Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby souravB » 11 Jul 2018 19:38

chola wrote:
This is symtomatic of our design-development-production set up.

I think when designers at Boeing or Dassault come up with a new prototype, they are aware of what the company is capable of building and how they can build it efficiently at their company. These are design and development teams inside manufacturers. Designing something that the company can’t make efficiently is unprofitable and therefore pointless.

Do we have the same integration between ADA and HAL? There must be some but in the end they are two separate agencies. Does ADA even care about the manufacturing piece? Or like a lab project, they are more interested in getting to the specs with whatever means necessary? We know the LCA was designed with many foreign parts, many components that HAL can’t make. Production was delayed two years just waiting for the nose cone from the UK to be delivered by Cobham.

Well we have to bite the bullet, don't we? I say we get on with it and learn as much as we can from this so it doesn't repeat with Mk2. There are loads of different ways one can tackle it and I'm sure concerned people know them. The sign of that is making IAF taking the lead and hopefully in future running as its own project.
The articles by the DDMs don't help much except raising the blood pressure of the readers. Maybe even all the relevant parties know this and only do what they need to(barring a few times when frustration gets the better of them)..
I would suggest we, at BRF too do not pay much heed to all the noise out there and only filter out the relevant bits that we feel is important to the discussion.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6931
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 11 Jul 2018 19:59

If, ISRO and ADA design aircrafts and spacecrafts based on what technology and capability exist within the country, then no aircraft and spacecraft would come out of India.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15561
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Karan M » 11 Jul 2018 20:08

souravB wrote:Mk1 in its design is not very production friendly, even the ADA director has confirmed it in so many words in his last interview a month or two back(I am sure I saw the link in BRF but cannot find it atm). HAL's babu attitude doesn't help too when it was required to put in more work. The problem is mitigated in Mk2.
IMO roping in IAF wouldn't help much in production schedule but let IAF have an eye over the process and integrate the changes in efficient manner without hampering the production.


Come now, don't just spread unsourced rumors. ADA head said Mk2 will be much easier to make, not that Mk1 is bad. You state this, next guy will add more masala and some idiot journo will repeat it as fact.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2766
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 11 Jul 2018 20:29

Indranil wrote:If, ISRO and ADA design aircrafts and spacecrafts based on what technology and capability exist within the country, then no aircraft and spacecraft would come out of India.


I refuse to believe that, Saar.

We could not have built a fully Indian MiG-21 followon based on a home-made turbojet, for example?

Of course, we could have. It might not have been cutting edge but it would have been ours. And it would built a foundation for our entire industry.

But instead we go for lab experiments with no anchoring and not industry-led product developments. I firmly believe we can build many things inhouse but we are just used to using things from overseas. We never give our own industry a chance to develop when a majority of our funds go overseas to someone else’s MIC.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby dinesha » 11 Jul 2018 21:17

Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html

nash
BRFite
Posts: 779
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nash » 11 Jul 2018 22:02

dinesha wrote:Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html


Apprehensions are realistic, if we get some one like Mr Matheswaran as Dileep mention. We can only hope if GoI decided to go this way we get some one like ACM Bhadauria.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7841
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Pratyush » 11 Jul 2018 22:04

dinesha wrote:Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html



Wtf, was I wrong with my assessment of Shiv aroor. I used to think he was one of the sensible ones.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6931
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 11 Jul 2018 23:26

I like the article actually. A kneejerk "solution" to LCA's woes is not the right way. But for future projects, we should have an overall. LCA's development and manufacturing is very fractured. This was not by choice. To develop the plane they had to go to everybody who was remotely close to be able to build a part. It cannot and should not be like this. Time has come to consolidate and regroup under an administrative control.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3147
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby suryag » 11 Jul 2018 23:34

This is a bad move by IAF, frankly no offence to their capabilities but production engineering and factory operations is not IAF's cup of team no matter how much they try to convince everyone. This reminds me of the hammer and nail thingie, IAF has only one solution put their man on top ... to do what i dont know. someone needs to ask them what is the skillset they bring to the table(okie BRD experience is way different from full production if someone brings that up) If they want to fix the production issues they should rather work at it with HAL and coerce, coax, cajole etc to get HAL to do their job better. For ex: we havent seen IAF's involvement in setting up HAL's new production lines, what prevents IAF from asking themselves to be inserted into the weekly coordination/steering committee meeting and they helping clean up the roadblocks that HAL is hitting towards realization of production.

Of course, this is the first time we are doing this and it is good to try different models because something that has worked for others is not guaranteed to work for us, but dont rock the product when it is on the last leg to full production

VenkataS
BRFite
Posts: 238
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 03:38

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby VenkataS » 12 Jul 2018 00:01

This is a radical thing to consider but is needed so that we do not suffer from any import lobbies in the future and ensure that build a strong local defense industry. Tejas is sufficiently developed now for us to do this.

Blanket ban on any foreign fighter imports from now onwards. Probably muster popular support for and pass a law on this. All fighter planes that Indian plans to buy from now onwards will have to be locally manufactured and will have to be built from parts sourced locally either from public sector or private industry located in India. The parts that are sourced for the plane should be majority locally manufactured as follows:
Local content in all fighter planes that Indian armed forces purchase should be:
> 70% by value (2018-2021)
> 80% by value (2021-2024)
> 90% by value (>2024)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5845
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jul 2018 00:38

I do not know what the IAF plans to do by taking over. It would be better to transfer the lines - lock, stock & barrel - over to TASL. Let them run it. When a private player is involved, profits are involved. And profits have their own motivation to get the job done. The problem is this will never happen.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50599
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2018 00:53

dinesha wrote:Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html


IN admirals are in charge of all the major shipyards yet we don't get these type of articles.
Sad that even good news is packaged as bad.

IAF being in charge of their planes procurement is a good thing. Its similar to the IN being in charge of procuring ships.
And if you want bahar ki murgi its the way USAF does business.

It was only under Maj Gen Jetley of IA,the M-4 Shermans were up-gunned with the French CV-75N cannon that made mince meat of Pattons at Asal Uttar.


So IAF wanting to take leadership of the Tejas program is the right thing.
It should have done it from day one.
Lets be glad for the good news instead of trying to Monday morning quarterback the decision.


I would like the IA to take charge of the Arjun/rifle program and not be a mere customer.

Appoint two Maj General level officers for these two and put them on VCOAS track on success.


Lets look at the relevant parts of the article:

...
The IAF has been accused by the ADA and HAL of shifting requirement goalposts, blowing hot or cold during the prototype phase, being whimsical at meetings and displaying a disparaging outlook to the aircraft in general. The IAF has been armed with very legitimate accusations of its own: HAL’s relative disinterest in the LCA Tejas project (this has changed recently as a result of orders and the operational imperative), and the DRDO’s chronic stream of technological promises that have almost never been met — or met on time.


{Here you have the crux of problems with the interpersonal relationships. Having said that IAF both active and retired have poured their heart into Tejas from the beginning. It was Air Marshal MSD Wollen who released the HAL design staff to join ADA to design the LCA. It was Air Cdre T.K . Sen who did the first design review of LCA. I recall Air Marshal Nanjappa was assigned in mid 2000 decade to liaison the LCA. It was IAF pilots who test piloted the TDS onward. Its their lives at risk in the planes. Not any ground based penguins.

While the plane is being designed by ADA, its being manufactured by HAL. I don't know who had budget authority for this Was it ADA or HAL in setting up initial production capability? ADA has not bee upfront in bring the bad news to the IAF. They always let nosy newspaper reporters write bad press from dubious 'sources'. Never did we see a capable ADA official give briefing of the challenges and meager budgets, technology denials that they faced. They continued to solve them and we saw the flawless test flight program. There shortcoming was in communications and managing expectations.

IAF criticizing HAL disinterest is not correct. HAL is a mfg organization. They would be equally appalled at the ADA shifting of milestones. No business organization can afford to link their future to such shifting milestones. And then there is the Damocles Sword of privatization. Who wants to show avoidable losses.
DRDO as the mother agency for ADA should have provided management cover to handle the bad publicity and manage program re-baselining it when the requirements changed. And communicated the changes. Instead they would let nosy reporters write motivated article starting with LCA program was started in 1984 when so and so was taking a shower...
Never did any DRDO director be assertive and say the LCA was a four phase program: Phase 1 TDS to demonstrate the technology works. Then Phase 2: PV program to build prototypes. Then Phase 3: LSP to build the mfg line at HAL. And finally Phase 4: the SP to build production aircraft. And each phase was started and finished and funded at this level. And these were the problems at each phase that caused re-baselining.

And before all this was a conceptual phase (Phase 0) that led to the design for the TDS to be sanctioned.

And give examples of foreign plane development like: Mirage III, to Rafale. US F-16 to F-35. so there is context to LCA/Tejas




It’s a good time to remember the LCA Tejas imperative squares off against India’s rebooted quest for over 100 foreign fighters to be built in India, a requirement so aggressively pushed by the IAF, that a whole generation of young Indians has probably never even heard of the Tejas. Cynics will wonder if the IAF’s quest for administrative leadership is to speed up and correct the baseline Tejas in its (hopefully) last mile or simply to oversee the winding down of a project that sections in the force have always perceived as an albatross around their necks.

{Unfortunately some retired IAF officershave made unfortunate remarks (three legged cheetahs, Matheswaran et al...) that led to the cynics. However ACM Dhanoa is an upright officer and has shown backing for the Tejas and that is what matters.So the cynics or hecklers can go elsewhere}


There is no question, here on Livefist at least, that the LCA Tejas is too valuable and important a project to see dwindle and ultimately fail. Milestones of the last four years have proved that the jet, in significant numbers, could more than replace the MiG-21 — the whole reason why the jet project was initiated in the first place.

{Why no put this in the first paragraph? I guess it wont fly!]

The idea of an IAF thumping its fist on a desk and taking over is an evocative one. And it certainly lends itself to possibility of a violent, but necessary fix. But let’s remember that it is, ultimately, also a withering admission. And if Project LCA is turned on its head and handed to the IAF to control — as it should have been from the start — the aircraft deserves a ruthlessly clear path forward....


{We all are on same page.}



Looks like some one spiked his morning kapi with salt.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50599
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2018 00:56

Rakesh wrote:I do not know what the IAF plans to do by taking over. It would be better to transfer the lines - lock, stock & barrel - over to TASL. Let them run it. When a private player is involved, profits are involved. And profits have their own motivation to get the job done. The problem is this will never happen.


And their expertise is ?

Orbital ATK now Northrup Grumman makes F-35 wings.

They can't take over the F-35 even in dreams.

Private will bring all the ills that US is seeing where the President Trump has to bully LMT to reduce prices of F-35.

IAF is on right path. Private player will be a new rabbit hole. in this case who hasn't built a plane at all.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5845
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jul 2018 01:00

Ramana-ji, how is TASL planning to build F-16 Block 70 then? LM has said they will move the entire production line to TASL in India if they win MRCA contest. Boeing - in partnership with HAL & Mahindra - will build the Block III variant of the Super Hornet if they win the MRCA contest. Adani (zero experience, but Saab thinks they do) will build the Gripen E if they win the MRCA contest. None of them have any expertise in aircraft manufacturing.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2766
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 12 Jul 2018 01:04

Rakesh wrote:I do not know what the IAF plans to do by taking over. It would be better to transfer the lines - lock, stock & barrel - over to TASL. Let them run it. When a private player is involved, profits are involved. And profits have their own motivation to get the job done. The problem is this will never happen.



I hate to even say this.

But . . . after all this talk about 3-legged cheetahs and pushing for firangi maal through MMRCA, Single-engine RFI, etc., does anyone else find it discomforting that the IAF wants control now that the Tejas in its final leg of the race and the IAF is going to get at last 123 of the cheetahs? I mean why now?

I am scared that this takeover attempt was thought up by people knowing full well it would be disruptive.

We really need to keep this current hierarchy until all 123 planes are completed and THEN let the IAF control the next batch of either more Mk1 or the Mk2.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50599
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2018 01:19

Rakesh wrote:Ramana-ji, how is TASL planning to build F-16 Block 70 then? LM has said they will move the entire production line to TASL in India if they win MRCA contest. Mahindra - in partnership with HAL & Boeing - will build the Block III variant of the Super Hornet if they win the MRCA contest. Adani (zero experience, but Saab thinks they do) will build the Gripen E if they win the MRCA contest. None of them have any expertise in aircraft manufacturing.



Who do you think is going to pay for their learning experience?
Besides LM/Boeing/Saab have an incentive to make them succeed as they get a portion of the funds as fees.
What is HAL incentive to hold the hands of private player?
It will be govt mandated suicide.
See how Russia de-industrialized after FSU collapse.

The recent angst is over HAL asing 50K crores for the 83 Mk1a due to price increase of 100 crores per plane.

Now its due to 30% overhead being charged by HAL over each component outsourced.
This type of accounting leads to $1200 toilet seats in US.
So the way out is the govt negotiates the major sub-assemblies and supplies to HAL to assemble in which case they will eventually haggle for warranty
Or
Mandate 5-10 % profit on purchased parts for the inventory and warranty. (US has this in Federal Acquisition Rules: FAR) Works for office supplies to satellites.
profit % allowed is based on risk taken by the supplier. Standard off the shelf materials are minimal profit and the highest 10% is for complex difficult parts.

And HAL has to negotiate with suppliers for the best price which has to be approved by the govt.

I think the price of 363 crores for Mk1 is already high due to the learning curve effects of the program. All the kinks in mfg should be even out by the first 40 aircraft.
The next 83 aircraft should cost less for complexity but account for inflationary and foreign exchange variation.


The Mk1A has extra SPJ and AESA. Those should be procured from Israel by Govt and supply to the HAL for integration.
Rest of aircraft is minimal change.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby souravB » 12 Jul 2018 03:47

Karan M wrote:
souravB wrote:Mk1 in its design is not very production friendly, even the ADA director has confirmed it in so many words in his last interview a month or two back(I am sure I saw the link in BRF but cannot find it atm). HAL's babu attitude doesn't help too when it was required to put in more work. The problem is mitigated in Mk2.
IMO roping in IAF wouldn't help much in production schedule but let IAF have an eye over the process and integrate the changes in efficient manner without hampering the production.


Come now, don't just spread unsourced rumors. ADA head said Mk2 will be much easier to make, not that Mk1 is bad. You state this, next guy will add more masala and some idiot journo will repeat it as fact.

Saarji, the poonch of the tadpoles sometimes waggle and thoughts get misrepresented. I never said Mk1 is bad just requires more effort to build. The statement from S.D. does state Mk2 will be easier to build which in my understanding say Mk2 design is more suited for mass production than Mk1 is. Him making the statement alone points this is something they faced and mitigated in the next design.
Being the first indigenous design, it is very normal to face this kind of issue. Making anything is an issue of priorities and our designer(s) must have made their priority list based on limitations and strength. It is very easy to push 'super easy to build' down the priority list for 'must have to fly' and 'super safe to fly' at the top of the list. This is the cause which HAL has managed horrendously and now IAF has to take over. We at BRF should atleast acknowledge it as a reason for delay and keep it in mind while we formulate our analyses.
Actually when I think of it, it might also be 'one' of the the reason for HAL asking that amount for each jet.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5845
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jul 2018 08:54

ramana wrote:Who do you think is going to pay for their learning experience?
Besides LM/Boeing/Saab have an incentive to make them succeed as they get a portion of the funds as fees.
What is HAL incentive to hold the hands of private player?
It will be govt mandated suicide.

Ok Ramana-ji. I hope the IAF can make the changes required.

A projected target of 16/yr may be good for 2019, but that number needs to be ramped up in the years ahead. At 16/yr, it will take 5+ years to deliver 83 Mk1As.

I cannot cut-and-paste article below. Will not allow me. By Anantha Krishnan.

IAF may steer Tejas to overcome project delays
https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... elays.html

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6931
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 12 Jul 2018 10:33

souravB wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Come now, don't just spread unsourced rumors. ADA head said Mk2 will be much easier to make, not that Mk1 is bad. You state this, next guy will add more masala and some idiot journo will repeat it as fact.

Saarji, the poonch of the tadpoles sometimes waggle and thoughts get misrepresented. I never said Mk1 is bad just requires more effort to build. The statement from S.D. does state Mk2 will be easier to build which in my understanding say Mk2 design is more suited for mass production than Mk1 is. Him making the statement alone points this is something they faced and mitigated in the next design.
Being the first indigenous design, it is very normal to face this kind of issue. Making anything is an issue of priorities and our designer(s) must have made their priority list based on limitations and strength. It is very easy to push 'super easy to build' down the priority list for 'must have to fly' and 'super safe to fly' at the top of the list. This is the cause which HAL has managed horrendously and now IAF has to take over. We at BRF should atleast acknowledge it as a reason for delay and keep it in mind while we formulate our analyses.
Actually when I think of it, it might also be 'one' of the the reason for HAL asking that amount for each jet.

Subsequent iterations being more manufacturing friendly, maintenance friendly etc. is a global norm.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6379
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby habal » 12 Jul 2018 11:48

lca news & discussion on rstv


KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby KBDagha » 12 Jul 2018 15:45

HAL readies Tejas SP-10 for first flight...

Read more at: https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... light.html

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 655
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Jul 2018 15:59

We are our own enemy. We do not need Pakistan or China!!!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2766
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chola » 12 Jul 2018 16:30

ks_sachin wrote:We are our own enemy. We do not need Pakistan or China!!!


Misjudging the capabilities of Pakistan or China is what is holding back our MIC.

We hold overwhelming advantages over TSP and what rump forces Cheen could bring to our borders and the IOR.

Yet, we are told that we must have the best on market so we could handle the two front war against the failed state of Pakis and a SYRE PRC who hadn’t fought in four decades and who can’t spare much from its face-offs with the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines even if it did fight.

We dominate our region and should have been able to induct indigenous products that might not have been at gora standard to start with but would have gotten progressively better as the MIC matured.

Instead, we are the greatest arms importer on earth because we act like a weak power under threat than a strong power who in reality OVERWHELMS any potential threat in its neighborhood.

We can take a Tejas with a locally developed nose cone and it would not affect our strategic position. We can take hundreds of Tejas in place of any further firangi fighter purchases and it would not hurt our strategic position.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Dileep » 12 Jul 2018 16:45

MK1 is 'pretty decent' to build, but no way approach the desirable manufacturability levels. One of the driving factors behind MK1A concept is improve this issue. Things are not at all modular, so everything must be built in place at the integration station. Ideally, it should have been possible to build and wire up the sections separately and brought them together to the integration rig. MK1A is definitely a move in this direction.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2333
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JTull » 12 Jul 2018 16:59

KBDagha wrote:HAL readies Tejas SP-10 for first flight...

Read more at: https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... light.html


Great details about the Trainers, FOC specs, and the fact that SP-21 parts have already started getting loaded onto the assembly line.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 779
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby nash » 12 Jul 2018 19:23

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1017369771569008641

Once the Air Force has control over the Tejas programme, it should also be answerable for any further delays in the programme. No more passing the parcel should happen. If a delay happens because they want a new capability introduced, it should be recognized as such.


https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1017364346144481280

I have no problem with the military putting scientists and production engineers in a room and 'kicking' them till they deliver results. But, they must keep 'kicking' till they get what they want & not suddenly break off and look for 'mature' imports.


Summarizes my thoughts on IAF taking over Project LCA

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby pankajs » 12 Jul 2018 20:41

KBDagha wrote:HAL readies Tejas SP-10 for first flight...

Read more at: https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... light.html

Many of the concessions and modifications are getting fulfilled during the delivery of SP-10. The IAF is extremely happy with the finish of the series production platforms,” says an official.

Progress is being made.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1413
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 12 Jul 2018 21:36

That may be the reason for wait, every bit worth of it

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Haridas » 13 Jul 2018 10:00

nash wrote:
dinesha wrote:Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html


Apprehensions are realistic, if we get some one like Mr Matheswaran as Dileep mention. We can only hope if GoI decided to go this way we get some one like ACM Bhadauria.

IMHO it is all faltooo effort, till IAF changes for good so that technical, engineering and production work is solely lead by non pilot Engineering officers that grow up to Air Marshal rank.

All else is pilot mafia nutanki onree.

Su**ys like Mateshwaran Mk1, Mk2, 3 .... come dime a dozn in IAF institutional setup as it is now. Harsh assessment but very close to truth.

Pardon my straight talk, IAF will not change in its stupor, dream as much we want.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 262
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby A Deshmukh » 13 Jul 2018 10:35

IAF leadership is dominated by pilots and not engineers.
Building a plane requires skills of Designer first, and then Engineering & Operations, Supply Chain, Manufacturing Managerial skills.
IAF pilots will not have any of these skills.

But sometimes in school, the naughtiest boy is made the Monitor.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 13 Jul 2018 11:16

Rakesh wrote:IAF may steer Tejas to overcome project delays
https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... elays.html


They are going to steer it to disaster.

The entire push to import single engine fighters was coming from the IAF and none other.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7841
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Pratyush » 13 Jul 2018 11:19

The other side of the story is that a pilot would know what he needs to fight and win. Therefore, he is in a better position to formulate requirements and make sure that such requirement are met.

As if I am not mistaken, most pilots would have a good understanding of engineering. As a result of their job orientation.

Planning and coordination will have to be acquired.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21978
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Austin » 13 Jul 2018 11:21

Neshant wrote:
Rakesh wrote:IAF may steer Tejas to overcome project delays
https://english.manoramaonline.com/news ... elays.html


They are going to steer it to disaster.

The entire push to import single engine fighters was coming from the IAF and none other.


Agreed the idea to deliberately change the status quo to destroy what is running for years now will not just delay the program but will lead to lot of blood bath between HAl and IAF.

IAF is already involved in Tejas program and there is nothing more they can do now.

This is IAF way of getting from backdoor single engine and other aircraft , they will point many flaws and delay the program indefinately to get the pet import type in

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 965
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby yensoy » 13 Jul 2018 11:44

If the Tejas card is played well by IAF, they should support an excellent Tejas to be built and operated, so that they can get really competitive bids for importing their dual-engine/stealth fighter. If they go to the international market today, everyone knows they (we) are naked and have no options. Cartelization is "illegal" but I bet you there will be a cartel of sorts between the top guys who will sort-of compete on initial cost and screw us over on spares and customization.

rohan1424
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 18 Sep 2016 11:09

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby rohan1424 » 13 Jul 2018 11:51

Time has come to implement the changes.HAL has taken everyone for a ride for far too long.There work culture is very bad , never meet any deadlines ,no innovation and R&D .The only thing they are good at is contract assembling , for which they don't learn anything also. We need to get pvt. firms involved .Give companies like TASL, L&T(for navy),Mahindra defense , Bharat forge a chance.At least start giving them small/medium projects and gradually give them major projects .L&T recently delivered OPV for ICG ahead of schedule. Have you heard anything like this from govt. shipyards or DPUs? IAF needs to have control over all projects similar to model used by IN.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6379
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby habal » 13 Jul 2018 12:03

HAL claims now to only be a parts integrator and have outsourced wings, fuselage and many other parts to private players like Tata aerospace etc. But even then they are able to come up with only 8 units/year. So another factor HAL says comes in way of mass production is that IAF hasn't yet settled the issue of FoC in absence of which they (IAF) keep making modifications and do not allow assembly line to settle.

So as you can see IAF & HAL are made for each other.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 13 Jul 2018 14:33

IAF does not possess the expertise to manufacture the plane. On the other hand, it does have the discipline that might be required to set and attain achievable targets, something HAL has failed at woefully.

A radically new way of getting things done might be if GOI hand over to IAF whatever funds they have for fighter jet. Then it is up to IAF how to acquire said jets. For example, if they insist on going for Rafale, etc. then they will only get 2-3 squadrons more and they can't ask GOI for more funds in that scenario since GOI has already provided whatever they have. As a result, the only practical option available to IAF to reach the magical number of 42 sqdrns will be to get HAL to make Tejas. With IAF controlling the funds, they will constantly put danda up the dark side of HAL and make them deliver on war footing. HAL can't protest since the customer is not an elected govt which can be bullied easily. They either jump like IAF asks them to or pack up and go home.

Dunno how practical such an arrangement will be especially for a new program(for Tejas it might be too late to implement this)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3217
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Jul 2018 09:03

Austin wrote:
Neshant wrote:
They are going to steer it to disaster.

The entire push to import single engine fighters was coming from the IAF and none other.


Agreed the idea to deliberately change the status quo to destroy what is running for years now will not just delay the program but will lead to lot of blood bath between HAl and IAF.

IAF is already involved in Tejas program and there is nothing more they can do now.

This is IAF way of getting from backdoor single engine and other aircraft , they will point many flaws and delay the program indefinately to get the pet import type in


It depends a lot on what the GOI does. If it tightens the budget screws further, iaf will have no choice but to lead the Tejas program effectively, esp. Considering it's depleting fleet. Otherwise it will start losing budget share and consequently more territory to the navy as well.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17645
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 14 Jul 2018 11:23

ramana wrote:
dinesha wrote:Why The IAF’s New Push To Control Project LCA Amplifies All That’s Wrong- Shiv Aroor
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/07 ... wrong.html


IN admirals are in charge of all the major shipyards yet we don't get these type of articles.
Sad that even good news is packaged as bad.

IAF being in charge of their planes procurement is a good thing. Its similar to the IN being in charge of procuring ships.
And if you want bahar ki murgi its the way USAF does business.

It was only under Maj Gen Jetley of IA,the M-4 Shermans were up-gunned with the French CV-75N cannon that made mince meat of Pattons at Asal Uttar.


So IAF wanting to take leadership of the Tejas program is the right thing.
It should have done it from day one.
Lets be glad for the good news instead of trying to Monday morning quarterback the decision.


I would like the IA to take charge of the Arjun/rifle program and not be a mere customer.

Appoint two Maj General level officers for these two and put them on VCOAS track on success.


Lets look at the relevant parts of the article:

...
The IAF has been accused by the ADA and HAL of shifting requirement goalposts, blowing hot or cold during the prototype phase, being whimsical at meetings and displaying a disparaging outlook to the aircraft in general. The IAF has been armed with very legitimate accusations of its own: HAL’s relative disinterest in the LCA Tejas project (this has changed recently as a result of orders and the operational imperative), and the DRDO’s chronic stream of technological promises that have almost never been met — or met on time.


{Here you have the crux of problems with the interpersonal relationships. Having said that IAF both active and retired have poured their heart into Tejas from the beginning. It was Air Marshal MSD Wollen who released the HAL design staff to join ADA to design the LCA. It was Air Cdre T.K . Sen who did the first design review of LCA. I recall Air Marshal Nanjappa was assigned in mid 2000 decade to liaison the LCA. It was IAF pilots who test piloted the TDS onward. Its their lives at risk in the planes. Not any ground based penguins.

While the plane is being designed by ADA, its being manufactured by HAL. I don't know who had budget authority for this Was it ADA or HAL in setting up initial production capability? ADA has not bee upfront in bring the bad news to the IAF. They always let nosy newspaper reporters write bad press from dubious 'sources'. Never did we see a capable ADA official give briefing of the challenges and meager budgets, technology denials that they faced. They continued to solve them and we saw the flawless test flight program. There shortcoming was in communications and managing expectations.

IAF criticizing HAL disinterest is not correct. HAL is a mfg organization. They would be equally appalled at the ADA shifting of milestones. No business organization can afford to link their future to such shifting milestones. And then there is the Damocles Sword of privatization. Who wants to show avoidable losses.
DRDO as the mother agency for ADA should have provided management cover to handle the bad publicity and manage program re-baselining it when the requirements changed. And communicated the changes. Instead they would let nosy reporters write motivated article starting with LCA program was started in 1984 when so and so was taking a shower...
Never did any DRDO director be assertive and say the LCA was a four phase program: Phase 1 TDS to demonstrate the technology works. Then Phase 2: PV program to build prototypes. Then Phase 3: LSP to build the mfg line at HAL. And finally Phase 4: the SP to build production aircraft. And each phase was started and finished and funded at this level. And these were the problems at each phase that caused re-baselining.

And before all this was a conceptual phase (Phase 0) that led to the design for the TDS to be sanctioned.

And give examples of foreign plane development like: Mirage III, to Rafale. US F-16 to F-35. so there is context to LCA/Tejas




It’s a good time to remember the LCA Tejas imperative squares off against India’s rebooted quest for over 100 foreign fighters to be built in India, a requirement so aggressively pushed by the IAF, that a whole generation of young Indians has probably never even heard of the Tejas. Cynics will wonder if the IAF’s quest for administrative leadership is to speed up and correct the baseline Tejas in its (hopefully) last mile or simply to oversee the winding down of a project that sections in the force have always perceived as an albatross around their necks.

{Unfortunately some retired IAF officershave made unfortunate remarks (three legged cheetahs, Matheswaran et al...) that led to the cynics. However ACM Dhanoa is an upright officer and has shown backing for the Tejas and that is what matters.So the cynics or hecklers can go elsewhere}


There is no question, here on Livefist at least, that the LCA Tejas is too valuable and important a project to see dwindle and ultimately fail. Milestones of the last four years have proved that the jet, in significant numbers, could more than replace the MiG-21 — the whole reason why the jet project was initiated in the first place.

{Why no put this in the first paragraph? I guess it wont fly!]

The idea of an IAF thumping its fist on a desk and taking over is an evocative one. And it certainly lends itself to possibility of a violent, but necessary fix. But let’s remember that it is, ultimately, also a withering admission. And if Project LCA is turned on its head and handed to the IAF to control — as it should have been from the start — the aircraft deserves a ruthlessly clear path forward....


{We all are on same page.}



Looks like some one spiked his morning kapi with salt.


Read this to understand why we are where we are.

mediocre folks building kingdoms stifle and destroying talent and initiative is the norm.

They neither piss nor get off the pot.


APSOH – A DREAM COME TRUE

Cmde Arogyaswami Paulraj AVSM VSM PhD(Retd)/Fox/25/BCC/Silver Medallist

Early in 1969, I was nominated to attend a selection interview for the M Tech course at IIT (Delhi). I joined IIT in July 1969 for the M Tech course, overjoyed at a chance to pursue my interests in a real university. Soon Prof Indiresan became impressed with my work and asked the IIT and NHQ to allow me to transfer to a Ph D programme. I did not have a B Tech degree and therefore normally needed to complete an M Tech before starting on a Ph D. Prof Indiresan succeeded in persuading the IIT Senate to make a concession, but had much more difficulty with NHQ. Initially Vice Admiral Krishnan (the VCNS) gave a flat no, because, as he put it, he did not need scientists in the Navy. But Prof Indiresan persisted and wrote or visited NHQ. VCNS finally relented on the condition that I get back to the Navy in the two years allowed for the M Tech.

I began my Ph D research in December 1969. After an initial start in more applied work, I was successful in developing many interesting results in filtering theory (extracting signals from noise). During early 1971, Prof Kailath from StanfordUniversity visited the IIT. Kailath was already a legend. He encouraged my theoretical research interests. Prof Indiresan with his emphasis on 'practice' and Prof Kailath on 'theory' influenced my professional interests and they remain my principal heroes and mentors. In August 1971, my two years at IIT were completed, and I was posted to Valsura (the Navy'sElectrical School). I still needed a mandatory additional year to submit my thesis.

I did have interesting results, but it required more polishing and Valsura, lacking a research library, would have killed the Ph D. Once again, Prof Indiresan lobbied NHQ for a New Delhi posting and after a great deal of anxiety; I was assigned to the Directorate of Electrical Engineering at NHQ.

The Beginning

One night in early December 1971, during the Indo-Pakistan War, we lost the frigate INS Khukri from submarine action. The next morning, the DEE (Director of Electrical Engineering, Commodore Chatterjee) asked me whether I knew anything about sonars. I don't remember what I told him, but later that afternoon, I accompanied him to Bombay. The next day, I became aware of Lt Jain's association with the BARC experiments. I also examined some of the hardware developed by BARC.DEE then asked me if I would take over Jain's place and pursue the work to improve Sonar 170 B. I accepted and suggested that we do the project at IIT under Prof Indiresan. I was of course happy to get back to IIT to rescue my Ph.D.

The Sonar 170B Modification

In March 1972, NHQ assigned me back to IIT Delhi to develop a modification kit to improve Sonar 170 B. NHQ allowed me to use any design approach. BARC was encouraged to continue its work. I had my misgivings about the BARC's approach, but kept quiet because of the sensitivity of the circumstances.” By March 1972, IIT had a basic prototype and the team (Prof Indiresan, myself and three Ph.D. scholars) flew down to Bombay for trials on INS Kuthar. The first trial had problems in interface to the sonar. We were back again in June 1972, with an improved prototype and this time the trials went well. NHQ was enthusiastic. A final prototype was built during September 1972 to September 1973. It was cleared for production after extensive trials. BDL Hyderabad was nominated as the production agency. IIT handed over the design to BDL in December 1973. I left for the UK to work atLoughborough University in January 1974. The ex-BDL 170 B mod kits entered fleet service in 1976/77.

Comments on the BARC Project

“Lieutenant Jain had done a course in theUK at HMS Collingwood and had picked up sonar knowledge beyond his Valsura courses. In Bombay, Jain met Dr Phadnis of BARC who had returned from Italy where his professor had developed an instrument for nuclear scintillation logging. Phadnis had learnt in Italy that this technique can also improve sonars. So Jain and Phadnis, with Dr Dastidar's blessing, began adapting this instrument for use with Sonar 170 B. Jain was then at the Naval Dockyard Bombay's Weapon Workshop WECORS and Western Naval Command had clearly encouraged his association with BARC. I don't think NHQ was aware of the BARC project. Jain never visited or worked at IIT. I became aware of his involvement only after the loss of Khukri and his death. What I recollect hearing was that the BARC equipment was attached to Sonar 170 B, which was operating when Khukri was hit and Jain was in the Sonar Control Room.

I believe that the IIT system design is much superior to the BARC design. Once, during a meeting in Scientific Adviser, Dr Ramanna's office in 1973 to discuss the IIT vs BARC technology, I tried to explain why the PI approach of BARC had a problem and suggested alternate approaches. I am not sure if anyone understood. The BARC project went on for a few more years before being shut down. This was a high visibility project at BARC and it was politically hard for BARC to wind up the project on a negative note. However, BARC and Jain deserve the credit to have taken the initiative to start improving Sonar 170 B. Clearly, there would have been no IIT project (and the improvement of 170 B) and perhaps even APSOH if not for the BARC-Jain initiative.

UK and the Seeds of APSOH

From January 1974, I spent 18 months atLoughborough University working on signal processing on an Admiralty Under-Water Establishment funded project. I used every chance to visit the sonar industry and learn whatever I could about the technology. Apart from my research into passive sonar signal processing, I had lots of fun building a minicomputer. At the end of my stay, I was given 2 months to visit sonar companies. This was a revealing experience:

Visit to Grasebys: They were, at that point, building the Solid State version of 184 M for the Indian Navy. I discovered that the design team had only minimal grasp of sonar signal processing. During my brief stay, I helped them improve some of their designs.

Visit to Plessey: I was told by Plessey that they had developed an improved Sonar 170 B. I found that they had not really improved the sonar, other than adding LFM. They had not figured how to do DODN.

Visit to Thompson CSF: This was a strong team building the Diodon sonar for the Indian Navy. However, they did not know anything new. I arrived back in India in November 1975, confident that we could develop our own major sonar. Initially DEE assigned me for sea time. But then somebody intervened and I was assigned to NPOL. NPOL did not have a billet for me and I was finally posted on a transferred billet.

APSOH

When I arrived in Cochin in February 1976, NPOL was already working on a sonar project. This had a budget of Rs 14 lakhs. Initially, NPOL's Director, Dr Srinivasan, did not involve me with this project. If I recall correctly, a computer system arrived from the US badly damaged and I managed to fix it.

This impressed Dr Srinivasan and I was included in the project discussions. It soon became clear to Dr Srinivasan that I had the best grasp of system design and I slowly began to drive the project into high ground. Around this time, NHQ started looking for an advanced sonar. Dr Srinivasan and I managed to convince various people VCNS, DCPT (Captain Hiranandani) and others that we should build our own. It was a leap of faith for us all. NPOL had little track record to back up such an ambitious project. And I was a pretty green project leader. A CCPA paper was drawn up for Rs 280 lakhs. We had approval by end 1976 and APSOH was rolling. Our team grew from 10 in 1976 to about 60 by 1982. Captain Prabhala headed the Engineering team at BEL. Relations between NPOL and BEL were initially good, but as deadlines appeared, there was much finger pointing and our relations cooled. Looking back, I did a poor job in carrying BEL along and indeed also the DRDO brass. Too much of the technical leadership was centralised in me and my close relations with the Navy (innocent and indeed vital for the project) were unfortunately misread by many of my superiors in the DRDO and BEL. Serious problems cropped up in 1982 and VCNS and CNS had to intervene to keep NPOL - BEL fights in check. If not for these two senior officers, APSOH could have been stopped dead. Many heads soon rolled in the aftermath. “After a 6-month installation on Himgiri commanded by Captain (later Admiral) Shekhawat, the APSOH prototype took to sea in mid 1982. On the very first day, we saw 16 km ranges against a submarine target. It brought so many others and me great satisfaction. We had problems with the power amplifiers, which took a while to fix. But this aside, the system behaved superbly. The sonar screens were sometimes unreal in quality compared to anything known.

Thoughts on APSOH in Retrospect

Now that I lead aspects of wireless technology at a worldwide level, I have a better understanding of the technology development process in the developed countries. I sometimes compare APSOH with other achievements I see in my new field. I am always amazed as to how such an inexperienced team, with such few resources, pulled off this major project in such a short period. APSOH was an impossible dream that came true for many of us.

The End

One day in May 1983, as the APSOH trials were concluding, Dr Arunachalam, the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, asked me to leave the country on sabbatical for two or three years and to do something completely different. He made it clear that my sonar career was over and I should find wider interests. Since I was not seconded to DRDO, the CNS's (Admiral Dawson's) clearance was needed, and went along with this. I was initially a little hesitant, but was willing to be persuaded. Thus, with some surprise, my sonar period ended almost as abruptly as it had begun, more than eleven years ago on the day after we lost the Khukri.“In September 1983, I joined Stanford. It all worked out thanks to Prof Kailath who remembered my Ph D work and arranged the visiting faculty appointment. At Stanford, I returned to pure theoretical research in mostly applied mathematics, very far from sonars and mostly irrelevant to the DRDO or the Navy. However I came to enjoy Stanford a lot, and therefore in 1992, when I was at a loose end, I decided to return here to start a new activity in wireless communications for the University.


I was fortunate to have played a role in the early development of the Indian Navy's sonar capability: Sonar 170 B Mod and later APSOH and its variants - I started the variant but was out of NPOL before these were completed. I acknowledge the support and encouragement of many people. Clearly the most important person was Prof Indiresan. His perseverance and faith launched me (an ex-NDA officer without a formal university degree or for that matter any real engineering training) into a world of high technology - IIT (Delhi), sonars, parallel computers, wireless networks, Stanford University and the rest. Recalling my sonar days, I was blessed with tremendous personal support from the highest levels in the Navy including every CNS and VCNS from 1972 to 1983. There are many others drawn from Navy, DRDO and BEL, too numerous to mention here.

Acknowledgement

These memoirs have been adapted from the Indian Navy history volume ‘Transition to Eminence’ Indian Navy 1965-1975, by VAdm GM Hiranandani (Retd) .
Lancers Publication

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17645
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby chetak » 14 Jul 2018 11:30

A Deshmukh wrote:IAF leadership is dominated by pilots and not engineers.
Building a plane requires skills of Designer first, and then Engineering & Operations, Supply Chain, Manufacturing Managerial skills.
IAF pilots will not have any of these skills.

But sometimes in school, the naughtiest boy is made the Monitor.


IAF is pilot led and HAL/DRDO is engineer led and therein lies the rub.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, prat.patel, Shakthi, srin, Vinod Ji and 50 guests