no no..gust loads are not 1.5 times of limit loads. The 1.5 times of limit load (9Gs) to which the airframe is designed to is called the Ultimate load. The wing structure has to sustain 1.5 times of that 9G load for something like 3 seconds to be certified. It won’t ever see 13.5G loads in service, but without that test, there will be no certification.

ANd as things stand, the LCA’s Ground structural test with a dedicated static test specimen was successful at 13 Gs.

What have they tested in way of fatigue? It was 10 years since i last saw a JAR 25 in my hands..

so lets do one thing- why don’t you tabulate how much the initial total project estimate was. Keep in mind that funds were allocated at separate time-intervals.

1) Initial funds for Feasibility studies
2) Funds for initial design
3) Funds for detailed design
4) Funds for building initial 2 TD prototypes

And in all these, from Air Marshal Rajkumar as well as various Parliamentary reports, ADA actually UNDERSPENT !!!

They used money allocated for these activities and in fact built 1 more aircraft extra with the same money allocated (at least Rs 100 crore less than allocated money)

After the TD phase, the actual Production phase began. Here, more funds were released, which allowed a prototype that proved technology (TD) to go to a proper prototype that represented a production standard vehicle (PVs).

The claim about 300% over budget is patent bull****, and those who repeat it like parrots are either ignorant (which is fine, not everyone knows the facts) or simply deliberately ignoring the facts.

As far as the media guys who came up with that claim go- well, one doesn’t really need a degree in economics to write about economics in Indian media. Just like you don’t need any production experience or engineering knowledge to criticize a program on this thread.

fair enough, was wrong to repeat the figure of 300% that i had read like parrot fashion my mistake, however still do not understand the issues and why for as the issues.

Also it takes just as much (or lack off) experience in manufacturing (in aerospace, not some un related domain) to defend something on this thread as it does to critique it…

as long as you stop your rather banal experiments with contorting the truth.
of course I’ve a rather estranged relationship with hubris, that’s entirely your area of expertise. 😉

Apologies maybe i should be loyal and defend the LCA because its an India product, no matter how far off the mark it is in terms of time and performance…

If you look at fighter programs around the world, the money spend on Tejas appear very less.

I am all for increasing the AMCA budget 🙂

This might be the case, but keep in mind that others might be costing at £45/hour or $70/hour…

matt, that 500 cr budget was for design studies of the LCA and setting up of RnD infrastructure. it was NOT for building and developing the LCA model.

MOD budgets have very specific goals and those were not part of the 500 cr budget.

the LCA tech demo development budget was sanctioned separately later in 1993 (2 TD’s and 3 tech to be succesfully demonstrated were the goals of the budget. the techs were FBW, composites and digital cockpit) for that a budget of 2188 crores were sanctioned (including the original 500 cr) and the TD phase was completed with money to spare which was used to fabricate the PV-1.
the so called fighter phase was sanctioned in 2002 or 2003 for a cost of 3300 crores or thereabouts.

kindly do not make this silly mistake of assuming 500 cr was ever meant to be the full budget.

the AMCA has similarly a budget of $ 2 bn over the next 3 years for the project definition phase. you’ll see in time that they will sanction the development phase separately after that.

I have not put any hard figures, I wish you all stop stretching the truth or stretching what has been posted to prove a point.

I mentioned a 300% increase in budget! That by any account is not insignificant… We have an old thread on this where we did the math to show how many people the LCA budget would fund and how much capex it would fund too…

Simple fact is that the ADA diversified into knovel items that were not central to the development or flight of the LCA, AFP, SHM are two of the items.

And before anyone goes on about lack of confidence in materials etc, please keep in mind they are probably using the same material as the ALH (which is not the kemrock made pre-preg) but a material from a international supplier with significant history, they also had input from Alenia in the wing design and tool design and I remember ages ago mention of QinitiQ / DERA also being involved to help with the material side of things….

nonsense. you pull lower Gs because you have not yet fully explored the entire flight envelope. As and when that is opened up further, the FCS will allow more Gs to be pulled.

Or do I need to post links to Gripen flight tests where it was shown that a Gripen B was limited to 7Gs till it’s FCS allowed it to go to 9Gs AFTER testing was complete and software changes were made ? :rolleyes:

That is a completely different story, I do not think the gripen had issues with being over weight at that time.

They cant explore the full flight envelope because they are scared the LCA will break apart in mid air…It is that simple unfortunately.

Even the mark 2 LCA has had to be accepted by the IAF at 8g/-3g which gives you a clue about how serious the issue is.

Larsen & Toubro and Cassidian Join Forces in India to Forge a Long Term Partnership

(Source: EADS; issued February 10, 2011)

Cassidian and Indian engineering giant Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Mumbai, join forces in the field of defence electronics. The Indian authorities have now approved the formation of a joint venture company between L&T and Cassidian, the newly renamed defence and security division of Europe’s leading aerospace and defence group – EADS.

The joint venture, based in Talegaon near Pune and in Bengaluru, will be active in the defence electronics market. It aims to cover manufacturing, design, engineering, distribution and marketing in the fields of electronic warfare, radars, avionics and mobile systems (such as bridges) for military applications. L&T will hold 74 per cent in the JV whereas Cassidian’s share will be at 26 per cent. The joint venture will cooperate closely with Cassidian’s new engineering centre in Bengaluru where systems design and engineering activities will be carried out in the fields of electronic warfare, radars and avionics for military application.

Mr M V Kotwal, Member of the Board, L&T and President Heavy Engineering said: “In addition to its other businesses, L&T has been a leading company in India for engineering, manufacture & integration of custom made technology-intensive equipment and systems. The coming together of L&T with Cassidian, the defence, electronics & security arm of the European defence & aerospace company – EADS, is a major milestone in the area of defence electronics. It will not only serve the Indian armed forces with state-of-the art technology, but also provide a platform for making significant contributions to the global market in high-technology defence equipment.”

Mr Bernd Wenzler, CEO Cassidian Electronics, said: “Cassidian is a high-tech company supporting global security by the development of high tech product and system solutions for armed forces and civil security worldwide. We are proud of joining forces with one of India’s biggest technology companies.” Wenzler continued: “Our joint venture is proof of our commitment to India. Cassidian would like to establish an Indian industrial base for our European technologies with the development of a long term partnership. We are prepared to bring additional capabilities into the JV company after the Indian laws allow an increase of shares up to 49 per cent.”

The new joint venture will deliver indigenous solutions for military requirements of Indian customers as well as the world market. Thus, the Indian JV company will provide the armed forces with locally produced high tech equipment and assured life-time support.
SNIP

Go to Defense aerospace for the full story just a link here. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/122442/cassidian%2C-larsen-form-indian-joint-venture.html

I dont see how anyone can think the engineers could have added canards if they wanted to on a project that is 300% over budget, significantly to the right of the baseline deadlines with a extra weight of 1500 Kgs relative to its original design intent.

Reality is that the engineers have a lot of work to do to produce the aircraft originally promised back in the 80s and 90s.

They would be trying to keep the problem as simple as possible and concentrating on the real issues.