ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

The united states has got into a habit post the vietnam war to indulge in excessive costs.
And why shouldn't they, they have a government strongly backed by the arms lobby.
Tyranny is the everywhere.
Only difference is that the USA will field in costly and quality weapons as "there is a cost of freedom and gain to capitalism"

You are headed towards philosophy.

In USA , a plan for low cost aircraft and an other related to the scramjet engine proposal ( think so its the hyperplane ) was dumped into dustbin.

The last time US planned for a low cost aircraft was in the 3rd generation segment called the F-5. The Russians planned for a similar aircraft called Mig-33, but it never took off. Light aircraft requirement was dumped in the dustbin before F-16C flew.

Both countries are spending a lot of money on scramjet.

Indians seeing some sense in them has taken it from there and am I am sure will implement it to "textbook perfection".

???

In USA , there was a person who designed a light weight and equally capable aircraft as that of F16, however , since it would be unprofitable to some, it was carefully ignored. You can draw parallel with the IAF lobbyst of foreign maal.

You will have to post real information regarding this.

Each F-22 a/c will cost to 1 billion dollars and USA themselves cannot afford it.You might have read that the F-22 future development has not been encouraged.

That's nonsense. F-22 future development is already happening.
Lockheed awarded $6.9 billion F-22 upgrade contract

If the cost of the LCA goes up, "then whats the problem ?". I dont see any problem. As long as its ours, its all right. Far greater amount is looted by criminals in the parliament from the government exchequer. And as a nation , we have grown to mature economically, that a few 1000 crore will not render us poor . Far greater amount is spent on bad quality hardware for the armed forces.

Lol. That's not how things work. If LCA gets more and more expensive then there is lesser incentive to even induct it. Think about it, if the US could cut down on a hyper plane like F-22, then what's LCA.

India needs the LCA , no doubt about it. After all its our own.

IAF currently needs LCA, but it is not because of what you think.

As a remote possibility, just consider this. If N-LCA proves itself every bit worthy in the coming 5 years, I am sure the USA will be interested in it. If not, we have the middle east countries who will be, as they are forced in some way to purchase USA hardware. Vietnam, equador and indonesia will follow suit as they dont like the chinese.

N-LCA is a worthless waste of time in the operational sense. That's one reason why the lone prototype has stopped flying since a long time. USN is more interested in their SH and then the follow on 6th gen replacement. Actually, they are not even interested in the F-35. That's one reason for their very small F-35 orders of 260 when they have over 500 aircraft to replace in the next decade and another 500 in the decade after that.

If I were the finance minister of India or the heavy industries minister, I would poke my nose into project and finance it with time pressure management.

That's not how it works. LCA project has more than ample amount of money. What you need are more scientists and technicians capable of fixing LCA's issues and delivering the aircraft in time. As a minister, you can poke and prod as long as you want, but bureaucracy still wins.

Long live Tejas.

Quite literally, it has already lived more than 75% of its life. They should actually have been upgrading the LCA now, rather than still talking about inducting it. Heck, they should have started discussions on a LCA replacement today.

 

[p2prada]

We cannot compare ourselves to USAF. World of difference in budget.

Why? The PAKFA/FGFA is expected to surpass both the F-22 and the F-35 and we are already part of this program.

Also the VVS has a huge expanse of land to cover unlike us. So they need these long ranged very quick interceptors . That's the reason they have got serious speed.

That's not the only aspect. They needed aircraft that could chase other aircraft that are really, really big, really, really fast and fly really, really high. That's why they needed equivalent aircraft to do what recon aircraft could do. But then they also needed really, really high endurance aircraft to catch really, really slow but really, really, really high endurance aircraft like AWACS, tankers etc.

This is a requirement we will need going forward because the enemy will have such aircraft. So the LCA won't simply cut it. You can't look at what the LCA can do vis a vis other aircraft in the next 10 years. LCA is plenty for that. What we need are aircraft that can go above and beyond what current modern aircraft can do. That's 20 or even 30 years down the line.

Putin has given a huge share of the GDP for militiary purposes which our common public won't justify and rightly so.

Is that why we have much larger defence projects compared to Russia?

And don't interceptors work in small groups? If so do you think we can always have 2 to 3 mki from each squadron constantly in the air for 4 hours.

Actually much more. Our military traffic is many times larger than civilian air traffic in Indian air space.

Also we don't need 2 or 3 MKIs from every squadron. It doesn't work as simple as that simply because the MKI has such a humongous range advantage. LCA is effective only at a range of 300 Km from base. MKI is effective 1000 Km from base. The MKI can refuel mid air any time over Madhya Pradesh while the refueler has to travel to the location of the LCA in order to refuel it.

Also, we don't know the operational scramble time of the MKI. For all we know, the Russians could have one-upped even the Mig-21 with the Flanker. So there is a chance the MKI may have a very small scramble time as well. This is determined by different QRA times and is simply an internal matter.

Also i have a doubt. Do these mkis on their regular sorties stay up for 4 hours? The lca turns out costlier only if you take in them operating for the same time as mkis which won't be the case in real life. We can't make the lca do 6 sorties for every sortie done by the mki

During wartime, aircraft will have to be able to conduct multiple sorties in a single day. During peacetime, not so much. So operational needs will be different at different times. But during peacetime MKI pilots fly more than LCA pilots will. It could even be twice as much as LCA type fighters.

The thing is since 1999 to mid 2000s, there was a paradigm shift in IAF perception of using light aircraft and heavy aircraft. Back in 1999 (Kargil) are earlier, IAF thought of single engined light fighters as the mainstay of the force until the MKIs were inducted in full force. Before that, the MKIs were looked down upon as a white elephant. A lot of pilots thought they were making a mistake buying the aircraft. Once unit feedback started coming in from MKI pilots, the IAF simply decided to junk all light fighter programs except for the LCA. Once they realized and put to use the capabilities of the MKI, the light fighter completely left the minds of IAF planners. They wanted large and heavier aircraft now. That's among the reasons why IAF cancelled Qatar and French discussions for Mirage-2000, cut down LCA requirement from huge numbers like 300, 400 or 600 and reduced it to 6 squadrons or 120, killed F-16B52 and Mirage-2000 from MRCA deal, started a 6 squadron deal for strike optimized fighters like Rafale in MRCA-2 and got into a 200+ aircraft project for FGFA and pushing the MKI numbers to nearly 300.

In time, VVS followed by IAF will have the most lopsided heavy-light ratio in the world. VVS will most probably only comprise of heavy aircraft while more than 70% of IAF will be heavy aircraft. PLAAF will follow suit with a 50-50 mix of Flankers and J-10s.

If you say an aircraft like Rafale and above is also counted among the heavies, then IAF will be the only top-of-the-line modern air force with light fighters like LCA, only because LCA is apparently our "own."

 

[Decklander]

Pak-Fa/FGFA is probably not meeting its targets and also not likely in the near future. I am basing my assumption on two factors, one that russians are still far from the desired engine tech and second, they have decided to make Pak-fa fly at 75k ft and provide the pilot a completely pressurised flying suit. This apparantly means that Pak-Fa is likely to use min reheat to cruise at 75k ft just the way Mig-25 used to cruise. Only diff is that Pak-Fa will have better turn capability due to TVC compared with Mig-25 at that altitude.

 

[p2prada]

Pak-Fa/FGFA is probably not meeting its targets and also not likely in the near future. I am basing my assumption on two factors, one that russians are still far from the desired engine tech and second, they have decided to make Pak-fa fly at 75k ft and provide the pilot a completely pressurised flying suit. This apparantly means that Pak-Fa is likely to use min reheat to cruise at 75k ft just the way Mig-25 used to cruise. Only diff is that Pak-Fa will have better turn capability due to TVC compared with Mig-25 at that altitude.

If you look at the latest reports, according to the Russians all parameters have been surpassed, not just meeting targets. Even supercruise target of Mach 1.5 with 117 engine has been surpassed. 3 weapon types are ready too, ARM, AShM, 250 Kg LGB.

Again official news, the stage 2 engine has surpassed expectations. Even though there was a delay of one year, bench tests will be conducted in 2015 and flight tests in 2017.

The second point you made, I don't know if that is bad. 75k feet capability without all the glitches the Mig-25 had is a good thing.

 

[CuriousBen]

You are headed towards philosophy.



The last time US planned for a low cost aircraft was in the 3rd generation segment called the F-5. The Russians planned for a similar aircraft called Mig-33, but it never took off. Light aircraft requirement was dumped in the dustbin before F-16C flew.

Both countries are spending a lot of money on scramjet.



???



You will have to post real information regarding this.



That's nonsense. F-22 future development is already happening.
Lockheed awarded $6.9 billion F-22 upgrade contract



Lol. That's not how things work. If LCA gets more and more expensive then there is lesser incentive to even induct it. Think about it, if the US could cut down on a hyper plane like F-22, then what's LCA.



IAF currently needs LCA, but it is not because of what you think.



N-LCA is a worthless waste of time in the operational sense. That's one reason why the lone prototype has stopped flying since a long time. USN is more interested in their SH and then the follow on 6th gen replacement. Actually, they are not even interested in the F-35. That's one reason for their very small F-35 orders of 260 when they have over 500 aircraft to replace in the next decade and another 500 in the decade after that.



That's not how it works. LCA project has more than ample amount of money. What you need are more scientists and technicians capable of fixing LCA's issues and delivering the aircraft in time. As a minister, you can poke and prod as long as you want, but bureaucracy still wins.



Quite literally, it has already lived more than 75% of its life. They should actually have been upgrading the LCA now, rather than still talking about inducting it. Heck, they should have started discussions on a LCA replacement today.

With all due respect to me Mr p2prada, I think you hate the indigenous effort of the tejas and perhaps seem committed against it.
Its evident in most of the threads that don't have a cent of appreciation for Tejas. I wonder why would that be ?
Would your motto be long live the foreign maal and hundred of crores to the agent mafia ?


For a change let me ask you this. I am not an expert as you are ,but name any 1 thing you like about tejas ? My guess it perhaps there is nothing you would appreciate.

And long live yes, I do maintain it. Maybe its khaadi for you, but somewhere it has to start rolling soon. And refinements do come and will come sooner.

Wait till the product speaks for itself in the near future ( lets say - max 3 years ).

 

[bose]

With all due respect to me Mr p2prada, I think you hate the indigenous effort of the tejas and perhaps seem committed against it.
Its evident in most of the threads that don't have a cent of appreciation for Tejas. I wonder why would that be ?
Would your motto be long live the foreign maal and hundred of crores to the agent mafia ?


For a change let me ask you this. I am not an expert as you are ,but name any 1 thing you like about tejas ? My guess it perhaps there is nothing you would appreciate.

And long live yes, I do maintain it. Maybe its khaadi for you, but somewhere it has to start rolling soon. And refinements do come and will come sooner.

Wait till the product speaks for itself in the near future ( lets say - max 3 years ).

Me too not an expert, but my common sense tells me that one have to start somewhere... and one have to be brave enough to learn from mistakes and not commit them again as we learn and go forward... India is also learning the hard way and spending hard earned money"¦ India has taken the right decision to go the indigenous way and have to endure the pain no escape from that"¦

We have some know all experts here who start comparing India with USA, France, Russia and what not but intentionally forgetting that those countries reached to this place / achievements after 100 years of learning on flying machines and spending billions of dollars"¦

India has to seriously get rid of these worshipers of import all, mark my words these peoples will have nowhere to go after ten years"¦ that is for sure"¦

 

[p2prada]

With all due respect to me Mr p2prada, I think you hate the indigenous effort of the tejas and perhaps seem committed against it.

If you talk bad about UPA-2, will that make you hate the country? If you talk bad about govt policies like the Food Bill and inaction on Lokpal Bill, does that make you any less patriotic?

The only difference is I know the inadequacies of the LCA and can voice my disaffection after having followed the program for a long time. I have been hearing about IOC since 2004. For you it must have been more recent.

For me, DRDO is a bureaucratic mess like any other, be it the passport office, food office or the any other govt owned entity. They talk a lot, deliver little, as has been the case since years. What makes you think they are above criticism?

Its evident in most of the threads that don't have a cent of appreciation for Tejas. I wonder why would that be ?

Yes, I wonder why. Time for you to look deeper and see where the problems are.

Would your motto be long live the foreign maal and hundred of crores to the agent mafia ?

Not one member I have discussed with has ever answered this, maybe you will be the first. List out the names of all the branded electronic and home appliance equipment you use, even your vehicles. Let's just see how "Indian" you are. Just so you know, pretty much every brand of electronics you use at home has a desi equivalent. So what do you say? Will you answer this question?

Heck I am willing to bet a million bucks the computer you are using is not from HCL. It will be "foreign maal" only, worse still "Made in China."

Maybe your motto is already long live foreign maal and tens of thousands of crores to the agent mafia.

For a change let me ask you this. I am not an expert as you are ,but name any 1 thing you like about tejas ? My guess it perhaps there is nothing you would appreciate.

Composites (except the radome, they effed it up), the current engine, the new EW system. Of course, the engine is foreign, but that's something else. The ejection seat, but that's foreign. HMS, but that's foreign. Air to air missiles, but that's foreign too.

And long live yes, I do maintain it. Maybe its khaadi for you, but somewhere it has to start rolling soon. And refinements do come and will come sooner.

Oh, yeah? Say that after your country has been invaded and LCAs are nowhere to be found. Only your so called "foreign maal" will come to your rescue before "agent mafia" helps with diplomatic support. We have won all our previous wars with "foreign maal" only.

Wait till the product speaks for itself in the near future ( lets say - max 3 years ).

Three years. Right. Try seven. Even if the best of the best thing happens and in the coming years Mk1 is ready with FOC, it will be less capable than a F-16 Block 30 that came out in the 80s, that's inferior to the PAF F-16 MLUs. So I already know how much it is going to "speak for itself" even today.

There is a reason why IAF has ordered only 40 and will be using it as a trainer for the rest of its life.

Heck, USAF is releasing a trainer requirement soon, called the T-X, and it includes LCA Mk1 level capabilities.

 

[p2prada]

Me too not an expert, but my common sense tells me that one have to start somewhere... and one have to be brave enough to learn from mistakes and not commit them again as we learn and go forward... India is also learning the hard way and spending hard earned money"¦ India has taken the right decision to go the indigenous way and have to endure the pain no escape from that"¦

We have some know all experts here who start comparing India with USA, France, Russia and what not but intentionally forgetting that those countries reached to this place / achievements after 100 years of learning on flying machines and spending billions of dollars"¦

India has to seriously get rid of these worshipers of import all, mark my words these peoples will have nowhere to go after ten years"¦ that is for sure"¦

You don't get it at all why LCA is a failure, do you?

Yes, we have to start somewhere. And we did too. But if you know what really happened, you wouldn't be saying this.

Try going through the chronology of the LCA again and then try to read up on what they are trying to achieve even today.

 

[bose]

You don't get it at all why LCA is a failure, do you?

I understand it is a combination of very poor project management from DRDO / ADA side and frequent changes of requirements from Airforce side to put it in nutshell... As I see it without going into technical details and nitty gritty...

Yes, we have to start somewhere. And we did too. But if you know what really happened, you wouldn't be saying this.

Yes we have gone wrong, no doubt but that cannot be the reason for abandon indigenous development effort, my submission is to learn and do not commit the same mistakes gain.. BUT there is no substitute for indigenous research and development... India cannot afford to continue to import 70% of its defense needs from outside"¦ this have to end in next 10 years"¦

Try going through the chronology of the LCA again and then try to read up on what they are trying to achieve even today.

I have gone through them... it is painful so be it...

 

[p2prada]

I have gone through them... it is painful so be it...

I am replying to this first because just by reading the rest I can tell you you haven't gone through the real information that you need to.

I understand it is a combination of very poor project management from DRDO / ADA side and frequent changes of requirements from Airforce side to put it in nutshell... As I see it without going into technical details and nitty gritty...

The first part about mismanagement, bingo. Right.

The second part about IAF making frequent changes. Not even close to the truth. The real changes were made by ADA unilaterally, not IAF. The requirement changes that IAF has made were too small and insignificant to even be considered. The biggest change IAF wanted was changing the short range missile from the old 3rd gen R-60 to a 4th gen R-73 which led to some structural changes, but this was done before the bird took flight in 2001. The biggest change ADA made was changing the basic design of the aircraft that IAF never wanted in the first place.

If you cannot go into the technical detail and the nitty gritty then you don't even have the right to sit talk about the LCA program because that's the basis of the entire program. But of course, that's a mere technicality. Let's all blame the IAF because we don't understand anything and it is easy to blame an organization that has no real means of fighting back.

IAF asked for something but ADA promised something else and delivered nothing. That's where LCA is today. Had ADA stuck to the original design, there would have been no contract for Rafales today and we would be talking about a LCA B60, rivalling the Chinese J-10B along with Rafale, EF etc. But no. It is not going to happen any time soon.

Yes we have gone wrong,

"Gone wrong" doesn't even begin to describe the goof up. I don't think you understand. Currently ADA is trying to make a design that was out of production in other countries 25 years ago. If you say the LCA is better than Mig-21. Yes it is. But so is every other new aircraft flying in the world today, to an extent where those other new aircraft are replacing aircraft that are as good as LCA Mk2. Do you understand now? There is a reason why the IAF Chief called LCA a 3rd gen aircraft. He was speaking the truth then and most people don't understand that LCA Mk1 is no better than a Mirage-IIIE, a 3rd generation aircraft. Technically, Mirage-IIIE is also "way" better than Mig-21.

Curious Ben has a post above where he pointed out that LCA has "apparently" "surpassed" ASR. Let me answer that here. No. LCA Mk1 has not surpassed the ASR that was set in 1985. It won't be achieving even 70 or 80% of the ASR set in 1985. The LCA Mk2 is being designed to "achieve" the design specifications that were set in 1985. You get the point being made here. At a technical level, Mirage-IIIE nearly matches LCA's 1985 performance specs. Which means LCA Mk1 won't even be at the level of a Mirage-IIIE.

Just so you know, Mirage-III was designed in the 1950s and has moved up from there.

So these are some of the facts of LCA. And you expect IAF pilots to sit comfortably in the aircraft and say they will go toe to toe against the best that the enemy has to offer when it is only as good as PAF's oldest aircraft?

The point of buying weapons has been to use them during war, not support the defence industry. The current LCA only serves to support the defence industry today, not serve the IAF or the nation as a whole.

no doubt but that cannot be the reason for abandon indigenous development effort,

No it isn't. But it is enough reason for anybody to understand why IAF doesn't want it. People here are assuming that once LCA Mk1 achieves IOC and FOC, the air force should order hundreds of those. Such people are not even close to knowing the facts, let alone make judgements and criticize IAF out of their ignorance.

my submission is to learn and do not commit the same mistakes gain..

Right. I suppose we say that every time we enter the Olympics too. Saying it and doing it are two very different things.

BUT there is no substitute for indigenous research and development... India cannot afford to continue to import 70% of its defense needs from outside"¦ this have to end in next 10 years"¦

Another little aspect you don't understand. I have repeated this in other threads and I will repeat it here too. Currently, MKI is far more indigenous than LCA is. Most of the MKI is made here. A huge portion of the LCA is imported in finished condition, the biggest of them being the engine. Heck, they are not even license produced here, let along indigenously produced.

LCA Mk2 is a bit better. While it is expected to match ASR in performance parameters, it is expected to surpass Mk1 in avionics capability. Overall, the AESA will be a big advantage in a one on one fight against any adversary of its class, which both PAF and PLAAF have in plenty. However it won't be the best aircraft in it's class because it is too "small." If the enemy jumps on to the AESA bandwagon as we see with J-10B and whether PAF ends up upgrading JF-17 to Block 3 standards with AESA, then LCAMk2 will lose some of that edge. But then I suppose all is fine considering MKI/FGFA combo will clean up the skies first and FGFA/Rafale combo will clean up the ground before LCAs finally show up escorting Jaguars in DPS missions.

 

[rvjpheonix]

I am replying to this first because just by reading the rest I can tell you you haven't gone through the real information that you need to.



The first part about mismanagement, bingo. Right.

The second part about IAF making frequent changes. Not even close to the truth. The real changes were made by ADA unilaterally, not IAF. The requirement changes that IAF has made were too small and insignificant to even be considered. The biggest change IAF wanted was changing the short range missile from the old 3rd gen R-60 to a 4th gen R-73 which led to some structural changes, but this was done before the bird took flight in 2001. The biggest change ADA made was changing the basic design of the aircraft that IAF never wanted in the first place.

If you cannot go into the technical detail and the nitty gritty then you don't even have the right to sit talk about the LCA program because that's the basis of the entire program. But of course, that's a mere technicality. Let's all blame the IAF because we don't understand anything and it is easy to blame an organization that has no real means of fighting back.

IAF asked for something but ADA promised something else and delivered nothing. That's where LCA is today. Had ADA stuck to the original design, there would have been no contract for Rafales today and we would be talking about a LCA B60, rivalling the Chinese J-10B along with Rafale, EF etc. But no. It is not going to happen any time soon.



"Gone wrong" doesn't even begin to describe the goof up. I don't think you understand. Currently ADA is trying to make a design that was out of production in other countries 25 years ago. If you say the LCA is better than Mig-21. Yes it is. But so is every other new aircraft flying in the world today, to an extent where those other new aircraft are replacing aircraft that are as good as LCA Mk2. Do you understand now? There is a reason why the IAF Chief called LCA a 3rd gen aircraft. He was speaking the truth then and most people don't understand that LCA Mk1 is no better than a Mirage-IIIE, a 3rd generation aircraft. Technically, Mirage-IIIE is also "way" better than Mig-21.

Curious Ben has a post above where he pointed out that LCA has "apparently" "surpassed" ASR. Let me answer that here. No. LCA Mk1 has not surpassed the ASR that was set in 1985. It won't be achieving even 70 or 80% of the ASR set in 1985. The LCA Mk2 is being designed to "achieve" the design specifications that were set in 1985. You get the point being made here. At a technical level, Mirage-IIIE nearly matches LCA's 1985 performance specs. Which means LCA Mk1 won't even be at the level of a Mirage-IIIE.

Just so you know, Mirage-III was designed in the 1950s and has moved up from there.

So these are some of the facts of LCA. And you expect IAF pilots to sit comfortably in the aircraft and say they will go toe to toe against the best that the enemy has to offer when it is only as good as PAF's oldest aircraft?

The point of buying weapons has been to use them during war, not support the defence industry. The current LCA only serves to support the defence industry today, not serve the IAF or the nation as a whole.



No it isn't. But it is enough reason for anybody to understand why IAF doesn't want it. People here are assuming that once LCA Mk1 achieves IOC and FOC, the air force should order hundreds of those. Such people are not even close to knowing the facts, let alone make judgements and criticize IAF out of their ignorance.



Right. I suppose we say that every time we enter the Olympics too. Saying it and doing it are two very different things.



Another little aspect you don't understand. I have repeated this in other threads and I will repeat it here too. Currently, MKI is far more indigenous than LCA is. Most of the MKI is made here. A huge portion of the LCA is imported in finished condition, the biggest of them being the engine. Heck, they are not even license produced here, let along indigenously produced.

LCA Mk2 is a bit better. While it is expected to match ASR in performance parameters, it is expected to surpass Mk1 in avionics capability. Overall, the AESA will be a big advantage in a one on one fight against any adversary of its class, which both PAF and PLAAF have in plenty. However it won't be the best aircraft in it's class because it is too "small." If the enemy jumps on to the AESA bandwagon as we see with J-10B and whether PAF ends up upgrading JF-17 to Block 3 standards with AESA, then LCAMk2 will lose some of that edge. But then I suppose all is fine considering MKI/FGFA combo will clean up the skies first and FGFA/Rafale combo will clean up the ground before LCAs finally show up escorting Jaguars in DPS missions.

All this you can say if you can show us the iaf asr of 1985 and that of 2004. Otherwise whatever you have said will be not hold water. You talk as if it is an open source document while it is not. Or you have got to have some insider news. And by the way even the 1985 specs were extremely forward for the time aa they were given with countering the newly bought f solahs of the pad. Which was the super duper fighter of the time and sent shivers down iaf. This is said by m.s.d woollen. Plus they revised the asr twice after that. You have to come upwith hard facts to say that it is not a 4 th gen fighter. Past post of yours I get the logic and I agree with you partially. But there too the onus lies with Tue iaf for not having enough foresight to see light aircrafts are going to be history soon. It is they who.asked for q light fighter as an ajeet replacement.

 

[CuriousBen]

If you talk bad about UPA-2, will that make you hate the country? If you talk bad about govt policies like the Food Bill and inaction on Lokpal Bill, does that make you any less patriotic?

The only difference is I know the inadequacies of the LCA and can voice my disaffection after having followed the program for a long time. I have been hearing about IOC since 2004. For you it must have been more recent.

For me, DRDO is a bureaucratic mess like any other, be it the passport office, food office or the any other govt owned entity. They talk a lot, deliver little, as has been the case since years. What makes you think they are above criticism?



Yes, I wonder why. Time for you to look deeper and see where the problems are.



Not one member I have discussed with has ever answered this, maybe you will be the first. List out the names of all the branded electronic and home appliance equipment you use, even your vehicles. Let's just see how "Indian" you are. Just so you know, pretty much every brand of electronics you use at home has a desi equivalent. So what do you say? Will you answer this question?

Heck I am willing to bet a million bucks the computer you are using is not from HCL. It will be "foreign maal" only, worse still "Made in China."

Maybe your motto is already long live foreign maal and tens of thousands of crores to the agent mafia.



Composites (except the radome, they effed it up), the current engine, the new EW system. Of course, the engine is foreign, but that's something else. The ejection seat, but that's foreign. HMS, but that's foreign. Air to air missiles, but that's foreign too.



Oh, yeah? Say that after your country has been invaded and LCAs are nowhere to be found. Only your so called "foreign maal" will come to your rescue before "agent mafia" helps with diplomatic support. We have won all our previous wars with "foreign maal" only.



Three years. Right. Try seven. Even if the best of the best thing happens and in the coming years Mk1 is ready with FOC, it will be less capable than a F-16 Block 30 that came out in the 80s, that's inferior to the PAF F-16 MLUs. So I already know how much it is going to "speak for itself" even today.

There is a reason why IAF has ordered only 40 and will be using it as a trainer for the rest of its life.

Heck, USAF is releasing a trainer requirement soon, called the T-X, and it includes LCA Mk1 level capabilities.

Well you win, my computer is not made in india. Apart from some components made in china, there are some made in taiwan and made in malaysia too.
So there is no hegemony.

>>>
Only your so called "foreign maal" will come to your rescue before "agent mafia" helps with diplomatic support. We have won all our previous wars with "foreign maal" only.
>>>

diplomatic support , is purely nonsense... would you say russian help was diploamtic at tashkent or was laa bahadur shashtri betrayed by the russians at tashkent.

do you want us indians to use diplomatic like pakistan did in 1965 when it ran out of ammunition....no way sir.

British , American are bed-fellows and they would never want India to succeed.

Remember even Israel developed its own capabilities after France ditched them.

Gentleman, you should never beg . Better be self reliant and the world respects you automatically.

 

[SATISH]

Pak-Fa/FGFA is probably not meeting its targets and also not likely in the near future. I am basing my assumption on two factors, one that russians are still far from the desired engine tech and second, they have decided to make Pak-fa fly at 75k ft and provide the pilot a completely pressurised flying suit. This apparantly means that Pak-Fa is likely to use min reheat to cruise at 75k ft just the way Mig-25 used to cruise. Only diff is that Pak-Fa will have better turn capability due to TVC compared with Mig-25 at that altitude.

Sir,
The Russians had the AL 41 in the early 90s itseld with a 180 Kn thrust. I have seen that engine being fired in the Saturn plant. There were a few glitches but Saturn stopped that project to funt the 117s as the Russians were not funding much in early 2000 and late 90s. The pace picked up after 2005 when the Russian economy stabilized. No the Item 30 research is in full fledge. The news has stopped trickling from the Saturn plant or obvious reasons and the iron curtain has been drawn on the engine tech.

 

[Anony86]

I am replying to this first because just by reading the rest I can tell you you haven't gone through the real information that you need to.



The first part about mismanagement, bingo. Right.

The second part about IAF making frequent changes. Not even close to the truth. The real changes were made by ADA unilaterally, not IAF. The requirement changes that IAF has made were too small and insignificant to even be considered. The biggest change IAF wanted was changing the short range missile from the old 3rd gen R-60 to a 4th gen R-73 which led to some structural changes, but this was done before the bird took flight in 2001. The biggest change ADA made was changing the basic design of the aircraft that IAF never wanted in the first place.


If you cannot go into the technical detail and the nitty gritty then you don't even have the right to sit talk about the LCA program because that's the basis of the entire program. But of course, that's a mere technicality. Let's all blame the IAF because we don't understand anything and it is easy to blame an organization that has no real means of fighting back.

IAF asked for something but ADA promised something else and delivered nothing. That's where LCA is today. Had ADA stuck to the original design, there would have been no contract for Rafales today and we would be talking about a LCA B60, rivalling the Chinese J-10B along with Rafale, EF etc. But no. It is not going to happen any time soon.



"Gone wrong" doesn't even begin to describe the goof up. I don't think you understand. Currently ADA is trying to make a design that was out of production in other countries 25 years ago. If you say the LCA is better than Mig-21. Yes it is. But so is every other new aircraft flying in the world today, to an extent where those other new aircraft are replacing aircraft that are as good as LCA Mk2. Do you understand now? There is a reason why the IAF Chief called LCA a 3rd gen aircraft. He was speaking the truth then and most people don't understand that LCA Mk1 is no better than a Mirage-IIIE, a 3rd generation aircraft. Technically, Mirage-IIIE is also "way" better than Mig-21.

Curious Ben has a post above where he pointed out that LCA has "apparently" "surpassed" ASR. Let me answer that here. No. LCA Mk1 has not surpassed the ASR that was set in 1985. It won't be achieving even 70 or 80% of the ASR set in 1985. The LCA Mk2 is being designed to "achieve" the design specifications that were set in 1985. You get the point being made here. At a technical level, Mirage-IIIE nearly matches LCA's 1985 performance specs. Which means LCA Mk1 won't even be at the level of a Mirage-IIIE.

Just so you know, Mirage-III was designed in the 1950s and has moved up from there.

So these are some of the facts of LCA. And you expect IAF pilots to sit comfortably in the aircraft and say they will go toe to toe against the best that the enemy has to offer when it is only as good as PAF's oldest aircraft?

The point of buying weapons has been to use them during war, not support the defence industry. The current LCA only serves to support the defence industry today, not serve the IAF or the nation as a whole.



No it isn't. But it is enough reason for anybody to understand why IAF doesn't want it. People here are assuming that once LCA Mk1 achieves IOC and FOC, the air force should order hundreds of those. Such people are not even close to knowing the facts, let alone make judgements and criticize IAF out of their ignorance.



Right. I suppose we say that every time we enter the Olympics too. Saying it and doing it are two very different things.



Another little aspect you don't understand. I have repeated this in other threads and I will repeat it here too. Currently, MKI is far more indigenous than LCA is. Most of the MKI is made here. A huge portion of the LCA is imported in finished condition, the biggest of them being the engine. Heck, they are not even license produced here, let along indigenously produced.

LCA Mk2 is a bit better. While it is expected to match ASR in performance parameters, it is expected to surpass Mk1 in avionics capability. Overall, the AESA will be a big advantage in a one on one fight against any adversary of its class, which both PAF and PLAAF have in plenty. However it won't be the best aircraft in it's class because it is too "small." If the enemy jumps on to the AESA bandwagon as we see with J-10B and whether PAF ends up upgrading JF-17 to Block 3 standards with AESA, then LCAMk2 will lose some of that edge. But then I suppose all is fine considering MKI/FGFA combo will clean up the skies first and FGFA/Rafale combo will clean up the ground before LCAs finally show up escorting Jaguars in DPS missions.

From where you drew the above conclusion. Do you have any source of IAF not changing the ASR. The original ASR or that of 90's calls for Top Speed to be Mach 1.5 at tropopause, STR to be 17 deg , weapon load of little over 2.5 ton and radar to track fighters from 80km -90km with no actual BVR launching capabilty, just 60km - 70km engagement.

It was later revised in 2004 to 20 deg STR, 3.5 -4 ton of weapon carrying capability and top speed of Mach 1.8 and radar to able to launch BVR from 80km-90km to mention some of these.

Surely it was too late and Tejas failed to achieve Mach 1.8, but managed to fulfil ASR in other departments.


How you came up to the conclusion that LCA is a 1980's design. Even F-22 development started in late 1980's , does that make it 1980's or 1990's era fighter. For a small. lightweight fighter like Tejas, if one is asking it to carry 4 ton of weapon, the fighter must have higher wing area, and it can only be achieved by delta wing but to increase lift it has been designed as cranked delta structure. EW system,radar,avionics & ability to carry different type of weapons by LCA is unmatched to the indigenous effort of our respective adversaries until j-10B.

And comparing it with Mirage III, I seriously doubt your judgmental ability. In today's modern warfare, instead of airframe & structure, avionics & electronics plays a major role and tell me what alternative IAF(other than Su 30) has that can be used as a better alternative for interception role, even Rafale is not suited as it is more of a ground strike fighter than air dominance.

Just mention the specs of Tejas, which you think is not acceptable for using it as a interceptor platform for intercepting fighters in South Asian region.

 

[Decklander]

From where you drew the above conclusion. Do you have any source of IAF not changing the ASR. The original ASR or that of 90's calls for Top Speed to be Mach 1.5 at tropopause, STR to be 17 deg , weapon load of little over 2.5 ton and radar to track fighters from 80km -90km with no actual BVR launching capabilty, just 60km - 70km engagement.

It was later revised in 2004 to 20 deg STR, 3.5 -4 ton of weapon carrying capability and top speed of Mach 1.8 and radar to able to launch BVR from 80km-90km to mention some of these.

Surely it was too late and Tejas failed to achieve Mach 1.8, but managed to fulfil ASR in other departments.


How you came up to the conclusion that LCA is a 1980's design. Even F-22 development started in late 1980's , does that make it 1980's or 1990's era fighter. For a small. lightweight fighter like Tejas, if one is asking it to carry 4 ton of weapon, the fighter must have higher wing area, and it can only be achieved by delta wing but to increase lift it has been designed as cranked delta structure. EW system,radar,avionics & ability to carry different type of weapons by LCA is unmatched to the indigenous effort of our respective adversaries until j-10B.

And comparing it with Mirage III, I seriously doubt your judgmental ability. In today's modern warfare, instead of airframe & structure, avionics & electronics plays a major role and tell me what alternative IAF(other than Su 30) has that can be used as a better alternative for interception role, even Rafale is not suited as it is more of a ground strike fighter than air dominance.

Just mention the specs of Tejas, which you think is not acceptable for using it as a interceptor platform for intercepting fighters in South Asian region.

Pls compare the wing area of F-16 Blk 60 with that of LCA and tell me which one has a bigger weapon load and why? Your logic about wing area and delta config for LCA is wrong.

 

[Anony86]

Pls compare the wing area of F-16 Blk 60 with that of LCA and tell me which one has a bigger weapon load and why? Your logic about wing area and delta config for LCA is wrong.

Please look into my logic, based on the overall requirement & specification. I know wing area of F-16 blk60 is 75% to that of Tejas,but comparing it the way you mentioned will be like comparing apples & oranges. Both are in different class.

Empty weight of Tejas mk1 is in between 60% -65% of F-16 blk 60, whereas weapon carrying capability of LCA mk1 is close to 70% to that of F-16 blk 60 and I say this to be good, because LCA's engine produces only 55% of thrust to that of F-16 blk 60 engine.

 

[Decklander]

Please look into my logic, based on the overall requirement & specification. I know wing area of F-16 blk60 is 75% to that of Tejas,but comparing it the way you mentioned will be like comparing apples & oranges. Both are in different class.

Empty weight of Tejas mk1 is in between 60% -65% of F-16 blk 60, whereas weapon carrying capability of LCA mk1 is close to 70% to that of F-16 blk 60 and I say this to be good, because LCA's engine produces only 55% of thrust to that of F-16 blk 60 engine.

I asked that question as you justified the delta planform for the need to have large wingarea for load carrying. I wanted to tell you that wing area is not the criteria but engine thrust is. Now with same shape and increased size, MK2 with higher thrust engine will be able to carry 1 ton extra load. If you may recall my earlier posts, I had stated that we shud go for 108KN thrust, increase the size to 14.5m length make Mk2 superior to M2K also in terms of load capability.

 

[SATISH]

I asked that question as you justified the delta planform for the need to have large wingarea for load carrying. I wanted to tell you that wing area is not the criteria but engine thrust is. Now with same shape and increased size, MK2 with higher thrust engine will be able to carry 1 ton extra load. If you may recall my earlier posts, I had stated that we shud go for 108KN thrust, increase the size to 14.5m length make Mk2 superior to M2K also in terms of load capability.

Sir with the increase in thrust there will be increase in specific fuel usage also. Wouldnt it be a burden on the already small range of the LCA?

 

[Decklander]

Sir with the increase in thrust there will be increase in specific fuel usage also. Wouldnt it be a burden on the already small range of the LCA?

Your question is a bit incorrectly phrased. it is not SFC but thrust used on which the Fuel consumption is based. F414INS6 will have better SFC and more thrust than F404. But Mk2 will have additional fuel cell to increase its range, so no problems.

 

[SATISH]

Your question is a bit incorrectly phrased. it is not SFC but thrust used on which the Fuel consumption is based. F414INS6 will have better SFC and more thrust than F404. But Mk2 will have additional fuel cell to increase its range, so no problems.

Sir but the F 414 INS6 is still not ready and how can we already know about the SFC? It is not available in the public domain also. Additional fuel means additional weight during take off