More jingos coming up by the day.
Jingos are folks like you with avatars of video game characters, who spam every thread with opinionated junk. If serious folks who actually track these programs had more time, people like you would be hiding beneath your beds instead of gassing about topics you have next to no idea about...
Open your eyes, the LCAs full gamut of capabilities hasn't even been opened up. We don't even know how the aircraft performed in the wake penetration tests.
Heh, and who said different, kid. Thats the entire reason why the IAF has the IOC and FOC mapped out with ADA & HAL. And don't even throw jargon like wake penetration tests etc about, you have no idea what that means bar googled up stuff & stuff you pick up from other forums.
Have you even spoken to any IAF or developer personnel about the wake penetration tests & their overall schedule & the like? Given your posts on this & other topics, where you lap up everything anybody writes, whether it be idiots like Sengupta, its fairly clear to me that your extent of knowledge lies in repeating jargon. Take for instance, below...
You say I am BSing but the very fact that LCA has been in development for 20 years when all contemporary fighters of its class was inducted in 15 years and lesser, including the JF-17.
I say you are BS'ing because its too obvious & because most of your opinions are just that, backed with anything but facts but with an unhealthy dose of rhetoric assuming that most folks won't see through 'em.
Take for instance "contemporary fighters" when the "contemporary fighters" you quote are anything but contemporary.
If anything says that you are BS'ing, its this. The JF-17 is nowhere near as complex as the LCA is, the LCA has a full quad FBW, a more integrated avionics system, including BBW and incorporates systems deliberately chosen locally to develop local capabilities.
Your silliness in terms of timeline comparison also ignores the deliberate decision by the LCA team to develop systems locally, so as to develop a local industry, as versus those which just system integrated with liberal dollops of foreign assistance which was never under sanctions. Your statements are akin to saying the Gripen is a better program than the EF or Rafale, because the former piggybacked on more established system providers from the US, than develop key systems themselves as the latter programs spent their effort on, which was the entire point.
As matter of fact, at a seminar a year or so back, nobody even mentioned the JF-17 as a LCA contemporary. One IAF officer referred to it as a replacement for their Mirage 3/5s and that was about it. NAK Browne went on record to the media saying the LCA was superior.
Furthermore, the JF-17 is nothing but a ba$tard child of the Grumman Suber Saber-II project supplanted by the single seat variant offered by MiG in lieu of the LCA, the MiG-33 as it was then called, which was then marketed to China which quickly adopted it as the JF-17. Go pick up any Brasseys or Janes from the late 80's to learn more about these programs.
Its more of a Russian design, which the Chinese as usual, reconfigured, using second grade systems to speed up development.
No tier 1 AF like the IAF would depend on it for its frontline. The PAF dont have an option, so they are using it, and its a sight better than their increasingly ancient Mirage 3/5 fleet and at least offers some multirole capability withing a single platform.
The Chinese themselves wouldn't touch it with a bargepole for the PLAAF and elected to go for the J-10, which hype apart, is finally shaping up into a proper jet in its latest variant. Bottomline, comparing the joke that is the JF-17, a design which uses technologies and systems no nation is willing to use for its frontline fleet today, says it all about your standard for "development time"..good luck in trying to sell that to the IAF.
The facts on ground are very very very different from facts on paper. The Su-30MKI was a later development as compared to the LCA. It went through the same tests including wake penetration tests that LCA has gone through. It went through a much more radical avionics integration and a much more rigorous testing phase. And I see a 140 odd MKIs and barely 2 LCAs in the IAF.
Oh please, quit with jargon about which you have no idea. Go on tell us, when exactly the Su-30 MKI went through wake penetration tests. Give me the exact date. Its fairly clear to me that you are clutching at straws for sheer "oh I know something of value" ..let me try and throw it about. "ah LCA hasnt gone through it yet, so it'll make a good point for me to somehow salvage my argument".. you wouldnt even know about wake penetration but for AWST mentioning it.
Get to the point, where as usual you flubbed, when trying to insinuate the Su-30 MKI was somehow a later development than the LCA.
For your information, the Su-30 MKI is a second derivative of the Flanker's trainer variant intended for long range air combat tasks - the Su-30 MK, in turn with a beefed up airframe for A2G and avionics taken directly off the then Su-35, when the IAF asked the Russians to do so.
Krishnaswamy was placed in charge of the program, after his experience with ASTE, and IAF's EW efforts which gave him a good exposure to flight testing. Even so, the Su-30 MKI program went through myriad delays. The program was delayed twice, and finally the IAF even signed off on replacing the entire original program with one in which a few airframes would be delivered in Phases 1, 2 and 3 with the 3 being definitive. Even that was delayed, with the first MK1 planes coming a few years later than originally agreed on.
This is what happened when an existing, very mature design, the Su-27 Flanker, was customized to a two seat variant, and already in development systems, already flying on a demonstrator and demo'ing credible results - the exact reason why they were chosen, were finally asked to be operationalized into another derivative.
In contrast, the LCA is developing a fighter from the ground up, with no base airframe to base it off of, or even work in progress systems to adapt.
Yet, they have succeeded, and that too with a fraction of the budget the former soviet union put into the flanker, and then the super flanker derivatives (which india's su-30 mki program piggybacked off, including the N011M Bars and the AL-31 FP plus the triplane layout) and are improving it further, to the degree that the current LCA bears little relation to the limited point defense fighter originally planned circa 1983-85.
Net, you have NO idea about the real world apart from internet posturing about "jingos". If you had any clue about aerospace in general & how tough developmental programs are, let alone the LCA program or even the details of the Su-30 MKI program, and the repeated timelines it missed, you would not have done the open foot insert mouth routine you just did. Congrats!
The F-35 has been delayed, but I don't see LM making excuses like ADA has been over the last 20 years including making false and exaggerated promises. The last I heard LCA was supposed to have flight tested the Kaveri in 2009.
Goodness, which rock have you been under? LM not making excuses?
For the last decade, LM has been making increasingly off the moon statements regarding the JSF & the program is now regarded as so overbudget, that several USAF & USN officers went on record asking for LM to be more rational. John Mc Cain moved a proposal just a few weeks back asking for it to be cancelled. This is in the US, where a few billion here or there, does not even breach budget lines & the congressionally mandated oversight line, given overall budget amounts.
Here, is the latest on the JSF, one in a long line of "oops, my bad".
A Billion Here, A Billion There
Boeing Calls Lockheed Martin On Cost Claims
F-35: Dodging One Bullet, Taking Another.
GAO Discloses New JSF Stealth Problems
Coming to ADA, i'd ask you, if it wasnt such a waste of time, to get your valued self over to Tarmak and read up on what making a frontline fighter entails within Indian resource constraints, especially the FBW. ADA making "excuses" - yeah, when it comes to actual developmental challenges, each time the customer changes specs or the nation takes a strategic call on n-tests and hence their carefully planned activities get thrown out totally, and they come under sanctions. Not only are you unaware of even the most basic of things ADA has had to face and overcome, you are sanguine about it.
Coming to the Kaveri, are you even aware that India is one of the few nations to couple a jet engine program to a developmental program, and that jet engine manufacture is the work of decades. For your information, since you clearly are not bothered about it, a US rep estimated a program such as Kaveri should be funded at $6Bn + since it was a first effort and could not leverage prior tech - to begin with - this was at an industry seminar in 2003. To date, the program has taken a third of the amount, even lesser. The rep went on to note, operationalization, would take up another $2Bn or even more. There are no shortcuts here, irrespective of how much you complain. Its something the MOD is now realizing, and funding accordingly, hence the tie up with Safran. Which company made it clear to the MOD in 2005 itself, that the amounts they had earmarked for the program were laughable and would not in anywhich way sustain a cooperation.
All the LCA has done is fly around like a bus and always arrive late. Once the FBW limiters are removed, that is when the real test happens. Right now we are in the period which can make or break the aircraft. The Mk1 is an accepted fail aircraft
What absolute silliness, and you think this passes for an educated argument? I think if anybody here on this forum had any doubts whatsoever, that you have next to no understanding of what the LCA is, or how test flying is done, or even what FBW is, the above post just shows you for what you are, a complete and total timepass'er.
For your kind information, the LCA is pulling manouevers, exactly as per the test regimen, charted out by the IAF & ADA. This is a FIRST for the IAF, and ASTE, which is why it takes time since even they have to consult with their peers about what exactly to test for and why. The ADA erring on the side of caution, tested for everything, to the point now they and the IAF are fairly sure about the aircraft & are hence willing to take the word of consultants on only hitting the limited test points their peers in the Boeing, EADS et al programs did.It has nothing to do with FBW "limiters" or some horse blankers which in prada or guccis world make the difference!
Remove the FBW "limiters" it seems, when the aircraft, uses control gain laws which are iteratively opened up after every flight and have been so for the past several years! Clearly, you have no idea ofthe testing process wherein you think the aircraft magically got to its current IOC via some handwave, and now some magic "limiters" are to be removed and it "will decide things". The test process now will proceed exactly as it has done so far, in an iterative manner, the same process that has been used so far will be done, there is no difference, apart from the fact the flying will be more and more optimized for its exploitation as a weapons platform as versus development.
And regards MK1 being a fail, its as much of a "fail" as the Tranche 1 Typhoons which are to be retired because better Tranche 2,3A ones are coming on line. If you had any idea of the IAF or even systems in general, you'd realize the LCA MK1,offers more than the bulk of the the IAF fleet today bar the MKIs and 29s and Mirages. As matter of fact, it offers more payload options, range and sensor capability than the Bisons and the 27's and until the Jaguars are reengined, medium alt capability as well. Which is why the IAF asked for a second squadron of the type, instead of capping it at the LSP run itself and asking for a MK2 thereafter.
. The Mk2 isn't proven to be a fail as of today, but we will see what happens only between 2016 and 2018. 2016 is when Mk2 will receive IOC and 2018 is when Mk2 will receive FOC. That's 5 years from now. The LCA Mk2 is being planned to just barely surpass ASR as told by ADA. Its only going to be more optimized for flying.
The amount of "fail" thats in the above text deserves an icon for its own.
You have no idea of whats on the MK2 and as planned whether it will just barely surpass ASR, as matter of fact, given your lack of knowledge on the LCA - I doubt whether you even have an idea about what how demanding the current LCA ASR are and how they were drawn up and based on what baseline platforms as comparators.
For your information, even achieving a part of the current LCA ASRs would make the MK1 a very potent platform. Per KH(2001, when he wrote about Airframe considerations for the LCA) - the LCA ASRs were drawn up with a direct eye on the lightest variants of the MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and F-16 to be achieved in the form factor of the MiG-21. They were and are incredibly ambitious. That apart, you have no clue of the MK2 either. If you did, you'd realize that its surpassed the ASRs in terms of several key onboard systems a while back, and that the original ASRs are being revised to take that into account as well.
The Mig-21 was always an interceptor and the LCA is just a replacement for the Mig-21.
Yeah, thats why we have lost pilots to disorientation while practising tank busting, which is why the 21s carry dumb bombs and rocket pods, and the Bison carries a KAB-500. The amount of ignorance that is in your posts, is unbelievable...
The LCA was designed for high altitude interception from the start. It's just that after years of delay, the LCA requirement changed from interceptor to an all weather multirole aircraft with air superiority ingrained in it.
Clear ignorance sought to be passed off as some wisdom again...
What high altitude interception, kid? The PAF had some gee whiz high altitude fighters we had to intercept, is that it? The IAF asked circa 1980, for the LCA to be a lightweight WVR fighter, able to take on ALL the responsibilities of the MiG-21, which meant combat at usual alt - from the ground level upto middle levels, AND secondary ground attack, which depending on circumstances could become the primary role as well. Go look up where combat between the IAF & PAF occurred, including Mervyn Middlecoats intercept & how many of them were "high alt". You just throw about rubbish jargon for the heck of it, whom exactly are you kidding or impressing?
The secondary only referred to the fact that it would not incorporate specific GA aircraft attributes, like armoured seating, laser range finders etc. But it would be perfectly capable of deploying iron bombs, rockets and strafing ground targets. This was during Idris Hassan Latifs time. This "simple" concept metamorphosed into the LCA during the mid-late 80's when AHQ got fully involved at the time, with the requirements generation. They took a look at their latest acquisitions, the Mirage 2000 & MiG-29 and asked that the LCA be capable of doing all these two types could, but WITHIN the form factor of the MiG-21 since existing tactical bases throughout WAC were designed around the MiG-21, including HAS and fuel stocks, aircraft aprons etc. That is when the LCA became a multirole fighter. In 1997, the GOI finally sanctioned the MMR project, since it said had funds - it didnt - again, with A2G modes included. Bottomline, you have no idea about the LCA. Its been asked to be multirole for a long while & that too, to an extent some of its peers werent. The MiG--29 for instance, had barely adequate A2A modes, let alone A2G. Today, the IAF has added more stuff to the LCA, including an integral EW suite, an IFR capability (which was only projected as a growth requirement by ADA) and asked for more, including OBOGS, which prior to the MKI was a USP of the Mirage 2000 fleet.
But that has however not happened. The LCA is nowhere as compared to the Gripen C/D and when I say nowhere I mean nowhere. So, what the IAF was looking for was a Mirage-2000, but all they got was a Mig-21. The ACM's remarks about LCA being a MIg-21++ fighter was just that. The aircraft cannot do anything more than interception with much more advanced avionics, which is of little use now. Now if the ACM suddenly says, "yes the aircraft is a Mirage-2000+," that's when the aircraft passes.
Again, more ignorance & opinion passed off as some wisdom...seriously, do you have an idea about anything?
The Gripen C/D which you so tout has taken a decade plus to get to today, and for a comprehensive overhaul of its systems, they have to do a MK2 as with the LCA, and come up with the E/F which they are marketing as the E/F. Coming to the MiG-21++ versus Mirage 2000+, I'd sure like to have what you are smoking.
Do you even understand what the IAF benchmark is? Its now the Su-30 MKI. It has freaking a 8T warload versus the 4 planned by design for the LCA. The LCA is a L-CA. Hold onto the L. It was designed to be a MiG-21++, not a Mirage 2000++ or the like. The IAF intends to have 3 classes of aircraft, the L, the M, the H, each corresponding to weight (surprise!). The L aka light category will be made up by the LCAs, the M by the upgrades, and thereafter the MMRCAs (which replace the already retired MiG-23Bns and MFs and some of the upgrades) and then the AMCAs, and the H, the Heavy with the Sukhois, both the MKI and FGFA. Net, you are way off base thinking the LCA will be a Mirage 2000+, when thats not even its role. The IAF Chief called it exactly what it was, and what it was meant to be. Fanboys & half baked journos, had a coronary thinking it to a slur. Now that he has clarified what he means, you can't even begin to accept it and will deliberately misquote him & go to the extent of twisting his words. Brilliant!
Coming to only interception with advanced avionics, that just betrays, yet again, how utterly clueless you are, about things IAF & the LCAs systems. The LCA MK1 has Litening integration, a MMR with A2G modes including AGR, DBS & LGB/Dumb bomb/OFAB/rocket pod/strafing capability. Yeah, ADA did this for giggles.
For the MK1 itself, the IAF has asked for Air to surface missile integration as well. With the ELTA EL/L-8222 it can as are the current MiG-27s, also do a EW role in jamming radars. Not only do you not know this, you harp on avionics, when if you knew about the avionics you'd know this to begin with.
Being jingos is great, but there is a time and place for it.
Dude, kids like you are jingos..grow up. You seem to think that having made yourself some place on this forum, you can get away with BS'ing to all and sundry. Trust me, try this outside, and you'll get shown up real fast. It took me three minutes to read through your posts and realize the extent of your so called knowledge and that you have NO idea of what you are generally talking about....
The LCA is a good plane, no doubt after all we built it and not the Chinese. But find the same pilots you have asked questions about the LCA and ask them to compare the Gripen with it and you will only get diplomatic answers. The answer will amount to, "Gripen is great for it's role while LCA is great for it's role." Funnily enough the Gripen and LCA's roles are supposed to be the same. IAF clearly lists the LCA as a point defence and interceptor. But the MRCA pilots who tested the Gripen claim the C/D version already fits the MRCA requirements.
Given that you have had no interaction with any of the LCA test crew (if you had, you'd not be so ignorant of even the basics) stop throwing bunk around about "we built it and not the chinese". As if anybody cares and that is a deciding factor!
Fact is the LCA has faced far more challenges than the Gripen, which never faced sanctions from good old Uncle Sam, who handed over avionics tech, systems, and even the Ge404 to Volvo Flygmotor to customize and call their own. Rockwell collins, Moog - all their systems on the Gripen, no questions asked.
In contrast, the LCA team were hit with every sanction under the book, every technique was used to block import of aero grade components - including the MTCR, and yet they persevered and have a flying fighter today which has achieved IOC and will achieve FOC and which is meeting a very demanding customers requirements, which is why the Air Chief praised it.
And no, if you had any idea about the MMRCA - you'd realize the Gripen C/D nowhere meets MRCA requirements. The Swedes showed the Gripen demo to India and put on a good song and dance show about how it would meet the MRCA reqs. The IAF smiled at them, and shortlisted the EF & Rafale, enough said.
The ACM has been consistently sarcastic about LCA since the IOC function.
Yet another example of you BS'ing away to glory. The ACM has gone on public record praising the aircraft, multiple IAF leaders have gone on record praising it, the ACM quotes his own test crew in support of his opinion. Your twisting his words in order to save your face won't work ...
That's not changed. I love my country, but that does not meant I am going to bend over backwards and kiss my azz every time there is a discussion about LCA. The aircraft has not fulfilled it's role and it's very very late. That's the whole truth of it.
Heh, who cares whether you love your country or not. Its clear that what you really love is your ego. Its not that the LCA is late or whether its fulfilled its role - which clearly you have no idea about, what you love is your somehow not admit you were wrong...
For that you'll kiss your "azz" or even make sh!te up about the ACM, as you just did. The ACM has gone on record on a public program praising the LCA and stating that he is willing to order many squadrons of the type now, which speaks well for him and the program, that its meeting requirements.
And we have you, shameless as heck, willing to lie about him, trying to misquote him and even run down a national program in turn, just so that you can somehow, somehow win an argument.
What speaks volumes about you in comparison, is that you are willing to deliberately misquote him and try to run down the program just to pander to your ego, because you cant be seen to be wrong. Patriotism my "azz", its all about trying to disguise your own stupidity and trying to retain your face in this corner of the internet where you feel posturing can help you get away with it.
Disgraceful.
