ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

Top speed plays role in BVR warfare where it is used to impact high initial KE to the launched missile.

On topic, F35 inductions before IOC also have to do with the fact that LM is basically arm twisting the US government. Thats bare crony capitalism on play here.

All top speeds at sea level and altitude ceiling are only for clean config with no external weapon load.

BVR missiles are launched at supersonic speed from high altitude for better ranges, that can be done by tejas right now.

No 4.5th gen fighter can fly at its topspeeds with loads of BVR missiles and launch them at that speed.Even for 5th gen fighters it is a moot point whether bomb bay opening can be done at their top speeds.

If you were referring to super sonic BVR missile launch, tejas can do it right now.Top speed external BVR launch no fighter in the world can do, for the simple reason topspeeds can be reached only in clean config.

 

[Anoop Sajwan]

5% more accurately.

Even more precise 8%.

IAF ordered the first squadron in 2004 and the second in 2007.

Yes, but give money for production in late 2012. What they do in 2004 is requirement as they projected 89 for mk2.

They are the first to start something that hasn't tried before in such a large program. Their safety net is the size of their program anyway.You don't get it. So no point explaining it. Anyway, IOC certification is given after the first squadron is inducted. Technically, IAF should give LCA IOC only after the first squadron is inducted. And IOC standards in the US are far stricter.F-35 is restricted to 20 deg AoA in regular flight but has already been tested to 60 deg. LCA is being tested for 22+ deg only today. You can see US standards.

We are also doing something which was not done earlier. Even this is true for every single project. Everyone try to achieve something in new projects. You can take examples of Rafale, F16 etc. fighters if F35 is not justify to compare sir.
I don't know it is worth to explain or not but sir please explain bold part. Because IOC literally means Initial Operation Certification. And if that is the case than why IAF didn't induct a squadron in LCA's IOC.
So far I know IOC standard are same all over the world. FOC could be different on the condition of fighter's projected capabilities. LCA is tested upto 24 deg AoA so far and will achieve 28 deg. So you are saying F35 will achieve so higher AoA, which is completely unachievable for other fighters.

 

[Anoop Sajwan]

IAF will let us know once LCA achieves FOC. As of today, they don't believe it is a fighter yet. The "real" LCA is yet to achieve first flight.

SP-1 is late because of HAL's incapability. That is not LCA's fault. Even MKI's delivery is behind the schedule thats doesn't point out its drawback.


[/QUOTE]Yes, we should also emulate Pakistan's democratic aspirations and Olympic standings. Since when did we have to compare ourselves to a gutter bug? Or are you saying LCA is plenty enough to be comparable to a gutter bug? What is FGFA for then? The PAF have F-16s. Apart from Flankers, the PLAAF have JH-7A strike fighter and the H-6 bomber. Apart from that PLAAF have already become the first country to test a hypersonic glide vehicle.
PressTV - Pentagon alarmed by China's new hypersonic glide vehicle: Official
So, in 10 years, the Chinese DPS capabilities should be much higher than India's will ever be. PAF doesn't really have an indigenous program. China's indigenous programs are a hundred levels above ours. We have one major indigenous program called FGFA. That's not smart. That's dumb. Or that's a poor man's gamble. How many JF-17s have the Chinese inducted?

I want my pilots to laugh as they take out a hundred JF-17s like they are clearing cockroaches at the push of a button. I want my pilots to win without having to give much of a fight. LCA isn't that answer. Rafale is for today, followed by the FGFA. While Rafale will be indigenously produced, FGFA will have some components of R&D done in India apart from indigenous production. Half of LCA is imported in comparison. Yes, you're cute. Now go back to being a grownup.[/QUOTE]

One more question sir, in every forum Rafale is project as a key fighter for DEAD/SEAD type missions, deep strike. But does it really worth to spend billions of dollars in this project while we will have FGFA from 2020, which will be far superior than Rafale in deep strike missions thanks to its stalth. So we are purchasing a 100 million dollars fighter to stop-gap. While this work can be easily done by Super mki and LCA mk2 till FGFA arrive.

And even in future when UACVs will join the forces than picture is even worse for Rafale. UACVs will be best vehicle to perform such deep strike mission due to their lower radar and infrared signature and no human life risk. In this scenario LCA's importance is even increases due to lower operational cost.

 

[p2prada]

Yes, but give money for production in late 2012. What they do in 2012 is requirement as they projected 89 for mk2.

I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be more clear?

We are also doing something which was not done earlier. Even this is true for every single project. Everyone try to achieve something in new projects. You can take examples of Rafale, F16 etc. fighters if F35 is not justify to compare sir.
I don't know it is worth to explain or not but sir please explain bold part. Because IOC literally means Initial Operation Certification. And if that is the case than why IAF didn't induct a squadron in LCA's IOC.
So far I know IOC standard are same all over the world. FOC could be different on the condition of fighter's projected capabilities.

IOC standards are different for each user. What one user thinks needs to be in IOC is different from what others want.

The USMC wants their F-35 IOC to be capable of CAS missions in support of ground troops. USAF wants their IOC to include AMRAAM missile firing capability. But IAF don't want BVR capability on LCA. The Russians want PAKFA IOC to have BVR, WVR, and certain A2G weapons capability like the KH-31. All of them can have different flight regimes for IOC too.

Then there is a difference in when they think IOC is given. IAF gives IOC before IOC aircraft are inducted, but USAF gives IOC after a squadron is inducted.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/department-of-defense-announces-f-35-ioc-dates-for-all-services/

Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment.

Basically, this means our IOC is not equal to the USAF IOC. USAF IOC requires the air force to be partially prepped for war. For us IOC only means we want the basic jets to be inducted.

Similarly, the Chinese IOC is a step ahead of the USAF IOC. The Chinese got their first jet in 2003, but gave IOC only in 2005 after dozens were inducted.

Basically, the IAF FOC is equal to the Chinese IOC. Chinese provide FOC after the jet has attained high levels of systems maturity, when red lines are well tested in contested environment. We provide FOC when the red lines are just crossed.

If we are to make IOC standards the same as the USAF's, then LCA Mk1 is yet to achieve IOC. It will most probably be achieved in 2017 or 2018 when the first squadron is fully prepped for limited war.

LCA is tested upto 24 deg AoA so far and will achieve 28 deg. So you are saying F35 will achieve so higher AoA, which is completely unachievable for other fighters.

You claimed that the F-35 has restricted AoA, but you were wrong. F-35 has fully achieved everything that was needed to achieve in AoA before IOC. LCA has not done anything of the sort.

USAF's F-35A aircraft completes high angle of attack testing - Airforce Technology

During the entire AoA testing programme, the aircraft achieved a 100% success rate in recovering from out of control flight, without requiring the use of the spin recovery chute, which is carried to maximise aircrew safety.

What this means is F-35 has already achieved most of the stuff that LCA is yet to achieve even before IOC. This demonstrates different standards for testing.

And LCA is nowhere as capable as most other aircraft in terms of design. LCA has very modest performance figures. For eg: Rafale and Gripen have achieved AoA of 100 deg during tests. LCA will never cross the 30-35 deg margin because it is not designed to do so. Su-27 regularly pulls 70 deg. F-22 pulls 60-70 deg too. OTOH, Mirage-2000 and F-16 pull as much as LCA does because they are both older designs like LCA.

In 7 years of flight testing, F-35 has flown a total of 18000+ hours while LCA has flown 2000+ hours.

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

i think i have read enough to reach some conclusion. I request DFI to pick important points from this thread about Tejas as a modern fighter , Rafale controversy and then try to send a condensed analysis to Defence ministry and PMO. I dont know if possible, but worth a try. Tell them to not fall into that vayu stratpost and other fake critics.

 

[p2prada]

SP-1 is late because of HAL's incapability. That is not LCA's fault. Even MKI's delivery is behind the schedule thats doesn't point out its drawback.

Manufacturing delays can be taken care of during production.

And SP-1 being delayed has nothing to do with it being a viable fighter or not. The program itself has been delayed by 15 years.

One more question sir, in every forum Rafale is project as a key fighter for DEAD/SEAD type missions, deep strike. But does it really worth to spend billions of dollars in this project while we will have FGFA from 2020, which will be far superior than Rafale in deep strike missions thanks to its stalth. So we are purchasing a 100 million dollars fighter to stop-gap. While this work can be easily done by Super mki and LCA mk2 till FGFA arrive.

From the IOC examples I gave, FGFA will also take a long time before enough numbers are available and systems maturity is achieved. That should happen sometime in 2030. Just because FGFA will see IOC in 2022 doesn't mean it is war ready. So from now until 2030 we will need an aircraft like Rafale to bring in new capability while arresting the drop is squadrons. Even after 2030, we will need Rafale to provide support in missions that FGFA is not needed in. Because even after 2030, Rafale will still be capable of carrying advanced electronics, new weapons to long ranges. LCA can't do that today, let alone in 2030.

It is the same for LCA. If Mk2 undergoes IOC in 2020, then it will take at least 10 years before it is war ready, when we have enough numbers, pilots have enough experience and maintenance and logistics is good. The French have made Rafale war ready by themselves. And LCA Mk2 won't do this work. It is not a SEAD/DEAD aircraft. We don't know if they will even be based in the North East. For SEAD/DEAD, you need payload and endurance.

So, we only have MKI today which is not enough.

And even in future when UACVs will join the forces than picture is even worse for Rafale. UACVs will be best vehicle to perform such deep strike mission due to their lower radar and infrared signature and no human life risk. In this scenario LCA's importance is even increases due to lower operational cost.

By the time such UCAVs arrive even FGFA will be obsolete.

Low operational costs don't come into the picture during war, it is only important during peace when defense budgets are low.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be more clear?



IOC standards are different for each user. What one user thinks needs to be in IOC is different from what others want.

The USMC wants their F-35 IOC to be capable of CAS missions in support of ground troops. USAF wants their IOC to include AMRAAM missile firing capability. But IAF don't want BVR capability on LCA. The Russians want PAKFA IOC to have BVR, WVR, and certain A2G weapons capability like the KH-31. All of them can have different flight regimes for IOC too.

Then there is a difference in when they think IOC is given. IAF gives IOC before IOC aircraft are inducted, but USAF gives IOC after a squadron is inducted.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/department-of-defense-announces-f-35-ioc-dates-for-all-services/


Basically, this means our IOC is not equal to the USAF IOC. USAF IOC requires the air force to be partially prepped for war. For us IOC only means we want the basic jets to be inducted.

Similarly, the Chinese IOC is a step ahead of the USAF IOC. The Chinese got their first jet in 2003, but gave IOC only in 2005 after dozens were inducted.

Basically, the IAF FOC is equal to the Chinese IOC. Chinese provide FOC after the jet has attained high levels of systems maturity, when red lines are well tested in contested environment. We provide FOC when the red lines are just crossed.

If we are to make IOC standards the same as the USAF's, then LCA Mk1 is yet to achieve IOC. It will most probably be achieved in 2017 or 2018 when the first squadron is fully prepped for limited war.



You claimed that the F-35 has restricted AoA, but you were wrong. F-35 has fully achieved everything that was needed to achieve in AoA before IOC. LCA has not done anything of the sort.

USAF's F-35A aircraft completes high angle of attack testing - Airforce Technology

IOC means only one thing. It is the fighter is safe, reliable with repeatable performance within the opened flight envelope capable of performing certain tasks. It is not air force specific. For example Su-30MKI required no IOC from IAF before entering service. Tejas at IOC-2 is allowed to do 24 deg AOA, F-35 even after 100 fighters into induction is not cleared for that. reason is IAF's partiality and lack of faith in ADA-HAl, because if Tejas is inducted fast, the import lobby in IAF will lose all rationale for 20 billion MMRCA circus.. Nothing else.

What this means is F-35 has already achieved most of the stuff that LCA is yet to achieve even before IOC. This demonstrates different standards for testing.

WHAT MOST STUFF? Go and read the IOC-2 tejas documentation to know what tejas has done.

And LCA is nowhere as capable as most other aircraft in terms of design. LCA has very modest performance figures. For eg: Rafale and Gripen have achieved AoA of 100 deg during tests. LCA will never cross the 30-35 deg margin because it is not designed to do so. Su-27 regularly pulls 70 deg. F-22 pulls 60-70 deg too. OTOH, Mirage-2000 and F-16 pull as much as LCA does because they are both older designs like LCA.

Same useless toothless vayu strat post waffle, which has not an iota of truth in it. Once again pulling 70 deg sitting on thrust vectoring ass and loosing the entire aerodynamic wing efficiency is good for air shows, nothing to do with air combat where energy is life.

In 7 years of flight testing, F-35 has flown a total of 18000+ hours while LCA has flown 2000+ hours.

state the number of platforms that achieved these 18000 hours and the massive amount of money pumped in to dot this.

 

[ersakthivel]

Manufacturing delays can be taken care of during production.

And SP-1 being delayed has nothing to do with it being a viable fighter or not. The program itself has been delayed by 15 years.

All 4.5th gen fighters took close to twenty years from first metal cut to production even with uninterrupted funding ,full co operation from IAF, and decades of fighter making experience. Dont peddle the DDM 15 year late excuse any more. Funding for two two TDs in 1994. Sp-1 is getting in at 2014. Where is the 15 year delay,. Go and read MSD Woolen IAf air chief and HAL chairman's article in ADA tejas website.

From the IOC examples I gave, FGFA will also take a long time before enough numbers are available and systems maturity is achieved. That should happen sometime in 2030. Just because FGFA will see IOC in 2022 doesn't mean it is war ready. So from now until 2030 we will need an aircraft like Rafale to bring in new capability while arresting the drop is squadrons. Even after 2030, we will need Rafale to provide support in missions that FGFA is not needed in. Because even after 2030, Rafale will still be capable of carrying advanced electronics, new weapons to long ranges. LCA can't do that today, let alone in 2030.

It is the same for LCA. If Mk2 undergoes IOC in 2020, then it will take at least 10 years before it is war ready, when we have enough numbers, pilots have enough experience and maintenance and logistics is good. The French have made Rafale war ready by themselves. And LCA Mk2 won't do this work. It is not a SEAD/DEAD aircraft. We don't know if they will even be based in the North East. For SEAD/DEAD, you need payload and endurance.

So, we only have MKI today which is not enough.



By the time such UCAVs arrive even FGFA will be obsolete.

Low operational costs don't come into the picture during war, it is only important during peace when defense budgets are low.

rafale has a pony radar and even more pony Spectra that can deceive only third world air forces. spending 20 billion dollars on them is stupid. tejas mk2 Su-30 MKi combo can do better at half the cost , both have bigger radars than rafale.

Developing tactics for 15 years with a fighter belongs to pre simulator era. With simulators pilots reduce their time to master a fighter to just 5 years or so. Most F-2 pilots fly more in simulator than real world due to cost.

 

[Punya Pratap]

Create Defence-Industrial Giant | idrw.org

Create Defence-Industrial Giant
Published August 24, 2014 | By admin
SOURCE : Bharat Karnad





Prime minister Narendra Modi extolled "Made in India" products from "satellites to submarines" in his Independence Day address. A day later he demanded that "Instead of having to import even small things"¦India"¦become an exporter of [military] equipment over the next few years". And, he exhorted foreign countries and companies to "make in India". Rendering the country self-sufficient in armaments, it turns out, will help India emerge as workshop of the world manufacturing all kinds of quality goods economically. But it will require the PM to do to the Defence Public Sector Units (DPSUs) overseen by the ministry of defence (MoD) what he did to the Planning Commission—utilise their resources more effectively.

At the core is a fact that cannot be glossed over: DPSUs are deadweight. Despite outputting some 800 combat aircraft and thousands of jet engines not an iota of any of the technologies, for example, have been absorbed let alone innovated over the past 60 years by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Indeed, DPSUs haven't progressed much beyond assembling platforms from imported kits achieved during the Second World War when Harlow PC-5 and Percival Prentice trainer aircraft, trucks, and mortars were mass-produced for the Allied armies. In this context, the indigenous HF-24 supersonic fighter developed from scratch in the 1960s seems an aberration. It is because the DPSUs have stayed stuck at the screwdriver technology level that the department of defence production in MoD has evolved a procurement system willy-nilly funnelling billions of dollars to foreign vendors with minimal transfer of technology (ToT). DPSUs neither ingest foreign technology nor let the private sector benefit from it.

How much the ToT provisions are eyewash and how much the military procurement system favours imports and enriches foreign countries may be gauged from a few facts. Firstly, the technology transfer content in deals is not required to be divulged by the foreign vendors until after the bids are in and a supplier chosen! This empowers the vendor to restrict the technology it chooses to transfer, usually basic stuff related to the platform—a ToT threshold DPSUs are comfortable with. As prime buyer India doesn't use its leverage to squeeze state-of-the-art technologies out of the suppliers, is uncommonly generous in forking out huge sums at the outset, and tolerates delays in delivery and non-transfer of technology. Hence, gains from indigenisation even from the offsets policy are minimal. It leads to imports of high-value packages being locked into long-term deals. Dassault, for example, will supply 30% of the advanced avionics amounting to over $10 billion of the $30 billion plus contract for the full duration of the Rafale programme.

Secondly, ostensibly because of foreign currency fluctuations foreign suppliers are not held to the cost-figure in their winning bids, even as Indian bidders who may buy technology from abroad and refine it here are! Foreign suppliers are thus incentivised deliberately to underbid to win contracts and then to raise the price at the price negotiation stage without incurring any penalties. The French firm, Dassault Avions, originally offered the Rafale combat aircraft with comprehensive ToT for $10 billion. But after winning the tender, it increased the cost to over $30 billion and the MoD did not blink! This skewed system is bolstered by the military's preference for foreign, especially Western, hardware. India, consequently, is routinely relieved of monies and Indian private sector companies are prevented from winning procurement contracts.

The extant system has evolved around the fact that the remit of the Defence Production Secretary as the guardian of DPSUs is to ensure their order books are full. Because DPSU capability is limited to licensed manufacture, procurement deals centre on it. Committees chaired by ex-bureaucrats, the most recent one by Vijay Kelkar, are periodically constituted to recommend revamp of existing protocols and procedures but without disturbing the dominance of DPSUs. This is akin to leaving a cancerous tumour intact while fiddling with the tissues around it! In the event, documents such as "Defence Procurement Policy-2013" are meaningless.

But how can competition and profit motive, the two great drivers of any vibrant industry, be injected into the defence industrial and military procurement spheres? The solution lies in eliminating the spurious distinction between public and private sectors and meshing their resources and capabilities. It was outlined in a 1999 paper by me to the technology review sub-committee in the first National Security Advisory Board. Keeping in mind the need to amortise sunk costs in building up impressive laboratories and physical facilities for R&D and weapons testing under DRDO (whose "chalta hai" attitude was decried by the PM) and production facilities in innumerable DPSUs and ordnance factories, I proposed that all these installations, some 50-odd, be divided into two nearly equally capable defence R&D and manufacturing combines and be led as commercial enterprises by two of the most ethical and industrially versatile business houses—Larsen & Toubro and Tata.

These two combines, subsuming the capacities of L&T and Tata, would pay the government rent for the DRDO centres/DPSUs/ordnance factories in their group and royalty for the technology, software, and hardware outputted by them. They'd bid for all weapons contracts with funds being provided by MoD to develop prototypes, and the winner determined by a transparently conducted run-off. What technology is procured from where under what financial terms, and which foreign or local firms are associated on which project, would be the sole concern of the combines. It will hasten the globalisation of Indian industry.

Such a scheme, besides creating a world-class defence-industrial complex and arms exporter, will rid the procurement system of its most serious ills—the inclination to import, endemic corruption and influence-peddling, the self-defeating lowest tender (L-1) process, production orders in small tranches that undermine economies of scale, and the bans on commercialising imported technology and exporting military products. Integrating private and public sector skills and wherewithal, inducing competitive pricing, and rewarding performance will increase labour productivity and efficient resource-use resulting, say, in the Kolkata-class destroyer being produced not in 8-9 years but the international industry standard—three years. Unsurprisingly this "out of the box" proposal is collecting dust.

The author is professor at the Centre for Policy Research and blogs at Security Wise | Bharat Karnad – India's Foremost Conservative Strategist

 

[Punya Pratap]

@ p2prada, please elaborate on the above article's paragraph that is in BOLD..... I understand that you would also like to have a revamp of our defense sector same as me and hopefully WITHOUT ANY BIAS towards the DPSU's or the Armed Forces.

I agree with Bharat Karnad, for the greater welfare of our countries defense I would rather see some urgent and revolutionary steps being taken and all interested parties brought to bear their collective resources instead of the "blame game" indulging in who did or did not do what it was supposed to!!!

 

[Pulkit]

Apparently the trainer tejas mk1 demonstrated multi role capability by dropping tanks, firing R-73 E, and dropping LGBs all with in 100 seconds, while two full fledged Su-30 MKis supposed to do all that in IORNFIST failed to turn up,

Which trainer in the world has a radius of action of 500 Km, with a combat range of more than 1000 Km, internal EW suit and working refuelling probe. And has an ELTA 2032 hybrid radar capable of firing long range BVR misslies with a deadly combo of low clean config RCS to go with?

Tejas mk2 is going to have retracting refuelling probe further reducing RCS, Does Rafale F3 has that?

Which trainer in the world can take off with external fuel tanks and weapons from Leh even before inducted into IAF? 4 of the 6 famed MMRCA contenders failed in this high altitude trials .

No fighter which entered IAF was capable of that from the first day.

Which trainer in the world has a deadly combo of 1.07 TWR(half fuel load in close combat mode) and the lowest wing loading factor guaranteed for high G onset rate and quicker instantaneous turns most important in evading missiles or getting a first firing solution before enemy?

if there is such a trainer please close tejas mk1 production line and buy that wholesale.

For an airforce that is fielding close to 400 flying fossils, its fanboys are displaying disastrous bravado by calling it below Mig-21 bisons and trainer!!!!!,far removed from reality

This must be a tactic to keep Enemy in the state of delision.....
At the time of war it will be used to bring down the enemy...

calling a good fighter aircraft a lead trainer .... they must be :drunk:....

even if we agree that it is 15 years late (not true at all) it was supposed to serve for 35-40 years if not more then it still has 25 years of combat life left and at this price and with latest Avionics upgraded radar etc etc it is quite a potent weapon....

IAF is just making sure that Govt doesnot scrap the deal just like it did for M777... so just to exert pressure they are doing this... and they might suceed aswell....

 

[Anoop Sajwan]

IOC standards are different for each user. What one user thinks needs to be in IOC is different from what others want. The USMC wants their F-35 IOC to be capable of CAS missions in support of ground troops. USAF wants their IOC to include AMRAAM missile firing capability. But IAF don't want BVR capability on LCA. The Russians want PAKFA IOC to have BVR, WVR, and certain A2G weapons capability like the KH-31. All of them can have different flight regimes for IOC too. Then there is a difference in when they think IOC is given. IAF gives IOC before IOC aircraft are inducted, but USAF gives IOC after a squadron is inducted.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/department-of-defense-announces-f-35-ioc-dates-for-all-services/
Basically, this means our IOC is not equal to the USAF IOC. USAF IOC requires the air force to be partially prepped for war. For us IOC only means we want the basic jets to be inducted. Similarly, the Chinese IOC is a step ahead of the USAF IOC. The Chinese got their first jet in 2003, but gave IOC only in 2005 after dozens were inducted. Basically, the IAF FOC is equal to the Chinese IOC. Chinese provide FOC after the jet has attained high levels of systems maturity, when red lines are well tested in contested environment. We provide FOC when the red lines are just crossed. If we are to make IOC standards the same as the USAF's, then LCA Mk1 is yet to achieve IOC. It will most probably be achieved in 2017 or 2018 when the first squadron is fully prepped for limited war.

Ok, IOC process is different wold wide. But that doesn't not mean that IOC in IAF is inferior. You told what USAF or US-marine want in their IOC. Same IAF wants complete integration of avionic and testing before IOC, which is something F35 will not achieve even after IOC and what F35 will achieve in its IOC LCA didn't provide in its IOC. if IAF said that Okay we want CAS capability in IOC than ADA/HAL would work that way and would provide that before integration of avionics. ADA provide LCA in the IOC form in which IAF wants.

But the question still remain same. Why IAF doesn't order LCA even after completion of its IOC parameters, while every force in world used to do it.

You claimed that the F-35 has restricted AoA, but you were wrong. F-35 has fully achieved everything that was needed to achieve in AoA before IOC. LCA has not done anything of the sort.
USAF's F-35A aircraft completes high angle of attack testing - Airforce Technology
What this means is F-35 has already achieved most of the stuff that LCA is yet to achieve even before IOC. This demonstrates different standards for testing. And LCA is nowhere as capable as most other aircraft in terms of design. LCA has very modest performance figures. For eg: Rafale and Gripen have achieved AoA of 100 deg during tests. LCA will never cross the 30-35 deg margin because it is not designed to do so. Su-27 regularly pulls 70 deg. F-22 pulls 60-70 deg too. OTOH, Mirage-2000 and F-16 pull as much as LCA does because they are both older designs like LCA. In 7 years of flight testing, F-35 has flown a total of 18000+ hours while LCA has flown 2000+ hours.

You took it wrong. I say that even F35's flight envelop is restricted due to safety of pilots. May be it will be increased in future. But it is restricted now because it is in testing. While F35 is entered in service with restrict envelop.

The question is again same why IAF didn't induct LCA. LCA can achieve their claim on AoA and tested further while order can be given in IOC at-least. I am trying to tell you IAF's ignorance towards indigenous project while fantasy about foreign weapons.

F35 achieved 18000+ flying hours because they are already in 100+ numbers. that is average of 180 hours per plane.
While LCA fly 2000 hour on just 8- LSPs.

 

[Anoop Sajwan]

From the IOC examples I gave, FGFA will also take a long time before enough numbers are available and systems maturity is achieved. That should happen sometime in 2030. Just because FGFA will see IOC in 2022 doesn't mean it is war ready. So from now until 2030 we will need an aircraft like Rafale to bring in new capability while arresting the drop is squadrons. Even after 2030, we will need Rafale to provide support in missions that FGFA is not needed in. Because even after 2030, Rafale will still be capable of carrying advanced electronics, new weapons to long ranges. LCA can't do that today, let alone in 2030.

I think this is your own perspective towards FGFA. Right sir.
But even if go to your way. FGFA will induct in service since 2020. And according to you FGFA will get IOC in 2022. Than why we didn't do it in case of LCA. WHY SO adopted son type behavior with LCA.

Delays and challenges for Indo-Russian fighter | Business Standard News

According to this, FGFA will induct in service by 2017, will get certificate by 2019 and than will go production. HAL also have plans to convert MKI line to FGFA line in 2019. That even dilute the RAFALE's profits.

It is the same for LCA. If Mk2 undergoes IOC in 2020, then it will take at least 10 years before it is war ready, when we have enough numbers, pilots have enough experience and maintenance and logistics is good. The French have made Rafale war ready by themselves. And LCA Mk2 won't do this work. It is not a SEAD/DEAD aircraft. We don't know if they will even be based in the North East. For SEAD/DEAD, you need payload and endurance. So, we only have MKI today which is not enough. By the time such UCAVs arrive even FGFA will be obsolete. Low operational costs don't come into the picture during war, it is only important during peace when defense budgets are low.

I have to say sir you are completely wrong in this. 10 year period is too long. You can see too many a/c in history which participated in war after much shorter service. Even if war will start today, US will deploy its F35. Maximum 3-4 year service of a/c is enough to deploy it in war.

Rafale is definitely war ready by french but only for themselves. In IAF service, pilots and ground crew definitely need time in them. It is just hypocrisy that Rafale will come and strart doing its business. These platform also need time in IAF to mature even they are in service in their respective forces.

On other hand, I don't think that weapon package will come with Rafale due to high cost of a/c. first they induct them and than will order weapons in batches, just we did in case of Miraj2000. Some expert estimate Rafale cost as high as 200 million per piece in Brazilian tender because they were including weapon package. If we go in that way than cost of mmrca should be atleast $25 BILLION. While cost is only $ 16 billion.

So due to lake of superior weapon package we can not use rAFLE in its real capability. Initially it will use mica, lgbs etc, originally m2000 weapons. So it will be only better m2k initially. Although we will buy Mica NG, stand-off weapons and multi rack missiles etc in future but what I mention earlier no significance over MKI, LCA.

UACV will not decrease the significance of FGFA, because FGFA are not coming dedicated strike platforms while their main mission will be air-superiority. So significance of FGFA will not decrease while indeed Rafale's did due to its higher signature.

And lower operational cost become important during war rather than in peace if system is providing same capability. In peace time and low intensity wars, that is not significant. But in full-fledge war money do play its role. You can take examples of Bosnia war where PGMs were more than 70%, even in Lybia French used more PGMS. But in Operation desert strom, enduring freedom etc. are the examples where PMGs use were less than 30% of overall. Thats tell the significance of lower money hunger.

 

[shiphone]

F-35 Lightning II Program Surpasses 10,000 Flight Hours

FORT WORTH, Texas, Oct. 9, 2013 – The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II program continues its operational maturation, surpassing 10,000 flight hours in September. More than half of the total hours were accumulated in just the past 11 months. Through September, F-35s flew 6,492 times for a total of 10,077 flight hours. The new milestone effectively doubles the safe flight operations of the F-35 in a year, compared to reaching 5,000 flight hours in six years.

F-35 Fleet Surpasses 15,000 Flying Hours

As of April 7, operational F-35s had flown 8,050 hours while System Development and Demonstration aircraft had accumulated 7,123 flight hours. In 2014, F-35A test aircraft have flown 328 hours; F-35B test aircraft have accumulated 191 hours; and F-35C test aircraft have flown 91 hours. In comparison, operational F-35As have flown 963 hours, while their F-35B and F-35C counterparts have accumulated 1,012 and 98 hours respectively for the year.

First F-35 To 1,000 Hours

The F-35A test aircraft designated AF-2, became the first F-35 to reach 1,000 flight hours during a flight at the Air Force Test Center at Edwards AFB, California, on 11 June 2014. Lockheed Martin test pilot Paul Hattendorf was flying an airframe loads envelope expansion mission when the fighter reached the milestone. AF-2, delivered in May 2010, is primarily flown on aerodynamic loads envelope expansion tests. The Edwards F-35 Integrated Test Force has nine F-35s assigned for developmental testing: six F-35As, two F-35Bs and one F-35C. The Edwards F-35 team is working to complete testing required for the Block 2B software fleet release that will support US Marine Corps initial operational capability in 2015.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

yes, the flying hours done by the F35 System Development and Demonstration aircraft was not as much as "18000 plus"hours ,but was also listed as well . these flying hours were done by some prototypes of F35 projects(which definitely is not by the 100+ jets)...
1. in 6 years , these prototypes/test aircrafts flied 5000 hours by Oct 2013...
2. just in 3 months of 2014, these prototypes/test aircrafts flied more than 600 hours..
3. the earliest Test aircraft F-35 AF-2, this single jet has flied more than 1000 hours in 7 years.

some new member even don't know how many LCA are flying or flied... the 2000+ flight hours are shared by 2 TD , 4 PV, 1 NP ,and 7 LSP(not 8 yet) ...and the first flight took place in Jan 2001 , more than 13.5 years ago...

2660th flight on 30 July
TD1 : 233, PV1: 242, PV3: 384, LSP1: 74, LSP3: 215, LSP5: 277, TD2 : 305, PV2: 222, PV5: 51, LSP2: 294, LSP4: 128, LSP7: 115, NP1: 25, LSP8 : 95

2668th flight on 06 Aug
TD1 : 233, PV1: 242, PV3: 385, LSP1: 74, LSP3: 217, LSP5: 278, TD2 : 305, PV2: 222, PV5: 52, LSP2: 294, LSP4: 128, LSP7: 115, NP1: 25, LSP8 : 98

 

[ladder]

@shiphone

And your point being?

 

[shiphone]

@shiphone

And your point being?

my #3395 post should be the reply to the last part of post #3393..

F35 achieved 18000+ flying hours because they are already in 100+ numbers. that is average of 180 hours per plane.
While LCA fly 2000 hour on just 8- LSPs.

 

[p2prada]

@ p2prada, please elaborate on the above article's paragraph that is in BOLD.....

Both points are wrong.

ToT is extremely helpful. Just because he doesn't understand that doesn't mean anything.

Can you explain why US rarely provided ToT?

F-35 JSF Program: US & UK Reach Technology Transfer Agreement

Turkey's F-35 Decision Driven by Technology Transfer Concerns

Israel, U.S. Strike F-35 Technology Deal | AWIN content from Aviation Week

Japan has specified a high degree of technology transfer and work on the program, with an expressed interest in a domestic assembly line.

So, for some reason these countries want ToT, US is unwilling to give ToT and we don't need ToT?

And Rafale will come with extremely high levels of ToT. For eg: Snecma has publicly announced that 100% ToT will be provided for the Rafale engines for manufacture in India.

As for the costs in the bid. I have already posted the DPP bids where further cost negotiations are unnecessary once L1 is declared. The only areas where there will be cost increase is in other aspects of the deal like if IAF wants to add or remove something.

We don't know how far the deal has escalated. But unit price shouldn't have escalated. And the escalation itself should include lifecycle costs over 30 years.

 

[ersakthivel]

@shiphone

And your point being?

Point is he wants us to believe that both Boeing and ADA have the same experience, same budget for both the program and and same infra to start with. ADA floundered while Boeing pulled it off.Sanctions delay,FSED phase 2 time delay dont matter at all.

And the JF-17 which is inducted in PAF with no IOC, FOC and crashed twice with one of the world's most unreliable engine is a better fighter than tejas.

 

[p2prada]

Ok, IOC process is different wold wide. But that doesn't not mean that IOC in IAF is inferior. You told what USAF or US-marine want in their IOC. Same IAF wants complete integration of avionic and testing before IOC, which is something F35 will not achieve even after IOC and what F35 will achieve in its IOC LCA didn't provide in its IOC. if IAF said that Okay we want CAS capability in IOC than ADA/HAL would work that way and would provide that before integration of avionics. ADA provide LCA in the IOC form in which IAF wants.

Incorrect. IAF has asked for very basic IOC for LCA. Most fighters are ready for war during IOC, but LCA won't be. For eg: The F-35's flight parameters have all been tested. All red line parameters were achieved. LCA's main flight testing haven't even properly started.

Most of the actual war fighting capabilities for LCA have been pushed to FOC, full air to air radar integration and BVR. EW suite should be ready by FOC. Full flight parameters should be opened by FOC. IFR should be tested by FOC and so on.

F-35 will come with all of this in the IOC. If you are directly comparing LCA and F-35 capabilities, then F-35 at IOC will be far more capable than LCA Mk2 at FOC.

But the question still remain same. Why IAF doesn't order LCA even after completion of its IOC parameters, while every force in world used to do it.

IAF has already placed orders a decade ago. 40 are on order. Orders are required well before IOC, so HAL starts manufacturing.

You took it wrong. I say that even F35's flight envelop is restricted due to safety of pilots. May be it will be increased in future. But it is restricted now because it is in testing. While F35 is entered in service with restrict envelop.

It is just a norm. Even if the aircraft is safe to fly, flight restrictions are removed after operational flights begin.

The question is again same why IAF didn't induct LCA.

LCA should be ready for IAF to induct, no? Where is SP-1? Where is SP-2? HAL should first deliver the aircraft to the IAF. Then comes induction. Without deliveries there are no inductions.

I am done dealing with kids. You will go into my ignore list too. First get common sense, then learn real stuff about aircraft, then we will discuss again.

F35 achieved 18000+ flying hours because they are already in 100+ numbers. that is average of 180 hours per plane. While LCA fly 2000 hour on just 8- LSPs.

Incorrect again.

F-35's development test flight are different and operational training flights are different.

F-35 Fleet Surpasses 15,000 Flying Hours · Lockheed Martin

As of April 7, operational F-35s had flown 8,050 hours while System Development and Demonstration aircraft had accumulated 7,123 flight hours.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/100th-f-35-lightning-ii-fact-sheet

20 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft complete the test and development fleet

The F-35 has 20 test aircraft. LCA has 12 aircraft.

The combined flight hours of 20 aircraft was 7123 hours as of April this year. 12 LCA's have just crossed 2000 hours.

That puts them both at an average of 1016 hours a year for the F-35 and 133 hours a year for LCA. That's a 10 times difference.

All of these, you could have just Googled for it.

 

[p2prada]

I think this is your own perspective towards FGFA. Right sir.

No. This is a standard practice followed in all air forces. It takes minimum 5 years after induction. 5 years is when you have the first senior pilot with 1000-1500 hours. He would be in his early-mid 30s by then.

But even if go to your way. FGFA will induct in service since 2020. And according to you FGFA will get IOC in 2022. Than why we didn't do it in case of LCA. WHY SO adopted son type behavior with LCA.

FGFA's actual IOC date in unknown. IAF is to get first IOC squadron in 2022. It is possible IOC will happen sometime in 2020. So induction is sometime in 2022, not in 2020.

According to this, FGFA will induct in service by 2017, will get certificate by 2019 and than will go production. HAL also have plans to convert MKI line to FGFA line in 2019.

We are supposed to get the last prototype in 2017, this will be followed by 2-3 year program for MKIzation which should be complete by 2020. Then comes production.

That even dilute the RAFALE's profits.

It doesn't affect Rafale. Rafale's production line is in Bangalore. FGFA's production line will be in Nasik.

I have to say sir you are completely wrong in this. 10 year period is too long. You can see too many a/c in history which participated in war after much shorter service. Even if war will start today, US will deploy its F35. Maximum 3-4 year service of a/c is enough to deploy it in war.

I am not wrong about it. You simply don't know how it works. And we are not at war. Else it happens sooner during war since pilots fly three to four times more.

Everything is determined by flight hours. During peace time you get 200 hours a year. During war time you can easily get 1000-1500 hours. So, 200 hours * 10 years = 2000 hours = Super senior pilot. 1500 hours * 2 years = 3000 hours = super senior pilot.

Rafale is definitely war ready by french but only for themselves. In IAF service, pilots and ground crew definitely need time in them. It is just hypocrisy that Rafale will come and strart doing its business. These platform also need time in IAF to mature even they are in service in their respective forces.

Most of the work is already done. Our pilots only need to go to France and fly with the French for two years. Come back and fly the rookies. Translate all their books into English.

On other hand, I don't think that weapon package will come with Rafale due to high cost of a/c. first they induct them and than will order weapons in batches, just we did in case of Miraj2000. Some expert estimate Rafale cost as high as 200 million per piece in Brazilian tender because they were including weapon package. If we go in that way than cost of mmrca should be atleast $25 BILLION. While cost is only $ 16 billion.

All critical weapons will come from France and India, BVR, WVR.

UACV will not decrease the significance of FGFA, because FGFA are not coming dedicated strike platforms while their main mission will be air-superiority. So significance of FGFA will not decrease while indeed Rafale's did due to its higher signature.

All UCAV programs are well into the future. The nearest one is 2030. By the time we get our first UCAV, it will be 2040, FGFA will be like Mirage-2000 today. By 2040 we will already be inducting a FGFA replacement.

And lower operational cost become important during war rather than in peace if system is providing same capability. In peace time and low intensity wars, that is not significant. But in full-fledge war money do play its role. You can take examples of Bosnia war where PGMs were more than 70%, even in Lybia French used more PGMS. But in Operation desert strom, enduring freedom etc. are the examples where PMGs use were less than 30% of overall. Thats tell the significance of lower money hunger.

Provide links for your claims. Sortie rates and PGMs dropped for all the wars you named. Libya and Bosnia were not full fledged wars.

During war, costs consideration don't exist. Govts dig into their reserves and borrow money to fight wars. If something is too expensive but gets the job done then cost becomes an afterthought.

Your knowledge is the exact opposite of standard practices that we have seen throughout history.