ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Rahul Singh]

Sustained Turn-Rate Not Possible, AoA Needs Improvement....

What, please elaborate it. AFAIK sustained turn rate is a complex term. Sometime it means loosing no speed during turn, sometime it means repeated turns without stalling and ideally it means not reaching stall speed while doing certain 'g' turn with 'xyz' combat load. Which among these?

BTW ADA is already in process of improving STR by reducing drag and improving lift. All without help from new engine. Expect all these improvements by FOC.

Nose cone extension using a Plug: The major component of drag at higher speed is the wave drag. This can be minimized by following the Whitcomb's Area rule for the aerodynamic configuration design. The cross sectional area variation of LCA along the length of fuselage is shown in figure. Between station X = 5000mm & 6000mm there is a sudden increase in area. By smoothing this sudden rise, the wave drag can be minimized. A possible solution proposed is the extension of nose cone by introducing a Plug. The detailed analysis of this design and its implementation plan is being worked out.

Sustained Turn Rate Improvement using Levcon :- Leading Edge Controller (Levcon) is an secondary control surface located at the leading edge of the wing and the fuselage. The Levcon is initially planned in LCA Navy for the low landing speed capability and other cruise performance. An important requirement of a fighter aircraft is the Sustained Turn Rate (STR). The fighter variant of Tejas is not meeting the STR requirement of ASR. The STR is a strong function of the aerodynamic efficiency. From the wind tunnel results it was found that the Levcon produce higher L/D(see graph below) . A detailed study to implement Levcon in fighter and identification of other design constraints is under progress.

 

[icecoolben]

If IAF was just looking for a 4th generation stamp, ADA should have taken a mig-21 and made it a technology demonstrator for fly by wire, then ask HAL to produce fly by wire 4th gen mig-21 2000 to repace 400+ 3rd generation mig-21 in service, 4th generation mig-21 replacing 3rd generation ones perfect right?

ADA's growth path should be looking at developing fifth generation fly by light equipped, RAM coated mig-21 3000 to replace JAguar and mig-27, AMCA development takes so much time and money?

we might even beat the chinese in the export market(for outdated mig-21 fighters) !

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Has the LCA really served its purpose?​

Former DRDO chief and ex-scientific advisor to defence minister VK Aatre had once said when questioned about delays in the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas' Kaveri engine project: "We are a country which has not even manufactured our own car engine; here we are trying to develop an engine for a fighter aircraft!"

The same applies to the development of LCA Tejas, the first fighter aircraft ever to be developed by India to reach initial operational clearance. The one before this was the Marut, which faced severe problems and the project had to be shelved in 1970 after the crash during a test sortie precisely 40 years ago flown by Group Captain Suranjan Das, who was killed.

LCA Tejas now has to meet the Air Staff requirement of the Indian Air Force (IAF), the final user of Tejas.

But with the background of Air Chief PV Naik's critical remarks during the granting of the initial operational clearance (IOC) to Tejas on Monday about the LCA being just a 3 or 3.5 generation aircraft when it was actually supposed to be developed as a fourth generation one, exposes IAF's dissatisfaction with LCA's development.

It raises a question: Has LCA Tejas actually served its purpose; or will it be outdated by the time it is finally cleared for combat operations with the IAF?

For one, the final operational clearance (FOC) for LCA Tejas has been delayed by two years instead of within the next three months, as expected by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists. The reason is IAF's insistence that the fighter aircraft achieve complete fourth generation aircraft status at a time when some countries are already engaged in developing a fifth generation fighter.

LCA Tejas is considered to be the lightest and the smallest fighter aircraft in the world, integrating modern design concepts and the state-of-the-art technologies like fly-by-wire flight control system, advanced digital cockpit, multi-mode radar, integrated digital avionics system, advanced composite material structures and a flat rated engine.

But the 100% indigenous element, which was the matter of pride when the project was conceived in 1983, has now come down to 60%. VK Saraswat, DRDO chief, in fact said complete indigenisation would instead end up with the per piece cost going up several times more than the present Rs180 crore apiece for LCA Tejas. He explained that trying to achieve complete indigenisation would involve cost escalations due to delays over testing, leading to the final price being well over the present price calculated with 40% foreign components for the aircraft.

So, not only has the LCA project not achieved complete indigenisation; it has not been able to deliver itself as a fourth generation fighter aircraft to satisfy the IAF top brass.



Where does that leave the LCA Tejas programme?



The plan to have an indigenously developed light combat aircraft came in the background of not-so-pleasant circumstances for the IAF.
IAF's combat force level was expected to decline sharply in the 1990s and beyond due to phasing out of the then existing ageing aircraft. In 1981, the Long Term Re-Equipment Plan (LTREP) projected a shortage of 11.4% squadrons by 1990-91 and 40% by 1994-95. The position beyond 1995 was expected to be worse.


This deficiency in combat force levels and the gap in indigenous design and development capability in the global aeronautical field was planned to be filled through the development of an advanced multi-role LCA.


That's how the LCA programme was conceived in 1983 and formally launched two years later.
The subsequent aim of the LCA, to begin with, was to replace the ageing MiG-21s, the workhorse of the IAF which have been questionably termed as the "flying coffins" due to a series of crashes over the last two decades.


M Natarajan, former director general, DRDO, had said in August 2008 "When we draw a road map, we see a medium combat aircraft, a multi-role combat aircraft with fifth generation technologies, where there can be commonality of parts with LCA in avionics or radar, and eventually, 15 years from now (2023), building an unmanned aerial combat vehicle (UACV). So, if one looks at just this spectrum of vehicles, five in number, I see a good potential to build altogether about 1,000 aircraft over a period of time. The LCA could be 400 in number for the IAF, 100 for the Navy; the trainer could be 150; the medium combat aircraft 250; and 100-150 for the UACVs."


But the teething problems with India's first almost-complete fighter aircraft are now showing with LCA Tejas now set to be tested by IAF pilots post-IOC and until the FOC is granted. There are bound to be several more correctional demands from IAF's side for DRDO scientists to meet before IAF decides that FOC be granted for the fighter aircraft to join operational duty with the force.

How long that would take, only time and IAF's needs would tell.



http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_has-the-lca-really-served-its-purpose_1493113

This only really takes the cake. oh man!!! you have really hammered home the point. I say get the mark 2 off the ground in 12 months. Or else stop wasting tax payer's money.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Beacuse XYZ took 3 years is it necessary we must too considering they don't have china and pakis pissing at their front door? We took 27 years for mark 1 why don't they follow suit from now on? There cannot be any more excuses. Close down the program if Mark 2 does not hit the sky in 12 months. Stop wasting tax payers money.

Not necessarly that is why ADA is doing it in 2 years, cheers! Regardless of demand a baby takes birth only in 9 months not 4. 12 months to fully reloaded fighter give me break. In 12 month time GE is not even delivering first F-414 INS6.

LCA program in fact saved much more money and would keep doing progressively in years to come. Tax payer know this that is why defense minister has confidence to say "funding no problem".

 

[icecoolben]

@ vijay

lol, I too would like to take the mk-2 off in 12 months, may be even less. But the first lot of eight engines will only be delivered by early 2014, it should take atleast bench testing of x000 hours and fly by wire flight testing of 200 hours on atleast two- four aircrafts to certify it for production. we can't ask GE to deliver the in-production engines because they are meant for twin-engined F-18. Our version in F414 INS6 which is being designed for Indian conditions and a single engined fighter, specific components will have to be procured from manufacturers accross the United States, somtimes even Europe and Australia. If u even put an MMRCA contender like F-16 here, not customised for Indian conditions, it would falter like T-90. LCA mk-1/Mk-2 outdoing the aircraft in future comparative trials and Ajai Shukla publishing "Tejas out fires, out manouvers F-16" would be a fiasco for Air Force, so they are entertaining platforms they never needed, but just want for the sake of not inducting tejas on a large scale. Ironically most tof them still need extensive modification to fit IAF demands.

First the motto "touch the sky with glory" should be changed to something professional.Its like "a little girl dreaming of borrowing down the rabbit hole and ending up in lollipop land"

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Not necessarly that is why ADA is doing it in 2 years, cheers! Regardless of demand a baby takes birth only in 9 months not 4. 12 months to fully reloaded fighter give me break. In 12 month time GE is not even delivering first F-414 INS6.

LCA program in fact saved much more money and would keep doing progressively in years to come. Tax payer know this that is why defense minister has confidence to say "funding no problem".

Sorry no more excuses no more time delays and no more hanky panky. if India wants India can deliver. We delievered CWG in 8 weeks when Ms. Dixit and Mr. Singh woke up ,we delievered the metro rail well before dead line with 0% corruption,We have a sehwag who is amongst top 3 batsmen in the world who plays cricket without moving his feet-----

Get serious and be intent on delivering and remember there are no more sanctions.Mark 2 in 2016 will never be a reality going by current record. I speak with reservations. I await LSP -6 performance parameters. Work beyond expectations make it a project of national improtance. get mark 2 off the ground in 1 year or else stop wasting tax payers money. IAF must not accept mark 1 but give all the help ADA needs. Stop Mark 1 in its tracks and move over to Mark 2.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

@ vijay

lol, I too would like to take the mk-2 off in 12 months, may be even less. But the first lot of eight engines will only be delivered by early 2014, it should take atleast bench testing of x000 hours and fly by wire flight testing of 200 hours on atleast two- four aircrafts to certify it for production. we can't ask GE to deliver the in-production engines because they are meant for twin-engined F-18. Our version in F414 INS6 which is being designed for Indian conditions and a single engined fighter, specific components will have to be procured from manufacturers accross the United States, somtimes even Europe and Australia. If u even put an MMRCA contender like F-16 here, not customised for Indian conditions, it would falter like T-90. LCA mk-1/Mk-2 outdoing the aircraft in future comparative trials and Ajai Shukla publishing "Tejas out fires, out manouvers F-16" would be a fiasco for Air Force, so they are entertaining platforms they never needed, but just want for the sake of not inducting tejas on a large scale. Ironically most tof them still need extensive modification to fit IAF demands.

First the motto "touch the sky with glory" should be changed to something professional.Its like "a little girl dreaming of borrowing down the rabbit hole and ending up in lollipop land"

Icecool !!! You think GE will not have one F414 to spare. pick up the hotline come on one personal call at the highest level. You think it can't be done? You need 5 years after 27? It will only move at the rate people in India want it to move and that is why Tejas has suffered. 3 aunties here and 8 uncles there have toiled alone. You think GOI couldn't have reversed the trend overnight if there was a will?

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Icecool !!! You think GE will not have one F414 to spare. pick up the hotline come on one personal call at the highest level. You think it can't be done? You need 5 years after 27? It will only move at the rate people in India want it to move and that is why Tejas has suffered. 3 aunties here and 8 uncles there have toiled alone. You think GOI couldn't have reversed the trend overnight if there was a will?

There was ofcourse a time when things really had to go slow and ona cautios note to avaoid failures in testing which would have doomed the project. But Guys I don't think they must fear that anymore or hide behind that any longer. You really need to push this bird now. Even accept a crash if it comes to that. Toomuch money has been poured into it and you simply cannot ask for 5 more years to deliver the desired version and that too a pre induction one. Its crazy. People are so caught up with this thing of indigenisation--- at what cost and what time frame and to deliver what product? There has to be a balance. There has to be some pragmatism. This on going saga is insane.

 

[icecoolben]

The Indian government could fund a further development of f404 with technologies from f414 upgrades into developing a 90 kn engine perhaps called IN40 exclusively for us and induct 80 more mk-1 till 2016, but it will be unacceptable to IAF, they don't wan't any practical solutions. Namma oor pazhamozhi sonna "nan pudicha muyaluku moonu kalunu nikira service IAF"

 

[nitesh]

Why is this rona dhona still going on for LCA started in 1983? Those guys repeating tirelessly are trolls or what? When Dr. Kota Harinarayana has clearly stated the time lines and explained that the actual money was sanctioned in 1993 only (please refer to tarmac blog, I guess it was posted in previous threads also). These are the same guys who are dying to droll over EF, the plane which still has not fully certified (it was conceived in 1971 http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/aveuro.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon). And this ToI rant of over budget is getting erratic to say at least and those who are clinging to it is using it to create a straw man argument, and acting like salesman for foreign companies. Have they checked how much it takes to deliver globally?

There is again arguments getting repeated for delays, and enough references have been posted here, that why this has happened, does this program could have survived the crashes which has happened in other development programs? It is clarified by the people involved in the project that how the checked, rechecked and again rechecked, so that nothing goes wrong, and yes they given a plane which has flown flawlessly for 1500 flights.

Come on guys get over it, it is good to have criticism, but when it goes out of bounds and turns in to dragging down the product to satisfy personal ego, it's not healthy. Stop looking glass half empty, see glass half full .

IAF chief has said what he has to say regarding LCA, it has not got FOC so naturally tests have to be done. Nothing wrong about it, media is twisting it around like anything, we should be mature enough to understand what has been said.

Let's not forget the pilots who have praised LCA handling (check tarmac blog, for specific references he has done commendable work in putting every thing together).

Now again, let's not harp about engine and radars. The problems have been identified and being worked on.


Let's cherish the moment. Jai Hind

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[vijay jagannathan]

What, please elaborate it. AFAIK sustained turn rate is a complex term. Sometime it means loosing no speed during turn, sometime it means repeated turns without stalling and ideally it means not reaching stall speed while doing certain 'g' turn with 'xyz' combat load. Which among these?

BTW ADA is already in process of improving STR by reducing drag and improving lift. All without help from new engine. Expect all these improvements by FOC.

Nose cone extension using a Plug: The major component of drag at higher speed is the wave drag. This can be minimized by following the Whitcomb's Area rule for the aerodynamic configuration design. The cross sectional area variation of LCA along the length of fuselage is shown in figure. Between station X = 5000mm & 6000mm there is a sudden increase in area. By smoothing this sudden rise, the wave drag can be minimized. A possible solution proposed is the extension of nose cone by introducing a Plug. The detailed analysis of this design and its implementation plan is being worked out.

Sustained Turn Rate Improvement using Levcon :- Leading Edge Controller (Levcon) is an secondary control surface located at the leading edge of the wing and the fuselage. The Levcon is initially planned in LCA Navy for the low landing speed capability and other cruise performance. An important requirement of a fighter aircraft is the Sustained Turn Rate (STR). The fighter variant of Tejas is not meeting the STR requirement of ASR. The STR is a strong function of the aerodynamic efficiency. From the wind tunnel results it was found that the Levcon produce higher L/D(see graph below) . A detailed study to implement Levcon in fighter and identification of other design constraints is under progress.

You know there was this report of ISRO making some grand tech advancement for rockets using a special alloy coating on the nose cone to reduce drag by 40%. I dunno if this can be applied here. Hope they look into it though I dunno if it helps in this case

 

[icecoolben]

For one thing, LCA tejas will be 3000 % more indigenous than any transfer of technology will bring to the country. The reason is unlike the deep licence of su-30 mki, the shallow technology of mmrca and all the other licencing that had been done by HAL, in this programme the raw materials themselves are sourced from Indian suppliers who have licensed NAL technology to produce composites and sub system suppliers like samtel do pitch in as well. Perhaps this explains why HAL dhuruv is still 90 % foreign according to CAG report.
Despite their liking of advanced panoramic displays, the IAF lacks panoramic vision.

 

[p2prada]

These are still talk nothing is known for sure about MK-2 other than new engine and AESA MMR. Design optimization is sure thing but by how much, will it be radical, the question still don't have any official answer. Regardless, my point was MK-1 MLU = MK-2 and untill and unless MK-2 means new aircraft i would stick to my belief that it is every bit possible........ Lot of possibilities, lot of options its better we wait least till AI 11.

IAF has clearly asked for a decrease in unnecessary weight in the Mk1 and then increase the empty weight by 1 more ton on the Mk2. This will need obvious design changes. These changes will be exactly like the Gripen NG.

Now that's the problem of jingo's assumptions which can go wild and here in fact is one "LCA MK-2 = M-MRCA Tejas". We don't know for sure if IAF and ADA have any plan to develop a M-MRCA out of MK-2 program, do we? What if Mk-2 is just refined(airframe wise), re-equipped and re-engined version of MK-1 Tejas? At least timeline says it is exactly the case.

Then it will fall woefully short of any MMRCA fighter in contention. A fighter doing 24deg AOA will not beat anything in a turning match.

What's the point in developing a M-MRCA ignoring requirement for L-MRCA especially when IAF is already in process of buying M-MRCAs?

You got the concept wrong. Just because we are going for the MMRCA does not mean Tejas cannot become a MMRCA(if possible). The LMRCA concept was initially conceptualized to be ready by 1995 for induction. Now the IAF is looking for better options by adding China to the equation.

As far as i know Kaveri engine and fully indigenous MMR requirement is for AMCA not LCA MK-2.

Kaveri has been delinked from LCA. But the Kaveri is scheduled to be used on LCA in 5 years as per the directors recent comments. Also indigenous MMR is a requirement on the LCA Mk2. It was supposed to to be the Israel/Indian AESA to be ready in the 2012-14 period.

Either way nothing disappointing here. T/R module for X Band AESA is not developed in days it requires lot of time and twice more investment. Seeing small time frame LRDE was wise enough to go for hybrid AESA comprising rest of MMR with sourced T/R panel and processor.

Sure. Take your time. I am not disappointed by our radar development program. I am only disappointed by DRDO's and GOI's attempts at shoving aircraft and tanks that do not match requirements into the services throats.

Why Gripen, when in two years MK-1 will be quite capable workhorse allowing H-MRCAs and M-MRCAs(upgraded Mig-29s and Mirage-2000-9) to concentrate on their required role, all at considerably lower price than C/D? And by 2016 MK-2 will take that role and help newer M-MRCAs and MKIs.

That's the plan. Then deliver it. All I see is HAL and ADA only talking.

Especially not combat payload and range wise. Size matters. Big is good somewhere, small is good somewhere both are not equally good everywhere.

By this logic we should never buy any new at all and keep upgrading only.

Then both statements back induction of foreign MMRCAs.

Jaguars will become completely obsolete by time Mk-1 gets FOC. Jaguar doesn't offer any advantage when compared to MK-1. Re-engining Jaguar during up gradation is something IAF should drop and should also say no to new Jaguars. What to do with that infrastructure which adds relatively no value to combat capability?

You are kidding right. We had 6 Jaguars taking out an American aircraft carrier in the Malabar exercises, that's no joke. Jaguars are proven platforms. LCA is not. It is not the point of obsolescence, it is point of operational preparedness.

Any specific reason? I don't think IAF will buy 38 fighters just for nothing.......... "Will Have" Well, it also applies to LCA.

IAF said they are not interested in Mk1. So, I believe they will not see wide scale deployment towards FOBs. The Mk2 if successful will present a better picture. "Will have" does not apply to the LCA simply because the Mig29 and M2000 will have way better radars.

Mirage 2000 is a medium weight fighter and LCA is a light weight fighter. There are differences and there should be.

For some reason, Gripen beats M2000 in sustained turn rates, AoA and weapons delivering capabilities.

Can't buy. Gripen can't outperform TVC equipped and HMDS + R-73 E integrated Mig-35 in dog fight.

Ok. You caught one aircraft. Sure Gripen cannot beat a TVC equipped Mig-35. But Gripen can beat non TVC F-15, Su-30, Rafale, EF-2000, F-18 and SH any day of the week. Gripen's agility has no match. If LCA was similar I would have been happy.

True but only till dec 2012. After that 'always requiring air support Jagaur' will become obsolete in IAF regardless of latest example being only 2-3 years old.

No. Just because you have technology does not mean it is reliable. Jaguars are reliable. That beats any thing hands down. Look at the USN, they are going for the F-35 but they also want the Super Hornets working in tandem because of questions of reliability on the F-35. All this takes years to validate.

As long as an aircraft is capable of firing an anti ship missile as well as precision bombs accurately, then it will never go obsolete. Heck, why do you think USN is still using those technologically obsolete A-10s. All it has is a big gun or 2. But for some reason technology is always below reliability.

The LCA Mk1 and Mk2 are not even ready to be deployed for combat. Until they get the 100% Go orders from high command, they are useless pieces of trash. The PAKFA is the same as is the J-20. The F-22 with its long hours of maintenance and expenses, all that technology is just a wisp of smoke. The only thing that's allowing the F-22s existence is because of their endless funding which we do not have the luxury of.

If we were not a small budget armed forces and did not have 2 nuclear powered neighbours around us then I would have been supporting Mk1 inductions.

 

[Rahul Singh]

You know there was this report of ISRO making some grand tech advancement for rockets using a special alloy coating on the nose cone to reduce drag by 40%. I dunno if this can be applied here. Hope they look into it though I dunno if it helps in this case

There is HUGE difference between a missile and a Jet fighter. One travel at hypersonic speed and other for most of the flight sub-sonic.

The special coating is a chemical which after reaching critical temperature (because of air friction at hypersonic speed) produces hot gases which in turn reduces density of air around nose cone of missile enabling it travel faster. Concept is simple, more viscous the liquid slower one swims less viscous the liquid faster one swims.

 

[nitesh]

some authentic info:

http://forceindia.net/interview8.aspx

What is the configuration of the LSP versions and what changes will Mk-2 versions entail?

Equipment-fit LSP-wise is in the final standard of preparation for the IAF. All the sensors, communication equipment and weapons required for the current Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) are present. Also since we were designing a fighter of this class for the first time, we were very conservative in the design. Especially when it came to structural strength characteristics and this has lead to an increase in weight. Weight optimisation will be undertaken for the Tejas Mk-2 variant to reduce its weight. The Mk-2 version will also have better Centre of Gravity (CG) management and maintainability features. Within the programme feasibility, we will be revamping the cockpit electronics to bring it more up to date with technologies that will be prevalent around 2016. There will be advanced electronics, improved cockpit displays and interfaces which will remain contemporary even in the 2020's.
The Tejas Mk-2 will feature an alternate engine which will offer a performance increase of about 10 per cent. The engine change for Mk-2 will result in the rear fuselage being changed and intakes having to be redesigned. All these structural changes will also reflect in drawing changes and parts fabrication. The digital Fly by Wire (FBW) Flight Control System (FCS) will not change. We do not see much impact when it comes to hydraulics, electronics and undercarriage, etc. With regards to the developmental programme this will not be a major impact.

 

[nitesh]

some authentic info:

http://forceindia.net/interview8.aspx

What is the configuration of the LSP versions and what changes will Mk-2 versions entail?

Equipment-fit LSP-wise is in the final standard of preparation for the IAF. All the sensors, communication equipment and weapons required for the current Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) are present. Also since we were designing a fighter of this class for the first time, we were very conservative in the design. Especially when it came to structural strength characteristics and this has lead to an increase in weight. Weight optimisation will be undertaken for the Tejas Mk-2 variant to reduce its weight. The Mk-2 version will also have better Centre of Gravity (CG) management and maintainability features. Within the programme feasibility, we will be revamping the cockpit electronics to bring it more up to date with technologies that will be prevalent around 2016. There will be advanced electronics, improved cockpit displays and interfaces which will remain contemporary even in the 2020's.
The Tejas Mk-2 will feature an alternate engine which will offer a performance increase of about 10 per cent. The engine change for Mk-2 will result in the rear fuselage being changed and intakes having to be redesigned. All these structural changes will also reflect in drawing changes and parts fabrication. The digital Fly by Wire (FBW) Flight Control System (FCS) will not change. We do not see much impact when it comes to hydraulics, electronics and undercarriage, etc. With regards to the developmental programme this will not be a major impact.



What is being done to address concerns that the LCA is overweight?

When you consider the amount of features and functionality given in the Tejas, we feel the weight is reasonable. We had planned initially for a fighter in the 5.5 tonne category but currently it has grown to about 6.5 tonne. The penalty of the weight increase is visible in one or two performance parameters. Some parameters like the sustained turn rate and the severity of other performance requirements earlier are not there now because of change in weapon systems. Particularly guided missiles, which today are all aspect missiles slaved to Helmet Mounted Display Systems (HMDS), advanced electronics and radar. Due to the weight growth, there have been certain deviations in the performance parameters. The IAF has validated these deviations to be compensated by advanced weapon systems which were not available in 1985. We will not incorporate any changes in the Mk-1 version as it is ready for production. In the Mk-2 version of Tejas, we expect to see weight savings of around 300 to 500Kg which will come from weight optimisation in the aircraft structures alone.

 

[icecoolben]

Yeah u support mmrca because our neighbours are nuclear armed. Tell me which would u pick to deal when theatened by paki of crossing nuclear threshold, get Nuclear bombs of India loaded on all triads or reconfigure a bunch of 126 aircraft to perform a strike mission on nuclear installations, can't this job be done by your favourite jaguar and mirage for 10 years till lca tejas can take over. Hell if a strategic strike was necessary su-30 can go places no mmrca can. If are u so concerned about falling squadrons, IAF can just ask HAL to use the funds and resources for mmrca to establish manufacturing lines for tejas mk-2, in addition to Mk-1 whose assembly can be diverted for exclusive trainers replacing mig-21 ub. They compromise with bae hawks whose flight envelope overlaps hugely way too much with Hjt-36 and get rapped by CAG, but always like to play a drama queen on Indian programs. there generational sticker tags are a recent creation, there are never generation numbers only next generation, then next so on.

 

[nitesh]

by p2prada: The LCA Mk1 and Mk2 are not even ready to be deployed for combat. Until they get the 100% Go orders from high command, they are useless pieces of trash.

according to this line the F 16 was piece of trash when it went to combat in desert storm

ref: http://frontierindia.net/enabling-technologies-mig-21-f-16

In 1990, twelve years after induction, a news item appeared that reported more than 100 crashes of F-16: USAF—80; NATO—17; PAK—13. The aircraft was labeled the WIDOW MAKER. It was reported that hasty induction of the aircraft had led to use of certain wirings which did not conform to MIL-STD requirements (fly-by-wire going haywire?). Later another report placed restrictions on F-16 from indulging in high 'g' maneuvers and low level missions. These restrictions prevailed during the Gulf War"¦.even after two decades of combat flying. It came to be referred to as a 'clear weather' aircraft which did not meet the assigned tasks during the Gulf War"¦its performance was officially criticized by the US General Accounting Office.

it's a good reference. these are posted before post 666

 

[neo29]

We will give what nation wants: HAL Says It Will Meet Targets For LCA

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will go by national consensus on the type of aircraft to be produced and manufactured by it and will meet all targets set for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). HAL chairman Ashok Nayak had said on Monday that HAL would fulfil orders for 48 pieces of the LCA and was expecting a further order for 100 more from the IAF-Navy. "As we go along, new concepts and technologies will be absorbed and incorporated in the production of the aircraft. We are proud that the project has achieved its initial target."

A day after the LCA was described as a medium to low-end aircraft and not as being an air-superiority fighter by Air Chief Marshal P V NaIk, aviation experts said an aircraft that is nationally decided is the one suitable for national security.

HAL top brass told TOI that the LCA project was "a nationally decided project" and "would be delivered in accordance with national requirements". A top HAL official said: "The issue is not whether the LCA is an air superiority fighter or not. The LCA has been conceived, designed and developed for a particular role and purpose by national consensus. As producers, we will deliver that aircraft."

HAL top brass said it was well aware that the LCA project was nationally initiated for a particular purpose with the aircraft set to have a particular form, role and capability. "That requirement is being met. Our capability was limited earlier, it is better now. So even while LCA may have been conceived in the past, it will be contemporary and get better as it goes along. The LCA will certainly fulfill its mandate," a top official said.

"If you ask whether HAL has a suggestion on the type of aircraft India should have in the future, we certainly do, although it is a suggestion that will be in tandem with the consensus of all actors concerned. Now that we have better capabilities and have understood our shortcomings from previous experiences, we have suggested advanced fighters like the fifth generation fighter aircraft, which again is a national consensus project. HAL will be playing a role in the manufacture of this advanced aircraft along with Russia."

HAL top brass was careful to point out that suggestion for advanced fighters did not mean that there was no role for aircraft like LCA. They said the advanced fighters and the LCA would serve respective purposes.

On 100% compliance that IAF has sought for the aircraft, the official said it is natural for any user (IAF) to seek the same. "Compliance is a continuous process. Compliance concerns other organisations. Once completed, we would then be producing an aircraft that has been fully compliant. If at the inaugural of the IOC, an aircraft is 70% to 80% compliant, it will be 100% compliant at the time of delivery to the user. In that time, agencies would have effected improvements on all suggestions."

http://idrw.org/?p=2292