Zero for DRDO

[ersakthivel]

I have no information whether the Russians transferred that tech to India. Some of the later upgrades of the MiG-21 had Single Crystal blades, possibly adopted after the development of the R-29 engine, but I do not really have a solid source.

Here is a PDF, that will demonstrate the difficulty with developing Single Crystal Blade. There have been incidents where engine flameout happened. Pne reason would be when blades break and shatter, sending debris into the engine, which causes further damage and the engine flames out, often resulting in crash. A conventionally cooled casting will be more brittle and prone to breaking than a single crystal. The reason for adopting single crystal is the generic hardness which increases the reliability of the engines.

[PDF]http://www.tms.org/superalloys/10.7449/1980/Superalloys_1980_205_214.pdf[/PDF]

the only reason GTER-Snecma deal for Kaveri, K-10 version was negotiated for three years for the sole reason that the country did not have the tech to produce any reliable single crystal blades and special alloys which can withstand very high temp.

This technology is a prized one and still being worked on by people in research labs in India. it is yet to be perfected. So there is noway this single crystal blade tech was given to HAL in the eighties itself by the Russians.

 

[ersakthivel]

I have no information whether the Russians transferred that tech to India. Some of the later upgrades of the MiG-21 had Single Crystal blades, possibly adopted after the development of the R-29 engine, but I do not really have a solid source.

Here is a PDF, that will demonstrate the difficulty with developing Single Crystal Blade. There have been incidents where engine flameout happened. Pne reason would be when blades break and shatter, sending debris into the engine, which causes further damage and the engine flames out, often resulting in crash. A conventionally cooled casting will be more brittle and prone to breaking than a single crystal. The reason for adopting single crystal is the generic hardness which increases the reliability of the engines.

[PDF]http://www.tms.org/superalloys/10.7449/1980/Superalloys_1980_205_214.pdf[/PDF]

the only reason GTER-Snecma deal for Kaveri, K-10 version was negotiated for three years for the sole reason that the country did not have the tech to produce any reliable single crystal blades and special alloys which can withstand very high temp.

This technology is a prized one and still being worked on by people in research labs in India. it is yet to be perfected. So there is noway this single crystal blade tech was given to HAL in the eighties itself by the Russians.

Do you subscribe to his opinion that IAf cheated the GOI by inducting various fighters for various roles. Does the author mean too say whether Mig-21 alone can do the job of Mirages , Mig-23s, Mig-29s and Jaguars?

dEvery major airforce in the world had different class of fighters for different roles in that period. Only with the arrival of Fly By Wire controlled FCS piloted Compound deltas with the advent of Mirages , which can do the role of both air to air and air to ground with equal ease the word multi role and swing role gained currency.

 

[p2prada]

The Russians did transfer SCB technology of the AL-31FP to HAL. However the raw materials will be supplied to HAL as with other parts of the aircraft and HAL will convert the raw materials into SCB. This is confirmed news.

We know what the raw materials are, so in case the blades crack or need to be replaced, HAL can build it from scratch without having to rely on the Russians. Other spares can also be made from scratch.

But don't expect it to be used in other projects.

Anyway, the technology on AL-31FP is already obsolete, so IAF won't accept it on a modern aircraft. As for LCA, Kaveri has been completely delinked from the program. GTRE tried pushing the K-10 for LCA Mk1 and Mk2 in the future, but was rejected. It happened in January this year. So the need for SCBs from AL-31 are not needed.

 

[ersakthivel]

the question asked is, Did the russians supply single crystal blade tech in the 80s to HAl? If not there is no way one can hold HAL responsible for Mig-21 engine problems.

What is the form of of the raw material to be delivered from russia. Will it come in the form of SCB engine blades made in rusia and to be machined in India

or

Will it come in the form of metal powder or granules to be grown into Single crystal blades in Indian engineering facility?

Are the raw materials of AL-31 single crystal blades available only in Russia?

Are they such rare earth minerals that they are not available in India and in open world market?

Intriguing.

The world total TOT from raw material stage hides the most important things under shroud of secrecy.

If AL-31 single crystal blade tech is not obsolete for 200 odd Sukhoi-30 MKI, how come they become obsolete for tejas kaveri engine?

The reason Kaveri is delinked from Lca is the non availability of this critical tech.Nothing else.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-...gine-failure-with-Russia/Article1-783035.aspx
Now who will be held responsible for the facts detailed in the above article. Not HAl perhaps.

 

[ersakthivel]

The author, Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd) was the chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited from September 1984 to March 1988.


He entered the Indian Air Force in 1947 and was awarded the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM) for his exemplary role in the 1971 Indo-Pak War.

It was during his tenure at HAL that the design and development of the Advanced Light Helicopter and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was undertaken. He is considered an authority on LCA, and MIGs in particular.

Air Marshal Wollen has authored several papers on aviation and here he talks about Tejas and the reason why it is so important.

Tejas - Feature - The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)

The following is the actual timeline of LCA

1983 ADA was formed.


The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development.

Project definition (PD) commenced in October 1987 and was completed in September I988

A Review Committee was formed in May 1989. Experts from outside the aviation industry were included. The general view was that infrastructure, facilities and technology had advanced in most areas to undertake the project. As a precaution, Full Scale Engineering Development would proceed in two phases. Phase 1: design, construction and flight test of two Technology Demonstrator aircraft (TDI & 2); construction of a Structural Test Specimen; construction of two Prototype Vehicles (PVI &2); creation of infrastructure and test facilities. Phase 2: construction of three more PV '5, the last PV5, being a trainer; construction of a Fatigue Test Specimen; creation of facilities at various work centres. Cost of Phase I - 2188 crores, of Phase II - 2,340 crores. Phase I commenced in 1990. However, due to a financial crunch, sanction was accorded in April 1993 and was marked by an upsurge in work.

As a point of interest, a second series of in-flight simulation tests of flight control software took place in July 1996 at Calspan USA on an F-16D VISTA (variable in-flight stability aircraft); 33 test flights were carried out. Another reason for delay was the sanction imposed after Pokhran II in May 1999. Scientists working at Lockheed Martin, USA were sent back; equipment, software and documents were impounded. Herculean efforts brought the FCS software to a standard where the FCS performed flawlessly over 50 hours of testing on TD 1 by pilots, resulting in the aircraft being cleared for flight in early 2001.

The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec.
The fighter that was in the works in 1970 was MARUT.Not LCA.
The first funding for the aircraft TD-1 came in 1993 due to severe Financial crunch in the early nineties.
Previously 500 cr was given on 1989 ,which went into establishment of infra and testing facilities and labs for ADA.

SO saying LCA program started in 1970s and it's designers are working on it for 30 years is a motivated lie.

TD-1 won't walk out of the ADA labs with it's own legs in 1995 , just because these 500 cr worth of labs and infra was set up in 1989.
Phase -1 commenced in 1990 with 2180 cr is the official statement .But it was only peper work because due to severe financial crisis in the i990-93 period funds for construction of TD-1 was not released.

The first funding of the prototype TD-1 was received in 1993.

In 7 years the TD-1 flew on 2001 with complete fly by wire software.




But the same absurd cock and bull story that LCA is in the works for 45 years and it is 30 years late is being repeated again and again.


again from the same article.

In the late eighties India's aircraft Industry was not as advanced as Sweden's; and yet India follows a more arduous design/development route for its LCA, compared to Sweden for its JAS-39 Gripen. The Gripen embodied a far higher percentage of foreign, off-the-shelf technology, including its RM-12 engine (improved GE F404). France (Dassault Aviation) built and exhaustively flew a demonstrator aircraft (Rafale-A) before embarking on construction of Rafale prototypes. Over 2,000 flights were completed by September 1994 when first Flight of a production Rafale was still 20 months away. At that point of time, Dassault Aviation had built or flown 93 prototypes, of which at least fifteen went into production after sixteen years elapsed from 'first-metal-cut' of the Rafale demonstrator to entry into service.

It is unlikely that the LCA will attain initial operational clearance (IOC) before 2010.When it is achieved, it will be an industrial success of magnificent proportion, and is sure to receive the acclaim it deserves.

It achieved IOC with much higher specs than the original ASR.


SO reputed article writers who rue the LOSS OF DATABASE by HAL are more credible than the author of the above article Air marshal MSD WOOLLEN !!!!,

Even without taking into account sanctions affecting the FCS program of LCA due to N-test which delayed the LCAA program by several years MSD WOLLEN gives 2010 as the finishing date for Tejas with much lesser specs than the Mk-1.

who was an airforce man and HAL chief at the same time,Back then he saw the reason for the tejas IOC time line of 2010 as due to the complexities of the tech involved, not due to the LOSS OF DATABASE by HAL.

So which article is correct? Who is crdible. Just look at the detail in the MSD WOOLEN article and the ra ra in the bullshit canard's article who gives Zero for DRDO and HAL and accuses IAF of pulling the wool over GOI's eye?.

 

[ersakthivel]

Safety – IAF Records Lowest Ever Accident Rate | idrw.org
Great news . It seems the cheat-fraud-inept IAf-HAL_DRDO combine has recovered all the DATABASE that was lost , And now IAF has one of the lowest accident rate ever.

 

[ersakthivel]

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme , with strong numbers is understood by Ashok Parthasarathi and Raman Puri in the following article ,

The Hindu : National : The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF's inventory.

So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.

As recently as in 2005, the IAF's requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At 120 crore to 140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?

As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.

The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.

It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.
(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).

I never question the credentials of any writer per se.

but there are other far more illustrious guys who have made immense contribution to the nation's defence ,

who have a very different view about what HAL and ADA are doing in the LCA tejas program and what is the realistic time frame to expect completion citing other such advanced fighter programs ,

was all I meant to stress.

 

[ersakthivel]

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas!

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas! | Deccan Chronicle

Another article by the same author says exactly opposite of what the one under Zero for DRDO says,

It accuses the politicians of the day for going for Jaguar which eventually killed Maruth mk-2 and sounded the deathknell of indian aerospace industry.

Now to avoid the same situation Bharath Karnard says that RAFALE purchase be scrapped and Tejas mk-1 as air defence and Tejas mk-2 for strike purpose must be inducted in large numbers!!!

It says that mk-2 tejas with an AOA of more than 28 deg and ASEA radar of the same size developed in collabaration with israel with 5 ton weapon load is is good enough to do the duties of RAFALE and GOI should induct it overlooking the shortsightedness of IAF.

So by voting for a product developed by ADA and at the same time saying HAL and DRDO are incompetent , he confuses everyone.

 

[Defcon 1]

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas!

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas! | Deccan Chronicle

Another article by the same author says exactly opposite of what the one under Zero for DRDO says,

It says that mk-2 tejas is good enough to do the duties of RAFALE and GOI should induct it overlooking the shortsightedness of IAF.

So by voting for a product developed by ADA and at the same time saying HAL and DRDO are incompetent , he confuses everyone.

In the article Rafale's weapon load is written as 6 tonnes, also it written that RBE2 AESA is not fully developed(although deliveries have already started) and that LCA's AoA is in excess of 28 degrees. Rest of the article is blame game and wishful thinking. And he is a professor at centre for policy research. Well people will sort out the reality themselves.

 

[ersakthivel]

In the article Rafale's weapon load is written as 6 tonnes, also it written that RBE2 AESA is not fully developed(although deliveries have already started) and that LCA's AoA is in excess of 28 degrees. Rest of the article is blame game and wishful thinking. And he is a professor at centre for policy research. Well people will sort out the reality themselves.

What do you think about the ZERO FOR DRDO ARTICLE?

TEJAS IN MK-1 version can be tested upto 26 deg AOA . So with much better engine it can go for 28 deg AOA in MK-2. No problem there.

Even though makers advertise fancy MTOW for their fighters. in reality if you have to get optimum performance from a fighter it cannot be loaded to the full weapon load weight.SO he is not very much wrong either.


Event hough Tejas mk-2 carries 5 tons considering the cost it will be more useful for IAF to have 2 mk-2 s in place of one RAFALE.

On asea radar if we go for the deal we will in effect reimburse their ASEA developmental cost. Only sticking issue is range. Tejas mk-2 won't have the same range as RAFALE in any config.

 

[pmaitra]

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas!

Scrap Rafale, Viva Tejas! | Deccan Chronicle

Another article by the same author says exactly opposite of what the one under Zero for DRDO says,

Did I say that the article was hysterical?

Frankly, the mention of the name "Bharat Karnad" has no effect on my opinion of the article. It is hysterical, inaccurate, and subjective.

I think Bharat Karnad got into an argument with one of the directors, and he got upset and wrote this article.

Well caught.

 

[Bhadra]

Did I say that the article was hysterical?



I think Bharat Karnad got into an argument with one of the directors, and he got upset and wrote this article.

Well caught.

Fighting the massanger not the massage

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Did you know before saying so that How many kind of MIG-21 operate in IAF ?

===============>>

IAF operate 5-6 kinds of MIG-21, And 3-4 different engines..

Only One kind is manufactured at HAL..

I just need the fanboys to answer one simple question , what is the percentage of imports by HAL for say MIG 21 engine?

The answer is going to surprise the hell out of everybody here.

==================
==================

People are so Illiterate that they cant distinguish between motor and Motar.. << Said by an Indian Army Officer..

--------

What most important is the design, later the part which are imported are made in country, that is what we are now observing in Arjun Program and Tejas / Dhruv so does our Ships..

The important part of national product is one can mold it, re-deign it as per need but one cannot do the same with foreign products, We dont need agreement to produce them, Its our freedom..

Without National defense Industry, We cannot hold our ground nor arm our Army with will cross 3 million in next 10 years..

--------

Also One does not need many kind of Aircarft to do multi tasks, Now days one type can preform multi-task as they are call Multi-Role fighters, French proved this in recent wars, Conducting both CAS and CAP so does SEAD via a single platform..

DRDO projects are mostly scams. Behind every project that's touted for realising "self-sufficiency" lies imported technology in some guise.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

After reading, My mind says >>

What a trollish article, Butt-hurt trolls..

 

[pmaitra]

Safety – IAF Records Lowest Ever Accident Rate | idrw.org
Great news . It seems the cheat-fraud-inept IAf-HAL_DRDO combine has recovered all the DATABASE that was lost , And now IAF has one of the lowest accident rate ever.

Nope, that's not what Bharat Karnad said. This is what he said:

So criminally negligent has HAL been that in all the years it assembled a variety of MiG-21s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and the Jaguar, and the power plants for each of these aircraft at its Koraput factory, it failed to maintain a database.

Source: Zero for DRDO | Deccan Chronicle

So, it is one thing to fail to maintain a database, and it is another thing to actually maintain a database and then lose it, to eventually find it again.

This looks like a personal vendetta than anything else. It is common in high ranking officials, and could be anybody.

 

[sob]

@Kunal Biswas,

HAL has manufactured only R 25 for Mig 21.
They have made engines for Mig 21 Mig 25 and they have the capability of overhauling the RD 33 engine for Mig 29.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Kunal Biswas,

HAL has manufactured only R 25 for Mig 21.
They have made engines for Mig 21 Mig 25 and they have the capability of overhauling the RD 33 engine for Mig 29.

Does HAL manufactures the single crystal engine blades for R25 and all the hot core parts that need thermobaric coating with advanced alloy metallurgy?

If HAL makes the above mentioned parts there is nothing wrong in holding HAL responsible for the failures.

But I sincerely think it is not doing it. Because the ex GTRE director Mohan RAo who was responsible for the kaveri engine has categorically stated in his press conference (where he declared that K-9 has achieved it's targeted dry thrust ) that the country does not have the capacity for the SCB and thermobaric coating and BLISK. That's why they are going for a JV with Snecma.

If you have any concrete info with credible links about the existence of R-25 engine blade manufacturing tech in HAL koraput facility please post. it will clear the confusion once for all.

because the same facility is now enaged in making AL-31 engines for Su-30 MKI.

SO we will all be relieved to know that the tech for single crystal engine blades for R25 and AL-31 (from raw minerals , of course) all the hot core parts that need thermobaric coating with advanced alloy metallurgy exists within the country in HAL koraput facility. And only the sheer negligence on the part of the HAL is responsible for crashes and poor performance of mig engines. If the tech is there streamlining it will take care of the problems.

Mere overhauling of the R-25 engines with imported critical parts cannot be the reason for pinning the blame on HAL.because after the breakup of soviet union the critical parts supply dried up forcing IAF to ground part of it's mig fleet is mentioned in many open source articles.

To remedy the situation the IAF imported a lot of parts from East european former soviet friendly states that operated MIg fleet and had excess spares. this was once cited as the problem for poor performance of the engines. We need more info to clarify the matter further.

 

[pmaitra]

Fighting the massanger not the massage

I see you as the messenger, not the author of the article, which you, being the messenger, have brought to us as the message. I have not attacked you, nor am I interested in fighting you.

Sorry if my pointing out the flaws and dichotomy of the author hurt your feelings.

 

[ersakthivel]

Fighting the massanger not the massage

You have not answered my question?

We started with MIG -21 and kept that in service. Similar is the case of transprt aircrafts of AN and IL variety but most of those are on the verge of being grounded due to lack of spares ..

WHY. ?? What was HAL doing for so many good years..

Message or messenger is not the issue to be gone through here.

The issue is can we establish that all things written in the article is correct ,

and is it fair to pin all the blame on HAL for the poor performance of Migs and delays in Tejas to the so called loss of database by HAL?.

Especially another article that was published in IDRW below,

Safety – IAF Records Lowest Ever Accident Rate | idrw.org


said the IAF had one of the lowest accident rates in the world , it simply praises HAl and IAF f for stringent quality control efforts to achieve this feet.

http://idrw.org/?p=21394#more-21394

So now you must respond How the learn nothing in 60 years HAL was praised along with IAF in this article.

Thanks to your untiring crticism of DRDO by calling it DREADO, and the sheer critical tone of the bharath karnard article, I just got hot under the collar and replied with some very strong language ,reported, and got an infraction. It is my first in the forum all thanks to you.

So now it is your responsibility to reply.

 

[ersakthivel]

Broadsword

And where are the scientists who will do all this, I ask? Chander says that the DRDO's growing list of successes, for example the Agni-5 missile last year, is attracting the people it needs. "Last year, we inducted about a hundred students from premier institutions like the IITs. Attracting talent is a function of our image; and if we offer challenging assignments, that is appreciated by recruits. Over the last three years, our attrition rate has been less than 2 per cent," says Chander.

"The government has given me three years in the job. This is a crucial time for the DRDO, since a large number of major programmes are lined up for delivery. There is the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, which the Raksha Mantri has directed must (be completed) by next year. The Agni-4 and Agni-5 missiles have to be inducted into service, which is a major challenge since we have never before inducted two missiles simultaneously in such a short time. The Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LR-SAM) has to be produced and the first naval warship equipped with it by 2014-15. And the Arjun Mark II tank is going through its final stage of trials."

I broach the growing belief that the DRDO is leaving no space for the private sector to build defence systems.

"But industry has little interest in low-volume production. It wants to do low-tech, high-volume, well-defined production But when I want a navigation system, or a gyroscope, no industry will give me that," he says.

That's why the needless negativity without understanding the reason will only help drive away bright young IITians from DRDO.

It is the only organization we have, It delivers products that will never be given to Indian armed forces however much we have a strategic relationship with anybody.

SO criticizing it like D O D O is simply not decent.

Also unless proper guaranties are given no private sector firm will invest a nickel in endless R& D disregarding share holder consent.

Only after the DRDO developed the critical tech , now more than 85 percent of the AGNI missile components are being produced by private sector firms.

SO there is no truth in saying that DRDO is crowding out the private sector in defence,

If private sector has to come in , then say in the APV carrier segment two competing rival like Mahindra and TATA should be given R& D funding with the guaranty that the best product among them will be inducted like it is being done in US.

More important is the fact the freezed specs should not be substantially during development to threaten the viability of the project.