ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[black eagle]

Pvt sector picks Tejas brains

Aerospace companies are rolling out the red carpet for retired scientists who have worked on the LCA project


Sameer Ranjan Bakshi


Life after LCA has acquired a nice, warm glow for the many brains that worked on it. The retired scientists may be too old by government standards but the private sector has been quick to grab them with senior roles.


Dr Kota Harinarayana, the father of the Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) and former programme director, doesn't have a figure for the number of retired scientists who have joined the private sector, but says, "Almost all those who did a stint on the LCA project are being approached by the aerospace industry. At any given time, we had about 1,000 scientists working on the project".

"Almost everyone is grabbing the jobs offered after retirement, joining companies like Ashok Leyland, Mahindra, Quest and others. The few who are not working do so out of choice," said T G A Simha, a senior scientist with the LCA project and now with Infosys.


Ready talent pool

Since not many engineering institutes have aerospace specialisation and given the talent crunch in India, the LCA talent pool has become much sought-after, says Ashok Bakshi, who also worked for Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), ISRO, and is now managing director of a popular automotive company.

It was Kota Harinarayana who insisted that India continue with the project when it was bombarded with criticism, reasoning that "LCA means creating wealth".

Though he still remains as a Raja Ramanna Fellow scientist at NAL, he told Bangalore Mirror, "The wealth has already been created and now the private sector needs to tap that wealth and utilise it effectively".

And that's exactly what the private sector has been doing. Take the case of A Mohan, former GM of ARDC (Aircraft Research and Development Centre) who was responsible for LCA's structure and design. He retired in 2008 but had little time to enjoy retirement as he was approached by Ignis Aerospace and Design Pvt Ltd. He's now the executive VP – engineering service – of Ignis. "I didn't feel like working with others. Ignis was founded by one of our former DRDO scientists," he said.

That's probably why R Jayaraman also joined Ignis. Responsible for the flight control system of LCA, he said, "In the next 10 to 12 years, there will be a boom in the sector because of India's rapid military and civil aviation modernisation plan. And private companies are gearing up to steal the thunder".


Projects outsourced

The role of private companies in the sector has further grown with PSUs outsourcing their projects to them. Once again, this creates a larger space for retired aerospace scientists. "The sector is very intense and the youth need good leaders and mentoring from seniors," says H R S Prasad, who worked for about 20 years on the LCA project and is now a consultant at ADA (Aeronautical Development Agency).

Dr V K Saraswat, scientific advisor to the Raksha Mantri, thinks the private sector has a huge role to play in defence. DRDO, ISRO and the Atomic Energy Centre are largely responsible for raising private sector standards but the latter have to graduate from component manufacturers to lead integrators which will prepare them to take on multiple projects. We will encourage them with technology transfer".

Simha agrees that the private sector can no longer afford to take it easy. "Indian aerospace companies need to gear up. Boeing, Airbus and other big aerospace companies have been growing, coming up with more products. They need trained manpower and the LCA project talent is readily available to them," he said.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/201101292011012900112943616afb841/Pvt-sector-picks-Tejas-brains.html

 

[ppgj]

You show "incredible" knowledge about aircraft, propulsion, aerodynamics and power without actually knowing anything and you claim about talking facts.

let's see where your "incredible" knowledge takes you. so why don't you cut some slack??

Let me explain how the real world works.

Every aircraft that has electronics and electrical systems run on power generated within the system. Electronics run on DC power with a 12KW limit at 28V and electrical run on AC power at 400Hz and 115 V.

On an average a power plant generating 90 to 100KN is generating 1 MW of power. So you could say LCA gives out ~1MW and Mig-29 is generating ~2 MW. Watts is not a unit of thrust. So, this is only a converted mathematical figure for analysis. Now I cannot use Kinetic energy as electricity. Kinetic energy is meant for physical work. But to power my avionics I need electrical power, DC as well as AC.

For that there is 1 generator attached to a single engine and this is called power pack or power generator. The generator generates 50KVA on the Mig-29 and 50KVA on the LCA.

So, total power generated for electrical functions on a fighter aircraft like LCA is 50KVA(35KW at pf 70%) and the Mig-29 is 2*50KVA = 100KVa(70KW at pf 70%).

Therefore total power generated by LCA is 35KW while Mig-29 is 70KW due to presence of 2 engines.

So, Mig-29 has a lot more power (twice to be exact) than the LCA for all its avionics.

The Super Hornet or EA-18G Growler based on the F-414 engine also have 2*50KVA power generators and thus have 75KW for avionics.

Larger aircraft like F-22 and Su-30MKI are attached with 2*75KVA(100KW) power generators. Single engined F-16 has a 75KVA power pack connected and thus generates more power than LCA but less power than Mig-29.

This implies twin engine aircraft deliver more power for jamming than single engined aircraft.

so you say and i would accept it?? you are assuming that the power to the avionics is generated by the power pak IOW APU!!! simply wrong.

an aircraft's avionics is run by the main engine only which distributes both AC/DC power to the components. besides an APU exists for emergency and starting of the engine. you won't beleive it right?? ok let me give you an example -

Electrical Systems

The Typhoon has essentially two electrical systems, the primary power generation and distribution system and the secondary systems (including the auxiliary power unit). Primary power is supplied via the engine turbines through a LucasVarity/BAe Systems supplied distribution and rectification system. Using this electrical power can be supplied at a number of voltages and AC phases as well as supplying a DC output. The DC system is fully redundant with two back-up rectifier units in case the two primaries fail. Additionally a DC battery source is available in emergencies as well as to power up the APU.

The secondary system provides a back-up using air-driven turbines in case of total engine (or engines) failure or partial (gearbox, turbine, etc.) failure. Since the Typhoon is designed for autonomous operation the aircraft includes an Auxillary Power Unit, or APU as part of the secondary system. Before the engines are started the APU generates all the AC/DC power required to operate the aircraft's systems. The engine start systems, supplied by AlliedSignal and Microturbo are also powered by the APU.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/flight-sys.html

this is the case with all aircrafts. clear??

besides coming to the APUs - where is the source for your 50KVA generator or IOW APU in the LCA?? also where is the source for your Mig 29'S APU??

last when the LCA's MMR was being tested on the hack the APU was 120KVA including 28V DC unit to support the avionics and MIL-STD-1553B databus!!!

besides do you know the power requirement for the "mayawi" suite?? do you know the power requirements for the other avionic systems like HUD, MFD etc..?? unless a comprehensive analysis is made wrt to the avionics systems on board and their 'power requirements' your "analysis" is just fiction just as your fiction to assume the power to the elctronics comes via the powerpack - which is only for backup!!!

This was your science lesson for today and I hope you have enjoyed it. Your way of calculating power is obviously ignorance and fanboyism, not to mention a desperate attempt at trying to prove me wrong with silliness.

your lecture did not go anywhere. may be you need to brush up on that.

I will repeat, yet again, you are still hung up on specs. Even if we calculated using your method, I still counted Mig-29Smt as having a higher T/W ratio than LCA Mk2 with F-414 at 120KN(118KN to be closer). Did you forget the Mig-29Smt's power isn't 162.8KN but 180KN? Check RD-33 Series 3 engine. So, both attempts are a fail. None of this has anything to do with powering a jammer.

You don't understand the concept of reserve power and where's it actually applied. Mig-29 has plenty of reserve power, more than LCA. But of course, my posts are only fictional rhetoric.

i gave you specs for T/W of LCA even @115KN too - which is - 1.01 > 0.98 for the Mig 29SMT.

as for RD 33 series 3 give me one credible source which says it is 90KN. it is 81.4KN as i rightly put. even RD 33MK (for Mig 29k and Mig 35) gives out only about 88KN!!!

as to the bolded part - it has everything to do with powering the jammer or any other component.

According to Carlo Kopp, aircraft airframes are usually exceptionally well suited to one task, reasonably good at a range of other tasks, and marginal
for some tasks.

The LCA is supposed to be exceptionally suited to air superiority missions, reasonably good at strike and marginal at CAS. IAF always wanted LCA to be an interceptor and a point defence fighter with a secondary strike feature.

everyone knows all designs are compromises. as long it suits one's requirements, who cares??

Funny how we were once discussing about T-90s and how I said future of warfare aren't big tanks with heavy armour, rather it would be small profile and fast tanks with small crews, increased situational awareness with advanced active protection and BANG a few months later Indian Army releases FMBT specifications for a 40 ton tank with advanced Active protection instead of the 60 ton norm.

40ton tank?? last i heard it was 50ton tank and heavier than T-90!!!

besides why are you bringing T-90/FMBT into the discussion. next is what?? howitzers??

Hell No. They said American fighters are a cheap bet with immediate results but European fighters are a better option if IA is looking for technology that evolves at a faster rate if the MRCA is a stop gap for FGFA.

it is Ashley Tellis's take. his opinion. so what is your point??

I am giving gyan that no text book or link provides as easy as your awesome information sources. Learn or begone.

keep 'your' gyan to yourself. as you saw it went no where!!

You call all my posts as fictional and rhetoric. Funny how I am providing all the data and you have only been resorting to ad hominem attacks. Go back to all your posts and find me at least one post where you have something positive to post about LCA where you have given any information that has attempted at changing my mind.

Whenever I post my "fictional rhetoric" you have never attempted to give a successful "fact based analysis" that discounts my "fictional rhetoric."

when i began debating with you i said this - "i would not try to convince you". it would be a waste for me and for you because we are poles apart wrt LCA.

 

[gogbot]

So, ACM was only sarcastic on national TV for kicks? Watch his speech again. That's sarcasm at it's best. A guy like that wouldn't be buying planes for kicks.

But that fact does not preclude that fact that he was compliant.
An grudging decision is still a decision.

His sarcasm may have been a political undercut to all party's involved that this kind induction will not happen again. I.E a similar compromise will not be made again.

The problem is there is no "different" perspective. Indigenous capability is a needed must. But it shouldn't come at the cost of IAF's priorities. IAF is after all more important than ADA.

I agree , but sometimes , You polarize ADA and IAF.
This is not a simple case of ADA is wrong and IAF is right.

Are you kidding? When Arjun was rejected, DRDO came out openly and said Army HAS to buy 500 tanks because they want to "break even." That's what I have been saying since before. DRDO is not a profit organization and they don't need to break even. But their top leaders wouldn't listen to reason. They are still pushing the Army and Mod to buy 500 Arjun tanks even when they are not needed. It's the same with IAF. The number of LCA matches development costs and their attempts to break even is staring us in the face.

I believe that was a mis-reported fact , it was Avandi war factory that had to break even for setting up the production line.

And don't mix Arjun and Tejas plz. They are different situations.

One is a tank that is built to a requirement , that the Army no longer wants.

The other is a plane that has failed to meet all the requirements needed

the only thing they share in common is a delayed delivery,
Arjun is not obsolete in the Same sense as some of the systems are on the Tejas .

Also Tejas Mk2 will be a whole new aircraft, right from cockpit to aerodynamics. The 40 pilots meant for LCA Mk1 may or may not carry their experience into Mk2 at a cheaper rate. Also we will need another 20 to 40 pilots flying more development aircraft after 2016. That's 80 pilots lost to ADA's development work.

See this is exactly what i am talking about , pilots lost ?
This is the kind of polarizing statement that trows all perspective out the Window.

You telling me Air forces all around the world , those with their own domestic sector . Don't have similar points in which new aircraft are inducted and developed while on the filed. Isn't the F-16 itself an example of this. This is a process all aircraft go through between IOC and FOC. Don't pick and choose on this.

I get it ok , the Tejas is not the most capability aircraft out there , but if we can't field it, the whole project will meet an unnatural end with unfinished work, everyone has 1st gen systems that need to be worked on before we move forward to new projects like the AMCA.
You expect ADA to make the AMCA without even having the experience of fielding a fighter before.

That's the problem. I don't think IAF had a choice. Even the Carnige report said there is a possibility IAF will have LCA forced on them in the long run.

I think you are being the conspiracy theorist here , IA could successfully stop the Arjun from being forced , you said it yourself.
IAF is compromising willingly , They are not the most happy about the situation , but they can see the necessity of it all.

Let me quote again FONA statement

While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets

I believe this is just a case of that in action

Gripen NG and F-16IN fill the same low end class as LCA Mk2. If either of these aircraft are selected the IAF will not have it's HCA, MCA, LCA mix at all.

But then your betting on the LCA to to fail , which is a bad decision.
Like i said in the MMRCA thread lets not do that , if the MK-II does disappoint we can get the gripen thereafter.

 

[black eagle]

Troubled Tejas edges toward service

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/01/352408/troubled-tejas-edges-toward-service.html

Look at the date of the report.. they seem to be reporting from mars or something... that seems to be the common problem with the reports on this site. Don't know how credible the reports would be...

 

[p2prada]

an aircraft's avionics is run by the main engine only which distributes both AC/DC power to the components. besides an APU exists for emergency and starting of the engine. you won't beleive it right?? ok let me give you an example -

Again. You posted the right link but interpreted the information in a WRONG way.

An aircraft's avionics is run by the main engine is right. But the engine actually powers a cycloconverter and that is what powers the avionics on aircraft. The cycloconverter on LCA's engine is the same as that's in the Super Hornet. It delivers 35KW for all purposes. It means the main power generation unit for avionics on LCA is 35KW.

The APU is for an entirely different purpose. The LCA APU is supposed to be 20KVA.

besides coming to the APUs - where is the source for your 50KVA generator or IOW APU in the LCA?? also where is the source for your Mig 29'S APU??

The 50KVA is not APU. It is the aircraft's primary power unit. The APU is a different breed and is a backup for electrical systems and also is used to help start the engine. You could call this the spark plug of aircraft engines. In case the engine or turbines fail the APU is used to restart the engine if the aircraft stalls. It has it's own fuel source and runs on kerosene.

The cycloconverters connected to the main engines do not run on fuel.

last when the LCA's MMR was being tested on the hack the APU was 120KVA including 28V DC unit to support the avionics and MIL-STD-1553B databus!!!

What a Fail. The MMR was tested on an old Avro made Hawker Siddeley also called Hack in ADA. The 120KVA APU specification is for the large aircraft and not meant for LCA. Just because MMR was tested on Hack does not mean the LCA can have a 120KVA power generator unit.

besides do you know the power requirement for the "mayawi" suite?? do you know the power requirements for the other avionic systems like HUD, MFD etc..?? unless a comprehensive analysis is made wrt to the avionics systems on board and their 'power requirements' your "analysis" is just fiction just as your fiction to assume the power to the elctronics comes via the powerpack - which is only for backup!!!

What's that got to do with anything? None of this will be more powerful than a twin engine aircraft for obvious reasons.

your lecture did not go anywhere. may be you need to brush up on that.

Most of your reasoning on this post is a fail again.

The EF-2000 uses 2 different power generator units. One is used to power the avionics in the air and it is connected to the main engine. The second is called an APU and is used to kick start the engine and also provide power to some important systems like lighting and AC when the main engines are Off while on ground.

The cycloconverters use mechanical energy for power generation and are therefore connected to the main engine's turbines which are used to power avionics. The APU runs on fuel and cannot power the aircraft's avionics because of its primary function as a starting backup if Engines fail.

as for RD 33 series 3 give me one credible source which says it is 90KN. it is 81.4KN as i rightly put. even RD 33MK (for Mig 29k and Mig 35) gives out only about 88KN!!!

You can keep guessing the actual power released, but this is the latest from Klimov in 2010.

Klomov has not released the exact specification of the RD-33 but have revealed it to be a 90KN engine.

The specs of 81KN you are talking about are the current JF-17 and Mig-29A specs. Even if you do take LCA Mk2 with a higher thrust engine as having more power than Mig-29smt at full fuel load, then try reducing fuel load by 75% or 50%. Also take the Mig-29s superior aerodynamics into consideration too. The Mig-29 is a better fighter aerodynamically and also generates more power for EA.

as to the bolded part - it has everything to do with powering the jammer or any other component.

And that's why I am saying you understand nothing.

everyone knows all designs are compromises. as long it suits one's requirements, who cares??

LCA Mk1 is a design failure. On LCA Mk1 everything is a compromise.

 

[gogbot]

Pvt sector picks Tejas brains

Aerospace companies are rolling out the red carpet for retired scientists who have worked on the LCA project


Sameer Ranjan Bakshi


Life after LCA has acquired a nice, warm glow for the many brains that worked on it. The retired scientists may be too old by government standards but the private sector has been quick to grab them with senior roles.


Dr Kota Harinarayana, the father of the Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) and former programme director, doesn't have a figure for the number of retired scientists who have joined the private sector, but says, "Almost all those who did a stint on the LCA project are being approached by the aerospace industry. At any given time, we had about 1,000 scientists working on the project".

"Almost everyone is grabbing the jobs offered after retirement, joining companies like Ashok Leyland, Mahindra, Quest and others. The few who are not working do so out of choice," said T G A Simha, a senior scientist with the LCA project and now with Infosys.


Ready talent pool

Since not many engineering institutes have aerospace specialisation and given the talent crunch in India, the LCA talent pool has become much sought-after, says Ashok Bakshi, who also worked for Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), ISRO, and is now managing director of a popular automotive company.

It was Kota Harinarayana who insisted that India continue with the project when it was bombarded with criticism, reasoning that "LCA means creating wealth".

Though he still remains as a Raja Ramanna Fellow scientist at NAL, he told Bangalore Mirror, "The wealth has already been created and now the private sector needs to tap that wealth and utilise it effectively".

And that's exactly what the private sector has been doing. Take the case of A Mohan, former GM of ARDC (Aircraft Research and Development Centre) who was responsible for LCA's structure and design. He retired in 2008 but had little time to enjoy retirement as he was approached by Ignis Aerospace and Design Pvt Ltd. He's now the executive VP – engineering service – of Ignis. "I didn't feel like working with others. Ignis was founded by one of our former DRDO scientists," he said.

That's probably why R Jayaraman also joined Ignis. Responsible for the flight control system of LCA, he said, "In the next 10 to 12 years, there will be a boom in the sector because of India's rapid military and civil aviation modernisation plan. And private companies are gearing up to steal the thunder".


Projects outsourced

The role of private companies in the sector has further grown with PSUs outsourcing their projects to them. Once again, this creates a larger space for retired aerospace scientists. "The sector is very intense and the youth need good leaders and mentoring from seniors," says H R S Prasad, who worked for about 20 years on the LCA project and is now a consultant at ADA (Aeronautical Development Agency).

Dr V K Saraswat, scientific advisor to the Raksha Mantri, thinks the private sector has a huge role to play in defence. DRDO, ISRO and the Atomic Energy Centre are largely responsible for raising private sector standards but the latter have to graduate from component manufacturers to lead integrators which will prepare them to take on multiple projects. We will encourage them with technology transfer".

Simha agrees that the private sector can no longer afford to take it easy. "Indian aerospace companies need to gear up. Boeing, Airbus and other big aerospace companies have been growing, coming up with more products. They need trained manpower and the LCA project talent is readily available to them," he said.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/201101292011012900112943616afb841/Pvt-sector-picks-Tejas-brains.html

This is true benefit of LCA project.

 

[p2prada]

But that fact does not preclude that fact that he was compliant.
An grudging decision is still a decision.

His sarcasm may have been a political undercut to all party's involved that this kind induction will not happen again. I.E a similar compromise will not be made again.

They don't want Mk1. Even if Mk1 is successful, it will see early retirement as it is the case with anything that fails.

I agree , but sometimes , You polarize ADA and IAF.
This is not a simple case of ADA is wrong and IAF is right.

The Buyer is always right. There is nothing to polarize. If you buy a phone from Nokia and it has a bad display, will you accept it and then buy a second one after that in order to support the buyer until they come out with a better version? No. IAF isn't any different.

IAF have clearly stated their disinterest in LCA Mk1 but will continue supporting the LCA program as a whole. That's why the LCA Mk2 was mooted in the first place. You cannot compromise on dated weapons. Compromise can only happen on a weapon system than nobody else has or if there is no equivalent.

I believe that was a mis-reported fact , it was Avandi war factory that had to break even for setting up the production line.

And don't mix Arjun and Tejas plz. They are different situations.

One is a tank that is built to a requirement , that the Army no longer wants.

The other is a plane that has failed to meet all the requirements needed

the only thing they share in common is a delayed delivery,
Arjun is not obsolete in the Same sense as some of the systems are on the Tejas .

Forget the Arjun.

See this is exactly what i am talking about , pilots lost ?
This is the kind of polarizing statement that trows all perspective out the Window.

This is only the beginning. IAF will have 40 pilots on Mk1, 40 pilots on Mk2 and then 18-36 pilots on MRCA. That's 100+ pilots flying in 2016 who cannot provide decent war support. This is a first in the world. 100+ pilots flying new aircraft at the same time.

You telling me Air forces all around the world , those with their own domestic sector . Don't have similar points in which new aircraft are inducted and developed while on the filed. Isn't the F-16 itself an example of this. This is a process all aircraft go through between IOC and FOC. Don't pick and choose on this.

Aircraft right from F-16 to Su-35BM were state of the art while they entered IOC. So, comparing other air forces is a waste of time.

I get it ok , the Tejas is not the most capability aircraft out there , but if we can't field it, the whole project will meet an unnatural end with unfinished work, everyone has 1st gen systems that need to be worked on before we move forward to new projects like the AMCA.

Actually 20 LCA Mk1s were enough. 20 fighters are inducted for tests and then follow up orders are given based on performance. We inducted 18Su-30ks and flew them for a long time before the MKI came. The Su-30K's were then replaced by Sukhoi for MKIs at a reduced cost. We will be flying 18 MRCA for 18 months too, before more advanced variants are inducted.

The LCA Mk1's 40 aircraft inductions coming at the time when IAF said they want Mk2 is enough to suggest the IAF was arm twisted into buying more Mk1 so DRDO breaks even.

You expect ADA to make the AMCA without even having the experience of fielding a fighter before.

Nothing to do with MK1. ADA is getting the Mk2 project anyway along with AMCA.

I think you are being the conspiracy theorist here , IA could successfully stop the Arjun from being forced , you said it yourself.
IAF is compromising willingly , They are not the most happy about the situation , but they can see the necessity of it all.

No. IA failed at that too. A second follow up order was given for Mk1 and another 124 tanks for the Mk2 later on. All for the purpose of breaking even.

Let me quote again FONA statement

FONA also said LCA is obsolete. "LCA is not what we want = LCA is an obsolete aircraft."

FONA also relates Navy experience with Sea Harriers which were a real b*tch at maintenance. Also, like I have stated many times, we will be making all the spares by ourselves which means we no longer have to rely on deliveries by ships from OEM.

Funny how they say LCA is our own and still float a RFI for MMRCA aircraft like IAF. The contenders will end up being SH, Rafale M and Sea Gripen. Do you really think IN will then be sitting with 3 different platforms.

But then your betting on the LCA to to fail , which is a bad decision.
Like i said in the MMRCA thread lets not do that , if the MK-II does disappoint we can get the gripen thereafter.

No. I am not betting on LCA program to fail. I want the LCA program to succeed. Just because I believe the LCA Mk1 has failed does not mean I am any less patriotic than the next guy. I just don't want IAF to bear the burden of ADA's failure. Rather I want DRDO to bear their own burden. The LCA program has been constantly criticized by consecutive Air Chiefs for very, very obvious reasons. I am just taking the side of the Air Chiefs for being right.

LCA program will continue without any hiccups from IAF as it has always been. If ADA delivers, great. Even IAF will be happy. But if ADA does not deliver then why would the IAF be any happier even if fanboys are ecstatic.

 

[p2prada]

This is true benefit of LCA project.

Hardly True. Senior scientists and technicians are leaving ADA and joining startup Private companies which pay more.

The retention level at DRDO is appalling. Supposedly they are doing something in HR work to retain employees. DRDO is filling up numbers shortages by recruiting younger scientists though.

It is good in the long run but it affects DRDO's priorities now.

 

[gogbot]

Hardly True. Senior scientists and technicians are leaving ADA and joining startup Private companies which pay more.

The retention level at DRDO is appalling. Supposedly they are doing something in HR work to retain employees. DRDO is filling up numbers shortages by recruiting younger scientists though.

It is good in the long run but it affects DRDO's priorities now.

Hey i place my bets on the private sector , anything that makes them better is a benefit in my view.

Frankly i support serious downsizing of DRDO and start focusing on on real high budget technology items.
I had my way i would just auction of entire labs to private sector.
But DRDO is still necessary in one shape or form.

There is a lot of expertise that had been gained through the LCA project , to see that expertise being spread through out the private sector now.

pretty much accomplishes one of the Projects primary missions to create capability where there had been none before.

 

[gogbot]

They don't want Mk1. Even if Mk1 is successful, it will see early retirement as it is the case with anything that fails.

As is the Case with many first gen platforms ,
What was the first plane Sweden ever made , wasn't it replaced soon after it was inducted.

Show me an example where this has not been the case , globally 1st gen systems are adopted and soon replaced.
There is nothing unnatural about it.

The Buyer is always right. There is nothing to polarize. If you buy a phone from Nokia and it has a bad display, will you accept it and then buy a second one after that in order to support the buyer until they come out with a better version? No. IAF isn't any different.

It is very different.

PLz understand ADA is not a seller , its not a company. It's just an R&D lab with a Government budget.
This is not a buyer seller relationship between the IAF and DRDO.
DRDO only exists to provide systems for the military , it's their only job. They have agenda to earn a profit though substandard systems.

ADA , IAF they work for the same government , they are on the same bloody side. There is an interdependent relationship between them.

IAF have clearly stated their disinterest in LCA Mk1 but will continue supporting the LCA program as a whole. That's why the LCA Mk2 was mooted in the first place. You cannot compromise on dated weapons. Compromise can only happen on a weapon system than nobody else has or if there is no equivalent.

That's just your opinion , clearly the FONA would disagree with you.

Forget the Arjun.

You bought it up in the first place.

This is only the beginning. IAF will have 40 pilots on Mk1, 40 pilots on Mk2 and then 18-36 pilots on MRCA. That's 100+ pilots flying in 2016 who cannot provide decent war support. This is a first in the world. 100+ pilots flying new aircraft at the same time.

For starters your logic is messed up ,
since your so dam concerned lets actually be specific about all this.

IAF will rid of more than 80 mig-21's , where the hell do all those pilots go ?
We only induct about 12+ MKI a year.

40 pilots for the MK1's is in fact a wrong number , each squadron has 18 combat planes and 2 trainers.
That brings us to 36 pilots , however , each squadron should also have pilots in reserve , trained to operate the aircraft.
By 2015 they would have long gotten their FOC, as well as weapon integration of LGB's and ASTRA missiles.
They may not be MMRCA aircraft , but if you still want to call them development aircraft at that point , then there is nothing more for me to say.

by the time the MK2 is ready for IOC , IAF will retire its remaining MIG-21's excluding the bisons.
that's a 100 plus pilots with no plane to fly.

They will be split between the Single seal MK2's and the Twin seat MMRCA aircraft. Not to mention the pilots that will be flying the twin seat FGFA's.
How may pilots is that , even if you take away the LCA-MKII , IAF will be putting hundreds of pilots new and old in brand 2 brand new aircraft between 2015 and 2020.

Aircraft right from F-16 to Su-35BM were state of the art while they entered IOC. So, comparing other air forces is a waste of time.

No it isn't underlying principles apply , whether you come first place or last , we all go use the same race track
this is development and induction work for newly built domestic aircraft.
Tejas is not a finished mature product being exported , only through induction can it become a finished system , that was the only point i was trying to convey.

Actually 20 LCA Mk1s were enough. 20 fighters are inducted for tests and then follow up orders are given based on performance. We inducted 18Su-30ks and flew them for a long time before the MKI came. The Su-30K's were then replaced by Sukhoi for MKIs at a reduced cost. We will be flying 18 MRCA for 18 months too, before more advanced variants are inducted.

I agree with you , that was my understanding as well, 20 purchased at IOC and possible 20 more after FOC.
That may still be how the orders placed.

The LCA Mk1's 40 aircraft inductions coming at the time when IAF said they want Mk2 is enough to suggest the IAF was arm twisted into buying more Mk1 so DRDO breaks even.

I can't answer that question and neither can you, Your answer is speculative at best.

Regardless , ordering additional squadron may been wrong in that it was only done before FOC was achieved. The extra squadron only serves to benefit the LCA project.

heck how much money does MoD return to the MoF every year. for being un-spent
Look at this way , rather than returning the cash , this is extra money spent on an extra squadron , with new pilots paid for by an extra budget

Nothing to do with MK1. ADA is getting the Mk2 project anyway along with AMCA.

Of course it does , By not inducting the Mk1 , your slowing down the project many years , it will only be when the MK2 is inducted more than half a decade later can the same sort of experience be gained from fielding a system.

No. IA failed at that too. A second follow up order was given for Mk1 and another 124 tanks for the Mk2 later on. All for the purpose of breaking even.

It never became the Main battle tank now did it.
you yourself admitted that.

Its operational duties are pretty much defensive maneuvers in a single theater.
and its not as if it under performs.

FONA also said LCA is obsolete. "LCA is not what we want = LCA is an obsolete aircraft."

He also said we should support it regardless.
Because in the navy's experience it has always been worth the effort.

Your saying its an obsolete aircraft, he is saying its not what we need.
LCA is obsolete in some aspects , i agree with you on those points.
But the whole aircraft as whole is not obsolete.

Funny how they say LCA is our own and still float a RFI for MMRCA aircraft like IAF. The contenders will end up being SH, Rafale M and Sea Gripen. Do you really think IN will then be sitting with 3 different platforms.

What are you implying navy is just saying things for show. Did they also get the most indigenous and modernized force this way.
Is it funny how the one branch that did the hard yards supporting indiginisation is also the most successful at modernisation.

get of it p2p , FONA point is as clear as day ,
Obsolete or not , we will support the Tejas as it will yield benefits down the road

No. I am not betting on LCA program to fail. I want the LCA program to succeed. Just because I believe the LCA Mk1 has failed does not mean I am any less patriotic than the next guy. I just don't want IAF to bear the burden of ADA's failure. Rather I want DRDO to bear their own burden. The LCA program has been constantly criticized by consecutive Air Chiefs for very, very obvious reasons. I am just taking the side of the Air Chiefs for being right.

The Air chief's perspective is not the only one. It is one of the most important , but not the only important one.

LCA program will continue without any hiccups from IAF as it has always been. If ADA delivers, great. Even IAF will be happy. But if ADA does not deliver then why would the IAF be any happier even if fanboys are ecstatic.

LCA has come a long way from what any of the air chiefs ever expected it to.
MK2 has a lot of promise , with a proper engine and power-plant this time around , there is a lot more they can do in item's of radar and avionics. Limited sensor fusion perhaps.

We can only do better than the LCA MK1 , helping accomplish that as best as possible should a priority. Passive IAF role is not suited to that.
The Best part about the MK2 IAF will be actively participating in the development through their own feedback of the MK1.

 

[Rahul Singh]

LCA cannot handle DPS. It is not at all meant for the role. Jaguars low altitude performance will beat the LCA anyday.

LCA MK-1 is a multi role jet and every bit capable of strike role, no wonder why it is getting LGBs and a2s missile. In Jaguar class DPS, it beats Jaguar hands down. Deltas can sea skim and fly terrain hugging profile and MK-1s MMR is SAR capable?

This is a Delta.

Ok. Now tell me which plane on the planet looks EXACTLY like that?

Cranked Deltas have inner part of the wing at very high sweepback, while the outer part has less(relatively) sweepback and this is done to create the high-lift vortex. Pure delta have wings at same angle, right from tip to root.

By the way nic pic really enjoyed it, extremely sophisticated. Oh yes, for the jet, ok first erase fuselage of Mirage 2000H and join its wings, you will get a delta shape as similar as one you posed. Say cheese!

Just giving a fancy name to a wing type does not make the physics false. Su-30MKI is a delta too. But it can handle its bombing missions because of Canards. Even Su-34(dedicated bomber aircraft) uses Canards for reducing drag.

Fancy! Oh yes Cranked Delta sounds ultra fancy and extremely trendy. For your information Cranked delta stands for a delta wing which features two sweep angles and one close to root is to provide addition lift.

A Delta without Canards is not a particularly good bomber. Even the Mirage 3s with European air forces were equipped with Canards during MLUs.

ADA knows that, this why they changed the angle of the sweep at wing root.

There is a difference between sea skimming and DPS missions.

Sea Skimming and Terrain Hugging are very much first prerequisite in any DPS mission.

Even smaller Mirage-3s had Canards. Gripen sports a canard too. Naval LCA uses movable LERX for the same reason.

But unlike LCA, Mirage III don't have two sweep angle in wing. Cranked delta means more lift.

It's called being cute. No. LCA cannot handle DPS simply because it carries better avionics. Airframe restrictions has nothing to do with electronics.

Airframe of LCA doesn't restrict MK-1 from becoming a DPSA in Jagaur class. LCA has same range, better thrust, SAR capable radar and guided munition and missiles in weapon package.

What delay? IAF wanted small single engined aircraft in 2004 and then once GoI allowed a bigger budget they added bigger aircraft to the mix.

Yet IAF could not buy. You can't buy a jet with all the money available in 10 years and complaining when one jet took 17 years to develop. How sweet!

The strike is a secondary component. Anyway it does not take very long for them to train in strike roles. Atleast they are using a platform they already have experience with. It's like giving the F-15C pilots F-15E.

Strike is different ball game and will require special training. Not to mention that Mig-29U cockpit is going to be entirely changed and will have all different avionics and sensors. No matter how familiar you are with airframe, these kind of complete makeover requires re-qualification.

But LCA has 0 scope for future enhancements at all.

That's as per you. Intelligent peoples believes otherwise and have planned for MK-2.

LoL. No longer. L-MRCA are just obsolete aircraft that's being replaced all over the world with better aircraft. Even PLAAF is replacing their J-7s and Q-5s with J-10s. The J-10 is significantly heavier and more capable than the aircraft they are replacing.

At 30 Bllion you can't operate M-MRCAs for L-MRCA role. Indian economy is not Chinese economy and IAF is not PLAAF. Top of all IAF air warfare doctrine states for three different class of fighters and L-MRCA is an integral part.

That role no longer exists.

According to you, only!

If you are on a mission then 30 minutes is all you get. Don't forget the test prototype flew with clean loads. Even adding 1 ton in payload decreases loiter time. Even Gripen gives only 30 minutes with the same engine.

LSP-5 flew with two dummy R-73E and considerably less internal fuel load. Add more fuel, drop tanks and more weapons, they make up for each other. And a L-MRCA is assigned for small range missions, they don't need more than that endurance and by the way mid air refueling also one thing. And please don't repeat IAF will not make available tankers for LCA. IAF in some years will have no less than 12-18 takers. Not to mention, C-130Js coming are very much capable of operating as tankers.

Check again. He Never says "All."
Gripen NG upgrades on Gripen C/D is impossible.

He did not either added 'many' or 'some'. Since he did not specified any, it is quite fair to assume he is speaking about entire changes with "These changes........".

The same way Su-30MKI upgrades on Su-27 is impossible.

Talking Gripen here.

You are completely wrong. Integration is very difficult. There will be a big difference between the quality we use and the quality the more experienced players use.

And despite ADA did that. Three Cheers for ADA.

Keep that QUALITY tag to you. I don't believe in prejudices. Fancy doesn't means quality. SAAB in spite of being so experienced failed to save Gripens from crashing due to Fly By Wire (FCS) failure/malfunction. Not to mention even one Test Pilot took premature retirement because of two successive crashes. Ironically ADA being cursed here for being poor system developer and bad at integration flew their jet for +1500 times and never had a single FCS failure.

Are you living in the 1980s? We will get complete access to anything the MRCA provides us with except American. We can change everything we want on the Bars radar too. Absorbing such technology takes time but the Russians have even given us ToT on hot components of their engine.

And you must be living in 2XXX? There is no way 100 TOT will be granted and please do not mention American tag. Gripen is significantly American, EF uses much of American and even Rafale do some. It is only Mig-35 which don't use anything american but on other side how much nuisance Russians creates for everything is no hidden delight? Lets sign the deal and see how game progresses.

Jaguars cannot be replaced by LCA Mk1. Air forces progress, not regress. The only future replacement to Jaguar is a MMRCA fighter or AMCA.

It can certainly be as long as IAF continues to call 'Jagaur' a DPSA.

IAF won't take any help from retired pilots. According to IAF rules, retired means retired. This is only exercised in govt PSUs. My grandpa was recalled after retirement to work on the Agni II program as a consultant. IAF will not do the same.

And that is not the only way out, others are there too.

Yes. Capability has to be increased. But LCA is not the way.

LCA is a way to increase capability and who cares who if IAF buys 40 jets to fulfill that need.

You are talking about the classical age of fighters. No air force has ever done this with any new aircraft. LCA time line was supposed to be between 1996 and 2000. Not 2010 to 2020.

No, i am talking about post 62 years, when IAF went for massive recruitment drive to fulfill Pilot need arising from Kennedy assurance that US will help build IAF.

Full scale engineering was sanctioned only in 1993 and you get jet by 2000. Great!

The only advantage LCA can have is pilot advantage. If the pilot is good airframe is good while simulating a dog fight, then Mig-29 will have a massive advantage and with higher kills. LCA Mk1 will win only if the Mig-29 pilot is a trainee.

LCA has many advantage ranging from advance MMR to BVR to small RCS in addition to other multirole features. IAF knows that and ordered 40 jets. And yes, in any Dog Fight Mig-29 because of legendary design is expected to have edge but noting is guaranteed as no body knows what can happen in air.

Yeah. But we cannot have the MKI saving the LCA's behind every time. We cannot use Bison class aircraft against F-16, J-10 or J-20.

MKI saving LCA! HAHAHA! If any jet MKI will be saving then it will be Jaguar. MK-1s are quite capable of saving themselves and at the same time killing the enemy. MKIs as H-MRCA and LCA as L-MRCA will work as a team. MKIs large but powerful radar will track enemy and MK-1 thanks to its very small RCS will accelerate and fire BVRAAM. MK-1 will actually be acting as BVRAAM launching platform for MKIs when working as a team.

IAF will not induct beyond the 7 squadrons already announced and even that's by a long shot. If LCA Mk2 is delayed then forget that even.

If the IAF can never say No, then can you explain why the ACM was being sarcastic on National TV?

Why should they be, when need for L-MRCA is 7-10 squadron? And small delays will be there and instead IAF will be buying even more than 7 squadron.

First Visually upset, then bee stinged face and now ACM getting SARCASTIC? I could not see or hear all that with my MARK-1 eye balls and ears. May be you could post some source next time.

LCA has an edge only if it fights JF-17. The R-77 is indeed good. But the aircraft firing it should also be good. There are strict rules for BVR combat that have to be followed, altitude, air speed, enemies altitude, air speed etc. If you think you can stop F-16 Blk 52 by only firing a BVR at it then you are completely wrong.

LCA has a potent 150KM range MMR, a potent BVRAAM, a potent Jammer, much smaller RCS and an adequately trained fighter pilot. Enough for LCA to be a warrior. And if LCA can't stop F-16 BLOCK 52 then nobody else except MKIs can, better go for all MKI IAF.

Haven't you ever considered why LM ran back to the drawing board with the F-35 to fit it with a gun. The original design did not have a gun. LM said "let the missiles do the turning." If a 5th gen needs a gun so does LCA. And LCA has to be good at it too, which at present is not and the future is not guaranteed.

Don't you know, LCA has twin barreled GSH-23 cannon. LCA is quite good at dog fighting and will be even better in time.

If ADA wasn't happily lying about their capabilities, then IAF would have been flying some 150 Mirage-2000 5 years ago.

LCA was never to be a Mirage 2000. It was government and IAF who screwed all together. And if IAF is so incapable in judging capabilities(which were never written to get even close to Mirage 2000-5) of LCA and could not convince the GOI accordingly, then whose fault?

MMRCA Jets are on offer because we can throw Dollars at it. Foreign OEMs providing us with aircraft has nothing to do with LCA project. Even they know it sucks and will not be a problem for sometime.

It is only the LCA project and some kind of capability shown through which is making foreign vendors to offer their best. They know if they don't offer their best and overwhelm the IAF, India in a decade or two will get close to us and they will lose Indian market forever.

Jaguar will not be getting into turning situations. The missiles will primarily be for self protection. The same reason why Growler will have 2 Aim-120D.

What if it gets intercepted by even J-17s? Will it use no "turning excuse" to escape. Unlike LCA, Jaguar can't even evade or score a gun kill. If LCA MK-1 is used as DPSA then almost all the time it will carry two R-77 which will give it atleast capability to shoot-divert-evade.

Huh! Then who? It's their MCU.

HUH! MCU doesn't include capability to fire AIM-120s.

It is good at diving from high to medium altitudes. It su*ks at medium to low. Ever heard of dive bombing?

All Mirage-2000s used dive bombing during Kargil for dumb munitions deliveries. Even F-15E pilots practice Dive bombing.

Much before you did, thanks for making me tell you that. And dive bombing, HAHA! are we talking about WW II and Luftwaffe's legendary Ju-87 Stukas? Today, nobody dives to bomb despite being very much capable. There is a thing called LITENING POD which allows Pilot to fly level and still achieve better accuracy.

The M-2000's capabilities were proven during Gulf war as well as used in Bosnia and Kosovo. The French progressed from Mirage-2000 to Rafale. Here you want IAF to regress from Mirage-2000 and Jaguar to LCA Mk1. LOL.

And only point was Mirage 2000Hs were not war proven when they were inducted into IAF.

How about we force IA to buy Vickers 6 ton tank? We can have all services regress together.

You are in a delusion thinking LCA can replace Jaguar simply because the avionics are new on LCA. Without massive airframe modifications it is not possible adn that includes adding canards or LERX.

Nobody is buying Vickers or SU-7s, instead they are buying Arjuns and LCA MK-1s. Services are cautious but steadily releasing orders.

back in in 2007Akash was labeled 'rejected' and initial orders was called 'face saving exercise'. But we know today that till this date 7 squadrons of Akash are on order by IAF and Army buying too.

Delusion? Huh! LCA MK-1 is getting every weapon a Jaguars can possibly have, quite obvious to say LCA MK-1 is quite capable.

Saab made Gripen to fight Soviet invasion. Did you forget Gripen had it's first flight even before SU dissolved?

They never fought a war, so what? Can you name one Indian weapon system that saw war?

Made the Gripen for Soviets but the fact is it never saw a war. So it is not combat proven similar to LCA MK-1.

HF-24 Marut saw war, went deep inside Pakistan for bombing.

The Su-30MKI is cheaper to operate than the EF-2000 or Rafale. At $10000 per flight hour it is even cheaper than the $15000 to $20000 we have to pay for the other 2. LCAMk1 isn't even worth operating any more. Gripen NG will be less than $5000.

Can you post a link regarding? Hard to believe a jet with 40% more thrust and equally more empty weight costs less per flight than jets with 40% less empty weight and thrust.

Operating cost of LCA MK-1 is still not out in public yet and you have already said it costs more than Gripen NG. Not anymore buying your prejudices.

IAF carried out extensive parallel design study for 6 aircraft, all together. It's not a big deal. ADA needs to prove it can keep schedule rather than just say it. Till date it was only talk.

IAF don't have in house design capability which can carry out detail design on Aircrafts on the scale ADA can. Not to mention recently one naval officer said "IAF should have a design house like DND".

And yes ADA needs to prove 'it can' but IAF will also have to be part of the process just like they are in LCA project since FH Major took the charge.

No. New engine is for a new aircraft, Mk2. The current engine can handle LCA specs only becaus it has been used on Gripen.

Empty weight of LCA did not went upto 6.5 ton just because of nothing. It was IAF's new ASR which raised the weight to that. The earlier thrust requirement was 85KN and that is why Kaveri was being developed in that thrust class. It doesn't requires a genius to tell that 1 ton weight gain was sure to affect performance and it was only because of that the thrust target for Kaveri escalated to 90KN mark. It was when GTRE showed inability to get upto new target that talk regarding JV heated up.

If the avionics are same and power generation is same, it is quite fair to say LCA has enough power to have all its avionics operational.

ACM has confirmed Mk2 will have airframe changes during IOC.

Everybody knows MK-2 will go through changes but to what extent is something nobody except ADA and IAF knows. And when did ACM said MK-2 is going to be largely new fighter and those changes can't be carried on MK-1 during MLU?

Only a temporary setback. A lot of aircraft have crashed due to engine trouble and other problems. Nothing to indicate why we have to sit and ridicule OEMs that have delivered state of the art aircraft in time.

But enough to ruin "Guaranteed Performance" tag and belief. And point was nothing other than throwing a reality check on claim "Guaranteed Performance with imported jets".

No. MMRCA aircraft are state of the art and will be nearly a generation ahead of anything PAF has.

So when PLAAF conveyed "no J-20 use against IAF" policy? J-20 will be joining PLAAF when M-MRCAs in IAF will be just over a squadron strength and with your logic will be obsolete.

So what? Did you dad buy you a laptop that was designed in India. Proven OEMs matter. You obviously bought a laptop that was designed by a foreign OEM.

Even if you developed lighter avionics do you think other OEMs would be sleeping while you play catchup. If they develop lighter avionics then they will upgrade their jets too. MKI is getting a new lighter AESA compared to the heavier Bars.

So that means with time technology improves and hardwares gets smaller and lighter. LCA which today seems densely packed will get more space and save weight, all despite getting more teeth.

My Dad bough me a firangi laptop and i bought this HCL ME LAPTOP AE1V2103-X which is Indian made.

The 248 Arjuns we have upgraded cannot fire Lahat. Arjun is a dead saga.

Army ordered 124 Arjun MK-1 which did not had LAHAT because Army did not asked for it. In fact the Arjun Mk-1s are very much capable of firing LAHAT, all they need is very small down time at workshop. Nothing to wonder that far back in 2006 Arjun fired LAHAT. Just see pic. And if you are thinking about tank in pic in MK-2 then think again. MK-2 only just got ready for trails and any trial is still due.

Haha! It does not take a genius to figure out Arjun's were late and are still inferior to T-90s.

And this was said by DGMF or like always you did the face reading ? Arjun inferior to "A/C needed", night blinded, no APU(no silent watch mode) T-90? HUH! Yeah it does not take a genius to figure out so-called backbone of army's strike core has no reliable electronics, no night fighting capability and no APU = no silent mode. Despite all, amusingly people say it is better than Arjun which excels in all said features.

It is not India which can absorb technologies. It is only HAL which can absorb foreign technologies. Let's not get confused between the 2. ADA cannot absorb MKI technology on their own. HAl will export, not ADA.

Lets not get confused with what i said " ADA LCA helped India create an aeronautical industry which now boasting to absorb 100 TOT of M-MRCA and without ADA's LCA this would not have been possible, not now atleast".

Without ADA, HAL would have had a capable private industry backing them up.
It is because of ADA and DRDO that private industry is non existent. HAL is the only manufacturer so it has no competition. But DRDO monopolized everything related to design work and R&D.

It's because of ADA and DRDO that whatever HAL is manufacturing comes with some kind of indigenous tag. It is because of DRDO that India today can boast about anykind of indigenous defence technology. And it's not DRDO as road block rather it is the DRDO as an accelerator which is helping privet defence industry to get to any level of significance.

On side note its the distrust towards indigenous products (right from word 'go') by air force and the army which never allowed privet industry to take any interest even in defence production, forget R&D in which they are still not significantly interested.

 

[p2prada]

LCA Mk1 cannot replace Jaguar in its role.

The Jaguar MCU is the same thing that's used on F-16 Block 40+ including Block 60. It can fire Aim-120D.

The Cranked delta is just a poor substitute for canards or LERX. ADA did not go for canards only in order to save up on time delay incorporating new changes. ADA will fall under greater criticism if it does not incorporate LERX on Mk2 also.

Dive bombing will stay for a long time to come. LGBs are not cheap. IAF has come out on record saying they cannot commit to resources like USAF can when it comes to LGBs.

Even $4000 is very cheap.

The LMRCA, MMRCA roles are not defined in the IAF simply because MMRCA fighters do not exist as of now. The MMRCA fighter if selected will be EF, Rafale or Mig-35. The LMRCA will be F-16 or Gripen NG. The HMRCA will be Super Hornet. The IAF has only suggested a MMRCA role requirement without actually going into any details. If Super Hornet is chosen it will be in the same weight class as MKI. If F-16 or Gripen is chosen then it will be in the class of LCA. It was merely a media statement to justify spending $10Billion to the Indian public. In the end whatever a LCA Mk2 is expected to do the MMRCA is also expected to do. It's just that with a combination of sensor fusion and superior aerodynamics, the MMRCA deal fighters will be superior in any role the LCA is meant to do.

This talk of using a Merc to travel to office that's 2 Km away or BMW to go to the vegetable shop is just media hocus pocus meant for civilian consumption. The IAF will use even MKI to go to the next door shop without hiccups. The real parameters the IAF is keen on inducting MMRCA in the operational sense is mainly because of the faster turnaround times they provide compared to MKI along with more modern technologies that's incorporated into them. Even if EF-2000 does not have an efficient strike capability, the IAF will still choose it in order to fill the void left due to lack of inductions in the low segment. There are only 3 roles in the IAF that's been defined as of today. One will be use of Heavy Air Superiority aircraft for achieving air superiority over enemy airspace, second will be use of complementary aircraft like MMRCA and LCA Mk2 for point defence and a secondary strike role which is to deny the enemy air superiority over own airspace and the third is use of Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft to deny the enemy it's assets in their space. That's all there is to it.

There is no specific role that LCA will perform compared to MMRCA fighters. All these aircraft will fill the same role. During Kargil, even Mirage-2000s were used for CAP as well as recce similar to Mig-21 Bison. SHs will do the same too.

If, hypothetically, IAF is denied all MRCA fighters+Tejas, then IAF will easily(budget willing) fill all categories with MKI alone including DPSA. But it will come at the cost of turn around time. It means IAF has a requirement only for High and Low segment. High will be MKI and Low will be MMRCA+Mk2. That's all there is to it. Anything different then we are not talking about IAF at all. There is no "Medium" segment because it's role is not defined in any air force.

The rest of your post is not worth wasting time over.

 

[ppgj]

Again. You posted the right link but interpreted the information in a WRONG way.

An aircraft's avionics is run by the main engine is right. But the engine actually powers a cycloconverter and that is what powers the avionics on aircraft. The cycloconverter on LCA's engine is the same as that's in the Super Hornet. It delivers 35KW for all purposes. It means the main power generation unit for avionics on LCA is 35KW.

all you are talking about is a converter which is an obvious thing considering the engine is a turbine!!! the energy needs to be converted to AC/DC. you keep speaking of this 35kw converter wrt LCA and SH. can you give me a link for this?? also do give me the Mig 29's converter link?? it would help understand better.

now even if i were to agree with this 35kw - when it is taking care of the 'full' requirement of the avionics including EW how that becomes a "disadvantage" compared to a Mig 29?? even Mig 29 would be using avionics same/similar to the LCA and requiring same/similar power requirement?? even if hypothetically (hypothetically because the Migs have to support close to double the weight of LCA + internal fuel) the Mig 29 has extra spare power, how is that useful when the power optimisation is already optimal?? if 'x' is the power requirement which is already provided for how come '2x' is going to be an advantage??

i took one route to establish the point in one of the posts with my calculation how the T/W ratio actually drops for the Mig 29SMT when compared to LCA mark 2 even @115KN (118kn max for the EPE version of GE414) implying zero reserve power but you look at differently.

however this issue needs to be debated separately as not only we look at it differently but we don't know the 'real' power requirement for the avionics in both LCA and the Mig 29s.

The APU is for an entirely different purpose. The LCA APU is supposed to be 20KVA.

The 50KVA is not APU. It is the aircraft's primary power unit.

no issue. this is what i too said. however you referrence to 'power pack' is why i wrongly implied it for APU.

The APU is a different breed and is a backup for electrical systems and also is used to help start the engine. You could call this the spark plug of aircraft engines. In case the engine or turbines fail the APU is used to restart the engine if the aircraft stalls. It has it's own fuel source and runs on kerosene.

The cycloconverters connected to the main engines do not run on fuel.

agreed.

What a Fail. The MMR was tested on an old Avro made Hawker Siddeley also called Hack in ADA. The 120KVA APU specification is for the large aircraft and not meant for LCA. Just because MMR was tested on Hack does not mean the LCA can have a 120KVA power generator unit.

did i say LCA has a 120KVA APU?? do you have reading problem?? i asked you 'specifically' the APUs in both Mig 29 and LCA!!! why would i do that?? i only referred to the HACK (and said so too) with 120KVA APU testing LCA MMR because you were speaking of 50KVA converters - which i have clarified - i implied for the APU.

What's that got to do with anything? None of this will be more powerful than a twin engine aircraft for obvious reasons.

it has got to do with everything because the power comes from the main engine. the generated energy has to be optimised for both the kinematics and the power requirement for the avionics. and unless one has a comprehensive detail wrt the avionics power requirement, thrust needed for the kinematics and the available power - how come one can conclude on the 'reserve power' - if any - which would be known only after that.

one of the best indicator one can get is from the T/W ratio at common loaded weight and which is what i did and showed you in an A2A config (with 4 R77 and 2 R73).

Most of your reasoning on this post is a fail again.

The EF-2000 uses 2 different power generator units. One is used to power the avionics in the air and it is connected to the main engine. The second is called an APU and is used to kick start the engine and also provide power to some important systems like lighting and AC when the main engines are Off while on ground.

The cycloconverters use mechanical energy for power generation and are therefore connected to the main engine's turbines which are used to power avionics. The APU runs on fuel and cannot power the aircraft's avionics because of its primary function as a starting backup if Engines fail.

you are repeating the obvious.

You can keep guessing the actual power released, but this is the latest from Klimov in 2010.

Klomov has not released the exact specification of the RD-33 but have revealed it to be a 90KN engine.

The specs of 81KN you are talking about are the current JF-17 and Mig-29A specs. Even if you do take LCA Mk2 with a higher thrust engine as having more power than Mig-29smt at full fuel load, then try reducing fuel load by 75% or 50%. Also take the Mig-29s superior aerodynamics into consideration too. The Mig-29 is a better fighter aerodynamically and also generates more power for EA.

i asked you 'specifically' about RD 33 series 3 which our Mig 29s will be powered with and 'not' some future variant they may be working on. even if they come out with that engine with 90KN, it has no relevance for the indian Mig 29s.

go take a look at the KLIMOV page. even they say RD 33 series 3 engine 'only has longer life and no thrust improvement'. RD 33MK, their 'highest thrust engine' in the RD33 family has 7% extra thrust over the base line model and this powers only the Mig 29k/35.

And that's why I am saying you understand nothing.

oh knowledgeble!!!

 

[mattster]

I agree with p2prada.

All these debates about specs are missing the point.
The LCA is nothing more than a learning project. Composites aside the LCA is a 3+ gen aircraft.
The only reason that the Air force is buying it is to give support to indian industry.

But the real benefit of the LCA project is the skilled manpower that has emanated from the project. Even if the engineers and scientists who worked on the LCA leave for the private sector, it will still benefit the private indian aerospace industry.

Now that ADA and HAL has gone thru one full development cycle - it lays the groundwork for much faster development in future.
The first time is always going to be the hardest and most painful. It doesnt matter if the LCA is not a huge success - the IAF is only going to acquire a token amount. Its the next version that really has to make the grade.

 

[black eagle]

 

[p2prada]

@ppgj and Rahul

The LCA isn't an aircraft that is worthy of the IAF,perhaps DRDO, but not IAF.

The IAF is flying the most advanced aircraft that ever flew in the world(even if it was for a brief period of time), let alone Asia. Even today the MKI is the most feared Flanker version ever created, even better than the BM version due to ground attack capability. It is only second to the F-22 and in performance will beat even the MMRCA fighters. Newer upgrades happening by 2012 will push it past even the future versions of the MMRCA fighters by long shot.

If you really believe an air force of that capability should accept an obsolete platform just to protect indigenous industry which has no bearing to our operational preparedness today, then go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you from that. But LCA does affect IAF plans in better securing our borders.

 

[ace009]

The EA-18G scored a BVR lock on F-22 and achieved a kill. Primarily credit is given to pilot and Electronic Attack. The F-22 achieves stealth using RCS reduction measures and highly refined signals emissions, but Growler achieves stealth using high powered jamming and denying the use of your sensors.

The following was posted by Dozer on fencecheck.com and should clear up anything regarding this incident...Check

Quoting Dozer--

"The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeaky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time (I don't know if that's a setup the Navy flies or it might just have been a quick attempt to get a last engagement in if they were low on gas - I don't have that info). The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot (stabilized and enough bullets to cause a kill), it was about 2 or 3 frames (many more required to cause a kill - OK - for you skeptics there's always the golden BB but let me finish first...). The AF pilot honored the training rules we're all supposed to abide by, they've been written in blood because pilots have been killed in these scenarios so our training rules look to prevent those scenarios by causing guys to quit manuevering for the shot to prevent a mid-air collision. With greater than a 135 aspect angle and inside of 9000 feet we're supposed to avoid pure or lead pursuit to avoid that head on collision, inside that range at our tactical speeds there's not enough time to react to prevent a collision once you realize it's going to happen. The Navy pilot completely blew off that rule, the AF pilot honored it, the Navy pilot pulled lead pursuit all the way into the high aspect (greater than the 135 degree gun shot rule) snap shot, the AF pilot lagged off to prevent the mid-air collision potential, the Navy pilot was still on the trigger inside the 1000 foot rule (we're supposed to avoid getting inside of 1000 feet from each other to also help prevent mid-air collisions), attempting to get the snap shot, he's inside the 1000 foot range with the trigger on, flies within about 200 feet of the Raptor (remember who's backed off to honor the training rules), and dang near kills himself and the Raptor pilot and causing what would have been one of the worst fighter to fighter disasters in recorded history. I've had that happen twice to me when I was flying the Eagle as a weapons officer (close enough to hear very loud engine noise and I figured I was dead both times, but God wasn't ready to take me yet), and both times I knocked off the fight, made the guy fly home, busted him on the ride and he had to explain to me and the boss why he was being stupid. That is the ONLY gun shot video I have ever heard of or seen from ANY Hornet engagement, ever. And it was a hugely B.S. and completely boneheaded act as you can see from the actual circumstances. In the real world - the Hornet never saw the Raptor and he was dead w/o ever knowing what hit him - that's the cold hard truth, like it or not - sorry if you're a Hornet fan but that's how all of our engagements with Hornets, Tomcats, Eagles, Vipers, etc. have gone. You would be amused if I had time to tell you how the hundreds of engagements went I've had with aircraft of all types, the biggest problem we have now is getting anyone to fly with us because they get no training, they never see us and they just die. Unless we promise to do some within visual range manuevering with them where we start and can see each other at the start, no one (Navy or AF) wants to fly vs. the Raptor anymore - that alone ought to tell you what the truth is."

Current source is ...
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=...89&sid=5916f3ad6685d9846b16cd298323ec96#74789

 

[ace009]

@ppgj and Rahul

The LCA isn't an aircraft that is worthy of the IAF,perhaps DRDO, but not IAF.

The IAF is flying the most advanced aircraft that ever flew in the world(even if it was for a brief period of time), let alone Asia. Even today the MKI is the most feared Flanker version ever created, even better than the BM version due to ground attack capability. It is only second to the F-22 and in performance will beat even the MMRCA fighters. Newer upgrades happening by 2012 will push it past even the future versions of the MMRCA fighters by long shot.

If you really believe an air force of that capability should accept an obsolete platform just to protect indigenous industry which has no bearing to our operational preparedness today, then go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you from that. But LCA does affect IAF plans in better securing our borders.

I think it is a "horses for courses" approach that is needed. The IAF flies the Mig21, which is obsolete four times over. IAF certainly does not need all fighters to be at the level of the MKI. An upgrade to the LCA Mk1 seems pretty good. The money spent goes to the development of the LCA Mk2 and helps the development of aviation technology in the country. If we bought the Gripen (which I guess is what you prefer), the money would go to an European company/ country and IAF will be dependant upon foreign sources for ALL components of all fighters forever. With the LCA, in the long run, India will have at least one indigenous front line fighter with little if any dependency on foreign sources. As and when the LCA Mk2 comes out, the LCA Mk1 will be replaced (just like the Su 30K replaced by the Su 30 MKI).
As for the Gripen, I know it is a damn good fighter, but if it is that good, we can get it for the M-MRCA? or the naval versions?

 

[gogbot]

The LCA isn't an aircraft that is worthy of the IAF,perhaps DRDO, but not IAF.

The IAF is flying the most advanced aircraft that ever flew in the world(even if it was for a brief period of time), let alone Asia. Even today the MKI is the most feared Flanker version ever created, even better than the BM version due to ground attack capability. It is only second to the F-22 and in performance will beat even the MMRCA fighters. Newer upgrades happening by 2012 will push it past even the future versions of the MMRCA fighters by long shot.

So ego in the end if you debating point.
Ego even though this is force with 50% obsolescence levels ,
One of the worlds highest Peace time attrition losses for aircraft and pilots.
In the last 15 years , we have lost more pilots to crashed aircraft as opposed to the who will be Tejas pilots.

If you really believe an air force of that capability should accept an obsolete platform just to protect indigenous industry which has no bearing to our operational preparedness today, then go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you from that. But LCA does affect IAF plans in better securing our borders.

"Just" , Your saying just ?

what the hell is wrong with you , our air force has to import all this capability. That's nothing to be proud.
Its the stupidest thing i ever heard p2p

The most advanced Air force in the world your kidding your self more than any of the Tejas fanboys if you believe that.


This is surprisingly poor quality post o your part

 

[Anshu Attri]

Model Tejas Mk.2 At Aero India

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/01/model-lca-mk2-at-aero-india.html

So we'll finally, hopefully, know what it looks like, and how different (if at all) it will be. The DRDO's curtain-raiser statement for Aero India 2011 suggests that it will be displaying models of the air force and navy TEJAS Mk.2. There has been little clarity over the real design changes likely to be incorporated in the Mk.2, so to specifically mention the Mk.2 in its list of model displays suggests that there will be something to talk about. Will it have canard foreplanes? We do know that the aft fuselage will undergo changes to house the GE-F414 turbofan, but that's pretty much all we really know. Will update this post over the next few hours with more.

Hadn't thought of using the totally unofficial fan-art image above until now. It was sent to me by someone last year, but I've misplaced their details. So if you recognise your image, please let me know so I can credit you!