IndianMunda
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 0
There are few Indian software companies participating in Military program and there will not be any problem if systems have to be translated in other language.
HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
- Status
There are few Indian software companies participating in Military program and there will not be any problem if systems have to be translated in other language.
As long as the logic and flowchart is there, migrating from one language to other should never be a problem. Computer programming has come of age nowadays with many languages,tools being available but languages like C and C++ are still well supported. Even in terms of OS I have seen big banks still running Windows NT. India with its vast pool of software resources, it will never be a problem.
KENT
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 0
Mate, the site that you have mentioned in the form of link which raises serious question about ADA's software, pls care to elabroate us.... Is anything written over that sites is truly related to software developed for LCA by Indian Aerospace giant ADA? Since there is no metion of word Indian with ADA, and hence whatever written over there is relating someother ADA and not Indian ADA
I see that you didnt understand so here is the same thing I wrote earlier in simpler terms
Ada is programming language , developed by the Department of Defence , primarily used by them for developing software for weapon systems and aircrafts.
Here is a very simple program in Ada
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
procedure indians_didnt_understand is
begin
put_line("Indians didnt get it! ");
end;
Now do you get what Ada is ? Its a programming language
The India aerospace agency , being the copycat that it is , used the same abriviation ADA for naming itself.
The 'Indian ADA' used the 'Ada language' for LCA's sw components ( like missions computer's software etc ) According to 'Indian ADA's' website.
And here is the problem that is bound to come up due to use of Ada
Ada is a dying language outside of the US Department of Defence ( thats the study I posted about Ada )
India does not have the same capacity to produce technology as the US has that they can define their own development language and push for its use in their Armed forces even if the private sector is not actively developing the tools and products related to this language.
You guys have used borrowed technology for most of the other components ( engine from US and avionics from Israel ) and the claim that LCA's software was 'indigenously developed' is not completely true since the development tools all came from else where and when they go obsolete or become too expensive to maintain as will be the case for Ada so will LCA be further shoved in its grave.
The impression that so long as you have the flow charts you can convert code from one language to another, is bit naive.
It might be ok to do so for your every day desktop application but doing the same for aircraft is not that straight forward. If any part of the code is changed the entire verification flow has to be re-done. Thats not a trivial task. Bugs can be introduced during conversion and then there are performance , reliability , testability and maintainability issue that come up any time a code base is changed , its not that straight forward.
Besides once the code is written and the systems go live they first of go through a whole series of compliance testing. In the United states even for commercial aircraft the requirements laid down by the FAA ( Federal Aviation Authority ) are so tough that no body in their right mind would do a silly thing like changing code base for even commercial aircrafts based on flow charts alone from one language to another. That would be disastrous. In fact I think you guys should do just that , it'll be a nice show of crap falling out of the sky when LCA crashes due to faulty sw.
Ada is programming language , developed by the Department of Defence , primarily used by them for developing software for weapon systems and aircrafts.
Here is a very simple program in Ada
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
procedure indians_didnt_understand is
begin
put_line("Indians didnt get it! ");
end;
Now do you get what Ada is ? Its a programming language
The India aerospace agency , being the copycat that it is , used the same abriviation ADA for naming itself.
The 'Indian ADA' used the 'Ada language' for LCA's sw components ( like missions computer's software etc ) According to 'Indian ADA's' website.
And here is the problem that is bound to come up due to use of Ada
Ada is a dying language outside of the US Department of Defence ( thats the study I posted about Ada )
India does not have the same capacity to produce technology as the US has that they can define their own development language and push for its use in their Armed forces even if the private sector is not actively developing the tools and products related to this language.
You guys have used borrowed technology for most of the other components ( engine from US and avionics from Israel ) and the claim that LCA's software was 'indigenously developed' is not completely true since the development tools all came from else where and when they go obsolete or become too expensive to maintain as will be the case for Ada so will LCA be further shoved in its grave.
The impression that so long as you have the flow charts you can convert code from one language to another, is bit naive.
It might be ok to do so for your every day desktop application but doing the same for aircraft is not that straight forward. If any part of the code is changed the entire verification flow has to be re-done. Thats not a trivial task. Bugs can be introduced during conversion and then there are performance , reliability , testability and maintainability issue that come up any time a code base is changed , its not that straight forward.
Besides once the code is written and the systems go live they first of go through a whole series of compliance testing. In the United states even for commercial aircraft the requirements laid down by the FAA ( Federal Aviation Authority ) are so tough that no body in their right mind would do a silly thing like changing code base for even commercial aircrafts based on flow charts alone from one language to another. That would be disastrous. In fact I think you guys should do just that , it'll be a nice show of crap falling out of the sky when LCA crashes due to faulty sw.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Green man I suggest you edit your post and remove the personal attacks and other comments. I will do so If you do not.
Malang
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2007
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 0
New Delhi: European aerospace and defence major, EADS, has offered to co-develop with India the technology for active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for installation on board the indigenously developed, light combat aircraft Tejas. The offer has been made even as US aerospace giants, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are awaiting clearance from the US Congress to offer a transfer of technology (ToT) agreement to India for the same technology.
Talking to the media persons, EADS CEO, Stefan Zoller said, ''We have offered to co-develop the AESA e-copter radars with DRDO-LRDE.''
AESA radars, which are sported by some US frontline fighters like the F-22, help pilots track threats such as cruise missiles. AESA radars can track targets simultaneously in the air and on the ground.
Under India's Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2006, ToT agreements for AESA radars is one of the key elements of the request for proposals sent out to six major aerospace and defence companies who are bidding for the $10-billion deal for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force.
Meanwhile, EADS has said that it has so far ensured coherent delivery of end-to-end services for its military and security customers and is fully engaged in future tactical and infrastructure network projects for the Indian Army.
According to Zoller, ''As an example of its commitment to India, we have delivered to the Indian Army a complete test bed (Parikshak) in order to help it understand the need for the tactical communications system (TCS) project,'' Zoller added.
As the bid opening time for the MMRCA project nears, Eurofighter, one of the contenders for the project, has said that it intends to open an office in New Delhi shortly in order to have local representation during the competition.
domain-b.com : EADS offers to co-develop AESA radars with DRDO
Talking to the media persons, EADS CEO, Stefan Zoller said, ''We have offered to co-develop the AESA e-copter radars with DRDO-LRDE.''
AESA radars, which are sported by some US frontline fighters like the F-22, help pilots track threats such as cruise missiles. AESA radars can track targets simultaneously in the air and on the ground.
Under India's Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2006, ToT agreements for AESA radars is one of the key elements of the request for proposals sent out to six major aerospace and defence companies who are bidding for the $10-billion deal for 126 medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force.
Meanwhile, EADS has said that it has so far ensured coherent delivery of end-to-end services for its military and security customers and is fully engaged in future tactical and infrastructure network projects for the Indian Army.
According to Zoller, ''As an example of its commitment to India, we have delivered to the Indian Army a complete test bed (Parikshak) in order to help it understand the need for the tactical communications system (TCS) project,'' Zoller added.
As the bid opening time for the MMRCA project nears, Eurofighter, one of the contenders for the project, has said that it intends to open an office in New Delhi shortly in order to have local representation during the competition.
domain-b.com : EADS offers to co-develop AESA radars with DRDO
su-47
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 0
doesnt say if DRDO accepted the offer. i hope they do. If DRDO can obtain knowledge about an AESA radar, it will be possible to build indegenous AESAs very soon.
LCA Trainer.......
Looks good...Kinda Chubby
Whats the source? For all we know.. it might turn out to be the Hawk trainer.
Titanium
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 0
zeus
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2006
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
The case to support the indigenous LCA programme
There have been several articles in the press critical of projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in general, and specifically the programme relating to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), now named Tejas, and the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Indeed, whenever a significant event that involves indigenous R&D, particularly defence-related, occurs, or a crucial decision is set to be taken, articles originating from within the defence “system,” or from vendors who see their business prospects threatened, appear. The real facts relating to the programme need to be put in context.
The two issues on which the LCA project is criticised are cost and time overruns, and performance shortfalls. As regards the so-called time overruns, when the zero/go date for the project is taken as 1983, the critics fail to mention that what was sanctioned in 1983 was an ad hoc Rs.560 crore, pending full preparation of the Project Definition Document (PDD) — which is a fundamental step even to start the design and development process. The costs were to be finalised based on the PDD. This required the setting up of infrastructure in a hundred academic institutions and R&D laboratories and building up expertise to undertake the fundamental and application-oriented R&D required, and harnessing the design and engineering effort available largely in the public sector units for such a complex, state-of-the-art aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) discussed with Air Headquarters the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). Air Headquarters had requirements added to what was originally to be a replacement for the MiG-21. As a result, the ASR that was finalised was practically that for a Mirage 2000. But in the public perception the LCA remained as a replacement for MiG 21.
It look seven years, till 1990, to formulate the PDD. Based on this the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence in 1990, gave a time-frame of seven years to develop the LCA and projected a financial requirement of Rs.4,000 crore. This included the building of four prototypes also. There had been a 25-year gap since the only fighter aircraft ever indigenously designed, developed and manufactured, namely the HF-24 Marut, had entered squadron service. So the period of seven years to set up a more advanced R&D infrastructure and build up even the core personnel needed to develop the technologies that the LCA’s ASR and PDD called for, was modest.
After consideration, including by special committees, the Indian Air Force and the government gave the real operational go-ahead only in late-1993. Even that “go-ahead” covered the development of only two Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (TDA) without weaponisation. The funding approved was only of Rs.2,000 crore — half the amount requested for full-scale development. The first TDA flew in 2001, eight years from the real operational ‘go’ date, despite much additional R&D work that had to be undertaken due to the U.S. sanctions imposed in 1998.
Comments appeared in the media in 2001 quoting IAF sources to the effect that what the ADA had achieved was just a flying machine that was yet to be weaponised. Considering the nature and scope of the approval accorded in 1993, what else was to be expected? Using the money sanctioned for two TDAs, the ADA built four. Full-scale development, for which another Rs.2,000-plus crore was finally sanctioned, thus started only in late-2001. Some 1,200 hours of flight testing was to be undertaken to secure Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) from the IAF.
At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.
Consequently, in “generational terms” the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.
On the engine
It is true that the Kaveri engine for the LCA that the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) of the DRDO has been developing for 12 years has not yet met its technical performance targets and requires redevelopment. So far the GE 404 engine from the U.S., which powers the F-16 fighter-bomber, has been used to power the LCA. The problems the GTRE has with the Kaveri are not unusual in a complex fighter aircraft engine project being undertaken for the first time. Moreover, the financial sanction of about Rs.320 crore given for engine development was possibly only to cover the Project Definition Phase and some high-risk technology development effort. We do not know of a first-of-type high-technology fighter aircraft engine being developed anywhere in less than a multi-billion dollar programme and a 20-year-plus development cycle. Even Snecma, the sole fighter aircraft engine manufacturer in France, despite decades of experience in developing and manufacturing engines for Mirage III, V and F-1, took about a decade and $2.2 billion to develop the M-88 engine for the Mirage 2000. The development of the Kaveri is unlikely to cross $1 billion.
The LCA with a GE 404 engine has done 800-plus hours of flight-testing. Even with that engine the performance has been not only vastly superior to that of even the recently upgraded MiG 21 BIS (the IAF is operating almost 400 of the series), but it has shown itself to be comparable in many critical parameters to the Mirage 2000. Modifications to the aircraft structure are under way to reduce weight and improve engine performance. When the GTRE’s joint venture with a leading foreign engine manufacturer for further development is completed in the next four years, the Kaveri will be brought up to a performance level, superior to the GE 404. Fitted with it, the LCA will be truly comparable to the Mirage 2000 and in many respects even superior. And all this in an aircraft much lighter than the Mirage 2000.
As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF’s inventory.
So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.
As recently as in 2005, the IAF’s requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?
As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.
The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.
It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.
(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).
http://www.idrw.org/2008/03/08/the_case_to_support_the_indigenous_lca_programme.html
There have been several articles in the press critical of projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in general, and specifically the programme relating to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), now named Tejas, and the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Indeed, whenever a significant event that involves indigenous R&D, particularly defence-related, occurs, or a crucial decision is set to be taken, articles originating from within the defence “system,” or from vendors who see their business prospects threatened, appear. The real facts relating to the programme need to be put in context.
The two issues on which the LCA project is criticised are cost and time overruns, and performance shortfalls. As regards the so-called time overruns, when the zero/go date for the project is taken as 1983, the critics fail to mention that what was sanctioned in 1983 was an ad hoc Rs.560 crore, pending full preparation of the Project Definition Document (PDD) — which is a fundamental step even to start the design and development process. The costs were to be finalised based on the PDD. This required the setting up of infrastructure in a hundred academic institutions and R&D laboratories and building up expertise to undertake the fundamental and application-oriented R&D required, and harnessing the design and engineering effort available largely in the public sector units for such a complex, state-of-the-art aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) discussed with Air Headquarters the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). Air Headquarters had requirements added to what was originally to be a replacement for the MiG-21. As a result, the ASR that was finalised was practically that for a Mirage 2000. But in the public perception the LCA remained as a replacement for MiG 21.
It look seven years, till 1990, to formulate the PDD. Based on this the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence in 1990, gave a time-frame of seven years to develop the LCA and projected a financial requirement of Rs.4,000 crore. This included the building of four prototypes also. There had been a 25-year gap since the only fighter aircraft ever indigenously designed, developed and manufactured, namely the HF-24 Marut, had entered squadron service. So the period of seven years to set up a more advanced R&D infrastructure and build up even the core personnel needed to develop the technologies that the LCA’s ASR and PDD called for, was modest.
After consideration, including by special committees, the Indian Air Force and the government gave the real operational go-ahead only in late-1993. Even that “go-ahead” covered the development of only two Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (TDA) without weaponisation. The funding approved was only of Rs.2,000 crore — half the amount requested for full-scale development. The first TDA flew in 2001, eight years from the real operational ‘go’ date, despite much additional R&D work that had to be undertaken due to the U.S. sanctions imposed in 1998.
Comments appeared in the media in 2001 quoting IAF sources to the effect that what the ADA had achieved was just a flying machine that was yet to be weaponised. Considering the nature and scope of the approval accorded in 1993, what else was to be expected? Using the money sanctioned for two TDAs, the ADA built four. Full-scale development, for which another Rs.2,000-plus crore was finally sanctioned, thus started only in late-2001. Some 1,200 hours of flight testing was to be undertaken to secure Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) from the IAF.
At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.
Consequently, in “generational terms” the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.
On the engine
It is true that the Kaveri engine for the LCA that the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) of the DRDO has been developing for 12 years has not yet met its technical performance targets and requires redevelopment. So far the GE 404 engine from the U.S., which powers the F-16 fighter-bomber, has been used to power the LCA. The problems the GTRE has with the Kaveri are not unusual in a complex fighter aircraft engine project being undertaken for the first time. Moreover, the financial sanction of about Rs.320 crore given for engine development was possibly only to cover the Project Definition Phase and some high-risk technology development effort. We do not know of a first-of-type high-technology fighter aircraft engine being developed anywhere in less than a multi-billion dollar programme and a 20-year-plus development cycle. Even Snecma, the sole fighter aircraft engine manufacturer in France, despite decades of experience in developing and manufacturing engines for Mirage III, V and F-1, took about a decade and $2.2 billion to develop the M-88 engine for the Mirage 2000. The development of the Kaveri is unlikely to cross $1 billion.
The LCA with a GE 404 engine has done 800-plus hours of flight-testing. Even with that engine the performance has been not only vastly superior to that of even the recently upgraded MiG 21 BIS (the IAF is operating almost 400 of the series), but it has shown itself to be comparable in many critical parameters to the Mirage 2000. Modifications to the aircraft structure are under way to reduce weight and improve engine performance. When the GTRE’s joint venture with a leading foreign engine manufacturer for further development is completed in the next four years, the Kaveri will be brought up to a performance level, superior to the GE 404. Fitted with it, the LCA will be truly comparable to the Mirage 2000 and in many respects even superior. And all this in an aircraft much lighter than the Mirage 2000.
As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF’s inventory.
So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.
As recently as in 2005, the IAF’s requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?
As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.
The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.
It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.
(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).
http://www.idrw.org/2008/03/08/the_case_to_support_the_indigenous_lca_programme.html
Titanium
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 0
.....and the begging.....err........seeking partners....heh no......tapping is the new word..well whatever...
March 17, 2008
India Taps Boeing for LCA Flight Training Design
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
NEW DELHI — U.S. aerospace giant Boeing will perform the design and development work for the flight training stage of India’s home-grown Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Indian officials said.
Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bangalore, which is responsible for design, monitoring and development of the LCA, in mid-2007 invited bids for this stage of the project from overseas defense companies. With the selection of Boeing, a Defence Ministry official said, the LCA should be able to meet its 2010 induction target.
Boeing officials did not confirm winning the contract.
“Boeing has held discussions with India’s Aeronautical Development Agency about providing engineering consultancy that will enable ADA to accelerate their LCA flight-test program to successful completion,” said Brian Nelson, spokesman for Boeing Integrated Defense. “These discussions continue.” France’s Dassault, Europe’s EADS, U.S. company Lockheed Martin, Russia’s MiG and Sweden’s Saab also bid on the project.
The work includes flight-envelope expansion, high angle of attack flight testing and aero-data validation and upgrade or aero database; external stores carriage and release and flight tests, with emphasis on stores separation modeling and testing; wake modeling and penetration flight tests; and refinements to existing real-time simulation models.
The consultations from Boeing are intended to hasten the flight testing toward initial operational clearance (IOC) and final operational clearance.
Limited Capability by 2010
The LCA, which is preparing to enter the weapon integration stage, has completed about 600 flight tests. The aim of the program now is to achieve IOC with the Multi Mode Radar (MMR) integrated with a weapon suite that will give the aircraft limited operational capability by 2010. It could take three years and about 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to final clearance.
The LCA is likely to reach IOC and be inducted into the Indian Air Force by 2010.
The main problems encountered on the way to IOC include integration of the external carriage, integration with the multi- mode radar, fuel tanks and other external pods. Eight limited-series-production aircraft, along with two technical demonstrators and five prototype vehicles, are part of the LCA’s design and development program.
State-owned Hindustan Aeronautics, Bangalore, is the production agency involved with ADA in the LCA’s development.
Six Air Force prototypes, including one limited-series-production plane, are under flight testing now. The first Air Force trainer is undergoing integration and scheduled for its first flight around midyear. Another Air Force trainer and seven limited-series-production aircraft are under construction, a senior ADA official said.
The Air Force has ordered 20 LCAs and is likely to order more than 200 more once the aircraft is inducted into service.
The all-weather, supersonic LCA is a single-seat, single-engine, multirole air superiority fighter designed for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea combat. It has been in development since 1983.
The project definition phase was completed in 1989 and the FSED phase-I was approved in 1993.
ADA’s principal partner on the LCA is state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore.
March 17, 2008
India Taps Boeing for LCA Flight Training Design
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
NEW DELHI — U.S. aerospace giant Boeing will perform the design and development work for the flight training stage of India’s home-grown Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Indian officials said.
Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bangalore, which is responsible for design, monitoring and development of the LCA, in mid-2007 invited bids for this stage of the project from overseas defense companies. With the selection of Boeing, a Defence Ministry official said, the LCA should be able to meet its 2010 induction target.
Boeing officials did not confirm winning the contract.
“Boeing has held discussions with India’s Aeronautical Development Agency about providing engineering consultancy that will enable ADA to accelerate their LCA flight-test program to successful completion,” said Brian Nelson, spokesman for Boeing Integrated Defense. “These discussions continue.” France’s Dassault, Europe’s EADS, U.S. company Lockheed Martin, Russia’s MiG and Sweden’s Saab also bid on the project.
The work includes flight-envelope expansion, high angle of attack flight testing and aero-data validation and upgrade or aero database; external stores carriage and release and flight tests, with emphasis on stores separation modeling and testing; wake modeling and penetration flight tests; and refinements to existing real-time simulation models.
The consultations from Boeing are intended to hasten the flight testing toward initial operational clearance (IOC) and final operational clearance.
Limited Capability by 2010
The LCA, which is preparing to enter the weapon integration stage, has completed about 600 flight tests. The aim of the program now is to achieve IOC with the Multi Mode Radar (MMR) integrated with a weapon suite that will give the aircraft limited operational capability by 2010. It could take three years and about 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to final clearance.
The LCA is likely to reach IOC and be inducted into the Indian Air Force by 2010.
The main problems encountered on the way to IOC include integration of the external carriage, integration with the multi- mode radar, fuel tanks and other external pods. Eight limited-series-production aircraft, along with two technical demonstrators and five prototype vehicles, are part of the LCA’s design and development program.
State-owned Hindustan Aeronautics, Bangalore, is the production agency involved with ADA in the LCA’s development.
Six Air Force prototypes, including one limited-series-production plane, are under flight testing now. The first Air Force trainer is undergoing integration and scheduled for its first flight around midyear. Another Air Force trainer and seven limited-series-production aircraft are under construction, a senior ADA official said.
The Air Force has ordered 20 LCAs and is likely to order more than 200 more once the aircraft is inducted into service.
The all-weather, supersonic LCA is a single-seat, single-engine, multirole air superiority fighter designed for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea combat. It has been in development since 1983.
The project definition phase was completed in 1989 and the FSED phase-I was approved in 1993.
ADA’s principal partner on the LCA is state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore.
Titanium
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 0
Ravi Sharma
BANGALORE: India’s two-decade quest for an engine that will power the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas has taken another twist with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) setting up a committee that will scout worldwide for an engine
Initially expected to be a 93-month programme, costing Rs. 382 crore, the Kaveri project’s development cost, according to the Cabinet Committee on Security, has been revised to Rs.2,839 crore.
The inability of the GTRE to come up with the Kaveri has now forced the formation of the new committee. But the GTRE’s task has also been complicated by the fact that with the Tejas overweighing by well over a tonne,
a Kaveri engine developed as per specifications originally spelt out (when the Tejas was within its design weight) will not be capable of providing a heavier aircraft with the thrust that can satisfy the Air Force’s ASR.
BANGALORE: India’s two-decade quest for an engine that will power the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas has taken another twist with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) setting up a committee that will scout worldwide for an engine
Initially expected to be a 93-month programme, costing Rs. 382 crore, the Kaveri project’s development cost, according to the Cabinet Committee on Security, has been revised to Rs.2,839 crore.
The inability of the GTRE to come up with the Kaveri has now forced the formation of the new committee. But the GTRE’s task has also been complicated by the fact that with the Tejas overweighing by well over a tonne,
a Kaveri engine developed as per specifications originally spelt out (when the Tejas was within its design weight) will not be capable of providing a heavier aircraft with the thrust that can satisfy the Air Force’s ASR.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Questions over Tejas’ induction
Ravi Sharma
Data indicates that the LCA will not be able to meet Air Staff Requirements
Bangalore: With empirical data indicating that indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in its present form, will not be able to meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASRs), the Indian Air Force (IAF) has raised serious questions over the future of the aircraft’s long term induction into the squadron service.
Not willing to be presented with a fait accompli at a later date, the IAF’s clear message is that as the end user it must be given what it wants and “what was repeatedly promised to it”; and an underpowered Tejas, which has also seen an increase in its basic all up weight, would not meet their requirements.
The IAF has communicated that the Tejas’ performance, both in terms of thrust and its airframe qualities, was still a long way from what was desirable. While the IAF had placed a firm order for 20 of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) designed and developed Tejas, it has been assumed that the IAF would eventually buy over 200 of the aircraft.
Designed to have capabilities that fit it into the lower end of the combat aircraft spectrum, the Tejas was developed with the intention of replacing the MiG-21s, the ageing warhorse of the IAF which were inducted over 40 years ago and are of a design technology that has long been surpassed.
The Tejas, as per the IAF drawn up ASR, had to be “much, much better” than the MiG-21s. Though the fly-by-wire Tejas has its plus points, data, including from the aircraft’s recent low altitude tests at INS Rajali in Arakonam, showed that this might not be possible with the present configuration.
An Air Force officer said: “We have been given a mandate by the government and with this in mind drawn up an ASR. It has to be met. There is no point in the ADA pressuring us to accept a lower ASR at this stage. For years, at every meeting, the ADA has been saying that the Tejas will comply with the ASR.”
The Tejas, which has so far completed almost 800 test flights, is now powered by the General Electric manufactured GE F404 engine, which will eventually be replaced by the long-delayed Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) designed and developed Kaveri.
Having been unable to come up with an engine even after 17 years, the GTRE since 2005 been in talks with the Russians and the French, attempting to decide who among the two engine houses will help them bring out an engine. A co-developed engine will optimistically take four years to fructify.
Issues over thrust
But sources say that that neither the GE F404 nor the Kaveri will be able to provide the kind of thrust that can power the Tejas to ASR standards. Foreseeing this, the IAF had suggested that the Tejas could be powered by the more powerful GE F414 engine.
The ADA set up an internal committee to study the possibility, but since using the heavier and larger F414 would need modifications on the Tejas’ air intakes and the fuselage, further delaying the delayed project, the suggestion was ignored.
Official sources said that besides lack of installed thrust there were also niggles with the Tejas airframe, which would come up when the ADA expanded the Tejas’ flight test programme and went in for high angle of attack/ high alpha testing, very low speed trails, carefree manoeuvres and other combat related flying. “The Tejas requires aerodynamic fixes.” But this could further increase its all up weight.
Equal partners
Even as the IAF is unhappy with the Tejas’ performance, it is insisting that they are equal partners in the over Rs. 5,500 crore programme. “The ADA can work on a derivative of the Tejas. This is what aircraft design and development is all about. You can’t just thrust the first product down the customer’s throat.”
The Hindu : National : Questions over Tejas’ induction
Ravi Sharma
Data indicates that the LCA will not be able to meet Air Staff Requirements
Bangalore: With empirical data indicating that indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in its present form, will not be able to meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASRs), the Indian Air Force (IAF) has raised serious questions over the future of the aircraft’s long term induction into the squadron service.
Not willing to be presented with a fait accompli at a later date, the IAF’s clear message is that as the end user it must be given what it wants and “what was repeatedly promised to it”; and an underpowered Tejas, which has also seen an increase in its basic all up weight, would not meet their requirements.
The IAF has communicated that the Tejas’ performance, both in terms of thrust and its airframe qualities, was still a long way from what was desirable. While the IAF had placed a firm order for 20 of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) designed and developed Tejas, it has been assumed that the IAF would eventually buy over 200 of the aircraft.
Designed to have capabilities that fit it into the lower end of the combat aircraft spectrum, the Tejas was developed with the intention of replacing the MiG-21s, the ageing warhorse of the IAF which were inducted over 40 years ago and are of a design technology that has long been surpassed.
The Tejas, as per the IAF drawn up ASR, had to be “much, much better” than the MiG-21s. Though the fly-by-wire Tejas has its plus points, data, including from the aircraft’s recent low altitude tests at INS Rajali in Arakonam, showed that this might not be possible with the present configuration.
An Air Force officer said: “We have been given a mandate by the government and with this in mind drawn up an ASR. It has to be met. There is no point in the ADA pressuring us to accept a lower ASR at this stage. For years, at every meeting, the ADA has been saying that the Tejas will comply with the ASR.”
The Tejas, which has so far completed almost 800 test flights, is now powered by the General Electric manufactured GE F404 engine, which will eventually be replaced by the long-delayed Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) designed and developed Kaveri.
Having been unable to come up with an engine even after 17 years, the GTRE since 2005 been in talks with the Russians and the French, attempting to decide who among the two engine houses will help them bring out an engine. A co-developed engine will optimistically take four years to fructify.
Issues over thrust
But sources say that that neither the GE F404 nor the Kaveri will be able to provide the kind of thrust that can power the Tejas to ASR standards. Foreseeing this, the IAF had suggested that the Tejas could be powered by the more powerful GE F414 engine.
The ADA set up an internal committee to study the possibility, but since using the heavier and larger F414 would need modifications on the Tejas’ air intakes and the fuselage, further delaying the delayed project, the suggestion was ignored.
Official sources said that besides lack of installed thrust there were also niggles with the Tejas airframe, which would come up when the ADA expanded the Tejas’ flight test programme and went in for high angle of attack/ high alpha testing, very low speed trails, carefree manoeuvres and other combat related flying. “The Tejas requires aerodynamic fixes.” But this could further increase its all up weight.
Equal partners
Even as the IAF is unhappy with the Tejas’ performance, it is insisting that they are equal partners in the over Rs. 5,500 crore programme. “The ADA can work on a derivative of the Tejas. This is what aircraft design and development is all about. You can’t just thrust the first product down the customer’s throat.”
The Hindu : National : Questions over Tejas’ induction
- Status
Similar threads
