ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[SanjeevM]

......................................................................
.....
..

Are these apart from MK1 and MK1A that are already ordered or Will the be from the same numbers that are already ordered?

 

[patriots]

Tejas mk2..update....

Q..funds allocated and R&D started for Tejas Mk2?
ans...R&D was already underway using LCA Phase -III money. There is no word on the additional money required for creating prototypes having been sanctioned already.

 

[patriots]

Are these apart from MK1 and MK1A that are already ordered or Will the be from the same numbers that are already ordered?

till now no radar are ordered...also uttam will be tested for one year from now in different configuration..,..
so if radars will be imported then may be in small nos .....we can see uttam in mk1a ....also . when ioc variants will be upgraded then also we can see uttam aesa

 

[Prashant12]

Team dedicates this image to another set of back-room boys, known as marshalers. One of the numerous moments of a marshaller boy, is seen here signaling the cranking of JFS on the trainer.

 

[Bleh]

Mig-17 does a min-radius turn in just above 20 sec.
Is 18-19 secs enough for tejas?

Also, coulc this video be doctored? (Watch from 1:00)

 

[Sancho]

The IAF ASR makers were no nobel prize winners in aerodynamics.

Always fun to read these kind of uneducated excuses. If you at least have read the CAG report on LCA, to get yourself a basic idea about the fighter, it's issues and the programme, you wouldn't need to claim this kind of nonsense, but then again, facts don't matter, let's just blame IAF requirements for the failures of the designers.

 

[Sancho]

Do look out for Endurance/AAR/Loiter time...Gripen scores a poor 3.8 out of a maximum of 10.. This is NOT 3.8 hours, it means that in the Swiss evaluation, Gripen scored well below EF (5.5) and Rafale (6) on this count (and below Rafale on every count).

:biggrin2: Exactly! The whole chart doesn't show any comparable figures to the once given for LCA, it only shows "scores" given by the Swiss AF, according to "their" requirements and the fact that a Gripen (they initially evaluated the C/D) with less internal and external fuel than a Rafale, should not surprise anyone or?
If you want to put that chart into relation to Tejas, you need to figure out what score it might have gotten by the Swiss and of it would be higher, only then you could make a logical point!

 

[Sancho]

IAF, ADA, HAL, DRDO need to get their act together to solve the deficiencies.

ADA is no multinational conglomerate to understand TAM and be ready with flexible products for different customers.

IAF should get out of this "customer" mentality.
They don't have enough money to get the toys they want or the numbers they desire. They should be pragmatic to realize that self reliance is the way to go.
For IAF's requirements, its in IAF's(and the nations) interest that they work with other agencies to develop those capabilities.

True, IAF just as the other forces should be more involved in indigenous developments, but that neither let's ADA/DRDO off the hook from their development mistakes and ego problems, nor makes our industry more capable than they are right now.

The simple fact is, Indian aviation is still a decade behind most other important nations and the LCA programme has shown this very clearly. Be it design, experience, project management skills, basic infrastructure, production capabilities..., we have shortfalls in all areas and made many avoidable mistakes too. But if we always use excuses to deny these shortfalls and mistakes, we won't improve ourselves, because that starts with admitting problems and learning from mistakes.

It is good that the MK1A upgrade is under HALs control, because the production agency should have the project management and not the designer of the aircraft or subsystem.
It's good that IN wants to be involved into a naval AMCA, but it's bad that ADA didn't learned from NLCA as it seem.

 

[Kshithij]

True, IAF just as the other forces should be more involved in indigenous developments, but that neither let's ADA/DRDO off the hook from their development mistakes and ego problems, nor makes our industry more capable than they are right now.

The simple fact is, Indian aviation is still a decade behind most other important nations and the LCA programme has shown this very clearly. Be it design, experience, project management skills, basic infrastructure, production capabilities..., we have shortfalls in all areas and made many avoidable mistakes too. But if we always use excuses to deny these shortfalls and mistakes, we won't improve ourselves, because that starts with admitting problems and learning from mistakes.

It is good that the MK1A upgrade is under HALs control, because the production agency should have the project management and not the designer of the aircraft or subsystem.
It's good that IN wants to be involved into a naval AMCA, but it's bad that ADA didn't learned from NLCA as it seem.

You are speaking nonsense just to justify your ego and have nothing to subtstantiate. The very same ADA developed Tejas quickly and git first flight in 2001. It was unfortunate that UPA had to destroy the project.

ADA can't develop project in a hostile environment. What they did is good for the situation. The mistakes were avoidable but that is political one. Without funding to do lot if experiment and trials, it is difficult to develop technology. With what limited funding they had, they did what they could

 

[indiatester]

True, IAF just as the other forces should be more involved in indigenous developments, but that neither let's ADA/DRDO off the hook from their development mistakes and ego problems, nor makes our industry more capable than they are right now.

The simple fact is, Indian aviation is still a decade behind most other important nations and the LCA programme has shown this very clearly. Be it design, experience, project management skills, basic infrastructure, production capabilities..., we have shortfalls in all areas and made many avoidable mistakes too. But if we always use excuses to deny these shortfalls and mistakes, we won't improve ourselves, because that starts with admitting problems and learning from mistakes.

It is good that the MK1A upgrade is under HALs control, because the production agency should have the project management and not the designer of the aircraft or subsystem.
It's good that IN wants to be involved into a naval AMCA, but it's bad that ADA didn't learned from NLCA as it seem.

The execution of projects of such importance should not be left with PSU's alone. IAF should have made as much noise it made before accepting LCA grudgingly during the design and testing phase. For a simpleton observer like me, it seems that IAF was waiting LCA to fail. Their desire for foreign planes for whatever perceived capabilities makes me wonder if may be their pilots are more capable too? Why not rent them out too.

Surely there is enough failure for everyone to share. IMHO, we needed our military leadership (MoD and forces) to do a DARPA with project management in their hands for research.

 

[Narasimh]

You are speaking nonsense just to justify your ego and have nothing to subtstantiate. The very same ADA developed Tejas quickly and git first flight in 2001. It was unfortunate that UPA had to destroy the project.

ADA can't develop project in a hostile environment. What they did is good for the situation. The mistakes were avoidable but that is political one. Without funding to do lot if experiment and trials, it is difficult to develop technology. With what limited funding they had, they did what they could

Its waste of time engaging with Sancho. He is having no proposition just carrying out one-upmanship.

 

[darshan978]

:biggrin2: Exactly! The whole chart doesn't show any comparable figures to the once given for LCA, it only shows "scores" given by the Swiss AF, according to "their" requirements and the fact that a Gripen (they initially evaluated the C/D) with less internal and external fuel than a Rafale, should not surprise anyone or?
If you want to put that chart into relation to Tejas, you need to figure out what score it might have gotten by the Swiss and of it would be higher, only then you could make a logical point!

if gripen c/d with such low internal fuel can be in swiss airforce why cant our indian jet LCA be in iaf?

 

[Sancho]

if gripen c/d with such low internal fuel can be in swiss airforce why cant our indian jet LCA be in iaf?

It can't and that's the point! Swiss AF just as IAF want MMRCAs, that's why both don't consider any procurement of foreign light class fighters!
But back then, Saab had nothing to show other than the Gripen Demo and Gripen C/D to participate in Swiss and Indian evaluations and that's why the offered largely estimates for performance and capabilities, than actual specs.

The Swiss evaluation marks only confirms, how high their requirements were, that not even Rafale or EF were able to get close to the maximum score in the mentioned field and that alone should "logically" make you understand, how low LCA would score under the same requirements.

So that comparison to LCA made no sense whatsoever.

 

[Sancho]

For a simpleton observer like me, it seems that IAF was waiting LCA to fail.

Well, you don't have to be an expert observer, you only need a clear and unbiased view to understand the reality and if you think IAF wants LCA to fail, you clearly don't have it!

Fact 1) IAF constantly confirms, that they want LCA below more capable MMRCAs and MKIs .

Fact 2) IAF never considered to drop the LCA programme , let alone a foreign light class alternative to Tejas.

Fact 3) IAF is not responsible for the development of the fighter, ADA is! So if ADA makes a bad job and the fighter doesn't meet the operational requirements, or need a decade to certify the fighter, it's "not" IAFs fault!!!

Fact 4) Even with all the performance and capability shortfalls, certification and production delays, IAF still ordered 40 x LCAs and was even generous enough to agree to the MK1A compromise, that's far below the MK2 that is meant to meet the ASR and would be ready to take 83 more limited fighters => potentially 123 fighters at minimum!

Fact 5) IAF had also confirmed that they still want the MK2, although it would come only at a time, when it's completely outdated and when most advanced Airforces operate 5th gen fighters.


The simple truth is, that all that is holding Tejas back to be a success, is the development itself!
All the blame game, distractions and plain ignoring of facts, won't help Tejas, since all that doesn't change a thang on the development problems.
If we keep focusing on fixing problems and making things simple, we still have the chance to make things right and give Tejas the credit that it deserves.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Well, you don't have to be an expert observer, you only need a clear and unbiased view to understand the reality and if you think IAF wants LCA to fail, you clearly don't have it!

Fact 1) IAF constantly confirms, that they want LCA below more capable MMRCAs and MKIs .

Fact 2) IAF never considered to drop the LCA programme , let alone a foreign light class alternative to Tejas.

Fact 3) IAF is not responsible for the development of the fighter, ADA is! So if ADA makes a bad job and the fighter doesn't meet the operational requirements, or need a decade to certify the fighter, it's "not" IAFs fault!!!

Fact 4) Even with all the performance and capability shortfalls, certification and production delays, IAF still ordered 40 x LCAs and was even generous enough to agree to the MK1A compromise, that's far below the MK2 that is meant to meet the ASR and would be ready to take 83 more limited fighters => potentially 123 fighters at minimum!

Fact 5) IAF had also confirmed that they still want the MK2, although it would come only at a time, when it's completely outdated and when most advanced Airforces operate 5th gen fighters.


The simple truth is, that all that is holding Tejas back to be a success, is the development itself!
All the blame game, distractions and plain ignoring of facts, won't help Tejas, since all that doesn't change a thang on the development problems.
If we keep focusing on fixing problems and making things simple, we still have the chance to make things right and give Tejas the credit that it deserves.

In that case at same time, Rafale F4, Gripen E EFT tranche 3 will be entering service, what will we they, "outdated" birds. Get some check up IAF requirements made an air superiority fighter into a multirole, and if that wasn't enough, sanctions which triggered development of various subsystems in India and then looking for vendor to manufacture that thing. The truth is all that blabbering misses writing about that Tejas was meant for two reasons, one to replace mig21 and second to establish an Aero space industry.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[ersakthivel]

Always fun to read these kind of uneducated excuses. If you at least have read the CAG report on LCA, to get yourself a basic idea about the fighter, it's issues and the programme, you wouldn't need to claim this kind of nonsense, but then again, facts don't matter, let's just blame IAF requirements for the failures of the designers.

From my long interactions with you, in this forum & #Tejas_LCA hashtag on twitter over tge years,

I know pretty well you are not competent to answer my questions.

Yet you go around ob all social medua forums that Tejas fell short of this ASR that ASR all the time.

I just cant supress my smile when I see this type of postings from technically incompetent people .

Tejas has flown far enough to be hurt by these false accusations.

Now we uv a competent politico military leadership to see through these fun & import games.

 

[ersakthivel]

CAG auditors are as good as Rajat "Bandit" of TOI to comment on "Technical shortfalls of tejas".

 

[ersakthivel]

It can't and that's the point! Swiss AF just as IAF want MMRCAs, that's why both don't consider any procurement of foreign light class fighters!
But back then, Saab had nothing to show other than the Gripen Demo and Gripen C/D to participate in Swiss and Indian evaluations and that's why the offered largely estimates for performance and capabilities, than actual specs.

The Swiss evaluation marks only confirms, how high their requirements were, that not even Rafale or EF were able to get close to the maximum score in the mentioned field and that alone should "logically" make you understand, how low LCA would score under the same requirements.

So that comparison to LCA made no sense whatsoever.

IAF is not getting 100 MMRCAs in thus life.

 

[Kshithij]

IAF had also confirmed that they still want the MK2, although it would come only at a time, when it's completely outdated and when most advanced Airforces operate 5th gen fighters.

So, french rafale, eurofighter typhoon, F15, F18, F16, MiG29, Su30 get outdated in 2025. Only F35, F22 and FGFA will be flying. Hence Tejas Mk2 will become obsolete.

This is some strange weed you are smoking

 

[Kay]

Since GaganShakti IAF is beginning to really like and appreciate Tejas. This is pure bad news for the import lobby. Not only they lose the Indian market, a successful Tejas will simply crush the competition - Gripen in price and JF17 in performance.