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

[Joe Shearer]

Went to the link above and saw that u couldn't resist from leaving a comment there too well i am no technical guy so couldn't make head or tail of it much. All i could understand was that all the right parties were involved and there was no cost overrun as such other than time. So this brings to my question?? why is it that the LCA a project so important was squandered in such a way?? Why is there always a difference between the IAF's and DRDO's version of the saga??

That's a big ask!! All of the aerospace-interested community has an opinion on this, and every single person has a different opinion.

Mine is a composite opinion: lots of factors were involved, and these factors combined to make up a mind-set each for the IAF and for the DRDO, and incidentally, for the Ministry, for the community, for concerned parliamentarians, for journalists and mango society.

First, when they thought about doing this right back in the 80s, they should have thought incrementally then itself. Creating a whole bloody industry is no joke and someone somewhere should have put things in perspective.

What does doing things incrementally mean? Let me give you an example. Somebody needed to build a body of programmers in a particular language totally unknown in the civilian environment in India (it was in fact in use in the civilian environment abroad, but that became known later). Nobody was training it, there was no facility anywhere, no instructors, courseware, systems, software. Obviously, starting it up was also a problem; if there was no demand, nobody would sign up for the course, and if nobody signed up for the course, nobody would commit to developing in that language for fear that sufficient programmers couldn't be found.

To get around this, first, a completely unconnected HR consultant was roped in (kicking and screaming) and made to volunteer to be the first trainers. Their candidate students were tested, trained, then tested again in the language this time, given three months' on-the-job training, then absorbed. For the first course, every single thing, place, instructor, courseware, systems and compiler, was provided. For the second course, the place was that of the consultants, for the third, the courseware was removed; next course, the systems, then the compilers, last of all the instructors. A total of nearly 200 youngsters were trained, where the previous largest concentration of this language was not bigger than 30 to 35.

This was a simple example; could it have worked for something as mind-bogglingly complex as designing, building and flying a fast jet from scratch? Well, as some commentators have pointed out, five technologies were involved, five aviation technologies, that is, not including the weaponisation, which was another kettle of fish: these five were the use of composite structures, glass cockpits, multi-mode radar, a high thrust-weight ratio engine and the flight control system. There were two failures and three successes.

Perhaps it could have been done differently. Perhaps we could have used composites in light, propeller aircraft for basic trainers, for instance, a need that always persists, and done some of the learning for these on intermediate steps. Glass cockpits were being designed for a huge civilian system integrator; that wasn't going to be a problem. The flight control system actually got built, and that was a major success. Was there something that could have been done for getting our grip on multi-mode radar and on the engine? Dunno. I don't know Jack Squat about either of these.

But somewhere in the huge public sector undertaking that loomed over my little shop, somebody was making plenty money making marine turbine engines; one wonders if engine-design skills at the lower ranges could have been acquired, and the very special skills involved in developed turbine blades that could take the frightful operating conditions for fast-jet operation could not have been left as the final climb, right at the end.

Similarly, was it possible to develop terrestrial radar systems, only miniaturised sufficiently, incrementally, so that a military airborne version could be hived off at any time? Why not, considering the huge appetite for radar in the country, with the need to upgrade the two basic networks always present in our minds at all times?

That way, we wouldn't have had the pathetic spectacle of the IAF preparing QSRs and then being asked decades later if it still held good. Nor would DRDO have had to swallow its pride and ask for a revised QSR, and listen to the IAF jeer them all the while.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

thats what i call one of the B.S post of this thread!!!
if we go by so called theory ,then there are some specs of mig 21 which beat even F 22

1>DIRT CHEAP AND LOW MAINTENACE THAN F22,any doubt ?

2>MAX speed of F 22 is approx. equal to MIG 21bis
Maximum speed of F22 RAPTOR:

At altitude: Mach 2.15 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)[
Maximum speed of MIG 21 BIS :
2,350 km/h (1,468 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05

3>RAte of climb comparison
Rate of climb of mig 21 bis: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min) is close to F22 raptor 222m/s (estimation as no data realsed by USA)

4>FOR EVERY F22 cost around 200million dollar vs 5 million cost per MIG21 bis ,that means we can place 40 MIG21 bis for every 1 raptor
1:40 RATIO .END OF RAPTOR STORY NOW. ISN'T????
whole world is fool except some including those who thanks to your post

Ahem, Senor Ping overlooked the MTBO of the Tumansky engines of the MiG-21 family. And whether that has/had any effect on serviceability of that aircraft.

Since Senor Ping (conceivably) has not flown the MiG-21, he was off his bat about the MiG being easy to fly or rather incompetent /newbie pilots had only themselves to blame if they made a journey in a hearse!

i've known many pilots (many who survived and a few who did'nt) who can attest to how "unforgiving" an aircraft it is/was.

 

[logic]

Not a single failure in 1500 flights

Keep it playing safe there is no price to a human life.

 

[MST]

thats what i call one of the B.S post of this thread!!!
if we go by so called theory ,then there are some specs of mig 21 which beat even F 22

1>DIRT CHEAP AND LOW MAINTENACE THAN F22,any doubt ?

2>MAX speed of F 22 is approx. equal to MIG 21bis
Maximum speed of F22 RAPTOR:

At altitude: Mach 2.15 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)[
Maximum speed of MIG 21 BIS :
2,350 km/h (1,468 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05

3>RAte of climb comparison
Rate of climb of mig 21 bis: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min) is close to F22 raptor 222m/s (estimation as no data realsed by USA)

4>FOR EVERY F22 cost around 200million dollar vs 5 million cost per MIG21 bis ,that means we can place 40 MIG21 bis for every 1 raptor
1:40 RATIO .END OF RAPTOR STORY NOW. ISN'T????
whole world is fool except some including those who thanks to your post

Well said. You can also add the maintainance part.
F22 needs 30hrs of maintainance for every hour of flight

By this logic aircraft design and evolution should stop at Mig 21

 

[indushek]

That's a big ask!! All of the aerospace-interested community has an opinion on this, and every single person has a different opinion.

Mine is a composite opinion: lots of factors were involved, and these factors combined to make up a mind-set each for the IAF and for the DRDO, and incidentally, for the Ministry, for the community, for concerned parliamentarians, for journalists and mango society.

First, when they thought about doing this right back in the 80s, they should have thought incrementally then itself. Creating a whole bloody industry is no joke and someone somewhere should have put things in perspective.

What does doing things incrementally mean? Let me give you an example. Somebody needed to build a body of programmers in a particular language totally unknown in the civilian environment in India (it was in fact in use in the civilian environment abroad, but that became known later). Nobody was training it, there was no facility anywhere, no instructors, courseware, systems, software. Obviously, starting it up was also a problem; if there was no demand, nobody would sign up for the course, and if nobody signed up for the course, nobody would commit to developing in that language for fear that sufficient programmers couldn't be found.

To get around this, first, a completely unconnected HR consultant was roped in (kicking and screaming) and made to volunteer to be the first trainers. Their candidate students were tested, trained, then tested again in the language this time, given three months' on-the-job training, then absorbed. For the first course, every single thing, place, instructor, courseware, systems and compiler, was provided. For the second course, the place was that of the consultants, for the third, the courseware was removed; next course, the systems, then the compilers, last of all the instructors. A total of nearly 200 youngsters were trained, where the previous largest concentration of this language was not bigger than 30 to 35.

This was a simple example; could it have worked for something as mind-bogglingly complex as designing, building and flying a fast jet from scratch? Well, as some commentators have pointed out, five technologies were involved, five aviation technologies, that is, not including the weaponisation, which was another kettle of fish: these five were the use of composite structures, glass cockpits, multi-mode radar, a high thrust-weight ratio engine and the flight control system. There were two failures and three successes.

Perhaps it could have been done differently. Perhaps we could have used composites in light, propeller aircraft for basic trainers, for instance, a need that always persists, and done some of the learning for these on intermediate steps. Glass cockpits were being designed for a huge civilian system integrator; that wasn't going to be a problem. The flight control system actually got built, and that was a major success. Was there something that could have been done for getting our grip on multi-mode radar and on the engine? Dunno. I don't know Jack Squat about either of these.

But somewhere in the huge public sector undertaking that loomed over my little shop, somebody was making plenty money making marine turbine engines; one wonders if engine-design skills at the lower ranges could have been acquired, and the very special skills involved in developed turbine blades that could take the frightful operating conditions for fast-jet operation could not have been left as the final climb, right at the end.

Similarly, was it possible to develop terrestrial radar systems, only miniaturised sufficiently, incrementally, so that a military airborne version could be hived off at any time? Why not, considering the huge appetite for radar in the country, with the need to upgrade the two basic networks always present in our minds at all times?

That way, we wouldn't have had the pathetic spectacle of the IAF preparing QSRs and then being asked decades later if it still held good. Nor would DRDO have had to swallow its pride and ask for a revised QSR, and listen to the IAF jeer them all the while.

Seems that in addition to managament failures there was also a large disconnect between the requirements and capabilities and large amounts of false ego thrown in for the masala effect. This means my notion of the IAF not that supportive of indigenous efforts could be off the mark to some extent for sure.

Good thing is atleast now we are going for JV's. Do u think this route could ensure better development of our technology knowhow??

One more thing i am interested in is everybody says that Private players involvement would lead to betterment of our Defence Industry but until now not much of work has been done by Tata's and Mahindra's atleast not anything worthwhile. So even if they are allowed today it would take atleast a decade if we think about them in an un conservative manner??

 

[Joe Shearer]

Seems that in addition to managament failures there was also a large disconnect between the requirements and capabilities and large amounts of false ego thrown in for the masala effect.

My take on this is that the management failures were and continue to be largely those of the government. It should have backed the project continuously, not intermittently. That is not to deny that mistakes were made elsewhere as well.

Yes, there were large disconnects between requirements and capabilities. This was due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what was involved in building a manufacturing base; the IAF should never have been asked to write the requirements for a full-fledged fighter, but could have been encouraged to cooperate by writing the requirements for preliminary steps instead. Instead, they wrote the requirements for what they wanted in a fighter, and got increasingly annoyed when people asked them if the requirements were still valid! both the institutions should have entered this business of building a design and manufacturing eco-system together.

This means my notion of the IAF not that supportive of indigenous efforts could be off the mark to some extent for sure.

Good thing is atleast now we are going for JV's. Do u think this route could ensure better development of our technology knowhow??

Not automatically. There has to be a transfer of technology from the technically superior organisation to the technically inferior organisation. This has to be documented, planned, mutually agreed, trained for, restructured, re-staffed and implemented. Trust me, it doesn't get transferred automatically.

One more thing i am interested in is everybody says that Private players involvement would lead to betterment of our Defence Industry but until now not much of work has been done by Tata's and Mahindra's atleast not anything worthwhile. So even if they are allowed today it would take atleast a decade if we think about them in an un conservative manner??

Perhaps more.

But very interesting things are happening in this space. Particularly watch Tata's lesser known organisations. And some strangely-named subsidiaries of HCL, whatever their different comanies.

Among the biggies, L&T is way ahead of everyone else.

 

[indushek]

My take on this is that the management failures were and continue to be largely those of the government. It should have backed the project continuously, not intermittently. That is not to deny that mistakes were made elsewhere as well.

Yes, there were large disconnects between requirements and capabilities. This was due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what was involved in building a manufacturing base; the IAF should never have been asked to write the requirements for a full-fledged fighter, but could have been encouraged to cooperate by writing the requirements for preliminary steps instead. Instead, they wrote the requirements for what they wanted in a fighter, and got increasingly annoyed when people asked them if the requirements were still valid! both the institutions should have entered this business of building a design and manufacturing eco-system together.





Not automatically. There has to be a transfer of technology from the technically superior organisation to the technically inferior organisation. This has to be documented, planned, mutually agreed, trained for, restructured, re-staffed and implemented. Trust me, it doesn't get transferred automatically.



Perhaps more.

But very interesting things are happening in this space. Particularly watch Tata's lesser known organisations. And some strangely-named subsidiaries of HCL, whatever their different comanies.

Among the biggies, L&T is way ahead of everyone else.

On the spot there for sure, god knows who pulls these strings behind in the government. Also i have read in this forum from some military specialists that while most of the armed forces around the world go for block wise development our one's want a fully grown chick right from the start. Is this because we were and are used to import equipment and cannot bear incremental development over a long time??

So where will this lead us from here, the FOC seems to be some 2 to 3 years later, sure this will help us with future developments but the engine part is worrying for sure. The radar i am hopeful can be sorted out some time soon.

Particularly the AMCA, will the experience of LCA make things easier or the partnership with Russians in FGFA??

 

[Ping]

thats what i call one of the B.S post of this thread!!!
if we go by so called theory ,then there are some specs of mig 21 which beat even F 22

1>DIRT CHEAP AND LOW MAINTENACE THAN F22,any doubt ?

2>MAX speed of F 22 is approx. equal to MIG 21bis
Maximum speed of F22 RAPTOR:

At altitude: Mach 2.15 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)[
Maximum speed of MIG 21 BIS :
2,350 km/h (1,468 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05

3>RAte of climb comparison
Rate of climb of mig 21 bis: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min) is close to F22 raptor 222m/s (estimation as no data realsed by USA)

4>FOR EVERY F22 cost around 200million dollar vs 5 million cost per MIG21 bis ,that means we can place 40 MIG21 bis for every 1 raptor
1:40 RATIO .END OF RAPTOR STORY NOW. ISN'T????
whole world is fool except some including those who thanks to your post

lol.. don't pop open a blood vessel, kid.

The funny thing is all the points which you raised, the specs are almost equal, which you yourself stated. Of the 3 points you raised, only price is significant. But you conveniently ignored the other of the 4 points. Bravo!

Since Senor Ping (conceivably) has not flown the MiG-21, he was off his bat about the MiG being easy to fly or rather incompetent /newbie pilots had only themselves to blame if they made a journey in a hearse!

i've known many pilots (many who survived and a few who did'nt) who can attest to how "unforgiving" an aircraft it is/was.

Unforgiving? All aircrafts are unforgiving, FYI. Most older aircrafts are "more unforgiving". I wonder how in all your brilliance, you're giving a clean chit to LCA, which has done nothing but test flights in highly controlled test environment, in this regard.
It would be interesting to see how "more unforgiving" LCA is in the coming years.

Ahem, Senor Ping overlooked the MTBO of the Tumansky engines of the MiG-21 family. And whether that has/had any effect on serviceability of that aircraft.

Oh my mistake. I never realised Tejas was flying with a home grown engine to make an effective comparison on MTBO of the engines in the 2 fighters. How silly of me.

Or is it that you implying the Tejas is an Indo-American fighter? It makes sense in that case, afterall they did provide the heart of the plane. An Indo-American fighter in 2011 indeed has less problems in its powerplant when compared to Great Grandpa Mig-21. How proud I am!! I can almost cry! Indian-American fighter has finally beaten the Mig-21, hurray! *cries of happiness*

 

[Capt.Popeye]

lol.. don't pop open a blood vessel, kid.

The funny thing is all the points which you raised, the specs are almost equal, which you yourself stated. Of the 3 points you raised, only price is significant. But you conveniently ignored the other of the 4 points. Bravo!

GAS!!!

Unforgiving? All aircrafts are unforgiving, FYI. Most older aircrafts are "more unforgiving". I wonder how in all your brilliance, you're giving a clean chit to LCA in this regard. It would be interesting to see how more unforgiving LCA is in the coming years.

Negative, only an "Armchair Aviator" like you can come up with bombast like that. Every aircraft has different characteristics. Even old, rather ancient aircraft like Vampires and Hunters were more docile aircraft than other aircraft of that time. Or going back further in time the difference between the Tiger Moth and the HT-2. Now check that out on your "Flight Simulator".

Oh my mistake. I never realised Tejas was flying with a home grown engine to make an effective comparison on MTBO of the engines in the 2 fighters. How silly of me.

Yeah Silly Sally you.
What is the MTBO of the engines on the Migs?

If you intended to make a point, you only ended up "Montgolfiering".

 

[Ping]

Negative, only an "Armchair Aviator" like you can come up with bombast like that. Every aircraft has different characteristics. Even old, rather ancient aircraft like Vampires and Hunters were more docile aircraft than other aircraft of that time. Or going back further in time the difference between the Tiger Moth and the HT-2. Now check that out on your "Flight Simulator".

Are you blind boy? You're the one who came with a brilliant technical phrase "unforgiving". Not me. And most older aircrafts are indeed "unforgiving" when compared to most modern ones. And most modern aircrafts are also "unforgiving" if a moron in the cockpit doesn't know his planes' limitations.

Yeah Silly Sally you.
What is the MTBO of the engines on the Migs?

If you intended to make a point, you only ended up "Montgolfiering".

Much better than an non-existent MTBO of the intended engine.

 

[John Doe]

Bless you for forwarding the link. It blew my socks off! This is the first time I've read about the DARIN story from an insider, in this case, obviously, THE insider. This just goes to show what the IAF, DRDO and HAL can do when they are pulling together.

Hello Sir Shearer !
Thank you for your kind words both here and in my inbox In case you were wondering when you got knighted by the Queen for me to call you 'Sir Shearer', I am only following this forum's norms where 'Sir' comes before the name instead of after! You'll see what I mean if you spend enough time here
TK Sen's blog is truly a gem. I think these gentlemen from earlier and classier times kept a very detailed diary or memoir which is why they can write such blogs. Me, I don't know what I did last week without having to ask my wife!
With best regards.

 

[ganimi kawa]

1.You're the one who came with a brilliant technical phrase "unforgiving". Not me.
And most older aircrafts are indeed "unforgiving" when compared to most modern ones.

2.And most modern aircrafts are also "unforgiving" if a moron in the cockpit doesn't know his planes' limitations.


3.Much better than an non-existent MTBO of the intended engine.

Dude, you can sort the rest of the tangle with Captain Popye, but here is a post that is technically incorrect!

1.Even when compared to the "older aircrafts" ; the MiG 21 was more "unforgiving" than most of them.

2. Nope! That is why we have the FBW system. The FCS limits the "moron" in the cockpit. But, it is possible that you are talking about this....

3.

 

[Badabing]

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

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.

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

I remember hearing similar claims before;

Check is in the mail.
I am still a virgin.
It's going to be sunny tommorw.

Come on, you would have released the flying marvel long ago if things were going without failure. 27 years in the making is way too long but congratulations you just came out with equivalent of the 1990's GM Saturn and everyone is getting hybrids now.

I haven't missed the urinal in 1,500 tries either but I wouldn't brag about that.

 

[mautkimaut]

I remember hearing similar claims before;

Check is in the mail.
I am still a virgin.
It's going to be sunny tommorw.

Come on, you would have released the flying marvel long ago if things were going without failure. 27 years in the making is way too long but congratulations you just came out with equivalent of the 1990's GM Saturn and everyone is getting hybrids now.

I haven't missed the urinal in 1,500 tries either but I wouldn't brag about that.

How about going back to the NIKE shoe factory or chopping onions for noodle soup or whatever else you do.Shift timing must be beginning.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yeah Silly Sally you.
What is the MTBO of the engines on the Migs?

If you intended to make a point, you only ended up "Montgolfiering".

@Capt.Popeye

This thread is about the LCA Tejas, not about random blow-hards who know everything about everything. We are straying off topic to no purpose.

Please don't waste time responding to a highly opinionated person who doesn't know what he's talking about. Senior pilots, with a lot of air-time, who were totally proficient in their craft, found that a MiG21 fit them like a glove fits the hand. Junior pilots, without that degree of expertise, even those who would have had no trouble flying, say, easy flyers like Hunters and Canberras, found it very tricky. It was used extensively in the IAF, which meant that a large number of young pilots used it. As a direct result, a large number of accidents took place - the highest number listed in COFA - involving this type. This was a reality, and no amount of anyone's using invective and bad language will change that.

He talks glibly about morons in the cockpit without a clue about what went into training carefully selected individuals with exceptionally high motor skills and who were in terms of intelligence the pick of their NDA batches, and without a clue about the difference between aerodynamically stable and unstable aircraft types.

Nor does he have a clue about the gap in flying qualities between the HJT Kiran and the MiG, and the lack of training craft between the two.

Apparently the quest for an aircraft like the Hawk was a quest for a few dollars more.

Just forget it. He's not worth the time and the trouble. I am spending this amount of time and trouble because I don't want to see you bottom-feeding along with him.

Are you blind boy? You're the one who came with a brilliant technical phrase "unforgiving". Not me. And most older aircrafts are indeed "unforgiving" when compared to most modern ones. And most modern aircrafts are also "unforgiving" if a moron in the cockpit doesn't know his planes' limitations.

Much better than an non-existent MTBO of the intended engine.