ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[EzioAltaïr]

I posted LCA's RCS info as compared to other aircraft. And I also posted two ways on how aircraft without internal bays can carry stealth optimised weapons, but dear Mr Biswas deleted it saying "Not a this vs that thread, Open another thread to do so.."

Just because it is claimed to have low RCS does not mean it has, what is universally defined as, "low" RCS.

LCA is a shining gold plated truck on a radar.

I can post that same thing again, but it will be deleted.

Post the data of the LCA, without the vs part then. I'm sure he has no problem with data regarding the LCA only. Or follow his advice and start a new vs thread.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

There are two kind of strike tactics for Aircrafts into enemy air-defense..

1. In an operation Even same kind of aircraft are given air-cover of same type of aircraft, 4xlca for PGM strike another 4xlca are above for the cover

2. Independent hit and run attacks which are done by single aircraft from a wing, using stealthy approach..

Some of these tactics are used very much in both 65 and 71 war, During Kargil Mirage were used for Bombing but MIG-29 were used to gave cover coz of there better BVR and maneuverability edge over Mirage..

In 65 independent bombing runs turned out to be a disaster right? We're 70% of the over-hyped Pakistani Air to Air kills against unescorted Vampires and Hunters? With stealth aircraft this would change.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In old days fighter have to rely on compas and a map and roads for directions, Not like today`s technology..

Stealth does not change things much, IR can still be detected, Sound can be heard, Visual is always, Just like any other..

Stealth Technology is improving so does counter stealth, It just Media shows mainly one side of the coin..

 

[EzioAltaïr]

A BVR fired from high altitude has a lot of potential energy and will be able to cover a lot of extra distance when mixed with both Kinetic and potential energy. Speed will be significantly less though. So, a missile at Mach 4 fired from high altitudes may reduce to Mach 2 at lower altitudes.

While advertised figures are a benchmark for different missiles, the advertised figures can be exceeded using superior platforms firing it. A R-77 fired by a fifth gen Aircraft will be far superior in kinetic energy compared to a R-77 fired from a MKI and so on. So, advertised figures are figures that are achieved when fired from subsonic speeds at medium to high altitude.

So, if you take a R-77 fired from 10000m and Mach 1.7, the missiles will far outrange the same missile fired from 1000m and Mach 0.8... and so on. Large air superiority fighters also have multiple altitudes and speeds compared to small fighters too. So, this gives the pilot more options in using tactics and achieving a better firing position.


Long range missiles like Aim-120D/RVV-BD/Aim-54 and Meteor work differently. Meteor claims similar ranges to current BVR missiles, but almost all of the flight is "powered" because of RAMJET propulsion and the speed does not reduce drastically due to air resistance. At long ranges modern conventional missiles follow a ballistic path to extend range. In this mode the missile has a higher potential energy and develops more kinetic energy as it travels towards gravity. Something similar when a BVR is fired from a high altitude to a target at a low altitude. You can say it is lobbed towards the target, the missile flies at very high altitudes, like 100000 feet when we are talking about Aim-54, no idea about others.

So, advertised figures change based on how the missile is used. You can even use missiles in dog fights. For eg: If we assume you cannot use your radar for some reason, you can use the missile seekers to lock on to the target before launch at ranges of 10-18Km on R-77. This is what Mig-21Bisons did against F-15s during CI-2004.

You can say advertised figures are mostly useless if you want to compare. A missile like a Aim-120C7 which claims to do 110Km will actually do near 160Km if fired from a high altitude. In practical situations pilots prefer firing their missiles from much smaller distances.

In relation to 5th gen aircraft, none of the above is possible against it because of low detection and tracking range. So, you can't lob a RVV-BD, when you can't see it. At closer ranges you will have a take a more direct heading instead and this reduces capability of the missile as compared to the ballistic path.



Opening weapons bays only provide detection and only for a very short interval, like 1 to 2 seconds. If you fire a missile at the target on detection then you are firing your missile blind. It is not a useful shot. You can use it as a tactical shot to keep the enemy occupied though, but only if you have enough number of missiles on you, that's why the need to have 6, 8, 10 or 12 BVR missiles on the aircraft. Lock is achieved only when the pilot is sure that he can fire the missile because all modern aircraft have indicators that warn about radar locks. So, before lock you need to track the target, that's not easy at all.

Detection is just a blip on the radar screen. It does not give any information.

Track is when you can follow that blip consistently. A lot of information is received and as the tracking signals provide more information you are even able to identify the target. Different modes generate different information signals like the harmonics from the compressor face of engines or the number of weapons carried along with the type. Radar can count the number of blades an aircraft has to identify what type the aircraft is. Detection is not enough to give this information.

Radar Lock is when you are ready to fire the BVR missile.

A detection in no way means a track, let alone a radar lock.



Not true. Or partially true. It is true that a 4th gen aircraft is cheaper and easier to make. But modern warfare is no longer about getting cheap things into the battlefield anymore, like it was in the past. There is a concerted effort by all countries to get the best of what's available into their forces regardless of how much it costs. Some countries are not so lucky, but some are. Countering the lucky ones like China is IAF's priority.

The kind of thinking where people believe they can afford 4 LCAs to the price of 1 fifth gen Aircraft is regressive and dangerous. Let's say the fifth gen Aircraft can always take out three LCAs but is always shot by the fourth LCA. Will you as a Commande accept it? Three of your pilots are dead, now what? Tomorrow 3 more pilots will join with 3 more LCAs, they will die while you take out the fifth gen Aircraft. This will go on and on. In the end your side lost 3 pilots to the cost of 1 enemy pilot. Or 300 pilots to the cost of 100 fifth gen Aircraft. In terms of statistics the material loss wa similar, 3 LCAs for 1 fifth gen Aircraft. Acceptable?

How's this as an example of the changes undergoing today?
Interview with Victor Mikhailovich Chepkin - Vayu Sena


A lot of gyan here.

Don't they normally advertise the maximum range of a missile? Are you sure the AMRAAM can score a kill 160km away? I thought that the range of 100km was found after stretching the thing to it's limits. And yeah, I know a pilot prefers to fire when he's close to merging, it won't make sense to waste all the missiles.

And I've read that a drawback of F-22 and F-35 is that they have only 2 hardpoints internally. These two carry upto 9000kgs, but since there's just 2 of 'em, they can't carry a huge number of missiles. Does that not mean that if they are needed for an Air to air fight, they'll have to completely compromise their RCS, by carrying external stores?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

In old days fighter have to rely on compas and a map and roads for directions, Not like today`s technology..

Stealth does not change things much, IR can still be detected, Sound can be heard, Visual is always, Just like any other..

Stealth Technology is improving so does counter stealth, It just Media shows mainly one side of the coin..

Suppose that someone makes a 6th Gen fighter, that's completely stealthy and can never be detected (I know it's impossible but just assume so), would that mean that we are going back to WW2 style fighting, where rockets mattered little, only guns did?

 

[p2prada]

Post the data of the LCA, without the vs part then. I'm sure he has no problem with data regarding the LCA only. Or follow his advice and start a new vs thread.

It's not hardcore data as such. There are articles on the internet which claim LCA's RCS is 1/3rd that of a Mirage-2000.

 

[p2prada]

Don't they normally advertise the maximum range of a missile?

Yeah. But advertisements don't mean anything. What people are really interested in are fuel capacity, thrust, seeker range and missile aerodynamics. Range is implied.

Are you sure the AMRAAM can score a kill 160km away? I thought that the range of 100km was found after stretching the thing to it's limits.

Advertised ranges do not cover supersonic launches, all subsonic launches.

And yeah, I know a pilot prefers to fire when he's close to merging, it won't make sense to waste all the missiles.

Not exactly merge, but NEZ or no escape zone. Just divide advertised ranges by half and you get the most comfortable ranges. For RVV-AE it is 30-40Km. For RVV-SD, Aim-120C5 to C7, it can be a little longer, say 60Km. For Meteor and Aim-120D, it can be a little more longer.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Yeah. But advertisements don't mean anything. What people are really interested in are fuel capacity, thrust, seeker range and missile aerodynamics. Range is implied.

Ok.

Advertised ranges do not cover supersonic launches, all subsonic launches.



Not exactly merge, but NEZ or no escape zone. Just divide advertised ranges by half and you get the most comfortable ranges. For RVV-AE it is 30-40Km. For RVV-SD, Aim-120C5 to C7, it can be a little longer, say 60Km. For Meteor and Aim-120D, it can be a little more longer.

Ok

 

[ersakthivel]

Don't they normally advertise the maximum range of a missile? Are you sure the AMRAAM can score a kill 160km away? I thought that the range of 100km was found after stretching the thing to it's limits. And yeah, I know a pilot prefers to fire when he's close to merging, it won't make sense to waste all the missiles

All these range of 120 kms are for targets heading straight without taking evasive actions and without knowing a missile is fired upon by them. AND LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST it is for targets that have no dedicated ew crafts accompanying them and targets that have next to nothiing for EW self protection suite.


Modern fighters like LCA can be equiped with more accurate ew suits that can make the surface emitor of any radar craft a target without even having the need to use their x band radar irrespective of the enemy is stealth or not. If used in combination with IRST carrying stealth ucavs , and too within the well defended airspace of india these 5th gen BVR kills of LCAs are all pipe dreams.

For example a bvr that has an advertised range of 120 km at high altitude for non evasive action taking enemy fighter and 30 kms for evasive action taking enemy fighter will have hardly

hardly range of 30 km a tlow altitude for non evasive action taking enemy fighter and 10 kms for evasive action taking enemy fighter will have hardly.That's what the bullshit is all about.

The above two figures too are for non ew capable enemy aircrafts not for LCA groups that can fly with dedicated ew crafts,these ew crafts can easily spoof the bvrs.and if sukhois are in these mixed group they can jam all link 16 emitors and receivers in the vicinity with the upcomming upgrades. Thses are based on experts like Dr.KARLO COPP's statements and articles from many magazines like vayu and others and reputed think tanks like RAND.

So any 5th gen eating all LCAs for breakfast and lunch from 120 kms away can happen only when some one has a round or two beers more in the bar.

And DRDO too is a master in ramjet propulsion. The akash missile unlike the patriots have power through out their flight.And future BVR s on LCA too can have ramjet propulsion.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Cannot say what 6th generation would do but certainly will have a edge over its predecessors..

At the end of the day one may have to fight with bare hands, If you read on Vietnam air-war ( Not TV ) on books, you will be more aware of value of guns..

would that mean that we are going back to WW2 style fighting, where rockets mattered little, only guns did?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Hybrid EL/M-2032 radar..

DRDO to co-operate with Israel Aerospace Industries to integrate a Hybrid version of the EL/M-2032 radar for use with Tejas.

EL/M-2032 air-to-air mode has a detection and tracking range of up to 150 km, the air-to-ground mode generates high resolution radar imagery of locations at up to 150 km, and air-to-sea mode can detect and classify naval targets at ranges of up to 300 km

Physical Characteristics
72-100 Kg depending on antenna size.
2-3 KVA. depending on Transmitter configuration.
Antenna Size: adapted to aircraft nose limitations

 

[ersakthivel]

Suppose that someone makes a 6th Gen fighter, that's completely stealthy and can never be detected (I know it's impossible but just assume so), would that mean that we are going back to WW2 style fighting, where rockets mattered little, only guns did?

There is no such thing called complete sealth.Detection technologies will always catch up with stealth technologies. In these days of anti satelite weapons which can track and kill a space craft thousands of kilometers away and anto ballistic missiles that can kill a ballistic missile with mach 10 or around speeds the word complete stealth is impossible.

with the comming of x band stealth of 5th gen VHF band radars are already and developed and deployed by russians along with SAMs and they are portable types that can be stowed away and deployed in 8 minutes
The X band short wave stealth5th gen fighters only defelects the radar waves from source of emission and towards other directions ,it does not absorbs all of them.Already research is underway ,and it is only a matter of time before multiple transmiters sending signals and the deflected radar waves of x band shortwave beams are picked up by other multiple receivers in the vicinity and triangulation methods will give away x-band steath to fourth gens like LCA.Then once again fighter performance will take precedence over stealth.

IRST field will also receive fundings and developments in this regard.

 

[p2prada]

Suppose that someone makes a 6th Gen fighter, that's completely stealthy and can never be detected (I know it's impossible but just assume so), would that mean that we are going back to WW2 style fighting, where rockets mattered little, only guns did?

There may never be such a thing as never detected. Radars and missiles will always try to keep up with stealth technology. In 20 or 30 years we may seen a new generation of radars that will reduce 5th Gen fighter to a bus on the screen.

5th Gen fighter is said to have a RCS the size of a metal marble. Now they are talking about designing an aircraft 10 times smaller than the size of a mosquito. So, stealth will try to stay ahead of the game as well.

Technology will evolve as it always has since a long time.

Anyway, even if we assume stealth is absolute invisibility to a radar, then guns won't be the only option. There are talks of directed energy weapons using high powered microwave frequencies which we may find useful for defensive operations and maybe also in close range dog fights. There may be new things that we haven't even heard of yet. Speculative but can be real.

 

[ersakthivel]

from-------http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

Dr.CARLo KOPP says,

It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions [2].

A lot of interesting news about BVR missile are in this site. You can compare them with what is stated by the makers of these missiles and draw your own conclusion.

 

[ersakthivel]

The Tejas Arrives"¦"¦ � TKS' Tales

some interesting back ground to tejas program, and how the ADA and IAF were in "deep co ordination from the begining."This article is an eye opener on how a project should not be handled. IAF deeply sceptical of ADA's ability to make the LCA and instead trying to bestow upon it the role of screw driver mechanics for improving existing crafts like mig-21 and delivering a presentation why DRDO will fail in this enterprise .

And why GTRE which never produced any single finished product(I dont understand what the author expects GTRE to produce before kaveri) and why it wont produce kaveri.And IAF refusing to set aside anything from it's budget for this R&D project.

And how ADA views IAF as guys with no comprehension in designing modern aircraft and the resulting distrust between them and IAF apathy to the project right from the start.

Even the SNECMA -GTRE negotiations are dragging on for 3 years.Even here IAF and GTRE are fighting over what should be done. Three years for finalizing specs of an engine that already dragged on for 17 years?

The tradition is still continuing ADA has still now released three different pictures for AMCA first a tail less delta strike and then after " CO ORDINATION" with IAF another raptor like figure, and now with "MORE CO ORDINATION WITH IAF" another FA-18 hornet like figure.

For the past 4 years people are saying AMCA project has started. Now still no consensus between ADA and IAF.first the RAPTOR like figure that claimed some 94% stealth. and it was hailed as a breakthrough, and after IAF insistence it has now been upgraded to 100% stealth and now a 100% claimed stealth with FA-18 like sketch.Only GOD knows when another "CO ORDINATION" will happen and another new mystic figure will emerge in next how many years.

This type of dragging should not be allowed.

But the problem is when tomorrow people start writing about AMCA, they will say the project started on 2007 and is dragging on for 30 years.

Some one should place the responsibiilty squarely on a co ordinating committee of experts between ADA and IAF to decide these specs with in a limited time frame and freeze it. Every member of the committee should hold doctorate in their respective fields. What is feasible and not feasible should be decided and delegated.

And whatever that cannot be produced independently should be identified at the earliest and jvs started at the earliest possible.IAF should not be allowed to change the requirements once specs are finalised. ADA should not be allowed to miss the deadline. IF ADA feels something is beyond it's capability it should identify it at the earliest and initiate jvs.It is better to build this AMCA as a jv with matured design houses like dassault and EADS if it is possible.

If everytime this sickening behaviour is allowed to continue we will always have platforms arriving late and not enjoying 40 years of relevant service life like the F-16 enjoyed.

A finished product should be at hand at a stipulated time. Nocreeping specs ,no missing deadlines. private players to be involved right from the design time.

And if you read the last post of vina you can very well understand how IAF and HAl wasted their time. She argues that IAF and HAL could easily have converted ajeet into a R&D project with composite wings and fly by wire controls and finished the CLAW job by 1985 itself.

Instead they were merrily doing screw driver jobs in their russian MIGs and passing it for Indigenous license production.The british and french used the jaguars and mirage-III for the same purpose and gained valuable experience.But no one in the IAF HAL combine did give it a thought.

 

[ersakthivel]

This is VINA's full post to TKS tales

Ok, let me flesh out what I am saying. The emerging technologies in the 70s and early 80s were crystal clear. FBW controls,digital avionics , glass cockpit, composite structures, new gen engines (F100) and finally new maintenance concepts (LRU,on condition etc).

The problem is that there was no vision or even interest at a fundamental strategic level at the IAF & HAL in terms of competency building! They couldn't care less. The focus was on importing designs and doing screw driver assembly and passing it off as "indigenous".

It could have been pretty easy to have an R&D project with say the Ajeet (which the HAL knew inside out) to have FBW controls, a composite wing and experimental avionics and you could have built that capability in the period 1975 to 1985! The Brits built their FBW competency by having a hold your breath, a JAGUAR (yes, the very same aircraft we are talking about) tweaked for relaxed stability with FBW. The French did the same with a Mirage III.. Yup the same kind used in the Arab-Isreali conflicts in the 60s!

Okay, the IAF had the Mig-21 since 69 or so. What have the done with it? The Chinese played with it intensely and have multiple versions including different wingforms and even one of their latest AJT is a Mig21 derivative. Why didn't India have a FBW version of the Mig-21 with side intakes and a good radar in the nose and a MIL-1533B bus flying in the 80s? After all, the likes of Prof Prodyut Das (he posted in response in his blog) claim the best substitute for a Mig-21 is another Mig-21 or something to that effect if I remember correctly. It would have been silly to do that in the late 80s, but eminently sensible in the 70s! So what stopped the IAF from doing it rather than continue producing some tired old incremental upgrades of Mig-21s until mid 80s .. Where is the Indian version of an FBW Jaguar ? You did help fix a big flaw in it at the HAL during the production run, you did the Darin upgrade which the others adopted.Why not the FBW ? That is because there was no "operational need" and as an organization you couldn't think ahead strategically.

IF that had been done , you could have entered the LCA project with a solid industrial and technical base to do it and you wouldn't have seen the kind of slippages we had.

In the absence that and because of the lost decades of the 60s , 70s and early 80s, we had to start from scratch. The LCA is really some 4/5 projects rolled into one ..FBW, Composites, Avionics, Radar, Engine and maybe Electronic Warfare. Each of which in normal circumstances would have been researched, developed, proven and tested separately! Each of those is a separate 5 to 10 year project at least. The FBW, composites,mission avionics, and electronic warfare are successes , while the Radar and Engine are partially successful (HAL should never have been given the radar responsibility) and GTRE against all odds for a project as complex as the airframe itself has a working engine! All in all quite good.

I really have little patience with the service folks who sat on their backsides in the period 60s to 80s and for whatever reasons dropped the ball, to come back and dump on the LCA and other projects (like Arjun) for slipping timelines and "bad project management" and this and that and claim these are "R&D" projects and are not "operationally oriented" . Of course, there will be a big R&D phase because YOU dropped the ball there because you couldn't think strategically as an organization, and when it came to even "operational oriented" stuff of making it into a fighter out of a prototype, dropped the ball again by totally neglecting it and going comatose!

And no it is not just the LCA alone . Think of all the whining about the lack of an AJT and the how many decades (was it 25 years ?) and pilots lost before we got the Hawk! Well, we did have the "earlier Hawk" called the "Folland Gnat" in service for donkey's years. That was originally designed and used as a trainer! What stopped the IAF from asking HAL to not close the Ajeet assembly line, enhance whatever was needed to bring it upto scratch as a modern day trainer and maybe if it made sense at all, even put the Adour from the Jaguar into an enhanced version and presto, you would have had an "Indian Hawk" . Nope.. It was all about.. Oh, the Govt /Babus aren't giving us money to buy an AJT and you waited 3 decades for it to finally come through!

The less said about the HPT-32 and the HTT-40 fiascoes the better! There we are in the market again, trying to buy a turbo prop trainer in 2012! The IAF and the Army lost the ability to think beyond importing platforms and screw driver assembly and marginal tinkering.

For all the alphabet soup of acronyms of the folks in Army and Air Force who are supposed to look ahead and do planning and requirements and that sort of thing, the performance has been simply breathtakingly pathetic. The only thing they seem to have done in most part is to be reactive in saying.. Oh. Adversary govt platform X, we need to buy platform Y to counter it .

The Navy was the exception. No wonder the Navy today has a home built Nuke Submarine, while the Airforce is importing an ab-initio trainer and the Army is importing Tatra Trucks (and cant even put the steering column in the correct place for our roads), while ironically we have a very strong domestic truck industry that is pretty competitive with anything anywhere! There is a point in that, I am sure.

 

[ersakthivel]

The above post says so much about the "TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE" of IAF and ARMY. A man like V.K.Singh was driven out from the army before an year just because he could not sign the wasteful import of TATRA truck. After manufacturing nuclear subs and CHANDRYANS to moon we cannot manufacture a truck.Incidentaly the MAHINDRAs are the world's no-3 or 4 in tractors. ANd TATAs and ashok leyland are among the top 10 truck makers of the world.

Lining money with commission from foriegn imports is the top most priority of many decision makers in MOD. Otherwise INDIA could be exporting 1000s of TATRAs every year. Same with the ARJUN and LCA, army blithely saying it does not have the infrastructure for 60 ton ARJUN after 30 years.IAF and HAL not even producing a turboprop or jet trainer like HAWk (the ignonimity of importing PLIATUS )and spewing venom on CVRDE and ADA is utterly shameful.

Compare that with navy they readily provided 400 crores for ADA to NLCA even though its usefulness to navy is less than that of IAF.The navy has a commited team of naval architects and even issue full drawing of ships to shipyards.The L&T has completed welding the hull of INS ARIHANT, and it is setting up separate shipyard in expectation of NAVy's orders.

But our napolenas and ALEXANDERS in army are importing T-90s that were junked by RUSSIANS themselves while not building infrastructure for ARJUN.
and importing TATRA trucks while TATAs and MAHINDRAS if asked properly would have given 100% indigenous product and the country would have exported them in thousands.Now our glorious army guys have given a weight limit of 55 ton for the future FMBT and even after a full year yet to give any detailed specs.

OuR air aces in IAF are even more glorified. The IAF /HAL combine is importing turbo props and HAWKS,while ISRO is launching chandryans to moon.After "LICENSED INDIGENOUS PRODUCTION " of MIG_29s and SuKHOIS and MIG-21s they cannot put their head together and produce a trainer like HAWK, or turbo prop like PLIATUS.WHat did they learn in these 50 years of license production of all teh leading russian earbirds. It is because of their lack of innovation ADA has so much friction with them.

The IAF could have set aside some money from it's budget tand co ordinated with MOD and HAL for designing something like a HAWk or PLIATUS.But why care about these mundane thing.But they have the guts to put spanner in the works of GTRE-SNECMA and send their seond or third ASR to ADA for AMCA. If at all they have co ordinated and produced anything with HAL before they could have co ordinate with ADA much better.

How visionary are they. But they can show their bee stung face to ADA for pushing TEJAS atleast this much. and denigrating as mig-21++. Now the IAF is at it's game once again they have sent their second modified ASR to ADA for AMCA within three years.

If it is not for ADA all our designers would still be screw driver mechanics for IAF/HAL combine. That's why there is so much intense criticism of TEJAS from very senior IAF brass. They simply don't understand the country's technology level and don't want to co ordinate with local talent and soil their hands.

 

[pankaj nema]

@ Ersakhtivel

Mate India's technology level being where it is ,it will take TIME to rise ; we should have no doubt about it

And having read Madam Vina's posts in TKS tales and BR ;I can say that she is far too over optimistic
about what India could have achieved in the Sixties and Seventies

And similarly folks here in DFI are too negative about the LCA as you have seen

But given the status of LCA mk 1 all the critics of LCA can continue to crow for the next three years

This oppurtunity has been given by ADA itself what can we do about it

Unless ADA really delivers the supporters of LCA like you and me cannot say much in its defence

 

[ersakthivel]

@ Ersakhtivel

Mate India's technology level being where it is ,it will take TIME to rise ; we should have no doubt about it

And having read Madam Vina's posts in TKS tales and BR ;I can say that she is far too over optimistic
about what India could have achieved in the Sixties and Seventies

And similarly folks here in DFI are too negative about the LCA as you have seen

But given the status of LCA mk 1 all the critics of LCA can continue to crow for the next three years

This opurtunity has been given by ADA itself what can we do about it

Unless ADA really delivers the supporters of LCA like you and me cannot say much in its defence

The russians got their hands on one ROLLSROYCE jet engine from the british after world war now they are near the SATURN specs.They were no visionaries before in jet engine tech.

The HAL got a mig-21 engine on 1970s, 40 years passed, where are we standing? Sure all folks at HAL are engineers,but do you think they are so dumb that they could not achieve even 50% of what russians achieved? No the problem is lack of visionary leadership.Same people who are picked up and grouped on ADA have delivered on LCA to this level. That is why the 70s and 80s are called wasted decades

After license producing MIGs and SUKHOIS the HAL has not constituted a design dept worthy of designing turbo prop trainers and we are begging for PLIATUS trainer, and begging the british for hawks. The truth is after the MARUT was dropped for want of a suitable engine,no one in IAF and HAL camp did not try to do anything worthwhile defining a project setting goals, allocating funds and cultivating designers.

THE BARC,DRDO missile division and ISRO and nuclear submarine builders have achieved so much, then why IAF/HAL failed to combine for a trainer? With this abysmal credentials why are many influential sections of IAF and sections of media are running like a blood hound chasing ADA.One airforce retired person writes an article calling LCA three legged CHEETAH, and ACM calls it a MIG-21++ at IOC, and later sheepishly clarifies it will become fourth gen after FOC, as if some valuable contributions from him will help it towards that end.

And people go to SAB and gawk at grippen and enjoy joyrides, why all these worthy seniors failed yo institute a design team with 50 phd holders with in the IAF itself and co ordinated with so many engineers in HAL to come up with a decent turboprop?

 

[SATISH]

The russians got their hands on one ROLLSROYCE jet engine from the british after world war now they are near the SATURN specs.They were no visionaries before in jet engine tech.

The HAL got a mig-21 engine on 1970s, 40 years passed, where are we standing? Sure all folks at HAL are engineers,but do you think they are so dumb that they could not achieve even 50% of what russians achieved? No the problem is lack of visionary leadership.Same people who are picked up and grouped on ADA have delivered on LCA to this level. That is why the 70s and 80s are called wasted decades

After license producing MIGs and SUKHOIS the HAL has not constituted a design dept worthy of designing turbo prop trainers and we are begging for PLIATUS trainer, and begging the british for hawks. The truth is after the MARUT was dropped for want of a suitable engine,no one in IAF and HAL camp did not try to do anything worthwhile defining a project setting goals, allocating funds and cultivating designers.

THE BARC,DRDO missile division and ISRO and nuclear submarine builders have achieved so much, then why IAF/HAL failed to combine for a trainer? With this abysmal credentials why are many influential sections of IAF and sections of media are running like a blood hound chasing ADA.One airforce retired person writes an article calling LCA three legged CHEETAH, and ACM calls it a MIG-21++ at IOC, and later sheepishly clarifies it will become fourth gen after FOC, as if some valuable contributions from him will help it towards that end.

And people go to SAB and gawk at grippen and enjoy joyrides, why all these worthy seniors failed yo institute a design team with 50 phd holders with in the IAF itself and co ordinated with so many engineers in HAL to come up with a decent turboprop?

Well you underestimate the Russians in the field of engine technology and aerodynamics. Lyulka had started building the jet engine as late as 1944 but the problem was he wasn;t funded much because the Russians were more interested in rocket propulsion as it had more power and thrust. They were making ramjet engines even before the ME 262 arrived. After World War II the brits and Soviets had cordial relationships and so the Brits transferred a few Rolls Royce engines for the MiG 15 but the main problems faced by the Russians was to know the alloys of the core which they got through espionage...remember to read the story of the russian spy shoe.

Where did we go wrong when we are making MiG 21s for decades along with Jaguar and then Sukhoi but cannot acheive anything in LCA? Poor management and allocation of work load.

for example the IAF was never interested in overseeing the work of the LCA development and joined in only after the first flight. GTRE was not the right choice for engine design but HAL because they have seen more engines in their time compared to the GTRE. And GTRE;s scientists had an ego larger than this universe that they never consulted the HAL. Above all ADA never had the experience to design a 4th gen fighter aircraft but still wanted to go alone. We had a lot of spin offs because of that but we ended up with an unsatisfactory product which can be called as a third generation aerodynamic design with a 4.5 generation airframe materials and a third gen radar.

The LCA has lost relevance for the IAF but may be a great stepping stone for the navy as the Naval aviation wing is going to enter a new phase from now on.