[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by windiesel

.....Would love to hear your expert views on whether the LCA is really a 'useless contraption' or a worthy successor to the MiG-21 Bison. With the Rafale deal in the soup, coupled with Obama's visit, do you think we could end up buying the F-18 Super Hornet?....

Dear windiesel, The LCA as it is today is developing into a useful combat aircraft that can be used by both the IAF and the Navy. Clearly the IAF is taking longer to accept it into full operational service than would be expected but I am sure they have good reasons and a thorough scrubbing & testing by the user will only lead to a better aircraft with kinks ironed out. The LCA and Mig-21 Bison are not exactly comparable. The LCA is the modern equivalent of the Mig-21. Both are Light Combat Aircraft of their eras with a useful multi-role capability - the LCA more multi-role and long legged and maneuverable than the Mig-21 Bison. How reliable and easy on maintenance the LCA will be we can only know after a couple of years. The Rafale contract has not been inked as yet and till it is one never knows what can happen. Though in selecting the Rafale, in my opinion, the IAF has selected correctly. I don’t know/ don’t think the Super Hornet will happen. Alovely photo of the Tejas from the LCA website.

[navin_v8]

V.Narayan Sir I am so much thankful to you for sharing your knowledge and experience about these military aircrafts with us. I am a fanatic of military aircrafts and try to learn about them as much as possible. I am big time war history buff and have read tons of materials about different wars taken place around the world. What I have learned is that the Airforce or Naval Aviation played a crucial role in most of the wars, they have the capacity to turn the tables (Note that I am not way belittling the Navy and the Army role). I am very much fascinated by the roaring jet engines of the military aircrafts and the many capabilities they have. I have been following the planes right from the Fokker Dr.I flown by Manfred von Richthofen aka The Red Baron till the F-22 Raptor. I am huge fan of our Indian Air Force and Naval Aviation apart from others around the world.

My favorite aircrafts are many but I will list a few namely: Messerschmitt ME 109, Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Messerschmitt Me 262, Folland Gnat, MIG 21 (all variants), MIG 29, Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat, Sukhoi SU 30 MKI, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, etc. I am little biased towards world war 2 German aircrafts and modern Russian aircrafts due to their rugged nature and proven performance. Your thread gives people like me so much information and knowledge about these wonderful aircrafts. I am already a fan of the Marut.

Thanks again and keep it coming, I am hungry.

[wheeledsoul]

Errr......how can it be called "indigenous" when it was conceptualized elsewhere outside India by a German designer? Kurt Tank carried the concept with him to India and then designed and developed it India.
Nevertheless a very good thread.

In my opinion only LCA Tejas can be called Indigenous, though the design (consultant) was supervised by Dassault and the engines being used are made by GE.

Please feel free to correct me.

[torquecurve]

Originally Posted by FINTAIL

In those days- They never had CAD. They had CS. (aka- Common sense! )

'Wonder when did HAL lose the good 'ol CS. The failed jet engine for the Tejas project- Honestly, they should've known better. The mighty MiG-21 is being replaced by what I rightly call a useless contraption, that is- The LCA.

3 decades for such a thing? Honestly!? Tremendous waste on our resources.

And- on the other side of the same town (Bangalore, that is!)- The Mangalyaan project was sanctioned in 2012, by 2013 was on its way, and voila! 2014 came, and it was orbiting the Mars- Hi! Martians!

Get the drift? The MiG 21 will remain, immortal. I just loved 'em Soviet Aircrafts, particularly as my grandfather frequented the Soviet Union back in the 'Fifties, as a part of the Navy.

I've grown up listening him compare South Bombay to Leningrad. Wow- those were the days! The Soviet cities were legendary.

Useless contraption is a very strong comment on what is a 4.5 Gen Multi role aircraft. Yes, it is delayed - but not by much. Though the original idea was mooted in 1984, it is only much much later that we got any funds in for the project (1996-97).

To give you a perspective - There are many firsts that we achieved on this aircraft
1 - Quadruplex Fully redundant Fly By Wire System
2 - OBOGS (Onboard Oxygen Generation System)
3 - Almost 40% composite by weight/ more than 60% composite structure overall
4 - Fully Digital Engine Control system (FADEC)
5 - A very high all up weight - please compare the payload capacity with weight of aircraft
6 - Low RCS - Smaller 'head on' profile and composites
7 - Higher Time on Station
8 - Fully Digital cockpit - this is now being installed in older aircraft
9 - Development of inhouse testing systems (IronBird)
10 - Development of an The Indian Aerospace ecosystem

Importantly if you compare it to similar fighters in its class - e.g. Saab Gripen or the F16, it does outclass them on some parameters. It outclasses the Mig21 pretty well – and is comparable to the Mirage2000.

I think it is important to understand that we had to Test each and every test point multiple times and be careful as a single crash would have made it easy for the 'finger pointing' and 'I told you so' to start. (Please read the Gripen history - They made multiple successful aircraft before that and even then had failures'.) It takes time and money to make an aircraft design when no one is interested to help you.

Also on your insinuation of 'Failed Jet engine project' if you are referring to the Kaveri, then you are wrong. Kaveri achieved more than the originally planned 'dry thrust' and 90% of the 'wet thrust' that was expected. We got greedy (more thrust) and also wanted it to suddenly be equal to the 414 (not 404). FYI, the Kaveri completed high altitude tests in Russia (as the fourth engine on an IL76 test bed) and in reliability tests didnt fail (where the WS-10, a chinese engine failed in the simplest of tests). It is now being operationalized as a marine turbine due to its excellent reliability and a host of other factors.
Also – tremendous waste of resources – please read up about the costs of the Eurofighter ( which BTW just recently got certified for ground attack). The total amount allocated to the LCA was a lot less than what any equivalent development got allocated almost anywhere in the world. The Mig29 for example was originally designed as a ‘Light Fighter’ – the Russians couldn’t even design a good single engine fighter? And you say they were good!

Also compared to the JF17 (that PAF is inducting - which is effectively a Mig21 design with Hornet wings, with analog controls), J10 - essentially a Lavi redesign with the WS10 engine which is still under development), the LCA is miles ahead.

Also on your example of the Mangal/Chandra Yaan - well both were not top of the line satellites (in terms of capability). The Launcher (PSLV-XL) has seen its fair share of failures and for all the chest beating is not the top of the line when it comes to propellants and 'bang for the buck'.
Capabilities develop over a long period of time - ISRO started long ago with Rohini and Sounding rockets also failing. It is just now that it has matured a bit. There is still a long way to go.

I know we Indians believe everything foreign is a better than Indian 'maal' but please - read up before you write.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by wheeledsoul

Errr......how can it be called "indigenous" when it was conceptualized elsewhere outside India by a German designer? Kurt Tank carried the concept with him to India and then designed and developed it India....Nevertheless a very good thread.....In my opinion only LCA Tejas can be called Indigenous, though the design (consultant) was supervised by Dassault and the engines being used are made by GE.

Please feel free to correct me.

Dear wheeledsoul, thank you for asking an interesting question that I am sure was on the minds of many. The question you raise is not an easy one to answer There are many perspectives as indicated in the quotes in the 3rd paragraph below.

Like shades of grey there can be many levels of indigenization. Compounding that would be indigenization in the two different areas of design and manufacture. Given the complexity of aircraft to day, especially military ones, no country other than USA and Russia can today design and build a top end fast combat jet that is totally indigenous in airframe, power plant, systems, avionics and weapons - not even the Chinese. And between the Americans & the Russians the Russians are trailing despite a lot of press. To better understand the term of there being many shades of grey in determining indigenization let's look at a few recent examples - the Swedish Gripen has an American derived engine license built in Sweden and a lot of British avionics bought off the shelf; the French Mirage 2000 has avionics from USA, Sweden, UK and France; the Chinese literally hired hundreds of ex-Soviet scientists and designers in the early 1990s who then helped them develop some of their more recent aircraft and missiles and so on. The Marut was designed in India (at HAL) under the leadership of a German citizen hired by the Govt of India. By the time production ended 80% by value of the Marut was manufactured in India. The engine was a British one which we built under license. So by most yardsticks we can say this was an indigenous aircraft. Full indigenization, like the Yanks have, will take another 50 years to achieve. For that we need large home market orders to enable the investment in industry that manufactures all those million pieces that go into an aircraft. Hope this helps you feel differently on Marut's indigenization. Marut was step one. LCA is step two. Unless we learn how to design and integrate we will never get to step three of designing & manufacturing all the pieces ourselves. Further with the Cold War over the old notion of 101% domestic production to protect strategic interests holds less water. If we can develop weapons to protect us with the help of friendly nations (France, Israel for sure; USA, maybe?) then that should be fine.


Late Bill Gunston, a prolific aeronautical writer, wrote in 1974 (in his book The Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft) and I quote, "Despite many handicaps, HAL has created a useful multi-role platform which could carry radar, cameras or other equipment and has reached a satisfactory stage of operational development". On the other, hand another famous aviation writer, Francis Cosby, wrote in 2002 (A Handbook of Fighter Aircraft) and I quote, "The Marut shows what the Third Reich may have been capable of producing" Ouch!! Thank you, wheeledsoul, for your different perspective. It is what makes Team BHP so rich in debate. In the meantime lets enjoy the cockpit of the Tejas and compare it to that of the Marut and say Jai Hind.


Marut cockpit, 1961


LCA cockpit, 2015

[V.Narayan]

Dr Kurt Tank, the designer of the Marut was a highly accomplished aeronautical designer and test pilot. The Marut was his last and most advanced design. His other marque creations are illustrated below




Focke Wulf FW190: Top German fighter and fighter bomber of World War II. Performance - maximum Speed 650 kmph, climb rate 3000 feet/minute, endurance ~ 2 hours, ceiling ~ 36,000'; Engine - 1700 hp BMW radials; Armament - two machine guns and four 20mm cannons; over 20,000 built





Focke Wulf Ta152: High Altitude Fighter designed to stem the vast bomber fleets of the British & the Americans that swarmed over Germany in 1944 & 1945. Too few got built to stem the tide. Performance - maximum speed 750 kmph, climb rate 4000 feet/minute, ceiling 49,000'; Engine 2050 hp, V-12 inverted-V Jumo; Armament - two 30mm and four 20mm cannons; Dr. Kurt tank was a test pilot himself. Once while test flying the Ta152 during World War II he got jumped by 2 American Mustang fighters which he easily outpaced in this very fast (for its era) fighter.




The Condor: World's first successful four engine airliner for operation from land airstrips (as opposed to seaplanes that flew off from water bodies). Carried 26 passengers in first class comfort (no cramped economy seats in those days ) at 335 kmph. Range 3500 km. Powered by four BMW air-cooled radials delivering 1200 hp each. A radial is a piston engine with the cylinders arranged in a circle around the camshaft. This saves space and allows the cylinders to be cooled by the high speed air flow caused by the flying aircraft . This thus also saves weight of the cooling mechanism and convecting fluids




Military version of Condor used as an ocean patrol and anti-shipping aircraft





Focke Wulf FW89: High altitude reconnaissance aircraft. It was highly maneuverable - enough to evade the attention of Russian and other Allied fighters in WW2. This was Dr Kurt Tank's first major success in 1937 and brought him to the forefront of aircraft designers at the age of 39. One aircraft crashed near Murmansk, Russia, got preserved in the Arctic cold for 48 years and was then put up for restoration in 1991. Interestingly the original pilot survived the crash, survived World War II and met with his old restored machine again in 1996 . Vintage aircraft and vintage cars both evoke the same emotions.




The Pulqui II: Before arriving in India in 1956, Tank was employed by Argentina to help that nation develop a jet fighter. He developed this transonic jet fighter and flew 4 prototypes. Budget constraints and political upheaval, in Argentina, caused this project to die. Happily for India it prepared Tank and his team for the design of the Marut HF-24 though.

[windiesel]

Even the Tejas is flying on American GE404s...with the Kaveri now where in sight. Arjun MBT has a German Heart and Israeli FCS....why reinvent the wheel? BTW the Condor resembles a dakota with for engines! V.Narayan sir.

[directinjection]

Mr Narayan, I salute you for this outstanding piece on Marut!

Your article should be made compulsory reading for budding defence journalists. The defence stuff we get to read in Indian press is motivated and biased. By and large, it is derogatory of Indian R&D efforts. When our defence journos are making trips to Europe and enjoying joyrides in latest fighter planes, all at manufacturers' expense, you don't expect them to write good things about what HAL or DRDO produce, do you?

You have not only provided a lot of valuable information but presented it in a completely unbiased manner, covering the positives as well as the negatives. The quality of prose is top class too. Hats off to you!

Originally Posted by windiesel

Even the Tejas is flying on American GE404s...with the Kaveri now where in sight. Arjun MBT has a German Heart and Israeli FCS....why reinvent the wheel?

Are you suggesting this country of continental size and equipped with an army of techies should forever remain dependent on bribe giving foreign arms manufacturers who charge 100 bucks for an item costing 10?

[mpksuhas]

For those from Bangalore, HAL heritage museum on HAL airport road has a Marut on static display. Also, the museum has many exhibits mentioning about Marut development.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by directinjection

Your article should be made compulsory reading for budding defence journalists. The defence stuff we get to read in Indian press is motivated and biased. By and large, it is derogatory of Indian R&D efforts. When our defence journos are making trips to Europe and enjoying joyrides in latest fighter planes, all at manufacturers' expense, you don't expect them to write good things about what HAL or DRDO produce, do you?

You have not only provided a lot of valuable information but presented it in a completely unbiased manner, covering the positives as well as the negatives. The quality of prose is top class too. Hats off to you!

Dear direct injection, thank you for your kind words. I take it as a special compliment coming from a Senior BHPian and a Senior Advocate. I agree with you 101% that the knowledge and home work behind many of our journals are not up to the mark and written by folks who probably do not understand fully what it takes to develop complex machines and mature them to reliability. The foreign manufacturers all know that it is very easy to get impressed with 10 minutes in a fighter cockpit! A lot of press on defence matters, in our country, is sadly filled with selective data. While on the Marut to Tejas route we have lost a lot of time. But the Tejas LCA is getting close to full acceptance later this year, the new naval nuclear submarine INS Arihant may commission in 2016 and hopefully Vikrant II well before the decade is out. Aircraft types now serve with upgrades for 40 to 50 and more years. With proper avionic upgrades say twice through its life time and a full engine upgrade once after 20 years could see the Tejas in service till 2045 or 2050. Sometimes I wonder if I should write a photo essay thread on the way the Navy went about developing its warships in digestable steps and has come so far in 50 years. Or maybe it should be the Mig-21 which you once wrote for!! - Best Regards, Narayan

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by windiesel

.... BTW the Condor resembles a Dakota with for engines!

Dear Windiesel, You are right about the Condor and the Dakota DC-3 being very similar in looks. It is the aircraft's nose and position of the cockpit that gives this similarity more than anything else. Aircraft noses are fashionable business and aircraft designers like to be up with the latest!! More down to earth (or up in the air) the nose of aircrafts designed for common roles and to fly at similar speeds are, unsurprisingly, similar. Their design, as you would have guessed, is a function of aerodynamics mostly. Photos below of aircrafts from different manufacturers with almost identical noses.


At speeds in the 300 to 500 kmph band...the nice rounded noses


The venerable DC-3, 1935. Also known as the Dakota. Cruise speed 266 kmph at 6000'. Over 16,000 were built before and during WW2. The 10th aircraft built (in 1936) is still in regular service.



The Avro Tudor, 1947. A singularly unsuccessful passenger liner which few, if any, on team BHP would have heard of. The aircraft had the unhappy reputation of killing its designer on a prototype crash. Cruise Speed 450 kmph at 18,000'.


Military transport aircraft with noses that seem as if someone has pinched them


The C-130 Hercules…the world's most prolific medium military transport aircraft. First flew in 1952 and still in full production 63 years on. But unlike the HM Ambassador the C-130 has gone through umpteen upgrades that even today makes it the best in its class. The looks have remained unchanged in 6 decades



The Canadian Buffalo short take off and landing transport aircraft. Less than half the size of a C-130 but with the same pinched nose


At speeds in the 800 kmph to 1000 kmph band the noses get a attractive pointed look with gentle curves...



The legendary Boeing 707 (1959) that made jet travel and I dare say air travel common. This aircraft more than any other is responsible for the phrases 'jet age' and 'jet set'. Over 1000 were built.



The Russian Illyushin IL-62 (1967) with the now rare four rear engine configuration. Cruise - 900 kmph at 33,000'. Little seen today. The IL-62 had much better payload to range capability than the famous Boeing 707 though of similar size and power! The American aircraft scored on fuel consumption and ease of maintenance.

And now for the Mach 2.0 birds with sharp noses and nose probes to pierce the sound barrier



Dassault Mirage IIIE fighter-attack aircraft (1962). Top speed - 2350 kmph or Mach 2.20 at 36,000'. Made famous by the Israeli Air Force in their 1967 war against the Arabs. Ushered in the era of pre-emptive air strikes. the Pakistani Air force attempted the same trick, in 1971, with the same aircraft with little or nothing to show for it.



Lockheed Starfighter F-104. Top speed clean configuration 2350 kmph or Mach 2.2 above 36,000'. Had an impressive initial climb rate of 250 metres/second. The Mig-21 and the Starfighter were cold war rivals. They met but once in combat on 12th December 1971. The IAF pilot Flight Lieutenant Bharat B Soni shot down his Starfighter adversary.

[vinayrathore]

Amazing is the word. Have you by any chance been a defense writer? Your writing style seems you are atleast a few hundred books old.

Thanks a lot for sharing this valuable piece of avionics history. Makes us proud!

Keep it coming.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by vinayrathore

Have you by any chance been a defense writer? Your writing style seems you are at least a few hundred books old.
....Keep it coming.

Dear Vinay Rathore, thank you for reading the article and more importantly learning a little more of our proud history. To answer your question I have never been a defence writer. Team BHP is my first foray on the internet. I would like to write on Wikepedia because so much about our country is poorly and incompletely represented there. It will take me time. Yes I am a few hundred books old. Aircraft are toys for boys. I would be pleased to answer (or try to) any question you may have on aircraft. Kind regards - Narayan

[Jeroen]

A little anorak fact on the F104 Starfighter. Its nickname was widow-maker. It suffered from many fatal crashes with all airforces it flew with. There is even a conspiracy theory around its design and subsequent crashes.

In my home country, the Starfighter procurement was topic of a big bribery scandal, involving the then prince Bernard, husband of Queen Juliana.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockh...ibery_scandals

A few other European countries were involved in this bribery scandal as well. Apart from that I always thought it was a great looking plane. Its the old if it looks fast, it will probably go fast. And fast going it did really well!

Jeroen


Jeroen

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Mig-21 and the Starfighter were cold war rivals. They met but once in combat on 12th December 1971. The IAF pilot Flight Lieutenant Bharat B Soni shot down his Starfighter adversary. [/b]

Sorry to be picky but the Mig-21 and the F-104 met more than just once in the 1971 war both Pakistani as well as Indian Sources confirm.

The starfighter lost everytime, here are some articles:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_5.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...4-Starfighter#

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Hi...1War/Soni.html