Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Light Combat Aircraft: The need for course correction II | StratPost

Air Marshal M Matheshwaran analyzes exactly why the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft will never fully meet the ASR and cannot become the IAF 's frontline fighter in the Lo segment.

Continued from Part I

LCA Concept and Key Decisions

The aircraft project was now called the Light Combat Aircraft in order to create an identity distinct from the Light Weight Fighter concept.

However, it was evident that the concept suffered from the IAF's fixation with the original idea of it replacing the Gnat and MiG-21 FL aircraft. That's why the size and weight limitation of remained close to the original idea. This created a contradiction in the programme, which the IAF failed to notice, at first.

The aircraft was destined to have a Radius of Action no better than the 40-year-old MiG-21 because of its low weight and small size.

While the size was kept small to cater to the primary imperative of low cost, it became impossible to achieve because of the introduction of high technology requirements. The challenges were timeframes, cost and performance. Bringing in high technology development requirements made huge time overruns inevitable. This was either not foreseen or the authorities and agencies concerned refused to acknowledge and recognise it.

The net result is that the relevance of the LCA concept, envisaged more than three decades ago, is now in question in terms of the operational and technical environment of the IAF today.

Although hindsight analysis is always easier than decision-making at a particular time, subsequent analysis of development projects remains important in order to learn the right lessons for the future, particularly when the product developed fails to meet the core objectives.

In that context the following questions/observations need to be answered:

(a) What was the original objective of the programme? Was it to fulfil the operational imperative of the IAF with a suitable indigenous replacement for its obsolete and ageing fleet or was it national imperative that an advanced fighter aircraft is made in India?

The former was an operational and time-sensitive imperative while the latter was a technology-acquisition imperative.

Why were these two contradicting requirements not balanced?

(b) The concept of LCA was to have been based on the successful Light Weight Fighter programme of the USAF.

It is now evident that more in-depth research would have allowed strategic foresight in defining the size and weight limitations of the aircraft with a focus on cost. Misplaced beliefs about the Gnat's invincibility as a low-cost Light Weight Fighter had an unreasonably overarching influence on decisions on the size and weight of the LCA.

The ASR 2/85 was approved in 1985 after more than two years of deliberations. During this period the IAF was fully aware of the performance, technological sophistication and operational relevance of the F-16 and Mirage 2000 fighters. The development of the Lavi by Israel also had significant lessons for us. Better research and analysis could have led to more considered decisions.

(c) When DRDO inserted the need for state-of-the-art technologies to be developed in the LCA programme, why were timelines not estimated with reasonable accuracy?

It was apparent that some of the technologies would take nearly three decades to mature, which became evident, finally. But project managers repeatedly asserted that the LCA would enter service in less than decade!

Scrutiny of these claims in detail could have led to strategically wiser decisions. To say that these assertions were simply errors of judgement would be either a gross understatement or purposely disingenuous.

(d) The IAF did voice its concerns repeatedly but these were overlooked.

Interested parties portrayed the IAF's concerns about the serious impact to its force structure by the long delays in the LCA programme as almost being an obstruction to the national endeavour. As a result, the IAF simply stayed away. This was a serious blunder.

Instead, the IAF should have convinced the government and taken full control of the programme, as is done in other programmes around the world. It was critically important that the User drive the programme in order to balance operational needs and technology development needs.

(e) The LCA began as a programme from scratch. The long development period and the possibility of consequent slippage were inherent in these decisions and that's why, it should have been foreseen naturally. However, periodic statements made by project managers over the last 20 years belie such understanding.

Given the urgency and priority of the air force's requirement it is surprising that the IAF went along with such decisions when alternate courses of action were available.

The HF-24 was a proven airframe but ended prematurely due largely to its underpowered engines. Since the US GE 404 engines were decided and procured for the LCA even before work on the first prototype began, it is surprising that the same engines were not considered as an immediate option to power the revised and upgraded HF-24 airframe.

This could have given the air force a very viable frontline fighter aircraft that could have entered operational service twenty years ago while the LCA continued in its realistic development phase.

Such a derivative based approach would have been the most logical strategy to follow as the two would have complimented and strengthened the development process. Instead we frittered away the lessons, skills and human resources of the HF-24 experience.

LCA Development – Achievements and Shortfalls

The LCA programme became primarily a technology development programme and its operational performance was unintentionally relegated to second priority. That's why, although there are significant achievements in the technology area, there are also serious deficiencies in the performance area.

Development and mastering the digital Fly-By-Wire flight control system is the most significant achievement of the programme. The concept, forming a national control law team for development, its execution and the final result have all been done in an exemplary manner, overcoming enormous challenges.

The LCA has a significantly large share of its structures and surfaces made of carbon composite material. The process of developing the required fibres and converting them into the required structures were mastered over a period of time. This is another significant achievement.

The Composite Manufacturing Division (CMD) of HAL is truly a world-class facility and addresses the requirement of both the LCA and the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) and its derivatives. There are also private sector players who have established similar facilities that have created increased capacity.

However, there exists vulnerability due to the import dependence on the raw material (Carbon Prepegs). This is an area where research should have commenced at the same time as the LCA programme.

Other significant achievements are in the areas of system integration, glass cockpit and mission computer, components development and engineering such as jet fuel starter, accessory gearbox and indigenisation of imported critical equipment such as the actuator.

Major technology shortfalls have been the non-realisation of the aero-engine and the multi-mode radar. In spite of major achievements in critical technology areas like the FBW and composites, the LCA as a weapons platform is still critically dependent on imported equipment when it comes to the power plant, materials, fire-control radar, EW, sensors and weapons.

Serious shortfalls also lie in the area of operational performance. The lack of an early focus on operational issues has resulted in poor weight management.

As a result, the LCA is significantly overweight and cannot meet the thrust to weight requirement in the air-combat configuration.

It would actually have been prudent to choose a canard-delta design considering the severe size and weight limitations. This was also the recommendation of the consultants in the early phase. It is strange that this was not followed. Instead we chose to rely on a pure tail-less delta design and thought that the combination of unstable platform and digital FBW flight control system would generate enough performance. This was not possible, as subsequent results have shown.

Interestingly the Gripen, which is almost similar to the LCA and uses the same engine, has a canard and delta combination. So do the Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

It is now clear that one of the reasons as to why the LCA will never fully meet the ASR is due to the basic choice of the platform design.

The aircraft also suffers from high supersonic drag and poor intake efficiency, as well as significant shortfalls in performance related to turn rates, acceleration, top speed and rate of climb.

While the aircraft may have excellent flight controls, good sensors and weapons, these critical deficiencies have a placed a question mark on the operational relevance of the aircraft.

Quite naturally, the IAF would be worried about LCA's ability to provide the necessary operational strength.

Why is India losing the plot?

It appears that history is repeating itself. The HF-24, although an excellent design, failed to meet a significant part of its operational requirement – the air defence role – due to its underpowered engines. A failure to address this critical need was the primary reason why the air force phased it out prematurely. It resulted in discontinuity in the indigenous fighter development capability.

The expertise created from the HF-24 programme was allowed to decay. Work on the LCA began from scratch.

Given the serious shortfall in the performance of the LCA, a focus on its inability to meet the ASR would result in a repetition of the HF-24 story. That's why, it is important to recognise the larger strategic need, which is consolidation of the indigenous fighter aircraft development capability.

For this, the LCA needs to be audited appropriately, taking into consideration its strengths and deficiencies. Here the original Light Weight Fighter programme offers the right lessons. This programme focused on developing a Light Weight Fighter at a low cost but with the performance parameters of a frontline fighter that could compliment the more expensive, larger and technically far superior F-15. This is how the Hi-Lo mix evolved.

In a similar manner if the LCA had met the ASR, it would have complimented the higher and expensive mix of Su-30 and MMRCA. The crux is in performance.

But since there are serious deficiencies in performance, the LCA cannot become the IAF 's frontline fighter in the Lo segment. Neither can the LCA fill the slot of the MMRCA or its equivalent role. More importantly, the IAF cannot afford to look for a one-to-one replacement of its ageing MiG-21.

India's profile and its environment of the 1970s and early 80s may have sufficed with a one-to-one replacement for the MiG-21. India's increasing stature and global role, its threat environment and rapid technological developments in the world mandates an aircraft with better performance and radius of action in this segment.

One can see this in the Chinese case. The JF-17, similar to the LCA, is developed for export customers and has no place in the PLAAF's inventory.

What is the solution?

The solution is to re-strategise the LCA's slot in the IAF's operational force structure, while keeping the need to continue, consolidate and stabilise India's fighter aircraft industry.

This will call for a realistic assessment of the LCA's operational role.

More importantly, the need to develop the next version as the first main frontline indigenous fighter aircraft should be realised quickly. A broader strategy will need to be put in place for this to happen.

The LCA MK II should be seen as the vehicle that will address the requirements of larger operational radius, better performance and greater indigenisation.

It could either be a single-engine aircraft with a redesigned airframe and a larger fuel capacity on the lines of the Gripen NG or it could be a twin-engine version of the LCA with just incremental technology.

A cost-benefit-performance analysis of the two needs to be deliberated seriously.

This can only be achieved if industry is allowed to take full charge, with private industry playing a major role and a foreign OEM is brought in as a risk-sharing partner and technology provider.

This would also have the advantage of providing continuity further on to the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.

Please don't post stratpost garbage here.

From the inception Tejas was modelled to exceed Mirage-2000 specs and even in mk1 it does. it is a stupid thing to straight jacket it into Mig-21 replacement.

while Matheswaran and many retired and retiring worthies of IAF call for stopping the program and saying Tejas mk1 is inferior to Mig-21 , IAF group captain and mirage pilot Suneth krishna who has flown both Mirage-2000 and Tejas mk1 says plainly that ,"even in mk1 tejas equals mirage-2000 with 45 million dollar per plane upgrade".

Who is right?

Import lobby tries to fool people by comparing the top speeds of mig-21 with tejas mk1 and saying since tejas has a top speed of mach ( tested till now)1.6 which is lower than that of mig-21 top speed of mach 2 , it is inferior.

Then how come they plump for rafale which has a certified top speed lessed than that of mirage-2000 and mig-21?

the devil is as often in the detail. No fighter plane can clear even hundred Kms in its topspeed fuel will run out immediately. And to evade missile or gun fire what is more important is not top speed but higher Instantaneous turn rate, higher TWR , lower wing loading , in all departments tejas mk1 scores better than Mirage-2000 , gripen C and far far better than mig-21.

It has the lowest clean config RCS of less than a third of a sq meter in entire IAF fleet , with a radar dia bigger than that of rafale.

Since no one pays our guys to talk and write about this , these details were never highlighted.

So no one is losing the plot, only the writer of the piece who is losing his reputation by splurging out such garbage. In empty weight ,max take off , radar dia meter , Tejas mk1 is almost similar in comparison to gripen C(which has the same GE 404 engine ). Did any one ever accuse SAAB of losing the plot or blasted Sweedish air force with MIG_21 replacement fixation.

Tejas has the radius of action of 500 Km , which is more than double that of mig-21, what BS piece of an article is this?

So the course correction needed here is for the author of the piece not the tejas program. He should consult IAF serving group captain Suneeth Krishna to know why he rates it equal to Mirage-2000 even after 45 million dollar per plane upgrade. And read the notes of the departed NTSE chief Khokar(who was murdered for no apparent reason) to know what are the correct specs of tejas mk1.

HAL chief and Air marshal MSD Woolen has written an authoritative account of the decisions and concepts behind tejas program in the following piece,

http://tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page02.html

It was clearly explained in that article that program was about developing a fighter with techs above that of mirage-2000 not as a replacement of mig-21 tech. In squadron numbers tejas replaces mig-21 , not in capabilities. In capabilities tejas is far above mig-21 even within the lesser opened flight envelope of IOC config.

And they will try to fool people that all the imaginary ailments of Tejas mk1 were due to lack of canards!!!!! This I have heard hundred times from tech illiterates!!!
Ask these guys why did Russians drop the canards on SU-35 , and FGFA which were there in SU-30 MKI, these guys will be tongue tied for ever!!!

canards are a control surface. tejas has a far larger area control surface behind wings to get the desired turn rates even without canards, in the same way like SU-35. Su-30 MKI does a cobra with canard. SU-35 does that without a canard.

As they the tiger can never change its spots a few people will never change their opinions on tejas and continue to lie that a fly by wire fighter with a half fuel weight TWR of 1.07 and lowest wing loading along with lowest clean config radar reflection area of less than a third of a meter in clean config is lower than the pre historic Mig-21 come hell or high water. No cure for such ailments can ever be found!!!!

The HF-24 with "under powered engines" was never shot down by US made F-104 in Indo pak war and instead it shot down the F-104. And IAF pilots themselves have said that in speeds above 400 knots HF 24 can out fly a mig-21 comfortably. But such things can all be swept under the carpet by calling HF-24 under powered!!!!, because people who have no engineering back ground can not make out these finer detailed points.

t would actually have been prudent to choose a canard-delta design considering the severe size and weight limitations. This was also the recommendation of the consultants in the early phase. It is strange that this was not followed. Instead we chose to rely on a pure tail-less delta design and thought that the combination of unstable platform and digital FBW flight control system would generate enough performance. This was not possible, as subsequent results have shown.

this configuration of Tejas with canard delta arrangements was tested for efficiency in wind tunnel and found to give no particular advantage given the weight and other drag penalties it imposed . It was officially disclosed by ADA long back.

Even F-35 was first tested with canard arrangement and then later it was rejected . the canards on SU-30 MKI was dropped in SU-35 and FGFA. No one cribs about these decisions !!!!

The aircraft also suffers from high supersonic drag and poor intake efficiency, as well as significant shortfalls in performance related to turn rates, acceleration, top speed and rate of climb.

Then how did Tejas achieve a top speed of 1350 km per hour which is the same as that of Su-30 MKI and Mig-29 at sea level in summer trials over goa?

Most of the MNC fighter makers give their top specs in ISDA temp which is 20 deg less than indian hot summer skies under which tejas mk1 achieved the 1350 km per hour top speed.

Fighter engines loose 12 percent of their thrust and ten percent of their wing lift in indian hot conditions. it would be better if the author takes this factor into account and detail the "so called shortfalls"

While the aircraft may have excellent flight controls, good sensors and weapons, these critical deficiencies have a placed a question mark on the operational relevance of the aircraft.

Quite naturally, the IAF would be worried about LCA's ability to provide the necessary operational strength.

So this judgement is completely subjective and if it was based on the "facts" explained in the article by the author it is completely wrong as well.

Tejas has a better fuel fraction than that of gripen C . Then what is the point of cribbing about radius of action. DOes the author not even know the basic truth that the radius of action with worth while combat load is decided on nothing but fuel fraction alone?

And even the imaginary supersonic drag has no role to play in combat radius calculation , because for more than ninety percent of the time a fighter flies in sub sonic speed, where the so called "super sonic" drag does not exist.

providing canards will also increase wave drag , then how come it add to the combat radius? A completely stupid suggestion that does not make sense at all.

For a better perspective,

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravj...ejas-a-bright-prospect-for-make-in-india.html

 

[Ray]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

what about failed tank arjun and famously infamous INSAS rifles by DRDO ?

INSAS is not an infamous rifle. It is a good rifle. I have used many rifles in my service starting from .303.

On Arjun, there seems to be some issues.

 

[Ray]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Sir, PM Modi is too soft towards Indian Air Force.

No good.

There is no need to pamper them at all.

If IAF guys are not there as HAL chief, then does it mean HAL is bad!

I can only say that where there a military officers heading the Organisation as in the HAL earlier and in the Naval Projects, these organisation has achieved results.

If HAL is not achieving results now, I leave it to your judgement.

Sir, this was HAL's first fighter aircraft project.

If there are shortfalls then later on they can be upgraded it also.

At the end of the day, it is our own project.

On top of it, this is not first project where IAF played the same trick.

Whenever 60-70% work get done, only and only after it IAF will pull the plug that engine is under power.

Why the hell they waited till 60-70% work get finished...!

What are there purpose behind these kind of dramas.

Tejas is NOT the first fighter project.

HF 24 was.

The whole point is that you have nor worked with the DRDO and so you will not understand. Everytime there is a snag, they have reasons to trot our and raise hopes not only with the military, but also with the Govt.

It is like every Govt promising OROP. Raises hope and then again raise it once it starts flagging, but the OROP never comes. In between, one waits and hope for the best.

Then our own AMCA and other three options left.

a) Japan
b) US
c) Sweden

No.

We have gone a long way.

The Projects must continue, just like the Kaveri engine. It is at least allowing our scientist some expertise.

And one day it will come and we will be better off and no longer buying from outside.

Out of these three, which one you like sir!

Let the User decide.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Tejas compleated more than thousands of flying hours without a single incident ..

1B1 is a very successful rifle, Never disappointing me ..

Arjun beaten T-90 in combine trails ..

what about failed tank arjun and famously infamous INSAS rifles by DRDO ?

 

[Ray]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Tejas compleated more than thousands of flying hours without a single incident ..

1B1 is a very successful rifle, Never disappointing me ..

Arjun beaten T-90 in combine trails ..

Why has it not been introduced enmass?

There is no other foreign tanks in the race to be bought. Therefore, the usual clichéd cry of arms lobby cannot hold good in this case.

What is the 'inside dope' on this?

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Note this article as to why the Navy Projects are successful, while others take time.



Note the shipyards are headed by retired Indian Navy officers.

Note how the HAL was successful when there were IAF officers at the helm.

Accountability is what was expected of them throughout their service and they are thus attuned to the same.

The Govt does not want retd military officer to head the organisations.

The reason why not is not hard to find.

Sir , You should check again . many key ship design bureaus are headed by civilians as well . And IAF air marshal MSD woolen also headed HAL and had a key role in tejas program. And IAF had complete continuous relationship with HAL and ADA through out the tejas program as per Air marshal philip Rajkumar's "the tejas stroy" book.

And a year back Tejas test pilot ans IAF group captain Suneeth Krishna was awarded the best test pilot award by US institution , He has said that tejas was plane designed with all key inputs from IAF pilots and rates tejas mk1 equal to 45 million dollar per plane upgraded mirage-2000.

The former NTSE chief and another decorated IAF pilot riaz Khokar plainly says that tejas in mk1 itself exceeds mirage-2000 in key respects.

So saying that ADA sprung tejas on unsuspecting IAF from nowhere is not the truth at all.

Ebven with retired naval chiefs as heads indian shipyards do have their own problems.

And what is even more glaring is it was ADA which designed tejas . Not HAL. SO having or not having IAF guy at the top in HAL has nothing to do with tejas, since HAL did not have the skills at the start of tejas program to pull it off. tejas was a collaborative design effort by hundreds of labs research institutes and universities and many small and medium scale industries all across the country.

In fact it was the NAL which developed the Autoclaves used for making composites and gave the tech to HAL. Not the other way around. Also indian made Su-30 MKis have lesser metal and more composite airframe parts due to this development.

Even Sukhoi design chief has accepted indian know how in composite fields. In fact ADA has licensed its composite building software Auto lay to Airbus( or Boeing, I am not sure)

And most of the flight avionics developed with french and Israeli help for SU-30 MKI had its origins in tejas effort. Even the russians were so impressed with the effort , so much so that they have ordered 64 sets of mission computers , weapon store software and radar computer from HAL for their SU-30 SM acquisition , it is not for nothing that Indian flankers are called the deadliest of flankers in the world much superior to chinese or even Russian flankers.

Also the first 500 flights which took place from 2001 to 2005 were solely for the validation of flight control laws for RSS fighters which will serve as common data base for all of our future flight development programs. The flawless flight control software which led to close to 3000 incident free take offs and landings(unheard of in any developental effort !!!) was praised by the USAF F-16 pilot himslef, when he said with tejas flight control laws f-16 can fly better when it was tested in Iorn bird facility. The current IAF chief has nothing but praise for the same iorn bird facility built in HAL, which has nothing to do with IAF expertise.

haiving the instantaneous turn rate of mirage-2000 and sustained turn rate of Mig-29 in a single ASR, that too at the time of 1995 was near impossibility ,as both of them belong to different wing design and aerodynamic philosophy,

And wailing that few degree shortfalls is the stupidest of piece by an IAF person in this age while slyly concealing with 90 deg HOBS missiles enabled by visually cued deadly short ranged missiles like R-73 E (same that is the first line of close in defence of SU-30 MKI!!!) tejas is practically invincible in close combat.

When the ASR was formed in 1995 IAF did not have that capability in any of the plane. In this missile age this is what counts. So a couple of degree shortfalls in turn rates is not going to be the be all and end all of close combat,

in this area considering the costs we can have three tejas against any other 4.5thgen western enemy fleet, which completely tilts the scales in tejas,s favour.
For a factual perspective,

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravj...ejas-a-bright-prospect-for-make-in-india.html

 

[Lone Ranger]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Tejas compleated more than thousands of flying hours without a single incident ..

1B1 is a very successful rifle, Never disappointing me ..

Arjun beaten T-90 in combine trails ..

Every time army faces damages in hands on terrorist they give excuse of INSAS vs ak47 , Arjun has been rejected by INA as bulky and un suitable for hilly terrain .
LCA has 100's of problems to be sorted out before active squadrons in place to actual use , from turning radius , range , BVR, radar cone , mid air refueling every 6 months we hear news of further delay even for mk1 which is very frustrating , mk2 still not left drawing board , time for govt to tighten screw big time on DRDO , HAL ,ADA,IAF ,INA , Navy. Enough of free posh housing and hefty perks to these babus from taxpayers money.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Every time army faces damages in hands on terrorist they give excuse of INSAS vs ak47 , Arjun has been rejected by INA as bulky and un suitable for hilly terrain .
LCA has 100's of problems to be sorted out before active squadrons in place to actual use , from turning radius , range , BVR, radar cone , mid air refueling every 6 months we hear news of further delay even for mk1 which is very frustrating , mk2 still not left drawing board , time for govt to tighten screw big time on DRDO , HAL ,ADA,IAF ,INA , Navy. Enough of free posh housing and hefty perks to these babus from taxpayers money.

Almost all of your claims have no "credible" backing, just claims based on erroneous newspaper articles inspired by import lobby reporters.

Giving the instantaneous turn rate of mirage-2000 and sustained turn rate of Mig-29 in a single ASR and wailing that few degree shortfalls is the stupidest of piece by an IAF person in this age while slyly cocealing with 90 deg HOBS missiles enabled by visually cued deadly short ranged missiles like R-73 E (same that is the first line of close in defence of SU-30 MKI!!!) tejas is practically invincible in close combat.

When the ASR was formed in 1995 IAF did not have that capability in any of the plane. In this missile age this is what counts. So a couple of degree shortfalls in turn rates is not going to be the be all and end all of close combat,

in this area considering the costs we can have three tejas against any other 4.5thgen western enemy fleet, which completely tilts the scales in tejas's favour.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Even Sukhoi design chief has accepted indian know how in composite fields. In fact ADA has licensed its composite building software Auto lay to Airbus( or Boeing, I am not sure)

And most of the flight avionics developed with french and Israeli help for SU-30 MKI had its origins in tejas effort. Even the russians were so impressed with the effort , so much so that they have ordered 64 sets of mission computers , weapon store software and radar computer from HAL for their SU-30 SM acquisition , it is not for nothing that Indian flankers are called the deadliest of flankers in the world much superior to chinese or even Russian flankers.

The flawless flight control software which led to close to 3000 incident free take offs and landings(unheard of in any developental effort !!!) was praised by the USAF F-16 pilot himslef, when he said with tejas flight control laws f-16 can fly better when it was tested in Iorn bird facility. The current IAF chief has nothing but praise for the same iorn bird facility built in HAL, which has nothing to do with IAF expertise.

These points , can you give sources ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Sir, Their are overhaul facilities all over Army in India, Making the tank and unit cost alone is too less compare to upgrading these overhaul facilities ..

The up gradation is slow and hence the number of orders ..

Why has it not been introduced enmass?

There is no other foreign tanks in the race to be bought. Therefore, the usual clichéd cry of arms lobby cannot hold good in this case.

What is the 'inside dope' on this?

 

[Lone Ranger]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Almost all of your claims have no "credible" backing, just claims based on erroneous newspaper articles inspired by import lobby reporters.

Giving the instantaneous turn rate of mirage-2000 and sustained turn rate of Mig-29 in a single ASR and wailing that few degree shortfalls is the stupidest of piece by an IAF person in this age while slyly cocealing with 90 deg HOBS missiles enabled by visually cued deadly short ranged missiles like R-73 E (same that is the first line of close in defence of SU-30 MKI!!!) tejas is practically invincible in close combat.

When the ASR was formed in 1995 IAF did not have that capability in any of the plane. In this missile age this is what counts. So a couple of degree shortfalls in turn rates is not going to be the be all and end all of close combat,

in this area considering the costs we can have three tejas against any other 4.5thgen western enemy fleet, which completely tilts the scales in tejas's favour.

Which of my so called claims are false please eloborate ? Provide a bullet list if possible so i can reply accordingly.
Regarding numbers superiority for tejas do i need to say anything with constant delay and no production line established by the time we have numbers these birds will be obsolete and would have to be retired.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Which of my so called claims are false please eloborate ? Provide a bullet list if possible so i can reply accordingly.
Regarding numbers superiority for tejas do i need to say anything with constant delay and no production line established by the time we have numbers these birds will be obsolete and would have to be retired.

read my post again , spend a couple of weeks in ADA tejas , Arjun tanks threads in this forum and do some googling.

Adding bullets wont help.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

These points , can you give sources ?

Go through ADA tejas IV thread , where I have given sources for each and every claim made here.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

http://www.aeromag.in/news/defence/iaf-chief-shows-keen-interest-in-iron-bird-facility-at-hal

http://tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/dr_kota_harinarayana/page02.html

http://www.infosys.com/newsroom/press-releases/Pages/autolay-software.aspx

I am not the kind of guy like Air marshal Matheswara who lies endlessly.

Read up and update yourself.

It is the billions of dollars worth of international arms trade that is doing the loud criticism of tejas program, nothing even remotely connected with facts.

because coming at a price of 26 million dollars this cutting edge fighter will bring india to an aeronautic tech level far , far above the level GSLV mk3 has brought us in space race. many people can't even think about accepting it. ofcourse the engine tech is still not ready. but it too will come in time when tejas mk1 is ready for engine change if suitable test facilities are established in GTRE.

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-...ramId=1073754900&contentId=18051977&BV_ID=@@@

Many people have bruised egos as well.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Go through ADA tejas IV thread , where I have given sources for each and every claim made here.

Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power

IAF Chief shows keen interest in Iron Bird Facility at HAL | Aeromag

LCA Tejas - Featured Interview: Dr. Kota Harinarayana

Infosys - Newsroom | Press Releases | ADA signs contract with Infosys for transfer of AUTOLAY software

I am not the kind of guy like Air marshal Matheswara who lies endlessly.

Read up and update yourself.

It is the billions of dollars worth of international arms trade that is doing the loud criticism of tejas program, nothing even remotely connected with facts.

because coming at a price of 26 million dollars this cutting edge fighter will bring india to an aeronautic tech level far , far above the level GSLV mk3 has brought us in space race. many people can't even think about accepting it. ofcourse the engine tech is still not ready. but it too will come in time when tejas mk1 is ready for engine change if suitable test facilities are established in GTRE.

The Week | Jet engine lag

Many people have bruised egos as well.

The part about composits replacing metal on the SU 30 and the quote of the Sukhoi chief .
Your source does not provide the link between autolay and Airbus but I found a separate one .
Indian aviation tech for Boeing, Airbus
Your last link is broken .

 

[sgarg]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

@Ray, there is a case of increasing ex-military personnel in all civilian aspects, not only HAL. This is what happens in USA.
Military does impart discipline and a unique approach to solving problems.

India's military needs to think in terms of short tenure soldiers like 3 years, and short tenure officers like 10-12 years.

 

[Ray]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Sir, Their are overhaul facilities all over Army in India, Making the tank and unit cost alone is too less compare to upgrading these overhaul facilities ..

The up gradation is slow and hence the number of orders ..

That is an interesting point.

So, the Arjun was made without any thought about facilities to upgrade and the cost?

So, much of money got squandered for just proving we can make a tank?

Odd.

Just what I am trying to say, putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Zebra]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Tejas is NOT the first fighter project.

HF 24 was

It was Kurt Tank's effort at HAL.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

The part about composits replacing metal on the SU 30 and the quote of the Sukhoi chief .
Your source does not provide the link between autolay and Airbus but I found a separate one .
Indian aviation tech for Boeing, Airbus
Your last link is broken .

I appreciate your effort in checking the links I provided.
The Auto lay license to Infosys lnk clearly says that ADA has earned revenues for the past seven years from Autolay software. As no production tejas is ready in the past seven years the income has come from exports only.
Also the export of 64 computers to Russian airforce too was widely reported with links. I gave all the links in ADA Tejas IV thread here. And I stand by it.I will post the link once I find it.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

Combat ready? IAF down to 25 fighter squadrons | idrw.org
We right now have just 25 combat ready IAF squadrons, and among them 14 are of pre historic Mig-21,27 jag variety!!!
Still our Imported Air Force worthies like matheswaran are plumping for a long winded devlopement of "twin engined tejas as few degrees of turn rates were not met!!!!!"
First IAF did not even bother to give a correct upto date weapon config for tejas , and after the PVs flew came up with new requirements which led to detailed wing redesign which added to the delay in 2004. Then when Navy wanted higher powered GE-414 based tejas mk2 for their higher load bearing carrier needs IAF cleverly jumped to their bandwagon and demanded that this Tejas mk2 was what they originally demanded!!!, which is down right false info. It was navy which provided 900 cr seed money in 2008 to kick off the naval tejas project.

With just 11 non mig-21,27 jag operational squadrons , our IAF guys are nit picking on tejas , while they must be ordering at least another couple of extra tejas squadrons to meet the pressing demand.
Countries like china and pak have built and inducted hundreds of fighters which were far below the maturity level of even tejas mk1. But IAF has no such practical thoughts and instead expects GOI to commit 20 billion dollar for just 6 rafale squadrons!!! , while saying we will not order more tejas mk1 till tejas mk2 is ready.

Just inducting a incapable fighter for sake of numbers is playing with IAF pilots life in combat , China and PAK have much advanced fighters with BVRM, long range radars , longer range , better turning radius , high maneuverability , one cant risk country's security by a failed toy of HAL/ADA babus. Govt should fast track rafale deal and modernization program of mirage 2k , mig 29 , jaguar asap things should not be stuck for lack of funds , defense budget for next year need big boost may be 5% of GDP .

 

[SPIEZ]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II

The first fighter jet project was HF 24.

The airframe was way ahead of the times. It is only that the compatible engine could not be sourced is why it did not really come into operations in a big way.

Sir, I meant an advanced aircraft, meaning 3.5 generation aircraft. HF24 Marut was designed nu Kurt Tank, not exactly indigenous.

DRDO does no research and cannot even do an effective reverse engineering.

Before you criticize them, you should recollect the many successful products that DRDO has created, for you yourself have mentioned that INSAS is a fine rifle, not to forget the Agni series of missiles.

1969
Indian government accepted the recommendation by its Aeronautics Committee that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) should design and develop an advanced technology fighter aircraft around a proven engine

1975
HAL completed design studies in 1975, but the project fell through due to inability to procure the selected "proven engine" from a foreign manufacturer and unfulfilled IAF requirements.

1983
DRDO obtained permission to initiate a programme to design and develop a Light Combat Aircraft

1984
Government of India set up Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in 1984 as the nodal agency for managing and developing the LCA.

Are you aware as to why the ADA was set up?

If the ADA, Govt are muddle headed not knowing what to do, do you expect the IAF to initiate the Air Staff Requirements (ASR).

Can an ADR be made without knowing what is the DRDO capable of?

Further, let me give you a domestic example to illustrate the lacklustre and disjointed approach.

Suipposing you are cooking a mutton curry, would you put the oil on the stove and then go to the market to buy the mutton?

Now, note this. Instead of crawling and then walking, India was promised that we can jump from the womb and walk.



Now note the disjointed approach for the engine, and remember one of the most modern airframe of the HF 24 did not come upto expectation because of the lack of a compatible engine! So, this should have been a top priority, But



Note the chaos thereafter,



I could go on, but it is not worth it.


The silver lining is that we have through all this have gained immense experience and technical expertise.

Better late than never.

It is time that one should get all the loose ends tied and then embark on Projects and not move in fits and starts.

Sir developing an aircraft is not the same as mutton biryani. It would be hilarious to think that we will be successful with our first fighter jet. But beyond all. this this is a crucial learning curve for us. This will lay the stepping stone for further developments if the government wishes.

Sir, are you happy, if they make a wonderful product out of it.

I would love anything coming out of this project, please understand that this is part of a learning curve.

did Eninstein attempt to build aircraft?Or were you referring to other person?

My comment was meant to say that even a genius cannot create the most sophisticated system in the first attempt. Let me bring another factor into account. BUDGETTING, do you know how much money DRDO has got over the last 10 years. The amount is around Rs. 10,000 crores.
Source: DRDO under Parliament scanner; dna accesses House committee documents rapping organisation for shoddy research | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

By the way do you the operating cost of Sochi Olympics? Its Rs.12,000 crores.
Source: A Familiar Ring «

It is easy to criticize, but difficult to learn and develop. Latter is what is more important and that's what DRDO is concentrating upon.