More trouble in MMRCA deal

[Virendra]

Sir my reply to that piece of crap article is here -

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-55.html#post713876

Thanks for pointing that out.
Folks lets not deviate, this is the MMRCA thread.

 

[p2prada]

Sir not even USA the birth place of aviation has the capability of bringing in a new modern aircraft from design board to production within 8 Years...

That was ADA's wonderful plan. In 1983 they promised IOC by 1996 with design work starting in 1988. Delays pushed it to 1999. In 2001 they said they will finish flight testing by 2006.

Comparison
US: F-16
First flight : 1974
IOC : 1978
4 years + 4 years development

France : Mirage-2000
First flight : 1978
IOC : 1982
4 years + 4 years development

All of that was 30-40 years ago.

India: LCA
First flight : 2001
IOC : 2013?
12 years and counting... + 13 years development + 6 - 8 years expected for Mk2 IOC.

See the difference.

Its the HAL and ADA 's first attempt at aircraft building program of indigenous nature. Lets cut some slack please.

Exactly. It is our first time. When Sweden developed its first fighter, it did not induct it in massive numbers for the sake of pride. It discarded the first aircraft in just 6 years terming it inferior and obsolete.

Nationalism and Pride has no place in the armed forces doctrine when it comes to developing and inducting weapons systems. Keep that in the barracks and the parade grounds.

Let ADA build its first aircraft. Let IAF junk it and have ADA build the AMCA instead.

So, firstly, don't even think about comparing the LCA with Rafale. Rafale is simply a far too capable an aircraft to be compared to LCA. If it takes 3 LCAs to match up to a Rafale, a comparison is a no-no.

Secondly, don't even think about IAF junking Rafale for the sake of inducting LCA. That doesn't make sense at all. We progress, not regress, even if it is indigenous.

Don't even compare this to the Israeli attempt at building the Merkava. What they did there was progress. LCA isn't progress at the same level. Most countries are phasing out LCA type fighters. No matter how advanced LCA will be, it is still an old system.

It is like pitting the most advanced 105mm gun on a tank against an obsolete 125mm gun. The 125mm gun will win regardless of how advanced the 105mm gun is. Do you get this analogy?

Getting the end product of the shelf is easy like the IAF loves to do...but equiping people with the skillset and the infrastructure for the aerospace industry cannot be bought like that....else we would have done it long ago...after all we are the masters of importing stuff...from shoes to jets...

LCA is good for our industry and that's what's happening. ADA will learn to design an aircraft. HAL will learn how to build it. IAF will induct a bare minimum of 100+ so that both ADA and HAL will benefit from it.

IN may induct LCA Mk2 depending on how things progress. Meaning their participation is still a big IF. Overall, the numbers planned it plenty.

If you read Decklander's post recently. He said that he prefers that IAF junk 20 of the Mk1s and instead induct 20 Mk2s. This was the same thing I said around 4 years ago.

Also forget about LCA being inducted in numbers beyond that. Expecting 200 LCA, 300 LCA, 400 LCA is all a pipe dream that shouldn't happen if we want our air force to continue to retain a technological edge over China and Pak.

LCA is no substitute for Rafale even if the LCA Mk2 was flying today. We need that level of capability if we are to fight a two front war with a 42 squadron air force.

 

[vram]

That was ADA's wonderful plan. In 1983 they promised IOC by 1996 with design work starting in 1988. Delays pushed it to 1999. In 2001 they said they will finish flight testing by 2006.

FALSE.. We are back to this many times dis proven figure of 1983 are we. NO matter how many time this wall is hammered down it springs back up.
The IAF's INITIAL Air Staff Requirement for the LCA itself were not finalised until October 1985. They kept regularly updating the generational requirement of the aircraft from basic mig 21 replacement to something that was equivalent of the Mirages. The design had to be kept in recycle and update mode because of this.

Comparison
US: F-16
First flight : 1974
IOC : 1978
4 years + 4 years development

France : Mirage-2000
First flight : 1978
IOC : 1982
4 years + 4 years development

All of that was 30-40 years ago.

India: LCA
First flight : 2001
IOC : 2013?
12 years and counting... + 13 years development + 6 - 8 years expected for Mk2 IOC.

See the difference.

I see the difference but I am wondering whether you see it. FIRST OF ALL for both these countries the aircraft you have mentioned above are not thier first domestic endeavour. By the the time YF-16 was rolled out in DEC 1973 America had gathered a huge amount of resources and techincal manpower in the aerospace industry. Heck by the time the F-16 had come out they had already rolled out nearly 15 different variations of full production model JET ENGINE fighters and thier combined private industries Boeing,Douglas,General dynamics had together produced designs or prototypes for nearly 50 different aircraft models.
The same is true on a smaller scale for france.
Heck these where countries churning out fighter right since the birth of aviation and made their JET engine fighter debut in the 1940's . In americas case it had already fought the korean and vietnamese wars with JET fighter by the time the F-16 came out.
So it is strictly not true that they miraculously produced a complete design and manufactured fighter out of the air. The light weight Fighter program was launched in the 1960's by the Suprise ...Suprise ... USAF. Actually one of the striking facts of the US development programs have been that they have all been driven and organized by the Airforce.
IN INDIA off course the IAF is not bothered about indigenous development. They are after all only customer is KING. they can afford to shop around in the global arms bazaar. If some percent commission is received so what ...all in a days work for a Indian.

Exactly. It is our first time. When Sweden developed its first fighter, it did not induct it in massive numbers for the sake of pride. It discarded the first aircraft in just 6 years terming it inferior and obsolete.

Nationalism and Pride has no place in the armed forces doctrine when it comes to developing and inducting weapons systems. Keep that in the barracks and the parade grounds.

Let ADA build its first aircraft. Let IAF junk it and have ADA build the AMCA instead.

LOL the IAF should have the forsight for accepting the LCA first before dream about the AMCA. So what happens if some target is missed in the AMCA then?? will we call the burning and hanging mob to go after this program as well , destroy the entire program and then ask some AAAMCA or what??

Sweden more specifically SaaB AB has been developing fighters from 1940 even before INDIAN INDEPENDENCE and turbo jet fighter development began in the year 1949.
Saab 32 Lansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have extensive experience and know how in fighter development. Through out their history there have been many program that failed and suceeded for them . But that does not change the fact that there is no comparison here. Your argument is not coherent.

If you read Decklander's post recently. He said that he prefers that IAF junk 20 of the Mk1s and instead induct 20 Mk2s. This was the same thing I said around 4 years ago.

Also forget about LCA being inducted in numbers beyond that. Expecting 200 LCA, 300 LCA, 400 LCA is all a pipe dream that shouldn't happen if we want our air force to continue to retain a technological edge over China and Pak.

LCA is no substitute for Rafale even if the LCA Mk2 was flying today. We need that level of capability if we are to fight a two front war with a 42 squadron air force.

I make no counter arguements here. LCA mk.1 should be capped at 40. I have never expected an increased order. CURRENTLY HAL simply does not have the manufacturing capacity to execute such large orders. BUT the LCA MK.2 should be given more than hundred nos order. Else the entire exercise is useless from any perspective.

ALSO there is no question of Junking the LCA. it has been proved thorughout this forum many times that LCA is shaping to be a very capable fighter .The pakistani has only the f-16 that has good radar and BVR engagement capabilities that can complete with the LCA. SO what is this great techonological advantage they will enjoy against the LCA. you mean the Junk Fighter -17 . Even the Chinese dont trust that one...
Also CHINA is a different beast all together. No number of fighters can win us a war purely on the basis of numbers as they can overwhelm us in this count....tactics is what will win us this war if at all. Also they can curn out more number of fighters in a couple of years than the Entire IAF because of thier domestic industry. IF the LCA is junked can we say the same???
Where is the question of junking it then?? JUST to satisfy your fetish for western arms IAF should junk our own production capabilities and there by destroy the morale of the people involved in getting the aircraft up and running...Strange logic...SO the next time somebody's grandmother decides to apply some sanctions against INDIA whom are we going to beg or bribe??
Also LCA is what its name implies a light weight fighter ...and the Rafale is Medium weight . The rafale might overpower a LCA in peak engagement conditions and sheer fire power. But when it comes to BVR its all about whats under the hood. And in this case the LCA is no slouch. Even the MIG 21 Bison gave the USAF a run for its money in COPE 2004. Its all about operational tactics and engagement scenario's.
@ersakthivel

 

[p2prada]

FALSE.. We are back to this many times dis proven figure of 1983 are we.

It is not "FALSE." It is "TRUE." It was pushed back to 1999 after the FSED phase was expected in 1993. After that it was pushed back to 2006, then to 2008, then to 2010, then to 2011, then to 2012, then to 2013, then to... let's see.

NO matter how many time this wall is hammered down it springs back up.

Only in India. Sab chalta hai.

The IAF's INITIAL Air Staff Requirement for the LCA itself were not finalised until October 1985. They kept regularly updating the generational requirement of the aircraft from basic mig 21 replacement to something that was equivalent of the Mirages. The design had to be kept in recycle and update mode because of this.

There were no major design changes that should have badly affected the program.

I see the difference but I am wondering whether you see it. FIRST OF ALL for both these countries the aircraft you have mentioned above are not thier first domestic endeavour. By the the time YF-16 was rolled out in DEC 1973 America had gathered a huge amount of resources and techincal manpower in the aerospace industry. Heck by the time the F-16 had come out they had already rolled out nearly 15 different variations of full production model JET ENGINE fighters and thier combined private industries Boeing,Douglas,General dynamics had together produced designs or prototypes for nearly 50 different aircraft models.
The same is true on a smaller scale for france.
Heck these where countries churning out fighter right since the birth of aviation and made their JET engine fighter debut in the 1940's . In americas case it had already fought the korean and vietnamese wars with JET fighter by the time the F-16 came out.
So it is strictly not true that they miraculously produced a complete design and manufactured fighter out of the air. The light weight Fighter program was launched in the 1960's by the Suprise ...Suprise ... USAF. Actually one of the striking facts of the US development programs have been that they have all been driven and organized by the Airforce.

How about simply saying "I stand corrected, US did deliver the F-16 in just 8 years" instead and vamoosh.

F-16 is a modern aircraft and the companies delivered in 8 years. LCA was an aircraft inferior to the F-16 and is yet to be delivered. Its technological base is still inferior to the F-16.

IN INDIA off course the IAF is not bothered about indigenous development. They are after all only customer is KING. they can afford to shop around in the global arms bazaar. If some percent commission is received so what ...all in a days work for a Indian.

Utter BS.

LOL the IAF should have the forsight for accepting the LCA first before dream about the AMCA. So what happens if some target is missed in the AMCA then?? will we call the burning and hanging mob to go after this program as well , destroy the entire program and then ask some AAAMCA or what??

That's why there is MRCA and FGFA.

Sweden more specifically SaaB AB has been developing fighters from 1940 even before INDIAN INDEPENDENCE and turbo jet fighter development began in the year 1949.

India began fighter development well before LCA too.

IAF did not simply scrap Marut.

BUT the LCA MK.2 should be given more than hundred nos order.

Even a final order of 40 will be a big deal if the aircraft comes in time.

Or else IAF will induct 20 IOC Mk2s followed by 20 FOC Mk2s while IN may order only 8 Mk2s, that is if the final specs for N-LCA are finalized.

ALSO there is no question of Junking the LCA. it has been proved thorughout this forum many times that LCA is shaping to be a very capable fighter .The pakistani has only the f-16 that has good radar and BVR engagement capabilities that can complete with the LCA. SO what is this great techonological advantage they will enjoy against the LCA. you mean the Junk Fighter -17 . Even the Chinese dont trust that one...

You are making one little mistake. LCA's timeline is not F-16 and JF-17. It is J-20 and J-31. LCA's timeline is 2020+, not 2013+. By the time we start taking deliveries of LC Mk2s, the PAF and PLAAF would already have progressed to 4.5th and 5th gen aircraft. Of course, we have our main programs of MRCA and FGFA, so it won't make an overall difference.

Also CHINA is a different beast all together. No number of fighters can win us a war purely on the basis of numbers as they can overwhelm us in this count....tactics is what will win us this war if at all. Also they can curn out more number of fighters in a couple of years than the Entire IAF because of thier domestic industry. IF the LCA is junked can we say the same???

Sorry, but you know very little of things are progressing for both sides. We are not looking at numbers parity. We are working towards technological superiority with MKI today(which is the best fighter in the region), followed by FGFA with the Rafale as our best strike aircraft followed by AMCA.

Where is the question of junking it then?? JUST to satisfy your fetish for western arms IAF should junk our own production capabilities and there by destroy the morale of the people involved in getting the aircraft up and running...Strange logic...SO the next time somebody's grandmother decides to apply some sanctions against INDIA whom are we going to beg or bribe??

What are you talking about? Where is our indigenous production capability? HAL hasn't even delivered the first induction level LCAs and you are talking about a production capability that will challenge China.

You are talking about pride and other nonsense when these are not real factors. Keep it in the kiddie circles.

Also LCA is what its name implies a light weight fighter ...and the Rafale is Medium weight . The rafale might overpower a LCA in peak engagement conditions and sheer fire power. But when it comes to BVR its all about whats under the hood. And in this case the LCA is no slouch.

The Rafales engines are better than what "will be" on LCA Mk2. Plus, they have two. So, even under the hood, Rafale is better.

Sheer firepower, Rafale carries 2 times the weapons load as LCA. 8 missiles with 3 drop tanks vs 4 missiles with 3 drop tanks.

Rafale can also carry twice the electronics, maybe 3 times.

Even the MIG 21 Bison gave the USAF a run for its money in COPE 2004. Its all about operational tactics and engagement scenario's.

How? Do you know how? If you don't know how then don't bring it up.

Also, don't bring idiots into the discussion. His posts give me cancer and is on my ignore list anyway, for health reasons.

 

[vram]

There were no major design changes that should have badly affected the program.

Boss the design is the blueprint of the fighter. No product can be started without the blueprint being finalized. ITs the very basic thing. I agree ADA tried to over achieve here and gave badly estimated timelines. But the challenges for a country with no history of aviation was tremendous. By just spouting numbers and saying deadline miss you are doing a dis service to all the people who have worked thier ass off for this project...Not just the free loaders...
A country like INDIA had much more greater challenges in building this industry than the US..thats what I was trying to drive att....you are just providing comparisons just for the sake of it without considering real word scenario's for some point scoring like in a video game.

India began fighter development well before LCA too.

IAF did not simply scrap Marut.

This is a GEM. The Entire lifecycle of the Marut design revolved around Kurt Tankerand that Egyption engine and very few people from the Indian Industry. The Engine failed and hence the aircraft...The IAF was not ready to accept it without a more powerful one. Apparently nobody at the IAF or the MOD thought of actually trying to build the freaking engine. But offcourse the JAGUAR with underpowered engines even now was readily acceptable for the IAF. tells its own story....

It is not "FALSE." It is "TRUE." It was pushed back to 1999 after the FSED phase was expected in 1993. After that it was pushed back to 2006, then to 2008, then to 2010, then to 2011, then to 2012, then to 2013, then to... let's see.

Dont agree.. Expectation of 1993 might be there by certain people. But there is a valley between expectations and facts..
realistic figures provided by people in the know like Philip Rajkumar and quoted by news sources state a different timeline. Now only the Pakis,rajat pandit and apparently you keep repeating the 1983 timeline. People have moved on from this...

F-16 is a modern aircraft and the companies delivered in 8 years. LCA was an aircraft inferior to the F-16 and is yet to be delivered. Its technological base is still inferior to the F-16.

AGAIN NO.....What utter bullcrap. the F-16 that came out of the light weight fighter program which had design phase from the 60's. It made first flight in 1974 . Also you are again wrong here... the first production variant was inducted into operational USAF service only in 1 October 1980 ...a six years gap.so there goes your other theory.
You are just carping on this point .But disregarding all the rest of the parameters like the support from USAF ...the progressive increase in technology..rather than demanding everything in first go which is required by IAF before inducting ...the complete reason I gave as to why the US has a better industry..blah blah..Also the YF-16s completed 330 sorties for a total of 417 flight hours during prototype phase. Tejas has already completed 2000 test flight hours..
selective blindness much...?
Also the first set of f-16's that where manufactured are no where near the capabilities of the current LCA. THE LCA is equivalent to the BLOCK 50 series. Only UAE has a better model of F-16.you did not take the time to read my post and research it a bit. breath taking analytical conclusions you have gathered really....

How? Do you know how? If you don't know how then don't bring it up.

There is enough out there in the internet for this quoting even USAF pilots who took part in the exercise. If you are lazy don't blame me.
IT seems that i am the only one quoting facts while you are providing sweeping statements , opinions and judgements. Way to go bud...

 

[ersakthivel]

FALSE.. We are back to this many times dis proven figure of 1983 are we. NO matter how many time this wall is hammered down it springs back up.

The IAF's INITIAL Air Staff Requirement for the LCA itself were not finalised until October 1985. They kept regularly updating the generational requirement of the aircraft from basic mig 21 replacement to something that was equivalent of the Mirages. The design had to be kept in recycle and update mode because of this.



I see the difference but I am wondering whether you see it. FIRST OF ALL for both these countries the aircraft you have mentioned above are not thier first domestic endeavour. By the the time YF-16 was rolled out in DEC 1973 America had gathered a huge amount of resources and techincal manpower in the aerospace industry. Heck by the time the F-16 had come out they had already rolled out nearly 15 different variations of full production model JET ENGINE fighters and thier combined private industries Boeing,Douglas,General dynamics had together produced designs or prototypes for nearly 50 different aircraft models.
The same is true on a smaller scale for france.
Heck these where countries churning out fighter right since the birth of aviation and made their JET engine fighter debut in the 1940's . In americas case it had already fought the korean and vietnamese wars with JET fighter by the time the F-16 came out.
So it is strictly not true that they miraculously produced a complete design and manufactured fighter out of the air. The light weight Fighter program was launched in the 1960's by the Suprise ...Suprise ... USAF. Actually one of the striking facts of the US development programs have been that they have all been driven and organized by the Airforce.
IN INDIA off course the IAF is not bothered about indigenous development. They are after all only customer is KING. they can afford to shop around in the global arms bazaar. If some percent commission is received so what ...all in a days work for a Indian.




LOL the IAF should have the forsight for accepting the LCA first before dream about the AMCA. So what happens if some target is missed in the AMCA then?? will we call the burning and hanging mob to go after this program as well , destroy the entire program and then ask some AAAMCA or what??

Sweden more specifically SaaB AB has been developing fighters from 1940 even before INDIAN INDEPENDENCE and turbo jet fighter development began in the year 1949.
Saab 32 Lansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have extensive experience and know how in fighter development. Through out their history there have been many program that failed and suceeded for them . But that does not change the fact that there is no comparison here. Your argument is not coherent.



I make no counter arguements here. LCA mk.1 should be capped at 40. I have never expected an increased order. CURRENTLY HAL simply does not have the manufacturing capacity to execute such large orders. BUT the LCA MK.2 should be given more than hundred nos order. Else the entire exercise is useless from any perspective.

ALSO there is no question of Junking the LCA. it has been proved thorughout this forum many times that LCA is shaping to be a very capable fighter .The pakistani has only the f-16 that has good radar and BVR engagement capabilities that can complete with the LCA. SO what is this great techonological advantage they will enjoy against the LCA. you mean the Junk Fighter -17 . Even the Chinese dont trust that one...
Also CHINA is a different beast all together. No number of fighters can win us a war purely on the basis of numbers as they can overwhelm us in this count....tactics is what will win us this war if at all. Also they can curn out more number of fighters in a couple of years than the Entire IAF because of thier domestic industry. IF the LCA is junked can we say the same???
Where is the question of junking it then?? JUST to satisfy your fetish for western arms IAF should junk our own production capabilities and there by destroy the morale of the people involved in getting the aircraft up and running...Strange logic...SO the next time somebody's grandmother decides to apply some sanctions against INDIA whom are we going to beg or bribe??
Also LCA is what its name implies a light weight fighter ...and the Rafale is Medium weight . The rafale might overpower a LCA in peak engagement conditions and sheer fire power. But when it comes to BVR its all about whats under the hood. And in this case the LCA is no slouch. Even the MIG 21 Bison gave the USAF a run for its money in COPE 2004. Its all about operational tactics and engagement scenario's.
@ersakthivel

Be careful and don't get involved in replying to hopeless rants on the LCA. All this has been discussed to death in LCA Tejas -III and IV threads. But there are enough ranters on the net who will forever say that LCA started on 1983 to be finished on 1996.

These guys are pros and pretend that they never read all the authentic replies to their baseless accusations and spring back again with the same theory that LCA was 40 years program again and again.

Even if you drive a nail into their head they will never accept that funding for the construction of JUST TWO TDs were released only on 1993.The Tds flew in 2001 braving heavy sanctions by the international community and only after the two TD s demonstrated the tech funding for further Pvs were released.

As far as I know RAFALE and Typhoon entered design stage a decade ahead of LCA in the seventies. They certainly didnot finish their development to full capability by the 1980s.

But some dorks will never accept it. if tejas mk-2 gets ASEA radar and meteor range missiles it is on par with the RAFALE in air to air roles within it's operating range.. Stuff like spectra are software implementations on subsystems that have nothing to do with the basic design of airframe or engine.

people expect ADA to finish a technologically complex program like tejas in 7 years. But the evaluations and negotiations for MMRCA have taken more than 7 years!!!!One MOD official even justifies it saying these are complex negotiations that will take more time!!!!

But lot of people think that making an LCA from scratch is just like going to a market to buy vegetables. Buying RAFLE is equal to gardening with genetically engineered plant seeds!!!!.

My feeling is these negotiations will take very long and will be scraped like the Augusta -westland chopper deal under a cloud of corruption allegation. RAFALE has no honest intentions of TOT to HAL. The shady reliance factor is playing behind the shadows. And IAF has mysteriously dropped the evaluation based lifecycle cost comparison in MMRCA as it is not competent enough for it!!!!.

And there are file noting by top officials of MOD regarding the irregularities in the information provided by Dassault to arrive at lifecycle costs. Remember the RAFALE was already thrown out of MMRCA once for not providing required information for the tender.Remember DOT officials doing time in jail for the corruption committed by UPA. No MOD official will hurry up with the deal and would like to cool his heals in Tihar jail. That's why they are noting all their defensive points on the file to save themselves in the future.UPA government has zero credibility regarding corruption free mega deals and no MOD official will hurry through with this deal in the dying days of this corrupt government to face the wrath of the CAG in future.

So lot of thrills and excitement ahead in MMRCA deal!!!!

 

[p2prada]

Boss the design is the blueprint of the fighter. No product can be started without the blueprint being finalized. ITs the very basic thing. I agree ADA tried to over achieve here and gave badly estimated timelines. But the challenges for a country with no history of aviation was tremendous. By just spouting numbers and saying deadline miss you are doing a dis service to all the people who have worked thier ass off for this project...Not just the free loaders...
A country like INDIA had much more greater challenges in building this industry than the US..thats what I was trying to drive att....you are just providing comparisons just for the sake of it without considering real word scenario's for some point scoring like in a video game.

Wow. Then if that is the case, why did ADA give such unrealistic dates? Give reasons on why ADA promised a 4 year flight testing cycle simply because the US and the French did the same for their own respective fighters.

This is a GEM. The Entire lifecycle of the Marut design revolved around Kurt Tankerand that Egyption engine and very few people from the Indian Industry. The Engine failed and hence the aircraft...The IAF was not ready to accept it without a more powerful one. Apparently nobody at the IAF or the MOD thought of actually trying to build the freaking engine. But offcourse the JAGUAR with underpowered engines even now was readily acceptable for the IAF. tells its own story....

Jaguar wasn't underpowered when inducted. The current upgrades have made it underpowered and hence a new engine requirement.

Dont agree.. Expectation of 1993 might be there by certain people. But there is a valley between expectations and facts..
realistic figures provided by people in the know like Philip Rajkumar and quoted by news sources state a different timeline. Now only the Pakis,rajat pandit and apparently you keep repeating the 1983 timeline. People have moved on from this...

Gee, you don't read do you. I gave 7 different dates and you think I am still stuck with the 1983 timeline. Explain why ADA is unable to deliver even after the delivery dates have been relaxed by a decade.

Even after accepting the 1993 FSED phase the delivery date was extended to 1999.

I am not even talking about 1983, according to the 1983 proposal, the delivery date was 1996 with first flight in 1991.

Once things got delayed between 1990 and 1993, the delivery phase was also extended to 1999 and then 2001.

First flight was then expected in 1996, then in 1999, then it happened in 2001. Delivery dates were also subsequently changed multiple times.

India is the only country to provide such a flexible timeline for such a large project while at the same time being a technologically far easier project compared to F-16 and Mirage-2000. Nobody else has ever done that, even China.

AGAIN NO.....What utter bullcrap. the F-16 that came out of the light weight fighter program which had design phase from the 60's. It made first flight in 1974 . Also you are again wrong here... the first production variant was inducted into operational USAF service only in 1 October 1980 ...a six years gap.so there goes your other theory.

Gee if that is the case, then we will have to wait until 2018 for our "actual" production model of LCA.

Also the first set of f-16's that where manufactured are no where near the capabilities of the current LCA. THE LCA is equivalent to the BLOCK 50 series.

Lol. LCA Mk1 is nowhere near F-16 Block 30. F-16 Block 30 and beyond are called the F-16 C/D, only B60 is called F-16E. LCA Mk1 is not even close to F-16 Block A.

F-16 Block A weighed 6.5 tonnes and the engines delivered 11 tonnes of thrust. LCA Mk1 weighs 6.5 tonnes and the engines deliver only 8.5 tonnes of thrust. Even Mirage-2000 weighed 6-6.5 tonnes and the engines delivered 10 tonnes of thrust. No comparison. Only LCA Mk2 will reach F-16 B52 and Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 standards and that will be in 2016-2020 period. Forget about F-16 B60, that is a totally different beast.

Also the YF-16s completed 330 sorties for a total of 417 flight hours during prototype phase. Tejas has already completed 2000 test flight hours..

The 1974 first flight date includes YF-16 genius.

There is enough out there in the internet for this quoting even USAF pilots who took part in the exercise. If you are lazy don't blame me.
IT seems that i am the only one quoting facts while you are providing sweeping statements , opinions and judgements. Way to go bud...

No, explain. Tell me how the Mig-21 achieved any kind of progress against F-15. Put up or shut up. Otherwise even autos can beat Ferraris.

You are the one without facts.

 

[vram]

I am not even talking about 1983, according to the 1983 proposal, the delivery date was 1996 with first flight in 1991.

Once things got delayed between 1990 and 1993, the delivery phase was also extended to 1999 and then 2001.

First flight was then expected in 1996, then in 1999, then it happened in 2001. Delivery dates were also subsequently changed multiple times.

hmmm ever heard of the monetary crisis in 1991 . Meaning no money for anything?? ever heard of the sanctions of 1998 hmmm? ever heard of the lack of techincal expertise and hence foriegn assistance required...NON co operation of the customer for supporting any endeavour. Also all your FSED arguements have answers in the below article.
The stumbling blocks

Put up or shut up. Otherwise even autos can beat Ferraris.

You are the one without facts.

Sorry facts seem to fly over your head . Burden of proof seems to be on me rather than you backing up with facts on your fictional stories pulled out of god knows where.
Lets end it here, You are not really interested in a constructive dialogue. ABUSE seems to be your weapon of choice not facts.

 

[ersakthivel]

People seem to haul ADA over the coals for timelines of LCA.
1. What is the developmental time frame of Eurofighter TYPHOON?
2. What is the developmental time frame for RAFALE?
3.Why are russians unable to simply do a proper boiler heat proof tiling in time which resulted in exploding boilers?
4. What was the 40 initial SUKHOI-30 s doing in IAF without weaponisation?(they were returned to russia after a decade of flying in IAF without weaponisation for adding weapons)?
4. Whey is the Admiral Gorskhov being delayed?
5. Why MOD officials are saying that MMRCA evaluation is a complex process and it will take more than seven years to finish it?
6. When will T-90s ever be battle ready with crew being able o withstand summer heat and it's night vision devices integrated with FCS systems?
7. Why did IAF procure Jaguar with faulty navigational aids which made it unfit to for the role it was intended in IAF?


If they can't answer it, they can keep quiet on dragging this delay in delivery of LCA beyond all absurdities.

 

[p2prada]

hmmm ever heard of the monetary crisis in 1991 . Meaning no money for anything?? ever heard of the sanctions of 1998 hmmm? ever heard of the lack of techincal expertise and hence foriegn assistance required...NON co operation of the customer for supporting any endeavour. Also all your FSED arguements have answers in the below article.
The stumbling blocks

When did I say I did not take the delays into consideration?

I even gave you the dates including the delays.

Point out any other international program which allowed a 15 year flexibility in dates. Point out any program you want.

Monetary problem was the first obstacle, but was solved quite soon. The period between 1988 and 1993 was not wasted as you think it was. ADA used the time to allocate resources for the project. They had 2 prototypes ready by 1996. However when it came to sanctions, ADA continued making tall promises. When it came to radar, they promised one without any major foreign help. It was the same when it came to other areas in foreign consultancy. ADA promised results without help. They tried to do everything themselves, and when they couldn't they looked for foreign help when they should have done so in the first place. Their reasoning was that it would waste time and money in going for foreign JV.

ADA seriously overestimated its ability to flight test. When ADA claimed it could be done by 2006, IAF pointed out to MoD that ADA would actually need 9 years. Guess, what? IAF was right.

You still don't realize that all our Mig-21 troubles today, all the pilots who have been dying are directly related to why ADA has not been able to deliver LCA. The Bison upgrade program was the direct result of ADA pushing dates on LCA. Bisons wouldn't have existed if the 1999 date was met. Did you know that?

The MoD pressure on IAF was so much so that they rejected every single request of aircraft even though the LCA was delayed. ADA made far fetched promises, MoD lapped it up and forced IAF to keep on waiting. In the meantime IAF was desperate to maintain force levels and flew the nearly-dead aircraft called Mig-21s until pilots started dying. Finally, when the Chinese showed off with the J-10, MoD relented and accepted IAF's MRCA deal.

Had LCA made it in time in 1999, we would have had flight testing plans for AMCA today with hundreds of LCA Mk2s already inducted. There would have been no Rafales. The Mig-21s would have been phased out very early the previous decade without seeing costly upgrades or the major loss of pilots between 2003 and 2007.

These are facts.

Sorry facts seem to fly over your head .

You haven't presented any.

Burden of proof seems to be on me rather than you backing up with facts on your fictional stories pulled out of god knows where.

If you make claims that you don't understand yourself then you will be forced to back it up.

You don't know what the Bisons "actually" did for you to make such claims in the first place.

Lets end it here, You are not really interested in a constructive dialogue. ABUSE seems to be your weapon of choice not facts.

If nonsense passes for your definition of a constructive dialogue then I am afraid I can never match up to your level.

 

[rahulrds1]

hmmm ever heard of the monetary crisis in 1991 . Meaning no money for anything?? ever heard of the sanctions of 1998 hmmm? ever heard of the lack of techincal expertise and hence foriegn assistance required...NON co operation of the customer for supporting any endeavour. Also all your FSED arguements have answers in the below article.

1991 period was a most dangerous & serious economic crisis,

Indian foreign exchange reserves had reduced to such a point that India could barely finance 'three weeks' worth of imports. India had to airlift its gold reserves to pledge it with International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan.

1991 India economic crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yusuf]

Did anyone read the article by Karnad? It was ridiculous for me.

 

[Yusuf]

The credibility of WikiLeaks has never been questioned. The WikiLeaks documents that reveal Rajiv Gandhi's role as a commission agent for the Swedish defence major Saab-Scania peddling its Viggen combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force in the mid- to late-Seventies, only confirms the centrality of middlemen in defence deals.

It sets the context for the commission-mongering in the contracts for the German HDW submarine after Indira Gandhi's return to power, for the Swedish Bofors gun during Rajiv Gandhi's prime ministership, and in the subsequent high value deals approved by the Congress coalition government since 2005.

The IAF sought an aircraft that could fly low to attack targets deep within Pakistan, and Viggen was entered into the contest which was eventually won by the Anglo-French Jaguar, a deal pushed by defence minister Jagjivan Ram during the Janata Party interregnum for a hefty consideration, as was reported at the time by Surya magazine, edited by Maneka Gandhi. The Jaguar deal proved to be the death knell for the Mk-II version of the first indigenous combat aircraft — the HF-24 Marut, configured by the legendary German designer of Focke-Wulfe warplanes, Dr Kurt Tank, who had been brought in by Jawaharlal Nehru to seed an Indian aviation industry. Its aerodynamics proved excellent for low-level flying and, powered by a Bristol-Siddeley engine, it would have matched Jaguar's performance. The IAF leadership used the political cover provided by politicians inclined to rake in the moolah to kill the Marut Mk-II, thereby snuffing out the best chance for the Indian aviation industry to take wing.

Forty years on, the country is faced with a similar setting and choice — a Congress coalition government is in power and yet another aircraft deal, for the French Rafale medium range multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), is on the anvil. The Manmohan Singh regime can approve the $22 billion contract facilitated by corrupt practices that will become known soon enough, and benefit France. Or, it can choose an indigenous option that can revive a comatose Indian aircraft industry.

France and Rafale-maker Dassault Avions have offered sufficient provocation. After agreeing with India during the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations that the supplier obligation had to be balanced with buyer responsibility, Dassault has refused to abide by the provisions in the Request for Proposal (RFP) that made it responsible for the quality of the 108 Rafale MMRCA produced under licence by the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) designated in the RFP as prime contractor for the project. If Dassault had doubts it should have clarified this aspect before bidding for the deal, not after winning it, which prima facie suggests bad faith — enough cause to junk it.

A viable alternative is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA and it is already undergoing wind tunnel testing. Not only is its 4.5-generation avionics suite common with that of the MK-I, but at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale, except that the Thales RBE2 AESA radar for the Rafale is to be fully developed with the monies deposited by India!
With the larger air intake and the slight upward curvature of its wingtip, Mk-II Tejas, experts believe, has a better angle of attack (in excess of 28 degrees) with heavier payload than what Rafale can manage. The larger, three-metre longer, version of the Mk-I LCA, able to carry a bigger weapon load (five tons for Mk-II to Rafale's stated six tons, which will be lesser because the European ambient conditions it is built for don't obtain here), and has similar range, about 600 kms, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale will take to roll out of HAL lines. Further, with a cranked-arrow delta wing with canards, the Mk-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability. The basic Tejas Mk-I is already entering Limited Series Production (LSP) as prelude to full production. It will not be difficult to speedily establish a separate development and production line for Mk-II. In fact, HAL has shown confidence to reject European offers of help to set up the Tejas production infrastructure.

Picking home-grown products will also permit the rationalisation of IAF's force structure — ridding it of its inventory of aircraft so diverse it has created a logistics nightmare. The Mk-I Tejas, as planned, can fill the air defence role, and the Mk-II variant can more than adequately meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA. Because Tejas Mk-I and Mk-II are locally built, there will be capacity for surge production to meet any spike in the demand for spares, freeing the IAF from the constraints imposed by foreign suppliers that have always affected its operations.

Local production based on hundreds of SMEs (Small Manufacturing Enterprises) is the backbone of any advanced aircraft industry. It is actually this issue and the unwillingness to fully transfer technology that is at the core of Dassault's differences with the Indian government. According to those in the know, Dassault's local partner, Reliance Aerospace, is supposed to have agreed to accept only limited technology transfer — even though total transfer of technology is paid for — and to source critical components and sub-assemblies for the "Indian-made Rafale" from French SMEs. Dassault, by these means, seeks to insert the French SMEs permanently into the Indian manufacturing loop, thus making it vulnerable to French policy whims.

The Congress government has the choice of accommodating Dassault, a position that will be heartily backed by the usually compromised and short-sighted IAF brass, and keep the French aviation industry in the clover or, by scrapping the deal and opting for the Tejas Mk-I for air defence and Mk-II as MMRCA, empower and grow the indigenous aviation industry and Indian SMEs.

With a record of unimaginable corruption, the least that can be expected of the Congress-led government is that, in its last year in office, it will do something good for the country for a change.

[Published in the Asian Age April 11, 2013 at http://www.asianage.com/coulmnists/scrap-rafale-viva-tejas-360 ]

 

[Shirman]

^^^^^^^^^I wanna ask why now wikileaks is bable talking about 1970s era deal in which saab viggen was even rejected and anglo-french jaguar won given rajiv-saab connection being mentioned in the cables.....I for one look at the paki connection with wikileaks ie jemima khan-Julius Assange nexus Well one thing is clear if i were a paki i would definitely don't want to see any of the following jets in Indian inventory :-
1. Eurofighter
2. Rafale
3. F/a-18 super hornet
The reputation of above fighters is such (also to note is they emerged as crem-de-la-crem in mmrca competition) that they have something in them that they send required shivers and goosebumps in neighbouring arch-rival air force...............

 

[ersakthivel]

You still don't realize that all our Mig-21 troubles today, all the pilots who have been dying are directly related to why ADA has not been able to deliver LCA. The Bison upgrade program was the direct result of ADA pushing dates on LCA. Bisons wouldn't have existed if the 1999 date was met. Did you know that?

Why people are not blaming ADA for pilot deaths in other countries around the world with faulty aerodynamic design and piss poor engine quality?

it would be nice to hold ADA accountable to the death of all mig-21 pilots globally after all we are living in a globalized world.

Why are the wretched jaguars and mirages of IAF not crashing at the same rate of mig-21 s?

If they do it would be really nice to pin he blame on ADA.
The wretched british are still keeping the hawks flying safely, wicked guys. If these hawks too crash at the same rate we can line up all ADA personnel and send them to the shooting squad.

The Sukhois of IAF are still