ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

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

  • Interceptor-Defend Skies from Intruders.

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

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

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

    Votes: 284 42.6%

  • Total voters
    667
Status
Not open for further replies.

Aditya Mookerjee

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
25
Likes
3
If we can have an L. C. A., why cannot we develop an A. J. T. from the basic avionics? I am sorry, I didn't know the L. C. A. was an expensive aircraft. After George Fernandes declared China as the 'No. 1 consideration', the doctrine behind the L. C. A. development became obsolete. It was needed to operate within India's borders. I think, the L. C. A. is still an important concept, and idea.
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
lca is relationship that you wants to end but cant end. its developers are not serious, its buyers are not serious, its financiers are not serious and finally its manufacturers are not serious. now why do you think that it will come up?
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
If we can have an L. C. A., why cannot we develop an A. J. T. from the basic avionics? I am sorry, I didn't know the L. C. A. was an expensive aircraft. After George Fernandes declared China as the 'No. 1 consideration', the doctrine behind the L. C. A. development became obsolete. It was needed to operate within India's borders. I think, the L. C. A. is still an important concept, and idea.
LCA is still gud, Orders are there for two squadrons, LCA is expense compare to AJT, for supersonic flights pilots use there operational squadron aircraft..

LCA is always a good idea and always will be, Its operational cost are lesser so does unit price, But effective in A2A and A2G missions, for better idea its Something like Gripen..
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
I Still dont understand why we are building MK-1 with GE404 engine and wasting time on Mk-2... well i dont ... i sure dont ... i damn dont... i bloody dont..
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
I Still dont understand why we are building MK-1 with GE404 engine and wasting time on Mk-2... well i dont ... i sure dont ... i damn dont... i bloody dont..
With GE404, we have a functioning LCA-I. Without it, we do not have an LCA-I.

We will need to push forward with LCA-II, so that, any development can later on be applied to LCA-I as an upgrade, thus cutting costs to a large extent.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
Before the GSLV and PSLV, there was the ASLV and the SLV.

The SLV had a total of 4 test flights, one failed, one was partially successful and 2 met mission objectives. All four satellites on board were experimental satellites with no commercial value.

In 2009 the Chandrayaan became the first moon mission to detect water on the moon, 40 years after man has walked on the moon. Our space program is not the most advanced in the world but today with the GSLV series were are at the threshold of not only total self sufficiency but commercial viability and export potential of satellite launches.

The LCA is our first baby step towards self sufficiency in fighter aircraft. Whether we finally have 2 squadrons of LCA in the Air force or whether or not the naval version ever becomes operational, there have been lessons learnt and expertise gained. If nothing else whatever we have achieved has not been through spying and copying.

btw, the SLV's first test flight was in 1979, 10 years after Neil Armstrong returned from his moon mission. :)
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
With GE404, we have a functioning LCA-I. Without it, we do not have an LCA-I.

We will need to push forward with LCA-II, so that, any development can later on be applied to LCA-I as an upgrade, thus cutting costs to a large extent.
We have a very undercapable/underpowered fighter supposed to be operational by 2014??

And MK-2 FOC by 2018-2020??? :rofl:
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
Ajai Shukla: Where is India's light fighter?

Ajai Shukla: Where is India's light fighter?


Ajai Shukla / Feb 07, 2012, 00:15 IST

Kudos to the government for selecting a fighter aircraft for a depleted Indian Air Force (IAF), which currently fields barely 34 fighter squadrons (21 aircraft per squadron) against an assessed requirement of 45. While zeroing in on the French Rafale, New Delhi has said "no thanks" to arms supply heavyweights whose political and technological clout often bludgeons procurement decisions in their favour. This was helped, admittedly, by India's ability to soothe the losers with alternative largesse — Washington with contracts for transport and maritime aircraft; Moscow with deals for helicopters, fighters and warships; London with trainer jets; and Stockholm with the hope of mammoth deals for artillery guns and conventional submarines. But that should not detract from the IAF's credit for running a fair, transparent and relatively quick contest in which, for the first time in India, a detailed "life cycle" evaluation looked beyond the fighter's ticker price to the cost of operating it through a service life of four decades.

The difficulty in conducting such an exercise is illustrated in Brazil, where competing pulls and pressures have stymied a simpler decision between the Boeing F/A-18, the Rafale and the Gripen NG fighters.


India's decision stemmed from Defence Minister A K Antony's insistence on letting the IAF determine which aircraft best met its needs. But, sadly, this unwise reliance on the views of fighter pilots alone has twisted the rationale for buying a fighter. Instead of the cheap, single-engine, light fighter that the IAF set out to buy in the 1990s to replace India's ageing MiG-21 fleet, the IAF will have 126 heavy, twin-engine and enormously expensive Rafales.

These six squadrons of Rafales could go up to nine squadrons through a follow-on order, say IAF planners. Add to those 12 squadrons of the Sukhoi-30MKI and another 12 squadrons of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) that India is co-developing with Russia, and the IAF will field 33 squadrons of heavy, high-performance fighters by 2022 — 75 per cent of its 45-squadron fighter fleet. This might gladden the heart of a young fighter pilot, just as a fleet of Ferraris would gladden the heart of a college-going youngster, even if his commute were two kilometres through crowded traffic. But it is worrisome to a defence planner who seeks a balanced force for performing a multitude of tasks economically.

Light fighters are affordable, and cheaper to buy and to fly. Being smaller, they are inherently more stealthy, less observable on enemy radars. A top-class light fighter is one-third the cost of a Rafale. Even though the Rafale is a powerful, high-quality brute of a combat machine, it will almost always lose in a contest with three modern light fighters. "Quality is fine," said Stalin, always the pragmatist; "but quantity has a quality of its own."

That is why the USAF and the Israeli air forces have large fleets of single-engine F-16 fighters. That is also the logic for India's MiG-21 fleet and for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that will replace it. In the late 1990s, whilst justifying the procurement of fighters from abroad, the IAF cited delays in the Tejas programme and suggested that the Mirage-2000 production line be bought from Dassault, and the single-engine fighter be built in India. But when the ministry of defence (MoD), still smarting from the Tehelka exposes, insisted on a multi-vendor global tender, the IAF reframed its requirements. The term became MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) and the specifications favoured a twin-engine, heavy fighter. Astonishingly, nobody in the MoD seemed to notice the turnabout or object to the contradiction.

Today, India's light fighter hangars are emptying fast with replacements lagging. By 2013-14, seven squadrons of MiG-21s must retire; another six squadrons will be phased out by 2017, as will four squadrons of MiG-27s. It is vital, therefore, to drive home the indigenous Tejas programme, committing the money, resources and organisational effort needed for developing and manufacturing at least 10-12 squadrons of progressively improved Tejas light fighters.

Compared to the estimated Rs 75,000 crore for just 126 Rafale, the Tejas' budget has been a pittance. Since 1983, Rs 9,690 crore has gone into aerospace infrastructure – R&D laboratories, defence factories, private industry, academic institutions, and a world-class test facility, the National Flight Testing Centre (NFTC) – and into building and flight-testing some 20 Tejas prototypes. An additional Rs 4,353 crore are earmarked for the Tejas Mark II. Boosted allocations must now expand R&D facilities and up-skill the manpower that drives the Tejas programme.

Simultaneously, a world-class Tejas assembly facility must be built, incorporating the manufacturing practices and quality control measures that characterise aircraft production worldwide. Currently, Tejas manufacture is the responsibility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which has been without a CEO since Ashok Nayak retired last October. With HAL's focus on ongoing production lines like the Sukhoi-30MKI, Tejas assembly is hardly a priority. Nor is there emphasis on reducing manufacturing cost, which is currently too high at Rs 180-200 crore ($36-40 million) per Tejas Mark I. That must be brought down to Rs 125-150 crore ($25-30 million) to make the LCA a compelling buy on the international market. Export orders would allow scale manufacturing, driving down prices further.

Paying Rs 75,000 crore for the Rafale will indeed boost national defence. But a far smaller expenditure on the Indian aerospace establishment, and the squeezing of key technologies from Dassault and Thales during contract negotiations, will ensure that the Rafale is the last fighter that India buys abroad.



http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajai-shuklais-indias-light-fighter/463901/
 
Last edited:

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
Notice he is singing a diffrent tune today, he was probably brought it last time on NDTV to play devils advocate.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
OMG, Ajay didn't mention F-35. Someone must have made him realise how stupid he sounded bytching about it. I do agree that LCA must be given priority and signing the Snecma -Kaveri deal will get it done.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
OMG, Ajay didn't mention F-35. Someone must have made him realise how stupid he sounded bytching about it. I do agree that LCA must be given priority and signing the Snecma -Kaveri deal will get it done.
Kopp must have mailed him some.:scared2:
 

Neil

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,818
Likes
3,546
Country flag
Ajai Shukla: Where is India's light fighter?

Kudos to the government for selecting a fighter aircraft for a depleted Indian Air Force (IAF), which currently fields barely 34 fighter squadrons (21 aircraft per squadron) against an assessed requirement of 45. While zeroing in on the French Rafale, New Delhi has said "no thanks" to arms supply heavyweights whose political and technological clout often bludgeons procurement decisions in their favour. This was helped, admittedly, by India's ability to soothe the losers with alternative largesse — Washington with contracts for transport and maritime aircraft; Moscow with deals for helicopters, fighters and warships; London with trainer jets; and Stockholm with the hope of mammoth deals for artillery guns and conventional submarines. But that should not detract from the IAF's credit for running a fair, transparent and relatively quick contest in which, for the first time in India, a detailed "life cycle" evaluation looked beyond the fighter's ticker price to the cost of operating it through a service life of four decades.

The difficulty in conducting such an exercise is illustrated in Brazil, where competing pulls and pressures have stymied a simpler decision between the Boeing F/A-18, the Rafale and the Gripen NG fighters.

India's decision stemmed from Defence Minister A K Antony's insistence on letting the IAF determine which aircraft best met its needs. But, sadly, this unwise reliance on the views of fighter pilots alone has twisted the rationale for buying a fighter. Instead of the cheap, single-engine, light fighter that the IAF set out to buy in the 1990s to replace India's ageing MiG-21 fleet, the IAF will have 126 heavy, twin-engine and enormously expensive Rafales.



These six squadrons of Rafales could go up to nine squadrons through a follow-on order, say IAF planners. Add to those 12 squadrons of the Sukhoi-30MKI and another 12 squadrons of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) that India is co-developing with Russia, and the IAF will field 33 squadrons of heavy, high-performance fighters by 2022 — 75 per cent of its 45-squadron fighter fleet. This might gladden the heart of a young fighter pilot, just as a fleet of Ferraris would gladden the heart of a college-going youngster, even if his commute were two kilometres through crowded traffic. But it is worrisome to a defence planner who seeks a balanced force for performing a multitude of tasks economically.

Light fighters are affordable, and cheaper to buy and to fly. Being smaller, they are inherently more stealthy, less observable on enemy radars. A top-class light fighter is one-third the cost of a Rafale. Even though the Rafale is a powerful, high-quality brute of a combat machine, it will almost always lose in a contest with three modern light fighters. "Quality is fine," said Stalin, always the pragmatist; "but quantity has a quality of its own."

That is why the USAF and the Israeli air forces have large fleets of single-engine F-16 fighters. That is also the logic for India's MiG-21 fleet and for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that will replace it. In the late 1990s, whilst justifying the procurement of fighters from abroad, the IAF cited delays in the Tejas programme and suggested that the Mirage-2000 production line be bought from Dassault, and the single-engine fighter be built in India. But when the ministry of defence (MoD), still smarting from the Tehelka exposes, insisted on a multi-vendor global tender, the IAF reframed its requirements. The term became MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) and the specifications favoured a twin-engine, heavy fighter. Astonishingly, nobody in the MoD seemed to notice the turnabout or object to the contradiction.

Today, India's light fighter hangars are emptying fast with replacements lagging. By 2013-14, seven squadrons of MiG-21s must retire; another six squadrons will be phased out by 2017, as will four squadrons of MiG-27s. It is vital, therefore, to drive home the indigenous Tejas programme, committing the money, resources and organisational effort needed for developing and manufacturing at least 10-12 squadrons of progressively improved Tejas light fighters.

Compared to the estimated Rs 75,000 crore for just 126 Rafale, the Tejas' budget has been a pittance. Since 1983, Rs 9,690 crore has gone into aerospace infrastructure – R&D laboratories, defence factories, private industry, academic institutions, and a world-class test facility, the National Flight Testing Centre (NFTC) – and into building and flight-testing some 20 Tejas prototypes. An additional Rs 4,353 crore are earmarked for the Tejas Mark II. Boosted allocations must now expand R&D facilities and up-skill the manpower that drives the Tejas programme.

Simultaneously, a world-class Tejas assembly facility must be built, incorporating the manufacturing practices and quality control measures that characterise aircraft production worldwide. Currently, Tejas manufacture is the responsibility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which has been without a CEO since Ashok Nayak retired last October. With HAL's focus on ongoing production lines like the Sukhoi-30MKI, Tejas assembly is hardly a priority. Nor is there emphasis on reducing manufacturing cost, which is currently too high at Rs 180-200 crore ($36-40 million) per Tejas Mark I. That must be brought down to Rs 125-150 crore ($25-30 million) to make the LCA a compelling buy on the international market. Export orders would allow scale manufacturing, driving down prices further.

Paying Rs 75,000 crore for the Rafale will indeed boost national defence. But a far smaller expenditure on the Indian aerospace establishment, and the squeezing of key technologies from Dassault and Thales during contract negotiations, will ensure that the Rafale is the last fighter that India buys abroad.


Ajai Shukla: Where is India’s light fighter? | idrw.org
 

sathya

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
414
Likes
173
Country flag
i dont understand why we wont do major upgradation in mk2 ?

if its going to be minor, start that now itself.. it ll atleast save time..
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
World-class this,world-class that,India is certainly fond of the expression:world-class。
And never is this phrase used in a same sentence with China :troll:
 

Arun thevar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
36
Likes
18
am toatally amused after seeing how this thread is proceeding.
even after years of posting on the same issue, i find almost 90% of people out here confused, underestimating, over estimating, hating, loving, prasing, and doing all other things on L.C.A issue.
its grt for a observer like me, who just spends time observing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top