ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ppgj]

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.

unfortunately for you, both Arjun and LCA is being inducted inspite of being "substandard" - according to you. while "super duper" Mig 21s and Mig 27s (which have been falling out of the sky like as if there is no tomorrow) and T-90S ( with many issues unresolved still )are getting step motherly treatment and are being short shrifted. you must be feeling terribly sorry for both IA and IAF. isn't it?? my sympathies.

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

wow, that is totally unexpected. good one. thank you.

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

unfortunately we don't have that luxury sir.

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.

glad to know you know so much about LCA and others don't. congrats.

the interpretation was regards "delay" of the LCA which i answered which is exactly what you are talking too - as below!!

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.

can you post a detailed link to this??

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

amazing!!! again can you post a detailed link on this?? particularly when the design and development wrt 5th gen fighter is secretive and is very time consuming running into deacdes??

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.

wow. that takes the cake. so "just beacuse US naval directorate got info in 2007" you deduce stupendously that the prototype took only 4 years while americans themselves took decades for the F-22!!

what can i say?? IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

in the mean time why don't you checkout on when Rafale & Eurofighter was initiated and when they actually got them??

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.

IAF submitted the first ASR and not the final ASR in 1985. the MOD approval for full scale engineering only came in 1993. which prototype was ready in 1995 that could have flown?? would be interesting to know. do share a link.

ADA/ADE team had to work from the scratch on FBW & CLAW and this was post sanctions in 1998. infact it was in 1998 when because of US GOVT directive - when the ADE team was in the process of testing the FBW in the US, the team was asked to leave with their modules being confiscated too. so when an unstable platform like LCA which depends on FBW to fly - could have flown without a FBW?? that too in 1995?? enlighten us sir.

But, due to obvious technological hurdles it never started flying.

see above.

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.

100% guarantee?? does anybody give that?? heck even my shoes don't come with that sort of a guarantee.

would you be kind enough to show me a credible source??

yes after 8 years it flew which is what i too and said which is comparable to any in the aviation manufacture.

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.

if one builds 10 prototypes in one go and starts testing, it can be brought down somewhat. but sensible people will not do that way. they will only build one and test it and any discrepencies found are corrected in the second TD and they keep moving forward in that way as the envelope is opened till the airframe is validated. no short cuts here.

however i do agree with you if ADA had past experience in building such aircrafts, it would be a bit faster which is why LCA mark 2 would happen faster wrt testing.

HF 24 marut if had been implemented in the 60s, would have served as a useful datapoint to bank on. but as usual our forces are not so "indigenous" friendly.

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.

how come 20 years sir - from 1993?? even if i include today it is less than 18 years!!!

however i agree that requirement change was necessary to keep it current which has been done (LCA has open architecture for future upgrade) but ofcourse it involves delay in time and cost. even SCR MOD speaks of the same.

What's that got to do with anything? FONA Admiral already said they will induct out of patriotism rather than genuine need.

you missed the point. didn't you. i said though the MOD sanction was for 3 PVs, ADA managed to build 2 more - 5 in all. great isn't it?? a big saving.

as for FONA's flag officer and rear admiral, you deliberately skipped his rest of the observation. isn't it?? he also spoke of this too -

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."

makes sense right??

Only ADA is responsible. LCA wasn't some futuristic fighter. It was one among the many.

we were speaking of weight gained by the LCA and the IAF's part in that. who is speaking of the "futuristic fighter"?? ofc LCA is one among many obviously but it is "indian" - a first, in indian aviation history!! current for today and a future investment for AMCA etc...

If IAF thought futuristically, ADA wouldn't have gotten LCA flying at all.

twisting a statement is an art. i am glad you have mastered it.

when i was speking of IAF being "futuristic" was wrt to their ASR not being forethought and not about a futuristic fighter. remember we were speaking of weight gain of LCA!!

so my deduction -

1. ADA was conservative in their design and were more cautious and hence overdesigned it.

2. IAF did not forsee future requirements and hence did not draw their ASR with future in mind. so changes..

3. MOD sitting on sanction and delaying it.

hence all 3 are responsible for the weight gain.

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.

your timeline is your imagination not a fact. i answered it above. ADA did not fail. obviously due to sanctions there was a delay of 2-3 years as ADE had to work from scratch for FBW and CLAW explained above. enough links available on this very thread.

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.

LCA specs are not conservative the "design is" particularly wrt weight which i have spoken above. LCA compares with Gripen C/D versions. even they have a weight of 6600kg empty!!!

the specs of LCA are comparable to Gripen C/D.

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.

you have reading problems?? where did i say they were obsolete in 60s. i said the since spares were available till late 80s when SU was intact and hence there were no issues wrt spares. by the time the GOI could have thought of TOT of Mig 21 in the late 80s, Mig 21 was obsolete and SU had problems supplying spares and then it broke up. hence IAF had to do with problems sometimes cannibalising.

You forget. IAF wanted Mirage-2000 ASAP. But GoI did not relent. They were having wet dreams about Tejas.

wet dream is your dream. Mirage 2000 was for the MMRCA which has balloned now into a trial of 6 fighters with all classes of fighters!!! there is no connection to LCA.

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.

funny that is. DRDO REing nuts and bolts. wow.

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

i specifically asked you about OJHAR?? didn't i?? obviously you did not get the drift. enjoy this -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Unit-Articles/336-11BRD.html

how they overcame spares problem. also how they gave life extensions which involved HAL and other defence labs.

Never did. You assume too much.

sir my assumptions are modest and practical. i don't live in an imaginary world.

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.

you missed the sarcasm. Mig 21 is an operational bird no doubt. point was even a HAWK trainer with it's cannon could have done it because we are talking of an unmaneurable subsonic recce bird in indian airspace.

you showed it as if it was some great feat by the Mig 21.

as for LCA mark 1 ofc it will be combat ready in 2012. no disagreement there.

however i like your Sachin Tendulkar analogy. it's really humorous though not a relevant analogy.

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.

another googly. even Sachin Tendulkar is good at it btw.

Will shoot down your gems with simple logic. So, I can wait.

you will ofcourse. everyone knows it here. i would be happy if you do it with facts and datapoints rather than fantasies and rhetoric.

hope i get some time. it would be interesting.

 

[p2prada]

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



Their intention have been made crystal clear ,
They may not need the aircraft and it may only be a modest aircraft at best.
but


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.

Nice tone. But you still don't get the point do you. It's great to go for indigenous stuff. But there is a difference in timely delivery and full capability which matter more than indigenous development. These are your words.

http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=3167&p=213629&viewfull=1#post213629

Timely delivery and Full capabilities are what matter most , indigenous development comes after.

For some reason you use your head with LCH. But when it comes to LCA it suddenly becomes the opposite. Cheers.

The only mistake you made was adding LCA and Arjun to your post. They are neither timely delivered nor are they fully capable.

Even the LCH sucks compared to foreign equivalents. But I am happy that it is going to conform to requirements and is being delivered in time. It has scope for improvement and since its following schedule there will be no problems for the IAF(unforseen situations not included) to induct without it having to undergo new changes in requirement. If LCA was the same, then IAF would have inducted LCA a long time back.

 

[p2prada]

unfortunately for you, both Arjun and LCA is being inducted inspite of being "substandard" - according to you. while "super duper" Mig 21s and Mig 27s (which have been falling out of the sky like as if there is no tomorrow) and T-90S ( with many issues unresolved still )are getting step motherly treatment and are being short shrifted. you must be feeling terribly sorry for both IA and IAF. isn't it?? my sympathies.

Yes they are being inducted even after top officials of IAF and IA said they don't follow requirements.

wow, that is totally unexpected. good one. thank you.

You are welcome. I obviously like successful products. The failed ones can go to hell. For some reason none of you have yet criticised the cancellation of Trishul.

unfortunately we don't have that luxury sir.

Yes we do. This isn't missiles or EW equipment. We have alternatives.

glad to know you know so much about LCA and others don't. congrats.

What I said is common knowledge.

can you post a detailed link to this??

Firstly you have to understand that I am talking about design stage to first flight.
Check Global Security. Under F-22's History.

Issue of RFP in 1986. First flight in 1990.

amazing!!! again can you post a detailed link on this?? particularly when the design and development wrt 5th gen fighter is secretive and is very time consuming running into deacdes??

What are you talking about? The Russians said they built and flew the PAKFA in 3-4 years. This is open source info. The "running into decades" part is for maturing the platform to adhere to requirements.

Alexander Zelin said in August 2007 that they have finished design and will soon be starting construction of prototypes. In 2009 he came forward saying 3 prototypes are ready.

wow. that takes the cake. so "just beacuse US naval directorate got info in 2007" you deduce stupendously that the prototype took only 4 years while americans themselves took decades for the F-22!!

Decades to perfect the F-22. But design to first flight is the shortest part of developing an aircraft. We took 8 years for LCA's first flight and 10 years to test it for IOC.

what can i say?? IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

Right back at you.

in the mean time why don't you checkout on when Rafale & Eurofighter was initiated and when they actually got them??

EF got stuck in who gets to do what. And other political and technological problems. Their delay was primarily political because of the consortium.

Also, when they delivered the fighter as IOC, the fighter was capable of Mach 2 and was already equipped with AMRAAM and a state of the art radar.

Rafale was better than all other aircraft from design to first flight. Dassault was awarded contract in 1983. They built 2 prototypes by 1985 and first flight was in 1986.

Also you cannot compare any of these aircraft with the LCA Mk2 either because of the technology used and the quality of the airframe, let alone the LCA Mk1.

IAF submitted the first ASR and not the final ASR in 1985. the MOD approval for full scale engineering only came in 1993. which prototype was ready in 1995 that could have flown?? would be interesting to know. do share a link.

Political problems not withstanding IAF did plot out the ASR for delivery in 1995. It was a comprehensive ASR with full requirements. LCA has not achieved those requirements even today. I am not talking about radar, weapons, avionics etc which were changed later on. I am talking about basic aerodynamic features like climb rate, AoA and turn rates. The airframe itself is sub standard.

Also, 2 TDs similar to Rafale were made in 1995(17th November to be exact) and 1998. Check LCA chronology that's freely available on the internet. These were equipped with fly by wire, but never made it into the sky because of a whole host of problems.

When an ASR is made, it does not have only technological requirements, it even consists of dates and time taken for each technology. The project definition is much more comprehensive which consists of how many institutes will develop it and how much it will cost. It will have specific points like design stage should take 11 months, first prototype should be made in 20 months, first flight should happen in 50 months from D day etc. None of that was obviously followed.

ADA/ADE team had to work from the scratch on FBW & CLAW and this was post sanctions in 1998. infact it was in 1998 when because of US GOVT directive - when the ADE team was in the process of testing the FBW in the US, the team was asked to leave with their modules being confiscated too. so when an unstable platform like LCA which depends on FBW to fly - could have flown without a FBW?? that too in 1995?? enlighten us sir.

LCA had an analog FCS supplied by Dassault in 1988. It was a time tested FCS that was also used on Mirage-2000. The CLAW team was setup in 1992 for a digital FBW. The digital FBW was first tested using BaE's simulators and then the F-16 VISTA's simulators in US by Lockheed. This was to be ready in a year. Only integration work was left and then they got kicked out. So, they finished integration by themselves which took time without the help.

100% guarantee?? does anybody give that?? heck even my shoes don't come with that sort of a guarantee.

would you be kind enough to show me a credible source??

Look you can get stuck on detail or look at the big picture. ADA said they will get a prototype flying within stipulated terms. They overshot. A million reasons can be given but it does not change the fact that IAF had actually put their plans on the back burner because of the LCA. The Lost decade is because of the LCA which I will explain below.

yes after 8 years it flew which is what i too and said which is comparable to any in the aviation manufacture.

No it's not. Even after Dassault gave FCS we couldn't get the LCA flying. LCA is the only aircraft today which took 8 years from design stage to flying stage. The ONLY aircraft.

if one builds 10 prototypes in one go and starts testing, it can be brought down somewhat. but sensible people will not do that way. they will only build one and test it and any discrepencies found are corrected in the second TD and they keep moving forward in that way as the envelope is opened till the airframe is validated. no short cuts here.

Yes. But somehow Sukhoi built 3 prototypes before first flight. The speed in which ADA followed its procedures saw 10 different Air Chiefs criticizing the project.

however i do agree with you if ADA had past experience in building such aircrafts, it would be a bit faster which is why LCA mark 2 would happen faster wrt testing.

Yes. That's why I said let ADA continue working on LCA and then have the IAF induct the finished product, even IOC of Mk2 is fine. The IAF does not like the Mk1 itself so why force it down on them. This way it does not affect IAF's operational preparedness and ADA will fulfill it's goal with LCA.

HF 24 marut if had been implemented in the 60s, would have served as a useful datapoint to bank on. but as usual our forces are not so "indigenous" friendly.

Haha. The HF-24 sucked too. It barely reached Mach 1 and only in specific conditions and specific altitudes. IAF loved the aircraft until they found out it sucks. They actually tried speeding up the project too.

how come 20 years sir - from 1993?? even if i include today it is less than 18 years!!!

ZZZ. Like I said, get stuck on detail or not is upto you.

"Oooh! I cannot argue his other points so I will catch this one.
Hehe! If I point out 1993 to 2011 is 18 years not 20, then I can disprove all his other points too."

Look at the big picture. LCA does not fit requirements. IAF is openly criticizing the project. So, why is GoI forcing it down on them? This has its root in 1998 which will be explained below.

however i agree that requirement change was necessary to keep it current which has been done (LCA has open architecture for future upgrade) but ofcourse it involves delay in time and cost. even SCR MOD speaks of the same.

Then why give a half finished product? Nobody else has done it.

you missed the point. didn't you. i said though the MOD sanction was for 3 PVs, ADA managed to build 2 more - 5 in all. great isn't it?? a big saving.

Its not the question of how many prototypes you have flying in the air. It's the question of how many test points has each of them contributed to the overall project. It's like the Pakistanis claiming they built 8 while ADA built only 5 and then saying they are ahead of the game.

Each prototype is built for specific reasons. The more the prototypes the greater the burden on the pilot and ground team to test different parameters in different flights rather than in just 1 flight. Sukhoi also said that they will speed up the project by introducing less number of prototypes and more testing parameters on each type. This results in lesser delays in opertionalizing the aircraft.

So building 5 instead of 3 has only delayed the project.

as for FONA's flag officer and rear admiral, you deliberately skipped his rest of the observation. isn't it?? he also spoke of this too -

I did not skip anything. Look at the big picture. He is clearly saying LCA does not fit requirements. But it will be inducted because after a decade or so it will bear fruit. But the single most important fact is LCA is not required at all. They will only be inducting it out of reduced hassles dealing with foreign OEMs. But even that will be taken care of after we have our own supply depos.

we were speaking of weight gained by the LCA and the IAF's part in that. who is speaking of the "futuristic fighter"?? ofc LCA is one among many obviously but it is "indian" - a first, in indian aviation history!! current for today and a future investment for AMCA etc...

Huh! Weight gained. You meant the extra unwanted 1.5 tonnes of weight that EADS will be reducing? You have to be clearer in your post.

If you are talking about IAF asking for an increase in 1 ton over current empty weight then that is more to do with today's electronics and a requirement for more fuel load to compensate the loss in powering them.

1. ADA was conservative in their design and were more cautious and hence overdesigned it.

That's the funniest statement ever. No. The Landing gear sucks azz. ADA openly said the LCA undercarriage is overweight by 1.5 tons and that they will be paying EADS $20Million to fix it for them.

2. IAF did not forsee future requirements and hence did not draw their ASR with future in mind. so changes..

The IAF requirements were meant for an aircraft in 1995. They never changed requirements until after 2000. So, they gave 15 years for ADA and even that was no good. In 1985, IAF never knew they would be inducting R-77M or AESA radar.

3. MOD sitting on sanction and delaying it.

hence all 3 are responsible for the weight gain.

WTF?

your timeline is your imagination not a fact. i answered it above. ADA did not fail. obviously due to sanctions there was a delay of 2-3 years as ADE had to work from scratch for FBW and CLAW explained above. enough links available on this very thread.

Delay of 2-3 Years. ROFL. Whatever happened to Dassault's Analog FCS? It was enough to get the prototype flying.

LCA specs are not conservative the "design is" particularly wrt weight which i have spoken above. LCA compares with Gripen C/D versions. even they have a weight of 6600kg empty!!!

Yes and No. LCA's empty weight is supposed to be 5 tons. The current weight of 6.5 tons is primarily because of an overweight landing gear which they have openly admitted to.

the specs of LCA are comparable to Gripen C/D.

Only on paper. The Gripen is a superior fighter in all aspects.

you have reading problems?? where did i say they were obsolete in 60s. i said the since spares were available till late 80s when SU was intact and hence there were no issues wrt spares. by the time the GOI could have thought of TOT of Mig 21 in the late 80s, Mig 21 was obsolete and SU had problems supplying spares and then it broke up. hence IAF had to do with problems sometimes cannibalising.

Your statement, GOI would not have gone for it simply because it was obsolete

Don't eat up your own words now. I am talking about Mig-21s full ToT in 1960s itself. Nobody pays for ToT after 2 or 30 years. That's just stupid. SU offered 100% spares manufacturing facility, but GoI was stingy because they believed Marut will be a major success.

wet dream is your dream. Mirage 2000 was for the MMRCA which has balloned now into a trial of 6 fighters with all classes of fighters!!! there is no connection to LCA.

Yes. This is where I wanted to post about bits and pieces of our history when I said I will explain below. After 1996, IAF told GoI they are interested in the Mirage-2000 and they want to induct more as replacement to Mig-21s from 2000 onwards. Dassault even came forward after 1999 Kargil war saying they were open to selling more Mirages. But GoI did not pay any attention because ADA was making tall promises from the background.

They made hopelessly empty promises saying LCA will be a huge success and made a lot of noise during its first flight. Looking at the first flight it even looked for sometime that ADA will follow through. GoI under Vajpayee paid more attention to the success of the program and provided limitless funding. The IAF was content on upgrading Mig-21s to Bison standard as they waited for LCA. However after ADA released the time line of tests IAF immediately gave new RFPs for electronics while keeping the flight systems the same. So, it looked like LCA is going to be a success, but not any time soon. However inductions were supposed to happen in 2006 with the indigenous Kaveri engine.

IAF had earlier projected a requirement for 126 aircraft in 2001. This requirement was put on hold for the LCA even though the IAF was interested in speedy inductions of the Mirage2000. Since time line for LCA and Mirage inductions were similar, GoI persisted on LCA. Then in 2004 Kaveri failed tests in Russia. This was a big blow to the project. ADA had to test LCA on the "inadequate" F404 engine. So, IAF quickly went into damage control and started work on the MRCA deal that we know of today. RFI's were sent in 2004 and after the OEM's gave specifications the RFPs followed in 2007. GoI finally relented.

So, you CANNOT blame the IAF in anyway for the LCA fiasco. This was why the term "the lost decade" was coined. IAF's Mig-21 crashes were the direct result of ADA's empty promises.

Even after Kaveri failed GTRE kept saying they will deliver. In 2005 they said they will have Kaveri installed in one LCA prototype by 2007. It never happened. In 2008 they said it will be done by 2009. Even that day came and went. In end 2009 they finally accepted the Kaveri is not meant for LCA and that they will work with Snecma on this one. ADA was the same with LCA. All IAF did was wait and wait and when finally the day arrived they were thrust with a sub standard product.

funny that is. DRDO REing nuts and bolts. wow.

Then who else?

i specifically asked you about OJHAR?? didn't i?? obviously you did not get the drift. enjoy this -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Unit-Articles/336-11BRD.html

how they overcame spares problem. also how they gave life extensions which involved HAL and other defence labs.

OMG. This is completely different from making spares. You don't get the point of OJHAR at all. Its a depot for overhauling equipment. It's only a big Garage. They don't manufacture anything. I will explain.

When you get a new product like a car or a motorbike. There are always some issue or the other plaguing it. Not every machine is the same. Some will give engine trouble, some will have a bad gear train, some will have problems with accelerator, some with issues like badly placed parts or accessories. Like when I bought my Honda Unicorn 5 years back I had an issue with the gear box. The first gear and second gear were not properly aligned and it was quite hard. I asked it to be fixed. The mechanics did not know how to go about it and neither did I. It looked Like a manufacturing defect. So, I asked the mechanic to change the angle of the shifting mechanism to make it easy for gear change. Now the shift is aligned downwards and is no longer parallel to the ground. This was the full weight of my heel is on the back. So, whenever I change gears I use minimum energy.

That's what OJHAR does. If something is wrong they will fix it. They do not manufacture parts. They only customize the aircraft for better handling. It's just a very advanced Garage.

sir my assumptions are modest and practical. i don't live in an imaginary world.

After this post you no longer will.

you missed the sarcasm. Mig 21 is an operational bird no doubt. point was even a HAWK trainer with it's cannon could have done it because we are talking of an unmaneurable subsonic recce bird in indian airspace.

And therein lies the difference. Operational.

you will ofcourse. everyone knows it here. i would be happy if you do it with facts and datapoints rather than fantasies and rhetoric.

hope i get some time. it would be interesting.

So, are these facts and datapoints enough or do I bring more into the picture.

 

[ppgj]

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.

well put Satish. in complete agreement.

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.

Satish, ADA did study putting canards on the LCA initially but post wind tunnel experiments they concluded it was not necessary and dropped that idea. there was pdf article i read long back and am unable to find it now. it must be out there on the net.

however an interesting observation was made by a poster called Siva Mahalingam on BR way back in 1998 regarding the issue of canards on LCA as below -

"(LCA) Uses delta planform rather than close coupled canard arrangement of Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter and Lavi/F10, or conventional aft tail arrangement of F16 and F22. Delta wing has the disadvantage of loss of control at high angle of attack due to airflow at wing root abruptly changing between straight back over wing to cutting upward and across fuselage. Mirage 2000 and Kfir/Cheetah Mirage III modifications have strakes /small canards in front of wing for this reason. Close coupled canard selected for Gripen, Rafael, Eurofighter, Lavi/F10 and aft tail selected for F22 also for same reason. These either provide alternative control surface unaffected by air flow changes or fixed canards to increase the angle of attach required to change airflow (Kfir) or strakes to induce a vortex which ensures the change will occur gradually and so not lead to loss of control (Mirage 2000). In the LCA the designers have solved the problem by using a reduced (compound) sweep at the wing root and using a wing which is high at the front (and low at the back (by tipping the fuselage forward) and with anhedral in order to avoid excessive roll stability). These features also have the beneficial effect of improving forward and sideways visibility. The effectiveness of the vertical fin is also increased by tipping the fuselage forward due to airflow being deflected onto the fin from the wing when the aircraft tries to go sideways (the F4 Phantom has downward tilted tailplane for same reason). This results in a smaller fin than the other aircraft, which saves weight and reduces lateral radar cross section.

The advantage of using a delta are reduction in weight and complexity by doing away with the canards and their actuators, which is important in a very small aircraft. The disadvantage is that in order to achieve the same maneuverability as close coupled canard or aft tail configuration, a delta must be made more unstable and so place greater demands on the fly by wire system. The Gripen designers considered a delta arrangement but rejected it on the grounds that it was too risky. The weight savings and reduced drag from elimination of canards or tailplane should give LCA a good acceleration, rate of climb and rate of turn compared with F16, Rafael, Eurofighter. Lavi/F10 even though its small size means avionics, pilot and missiles will form a greater proportion of its weight."

extracted by another BR member Merlin. thanks to both and BR.

that apart even N-LCA was tested for a small canard installation. again, was found not necessary via wind tunnel tests.

the great B.Harry (may he rest in peace) speaks of it here -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downloads/Tejas-Radiance.pdf

also note what he writes about AOA. LCA will ultimately have an AOA of 35 degrees which obviously will be reached slowly with the flight envelope being opened up.

 

[SATISH]

well put Satish. in complete agreement.



Satish, ADA did study putting canards on the LCA initially but post wind tunnel experiments they concluded it was not necessary and dropped that idea. there was pdf article i read long back and am unable to find it now. it must be out there on the net.

however an interesting observation was made by a poster called Siva Mahalingam on BR way back in 1998 regarding the issue of canards on LCA as below -



extracted by another BR member Merlin. thanks to both and BR.

that apart even N-LCA was tested for a small canard installation. again, was found not necessary via wind tunnel tests.

the great B.Harry (may he rest in peace) speaks of it here -

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downloads/Tejas-Radiance.pdf

also note what he writes about AOA. LCA will ultimately have an AOA of 35 degrees which obviously will be reached slowly with the flight envelope being opened up.

Well people Think that AoA matters to point and shoot...but Energy is life in air combat. People who concentrate on AoA miss out on the time taken for the aircraft to recover and gain speed. even if Rafale can do a 26 degree AoA no Rafale pilot has crossed 22 degree AoA for the same reason for bleeding off energy.

Once you bleed energy you need to accelerate and gain speed which gives the opponent time to recover and push you in a defensive.

 

[p2prada]

There is such a thing called optimum AoA. During dog fights aircraft do not use High Alpha maneuvers without TVC. But High Alpha is used to judge the other parameters of the aircraft like engine power and turn rates. If your aircraft is capable of high AoA without stalling then your aircraft is really good at high G maneuvers as well as perform better than other aircraft in low G maneuvers. If your engine stalls at lower AoA, then your corner speed and ability to regain energy is lesser than an aircraft with higher performance.

Diving is the surest way to regain energy, but without high AoA where airframe limitations and engine power are to blame, regaining altitude at optimum speeds of 400-500knots is not possible. That's where Canards come into the picture on Delta aircraft. The Vortex generated is used to shave off the excessive bleeding of energy and generates more lift. LERX handles that in LCA.

Design on LCA calls for maximum AoA of 35 degrees, but without a more powerful engine that is not possible. Delivered performance has fallen below expected results.

LCA is great on paper. But reality is it isn't there yet.

 

[SATISH]

There is such a thing called optimum AoA. During dog fights aircraft do not use High Alpha maneuvers without TVC. But High Alpha is used to judge the other parameters of the aircraft like engine power and turn rates. If your aircraft is capable of high AoA without stalling then your aircraft is really good at high G maneuvers as well as perform better than other aircraft in low G maneuvers. If your engine stalls at lower AoA, then your corner speed and ability to regain energy is lesser than an aircraft with higher performance.

Diving is the surest way to regain energy, but without high AoA where airframe limitations and engine power are to blame, regaining altitude at optimum speeds of 400-500knots is not possible. That's where Canards come into the picture on Delta aircraft. The Vortex generated is used to shave off the excessive bleeding of energy and generates more lift. LERX handles that in LCA.

Design on LCA calls for maximum AoA of 35 degrees, but without a more powerful engine that is not possible. Delivered performance has fallen below expected results.

LCA is great on paper. But reality is it isn't there yet.

This can also be fixed with LEVCONs. ADA NP1 is a testbed to prove it and will not be a new tech during the time of the upgrade. The second batch of LCA can even sport it as there is an existing prototype with LEVCONS. We need to understand that the LCA has not yet entered Series Production.

A lot of changes has been made. For example they first told that PV2 will be the final model and then they told LSP3 will be final. Now LSP 5 is supposed to be final and LSP 6 will be used for Engine testing. So we need to wait and see how the series production model is going to be.

 

[ppgj]

Yes they are being inducted even after top officials of IAF and IA said they don't follow requirements.

bad for you then. i am happy though my sympathies remain with you.

For some reason none of you have yet criticised the cancellation of Trishul.

criticise the cancellation of Trishul?? meaning you wanted DRDO to continue working on Trishul?? good point p2prada. even i would support it from now on. thanks for reminding.

Yes we do. This isn't missiles or EW equipment. We have alternatives.

even IAF has decided otherwise sir and i think that is a wise decision not only for the current but for the future too.

Firstly you have to understand that I am talking about design stage to first flight.
Check Global Security. Under F-22's History.

Issue of RFP in 1986. First flight in 1990.

i do not doubt the americans. they have competing companies with cutting edge tools/knowledge and highly capable.

What are you talking about? The Russians said they built and flew the PAKFA in 3-4 years. This is open source info. The "running into decades" part is for maturing the platform to adhere to requirements.

Alexander Zelin said in August 2007 that they have finished design and will soon be starting construction of prototypes. In 2009 he came forward saying 3 prototypes are ready.

right from SU days including today russia's military programmes have been secretive (no issue with that) and their initiating, cancelling, changing the programme name is well known and rather difficult to follow.

here is Carlo Kopp's take on PAKFA history -

The PAK-FA properly qualifies as a 21st century project, as formal tendering for the program was launched during the 2000 - 2001 period by the Russian MoD. Russian sources claim that Sukhoi, MiG and Yakovlev were invited to bid proposals. Initial thinking was to develop a fighter larger than the MiG-29 Fulcrum, but smaller than the Su-27 Flanker, with greater range/persistence to the Flanker, low observable capability, extreme agility, supersonic cruise capability, and near STOL short field capabilities. Sukhoi won the tender in 2002 with its T-50/I-21 proposal, with MiG and Yakovlev engaged as subcontractors in the development. Russian sources state that Sukhoi's ability to fund much of the development effort from company export revenue profits was a major factor in the decision.

The initial design of the PAK-FA was finished in 2004, amid public controversies about lower than intended maximum speed, and greater than intended empty weight. Full Russian MoD funding was not provided until 2005 - 20064.

The prototype flown on the 29th January, 2010, is intended to prove aircraft aerodynamics, structure, and compatibility of the VLO shaping with aerodynamic and structural constraints.

the work was on from 2002 though full funding happened in 2005-2006.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

it is complex to say the least. again this is not to doubt the russian ability to fly a prototype but the complex nature of russian programmes.

Decades to perfect the F-22. But design to first flight is the shortest part of developing an aircraft.

you skipped the J20 deliberately?? isn't it?? but i expected it.

you said in your post "US naval intelligence got info in 2007" about J20 and since J20 flew in 2011, you deduced that it took chinese only 4 years to build and fly the TD!!! IOW if the US naval intel had got the info a week before J20 flew, then according to you it would be 7 days for the chinese to build and fly a 5th gen TD!!! how cool is that??

my quoting F22 was to highlight the complexities involved with 5th gen aircrafts and how difficult it would be for the chinese to fly the prototype.

We took 8 years for LCA's first flight and 10 years to test it for IOC.

in reality yes. but if you deduct 2 years for ADE who had to redevelop FBW/CLAW - it would be 6 years. quite comparable especially for a first timer. plus it gave India FBW/CLAW capability, a big achievement which could be used for all the crafts India will build from now on. you are underplaying a fantastic achievement. look at the big picture you keep telling others!!!

Right back at you.

no problem.

EF got stuck in who gets to do what. And other political and technological problems. Their delay was primarily political because of the consortium.

Also, when they delivered the fighter as IOC, the fighter was capable of Mach 2 and was already equipped with AMRAAM and a state of the art radar.

so EF delays happen it is pardonable, whatever may be the reasons. you have justifications for them but the same justifications do not apply to to ADA/DRDO - when they had to overcome interntional denial. cruel of you.

EF flying at mach 2 is a design feature. LCA's design parameter is Mach 1.8. so what is your point??

Rafale was better than all other aircraft from design to first flight. Dassault was awarded contract in 1983. They built 2 prototypes by 1985 and first flight was in 1986.

fine. this is why i say past experience is boon. Dassault had built Mirage 3, Mirage 2000 etc...

India will have it in future aircrafts because of LCA experience.

Also you cannot compare any of these aircraft with the LCA Mk2 either because of the technology used and the quality of the airframe, let alone the LCA Mk1.

and who compared??

Political problems not withstanding IAF did plot out the ASR for delivery in 1995. It was a comprehensive ASR with full requirements. LCA has not achieved those requirements even today. I am not talking about radar, weapons, avionics etc which were changed later on. I am talking about basic aerodynamic features like climb rate, AoA and turn rates. The airframe itself is sub standard.

did you go thro' B Harry's article which is the best compilation of info regards LCA. he speaks of AOA of 35 degrees, roll rate of 270 - 300 degrees/sec. and LCA is yet to achieve FOC. so wait.

Also, 2 TDs similar to Rafale were made in 1995(17th November to be exact) and 1998. Check LCA chronology that's freely available on the internet. These were equipped with fly by wire, but never made it into the sky because of a whole host of problems.

when FBW was not even ready in 1998 when ADE team was kicked out, how could LCA fly in 1995 or even in late 1997?? sleeping or what??

When an ASR is made, it does not have only technological requirements, it even consists of dates and time taken for each technology. The project definition is much more comprehensive which consists of how many institutes will develop it and how much it will cost. It will have specific points like design stage should take 11 months, first prototype should be made in 20 months, first flight should happen in 50 months from D day etc. None of that was obviously followed.

you are missing the fact that ADA never thought of developing FBW to begin with and the smooth way the partnership was going along with BAE, there was never a doubt regarding the time lines not the timelines you are talking of. if there had been no sanctions post pokhran, LCA could have flown in late 1998 or early 1999 with codeveloped FBW. the sanctions were a big setback and when the then scientific advisor Abdul Kalam called a meeting with the ADE, he asked the ADE team whether they could go on their own?? they said yes because of the experience they had gained via the partnership till that point. so the approval was given and ADE succeeded in their effort and LCA flew in 2001. may be a delay 2+ years but it was worth every pound. infact IMO it was a blessing in disguise as no body would have given the technology to us. now we are part of only a handful countries who can design and build FBW with associated CLAW.

LCA had an analog FCS supplied by Dassault in 1988. It was a time tested FCS that was also used on Mirage-2000. The CLAW team was setup in 1992 for a digital FBW. The digital FBW was first tested using BaE's simulators and then the F-16 VISTA's simulators in US by Lockheed. This was to be ready in a year. Only integration work was left and then they got kicked out. So, they finished integration by themselves which took time without the help.

wrong wrt the first line. ADA had no analog FCS. the french were infact approached for a digital FBW but they refused. only post that BAE came into the picture to co develop which went on till 1998 and pokhran. rest is mentioned above.

Look you can get stuck on detail or look at the big picture. ADA said they will get a prototype flying within stipulated terms. They overshot. A million reasons can be given but it does not change the fact that IAF had actually put their plans on the back burner because of the LCA. The Lost decade is because of the LCA which I will explain below.

you keep missing the bigger picture and in turn ask me to look at the big picture!! you said ADA guranteed 100%. if they overshot there are valid reasons as explained above but obviously you won't have a problem with MMRCA birds whether regards to MMRCA ASR or their political problems in delays with their programme but you will turn a blind eye to valid reasons for the ADA!!! great. keep up.

No it's not. Even after Dassault gave FCS we couldn't get the LCA flying. LCA is the only aircraft today which took 8 years from design stage to flying stage. The ONLY aircraft.

you keep talking of this Dassault FCS. where is the source for your assertion?? LCA delay is already answered and i am sure you would disregard it as usual.

Yes. But somehow Sukhoi built 3 prototypes before first flight. The speed in which ADA followed its procedures saw 10 different Air Chiefs criticizing the project.

except for post 2004, when was IAF serious about LCA?? it is one more instance of indian armed forces showing their disdain at local products. if that criticism makes you happy, enjoy it.

Yes. That's why I said let ADA continue working on LCA and then have the IAF induct the finished product, even IOC of Mk2 is fine. The IAF does not like the Mk1 itself so why force it down on them. This way it does not affect IAF's operational preparedness and ADA will fulfill it's goal with LCA.

disagree. take your own justification of EF delays. if the consortium partners had thought similarly, there would be no EF. delays are accounted for and combat readiness is factored into it in any given threat perceptions and procurements happen with factored in inputs.

Haha. The HF-24 sucked too. It barely reached Mach 1 and only in specific conditions and specific altitudes. IAF loved the aircraft until they found out it sucks. They actually tried speeding up the project too.

your dislike and cheap shot at it is not a fact. India lost vital data and a pool of designers with that even though it was not a original indian design. IMO it was catastrophic.

ZZZ. Like I said, get stuck on detail or not is upto you.

"Oooh! I cannot argue his other points so I will catch this one.
Hehe! If I point out 1993 to 2011 is 18 years not 20, then I can disprove all his other points too."

Look at the big picture. LCA does not fit requirements. IAF is openly criticizing the project. So, why is GoI forcing it down on them? This has its root in 1998 which will be explained below.

IAF does not think so now. 2 squadrons are not small. there is GE414 contract for 99 engines besides local manufacture. LCA will don atleast 10+ squadrons in the days to come.

Then why give a half finished product? Nobody else has done it.

4 out of 6 MMRCA birds will not fulfill MMRCA ASR. 2 out of 4 are paper planes as of now. only the 2 US aircrafts will be ready. can i also call 4 of them as half baked/finished products??

iterative development!!! that is how aircrafts mature.

Its not the question of how many prototypes you have flying in the air. It's the question of how many test points has each of them contributed to the overall project. It's like the Pakistanis claiming they built 8 while ADA built only 5 and then saying they are ahead of the game.

Each prototype is built for specific reasons. The more the prototypes the greater the burden on the pilot and ground team to test different parameters in different flights rather than in just 1 flight. Sukhoi also said that they will speed up the project by introducing less number of prototypes and more testing parameters on each type. This results in lesser delays in opertionalizing the aircraft.

So building 5 instead of 3 has only delayed the project.

wrong. it reduced flight testing which would delayed LCA even further.

I did not skip anything. Look at the big picture. He is clearly saying LCA does not fit requirements. But it will be inducted because after a decade or so it will bear fruit. But the single most important fact is LCA is not required at all. They will only be inducting it out of reduced hassles dealing with foreign OEMs. But even that will be taken care of after we have our own supply depos.

you answered your self!! "reduced hassles dealing with foreign OEMs." plus an advantage of putting whatever you want instead of getting permission/source codes(never given) and putting in a role you want. big gain!!

supply depos are post IOC & FOC.

Huh! Weight gained. You meant the extra unwanted 1.5 tonnes of weight that EADS will be reducing? You have to be clearer in your post.

If you are talking about IAF asking for an increase in 1 ton over current empty weight then that is more to do with today's electronics and a requirement for more fuel load to compensate the loss in powering them.

That's the funniest statement ever. No. The Landing gear sucks azz. ADA openly said the LCA undercarriage is overweight by 1.5 tons and that they will be paying EADS $20Million to fix it for them.

you are saying it because of your ignorance of how aircrafts are built. go read up. it is not like making changes to a simple software.

R-60, the original IAF wvr missle weighs 43.5kg which was changed to R-73 which weighs 105kg. now for 2 missiles at the wing tip the difference of weight is 119kg. now it is not simple as replacing them just like that. the wings now have to take an added stess of 1071 kg!!!! IOW the pylons and the wings are to be strengthened to a G-force 1071 kg!! get it?? same with sensors, other weapons wherever you add. now when you strengthen the airframe for this the weight grows. isn't it?? which is why a forward thinking AF will draw ASR with future in mind. specs are not changed again and again which leads to delay as it involves changes to airframe and aerodynamics besides more money.

get it??

and i am not even talking of landing gear.

The IAF requirements were meant for an aircraft in 1995. They never changed requirements until after 2000. So, they gave 15 years for ADA and even that was no good. In 1985, IAF never knew they would be inducting R-77M or AESA radar.

so what is your point?? if IAF did not know that they were inducting R-77M whose fault is it?? ADA's?? besides R-77M is a paper missile.

WTF?

??

when MOD sanctions late and meagre funds, specs change due to the changed scenario and IAF changes the specs which means ADA has to redesign the airframe and validate it and move forward meaning DELAY!!

what is so complex to read here??

Delay of 2-3 Years. ROFL. Whatever happened to Dassault's Analog FCS? It was enough to get the prototype flying.

instead of repeating "Dassault FCS was available" like a parrot, point me to the source. even if hypothetically it was available, when both IAF and ADA wanted to go digital, what is your point??

Yes and No. LCA's empty weight is supposed to be 5 tons. The current weight of 6.5 tons is primarily because of an overweight landing gear which they have openly admitted to.

not 5 tons but 5.5 tons. why it gained weight i have already enumerated. repeating lies does make it the truth. and i have also said even ADA was conservative in their design and hence over designed it. they too share the responsibilty.

Only on paper. The Gripen is a superior fighter in all aspects.

speak with datapoints. rhetoric does not help.

Your statement, GOI would not have gone for it simply because it was obsolete

Don't eat up your own words now. I am talking about Mig-21s full ToT in 1960s itself. Nobody pays for ToT after 2 or 30 years. That's just stupid. SU offered 100% spares manufacturing facility, but GoI was stingy because they believed Marut will be a major success.

what is there to eat back?? the IAF never asked and GOI hence did not ask the MIG corporation for Mig 21 TOT. so the point is moot when we speak of 60s. the trouble with spares started in the late 80s when SU had internal problems and broke up later. so my observations are wrt late 80s. if you don't beleive, i don't care.

Yes. This is where I wanted to post about bits and pieces of our history when I said I will explain below. After 1996, IAF told GoI they are interested in the Mirage-2000 and they want to induct more as replacement to Mig-21s from 2000 onwards. Dassault even came forward after 1999 Kargil war saying they were open to selling more Mirages. But GoI did not pay any attention because ADA was making tall promises from the background.

They made hopelessly empty promises saying LCA will be a huge success and made a lot of noise during its first flight. Looking at the first flight it even looked for sometime that ADA will follow through. GoI under Vajpayee paid more attention to the success of the program and provided limitless funding. The IAF was content on upgrading Mig-21s to Bison standard as they waited for LCA. However after ADA released the time line of tests IAF immediately gave new RFPs for electronics while keeping the flight systems the same. So, it looked like LCA is going to be a success, but not any time soon. However inductions were supposed to happen in 2006 with the indigenous Kaveri engine.

IAF had earlier projected a requirement for 126 aircraft in 2001. This requirement was put on hold for the LCA even though the IAF was interested in speedy inductions of the Mirage2000. Since time line for LCA and Mirage inductions were similar, GoI persisted on LCA. Then in 2004 Kaveri failed tests in Russia. This was a big blow to the project. ADA had to test LCA on the "inadequate" F404 engine. So, IAF quickly went into damage control and started work on the MRCA deal that we know of today. RFI's were sent in 2004 and after the OEM's gave specifications the RFPs followed in 2007. GoI finally relented.

So, you CANNOT blame the IAF in anyway for the LCA fiasco. This was why the term "the lost decade" was coined. IAF's Mig-21 crashes were the direct result of ADA's empty promises.

Even after Kaveri failed GTRE kept saying they will deliver. In 2005 they said they will have Kaveri installed in one LCA prototype by 2007. It never happened. In 2008 they said it will be done by 2009. Even that day came and went. In end 2009 they finally accepted the Kaveri is not meant for LCA and that they will work with Snecma on this one. ADA was the same with LCA. All IAF did was wait and wait and when finally the day arrived they were thrust with a sub standard product.

great story. you wrote it?? well done 'suiting yourself'. bollywood needs script writers too. lol.

Mirage 2000 was a medium class aircraft. it was the original choice for MMRCA. why would it replace low end Mig 21s?? LCA was supposed to fill that which still is.

Then who else?

not DRDO. primarily for low end spares it is the BRD. may be HAL, for high end spares, beacuse HAL has expertise and experience in building aircrafts under license.

OMG. This is completely different from making spares. You don't get the point of OJHAR at all. Its a depot for overhauling equipment. It's only a big Garage. They don't manufacture anything. I will explain.

When you get a new product like a car or a motorbike. There are always some issue or the other plaguing it. Not every machine is the same. Some will give engine trouble, some will have a bad gear train, some will have problems with accelerator, some with issues like badly placed parts or accessories. Like when I bought my Honda Unicorn 5 years back I had an issue with the gear box. The first gear and second gear were not properly aligned and it was quite hard. I asked it to be fixed. The mechanics did not know how to go about it and neither did I. It looked Like a manufacturing defect. So, I asked the mechanic to change the angle of the shifting mechanism to make it easy for gear change. Now the shift is aligned downwards and is no longer parallel to the ground. This was the full weight of my heel is on the back. So, whenever I change gears I use minimum energy.

That's what OJHAR does. If something is wrong they will fix it. They do not manufacture parts. They only customize the aircraft for better handling. It's just a very advanced Garage.

even if it is the garage they did manufacture spares for Mig 23s. this again would depend on the spares supply from the OEMs. if the spares supply is not a problem, they would do what you have said. in emerencies like the one with former SU they had to do it themselves.

After this post you no longer will.

no sir. i still am the same. you can live happily in your fictional world.

And therein lies the difference. Operational.

btw even an operational kiran with it's cannon could have done it.

So, are these facts and datapoints enough or do I bring more into the picture.

most of it is your rhetoric as expected.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Theoretically and Practically are 2 different far reaching terms. Practically LCA cannot replace Jaguars. Only MMRCA can.

I know, that is why i added 'Theoretically'. Specification wise LCA MK-1 can replace Jaguar in every role in addition will give comprehensive A2A capability to operating squadron. But as i said it rests on IAF. BTW MRCA is not being bought to replace Jaguar, even the single engine contenders are overkill leave duel engine ones. Jaguar in absence of new jets is called DPSA but it can't even strike to Peshawar unlike these M-MRCAs which can do do same with more ordinance and in addition a brief A2A engagement in route. Considering only strike features, i'll say MRCAs are being bought to fill in between strike jets like Jaguar and MKIs. Point is if LCA Mk-1 beats Jaguar in its own role why would IAF buy so costly jets for that? There must be other use with M-MRCAs and there is. All said, its the IAF which will take decision. But i hope by time LCA closes to FOC, IAF will buy another MK-1 to fulfill the need.

Time will decide that. And also time will tell you that LCA Mk1+ MLU is not equal to LC Mk2. It's like saying F-18+MLU = F-18 SH or Mig-29+MLU= Mig35.

Indeed! But i will like to repeat that IAF is not required to evolve LCA as M-MRCA unless it choses to cancel grand '126' and forget about all important L-MRCA need.

Anyway second point of your's about level of modification is very genuine. But if requirement out of LCA MK-2 remains as L-MRCA, a mere internal change in engine bay and intake is not going to stop Mk-1 from becoming Mk-2. Will like to mention that Gripen went through same transition which will be in case LCA. And when i see Gripen NG, i see close to nil structural change(external) forced by new F-414G. What ever changes Gripen went through was done 'on wish' to upgrade it to M-MRCA. And even SAAB says these changes can be done in existing JAS-39C/D. So point is, if such changes on such scale can be carried on JAS-39C/D then why they can not be done on MK-1s?

Firstly you have to understand the Ship wasn't operational, nor was it in high seas. It was in a port in Japan undergoing some maintenance and refuelling. Half the crew was probably "chillin" at the beach eating sushi.

Ok! But what about Jaguar incident? If a 3rd generation strike jet can sink a USN carrier specially when over 100 jets are flying then what good is foreign technology, in your words ".....comes with assured guaranteed performance"? My only point is, nothing in the world gives guaranteed performance and these examples says not even western products comes with that. So, LCA is not alone can not be criticized for so. After all world is relative not absolute.

The F-16s radar is just a notch above the RC-400. It is nothing compared to Bars or the Mig-29smt's new radar. The AMRAAMs they are getting are the Aim-120C-5. These AMRAAMs are legacy missiles. They are no match even to our legacy R-77s. They do not have home on jamming, nor do they have longer ranges. Our BVR capability on the Mig-21Bison is superior to the new Pakistani F-16s.

The whole point behind using F-16 Block 50's capability was to show its superiority over other IAF platform. Reason was your words, which tried to show LCA as easy prey against F-16s or incapable doing point air defense --for which IAF is said to have bought 20 more MK-1s-- against intruding formation of F-16s.

Without deviating, i bring context back to LCA. You said " Mig-29SMT or post upgradation Mig-29U/UBs with mechanically steered ZUKE ME(120Km) will have superiority over F-16s whose AIM-120C are no match for R-77s". Counting on what you said, LCA Mk-1 having MMR with similar range (hybrid MMR is a derivative of EL-2032 whose range is 150Km) and superior BVRAAM --LCA will get R-77 and in your words R-77 superior to AM-120C-- will be a potent opponent to F-16s. So did IAF made any wrong decision by buying 20 more MK-1s for using them as air defence fighters? Counting on spoked, no absolutely not.

The Bison has a modified engine which generates a lot of power to power the 4th gen electronics. The LCA has superior avionics but they cannot be powered by the F-404 at the specifications required by IAF. That's why the Mk2 has been proposed.

Kinda revelation to me. As far as i know it is only the AESA which requires more electricity/power to exploit its full potential, something which is not possible with F-404. Excluding it, rest are good to go and are working presently at full capacity. It is of no wonder that 'LITENING' pod is fully operational with MK-1. Only thing left is 'Jammer' which is scheduled to get abroad by FOC.

Israel did everything.

Mirage example was to show that we are not capable of maintaining without help from OEM. Now, you say it was Isreal which tweaked Mirage 2000s for LGBs. So it means that we don't have capability to tweak foreign hardwares. And if TOT in M-MRCA deal is according to "Indian Definitions" and OEM says no and Israel backs off under pressure during any conflict then these foreign goodies(here M-MRCAs) will be as good as dead duck?

This is taken care of by offset agreements and spares manufacturing in India itself. Pretty soon we will be exporting spares to Europe for which ever fighter wins here.

History of TOT(by INDIAN definitions) says to contrary. Anyway i hope M-MRCA is not american otherwise we will witness even worse definition of TOT. Rest is all about time and being an optimistic person i pray it stays as you said.

He is talking about Sea Harriers. Everybody knows Sea Harriers are difficult to maintain. Spares were not being manufactured here either. So, the problems you are talking about will not exist in the future.

As far as i know HAL did carried out LUSH and even with this if FONA says something like that then god help IAF buying M-MRCAs with TOT tag.

Why will we do that on MRCA? The MRCA clearly need better engines than LCA anyway.

If we take Rafale, Snecma says they will modify Rafale to equip any engine we want.

You said LCA with foreign engine is worst so i quoted M-MRCA example in response. I said, if LCA has worst possibility of recovering because foreign engine during embargo then what about M-MRCAs? I added, "especially when we can change engine of LCA on our own but can't do same in M-MRCA when need will arises".

You are stuck with one little point which does not even make a difference. If there is a strike package to be delivered, there will be an escort. There is nothing to it. Fighters are made available depending on the target. If it's important, then air superiority fighters will be made available for escort like Mig-29 or MKI.

No i am stuck to that. I am only quoting reasons to back my assertion which was "Why buying new Jaguars and re-engining older is not a good option when MK-1 is ready?". Following are two reasons i used.

A) LCA MK-1 beats Jaguar in its own role and specifications and makes it obsolete to LCA MK-1 even in DPS(Jaguar class) role.

B) LCA MK-1 with A2A capability makes it independent regarding escort which can't happen in Jaguar's case.

Adding on, a squadron operating Jaguar if replaces it with LCA Mk-1 can then onwards take care of even escort missions. They will no longer be required to muster escorts from other squadron. Their MK-1s can go on DPS(Jaguar standard) in one mission and escort in other missions. They can even take care of defence of their base on their own. Lot of flexibility relative to Jaguar.

Anyway i must clear one more time that i am not opposing upgradation of Jaguars. Rather, i am only opposing new Jaguars and re-engining plans.

Arab-Israeli wars. Isn't that enough to scream guarantee.

Then why did it crashed and killed pilots? Anyway that F-16 issue was in reply to your words " Imported ones comes with guarantee" which was used in to criticize LCA.

On side note. I don't believe in anything like guaranteed performance, especially in case of fighting machines. And this applies to LCA and doesn't leaves IMPORTED GOODIES including participants in IAF's quest for 126 M-MRCA either.

Huh! Why will BAE get into a project that they cannot afford? They are in the F-35 project anyway. GB cannot afford 2 stealth programs.

You took it out of context. That was a reply to reason similar to "buying the best". You said Gripen this and that in front of LCA. And i replied with something having similar meaning to this "what if BAE was invited and had developed 'YF' prototype using Pentagons money just like Northrop and Lockheed.....wasn't there any possibility of BAE coming better than all.....did not USAF compromised with capability by not inviting BAE?".

US imports ERA from Germany for their strikers because they know their domestic manufacturers suck big time. GE tried and failed. They transferred deal to a German company for deliveries. See, even US is not pig headed.

Nor IAF and DRDO are. Even DRDR chief said ".........not going for full indigenisation". They are not pig headed either, are they? Point is, west is always not beast and home grown is also not always worst. When target is strategic independence then there is no second option to home grown. You can always buy sub systems till you become efficient but main design has to be home grown.

For some reason Admirals, Generals and Marshalls, retired or not, always have it right. No defence journo or defence contractor is right in that respect.

Mr. Philip Rajkumar retired 2-3 years ago. His love for LCA is not hidden. He has a long wish list for MK-1 which if summed up transforms LCA into a M-MRCA. Point being, there is no official account on LCA. Neither ADA has shown any wind tunnel model of it. And today Mr Philip Rajkumar is no more horse mouth. So i safely assumed that external changes in MK-2 will be limited to meeting ASR and high thrust engine will only add to help. I never denied 'said' possibility ever, i only requested to keep speculations aside and wait till we get official information.

But Mk1 does not fit requirements even as a L-MRCA.

Are you saying not even after FOC? ..........Yes, LCA MK-1 doesn't meets STR requirements now but to say it will not meet L-MRCA requirement is wrong. LCA after FOC will be BVR capable fighter with LGBs, short range ASM and long range ASMs capability to cater A2G needs. In short LCA MK-1 will be a L-MRCA.

By the way you can continue on with your views about MK-1 but fact is MK-1 is joining Airforce when IAF is saying "32 left and counting(down)".

It's not 32 and counting. It is 40 and counting. Final deliveries will take the tally to 48 LCA. 8 pre production types and 2 squadrons of 20 each.

The first 2 of the 40 will be joining the IAF by June.

Errr. I said ".... MK-1 is joining at time when IAF is "saying 32 left and counting (down)". In context "32 left" = "number of squadrons left" and "counting(down)" = "and decreasing".

The problem is you believe the IAF wasn't arm twisted in buying the second squadron. I believe otherwise, similar to Arjun.

I am extremely good with disbelieving 'rumors', 'hot gas' and 'speculation'.

And 'Arjun'. No one from Army spoken about what you said, did they? There are rumors quoting unnamed Army sources saying so, but there also some who say "Arjun beats T-90 hands down". Where should i put my belief and why?

BTW there are some who says "present Army is corrupt...... is infected with import mania....... and have a strong import lobby". If i go by your's way, i don't find a reason disbelieving said.

I don't believe you believe the LCA Mk1 will achieve standards of Mk2. I believe otherwise simply because adding 40KN to engine power will need drastic change in airframe. Heck even Su-30 was converted to Su-35 just to equip it with the 117S and the difference in power is only 20KN from Al-31FP.

I used certain reasons for that. I also said, it may not be the case as official conformation is not due. I have not freezed my belief that MK-1 MLU = Mk-2, i only quoted reasons for the possibility.

You believe that adding 12 KN more powerful engine will need so many radical changes that MK-2 will be a new jet. I believe that it will not be case since Gripen managed to do exactly same without any forced external change. Also since there is no need develop LCA as M-MRCA, IAF and ADA will save their energy for [already started] all important future M-MRCA which is AMCA.

 

[p2prada]

I know, that is why i added 'Theoretically'. Specification wise LCA MK-1 can replace Jaguar in every role in addition will give comprehensive A2A capability to operating squadron. But as i said it rests on IAF. BTW MRCA is not being bought to replace Jaguar, even the single engine contenders are overkill leave duel engine ones. Jaguar in absence of new jets is called DPSA but it can't even strike to Peshawar unlike these M-MRCAs which can do do same with more ordinance and in addition a brief A2A engagement in route. Considering only strike features, i'll say MRCAs are being bought to fill in between strike jets like Jaguar and MKIs. Point is if LCA Mk-1 beats Jaguar in its own role why would IAF buy so costly jets for that? There must be other use with M-MRCAs and there is. All said, its the IAF which will take decision. But i hope by time LCA closes to FOC, IAF will buy another MK-1 to fulfill the need.

If LCA beats Jaguar in any role, then what are you going to do with the Jaguar pilots? Where will the pilots go? Will you prematurely retire them or give them desk jobs? The Mig-21 pilots are already becoming WSOs on the MKI. So, where will the Jag pilots go? Definitely not LCA. You don't teach old dogs new tricks. The Jags are needed.

Anyway second point of your's about level of modification is very genuine. But if requirement out of LCA MK-2 remains as L-MRCA, a mere internal change in engine bay and intake is not going to stop Mk-1 from becoming Mk-2. Will like to mention that Gripen went through same transition which will be in case LCA. And when i see Gripen NG, i see close to nil structural change(external) forced by new F-414G. What ever changes Gripen went through was done 'on wish' to upgrade it to M-MRCA. And even SAAB says these changes can be done in existing JAS-39C/D. So point is, if such changes on such scale can be carried on JAS-39C/D then why they can not be done on MK-1s?

The Gripen design is much better than the LCA's. The LCA has smaller internal volume compared to Gripen. Saab moved the undercarriage unit from the fuselage to the fairings and this gave the Gripen Demo 40% more fuel capacity. So, they did not have to modify the wing or the fuselage to the extent that LCA requires it.

Gripen C/D cannot have F414. It is only a rumour. Gripen Demo has more fuel, new intakes and a modified tail end. It cannot be done on in service aircraft like Gripen.

Ok! But what about Jaguar incident? If a 3rd generation strike jet can sink a USN carrier specially when over 100 jets are flying then what good is foreign technology, in your words ".....comes with assured guaranteed performance"? My only point is, nothing in the world gives guaranteed performance and these examples says not even western products comes with that. So, LCA is not alone can not be criticized for so. After all world is relative not absolute.

The Jaguar took out the carrier does not mean the MKI also can do the same. Tactics were employed by pilots who are very well experienced on the platform. It was the pilots who did it, not the plane. If you give the same pilots a different platform then the result may not be the same because of unfamiliarity. Operational is the word and reliability is the key.

The whole point behind using F-16 Block 50's capability was to show its superiority over other IAF platform. Reason was your words, which tried to show LCA as easy prey against F-16s or incapable doing point air defense --for which IAF is said to have bought 20 more MK-1s-- against intruding formation of F-16s.

Maybe we can send more LCAs against the F-16 to erode the disadvantage. But what if China sends a 100 J-10s. What then?

Do you see China replacing their old J-7s and J-8s with JF-17. Heck they were still making J-7s and J-8s when JF-17 was flying in Pakistan. You never replace reliability with a plane that only looks good on paper.

Without deviating, i bring context back to LCA. You said " Mig-29SMT or post upgradation Mig-29U/UBs with mechanically steered ZUKE ME(120Km) will have superiority over F-16s whose AIM-120C are no match for R-77s". Counting on what you said, LCA Mk-1 having MMR with similar range (hybrid MMR is a derivative of EL-2032 whose range is 150Km) and superior BVRAAM --LCA will get R-77 and in your words R-77 superior to AM-120C-- will be a potent opponent to F-16s. So did IAF made any wrong decision by buying 20 more MK-1s for using them as air defence fighters? Counting on spoked, no absolutely not.

The Mig-29k radar delivers power greater than 1KW peak. The LCA radar gives 400W. The range you gave for Zukh (120km) is for a 3m2 RCS. The LCA's 2032's range of 150km is for a 5m2 RCS. Then we are not even talking about the resolution of the Zukh or its ability to beat jamming at a much superior scope.

Kinda revelation to me. As far as i know it is only the AESA which requires more electricity/power to exploit its full potential, something which is not possible with F-404. Excluding it, rest are good to go and are working presently at full capacity. It is of no wonder that 'LITENING' pod is fully operational with MK-1. Only thing left is 'Jammer' which is scheduled to get abroad by FOC.

We don't know to what extent the IAF changed the ASR for electronics. AESA is only one part of it. What if IAF has asked for a superior version of Mayawi suite on the Mk2. Then we are not even counting GLONASS receivers nor are we talking about satellite communication being a possibility. All we know is the radar has been changed to AESA. Also, all we know is IAF has come on record saying F404 is not enough.

Mirage example was to show that we are not capable of maintaining without help from OEM. Now, you say it was Isreal which tweaked Mirage 2000s for LGBs. So it means that we don't have capability to tweak foreign hardwares. And if TOT in M-MRCA deal is according to "Indian Definitions" and OEM says no and Israel backs off under pressure during any conflict then these foreign goodies(here M-MRCAs) will be as good as dead duck?

To this day, we are not capable of maintaining a single aircraft in IAF on our own. LCA included and MKI too. This has nothing to do with being indigenous or not. We just haven't gotten the capability. The MRCA deal is our best bet to lessen this burden.

History of TOT(by INDIAN definitions) says to contrary. Anyway i hope M-MRCA is not american otherwise we will witness even worse definition of TOT. Rest is all about time and being an optimistic person i pray it stays as you said.

None of our ToT till date has been 100%. Only MKI and we are still absorbing the technology and will take some time.

Our best bet is indigenous effort but we are short of that goal too.

As far as i know HAL did carried out LUSH and even with this if FONA says something like that then god help IAF buying M-MRCAs with TOT tag.

Sea Harriers are a b*tch to maintain. Even USMC has had a lot of problems and so have the British.

You said LCA with foreign engine is worst so i quoted M-MRCA example in response. I said, if LCA has worst possibility of recovering because foreign engine during embargo then what about M-MRCAs? I added, "especially when we can change engine of LCA on our own but can't do same in M-MRCA when need will arises".

If we get sanctioned, engines will be the first to go. Looking at our own indigenous development of engines we don't have any replacement for LCA. MRCA will be less of a problem if we get Rafale or EF-2000(in that order) or Mig-35. But looking at the scope of the project, the OEM's will find new ways to outwit big bro at the game.

No i am stuck to that. I am only quoting reasons to back my assertion which was "Why buying new Jaguars and re-engining older is not a good option when MK-1 is ready?". Following are two reasons i used.

A) LCA MK-1 beats Jaguar in its own role and specifications and makes it obsolete to LCA MK-1 even in DPS(Jaguar class) role.

B) LCA MK-1 with A2A capability makes it independent regarding escort which can't happen in Jaguar's case.

A)Perhaps. But we cannot replace the top guns of our air force with a sub standard product and new rookie pilots. A 100 odd old pilots will have no planes to fly and these guys have a lot of experience if Jaguars are replaced all at once.

B)It's a moot point considering escort will be there no matter what. A LCA equipped with strike cannot escort itself. It will need aircraft with AMRAAMs.

Adding on, a squadron operating Jaguar if replaces it with LCA Mk-1 can then onwards take care of even escort missions. They will no longer be required to muster escorts from other squadron. Their MK-1s can go on DPS(Jaguar standard) in one mission and escort in other missions. They can even take care of defence of their base on their own. Lot of flexibility relative to Jaguar.

I would rather use a pilot with 1000 hours of flight time on an old platform than a rookie with 100 hours on a new one.

Anyway i must clear one more time that i am not opposing upgradation of Jaguars. Rather, i am only opposing new Jaguars and re-engining plans.

LCA isn't that good that it can replace Jaguars so easily.

Then why did it crashed and killed pilots? Anyway that F-16 issue was in reply to your words " Imported ones comes with guarantee" which was used in to criticize LCA.

The ones we import comes with guarantee. If we buy F-16s, rest assured they will not crash because of FBW problems. Aircraft development indeed comes with a whole host of problems, but I would rather place my bets on an expert rather than a startup. The risks are lesser.

You took it out of context. That was a reply to reason similar to "buying the best". You said Gripen this and that in front of LCA. And i replied with something having similar meaning to this "what if BAE was invited and had developed 'YF' prototype using Pentagons money just like Northrop and Lockheed.....wasn't there any possibility of BAE coming better than all.....did not USAF compromised with capability by not inviting BAE?".

BaE did not have independent capability in developing 5th gen at the time. Their experience came only with F-35 development later on. They made an announcement only recently that they now have the capability to develop a 5th gen on their own.

Nor IAF and DRDO are. Even DRDR chief said ".........not going for full indigenisation". They are not pig headed either, are they? Point is, west is always not beast and home grown is also not always worst. When target is strategic independence then there is no second option to home grown. You can always buy sub systems till you become efficient but main design has to be home grown.

Our main design is still short on ASR and has a foreign engine.

Mr. Philip Rajkumar retired 2-3 years ago. His love for LCA is not hidden. He has a long wish list for MK-1 which if summed up transforms LCA into a M-MRCA. Point being, there is no official account on LCA. Neither ADA has shown any wind tunnel model of it. And today Mr Philip Rajkumar is no more horse mouth. So i safely assumed that external changes in MK-2 will be limited to meeting ASR and high thrust engine will only add to help. I never denied 'said' possibility ever, i only requested to keep speculations aside and wait till we get official information.

LCA Mk2 is still on the drawing table. There is no wind tunnel model. Mr. Philips words are from the Horse's mouth. LCA Mk2 was planned during his tenure or was in the process of being formulated. I would any day take his word than a journolists or a defence contractors.

Are you saying not even after FOC? ..........Yes, LCA MK-1 doesn't meets STR requirements now but to say it will not meet L-MRCA requirement is wrong. LCA after FOC will be BVR capable fighter with LGBs, short range ASM and long range ASMs capability to cater A2G needs. In short LCA MK-1 will be a L-MRCA.

LCA Mk1 will be L-MRCA but we can be sure that it will not meet aerodynamic requirements.

Errr. I said ".... MK-1 is joining at time when IAF is "saying 32 left and counting (down)". In context "32 left" = "number of squadrons left" and "counting(down)" = "and decreasing".

Ah. My bad. But they don't bring squadron numbers up by inducting development aircraft.

I am extremely good with disbelieving 'rumors', 'hot gas' and 'speculation'.

LCA achieving FOC is a speculation then. So many probabilities of things that may go wrong.

And 'Arjun'. No one from Army spoken about what you said, did they? There are rumors quoting unnamed Army sources saying so, but there also some who say "Arjun beats T-90 hands down". Where should i put my belief and why?

Plenty of reports from DGMF saying Arjun's just hot gas. We have top officers saying it is just a medium tech tank and that it was no longer required and that Army wants a futuristic tank post 2020.

"Arjun beats T-90 hands down" was a media report. In the Parliamentary report, Arjun was stated to have superior accuracy and fire on the move capability. Nothing was said about its firepower or armour compared to T-90. There was nothing which said T-90 was beaten.

BTW there are some who says "present Army is corrupt...... is infected with import mania....... and have a strong import lobby". If i go by your's way, i don't find a reason disbelieving said.

Yes. If nothing else then let's all attack their morality. Nothing has been proven against Generals. Even the Bofors scam was more with middlemen and ministry than Generals.

The Present army is corrupt accusations came up only after Army said Arjun's just hot gas. The army's concerns are genuine. Come back with a source saying the Generals were implicated in any foreign OEM scandal and then we can talk.

I used certain reasons for that. I also said, it may not be the case as official conformation is not due. I have not freezed my belief that MK-1 MLU = Mk-2, i only quoted reasons for the possibility.

If you are proven otherwise then are you going to change your views on the LCA Mk1?

You believe that adding 12 KN more powerful engine will need so many radical changes that MK-2 will be a new jet. I believe that it will not be case since Gripen managed to do exactly same without any forced external change. Also since there is no need develop LCA as M-MRCA, IAF and ADA will save their energy for [already started] all important future M-MRCA which is AMCA.

As stated earlier, Gripen Demo has gone through massive changes. The exact specs are not out, but Gripen's new empty weight is greater than 7 tons has a slightly bigger wing, has a modified air inlet, has 40% or more extra fuel capacity and a redesigned undercarriage. These are all major changes. And Gripen Demo is just a technology demonstrator for the Gripen NG. More changes are to come.

This can also be fixed with LEVCONs. ADA NP1 is a testbed to prove it and will not be a new tech during the time of the upgrade. The second batch of LCA can even sport it as there is an existing prototype with LEVCONS. We need to understand that the LCA has not yet entered Series Production.

A lot of changes has been made. For example they first told that PV2 will be the final model and then they told LSP3 will be final. Now LSP 5 is supposed to be final and LSP 6 will be used for Engine testing. So we need to wait and see how the series production model is going to be.

I am still placing my bets on Mk2 rather than Mk1. We would have finished ironing out all the chunks by then, I hope. We still know nothing about anything new on the LCA.

Anyway, LSP 6 will be used for which engine, F-414 or Kaveri?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

MMRCA jet deliveres moving towards 2015

With a contract signature moving into 2012 after a late 2011 selection followed by exclusive negotiations the delivery of first MMRCA jet won't happen until 2015 as the RFP stipulates a 36 month setup window from contract date.

This news also reveals that India is still in the offset/ToT evaluation phase and has yet to open up the financial bids.

Defensenews:

Deadline Emerges For India's $10B Warplane Deal
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
Published: 19 Jan 2011 13:06

NEW DELHI - India could award the $10 billion Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract by the end of the year, according to the country's defense minister.

M.M. Pallam Raju, the minister of state for defense, said on the sidelines of a Jan. 19 conference here that the warplane contest could be decided by December. The conference was hosted by an industrial lobby group, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India.

"I am hopeful of awarding it by the end of this year," Raju said.

The MMRCA program, for the purchase of 126 planes, is running behind schedule, The Indian Defence Ministry has made no formal announcement on the short-listing of aircraft after flight trials last year.

Raju said the ministry still has to carry out a comparative analysis of different vendors in terms of offset and transfer of technology offers before the financial bids are opened.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5490485&c=ASI&s=AIR

I am expecting More LCA by then

 

[nitesh]

More LCA orders makes sense, Reason is, MRCA deal is not going to be closed in a jiffy, even if GoI has made up it's mind expect pressure from the losing sides to mount political pressure. MRCA deal is going to give lot of exciting moments

 

[p2prada]

An article written by Retd Admiral J G Nadkarni(1990) on the LCA.

He wrote this article in 2001. I have highlighted some important points.

The sad tale of the LCA

Last month, Indian defence authorities quietly announced that India's prestigious Light Combat Aircraft, originally to have become operational in 1995, will not achieve that status before 2015. The euphoria over the first flight of the prototype a few days later, however, helped to push that stark news off the front pages.

The LCA programme was initiated in 1983 by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, with three widely publicised assertions. One, that it would be an indigenous project catapulting India into the rarefied ranks of global aviation powers. Two, the aircraft would enter frontline squadron service by 1995. And three, the project would only cost Rs 700 crores (Rs 7 billion).

What actually happened between 1983 and 2000? First, let us take the promise of indigenous development. In 1986 an agreement was quietly signed with the United States that permitted DRDO to work with four US Air force laboratories. The to-be-indigenously-developed engine for the LCA -- Kaveri -- was forgotten and the US made General Electric F-404 engine was substituted. Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti, carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia and fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin. Design help was sought from British Aerospace, Avion Marcel Dassault and Deutsche Aerospace. Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France. As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported.

As for operational induction, anyone who knew anything about fighter aircraft development or the capabilities of the DRDO would have known that the envisaged 12-year time frame (1983-1995) was /pure make-believe.

Yet, as late as 1990, DRDO asserted that the 1995 target would be met. It was only when 1995 drew closer that the talk shifted from operational induction to test flights. In 1998, the defence minister stated that the first test flight would take place in 1999. The first flight finally took place a few days ago, 17 years after the project started.

As for the project cost, the original budget was Rs 700 crores. It was later revised to Rs 3,000 crores (Rs 30 billion). It would easily go past Rs 10,000 crores (Rs 100 billion) before the aircraft is inducted into operational service. And that is with DRDO incurring only about a quarter of the overall development costs. Not included are the cost of the huge amounts of foreign equipment being fitted; engine, radar, electronic warfare and communication equipment, high-stress body panels, cockpit displays and the entire range of armament.

Initially it was stated that the per copy price of an LCA would be Rs 10 crores (Rs 100 million). It would be a miracle if the LCA can ever be produced at less than Rs 150 crores (Rs 1.5 billion) a copy. And if the LCA is eventually inducted in 2015, what will the Indian Air Force get? It will get an aircraft at best comparable to first generation F-16s.

One of the DRDO's favourite phrases is 'state of the art,' and according to them everything of the LCA is state of the art. In the fighter aircraft field, to be state of the art, at least from 1990, an aircraft must be designed for 'stealth', that is having virtually no radar or thermal signature. Not even DRDO has so far claimed that the LCA is a stealth aircraft, or that it is capable of being made into one. Forget stealth, the LCA is incapable of any significant upgrading at all during its lifetime. It is a very small, single-engined aircraft tightly packed with equipment. It cannot be fitted with a bigger engine or expanded avionics.

What prompted the DRDO to conceive the LCA when Israel, technologically far more advanced than India, had abandoned its Lavi fighter project after spending more than $ 2 billion on it? Aircraft development costs had mounted so much by then that far richer-countries compared to India such as Britain, France and Germany had realised that unless they formed multinational consortia it would not be possible for them to develop sophisticated, modern aircraft. That is why beginning the late 1970s we have had Eurofighters and Eurocopters, where three or four countries share costs and buying commitments.

It can be said with certainty that the LCA will never become a frontline fighter with the Indian Air Force. The Mirage 2000s and the Mig-29s that the air force has been flying from the 1980s have superior capabilities to any LCA that might be inducted in 2015, 2020 or 2025. So the most prudent thing for the government would be to immediately terminate the LCA project. National and individual egos have been satisfied after the first flight.

The Rs 3,000 crores or so that have spent so far could be put down as the price of a valuable learning experience. We would have undoubtedly gained valuable knowledge in many areas of aircraft design and engineering. But of much greater value, we would have gained the understanding that defence R&D is not a make-believe game to be played by exploiting the fascination for techno-nationalism.

The LCA ranks alongside DRDO's other monumental failures such as the Arjun tank, the Trishul and the Akash missiles, and the Kaveri engine. The time and cost overruns on these projects have been enormous. The story of the Arjun is well known.

With the induction of the T-90, there is no way the Arjun is going to spearhead India's armoured divisions. In fact there are many who believe that the T-72 inducted two decades ago is a better tank than the Arjun. The reality of Arjun seems to be finally sinking in, and it would appear that it might end up not as a battle tank, but as a platform for a 155mm howitzer.

The short-range, surface-to-air-missile Trishul was to be fitted on three Indian Navy frigates in 1992. A decade later, the missile is still carrying out "successful" tests, long after the frigates have been completed. The same story goes for the medium-range, surface-to-air missile Akash and the anti-tank missile Nag.

During the last 20 years, DRDO has fine-tuned the art of selling projects. To start with, don't be timid and aim low. In true Parkinsonian style, the more ambitious the project, greater the chance of it being sanctioned. When the presentation is made to the minister, be generous with phrases such as "state-of-the art". Also mention that we will be the third country in the world to produce the equipment. (It is always the "third" as even the minister knows that the USA and Russia already produce the same).

If a service chief demurs, make snide remarks about how the services want to import everything. And keep the estimated cost of the project absurdly low. Once the project is sanctioned, feed the media with a steady stream of unverifiable tidbits. Bring out a mock-up model and show it round at the Republic Day parade and defence exhibitions.

In recent times DRDO and India's defence services have evolved a modus vivendi. No longer does DRDO oppose imports, provided they are allowed to continue with their projects. Thus, import Su-30s and develop the LCA. Import T-90 tanks and produce Arjun. Import Israeli UAV and continue with a similar indigenous project. The only victim in this you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours game is the Indian taxpayer, who unfortunately does not seem to care.

Eye opener?

Sure some of his points are no longer applicable. Like Akash is successful and Arjun has nearly finished development. But considering how late they have been, what was state of the art in 2000, is no longer state of the art in 2010. But the rest of the post is bang on target.

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

Basically the problem is with people who are comparing DRDO with matured defense companies. One has to be realistic. DRDO got into focus only recently, I mean government looking at it's issues. The results are already seen, be patient.

 

[Parthy]

GoI itself has no proper governance and how the hell they'll be able to tune the management in defense organizations...

 

[tony4562]

I don't know too much about LCA. Likely it is a fairly sophisticated design with a lot of goodies like digital FBW, extreme amount of composites and a radar of Israeli origin.

But after 10 years of flight testing, all this aircraft can show is 6g, 1350kph (some say M1.4), and very limited weapon integration (has it fired its cannon yet), is not good at any rate. I remember it took almost 3 years for LCA to go supersonic, a feat which usually should happen within the first couple months after the initial flight.

 

[SATISH]

That is what happens when you start designing from scratch the full technologies, materials and air-frame...you dont know what is going to happen and must be over cautious.

And India is not China to induct without certification of the aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

Basically the problem is with people who are comparing DRDO with matured defense companies. One has to be realistic. DRDO got into focus only recently, I mean government looking at it's issues. The results are already seen, be patient.

The issue at DRDO, HAL, NAL or any other govt organizations isn't funds or technology. It is work culture and management.

He worked for a small private institute in Bangalore for designing a military aircraft and then was posted to a defence PSU to complete the project before he moved to the US. He always gave a minimum of 8 hours to 12 hours at the private institute and whenever deadline was approaching they sometimes worked 2 or 3 days straight even through weekends. This was an IAF project that was outsourced to said private company. They were working on the rudder of the aircraft and my friend's team was tasked with designing the internal components. They always and when I say always I mean Always delivered on time. Whenever the PSU changed requirements they came out with new specifications in record time. They were always ahead of schedule. He said that the PSU changed load on the rudder every few weeks, they always responded in time and then had to wait for a long time(3 weeks or more) just to get a confirmation or a rejection. The PSU thinks time stops for them.

Now the project moved to the PSUs facility and my friend said after working at the private company, the PSU was like Heaven or you could say a Vacation. The project leaders came in at whatever time they want, did whatever they want and were always the first to be at the gate an hour before quitting time. The first thing they want in the morning would be their complimentary tea or coffee. Then they would drink that till lunch break and then go out for lunch. After lunch comes the quitting time. Let's not forget the regular ciggie breaks. As long as my friend was in the PSU he did not learn anything nor did he contribute as much to the project. What his team used to do in a week at the private company, they did in 3 months at the PSU. They were always glued to the computer screen at the private company, but here he was more glued to ciggie and coffee than aircraft design. Since he wasn't bound to the PSU, he quit to pursue his higher studies in the US.

His team and him in particular got a lot of praise from EADS scientists a year ago for their work on another military project. The American University put him on a research project even before he landed in the US.

I was like most of you in the forum, I always supported the LCA project until last year. Just before 2010 air show I asked him about his opinions on the LCA. 3 words defined the project in his words. "Dude it Sucks." That changed my mind.

We may have very little experience in aircraft development. But the fact is we are working on a simple design. What we are doing is just reinventing and with foreign help. We could have delivered this design a long time ago. But looking at our awesome management skills and work culture we are not going anywhere.

 

[Parthy]

That is what happens when you start designing from scratch the full technologies, materials and air-frame...you dont know what is going to happen and must be over cautious.

And India is not China to induct without certification of the aircraft.

Basically, HAL doesn't want to see any setback during the earlier stages of testing.. May be they don't want to go supersonic at earlier stages, just due to avoid any crashes... Any such incident could have scrapped the whole of LCA like what happened with SARAS!!

 

[ppgj]

An article written by Retd Admiral J G Nadkarni(1990) on the LCA.

He wrote this article in 2001. I have highlighted some important points.


Eye opener?

Sure some of his points are no longer applicable. Like Akash is successful and Arjun has nearly finished development. But considering how late they have been, what was state of the art in 2000, is no longer state of the art in 2010. But the rest of the post is bang on target.

here is the link - http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/13nad.htm

what a non sense of an article is this?? what is the point of posting it now?? what is the relevance of it now?? what a failed astrologer!!!

let's look at most of this non sense snippets -

The LCA programme was initiated in 1983 by the Defence Research and Development Organisation,

what was started in 1983 was a mere "feasibility" study.

Two, the aircraft would enter frontline squadron service by 1995.

when GOI approves full scale engineering only in apr 1993, how is it possible for LCA to be a frontline aircraft in IAF in 1995?? does he mean you just build an aircraft and induct into the forces without flight testing?? without IOC/FOC??

Radar was sourced from Erricson Ferranti,

radar was sourced from Erricsson?? stupid. it was one of the options (never exercised) before hybrid MMR came into the picture with Israeli help.

carbon-fibre composite panels for wings from Alenia

again wrong. NAL only consulted ALENIA along with British Aerospace. NAL team did it by themselves. here is from the horse's mouth -

I suppose one big challenge was that we were doing it for the first time. The
design of the wing also posed difficult challenges. We were also very concerned
about allowables determination. There were so many tests to be undertaken and
there was so little time! There were times when we based our decisions more on
reviews of published literature and the advice of our consultants: British
Aerospace and Alenia. It was satisfying when subsequent test programmes
validated our technical assumptions.

http://www.nal.res.in/pdf/ipmar00.pdf

Dr. K.N.Raju led the team for fabrication of CFC. the first set was delivered in 1995. note 1995 - a year our stupid author expects the LCA to be a "frontline" aircraft in IAF. can it any more rubbish than this??

fly-by-wire controls from Lockheed Martin.

yes this was part of the collaboration to create FBW but ADE team was kicked out in 1998 by the US post pokhran. ADE had to complete on its own from the scratch!!

Wind tunnel testing was done in the US, Russia and France.

this wind tunnel testing was done in India. when somebody is doing this for the first time, the "scale models" are tested abroad too just to confirm the validation of the results so one becomes confident about their own testing. what is big deal here?? besides Kaveri has had high altitude tests in Russia!!

what is this man speaking?? does he know aircraft design and how it is built??

loser!!!

As for armaments -- missiles, guns, rockets and bombs -- every last item was to be imported.

OMG. is this guy a military pro?? does not seem like it. all these are not "fundamental" to an aircraft but are "integral" to it. huge difference. they can be changed when our own stuff becomes available like ASTRA in some time.

anyone who knew anything about fighter aircraft development or the capabilities of the DRDO would have known that the envisaged 12-year time frame (1983-1995) was /pure make-believe.

which aircraft has become operational in 12 years?? passing IOC/FOC. this man sucks big!!!

how can DRDO promise this particularly when they were doing it first time?? what a fiction??

Yet, as late as 1990, DRDO asserted that the 1995 target would be met. It was only when 1995 drew closer that the talk shifted from operational induction to test flights.

how come DRDO promise when there was no funding for even full scale engineering in 1990?? which came in only 1993!! what a fabrication??

As for the project cost, the original budget was Rs 700 crores. It was later revised to Rs 3,000 crores (Rs 30 billion). It would easily go past Rs 10,000 crores (Rs 100 billion) before the aircraft is inducted into operational service.

and what about inflation?? he safely forgets. what would be a budget for a similar aircraft abroad?? in comparison LCA budget is not even peanuts and which included the cost of infrastructure set up for the LCA too!!

Not included are the cost of the huge amounts of foreign equipment being fitted; engine, radar, electronic warfare and communication equipment, high-stress body panels, cockpit displays and the entire range of armament.

except for the engine and armament(not fundamentally part of an aircraft) rest is indian!!! radar has some help from Israel. what is the point he is making??

And if the LCA is eventually inducted in 2015, what will the Indian Air Force get? It will get an aircraft at best comparable to first generation F-16s.

no sir. way way higher than that. hopefully with an AESA.

In the fighter aircraft field, to be state of the art, at least from 1990, an aircraft must be designed for 'stealth', that is having virtually no radar or thermal signature. Not even DRDO has so far claimed that the LCA is a stealth aircraft, or that it is capable of being made into one. Forget stealth,

there is nothing called "stealth" with radar reflections. only LO/VLO even for a 5th gen fighter. besides LCA has a very small RCS compared to any 4/4++ gen aircraft!! closer to LO.

the LCA is incapable of any significant upgrading at all during its lifetime. It is a very small, single-engined aircraft tightly packed with equipment. It cannot be fitted with a bigger engine or expanded avionics.

LCA mark 2 is precisely that!!!

So the most prudent thing for the government would be to immediately terminate the LCA project.

that is it. is he a defence contractor?? by any chance?? shame..shame.

The LCA ranks alongside DRDO's other monumental failures such as the Arjun tank, the Trishul and the Akash missiles, and the Kaveri engine. The time and cost overruns on these projects have been enormous. The story of the Arjun is well known.

Arjun, Akash have already entered service. and so is LCA.

you can take a walk mr. defence contractor.

The reality of Arjun seems to be finally sinking in, and it would appear that it might end up not as a battle tank, but as a platform for a 155mm howitzer.

that would be a supplementary gain which is going to happen in the coming days.

The short-range, surface-to-air-missile Trishul was to be fitted on three Indian Navy frigates in 1992. A decade later, the missile is still carrying out "successful" tests, long after the frigates have been completed.

this is true. finally he got one right.

During the last 20 years, DRDO has fine-tuned the art of selling projects. To start with, don't be timid and aim low. In true Parkinsonian style, the more ambitious the project, greater the chance of it being sanctioned. When the presentation is made to the minister, be generous with phrases such as "state-of-the art". Also mention that we will be the third country in the world to produce the equipment. (It is always the "third" as even the minister knows that the USA and Russia already produce the same).

obviously he is used to of foreign product brochures. seems to be rubbing itself on his comment plus may his defence agency is making him say this.

If a service chief demurs, make snide remarks about how the services want to import everything. And keep the estimated cost of the project absurdly low. Once the project is sanctioned, feed the media with a steady stream of unverifiable tidbits. Bring out a mock-up model and show it round at the Republic Day parade and defence exhibitions.

yet most of these products have entered the services!! they are not republic day tableus.

sad for you sir.

In recent times DRDO and India's defence services have evolved a modus vivendi. No longer does DRDO oppose imports, provided they are allowed to continue with their projects. Thus, import Su-30s and develop the LCA. Import T-90 tanks and produce Arjun. Import Israeli UAV and continue with a similar indigenous project. The only victim in this you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours game is the Indian taxpayer, who unfortunately does not seem to care.

what a concern for the tax payer when 10000 tmes the money of the LCA budget is siphoned off by the politician/corporate/media nexus?? he seems to not concerned about it.