Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Parvez Khokhar is just stating the obvious which is know to most enthusiasts of LCA.
Old engine dint work, new engine brought in, Air frame not suitable, not enough power, newer engine, modification of airframe to accommodate that ...voila MK2.
Only valid input was about maintenance and that should have been addressed by IAF via requirements, Long before the specs. were frozen.
IAF is squarely responsible for not being part of the design bureau or design review. DRDO did the best it could under the circumstances. HAL too should have been part of the PDR, CDR, maybe it was. But it is always the buyers responsibility. IAF should have been the coordinating body insisting on bringing all the relevant partners into the picture. A responsibility they abdicated (for whatever reasons). Again they can learn a few lessons from IN.
ADA with no experience in developing such a complex program did a Fantastic job. Dr. Kota Harinarayana did a fantastic job with Program Management too. I don't know how much exp. you have in design & development, but it is not like normal Proj. Mgmt.
IIM will be lucky if they get to learn from such real life R&D project. Don't be so keen to dismiss their incredible effort.
Parvez Khokhar article brings nothing new into the debate except stating the obvious. No one knows what is the current status of the Mk2 so no one can really say when it will be ready, except for the people who are actually building it. Its as simple as that. No one else gets to have their say in it.
For fighters like the MiG-29, F-15 and the Su-27/30/33/35 the engine thrust capacity is the same as installed capacity, but for Fighters like the Tejas, F-16, JF-17 and the J-10 the engine which is hidden from the direct airflow, the inlet shaping and the subsequent shaping of the ducts are of paramount importance. As a result, the installed trust is always lesser than the engine thrust. How much less it is, is the question. My obvious take would be F-16 would have the least difference between engine and the installed thrust. How much thrust is lost for the LCA, JF-17 and J-10 is open to anyone's guesses. As a result all Thrust to Weight Calculations done taking into account the engines thrust as the base, becomes void and null for these 4 fighters and other fighters of such types.The prime focus will have to be on ensuring that the rated thrust is allowed to be produced by the engine. The Swedish version of the F404 is the RM 12, made by Volvo. Some tweaking by Volvo has enhanced the dry thrust from 49.9 kN to 54kN and in the after burner regime, from 78.7kN to 80.5kN. It has also strengthened fan modules to withstand bird strikes. The F404-IN-20 also incorporates these modifications, but the Tejas Mk I intake design does not allow this full thrust to be built up. Hence, it is mandatory to redesign the intakes. Both the Gripen and the older version of the F-18 have air intakes that permit optimum pressure recovery. Can ADA not consult both Saab and Boeing to overcome this problem?
For fighters like the MiG-29, F-15 and the Su-27/30/33/35 the engine thrust capacity is the same as installed capacity, but for Fighters like the Tejas, F-16, JF-17 and the J-10 the engine which is hidden from the direct airflow, the inlet shaping and the subsequent shaping of the ducts are of paramount importance. As a result, the installed trust is always lesser than the engine thrust. How much less it is, is the question. My obvious take would be F-16 would have the least difference between engine and the installed thrust. How much thrust is lost for the LCA, JF-17 and J-10 is open to anyone's guesses. As a result all Thrust to Weight Calculations done taking into account the engines thrust as the base, becomes void and null for these 4 fighters and other fighters of such types.
So the most shocking parts of this Article is
1] Tejas' inlet design is bad so lot of thrust is lost. That with an already underpowered engine make LCa an overweight fighter in IAF's eyes.
2] 200kgs of dead weight are added just like that, to bring the center of gravity within respectable limits.
3] Engine takes 2 days to replace!! Compared to Grippen's 33 minutes and 2-3 hours for the MiG-29B/S engines.
By this rate, world will have 10th gen fighters before India finishes its 3rd gen LCA....
Again your sheer lack of information is showing through that post.
1.Maintenance or more correctly speaking "Maintainability" ought to be built into the Design itself and by the Designer. Now who ist the Designer in this case? Is it the IAF? And its not even HAL......
2.The DRDO did not allow the IAF to even monitor the project. While sucessive RM's got taken in by the 'mantra of indigenisation' repeatedly sung by DRDO to allow any other 'third-party monitoring' of the project.
3.I will avoid speaking about Kota Harinarayana's qualities here, and for obvious reasons. But I'll just remind you that HAL Ozhar (where he used to be) was happy to see his back. Why? Is/Was HAL an entusiastic and full participant in the project?
No IIM will take this up as a case-study; because they usually prefer to only deal with success stories! There is nothing incredible about it. What can be considered incredible, I'll not speak about; that is more charitable.
4.Finally A/Cmdre. Parvez Khokar has not even said all that can be said about the project, not even all the obvious things. In the light of what I wrote earlier to (slightly) amplify what he has written; would you hazard the consideration that a major re-design may even be called for? Read into my post and think that over.
If you were me; you would mull over all of it again. As I said earlier; there is a lot that is good in the program, but equally there are matters of great concern too just to ensure that everything is made 'ship-shape' again.
Scrap the whole programme and start afresh。
In 30 years,and after many billions of dollars,India may come up with a 3rd gen fighter jet that might be actually useable。
In fighting African tribes。
He would have had a lot more credibility if he had applied his mind and had informed us what role IAF can play in the program. Instead he has applied his ego and has become a self proclaimed expert. God save us from such experts. All talk and no walk.
So the answer to him is, No, nobody is listening (to you).