. Israel, because of local demand have a need for end-end capability. Sweden and particularly SAAB became an integrator because that was what they could sustain. Erricson had it existed independently would have tried their best to maintain that end to end capability but for GaN subsystems, SAAB does not plan to have its own foundry (EVER). SAAB has also been very closely tied with US radar OEM's but they choose to work with commercial GaN suppliers (such as Cree in the US). One disadvantage is that they can only source what is commercially available. This is why Raytheon shipped over an AESA antenna to them because Raytheon had a HOT GaAs T/R module production line (X-Band) by 2001 while nothing of that nature was available commercially. SAAB would need to source from German and UK suppliers if they want to avoid their traditional US supplier base for the GaN components for this radar upgrade program.kit wrote:I guess dont go for the "full monty" with SAAB/Sweden .. on a case to case basis they could collaborate on the Tejas mark 2 ..AESA for eg., but i feel the Israelis are ahead of the curve by virtue of proximity to the American powerhouses like Raytheon
One thing SAAB does well is integration. You have it spot on. Their PR is trying to spin this as if this is something of a breakthrough and sets them apart, while in reality it is a mere continuation of what began in 2002 with NORA Phase I when they reached out to Raytheon to supply an AESA antenna for their M-SCAN radar. In 2016, commercial X-band components allow them to create a new antenna based on commercially available stuff. Thats the only real difference. The back end is still a progression from NORA (which may not be a bad thing but needs to be put in context). They can obviously not provide TOT for stuff they don't own but naturally their marketing is going to ignore thatSAAB's marketing - be it about Gripen or about this GaN AESA Radar system - its just that - Marketing.Having seen from up close how Volvo claims RM-12 their 'own' engine while what % of it they actually build/what % they know about making an entire engine, and extending the same thing to SAAB and Gripen (I am pretty sure its a valid extension), I really really doubt Indian defence establishment has anything significant to learn from Swedish companies that they cannot themselves learn by doing on their own. There is a thing or two where we can expedite the process using their help, but these things are of no strategic value. Only of tactical nature. SAAB is trying hard to get some business here and there since they are desperate (in my opinion they are struggling to even survive - if it was not defence company it would have been sold by now - that's just my gut feeling though, as a side note). So they are doing what they are doing. But tts funny how many Indians fall for the sweet sweet marketing gimmicks from SAAB and think they will truly give 100% ToT and make us Suppapower-NG in Aerospace. In all probability they might as well ToT of 100% things that they know of. But fact is what the know is perhaps only 20-30% of the whole story.
We aint getting no critical technologies from anywhere for any price. Other than whatever we lack, can be learned on our own by getting down to and doing it. This ToT thing is all bakers.
Hahaha ... were u one of the designing team members ...?jamwal wrote:Why dont you go ahead and add some claws or sawn off shotguns or may be angry tiger eyes to make it menacing ?
It's great finish period. Why minimize it by saying first attempt..NachiketM wrote:jamwal wrote: I guess the composites helped avoid too many rivets on the body ... Really good build for a first attempt ...
I am not sure if your post is in jest.NachiketM wrote:I think its a very cute plane ... It needs to be made menacing ...
Well though we all have a soft corner for it and wish it the BEST, lets be honest here .... It is not one of the best lookers out there ...
And its not the plane , its the constant disregard for aesthetics in design all across the Indian manufacturing and designing sector ... On the other hand the design was frozen almost 15 years ago ...
Lets hope the AMCA and the new twin engine fighter will get some menacing futuristic looks ...
Also whats this crap I hear about the LM F-16 being developed in India ???![]()
Thats Blasphamous...
Well, Its OK to make opinions but we should not make matters sound trivial in our jingoism. It applies to me as much as to you or for that matter any other jingo.NachiketM wrote:Hey ... No offence Khalsa ...
If you read any of my previous post you will see that I am all for Tejas ... Have no doubt that my support is unwavering... I am not critisizing the plane but the aesthetic sense of the designers ... A little more effort there wont hurt, would it?
After all jo dikhta hai woh bikta hai ...
It is just that having an excellent product is not enough... it needs to be packaged well too... Its called 'In pursuit of excellence'. We are going to market this product to the world, aren't we?
Tejas is and will remain an excellent product... Its a symbol of Indian ingenuity and resilience... And I totally agree with your focus on its functionality...![]()
Having said that I respect your opinion and would fight for you to have you express it, just as I would fight for myself to express mine...
A little critical feedback about Tejas shouldn't hurt anybody's feelings, me thinks ...![]()
Tejas is as much my baby as it is yours ...
Peace out...
Absolutely Nilesh... As I said earlier functionality is paramount ... hope the next iteration would be better...nileshjr wrote: Well, Its OK to make opinions but we should not make matters sound trivial in our jingoism. It applies to me as much as to you or for that matter any other jingo.
Fit and finish is not just the issue with Designers' intentions or mindset or priorities. Its the issue related to your manufacturing capabilities and resources you have at your disposal. The designer has to balance a design with respect to the manufacturing processes and their capabilities and the cost of manufacturing. Neither it is so simple matter. Higher the finish you want, tighter would be the tolerance requirements, more demanding the manufacturing processes are. Cost and machine time increase exponentially with every bit of extra tight tolerances you apply. According to what I have heard from insiders, one of the reasons for the failure (wrt LCA) for Kaveri was unrealistic tolerances that design team had specified without thinking what we can actually manufacture or even sometimes neglecting common sense (like not rounding off numbers). Another point in consideration is that the composite manufacturing processes are invented from scratch for LCA. They are still not fully industrialised (will only happen with scale and time). Our next iteration will be far better.I love how nice and shiny F-22 or F-35 or Rafale looks. Looks are a way of making statement - about your capabilities and as a psy-ops. Jets do have functional need of fit and finish - they are not for show off only. But it should not come at exorbitant time/cost as well, nor supersede the more important functional requirements. If it can be kept simple, a designer should keep it simple to save resources.
Also Introduction section of this paper from IITB might give some basic idea about things involved in actuator design and analysis: http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/store/publi ... A-6297.pdfThe pipeline of improvements includes indigenous Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar; interfaces for mounting the world’s most advanced air-to-air missiles; a revolutionary onboard oxygen-generating system; an advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) suite to confuse enemy radars and sensors; greater fuel capacity to increase its range; a retractable mid-air refuelling system; and revolutionary actuators that only the most advanced US fighters currently have.
I have seen, in Aerospace, how seemingly simple systems which give lot of trouble in modelling due to the non-linear mathematical nature they have. When you are dealing with speeds like 80Hz, it really matter a lot.Starting from the pilot
command, a realistic model of the electro-hydraulic actuation system is evolved, which
includes the command lags, servo valve nonlinearity, actuation chain compliance and
friction nonlinearity.
Thanks Nileshnileshjr wrote:^^ I don't know why actuators are so difficult to make, but LCA actuators are indigenised long time ago by ISRO, and are flight tested already. Just google for reference.
PS: From 2012 report by Shuklaji: Tejas designers target world class technologies for Mark II fighter
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.se/2012/12/t ... class.htmlAlso Introduction section of this paper from IITB might give some basic idea about things involved in actuator design and analysis: http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/store/publi ... A-6297.pdfThe pipeline of improvements includes indigenous Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar; interfaces for mounting the world’s most advanced air-to-air missiles; a revolutionary onboard oxygen-generating system; an advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) suite to confuse enemy radars and sensors; greater fuel capacity to increase its range; a retractable mid-air refuelling system; and revolutionary actuators that only the most advanced US fighters currently have.I have seen, in Aerospace, how seemingly simple systems which give lot of trouble in modelling due to the non-linear mathematical nature they have. When you are dealing with speeds like 80Hz, it really matter a lot.Starting from the pilot
command, a realistic model of the electro-hydraulic actuation system is evolved, which
includes the command lags, servo valve nonlinearity, actuation chain compliance and
friction nonlinearity.
I think its matter of hands-on experience to get to the level of maturity where you can design and build actuation systems which are fast enough to handle needs of a modern agile fighter. I had posted here once how the limit on actuator speed forced EF-2000 designers to tone down static instability margin to 8% from intended 16%. The rate at which the aircraft diverge with higher instability supersedes the rate at which your actuation system can react to that i.e. rate at which you can deflect the actuators e.g. 80Hz speed that typically fighters have. The mechanical systems can't go faster than that even if the electronics can generate actuation commands faster than that.
I hope you see where I am going with this.
I was lucky to see a parked NLCA at Dabolim as well, albeit from a distance ... It does look good... the pilot and WSO will have an excellent FOV...Yagnasri wrote:I have seen NLCA fly in Goa. It looks short and chubby beauty. Something like Nithya Menon. Cute looking, not glamorous, but with a lot of talent.
Hope there was a Like button on BRFKhalsa wrote:Dear Nachiket
Pleasure to read your comments.... no offence taken.
and your point understood as well.
We need your inputs
Peace Out and Happy BRaving... (salute)
![]()
Ramana, Is it very difficult to develop servo valves? I recall reading somewhere that even though we have developed actuators for Tejas we still are looking for foreign OEMs as they have better tech for actuators.ramana wrote:nileshjr, For the electro-hydraulic actuators. The servo valve is the key. Its more like a elector magnet that drives the hydraulic valves.
I think the aircraft systems have rapid response.
the persistent diss from "sources" in regular programming:NG: Air Chief Marshal, can you tell us what is the LCA’s potential and what have you asked the HAL to do so that it become better than what it is?
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha – The LCA is the indigenous production fighter aircraft. Of course, we lost track of the first aircraft that India had built – the indigenous fighter aircraft – Marut HF-24, which was a very good aircraft, but unfortunately we did not follow up on it. It could have been much better today in terms of indigenous capabilities in production of fighter aircraft, which is a very critical area of any nation’s defence capability. The LCA is taking its time alright. But in any nation, any new aircraft production programme takes time, especially for a country where it started as ab-initio I think will take much longer. Consider the FGFA programme of the Russians or the Americans or any other country, it takes at least two decades. So maybe we have taken one decade extra but it is alright.
(NG – We also went through sanctions on other stuff).
Yes exactly, so I think it is a great achievement and we need to build on it. LCA is a reasonably good aircraft in its category i.e. light category of fighter aircraft. We have three basic categories – light fighter aircraft, medium and heavy. I can say the heavy would be the Su-30 class, which we have in large numbers. Rafale would be the medium weight category which is very important and LCA would be the light weight category. To meet that spectrum of our requirement, to my mind, only requires a little bit of enhancement in terms of its air interception radar. The latest is that we should get AESA radar and a combination of beyond visual missile which are already there. The integration is already in progress. In fact we should also have EWS – Electronic Warfare Suite, it is absolutely essential in any combat situation.
(NG – That is excellent news I think).
We also have air-to-air refuelling capability. This has been proposed and agreed to; so very shortly, we will have these upgrades incorporated in the LCA and we will have a large number of LCA coming in to the Indian Air Force. As of now we are going to have 20 aircraft by the middle of 2018 and another 20 aircraft – the slightly improved version called the FOC – the Final Operation Clearance – and that will be the second Squadron. The new design that they have proposed should come through in another three to four years of time and then the series production starts, so in another 10 years time we would have 120 LCA inducted into the Indian Air Force.
(NG – that’s very good news. You will have your indigenous aircraft, nothing like it.)
And in fact it will also find a good market in the neighborhood.
and the shiny alternative (complete with tfta picture);A source closely linked to the project explained, "IAF has achieved what can be called as interim satisfaction. We won't send the LCA to the front if there is a war tomorrow. But we have to start flying it and getting involved with it. May be in a year or two, we would have fine-tuned the plane." He also shared that in the subsequent versions the IAF is looking at acquiring Air to Air refueling capability, firing of advanced weapons, utilizing a lighter LCA with a more powerful engine from the present F404-GE-IN20 among other things. "Maintenance is still a major issue with Tejas," he revealed.
I doubt its ability to carry something as large.ashbhee wrote:Does LCA has payload capacity to carry a brahmos and launch it?
No.ashbhee wrote:Does LCA has payload capacity to carry a brahmos and launch it?