ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[SATISH]

Look at Saab,

They made their first turbojet in 1947 called the Saab 21R. The first production series was retired in 1953 and the second in 1956. Only 50 were built and it saw only 6 years of service. This was their first aircraft in the jet age. Do you see the Swedes jumping up and down with anger because of that? No.

It was their first attempt, it sucked and they made it walk the plank. They were making fighters for WAR not for show and tell.

But here we are with the LCA Mk1, inducting 2 whole squadrons of junk even if the air force does not want it. The swedes inducted 50 only because of the precarious times after building an aircraft that was right in the forefront of the jet age. Their most advanced aircraft was junked without a second thought because they knew it cannot win. Here, we are re-inventing the wheel and forcing it down on an air force which is already inducting aircraft generations ahead of the LCA.

The Swedes then quickly built up on the experience and designed their first proper jet aircraft the Saab 29. Over 600 were built and saw service for 25 years. That's what I want us to do.

Blinded Patriotism cannot beat Cold, Hard Facts.

Well lets see...I am not blinded by patriotism...but I am talking with harsh reality on ground. I know that the MK2 is supposed to be a better platform than the MK1. We dont have the resources and support like what the swedes had. Above all they had a research base for everything. The Draken was a good aircraft and the Gripen is good. but The Delta canards have their own flaws when it comes to turn reversal. Try reading the Prototype crash of the Gripen in 1993 which makes you understand why delta canards if not designed for airflow turbulence can lead to autorotation. If you see Rafale and EF they have a totally different kind of Canard placement rather than the conventional one like the J 10 or the Gripen. The Rafale has a blended canard and the EF has a canted canard.

Right now we have many people trying to partner the cause but back when we started people were more intrested in making us dump what we want to start.. There is always a thin line between bravery and stupidity...we need to wait for time to tell. LCA would have had a better performance if it has stuck to the old delta canard design first proposed to silence people who are more into angle of attack instead of climb performance.

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf

 

[vijay jagannathan]

It is indigenous, thats most "logical" thing to do.

IAF has to support LCA and make it a better fighter according to their needs instead of hair-splitting, otherwise India will be stuck in this cycle of importing and relying on good will of foreign powers in terms of fighter aircraft.

I think now India has reached a certain stage, where another organization can be opened (PSU or private) which competes with DRDO. and there should be a law where armed forces have to buy certain percentage of their equipment in India.

In your dictionary support means induction?

 

[neo29]

Elated Tejas team dreaming big

While the first of the Tejas light combat aircraft is yet to be delivered to IAF, an upbeat LCA team is talking of upgrading the aircraft, with the initial funding coming through for the development of LCA into a medium combat aircraft (MCA) in three-and-a-half to five years.

Scientists associated with the project believe that the upgradation, considering that the technological know-how is available now, will not be too hard to execute.

"Given that the technology is ours, tweaking it to suit requirements will not be difficult unlike in imported aircraft," National Flight Test Centre Group Director (Project Tejas) Wng Com (retd) P K Raveendran told Deccan Herald.

Tejas is equipped with missiles (the R73) conventional bombs, laser-guided bombs and BVR (beyond visual range) missiles. Also, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has completed development and testing of the digital weapon system the Pylon Interface Box (PIB) and Stores Interface Box (SIB) compliant with the 1760C standard.

"The procurement and integration of the weapon system to be done by DRDO and us will happen based on the IAF's requirement and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has the final operational clearance in mind," says HAL Chairman Ashok Nayak.

Sources in Team Tejas believe that India's LCA will become a good fighter with the ability to supplement combat fighters: Sukhoi-30MKIs, the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) and the fifth-generation fighter aircraft in the future.

"By the time India inducts these aircraft, the LCA would have served the nation for sometime and will be completely compliant with the IAF's requirement," says a scientist who has worked on the project.

The immediate challenge on the supply side continues to be meeting delivery deadlines to enable IAF raise its first Tejas squadron this year.

IAF sources say that concern has been raised at various fora and both the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) are now working in tandem at the production centres.

In order to meet the IAF's requirement, the HAL needs to create an efficient production supply chain, DRDO sources say. Experts say that it has to be a supply chain that can handle the initial orders and the next 20 too.

"The configuration for the second 20 will be different, which means the producer must think ahead and plan for that while not compromising on the production of current orders."

The HAL, however, is confident of meeting the deadlines On Monday, its Chairman stated that everything that the LCA project wants would be provided for. "Tejas presently has about one-and-a-half hangars dedicated for it and we will expand it if required," without giving a timeline on that even as Defence Minister A K Antony said two of the initial 20 will be delivered by June.

http://idrw.org/?p=2320

 

[p2prada]

Te extra 20 aircrafts are for the immediate gap fillers for the fast retiring MiG 21s. and having 2 squadrons helps in familiarizing more pilots for the LCA. There is not going to be any drastic changes in the cockpit of the LCA MK1 and MK2 and this helps in pilot orientation and training.

All that's good. But what good is it if IAF ends up using 40 pilots more for IOC tests for Mk2? That would be 80 pilots testing an aircraft by 2016.

IN is also supposed to win wars. I dont agree with your logic of "IN is not meant to win wars".

IN is a support role. Their primary mission is to safe guard territorial waters, trade routes, piracy and blockades. Second strike too. IAF supports IA and IA wins wars.

Due to the proximity of our enemies, the IN will always play a supportive role unless we have a new enemy far away from shore, then we will end up having a Marine force with the IN as support.

With enemies close by the importance of Army and Air force is higher. If the enemy is far away then all 3 forces are important. This is one of the most important reasons why the IN has the smallest budget of the 3.

 

[p2prada]

We dont have the resources and support like what the swedes had.

Now we do.

Above all they had a research base for everything. The Draken was a good aircraft and the Gripen is good. but The Delta canards have their own flaws when it comes to turn reversal. Try reading the Prototype crash of the Gripen in 1993 which makes you understand why delta canards if not designed for airflow turbulence can lead to autorotation. If you see Rafale and EF they have a totally different kind of Canard placement rather than the conventional one like the J 10 or the Gripen. The Rafale has a blended canard and the EF has a canted canard.

Our discussion has nothing to do with Canards. There are flaws to every aircraft design but we cannot stick to just that. Even with a "flawed" delta canards design, the Gripen still flies better than LCA.

Right now we have many people trying to partner the cause but back when we started people were more intrested in making us dump what we want to start..

I don't care about the past. LCA has my support. There were people trying to dump the project, but it did not happen. So, what? Ultimately those people were right. Look at the time taken. But I still don't care about that. Take your time. If you want the Mk2 flying by 2016, then go right ahead.

But why interfere with the IAF?

There is always a thin line between bravery and stupidity...we need to wait for time to tell. LCA would have had a better performance if it has stuck to the old delta canard design first proposed to silence people who are more into angle of attack instead of climb performance.

Then I will wait to see which has superior performance parameters in both, Gripen 1 or LCA Mk1.

If I am proven wrong then IAF has a great jet. But if you are proven wrong then the risk taken is a lot bigger.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Get Lsp -6 flying in one month and reveal the performance parameters.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Landing Gear including the entire undercarriage was overweight by 1.5 tons. That's the reason EADS was roped in as a development partner in 2009. Even today Landing gear is overweight by 500kgs.

EADS is not a development parter in AF-LCA it is only providing consultancy for safely speeding up the testing. Rather EADS is a development partner in N-LCA and has assisted in landing gear. BTW the data you posted is something about which i am unaware. Will be thankful if you post source.

Look at it realistically. Saab with all its expertise is still a little away from fielding a fully functional NG platform even after starting in 2008. The LCA Mk2 is not even on the drawing board yet. Do you really expect the LCA Mk2 to actually follow the schedule. Look at Satish's post, it came as a surprise to me too. F414s delivery start in 2014. Unless LCA Mk2's continue using F404s initially I don't realistically see LCA Mk2 following schedule.

SAAB as a matter of fact is still running Gripen NG program which is nothing other than demonstrating next generation capabilities or 5G possible in JAS-39. SAAB is in no hurry to close the development. They are actually competing with F-35 in Europe and they want to add as many 5th gen technology as many possible till someone confirms an order on a Gripen NG derivative. So its rather SAAB's wish than inability which is delaying certification.

And as far as Mk-2 is concerned i expect it to join Air Force by 2016 because ADA will not be following same with SAAB. ADA's compulsion is only to get LCA meet IAF ASR. And back in 2009 they showed their seriousness and hurry when they carried out two parallel design studies for both engines. Now when they know what engine it will be, expect work to move even further even faster. In addition they also carried out in house design optimization study and all the improvements being talked about like nose extension with plug, smoothening wing roots, using main undercarriage doors as air brakes, use of LEVCON, re-working CG were completed back in 2009. Earlier LSP-6 was spoken as platform for AOA testing, now they calling it fully experimental platform and this means lot of things in itself.

You don't expect the enemy to shoot you, do you? If the LCA cannot get into the enemy's 6 o'clock then the enemy fighter will. You only talked of 2 manuevers out of a thousand. Sure there will be some maneuvers that LCA may excel at. But Deltas are supposed to be great dog fighters. Both M2000 as well as Gripen are great dog fighters.

No, i don't. I only said, to get to foe's tail LCA will execute those maneuvers where it is at advantage. And your earlier point was "turning ability". For which i said it's the worst maneuver especially for delta.

Yes indeed Deltas are good dog fighters so will be LCA but at high altitudes. Did i ever said LCA is not a good dog fighter or will not be one?

You are pitting proven designers(Sukhoi, Lockheed) against unproven designers(ADA and Chengdu). Also that comment about China stealing F-22 tech is not real. The Americans keep their tech in highly secure data banks. I doubt even the President has seen them.

No i am not. I only answered to a set of sentence packed with "What if" by "What if".

BTW Chinese are known for stealing through Chinese working masses in US. And my Chinese theory was based on that. People talk so much about Chinese DSI. To me these are still speculations but i could't help much as i was replying to another speculation.

Except Brahmos DRDO has delivered nothing extraordinarily unique. Brahmos is mainly Russian tech too. AAD and PAD are already in existence and the radar used is Israeli. Nothing awesome about Arjun, Akash, ALH etc. Superior versions of all are in existence. Fact is I am not pinning anything on DRDO until they successfully deliver a platform that even ACM will not criticize.

If you follow defence indigenisation policy then you should know that initial target is to replace all low end products with home grown. And this target has been meet in much and being meet in some sectors. PAD, AAD and redeveloped and refined Green Pine now known as LRTR belongs to first step of next stage where initial aim is to give high end products by mixing our expertize with others. And next step obviously means replacing those imported contents by indigenous.

I will not talk much about Brahmos as it is not indigenous rather customised, partially indegenised Yakhont. But i do say it represents transition to second stage.

Yes. But for some reason ACM is visibly unhappy with LCA. Heck, Navy Admiral actually came out to the media and said they don't want LCA but will induct it out of patriotism.

I saw many videos but i couldn't see that. All i could see was an ACM speaking what he should speak in a mature manner which i couldn't have enjoyed any better.

And FONA said "LCA is not what we want..... Hope we could have straightway developed Rafale...... But LCA will be a modest platform and will give us adequate capability at sea". I don't think FONA didn't know they can not develop Rafale out of LCA. So it was known to Navy even before they committed to LCA meaning they developed it for a purpose. As long as long it gets fulfilled who cares? BTW it is now believed that Navy put their money in LCA for two purpose (a) for getting number advantage at sea through a modest platform (b) developing know how in country so that they can go smoothly with next naval fighter project which will most probably be N-AMCA.

All that will not help win wars. If China invades by the time you fix problems, then we will be inducting and operationalizing J-20s in Lohegaon AFB.

I repeat again, IAF's operational preparedness is not being kept hostage to indigenisation efforts. Otherwise IAF would not have luxury to buy that many MKIs and spend $12 billion for M-MRCA. But when they have shown interest in buying an indigenous product we should respect their decision instead of throwing speculations based on our bias. Not to mention, speculations have long arms and much longer legs it can go wild and wicked.

Money invested in Jaguars or LCA is not going anywhere. Military is an unrecoverable expenditure. Jaguar upgrades will happen in India. Also, finances shouldn't be squandered away over a useless platform just to save up on a useful one. A second squadron is entirely useless.

Money invested in building Jaguar and buying new engines for upgrade is going waste because they will be retired much before their useful life expires. On contrary money went and going into LCA will payback. It's no joke that percentage of indigenous content in foreign made fighters of IAF is increasing. And money into military is unrecoverable expenditure not money spent in defence R&D. It is quite recoverable and project LCA is associated with that unlike Jaguar. Though 'recovery' here is defined differently.

2 Flankers flew over a carrier and a Chinese sub reached firing distance. Both are threats.

So that means USN is not technologically competent as much its speaks? Doesn't it also means that their technology is also not competent as much as it is spoken about? So why should IAF buy US made defence hardwares? And where is the so much spoken gaurentee coming with imported hardwares?

It was smart use of Mig-21s against legacy F-15s during Cope India 2004. They broke formation and merged when the F-15s were busy against M2000 and Su-30k. They fired BVRs and ran away. We will know nothing about the other exercises since they are no longer being revealed to the media.

Smart use, well definitely. You always take advantage of enemy's disadvantage and during that exercise radar coverage was the disadvantage(as spoken by USAF guy) and nimble small hard to pick Mig-21 took all advantage of that. Ok, good job done wah wah wah! How many times you expect USAF operating at said disadvantage? Nil, no?

And yes they are no being revealed to media as they were never being. But somehow world saw and heard what an USAF officer spoke during Red Flag.

but not the airframe. And it is the airframe that pisses me off.

Airframe can be upgraded too, minor design changes are regularly done on jets coming for MLU. Anyway LCA only needs minor design changes to meet ASR and higher thrust engine* is only going to make it easy.

*F-414 EDE -> 15% more thrust over F-414G -> 15% of 98Kn = 14.7 Kn -> F-414 INS6 = ~ 112.7Kn**.

** Assumption and calculation based on EDE features and GE statement " INS6 so far most powerful".

We don't know that. IAF is involved in Mk2 design. So, its not just engine and radar.

IAF is involved in Mk-2, well they should be and must be. They can't justify 'side watch' altitude anymore. Anyway point was did ever IAF called re-engined LCA MK-2? As far as i know not before AI 09 when ADA and HAL jointly proposed whole makeover in addition to IAF's demand for higher thrust/re-engining.

Yes. And deliveries aren't any time soon for Mk2. IAF is not interested in MK1.

Had IAF not been interested in MK-1 or better say LCA with F-404 they would not have gone ahead with second squadron specially by not adding reason like "even in present configuration LCA is an advanced replacement of Mig-21". But if you don't believe IAF then what can i say?

That isn't enough. What if the F-16s have come for air interdiction missions inside our borders or even Chinese J-10s. Running away is not an option then. The army will not keep quiet if they get bombed because the IAF could not match the adversary.

You eventually questioned IAF's professionalism. I could be last in the list which is topped by IAF to know LCA(Mk-1) in one to one combat is no match for F-16. To intercept any strike formation of F-16 IAF will send no less than double the number of LCA. And in days of AEW&C and LRTR IAF will have enough time to muster the number.

That's the reason we are asking for full ToT for airframe and spares manufacturing in India itself. DRDO is made to serve the armed forces. There is no question of IAF begging, IAF only demands. DRDO must provide or shut down. There is no alternative.

Full TOT! Don't say you don't know what it means by Indian definition. Anyway ToT doesn't allows you to produce unauthorized numbers and OEM always makes sure it can't happen.

IAF can demand but DRDO can say "no capability" or "give us the money we will develop and deliver you in XYZ period". When you don't invest in something you can't ask for it. A designer having done nothing in that field because of no investment will always say "can't help you" or 'wait'. Can IAF afford to keep its Gripen feet grounded that long? Not long ago FONA said "........easy to buy from outside extremely difficult to support".

It would be funny if costs of operation of Gripen turns out to be cheaper than the LCA. Heck they said LCA will cost upwards of $40million now. Also I am not against the LCA program itself. I am against stuffing LCA down services throats without satisfying their more modern requirements. What I am saying is since IAF has already asked for 20 LCA Mk1 then go ahead with it. But sticking 20 more down their throats and then having a Mk2 as IOC in 2015-16 period is as stupid as we possible can be.

Will see, but funny not at all. LCA being local offers more flexibility than any imported jet. At present inflation rate it can't cost any less.

You are actually disbelieving IAF's decision. If LCA was being pushed to throat then MK-1 orders must have been over 100. Anyway i can't say anything for your distrust towards IAF decision.

The Jags are pretty much our A-10s. Building CAS aircraft isn't easy. LCA isn't a better replacement since it is a Delta. Deltas don't do well in CAP even if you rig them up with equipment. ?

No, Jaguar serves in IAF as DPSA and Mig-27 as SEAD capable CASA. A-10 is a pure CASA and serves as only. Interesting part is that even as DPSA Jaguar offers no advantage to LCA MK-1 not even in range and payload. In addition unlike LCA ,Jaguar will always require fighter escort.

Yes delta don't do well in CAS so doesn't any swept wing aircraft. IAF will not buy A-10 or SU-25 for CAS. It will have to rig a relatively cheap jet for the purpose and neither H-MRCA nor M-MRCA fits in the bill. Only option available is LCA.

Nitesh has posted one article regarding F-16 which gives me enough reasons to distrust.

What if LCA turns out to be worse

So you you are backing off from earlier stand "imported one's comes with guarantee that it will work"?

Building CAS aircraft isn't easy. LCA isn't a better replacement since it is a Delta. Deltas don't do well in CAP even if you rig them up with equipment. What if LCA turns out to be worse?

Neither buying and maintaining a single role fleet..... IAF has no option other than rigging LCA and using it as CASA.

And "What if" applies to others also.

Oh! It does apply here. And your statement only helps my case. Heck, a student wouldn't join a startup even for only 2 years. But you want IAF to join a startup for 40 years and build up a, LOL, relationship. Why don't we just do that with Pakistan and China and get it over with? Relationships are sweet, but they don't win wars as well.

Err..A student would pay fee(invest), get degree and leave. He/she will never come back and take advantage of improvements made in college using his/her money. Unlike this, whatever money IAF puts in local R&D continiously pays back to IAF all through in the future. Is it joke that today most of IAF fighter fleet uses all indigenous, all important RWR in addition to others. Had it been possible if IAF continued to source RWR?

Hope you could have understand meaning of 'relationship' in the right context.

Remember USAF dumped Boeing and chose LM F-22. USAF had a more mature relationship with Boeing but they dumped them as fast as the wind because LM came out with a better platform that actually suited their requirements. The truth is the YF-23 is much more superior to the F-22 in all respects except agility. The YF-23 had more powerful engines, better stealth, better payload and range, better avionics. But it did not fit USAF requirements simply because Boeing forgot about dog fights. If you cannot deliver as stipulated, then don't deliver at all.

What? I don't get you here. Are you talking about competition between LM YF-22 and NG YF-23 or X-32 and X-35? Anyway i comment. The luxury what USAF enjoys can never be available for IAF. Not until IAF invests heavily in local industry. You know there is a reason why USA Air Wing( now USAF) which fought with French fighter planes in WW1 have this luxury now. Only to say path to it is painful, has no short cut whatsoever but very rewarding in long run.

I leave it upto you to decide if IAF can ever have luxury to fulfill is needs exactly the way it wants, forget local for now, even from outside. As far as i know IAF wanted to buy Mirage 2000-5 for its M-MRCA need way back in 2005 despite the fact that each and every contender of 126 was on sale then. It is six years since then and all they have done is testing. Even first short list is yet to come. Only god knows if M-MRCA will start arriving even by 2015.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Double post........ edited.....mods delete it please. Thank you.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

lca mark 2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Thanks Kunal. definitely looks good. The testing of the N-LCA however hasn't been reported in depth unlike its brother though there are some differnces in the specifications. I wonder why.

Hook underneath the aircraft

Landing Gear

Their will be some normal changes like strong landing gears to absorb hard landing on small carrier deck, Landing a aircraft on a ship is a hard job, In this kind of landing u have to catch wires on ship by a hook underneath your aircraft more like a eagle snapping a fish out of water, therefore the aircraft regularly descend too fast within a small space and time the whole impact is absorbed by the landing gear when aircraft touch hard over the deck of the carrier...

The hook

F-18 Successful landing

SU-33 Aborted landing ( notice the hook )

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[nitesh]

The other way round. The fly by wire stops the plane from pitching too high and is restricted to between 22 degrees and 28 degrees. But pilots can manually override the FBW to achieve extremely high AoA during turning fights. The Mirage-2000 handles greater than 35degrees/second turn rates during such times and have roll rates of 270deg/second at 11G. With more powerful engines and lighter bodies like Gripen the figures are higher(except Gs). The LCAs figures are unknown but are said to be lower.

I really hope LCA Mk2 comes with figures that matches or exceeds other fighters. If Mk2 matches Gripen then we have a hell of a deal.

Bingo, all those figures are brochure figures not which are actually implemented in the operational fighters because doing such maneuvers puts strain on a fighter skin which eventually decreases life of the fighter. And as FBW restricts it normally pilots don't get to use this feature. So comparing the brochure figures with LCA actually demonstrated figure is a futile exercise. We should compare what is actutally allowed in the fighter with what is actually allowed in the LCA.

 

[p2prada]

EADS is not a development parter in AF-LCA it is only providing consultancy for safely speeding up the testing. Rather EADS is a development partner in N-LCA and has assisted in landing gear. BTW the data you posted is something about which i am unaware. Will be thankful if you post source.

Nope.

http://kuku.sawf.org/News/56436.aspx

ADA has sought assistance from EADS to redesign the Tejas undercarriage and help reduce the weight of the fighter, which is already 1.5 tons heavier than envisaged.

Under a $20 million, four year deal EADS will help Tejas get final operational clearance for the LCA Tejas.

This is for both N-LCA as well as AF LCA.

SAAB as a matter of fact is still running Gripen NG program which is nothing other than demonstrating next generation capabilities or 5G possible in JAS-39. SAAB is in no hurry to close the development. They are actually competing with F-35 in Europe and they want to add as many 5th gen technology as many possible till someone confirms an order on a Gripen NG derivative. So its rather SAAB's wish than inability which is delaying certification.

And as far as Mk-2 is concerned i expect it to join Air Force by 2016 because ADA will not be following same with SAAB. ADA's compulsion is only to get LCA meet IAF ASR. And back in 2009 they showed their seriousness and hurry when they carried out two parallel design studies for both engines. Now when they know what engine it will be, expect work to move even further even faster. In addition they also carried out in house design optimization study and all the improvements being talked about like nose extension with plug, smoothening wing roots, using main undercarriage doors as air brakes, use of LEVCON, re-working CG were completed back in 2009. Earlier LSP-6 was spoken as platform for AOA testing, now they calling it fully experimental platform and this means lot of things in itself.

http://indiandefenceinformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/tejas-mk-2-will-incorporate-5-gen.html

Tejas MK-2 will also have a newly laid out cockpit layout with better computing power since it also be housing new mission control computer, Samtel Display Systems (SDS) is also working on touch based Multi Function Displays (MFD) for Tejas Mk-2 , which will later find its way in AMCA too .

Tejas Mk-2 will also see structural changes in the aircraft.....

IAF has asked for higher fuel load, 1 ton extra weight and new engine. Other modifications for new engine etc are obvious.

I am not basing my argument only with the above link. This is what IAF has asked for.


Excerpt from FORCE magazine

Excerpts from P Rajkumar Interview to Force on Tejas Mk2

'There Will Be Design Changes in LCA Mk-2 and all Design Changes will Lead to a Weight Penalty'
Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar (retd)

In your opinion what are the shortfalls the LCA could be facing currently because of an underpowered engine?

Lack of engine power leads to lack of performance. The main shortcoming would probably be in manoeuvring flight and the ability to take off with the required load from runways in hot and high conditions. There will be increase in time to climb to height and it won't accelerate as fast. So the Indian Air Force (IAF) in its wisdom has said that they are not happy with the performance of the LCA with its current engine. One of the points mentioned is that the sustained turn rate has been lower than specified. One must understand that the performance parameters laid down in the Air Staff Requirement (ASR) have been arrived after a lot of debate in Air Headquarters. I don't understand the argument of reducing the payload to meet performance. The IAF requires a certain level of performance to be delivered for the payload that is being asked for. Engine power is important and having arrived at the conclusion that thrust on the current GE-404 engine is insufficient, it is the GE-F-414 that has been chosen.

Now thrust is proportional to fuel consumption and increased thrust will lead to increased fuel consumption which will have a bearing on mission performance. Having a more powerful engine does not automatically increase performance.

What changes will the choice of a new engine require for the LCA Mk-2?

With regards to the LCA Mk-2 there will be design changes and all design changes will lead to a weight penalty. The outcome of this design exercise that ADA is undertaking on the LCA Mk-2 is yet to be seen. The LCA Mk-2 will have a slighter longer fuselage and may carry more fuel as well. Will the weight go up, will they add more fuel, will the aircraft be able to offer the performance demanded by the IAF with an engine offering more thrust and higher fuel consumption are questions I cannot answer, as these details have not been made public. We could however use this opportunity to lengthen the fuselage, look at the wave drag to improve aerodynamics, put a wider chord on the wings to generate more lift, etc. However, this would then essentially result in a new aircraft but it will be a more capable aircraft and this is a good opportunity to do so. The slightly larger LCA Mk-2 can also include essential operational equipment without which the LCA Mk-2 will not be able to fulfill its operational role. These changes would lead to increase in the All Up Weight (AUW) and result in the LCA Mk-2 being different from Mk-1 by 25 per cent.

By when do you see these changes being completed and the LCA Mk-2 taking to the air with the GE-F414 engine?

I will be extremely happy if the LCA Mk-2 flies by 2015 and all these changes are completed in the next five years. If they are changes in chord of wing and length of fuselage, then the FCS will also need changes. All these would again require flight testing, though not as extensive as that of the LCA Mk-1. This will require a flight test schedule that will take 2 to 2.5 years in my opinion. The LCA Mk-2 would then attain operational capability by 2018 and enter operational service with the IAF by 2020. If we can achieve this, it would be commendable.

I repeat again, IAF's operational preparedness is not being kept hostage to indigenisation efforts. Otherwise IAF would not have luxury to buy that many MKIs and spend $12 billion for M-MRCA. But when they have shown interest in buying an indigenous product we should respect their decision instead of throwing speculations based on our bias. Not to mention, speculations have long arms and much longer legs it can go wild and wicked.

LCA Mk1 is worth 200 Crores, that's $43Million. For 40 planes that's nearly $2Billion. Lifecycle costs, ground personal, pilots, bases all not included. For a force operation on a budget of $10Billion every year, you just took out $2Billion. And some how that does not affect operational preparedness.

Money invested in building Jaguar and buying new engines for upgrade is going waste because they will be retired much before their useful life expires. On contrary money went and going into LCA will payback. It's no joke that percentage of indigenous content in foreign made fighters of IAF is increasing. And money into military is unrecoverable expenditure not money spent in defence R&D. It is quite recoverable and project LCA is associated with that unlike Jaguar. Though 'recovery' here is defined differently.

LCA cannot replace Jaguars. LCA can only replace Mig-21s. And that's what is happening. Let's talk about Jaguars after LCA Mk2 is in business. From the above article from FORCE, if LCA Mk2 is granted IOC by 2016 then FOC is 2018. Most realistic date without counting delays. 2018.

So that means USN is not technologically competent as much its speaks? Doesn't it also means that their technology is also not competent as much as it is spoken about? So why should IAF buy US made defence hardwares? And where is the so much spoken gaurentee coming with imported hardwares?

Do you see us shooting intruding Chinese soldiers or firing back at the Pakistanis every time they break a cease fire. There is such a thing called restraint. Mature powers tend to show that.

Airframe can be upgraded too, minor design changes are regularly done on jets coming for MLU. Anyway LCA only needs minor design changes to meet ASR and higher thrust engine* is only going to make it easy.

Somehow Air force is not interested in LCA Mk1. And LCA Mk2 will not have only a ew engine. It will have a 2 year design stage, which is HUGE.

Had IAF not been interested in MK-1 or better say LCA with F-404 they would not have gone ahead with second squadron specially by not adding reason like "even in present configuration LCA is an advanced replacement of Mig-21". But if you don't believe IAF then what can i say?

Cheers.

To intercept any strike formation of F-16 IAF will send no less than double the number of LCA.

Will never happen. During war there is no guarantee you will always out number the enemy. Any defending force will be smaller than the offensive force, almost always.

Full TOT! Don't say you don't know what it means by Indian definition. Anyway ToT doesn't allows you to produce unauthorized numbers and OEM always makes sure it can't happen.

However, we some how managed to fix LGBs on Mirage-2000 and bring them down effectively in Kargil in less than one month. Best part, Mirage-2000's new configuration was not even in the drawing board before the war started.

This is an overrated excuse. During war OEM is out to prove its hardware. They will give all the help possible.

IAF can demand but DRDO can say "no capability" or "give us the money we will develop and deliver you in XYZ period". When you don't invest in something you can't ask for it.

DRDO feeds of the defence budget, that is investment enough. Also, investment is not guaranteed. Ask any company related to R&D and they will tell you that. R&D is the most risky part of business.

Not long ago FONA said "........easy to buy from outside extremely difficult to support".

This was in the past when supply and spares had to come from half way around the world. It used to take 2 weeks just for delivery and consignments coming from outside have to pass certain bureaucratic procedures before they are made available.

But now, All Supply and Spares for MMRCA and MKI will be made in India. So, that is no longer an issue.

If something goes wrong with LCA's engine, then the Americans will take their own sweet time too. So, LCA's in the same boat as MRCA. Just that MRCA come under contractual agreements that have higher investments and the OEM will be "extra" careful in order to prevent loss of business. GE engines are nothing in that respect.

Will see, but funny not at all. LCA being local offers more flexibility than any imported jet. At present inflation rate it can't cost any less.

With a foreign engine, it is worse than an imported jet. So, no comparisons.

No, Jaguar serves in IAF as DPSA and Mig-27 as SEAD capable CASA. A-10 is a pure CASA and serves as only. Interesting part is that even as DPSA Jaguar offers no advantage to LCA MK-1 not even in range and payload. In addition unlike LCA ,Jaguar will always require fighter escort.

LCA's equipped with strike package will always have fighter escort. Heck even Mirage-2000s had fighter escort during Kargil both Mig-29 as well as A to A equipped Mirage-2000s.

So you you are backing off from earlier stand "imported one's comes with guarantee that it will work"?

The ones we are buying come with the guarantee that they work. Time tested equipment from time tested OEMs. F-16 crashes was just a chapter in its development.

Neither buying and maintaining a single role fleet..... IAF has no option other than rigging LCA and using it as CASA.

We are looking for Multirole aircraft in the long run. So, even MKi as well as MMRCA can perform CAS if required.

And "What if" applies to others also.

Not the ones in the MRCA. Perhaps FGFA but not MRCA. MRCA are already flying successfully in all OEM air forces.

Err..A student would pay fee(invest), get degree and leave. He/she will never come back and take advantage of improvements made in college using his/her money.

I am talking about the system. Even if you want to invest in a college for MBA, would you choose a startup or IIM? My question is just that. Everything else after that is merely hypothetical. If you join the startup and after 20 years the startup college has become better than IIMs. That point is hypothetical.

So, ADA becoming as good as Sukhoi is equally hypothetical.

Long term relationships can break like Titanic on an iceberg in a second. That's what I meant when I talked about YF-22 and YF-23. USAF dumped Boeing faster than ever even after a 50 year productive relationship.

The luxury what USAF enjoys can never be available for IAF. Not until IAF invests heavily in local industry. You know there is a reason why USA Air Wing( now USAF) which fought with French fighter planes in WW1 have this luxury now. Only to say path to it is painful, has no short cut whatsoever but very rewarding in long run.

This has nothing to do with Luxury. If you force an inferior product then you will only get an inferior service. Build up your product to a point where it will no longer be an inferior product. That has nothing to do with Luxury. I am not asking you to build a 6th gen fighter from scratch. You have read Adm's interview from FORCE. He talks about an almost new fighter. Build that because that's what IAF needs. Not this Mig-21++.

I leave it upto you to decide if IAF can ever have luxury to fulfill is needs exactly the way it wants, forget local for now, even from outside. As far as i know IAF wanted to buy Mirage 2000-5 for its M-MRCA need way back in 2005 despite the fact that each and every contender of 126 was on sale then. It is six years since then and all they have done is testing. Even first short list is yet to come. Only god knows if M-MRCA will start arriving even by 2015.

If LCA Mk2 is set to arrive after 2018 and inducted only in 2020, then I don't see why MMRCA would be a waste of time.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Do we know of any other fighter aircraft apart from the N-LCA which has functioning LEVCONS withe the exception of the Pak-Fa which is also in development stage.

Does anyone know of other fighter jets or aeroplains with such an configuration?

 

[p2prada]

Lots of aircraft actually. If you add Chines then many more.

Flankers, Mig-29, F-18, F-16 to name a few.

JF-17 too.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Lots of aircraft actually. If you add Chines then many more.

Flankers, Mig-29, F-18, F-16 to name a few.

JF-17 too.

Those are not LEVCONS they are LEX(Leading edge extensions). As far as i know i have never seen an LEVCON like on the N-LCA apart from the PakFA.

 

[p2prada]

Those are not LEVCONS they are LEX(Leading edge extensions). As far as i know i have never seen an LEVCON like on the N-LCA apart from the PakFA.

They all preform similar function no matter what you call them. There are slight differences between them all. LEVCONS and LERX performance parameters are similar.

LERX and LEVCONS on Delta allow utilizing the excess drag generated and convert them for additional lift, thereby increasing AoA. It's a good thing and a decent replacement for Canards.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

They all preform similar function no matter what you call them. There are slight differences between them all. LEVCONS and LERX performance parameters are similar.

LERX and LEVCONS on Delta allow utilizing the excess drag generated and convert them for additional lift, thereby increasing AoA. It's a good thing and a decent replacement for Canards.

You cant compare an static LERX with an movable LEVCON, thats like comparing Klingons with Vulcans or apples with oranges. The LERX does not move and can not be controlled by the pilot, there is an huge difference with an controllable and a static one.

 

[Vikramaditya]

 

[p2prada]

Then LCA and PAKFA are the only ones.