LCA MK2 a disaster waiting to happen!

[HariPrasad]

The best solution to all these problems is to buy the planes off the shelf. India do not have enough industrial base to build anything advanced really quickly. Things will always take more time. If that is the case, the only solution to get things more quickly is to buy planes directly off the shelf.

Oh Dear!! Why so late after 29 posts???

Any way well come. Now en-light the forum with your omnisubject expertise.

 

[janon]

Isn't LCA MK1 supposed to finish by Nov this year? I remember Antony sworn on the head of his son that LCA MK1 FOS will be done by November. Or is it just the usual delaying tactic from the India government?

LOL, what?

 

[sankranti]

So he is a "self proclaimed expert" while you are presumably the real expert? Here is some bio about him:

35 years in Indian Air Force
Flown 60 types of aircraft, accident free
Project Director Flight Test of Tejas (LCA) programme


Specialties

Fighter Pilot with combat experience in war
"A" Category Flying Instructor
Experimental Test Pilot, Member Society of Experimental Test Pilots, Lancaster, USA
Taught Defence Studies at A Post Graduate Level
Soldier-Diplomat in Pakistan for four years
Flew with Iraqi Air Force for two years during the Iran-Iraq war

He is a war veteran, AND the project director of the LCA flight tests. If you want to know more, here:

|| Bangalore International Centre ||

I'd say he is more than qualified to opine about the LCA. And anybody smart enough to listen to an authoritative voice is listening to him.

I never claimed to be the expert, he did.

His career as a pilot, test pilot and diplomat makes him qualified to tell Aircraft designers how to build aircraft's ? WOW...just WOW.

There are a thousand other such authoritative voice shouting to be heard. The truly genuine ones do get heard and becomes part of the program. The pseudo experts are left to holler in the press or worse, become arms agents.

 

[janon]

I never claimed to be the expert, he did.

His career as a pilot, test pilot and diplomat makes him qualified to tell Aircraft designers how to build aircraft's ? WOW...just WOW.

There are a thousand other such authoritative voice shouting to be heard. The truly genuine ones do get heard and becomes part of the program. The pseudo experts are left to holler in the press or worse, become arms agents.

His career as an ace pilot, war missions with combat experience, command of IAF's largest flying unit, and HEADING THE FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM OF LCA makes more than qualified to opine about the LCA's shortcomings. He is not teaching designers how to design - he is telling what the shortcomings are from the end users' POV. Like the fact that it takes two days to change the engine, and so on. Who understands the consequence of that factor - a seasoned war pilot who's job it was to maintain operational readiness, or a designer who has modeled aircrafts at HAL or ADA all his life?

His points are all from the end users' perspective, and he knows that better than anybody else. He is not lecturing on how to make mathematical models or write equations. If there are a thousand other voices shouting to be heard, as you claim, that is not so difficult in these days of instant journalism and 24/7 media and the internet. An article in a magazine or newspaper or even a blog is easy. It's not like Doordarshan is the only means to make oneself heard these days. It is not so difficult to be heard.

And BTW, HAL has done quite a bit of media blitzes as well. In fact it is the IAF that has been quiet in the publicity department.

I really don't know who can be more authorized to speak about the LCA from a user's perspective, other than a person who has commanded a formation of 56 mig-21s, flown combat sorties, flown all vintage and modern aircrafts, from the gnat to Rafales and F-18s, and for crying out loud, actually headed the flight test program of the LCA. FFS, who could be more authoritative, when speaking from a pilots' or warfighting force's POV?

Instead of attacking the man, try rebutting the very well articulated and very real points he has raised. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in any situation, but especially so when the man in question happens to be the best authority on the particular issue under discussion.

To reiterate - he is giving his opinion of the usability of LCA as a war fighting unit, not teaching designers how to design. Real, nitty gritty details like this matter supremely in combat - for instance, if it takes 2 days to change the engines, that is as good as that aircraft having been shot down. If the turnaround time of the Gripen in one third that of an LCA, in an operational scenario, that is equivalent to saying that one gripen can be as useful as three LCAs. These details are for him to elucidate to the common public.

Oh, and about your first sentence - he didn't "claim" to be an expert either - his CV and life-work shows that, for anybody who has a doubt.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@Capt.Popeye I do appreciate your post and am aware of the limitations of the LCA program and its failures.

But this is the real world. There are no programs without failures or limitations. Rather than behaving like Arvind Kejriwal who just mourns about how bad everything is, its better to do something about it. DRDO is doing something about it, so it earns my respect.

Doers always command more respect than talkers, don you agree ?

We don't live in a perfect world and there are no perfect ways to designing an Aircraft.

As Generalizations go; you are quite correct.
But when you dig into the 'specifics', then the glaring anomalies become visible. Since I've had access and acquaintance with people in all the three Organisations involved I do know of that too.

Remember one very important thing in designing and operating/managing any project; constant monitoring is critical to achieving any measure of success. Which means that action has to be taken on a continuing basis; not as some post-facto confused knee-jerk reaction. That will have any reasonably better chance of success.
As an analogy; in a manufacturing process, there are stages. Now the QA/QC inspections (which are a must) can be done at every stage or at the end of the entire process. Which will be the better way?
I've seen a process where it was done right at the end, where the deficient product either had to be thrown away or extensively re-worked on. What a criminally wasteful procedure.
Get my point. All of DRDO's projects cannot be held up as icons for students of Management. I know what I'm speaking about.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I never claimed to be the expert, he did.

His career as a pilot, test pilot and diplomat makes him qualified to tell Aircraft designers how to build aircraft's ? WOW...just WOW.

There are a thousand other such authoritative voice shouting to be heard. The truly genuine ones do get heard and becomes part of the program. The pseudo experts are left to holler in the press or worse, become arms agents.

I think that the statements that you make above are taking you even deeper into "the depths of incredibility". I discern a great deal of emotion but very little rationality in them. But that is a matter for you to think over.....

BTW, @janon just enumerated what I had written about in my first response to your 'off-key' post at the outset.
If that is unable to convince you about the man's credentials, I wonder what will?
About the other 'dramatis personae' in this episode that I mentioned earlier, I'll still refrain from further comment since I'd like to remain charitable.

 

[IND151]

Actually it's quite the opposite. The writer is saying precisely the same as you - to keep things realistic. He is NOT saying cancel everything, he is saying that they should only aim for a few incremental changes in the Mk2. Make a mk1.5 instead of a Mk2, because as things are planned right now, Mk2 is almost an entirely different aircraft. I will quote the relevant part, where he suggests a "viable alternative":



In other words, go for small incremental upgrades, instead of major redesigning. And keep the timelines realistic, instead of claiming that such a vastly redesigned Mk2 will fly by 2014 - any sane person can see that that is unrealistic.

This article makes perfect sense.

You mean Mk 1 with less changes should be inducted as Mk 2 and Mk3 will be actual Mk 2?

On Topic> I hope the LCA Mk 2 doesn't get delayed

 

[sankranti]

As Generalizations go; you are quite correct.
But when you dig into the 'specifics', then the glaring anomalies become visible. Since I've had access and acquaintance with people in all the three Organisations involved I do know of that too.

Remember one very important thing in designing and operating/managing any project; constant monitoring is critical to achieving any measure of success. Which means that action has to be taken on a continuing basis; not as some post-facto confused knee-jerk reaction. That will have any reasonably better chance of success.
As an analogy; in a manufacturing process, there are stages. Now the QA/QC inspections (which are a must) can be done at every stage or at the end of the entire process. Which will be the better way?
I've seen a process where it was done right at the end, where the deficient product either had to be thrown away or extensively re-worked on. What a criminally wasteful procedure.
Get my point. All of DRDO's projects cannot be held up as icons for students of Management. I know what I'm speaking about.

And as a general rule I am quite critical of DRDO too, but i am also aware of the limitations they work under.

To put your analogy is perspective, you are talking about PDR, CDR, prototyping. (Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review) and qualification testing. (both DGAQA and CEMILAC). Usually IAF, HAL, Outside Experts and Design team are part of the PDR & CDR. It is for the IAF to decide on the competent team to send to these Reviews and provide quality inputs. So far they have abdicated that role too. Maybe they were just too incompetent to play that role. (which is a more reasonable assumption)

In the end the Design reviews are done by DRDO experts alone because others do not give importance to this rather critical role, or they just don't care. It is for IAF to put the review team together and do a detailed review. Let them demonstrate competence in doing that first.

 

[janon]

You mean Mk 1 with less changes should be inducted as Mk 2 and Mk3 will be actual Mk 2?

On Topic> I hope the LCA Mk 2 doesn't get delayed

Well not me, him. That's what he is suggesting. And he says that nomenclatures (calling it mk2 or mk1a) are not too important anyway.

The point is that instead of making so many changes in mk2 (practically a completely redesigned aircraft), make mk2 an incremental upgrade. Change the avionics, but not the engine, which means the fuselage will not have to be redesigned. And then in the next block, change the engine as well. Get a few squadrons of each block into service, so that operational experience can be gained, and from it, user feedback.

Aim for the clouds first and get there, instead of aiming for the moon and missing by a mile.

 

[sankranti]

I think that the statements that you make above are taking you even deeper into "the depths of incredibility". I discern a great deal of emotion but very little rationality in them. But that is a matter for you to think over.....

BTW, @janon just enumerated what I had written about in my first response to your 'off-key' post at the outset.
If that is unable to convince you about the man's credentials, I wonder what will?
About the other 'dramatis personae' in this episode that I mentioned earlier, I'll still refrain from further comment since I'd like to remain charitable.

I said there are other such men with credentials who also get looked into. The more qualified one's get listed to. That is just the way it is.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Funny statement, considering you are pulling facts out of thin air and claiming them as 'true information'.

1. Maintainability gets built into the design is when design's mature and when the designing team matures and when the designing organization matures. This kind of process improvement is called a Maturity Model. Someone who Understanding this simple reality is called a mature thinker. People who do no understand this are considered immature theoreticians.

Among ADA, HAL & IAF which is the Oldest and supposedly a more Mature organization ? ...its the IAF. And how did IAF handle this responsibility ? by abdicating from it.

2. DRDO controlled the program because they showed Leadership in developing the Program. As in life, One who shows initiative, leadership gets to call the shots. Rest of them lie at the roadside and b!tching about the other, or write 'expert opinion' when they retire.

If IAF had shown maturity and Leadership (words which I dont use lightly) then they would have been the one calling the shots, but they are content 'defending the border' at peacetime to do anything more dynamic and useful. Now I am being 'charitable'.

3. I will ignore your unsubstantiated comment about Dr. Kota and HAL. Dr. Kota has shown incredible leadership in putting together the LCA program and making it successful in a nation with limited technical ability, paucity of funds, political uncertainty, dodgy support and an unwilling End user.

LCA is an incredible success story from the POV of indigenous development and future generations will look back and remember the day India's indigenous effort at Aircraft design took off again. The same way people who laughed at Prithivi missile by calling it a failure, today admire the Agni -V, BMD etc. once the program Matured.

I repeat, IIM will be lucky if they can lean in detail how LCA fought against odds and won and set the foundation for India's Aerospace design and development. For that matter any top notch 'management' institute will be lucky since there are only a handful of such program under development world wide.

4. The people who designed and built the LCA Mk1 are well qualified and intelligent enough to understand the design changes required for Mk 2. That is what I would like to believe. Rather than believe an all knowing 'test pilot' can tell them how to design aircrafts. Think about that too.

Finally, there are always 'concerns' about ANY program and those 'concern's will never go away. That is the nature of humanity and the nature of R&D and forging new paths. That is where Leadership comes in to stand firm against such 'concerns' and do what they believe is the right thing to do. For better or for worse.

What is required is for those scientists to know is that the Nation is behind them.

I do happen to believe even failure are stepping stones to success. Now when you start to believe that too, we will be on the same page.

HeHeHe, some banal generalities do not rank with the real facts of the matter.
But anyway, I know what I do know, and now I'm even getting to know what you don't know (or are unwilling to know) so there.
Now, btw; I still get to visit some DRDO labs when I'm around so I can claim to have some idea of their achievements (and otherwise). I am happier populating the "world of reality".

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I said there are other such men with credentials who also get looked into. The more qualified one's get listed to. That is just the way it is.

Oh yeah; I wish I could agree with that blanket (but rather absurd statement). About qualifications; well.....as Head of a vessel acceptance team I had to get Naval Archs. to redesign an entire "Fire-Fighting System" on a ship for the simple reason that it would seriously malfunction in a critical situation. It did not win me friends but I got great respect for ensuring a 'ship-shape' project completed. And that happened in a very leading Shipyard. That is the way it MUST be.

 

[janon]

I said there are other such men with credentials who also get looked into. The more qualified one's get listed to. That is just the way it is.

A few pages of back and forth can be saved, if you stop concentrating on credentials and ad hominems, and instead discuss the points in the article. Do you disagree with any of his statements? If so, which ones and why?

That line of discussion would be more productive than these pointless banalities and trite generalizations. Your first post on the thread was full of heat and fury, but lacking in substance, other than ad hominems.

How about addressing the points raised in the article for a change?

 

[sankranti]

HeHeHe, some banal generalities do not rank with the real facts of the matter.
But anyway, I know what I do know, and now I'm even getting to know what you don't know (or are unwilling to know) so there.
Now, btw; I still get to visit some DRDO labs when I'm around so I can claim to have some idea of their achievements (and otherwise). I am happier populating the "world of reality".

Since this is the internet and we can all claim anything we want, I too have some idea of what DRDO labs produce since I supply to some of them, which they then claim are their products. We all live in the real word, some more real that those shielded by a govt. umbrella.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

A few pages of back and forth can be saved, if you stop concentrating on credentials and ad hominems, and instead discuss the points in the article. Do you disagree with any of his statements? If so, which ones and why?

That line of discussion would be more productive than these pointless banalities and trite generalizations. Your first post on the thread was full of heat and fury, but lacking in substance, other than ad hominems.

How about addressing the points raised in the article for a change?

I think that our colleague (in his anxiety to push a certain POV) has overlooked reading many of the posts arguably even the first. Incidentally the writer has been specific and all of his views may be even verified by closely cross referencing the plethora of information in open-source. I did not find anything otherwise; except for his drawing attention to why the Engine is not performing to the PTWR that it was regimed for. That has become clearer from Khokhar's exposition, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Since this is the internet and we can all claim anything we want, I too have some idea of what DRDO labs produce since I supply to some of them, which they then claim are their products. We all live in the real word, some more real that those shielded by a govt. umbrella.

Good then; next time around, I'll check on their QA/QC procedures........
Believe you me; I will.