ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Pandeyji]

It has paid for MK-1 Developement i.e FSED-1, then they backed off publicly, then they backed from paying there share of production line funds over that How can you explain the fact that the navy has extremely poor project feasibility and requirement examination system?
When they always wanted a so called twin engine then why in 2009 they came up with idea of NLCA?
Moreover I must add to this, RFI for MRCBF DOESNOT MANDATES TWIN ENGINE.

They are still paying for MK2 development. But they also said that it isn't feasible for them to have it in the fleet. Because development will take time & they need fighers now.

As for NLCA if my memory serves me right NLCA was an ADA idea. Navy just said that they would fund the program & induct it i.e. if it works. But Carrier borne fighters need sturdier landing gear (along with other additions) and that increased weight of the plane.
And
You are right there is no requirement of engine in MRCBF. But you must realise that Carrier borne fighters need more power & more payload as they have to serve in very different conditions.

 

[Adioz]

When it comes to indigenous developments, we always protect scientists and that also leads to lack of accountability and inefficient developments.

Agreed. Not always, but yes, we do. And that is part of the problem.

This also leads to the myths that IN is supporting indigenous developments more than IAF. But that's based on the misconception that INs part in the design stage is the key, while the real advantage we have in the naval field is, that we have far more and more capable government owned and privat ship yards. That gives IN a far better industrial base for naval developments, than IAF for aircrafts, because the Indian aviation industry is only HAL, ADA and to an extent Tata so far. There are no other options and the once we have, are premature in most fields. That's also the reason why IN is criticising ADA, HAL and DRDO for the same false promises on NLCA, delays and mistakes, as IAF does on LCA, or why IN is not buying a single new indigenous aircraft (other than more naval Dhruv) in the coming years, because our aviation industry and scientists can't provide what they need!

Oh no you did not just spin that BS. Those capable shipyards exist because Navy was hell bent on indigenisation and they worked hard to create an indigenous industry long before the IAF did. The IAF did not try to make an indigenous aircraft industry (apart from HAL) and see where the problems came? The problems came from design part of LCA. Production is smooth.
And yes, Navy is blaming the ADA for an unfit N-LCA because we do not have an indigenous aircraft industry. But don't forget why that happened in the first place.

See, that's what I meant above. ADA is the designer, but the blame is on IAF.

Don't be silly. Read what I wrote:-

The drag issues of Tejas arose due to IAF’s ever-changing GSQRs.

The blame is on the IAF for changing GSQRs so late in the development process.
Read this:-

What made the LCA go beyond the targeted empty weight is not the large wing, but the later insistence from IAF for the deployment of higher launch stress inducing, higher weight longer range BVR missiles on all the pylons, which led to the strengthening of the wing and the consequent weight increase and the sudden increase in cross section from x=5000 mm to x=6000 mm along the fuselage axis.

Even with this weight increase and some drag issues related to the sudden fuselage cross section increase needed to strengthen the section there to attach the higher weight wing, (due to the revised IAF BVR missile needs) the LCA mk-1 still managed to clear many of the targets set for it.

Granted that the ADA were no saints. But You want to blame the ADA for a clear failure of the IAF? WTF is wrong with you?


@Sancho stop painting the IAF as saints. All I am trying to say is that the fault can not be laid on the DRDO alone. I don't mean to say that the DRDO is not at fault here. Have you ever heard of the term "military bureaucracy" ? Or do you think that this term does not apply in the case of India somehow.
Bhaiya tali kabhi ek haath se nahi bajti.

Let us look at the track record of IAF:-

• Do you remember the CAG's report on why Akash SAM was not deployed in EAC?
• Do I need to remind you of IAF's helicopter turf wars with Army?
• Do I need to point out how woefully inadequate the joint operations structure is? Remember Kargil?
• What was the Tejas supposed to be and what did it end up being? What was the difference between initial GSQR and final one?
• Which service is the least amicable to the idea of a CDS and theater commands?

The IAF has its fair share of problems. So does the DRDO. They should try to work together as much as possible. They should carry each others slack in some cases, but only if they can learn to bridge the communication gap. Instead, they are embroiled in a blame game with National security at stake. And what is your answer to that?
Your answer is to pin all the blame on DRDO and go shopping abroad. Agreed that projects should not face delays in the name of national pride. But running from the problems instead of confronting them is not the right answer.

No not at all, it's exactly the other way around! IAF and politicians get constantly blamed by the public for everything that went wrong in the LCA programme. Either it's lack of support and funding, too low orders or too high requirements..., all to hide any accountability for development failures or mistakes of the scientists.
Just look at the hysteria a few months ago, when IAF explained the government, that Tejas is not good enough "to take over the medium class requirement" and that they need "both", Tejas and SE MMRCAs to defend the country. The media took it out of context and everyone was jumping on IAF, to allegedly prefer foreign fighters over Tejas, although that wasn't what they stated at all.
You can also take the criticisms on the low MK1 orders and insisting on MK2 as an example, where IAF was blamed for development failures of our scientists, that caused overweight, drag issues and not meeting the ASR.
Not to mention the criticism of IN, for not buying NLCA, although it's not available anytime soon and by far not capable enough for carrier operations.

• When you say "everyone blaming the IAF", you are only really talking about those of us here at DFI. Nobody is blaming the IAF in the media, except for perhaps Bharat Karnad. And he is not even in mainstream media.
• When I say "everyone blaming the DRDO", I am talking about the entire nation, our news media, and our gullible population that cannot be lead to believe that the Armed Forces are anything short of "perfect".
• All the three points of criticism you mentioned: LCA program problems, SE MMRCAs, NLCA are being pinned solely on the DRDO's inability. From rifles to helmets to everything else, the public and media all love to blame the DRDO.
• Just for the record:-
  • I don't blame Navy for NLCA rejection.
  • I don't blame IAF alone for all the woes of Tejas. They share the blame with DRDO.
  • I did blame IAF for single engine MMRCAs, but that is 'cause I was initially afraid that it was a move to kill Tejas Mk-2. And it was not until I got confirmation that the Tejas Mk-2 would receive support from IAF that my fears were allayed to a certain extent. I still believe we can make do without SE MMRCAs.
  • I do blame the IAF for not trying to make do with what is available. I do hope to see more Rafale in IAF. I just don't want to see more than 5 fighter types in service with our Air Force. But I am not a professional air warrior, so I don't want to accord too much importance to my opinion here. I believe we can make do without SE MMRCA, but I understand I might be wrong.

Now I know you are tenacious in arguments, but I would appreciate if you actually read and understand the thought behind my reply. As long as you accept that the IAF is also at fault, we can agree to disagree on the path AMCA needs to take. But if you are only stating that development path (for an AMCA made completely out of foreign collaboration) just because you think the DRDO should be allowed to sink because it is beset with problems, then I still have an issue with you.

 

[Chinmoy]

Once the design is freezed it shoudnt take us more than 2 years to produce the first model and foc in 4years

If its in PDP, that means design is already freezed. Going by what @AMCA had posted that PDP too would get completed by this year, we could expect to see the first prototype by 2020-21. But on other side, IMO we would not be seeing the TD anywhere before 2025.

 

[Chinmoy]

BTW, will we have separate teams working on Tejas Mk2 and AMCA? I imagine we would, but some confirmation will be good.

Watch the prog "Walk the Talk with HAL". We do have two seperate teams working on Tejas and AMCA. Atleast in designing phase.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Jamnagar to muscat is 750 miles approx. LCA refuelled at jamnagar and during its journey carried drop tanks. 1500 km range is with drop tanks. Fanboys can live in their dreams.

But only two Drop Tank were seen attached. The centreline tank with the stipulated capacity of `750 litres was missing. 2x R-73(dummy) were also seen on outer-wing pylons. Hardly a 'Ferry' configuration.

So, Jamnagar to Muscat flight is not standard for calculating Ferry Range. Fanboy or otherwise, this sortie confirms Tejas having a ferry range greater than that flown on that route.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Pride of India: Made In India Light Combat Aircraft Tejas returns to Rajpath in a three man Vic formation over New Delhi.

Hope this time all three are SPs..............

There are enough Tejas to fly classic Jaguar style RD special 5 ship formation. Maybe SU-30MKI style Trishul also.

 

[Immanuel]

Biggest reason for LCA being delayed is a very bastardly approach taken by IAF and IN. LCA even in basic state of tune is more capable than the Vajra and Mig-21 Bison on any given day. No airframer be it PSU like HAL or giants like LM won't commit to anything unless the pricipal users agree to a minimum order quantity and finalize staff requirements. This approach of first develop and we'll see how much we buy is dogshit on a silver platter.

HAL, ADA have their own issues but their inefficiencies stem from an inefficient MOD which to date is a slow and cumbersome ministry. Regardless of who is in power, it seems this ministry is as well run as a constipated asshole.

 

[Rahul Singh]

One of the two goals behind starting LCA was the creation of an ecosystem which appears to have been already realised even when production is only beginning. Hail HAL.

 

[Immanuel]

Even now, the Imported AF would rather buy more shiny imported stuff than to commit itself fully to the Tejas Mk-2, the fools at Mod also lack the balls to punish the Imported AF for this.

Heck the Imported Af and MOD couln't even get the MRCA right. The top management seems to be smoking some serious dogshit, I would rather they stick to Ganja. How does a AF compare a whole bunch of twin and single engine fighters of different weight classes to replace what was a clear Single Engine requirement and how they ended up buying the Rafale in the end is beyond me. This whole debacle could have been avoided if they invested all their time and money for LCA

 

[Rahul Singh]

Even now, the Imported AF would rather buy more shiny imported stuff than to commit itself fully to the Tejas Mk-2, the fools at Mod also lack the balls to punish the Imported AF for this.

There has been a culture going on in Lutiyans for 65 plus years. Do not expect an overnight change. However, this does not mean that more breakthroughs like MK-1As, QR-SAM won't keep coming. Carrot and Strick policy is already working.

However, i believe the speed of transformation should be gradually increased so as to not spoil our leverage tools in diplomacy by upsetting powerful arms agents right from one sitting in Oval Office.......!!!.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Republic Day 2018: Flying Daggers to lead fighter display with a 3 aircraft formation, like last year.

 

[mayfair]

Pray that Doordarshan gets it right this time...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Late night finishing touch for an early morning test flight by the technicians and supervisors, has been the story for Tejas. Right configuration, right kind of instrumentation, correct SOP, correct FCN, correct hardware/software combination and the correct flight test procedure have been the key elements of Tejas test flying, way different than a normal regular sortie. Data generation through well executed test points has been the main source to validate and improve the design.,

 

[Sancho]

Oh no you did not just spin that BS. Those capable shipyards exist because Navy was hell bent on indigenisation and they worked hard to create an indigenous industry long before the IAF did.

IN can't create industry, they are involved in naval design, but that's it. The fact that we have so many shipyards, or that L&T or Pipavav are more committed to own R&D, than any privat player in the aviation sector so far, has nothing to do with the forces.

The IAF did not try to make an indigenous aircraft industry (apart from HAL) and see where the problems came?

HAL is not IAF owned, but by the government and the same is the case for ADA and NAL, which is everything India has in the aviation industry and which are dependent on each other. That's the key difference to the Indian naval industry. More players, more know how and experience.

And yes, Navy is blaming the ADA for an unfit N-LCA because we do not have an indigenous aircraft industry.

Which proves, that even if the navy would be more committed than IAF, the problem is the limited industry!

That's why the LCA and MKI and MMRCA/SE MMRCA programms are so important for the nation, to build up the Indian aviation industry, in a much broader and capable way, than what we even have today.

@Sancho stop painting the IAF as saints. All I am trying to say is that the fault can not be laid on the DRDO alone.

What has IAF to do with the development failure of kaveri? With the performance issues of DRDOs radar, Astra or Sudharshan?
Development failures, mistakes or delays are based on the developing agency, not the customer!

• What was the Tejas supposed to be and what did it end up being? What was the difference between initial GSQR and final one?

The difference is years if delays! You can't honestly think that IAF in 2017 can accept technical capabilities that were agreed on in the 90s and was suppose to be delivered years ago. These delays are caused by development problems, not high requirements, just as IAF asks for modernisations, because of development delays.

The IAF has its fair share of problems.
[

No doubt about that, but most of what you pointed to, has nothing to do with Tejas development, so has no relevance here.

Your answer is to pin all the blame on DRDO and go shopping abroad.

Of course because the priority is not on the sub systems they should develop, but on the main projects, LCA / FGFA / AMCA.
If DRDO delivers, great, but don't make the fighter programmes dependent on DRDO promises and simply use the access to techs and systems we have!

• All the three points of criticism you mentioned: LCA program problems, SE MMRCAs, NLCA are being pinned solely on the DRDO's inability. From rifles to helmets to everything else, the public and media all love to blame the DRDO.

You are mixing things up here, with the issues of ADA and you can't defend blame that is well deserved. There is a reason why DRDO gets blamed by everyone, because they are not delivering to their great promises! So it's on them to change things, to not get blamed and not on us, to simply be silent.

But if you are only stating that development path (for an AMCA made completely out of foreign collaboration) just because you think the DRDO should be allowed to sink because it is beset with problems, then I still have an issue with you.

Here again you don't understand that DRDO is not important for AMCA, they can't contribute anything important to the programme, without getting foreign help on their own (Israeli help for radar, French help for engine, maybe Swedish for EW). Important are the designers, developers and the production agency (ADA, HAL or private players), while anything else can be sourced from abroad if necessary.
So leave DRDO out and let them develop sub components independently, if they deliver great, if not the fighter programme is not at risk.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Tejas was developed by Indians under sanctions, Your are claim that DRDO or any national R&D agency is incompetent to the extend is unrealistic and sound much of a personal opinion ..

HAL is not IAF owned, but by the government and the same is the case for ADA and NAL, which is everything India has in the aviation industry and which are dependent on each other. That's the key difference to the Indian naval industry. More players, more know how and experience.


Which proves, that even if the navy would be more committed than IAF, the problem is the limited industry!

That's why the LCA and MKI and MMRCA/SE MMRCA programms are so important for the nation, to build up the Indian aviation industry, in a much broader and capable way, than what we even have today.


What has IAF to do with the development failure of kaveri? With the performance issues of DRDOs radar, Astra or Sudharshan?,Development failures, mistakes or delays are based on the developing agency, not the customer!

The difference is years if delays! You can't honestly think that IAF in 2017 can accept technical capabilities that were agreed on in the 90s and was suppose to be delivered years ago. These delays are caused by development problems, not high requirements, just as IAF asks for modernisations, because of development delays.

No doubt about that, but most of what you pointed to, has nothing to do with Tejas development, so has no relevance here.

Of course because the priority is not on the sub systems they should develop, but on the main projects, LCA / FGFA / AMCA.
If DRDO delivers, great, but don't make the fighter programmes dependent on DRDO promises and simply use the access to techs and systems we have!

You are mixing things up here, with the issues of ADA and you can't defend blame that is well deserved. There is a reason why DRDO gets blamed by everyone, because they are not delivering to their great promises! So it's on them to change things, to not get blamed and not on us, to simply be silent.

Here again you don't understand that DRDO is not important for AMCA, they can't contribute anything important to the programme, without getting foreign help on their own (Israeli help for radar, French help for engine, maybe Swedish for EW). Important are the designers, developers and the production agency (ADA, HAL or private players), while anything else can be sourced from abroad if necessary.
So leave DRDO out and let them develop sub components independently, if they deliver great, if not the fighter programme is not at risk.

 

[Sancho]

Tejas was developed by Indians under sanctions, Your are claim that DRDO or any national R&D agency is incompetent to the extend is unrealistic and sound much of a personal opinion ..

Please don't come with such cheap excuses. It's always someone else that caused the problem, just not DRDO.

 

[Sancho]

Even now, the Imported AF would rather buy more shiny imported stuff than to commit itself fully to the Tejas Mk-2, the fools at Mod also lack the balls to punish the Imported AF for this.

And even now there are people, that don't understand why MK2 is not coming, but MK1A instead and guess what, IAF ordered it!

 

[mayfair]

And even now there are people, that don't understand why MK2 is not coming, but MK1A instead and guess what, IAF ordered it!

Knowledgeable folks such as Indranil at BRF who are very much in the know have confirmed that MK2 has been given the go ahead.

 

[patriots]

ya indranil has confirmed mk2 but still money is not sanctioned....
hope it will happen soon ....and indranil is a reliable source

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The way most people are viewing this that you are carrying a agenda of your own, It just your complete focus is bashing Indian R&D agency and products all together, In way or around ..( No offense nor taken )

Excuse all of us, It just you and only you giving bad co lour to anything that Indian agencies does, MK1A was smart move to keep factories running, Unlike what happen with Arjuns, But some how its all clear to everyone but not you.. ( No offense nor taken )

Please don't come with such cheap excuses. It's always someone else that caused the problem, just not DRDO.

And even now there are people, that don't understand why MK2 is not coming, but MK1A instead and guess what, IAF ordered it!