We never had a single failure in 1,500 flights of Tejas: ADE

[Veeru]

We never had a single failure in 1,500 flights of Tejas: ADE

India ensured its place among an elite group of countries making a fighter jet from scratch when the indigenous multi-role Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas got initial operational clearance this week. A key part in this success was placed by the avionics and flight control systems that were designed by DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE). PS Krishnan, distinguished scientist and Director, ADE gives Anirvan Ghosh an inside view of Tejas’s journey and the challenges faced along the way

It took the Tejas 1,500 test flights and 23 years of development to get to this point. Isn’t that too long?

You have to see that it started as a thought process in 1983 and there was no funding at that point. For the next ten years, we firmed up the requirements and then went into project definition phase. We went to France and Germany and took their expertise in fixing up the aerodynamic configuration. Post that we were ready with a firm proposal and the funding finally started from the second half of 1992. It did take time, but we had to go through the proper processes.

Then there were the sanctions after Pokhran II. How did that affect the development of Tejas?

Let me be clear — we perhaps got delayed by two years. On the day the sanctions came into force, our team was in the US offices of our partners there (Lockheed Martin and BAE Inc.). The team was working on integration of software with the hardware of the LCA. Suddenly we were asked to leave the offices, and we were not even allowed to take back the designs we were working on the systems there, and those were almost ready to be tested. We had to again develop it from memory, because we weren’t allowed to copy our own stuff, which delayed the whole thing.

You are saying that you had to spend some time recovering what you had already worked on and then build on it?

Exactly. But the sanctions also spurred us on to do better, and to make the entire fighter aircraft on our own. So in the next few years, we did not just recover what we had lost back then, but also went some steps ahead and achieved the expertise that we had tied up with the US companies for. So now we had what they had but need not rely on them anymore. So ultimately that did delay us, but also made us stronger.

Was there a point where you were close to losing faith because of the difficulties that cropped up?

Never really. When we came back from the US, I was called by Dr APJ Abdul Kalam (who was then the scientific adviser to the Prime Minister). I met him in his office, along with my boss at that time. He asked me directly, “Can you guys do it?” and I replied, “Yes.” At that time I just thought we could and didn’t think much about the odds. When I did, well of course we were up against quite a few obstacles.

What was driving you at that point in the face of those odds and how did you ensure the team stayed motivated?

The thought that alternatives simply wouldn’t do. Here we were making the fly-by-wire system, which would control the aircraft like anautomated system. Procuring the same from MNCs would have firstly cost more and made us just a small cog in the wheel. Here we were staring at odds but we also had the chance to create a new wheel, to invent a new system. This was a challenge we all rose up to. I told my team at ADE that they had a chance to create history and be a part of creating something that had never been done before. They were up for it and responded. In all the 1,500 flights we have had so far, we never had one single failure. Those included Tejas in its stages as tech demonstrators, prototype vehicles and limited series production (LSP).

Did you succeed in retaining more of the core team and talent after the pay commissions's pay hike?

That came later when the team had already done a major portion of the work. Surely, the pay hikes by the government have allowed us to retain talent. Before that some people did move out of the project and went in the private sector where they were better paid. But when I met them later at some event, they said that they missed working on cutting edge technology and making something entirely new.

Now you are working on the Regional Transport Aircraft as well as the unmanned aerial combat vehicle?

Yes, we are making the flight control systems for that project which is headed by NAL. The flight control system and data link packages of Aura (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) will be designed and developed jointly by ADE and Defence Electronic Application Laboratory, Dehradun.

Many private and public agencies worked on the Tejas. They are now collaborating on the transport aircraft. Does this lead to confusion and delays?

No, because the parameters are clearly defined. In fact, this happened smoothly also because of BAE North America. When we were partnering with them, they had formulated the methodology on how various agencies would work, and we followed it rigorously.

There are certain things like wake penetration, and others that the IAF chief said need to be ironed out and the deadline is June. Will you be in a position to meet the deadline?

Of course, we already have done most of it. There are some control loss trials, which are essential before it can be operationalised. Those flights will be completed before June. No modifications are required as I see it, but then we will have a clearer picture post the tests and then whatever changes are needed will be implemented.

We never had a single failure in 1,500 flights of Tejas: ADE - The Economic Times

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Now that was a really nice story to make us all weepy with emotion but in practice nothing much has changed. The part where they are still making grave errors is

Here we were staring at odds but we also had the chance to create a new wheel, to invent a new system. This was a challenge we all rose up to. I told my team at ADE that they had a chance to create history and be a part of creating something that had never been done before. They were up for it and responded

This habit of " creating from the scratch " again rather than collaborating , engaging in joint ventures , reverse engineering .....hell even active industrial espionage has been our bane for decades and the mindset of our DRDO , ADA officials dont yet change .

This is the reason why private corporations are to be encouraged in the Defense field by the government because they have no such qualms of honesty etc but successfully get the job done.

Increased funding to government employee scientists may help to retain talent but we should increasingly encourage the growth of private companies in defense if we ever want to achieve any sort of technological parity with our competitors .

 

[faithfulguy]

I think the designers are playing it too safe if there is not even a single failure.

 

[Mani2020]

I think now the more problem is that IAF has allocated all its resources on MRCA and other projects so they might be finding it difficult to allocate resources for LCA atleast as of now but if its the case i think they are really hitting the home grown bird hard

 

[jayron]

I think the designers are playing it too safe if there is not even a single failure.

I think you cannot expect any spectacular failures with the jet as Indians have fairly good knowledge working on collaborative projects and indigenous domestic planes earlier. But we'll know how successful the project is only when the jet is inducted to the air force and put to the real test.

 

[Kinetic]

Due to complex aerodynamics like unstable configuration and relaxed static stability! The development of Flight Control System was extremely difficult! But they did it without any failure! Kudos to the scientists!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now that was a really nice story to make us all weepy with emotion but in practice nothing much has changed. The part where they are still making grave errors is

Here we were staring at odds but we also had the chance to create a new wheel, to invent a new system. This was a challenge we all rose up to. I told my team at ADE that they had a chance to create history and be a part of creating something that had never been done before. They were up for it and responded


This habit of " creating from the scratch " again rather than collaborating , engaging in joint ventures , reverse engineering .....hell even active industrial espionage has been our bane for decades and the mindset of our DRDO , ADA officials dont yet change .

This is the reason why private corporations are to be encouraged in the Defense field by the government because they have no such qualms of honesty etc but successfully get the job done.

Increased funding to government employee scientists may help to retain talent but we should increasingly encourage the growth of private companies in defense if we ever want to achieve any sort of technological parity with our competitors .

This is the kind of shallow, unthinking and ignorant cynicism that I called attention to, in my comment immediately before.

Did you read the initial article in full? Did you understand that our scientists were locked out and sent home with an hour's notice, and not allowed to touch the notes and work developed that they had built over months of effort? Are you clear in your mind that we were under embargo? Do you have even a foggy idea of what that means, or were you just being smart, talking about a private sector collaboration when everything had been yanked out from under our feet?

As a BAe joint venture, because my organisation was involved in aerospace, I was not allowed to buy engineering work-stations beyond a certain capacity. I had exactly three of the entry level specification. This was to undertake mathematical analysis of a particularly intricate problem. We did a lot with what we had, including setting up manual procedures to do much of the pre-processsing elsewhere and merge those results with the main programmes, building the merging and computing interfaces ourselves, and it was a matter of chagrin to walk into Singapore Technology Aerospace and find that they were doing trivial work with wall-to-wall workstations - 30 or more - of the most advanced types in that company's range of products.

Not only flight control packages, entire operating systems and analytical software had to be written ground up. Whenever public and private sector collaboration was possible,it was done. Some of the software for building parallel computing systems, for instance, including the operating system, compilers, tools, and so on, was developed by WIPRO; others were developed by NAL and smaller organisations.

These pioneers were working under conditions of a complete ban. ISRO and parts of DRDO are still under that ban. Why do you make such uninformed comments?

I think the designers are playing it too safe if there is not even a single failure.

If we take the development time-frame, not really. It took as long as the Eurofighter, as long as some of the more advanced American types currently in service.

Perhaps this is the right time to talk about 'failure'. What does failure mean in this context? Dr. Krishnan was talking about systems, composite hardware and software combinations, tested and verified in the lab and on the bench, failing in full-scale trial. As you can imagine, during the development cycle, while ideally good design takes care of much of the quality, there is still, particularly in aerospace, a lot of rigorous testing to be undertaken. It is only after these tests are passed, with all the attendant rework that may be required, that full trials are permitted.

In short, it is possible to shorten the time frame by omitting to test to the standards, but that can cause catastrophic failures. I am aware what you are hinting at, but unlike other national efforts executed against odds, the ADE team decided against cutting any corners; no planes were lost.

I think now the more problem is that IAF has allocated all its resources on MRCA and other projects so they might be finding it difficult to allocate resources for LCA atleast as of now but if its the case i think they are really hitting the home grown bird hard

This is not entirely true. There are apparently sufficient resources for all projects in view.

Dr. Krishnan already mentioned the RTA project along with NAL and the UAV project. I don't know why you mention the MRCA project; that will be joint ventured between the Russian designers and an Indian entity, and I suspect that the Indian entity will be a producer, not a designer like ADE. ADE are more likely to be involved, besides the RTA and the UAV, in the MCA, the follow-up to the LCA, if there is such an animal. At the moment, all such mention is suspiciously speculative.

I think you cannot expect any spectacular failures with the jet as Indians have fairly good knowledge working on collaborative projects and indigenous domestic planes earlier. But we'll know how successful the project is only when the jet is inducted to the air force and put to the real test.

This needs a little elaboration.

Only the HF-24 was an original ground-up venture. Of the rest, let us count: we made or assembled Gnat, Jaguar and various types of MiG in HAL, also the AVRO transport. If I have missed any, please correct me. Of these, there was some modification done on the Gnat; and Wikipedia lists them as follows:

• Improvements to the hydraulics and control systems (these had been a source of difficulties in the Gnat).
• Fitting of improved Martin-Baker GF4 ejection seats.
• Upgraded avionics.
• The addition of slab tail control surfaces.
• Improvements to the landing gear.
• Additional internal fuel capacity, with wet wings to free the underwing pylons normally carried by the Gnat for weapons.
• Installation of two more underwing hardpoints.

Some work, but not huge.

Similarly, the Jaguar was produced more or less as the manufacturers gave it to us, until towards the end of its life, the following capabilities were added:

• Terrain-following radar;
• GPS compatibility;
• Night-flying capabilities;

The last was fascinating; some day I'd like to write about it, and the follow-on project that was attempted and completed, but never implemented (AFAIK).

The MiGs went through extensive modifications. These were far, far more difficult than might be imagined. One clue could be that an important project carried out for the IAF was the conversion to a single, digital format of all the manuals, every single one of them, of all the aircraft type then operated by the IAF. What followed was bizarre. I am a little nervous about sharing the details further than this. Perhaps it would be best to stay off the subject altogether.

However, there was really nothing much that could be carried forward. The only extensive R&D that was reproducible was the R&D that went into the ALH, which I saw being built right from the beginning.

To cut a long story short, there was nowhere the know-how to build a jet plane from beginning to end, and not only to design it, but to build it (there was sufficient maintenance know-how). The LCA development took place in a vacuum.

 

[Kinetic]

Well explained joe!!!

Actually this should be one of the greatest achievement of Indian defence!!! FCS's development taking the aerodynamic configuration into facts was much more difficult than developing Kaveri!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well explained joe!!!

Actually this should be one of the greatest achievement of Indian defence!!! FCS's development taking the aerodynamic configuration into facts was much more difficult than developing Kaveri!

Thank you very much. I really appreciated your comment immediately before mine, which shows you had 'got it'.

About the Kaveri, I have mixed feelings. Sometimes, I feel like shooting the entire GTRE team. But then I think about the utter confusion that prevailed every time specs were changed, and feel only pity.

The other, unsung heroes were the CABS team. They were radar specialists and did so much work that is today being used by their successors. Their leader was a charming air force guy, later a consultant to TCS, who was adored by his team; he could make them walk on water for him.

Where they failed, where they should never, ever have gone, was trying to modify the bloody HS 748 hull, the airframe. It was so far beyond our capabilities that we finally lost one of the two test-beds, and some key members of the team in that crash. It was heart-breaking. I am told that the Embraer project may be taking up most of the radar work done by this team. It will be a wonderful day when that flies; that will be the day the ASWAC finally flies. Bless them all.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

This is the kind of shallow, unthinking and ignorant cynicism that I called attention to, in my comment immediately before.

Did you read the initial article in full? Did you understand that our scientists were locked out and sent home with an hour's notice, and not allowed to touch the notes and work developed that they had built over months of effort? Are you clear in your mind that we were under embargo? Do you have even a foggy idea of what that means, or were you just being smart, talking about a private sector collaboration when everything had been yanked out from under our feet?

As a BAe joint venture, because my organisation was involved in aerospace, I was not allowed to buy engineering work-stations beyond a certain capacity. I had exactly three of the entry level specification. This was to undertake mathematical analysis of a particularly intricate problem. We did a lot with what we had, including setting up manual procedures to do much of the pre-processsing elsewhere and merge those results with the main programmes, building the merging and computing interfaces ourselves, and it was a matter of chagrin to walk into Singapore Technology Aerospace and find that they were doing trivial work with wall-to-wall workstations - 30 or more - of the most advanced types in that company's range of products.

Not only flight control packages, entire operating systems and analytical software had to be written ground up. Whenever public and private sector collaboration was possible,it was done. Some of the software for building parallel computing systems, for instance, including the operating system, compilers, tools, and so on, was developed by WIPRO; others were developed by NAL and smaller organisations.

These pioneers were working under conditions of a complete ban. ISRO and parts of DRDO are still under that ban. Why do you make such uninformed comments?



If we take the development time-frame, not really. It took as long as the Eurofighter, as long as some of the more advanced American types currently in service.

Perhaps this is the right time to talk about 'failure'. What does failure mean in this context? Dr. Krishnan was talking about systems, composite hardware and software combinations, tested and verified in the lab and on the bench, failing in full-scale trial. As you can imagine, during the development cycle, while ideally good design takes care of much of the quality, there is still, particularly in aerospace, a lot of rigorous testing to be undertaken. It is only after these tests are passed, with all the attendant rework that may be required, that full trials are permitted.

In short, it is possible to shorten the time frame by omitting to test to the standards, but that can cause catastrophic failures. I am aware what you are hinting at, but unlike other national efforts executed against odds, the ADE team decided against cutting any corners; no planes were lost.



This is not entirely true. There are apparently sufficient resources for all projects in view.

Dr. Krishnan already mentioned the RTA project along with NAL and the UAV project. I don't know why you mention the MRCA project; that will be joint ventured between the Russian designers and an Indian entity, and I suspect that the Indian entity will be a producer, not a designer like ADE. ADE are more likely to be involved, besides the RTA and the UAV, in the MCA, the follow-up to the LCA, if there is such an animal. At the moment, all such mention is suspiciously speculative.



This needs a little elaboration.

Only the HF-24 was an original ground-up venture. Of the rest, let us count: we made or assembled Gnat, Jaguar and various types of MiG in HAL, also the AVRO transport. If I have missed any, please correct me. Of these, there was some modification done on the Gnat; and Wikipedia lists them as follows:

• Improvements to the hydraulics and control systems (these had been a source of difficulties in the Gnat).
• Fitting of improved Martin-Baker GF4 ejection seats.
• Upgraded avionics.
• The addition of slab tail control surfaces.
• Improvements to the landing gear.
• Additional internal fuel capacity, with wet wings to free the underwing pylons normally carried by the Gnat for weapons.
• Installation of two more underwing hardpoints.

Some work, but not huge.

Similarly, the Jaguar was produced more or less as the manufacturers gave it to us, until towards the end of its life, the following capabilities were added:

• Terrain-following radar;
• GPS compatibility;
• Night-flying capabilities;

The last was fascinating; some day I'd like to write about it, and the follow-on project that was attempted and completed, but never implemented (AFAIK).

The MiGs went through extensive modifications. These were far, far more difficult than might be imagined. One clue could be that an important project carried out for the IAF was the conversion to a single, digital format of all the manuals, every single one of them, of all the aircraft type then operated by the IAF. What followed was bizarre. I am a little nervous about sharing the details further than this. Perhaps it would be best to stay off the subject altogether.

However, there was really nothing much that could be carried forward. The only extensive R&D that was reproducible was the R&D that went into the ALH, which I saw being built right from the beginning.

To cut a long story short, there was nowhere the know-how to build a jet plane from beginning to end, and not only to design it, but to build it (there was sufficient maintenance know-how). The LCA development took place in a vacuum.

Thanks, Joe. That about sums it up very well.
About the Jaguar, what you speak about, does it cover the DARIN project? And DARIN-II?

Last question for you, where did the HJT-16 Kiran project slot in?

 

[Kinetic]

Thank you very much. I really appreciated your comment immediately before mine, which shows you had 'got it'.

Thanks.

About the Kaveri, I have mixed feelings. Sometimes, I feel like shooting the entire GTRE team. But then I think about the utter confusion that prevailed every time specs were changed, and feel only pity.

Actually we wanted to develop something special on the first try as usual!! FADEC engine like Kaveri is very difficult to develop. If they Done it in 2010 than they deserve our congratulations! As far as I know even Russia didn't develop any FADEC engine so far. The engine for the PAK FA will be first Russian engine with FADEC. Also don't think China did it as well because Russia didn't.

The other, unsung heroes were the CABS team. They were radar specialists and did so much work that is today being used by their successors. Their leader was a charming air force guy, later a consultant to TCS, who was adored by his team; he could make them walk on water for him.

Where they failed, where they should never, ever have gone, was trying to modify the bloody HS 748 hull, the airframe. It was so far beyond our capabilities that we finally lost one of the two test-beds, and some key members of the team in that crash. It was heart-breaking. I am told that the Embraer project may be taking up most of the radar work done by this team. It will be a wonderful day when that flies; that will be the day the ASWAC finally flies. Bless them all.

Well said. At the best happy ending!

 

[ksgokul]

About the Kaveri, I have mixed feelings. Sometimes, I feel like shooting the entire GTRE team. But then I think about the utter confusion that prevailed every time specs were changed, and feel only pity.

The other, unsung heroes were the CABS team. They were radar specialists and did so much work that is today being used by their successors. Their leader was a charming air force guy, later a consultant to TCS, who was adored by his team; he could make them walk on water for him.

Where they failed, where they should never, ever have gone, was trying to modify the bloody HS 748 hull, the airframe. It was so far beyond our capabilities that we finally lost one of the two test-beds, and some key members of the team in that crash. It was heart-breaking. I am told that the Embraer project may be taking up most of the radar work done by this team. It will be a wonderful day when that flies; that will be the day the ASWAC finally flies. Bless them all.

Sir,
Can you please explain comparing and contrasting our effort with an another successful effort? When our Airforce chief says that we only have Mig21++ and Airforce deserves more after waiting for such a long time, how we should take it?

Thanks

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

This is the kind of shallow, unthinking and ignorant cynicism that I called attention to, in my comment immediately before.

Did you read the initial article in full? Did you understand that our scientists were locked out and sent home with an hour's notice, and not allowed to touch the notes and work developed that they had built over months of effort? Are you clear in your mind that we were under embargo? Do you have even a foggy idea of what that means, or were you just being smart, talking about a private sector collaboration when everything had been yanked out from under our feet?

As a BAe joint venture, because my organisation was involved in aerospace, I was not allowed to buy engineering work-stations beyond a certain capacity. I had exactly three of the entry level specification. This was to undertake mathematical analysis of a particularly intricate problem. We did a lot with what we had, including setting up manual procedures to do much of the pre-processsing elsewhere and merge those results with the main programmes, building the merging and computing interfaces ourselves, and it was a matter of chagrin to walk into Singapore Technology Aerospace and find that they were doing trivial work with wall-to-wall workstations - 30 or more - of the most advanced types in that company's range of products.

Not only flight control packages, entire operating systems and analytical software had to be written ground up. Whenever public and private sector collaboration was possible,it was done. Some of the software for building parallel computing systems, for instance, including the operating system, compilers, tools, and so on, was developed by WIPRO; others were developed by NAL and smaller organisations.

These pioneers were working under conditions of a complete ban. ISRO and parts of DRDO are still under that ban. Why do you make such uninformed comments?

First of all , due respects and regards for your experience . I posted at the same time you did and thereby never noticed your previous post in the first place.I read the original article and to honestly seemed to me a repetition of what I read quite before


I am enclosing the article in question so you can judge for yourself

India Thought Leaders: Ownership Feeling Among Tejas Users Has Increased, Says ADA Chief | AVIATION WEEK




Firstly no one takes any credit away from our scientists and technicians - they did magnificently under difficult circumstances , that is a fact .

However keeping the geo-politics around us , the rapid developments in the tech of our potential adversaries that our armed forces have to contend with.......Our developmental rates are un acceptibly slow.While its true that ISRO and DRDO was under restrictions and bans for ages especially after Pokhran II but so were others at various points of time .

China has been under the arms embargo for ages , for eg So has Pakistan after their nuclear tests.

My point is that our indigenous capability needs to be build up as fast as possible and while we should be happy at the LCA 's ultimate success , we should concentrate on rapid indigenous development
so that we dont end up with a technology gap over our rivals .

Besides what I am referring to is the future ....regardless of what happened in the past. I merely expressed the hope that

Our DRDO scientists would not try to" build everything from the scratch" as they so proudly declare having done with the LCA - if it results in a similar time span. Because as of now we are not so constrained as before.

You may have misinterpreted what I said, about our future prospects - and applied it to the LCA project.


Due Regards
Urbanized Greyhound

 

[Parashuram1]

Well, if this is indeed true the way your designers and engineers put it I must say for a newly industrializing country it is quite an achievement. Most of the British, French and American aeronautics involving in complex jet technology traced its roots to Nazi Germany's bureaus.

The coming decades seem to be for China and India together. Congratulations to all Indian members on this achievement.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thanks, Joe. That about sums it up very well.
About the Jaguar, what you speak about, does it cover the DARIN project? And DARIN-II?

Last question for you, where did the HJT-16 Kiran project slot in?

I am surprised you know this abbreviation, which was a set of India-specific upgrades, executed by Indian agencies integrating some western products and also doing some very good re-writes of the software. Yes, DARIN covered the items noted above earlier; I am not too sure about the scope of DARIN and DARIN II. Before my time a bit. I knew the IAF officer coordinating the effort, since while he was in HAL, he was my contact person in that organisation for simulators. But we never got around to talking about DARIN, and it never came up officially, unlike a lot of the other things we discussed.

These were, by all accounts, very useful upgrades, and lengthened the life of the aircraft considerably. If you want to know more, I have to talk to the old-timers at Bangalore, whenever I go back there (typically every 45 days); do let me know if you are curious. I'll also find out if anybody worked on the Kiran and is still around. Well, obviously dozens are, but I need someone who had a 35,000 feet in the air view of the project.

Could I get back to you on these two?