ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

Which role suits LCA 'Tejas' more than others from following options?

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

    Votes: 342 51.3%
  • Airsuperiority-Complete control of the skies.

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • Strike-Attack deep into enemy zone.

    Votes: 24 3.6%
  • Multirole-Perform multiple roles.

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,308
LOL. Like what?
Well, there is sanction for new version.

*Roll eyes*
So, this means you have accepted that your claims have been baseless.


We survived absolute economic sanctions and you are more worried about spares. Haha.
So, according to you we should not worry bout it? Can you talk some sense.

You don't realize that we could have still been achieving only 3% growth in 2010 had it not been for the vendor countries. China would have taken AP and Aksai Chin long time ago.
Another fiction and baseless claim

ASR? So, ASR can go to hell. Nobody cares if it is useful or not as long as it looks pretty. Wow.
What ASR? If ASR is not supposed to be followed it could have been got FOC.


"Every planes goes through this process." NO. Every plane that is going to achieve ASR will go through this process. LCA Mk1 will not achieve ASR goals. That has already been made clear.
Again the same, it has been shown to you with examples that how the planes have been bought to latest standards, and they have been put in to service without having fulfilled the exact requirement. A sensible compromise.


Gripen surpassed ASR. It is a success.
Not without going through the process of induction.


LCA Mk2 is being developed to meet requirements. LCA Mk1 cannot meet requirements and simple logic dictates that.

Forget the new even the old ASR is not being met. LCA Mk1, after FOC, will still not generate the sustained turn rate required nor is it able to carry the required 4tons external payload at the required range. The undercarriage is still overweight by 500Kg.
So much pain, Is DRDO declared that after IOC everything stops? They realized where they are lagging and trying to correct it in newer versions. So no point in keep repeating the same sentence. IAF has done a sensible compromise to induct a new bird. Every where it is done like that. There is nothing new that is happening.

Even 1 squadron is too much.
This is another baseless claim.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,308
Honestly , dude your such an absolutist.
Tejas either meets full ASR or it's flying junk.
This is not absolutist behavior, this is called selective absolutist behavior. These rules only apply to LCA as it is developed by India. Not for others who are children of higher gods .
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,595
I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this blog, but one of the commentators has said this about the ASR:

Sudhir Batra says:
July 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Every time there was proposal, the ASR rejected these. The main reason was Mig Lobby in Air Staff that was so keen on Russian Aircraft to be inducted. I was in AFRO when induction of Mig Bis was being undertaken. I had attended few meetings in connection with induction plan of Technical Airmen. The Air Staff was so keen to have only Mig21 (Type 77) technicians. We at AFRO had problems finding the right people since some had not extended their term and some were in training establishment as instrutor. QRs given for Aircrew too had only Mig pilots. They would not even have a Sukhoi pilot for initial induction.


Source: http://marutfans.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/the-other-side-of-the-coin/
 

thecoolone

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
66
Likes
1
A beam of light

The formal induction of the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas into the Indian Air Force on January 10 is not just a historic landmark for our aerospace industry, but also a significant step forward in India's quest for the status of a great power. Not more than a handful of countries can claim the ability and competence to successfully bring a project of such complexity to fruition. It would therefore be churlish not to acknowledge the achievement of our aircraft designers, scientists, production engineers and the flight-test team for having delivered — albeit belatedly — a state-of-the art combat aircraft to the IAF.
With the accord of initial operational clearance (IOC), the Tejas is, today, at the same stage where India's first nuclear submarine, Arihant, was, on its launch, last year. Both these strategic and prestigious platforms are on the threshold of entering service, but with a fairly arduous road to traverse before attaining fully operational status.

The LCA project attracted maximum criticism because of the time it took and the cost overruns it had. Obviously, the DRDO over-estimated its own competence. This led to the ambitious claim that they had the capability to develop, in-house, not just the airframe and engine, but also the radar as well as a complex fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system required for an "agile" (or aerodynamically unstable) fighter. This blunder was compounded by trotting out hopelessly optimistic cost and time estimates, on the incorrect premise that since India had earlier designed and built the HF-24 Marut, we possessed the design skills and manufacturing expertise.

The Marut, putatively India's first indigenous fighter aircraft, was, in fact, designed by a contracted German team led by Kurt Tank, designer of the famed World War II fighter, Focke-Wulf FW 190. Inducted into the IAF in 1965, the Marut was only a qualified success, since its advanced airframe was a mismatch to the under-powered Orpheus engine. The assumption that the advanced LCA would benefit from the expertise acquired from the 30-year-old Marut project was, therefore, largely fallacious.

The second contributory cause was the decision of the DRDO, typically, to pursue this strategic project without ensuring adequate involvement of the end users: the armed forces. The IAF, understandably, more concerned with extant problems of meeting its operational roles and missions took a detached view of the LCA and remained focused on looking abroad for its needs. This, arguably, deprived the project of impetus, moral support and funding.

The last and most crippling impediment for the project was posed by the denial of crucial technologies by the West. Post-liberalisation advice and consultancy in certain key areas of the LCA design, notably the FBW system, was obtained from aerospace firms in the US and Britain. Unfortunately, the sanctions imposed after Pokhran II brought this crucial cooperation to an abrupt halt. This is where our scientists showed their true mettle and went on to develop and qualify the incredibly complex flight control algorithms, almost entirely on their own.

Apart from this, the electro-hydraulic actuators for the controls, the pumps, motors, instruments and many of the major systems have all been developed by scientists working in dozens of DRDO laboratories, and produced by industrial units across the country. The seeds of an aerospace ancillary industry have been planted, and will, hopefully, be nurtured by a long production run of the Tejas.

For all its good work and achievements, there remain two critical areas in which the DRDO has sadly disappointed the nation, and contributed to delays in the LCA project. One is, of course, its failure to deliver the fighter's primary sensor; a multi-mode radar, which, eventually, had to be imported. The other is the long-awaited Kaveri aero-engine, which has remained, for 40 years, in limbo, nowhere close to attaining its promised performance parameters and yet, inexplicably, being kept alive to justify the existence of its parent R&D establishment. Having missed all deadlines and targets, the DRDO has now sought foreign collaboration to assist in its development. The US-origin F-414 engine now contracted for the Tejas barely meets its thrust requirements, and the heavier LCA Navy will need an even more powerful engine for carrier operations. It can only be hoped that the Kaveri will eventually emerge in time for Tejas Mark II.

Twenty-seven years and Rs 17,000 crore down the line, the LCA experience has generated a number of important lessons for India. Firstly, DRDO should not be permitted to undertake any major project whose staff targets have not originated from the Defence Acquisition Council or Chiefs of Staff Committee. Once the project is approved, the sponsoring service must associate intimately with the DRDO to refine the staff requirements, and contribute uniformed personnel as well as funding during development. It is, perhaps, time for the IAF to create an establishment along the lines of the navy's Directorate of Naval Design to conceptualise future aircraft.

With globalisation, the quest for attaining autarchy in every aspect of technology has become a counter-productive activity. A conscious and early decision must be taken in every project regarding the technologies we need to develop in-country and those that we can acquire from abroad. Developmental projects undertaken by the DRDO should have fairly rigid time-frames, after which they should become candidates for review and abortion. The DRDO practice of in-house "peer reviews"of projects by scientists must be replaced by hard-nosed audits and progress-checks by independent experts, as well as end users.

Six decades after independence, 80-90 per cent of our military hardware remains of foreign origin, and India has the dubious distinction of being among the top arms importers in the world. The comprehensive capability to design and undertake serial production of major weapon systems and ordnance is an imperative that has, so far, eluded us. Our claims to big-power status will ring hollow as long as we remain dependent on imports for major weapon systems.

For all the scorn and criticism that we often (justly) heap on the DRDO and our PSUs, the fact remains that, properly restructured and synergised with India's innovative private sector, both these national institutions have the capability to rescue India from the unending arms-dependency trap. First Arihant and now Tejas have provided tangible proof of this.

The writer, a former Chief of the Naval Staff, is currently chairman of the National Maritime Foundation

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-beam-of-light/738363/0
 

vijay jagannathan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
178
Likes
10
This is not absolutist behavior, this is called selective absolutist behavior. These rules only apply to LCA as it is developed by India. Not for others who are children of higher gods .

Hey you are making personal comments because nobody can hand you an infarction?
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,016
This is not absolutist behavior, this is called selective absolutist behavior.
Yes. I am an absolutist. IA and IAF are too. All other first rate militaries in the world too.

They are winners. They don't make compromises. They demand, you fullfill.

They only make compromises where they are not in control of the outcome. And that's War.

These rules only apply to LCA as it is developed by India. Not for others who are children of higher gods .
This does not apply for others because they are giving complete platforms. If I get a squadron of any of the MRCA tomorrow, I can take it into Pakistan. They are indeed children of higher Gods.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Nothing else.

@gogbot
All that's cute but they don't help win wars. Even after 2020 the LCA Mk2 will be a low to mid end fighter. Both ADA as well as IAF have said it. Sure the requirement keeps it that way. But if you cannot develop an aircraft that is barely low to mid end within requirements then why bother the IAF. Perfect the development and they bother them with it. Until then they have other aircraft to bother about.

A lot of people take the example of Israeli Merkava. But people don't understand that the Merkava became Israel's best battle tank 10 years after induction. The first 2 models of the tank were pathetic, the M60 versions in Israel were better than that. However they were inducted only because of the security situation in their area of interest. They needed newer tanks for quick replacement to cover attrition.

India does not have the same security situation like Israel that sub standard products have to be inducted at a fast pace just to encourage state owned PSUs. The enemies we have are more skilled and some better equipped than the enemies of Israel. We need large armies which are currently overstretched, the same with the air force. Taking away 2 squadrons of their sanctioned strength and replacing them with development aircraft does not get anywhere.

At least the IAF can go to war with the Old Mig-21s, but not the new LCAs. Post 2012, IAF will get stuck with development aircraft all over again.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,308
Yes. I am an absolutist. IA and IAF are too. All other first rate militaries in the world too.

They are winners. They don't make compromises. They demand, you fullfill.

They only make compromises where they are not in control of the outcome. And that's War.
Rubbish statement again. You have been proven wrong on this account. just by keep repeating the same statement doesn't make you right.

This does not apply for others because they are giving complete platforms. If I get a squadron of any of the MRCA tomorrow, I can take it into Pakistan. They are indeed children of higher Gods.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Nothing else.
Wrong again, it has been proven before. platforms get inducted with certain minimum criteria, and then improved upon.
Don't put baseless claims and try to portray them as facts to others.

And for the bold part.....well sigh. This infect proves hollowness of your arguments.
 

black eagle

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
130
Country flag
Report about Tejas in an OPEN magazine article about the J-20

It is this mention of the Tejas that makes most strategic affairs experts pause on India's ability to develop a credible alternative, even in partnership with Russians. The Tejas has been 23 years in the making, and as Kak says, it is a third-generation aircraft. India now hopes to skip a generation and do as much work in the next five years as it was unable to do in the past two decades or so.

The idea behind Tejas was to develop an aircraft and its engine from scratch. The Kaveri engine was to be a gas-turbine engine, but the programme ran into trouble soon. The Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) could find neither the right talent nor the parts to put it together. Then, it was hit hard by sanctions. Finally a semblance of an engine was readied three years ago with a little bit of reverse engineering. After failing several cold-weather trials in Russia, the Government finally decided to invite a foreign manufacturer as a partner in the development of the engine, which is still underway. Meanwhile, the GTRE is proud to present the failed LCA engine as one fit for ships.

It was then decided that the initial versions of the aircraft would use the American GE404 engine. The pace of the programme was hit by American sanctions, and so far only 12 GE404 engines are available to power the first squadron. The radar that HAL, DRDO and ADA were developing ran into problems as the radar units developed by these entities ''did not talk to each other'', meaning the on-board radar was dysfunctional. The Government was forced to requisition Israeli radars.

The Tejas is touted as a fly-by-wire system; that is, one that uses sophisticated computer electronics to make it as foolproof as possible. A fly-by-wire aircraft normally has four circuits for each connection, meaning even if one circuit to the landing gear fails, three others will still operate. But in reality, the Indian Tejas has only two such circuits, not four. Technically it does not qualify as a fly-by-wire aircraft. And guess what India is handling in the fifth-generation fighter project it is planning with Russia—the fly-by-wire system.


http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-invisible-bird
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,308
The Tejas is touted as a fly-by-wire system; that is, one that uses sophisticated computer electronics to make it as foolproof as possible. A fly-by-wire aircraft normally has four circuits for each connection, meaning even if one circuit to the landing gear fails, three others will still operate. But in reality, the Indian Tejas has only two such circuits, not four. Technically it does not qualify as a fly-by-wire aircraft. And guess what India is handling in the fifth-generation fighter project it is planning with Russia—the fly-by-wire system.


http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-invisible-bird
Oh the famous three again strikes, obviously they understand a $hit about what they have written:

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-beaters-fcs-story-from-ade-part-1.html

Some of the highlights of the Onboard Software are Kernel working in real time, synchronization of the 4 identical computers, managing the redundancy to ensure accurate inputs for the Control Laws and the right drive to the actuators, software-controlled Built-In-Test for ensuring the health of the system before each flight.
The level of redundancy of sensors, controllers and actuators, does not defines a plane is "Fly by wire" or not.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
...........................
@Nitesh,
Isn't this BS going for a long time with no definite outcome?
I see trolls here and quality of this thread gone down, feeding trolls is useless..

As for LCA:
China is making top-class- copied-Fighters-Tank-arty like cakes & pastries from factory..
And we are here talking abt India make this A grade or C grade and should we continue to buy more from outside?!..

Recent updated is China now fielding light-to-medium arty as 155mm:

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/plz05.asp
http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=18190&p=223892#post223892
http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=18153


News is China every Aircraft is ECM & BVR capability:
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j7.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j11.asp


LCA is good enough and we need quantity..
Rest meant nothing to us..


Kunal Biswas.
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
120
Yes. I am an absolutist. IA and IAF are too. All other first rate militaries in the world too.
They are winners. They don't make compromises. They demand, you fullfill.
Everyone makes compromises, Don't BS.
Every time we buy a foreign aircraft we compromise on something to get the best fit possible.
that can be cost , equipment , or capability that is compromised but we always compromise.

cost compromises are made all the time the rest compromised on need.

All that's cute but they don't help win wars.
Absolutely who needs an indigenous defense sector to win wars.

US , Russian and Europeans are such fools they should also just buy weapons and save themselves all the troubles.
All those years of investing countless dollars , building prototypes , overcoming failure , making compromises to get where we are now, all for the sake of not winning.

You are a bloody wise man.

Even after 2020 the LCA Mk2 will be a low to mid end fighter. Both ADA as well as IAF have said it. Sure the requirement keeps it that way. But if you cannot develop an aircraft that is barely low to mid end within requirements then why bother the IAF. Perfect the development and they bother them with it. Until then they have other aircraft to bother about.
And what what the hell is wrong with a low to mid end aircraft , why the hell do the Russians make MIg-29's and Americans make F-16.
They are low to mid-end to keep costs down , and offset the cost of high end aircraft in term of quantity rather. Thats why there are requirements for low to mid end aircraft in the first place.
Cost effectiveness is one aspect where the LCA does shine , you will not get such capabilities at that price anywhere else.

Also This is not a bother for the IAF its a bloody responsibility. They have their stake and interest in indigenous development more than the developers.
When they wrote that ASR they became a shareholder.

A lot of people take the example of Israeli Merkava. But people don't understand that the Merkava became Israel's best battle tank 10 years after induction. The first 2 models of the tank were pathetic, the M60 versions in Israel were better than that. However they were inducted only because of the security situation in their area of interest. They needed newer tanks for quick replacement to cover attrition.

India does not have the same security situation like Israel that sub standard products have to be inducted at a fast pace just to encourage state owned PSUs. The enemies we have are more skilled and some better equipped than the enemies of Israel. We need large armies which are currently overstretched, the same with the air force. Taking away 2 squadrons of their sanctioned strength and replacing them with development aircraft does not get anywhere.
How is our attrition rate with soviet era aircraft any different , how many mig's and pilots have we lost over the years. And besides that point
We are phasing out aircraft faster than commissioning new new ones

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100808/160113317.html
The 121 upgraded MiG-21 Bison to be phased from 2017 , Other 80-90 Non-upgraded MiG-21s not included here to be phased out in 2012/2013
.

nearly 100 mig-21's will be phased out , they are gone and are not fighting any bloody war.
We already have squadron strength(32.5) well bellow that of our current sanctioned of 39.5.
That is 3-4 squadrons of unugraded mig-21's gone by 2012 , with a replacement of only two tejas mk-1 entering the fleet by then.

Lets say the 121 mig-21 bisions are replaced by the 124 MMRCA aircraft , it still does not change the fact there is a gaping whole of 80-90 mig-21's from 2012 onwards with no replacements in sight till 2018.

Get of your high horse , and see the lifeline that the Tejas is . WE are dam lucky to have it as replacement to those mig-21's.

At least the IAF can go to war with the Old Mig-21s, but not the new LCAs. Post 2012, IAF will get stuck with development aircraft all over again.
WTF , dude have you looked at the attrition rate on the Mig-21's , they have been unable to do anything to fix it.
I am not even talking mig-21 bis , i am talking the lowest end Mig-21 in our fleets , on what parameters as they more ready then the Tejas.

Answer me this question specifically.

Of course all my previous points about also helping the indigenous effort stand.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,016
Everyone makes compromises, Don't BS.
Every time we buy a foreign aircraft we compromise on something to get the best fit possible.
that can be cost , equipment , or capability that is compromised but we always compromise.

cost compromises are made all the time the rest compromised on need.
Ok. So after IA and IAF lose the first war, they will say. Guys this is our first war and we lost. But we gained something valuable, experience. Now we can build up on this experience and win consecutive wars we fight.

Second war, draw. IA and IAF: Wohoo! This was a great learning experience. Our boys did well. Half of them are dead, but its fine, the other half can carry on the great work.

Third war, victory. IA and IAF: Woohoo finally we win. After years of consistently losing wars we are finally victorious. Yeah! This calls for a champagne. We are finally in the big league.

This is your attitude people. Grow up. IA and IAF CANNOT compromise. IA and IAF are absolutists.

Win or shut down.

Absolutely who needs an indigenous defense sector to win wars.
Israel won all their wars without an indigenous industry. Their industry came up only after the 90s.

You are a bloody wise man.
Thank You.

And what what the hell is wrong with a low to mid end aircraft , why the hell do the Russians make MIg-29's and Americans make F-16.
They are low to mid-end to keep costs down , and offset the cost of high end aircraft in term of quantity rather. Thats why there are requirements for low to mid end aircraft in the first place.
Cost effectiveness is one aspect where the LCA does shine , you will not get such capabilities at that price anywhere else.
Mig-29 and F-16 are high end aircraft. Their low to mid end aircraft were F-4 and Mig-21.

Also This is not a bother for the IAF its a bloody responsibility. They have their stake and interest in indigenous development more than the developers.
When they wrote that ASR they became a shareholder.
Then DRDO is supposed to deliver within ASR. Not make what they want and try to sell. This isn't window shopping.

How is our attrition rate with soviet era aircraft any different , how many mig's and pilots have we lost over the years. And besides that point
We are phasing out aircraft faster than commissioning new new ones
That's our fault. We kept using sub standard aircraft beyond its life time. We were not rich enough to do anything at the time. DRDO was supposed to have delivered the LCA by 1995, maybe even 2000. A Lot of the crashes of the Mig-21 happened after 2000. DRDO failed at deliveries.

nearly 100 mig-21's will be phased out , they are gone and are not fighting any bloody war.
We already have squadron strength(32.5) well bellow that of our current sanctioned of 39.5.
So, we replace sub standard aircraft with more substandard aircraft.
Do you see PLAAF buying JF-17? Heck they have hundreds of aircraft that need replacing. Their old junks see even less flying time than the civilian pilots. But do you see them running around to replace them with the JF-17 which can be manufactured faster than the J-10 or the LCA(by China).

That is 3-4 squadrons of unugraded mig-21's gone by 2012 , with a replacement of only two tejas mk-1 entering the fleet by then.
Yes and they will be replaced by the additional orders of MKI. The last 2 orders of 92 MKI is just that. These aircraft are being manufactured in Russia as we speak.

Lets say the 121 mig-21 bisions are replaced by the 124 MMRCA aircraft , it still does not change the fact there is a gaping whole of 80-90 mig-21's from 2012 onwards with no replacements in sight till 2018.
The IAF Will exercise its option of buying additional 64 MRCA.

Get of your high horse , and see the lifeline that the Tejas is . WE are dam lucky to have it as replacement to those mig-21's.
No we aren't.

WTF , dude have you looked at the attrition rate on the Mig-21's , they have been unable to do anything to fix it.
That's GOI's fault. They refused to pay extra for complete ToT for Mig-21 when they had the chance. We could have been making Mig-21 spares by ourselves had it not been for that. It's our fault.

Also, when you say "they" have been unable to fix anything, you are talking about DRDO not IAF. It's DRDO's job to fix stuff.

I am not even talking mig-21 bis , i am talking the lowest end Mig-21 in our fleets , on what parameters as they more ready then the Tejas.
It was the old Mig-21s that took out the PN Atlantique when it crossed borders. They are fully functional aircraft. They are being replaced to the point where adding more LCAs will not make a difference.

Answer me this question specifically.

Of course all my previous points about also helping the indigenous effort stand.
IAF are absolutists. They HAVE to win wars. They don't have any other choice. They CANNOT compromise because they are NOT allowed to. But somehow DRDO is allowed to.

Fact is even DRDO is NOT allowed to make compromises. Requirements are always followed by all foreign OEMs. They sometimes give stuff that even surpasses ASR. Like Mig-35's radar specifications far surpass the ASR for MRCA along with TOT. It's only the media that talks about making compromises on indigenous systems because people are naive enough to buy the stories. Nobody else does it. Nobody.

There should be a limit to indigenous. If you cannot make a system that is good enough, then you have to simply try again. I even gave real life examples. Like the Americans imported the L-44 gun from the Germans for their Abrams. They had their own gun. But it wasn't anywhere good enough. The US Army told them to change the gun or pack up. So, Chrysler imported. The same way the Strykers use German ERA. The American ERA wasn't good enough for them. The Americans also use Russian engines on their most advanced satellite launch vehicle, ATLAS V. NASA is still not able to get their own engine on it.

USN is possibly planning on inducting diesel electric subs. Guess what? None of the American shipyards have the ballz to try and fill their requirements. They are afraid they will get kicked out of the deal because the Europeans are better at diesel electric subs. So much for indigenous.

These are hard hitting proof that indigenous should never compromise the forces operational preparedness no matter how inflated the ego is.

LM did not compromise on the F-22. They built such a super jet that even USAF cannot afford it. That's research and development. When you have such competition, you are at least supposed to fullfill ASR.
 

Pintu

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
12,082
Likes
348
But in reality, the Indian Tejas has only two such circuits, not four.
I've found out here :

The aircraft has a quadruplex fly-by-wire digital automatic flight control. The navigation suite includes Sagem SIGMA 95N ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system with an integrated global positioning system.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tejas/
Regards

PS: Since I'm a layman in this subject can anybody please shade some light on 'quadruplex fly-by-wire digital automatic flight control' ?
 

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
168
p2prada, you have a propensity to make illogical statements just to sustain your hatred for any indigenous equipment. while i would not try to convince you which i know would go no where as we have seen in the past, will answer some of your gems as time permits me.

some from your post # 1454.

DRDO was supposed to have delivered the LCA by 1995, maybe even 2000. A Lot of the crashes of the Mig-21 happened after 2000. DRDO failed at deliveries.
clearly you are hinting at LCA delay!!

now see this -

The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been
initiated in August"Ÿ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs
560.00 Cr. This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase
(PDP). After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to
build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into Technical
Development Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase. The Full Scale Engineering
Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April"Ÿ1993 at a cost
of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983).
The scope of FSED
Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build
operational proto-vehicles at a later stage. LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004.
now this is the standing committee report not some media report which as always you will not beleive. now tell me when the sanction for even TDs is given only in april 1993, how in the hell LCA would have been ready by 1995 as you are saying?? in 2001 the TD flew!! 8 years is all it took!! does it compare with the rest in the world. think in an unbiased fashion - which you are not used to, if possible. if not don't throw false observations borne out of your wild imaginations.

While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go
ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles. The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build
three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure
required for producing 08 aircrafts per year
and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP)
aircrafts.
do you even know that apart from three PVs meant for airforce, a naval one - NP1, a trainer one - PV5 were built??

The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely,
Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of
preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and
avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence.
(Original design was
made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.
you keep harping on weight gain as if it was only ADA which was at fault. in 2004 specs were changed wrt weapons, sensors and avionics. no doubt this was necessary but how does only ADA is responsible?? IAF too is responsible for not thinking futuristically and MOD too for the late sanction. so if you want to crticise include all. don't pick and choose the way you do so naturally whenever the subject is to induct indigenous aircraft/tanks and targetting only DRDO and exonerating the rest.

besides being "conservative" as any designer would be - naturally - when building a new stuff, is a norm everywhere. why does only indian designers need to be 'not' conservative particularly when they were doing it for the first time in their history??

all the quotes above from the STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT FOR 2010 - 2011 (9TH REPORT), MOD.

http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defence/FINAL - 9TH REPORT.pdf

WTF , dude have you looked at the attrition rate on the Mig-21's , they have been unable to do anything to fix it.
That's GOI's fault. They refused to pay extra for complete ToT for Mig-21 when they had the chance. We could have been making Mig-21 spares by ourselves had it not been for that. It's our fault.
GOI would not have gone for it simply because it was obsolete and MIG corporation had disbanded the line by 90s when spares became a problem when SU broke up!! the fact that they delayed even Mirage 2000 as MMRCA was IMO a big fault. particularly when Dassault was willing to transfer the assembly line for Mirage 2000!! the result is IAF still depends on the Mig 21s which should have been retired in the 90s.

Also, when you say "they" have been unable to fix anything, you are talking about DRDO not IAF. It's DRDO's job to fix stuff.
why you keep bluffing away?? DRDO is a R&D organisation and it is not a production agency. even LCA is produced by HAL!! how is it that DRDO is responsible for 'fixing' spares for Mig - 21s?? it is IAF's responsibility. do you even know IAF runs "BASE REPAIRS OVERHAUL DEPOS" which are maintainence depos including for manufacture of "spares" if need be. heard of OJHAR??

stop making illogical observations.

It was the old Mig-21s that took out the PN Atlantique when it crossed borders. They are fully functional aircraft.
wow, an achievement yeah?? do you know PN Atlantique is a subsonic recce bird?? you don't even need a Mig 21 for it. a MANPAD shot would have done it!!

PS : will pick some more gems from your other posts when time permits me.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,016
p2prada, you have a propensity to make illogical statements just to sustain your hatred for any indigenous equipment. while i would not try to convince you which i know would go no where as we have seen in the past, will answer some of your gems as time permits me.
Oh! Puleese. I hate sub standard indigenous products. I like our successes. Both Arjun and LCA are sub standard products that don't fit requirements. They are very late and are totally useless if inducted.

At the same time Akash and Prithvi missiles are great products. They fit requirements and they DO what they are designed to DO.

As long as it's not a show piece its great.

some from your post # 1454.

clearly you are hinting at LCA delay!!

now see this -

now this is the standing committee report not some media report which as always you will not beleive. now tell me when the sanction for even TDs is given only in april 1993, how in the hell LCA would have been ready by 1995 as you are saying?? in 2001 the TD flew!! 8 years is all it took!! does it compare with the rest in the world. think in an unbiased fashion - which you are not used to, if possible. if not don't throw false observations borne out of your wild imaginations.
Oh! Boy. As usual you don't know a thing about LCA. Who told you to interpret this any way you like?

Let's take a look at what other countries did.

LM got a proposal to develop YF-22 in 1986. They finished the design cycle in 2 years and then the phase I prototype development in 2 years. So, they got a prototype flying in 1990. 4 years since they were allowed, from design stage to flying prototype stage.

PAKFA, same. They started in 2006, Phase I. They got a prototype PAKFA flying in 4 years.

Chengdu J-20. US Naval directorate got information saying the Chinese have started construction of a fifth gen fighter in 2007. They got a prototype flying in 4 years.

LCA. IAF submitted ASR in '85. Design phase started in '88 and ended in '90. Fine. Phase I started in '93. From this point on our foreign counterparts got a flying prototype in 4 years. We got our first prototype in 1995 which was supposed to have been flying. But, due to obvious technological hurdles it never started flying. IAF was told and given 100% guarantee that LCA will be a success. But it never happened. Time passed and after 8 years the first prototype flew.

After the first flight. It has taken 10 years for IOC with only 1500 test flights. And yes. That's ONLY 1500 test flights. For some reason Sukhoi will be doing twice that in 3 years.

So, after 20 years warfare changed, requirements changed and somehow LCA is still not able to fulfill requirements that was given years ago. LCA has remained the same. IAF lost interest.

do you even know that apart from three PVs meant for airforce, a naval one - NP1, a trainer one - PV5 were built??
What's that got to do with anything? FONA Admiral already said they will induct out of patriotism rather than genuine need.

you keep harping on weight gain as if it was only ADA which was at fault. in 2004 specs were changed wrt weapons, sensors and avionics. no doubt this was necessary but how does only ADA is responsible??
Only ADA is responsible. LCA wasn't some futuristic fighter. It was one among the many.

IAF too is responsible for not thinking futuristically and MOD too for the late sanction. so if you want to crticise include all. don't pick and choose the way you do so naturally whenever the subject is to induct indigenous aircraft/tanks and targetting only DRDO and exonerating the rest.
If IAF thought futuristically, ADA wouldn't have gotten LCA flying at all.

I already gave you the time line of what should have been done. ADA failed. Everybody including ADA knows that. But still sub standard products are being forced into a force that cannot use them.

besides being "conservative" as any designer would be - naturally - when building a new stuff, is a norm everywhere. why does only indian designers need to be 'not' conservative particularly when they were doing it for the first time in their history??
The LCA specifications are conservative. At least fill those first. IAF did not ask for F-22. The LCA does not even match Mirage-2000 even in areas where it is supposed to out match it.

LCA specs are very very conservative. If this was a game, ADA was playing EASY mode with cheat codes. They fu*ked up because of piss poor management who made tall promises and never delivered.

GOI would not have gone for it simply because it was obsolete and MIG corporation had disbanded the line by 90s when spares became a problem when SU broke up!![
Mig-21 was one of the most advanced fighters out there. You forget we inducted them in 1964. GOI did not consider ToT worth the money because of Marut's development. Saying Mig-21 was obsolete in 1961 is like saying Su-35 is obsolete in 2011.

the fact that they delayed even Mirage 2000 as MMRCA was IMO a big fault. particularly when Dassault was willing to transfer the assembly line for Mirage 2000!! the result is IAF still depends on the Mig 21s which should have been retired in the 90s.
You forget. IAF wanted Mirage-2000 ASAP. But GoI did not relent. They were having wet dreams about Tejas.

why you keep bluffing away?? DRDO is a R&D organisation and it is not a production agency. even LCA is produced by HAL!! how is it that DRDO is responsible for 'fixing' spares for Mig - 21s?? it is IAF's responsibility. do you even know IAF runs "BASE REPAIRS OVERHAUL DEPOS" which are maintainence depos including for manufacture of "spares" if need be. heard of OJHAR??
You forget we did not get ToT. We are not allowed to make spares. If spares are to be made, they have to be reverse engineered. And only DRDO is capable of doing that because only they have the infrastructure for it. If DRDO designs, HAL manufactures and IAF will take care of the rest.

BASE REPAIRS OVERHAUL DEPOS don't make spares. They use spares. Even today. They can only cannibalize older aircraft.

stop making illogical observations.
Never did. You assume too much.

wow, an achievement yeah?? do you know PN Atlantique is a subsonic recce bird?? you don't even need a Mig 21 for it. a MANPAD shot would have done it!!
So what? Mig-21 is an operational bird. You were comparing that to some bird which will be ready only in 2012.

You want the cream of our air force to fly development aircraft. It's like kicking Sachin Tendulkar out of the national team and sending him to county cricket.

The Mig-21 pilots would much rather be the WSO's on MKI rather than flying LCA when they know their glory days will be over even before they retire.

PS : will pick some more gems from your other posts when time permits me.
Will shoot down your gems with simple logic. So, I can wait.
 
Last edited:

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
120
What's that got to do with anything? FONA Admiral already said they will induct out of patriotism rather than genuine need.
past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets.
but You will twist and turn anything to meet your POV.

what i will not stand is you blatantly insinuating that they are inducting it out of blind patriotism ,

Read bloody english if you can

The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."
Their intention have been made crystal clear ,
They may not need the aircraft and it may only be a modest aircraft at best.
but
past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets.
They fact that the navy is the one making the most progress developing indigenous systems from Submarines , Stealth destroyers and Aircraft Carriers, while still modernizing at a respectable pace, puts a lot more weight behind those words.
Sure they have long way to go on many accounts but they actually seem to be doing something about getting their , whether that be modernization or indeginisation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

New threads

Articles

Top