Ajai Shukla : Where Is India's Light Fighter?

[Kunal Biswas]

IMHO, IAF needs a frontline interceptor today. A reasonably good one (LCA now ) is better than a really good one 10 years later. If such technology does come in due to MMRCA deal, HAL can upgrade the existing LCA; can build a B / C versions too.

LCA = Light Combat Aircraft..

It is mainly deigned as a Interceptor, But its very agile can be useful in dogfight, Internal fuel is more than Mir-2000 and its have very good range about 3000km for a light fighter, It can deliver PGMs, A2G Missiles etc..



What should have been done is to induct this long time back with Russian and French radar and engine which every was available, Then keep it mordanise in block 1/2/3 or MK-1/2/3 for future batches, This is the way foreign Military does with there systems even China..

 

[SPIEZ]

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...

Easy does it mate. We may not be masters of technology, but a brief look from the past would tell you that our technology development is increasing. Don't give up hope so soon. Even if one doesn't work out, it may be the stepping stone for another.

 

[p2prada]

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

As far as we know the MKIs were trying out new tactics called swing role where the aircraft uses offensive and defensive tactics while switching between air to air and air to ground mode. We were trying that out for the first time. The teams were comprised of Rafale and Mirage-2000 vs MKI and Mirage-2000 vs Singapore's F-16 Block 52 and Mirage-2000. All Mirage-2000s were flown by the French. All we know is the exercises went in favour of the French. We don't know anything beyond that.

The situational awareness of the MKI was 190Km as told by the M-2000 pilot. EW was not used by any side and R-77 and the Singaporean Aim-120 were not simulated to their highest capability in order alleviate Mica's range disadvantage. EW was not used because the French did not want to reveal the Spectra's capabilities.

 

[p2prada]

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...

No need to get emotional over a bit of criticism.

 

[Mad Indian]

No need to get emotional over a bit of criticism.

Ok but thats what this is about is it not, a know how....????

 

[p2prada]

LCA is a stepping stone for more such programs in the future. We can treat it as a learning experience and move on. This is something all countries have faced. We are not the first and we won't be the last.

 

[ace009]

P2p - I will answer in detail later.

 

[Mad Indian]

Easy does it mate. We may not be masters of technology, but a brief look from the past would tell you that our technology development is increasing. Don't give up hope so soon. Even if one doesn't work out, it may be the stepping stone for another.

i was being sarcastic... was that not obvious...

 

[SpArK]

The LCA delays had many reasons and many are genuine ones.

It had a bad start and an equally bad governance and vision associated with it from the beginning. It also lost focus when IJT had development took a lot of technical staff along with it.

The ambition or say over ambitious will and time spend to develop the difficult Multi Mode Radar (MMR) and to develop a complex jet engine led to delays. Even today Tejas flies on US engine and Israeli radar.

The disastrous managerial decision to give task to develop a jet engine to GTRE ( gas turbine research establishment) and radar development to HAL was a BIG blunder.They never had any experience doing such complex works.

The only organisation that could develop Radar was LRDE ( electronics and radar development establishment) and engine should have been given to HAL Engine division in banagalore, which had experience of developing engines.

Lack of adequate workforce was also an issue and it was split when IJT (intermediate jet) project was taken over by HAL.

But even the delays are justifiable.

European fighters took 25 years and F-22 was cold war project and took 2 decades.

Thee gains we got from this delay deals are promising too.

Development of technologies like composite materials, fly by wire , glass cockpits, avionics suits ,the knowledge base,and the technologies expertise we developed for LCA is used conduct full air craft vibration tests even for sukhoi and Mirages ( external stores). It decreased dependency on that part atleast.

Tejas is meant for short duration missions while heavier ones like Sukhoi's can fly for longer missions. And since its termed as an interceptor ( interceptor by definition says its meant to prevent enemy fighters like bombers and reconnaissance aircraft from gaining grounds) i expect these little birds to have more stealthy features . Was expecting a changed nose like in alenia aermacchi m-346 ..or even a change in intakes like the hornets change during MK-2 annoucement, but was disspointed at the change being only a few meters length.

But im optimistic it will change with immense expertise and technology that will bring with association with foreign vendors.

Already avionics is speculated as the best for LCA, the rest will catch up and im sure when its time comes it can be easily compared on par or even better than Gripens.


Btwn pic of AA

 

[ace009]

@P2Prada

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

The LCA mk1 and the JAS Gripen C/D are both powered by the GE F404 engine, with dry thrust of 54 kN,

LCA has an empty weight of 6560 kgs and a loaded weight (full internal fuel tank) of 9500 kg.
Gripen has an empty weight of 6800 kg and a loaded weight of 8500 kg.

So it seems that the LCA is indeed lighter than the Gripen and has the same engine. So, the LCA has definitely better thrust/ weight ratio than the Gripen - right?
As for the Mirage 2000 vs the LCA, if you care to do the calculations for the two (half tank fuel and full weapons load) the thrust/ weight ratio comes to 0.88 for mirages and 0.87 for the LCA. So, what difference exactly were you talking about?

More later.

 

[gogbot]

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.

I think the project still has much relevance.

Despite what people may claim , the Rafale is not replacing the Mig-21. Numerically speaking it makes up for numbers lost due to Mig-21 retirement. However Rafale mission profile is much expanded on the Mig-21 with each sortie much more expensive. While they can perform the Mig-21 Mission profile it is not ideal.

What IAF wants is a few Light weight, single engine and low cost Fighters to pick the Mig-21 mission profile, but it no longer requires it to numerically replace the squadrons, So fewer of such LCA squadrons will do.

IAF wants a mature a Production ready Tejas , why would they not ?
What they don't want is an unfinished product inducted and then delayed on upgrades and improvements. While they pay for and service squadron not combat ready. The Day tejas meets IAF requirements is the day it will be ready for export.

Kaveri may be setback , but Tejas still comes with Astra and mostly local parts, IAF will have more control over this aircraft than any other.

 

[p2prada]

@Spark

LRDE is handling the radar and only GTRE has the facilities to design and test an engine. HAL only manufactures and overhauls. They cannot design. The LCA has LRDE's radar on it with the 2032's processor.

@P2Prada



The LCA mk1 and the JAS Gripen C/D are both powered by the GE F404 engine, with dry thrust of 54 kN,

LCA has an empty weight of 6560 kgs and a loaded weight (full internal fuel tank) of 9500 kg.
Gripen has an empty weight of 6800 kg and a loaded weight of 8500 kg.

So it seems that the LCA is indeed lighter than the Gripen and has the same engine. So, the LCA has definitely better thrust/ weight ratio than the Gripen - right?
As for the Mirage 2000 vs the LCA, if you care to do the calculations for the two (half tank fuel and full weapons load) the thrust/ weight ratio comes to 0.88 for mirages and 0.87 for the LCA. So, what difference exactly were you talking about?

More later.

These specs aren't the only criteria. There are other standards like inlet design, wing design weight distribution etc which plays a part in determining the nature of the engine's thrust. Beyond that there are other external aspects like take off height and ambient temperature.

The Gripen has a better design. The Mirage-2000 had adequate thrust for it's time and does well in India. The LCA, not so much.

Other than that you are relying on ADA's brochure for LCA's specs.

Apart from that Gripen is being flown in a colder climate as compared to the hotter climate in South India. Higher the temperature, worse is the performance.

 

[p2prada]

I think the project still has much relevance.

Despite what people may claim , the Rafale is not replacing the Mig-21. Numerically speaking it makes up for numbers lost due to Mig-21 retirement. However Rafale mission profile is much expanded on the Mig-21 with each sortie much more expensive. While they can perform the Mig-21 Mission profile it is not ideal.

If you are referring to me then you missed my posts in the MRCA thread. Rafale is meant to replace Mig-27s.

IAF wants a mature a Production ready Tejas , why would they not ?
What they don't want is an unfinished product inducted and then delayed on upgrades and improvements. While they pay for and service squadron not combat ready. The Day tejas meets IAF requirements is the day it will be ready for export.

I don't think Tejas is being readied for export. There won't be any if IAF does not buy beyond the 40 orders placed. In that 20 will have limited capabilities. Meaning there won't be a technology road map for the future. IAF may end up scrapping the jets when it comes up for MLUs.

An order for 83 more is guaranteed looking at the F-414 order. The Mk2 is a paper plane as of today.

Kaveri may be setback , but Tejas still comes with Astra and mostly local parts, IAF will have more control over this aircraft than any other.

Tejas is coming with Derby. Anyway the IAF has more control over MKI. There are some clauses with Russia which forces IAF to buy some spares from them. I guess this has an expiry date. It's good enough for peace time. During war time we can override these clauses anyway.

Tejas with the GE F414 engine, will be under lesser Indian control. With Kaveri, things will change, but that is far into the future.

 

[Tshering22]

What has Uncle Sam go to do with it? The sanctions? It was a small hindrance - not the major cause of delay.

Sanctions from 1998 to a few years back. Count it.

It was the main cause of the delays. The ADA team was there in Boeing office with the consulting department when the sanctions were put. On announcement, the team was forced to leave all their study and were not even allowed to take their own work back. Imagine all the research done was simply left to the Boeing offices!!! The ADA chief himself mentioned that who's heading LCA program.

I can't remember the date but there was a fine interview by the man and he mentioned there that they had to come back and rely on their rough work to start from scratch all over again to get Tejas back.

Question: Why do you think our officials don't trust US even now with strategic weapons?

Answer: It is not because of what they do to Pakistan, Iraq or Iran; but what they've done in the past with us.

The major cause of delay were the following -

1. GoI not putting up enough funds.

R&D at a time when the economy was in dumps. Yeah right...you do remember the crappy times in 90s don't you? We opened our economy in 1991 but its effect started only in 2000 and onwards.

2. Lack of R&D brains and infrastructure (some of it we could have imported, the rest can only come with enough time).

Partly agree. We should have requested Russian and ex-Soviet scientists to work on this as Chinese had "indigenized" in 90s with importing Soviet unemployed scientists to help them in their programs. But China had a 13 year lead and were already in the position that we are today in early 90s.
So they could afford while we simply couldn't.

3. Lack of political will to "push" and IAF "pull".

IAF is to be blamed for this. Rather than chairing the entire program, they were playing the role of a snobbish girlfriend, coming in and out of the program from time to time. Their lack of decision making, poor planning and lack of maturity to accept and freeze their requirements is what caused ADA to keep swinging from one requirement to another from time to time.

Let's face it; politicians ain't supposed to fly the jets. IAF is. So when the top clearance had been given by the government, IAF didn't seize the opportunity to chair and let the program mature fast enough properly jumping from one requirement to another. While Chinese froze their base requirements and upgraded their J-10s in batches and over a set time period.

This is the sole difference. Tejas' delay is 95% IAF's fault.

IAF's leadership upto 2006 was a pathetic joke.

They wanted an F-22, a MiG-29, a Mirage 2000 and a Su-25 all in one jet with a shoestring budget!!


Had the ACMs then been serious, Tejas would have been already in the midst of its induction timeframe and successfully working in IAF by now.

 

[SpArK]

@Spark

LRDE is handling the radar and only GTRE has the facilities to design and test an engine. HAL only manufactures and overhauls. They cannot design. The LCA has LRDE's radar on it with the 2032's processor.

These observations were not by me, but by RTA project adviser of HAL chief designer A.K sood and Rajkumar P, Air marshal made in the exclusive report on LCA i read some time back in The Week with title " on our own wings".

Well HAL engine facility has more experiance in repairs, overhauling, manufacturing,, repairing engines like Artouste, garett , adour, gnome, orpheus etc etc... GTRE may have facilities and we have seen what they did and how they did and when they did..

 

[p2prada]

This is the sole difference. Tejas' delay is 95% IAF's fault.

Will you blame the people because Nokia came out with a sh!tty product? Will you blame the people if the Nano catches fire every now and then. It is purely DRDO's fault for being hopeless.

IAF's leadership upto 2006 was a pathetic joke.

IAF is doing nothing even now. They are the users, they post requirements and ask the company to deliver. The company cannot even deliver IAF's 1983 ASQR, how do you think they will deliver now?

There is nothing IAF can say or do to make ADA work as required unless you hand over ADA to IAF.

They wanted an F-22, a MiG-29, a Mirage 2000 and a Su-25 all in one jet with a shoestring budget!!

But Saab did. Heck the Russians wanted one like LCA and they stopped like 2 decades ago because the requirement does not exist for them. Check the Mig-33.

Had the ACMs then been serious, Tejas would have been already in the midst of its induction timeframe and successfully working in IAF by now.

The dung heap on this side is as green as the grass on the other side of the fence. Tejas's failure has nothing to do with IAF.

 

[p2prada]

These observations were not by me, but by RTA project adviser of HAL chief designer A.K sood and Rajkumar P, Air marshal made in the exclusive report on LCA i read some time back in The Week with title " on our own wings".

Well HAL engine facility has more experiance in repairs, overhauling, manufacturing,, repairing engines like Artouste, garett , adour, gnome, orpheus etc etc... GTRE may have facilities and we have seen what they did and how they did and when they did..

When was this? 2004 or 2007? Seems like they are trying to sell HAL rather than point out program deficiencies.

HAL has no expertise on designing engines. Looks like they are just trying to attract govt funding to setup a design facility in HAL. Waste of time considering our resources. GTRE is the primary company for Kaveri II anyway.

 

[SpArK]

When was this? 2004 or 2007? Seems like they are trying to sell HAL rather than point out program deficiencies.

HAL has no expertise on designing engines. Looks like they are just trying to attract govt funding to setup a design facility in HAL. Waste of time considering our resources. GTRE is the primary company for Kaveri II anyway.

And GTRE had experience with Engine Designing's ???:shocked:\

Atleast the HAL division has years of experience with blue prints of the manufacturing engines.

Its a seperate wing, hence no additional resources are required.

Many products are dormant and the facility could have been upgraded.


Welcome to HAL - Engine Division

http://www.hal-india.com/IMGT/products.asp

Welcome to Engine Division of HAL

 

[p2prada]

And GTRE had experience with Engine Designing's ???:shocked:\

Sure they did. Much more than HAL did.

They built a GTX 37-14U demonstrator in 1981 to get the Kaveri project in 1989.

Before that was their first turbojet in the 60s and worked on redesigning the Orpheus engines for Marut.

HAL does not have the facilities required to design engines like GTRE does.

Even the R&D manpower is located in GTRE, not HAL.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

GTRE is like 5 minutes drive from HAL airport, it does not matter. They both are located in the same road.