ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

Indian-made fighter plane Tejas clocks fastest speed - Thaindian News

I qouted from the above portal that the tejas has done mach 1.1 or 1350 km/hour in hot humid condition sea level trials in GOA.I haven't made up the stuff myself.

Indian-made fighter plane Tejas clocks fastest speed

Tue Dec 08 2009 18:24:00 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time) by IANS
Panaji, Dec 8 (IANS) Light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas notched a speed of over 1,350 km per hour — the fastest by an indigenously-made fighter aircraft — during its sea level flight trials off Goa Tuesday, a senior Indian Air Force official said.
Tejas which is undergoing rigorous testing in saline, humid marine conditions in and off the coast of Goa, had performed admirably in the two-week long trials in Goa, Air Commodore Rohit Varma who is also the commanding officer of the Bangalore-based National Flight Testing Centre (NFTC) told reporters at the INS Hansa naval base Tuesday.

"The trials which lasted for two weeks comprised of flutter clearances, weapons firing, performance, stability and avionics validation. The LCA is the first supersonic fighter being manufactured indigenously by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL)," Varma, an elite pilot himself, said.

As part of the initial operational clearance, the Aeronautics Development Agency (ADA) had inducted three aircraft to Goa for conducting various sea-level flight tests, he said.

Varma also said that the LCA had already been tested in other extreme atmospheric conditions.

"Tejas has already been tested for high altitude and cold climate at Leh and in the desert environment of Rajasthan," he said. "During the trials Tejas clocked in excess of 1,350 kmph," Varma said, adding that the ADA in tandem with HAL was also in the process of manufacturing a naval version of the LCA.

"While the present trials are in progress for the air force version, the first prototype aircraft for the navy is also under production. The LCA-navy will be capable of taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier," he said.

The LCA is expected to cost Rs.150 crore per aircraft and will find its home at the Sulur air force base near Coimbatore. The Indian Air Force has already ordered 20 LCAs from HAL, which will be delivered to them by 2013.

Air Vice Marshal Shankar Mani, who was also present during the media briefing, said the IAF could place a further order of 20 more LCAs after the first order.


Fighter aircraft Tejas clocks fastest speed during testing - Express India


If anyone has any more doubts then they can go to the above web page and clarify for themselves. This is my proof.


And the speed at sea level for mig-29 is 1240 km/hr

The FA-18super hornet's sea level speed is 1350 km/hr

The tejas also did the same speed sea level speed is 1350 km/hr.



So the it should automatically translate to mach 1.8 at high altittude that was my inference. If it is a mistake correct me and I will accept it.

 

[ersakthivel]

I think that most folks who limit the tejas speed to mach 1.4 are quoting from this source

Tejas Light Combat Supersonic Fighter - Airforce Technology

The Tejas single-seat, single-engine, lightweight, high-agility supersonic fighter aircraft has been undergoing flight trials in preparation for operational clearance, and by March 2012 had flown more than 1,816 test flights up to speeds of Mach 1.4.

It clearly says " by March 2012 had flown more than 1,816 test flights up to speeds of Mach 1.4 ". It is not that The same tejas before march 2012 was not capable of speeds upto 1.4 mach. It also doesn't clearly limit the tejas speed to mach 1.4 forever.

Say this mach 1.4 is the final speed of TEJAS , then do you think ADA's mach 1.6 is false. After march 2012 it has clearly crossed mach 1.4 and now it is doing mach 1.6 as per ADA's website. Note that along with mach 1.6 it clearly has an inscription with a bracket----(CAS)
.

Pray what is the meaning? Ask any knowledgable person and he will tell you this speed is intended for CLOSE AIR SUPPORT speed. So it is not the ultimate top speed of TEJAS. Any arguments? I want anybody to contradict me in this regard so that we can clear the matter once for all. I wont be arrogant and dogmatic on that count. I too wish to get clarification, thats all. Dont say my post are FANBOY and made up.


ALSO

Also why should ADA put the word (CAS) in bracket with the top speed. My inference is ADA doesnot want people to get confused leading to the conclusion that LCA's ultimate speed is 1.6 . Otherwise they would have clearly mentioned that MACH 1.6 IS THE ULTIMATE TOP SPEED OF TEJAS.

On december 8 2009 itself tejas has gone past mach 1.1 or 1350 km/hour at sea level in goa's hot humid conditions as per AIRFORCE OFFICER VERMA's claim. Clearly this is not the first instance of TEJAS crossing 1350 km/hour at high altitudes meriting splash across all news media and a separate press conference. If that 1350 km/hr is done at high altitude and not at sea level why is he saying that this is the fastest speed by an indian built fighter? Is he bluffing?


So clearly no drag issue bars TEJAS from achieving mach 1.8 at altitudes. SEE all fighters like F-15,F-18 super hornet, F-16 ,mirages have the same corelation regardless of the wing shape or twr. It is a basic fact that a fighter with sea level top speed will achieve the corresponding high altitude speeds, however different wing shape, weight thrust, fuselage length may be there.


Then why are the sukhois too have the same specs -----mach-1.9 at altitudes and 1350 km/hr at sea level. any arguments? See the sukhoi with different wing combination and drag configuration which reaches 1350 km/hr(exactly same as tejas!!!!) achieves the same speed of mach 1.9 at altitudes like FA-18 SUPER HORNET. The tejas gets mach 1.8 at altitudes. Why is the difference of 0.1 . Simple folks the Tejas altitude cieling is 15 km and SUKHOI altitude cielling is 17.3 km. So speed varies exactly in the same way across every 1000 meter increse in altitude.


the mainstay of american navy super hornet FA-18 also manages 1.8mach at 40000 feet. It's sea level speed is 1.1 mach or 1350 km/hour at sea level.

SO TEJAS has no DRAG ISSUES at all.

Because the same wing shape , weight thrust, fuselage length that overcame the sea level drag to achieve a particular speed at sea level, will give only the exactly corresponding top speed at higher atmosphere where the only thing different is the lesser air density and lesser drag.


Most of the confusion takes place because tejas is still expanding it's flight envelope .Still with
F404-GE-IN20 engine 85 kn thrust it crossed 1350 km/hour at sea level. Then look at the potential when it will get a mid life upgrade with GTRE_SNECMA K-10 with close to 100 KN. GTRE_SNECMA K-10 will have the same external dimensions and weight , so the upgrade is a near certainty. So It will park TEJAS at the cutting edge of 4.5 gen fighters.


I want replies and clarifications from DEFCON1, SHIPONE AND P@PRADA in this matter. Please don't accuse me of shooting from some one else's shoulder or posting fanboy stuff. All four of us never personally sat in the cockpit of LCA tejas and checked it's top speed. So please co-operate.


Thanks
Mod: Post edited with spelling corrections

 

[ersakthivel]

P2PRADA

Also, the G limit and speed are not wrong. The max speed LCA has ever reached is Mach 1.4 and the current goal for FOC is 1.6. The maximum G limit LCA is expected to reach for IOC is 6G, but it wasn't achieved and are waiting for IOC-2. G limit for FOC is 8 and for all subsequent production models of Mk1.

Official AoA figure released was 16 degrees back in early 2011, the expected figure for IOC was supposed to be 22degrees. But this was supposed to be tested on LSP-6 which hasn't yet flown. LSP-6 was also supposed to test RAM, not a big deal. On the other hand, LSP-7 has already been flying. So, the AoA doubts persist and in case HAL does not finish LSP-6 in time then there would be more doubts on the IOC-2 function. Anyway by end 2011 ADA did mention that they have achieved a slightly higher figure for AoA.

Radar had a lot of issues, but it is not a problem anymore. We have a decent radar for the LCA. Rather you can say LRDE has been rather successful in many of their ventures. I think one can say Israeli companies as development partners helped.

So, as of 2011 FOC is expected in , but this was considering IOC-2 was achieved by mid 2012. Now I believe IOC-2 is only in Feb-March 2013.

There are two things that we can only speculate on though. One, that the LSP-6 was either rejected or pushed to the FOC timetable due to some trouble. If it was rejected then we can guess the 22deg AoA was achieved on other prototypes. Second, FOC may be achieved at the scheduled time if HAL pushes up production at extra costs. The current rate is 8/year, maybe 12/year would mean a faster FOC to compensate for the loss of 9 months. If not FOC may come only in early 2015.

Also, FOC comes with a lot of other hurdles to cross, opening up the flight profile to higher specs and integration of the BVR(Derby with perhaps the DASH IV). While the latter may not be a problem, the former has always been a big problem even for IOC.

I don't know if J-10 came with such troubles due to an equally long development cycle, but IAF wouldn't induct a half finished aircraft so easily when better options are availa

Whether LSp -6 tests Angle of attack or LSp-8 does that is not a great technical matter. AOA ,Life, drag,maximium speed,minimum speed the weight requirement to withstand 8G or 9G are calculaterr, analysed ,verified and consolidated at the design phase, NOT AT THE FLIGHT TESTING PHASE ,IOC PHASE OR FOC PHASE.

It is the opening of flight envelope of a digital quadreplex fly by wire software and validating the flight performance as per calculation that is done at testing ,IOC and FOC. Neither is the fighter half finished. it is only tested upto 75 percent of the flight envelope in IOC phase that's all. If the results are in accordance with the design parameters, nothing different will happen at further testing of flight envelope.

Only in further opening of this envelope 8Gs or 9Gs will be reached,and AOA of 24 degree or whatever deigned will be attained. All top speed manouvers at high altitude will be completed. The TYPHOON which has entered squadron sevice stii cannot do ground bombing. That does not mean design inadequacies, Simply it is yet to be configured and tested and validated in that role.I have supresssed my laugher many times when i read in many forums that typhoons cant do strike roles.

Also please note that even after entering squadron service the TYPHOONs have massive vibration issues and it 's top speed is restricted to 75 % of it's specs. But no one is crying hoarse over there. Because even though it is a pathetic mistake, It is not something that cannot be rectified. Just simply applying better build quality.


The LCA is the first modern figther that was entirely built as computer model ,analysed for drag, airflow,top speeeds, glimits in finite element analysis method. So no complications are expected.this software is now applied by all major aircraft makers across the globe as a standard international practice.

in testing process the actual performance of actuators hydraulics, fly by wire systems ,landing gear, OBORG ,missile release , air frame rigidity, Glimit stress on the aircraft are all vlidated step by step.

The final extreme G-limits and extreme high altitude extreme AOA manouver will be tested the last, That's all. if a ferrari makes a car for the first time to go past the 350 km per speed. They will be checing it for months at low speeds to confirm the structural rigidity. No foolish manage at ferrari would first ask the car to be driven at 350 km per hour with in aweek of testing.

reason is if there are structural failiures at lower speeds they will have to be found out and corrected, before going to a higher speed. Otherwise he will loss the prototype vehicles and rebuild it. think about the financial implications and damage to the reputation it will entail. Also think about the time wasted. Then in a sensitive fighter aircraft program if news flashes across the wworld that prototypes are crashing, think about the financial and time slippage implications in a complex fighter program.

Many J-10 prototypes crashed during flight testing. A senior airforce general was killed in 6th J-10 crah recenly that too in aconfidence inspiring flight. Only after much publicised funeral did the previous crashes came into limelight. The reason the J-10 is not an original chinese design. It was based on Isreali abandoned LAVI (F-16 variant with canards) design. That's what happens when you reverse engineer. Despite 100s of them inducted into chinese airforce there are still fly by wire issues with aircraft.

But that is not extra ordinary. Even a couple of sukhois crashed and we grounded the fleet to investigae thee mistake. Happens all the time, remember the vehicle recalls by almost all car majors. that doesnt mean tha t he cars aree duds at the first plcae.


Grippen had two crashes and the test pilot took premature retiremant.I dont mean to say they are inferior.If faster testing is done and mishaps occur people will shred ADA.By the way there are no guarenties in futute that an LCA wont crash in future during FOC teting. Just caution that's all,

if a rash high speed testing results in a destruction of an aircraft It will take year to rebuild it and retest it. How much will be the cost?


So inducting 40 LCAs now is the right thing to do rather than dangle death threats to 40 young IAF pilots whenever they enter into MIG-21. So much for people like ACM NAIK who worry about the well being of his force.

 

[ersakthivel]

P 2 PRADA Says
You must have read his posts already. Don't make the same mistake I made.

There were two specs available for LCA right after 2011. One was the specs originally meant for LCA with an empty weight of 5.5 tons, thrust of 80-85KN and a speed of Mach 1.8. The other was the actual specs achieved by ADA during the IOC function. The one on wiki is a mix of both the specs. The dimensions are correct for Mk1 while some of the performance figures are as planned for Mk2.

Wing loading is correct for Mk1 though, at 9.5 tons that is the figure we get. Original figure was 221Kg/m2. G limit, range and radius are for the 5.5t airframe.

Why shoud wiki mix up the stuff? Why cant knowledgable persons correct it? Are there any other source for this argument? the increase in empty weight only resulted in the decrease in its pay load from IAF specs. The top speed and high G specs are not for full payload configuration. No fighter can do it's advertised specs with top speed.

Go to any website they will say extreme specs are for just to 100 kg missiles and half fuel load.F-18 or F-16 or SUKHOI the norms are the same no differnt for LCA also.

Why dont you explain the significance of it's low wing loading figure? And how will it enhance it's combat performance vis a vis F-16, J-10, which all have a way higher wing loading?

Over himalayan theater the where LCA is going to meet them , They will be grasping for air in high altitudes with their way over the top wing loading. Dont expect any high STR performance or faster climbing manouvers from them to counter the LCA which with it's fabulous low wing loading will show off a consistent better performance throug h out the flight envelope.

Also since because of lower RCS the LCA will see the disasterous delta canard J-10s, and bulging F-16s (with thier worse RCS) way farther than they can detect them . Lock them .And shoot a long range BVR. Once a long RANGE BVR is fired the J-10s and F-16 s with thier massively inferior high wing loading and worse RCS have to jettison its missile and fuel and run back for any hope of survival.

If it comes to merge they can never hope to match the LCA's high alt performance Which is there by this fabulous low wing loading of LCA.

 

[ersakthivel]

Atta boy p2prada go boy go!

No operational fighters in this world can have excess of 24 or 28 degree practical AOA. All thes 100 degree AOA is wwind tunnel derived model's potential. In reality All modern deltas are fly by wire software limited AOA of 28 deg only. Even ADA has tested LCA with 50 degree AOA in wind tunnel. But to sustain that you shuold have a thrust vectoring and fly like a rocket. No manouvers can be done at this AOA. The purpose fo AOA is not to brag about. to manouver in a verticla plane. So when this purpose is not served and the air craft just flutters withut stalling it will take eons to recoup speed. In between time the chasing pilot can come around shoot you simply with cannon fire

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
Originally Posted by abirbec04
What does the IAF want is perhaps unclear to IAF themselves, otherwise they wouldn't get into the PAK FA project after seeing only one prototype so blindly. LCA Tejas has been dogged with unnecessary controversies and is being sold to a customer who clearly prefers foreign made fighters over indigenous development. I still don't understand one simple thing, why is GOI so happy to pay billions for any foreign designed aircraft but reluctant to pay more than a few millions for the development of our own programs.

Just how much does the Tejas cost? 150-200 crores a piece. Whats the problem in getting it in numbers?

If you see the other divisions of the armed forces, the Indian Army's wishlist for a new tank reads like a star wars kind of weapon. They stopped at putting wings on the tank. Complete BS. Both the IAF and the IA has been shifting goalpost so much that even if you manufacture the F-22 at home they would say its not upto the mark and find some fault out of it. IAF should be told in stricter terms, enough is enough, buy the Tejas and work with it - you are not going to get overhyped foreign toys spending tax-payers money just to feel good.

BS ........... BS ......... and more BS today from the IAF chief. At least on the day of the IOC, he should have kept his mouth shut and applauded the efforts of the scientists. But no, even today he has to speak about all the negatives. Then go fly the Mig-21s and keep flying them till the end of the 21st century. P.V. Naik maybe the IAF chief, but with the beer belly and unrefined mannerisms, he sure does not inspire any confidence in me. P.K. Barbora would have made a better Chief in my view.


Abirbec--- The IAF is very clear and has always been clear. Forget materials for construction,forget fly by wire forget aviaonics--lets take one simple parameter. THRUST. IAF always wanted 100+ KN thrust. Where is it getting it?? Now what do you do with a plane that after years and years of development neither has a AESA RADAR, EW suit,BVRAAM,and thrust. Now atleast one must be completely developed to instill confidence in the product. Plus of course several other parametrs have either not been met,or half tested plus some questions regarding design and airintakes itself.What about the speed. It hasn't and seems like cant exceed 1.3 mach(sourced from Tarmak007) So what do you do?? ADA says will develop in due course. When? This is something nobody can answer because we all have seen for ourselves the kind of delay. So where does that leave the IAF? keep waiting or go about their business by looking elsewhere? Do you agree they have a far more important job to do?

What does IAF plan to do with 100 kn thrust. There is no single engined aircraft in this world with 100 kn. We should send the IAF chief to mars for lookin at 100 kn single engined plane.

and 1.3 mach qoute is the joke of the year.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA Tejas (LCA) - III
This whole LCA saga is a typical example of piss poor Project Management.
I wish this LCA didn't exist and it was all a bad dream. But unfortunately it isn't. If only we had taken up the offer when the Russians offered to sell the sovereignty(yeah not just license they offered the Mig-21 completely for 800k or so!) of the Mig-21 back in the late 80s- early 90s, we wouldn't be in this mess, with falling force levels.

And I'd like to add that Mig-21 is the second best interceptor in our Airforce, the first one being the Mig-29. Yeah, MKI is bit slow to be an good interceptor. Anyone with little knowledge of India will knows that this is a big country and interceptors are the most important of all fighters to keep our airspace safe. Yet, this LCA, which is being touted as Mig-21 replacement, can't even reach speeds of MKI. The ACM knows this pretty well and the other handicaps of LCA(poor TWR, costly, dubious G tolerance etc etc) hence his displeasure with the LCA. During the 80s, the poor bastards in the IAF thought LCA would be like a mirage with it's delta wing(Yeah, French named their fighter Mirage due to its speed), but they had no idea of the incompetence of the ADA/HAL. Hiding behind the poor excuse that it is a state owned entity doesn't cut it! China's, heck even Russia's R & D industry is state owned. And we all know Russia's industry is anything but incompetent.

These are the specs of the mig-29

Specifications (MiG-29)



3-view drawing of MiG-29
Data from MiG specifications,[15] flymig.com[135]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 17.37 m (57 ft)
Wingspan: 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
Height: 4.73 m (15 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 38 m² (409 ft²)
Empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,250 lb)
Loaded weight: 15,300 kg (33,730 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 20,000 kg (44,100 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Klimov RD-33 afterburning turbofans, 8,300 kgf (81.4 kN, 18,300 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.25 (2,400 km/h, 1,490 mph) At low altitude: Mach 1.25 (1,500 km/h, 930 mph)
Range: 1,430 km (772 nmi, 888 mi) with maximum internal fuel[136]
Ferry range: 2,100 km (1,300 mi) with 1 drop tank
Service ceiling: 18,013 m (59,100 ft)
Rate of climb: initial 330 m/s average 109 m/s 0–6000 m[137] (65,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 442 kg/m² (82 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.08-1.1


The LCA is as close to it as it can get then what is piss poor project management?

It's sea level speed is 1350 km/h and twr is 1.07 ,wing loading is half of mig-29. The RCS is less than half of mig-29.

Is that piss poor for a first attepmt?

The poor bastards in IAF need not disappoint themselves. It is better than mirage as per all test pilot testimonials. And has a much better TWR. In fact save SUKHOI it is ass good as better of all other aircrafts in IAF.

want a sample

This is the specs of 100 odd jaguars of IAF.

Crew: One
Length: 16.83 m (55 ft 2½ in)
Wingspan: 8.68 m (28 ft 6 in)
Height: 4.89 m (16 ft 0½ in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Aspect ratio: 3.12:1
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Loaded weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,612 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 102 turbofans
Dry thrust: 22.75 kN (5,115 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 32.5 kN (7,305 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (1,699 km/h, 917 knots, 1,056 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Combat radius: 908 km (490 nmi, 564 mi) (lo-lo-lo, external fuel)
Ferry range: 3,524 km (1,902 nmi, 2,190 mi)
Service ceiling: 14,000 m[136] (45,900 ft)
Climb to 9,145 m (30,000 ft): 1 min 30 sec[136]
Armament
Guns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA cannons, 150 rounds/gun
Hardpoints: 5 total: 4× under-wing and 1× center-line pylon stations with a capacity of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets: 8× Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each
Missiles:
AS.37 Martel anti-radar missiles or

with 65 kn thrust and mammooth wing loading it is a museum piece dear. If you send them in as DPS in today's SAM saturated old ask the IAF chief to inform the pilot's family to arrange for funeral.If you send it against even Jf-17 you can give it a one way fuel load. Dont peddle stuff like it will have EEEEEEEEESSSSSSSCCCOOOORRRTTTTSSSSSS.
eSCORT SERVICE IS NOW ADVERTISED FOR BACHELORS IN newspapers only.

In the modern air warfare all aircrafts have to defend themselves. if you have any dobt see rafael specs.

LCa can do these jobs as good as any fighter currenly in IAF

With such piss poor aircraft under his belt ACM NAIK has the gal to denigrate LCA which is as good as MIG-29 has the smallest RCS and highest survivability rate, Has the lowest wing loading to climb and dive.

 

[p2prada]

Vice Chief of the Air Staff Air Marshal D.C. Kumaria, who was in Bangalore on Friday, said after an event that the IAF was tracking the progress of its projects closely. He visited HAL on Thursday evening. "There is much synergy today than there ever was."

He said the LCA was expected to get the FOC by early 2013 and the first squadron to be operational by the end of 2013.

The Hindu : News / National : Our activities are at full throttle, says HAL Chairman

Fake news or written by some dork.

Without BVR integration and a squadron induction there can be no FOC. Notice the article has no direct quote rather just paraphrased.

IOC has been divided into 2 and the next one will be the original IOC as specified by the "relaxed" Mk1 specifications.

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA is nowhere near the M2000. Anyway I would have agreed with you had we only inducted one squadron of LCA Mk1. But why the second?



Check the rest of the thread. You will get your answer. IAF wants MK2. Says Mk1 does not fit their requirements. This was made clear 2 years ago.



It's a 5ton aircraft. Where on earth does it even compare to anything, except the JF-17? Even Gripen is a complete platform. They had a flying prototype of the Gripen NG as far as in 2008. Our LCA Mk2 has not even gotten off the drawing board. What they had in 2010, we will have only in 2014. If we sign the MRCA deal in July, they will deliver by 2013.

The LCA Mk1 does not compare to any of the MRCA contenders in aerodynamics and engine power. It is technologically backwards compared to the MRCA contenders as well. What the MRCA is today the LCA will be in 2016(FOC of LCA Mk2). By 2016, we will already start working towards an upgrade plan for the MRCA fighters while we will be inducting the LCA Mk2.



Sure.



Oh! Gee. I did not know that.

Mk1 isn't what IAF requires. If this was the Mk2 it would have been a different story. IOC and FOC are for aircraft that fits needs. The LCA Mk1 is just to satisfy egos. A second squadron is a bit too much.



Ok. The LCA is an awesome aircraft with the best radar in the world. I guess I am no longer being silly.



Back up what. Just google it. A 20KW radar, 2 5KW jammers wouldn't need to be backed up.



The earth is round. Back that up for me and I will do the same. Mayawi isn't ready. It is cleared for use only after 2012.



You clearly haven't gone through the T-90 thread.

if the lowly 5 ton aircrft detects the 20 ton biggie with the help of indian AWACS(already 12 ordered) well before it is picked up by the biggie's radar and launches the long range BVR missile with target information sent by AWACS via data link to guide the missile the biggie has to jettison weapons and fuel and has to perform evasive manouvers only. The LCA cannot be detected by the biggie. The biggie or grippen cant jam the awacs radar however big their EW package is then what will be the outcome

Much worse even tha AWACS in biggie's attack team wont detect the LCA ,if LCA turns back after the missile is launched. Because Indian AWACS can pick up the biggie or grippen earlier than attacking AWACSS can pick up LCA flying low covering all its missiles under the wing with the lowest possible RCS other than stealth fighters.

How will the battle progress?

 

[ersakthivel]

its simply tiring waiting for the LSP -5 to take off and that too after a good 5 month delay. If everything thing that ADA does is going to be delayed like this heaven help us. I have always maintained Tejas was overweight. Imagine this is the scene with so much of composites which if hadn't been used the LCA would not even have taken off. If the weight reduction is achieved expeditiously I think the performance would be better with current engine itself. What a fictious name--Light combat aircraft!!! were the designers sleeping whilst designing? can't this have been rectified during the design stage itself? and Mark 2 will take another 10 years to be operational? Its simply ridiculous. If the agencies have some sense of urgency and focus which the chinese seem to display the whole thing can be overhauled in 3 years. But ADA? No sir!!! I feel India is wasting time on LCA. the file should be closed like Kaveri with Mark 1 considered as a technological demonstrator and please don't go on about how long it takes to design and fly a fighter jet. We have seen how long it takes around the world except India.

the composites are saving the IAF's ass not ADA's ass.the IAF specs called for mig-21 payload of 2 tons with empty weight of 5 tons.

The ALEXANDERS AND NAPOLEANS in IAF could not have the foresight to see that future of long range BVR is dawning and the primary interceptor load for which LCA is designed needs more than 2 ton weight with these new bulky missiles. Why? Because it is RUM which runs on the brains of IAF's ASQR forming division. Not blood.

Then they ran like school boys to ADA and asked for a weapon weight increase . If they have told that to DASSAULT or LM they would have been spanked in the ASS.But the poor AADAA with god sent help from composite materials managed the weight issue and contained it to 6.5 tons.

But GTRE never copped up with that. Because once basic metaullurgy of blades is finalised. They cant run to composites to help. They ended up achievin pretty much close to the 85 kn planned(75 kn as the present KAVERy has successfully achieved) and sank.


And the after the strategic relation ship with US started after nuclear test. The GE-engine saved LCA from the abyss.

Now tell me If bosses in IAF couldnot forsee the range of BVR will improve from 30 km to 130 km for 10 years from 1983 when LCA is proposed, to 1993 when actual funding started, then why they blame ADA now?


How many technically qualified doctorate holders were there in the ASQR dept of IAF. NOne. That's the problem

 

[p2prada]

Tejas - Feature - The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)

Yeah. This article was never posted here.

Anyway from the article,

The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec.

The figures in bold have exceeded by 1 ton.

Max speed of Mach 1.5.

The 'Achilles heel; in the successful development of the LCA, in the opinion of this author, is the Kaveri engine.

Pretty much the most important thing that killed the project.

In the late eighties India's aircraft Industry was not as advanced as Sweden's;

More or less the same even today. The Swedes are still ahead due to a very successful Gripen design.

The Gripen embodied a far higher percentage of foreign, off-the-shelf technology, including its RM-12 engine (improved GE F404).

Difference between promises and reality.

It took Gripen six and a half years from first flight (prototype) to entry into squadron. For the LCA, four and a half years is the target!

And what happened? ADA should have delivered in 2006, not in 2016(supposedly). There is no point in doubling and tripling Gripen's record.

The quantum of test flying hours required to attain Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) is about 2000 hours; an impossible task in four and a half years.

Obviously hit the nail on the head.

Depending on what is stated in the (updated) ASR, it could take two years and around 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to FOC.

Sridhar, if you are reading this, it will give you a clue on how much more time it will take to get to FOC. 1500 hours left after IOC.

Currently LCA is at 1950 test flights. After IOC in March, 1500 more to go. But this will be faster because there will more LSPs and production models. So, take that article with a pinch of salt.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

He said the LCA was expected to get the FOC by early 2013 and the first squadron to be operational by the end of 2013.

The Hindu : News / National : Our activities are at full throttle, says HAL Chairman

I have expectation in vayu shakti..

Needless to say there will be some new tests..

 

[ersakthivel]

Care to show me one official source that says J10 crashed during test flights? Why feast on gossips when Chengdu aircraft categorically denied that any J10 were lost prio to induction. J10 is now a fairly mature aircraft capable of carrying out all kinds missions. Agreed it may not be up to the latest standard of F16, but it can run circles around any aircraft currenty in the hands of te IAF, Mig29 and Mirage2000Hs included.

India's problem with LCA and other so-called indigenous projects is the utter lack of knowledge about aviation industry on every level, from aerodynamic design, to materials, to avionics, to manufacuring process. IN other words India is a complete amateur in the aviation world. The only 'success' stroy is the Dhruv, and that one has90 percent foreign content. Just give you an example to illustrate how far far far behind India is when it comes to aviation industry.

LCA made its first flight on Jan 4th, 2001, but it didn't not cross the sound barrier until Aug 1, 2003, 2 and half years later.

Now compare this with YF16 which became F16. Its first flight happend on Feb 2nd, 1974 (OK its actual first flight was 2 weeks earlier), it crossed the sound barrier just 3 days later. LCA, despite its 10+ year long history of testing, it can only be comapred to similar aircrafts 1 or max 2 years into test flight.

There is virtually no hope for LCA to ever become operational.

from wiki

Accidents and incidents

There have been four known crashes of the J-10 to date. The first crash was of a prototype combat aircraft during testing in 1998 with the most likely cause cited as failure of the fly-by-wire flight control system.[9]

China tries to hide J-10 fighter crashes

Gentle man go to google and type images for J-10 crashes you will find plenty.


It is a variation of F-16, WHich tou yourself admit.The F_16 failed in high altitude evaluation in indian MMRCA contest

specs for J-10

Crew: 1[12]
Length: 15.49 m (50.82 ft)
Wingspan: 9.75 m (31.99 ft)
Height: 5.43 m (17.81 ft)
Wing area: 33.1 m² (356.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 9,750 kg (21,495 lb[36])
Loaded weight: 13,000 kg (28,600 lb)
Useful load: 6,000 kg[36] (13,200lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,277 kg [12][36] (42,500 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A Taihang turbofan
Dry thrust: 79.43 kN / 89.17 kN (17,860 lbf / 20,050 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 122.5 kN[12] / 132 kN (27,557 lbf / 29,101 lbf)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude,[24][37] Mach 1.2 at sea level[7]
g-limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s², +290/-97 ft/s²[7])
Combat radius: 1,600 km (with air to air refueling), 550 km (without air to air refueling)[30][36] ()
Ferry range: 1,850 km[36] ()
Service ceiling: 18,000 m[36] (59,055 ft)
Wing loading: 381 kg/m² (78 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.96 (with AL-31); 1.017 (with WS-10A)
Armament
Guns: 1× 23mm twin-barrel cannon
Hardpoints: 11 in total (6× under-wing, 5× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 6,000 kg (13,228 lb) external fuel and ordnance[27]
Rockets: 90 mm unguided rocket pods

With the wingloading of 381 kg/sq meter and TWR of 0.96 it will run circles around LCA only on the Tarmac. In high altitude himalayan rarified ,less density airspace with that massive wing loading it has got next to nil chances against LCA. Why eventhough it has a big engine it has got 9.5 tons of empty weight to lug with little help from it's smaller wings.

And it will light up any radar networ like diwali fire cracher with its massive canards. so no hope of releasing its BVR first on LCA. The LCA with TWR of 1.07 wing loading of 280 kg/sq met and way lower RCS will lock and fire it's missiles first. With or without AWACS help. Since with such poor TWR it does not have enoug sparee power to lug a decent EW load . So even in a no AWACS one on one I doubt it has a chance

Indians do some original thinking. They dont reverse engineer like the chinese. That is the reason for J-10 crashes. And that's why every major aeronautical power lines upto partner india for technolgy collaboration. In 17 years(Normal for any modern digital fly by wire delta development like RAFAEl, Eurofighter) The ADAA has done as good as any one can do.


Care to explain the effects of CANARDS on the sealth of the J-20. It is the only stealth plane to have canards. Canards operating is a huge RCS penalty. Then why they go ahead with it. Rush , lack of original thinking that's all.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yeah. This article was never posted here.

Anyway from the article,



The figures in bold have exceeded by 1 ton.

Max speed of Mach 1.5.



Pretty much the most important thing that killed the project.



More or less the same even today. The Swedes are still ahead due to a very successful Gripen design.



Difference between promises and reality.



And what happened? ADA should have delivered in 2006, not in 2016(supposedly). There is no point in doubling and tripling Gripen's record.



Obviously hit the nail on the head.



Sridhar, if you are reading this, it will give you a clue on how much more time it will take to get to FOC. 1500 hours left after IOC.

Currently LCA is at 1950 test flights. After IOC in March, 1500 more to go. But this will be faster because there will more LSPs and production models. So, take that article with a pinch of salt.

well after all the posts that ADA website says the topspeed of 1.6 is only for CAS and the flight envelope is being slowly opened and its top speeds are yet to be validated,and not it's ultimate speed you are still at it.

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (English: Griffin) is a lightweight single-engine multirole fighter manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab. It was designed to replace the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen in the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet). The Gripen features delta wings and canards, as well as relaxed stability design and fly-by-wire technology. It is powered by the Volvo-Flygmotor RM12 engine, a derivative of General Electric F404, and has a top speed of Mach 2.
In 1979, the Swedish government began development studies for an aircraft capable of fighter, attack and reconnaissance missions to replace the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen. A new design from Saab was selected and developed as the JAS 39. Comparatively small relative to similar fighters, the Gripen has eight hardpoints allow it to carry various armaments and equipment, it is also fitted with a single Mauser BK-27 cannon.
Beset by early problems with its avionics during flight testing, during which a prototype was lost, the aircraft entered service in 1997. Saab has since cooperated with other aerospace companies in marketing the aircraft internationally, and has achieved moderate success in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia. More than 240 Gripens have been

count the years SAB took to operationalize grippen. And pray where it would have ended If SAF revised the ASQR to double the weapon load as IAAF did with ADA

Sweden first ordered the JAS 39 in 1982; this first order was named Batch One and consisted of 30 JAS 39A single-seaters.[16] The first Gripen was rolled out on 26 April 1987, marking Saab's 50th anniversary.[17] Originally planned to fly in 1987,[10] the first prototype (serial number 39-1) took its maiden flight on 9 December 1988 with pilot Stig Holmström at the controls.[9] During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft's avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design configuration.[9] On 2 February 1989, the problem was highlighted with the crash of the prototype while landing at Linköping;[9] Test pilot Lars Rådeström was able to walk away with only a broken arm. The cause of the crash was identified as pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), caused by problems to the FCS's pitch-control routine.[9]
To rectify the problem, major software improvements were made by Saab and US-based firm Calspan.[9] A modified Lockheed NT-33A was used in testing, flight testing resumed within 15 months following the accident.[9] The programme was again hindered when, on 8 August 1993, production aircraft 39102 was destroyed in an accident during an aerial display in Stockholm. Test pilot Rådeström lost control of the aircraft during a roll at low altitude, and the aircraft rapidly stalled, forcing him to eject.[9] The jet crashed on a small island near thousands of onlookers. Only one person was injured; a woman was hospitalized for three weeks for burns.[18] Saab later found the problem to be high amplification of the pilot's quick and significant stick command inputs.[9] The ensuing investigations and rectification of the flaws delayed test flying by several months, resuming in December 1993.[9]


Empire Test Pilots' School JAS 39B Gripen taxis after landing at RIAT 2008.
The first order also included an option for another 110, which became a firm order in June 1992.[16][19] Batch Two comprised of up of 96 one-seat JAS 39As and 14 two-seat JAS 39Bs.[16] The JAS 39B variant is 66 cm (26 in) longer than the JAS 39A to accomidate a second seat; this also necessitated deleting the built-in cannon and a reduced internal fuel capacity.[16] By April 1994, five prototype Gripens and two series-production aircraft were completed; the only major decision remaining was to select a beyond-visual-range missile (BVR).[20]

See atfter all for an assembled aircraft with parts from US and EU they coulnot even do fly by wire themselves.

 

[Defcon 1]

What is the meaning of balanced discussion gentleman? Posting bull shit with out any aerodynamic basics. It seems you haven't been to any serious forums where people discuss fact and figures in a gentlemanly manner quoting authentic sources and not contradicting themselves in subsequent posts and without using words like

1.dude
2.fanboy
3.fvk
4. grow brains
5. bullshit
6. you pulled this figure out of your ass.
7. kiddy argument

These and numerous other foul words spit out by P2Prada doesn't lead to enlightened discussions. I too resisted from using these kinds of words and other intemperate language at first. I did resist the temptation of using these words in the first few posts I made. But he grew even more belligerant later on. That's why I paid him back in his own coins.

If he has any arguments to make ask him to make it quietly, firmly, with authentic source. I am always ready to answer and accept my mistakes.

In no other forum you can get away with posting stuff without authetic source detail , and in no other forum you can get away with denigrating a source as authentic as wiki . In wiki no one can put wrong information because it can be edited by others with authentic correction. In a bracket above every figure numbers are maintained for checking. The site is full of authentic links.

I still have enough authuentic information to post. You just cannot say Lca is obsolete with one statement from God know's with what intention ACM naik.


If one cannot understand the meaning of IOC,Foc and the basics of flight envelope expanding testing process in between what can I do?.ADA clearly mentions flight envelope is being expanded. Once GE agreed for engine sales, The Lca has become a reality.

It's low wing loading,
TWR of 1.07,
cranked delta with wingroot twis tdesign,
reaching an AOA of 22 degree and still expanding
carbon composite airframe
And the sea level speed of 1350 km/hr over GOA carried in INDIAN EXPRESS national daily.
It directly translates to mach 1.9 at high altitude as good as any other fighter in IAF barring sukhoi

all make it a concrete reality


If P2PRADA says

that it can never mach 1.6 in high altitude.
And for LCA alone a sea level sped of 1.1 mach cant translate into 1.9 mach at High altitude while it can for other fighters
It's AOA is only 16 degree and can never exceed it
And LCA can never beat F-16.

all with out a single authentic source


How can you organize a informed well meaning authentic debates.

Since you are vouching for honesty in debate please post the shortcommings of LCA with sound and source quoting authentic arguments, I am looking forward to it.


THANKS

I don't understand why did you reply to it since my post was not directed towards you.

Secondly, wiki is not an authentic source. I don't know which to which forums have you been to, but wiki page for JF17 says blk II will have AESA, wiki page for sitara mentions operational capability by mid2011. I can pull out more if you want me to.

It is true that P2P forgoes some social niceties that we take for granted. If you feel offended, you are free to hit the report button.

For rest of your post, address it to P2P, not me.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't understand why did you reply to it since my post was not directed towards you.

Secondly, wiki is not an authentic source. I don't know which to which forums have you been to, but wiki page for JF17 says blk II will have AESA, wiki page for sitara mentions operational capability by mid2011. I can pull out more if you want me to.

It is true that P2P forgoes some social niceties that we take for granted. If you feel offended, you are free to hit the report button.

For rest of your post, address it to P2P, not me.

But how come the wiki specs for all other fighter aircrafts match with thier manufacturer's specs? You can check for your self and post if there are any differences. In wiki information is constantly updated, so if any faults are there it can be corrected. Also all major dailies in india carried the news item that LCA has crossed 1350 km per hour at sea level trials off goa. The air force officer who released this information is named as VERMA and it is an official press release.



Also as I have explained in previous posts it directly translates to mach 1.8 + at high altitudes as for every single fighter operating in the world.

I extensively quoted FA-18 hornet, Grippen, Mig-29 and even SUKHOI , they all have the same sea level speeds and correspondinghigh altutude speeds so there are no drag isssues that can crop up for LCA alone..

The ada website also clearly specifies that mach 1.6 is not ultimate top speed at high altitude and it is close air speed with a specific jotting of CAS besides mach 1.6

The close air support happens at typically lower altitude than it's service cielilng of 15 km. That's what ADA means by CAS speed.

At sea level LCA does 1350 km/hr i.e mach 1.1 like any modern twin or single engine fighter of any generation

At CAS level (way lower than its high altitude speeed cieling of 15 km) it does 1.6 as per ADA site.like any modern twin or single engine fighter of any generation.

Then why are people repeatedly discrediting that wiki lies agout LCA's top speed of mach !.8 at it's service cieling.

Nobody replies and still everyone says wiki lies ADA lies ERsakthivel lies . Then WHAT mate?

 

[p2prada]

It is true that P2P forgoes some social niceties that we take for granted.

There is a point beyond which BS claims get equally grandure responses, even after the said BS was explained away. The better option is to ignore.

Apart from that he cannot read what others wrote. So, no point discussing with such people. Shiphone identified that for the readers.

@Ersakthivel

Other than the fact that you made a lot of terrible mistakes for which I have no patience to correct, especially since I did correct some and you rejected them based on ignorance, there are two which I want to say are not my claims but a product of your hopeless comprehension of what others write.

One is about the Long range missile claim for LCA and J-20. As of today, the only long range missile that will see service in IAF is the K-100. It is 6m long and will do 300-400Km. It is to be equipped on the MKI. LCA won't carry it and neither will the J-20. Your comprehension level is so poor that you assumed I said it will be the J-20 which carries the K-100 and there is nothing I can say which can help you cure your reading inability.

Second, a mistake that you made again due to your comprehension level. The ADA website talks about a speed limit of mach 1.6. The CAS speed given is for the 1350Kmph value. At low altitudes that comes to Mach 1.1 and not Mach 1.6. Mach 1.6 relates to a speed of around 1700kmph at high altitudes.

Finally, I would like you to post links for 2 claims that you have constantly made. One is that LCA's initial payload was 2 tons and not 4 tons or today's 5 tons. The second is LCA's Mach 1.9 speed. It would be good of you to stop posting and bringing down the quality of the forum until you find the links supporting these two claims. If you are able to provide genuine links then I will agree to your PoV. How about that? :thumb:

Btw, I have only skimmed through most of your posts and may have missed any links you may have posted for the above claims you made. In case you did plz point them out.

 

[ersakthivel]

Also the grippen due to it's canard configuration can betray it's location to modern RADARs from longer distance. It wont have any high power EW suit to jam enemy RADARS and rely on AWACS in exactly the same way as LCA. But LCA has an advantage here due to much lower RCS it wont give away it's position to enemy RADARs. If it flies low hiding it's misssiles' radar reflection from AWAcs, Then the same result happens as J-10. The LCA will fire it's missiles first guided by AWACS data link which cannot be jammed byGRIPPEN's low powered suit however much people hype up it's man machine interface Video games cant beat aerodynamic and RCS in war.. So once missile warning lights blare It has to drop payloads and run for cover. It has to survive this scare to ever come back to fight a dogfight with LCA.

It's fly by wire software also limits it's AOA to 24 degrees or something near by. It has to override FCS to exceed that AOA. But close to stall speeds and no power to accelerate immmediately back to higher speeds it wont be of much help other than advertising the design feature of GRIPPEN.

That's why IAF rejected it saying it offers no improvement in performance over LCA. Oh I forgot to mention the NG thing. These upgrades will elevete it to LCA's mk-ii performance. And it will be done only if there are enough orders to support it. i.e if there are ignorant tax payers like you and me are ready to put the money in SAB's pocket with a huge order. Still it hasn't managed enough gullible foreign taxpayers money for NG. So beware.

 

[Defcon 1]

But how come the wiki specs for all other fighter aircrafts match with thier manufacturer's specs? You can check for your self and post if there are any differences. In wiki information is constantly updated, so if any faults are there it can be corrected. Also all major dailies in india carried the news item that LCA has crossed 1350 km per hour at sea level trials off goa. The air force officer who released this information is named as VERMA and it is an official press release.



Also as I have explained in previous posts it directly translates to mach 1.8 + at high altitudes as for every single fighter operating in the world.

I extensively quoted FA-18 hornet, Grippen, Mig-29 and even SUKHOI , they all have the same sea level speeds and correspondinghigh altutude speeds so there are no drag isssues that can crop up for LCA alone..

The ada website also clearly specifies that mach 1.6 is not ultimate top speed at high altitude and it is close air speed with a specific jotting of CAS besides mach 1.6

The close air support happens at typically lower altitude than it's service cielilng of 15 km. That's what ADA means by CAS speed.

At sea level LCA does 1350 km/hr i.e mach 1.1 like any modern twin or single engine fighter of any generation

At CAS level (way lower than its high altitude speeed cieling of 15 km) it does 1.6 as per ADA site.like any modern twin or single engine fighter of any generation.

Then why are people repeatedly discrediting that wiki lies agout LCA's top speed of mach !.8 at it's service cieling.

Nobody replies and still everyone says wiki lies ADA lies ERsakthivel lies . Then WHAT mate?

You guys can fight as much as you want, I don't care. I proved my point. Do me a favor. Don't reply to this post.

 

[ersakthivel]

IsleepWithRussianwhoresAndHateDRDOIAFofficer on April 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm said:
With apologies to my readers, I am letting this post stand as it is because it perhaps illustrates the attitudinal root of the problem we are in. Even the pseudo name chosen by the poseter is psychologically indicative – TKS:

This is what happens when a military guy writes on science & technology projects. Totally negative and depressed way of looking at things. If you are so depressed and angry with DRDO, then you should better join yourr daughter in USA. Why sit in INDIA and bark at those in DRDO who achieved even what General Electric can't in such short time. There is no country on earth which made and validated Kaveri's generation of engine concept in flight tests within just 20 years, a jump of 3 generation for a team of engineers doing their first attempt!

Aek thoo on IAF's mentality! The last thing INDIA needs are cynics and depressed lots like you who can write sh1t and throw blames on fellow institutions just because you were not selected to be part of the effort. Why you are jealous?

If you had been selected to join the team in 1989, result would have been same. You are not the most smart person on earth, believe me. First study a little on GE's engine design efforts and how many decades they took to arrive at 4th Generation engines(in flight tests, not paper) and then open your mouth. The IAF types like you with no experience of R&D lifecycle have this notion in their heads that someone can just look at an imported engine and copy all parts by just looking at it. Oh yea, if it was so simple, why there are only 3 countries on earth which are able to achieve successful air-borne flights of their 4th Generation aero-engine concept? Heck, even China had a readily available designs of RD-33 engine(which they purchased from Russia which Russia regrets today) and still after that chinese took 2 decades to come up with a "modification". Heck, and DRDO(GTRE) proved their engine design's success 3 years ago on Russian test-bed(they had proven it in 2005 but IAF lacked confidence and was scared to put their pilot in plane. And asked for proof on test-beds in Russia and that wasted another 4 years!). And now IAF suddenly changed requirements. I guess they were sleeping between 2000 and 2010, and suddenly when Kaveri succeeded, their commission agents woke up and said, "oh please"¦we don't want 80KN engine anymore. Please make a 95KN engine. Lets import in meanwhile". IAF blew it in 1980"²s with refusing to support the project properly by delaying files(which you are blaming on ministry and at same time you blame DRDO for everything so clearly commission agents in IAF were working in to delay LCA projects by delaying their interactions/posting officers to DRDO.) Stupid IAF(Imported Air Force).

No wonder you guys are so proud to keep that Queen's cross on your Flag and drink like retards most of your life(since wars are rare, and you guys rarely work like DRDO guys who study and work for whole life meticulously). You retards have this pathetic audacity to sit in chair and write shit in your pass time. ----ing Idiot, go wank in USA.

THIS IS ABOVE POST IS A COMMENT BY DRDO GUY WHEN AN AIRFORCE GUY CRITICIZED THE DELAYS IN TEJAS ,NOT MINE.