ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Pintu]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Meet-Targets-For-LCA/articleshow/7262699.cms

We will give what nation wants: HALSays It Will Meet Targets For LCA
Prashanth G N, TNN, Jan 12, 2011, 04.07am IST

BANGALORE: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will go by national consensus on the type of aircraft to be produced and manufactured by it and will meet all targets set for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

HAL chairman Ashok Nayak had said on Monday that HAL would fulfil orders for 48 pieces of the LCA and was expecting a further order for 100 more from the IAF-Navy. "As we go along, new concepts and technologies will be absorbed and incorporated in the production of the aircraft. We are proud that the project has achieved its initial target."

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pintu]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...o-be-SU-30-scientists/articleshow/7262701.cms

LCA never meant to be SU-30: scientists
Prashanth G N, TNN, Jan 12, 2011, 04.06am IST

BANGALORE: Even as the Light Combat Aircraft is coming under some flak, the fact remains that it was never meant to be an SU-30. Its concept, design and development was never geared for it to be a superiority/dominance fighter.

Aerospace scientists from NAL, HAL and DRDO pointed out that the LCA was meant to be a small, light aircraft for limited missions only, meant to replace the ageing MiG-21.

The scientists observe: "Each class of aircraft has a specific role. The MiG-21 or LCA is meant for one purpose, while the SU-30, F-18 or MiG-35 is meant for another. Since the IAF also has small, limited missions, the LCA will come in handy. For bigger missions, the other aircraft will be deployed."

A scientist said the LCA will perform the role of the MiG-21 in a superior fashion and with superior technology. Unlike the MiG-21, the LCA has world-class avionics, flight controls, is lighter with its composite structure, has better range, endurance and performance.

The LCA will undertake missions of 45 minutes to 1 hour (unless it can carry drop tanks/fuel tanks allowing it longer duration). These will be highly localised with limited operation area of 200-300 km.

Does this mean we cannot develop bigger fighters? The scientists observe: "We developed a small and light aircraft which is technologically equal or even superior to aircraft in its class. We're confident this will get enhanced to develop bigger superior fighters. It's a matter of time."

They also point out the LCA could be developed into a fifth generation light fighter with the stealth and cruise technologies.

Scientists also argue there would still be a role for light aircraft as the IAF would require different aircraft for different missions. Why use big, superiority fighters for limited, small missions is their argument. They admit the capability is now around the area of a fourth generation fighter and would get enhanced in few years time.

 

[Pintu]

http://www.lca-tejas.org/avionics.html

AVIONICS


The avionics system enhances the role of Light Combat Aircraft as an effective weapons platform. The glass cockpit and hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls reduce pilot workload. Accurate navigation and weapon aiming information on the head up display helps the pilot achieve his mission effectively. The multi-function displays provide information on engine, hydraulics, electrical, flight control and environmental control system on a need-to-know basis along with basic flight and tactical information. Dual redundant display processors (DP) generate computer-generated imagery on these displays. The pilot interacts with the complex avionics systems through a simple multifunction keyboard, and function and sensor selection panels.
A state-of-the-art multi-mode radar (MMR), laser designator pod (LDP), forward looking infra-red (FLIR) and other opto-electronic sensors provide accurate target information to enhance kill probabilities. A ring laser gyro (RLG)-based inertial navigation system (INS), provides accurate navigation guidance to the pilot. An advanced electronic warfare (EW) suite enhances the aircraft survivability during deep penetration and combat. Secure and jam-resistant communication systems, such as IFF, VHF/UHF and air-to-air/air-to-ground data link are provided as a part of the avionics suite. All these systems are integrated on three 1553B buses by a centralised 32-bit mission computer (MC) with high throughput which performs weapon computations and flight management, and reconfiguration/redundancy management. Reversionary mission functions are provided by a control and coding unit (CCU).

Most of these subsystems have been developed indigenously.

The digital FBW system of the Tejas is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful digital flight control computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1×10-7 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multi-function displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link.

Multi-mode radar (MMR), the primary mission sensor of the Tejas in its air defence role, will be a key determinant of the operational effectiveness of the fighter. This is an X-band, pulse Doppler radar with air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea modes. Its track-while-scan capability caters to radar functions under multiple target environment. The antenna is a light weight (<5 kg), low profile slotted waveguide array with a multilayer feed network for broadband operation. The salient technical features are: two plane monopulse signals, low side lobe levels and integrated IFF, and GUARD and BITE channels. The heart of MMR is the signal processor, which is built around VLSI-ASICs and i960 processors to meet the functional needs of MMR in different modes of its operation. Its role is to process the radar receiver output, detect and locate targets, create ground map, and provide contour map when selected. Post-detection processor resolves range and Doppler ambiguities and forms plots for subsequent data processor. The special feature of signal processor is its real-time configurability to adapt to requirements depending on selected mode of operation.


Following are the important avionics components:

Mission Computer (MC): MC performs the central processing functions apart from performing as Bus Controller and is the central core of the Avionics system. The hardware architecture is based on a dual 80386 based computer with dual port RAM for interprocessor communication. There are three dual redundant communication channels meeting with MIL-STD-1553B data bus specifications. The hardware unit development was done by ASIEO, Bangalore and software design & development by ADA.

HUD: The Head-up-Display of the LCA is a unit developed by the state-owned CSIO, Chandigarh. The HUD is claimed to be superior to similar systems in the international market. According to Mr. CV M L Narasimham, head of CSIO's Applied Optics division, compared to Israel's HUD, the CSIO equipment is noiseless, silent, and offers a better field of view. It is compact, reliable, non-reflective and designed for high-performance aircraft. It was first put on the PV-2 version of the LCA.

Control & Coding Unit (CCU): In the normal mode, CCU provides real time I/O access which are essentially pilot's controls and power on controls for certain equipment. In the reversionary mode, when MC fails, CCU performs the central processing functions of MC. The CCU also generates voice warning signals. The main processor is Intel 80386 microprocessor. The hardware is developed by RCI, Hyderabad and software by ADA
.
Display Processors (DP): DP is one of the mission critical software intensive LRUs of LCA. The DP drives two types of display surfaces viz. a monochrome Head Up display (HUD) and two colour multifunction displays (MFDs). The equipment is based on four Intel 80960 microprocessors. There are two DPs provided (one normal and one backup) in LCA. These units are developed by ADE, Bangalore.

Mission Preparation & Data Retrieval Unit (MPRU): MPRU is a data entry and retrieval unit of LCA Avionics architecture. The unit performs mission preparation and data retrieval functions. In the preparation mode, it transfers mission data prepared on Data Preparation Cartridge (DPC) with the help of ground compliment, to various Avionics equipment. In the second function, the MPRU receives data from various equipment during the Operational Flight Program (OFP) and stores data on Resident Cartridge Card (RCC). This unit is developed by LRDE, Bangalore.

USMS Electronic Units: The following processor based digital Electronics Units (EU) are used for control and monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance: Environment Control System Controller (ECSC), Engine and Electrical Monitoring System Electronics Unit (EEMS-EU), Digital Fuel Monitoring System Electronics Unit (DFM-EU) and Digital Hydraulics and Brake Management System Electronics Unit (DH-EU)
Changes in PV-2: The production standard cockpit has no electro mechanical standby instruments. The cockpit is dominated by three 5"x 5" AMLCD MFD's, two Smart Standby Display Units (SSDU) and the indigenous HUD. The HUD has an Up Front Control Panel (UFCP) which is a significant man machine interface (MMI) enhancement which allows the pilot to program, initialize the avionics and enter mission and system critical data through an interactive soft touch keyboard. Although the FOV of this HUD is slightly less than that of contemporary units on other aircraft of this generation it is not considered significant because the ELBIT, Israel furnished DASH helmet mounted display and sight (HMDS) will form an integral part of the avionics suite.
The four utilities system monitoring LRUs have been reduced to two dual redundant units. These units perform the control, monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance functions.
A HAL Korwa developed Flight data recorder will be fitted after the initial flights.
The PV2 is a much lighter aircraft and possesses advanced software technology, unlike the Test Demonstrator I, II and PV1. There is an advancement in the build standard of PV2, which is a software intensive fourth generation combat aircraft built to production standard. Besides having a high percentage of composite materials in its airframe structure, it incorporates a state-of-the-art, integrated, modular avionics system with open architecture concepts to facilitate easy hardware and software upgrades and re-usability.

MMR HYBRID : Another critical technology area tackled for indigenous development by the ADA team is the Tejas' Multi-Mode Radar (MMR). It was initially planned for the LCA to use the Ericsson Microwave Systems PS-05/A I/J-band multi-function radar, which was developed by Ericsson and Ferranti Defence Systems Integration for the Saab JAS-39 Gripen. However, after examining other radars in the early 1990s, the DRDO became confident that indigenous development was possible. HAL's Hyderabad division and the LRDE were selected to jointly lead the MMR program; it is unclear exactly when the design work was initiated, but the radar development effort began in 1997.

The DRDO's Centre for Airborne Studies (CABS) is responsible for running the test programme for the MMR. Between 1996 and 1997, CABS converted the surviving HAL/HS-748M Airborne Surveillance Post (ASP) testbed into a testbed for the avionics and radar of the LCA. Known as the 'Hack', the only major structural modification besides the removal of the rotodome assembly was the addition of the LCA's nose cone in order to accommodate the MMR.

By mid-2002, development of the MMR was reported to be experiencing major delays and cost escalations. By early 2005 only the air-to-air look-up and look-down modes two very basic modes were confirmed to have been successfully tested. In May 2006 it was revealed that the performance of several modes being tested still "fell short of expectations." As a result, the ADA was reduced to running weaponisation tests with a weapon delivery pod, which is not a primary sensor, leaving critical tests on hold. Due to delay in development of MMR, government have come out with the collaboration with IAI for development of Radar the sensor for the new radar is supposed to be EL/M-2052 AESA from Elta and the remaining item and software will be combination of MMR and IAI developed products. Varadarajan, (Director - LRDE) has said that LRDE has initiated development of active electronically scanning array radar for airborne applications. And that these radars will be integrated with Tejas light combat aircraft-Mark II by 2012-13.

EW suite:. Primary responsibility for development of the EW suite is that of the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), Bangalore.but recently (DARE) has entered a joint venture with israeli aircraft industry (IAI) for development of EW suite called " Mayavi " an ancient sanskrit word ,which (IAI) will intergrate it with Jsf F-35 and (DARE) in lca-tejas

 

[p2prada]

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 -



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



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



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



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??



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!!



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!!!



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.



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??



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



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!!



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??



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



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.



LCA mark 2 is precisely that!!!



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



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

you can take a walk mr. defence contractor.



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



this is true. finally he got one right.



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.



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

sad for you sir.



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.

1. You have only trash talked about points that you could only validate because you are sitting in 2010 while he was in 2001 at the time the article was written.

2.Consultations aren't what you think. They, pretty much, are the trouble shooters. You mostly work under their direction using their technology. It is like a teacher student relationship.

3. You scoffed at all of his points about LCA(compared to F-16) by claiming LCA Mk2 will clear all those hurdles including AESA radar. This has been my point of contention since the very beginning. The LCA Mk2 is what the IAF has demanded. Mk1 is nothing and will not be able to match even first generation F-16s. Notice Mk2 was mooted nearly 10 years after the article came up.

3. You are still stuck on detail while the Admiral has given a very broad picture of the conditions of indigenous development in our country. When they said they will develop an "indigenous" fighter, he made fun of their assertions in the third paragraph of his article claiming DRDO signed deals with every single aviation major in Europe and US for a supposed indigenous fighter.

4. When he meant front line aircraft he meant the LCA will be the primary point defence fighter once it's operational. This means it will be the LCA which will meet an intruding enemy first. Looking at the specifications it looks like it is an infalliable joke even now.

5. Also you protect DRDO when they were the ones who claimed they will deliver LCA in 12 years. They actually said they will deliver in 8 years after design stage. Even in 1993 DRDO said they will still deliver by 1995-96. Their tall promises shaped IAF's ability to induct fighters in the long run. Only MKIs were allowed for induction. Because of DRDO's "promises" IAF was never allowed to even look at another non MKI fighter for the next 2 decades. The logic was simple. DRDO claimed something, GOI bought the false claim and IAF fell in the crossfire. The last major purchase of aircraft was in early 1980s. If we sign the MRCA deal this year then that would be 25 years and more since the last purchase. We are the first Air force on the planet that will be replacing a specific class of aircraft after more than 2 decades of the first purchase. This is all because of DRDO and its absolutely lunatic claims(and supposedly the Admiral sucks because of DRDO's claims). These claims stopped only after the last failure of Kaveri engine and the announcement that DRDO will make public claims only after technology is validated and is feasible. Lucky for us we never got into a large scale war during the time.

Our beloved scientific advisor claimed LCA will be equipped with Kaveri by 2007, did that happen? The claims that DRDO made were of their own volition. IAF or GoI never intervened in said claims nor tried to influence it. DRDO has been making lunatic claims since 1980s. For some reason you are attacking the services for it.

6. Your comments about politician/corporate/media nexus has nothing to do with the Army, Navy or Air force. It's less of his concern and more of the tax payers concern. And he rightly pointed out by saying the tax payer does not care. Try refuting the lines in red.

7. Finally the guy you are calling a loser and an astrologer and a defence contractor is also the guy who has actually commanded the western fleet and has won many medals for his service.

Also, the so called successful products that have entered service today are mostly obsolete in technology. This includes Akash, Arjun and LCA.

 

[Rahul Singh]

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.

First of all, new jets don't require new pilots. If Jaguar squadron opts for Mk-1s then these pilots will go to Mk-1. Little training and they will qualify for type. Old Dogs don't take whole lot of time. Most of them came to Jaguars after flying Mig-21s so they already possesses Dog Fighting skills little brush up and all done. By the way, there is a trend in IAF to give newly inducted jets to experienced pilots only. When MKIs were getting inducted its pilots were no less than Sq Ldrs. IAF don't hand over new jets to Flight Lieutenants.

Regardless of MK-1, even if Jaguars are replaced by M-MRCAs these pilots will have to re-qualify as dog fighters. So pilot training is not a issue.

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............................................ ...................................

.................................................. ........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

LCA MK-2 requires all these improvements only if it is required to perform as M-MRCA. And this 40% increase in fuel capacity is one of that requirement with big 'IF'....... LCA MK-2 is to go for design optimization and considerable weight and space is expected. Extra fuel required can be stored at those places. Anyway just like Gripen LCA can too have changes at wing roots. But unlike Gripen, LCA can choose to have a conformal tank instead of main landing gear undercarriage at wing roots. A change which can be done on Mk-1 as well during MLU.

Grpien C/D can have 'NG' upgrades. Don't believe me, just listen to what no less than Mr Eddy De La Motte is saying in following video between 00:41 and 00:59.

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.

Then post these pilots to new, more powerful and capable jets and see what they do with it. The skills are not going anywhere, all that is required is adaptation. IAF's great dog fighters were all from Mig-21s but they did adapted themselves on MKIs. And today they are no less capable than what they were. Anyway, Jaguars not going to retire in bulk they be retried in "some-in some-out" manner and regardless of any they will be replaced by multirole platforms in any case .

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?

If they send 100 J-10s then neither a squadron MKI nor M-MRCAs are going bring any difference. No jet is build to fight at number disadvantage as worse as 1 vs 5 and LCA is no exception.

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.

No, i don't because PLAAF is stelled with J-10s and unlike IAF they can afford to have more M-MRCAs and use them for L-MRCA requirements. And J-8s that you talk are going to be replaced by J-10. Production of J-7s is long ceased. They are only improving upon existing and using it till it gets replaced by J-10s. I repeat unlike PLAAF IAF can't afford a M-MRCA for L-MRCA requirement.

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.

No, ZHUK ME's range of 120Km is against 5m2, check this out.

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.

Your point was "...... MK-1 has advanced avionics but can't use all because of power limitations" and i said except AESA(which is definitely for mk-2) MK-1 has all its avionics and sensors fully operational.

By the way most of the improvements you talked about are coming as replacement and all will be in Mk-2 which will have powerful engine. But MK-2 is also stated to get new powerful computers which will definitely use new processors (quad core for duel core) and will consume less power than predecessor. So there will also to power saving contributing to reduction in net up in power requirement.

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. 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.

Yes, but relatively LCA is far less easier to maintain and will be even more in the future. Unlike MKIs and M-MRCAs where independence is only limited to maintenance (that too till spares lasts), in LCA we will have say in design. We can pick and choose whatever we want and install. But in 'Imported' ones we will always need help from OEM to carry any change in airframe and only god knows if we would be able to do even avionics upgradation on our own. Nobody knows for sure how different M-MRCA TOT would be from MKI's and on what side of number line(negative or positive).

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

Yes, but FONA's statement was more general than particular.

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.

But unlike others we can source engine for LCA from Russia. Atleast there is a possibility. But in M-MRCA's case if we choose any except Mig-35 then there will be no option but to keep them grounded during sanctions. This is where LCA will give what nobody else can.

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

A)LCA MK-1 is not sub standard product especially against single role Jaguar. And Jets are retired alone not with pilots. Jaguar pilots very much have dog fighting skills in them and all that is required is little brush up.

B) Yes there will be escort but unlike in Jaguar's case where either Mirage or Mig-29 or MKI from other squadron will called to fly escort, a LCA belonging to same squadron can handle that. Multirole capability to every squadron gives more flexibility to IAF.

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.

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

Will repeat. IAF don't posts a Flight Lieutenant into a brand new squadron equipped with just inducted fighters. Rather its the old Dogs who gets the first change at controls. And after a year or so of flying they document strengths and weakness of jet and accordingly write operational requirements and capability. When everything gets done with defining role and combat use they start taking in brand new pilots just coming out of Advanced Jet Training and Combat Air Training school.

LCA Mk-1 features in DPS(Jaguar class) role gives Jaguar a run for life. One rests Jaguar can't even be counted.

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.

After all these years, x number of crashes and deaths all you say "FBW guaranteed". What about that "guaranteed performance" which you earlier used to criticize LCA?

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.

BAE was not supposed to come alone, like LM and NG they could have also got development partners.

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

When i go little into past, i see some examples where IAF compromised with ASR yet inducted costly imported stuff.

1. Jaguars were inducted even when they were not certified even in its parent country.
2. Mirage 2000s were inducted with engine which could not meet requirements. It was only new shipments which came with required engines.
3. MKI were inducted in 2002 as H-MRCA, but full ASR was achieved only by 2010 or MKI MK-3 stage.

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

And it is design table stage where some wind tunnel models are build to test certain characteristics of design which are needed before freezing the design. Since ADA started work on Mk-2 back in 2009 with LEVCON study and design change study (for both probable engines) it is fair to assume that MK-2s design work is in advance stage presently. And by the way, Mk-2 design is not all new, it can best be modified MK-1. Keeping speculative horse aside i prefer to wait till 10-11 feb.

Philip Rajkumar retired when LCA had failed to achieve supersonic speed at sea level. Two years down the line when he is busy in his study room working for jurnos, same LCA achieved supersonic speed at sea level. Lot changed since he retired and lot changing already. Design optimization studies have already worked out ways to improve aerodynamics in MK-1 and more they do in MK-1 less that will be required in MK-2.

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

Every jet in the word is developmental aircraft. When F-16s were inducted it was one, when Gripen was inducted it was also, when EF was inducted it was no different in fact EF went for cold weather trials almost a year after induction. On IAF's side, they inducted Jaguars when it was not even certified, Mirage 2000s when Dassult was in process of fixing new(desired) engine, MKIs were only A2A platform when it was getting inducted as H-MRCAs into IAF in numbers.

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

No, because there is an official comment on timeline i.e two years from IOC. Yes there can be delays but this timeline is conformed by associated officials and defence minister not by any retired or unnamed source.

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.

Plenty of reports also speaks regarding sabotage angle. It was wonderful to watch Army blaming Arjun for engine which if fact comes from no less than MTU.

"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.

Yet it quoted unnamed associated sources just like ones which had spoken to contrary. Point is, if one can be believed why can't the other? See what came recently " The Arjuns, army officers said, had outsmarted the T-90s in all the parameters set for the trials and had prompted the army top brass to admit that the tank was one of the best they had operated" link.

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.

But nevertheless the General at time of "Arjun vs T-90" was very tainted and so was most of his team. Gen(retd) Deepak Kapoor is associated with scams from Northern Command ration irregularities to all about which i don't want to give a repeated mention as it brings bad name to Army. Now can we say for sure that there was no wrong doing from his and associates when General himself was not clean? Atleast CVRDE had guts to call for competitive trials unlike Army which had no answer to why T-90s are night blind and unlike Arjun requires A/C to keep its electronics working in deserts? Didn't Army compromised with operational preparedness when it inducted not fit T-90s into frontline formations?

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

You know i kept on saying this line "...... rest the speculations aside and wait till least AI-11" throughout for same. However this stand is only for MK-1 MLU = MK-2, nothing beyond.

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.

Like anybody should. Mk-2 is future of LCA program and will be robust and capable platform. But present needs asks for second squadron of Mk-1 and IAF has gone ahead for it. IAF can't just post Mig-21 pilots to MKIs as WSOs, neither it can afford to keep squadrons empty responsible for all important 'point air defence' for long. M-MRACs are good and so can be Mk-2 but present needs asks for immediate actions and no option is left other than going for more MK-1.

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

LSP-6 is going to be 'experimental' platform and this very adjective itself brings lot of possibilities. But first step(considering there are others too) has been conformed as high AOA testing. Now again this 'high' adjective is broad in meaning could also mean more than targeted. High AOA testing is risky and there are high chances of losing the platform. If this platform(LSP-6) survives after high AOA testing then we can think about rest of possibilities. However possibility of F-414 flying with LSP-6 is very less. ADA managing F-414G from GE and installing it on LSP-6 for speeding up MK-2 program is one possibility but chances are less..... Kaveri is sure to be tested on LCA but can't say if platform will be LSP-6 or other. There was a news regarding PV-1 becoming test bed for Kaveri, though i don't believe on it much.

 

[Achilles]

LCA tejas specs and comparision with F16 block 52

:india1:Hello everyone... I have seen people from either side of border from India and Pakistan both do the LCA tejas bashing without going in to the details.. So thought of putting some facts from some of my research.. this might help a bit...
There you go
Lets compare Tejas with most popular modern strike fighter today: F-16 block 50.

Their electronic eqipment is very similar EL/M-2032 or APG-68 radars with slotted planar array antenna and SAR capabilities. Both carry Litening E/O targeting system, have Dash HMD.

---------------------- Tejas ------ F-16 blk50
empty weight ----- 6540 kg ----- 8,700 kg
wing area --------- 38.4 m2 ----- 27.87m2
power ------------- 8,600 kg ----- 13,180 kg
intermal fuel ------- 2400 kg ------ 3,250 kg

Now lets calculate two missions.

1) Fighter mission with 4 MR AA missiles + 2 SR AA missiles.

That's 4*160 + 2*90 = 820 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 2400 = 9760 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 820 + 3,250 = 12770 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/9760 = 0.246
F-16 - 3250/12770 = 0.254

Very close, that means range will be pretty similar. F-16 however can add CFT, then F-16 gets advantage in range.

Half fuel weight in fighter mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 820 + 1200 = 8560 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 820 + 1625 = 11145 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/8560 = 1
F-16 - 13,180/11145 = 1.18

Serious advantage of F-16, better acceleration and vertical maneuvring.

wing loading:
Tejas - 8560/38.4 = 223 kg/m2
F-16 - 11145/27.87 = 400 kg/m2

Serious advantage of Tejas, can provide better horisontal maneuvring and take off/landing capabilities

2) Strike mission with 2 2000-lb bombs + 2 short range AA missles + 2 MR AA + Litening pod.

That gives 2*900 + 2*90 + 2 * 160 + 200 = 2500 kg

Full fiel weight:
Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 2400 = 11440 kg
F-16 - 8,700 + 2500 + 3,250 = 14450 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 2400/11440 = 0.21
F-16 - 3,250/14450 = 0.22

Again pretty close.

Half fuel weight in strike mission:

Tejas - 6540 + 2500 + 1200 = 10240 kg
F-16 - 8700 + 2500 + 1625 = 12825 kg

power/weight ratio:
Tejas - 8600/10240 = 0.84
F-16 - 13,180/12825 = 1.03

wing loading:
Tejas - 10240/38.4 = 267 kg/m2
F-16 - 12825/27.87 = 460 kg/m2

Quite a similar picture as it was in fighter mode (in fighter mode F-16 has 18% advantage in t/w ratio, while in strike mode - 23%).


Lets check this loading.

F-16 fuel:
3250 kg (internal) + 2200 kg (2 wing 370-gal) + 900 kg (300 gal central) = 6350 kg.

F-16 weight:
8700 kg (empty) + 6350 kg (fuel) + 300 kg (drop tanks) + 1800 kg (2 LGBs) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 17,850 kg

Tejas fuel:
2400 kg (internal) + 1900 kg (2 wing 1200l) = 4300 kg

Tejas weight:

6540 kg (empty) + 4300 kg (fuel) + 200 kg (drop tanks) + 900 kg (1 LGB) + 500 kg (4 AAMs) + 200 kg (pod) = 12,640 kg

Fuel/weight ratio:
Tejas - 0.34
F-16 - 0.36

Thats very close, especially considering that more fuel additional tank and bomb make more drag. So range would be about same, but F-16 carries 2 times more bombs.

If Tejas takes 2 LGBs and 1 drop tank then we get:

3350 kg fuel and 12,490 kg weight. Thats 0.27 fuel weight ratio compare to 0.36 of F-16. Thats 33% less. But actual range difference will be lower that 33% because of drag (20-25% I guess). In short either one bomb at similar range or same number of bombs at lower range.

Light fighters can be very good for CAS missions too, they fall in deep strike missions.

Tejas needs F414 engine. It gives 15% more thrust but weights almost same as F404 + additional fuel. That was done on Grippen NG.


Conclusion:
Tejas can compete with F-16 block 50 both in strike and fighting missions.

Pros:
Cheaper to prosecute and operate. Much smaller wing loading, thats good for take of and landing, training.

Cons:
Underpowered (that can be corrected with F414), no CFT option.

People shud understand the role of Tejas in IAF. Second thing, there are very few contries who manufacture all components of a Fighter aircraft indegenously. Even china is not able to develop (Full functional ) engine WS 15 or so.. By the way India's Kavari Engine which earlier failed high altitude trials, Passed this time after some modifications.. I will post some pictures after some searching... So my sincere request to all members that give some respect to this bird which it surely deserves and let it become operational.. after that you can surely analyze it.. And same goes for JF 17 of Pakistan.. offcource the experience gained in these projects will help the developers for sure. Mean while unlike JF 17 LCA tejas uses composite materials and RAM hence that factor should also be considered which is a very high achievement in my opinion..

Regards
Achilles (Shrikant Parwate):india1:

 

[mattster]

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.

This post hits the bullseye. DRDO is a poorly managed organization - I dont think anyone who just looks at the facts, or the record will deny that.
This post shows that Senior armed forces people at every level - Air Force, Navy and Army have very little faith in DRDO. Not only that, if you read between the lines - you can see that he is really disgusted with the state of affairs.

There are very few government owned sectors that are top performers. If you want to be good performance in India - you will have to look at the private sector. So why should defense be any different.

Its a very telling post.

 

[ppgj]

1. You have only trash talked about points that you could only validate because you are sitting in 2010 while he was in 2001 at the time the article was written.

which is why i wrote in the very first few lines -

what is the point of posting it now?? what is the relevance of it now??

if you post it now you have to view it from current situation not past which is history. besides your astrologer is making 'predictions' barely 9 days after the first flight!! is that fair?? one has to wait and see the progress before passing a judgement. when an aircraft acquires induction capability in roughly 15 years time table if everything goes according to plan, it is stupid of anyone to sit in their armchair and pass cheap predictions which btw have all gone wrong.

and mr. p2prada, when you read the article and knew it was irrelevant for today, who do you post it and then ask me as you ask above?? or it seems this article has been the "basis" for all your arguments in this thread, as my experience shows. a trash article being a basis for arguments and criticism of LCA, it's designers and what not. great work.

2.Consultations aren't what you think. They, pretty much, are the trouble shooters. You mostly work under their direction using their technology. It is like a teacher student relationship.

i gave an interview of the leader who delivered the CFC for LCA. obviously when you beleive this astrologer, how can you beleive CFC team?? keep beleiving in such articles which run in the face of a different reality. btw there are more defece journos/analysts who can/have dished out similar reports/analysis for you to bank on.

3. You scoffed at all of his points about LCA(compared to F-16) by claiming LCA Mk2 will clear all those hurdles including AESA radar. This has been my point of contention since the very beginning. The LCA Mk2 is what the IAF has demanded. Mk1 is nothing and will not be able to match even first generation F-16s. Notice Mk2 was mooted nearly 10 years after the article came up.

even our Bisons are are better than the 1st gen F-16s. and CAS himself called LCA Mark 1 as Mig 21++. between LCA and Mig 21 Bison, there is a hell of a difference.

LCA mark 1 is way way higher than 1st gen F-16s. LCA mark 2 with an upgraded engine will be closer to F-16 block 50/52 and would get even better if AESA materialises.

3. You are still stuck on detail while the Admiral has given a very broad picture of the conditions of indigenous development in our country. When they said they will develop an "indigenous" fighter, he made fun of their assertions in the third paragraph of his article claiming DRDO signed deals with every single aviation major in Europe and US for a supposed indigenous fighter.

sir, india's financial position was precarious in the late 80s. starting with early 90s it recovered. by late 90s india was better. so most of the projects including LCA got better funding (though peanuts by global standard) and hence their progress can only be seen post that. defence manufacturing is not like building toys. they have long gestaion period. hence "broad picture of the conditions of indigenous development in our country" he is speaking of would have been visible only now - which it is!! why did he jump then predicting things which all have fallen flat as it would and should be.

4. When he meant front line aircraft he meant the LCA will be the primary point defence fighter once it's operational. This means it will be the LCA which will meet an intruding enemy first. Looking at the specifications it looks like it is an infalliable joke even now.

don't put your spin on it now. since you acknowledge him and accept his views, then beleive what he said. he clearly said "frontline aircraft". btw while you add your spin here taking a different meaning, you have no problem rubbishing the interview of dr. KN RAJU above. what a show sir??

the rest of your LCA observations are as usual - more your fictional rhetoric than factual analysis.

5. Also you protect DRDO when they were the ones who claimed they will deliver LCA in 12 years. They actually said they will deliver in 8 years after design stage. Even in 1993 DRDO said they will still deliver by 1995-96.

don't keep repeating such illogical, incorrect, biased views following your astrologer's views. no designer can promise an inductible aircraft in 2 years when there was no funding even for FSE of the a/c in feb 1993.

even 1st grade children will not buy that. so don't sell your fiction here.

Their tall promises shaped IAF's ability to induct fighters in the long run. Only MKIs were allowed for induction. Because of DRDO's "promises" IAF was never allowed to even look at another non MKI fighter for the next 2 decades. The logic was simple. DRDO claimed something, GOI bought the false claim and IAF fell in the crossfire. The last major purchase of aircraft was in early 1980s. If we sign the MRCA deal this year then that would be 25 years and more since the last purchase. We are the first Air force on the planet that will be replacing a specific class of aircraft after more than 2 decades of the first purchase. This is all because of DRDO and its absolutely lunatic claims(and supposedly the Admiral sucks because of DRDO's claims). These claims stopped only after the last failure of Kaveri engine and the announcement that DRDO will make public claims only after technology is validated and is feasible. Lucky for us we never got into a large scale war during the time.

you seem to be at all the meetings between DRDO and GOI. even MPs don't have that luxury. lucky man.

Our beloved scientific advisor claimed LCA will be equipped with Kaveri by 2007, did that happen? The claims that DRDO made were of their own volition. IAF or GoI never intervened in said claims nor tried to influence it. DRDO has been making lunatic claims since 1980s. For some reason you are attacking the services for it.

yes they did not succeed wrt Kaveri for LCA?? so what is your point?? there would be failures in some cases and this is true everywhere. even Gripen sprts american engine and chinese stick russian engines to their aircraft. atleast DRDO tried thoguh were not successful to the extent. btw they created infrastructure for building future turbofans and even kaveri offshoots will power naval ships!! this experience can only be built on.. not the otherway round.

you are the one who keeps talking about BIG PICTURE but you fail to see FBW/CLAW, COMPOSITES, a whole host of AVIONICS, infra built for AIRCRAFT DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING, EVALUATION, CERTIFICATION etc..IOW india to day has an infra to build and induct an aircraft of it's choice!!!

do you know the value of that?? you would not - for sure.

6. Your comments about politician/corporate/media nexus has nothing to do with the Army, Navy or Air force. It's less of his concern and more of the tax payers concern. And he rightly pointed out by saying the tax payer does not care. Try refuting the lines in red.

and tell me is he not a citizen of india?? why should he not be concerned about the corruption which 10000 times bigger when he is concerned about a "valid" investment in a NATIONAL PROJECT? besides has the money invested in the LCA (even though peanuts) been a waste of tax payer's money?? which he is speaking of and you seem to be supporting??

7. Finally the guy you are calling a loser and an astrologer and a defence contractor is also the guy who has actually commanded the western fleet and has won many medals for his service.

does not matter. his observations are invalid - as the results show and run against an effort to give India a "defence independance" - which is partially successful.

Also, the so called successful products that have entered service today are mostly obsolete in technology. This includes Akash, Arjun and LCA.

what better can be expected of you mr.p2prada??

btw you were saying in another reply to me Akash is good and you support it!! you are confused in your own contradictions.

treat yourself.

 

[Crusader53]

Do we have any drawings of the LCA MK2????

 

[gogbot]

Do we have any drawings of the LCA MK2????

still has not been designed ,

Basically its longer slightly larger
Re-designed Intakes.
LEVCONS ?
Refueling probe

rest of the changes happen internally such as radar and avionics

 

[gogbot]

3 words defined the project in his words. "Dude it Sucks." That changed my mind.

Alright you read me the title of the book now read me the first chapter.

What exactly was it that changed your logic ,

Its not as if 3 words can change your entire train of thought.

We may have very little experience in aircraft development.

That was what we wanted to rectify in the first place ,
This is why LCA exists to fix that very problem

But the fact is we are working on a simple design. What we are doing is just reinventing and with foreign help.

How is an aircraft with negative RSS a simple design. especially one which does not use Canards for Stability

The only other aircraft i know that uses Negative RSS without canards is the F-16 , no ?

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.

Tell me what else is new , we all know GoI sucks , but nothing any of us can do to change it all. That does not mean we just trow in the towel.

Best we can hope for is that the little stuff that does get done and the few opportunity we do have don't get wasted.
LCA we have it , lets not waste it. Just take the project forward to a natural end , not stagnate , or reverse gears.

We want momentum so that these projects keep moving forward before Somebody gets the chance to mess it all up

 

[Rahul Singh]

This post hits the bullseye. DRDO is a poorly managed organization - I dont think anyone who just looks at the facts, or the record will deny that.
This post shows that Senior armed forces people at every level - Air Force, Navy and Army have very little faith in DRDO. Not only that, if you read between the lines - you can see that he is really disgusted with the state of affairs.

There are very few government owned sectors that are top performers. If you want to be good performance in India - you will have to look at the private sector. So why should defense be any different.

Its a very telling post.

All these years DRDO was involved in developing building blocks. Building Blocks are very very unglamorous in comparison to fully developed products. And critics not believing in research rather only criticism that too in pick and choose manner never bother to check them. Is it a joke that DRDO managed to develop all important and yet state of the art DFCC for LCA? Carbon composites, still state of the art and possessed by very few either? Had it been possible for HAL to take part in FGFA development by sharing composite burden if DRDO had not given that tech? Did i saw any critic thanking for this honer? No, why? Only because composite is very unglamorous in comparison to complete product.....................I could go on and on to how may pages i can't figure out to prove what is the importance of building blocks and why it should always be given first priority? Also how by sticking to it DRDO has done utmost duty towards nation in spite of vicious criticism.

And BTW there is also other side of the coin. Navy calls DRDO a winner in SONAR. And as a matter of fact all most all new induction in Navy comes with DRDO SONAR. Navy went ahead with DRDO developed DATA Link 'LINK II' on P-8, while her sister are still watching 'Mr. Bean' show.....Again i can go on and on upto 100 pages or beyond but i am sick and tired of it. I don't how may times i have replied to half cooked posts like your's. So i am leaving it to time to prove what DRDO did to the nation? And in fact signs are already emerging for everyone to see but prerequisite is 6/6 eye not those affected with Myopia.

Do we have any drawings of the LCA MK2????

No..... MK-2 is not a new aircraft, it's just next step in development path. Though speculations ranges from heaven to hell it is believed that MK-2 will be similar to MK-1 by over 90% airframe wise.

 

[p2prada]

First of all, new jets don't require new pilots. If Jaguar squadron opts for Mk-1s then these pilots will go to Mk-1. Little training and they will qualify for type. Old Dogs don't take whole lot of time. Most of them came to Jaguars after flying Mig-21s so they already possesses Dog Fighting skills little brush up and all done. By the way, there is a trend in IAF to give newly inducted jets to experienced pilots only. When MKIs were getting inducted its pilots were no less than Sq Ldrs. IAF don't hand over new jets to Flight Lieutenants.

Regardless of MK-1, even if Jaguars are replaced by M-MRCAs these pilots will have to re-qualify as dog fighters. So pilot training is not a issue.

No. It takes away a lot of experience on old platforms when you transfer them to a new one. The trend of giving new fighters old pilots is followed by every airforce in the world. The fact is there is nothing on the LCA Mk1 that is so radical that we need to kick Jaguar pilots onto the platform. Also fact is the Jaguar pilots are trained in a completely different role, DPS. Only Mig-21 pilots can fill the role of being test pilots for any new aircraft that we are inducting today.

It's not easy adjusting to a new aircraft without extensive flight hours on the same platform, its called relearning.

Also, the biggest problem with inducting Mk1 is that we are using up 40 topguns for testing a demonstrator and then we will need an additional 20-40 pilots for the Mk2 until it matures.

LCA MK-2 requires all these improvements only if it is required to perform as M-MRCA. And this 40% increase in fuel capacity is one of that requirement with big 'IF'....... LCA MK-2 is to go for design optimization and considerable weight and space is expected. Extra fuel required can be stored at those places. Anyway just like Gripen LCA can too have changes at wing roots. But unlike Gripen, LCA can choose to have a conformal tank instead of main landing gear undercarriage at wing roots. A change which can be done on Mk-1 as well during MLU.

The F414 is fuel hungry, especially the IN version we are getting. We will need extra fuel and LCA is packed as it is. You cannot change the undercarriage on existing platforms even in MLUs. It will require taking apart the aircraft. Conformal fuel tanks affect aerodynamics. IAF will never accept that as a regular design.

Grpien C/D can have 'NG' upgrades. Don't believe me, just listen to what no less than Mr Eddy De La Motte is saying in following video between 00:41 and 00:59.

He does not say anything important. He just says the Gripen C/D can have fifth gen technologies on them. There is nothing we can deduce from that.

Then post these pilots to new, more powerful and capable jets and see what they do with it. The skills are not going anywhere, all that is required is adaptation. IAF's great dog fighters were all from Mig-21s but they did adapted themselves on MKIs. And today they are no less capable than what they were. Anyway, Jaguars not going to retire in bulk they be retried in "some-in some-out" manner and regardless of any they will be replaced by multirole platforms in any case .

The adapted Mig-21 pilots on MKI are WSOs, they sit at the back and direct the show. We have rookie pilots on the MKIs for all squadrons. The MKI is a far superior platform to anything that we have. As of 2010, as per Col Ternof we are still learning to fly the Flanker. And he is true. Even experienced pilots take years to adapt to a new fighter.

Jaguars are great. We already have so many other fighters that need replacement, so why worry about our best DPSA.

If they send 100 J-10s then neither a squadron MKI nor M-MRCAs are going bring any difference. No jet is build to fight at number disadvantage as worse as 1 vs 5 and LCA is no exception.

You misunderstood the post. I am not talking about a single scenario. I am talking about LCA's inability to fight off superior foes on a one on one. We cannot match China jet for jet. So, if they attack they will have a superior force in numbers and that will affect LCA Mk1s ability to fight at a superior advantage. You said if PAF sends in F-16s we will send more number of LCAs. That scenario is not easily accomplished.

No, i don't because PLAAF is stelled with J-10s and unlike IAF they can afford to have more M-MRCAs and use them for L-MRCA requirements. And J-8s that you talk are going to be replaced by J-10. Production of J-7s is long ceased. They are only improving upon existing and using it till it gets replaced by J-10s. I repeat unlike PLAAF IAF can't afford a M-MRCA for L-MRCA requirement.

But IAF is willing to wait for Mk2 as a LMRCA.

No, ZHUK ME's range of 120Km is against 5m2, check this out.

If a 1.5KW radar delivers that, then I would like to see a source for LCA claiming detection ranges of 150km with lesser power.

Your point was "...... MK-1 has advanced avionics but can't use all because of power limitations" and i said except AESA(which is definitely for mk-2) MK-1 has all its avionics and sensors fully operational.

Yes. But they will all function at the cost of engine power for actual flying. The F-404 was only meant as a test engine for LCA. The Kaveri was supposed to power the aircraft. The F-404 is not enough.

By the way most of the improvements you talked about are coming as replacement and all will be in Mk-2 which will have powerful engine. But MK-2 is also stated to get new powerful computers which will definitely use new processors (quad core for duel core) and will consume less power than predecessor. So there will also to power saving contributing to reduction in net up in power requirement.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about microwave communications, they all consume more power, like communications, EW, radar etc. All these have high power usage. Also, we have no idea at all what the IAF has asked for in the LCA mk2.

The current specifications and avionics of the LCA Mk1 follow the ASR set in 1985.

Yes, but relatively LCA is far less easier to maintain and will be even more in the future. Unlike MKIs and M-MRCAs where independence is only limited to maintenance (that too till spares lasts), in LCA we will have say in design. We can pick and choose whatever we want and install. But in 'Imported' ones we will always need help from OEM to carry any change in airframe and only god knows if we would be able to do even avionics upgradation on our own. Nobody knows for sure how different M-MRCA TOT would be from MKI's and on what side of number line(negative or positive).

At $40Million a pop, I don't think LCA is going to be as cheap as envisioned.

But unlike others we can source engine for LCA from Russia. Atleast there is a possibility. But in M-MRCA's case if we choose any except Mig-35 then there will be no option but to keep them grounded during sanctions. This is where LCA will give what nobody else can.

The Russians cannot help us with that. LCA cannot handle any engine including RD-93. It is way too heavy, big and underpowered to even consider it.

A)LCA MK-1 is not sub standard product especially against single role Jaguar. And Jets are retired alone not with pilots. Jaguar pilots very much have dog fighting skills in them and all that is required is little brush up.

The Jaguars carry superior avionics. Check DARIN III upgrades. You cannot send experienced pilots back to school. It affects our operational preparedness. If we are attacked tomorrow and our DPS pilots are training at school, then woe be us.

B) Yes there will be escort but unlike in Jaguar's case where either Mirage or Mig-29 or MKI from other squadron will called to fly escort, a LCA belonging to same squadron can handle that. Multirole capability to every squadron gives more flexibility to IAF.

What you are talking about comes at a price. I am talking about time.

Will repeat. IAF don't posts a Flight Lieutenant into a brand new squadron equipped with just inducted fighters. Rather its the old Dogs who gets the first change at controls. And after a year or so of flying they document strengths and weakness of jet and accordingly write operational requirements and capability. When everything gets done with defining role and combat use they start taking in brand new pilots just coming out of Advanced Jet Training and Combat Air Training school.

I know. But will you do that at the sacrifice of operational preparedness. Nobody does that. Only retired F-15 pilots went over to the F-22 in the very beginning. The A-10 pilots were not replaced for F-22s.

LCA Mk-1 features in DPS(Jaguar class) role gives Jaguar a run for life. One rests Jaguar can't even be counted.

The LCA is far too underpowered to handle its own roles as well as the Jaguars. The LCA was only meant to be a point defence aircraft. Nothing else.

After all these years, x number of crashes and deaths all you say "FBW guaranteed". What about that "guaranteed performance" which you earlier used to criticize LCA?

The F-16 is flying in more air forces than number of LCAs today. The fact that F-16 has had crashes in the past does not mean LCA will not. At least FBW was new at the time. Here we have nothing new in the LCA.

BAE was not supposed to come alone, like LM and NG they could have also got development partners.

Huh? Like who? Only LM and NG would have been their development partners. And LM and NG did not need foreign help with their plans.

When i go little into past, i see some examples where IAF compromised with ASR yet inducted costly imported stuff.

1. Jaguars were inducted even when they were not certified even in its parent country.
2. Mirage 2000s were inducted with engine which could not meet requirements. It was only new shipments which came with required engines.
3. MKI were inducted in 2002 as H-MRCA, but full ASR was achieved only by 2010 or MKI MK-3 stage.

But each of them were state of the art. LCA is far from that. If we were talking about AMCA Mk1 then I would have agreed. Why should IAF make compromises with a platform that is already obsolete in most other air forces?

And it is design table stage where some wind tunnel models are build to test certain characteristics of design which are needed before freezing the design. Since ADA started work on Mk-2 back in 2009 with LEVCON study and design change study (for both probable engines) it is fair to assume that MK-2s design work is in advance stage presently. And by the way, Mk-2 design is not all new, it can best be modified MK-1. Keeping speculative horse aside i prefer to wait till 10-11 feb.

If Mk2 is only a modified Mk1 then ADA getting it to fly by 2014 is a too far a goal. They don't need to start a whole new design phase for it.

Philip Rajkumar retired when LCA had failed to achieve supersonic speed at sea level. Two years down the line when he is busy in his study room working for jurnos, same LCA achieved supersonic speed at sea level. Lot changed since he retired and lot changing already. Design optimization studies have already worked out ways to improve aerodynamics in MK-1 and more they do in MK-1 less that will be required in MK-2.

LCA failing some test has nothing to do with the fact that IAF does not want Mk1. They want Mk2. Mk1 is passe, ADA knows it and still this is being thrust into the IAF. We will have 2 different IOCs for the same project in the shortest period possible. This is a first in the world.

Every jet in the word is developmental aircraft. When F-16s were inducted it was one, when Gripen was inducted it was also, when EF was inducted it was no different in fact EF went for cold weather trials almost a year after induction. On IAF's side, they inducted Jaguars when it was not even certified, Mirage 2000s when Dassult was in process of fixing new(desired) engine, MKIs were only A2A platform when it was getting inducted as H-MRCAs into IAF in numbers.

You are comparing state of the art with just pass. When F-16 was inducted, they did not make the F-16 Block 60 with modified wings, uprated engines and extra fuel load 2 years after IOC.

No, because there is an official comment on timeline i.e two years from IOC. Yes there can be delays but this timeline is conformed by associated officials and defence minister not by any retired or unnamed source.

There have been many official timelines and none of them have been adhered to. In 2001 ADA said they will achieve IOC in 2006. In 2001 a 10 year retired admiral named Nadkarni said LCA will not achieve operational capability by 2015 which is truer than anything we have seen so far. Who do I believe?

Plenty of reports also speaks regarding sabotage angle. It was wonderful to watch Army blaming Arjun for engine which if fact comes from no less than MTU.

Engine failed in set conditions. That's all. It's quite cute claiming sabotage and then not showing any proof for it.

Yet it quoted unnamed associated sources just like ones which had spoken to contrary. Point is, if one can be believed why can't the other? See what came recently " The Arjuns, army officers said, had outsmarted the T-90s in all the parameters set for the trials and had prompted the army top brass to admit that the tank was one of the best they had operated" link.

It did not quote unnamed associates. It was Lt General Bharadwaj who said the Arjun is just a contemporary tank and Army will not induct any more. They are looking at beyond 2020 for any new tank purchases.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/army-looks-at-tanks-for-future-says-arjun-history/68352-3.html

But nevertheless the General at time of "Arjun vs T-90" was very tainted and so was most of his team. Gen(retd) Deepak Kapoor is associated with scams from Northern Command ration irregularities to all about which i don't want to give a repeated mention as it brings bad name to Army. Now can we say for sure that there was no wrong doing from his and associates when General himself was not clean? Atleast CVRDE had guts to call for competitive trials unlike Army which had no answer to why T-90s are night blind and unlike Arjun requires A/C to keep its electronics working in deserts? Didn't Army compromised with operational preparedness when it inducted not fit T-90s into frontline formations?

These allegations still haven't been proven as the Generals did it. It could have been the mess officers and lower who would have done it. Obviously the top brass is called because they are responsible for it. My grandpa worked in the Army Canteen. He could have easily bought rationed liquor bottles and sold them for higher prices outside. There is nothing a General can do to stop it. There is something called integrity that some people lack. Do you really think a General will run around stealing liquor bottles and blankets to sell to relatives? These guys are way too busy to look at such small things. It's like Bill Gates getting caught shop lifting a banana.

You know i kept on saying this line "...... rest the speculations aside and wait till least AI-11" throughout for same. However this stand is only for MK-1 MLU = MK-2, nothing beyond.

Agreed.

Like anybody should. Mk-2 is future of LCA program and will be robust and capable platform. But present needs asks for second squadron of Mk-1 and IAF has gone ahead for it. IAF can't just post Mig-21 pilots to MKIs as WSOs, neither it can afford to keep squadrons empty responsible for all important 'point air defence' for long. M-MRACs are good and so can be Mk-2 but present needs asks for immediate actions and no option is left other than going for more MK-1.

The second squadron being IAF's choice has my doubts. Anyway we are still the first air force in the world to be having 2 different IOCs for the same bird or you could say similar birds in such a short time.

LSP-6 is going to be 'experimental' platform and this very adjective itself brings lot of possibilities. But first step(considering there are others too) has been conformed as high AOA testing. Now again this 'high' adjective is broad in meaning could also mean more than targeted. High AOA testing is risky and there are high chances of losing the platform. If this platform(LSP-6) survives after high AOA testing then we can think about rest of possibilities. However possibility of F-414 flying with LSP-6 is very less. ADA managing F-414G from GE and installing it on LSP-6 for speeding up MK-2 program is one possibility but chances are less..... Kaveri is sure to be tested on LCA but can't say if platform will be LSP-6 or other. There was a news regarding PV-1 becoming test bed for Kaveri, though i don't believe on it much.

Yes. High AoA is for AoA tests without FBW limitations.

 

[p2prada]

if you post it now you have to view it from current situation not past which is history. besides your astrologer is making 'predictions' barely 9 days after the first flight!! is that fair?? one has to wait and see the progress before passing a judgement. when an aircraft acquires induction capability in roughly 15 years time table if everything goes according to plan, it is stupid of anyone to sit in their armchair and pass cheap predictions which btw have all gone wrong.

The Admiral said LCA will not be ready by 2015 while ADA promised deliveries in 2006 when LCA first flew. Who's more true?

and mr. p2prada, when you read the article and knew it was irrelevant for today, who do you post it and then ask me as you ask above?? or it seems this article has been the "basis" for all your arguments in this thread, as my experience shows. a trash article being a basis for arguments and criticism of LCA, it's designers and what not. great work.

Oh! It is very relevant. The very fact that ADA happily lies about its capabilities has been proven. ADA claims 2006, Admiral claims 2015, turns out he was right.

i gave an interview of the leader who delivered the CFC for LCA. obviously when you beleive this astrologer, how can you beleive CFC team?? keep beleiving in such articles which run in the face of a different reality. btw there are more defece journos/analysts who can/have dished out similar reports/analysis for you to bank on.

I bet the Admiral has a clearer picture, he was there when ADA was making those very deals.

LCA mark 1 is way way higher than 1st gen F-16s. LCA mark 2 with an upgraded engine will be closer to F-16 block 50/52 and would get even better if AESA materialises.

The 1st generation F-16 is superior to the LCA in every flight regime. The F-16 Block 52+ is only possible on the LCA Mk2 and that's why I have been asking for ADA to hold on to its horses until Mk2 is ready instead of forcing Mk1 down on them.

sir, india's financial position was precarious in the late 80s. starting with early 90s it recovered. by late 90s india was better. so most of the projects including LCA got better funding (though peanuts by global standard) and hence their progress can only be seen post that. defence manufacturing is not like building toys. they have long gestaion period. hence "broad picture of the conditions of indigenous development in our country" he is speaking of would have been visible only now - which it is!! why did he jump then predicting things which all have fallen flat as it would and should be.

By global standards a technician gets paid a minimum of Rs 60000 to Rs 1Lakh. By our standards he would get only Rs 15000. So, our budget was enough.

Military projects have long gestation periods but Indian military projects take extra vacations over that.

The IAF predicted LCA will not be ready by 2015 even in 2001 while ADA was harping about deliveries in 2006. The Admiral has rightly said the LCA Mk1 will not be as capable as a Mirage-2000 or a Mig-29 even in 2025 because of obvious airframe limitations.

don't put your spin on it now. since you acknowledge him and accept his views, then beleive what he said. he clearly said "frontline aircraft". btw while you add your spin here taking a different meaning, you have no problem rubbishing the interview of dr. KN RAJU above. what a show sir??

In our airforce Mig-21Bison, MKI, Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 are frontline aircraft. The Jaguar and Mig-27 are strike aircraft. Now you get the picture?

the rest of your LCA observations are as usual - more your fictional rhetoric than factual analysis.

Of course. We have a difference of opinion. My opinion is backed by the history of ADA and service chiefs. Your opinions are backed by the promises of defence contractors and media. So, of course my opinions are fictional rhetoric because there is no source.

don't keep repeating such illogical, incorrect, biased views following your astrologer's views. no designer can promise an inductible aircraft in 2 years when there was no funding even for FSE of the a/c in feb 1993.

As usual you are fed more horse puckey from our media. DRDO used it's own funds until 1993. DRDO had already started making TD-1 in 1991.

even 1st grade children will not buy that. so don't sell your fiction here.

Yes. Articles from service chiefs are fictional. Media personalities are factual. Next time send your sources to fight a war. My sources will sit and watch.

you seem to be at all the meetings between DRDO and GOI. even MPs don't have that luxury. lucky man.

Nope. I just read stuff that service chiefs wrote, not stuff that media writes. Even foreign service chiefs have more credibility than our media.

Just look at ADAs history and their delivery schedules. Forget about pre 2000s, just look at post 2000s. Right from ADA's delivery by 2006 to GTRE's flight testing of Kaveri in 2007. None of that has happened and it has nothing to do with funds.

you are the one who keeps talking about BIG PICTURE but you fail to see FBW/CLAW, COMPOSITES, a whole host of AVIONICS, infra built for AIRCRAFT DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING, EVALUATION, CERTIFICATION etc..IOW india to day has an infra to build and induct an aircraft of it's choice!!!

Everyone one of which came later than scheduled and that too by many years. So many years that by the time the product is delivered, it is being compared to F-16 Block 15.

do you know the value of that?? you would not - for sure.

It has badly affected our operational preparedness.

and tell me is he not a citizen of india?? why should he not be concerned about the corruption which 10000 times bigger when he is concerned about a "valid" investment in a NATIONAL PROJECT? besides has the money invested in the LCA (even though peanuts) been a waste of tax payer's money?? which he is speaking of and you seem to be supporting??

After spending $2Billion they have built a platform that can only be said to be a tad bit better than the Mig-21. LCA Mk1 has no scope for modifications or upgrades without making massive changes in the airframe. This was a fighter meant for 20th century not for the 21st century. The fact that GoI has forced its will on the services solely based upon the false promises of ADA is criminal.

does not matter. his observations are invalid - as the results show and run against an effort to give India a "defence independance" - which is partially successful.

Cheers.

what better can be expected of you mr.p2prada??

Yes. Some people are content with only a Block 15 F-16 capable fighter which does not even remotely fly as capably as the Block 15 even after 20 years of development far into the 21st century. I am not.

btw you were saying in another reply to me Akash is good and you support it!! you are confused in your own contradictions.

treat yourself.

Akash is good for its role. But it is obsolete to anything the world has today, even China. It is the slowest SAM to be inducted in the 21st century. The only good thing about the system is the Rajendra radar. I support it because even though it was late, it was delivered after it surpassed requirements. It has room for improvement and is a good buy. LCA has not achieved the same.

 

[Parthy]

Turbulence ahead for fighter jet Tejas: Analysts

India's homegrown fighter jet, the Tejas, has finally been cleared for operations but analysts say any celebration of India's entry into an elite club of military hardware producers is premature.

Initial operational approval for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has taken 26 years -- the result of endless developmental delays, technological hiccups and massive cost overruns.

First conceived as a direct replacement for the Indian Air Force's (IAF) ageing fleet of Russian-made MiG-21s -- tagged "flying coffins" for their abysmal safety record -- the LCA was hyped as a milestone in India's bid to reduce its dependency on military imports.

Although conceived, designed and assembled in India, its "indigenous" label is somewhat misleading as 40 percent of its components are foreign-made, including the radar and US-built engine.

Formal induction of the Tejas is still two or three years away, and questions remain over its eventual suitability.

"Only after the aircraft is put in use by the pilots will its strength and limitations become clear," said Ajey Lele, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

"India's peculiar security requirements demand a very capable air force with state-of-the-art platform and weapon systems. Naturally, the Tejas will have to fulfil major expectations," he added.

"Its too early to pop the bubbly," warned military aviation specialist Kapil Kak, saying procuring engines for a second generation of Tejas could become a headache for India.

Accepting the LCA's operational clearance certificate last week, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik seemed less than enthused, noting that the aircraft was really a "Mig-21, plus, plus" and not the fourth generation fighter it was conceived as.

"There are some areas where work still needs to be done. There are aspects that need to be improved," Naik said. "We've waited a long time for the Tejas. We don't want a partial platform."

The LCA is a single-seater, single-engine, supersonic tactical jet equipped with the latest avionics, weaponry and advanced multi-mode radar. It can be armed with an array of weapons including freefall and laser guided bombs, air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-ship missiles.

Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in conjunction with a host of public and private sector firms, the first prototype took to the skies in 2001 and since then 1,500 test flights have been conducted.

From an initial budget of 5.6 billion rupees ($123 million), the cost of developing the fighter has snowballed over the years to around 180 billion rupees.

While acknowledging the LCA's troubled history, Arun Sharma, a former chief of naval staff and chairman of the National Maritime Foundation think-tank, said the project should still be applauded for overcoming major challenges.

Among them was the imposition of US-led sanctions in the wake of India's 1998 nuclear tests, which put crucial technologies out of reach and contributed to the delays.

"Only a handful of countries can claim the ability and competence to successfully bring a project of such complexity to fruition," Sharma said.

"So it would be churlish not to acknowledge the achievement of our aircraft designers and scientists for having delivered -- albeit belatedly -- a state-of-the-art combat aircraft."

And John Siddharth, a South Asia defence analyst with consultancy Frost & Sullivan, said India would have learned useful lessons from the sometimes painful experience of the LCA project.

"Indigenous production will help companies to be self-dependent on weaponry systems and the successful development of Tejas programme has certainly boosted the perspective of Indian aerospace companies," Siddharth said.

In 2009, India launched its own nuclear submarine, the Arihant, to similar plaudits and talk of the country's growing military self-sufficiency.

But like the LCA, the Arihant is still years and many arduous trials away from full induction into the armed forces.

In the meantime, India's dependency on foreign hardware is set to continue.

New Delhi is likely to finalise a $12 billion deal in July for 126 fighter jets for which six global aeronautical giants including companies from the United States , France, Europe and Russia are competing.

And last month it signed an agreement with long-time supplier Russia for the joint production of up to 250 advanced stealth fighter jets which experts say could be worth $25 billion.



http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...er-jet-tejas-analysts/articleshow/7333062.cms

 

[chex3009]

Concerns Emerge As Indian LCA-Naval Nears First Flight

India's first homegrown carrier-borne fighter effort is moving toward a first flight in March of this year, after missing its target of achieving the milestone last year.

The naval variant of India's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-N) completed systems integration tests, ground tests and slow-speed taxi trials following its ceremonial rollout last July, but missed its December 2010 first flight deadline because of concern over the platform's landing gear and other critical systems; those uncertainties appear to have been resolved.

The naval component of the LCA program — the primary air force variant achieved initial operational clearance earlier this month — receives technical consultancy services from EADS to aid in development. Lockheed Martin had the role, but was unable to obtain requisite approvals from the Pentagon to carry out the work. The consultancy arrangement is mainly focused on aiding LCA modifications in the area of the landing gear, sink rate parameters for carrier recovery and weight optimization.

The naval prototype (NP-1) is the LCA program's 12th airframe, and is to be followed later this year with a trainer prototype, both of which will go through their flight-test effort and carrier compatibility trials (CCTs) in Goa. The town is home to the navy's largest air station, INS Hansa, where a shore-based test facility — a mock carrier deck with a ski-jump and arrester barrier assembly — is under construction by the Goa Shipyard company.

The navy has not officially revealed how many LCA-Ns it plans to field and has postponed a decision on committing to a number until the platform receives its improved General Electric F414 engine for a Mk-2 version.

The navy, typically supportive of indigenous programs, has recently begun to express misgivings over the platform it has backed unequivocally since its birth in 2003. Rear Adm. Sudhir Pillai, who heads the service's air wing, now acknowledges the platform will have performance shortcomings over what the service ideally would like to field, while recognizing that there are benefits, too, of having an indigenous design.

The navy's apprehensions over platform thrust are much more apparent now, with service sources suggesting that even the F414 is not powerful enough to satisfy the flight envelope they would like for carrier operations.

With the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier set to be delivered by 2012, and the Indian Aircraft Carrier two years after that, it was revealed this week that the navy is exploring the possibility of keeping its sole carrier, the British-built INS Viraat, sailing until 2020, by which time it will be 60 years old. With a tiny complement of upgraded Sea Harriers left — the bulk of the fleet has crashed — the navy is trying to avoid Britain's fate of having an aircraft carrier without carrier aircraft.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=india&id=news/awx/2011/01/20/awx_01_20_2011_p0-284536.xml

 

[smartindian]

 

[The Messiah]

I saw it yesterday with my own eyes....it was parked near India Gate.

It looks more beautiful in real life than it does in pictures.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Link To previous thread : http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=9784&p=225945#post225945

No. It takes away a lot of experience on old platforms when you transfer them to a new one. The trend of giving new fighters old pilots is followed by every airforce in the world. The fact is there is nothing on the LCA Mk1 that is so radical that we need to kick Jaguar pilots onto the platform. Also fact is the Jaguar pilots are trained in a completely different role, DPS. Only Mig-21 pilots can fill the role of being test pilots for any new aircraft that we are inducting today.

It's not easy adjusting to a new aircraft without extensive flight hours on the same platform, its called relearning.

I am not suggesting to throw Jaguars away, but to divert the money going for re-engining and procuring new towards MK-1 which can do DPS as well as air defence.

No, MK-1 has every bit radical inside when you compare it with half the IAF. It is only third jet with digital FCS in IAF and will bring radical reduction in number of crashes due to Pilot errors. Second, the Radar abroad MK-1 is second only to MKIs. Third, it is the first platform in the IAF to have composite airframe in that percentage. Not to mention how composite airframe because of its strength reduces airframe check time radically and low check time automatically means more availability.

Also, the biggest problem with inducting Mk1 is that we are using up 40 topguns for testing a demonstrator and then we will need an additional 20-40 pilots for the Mk2 until it matures.

They will not be testing all through. These Mig-21 pilots are sharped teethed old dogs. Besides Mig-21's i am also expecting some Mirage pilots as well as LCA test pilots in first squadron. Needless to mention experience these pilots have will operationalize MK-1 very soon or at least well in time. Biggest advantage here is that entire test flying has been done by IAF(ASTE) and each and every bit of performance parameters is known to IAF. In fact it will take less time for pilots to get fully operationalized over LCA Mk-1 then pilots who will go on M-MRCA. No wonder why MKI pilots are still learning.

The F414 is fuel hungry, especially the IN version we are getting. We will need extra fuel and LCA is packed as it is. You cannot change the undercarriage on existing platforms even in MLUs. It will require taking apart the aircraft. Conformal fuel tanks affect aerodynamics. IAF will never accept that as a regular design.

F-414 INS6 is coming out of EDE program and is said to have much lower SPC, in addition to more life, low maintainance than earlier F-414 400 model.

I did not said we need to change the undercarriage location. All i had said, if LCA is expected to become M-MRCA then instead of moving the landing gear and undercarriage to wing roots LCA can get a conformal tank there. And yes conformal tanks affects aerodynamics but are used anyway as a trade off for more range. F-16s uses it so does F-15s, both compromises on aerodynamics but trade off is worth full. For LCA all that will be required is detailed wind tunnel study which will clear what shape it should get and where it should be fixed.

By the way when SAAB planned to move undercarriage to wind roots they had prepared themselves for same trade off. But when DEMO flew they discovered that instead of adding to drag this change is helping the aerodynamics.

He does not say anything important. He just says the Gripen C/D can have fifth gen technologies on them. There is nothing we can deduce from that.

You can deny everything, right? Anyway i am typing his words "In the demonstrator we are showing the main capabilities of Gripen NG. Those capabilities can also go in as updates or modifications of Gripen C/D, which is really important for our existing customer base". Now which part is hazy or unclear? Is he not clearly saying, features of NG can also go into C/D as modifications and updates.

The adapted Mig-21 pilots on MKI are WSOs, they sit at the back and direct the show. We have rookie pilots on the MKIs for all squadrons. The MKI is a far superior platform to anything that we have. As of 2010, as per Col Ternof we are still learning to fly the Flanker. And he is true. Even experienced pilots take years to adapt to a new fighter.

Jaguars are great. We already have so many other fighters that need replacement, so why worry about our best DPSA.

In all those first six years it was experienced pilots who flew MKIs. It is only when operation use and role of MKI got defined and documented that the new rookies got their hands wet. By the way MKI second seat is not just a WSO sitting space but a full cockpit with full controls. They fly and brush up their skills. It is only recently --can still be a rumour-- that AFA started dedicated course for WSOs.

IAF is still learning to fly MKI and same will be the case in any imported platform and M-MRCAs are no different. When you don't develop a jet, you start learning when you start inducting. But when you develop, you know about it bit by bit even before it is inducted. Same will be the case in LCA. ASTE pilots have all the experience required and they will the initial instructors.

You misunderstood the post. I am not talking about a single scenario. I am talking about LCA's inability to fight off superior foes on a one on one. We cannot match China jet for jet. So, if they attack they will have a superior force in numbers and that will affect LCA Mk1s ability to fight at a superior advantage. You said if PAF sends in F-16s we will send more number of LCAs. That scenario is not easily accomplished.

Sorry for that. But what you are saying has already been replied by me in previous posts. LCA MK-1 with 150KM range radar and four BVRAAMs will be quite capable interceptor. And since LCA's RCS will be far less than J-10 and F-16 the advantage will multiply.

Yes i said about number advantage which will be case in most scenario during conflict with Pakistan. And i also said (counting on what you posted regarding F-16s radar and Aim-120C) that LCA will blow any F-16 even in 1 to 1 engagement. Then you said PLAAF 100 J-10 formation. And i said that can't be handled by LCA alone as it was never built for that kind of requirement. I added, neither can same number of MKIs or even M-MRCAs.

I clear it up again. If LCA (counting on what you said regarding F-16s Radar and Aim-120C) can blow F-16 BLOCK 52 out of sky in any 1 to 1 engagement then it will surely do same with J-10 which still flies with SD-10 and some Chinese MMR.

But IAF is willing to wait for Mk2 as a LMRCA.

There could be more than one reason but i will talk only one. IAF is willing to wait because IAF wants more capabilities in LCA. May be because it wants LCA to become a light-medium class MRCA from plain Light class MRCA. May be there are more potential in LCA to be exploited and today IAF has confidence in ADA.

If a 1.5KW radar delivers that, then I would like to see a source for LCA claiming detection ranges of 150km with lesser power.

ZHUK peak power is 6 KW, 1.5 is just the average and it is not written that 120KM is at average power. It is quite natural to assume that maximum range is calculated at peak power. By the way LCA EL/M 2032's maximum power is 3 KVA = 2.4 KW something which is far less than that of ZHUK ME.

Yes. But they will all function at the cost of engine power for actual flying. The F-404 was only meant as a test engine for LCA. The Kaveri was supposed to power the aircraft. The F-404 is not enough.

You know Gripen C/D flies with same engine and all of its avionics are operational. So why can't LCA MK-1 have them operational? By the way F-404 F2J3 was meant to be for testing not 3KN more powerful F-404 IN20 model.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about microwave communications, they all consume more power, like communications, EW, radar etc. All these have high power usage. Also, we have no idea at all what the IAF has asked for in the LCA mk2.

I only said there will be net decrease in power requirements compared to Mk-1 with same avionics and electronics suit. And all that microwave communication instruments you said are coming in Mk-2 which will have sufficiently powerful engine more than capable of supplying adequate power for electronics and avionics. Atleast we can be sure that whatever IAF has asked in MK-2 will not be two fold to what has gone into NG. And if F-414 supplies adequate power for those instruments to work, i can fairly assume that F-414 INS6 (which is most power version so far) would supply that much.

The current specifications and avionics of the LCA Mk1 follow the ASR set in 1985

Nope! As per ASR 1985, LCA was expected to have customized avionics architecture not open architecture which is present in MK-1.

At $40Million a pop, I don't think LCA is going to be as cheap as envisioned.

LCA's $40 million tag is of a fighter with carbon composite airframe, fly by wire FCS and SAR capable MMR, not for a fighter with just all aluminium airframe with mechanical controls and only air to air interception radar.

Unlike earlier(when requirement was for an interceptor) today LCA is expected to be a L-MRCA and by FOC MK-1 will be every bit of that.

The Russians cannot help us with that. LCA cannot handle any engine including RD-93. It is way too heavy, big and underpowered to even consider it.

Like i said, it is at least a possibility. In fact it being said that Klimov is developing +90 KN variant of RD-93. And if this engine can go in JF-17 so it can be in LCA. By the way RD-93 is just an option in worst case. By 2016 we may have JV Kaveri ready and by 2022-25 its fully indigenous version. Ok, back to point. Unlike all these possibilities M-MRCA doesn't have any. If fact even if we develop our own 100KN engine, we may never be able to fix it on any of the M-MRCA without OEM's help. So point remains, LCA being indigenous design is more dependable than any of these imported stuff.

The Jaguars carry superior avionics. Check DARIN III upgrades. You cannot send experienced pilots back to school. It affects our operational preparedness. If we are attacked tomorrow and our DPS pilots are training at school, then woe be us.

Which section of DARIN III avionics makes Jaguar superior to MK-1?

What you are talking about comes at a price. I am talking about time.

No additional capability comes for free but when required it worth the spending. We could have bought more Jaguars for attack and more Mig-29U/UBs for escort but for some reason IAF sent RFP for Mig-35 and Rafale or only for multi role fighter jets.

I know. But will you do that at the sacrifice of operational preparedness. Nobody does that. Only retired F-15 pilots went over to the F-22 in the very beginning. The A-10 pilots were not replaced for F-22s.

So did i said throw Jaguars right away? No! Anyway that was only capability comparison. What is required and which one is best suited for IAF requirements can only be decided by IAF. All i am saying that re-engining old and buying new Jaguars is not a good option because they will have useful life left in them when they will be retired.

The LCA is far too underpowered to handle its own roles as well as the Jaguars. The LCA was only meant to be a point defence aircraft. Nothing else.

You know EJ 200 at 90KN was said to be suitable engine for LCA MK-2 and present F-404 IN is at 85 KN. That means LCA is can only be underpowered by 5 KN. Even with it, LCA has better speed and better range than Jaguar in A2G role. And yes LCA was meant to be point air defence aircraft but today it is guided A2G munition capable L-MRCA, very capable of handling any role which Jaguar can.

The F-16 is flying in more air forces than number of LCAs today. The fact that F-16 has had crashes in the past does not mean LCA will not. At least FBW was new at the time. Here we have nothing new in the LCA.

May be, quite possible. But not to forget that this F-16 example was in response to your assertion which was "....imported goods comes with performance guarantee". And point is still exactly what it was.

But each of them were state of the art. LCA is far from that. If we were talking about AMCA Mk1 then I would have agreed. Why should IAF make compromises with a platform that is already obsolete in most other air forces?

What is the meaning of "state of the art" technology?... A LCA using fly by wire controls, carbon composite airframe, full glass cockpit, LDP pod, EW suit is every bit state of the art. Still to this date, 90% of the world is still using generation of jets whose technology is no better than LCA. And there are only few like EF and Rafale whose technology is better but there is also one F-22 whose technology is generation ahead of them. Does it means that these jets(EF, Rafale etc) which in beast case can only be inducted by 2015 are obsolete even before they got ticket to IAF?

Anyway how much compromise IAF would make in M-MRCA can be told only when these jets will get inducted. History tells they will be making.

If Mk2 is only a modified Mk1 then ADA getting it to fly by 2014 is a too far a goal. They don't need to start a whole new design phase for it.

2014 is a date because of engine delivery and ADA can't do much to that. AESA is going to take time, even experienced player like EuroRadar's CAPTOR is not getting operation even by 2013. Then there are rest of stuffs in making and they will take time. But nevertheless LCA MK-2 in 2016 will be every bit comparable to M-MRCAs technologically.

LCA failing some test has nothing to do with the fact that IAF does not want Mk1. They want Mk2. Mk1 is passe, ADA knows it and still this is being thrust into the IAF. We will have 2 different IOCs for the same project in the shortest period possible. This is a first in the world.[/qoute]I am not deviating here. That was a response to Philip Rajkumar's requirements list in MK-2 which you had quoted. I only said that since he retired, a lot has changed in LCA. LCA failing to attain supersonic speed at 2008 sea trials and passing 2010 was just an example. And like i said before IAF never used word like MK-2 back in 2008. They only said, "LCA with present engine is not acceptable" and this statement must have had that failed test as reason for speaking so.

You are comparing state of the art with just pass. When F-16 was inducted, they did not make the F-16 Block 60 with modified wings, uprated engines and extra fuel load 2 years after IOC.

When F-16s were inducted it was not what it was required to be. Yet induction went on counting on promised future improvements. And as far as said improvements are concerned then what wrong if it is coming earlier than others. In fact IAF wants LCA to reach to full potential in two steps unlike other which followed three-four. Since it is indigenous design IAF has this luxury. What's wrong in it?

There have been many official timelines and none of them have been adhered to. In 2001 ADA said they will achieve IOC in 2006. In 2001 a 10 year retired admiral named Nadkarni said LCA will not achieve operational capability by 2015 which is truer than anything we have seen so far. Who do I believe?

Delay doesn't means that the timelines were no official. And unlike what Mr Nadkarni said, LAC in 2015 will be a 4.5 ++ generation jet not just 4th generation about which he is referring to. The LCA he had talked about already achieved IOC 10 days back.

Engine failed in set conditions. That's all. It's quite cute claiming sabotage and then not showing any proof for it

Engines failed and they blamed DRDO for it. Funny indeed!

It did not quote unnamed associates. It was Lt General Bharadwaj who said the Arjun is just a contemporary tank and Army will not induct any more. They are looking at beyond 2020 for any new tank purchases.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/army-looks-at-tanks-for-future-says-arjun-history/68352-3.html

But he did not said 'Arjun' is being forced into Army, did he? And point exactly was that neither LCA nor Arjun is being forced into Army. It is their performance and operational requirement which is forcing services to buy them in more numbers than planned. Even Gen(retd) Deepak Kapoor had to change his stand(a stand which was completely opposite to past) and praise Arjun,

These allegations still haven't been proven as the Generals did it. It could have been the mess officers and lower who would have done it. Obviously the top brass is called because they are responsible for it. My grandpa worked in the Army Canteen. He could have easily bought rationed liquor bottles and sold them for higher prices outside. There is nothing a General can do to stop it. There is something called integrity that some people lack. Do you really think a General will run around stealing liquor bottles and blankets to sell to relatives? These guys are way too busy to look at such small things. It's like Bill Gates getting caught shop lifting a banana.

That was not a simple irregularity. In fact Jawans were denied required nuterious meals by long margin. Like i earlier said, i will not re-mention things. But will quote a name Lt Gen H S Panag. It's upto you to research and see how Gen Deepak Kapoor and Lt Gen H S Panag are related to each other. Posting a link by the way.

The second squadron being IAF's choice has my doubts. Anyway we are still the first air force in the world to be having 2 different IOCs for the same bird or you could say similar birds in such a short time.

No doubts on my side. IAF certainly has big use of second squadron and it would not bring any surprise if they order one more.

Indian forces are very demanding when it comes to indigenous products. Sometimes these demands comes as a challenge which acts as motivational force. And I don't see anything wrong in it as long as intention is to bring best out of existing not to kill the project. IAF pushed scientists and is getting a better version Akash system. Their push eventually did good for IAF, DRDO and nation as whole. Asking for better out of existing can't be a reason for criticism.

 

[ppgj]

The Admiral said LCA will not be ready by 2015 while ADA promised deliveries in 2006 when LCA first flew. Who's more true?

Oh! It is very relevant. The very fact that ADA happily lies about its capabilities has been proven. ADA claims 2006, Admiral claims 2015, turns out he was right.

from 1995 to 2006 is steep jump!!! well done. 2012 is the real target for mark 1. and what lies about ADA?? all of his "predictions" have gone haywire!!! his fiction and fabrication is fact for you?? lol.

I bet the Admiral has a clearer picture, he was there when ADA was making those very deals.

the admiral is a navy man. how could he be at meetings with ADA even if he was in service?? besides surprise surprise he retired in 1990!!!

He retired from the Indian Navy after 41 years service on 30 November 1990.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Personnel/Chiefs/141-JG-Nadkarni.html

so even after his retirement, he managed to be at all meetings with ADA?? so much for the "clear picture" he had. he retired 10+ years before even LCA flew first time!!! and in march 93, LCA had not even been funded for FSE.

The 1st generation F-16 is superior to the LCA in every flight regime. The F-16 Block 52+ is only possible on the LCA Mk2 and that's why I have been asking for ADA to hold on to its horses until Mk2 is ready instead of forcing Mk1 down on them.

i repeat even bisons are better than 1st gen f-16s. LCA mark 1 is not even comparable to Bisons in terms of RCS, FBW, MMI, PAYLOAD, RANGE, RADAR, EW etc..

i agree it is not an equal to F-16 block 50/52 at this stage. LCA mark 2 will get there. this is what i said in previous post and you are repeating.

By global standards a technician gets paid a minimum of Rs 60000 to Rs 1Lakh. By our standards he would get only Rs 15000. So, our budget was enough.

can you present real facts for analysis?? instead of shooting in the dark??

Military projects have long gestation periods but Indian military projects take extra vacations over that.

why don't you check development hisory of Eurofighter?? seems they also were on vacation!!!

The IAF predicted LCA will not be ready by 2015 even in 2001 while ADA was harping about deliveries in 2006. The Admiral has rightly said the LCA Mk1 will not be as capable as a Mirage-2000 or a Mig-29 even in 2025 because of obvious airframe limitations.

as i have i said in all previous posts 2+ years was the delay. IOW the IOC would have happened in late 2008 (if there had been no sanctions) instead of jan 2011 due to the FBW story.

LCA was from the beginning was meant to replace Mig 21s. it is another matter it has outgrown the requirement which is an added bonus.

In our airforce Mig-21Bison, MKI, Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 are frontline aircraft. The Jaguar and Mig-27 are strike aircraft. Now you get the picture?

if MIg 21Bison is a frontline aircraft so would be LCA mark 1 which was meant to replace them. then why were you putting 'spin' on the admiral's observation??

Of course. We have a difference of opinion. My opinion is backed by the history of ADA and service chiefs. Your opinions are backed by the promises of defence contractors and media. So, of course my opinions are fictional rhetoric because there is no source.

it is the otherway round. you are basing your views on past servicemen who were dead against 'defence tech independance'/'local equipment'/'national projects' and have turned astrologers whose predictions have all gone wrong.

As usual you are fed more horse puckey from our media. DRDO used it's own funds until 1993. DRDO had already started making TD-1 in 1991.

i gave you a standing commmittee report. it can't better than that. if you continue to beleive in your wild fiction, be my guest.

Yes. Articles from service chiefs are fictional. Media personalities are factual. Next time send your sources to fight a war. My sources will sit and watch.

why would media sources would go fight a war?? they are not a military - whose job it is. besides most our media was anti - LCA just like your sources which has turned out to be wrong.

Nope. I just read stuff that service chiefs wrote, not stuff that media writes. Even foreign service chiefs have more credibility than our media.

keep reading such fiction written by the ex - miltary if it makes you happy. it makes a good story but only runs contrary to the real facts on the ground.

Just look at ADAs history and their delivery schedules. Forget about pre 2000s, just look at post 2000s. Right from ADA's delivery by 2006 to GTRE's flight testing of Kaveri in 2007. None of that has happened and it has nothing to do with funds.

go read EF story.

everybody knows about Kaveri. it is not your discovery. Kaveri in the original scheme of things was supposed to be equal to GE 404GJ23 which met the then ASR. it was hoped Kaveri will get there which it couldn't. but the infra built for it will come handy in the days to come.

Everyone one of which came later than scheduled and that too by many years. So many years that by the time the product is delivered, it is being compared to F-16 Block 15.

already answered.

It has badly affected our operational preparedness.

all i can say is 'grow up' which you keep telling others.

After spending $2Billion they have built a platform that can only be said to be a tad bit better than the Mig-21. LCA Mk1 has no scope for modifications or upgrades without making massive changes in the airframe. This was a fighter meant for 20th century not for the 21st century. The fact that GoI has forced its will on the services solely based upon the false promises of ADA is criminal.

your perennial hate for ADA/DRDO has cast a shadow on your ability to think straight.

even IAF chief does not think like that. 2 squadrons of LCA mark 1 are entering the services and LCA mark 2 answers your rest of the comment.

Cheers.

fine.

Yes. Some people are content with only a Block 15 F-16 capable fighter which does not even remotely fly as capably as the Block 15 even after 20 years of development far into the 21st century. I am not.

if you are not happy what can i say?? relax, take a walk.

Akash is good for its role. But it is obsolete to anything the world has today, even China. It is the slowest SAM to be inducted in the 21st century. The only good thing about the system is the Rajendra radar. I support it because even though it was late, it was delivered after it surpassed requirements. It has room for improvement and is a good buy. LCA has not achieved the same.

no problem with "your problem".