Indian Weapons asking for Reservation

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
You can't design a single aircraft for every role.
you cant design a single aircraft for every role but you do design multi role aircraft...

[/QUOTE]
The bad outweigh the good.





I was not comparing it with Rafale.... what i was saying no need for rafale as we are getting FGFA and AMCA soon...
And Rafale's avionics are better and battle proven.


bad use of composite do share....

Rafale also has this. Composites are both good and bad based on the use. The F-22 has a titanium structures. Titanium is better.


Composite structure with smaller size will lead to smaller radar cross section... correct?
that means before it will appear on enemy's radar it can shoot down enemy....

That's not a good advantage. Smaller size means smaller payload, lesser electronics and so on.



Rafale is also not easy to be detected by radar. But radar has improved so much that unless you are LO or VLO it is pointless.



wasnot comparing these two aircrafts...
LCA's maneuverability is from the '70s and '80s. Rafale is far more maneuverable in comparison. Simply said, Rafale beats LCA in every parameter for performance. Speed, climb, turn rates, everything.



There is a option right....it can succeed.....
No. This one is completely false. Due to the massive weight increases, the growth potential of LCA is non-existent. According to ADA's own admission LCA is overweight by 1.3 tonnes. That's why LCA Mk2 program was launched. There is no chance for growth, at least for Mk1. For Mk2, it is yet to be seen because the engines available for the program does not have more than 4 or 5% growth potential. So, if LCA Mk2 also becomes overweight, then the entire program will fail. That's what ADA is trying to avoid this time.

And before you bring in EPE, remember that the engine offered for LCA is not the same as EDE and EPE. And EPE is not a particularly good engine because it has a very low service life and is unacceptable to any air force today.



That's just one stage. There is one more longer stage before LCA flies.

And if you look at the first post of the LCA Mk2 thread. Here, I will post it.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/45058-ada-lca-tejas-mark-ii.html


So, what's the year today? 2014. And it is still in the design phase. Being in the aerofield how long do you think they will take to build the first prototype? Just to give you a clue, TD-1 construction started in 1993 and finished in 1998.

ADA lies about schedule, a lot. This much is known to all.

Cost overruns and timeline shifts are general...and its common...in countries having developed all this tech also fails to meet the deadlines.....take F35 as examle only... but blaming ADA is ok ....


You think I'm some kind of dumb kid. Personal vendetta? That's hilarious.

Maybe when I criticized the UPA govt, I have personal vendetta against UPA. When I criticized the sloppy work in Kargil, maybe I have a personal vendetta against the army too.When Indian team loses in the Olympics, maybe I have a personal vendetta against them too. Maybe I have a personal vendetta against everybody who I criticize.

Wake up to the fact that DRDO is not above criticism. It is another bungling govt organization like any other.


yes It is another bungling govt organization like any other.and our defense forces are also part of it only....
I am closest to the truth on this forum. The level of stupidity I see here is what makes me hawkish (according to you), but I am not really hawkish, I am very mild and gentle when criticizing LCA. I have heard worse from people who design stuff for their own company. Only on this forum I see nonsense like LCA Mk2 is as good as Rafale. Even the most hardcore Gripen fan won't say that when compared to Rafale. And Gripen is leagues ahead of LCA Mk2. There is a limit to making silly nationalistic claims.

Figure out why there is a lack of defense pros on this forum.



IAF doesn't care about this as long as they get capability that LCA cannot offer. Rafale is a 4.5th gen aircraft and that's how much 4.5th gen aircraft of this level costs.



thats is quite sufficient ...good that now is compared to mirage .... how long are they gonna stay in force after upgrade which means Tejas will have a fews years extra than that.... :)
My, my. Pretty much all of this is stuff Mirage-2000 achieved 25 years ago.

R-73 doesn't provide air superiority. Jaguar with ASRAAM will be more capable than LCA in this case. LCA is yet to be integrated with BVR missiles.

Litening pod was used on the Mirage-2000 during Kargil. Releasing a LGB and missile in 100 seconds is old stuff. Rafale can release 6 bombs and 4 missiles in 60 seconds.



You haven't gotten my point at all. Pretty much all the positives of LCA is worthless against China. It achieves some level of capability against PAF, but I want my air force to have overwhelming capability, not some. Even if LCA is good against JF-17, it will struggle against the F-16.

The only "real" and "relevant" positive point of LCA is that it has helped the Indian industry build an indigenous fighter. So, what I mean is other than a low end numbers filler there is no other positive point in LCA that helps IAF.



Hardly. What I have stated is the truth. It is a fact. Rafale is far better than Su-30 in strike. And because of the AESA advantage it is better in air superiority too. Until MKI gets AESA, it will not be as good as Rafale. MKI also lacks an internal EW suite at the same level as SPECTRA. All of this is being developed for the Super Sukhoi upgrade program.

you hav elready said that Rafale is better than SU which is laughable so I need not comment on this
That's a good thing. It means IAF is progressing really fast.

IAF will not progress untill they mend there ways .......
Once FGFA is given permission to conduct the most important missions, then the previous generation aircraft will become secondary. FGFA will kick doors down then, while MKI and Rafale will come in later. AMCA is years away and we need good numbers today.

good numbers of AMCA today or what?If AMCA ok but if of A/C then its now again a anumber game then Tejas mk2 will be better option than rafale....
It's fine. Look at the Russians, they developed the Su-35 and PAKFA together. Su-35 is being inducted today and PAKFA will be inducted from 2016, that's just a difference of 4 years. That's lesser than Rafale AMCA difference which is 10-15 years. All major air forces are doing the right thing, including the IAF.

As for FGFA, it does not perform the same role as what Rafale is doing. Su-30 was inducted in 1998, FGFA will be inducted in 2022. That's a difference of 24 years. Su-27 was inducted in 1996, J-20 will possibly be inducted in 2018, so there is a difference of 22 years. F-15 was inducted in 1976 and F-22 in 2005, that's 29 years. The F-22 replacement called Miss February will be ready only after 2030-35, that's around 25-30 years. Each time there is a gap of 20-30 years which is roughly a generation even in human age. You have to compare heavy aircraft with heavy aircraft. Medium with medium and light with light, except that only IAF is inducting light aircraft.

So comparing Rafale and FGFA is silly. Ideally, IAF should have inducted Rafale along with the French, but that couldn't happen. Our bureaucratic process assisted in bringing about a 5 year delay. Else AMCA would have been inducted after 20 years rather than the 10-15 year difference we see today. But that's fine since Rafale is proven unlike brand new jets.
we are not Russia or china we dont have that liberty...
where i have misquoted any of the facts about LCA?
MK2 will be evolved from mk1 and AMCA will be too advanced so it becomes

MK1<mk2<AMCA what did i say wrong?
You don't have the facts for LCA Mk2. LCA Mk2 is not between AMCA and Mk1, LCA Mk2 is MK1 done right.

LCA Mk2 is not an evolved Mk1. In 1985 IAF released ASR for LCA, LCA Mk2 will match that ASR because Mk1 failed to achieve it. The only changes are avionics which is obviously important. This was announced by ADA in 2011.

Replace all the original LCA Mk1 specs with LCA Mk2 and you get the same LCA as the one mentioned in IAF's ASR back in 1985. That's the plan. The one tonne increase in weight resulted in a requirement for a one tonne additional thrust to compensate. That's about it.

its okay then MK2 will meet the requirements hope when it does IAF will agree to it not start lingering again?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
I have seen some incredible bunkum on this forum on DRDO. But obviously this piece will compete for the first prize , no doubt,

Only Indian citizens can apply for posts in DRDO. Foreign consultants are accepted, but they are hired through tenders and represent large companies like EADS.


It's not lack of brains or resources, it is all because of mismanagement. Every work group does their own thing and there is no synergy. This is especially the case in large projects where multiple labs are involved with multiple teams under them.

Do you know what really happens here? Say for example I ask you to make a male connector of 2cm dia, another team may make a female connector of 1cm dia. When both have their products ready and they come to interconnect them, obviously fiasco happens. Naturally, none of them take the blame. Work restarts. This time the first team makes 1cm dia and the other team makes 2cm dia, process repeats until they get it right. I have simplified it, but this is what happens, just imagine on a larger scale with materials and tolerances that takes months to finish.

Obviously people who are posting such stupid stuff haven't even seen a single sheet of production drawing in their own life!!!!

Let alone higher stuff like project management,

In any project a feasibility study is undertaken, after that the project leader delegates responsibilities to separate team for separate segments of the project.It is stupid to say that the project leaders like Avinash chander and Kota harinarayana who were IIT grads and phd holders with decades of project experience , delegate responsibility in such a way , to connect 2cm dia piece in a 1 cm dia piece.

This is not simplification ,but crude rant without even having the basic comprehension about things one writes,

in high tech products difficulties arise routinely, even in advanced countries, but since no one can fool the tax payers in cohorts with import lobby , western armed forces there accept the hardware and suggest improvement in batches,

for example ,

with just 500 test flights to date,Russian air force is inducting PAKFA with an older engine and older radar , and will accept the later batches with original spec engines and radars and newer air to air missiles,but some as usual unnamed IAF sources say PAKFA is a piece of crap, and cutting orders by 64 units,

F-35 , a hundred of which were already produced is flying with lower spec fly by wire software with a truncated flight envelope, and they will be upgraded later to original specs as and when the development is over.

despite well oiled F-35 bashing PR machinery working overtime for decades , all the countries are going ahead with their induction plans for F-35,knowing fully well it has many shortcomings, some very critical like close combat inferiority to PAKFA.

What they will do is to induct the product in blocks or tranches and upgrade them all later.But our higher defence planners will keep on changing the specs three to four times and confine the product largely to developmental labs while imports goes on forever,

Why doesnot IAF ask Dassault in 2004 itself ,

to field a typhoon sized radar on rafale ,

complete the integration of critical shortages like R-73 like visually cued HMDS aided deadly close combat missile tht is present even in Tejas,

and upgrade its top speeds to mach 2(even 50 year oldmythical beast called Mig-21s are flying in mach-2!!!!)?

Why does not IAF ask SAAB to upgrade gripen to a twin engined fighter with longer ranges as a precondition for MMRCA trial?

Why did not IAF ask EADS to finish the ground attack component of TYPHHON as a precondition for MMRCA trials?

Answer is IAF knows it is impossible , but when it comes to DRDO project like Arjun from gun size to ammo everything keeps changing once every decade restricting the product to a strangled lab beast.

The much acclaimed Patriot and tomahawk missiles too did not perform as desired in gulf war,

there are repeated reports that many russian origin missiles repeatedly failing in routine user trials,

the night blind , crew fainting ,desert unfit T-90 gets imported in thousands,

even a couple of Su-30 MKIs crashed due to fly by wire issues,

An anti tank missile short listed for selection has failed to hit the target seven out of ten times in desert heat conditions(on the same issue induction of nag has been postponed with a new requirement for a seeker to function in high desert temp that is not available in any top of the line anti tank missile in the world including Javelin, )

repeatedly stalling Arjun citing its weight issue but importing T-90s in thousands which too will need the same bridge crossing equipment at the same bridges that arjun is unable to cross,

So there are many shades of greys in indian arms development and procurement. You cant brush every thing under the carpet with a crude analogy of 2 cm male connector not goin into 1 cm hole .

There are two sets of standards in india with an aim to make indian mil indusrty a crippled child forever,

For Su-30 IAF paid tax payer money and bought 40 sukhoi fighters that have none of the specs it desired and fielded them for a decade citing training till the Su-30 MKI development is complete.

But for Arjun and tejas beyond the vastu compliant mythical 126 number no further order is given come heaven or high water.
Recently there was a small explosion in a Bangalore lab that I cannot reveal, and it has delayed a "very important" project by a few months. The reason was because one guy (team) was doing something else and another guy (team) came and tampered with it. They were messing with batteries and boom. Nobody was hurt, but "product" was damaged. Neither side knew what the other side was doing. How will the avionics team know what the FCS team is doing and viceversa? They simply lack the experience to work together.

Recently there was an engine fire on PAKFA ,

The pilot did not know what the maintenance guy was doing,

The ground crew did not know what both of them were doing,

The R&D team did not know what all the above three of them doing,

With all around merry go around tampering a 100 million dollar pakfa could have exploded killing may people,

If I go to any rusian forum and write a sob story like the one above, They will all laugh their ass off.

Or replace gripen crash instead of pakfa fire in the above story,

or replace F-35 engine pieces falling off ,


I dont know what is genetically wrong with us indians to peddle such a ghost story on a thing as simple as an industrial accident in a DRDO lab.
Lack of experience is another cause for failure. When they are designing an airframe, they can't get the loads right the first or the second time, it is a series of hits and misses. They keep trying different combinations until they get a few right. And just so you know this takes weeks to work on. So, what Boeing may take one month, we may take 10 months to finish. Naturally, this will take time. But if you add this with mismanagement, you can only imagine the delays it will cause. That's what is happening to many projects, not just LCA. A friend of mine worked on the same thing for nine months straight and provided a dozen different loads for the same aircraft.

Lack of any worthwhile knowledge is the result of such stupid povs,

Almost each and every major fighter program weight of the fighter exceeds the original projection ,

some extreme specs are not reached,

even a few basic qualifications are not met, but in countries like russain there is a law which prohibits import of foreign weapon system for decades, so these products are accepted in tranches and developed in batches.

As far as I know the F-35 and PAKFA projects are going on for eons with many critical shortcomings,

but unlike our imported air forcewallas, their forces will accept them in tranches and continue to upgrade them as is the case with typhoon trnaches or F-3 rafale standards,
So, when they give deadlines, they are actually quite flexible and realistic, if they were Boeing. What they cannot take into consideration is the failure of one or more teams in large projects, this aspect is impossible to predict.

Consultation can avoid most of this problem and save time. They should have done this properly from the start. What consultants do is, like in my previous examples with loads, the designers work on just two or three loads, and the consultants decide which is the best tolerances to use. This saves them months in determining it by themselves. However it is difficult in the case of India than if we were Korea. We are a growing power and we are eventually going to compete with these big companies, and they know it. They could even give wrong information, so there is always such risk involved.


DRDO takes all possible consultations. For example no one was ready to consult for the fly by wire tech floated by ADA,

And the US pulled the plug midway during midway development of the same fly by wire tech,

french refused consulting the momnet they knew their anlogue fly by wire tech wont be accepted,

but compnies like boeing and saab dont face these issues ,

After the failure of gripen fly by wore effort by saab which resulted in the crash of the first prototype they subcontacted the work to a US firm,

But after repeated sanctions from US ADA has to spend years for developing the same here.
As long as the armed forces are not held hostage to this, it would be fine. But that's not happening.

When DRDO makes something there is no guarantee it will work. Even DRDO doesn't give that guarantee without having tested it for the umpteenth time. So, until the armed forces field tests it, they are not guaranteed a good product. It is only after it is properly field tested do they come to know if something works or not. But when it comes to imported maal, they are already guaranteed that the system will work because that's the kind of reputation the companies have built up over the years. Foreign companies don't give or show defective products until they themselves have tested it at home or sold it to their own armed forces. So, when they bring something to the field, the armed forces is certain that it will work.
When anybody makes anything there is no guarantee that they will work the same way in indian conditions,

for example the seven out of ten failures of the shortlisted anti tank missile in place of javelin,

the night blind desert unfit T-90,

the Nav attack malfunctioning jaguar that was palmed off on IAF's head by foreign makers,,

40 Su-30s not upto the MKI specs with no weapons spending a decade here with money paid a decade in advance,

Mirage-2000 spending life with nothing but a gun for three or four years,

The repeatedly failing russian air to air missiles in regular user trials,

the crapload of invar missile that were returned,

Why doesnot people ask the makers the same questions?
This same issues are less severe in the missile labs of the DRDO. DRDO's missile labs are highly regarded around the world now. When they bring something in for field testing the chances for failure is much lower, and the quality of the prototype itself is very high. Out of the 4 weapons systems I mentioned in my first post, you will notice that three of them are missiles.

ha,,, ha,,, ha ,,,,,,

I was eagerly waiting for this piece,

In the begining the prithvi was a dead dog liquid fueled missile with a high circular error probability,

Same goes with Agni, which is now being replaced by better versions,


No one quibbled because there are no import lobbies greasing the palms of higher defence planners with any alternate product , because of the strategic nature of the product,

thats why we are seein the various misslies in service today,

But when it comes to any other piece of equipment that is tactical in nature and has a willing foreign supplier, DRDO products never reach enough maturity level to enter service!!!!

it is not for nothing tht Avinash chander blasted these types of follow criticism when he said, "that our systems are rejected on the filmsiest ground like 50 gram extra weight

and openly challenged anybody for a case by case comparison of their product with the ones in service and available for indian armed forces,
,"
Most of the electronis in imported systems in IA wont work optimally in temp above 42 degs in indian hot and humid weather conditions , and in the searing indian desert conditions .

like when DRDO found out that there are no IR seekers in the market to satisfy the newer requirement for nag missile to function flawlessly in above 45 deg indian desert conditions that too in extreme ranges , They went ahead and developed it.

but strangely the javelin and spike that were shortlisted are bought knowing fully well , they wont work in the same conditions, citing there are no other alternative,

same is the case with agusta westland, when no product fit the bill IAF team relaxed the requirement,

there is no light helo that can work in the siachen height until it was developed by HAL,

even during the kedrnath relief a couple fo MI-17s crashed by Dhurv did well,

but this piece of news is never openly disclosed citing strategic concerns,


Until the operation parakram , no one knew the issues with T-90s.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
regarding Mig-21s having shorter reaction time,

Even if they reach the 10000 ft 30 seconds before tejas, they will be shot down by opposing JF-17s which have a double the radar range than mig-21,

so why hurry?

the electronics of tejas and mig-21 are a world apart,

the reliability requirements of a fly by wire tejas and mig-21s are as different as cheese and chalk,

no wonder tejas requires a bit more time for all the electronics to come alive.

By the same yardstick, the mach 1.8 rafale is inferior to Mig-21 perhaps , does the IAF knows this?

Mig-21 was no multi role fighter, its whole purpose was to fly high and fast into hordes of enemy bomber fleets at 18000 meters shoot and come back to base in quick time with no concerns for range,

Now the hordes of bombers are history(because they will be culled like baby seals by ground based missiles and 120 Km rane BVrs), and fighters are multi role with emphasis on ITR and STR along with 120 Km range BVrs and radars, tejas has all this and Mig-21 has none of this,

Why cant people accept such simple things in life?

I hope people wont complain in future like,

Wright brothers plane can even land in the field and can easily be built by cycle mechanics, but it is not so with tejas!!!!

Also with two external fuel tanks the ferry range of rafale comes to 2000 plus km if we take reunion island flight as an analogy.

For IOC-2 tejas too had the same two external fuel tanks and 1700 km ferry rane(many say it is just on internal fuel alnoe, but let us take the worst case scenarion)
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
Rafale's combat radius with 6 bombs, 3 tanks and 4 missiles is greater than 1800 Km in hi-lo-hi penetration. Basically it means Rafale will leave the base at high altitude, then drop down to an altitude of less than 150 feet while approaching and leaving enemy territory and then climbing back to high altitude before going home. In such a mission the Rafale can hit a target at 1800 Km and higher.
This hi-lo-hi penetration is relevant only for french bombing the helpless afgani, mali, libiyan airspace,

AFAIK only air india planes in peace time can adopt this hi-lo-hi flight path over the well defened pak and chinese skies , Not IAF planes in war time,


LCA won't even come close to that, never mind the payload. What's more important is that Rafale can leave enemy air space at supersonic speeds at low altitude while LCA Mk1 cannot do that.
IOC PIB release says 1700 Km ferry range, we have no confirmation whether this is with two drop tanks or internal fuel alone,

Till IOC-2 Tejas mk-1 has validated only two drop tanks , So even if we take the PIB release 1700 Km ferry range with two drop tanks, it compares favorably with the 2 drop tanks 2000 Plus ferry range of rafale's re union islands flight path.

So it conclusively proves that all critique of tejas having excess drag and air intake problems with excess weight as baseless statements.

In tejas mk-2 with a ton more internal fuel capacity it will reach more or less the same range as rafale.

If we add more drop tanks and weapons to rafale due to excess weight and drag that too for the indian hot and humid climatic condition where the lift and engine power drops close to 12 percent , this 2000 plus km figure will go down drastically,

And in well defended pak and tibetian airspace where lo-lo penetration is needed with fuel reserves for close combat , AB thrusts and low level flights this figure will go down further drastically.

Due to the newer manufacturing technologies and usage of better materials, Rafale can stay in the air for far longer than LCA, at least 4 to 5 times longer even with mid air refueling. And Rafale also has the advantage of operating on any front by taking off from any air base. They can take off from Assam and launch missiles at Paksitani armored columns while LCA cannot do that. LCA is restricted in just 200-300 Km away from its air bases in comparison.
With oborg and fully retractable refueling probe in mk-2 there are no issues with staying power of tejas. AFAIK the composite manufacturing techniques used for raflae and tejas are not very different. With mk-2 having the latest version of GE-414 in it has no issues.

So this 200 to 300 km figure is plucked out of another interview which as usual cites "unnamed IAF official in direct contradiction to PIB release on FOC-2 ".

After FOC-2 tejas has validated centerline fuel tank as well. So during FOC we can know its full range.

We can have four tejas mk-2 for the price of one rafale (with lifetime maintenenance and MLU costs included). So it gives us twenty tons of weapon and fuel load.

Four tejas mk-2s can take off from Assam. Two with two drop tanks and 6 (3+3 )weapon load , two with three drop tanks and just air to air missiles.

At the pak border two tejas fighters with three fuel tanks can transfer their excess fuel to fill all the fuel tanks of two tejas with (6 tons external weapon load and 4 tons external fuel load) and the same rafale mission can be accomplished more or less. W dont need tankers for such operations also.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
Nice to see @p2prada after a long time........he is only one who knows IAF from heart hence gives some incredible IAF point of view on matters.............
Su-30MKI engine failures worry IAF; Russia told to fix snag | idrw.org

What is the IAF point of view on this?

IS Su-30 MKI a finished product or not?

the report clearly says repeated failures , forcing many single engined landings .

When DRDO makes something there is no guarantee it will work. Even DRDO doesn't give that guarantee without having tested it for the umpteenth time. So, until the armed forces field tests it, they are not guaranteed a good product.

If we apply the same logic IAF should not have bought Su-30 MKI at all!!!1
It is only after it is properly field tested do they come to know if something works or not. But when it comes to imported maal, they are already guaranteed that the system will work because that's the kind of reputation the companies have built up over the years.

Reputation like this?
Foreign companies don't give or show defective products until they themselves have tested it at home or sold it to their own armed forces.

if So why is su-30 MKI engines fail repeatedly in mid air?
So, when they bring something to the field, the armed forces is certain that it will work.
Can we apply the same standards to Sukhoi?

this is what I am saying . All complex cutting edge defence systems have issues. The only way to resolve it is to induct them in batches and iorn out the problems,

These engine failures doesn't mean su-30 MKi is a white elephant.IAF -HAL combo is doing the same good work on Su-30 MKI.

Foreign mall or local mall problems and solutions are the same.

Once the issue is resolved it will be an important asset of IAF for decades to come.

The same sagacious approach should be used with DRDO products like tejas and arjun for any viable indigenous product to see service in serious numbers leading to the birth of the enterprising home grown defence industry.

DRDO has proposed a design of tail less AMCA a decade back with two kaveri engines.

But IAF has sat on issuing something as simple as a developmental ASR in one go and revised it three times and only in 2012 it gave a third revised ASR.

From 2003 to 2014 chinese have developed and flight tested two 5th gen fighters, but IAF could not issue a ASR for a decade!!!

Did they wait for the completion of their WS series of engines before building a handful of prototypes with russian engines?

because of this practical course followed by china , now it has stolen a march over india in the 5th gen fighter program.

chances are after ten years, by the time IAF completes its 20 billion dollar IAF MMRCA buy,pakistani airforce will be getting j-20 or J-31 with WS engines?

How is rafale going to fare against this? Who is responsible for this state of affairs?

If at all IAF had issued a practical ASR with the desired changes ,sometime in 2005 an AMCA TD with GE-404 IN S6 engines would have taken to skies by now a very competent alternative to 20 billion dollar hole in the pocket 4th gen rafale.

We could have replaced Ge-404 with kaveri whenever the engine is ready.


Even russians are following the same course in their PAKFA programs, chinese followed the same in their J-20 and J-31 program. Are they all fools?


Now reports are that kaveri has no problems in developing the dry thrust and achieves close to 85 percent of its wet thrust requirement, but there is no platform to use it other than Aura!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
@Pulkit

I can't reply to your post if you don't know how to quote properly. Fix your post or type it all again.

And I made a mistake in the earlier post, TD-1 construction happened between 1993 and 1995, it wasn't ready until 1996 though. TD-2 was ready in 1998.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
Point taken will do it once my work I get ample time....
I hope its just not an excuse...

@Pulkit

I can't reply to your post if you don't know how to quote properly. Fix your post or type it all again.

And I made a mistake in the earlier post, TD-1 construction happened between 1993 and 1995, it wasn't ready until 1996 though. TD-2 was ready in 1998.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Point taken will do it once my work I get ample time....
I hope its just not an excuse...
Hardly. Each of your points are extremely easy to counter, and you are just repeating again and again.
 

CemmiiLL

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
18
Likes
2
I agree that there are always more connıvıng methods to peddle ınfluence


 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
@p2prada
Originally Posted by @p2prada
You can't design a single aircraft for every role.
you cant design a single aircraft for every role but you do design multi role aircraft...

The bad outweigh the good.



I was not comparing it with Rafale.... what i was saying no need for rafale as we are getting FGFA and AMCA soon...
And Rafale's avionics are better and battle proven.

bad use of composite do share....
Rafale also has this. Composites are both good and bad based on the use. The F-22 has a titanium structures. Titanium is better.
Composite structure with smaller size will lead to smaller radar cross section... correct?
that means before it will appear on enemy's radar it can shoot down enemy....
That's not a good advantage. Smaller size means smaller payload, lesser electronics and so on.



Rafale is also not easy to be detected by radar. But radar has improved so much that unless you are LO or VLO it is pointless.

wasnot comparing these two aircrafts...
LCA's maneuverability is from the '70s and '80s. Rafale is far more maneuverable in comparison. Simply said, Rafale beats LCA in every parameter for performance. Speed, climb, turn rates, everything.

There is a option right....it can succeed.....
No. This one is completely false. Due to the massive weight increases, the growth potential of LCA is non-existent. According to ADA's own admission LCA is overweight by 1.3 tonnes. That's why LCA Mk2 program was launched. There is no chance for growth, at least for Mk1. For Mk2, it is yet to be seen because the engines available for the program does not have more than 4 or 5% growth potential. So, if LCA Mk2 also becomes overweight, then the entire program will fail. That's what ADA is trying to avoid this time.

And before you bring in EPE, remember that the engine offered for LCA is not the same as EDE and EPE. And EPE is not a particularly good engine because it has a very low service life and is unacceptable to any air force today.



That's just one stage. There is one more longer stage before LCA flies.

And if you look at the first post of the LCA Mk2 thread. Here, I will post it.
ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II


So, what's the year today? 2014. And it is still in the design phase. Being in the aerofield how long do you think they will take to build the first prototype? Just to give you a clue, TD-1 construction started in 1993 and finished in 1998.

ADA lies about schedule, a lot. This much is known to all.
Cost overruns and timeline shifts are general...and its common...in countries having developed all this tech also fails to meet the deadlines.....take F35 as examle only... but blaming ADA is ok ....

You think I'm some kind of dumb kid. Personal vendetta? That's hilarious.

Maybe when I criticized the UPA govt, I have personal vendetta against UPA. When I criticized the sloppy work in Kargil, maybe I have a personal vendetta against the army too.When Indian team loses in the Olympics, maybe I have a personal vendetta against them too. Maybe I have a personal vendetta against everybody who I criticize.

Wake up to the fact that DRDO is not above criticism. It is another bungling govt organization like any other.

yes It is another bungling govt organization like any other.and our defense forces are also part of it only....
I am closest to the truth on this forum. The level of stupidity I see here is what makes me hawkish (according to you), but I am not really hawkish, I am very mild and gentle when criticizing LCA. I have heard worse from people who design stuff for their own company. Only on this forum I see nonsense like LCA Mk2 is as good as Rafale. Even the most hardcore Gripen fan won't say that when compared to Rafale. And Gripen is leagues ahead of LCA Mk2. There is a limit to making silly nationalistic claims.

Figure out why there is a lack of defense pros on this forum.



IAF doesn't care about this as long as they get capability that LCA cannot offer. Rafale is a 4.5th gen aircraft and that's how much 4.5th gen aircraft of this level costs.
thats is quite sufficient ...good that now is compared to mirage .... how long are they gonna stay in force after upgrade which means Tejas will have a fews years extra than that....
My, my. Pretty much all of this is stuff Mirage-2000 achieved 25 years ago.

R-73 doesn't provide air superiority. Jaguar with ASRAAM will be more capable than LCA in this case. LCA is yet to be integrated with BVR missiles.

Litening pod was used on the Mirage-2000 during Kargil. Releasing a LGB and missile in 100 seconds is old stuff. Rafale can release 6 bombs and 4 missiles in 60 seconds.



You haven't gotten my point at all. Pretty much all the positives of LCA is worthless against China. It achieves some level of capability against PAF, but I want my air force to have overwhelming capability, not some. Even if LCA is good against JF-17, it will struggle against the F-16.

The only "real" and "relevant" positive point of LCA is that it has helped the Indian industry build an indigenous fighter. So, what I mean is other than a low end numbers filler there is no other positive point in LCA that helps IAF.



Hardly. What I have stated is the truth. It is a fact. Rafale is far better than Su-30 in strike. And because of the AESA advantage it is better in air superiority too. Until MKI gets AESA, it will not be as good as Rafale. MKI also lacks an internal EW suite at the same level as SPECTRA. All of this is being developed for the Super Sukhoi upgrade program.
you hav elready said that Rafale is better than SU which is laughable so I need not comment on this
That's a good thing. It means IAF is progressing really fast.

IAF will not progress untill they mend there ways
.......
Once FGFA is given permission to conduct the most important missions, then the previous generation aircraft will become secondary. FGFA will kick doors down then, while MKI and Rafale will come in later. AMCA is years away and we need good numbers today.
good numbers of AMCA today or what?If AMCA ok but if of A/C then its now again a anumber game then Tejas mk2 will be better option than rafale....
It's fine. Look at the Russians, they developed the Su-35 and PAKFA together. Su-35 is being inducted today and PAKFA will be inducted from 2016, that's just a difference of 4 years. That's lesser than Rafale AMCA difference which is 10-15 years. All major air forces are doing the right thing, including the IAF.

As for FGFA, it does not perform the same role as what Rafale is doing. Su-30 was inducted in 1998, FGFA will be inducted in 2022. That's a difference of 24 years. Su-27 was inducted in 1996, J-20 will possibly be inducted in 2018, so there is a difference of 22 years. F-15 was inducted in 1976 and F-22 in 2005, that's 29 years. The F-22 replacement called Miss February will be ready only after 2030-35, that's around 25-30 years. Each time there is a gap of 20-30 years which is roughly a generation even in human age. You have to compare heavy aircraft with heavy aircraft. Medium with medium and light with light, except that onlyIAF is inducting light aircraft.

So comparing Rafale and FGFA is silly. Ideally, IAF should have inducted Rafale along with the French, but that couldn't happen. Our bureaucratic process assisted in bringing about a 5 year delay. Else AMCA would have been inducted after 20 years rather than the 10-15 year difference we see today. But that's fine since Rafale is proven unlike brand new jets.
we are not Russia or china we dont have that liberty...
where i have misquoted any of the facts about LCA?
MK2 will be evolved from mk1 and AMCA will be too advanced so it becomes

MK1<mk2<AMCA what did i say wrong?
You don't have the facts for LCA Mk2. LCA Mk2 is not between AMCA and Mk1, LCA Mk2 is MK1 done right.

LCA Mk2 is not an evolved Mk1. In 1985 IAF released ASR for LCA, LCA Mk2 will match that ASR because Mk1 failed to achieve it. The only changes are avionics which is obviously important. This was announced by ADA in 2011.

Replace all the original LCA Mk1 specs with LCA Mk2 and you get the same LCA as the one mentioned in IAF's ASR back in 1985. That's the plan. The one tonne increase in weight resulted in a requirement for a one tonne additional thrust to compensate. That's about it.
its okay then MK2 will meet the requirements hope when it does IAF will agree to it not start lingering again?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
India Halts Warship Imports | idrw.org

a good news Indeed....

On July 12th the Indian Navy received the first (INS Kamorta) of three Indian made corvettes. These are the first locally built modern surface warships for India. The Kamortas are 3,100 ton ships that are 109 meters (355 feet) long and have a top speed of 59 kilometers an hour. They are optimized for anti-submarine warfare and are armed with a 76.2mm gun, two 30mm multi-barrel anti-missile autocannon, two multi (12) barrel 212mm anti-submarine rocket launchers, 16 Barak anti-missile/aircraft missiles and six torpedo tubes. It has a hull mounted sonar and carries a helicopter that can be armed with four anti-submarine torpedoes. The ship has stealthy features (small radar signature and more difficult for submarine sonar to detect as well.) The INS Kamorta is to enter service in August.
In 2012-13 Russia delivered the last of three Talwar class frigates. These are the last surface ships India is buying abroad. India ordered these three ships (for $1.6 billion) in 2006. The 4,000 ton P-17 project Talwar are 124.5 meters (386 feet) long, carry 24 anti-aircraft and eight anti-ship missiles, four torpedo tubes, as well as a 100mm gun, short range anti-missile autocannon, a helicopter, and anti-submarine weapons (rockets and missiles). The ship has a very complete set of electronics gear, except for a troublesome Indian sonar. There is a crew of 180. All of the Talwars are equipped with eight Indian BrahMos anti-ship missile each. The Talwar is a modified version of the Russian Krivak IV design.
The P-17A stealth frigates are the same size as the original three Talwars India ordered in the 1990s. The Stealthy Talwars have their superstructure changed so as to reduce the radar signature (making the ship less likely to show up on enemy radars). Improved weapons and electronics are installed as well, making it a more formidable warship than the original Talwars. India is not ordering any more warships from Russia, as it has developed the capability to build what it needs locally. This now includes aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines as well as aircraft carriers, frigates and corvettes.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
@Pulkit

I can't reply to your post if you don't know how to quote properly. Fix your post or type it all again.

And I made a mistake in the earlier post, TD-1 construction happened between 1993 and 1995, it wasn't ready until 1996 though. TD-2 was ready in 1998.
post fixed...:taunt1: no typing was required.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
@p2prada
you cant design a single aircraft for every role but you do design multi role aircraft...
The usual mantra is highest priority for one role, lower priority for one. Be it air superiority or ground strike. You can't have both.

When LCA chose air superiority, it does not have good ground strike. I have already explained why that it. But Mig-21 is nowhere close to LCA when it comes to air superiority, but is much better in interception.

I was not comparing it with Rafale.... what i was saying no need for rafale as we are getting FGFA and AMCA soon...
Then what's the point. Forget about FGFA and AMCA, they are a different class of aircraft. If FGFA and AMCA are coming up, then LCA is the one that's not required since Rafale is ready today while LCA will be ready only next decade.

bad use of composite do share....
That's not how it works. Typhoon has more composites than LCA, should we have chosen that?

Rafale will also get more composites for the IAF version. The canards will see a radically new materials technology.

Composite structure with smaller size will lead to smaller radar cross section... correct?
that means before it will appear on enemy's radar it can shoot down enemy....
Incorrect. F-22 is just 25% composites. The lowest among all new aircraft. But has the lowest RCS among all aircraft.

LCA has a lower RCS than if metal was used, that's about it.

There is a option right....it can succeed.....
What are you talking about?

Cost overruns and timeline shifts are general...and its common...in countries having developed all this tech also fails to meet the deadlines.....take F35 as examle only... but blaming ADA is ok ....
Cost overrun on F-35 was just 70%. It is over 200% on LCA. As for time overrun, F-35's IOC date was changed just once, LCA's was changed 5 times.

If you consider the F-35 to be the same as LCA, then F-35 would see IOC in 2030. Also F-35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world right now. LCA is the least advanced aircraft in the world, barring F/A-50 and JF-17.

yes It is another bungling govt organization like any other.and our defense forces are also part of it only....
The army bungled Kargil. Regardless, they are not providing a service like govt organizations. There is collective blame to be taken, so it functions much better than govt organizations where nobody takes blame.

When IN had a series of accidents, the naval chief resigned, but successive time overruns by ADA did not result in any management changes.

thats is quite sufficient ...good that now is compared to mirage .... how long are they gonna stay in force after upgrade which means Tejas will have a fews years extra than that....
LCA is comparable to Mirage-2000 only in terms of some specific parameters, overall M-2000 exceeds even LCA Mk2. Upgrade the M-2000 with AESA and EW suite and it will be better than LCA Mk2.

The future of LCA is uncertain.

you hav elready said that Rafale is better than SU which is laughable so I need not comment on this
You don't understand enough to comment on it.

IAF will not progress untill they mend there ways
The way it is going, IAF will be a first world air force in a decade. They are doing extremely well.

good numbers of AMCA today or what?If AMCA ok but if of A/C then its now again a anumber game then Tejas mk2 will be better option than rafale....
It looks like I'm talking to a wall.

we are not Russia or china we dont have that liberty...
We have the potential to be better than both.

where i have misquoted any of the facts about LCA?
Everywhere really.

MK1<mk2<AMCA what did i say wrong?
It's Mk1<Mk2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<AMCA.

Incomparable.

its okay then MK2 will meet the requirements hope when it does IAF will agree to it not start lingering again?
None of the delays in LCA is IAF's fault. That has been clearly established for over 25 years. It is all ADA's fault and ADA admits it is their fault.

IAF is the victim here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
The usual mantra is highest priority for one role, lower priority for one. Be it air superiority or ground strike. You can't have both.
Expetise is always welcome... but today we need multirole...

When LCA chose air superiority, it does not have good ground strike. I have already explained why that it. But Mig-21 is nowhere close to LCA when it comes to air superiority, but is much better in interception.
so overall lca is better than MIG
Then what's the point. Forget about FGFA and AMCA, they are a different class of aircraft. If FGFA and AMCA are coming up, then LCA is the one that's not required since Rafale is ready today while LCA will be ready only next decade.
haha... So as per you Rafale is an LCA? one side you say dont compare and on other you urself make that comparison...
That's not how it works. Typhoon has more composites than LCA, should we have chosen that?

Rafale will also get more composites for the IAF version. The canards will see a radically new materials technology.
Size of Tejas is also small not just high composite.....
more composite for iAF .. are they redesigning anything?
Incorrect. F-22 is just 25% composites. The lowest among all new aircraft. But has the lowest RCS among all aircraft.

LCA has a lower RCS than if metal was used, that's about it.
Compsoite add to stealth and strength ... F22 they used special paint so compensate or as alternative along with the edge design ....
Yes lower than that of metal....

What are you talking about?
MK2 will be a success....
Cost overrun on F-35 was just 70%. It is over 200% on LCA. As for time overrun, F-35's IOC date was changed just once, LCA's was changed 5 times.

If you consider the F-35 to be the same as LCA, then F-35 would see IOC in 2030. Also F-35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world right now. LCA is the least advanced aircraft in the world, barring F/A-50 and JF-17.
F35 was designed after desining a huge amount of aircrafts LCA was our first...
they are metallurgically strong at that time we were not...
They had they have high tech software and we are still at initial stage...
there testing facilities are ultimate we still dont have many...


LCA MK2 is best in its category... and if you think LCA are not required around the world then its ok.....
The army bungled Kargil. Regardless, they are not providing a service like govt organizations. There is collective blame to be taken, so it functions much better than govt organizations where nobody takes blame.

When IN had a series of accidents, the naval chief resigned, but successive time overruns by ADA did not result in any management changes.
Correct Kargil ... Indo china war.... Army didnt say anythin but everyone knew it was govt fault and no body blamed or blames army....
IN was in very bad shape... and what Navy chief did was great ... Govt is corrupt but you cant just let them be corrupt...

heard a saying" julm karna aur sehna do no gunaah hai...."

LCA is comparable to Mirage-2000 only in terms of some specific parameters, overall M-2000 exceeds even LCA Mk2. Upgrade the M-2000 with AESA and EW suite and it will be better than LCA Mk2.

The future of LCA is uncertain.
yes future is always uncertain I hope LCA surprises you.....

You don't understand enough to comment on it.
have you run out of facts oh!! so called facts ....
The way it is going, IAF will be a first world air force in a decade. They are doing extremely well.
yes dependent for everything on foreign yes they will be .....
It looks like I'm talking to a wall.
the feeling is mutual but mine is more rigid i believe....
We have the potential to be better than both.
Now you are living in fantasy land.... you need to accept they are at present ahead of us... As yo said earlier DRDO ADA DPSUs are not productive enuf how are u planning to close that gap?
We have potential but it has to come up an it will take some time a decade or two....
Everywhere really.
Quote and source not just your point of view....
It's Mk1<Mk2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<AMCA.

Incomparable.
you yourself compared it you can add a few more "<<<<" also its ok but MK2 will fall some where between mk1 and AMCA agreeing AMCA is a mountain in front of Tejas mk2
None of the delays in LCA is IAF's fault. That has been clearly established for over 25 years. It is all ADA's fault and ADA admits it is their fault.

IAF is the victim here.
when they were in a real need of Tejas they didnt fast track its induction but used an option to upgrade the migs....
then they had sufficient time to again sit on it as everything is made to happen in the last minute only...
Upgradadtion was for many reasons and if there would have been no upgradations Tejas would have been fast tracked and induction would have happened atleast 5 years ahead of present scenario...
though what IAF did was to choose an easy path.... they were never victims nor were DRDO or ADA they all were playing the other one out....
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: World-Beaters: The fly-by-wire FCS will take India to new heights (Part-III-B)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We had 4 designers and 4 testers in 1993. No man power, no experience. No tools and 50 per cent of us were ladies. And, the government rule says that if you are woman, you can't work beyond 6 pm. But with all issues revolving around the LCA project, we decided to give everything.

During those days it was a remote building and we were scared to move around after 6, due to snakes. Permission was denied to get our two-wheelers inside, despite all these issues. Once, Dr Kalam came to the lab and he had to encounter a snake. The rest is history. We were given permission to get the vehicles.

We had to a huge challenge to make the design document within 3 months. We used to go home sometimes at 2 am and family life went for a toss. Some of our colleagues left the job due to the tough conditions. We stuck on and from that batch, there are only 3 scientists left, including me. (The others are: Asha Garg, Sc F and Sreekalakumary, Sc E.)
Even we impressed the GE A/C management with our ETS: Gurdev, Group Director


The GE A/C management was very impressed with the systems given by ADE. They even invited us (ADE) to bid for developing such systems for their own projects. This was definitely a never-heard-before in DRDO. A total of 5 such ETS have been built and are the workhorse for ATP, HSI, V&V, PIL open loop/ closed loop, fault free tests at HAL Iron Birds. These systems are operational since 1995 and have been used for all DFCCs & software operational in various LCAs fling so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for the guys who are lying through their teeth that IAF waited 25 years for tejas and all the delays of tejas program is due to the faults of ADA , the above link is a clear rebuttal of their argument,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was none other than philip rajkumar Airmarshal from IAF who was deputed to LCA program who stated in his book, Tejas story, "IAF dropped the ball from 1993 to 2006. It onlt came on board after 2006 and started issuing design changes to suit them , this further delayed the program"

The Tejas Debate Continues | TKS' Tales

http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Defence/17threport.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project definition phase of the programme was launched in 1987.

In 1991,
Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED – Phase 1) was launched at a
project cost of Rs. 2188 Cr involving design, production of 2 technology
demonstrators, 2 prototype vehicles, one static test specimen and associated
ground and limited flight tests. This work was completed in 2005.[/QUOTE]

In 1999, FSED-Phase 2 was launched at a project cost of Rs. 3302 Cr involving
3 additional prototype vehicles (including a trainer variant) and production of 8
aircraft under limited series production.


Currently, two TDs and two prototype vehicles (PVs) are undergoing flight
evaluation and a cumulative of 567 flights have been completed as of end Oct
06 covering a flight envelope of 1.4 Mach and 15 Km altitude.

The trainer
variant : is under build and is expected to be ready for engine ground run by
Dec 2006. Further a programme for design and development of naval variant of
LCA has been launched subsequently in 2003 at a project cost of Rs.949 Cr
involving development of two prototypes.

During examination of Demands for Grants (2004-05), the Committee were
informed that initial operational clearance of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is planned by
2006 and final operational clearance by 2008. In Action Taken Reply to the same
Report, the Ministry furnished revised schedule stating that initial operational
clearance of LCA would be over by March 2007 and final operational clearance by
2009.


During examination of Demands for Grants (2005-06), the Committee were
informed that initial operational clearance would be over by the year 2010. In Action
Taken Reply to this Report, the Ministry informed that initial operational clearance is
planned by 2008 and final operational configuration by 2010.

5.4 The Ministry has furnished reasons for delay in induction of Light Combat
Aircraft (LCA) as under:
Reasons for delay in Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) of LCA are
"¢ Technology difficulties
"¢ Non availability of systems design & high safety standards

Foreign Exchange crunch of 1991
"¢ Revision of development strategy by increasing indigenous content in
aircraft & ground facilities
"¢ Sanctions imposed by USA in 1998
Redesign of Composite Wings to cater for Weapon definition changes
specified by Indian Air Force (IAF) during Jan 04.

"¢ Indigenous development & integration of Obsolescence-free Open
Architecture Avionics Systems
Integration of interim Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment specified by
IAF during 2005

"¢ Extensive on ground evaluation, simulation & testing of indigenous
equipment, systems, software & aircraft.
"¢ Extensive Independent Verification & Validation (IV & V) of complex
airborne software to ensure fight safety
"¢ Co-ordination & integration effort by many work centres to type certify
indigenous equipment systems.
The present status of this project is as given below:


"¢ Confidence in LCA as a flying machine is high and IAF has placed
procurement order for 20 LCA with the manufacturing agency (M/s
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.) for inducting one LCA Squadron into
operational service. Production Phase of LCA has also been initiated
concurrently with FSED Phase to gain time advantage.

"¢ There was no cost over-run in LCA FSED Phase 1 programme. As on
date, there is no cost over-run in LCA FSED Phase 2 Programme also.
43
"¢ Production Standard LCA comprises 65% of indigenous equipment (Line
Replaceable Units).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following is the reply of the government in parliament regarding LCA program,

Reply of the Government

The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been
initiated in August"Ÿ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs
560.00 Cr.

This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase (PDP). After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into TechnicalDevelopment Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase.

The Full Scale Engineering
Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April"Ÿ1993 at a cost
of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983). The scope of FSED
Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build
operational proto-vehicles at a later stage.

LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004. While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles.

The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs 3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov"Ÿ2001.

The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely, Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons,sensors and avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.

Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the
Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-à-vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II
programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31
Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop
& productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds.



The need for extension of PDC for LCA FSED Phase-II was due to :

ï‚· Complexity of the system design and very high safety standards lead to extensive testing to ensure flight safety.
ï‚· Incorporating the configuration changes (for example R60 close Combat Missile (CCM)
was replaced by R73E CCM which required design modifications) to keep the aircraft
contemporary


ï‚· Due to non-availability of indigenous "žKaveri Engine"Ÿ design changes were carried out to
accommodate GE404 engine of USA.
ï‚· Change in the development strategy of Radar and associated changes on the aircraft.
ï‚· Major development activity of Avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft
contemporary, which took time but yielded results (for example, development of obsolescence
free open architecture avionics system).


ï‚· US sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and
developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production
cycle took time. The need for revision of FSED Phase-II fund sanction was mainly due to :
ï‚· To neutralize the effect of inflation/delivery point cost against the sanctioned level at
2001 and the increase in manpower cost of HAL.
ï‚· To meet the programme management expenditure due to extended time line till Dec 2012
ï‚· Maintain and operate 10-15 aircraft for four years upto 2012
ï‚· To maintain & upgrade the design, development and test facilities upto 2012, in keeping with modern technology.
ï‚· To complete the activities which were not costed in the original estimates.

Cost Revision Committee after careful consideration of the projections made and taking into account the increase in the cost of material, manpower, additional activities to complete the IOC & FOC, maintenance of facilities and expanded scope of the programme etc.

, recommended additional fund of Rs 2475.78 Cr for completing FSED Phase-II activities with PDC Dec 2012, Rs 2431.55 Cr for developing Tejas Mark 2 with alternate engine (LCA FSED Phase-III Programme) and Rs 395.65 Cr for Technology Development Programme (Total additional funds of Rs 5302.98 Cr).

Recommendations of the Cost Revision Committee was accepted by Government and in November 2009, sanction was accorded for continuing Full Scale Engineering Development of LCA till Dec 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5302.98 Cr.LCA (Tejas) Programme is progressing satisfactorily as per schedule mutually agreed with IAF to meet their requirements.

Flight Test phase on nine Tejas aircrafts to obtain IOC for Tejas, which is mandatory for induction of Tejas into IAF is in advanced stage. Establishment of Tejas production facilities for the production rate of eight aircrafts per annum is progressing concurrently with development activities. On 31 Mar 2006, IAF has executed the contract with HAL for production of 20 Tejas aircraft (series production) powered by GE-F404-IN20 engines in IOC configuration and production activities are in progress. Follow on order of another 20 aircraft is in an advanced stage of negotiation between IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here is what P Rajkumar (IAF) who was involved with the LCA says -

quote -

Philip Rajkumar on May 1, 2012 at 6:01 am said:

philip rajkumar

I worked in the LCA project for nine years from 17 Sep 1994 to 31 Aug 2003 (actually 17 days short of nine years!). I was deputed to ADA by the IAF to oversee the flight test programme of the Technology Demonstration phase of the project. Having been on both sides of the fence i have a few points to make.
1. Development of a capable aeronautical industry is a small step by small step evolutionary process.Infrastructure and skill sets of the work force have to be built up over decades with considerable effort. All this requires investment of money and managerial resources. Mainly due to financial constraints and lack of vision in the IAF, HAL and the GOI we allowed capabilities built up during the Marut and Kiran programmes to atrophy. While the world leapt ahead with several technological innovations like fly by wire,digital avionics and use of composites for structures HAL did not run a single research programme because it was not the practice to do research unless it was linked to a specicific project.
2.The LCA project is where it is today thanks to one man-Dr VS Arunachalam who as the SA to RM in 1985 had the gumption and clout to go to the GOI and convince them that India could build a fourth generation fighter. It was a leap of faith no doubt.
3. HAL feels wronged about being asked to play second fiddle to ADA. This pique continues to hurt the project even today.
4. Without help from Dassault of France,BAE Systems UK, Lockheed Martin of the USA and Alenia of Italy we would not have succeeded in developing the fly by wire flight control system,glass cockpit,and composite structures for the two TD aircraft.
5. So far the flight safety record of the programme has been good. I pray every day that it remains that way. The loss of an aircraft early in the programme would have surely lead to its closure.
6.All pilots who have flown the aircraft say its handling qualities are very good. It means it is easy to fly and perform the mission.

7.It needs to be put into IAF sevice as soon as possible to gain more experience to iron out bugs which are sure to show up during operational use.

8.Programme management could have been better. IAF is to blame for washing its hands off the project for 20 years from 1986-2006. A management team was put in place at ADA in 2007.

9.Dr Kota Harinarayana and all those who have worked and continue to work have done so with great sincerity and dedication.
10.Indian aeronautics has benefitted immensely from the programme. It is a topic for separate research.

11. It was a rare privilege for me to have been given an opportunity to contribute to the programme by setting up the National Flight Test Centre and putting place a methodology of work which has ensured safety so far.

12. According to me the project can be called a complete success only when the aircraft sees squadron service for a couple of decades. We will have to wait but it is progressing on the right lines and we as a nation have nothing to be ashamed of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: CLAW-ING AHEAD: Tejas clan who overcame tech denials turns 20

It was on June 2, 1992, when Kalam had his first meeting of the CLAW clan in Bangalore, with CSIR-NAL as the nodal centre. "We started everything from ground zero and (Dr) Kalam had a huge impact on us. Most of the team members worked for close to 18 hours every day. We are delighted that today our CLAW is one of the successful part of Tejas that is getting into the Indian Air Force's inventory. We have completed all parameters for the initial operational clearance (IOC) phase," said Shyam.
In the process, the CLAW team also mastered Wake Encounter Simulation – a critical area for the Tejas programme. "Wake simulation is a very complicated and challenging modelling control problem. Aerodynamics is simulated by splitting the aircraft into seven components and computing forces and moments on each component," said NAL sources.
ADA sources told Express that the CLAW team has made the life of pilots simpler. "He is fed only what he needs. The HOTAS (Hands on Throttle-And-Stick) ensures that the pilot is at absolute ease during his mission," sources said, adding, "Tejas is an unstable platform and it is CLAW that acts as its brain."
The success story of CLAW did not come easy for those involved. The bad publicity that Tejas got in early days and low salaries ensured that most of the team members (men) had a tough time in finding suitable brides. "Yes. It's true and many of our team mates faced this problem. Our job profile was such that no father dared to give her daughter. Some of my colleagues even had to undergo counselling. All that is past and we are all happily married now. But can't believe how 20 years flew past," said a senior NAL scientist
.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
For guys who are shamelessly parroting that LCA program was well funded and all the reason for the delays are only due to inept people at ADA and DRDO this post and a few posts above show a snippet of difficulties faced in the program.

Hope these ranters stop their pet peeve and stop littering the forum with e-waste in the form of meaningless hate filled posts aimed at reducing the thread quality.They can take out their motivate vengeful personal grouses elsewhere or continue to be rebutted with slap in the face posts like this.

These guys faking to be champions of the IAF point of view are in fact undermining the long term viability of the IAF by repeatedly dumping tons of shit on Tejas . because it would be simply impossible for IAF to stand the might of combined PLAF and PAF fleet with bank breaking forever imports.

So ranters saying tejas is worse off than pre historic Mg-21s are actually trying to bury any hopes of locs mil-aviation industry , because they too know the truth is some thing else.


Since most of the future fighters of PAf-PLAF fleet will be economical optimal chinese produced versions.


Because if tejas too is to be restricted in future to the mythical vastu compliant number of 126(which was also the fancy number preferred by IA for Arjun MBT order lots!!!) then any bright engineering or basic science graduate will never consider the option of joining indian mil-aviation industry, since there will be none in the future other than screw driver tech TOT peddling HAL!!!

Only a 300 plus order for tejas mk-2with second production line in private sector hands(either TATA, RIL, L&T or mahindra, who ever qualifies) will give us the eco system to develop AMCA, otherwise it too will spend it life as a lab test animal like Arjun and tejas are now doing. And all export prospects will be simple whistle in the wind.

When I see retires useless IAf types dumping on tejas prospects just when such a hope is expressed, I can clearly see whose hand is behind such rants.


Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: The Iron Bird Team: A Tejas story never told before!
--------------------------------------------------


There were many stumbling blocks in this entire chronology of testing the DFCC OFP at Iron Bird test facility. It started with the sanctions, post Pokharan – II, which made the path tougher and darker and then it was Y2K havoc, which led to providing jobs to anybody who could operate a computer.

These disturbances blew off many experts from within the Tejas program and especially those working on FCS and particularly at Iron Bird. The Iron Bird saw an Avalanche breakdown and was left with just a handful of inexperienced engineers.

But that didn't stop the 'left out team' to continue with it efforts as it was the zenith of the project. Dr. B Subba Reddy singlehandedly took the completion of Iron Bird testing as a challenge and with those handful HAL engineers and few scientists from ADA delivered the DFCC hardware and the software to the aircraft.

The team used to put almost 16 hours a day to utilise the system as per the schedule, to analyse the mammoth data captures, to go through each and every plots and figures before clearing the tests and offering the results to the certifying agencies. There were many problem reports / snags generated in the process and finally the product came in the form of OFP V4019, declared almost bug free.


The team was so cautious in its approach that with a single failure at the end of the prescribed 50 hours of fault free testing at Iron Bird, the clock was reset to zero and the entire test was redone amounting to a total of almost 110 hours of fault free testing. This enormously boosted the pilot's confidence and made them eager to take off the actual wings.

Prior to this fault free tests the team of Tejas pilots have undergone rigorous closed loop failure testing covering all the possible IFCS, electrical and hydraulics failures and studying and responding to them.

This exercise also made them aware of handling the situation for possible failures on aircraft as they were to fly for the first time an indigenous fighter plane with fly-by-wire technology. Such an exercise was possible only at Iron Bird and the team left no stone unturned to offer it in totality to the pilots.
And the first flight happened, the nation applauded it, but nobody hailed Iron Bird team.

Dr. B Subba Reddy was transferred to other division for administrative reasons and the program suffered another setback as he was also the deputy director of National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas. Some temporary arrangements were done from HAL side to fill the void left by Dr. Reddy, but to no avail.

However the core Iron Bird team with the support of ADA was strong enough to deliver the products (the software versions with updates) in time. The HAL saw the Iron Bird team as an unproductive group of people since they were not directly contributing to the production targets of HAL and the approach continues till today. ADA celebrated the milestones of Tejas project with its scientists and between these two approaches, the Iron Bird team was left out unacknowledged at every occasion. The question still remains unanswered: "Whose baby is this Iron Bird, anyway?"

With the project directors of Tejas raising their voices at various forums, the Iron Bird team was finally augmented with HAL manpower in the year 2007 and currently boasts of 18 engineers of various domains.

The team is headed by one Mr Sanjay Sharma, who has been associated with Iron Bird testing from the early days. It was his initiative that Iron Bird team still remains capable and efficient despite various setbacks. He also guides a team of 7 highly skilled engineers deputed to National Control Law (CLAW) team of Tejas at NAL. A big section of HAL higher management still remains unaware of the facts, potential, pains and achievements of the team.

We may be happy with the participation of private industry in the field of aeronautics, but the crude fact is that whenever an aerospace company or a venture has been established, it has eaten away the cream of the industries like HAL, ADA, and ADE etc. There are many who have been offered plum positions and fat salaries for similar work in these private establishments. And believe it or not, some of the delay in the Tejas project can be attributed to this very fact also. People of the level of project director, AGM etc. had redefined their loyalties and jumped to a world of leisure and comfort. In spite of these alluring offerings to the core people associated with the Tejas program the program had continued without much deceleration and the 'Tejas Loyals' came out with flying colours. Most of these crazy people have even never seen their salary slips from past many years.

Ask them their basic pay even today and they will start looking at the skies, not for a clue but to tell the world, Tejas is our actual pay that we have earned. The soldiers at the borders have the obsession of dying for the country, we, at Iron Bird live with that and are always ready to die with that furore.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Expetise is always welcome... but today we need multirole...
You didn't get it. We need multirole because we can't afford single role jets.

so overall lca is better than MIG
Except in the one of the important missions it is actually required in.

haha... So as per you Rafale is an LCA? one side you say dont compare and on other you urself make that comparison...[
Everything I type is going right over your head.

Size of Tejas is also small not just high composite.....
It doesn't matter. And small doesn't meant good. Small means less capable.

more composite for iAF .. are they redesigning anything?
Yes. Rafale is undergoing improvements in materials and structural design. What we know about is canards. They are bringing in new manufacturing techniques that even ALA doesn't yet have.

Compsoite add to stealth and strength ...
Even concrete provides stealth and strength. So should we use concrete?

It is simple, if you can't afford titanium or Al-Li alloys, you use composites. There are different types of composites too. Some are simply cheap like the thermosets used in LCA there are expensive ones called thermoplastics used on Rafale. Rafale also used titanium and Al-Li alloys, which are better than composites in heat dissipation.

F22 they used special paint so compensate or as alternative along with the edge design ....
Not necessarily. All aircraft use RAM, even LCA will use RAM. F-22's stealth comes mostly from shaping.

Yes lower than that of metal....
What I mean is if LCA was made from purely metal like aluminum, then it would have a higher RCS than if they used composites. As it stands today LCA has higher RCS than Rafale.

MK2 will be a success....
While your enthusiasm is appreciated by everybody, it was the same in 1990 when LCA Mk1 was first designed. That's where LCA Mk2 is today, in the design stage.

F35 was designed after desining a huge amount of aircrafts LCA was our first...
So what makes you think LCA is better than Rafale? LCA is our first design, hence it will be treated as one.

they are metallurgically strong at that time we were not...
They had they have high tech software and we are still at initial stage...
there testing facilities are ultimate we still dont have many...
It is the same with the French.

LCA MK2 is best in its category... and if you think LCA are not required around the world then its ok.....
There is no other aircraft in its category, that's why it is the best. If it has to fight the Chinese, it is going to have to fight aircraft that's better than LCA.

Correct Kargil ... Indo china war.... Army didnt say anythin but everyone knew it was govt fault and no body blamed or blames army....
Incorrect. It wasn't the govt's fault. It is easy to bring nationalistic sentiments into it, but it was the army which made the decision to withdraw from those heights. It was the army's fault for not expecting an attack and it was the intelligence agencies fault for not able to detect the intrusion.

IN was in very bad shape... and what Navy chief did was great ... Govt is corrupt but you cant just let them be corrupt...
You can say the lack of new equipment is the govt's fault and it wasn't corruption. It was just the long lengthy procurement processes and the higher importance given to the army and the air force.

The navy is also at fault because navigating inside the harbor is expected to be flawless. The navy being in a bad shape had nothing to do with the sinking of the submarine.

yes future is always uncertain I hope LCA surprises you.....
The only surprise I will be happy with when ADA sticks to schedule. I know the extent of LCA's capabilities, so it won't surprise me in that department, unless it suddenly takes off into space.

have you run out of facts oh!! so called facts ....
You don't know the facts and even if I present them you don't understand them.

Are you still saying LCA is better than Rafale?

yes dependent for everything on foreign yes they will be .....
It's fine as long as they bring the trophy home. I don't want the air force to be just a participant during war, I actually want them to win.

the feeling is mutual but mine is more rigid i believe....
That's not a good thing.

Now you are living in fantasy land.... you need to accept they are at present ahead of us... As yo said earlier DRDO ADA DPSUs are not productive enuf how are u planning to close that gap?
How am I expected to close their gap? I can provide suggestions, like make their salaries and promotions dependent on the project schedule. Bring in biometric electronic devices that punch in their exact time for work and breaks, the time they come in, the time they leave etc, to the last second. These are practiced in the private industry, and just these two will increase efficiency by a huge margin.

We have potential but it has to come up an it will take some time a decade or two....
So, why keep the forces hostage for a decade or two? What if we lose a war because they received substandard equipment? You can't blame them for that, can you?

Who do you blame then, the govt? All they did was make sure the army buys indigenous equipment.

Would you blame DRDO for providing substandard equipment?

The last time we had a war, the military was more dependent on the Israelis than they were on DRDO. Why is that?

you yourself compared it you can add a few more "<<<<" also its ok but MK2 will fall some where between mk1 and AMCA agreeing AMCA is a mountain in front of Tejas mk2
I can compare an orange with the earth also. Mk2 falls between Mk1 and F-22 too. Mk2 also falls between Mk1 and the Space Shuttle.

When they make a new space ship that can achieve speed of light, even then Mk2 will fall between Mk1 and this ship.

Mk1 falls between the Wright brother's aircraft and Mk2.

when they were in a real need of Tejas they didnt fast track its induction but used an option to upgrade the migs....
That's not IAF's fault. Mig upgrade is IAF's responsibility. Delivering LCA is ADA's responsibility. By 2000 we have fully upgraded Mig-21, by 2000 LCA wasn't even flying. Is that IAF"s fault?

Upgradadtion was for many reasons and if there would have been no upgradations Tejas would have been fast tracked and induction would have happened atleast 5 years ahead of present scenario...
Are you a retard? How is this IAF's fault? IAF wanted LCA in 1999. If they don't have LCA what will they induct?

though what IAF did was to choose an easy path.... they were never victims nor were DRDO or ADA they all were playing the other one out....
IAF is the biggest victim here.

Your comments are just like minister comments who blame the woman for getting raped. Completely ignorant and retarded.

None of the delay with LCA is the IAF's fault. Everything is ADA's fault. ADA themselves have said there was no lack of funds, so there is no fault with the ministry too. All of LCA's faults today is technical.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
Expetise is always welcome... but today we need multirole...


so overall lca is better than MIG

haha... So as per you Rafale is an LCA? one side you say dont compare and on other you urself make that comparison...

Size of Tejas is also small not just high composite.....
more composite for iAF .. are they redesigning anything?

Compsoite add to stealth and strength ... F22 they used special paint so compensate or as alternative along with the edge design ....
Yes lower than that of metal....


MK2 will be a success....

F35 was designed after desining a huge amount of aircrafts LCA was our first...
they are metallurgically strong at that time we were not...
They had they have high tech software and we are still at initial stage...
there testing facilities are ultimate we still dont have many...


LCA MK2 is best in its category... and if you think LCA are not required around the world then its ok.....

Correct Kargil ... Indo china war.... Army didnt say anythin but everyone knew it was govt fault and no body blamed or blames army....
IN was in very bad shape... and what Navy chief did was great ... Govt is corrupt but you cant just let them be corrupt...

heard a saying" julm karna aur sehna do no gunaah hai...."


yes future is always uncertain I hope LCA surprises you.....


have you run out of facts oh!! so called facts ....

yes dependent for everything on foreign yes they will be .....

the feeling is mutual but mine is more rigid i believe....

Now you are living in fantasy land.... you need to accept they are at present ahead of us... As yo said earlier DRDO ADA DPSUs are not productive enuf how are u planning to close that gap?
We have potential but it has to come up an it will take some time a decade or two....

Quote and source not just your point of view....


you yourself compared it you can add a few more "<<<<" also its ok but MK2 will fall some where between mk1 and AMCA agreeing AMCA is a mountain in front of Tejas mk2


when they were in a real need of Tejas they didnt fast track its induction but used an option to upgrade the migs....
then they had sufficient time to again sit on it as everything is made to happen in the last minute only...
Upgradadtion was for many reasons and if there would have been no upgradations Tejas would have been fast tracked and induction would have happened atleast 5 years ahead of present scenario...
though what IAF did was to choose an easy path.... they were never victims nor were DRDO or ADA they all were playing the other one out....
With 45 Km radar range in which important mission Mg-21 will lead over LCA(other than frequent crashes in landings i cant think of any!!!)

starting a conversation with that guy is only going to waste your time,
For some guys the clock stopped when LCA achieved 16 deg AOA with a starving air intake ,
and was subsonic at sea level
and crossed mach 1.4 in high altitude,

IAF wanted LCA in 1999(funding that for just two TDswas given only in 1993 is an inconveient truth that cab be brushed aside as usual). When did IAF wanted MMRCA? in 2004, Had they got it? ten years for a simple buy!!!

After that their clocks will never run.

LCA will never beat Mig-21 and despite Air MArshal Philip rajukumar's stinging criticism of the turf war and IAF's spectator status till 2006 all faults are ADA's. Earth is round and nothing changes, thats all. if you provide a ton of links to rebut they will all be silently ignored.After a while you will be called a retard, And then you will be ignored too.

The composites used in tejas are good enough . And for kiddos expecting IAF to bring home the trophy, let me put up an interesting scenarion,

Year is 2035, India china tensions flare up ,

China has three times more nuclear subs and ten times more thermo nuclear MIRV ICBMs than france,

France sells billions of dollars worth product in china every year,

china threatens France with dire consequence if french resupply critical rafale stuff(that will never transferred in any deep deep TOT worth 20 billion dollars)

What will a feather weight in international relations france do?

Only russia and US can say lay off to china in 2030, not a minnow like france,

When will our retired and retiring Mig-21 drivers who are eager to diversify their eggs to french basket (in the process doomn tejas mk-2 development in great numbers and higher stealth versions like stealth tejas mk-3 as alluded by VK saraswath)know this?

Do they expect france to stand up to china for the sake of India? hell french are selling subs simultaneously to both india and pak!!!. SO india is no strategic frien of france despite goose talk.

Even now france is at the fore front of supply arms to china lobby in EU
 
Last edited:

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
:thumb:

To have a discussion we need to have two sides....
We will stick to ours and let him stick to his side...
The best part is even we have different thoughts different choices we all are thinking for upliftment of defense in India...

by the way nice points...


With 45 Km radar range in which important mission Mg-21 will lead over LCA(other than frequent crashes in landings i cant think of any!!!)

starting a conversation with that guy is only going to waste your time,
For some guys the clock stopped when LCA achieved 16 deg AOA with a starving air intake ,
and was subsonic at sea level
and crossed mach 1.4 in high altitude,

IAF wanted LCA in 1999(funding that for just two TDswas given only in 1993 is an inconveient truth that cab be brushed aside as usual). When did IAF wanted MMRCA? in 2004, Had they got it? ten years for a simple buy!!!

After that their clocks will never run.

LCA will never beat Mig-21 and despite Air MArshal Philip rajukumar's stinging criticism of the turf war and IAF's spectator status till 2006 all faults are ADA's. Earth is round and nothing changes, thats all. if you provide a ton of links to rebut they will all be silently ignored.After a while you will be called a retard, And then you will be ignored too.

The composites used in tejas are good enough . And for kiddos expecting IAF to bring home the trophy, let me put up an interesting scenarion,

Year is 2035, India china tensions flare up ,

China has three times more nuclear subs and ten times more thermo nuclear MIRV ICBMs than france,

France sells billions of dollars worth product in china every year,

china threatens France with dire consequence if french resupply critical rafale stuff(that will never transferred in any deep deep TOT worth 20 billion dollars)

What will a feather weight in international relations france do?

Only russia and US can say lay off to china in 2030, not a minnow like france,

When will our retired and retiring Mig-21 drivers who are eager to diversify their eggs to french basket (in the process doomn tejas mk-2 development in great numbers and higher stealth versions like stealth tejas mk-3 as alluded by VK saraswath)know this?

Do they expect france to stand up to china for the sake of India? hell french are selling subs simultaneously to both india and pak!!!. SO india is no strategic frien of france despite goose talk.

Even now france is at the fore front of supply arms to china lobby in EU
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top