HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[rockstarIN]

"Sigh..."



had they gone with this design(which I shamelessly troll on every LCA thread).. that might be the course of action taken.. and a very excellent LCA would have come to light.

I remember you mentioned this earlier too. We started LCA programmes in 1990s and the MKI production started in India in 2000's.

A MkI's +Mig 29's baby was out of the question though.

 

[IND151]

We do not need to get Russians, we have French help on these matters though.

i said

GOI should secretly hire ex soviet aeronautical engineers who are unemployed now ( offering them huge pay )

these engineers will not work on order of Russia but will work as Indian Engineers

we can use "performance related pay" policy here ( if you know MHRM you will know what i mean )

 

[rockstarIN]

The LCA program is a failure for not delivering on time what it had promised(as is the F-35 program), its as simple as that.
It does not have the engine it was supposed to have, has not entered operational service.. and by the very virtue of its delays is putting the lives of those pilots that have to fly the outdated Mig-21's at risk.

The LCA program is NOT a failure for what it brings as knowledge and understanding to DRDO and HAL. Its a gold mine.. and I have already elaborated as to how many times before.

And yes I agree that the LCA is not outdated, but the very fact that it is linked to unnecessary requirements is its downfall.
The LCA Mk2 would have been relavent today.. not 10 years from now.
As I suggested, if the question is to replace mig-21's..then do it with a basic Mk1.. BVR and unguided A2G weapons only.

Concentrate all those resources meant for the Mk2 on the AMCA, make that program an excellent one.

the only problem was to link with the engine and other developments along with LCA. I would say it was a bold decision but technically it failed. We could not get western engines at that time and did not want Russian engines on LCA. May be that is the reason to go slow on not linking Kaveri from LCA project.

 

[SQ8]

I remember you mentioned this earlier too. We started LCA programmes in 1990s and the MKI production started in India in 2000's.

A MkI's +Mig 29's baby was out of the question though.

This program existing during the early 90's.. I do believe this idea never crossed the IAF's mind..
A baby flanker with a local engine.. Israeli and french avionics.. capable of flying circles around any other aircraft.
Gives me a hard on.

 

[rockstarIN]

i said

GOI should secretly hire ex soviet aeronautical engineers who are unemployed now ( offering them huge pay )

these engineers will not work on order of Russia but will work as Indian Engineers

we can use "performance related pay" policy here ( if you know MHRM you will know what i mean )

We were too honest you know. By the way, Russians are not unemployed now...I read some where that around 8000 engineers worked for 5 yrs for PAK-FA design itself.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

"Sigh..."



had they gone with this design(which I shamelessly troll on every LCA thread).. that might be the course of action taken.. and a very excellent LCA would have come to light.

Maybe that would have been so!
But then India would've ended up with a JF-17esque aircraft (in terms of the philosophy of creation and execution) and been happier with some short-cuts, in time and (maybe) money. I am happier that India has taken the "road less travelled". That will probably have a bigger pay-off eventually. Let it play out.

 

[SQ8]

Maybe that would have been so!
But then India would've ended up with a JF-17esque aircraft (in terms of the philosophy of creation and execution) and been happier with some short-cuts, in time and (maybe) money. I am happier that India has taken the "road less travelled". That will probably have a bigger pay-off eventually. Let it play out.

For the aircraft and program..NO.
In terms of knowledge.. YES... a very very big payoff.

 

[rockstarIN]

This program existing during the early 90's.. I do believe this idea never crossed the IAF's mind..
A baby flanker with a local engine.. Israeli and french avionics.. capable of flying circles around any other aircraft.
Gives me a hard on.

It was offered by Russia to India that time but rejected by IAF.

It would be like how JF-17 to Pakistan had that offer been accepted. After all it will be known as a Russian fighter only. Not like the case of J-10. Our bargaining/money power as also not like as it today.

 

[SQ8]

It was offered by Russia to India that time but rejected by IAF.

It would be like how JF-17 to Pakistan had that offer been accepted. After all it will be known as a Russian fighter only. Not like the case of J-10. Our bargaining/money power as also not like as it today.

The S-54 being the basis for JF-17?
This was the basis for the JF-17.. beginning as an F-7 redesign.. but then done from scratch.
inspired by concept drawings of Mig-33, The F-16.. but still done from scratch.

Had the Russians offered us this aircraft for the JF-17.. I think we would have taken it... with very little "editing"... possible using the RD-33.
However.. as fate would have it. Things turned out differently..and better since complete dependence on Russia for our mainstay may have been disastrous. Also the chances of co-production would have not come to light.

When it comes to the LCA however, India still had enough bargaining power with Russia even then to force co-production and refine as it wished the concept.
Still, the LCA decision was not all based on design I believe. Politics, diplomacy,funds and requirements all came into play.

 

[rockstarIN]

The S-54 being the basis for JF-17?

Your earlier post only.

Had we accepted from the offer of Su-54, we could have ended up with a Russian jet (Russian design, Russian Engine, probably weapons, Elta Radars, Indian Aviocs & French tech. too) So what is all about our 'own' fighter there. It is like JFT to Pakistan from China. JFT is basically a Chinese fighter isn't it.

If they only purchase engine & design from them and we make else everything, it make sense.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

For the aircraft and program..NO.
In terms of knowledge.. YES... a very very big payoff.

According to me, that is what matters.
The aircraft is important, but not vitally so. And there are some 'hedges' in place for eventualities. But in terms of 'knowledge'; India will be something of a 'creator' and less of a 'borrower'.

Now extrapolate that knowledge on the rest of the aero-space industry, especially the civilian sector. India will have a larger knowledge pool; 'know-how' and 'knowing-people'. That can be leveraged enormously.

In the 60s, India scrabbled about frantically to set up steel plants, most of which were based on Soviet know-how (which was derided in some quarters). But for a number of reasons and compulsions India slogged on. Now the pay-off is there.

Even Mr. L.N. Mittal owes his billions to that policy in a substantial measure!

 

[prototype]

This part I agree with, as a learning experience the LCA is not a failure. But as a finished product the LCA(Mk1 anyway) is a total flop. And the reasons for this lie with the IAF's inability to come up with a static Air staff requirement for what it wanted.
I posted a comical video on the development of the Bradley IFV.. and the LCA has many paralells with it.

I do feel that the LCA Navy is being shoved down the IN's throat by an apologetic MoD and DRDO(which has no need to be apologetic for what is not its fault).

The services have been trying to shift the blame for problems in the LCA to DRDO(and HAL) but the fact is it is they who are responsible for shifting requirements every other year.
This was DRDO and HAL's first venture in designed an aircraft completely on their own.. to expect them to do it the same timetable with the same efficiency that established companies do(Occasionally) was foolish.
I agree with Aeronaut that the LCA program should not be pursued anymore, the focus should be on AMCA and all resources should be focused there.

By this time the intension's of HAL are very much clear now,to make LCA operational and successful at any cost.

Offcourse MK-1 does not fit in the present scheme of things,thats why they stopped it with a limited production,HAL had alredy learned its mistake,and thast the reason they are going for MK-2 rather than declaring MK-1 as a success.

 

[rockstarIN]

LCA MK1 is always good than Mig-21s. SO better have those MK1s to replace the old Migs.

 

[SQ8]

Your earlier post only.

Had we accepted from the offer of Su-54, we could have ended up with a Russian jet (Russian design, Russian Engine, probably weapons, Elta Radars, Indian Aviocs & French tech. too) So what is all about our 'own' fighter there. It is like JFT to Pakistan from China. JFT is basically a Chinese fighter isn't it.

If they only purchase engine & design from them and we make else everything, it make sense.

That is a very big misconception.. but to deviate no further from the topic.
lets put it as briefly as possible. till 1999 there was little to show for the Fc-1 design apart from minor concepts and blueprints.
When a PAF team visited China in 2001 to assess the program..they were shocked to know NOTHING had moved forward.
It was then that an emergency rotation of some 100 engineers by the PAF was deputed to Chengdu to work with the Chinese and expedite plans. To the extent that the College of Aeronautical engineering at Risalpur saw quite a bit of its faculty and immediate graduates disappear on rotations to Chengdu. All these people were deputed to the Chief Designer of the JF-17 and it was these people that got it moving along. So to call it a Chinese aircraft is extremely unfair to those men.
Which is why it is called a co-production.

Coming to the question of the S-54... you could have purchase the design.. and work on it.
It did not have to look exactly like that, just using that as the building block.. perhaps it may even have incorporated Levcons from the start.. perhaps an S duct.. That depended on HAL engineers.
It may not have needed a Russian engine. A redesign of the engine bay could have been done.
So a lot of IF's in the process.

Here is the biggest IF, would it have been easier to pull off than the current design of the LCA? Or, more appropriately.. did it have better growth potential than the current LCA?

 

[rockstarIN]

Here is the biggest IF, would it have been easier to pull off than the current design of the LCA? Or, more appropriately.. did it have better growth potential than the current LCA?

You never know, the same roadblocks might have as today. forget engine.

It is not sure a design change might have accelerated the programme. After all French were consulted for the current LCAs too for number of problems. then came with the solution of new engine with more thrust.