What's new

Tejas : Story of a pie in the sky.

But only by 1996, the program actually able to get proper funding. And first flight of Technology Demonstrator, not Prototype, able to fly in 2001.

Prototype not able to fly until 2003.

I dont know how you calculated 30 years.

It took Rafale 15 years from technology demonstrator to operational service.
 
.
I do not know and do not presume to know. But there comes a point in a design where certain technologies must be 'locked in' and new technologies not allowed to be introduced. An excellent example is the F-16 block program. Once an F-16 is slated to be upgraded to a new block, say 10 for example, it will be locked in. If an F-16 from a different squadron is slated to be upgraded to block 20, it will be locked in. Even if both aircrafts are upgraded in the same yr. This is to control cost, reduce inefficiency and possibilities of corruption.

We have already locked on LCA MK1, inductions by next year, Plus more improvement on Mark 2 plus 5th Gen in future..
 
. .
This is actually a huge problem India faces in several of it's programs. The users keep adding, and/or changing the requirements midway, when the prototypes are even testing.
Unless the jet is designed to be modular, changes have consequences, such as changes to goals and milestones.

Changes to goals and milestones are actually very bad. VERY BAD.

Take people, for example...

Goals and milestones give people points to focus their energies, mental and physical. Milestones works up to a final goal, and a goal can actually be a milestone to support a larger goal. Enough changes actually introduces low morale because people will develop the perception that their work do not matter, so not only low morale but bad attitudes develops. One bad attitude is apathy and apathy is the worst attitude an engineer can have. An engineer is a creative person at heart. He must be creative in order to solve problems.
 
. .
@nair you missed the point I was making in the other thread. You appealing to this dumdum's good heart is not going to cut it.

Have not missed the point, and i got it loud and clear, Have been part of this forum for about 8 years (close to 5 years as guest and 3 years as a user) have seen enough of trolling, the poster in question has learnt the art quite well.......... Time to time they have been dealt with (some time it takes time) some quit trolling and have become good posters.....
 
.
Lets say a car was launched in US, very first time and they have second version coming up, does that mean they should not had launched the first one ? ( Second version would always be better than first one ) LOCKED ON LCA MK1
 
.
Thirty yrs of development is too much. Had to say it but there must be a lot of mismanagement, inefficiency, and even corruption going on.

You are right! The problems are mainly in two fields: a. The 'Socialist' mindset ingrained for political mileage over the 60s and 70s which stressed upon developing a welfare state on the lines of Soviet philosophy (by itself a good theoretical idea) without the necessary checks and balance needed for accountability and mating it with the free for all democracy which India has pioneered and now we see US following (disrespect for each other and hardly any values). This ensured large public sector units coming up under state control which enforced job assuredness over performance scaling. This led to minimal incentive to work and rewarded malingering and sheer laziness. Added to it, the policy of importing weapons (which India had no choice but to do) allowed corruption to creep in, with deliberate stalling and delaying to justify purchase of overly expensive tech and machines from foreign OEM and the cycle was followed up even when ToT clauses were introduced. 02 examples for the same are : (i) INSAS: a good weapon which is excellent at ranges and highly accurate. I prefer INSAS to AKMS, VZ-58 or M4A1 (having used all). But the quality that was mass produced was substantially inferior to that which was put up for acceptance. Expensive equipment was imported which drove up the per unit cost of the weapons to more than had India bought license manufacture and look what has come of it. (ii) Bofors FH-77. 500 outright purchase 1000 to be built in TOT. ToT was achieved in 1987. But Ordnance Factory Board kept quiet and political row over it ensured that the knowledge was buried as Army desperately wanted to upgrade and OFB was hoping another outright purchase from foreign vendor (and more kickbacks) till TATA unveiled its wheeled 155 mm gun a couple of years back and OFB (realizing it was about lose the potential contract) came out claiming it had developed the gun finally.

You are absolutely right. Our corruption, laziness and sheer indifference is the reason here.

First flight in 2001 and after 14 years still not inducted, need 3 more years.

Due to change in configuration. And anyways LCA is "Long Coming Aircraft" .. so you have to bear with us!

I think there is lot of confusion about the LCA R&D program in foreign countries. Including about LCA MK. 1A & 2.

The understatement of the year General
 
.
You are right! The problems are mainly in two fields: a. The 'Socialist' mindset ingrained for political mileage over the 60s and 70s which stressed upon developing a welfare state on the lines of Soviet philosophy (by itself a good theoretical idea) without the necessary checks and balance needed for accountability and mating it with the free for all democracy which India has pioneered and now we see US following (disrespect for each other and hardly any values). This ensured large public sector units coming up under state control which enforced job assuredness over performance scaling. This led to minimal incentive to work and rewarded malingering and sheer laziness. Added to it, the policy of importing weapons (which India had no choice but to do) allowed corruption to creep in, with deliberate stalling and delaying to justify purchase of overly expensive tech and machines from foreign OEM and the cycle was followed up even when ToT clauses were introduced. 02 examples for the same are : (i) INSAS: a good weapon which is excellent at ranges and highly accurate. I prefer INSAS to AKMS, VZ-58 or M4A1 (having used all). But the quality that was mass produced was substantially inferior to that which was put up for acceptance. Expensive equipment was imported which drove up the per unit cost of the weapons to more than had India bought license manufacture and look what has come of it. (ii) Bofors FH-77. 500 outright purchase 1000 to be built in TOT. ToT was achieved in 1987. But Ordnance Factory Board kept quiet and political row over it ensured that the knowledge was buried as Army desperately wanted to upgrade and OFB was hoping another outright purchase from foreign vendor (and more kickbacks) till TATA unveiled its wheeled 155 mm gun a couple of years back and OFB (realizing it was about lose the potential contract) came out claiming it had developed the gun finally.

You are absolutely right. Our corruption, laziness and sheer indifference is the reason here.



Due to change in configuration. And anyways LCA is "Long Coming Aircraft" .. so you have to bear with us!



The understatement of the year General
Which understatement, describe?

That LCA R&D program is going on from 30 years?, when Lockheed Martin only able to train ADA's Scientist & Engineers in FBW by 1997?
 
Last edited:
.
Which understatement, describe?

That LCA R&D program is going on from 30 years?, when Lockheed Martin only able to train ADA's Scientist & Engineers in FBW by 1997?

Aw when the joke has to be explained, it is not a joke anymore. Your statement .... about confusion about LCA in west! It is an understatement. They are not only in confusion, they at times seem to have no clue what is it about
 
.
Which understatement, describe?

That LCA R&D program is going on from 30 years?, when Lockheed Martin only able to train Indian Scientist & Engineers in FBW by 1997?

I've no idea why all this fuss is made.

Rafale and Eurofighter started work in the early seventies / late eighties and achieved full operational clearance in the mid 2000s (relatively).

Similarly India started the works on LCA in the late eighties and is going to achieve full operational clearance,just 3 months from now.
 
.
Lets say a car was launched in US, very first time and they have second version coming up, does that mean they should not had launched the first one ? ( Second version would always be better than first one ) LOCKED ON LCA MK1
Very bad analogy.

General Motors have how many divisions ? Do you think each division have identical models with identical features and technology ?

Further, automotive technologies are hardly national secrets, plus automobiles have a much larger consumer base with a wider range of disposable income and wealth strata.
 
.
Very bad analogy.

General Motors have how many divisions ? Do you think each division have identical models with identical features and technology ?

Further, automotive technologies are hardly national secrets, plus automobiles have a much larger consumer base with a wider range of disposable income and wealth strata.

Come on Man.......you may not understand. That's Okay.
 
.
That is a fake chart. India are only good in make up things. LCA depend more than 50% on imported component.
At least they are more legit compared to Chinese made info chart ! China and fake's better love story than twilight :sarcastic:
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom