I still wonder if the Kaveri is suc ha good idea. I mean if it delays the large sclae service entry of the Tejas of 3-4 years it will become expensive. Imagine the F404 equipped Tejas squadrons achieve a limited Sqn service in 2009 and the Kaveri equipped version only make 2013 and that is before full production and service entry starts.

Thats where there is a difference of persepective. Once the LSP enters service they are in-service LCA in ALL aspects except the engine. So all aspects of the ‘LCA program’ minus the engine stands validated, and they can move on the bigger and better things based on this experience.

Then like you said the Kaveri finally makes it in 2010 onwards, you have an operational aircraft with over 10 years of airframe experience under your belt and a new engine.You have now leapfrogged 60 years of aeronautical development in about 30 years. The LCA once operation will see at least 25 years of service as IAF likes to do. So Kaveri-LCA program will pretty much be around for at least a decade. Thats a decade of operational turbofan experience and they move on to bigger and better things: supercruise/TVC what have you.

The key is that the program does not end with the Tejas. The LCA program is just the start.

About the Kaveri development, if you put it in perspective:

1) You dont want to develop a brand new airframe around a brand new engine unless you have a stomach for disaster. The Rafael flew with the F404-400 for 4 years before the M-88 was ready. The Su-27 flew with an AL-21 coz the AL-31F was far from ready. So the F404 which is a VERY reliable powerplant makes perfect sense for development, at least you dont have to worry about one aspect.

2) It took 14 years for the M-88 to see the light of day.

3) Total dependence on the -IN20 (actually only 17 have been ordered) for the entire production run is not viable for political reasons. But having your own flat rated two spool bypass turbofan aint such a bad thing if you want the ‘program’ to succeed.

4) “Building an turbofan engine is far more difficult than designing the airframe, coz the airframe can be reliably modelled on computers, but with 1000’s of moving parts and complex metellurgy a turbofan’s performance cannot be predicted till you finally design it, build it, and run it. And any deficiencies in performance requires a lot of redesign. Hence its trial and error. Hence the need for 2000 hours of bench testing.” (modified quote from Sridhar from ……….)

5) GTRE still has to deliver the Kaveri. I dont think stopping at the core will take them to the next stage of funding. Before they get to work on ‘bigger’ and ‘better’ things they still need to deliver a few production std Kaveri even with MTBF of 1. A production std. GTX-35 Mk.1 will go a long way to future developments than just a bench tested Kabini core.

As whether you think the LCA is very unique in having a quad FBW, let me tell you that every F-16C out there has one. Better yet, almost every jetliner made in the last ten years or so has them at well. ………..

The point is not ‘ a digi-quad FBW’ but an INDIAN ‘digi-quad FBW’ and INDIAN developed control laws, INDIAN lines of codes, INDIAN developed hardware to run it, INDIAN developed (not yet) actuators to use it, INDIAN developed iron bird rig. I think you get the point.

The whole ethos of the LCA program (and I m being repititive) is to build the buildings that house the computers on which the FBW software is developed, validated to fly the LCA the plane.

Its been a giant leap from the HF-24 to the LCA.

The same applies for the Kaveri. Even if it has the realiablity of the RD-33 it still INDIAN.

At the risk of sounding a bit crude: I would rather have a few Indian pilots die in the development of a LCA than lose them Mig-21 with screwy flame tubes or Jaguars with screwy slat motors.

Now unless you belong the big behemoth of the US military-industrial establishment where ‘everybody wins’ and you can goto war on a hunch, the rest of the world must resort to a collaborative/consortium approach in solving probelms. That what India is doing.

Its not really reinventing the wheel its just designing a wheel for indian conditions making it lighter, efficient to maintain and using american, russian, israeli spokes to make the wheel. And also building the house to design and build the wheel and all future wheels.

If the argument is why try to reinvent the wheel why not BUY, we saw what happens with the Sea Kings and the russian spares. You can own a guy if you want to buy the bullets from the guy who is best friends with the thief.

Every single one of these questions can’t be seriously answered with the facts available today.

Then can I modify the query by asking:

1) Has the production of the J-11 matured?
2) What is the current level of license for the airframe? SKD or CKD?
3) Whate is the last know info about the avionics and engines of the J-11? Still imported, assembled or mfg. in China?
________
Lincoln Capri picture
________
Marijuana Seeds

Nope there is at least one ‘open source’ info about it. 😉 So it can be talked about.

If the argument being made is that programs are excruciating delayed and when the come the products fall apart or as simply outdate then I guess he is right. LCA sux and get rid of it.

Its been argued by Sainis et al. that the LCA program is a failure only if it does not succeed that is: if the program is terminated. The LCA (the plane) was designed to be a Mig-21 + 23/27 substitute. The LCA program was concieved as the second wind for Aeronautics research and development. The progam built the technology which in turn built the technology that builds the LCA. If the LCA (the plane) is awefull delayed then HJT-36 was developed AWEFULLY FAST. The critics need to reason if such a short dev. time could have been achieved if there was no LCA program.

Before the LCA get operation in the IAF its avionics will be flying in the Mig-27/Jag and the MKI. By the time this forum and other dingbats get around to critiqing the (expected) short comings ‘in service’ LCA , folks in B’lore would be testing the aerodynamics of the MCA in the same windtunnels (or their progenys) what did NOT exist before the LCA program. Many of the technologies that will go into the MCA will be tested on that awefully delayed and outdated LCA when the time comes.

By the time the first MCA is ready to fly the structural aspects of the composites that it will use would have been known for DECADES thanks to the awefully delayed LCA. The same awefully old composites will go into the MKI program around the time that the HAL production matures.

Now apply the same logic to every other program in development. From the integrated guided missile program products to the Arjun to the 3D CAR and other PAR derivaties.

But then again what do i know.

*sigh*

‘iaf’ or ‘admins’ @bharat-rakshak.com

The AAR pics are IAF. LCA pics are from different sources from Nambiar to Simha to ADA calendar.

If you are intending to use them personally I see no reason to unwatermark them, they are fine the way they are even for a technical document. Consider that you are getting them gratis (try getting GettyImages to unwatermark their pics for free).

But then again strange are the way of the BRadmins… 🙂
________
drug test
________
VAPORITE SOLO

………. but seeing the amount of trouble they had with the Trishuls guidance system- where did the one for the Brahmos come from…….

Umm how are the guidance hardware, software algorithms and computations and dimensions of 3 ton AShM cruise missile similar to that of a quick reaction, sea skimming, highly manouverable less than a ton, SAM with anti AShM role?
________
medical marijuana patient
________
MARIJUANA SEED