HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[indiatester]

Go through this thread
This is the negative side of JV when other partner knows that you have no indigenous project of your own.

There is a -ve side to any project. They are calculated in risks and have to be handled appropriately.
If the JV partner knows that we do not have an indigenous product, the loss for us would be that we will be paying them higher for possibly lesser technology. This is where the negotiating committee should define the project deliverables, quality expectation and time lines. Strict penalty guidelines can also be included.
Remember the JV partner can have the know how, but we have the money.

As far as LCA is concerned HAL+DRDO+ADA is responsible for only 30 % in delay, 50% responsibility lies with Air Force who from time to time tried to sabotage the project (not whole Air Force but a specific lobby) and rest 20% due to external factors like sanctions.

Instead of putting arbitrary percentages, can you justify them? Why is Air Force responsible to 50% time delay? For a fighter that was supposed to enter into service in 1995 (IIRC), how are you going to justify the delay of ~17 years and counting. Can we put up a timeline diagram explaining the problem to delay association.

 

[MehrotraPrince]

Instead of putting arbitrary percentages, can you justify them? Why is Air Force responsible to 50% time delay? For a fighter that was supposed to enter into service in 1995 (IIRC), how are you going to justify the delay of ~17 years and counting. Can we put up a timeline diagram explaining the problem to delay association.

The problem with most of the people on PDF is that most of them are either internet worriers or they love nit picking.

Not everything is disclosed to media, we rarely come across reports like this (Development of Dhruv project).

I don't know how good you are involved directly or indirectly in LCA project, but still let me tell you that IAF tried to sabotage LCA project from day one. Before the first flight of LCA a report was send to MOD that LCA is going to crash (this fact came to public after long time), but still LCA completed its maiden flight successfully. The report was prepared by some foreign agency with help of some senior IAF officers who never wanted LCA project to continue.

One proof is Inside DRDO series (Discovery Channel) documentary.

If you really want to learn about LCA and other projects, attitude of IAF, attitude of Indian Navy then please watch AeroIndia 2013 presentation, its easily available on youtube.

 

[sancho]

This is the negative side of JV when other partner knows that you have no indigenous project of your own.

That's the negative side in any deal with partners, when they know that you have zero know how to bring in the project and still, it turned out as a success, it made our helicopter industry way stronger than the fighter industry after decades of indigenous developments, which nobody really can deny or?
We now are able to re-design the Dhruv on our own, to design own helicopters, to develop own glas cockpits and cockpit displays..., which never would have been possible now if we didn't JVured with European or Israeli partners that showed us how to do it.

As far as LCA is concerned HAL+DRDO+ADA is responsible for only 30 % in delay, 50% responsibility lies with Air Force who from time to time tried to sabotage the project (not whole Air Force but a specific lobby) and rest 20% due to external factors like sanctions.[/B]

And the same old excuses again, especially the sanction part, as if anybody stopped us from getting Russian, French or Israeli techs during that time.

We had more than enough options, but we made the wrong decisions from the start and continued to do so. I find it funny when people blame the operator, which has no part in the development of the fighter or it's techs other then putting out requirements they need and when these requirements gets old and have to be re-evaluated, BECAUSE the development is delayed for more than a decade, people blame IAF for it and not those who actually caused the delays!

So is your point really that IAF lobby caused overweight and drag issues of LCA, that Kaveri is a failure and that the radar seems not to be ready either?
The fact is, ADA and DRDO are mainly responsible for the development and program management so far, IAF only set up air staff requirements and not do the testing and certifcating and I totally agree with anybody that they should have done it simpler and faster, but that has nothing to do with the development of the fighter in general, so how should it cause 50% of the delay?

 

[BLEND]

Livefist: First Look: LCA Mk.2 Air Intake Wind-Tunnel Model

 

[indiatester]

The problem with most of the people on PDF is that most of them are either internet worriers or they love nit picking.

Sir, nit picking would be when we have a product and we are fussing over minor details. We on the other hand have major issue. Be it the time lines, weight, engine, radar, we have big complaints. You can't call the nit picking. You are trying to prove that the armed forces don't really know what they want. I may even buy that argument if you had enough fighting men supporting your version.

Not everything is disclosed to media, we rarely come across reports like this (Development of Dhruv project).

I don't know how good you are involved directly or indirectly in LCA project, but still let me tell you that IAF tried to sabotage LCA project from day one. Before the first flight of LCA a report was send to MOD that LCA is going to crash (this fact came to public after long time), but still LCA completed its maiden flight successfully. The report was prepared by some foreign agency with help of some senior IAF officers who never wanted LCA project to continue.

One proof is Inside DRDO series (Discovery Channel) documentary.

If you really want to learn about LCA and other projects, attitude of IAF, attitude of Indian Navy then please watch AeroIndia 2013 presentation, its easily available on youtube.

I am not involved with defence. I am one of those internet warriors
But I have been brain washed by multinational companies to treat customer requirements as critical and keeping them happy with my solution is my responsibility. If I blame my customer, I lose my job.

I'll advise the same to HAL/DRDO. Please ensure that IAF and IN are happy.

 

[shree835]

Critical Review of LCA Tejas



March 04, 2013: The LCA Tejas showed off some of its operational prowess at the recent Iron Fist fire power demonstration over the Thar Desert—the platform was fielded after the IAF expressed keenness in seeing the aircraft perform alongside other inventory types. The LCA Tejas fired an R-73 missile and dropped precision guided bombs during the demonstration. With the platform now on a final leg ahead of the second phase of initial operational clearance (IOC-2), a critical review of lessons learned from the testing of the Tejas was presented recently as a paper at Aero India by the man who leads the flight test programme on the Tejas at the National Flight Test Centre (NFTC) and Aeronautical Development Agency.

In an insightful paper on the aircraft and lessons learned from it, Air Commodore K.A. Muthana has delved into never before areas that could prove to be crucial for future development programmes—including higher defence management, clarity on standards, clarity on path certification, clarity on agencies involved, involvement of the Indian Air Force from the ab initio stage (which he observes was absent), evaluation of prototypes and, crucially, the process of transition from design to manufacture. As an individual who perhaps knows the Tejas as a machine better than anyone else from a pilot's perspective, the paper could prove to be the beginnings of a more elaborate review of the Tejas programme at large, and feed into future developments like the all important Tejas Mk.2 and the futuristic AMCA. Says Air Cmde Muthana in his paper, "The Indian light combat aircraft (LCA) was conceived in the early 1980s and is now on the threshold of entering squadron service. The legacy of this aircraft’s development has resulted in true challenges to deployment being faced at a very late stage. There are even insinuations that this aircraft has been more of a success to the scientists in lab coats than to the war fighter in flight suits. True; this fine aircraft has been hostage to a series of systemic shortcomings. There are significant lessons here for the Indian aviation industry. It is vitally important that these lessons are imbibed in order to move forward coherently in building a strong aeronautics industry in this country." He ends by saying, "Tejas is a wonderful flying machine. It deserved to be in squadron service years ago. Remedial action on many of the shortcomings commented upon, if implemented even now, will favorably impact timelines for IOC and FOC of the Tejas Mk 1 aircraft. Favourable impact on Tejas Mk 2 and other future programmes will be enormous."


."

Critical Review of LCA Tejas - SP's Aviation

 

[sudhir007]

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2061 Test Flights Successfully. (28-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-105,LSP4-66,LSP5-139,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2068 Test Flights Successfully. (04-Mar-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-107,LSP4-67,LSP5-142,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

 

[Cyberian]

Salaam to all the Muslims,



What is the point of this aircraft? Will it ever be inducted? How long they going to keep it on life support. Let the poor 30-years-old experimental aircrafts retire in peace.

Or is it political corruption that's keeping it alive?

 

[Black Widow]

As you already admitted, you are full of your pride BS, that's why you don't see the reallity. Dhruv and LCA developments were completelly different, IF we had done LCA as Dhruv, it would be a success now!

Dhruv was designed by foreign partners, it used foreign core systems at first which were replaced with indigenous systems later, we formed JVs and co-developments (for Shakti engine for example) with foreign partners to gain know how and get modern techs according to our requirements. All this was sadly not done for LCA, because ADA and DRDO thought they could do it all alone.
That's exactly the reason why I am saying, that it's in our interest to keep things simple and constantly increase our capabilities, instead of dreaming big and failling even bigger!

But as long there are people like you that simply buy their promises and nobody takes them to account for their failures and mistakes, they will continue to do same mistakes on and on.
I am more than happy that the DM and the air Chief used Aero India to publically put more pressure on them and to showed the reality. Just like they are not as naiv as you are and pushing more and more for participation of our industry with foreign companies, be it the government owned or the privat once. Just like they understood the importance of ToT and offsets to imporve our industry, because if we remain with nothing but HOPE on our industry alone, we will remain to be disappointed.

I have no idea which world you live into...

1. Both LCA and Dhruv have contacted for foreign help.
2. LCA went for Own engine (as no one was ready to give us engine) whr as Dhruv went for foreign engine (as French were ready to give)
3. Both Software programs were written with foreign help, LCA lost all software due to sanction while Sanction didn't hit indo-french relations...

Like wise there are many similarities, LCA got setback coz of American embargo, while French didn't put any...


Nothing wrong in dreaming big, But I agree that LCA project was not pragmatic.

The problem with most of the people on PDF is that most of them are either internet worriers or they love nit picking.

Not everything is disclosed to media, we rarely come across reports like this (Development of Dhruv project).

I don't know how good you are involved directly or indirectly in LCA project, but still let me tell you that IAF tried to sabotage LCA project from day one. Before the first flight of LCA a report was send to MOD that LCA is going to crash (this fact came to public after long time), but still LCA completed its maiden flight successfully. The report was prepared by some foreign agency with help of some senior IAF officers who never wanted LCA project to continue.

One proof is Inside DRDO series (Discovery Channel) documentary.

If you really want to learn about LCA and other projects, attitude of IAF, attitude of Indian Navy then please watch AeroIndia 2013 presentation, its easily available on youtube.

Bro please post this video.. I want to see how badly our Politicians can sabotage Indian interests, How much they can betray... If India will fall all big Families will escape from India.

Salaam to all the Muslims,

What is the point of this aircraft? Will it ever be inducted? How long they going to keep it on life support. Let the poor 30-years-old experimental aircrafts retire in peace.

Or is it political corruption that's keeping it alive?

Salaam to all the Muslims.

Why r u salaming only Mulsims??

Start with Salam, end with Salam...

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

As you already admitted, you are full of your pride BS, that's why you don't see the reallity.

Irritated when your bubbles are bursting?

Dhruv was designed by foreign partners, it used foreign core systems at first which were replaced with indigenous systems later, we formed JVs and co-developments (for Shakti engine for example) with foreign partners to gain know how and get modern techs according to our requirements. All this was sadly not done for LCA, because ADA and DRDO thought they could do it all alone.

Dhruv was designed by HAL in consultation with foreign partners, which is different from keeping things simple by a direct purchase of MKI version of some foreign heli. HAL very much owns the aero design of Dhruv and that is the reason it can modify it on its will. Allow me to burst one more bubble of yurs and show you the reality how Foreign consultant had screwed up the Dhruv project, Hope you learn one or two things today or may be its of no use because of your selective amnesia:

1. Against these very high benchmarks and somewhat sweeping and futuristic expectations, the Government set up a Negotiations Committee to explore the possibility of collaboration with Aerospatiale (France) or MBB (Germany).

2. The fact remains that some of the futuristic design options put forth by MBB were initially resounding failures. The project that was supposed to have progressed smoothly under the tutelage of advanced German technology, instead stumbled badly to almost a point of no-return and required extreme effort by our indigenous teams to recover, re-develop from basic design stages and optimise for production.

3. It would also appear that MBB had either over-estimated their capabilities or perhaps had even attempted to experiment the feasibility of some of these concepts at the cost of our project.

4. Abrupt Departure of MBB. During 1994-95, MBB’s involvement in design consultancy of the project abruptly ceased as their contract had expired and was not renewed for any further period. This period was crucial, as flights of the first prototypes were well underway and all the design related problems were showing up on test-benches, Ground Test Vehicle (GTV) and on the prototypes. Issues pertaining to repeated and early failures of the MGB, failures of the ARIS, weight increase, etc had very clearly manifested during this period. Whatever the imperatives of that decision were, the fact remains that this abrupt and untimely departure of MBB resulted in a whole lot of very problematic design issues relating to various complicated systems suddenly being tackled solely by designers of HAL. This was compounded by the fact that our designers did not have any previous experience. All this resulted in an iterative approach in attempting several design alternatives for rectification that sometimes did not work, usually required repetitious testing and almost always contributed to delays.

So departure of foreign consultant was a blessing in disguise as now HAL had to redo everything on its own. This whole experience has made HAL self reliant in designing Helos of that concerned class and will help in development of heavy class helos. I thank the involved decision makers who took risk and did not follow your logic of keeping things simple by purchasing some MKI version of foreign helicopter on the name of JV.

we formed JVs and co-developments (for Shakti engine for example) with foreign partners to gain know how and get modern techs according to our requirements. All this was sadly not done for LCA, because ADA and DRDO thought they could do it all alone.
That's exactly the reason why I am saying, that it's in our interest to keep things simple and constantly increase our capabilities, instead of dreaming big and failling even bigger!

As you put it rightly, a JV can only get you latest technology along with know-how to manufacture and maintain it, nothing beyond that. For any future upgrade or next gen development, you will have to run to the OEM like we did for high performance shakti engines because we did not get any capability from the JV to modify the engine on our own. On top of that, OEM takes advantage by charging exorbitant charges for future upgrades like the case of LUH engine where HAL was considering going for a different engine.

That is why keeping things simple by doing JV will not help you in the long run. keeping things simple by doing JV is a short term solution to gain capability to manufacture and maintain latest technology. As per your logic, we should have been self reliant by now in making heli engines by doing JV in the 90s, but that is not the case. By keeping things simple, One will always be reliant on the OEM for future upgrades and next gen technologies like we find in case of Shakti engine.

If you are just content to gain latest technology manufacturing capability from outside then doing JV is fine. But for India, manufacturing latest technology in house is the ultimate goal and so investing in high risk programs is vital for achieving self reliance despite of the delays and performance short falls. taking big risks like the case of LCA program makes us self reliant in current technologies as well as ensures we are capable enough to develop next gen tech based on the R&D capabilities gained. LCA has made us self reliant in unstable aerostructre design, composites, glass cockpit avionics, FBW FCS design all that will help us in any future upgrade of LCA and any new program like AMCA. Even the kaveri program has given us far more design and development know-how than what we gained through JV involving shakti engine where we still cannot even upgrade the engine on our own and are at OEM's mercy for any future upgrade.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

 

[MehrotraPrince]

Bro please post this video.. I want to see how badly our Politicians can sabotage Indian interests, How much they can betray... If India will fall all big Families will escape from India.

India's Naval Light Combat Aircraft presentation AeroIndia 2013

Critical Lessons Learnt From The Design And Development Of LCA

Also watch "Design And Integration Challenges In Helicopters Operating From Warships" please search it on youtube and watch whole video.

 

[r1MM0n]

Tejas - Aero India 2013 - YouTube

 

[sancho]

Critical Review of LCA Tejas

There are significant lessons here for the Indian aviation industry. It is vitally important that these lessons are imbibed in order to move forward coherently in building a strong aeronautics industry in this country." He ends by saying, "Tejas is a wonderful flying machine. It deserved to be in squadron service years ago.

Totally agree with him!

 

[sancho]

I have no idea which world you live into...

2. LCA went for Own engine (as no one was ready to give us engine)

In the reality, were such made up excuses doesn't hold their own, besides that we had access to all Russian engines, let me make it even more obvious for you than it already is (if you look at it unbiased). IF bot developments would have gone the same way, it would have been like this:

Dhruv prototypes and first production versions - Turbomeca TM 333-2B2 (procured by France)
LCA prototypes and first production versions - Snecma M53-P2 (procured by France)
Dhruv upgrade versions - Shakti engine (co-developed with France)
LCA upgrade versions - Kaveri engine (co-developed with France)


Same different pattern can be seen with other parts as well:

Dhruv prototypes and first production versions - conventional cockpit (parts mainly procured)
Dhruv upgrade versions - modern glasscockpit (co-developed with Israel)

So we started with proven and ready foreign techs and replaced them during upgrades with indigenous or co-developed techs. We used JV and co-development partners to get techs according to our requirements and didn't tried to do it alone and when that turned out to be a mess, begged for help.
We used mainly European and Israeli help for Dhruv, since they were ready to provide is with the necessary techs and were reliable and didn't went back and forth beween doing it alone, consulting US, European, Isralis and doing tests in Russia, like in LCA / Kaveris case.

The core point is, we had a straight pattern at Dhruv to get know how and proven techs from foreign partners, until we learned how to do it on our own. For things we couldn't do alone, were done in JVs or co-developments from the start and not afterwords.

The result can be seen now in form of Dhruv MK3, Mk4, Rudra and LCH re-designs, or the LUH development, simply a success story, because we did it the right way and not because nobody was there to provide us techs or partnerships!

The only excuse that I accept for LCA, where the budget problems that the project faced in the early years and that for sure had an effect, but anything else is a result of disastrous project management and planning, or of simply too much pride and overestimation of our industry!