Indian Air Force (IAF) forced to fly MiG 21s till 2017 due to Tejas delay

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
That's the point - Mk-1 can replace the others, while Mk-2 can replace the Mirages and even the Mig-29s. Truly, if HAL and MoD pushed the LCA project, by 2018, IAF will have replaced all the legacy aircraft with LCA, MMRCA and MKI. The inventory list would be small and the bulk of the aircraft would be the "cheap" homemade LCA at ~50 million each.

IN is smart compared to this - they prefer homemade stuff and import only things that they HAVE to.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
That's the point - Mk-1 can replace the others, while Mk-2 can replace the Mirages and even the Mig-29s. Truly, if HAL and MoD pushed the LCA project, by 2018, IAF will have replaced all the legacy aircraft with LCA, MMRCA and MKI. The inventory list would be small and the bulk of the aircraft would be the "cheap" homemade LCA at ~50 million each.

IN is smart compared to this - they prefer homemade stuff and import only things that they HAVE to.
The LCA cannot replace the Jags and Mig-27, this is quite established. You don't replace a SUV with a buggy.

The GoI did not place any roadblocks to LCA development, this is a myth. ADA did the work as fast as they could, that's all there is to it.

IN is not "smart" as you are trying to put it. Another myth is the IN is more indigenous than the other services. The Army is actually the most indigenous force. They use rifles, ammo, grenades, trucks, electronic equipment etc which is mostly homemade. IN only designs and builds the hull in India, the rest of the components are all imported. Without a radar, a ship is only as useful as a fishing boat and the radar is almost always Israeli or French.

To date, only Arihant seems to be a purely indigenous effort and that is yet to be seen.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
@P2prada -

As usual you are back to naysaying about the LCA.
Firstly, the LCA Mk-1 has better specs than the Jaguar - better T/W ratio with a single engine than the two engines of Jaguar combined, more wing area (better wing loading), - read the specs below. A tailless delta format which is proven to be good for high AoA and low-altitutde maneuvering, Better avionics and EW capability and definitely lower RCS. It can carry way more hardpoints (8 vs 5) than the Jaguar and can deliver ordnance with much more accuracy. It has longer range (3000km vs 980 km) than the Jaguar, faster (1.8 Mach vs 1.6 Mach) and requires shorter runway for take off and landing - hence can be used from more forward bases than the Jaguar. It has a higher service ceiling and longer ferry range.

So, in a nutshell, LCA is better than Jaguar ANY way you look at it. Not surprising at all - LCA is a 4.5 gen aircraft ad Jaguar is a 3rd gen aircraft, modified for near 4th gen performances. IAF can use the LCA for EVERY purpose that the Jaguar can serve. The LCA can be modified to carry tactical Nuclear weapons too.

As for your assertion that GoI did not place roadblocks to LCA development - well, they DID do the nuclear tests, which led to sanctions on India, which put off LCA development by 5-6 years. Also, GoI did not released any major R&D grant till 2000 - 14 years after LCA design was started. If those are not "roadblocks" - I am not sure what are.


Specs of Tejas ...

Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,560 kg (14,460 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,500 kg (23,100 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,540 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11,250 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,000 lbf)
Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
External fuel capacity: 2x 1,200 litre drop tank at inboard, 1x 725 litre drop tank under fuselage
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8[86] (2,138 km/h) at high altitude (15,000 m)
Range: 3,000 km (1,840 mi) without refueling
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,000 ft (engine re-igniter safely capable))
Wing loading: 221.4 kg/m² (45.35 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.07[5]
g-limits: +9/−3.5 g
LITENING targeting pod[89][90][91]
Avionics
Hybrid MMR radar (Israeli EL/M-2032 back end processor with Indian inputs)

SEPECAT Jaguar Specs ...
Wing area: 24.2 m² (220 ft²)
Aspect ratio: 3.12:1
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,612 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 102 turbofans
Dry thrust: 22.75 kN (5,115 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 32.5 kN (7,305 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (1,699 km/h, 917 knots, 1,056 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Combat radius: 908 km (490 nmi, 564 mi) (lo-lo-lo, external fuel)
Ferry range: 3,524 km (1,902 nmi, 2,190 mi)
Service ceiling: 14,000 m[134] (45,900 ft)
Climb to 9,145 m (30,000 ft): 1 min 30 sec

But we digress - the original discussion was for Mirage 2000 upgrades - remember?
Mirages are great birds, but 30 year old airframes being "upgraded" for $47 million is INSANE!
 
Last edited:

sathya

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
413
Likes
173
Country flag
LCA : Range: 3,000 km (1,840 mi) without refueling

are you sure ? su 30mki has same range
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
LCA : Range: 3,000 km (1,840 mi) without refueling

are you sure ? su 30mki has same range
Your concern was good - I was looking at Wikipedia - full of inaccuracies as usual. The combat radius (without refueling) is 1250 km. Thanks for correcting me.

Corrected wikipedia too ...

checked rest of the specs - they are correct.
 
Last edited:

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
To say the least, Navy is indigenous by choice (she has her own design authority) unlike Army which is by force (they try to shop imported and only upon failing turn their head towards local).

To put things in perspective a single Su-30MKI can deliver more ordinances and more accurately than an entire squadron of Mig-21s.
What?
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
We haven't yet selected the IJT from among those contenders, since the Pilatus bid got mired in a controversy after the Koreans complained about an unfair bid by the Swiss. I don't know why the IAF went for the Pilatus, when I personally feel that the KT-1 was the best choice.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
^^^ Because Pilatus is cheap and best, which is what a BFT / Ab-initio trainers should be.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
I agree - soon, it will not only be IAF, but also IN, SFC and maybe even IA pilots getting trained. For the basic trainer we need numbers - so, the cheaper the better.
 

lord

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
26
Likes
6
Can any1 tell me are we going to buy trainers off hte shelf or make here by tranfer of technology?
i think we should buy all the trainers off the shelf..
# we need the trainers as fast as possible.. this way our piltos will not be undertrained and casualties would be less
#HAL is already over stressed because of su30mki and Tejas and will soon need to start new production line for mmrca
#technology transfer is favored becoz it helps our engineers to learn so that we can use their knowledge on our future projects.. but there is nothing we can learn from trainers..
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
ToT will be good for a new private sector company. If the Tatas/ Birlas/ Ambanis or Mahindra group wants to kick start a new aircraft manufacturing facility. the Basic trainer JV with Pilatus will be the ideal one.
It will get the plants set up, the personnel trained and a source of revenue established for the first product. If I was in the decision making bodies of these companies, I would surely jump the gun here and do a JV - half of the IAF trainers can be bought off the shelf, while the other half can be made in India by a private sector JV.

Can any1 tell me are we going to buy trainers off hte shelf or make here by tranfer of technology?
i think we should buy all the trainers off the shelf..
# we need the trainers as fast as possible.. this way our piltos will not be undertrained and casualties would be less
#HAL is already over stressed because of su30mki and Tejas and will soon need to start new production line for mmrca
#technology transfer is favored becoz it helps our engineers to learn so that we can use their knowledge on our future projects.. but there is nothing we can learn from trainers..
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Can any1 tell me are we going to buy trainers off hte shelf or make here by tranfer of technology?
i think we should buy all the trainers off the shelf..
# we need the trainers as fast as possible.. this way our piltos will not be undertrained and casualties would be less
#HAL is already over stressed because of su30mki and Tejas and will soon need to start new production line for mmrca
#technology transfer is favored becoz it helps our engineers to learn so that we can use their knowledge on our future projects.. but there is nothing we can learn from trainers..
one thing which is very very delusional is that ToT is always in case o production technology and not the engineering platform itself like they give tech to make it and not the tech which we are going to use... for eg in case a new factory is setup thenthe foreign company gives the tech of the machines to be used in the manufacturing and the technique and process to make it and not the technology behind the working of the weapon itself. so in the end we know the specific way of making that kind of platform but not the tech of that platform. dont you think why making weapons under ToT for decades india still couldnt correct few of the teething problems with the indigenous projects?
even privates use this concept like most talked about deal in civilian sector hero-honda... honda provided the way of making karizma but not the tech in karizma and thats why hero continued to make it for years and couldnt come up with its own bike like in case of bajaj pulsar 220...
also its upon the manufatcturer how smartly he takes the lesson and comes out with something on its own...

problem is the lack of cooperation between dpsu and drdo. dpsu should share the knowledge they get from making these hi-tech toys and then drdo should develop the product keeping in mind those lessons but as we can see in case of india neither dpsu nor drdo is interested in this activity.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
one thing which is very very delusional is that ToT is always in case o production technology and not the engineering platform itself like they give tech to make it and not the tech which we are going to use... for eg in case a new factory is setup thenthe foreign company gives the tech of the machines to be used in the manufacturing and the technique and process to make it and not the technology behind the working of the weapon itself. so in the end we know the specific way of making that kind of platform but not the tech of that platform. dont you think why making weapons under ToT for decades india still couldnt correct few of the teething problems with the indigenous projects?
even privates use this concept like most talked about deal in civilian sector hero-honda... honda provided the way of making karizma but not the tech in karizma and thats why hero continued to make it for years and couldnt come up with its own bike like in case of bajaj pulsar 220...
also its upon the manufatcturer how smartly he takes the lesson and comes out with something on its own...

problem is the lack of cooperation between dpsu and drdo. dpsu should share the knowledge they get from making these hi-tech toys and then drdo should develop the product keeping in mind those lessons but as we can see in case of india neither dpsu nor drdo is interested in this activity.
Not to mention the problems in India's in house Metallurgy and other technology development.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Don't feel bad, not even China has figured out the Su-27SK after Russia gave them everything but the engines and radar to copy. After 16 years they still got experimental engines, inferior avionics and no mass production. ToT is only about giving the tech to make it, not to develop it.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
Don't feel bad, not even China has figured out the Su-27SK after Russia gave them everything but the engines and radar to copy. After 16 years they still got experimental engines, inferior avionics and no mass production. ToT is only about giving the tech to make it, not to develop it.
Well, I know that Indian Metallurgy has improved much from the 1980s, as well as electronics and mechanical model building. Developing the prototypes and advanced tech demonstrators are proof enough. Softwares are pretty good also. IMHO, India may even be somewhat ahead of the Chinese in these. However, the part that is most lacking in India where the Chinese have made significant progress, is manufacturing setup and process development. TD or prototype building requires one set of tools - in terms of material research, metallurgy, electronics and software. Manufacturing requires quiet another set of tools and capabilities. China has developed that part MUCH better. THey may still be behind the Russians or the west, but they are much further along than the Indians.
I think India might be 10 years behind the west in the TD/ prototype building phase and 20-25 years behind in the high precision mass manufacturing phase.
China on the other hand might be 15 years behind the west in TD/ Prototype development and only 10 years behind in high precision mass manufacturing.
What do you think?
 
Last edited:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Well, where is India deficient? No modern MMR, no usable engine, sounds like they are in the same place China is except not spending the money they do. Comparing to China, India is not terribly far behind. Comparing to the West is another story. I am sure if India had the tech to mass produce, they could do it given the finances.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top