Ajai Shukla : Where Is India's Light Fighter?

[p2prada]

But sir you are not figuring in the life time service costs and serviceability costs , not to mention the jobs it will create now and in future along with technological know how we will get from it... So all in all LCA Programme is much cheaper than the Gripens or any thing else we could have bought....

That is not being considered because the LCA isn't even inducted for such cost analysis to be made. Of course LCA is cheaper. But what probably half a squadron of LCAs can do, one MKI can do.

Overall the JF-17 could end up being cheaper than LCA while LCA would be cheaper than Gripen. But this comes much later.

Dassault says one Rafale is equivalent to 3 Mirage-2000s. In Singapore Rafales, EFs and F-15s were eating Block 52 F-16s alive in exercises. All this when each aircraft was pitted against 3 Block 52s.

Now imagine one Rafale or one MKI being as capable as 3 LCAs. A Rafale may cost $80Million fly away. The MKI costs $45Million while LCA costs $35-40Million. Now multiply by 3 and see for yourself which ends up being cheaper. Lifetime costs for 3 LCAs will always be greater than one Rafale or one MKI. This does not include pilot training either.

Of course I am not saying the LCA program is a waste of time. It helps our industry. All I am saying is it is of little or no use to the IAF. The LCA experience can always go into a more robust development program for the future.

 

[Mad Indian]

That is not being considered because the LCA isn't even inducted for such cost analysis to be made. Of course LCA is cheaper. But what probably half a squadron of LCAs can do, one MKI can do.

Overall the JF-17 could end up being cheaper than LCA while LCA would be cheaper than Gripen. But this comes much later.

Dassault says one Rafale is equivalent to 3 Mirage-2000s. In Singapore Rafales, EFs and F-15s were eating Block 52 F-16s alive in exercises. All this when each aircraft was pitted against 3 Block 52s.

Now imagine one Rafale or one MKI being as capable as 3 LCAs. A Rafale may cost $80Million fly away. The MKI costs $45Million while LCA costs $35-40Million. Now multiply by 3 and see for yourself which ends up being cheaper. Lifetime costs for 3 LCAs will always be greater than one Rafale or one MKI. This does not include pilot training either.

Of course I am not saying the LCA program is a waste of time. It helps our industry. All I am saying is it is of little or no use to the IAF. The LCA experience can always go into a more robust development program for the future.

But sir you are comparing apples nd oranges...

MKI is a primary airdominance fighter... Rafale though multi role will be primarily used for A2G roles in IAF... LCA is there for numbers and low priority missions...

Simple way to put is, LCA is akin to Two wheeler or a bike which is used for visiting local neighborhood and MKI is like a ferrari used for travelling long distances... though you can use the ferrari(MKI) for taking yourself to the immediate neighborhood, Its not economical, hence the need for smaller bikes(LCA)...

 

[p2prada]

But sir you are comparing apples nd oranges...

MKI is a primary airdominance fighter... Rafale though multi role will be primarily used for A2G roles in IAF... LCA is there for numbers and low priority missions...

Simple way to put is, LCA is akin to Two wheeler or a bike which is used for visiting local neighborhood and MKI is like a ferrari used for travelling long distances... though you can use the ferrari(MKI) for taking yourself to the immediate neighborhood, Its not economical, hence the need for smaller bikes(LCA)...

This kind of requirement does not exist. The kind of work the LCA is expected to do the Mig-31/Su-27/PAKFA does for the VVS(Russia) and F-15/F-22 for the USAF. The MKI has actually replaced the Mig-21s in our inventory. The MKI is meant to do the Ferrari type of work and also the bike type of work.

It is kind of nice to say the LCA is like a bike because we can then simply say it is so cheap. But that is not the case. You can say it is cheaper to keep the MKI flying for 10 hours straight with 6-12 missiles than run 10 different LCA sorties for one hour each equipped with 2-4 missiles. Just look at difference in the kind of manpower and logistics required to run the same mission profile.

When sh!t hits the fan, you have two MKIs in the air with 12-24 missiles and endless fuel reserves or two LCAs with 4-8 missiles and very less fuel. Do you see the difference in capability now?

LCA is an air superiority fighter. It is meant to do what the MKI or F-22 does, but it is really a waste of time for the IAF if you look at the current inventory and future potential inventory of 5th gen fighters. LCA type aircraft are really for budget air forces which cannot afford to spend a lot like the Swiss Air force or when they cannot afford to spend a lot per unit and also have to maintain a large fleet like Sweden or Pakistan. Gripen and JF-17 fill those roles.

In 1999, IAF wasn't a top end air force. We had a lot of Mig-21s and only a 100 state of the art fighters like the Mig-29 and Mirage-2000. Our air force was only big, nothing awesome in that. So, more Mirage-2000s or even LCAs made sense at the time. Now we have nearly 200 heavy fighters and a tender for equally capable medium fighters and a future inventory of heavy and medium 5th gen fighters. There really is no place for the LCA beyond building an industrial base. The requirement for LCA was over 500 for IAF when it was first mooted. Now it is barely above 100 and will be really lucky to reach that number.

 

[ace009]

Firstly P2Prada -

Let's face the facts. MKI "R&D" cost is about a fraction of the actual development cost of a fighter platform. The Flanker has been in service since the late 1980s, and the Su-30 varants have been in service since mid 1990s. Whatever extra "R&D" India had to pay for was minimal compared to the overall cost. (Uupgradations cost about 20-25% at most and India probably paid for 50% of such R&D at worst, meaning MKI R&D wold be 10-12% of a new plane R&D cost.).
Let's look at Infrastructure. Your posts seem to read like Infra structure is a building and the lights installed in it. But actual "infrastructure" is three folds -
1. Facilities - including factory building, roads, train-tracks, personnel quarters, transportation, electricity etc "hard" systems (which maybe built new for Gripen just as they are for LCA or AMCA).
2. R&D systems, prototype and large scale manufacturing systems, protocols/ procedures/ SOPs/ methids, admin personnel, technical personnel, managerial personnel, HR policies, IT support, parts suppliers etc all "soft systems".
3. Tooling and Machines - designs and knowhows, not to mention the physical entities, all of which are WAY more expensive than all else put together. Let me give you a simple example. Our company does an engineering project for $15 million for 2 years. Of which $5 million is for "hard" infrastructure. Salaries, overhead, IT support etc all "soft" costs are another $2-3 million. All this provides the design for the actual product. The parts and labor to build the first prototype is another $3 million. Most of the tooling and machines were already present in-house, still we spent another $2-3 million in terms of new tools and machines. If we had to buy (commercially available tools), design/ build/ develop (unique tools) all the tools and machines, it would have cost us upwards of $100 million or eight times the value of the project.

Now think of that for SAAB vs HAL/ ADA.

When SAAB designs, develops and builds a new fighter, it will definitely like to reuse (or just use) the available tools and machines present, which means the Gripen is built as much around the customer specs as around SAABs assets and knowhow. Which is why it is so much cheaper.

When HAL/ ADA designs/ develops/ builds LCA, they have no such luxury. Not only are they building the LCA from "scratch" in terms of fighter design experience, they are conceptualizing, designing and manufacturing/ acquiring the tools and machines needed for the LCA from "scratch". So, their requirements would be way more expensive. However, considering the amount of money allocated to the LCA project till date, I am surprised at how much they have achieved with how little.

I think you and most of the LCA haters are smart enough to understand the enormity of the project if you stop to think about this. This is not about just manufacturing a fighter - India has been doing that for quite some time. Firstly from knock down kits, then from pre-designed parts. But most of the tools, machines, methods, knowhow etc needed for the manufacturing came from abroad. Indian aircraft manufacturers were working as grease monkeys.
For the LCA however, we were not only designing and developing the aircraft, but also designing and developing a whole "design/ development" system. We were and still are building our own aircraft manufacturing industry - from scratch. Considering it is a government run enterprise, it sucks in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. But also considering how little money has been invested, it is amazing how far we have come.

As for the LCA, everytime we look at the cost of the aircraft we are aslo looking at the cost of the establishment of the Indian aircraft manufacturing industry. And this "manufacturing" is the real deal - it is not copy/ paste like the Paki JF-17. It is not a knock-down kit assembly like most of Mig-29s and MKIs. It is not even the "ToT" and manufacturing of the MMRCA. This encompasses DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, TOOLING, PROTOTYPING, TESTING, PRODUCTION of a brand new airplane AND the INDUSTRY itself.
By 2020, if LCA is successful, India will be in the elite group of nations who can do all that in-house and produce a jet combat aircraft. Currently, there are only 9 other countries with this capability - USA, Russia, France, Germany, UK, Japan, Italy, China and Sweden.
If you still do not comprehend the utter novelty of it, I would urge you to read the history of automobile manufacturing and ho it was adopted in different countries.

 

[ace009]

This kind of requirement does not exist. The kind of work the LCA is expected to do the Mig-31/Su-27/PAKFA does for the VVS(Russia) and F-15/F-22 for the USAF. The MKI has actually replaced the Mig-21s in our inventory. The MKI is meant to do the Ferrari type of work and also the bike type of work.

It is kind of nice to say the LCA is like a bike because we can then simply say it is so cheap. But that is not the case. You can say it is cheaper to keep the MKI flying for 10 hours straight with 6-12 missiles than run 10 different LCA sorties for one hour each equipped with 2-4 missiles. Just look at difference in the kind of manpower and logistics required to run the same mission profile.

When sh!t hits the fan, you have two MKIs in the air with 12-24 missiles and endless fuel reserves or two LCAs with 4-8 missiles and very less fuel. Do you see the difference in capability now?

LCA is an air superiority fighter. It is meant to do what the MKI or F-22 does, but it is really a waste of time for the IAF if you look at the current inventory and future potential inventory of 5th gen fighters. LCA type aircraft are really for budget air forces which cannot afford to spend a lot like the Swiss Air force or when they cannot afford to spend a lot per unit and also have to maintain a large fleet like Sweden or Pakistan. Gripen and JF-17 fill those roles.

In 1999, IAF wasn't a top end air force. We had a lot of Mig-21s and only a 100 state of the art fighters like the Mig-29 and Mirage-2000. Our air force was only big, nothing awesome in that. So, more Mirage-2000s or even LCAs made sense at the time. Now we have nearly 200 heavy fighters and a tender for equally capable medium fighters and a future inventory of heavy and medium 5th gen fighters. There really is no place for the LCA beyond building an industrial base. The requirement for LCA was over 500 for IAF when it was first mooted. Now it is barely above 100 and will be really lucky to reach that number.

Again, One MKI being able to do what 10 LCA does is not only ridiculous, but also pointless. That is like saying that one F-15 can do the work of 10 F-16s.

Let's do the numbers -

One MKI can carry a max of 12 A2A missiles. It has a combat radius of 1500 miles and can stay in flight for 3.75 hours without refueling.

Now let's see what 10 LCA can do - Each can carry 6 A2A missiles. Has a combat radius of ~450 miles and can stay in flight for ~2 hours. So, 10 of them can carry 60 A2A missiles, cover 4500 miles and stay in air for ~20 hours.

Also, can you think of a single MKI as an interceptor for incoming raid of 12 JF-17s? However, 10 LCAs can be easily sent out to confront 12 JF-17s.

Also, the RCS of an LCA is less than 1 m^2, that of the MKI is more than 1 m^2. So, an LCA interceptor flying up to meet an incoming threat, against the ground clutter, will be a much more "surprise" than an MKI.

Anyway, long story short, LCAs or any other such "Light Combat" aircraft are needed not only to fill up the numbers (which is VERY important), but also for near-border patrolling, interception etc.

 

[Mad Indian]

This kind of requirement does not exist. The kind of work the LCA is expected to do the Mig-31/Su-27/PAKFA does for the VVS(Russia) and F-15/F-22 for the USAF. The MKI has actually replaced the Mig-21s in our inventory. The MKI is meant to do the Ferrari type of work and also the bike type of work.

It is kind of nice to say the LCA is like a bike because we can then simply say it is so cheap. But that is not the case. You can say it is cheaper to keep the MKI flying for 10 hours straight with 6-12 missiles than run 10 different LCA sorties for one hour each equipped with 2-4 missiles. Just look at difference in the kind of manpower and logistics required to run the same mission profile.

When sh!t hits the fan, you have two MKIs in the air with 12-24 missiles and endless fuel reserves or two LCAs with 4-8 missiles and very less fuel. Do you see the difference in capability now?

LCA is an air superiority fighter. It is meant to do what the MKI or F-22 does, but it is really a waste of time for the IAF if you look at the current inventory and future potential inventory of 5th gen fighters. LCA type aircraft are really for budget air forces which cannot afford to spend a lot like the Swiss Air force or when they cannot afford to spend a lot per unit and also have to maintain a large fleet like Sweden or Pakistan. Gripen and JF-17 fill those roles.

In 1999, IAF wasn't a top end air force. We had a lot of Mig-21s and only a 100 state of the art fighters like the Mig-29 and Mirage-2000. Our air force was only big, nothing awesome in that. So, more Mirage-2000s or even LCAs made sense at the time. Now we have nearly 200 heavy fighters and a tender for equally capable medium fighters and a future inventory of heavy and medium 5th gen fighters. There really is no place for the LCA beyond building an industrial base. The requirement for LCA was over 500 for IAF when it was first mooted. Now it is barely above 100 and will be really lucky to reach that number.

I dont know how to explain to you but here is my best try..

First of all, LCA is multi role... and its not going to be an air superiority fighter per se...

Second it has seven hard points not 2-4

Third, Of course Migs are to be replaced by MKIs and not by LCAs because both were procured for Air superiority were they not...???? So it is logical to replace like with like...

Fourthly, for point defence and other such operations you dont deed a lot of Air dominance fighters... typical deployment will be more like 8 or so LCAs on point defence with 2 MKIs on escort roles..... now imagine running an aircraft for ten hours that too a heavy one when what is needed is just two hour mission....

Lastly i dint compare the LCA to bike for low cost... I compared it because of its likely hood to be used in low priority missions.... Now consider a mission which requires only one hour flight time... Should we waste the MKIs for that...???

LCAs are designed to be the work horses of the Airforce.... Not the high baggaged ones.... Will we use MKIs for everything from surveilance to patroling....????

By your argument of cost, We dont need anything from Rafale to Mirages since Rafales cost 80mn$ against 45mn$ tag of MKI... so why do we even need Rafale at an albeit higher cost...???? Now compare the same question with LCA and MKI

 

[p2prada]

Let's face the facts. MKI "R&D" cost is about a fraction of the actual development cost of a fighter platform. The Flanker has been in service since the late 1980s, and the Su-30 varants have been in service since mid 1990s. Whatever extra "R&D" India had to pay for was minimal compared to the overall cost. (Uupgradations cost about 20-25% at most and India probably paid for 50% of such R&D at worst, meaning MKI R&D wold be 10-12% of a new plane R&D cost.).

No. The MKI isn't just an upgraded Su-30. It is lot more than that. It did go through the entire development cycle as a new aircraft. Similarly the LCA Mk2 is also going through the same phase. It is actually a minor tweak from the Mk1 but the development costs are twice that of the Mk1.

Let's look at Infrastructure. Your posts seem to read like Infra structure is a building and the lights installed in it. But actual "infrastructure" is three folds -
1. Facilities - including factory building, roads, train-tracks, personnel quarters, transportation, electricity etc "hard" systems (which maybe built new for Gripen just as they are for LCA or AMCA).
2. R&D systems, prototype and large scale manufacturing systems, protocols/ procedures/ SOPs/ methids, admin personnel, technical personnel, managerial personnel, HR policies, IT support, parts suppliers etc all "soft systems".
3. Tooling and Machines - designs and knowhows, not to mention the physical entities, all of which are WAY more expensive than all else put together. Let me give you a simple example. Our company does an engineering project for $15 million for 2 years. Of which $5 million is for "hard" infrastructure. Salaries, overhead, IT support etc all "soft" costs are another $2-3 million. All this provides the design for the actual product. The parts and labor to build the first prototype is another $3 million. Most of the tooling and machines were already present in-house, still we spent another $2-3 million in terms of new tools and machines. If we had to buy (commercially available tools), design/ build/ develop (unique tools) all the tools and machines, it would have cost us upwards of $100 million or eight times the value of the project.

You are talking of building infrastructure from scratch, but that was not the case. Infrastructure was being built in India since the 40s. NAL built it's first wind tunnel in the 60s and this was the same wind tunnel which was used for LCA. Other than that the LCA used a lot of foreign infrastructure. For eg: the modeling of the LCA was done in India, but a lot of the electronics work was done in Britain and the US. The FBW was first worked in Britain and then the US before sanctions. Same with the American engine.

The kind of infrastructure necessary to develop LCA from scratch in India still does not exist. We still need foreign infrastructure like the Russian engine testbed. We are currently overhauling the entire setup, we are building everything here in India for the AMCA program.

When HAL/ ADA designs/ develops/ builds LCA, they have no such luxury. Not only are they building the LCA from "scratch" in terms of fighter design experience, they are conceptualizing, designing and manufacturing/ acquiring the tools and machines needed for the LCA from "scratch". So, their requirements would be way more expensive. However, considering the amount of money allocated to the LCA project till date, I am surprised at how much they have achieved with how little.

That's the problem. But people here think otherwise. The funding for LCA has been more than adequate. Even the MoD was talking about unimpeded funding for the LCA program as far as back in 2007. Meaning whenever DRDO asked for money, they got it.

I think you and most of the LCA haters are smart enough to understand the enormity of the project if you stop to think about this. This is not about just manufacturing a fighter - India has been doing that for quite some time. Firstly from knock down kits, then from pre-designed parts. But most of the tools, machines, methods, knowhow etc needed for the manufacturing came from abroad. Indian aircraft manufacturers were working as grease monkeys.
For the LCA however, we were not only designing and developing the aircraft, but also designing and developing a whole "design/ development" system. We were and still are building our own aircraft manufacturing industry - from scratch. Considering it is a government run enterprise, it sucks in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. But also considering how little money has been invested, it is amazing how far we have come.

As for the LCA, everytime we look at the cost of the aircraft we are aslo looking at the cost of the establishment of the Indian aircraft manufacturing industry. And this "manufacturing" is the real deal - it is not copy/ paste like the Paki JF-17. It is not a knock-down kit assembly like most of Mig-29s and MKIs. It is not even the "ToT" and manufacturing of the MMRCA. This encompasses DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, TOOLING, PROTOTYPING, TESTING, PRODUCTION of a brand new airplane AND the INDUSTRY itself.
By 2020, if LCA is successful, India will be in the elite group of nations who can do all that in-house and produce a jet combat aircraft. Currently, there are only 9 other countries with this capability - USA, Russia, France, Germany, UK, Japan, Italy, China and Sweden.
If you still do not comprehend the utter novelty of it, I would urge you to read the history of automobile manufacturing and ho it was adopted in different countries.

It is all nice to think about how good it has been for the Indian industry. But when it comes to war, IAF wants different things. Don't mistake my criticism for LCA as something that is not required. My criticism for LCA is basically aimed at not forcing IAF something that is not worth the time and effort for them to worry about. DRDO can develop the LCA to a Mk3 or Mk4 version too. But don't expect IAF to buy it.

If you really want to support Indian products, then how about dumping your iPad or equivalent and replace it with Akash. The tablet PC is 10 times slower than the basic iPad. It has very limited features. Even if it does not suit your need, buy it nevertheless because you are supporting an Indian product.

It is a very basic human tendency to expect other people to buy sub-standard stuff, but expect to buy the latest for yourself.

 

[gogbot]

The lack of any visible progress on the LCA over the last year seems to have given an interesting view on the LCA project
Between 2009-2011 the LCA program was in tog gear , making more progress than in the last few years. Many of us were thrilled to see this Indian Bird finally reaching fruition.

However the IAF was always reluctant to share in the Enthusiasm , which always seemed to beg the question why ?

Personally i have reached the conclusion , that the entirety of the momentum was political. Defense ministry wanted a win on the Indigenous front. so they came down the the LCA project. They must have pushed and prodded it to progress for those years.

They had set an arbitrary deadline for IOC , A milestone for the Political types. They pushed the LCA towards that date as much they could. When it was abundantly clear it would not meet it. They Forced the IAF to bring down requirements and had a ceremony for something called "IOC-1".
It was all just for the political types, and when that was done , so was all that political pressure on the project , which is why we have this year of lull.

However Through it all i think the IAF knew what was happening and were not going to be drawn into it. If they were then the Tejas may have been forced into service long before it was ready . They were both critical and complacent , as they should be. If they were not complacent and critical, it have no doubt that this will result in a sub-standard product in which case no one wins.

No one is more interested in the Tejas than the IAF, but they want a finished product that can mature further. Not a sub-standard toy shoved down their throats by the Ministers. The IAF stand on the project has no doubt place much pressure on the LCA project. Pressure that is necessary for the project to ever reach full fruition

IAF wants a plane to replace numbers quickly,not have to worry about spares and sanctions and not have to worry about delays in procurement. That plane could be the Tejas if it was done right not otherwise.

 

[p2prada]

Again, One MKI being able to do what 10 LCA does is not only ridiculous, but also pointless. That is like saying that one F-15 can do the work of 10 F-16s.

Hmm. It is the IAF's opinion. So, you can talk to them about it.

One MKI can carry a max of 12 A2A missiles. It has a combat radius of 1500 miles and can stay in flight for 3.75 hours without refueling.

Now let's see what 10 LCA can do - Each can carry 6 A2A missiles. Has a combat radius of ~450 miles and can stay in flight for ~2 hours. So, 10 of them can carry 60 A2A missiles, cover 4500 miles and stay in air for ~20 hours.

LCA will not carry 6 missiles operationally. Mig-21 can carry 4 but it never carries beyond 2. The combat radius of the LCA is less than 200miles. Heck the EF is a 300mile fighter, not the LCA. LCA is more in the 150-200Km radius where it can be combat relevant. It's endurance with drop tanks etc can be 2 hours, but with operational loadouts, the air time is at best 30 minutes.

10 of them can't carry 60 A2A and fly for 20 hours. They can at best carry 20-40 for 5 hours. Definitely not cover 4500miles simply because the air base is fixed. An air base with LCAs is only effective at ranges of 200 to 400Km at best.

Also, can you think of a single MKI as an interceptor for incoming raid of 12 JF-17s? However, 10 LCAs can be easily sent out to confront 12 JF-17s.

The Pakistanis will never send that many on a single mission. Groups of 2, 4, and 6 are the mantra. It gets humanly impossible for the squadron leader to direct more aircraft. Also, when it comes to interception MKI can only engage 4 targets, so more MKIs are required. But if we are playing the numbers game, then there will be at least 2.5 MKIs for every LCA inducted, if it happens.

Also, the RCS of an LCA is less than 1 m^2, that of the MKI is more than 1 m^2. So, an LCA interceptor flying up to meet an incoming threat, against the ground clutter, will be a much more "surprise" than an MKI.

That is no longer the case when radars can see 1m off the ground. New technology is able to minimize the effect of ground clutter by a large extent. The ECM kit on the MKIs are very powerful as well. The radiating power for ECm alone is probably much more than what the entire LCA can muster up.

Anyway, long story short, LCAs or any other such "Light Combat" aircraft are needed not only to fill up the numbers (which is VERY important), but also for near-border patrolling, interception etc.

It was good if the numbers gap story had a valid point. But with concrete orders for just 40 aircraft and a possible order of 83 more does not look very appealing. The F-22 does for the US what the LCA is meant to do for IAF. Think about it.

 

[p2prada]

I dont know how to explain to you but here is my best try..

First of all, LCA is multi role... and its not going to be an air superiority fighter per se...

LCA is basically an air superiority fighter with secondary strike role and air interdiction. All aircraft being designed now are multirole. It's just that each aircraft is identified with what it was first designed for. MKI - air superiority, Rafale- Ground Attack, F-22 - air superiority, Mig-31 - Interception etc

Second it has seven hard points not 2-4

Only 6 out of 8 can carry missiles and they come with very high drag penalties. If you want to run an air superiority mission then you will need an optimum setup, so it is 2-4. The MKI also has similar penalties but is not as bad as on a small aircraft.

Fourthly, for point defence and other such operations you dont deed a lot of Air dominance fighters... typical deployment will be more like 8 or so LCAs on point defence with 2 MKIs on escort roles..... now imagine running an aircraft for ten hours that too a heavy one when what is needed is just two hour mission....

If it is only a 2 hour mission then the MKI will land after 2 hours.

Lastly i dint compare the LCA to bike for low cost... I compared it because of its likely hood to be used in low priority missions.... Now consider a mission which requires only one hour flight time... Should we waste the MKIs for that...???

Why not? The MKI can be used for a 10 minute mission too.

LCAs are designed to be the work horses of the Airforce.... Not the high baggaged ones.... Will we use MKIs for everything from surveilance to patroling....????

MKIs are meant for surveillance and patrolling. All the modern recce pods we are buying is meant for MKI itself.

By your argument of cost, We dont need anything from Rafale to Mirages since Rafales cost 80mn$ against 45mn$ tag of MKI... so why do we even need Rafale at an albeit higher cost...???? Now compare the same question with LCA and MKI

Rafale is a ground attack aircraft and fills a different role. The Mirage-2000, LCA and MKI are designed for air superiority. Even without this glaring reason, the Rafale is meant to infuse state of the art know how to Indian industry for new manufacturing techniques before the construction of the PAKFA and AMCA begin along with infusing the IAF with new technologies.

The MKIs are being produced at full capacity, we have massive orders for it already. So, it makes sense to open a new production line. Had the LCA been successful from the start, then Rafale would never have happened. We would have been flight testing the AMCA by now.

The LCA's requirement may exist in the IAF, but it all depends on what they think because by 2018 a lot of things may change. This may allow for more inductions or they may just cancel after 40 orders. 6 years is a lot of time.

 

[Mad Indian]

LCA is basically an air superiority fighter with secondary strike role and air interdiction. All aircraft being designed now are multirole. It's just that each aircraft is identified with what it was first designed for. MKI - air superiority, Rafale- Ground Attack, F-22 - air superiority, Mig-31 - Interception etc



Only 6 out of 8 can carry missiles and they come with very high drag penalties. If you want to run an air superiority mission then you will need an optimum setup, so it is 2-4. The MKI also has similar penalties but is not as bad as on a small aircraft.



If it is only a 2 hour mission then the MKI will land after 2 hours.



Why not? The MKI can be used for a 10 minute mission too.



MKIs are meant for surveillance and patrolling. All the modern recce pods we are buying is meant for MKI itself.



Rafale is a ground attack aircraft and fills a different role. The Mirage-2000, LCA and MKI are designed for air superiority. Even without this glaring reason, the Rafale is meant to infuse state of the art know how to Indian industry for new manufacturing techniques before the construction of the PAKFA and AMCA begin along with infusing the IAF with new technologies.

The MKIs are being produced at full capacity, we have massive orders for it already. So, it makes sense to open a new production line. Had the LCA been successful from the start, then Rafale would never have happened. We would have been flight testing the AMCA by now.

The LCA's requirement may exist in the IAF, but it all depends on what they think because by 2018 a lot of things may change. This may allow for more inductions or they may just cancel after 40 orders. 6 years is a lot of time.

Agreed on most parts except the servceabitlity issues of MKI... Whtether it is 10 hrs flight or 10 mins time, it cant go for the next sortie as such.... it has to be serviced first is it not... thats why you dont have heavy ones as work horse so as not to waste the resourses... thats the rationale behind F16 while they might have f15 or F22 by the USAF.... And by four def, The USAF can have all F22 cant they why should they go for SINGLE ENGINE low end F35...???? Catch my point...

And as ACE009 pointed out even for air superirority missions too, 9 LCAs are much better at facing 9 JF 17s than 9 Jfs vs 3MKIs or even 5 Mkis for that matter...

 

[p2prada]

The lack of any visible progress on the LCA over the last year seems to have given an interesting view on the LCA project
Between 2009-2011 the LCA program was in tog gear , making more progress than in the last few years. Many of us were thrilled to see this Indian Bird finally reaching fruition.

However the IAF was always reluctant to share in the Enthusiasm , which always seemed to beg the question why ?

Personally i have reached the conclusion , that the entirety of the momentum was political. Defense ministry wanted a win on the Indigenous front. so they came down the the LCA project. They must have pushed and prodded it to progress for those years.

They had set an arbitrary deadline for IOC , A milestone for the Political types. They pushed the LCA towards that date as much they could. When it was abundantly clear it would not meet it. They Forced the IAF to bring down requirements and had a ceremony for something called "IOC-1".
It was all just for the political types, and when that was done , so was all that political pressure on the project , which is why we have this year of lull.

However Through it all i think the IAF knew what was happening and were not going to be drawn into it. If they were then the Tejas may have been forced into service long before it was ready . They were both critical and complacent , as they should be. If they were not complacent and critical, it have no doubt that this will result in a sub-standard product in which case no one wins.

No one is more interested in the Tejas than the IAF, but they want a finished product that can mature further. Not a sub-standard toy shoved down their throats by the Ministers. The IAF stand on the project has no doubt place much pressure on the LCA project. Pressure that is necessary for the project to ever reach full fruition

IAF wants a plane to replace numbers quickly,not have to worry about spares and sanctions and not have to worry about delays in procurement. That plane could be the Tejas if it was done right not otherwise.

Yes. The IOC was a political decision. You remember how sarcastic the IAF chief was. "It was our dream for the last 30 years."

The failure of the Kaveri engine in 2004 killed the program in it's entirety. Even the IN Admiral has voiced his criticism of the project for the delays. They want the Rafale. Once the N-MRCA tender is given the green signal, the LCA will take the backseat once again.

Hopefully the dates given for the LCA Mk2 are honoured to the fullest or IAF won't buy anymore and even the promises made for the AMCA program will become suspect.

LCA Mk1 is overweight, underpowered and inferior to the Mirage-2000 in pretty much every parameter.

 

[Mad Indian]

Yes. The IOC was a political decision. You remember how sarcastic the IAF chief was. "It was our dream for the last 30 years."

The failure of the Kaveri engine in 2004 killed the program in it's entirety. Even the IN Admiral has voiced his criticism of the project for the delays. They want the Rafale. Once the N-MRCA tender is given the green signal, the LCA will take the backseat once again.

Hopefully the dates given for the LCA Mk2 are honoured to the fullest or IAF won't buy anymore and even the promises made for the AMCA program will become suspect.

LCA Mk1 is overweight, underpowered and inferior to the Mirage-2000 in pretty much every parameter.

but on long term it is much better to us than Mirage 2000(Developments than can be incorporated into it once we have a better economy and resourses, the industrial capacity addition , R and D experiance, the Self sufficiency we can get from the engine development, INDEGENISATION of the armed forces)

 

[p2prada]

Agreed on most parts except the servceabitlity issues of MKI... Whtether it is 10 hrs flight or 10 mins time, it cant go for the next sortie as such.... it has to be serviced first is it not... thats why you dont have heavy ones as work horse so as not to waste the resourses...

Not at all. The MKI is serviced after every 200 hours of flight. That's nearly a year of flight time. There is something called as turnaround time. Once a mission is completed, the MKI is expected to rearm, refuel and take off immediately in a given time. A few Minutes.

For some reason, I don't know why, people assume an aircraft needs to go into maintenance after every flight. An aircraft is expected to do multiple sorties in a day during war. As long as our aircraft are well maintained a high sortie rate can be achieved. During Red Flag, the MKIs performed multiple take offs and landings and achieved serviceability rates of over 90% in the duration of exercises over many days.

thats the rationale behind F16 while they might have f15 or F22 by the USAF.... And by four def, The USAF can have all F22 cant they why should they go for SINGLE ENGINE low end F35...???? Catch my point...

The F-22 is an air superiority aircraft. If you look at the number of F-15s and compare it with the number of F-22s in service, they are nearly the same. Other than that the F-35 is a ground attack aircraft which is a different role. The F-16 is for ground attack too, except that it can handle air superiority missions, quite like the F-35. USAF cannot have all F-22s they need. They have a limit of 187 aircraft as of today.

And as ACE009 pointed out even for air superirority missions too, 9 LCAs are much better at facing 9 JF 17s than 9 Jfs vs 3MKIs or even 5 Mkis for that matter...

Not at all. Those 9 JF-17s can be engaged from extreme ranges even before the JF's can reach firing positions. In case the JFs managed to get close, the MKIs can always leave the air space.

In exercises in India, single MKIs have taken out multiple Mirage-2000s, Mig-29s and Mig-21s in a single sortie. MKI pilots brag about it. One said that he is able to see all aircraft and engage them anytime and kill them even before they realize they were painted. MKIs engage the Mirage-2000s even before the Mirage-2000s detect the MKIs.

It was the same at Garud 2010, where French pilots on Mirage-2000-5 and Rafale had second look capability as compared to IAF's first look capability on the MKIs.

Small groups of F-22s have taken out multiple F-15 opponents with no losses.

With 9 LCAs you won't have overkill. You will only achieve parity. With 3 MKIs you achieve overkill against 9 JF-17s. Without exercise limitations, the MKIs capabilities are way higher than F-16s and other smaller fighters. The Super MKI will be off the charts.

 

[p2prada]

but on long term it is much better to us than Mirage 2000(Developments than can be incorporated into it once we have a better economy and resourses, the industrial capacity addition , R and D experiance, the Self sufficiency we can get from the engine development, INDEGENISATION of the armed forces)

That is of no use to IAF. Only of use to the industry in achieving self reliance. IAF is not concerned with desi or videshi products as long as their requirements are fulfilled and can easily receive spares and supplies whenever required. There is a minimum technology threshold that needs to be achieved before indigenization makes sense and LCA is below that threshold. There is no point in having indigenous products if your enemy is more advanced.

 

[sayareakd]

why different thread for LCA??

 

[Mad Indian]

That is of no use to IAF. Only of use to the industry in achieving self reliance. IAF is not concerned with desi or videshi products as long as their requirements are fulfilled and can easily receive spares and supplies whenever required. There is a minimum technology threshold that needs to be achieved before indigenization makes sense and LCA is below that threshold. There is no point in having indigenous products if your enemy is more advanced.

Ok lets ask the DRDO to build a Tenth gen fighter first... enough with the 5th gen nonsense....

Also lets ask ISRO to send the Indian to Mars first.... US has already sent a man to moon... So dont send them there...

 

[mayfair]

It was the same at Garud 2010, where French pilots on Mirage-2000-5 and Rafale had second look capability as compared to IAF's first look capability on the MKIs

Could you elaborate on these terms? What exactly do these mean?

 

[p2prada]

Could you elaborate on these terms? What exactly do these mean?

The MKI radar picks up the enemy fighters first. The MKIs are detected once the other fighters get closer.

Currently MKI cannot take advantage of this because the missile ranges in service as of today are lower. R-77 Max 80Km. A little higher if shot from a higher altitude at higher speed. Once we get the Astra Mk2 or RVV-SD, it will increase to around 110Km. With the RVV-BD or K-100, the engagement range is massive. These are max ranges. Missiles will be fired from optimum ranges though.

The newer R-27 variants give 130Km as of today, so this can be used.

 

[mayfair]

The MKI radar picks up the enemy fighters first. The MKIs are detected once the other fighters get closer.

Currently MKI cannot take advantage of this because the missile ranges in service as of today are lower. R-77 Max 80Km. A little higher if shot from a higher altitude at higher speed. Once we get the Astra Mk2 or RVV-SD, it will increase to around 110Km. With the RVV-BD or K-100, the engagement range is massive. These are max ranges. Missiles will be fired from optimum ranges though.

The newer R-27 variants give 130Km as of today, so this can be used.

So what is the second look capability and how exactly did this affect what happened in Garuda 2010?