LCA News and Discussions

[Aditya_V]

When I need a tv/dvd player/computer, I go to the shop to buy one, while I am quite competent to build one myself. In my childhood, we used to build the ploughs etc, because ready-made ploughs were expensive and not easily available.

Makes sense ain't it?

That also means you are dependant on the manufacture after sales support for parts and service and you play only those formats he supports or chooses to support and not what you want. If the manufacturer deceides to discontinue the model and stops service or compatable parts with it, HD cord etc. You have no control over him and stuck with Lemon.

[Cain Marko]

The above may seem to be true unless the question of buying vegetables for lunch directly impinges on the chances of your survival after partaking it.

When it is my life and that of my men at stake, i will not wait for the DRDO to come up with a good enough product. I will ask for the best that is conceivable. If that can be made available indigenous I am all for it.

Obviously this is not as obvious as one might think.

Okay. Why didn't they put their money where their mouth was ? What did they do to build competency ? Which R&D project with a key competency in their mind did they fund between say 70s and 85 to maybe even today ?

You want the IAF to build indigenous industry and that too with a civilian leadership that is itching to put it in its place every chance it gets? If DRDO provides them a product that meets their needs, they buy it, period. Should be enough. Even today - why did they buy Akash? All the EW equipment - tarang et al otherwise? This is backwards logic, customer goes to producer saying this is what we need, that too when producer has zilch experience to back them. Should be the other way, producer goes to customer saying, "hey this is what we can do for you, and here is what we have already done". IF customer is not happy, specs ought to be revised. in the case of the LCA it was the customer who had to revise!

Okay. Even where was the composite winged Ajeet ? Composite winged Mig-21 with side intakes, big radar in the nose and Mil 1553B bus flying in early 80s, if the IAF wanted an "operationally" oriented fighter, even if you didn't want FBW?

I think it is rather excessive to expect an MIC such as the one India had to come up with things that even the Soviets with their massive investment in h/w did not at the time. How many FSU fighters had all those composites, mil std 1553B bus? Heck in that time period wonlee the AMericans were doing all of what you say and to some extent the Oiropeans. None of which was cheap, and required tremendous investments in basic R&D, a luxury that India did not have. Why do you think USSR equipment was so attractive?

That would have been a souped up Mig21 ++ that Tipnis et al would have been so in love with and gone on and on about it over Whiskey long after they retired. You could have done this in the late 70s. If you wanted to do that in the late 80s instead of the LCA, it would have been silly and you would have ended up with a plane like the JF-17 Bandar today. A JF-17 equivalent would have been fine for the 80s to 2000 period, but simply wont cut it today.

Yeah but that is exactly when they needed the LCA. Can't give people a promising future to fight with man, it only works with soosai types. And it is not like a Bandar type can't be upgrded extensively. Hell you are the one saying even an Ajeet can be fixed mighty pretty so why not a sundar-bandar? Take the fulcrum or any of the legacy birds that came out in the 70s - rather basic (fulcrum especially), it is quite competitive today at least as a low end fighter, which is what the LCA was supposed to be.

But see what they did,they ran to the Russians in the late eighties to do a "Bison" (largely an avionics upgrade). The Isrealis did a "Lancer" upgrade for that without even building a single Mig-21. Why couldn't you , who built a couple of hundreds ? The Chinese did some dramatic things with it. Talk is cheap of saying "I want an operational fighter" , but I see no moves to see it come about at all back in the 70s when the Mig-21 was already what 25 years old ?

So then why are HAL/DRDO (with all of LCA experience to back it up) now running to Dassault for the M2k upgrade? Again you compare the Israeli MIC with India's, totally different situations. India's NAM policy came with a price to pay afterall.

The Govt babu sure as hell wont fund an R&D project from NAL/HAL/Drdo whatever of any scale without a possible application in mind. Only if the services pushed that and showed it was necessary, they could have done that. So what did the IAF do ?

Did what was necessary to do its job, not its problem if R&D didn't get more funds/projects, hell they were on tight budgets too.

Unless you are an absolute old fuddy-duddy reliving the days of shooting down Sabres or whatever in 65/71, without critical technologies like FBW and composites , avionics and advanced sensors, you are simply not competitive. You are toast.

Sir, the performance of the fulcrum as well as Bison provides plenty of argument to your stance.

In fact even a small sharply focused project on that lines could have given you a brilliant platform to build a full digital FBW later. So why didn't the likes of folks who said "A more modern Mig-21 for the older one" and TKS and the others who flew them and operated them on a daily basis ask for one ?

Conversely, why didn't the DRDO types offer such solutions? Surely they were even more aware of the 21's faults? More germane to the topic, it was not the FBW perse that the IAF had problems with, it was the fancier DFBW with quadruple redundancy that they took exception with. IAF was supportive enough for the Dassault version triplex dfbw, but no it had to be unobtanium or bust! Ultimately became obtainable but only many years later than needed.

Fact is, these things are operationally critical. IAF couldn't do it, because they were looking for the Russians to fix it for them, who were moving on to other platforms and retired the Mig-21, while you are still flogging it today. It made tremendous sense to invest in a radical Mig-21 upgrade in the 70s, []if you were planning to keep it for another 20 years. A big dropped ball there due to lack of any strategic insight.

Oh but they were not, it was hoped that the LCA would be flying by 1995. As soon as they realized the ambitious nature of the program they decided to upgrade the 21.

Really! How do you explain the dropped balls with the HPT-32 and HTT-40. R.Varadarajan (HAL and service folks would know him) was distant family. Everyone knew the HPT-32's problems for a long long time and HAL did propose a turbo trainer way back. See the fiasco there. What about the AJT case? HAL did produce one an eminently sensible one there as well, but simply ignored /dumped. Those were operationally critical, but the IAF blew it massively there !

Fair enough. My point is v.simple though, and keeping the LCA in mind. Defence labs ought to give the services what they need/want, not aim for the stars and give 'em fantasyware.

I repeat this once again. For all the alphabet soup of acronyms of the folks in Army and Air Force who are supposed to look ahead and do planning and requirements and that sort of thing, the performance has been simply breathtakingly pathetic.\

Perhaps, but their performance where it matters most, has been excellent! To the contrary the performance of the technocrats has been arguably abysmal in the area that they are primarily mandated with.

[member_20453]

guys, lots of negativity here, IAF, IN will get the LCA when its good and ready, both sides made errors, doesn't mean both sides weren't professional, just means it takes time to have a close working relationship when so many parties are involved.

The fact is LCA remains the world's smallest and lightest supersonic fighter aircraft, it has so far proven itself in the tough conditions across the country including Leh where 4 out 6 MRCA candidates couldn't even take off. The project has always been very ambitious. Rest assured when its ready for full scale operations for both IN and IAF, it will be the ideal bird for all kinds of roles.


They now just have to speed up the testing and ram up production, ideally to around 40 aircraft per year.

[nelson]

^+1

It is very convenient for the researcher/scientist to get into the 'Babu' mould. When the Air Force or the Army frames ASQR/GSQR with state of the art features the Babu blames them for not being practical and asking for the moon. When they seem to scale down the requirements to assimilate what is available indigenously the Babu blames them for not asking the best. Either ways the blame goes to the AF and they bear the brunt in the operations also.

So, instead of indulging in a blame game we must look forward to better things in near future..

[vishvak]

guys, lots of negativity here, IAF, IN will get the LCA when its good and ready, both sides made errors, doesn't mean both sides weren't professional, just means it takes time to have a close working relationship when so many parties are involved.

The fact is LCA remains the world's smallest and lightest supersonic fighter aircraft, it has so far proven itself in the tough conditions across the country including Leh where 4 out 6 MRCA candidates couldn't even take off. The project has always been very ambitious. Rest assured when its ready for full scale operations for both IN and IAF, it will be the ideal bird for all kinds of roles.


They now just have to speed up the testing and ram up production, ideally to around 40 aircraft per year.

Also, the naval version of LCA Tejas is the the only carrier borne fighter in the light category, per link

[member_22510]

US Test Team to join LCA Navy Project

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... %20Project

[vina]

You want the IAF to build indigenous industry ....This is backwards logic, customer goes to producer saying this is what we need, that too when producer has zilch experience to back them.
.... Should be the other way, producer goes to customer saying, "hey this is what we can do for you, and here is what we have already done".

This is exactly the thing that clearly illustrates the difference between the IN and IA/IAF . Unfortunately, in something as complex , expensive and risky it is the "should be the other way" that works. World over, without exception, it is the customer who puts up specs AND money to develop a new concept. Unless you want to buy something already developed something (latest.. Rafale F3 for eg) it cannot be otherway. That is precisely the reason while you can do the wonderful comparison shopping experience of 6 planes and zero in on the fully developed Rafale F3, you could not develop something like that in India, until recently. It is the LCA that will allow you to do so going forward.

I think it is rather excessive to expect an MIC such as the one India had to come up with things that even the Soviets with their massive investment in h/w did not at the time. How many FSU fighters had all those composites, mil std 1553B bus? Heck in that time period wonlee the AMericans were doing all of what you say and to some extent the Oiropeans. None of which was cheap, and required tremendous investments in basic R&D, a luxury that India did not have

.
Again.. Go Navy! They lost the INS Khukri in 1971, they took it to heart,recognized their drawback in ASW. What would the IAF done in a similar situation ? Shopped around in the global bazaar for sonars!

Is that what the Navy did ? They looked around, and then sent one of their star students from their technical school (he joined the Navy as a 16 year old kid) to work with EE folks at IIT-Delhi and in a decades time had a cutting edge sonar using latest signal processing techniques that would rank in the top drawer with anything in the world including American systems, much better than anything the Soviets could field despite "all the massive investment in hardware" , and all the Indian ships and subs have had domestic sonars ever since !

The Navy kid went on to get a PhD from IIT Delhi for his work and the quality of his achievements is such that he is today a full tenured prof at Stanford in EE and works on cutting edge stuff like MIMO , which goes back to the work he did along with Indrasen and others for the Navy! Google around. Like the saying goes, Join the Navy, See the World. It sure does take you places.

How about a story of an 17 year old AirForce kid going on to get a PhD for his work in Radars and his work being so good that he gets invited to join MIT as a full tenured Prof in EE ? When do we see that ? Or is the IAF still going to go around shopping in the arms bazaar?

It was not impossible. It just needed investments and foresight and the ability to reach out to a broader set of people!

Yeah but that is exactly when they needed the LCA.

Nope. In the late 80s, the LCA config was the right choice to go with. For a Bandar, you should have done the project in the mid to late 70s, not eighties. The obsolescence was already knocking on the door for the Bandar types and would be a laughing stock just like the Bandar is today.

as a low end fighter, which is what the LCA was supposed to be

Well, when it enters service, the "low end" fighters will be the M2K and Mig29 Upg!

So then why are HAL/DRDO (with all of LCA experience to back it up) now running to Dassault for the M2k upgrade?

Maybe because they never built the airframe ? But if you look at the LCA spin offs, we did upgrade the Mig27 fully inhouse and not have to run to the Russians. Mig 29 again, I would think due to not building the airframe and because of the structural changes, Russians are needed.

Sir, the performance of the fulcrum as well as Bison provides plenty of argument to your stance.

That is clutching at straws. That kind of airframe is obsolete today. The Mig-35 got kicked out of the MRCA contest for eg.

Conversely, why didn't the DRDO types offer such solutions? Surely they were even more aware of the 21's faults? More germane to the topic, it was not the FBW perse that the IAF had problems with, it was the fancier DFBW with quadruple redundancy that they took exception with. IAF was supportive enough for the Dassault version triplex dfbw, but no it had to be unobtanium or bust! Ultimately became obtainable but only many years later than needed.

Any electrical engg (I am not one, but do ask around) will tell you that a digital system is much easier to design than an analog, easier to debug, modify , maintain and a whole host of things. What the Frenchies wanted to do was to sell the old analog FBW from the M2K and not give the new Digital one they developed for the Rafale. It was a correct decision to go with the digital one. The first thing that would have got thrown out in any case was the old analog FBW. We already invested in that effort. The FBW delays were really due to the Nuke test.

Oh but they were not, it was hoped that the LCA would be flying by 1995. As soon as they realized the ambitious nature of the program they decided to upgrade the 21.

Too late. The Mig 21 upgrade should have come in the mid to late 70s. The Chinese actually produced the Mig 21 until 2003!

Fair enough. My point is v.simple though, and keeping the LCA in mind. Defence labs ought to give the services what they need/want, not aim for the stars and give 'em fantasyware.

If you cant invest in R&D and competency building, you not get anything worthwhile within decent timelines, unless you plan on going comparison shopping forever that is.

For eg, the IAF hasn't spent a single paisa for the LCA development (just like the Army with the Arjun). Contrast that with the Navy, who approached the ADA (see, unlike you expecting the ADA to come to you with a ready made product, a sister service actually goes and says, this is what we want, can you make it ?) , spent money (close to a 1000 crores or something) , put a senior team with impressive people there at Bangalore , knowing fully well that the plane as it is is not going to be what they will eventually want, but are investing in it all the same to come up with the MK-II version they REALLY want and worked through teething troubles in design of landing gear, arresting systems and everything!

The IAF placed "Kicked upstairs" people there, didn't want to hear of it at all and couldn't be bothered.

[pragnya]

cm, a nitpick...

Oh but they were not, it was hoped that the LCA would be flying by 1995. As soon as they realized the ambitious nature of the program they decided to upgrade the 21.

when the funds for FSED came only in 1993 (as per MOD annual report) how could anyone (least of all IAF!!) hoped that LCA would have flown by 1995!!

are you saying IAF did not know the LCA funding timelines at all??

they started taking cursory look only after it flew in 2001 which got the filip in 2006 as kartik pointed out.

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

Vina, nice posts. agree totally.

[SaiK]

I just don't understand the validity of firang V&V. I understand their knowledge base etc.. but what it gives us in terms of data is nothing. It gives them a lot of learning though.

What I don't understand is, systems engineering is not maturing in desh.

[Raman]

You want the IAF to build indigenous industry ....This is backwards logic, customer goes to producer saying this is what we need, that too when producer has zilch experience to back them. .... Should be the other way, producer goes to customer saying, "hey this is what we can do for you, and here is what we have already done".

Unfortunately, in something as complex , expensive and risky it is the "should be the other way" that works. World over, without exception, it is the customer who puts up specs AND money to develop a new concept. Unless you want to buy something already developed something (latest.. Rafale F3 for eg) it cannot be otherway.

It really is a combination of both. It is incumbent on NAL/HAL/DRDO to perform fundamental research and develop a portfolio of capabilities, independent of what the IAF/IA wants or does not want, and keep the customers in the loop about developments. It is incumbent on the IAF/IA to drive the development/packaging of said technologies into a product and pushing the agenda for further avenues of research.

If you don't have (1) and just have (2), you get brochure-bashing unobtainium specifications where the customers create ASR/GSQR with no context on domestic capability (e.g., Arjun). If you have (1) and don't have (2), you get what happened to the LCA during the 90's until 2006.

The bottom line is that both have to be integrated with one another - it really is a long period feedback loop. The sorry state of affairs should never again occur.

[venkat_r]

It is not the IAF's primary job to think of latest and greatest and stay on par with evolving tech as much as DRDO's. IAF's job is to get what it needs to kill the enemy, and it is downright good at this.

Not specifically pointing at you, but such attitude fits mercenary units and not for an organization like IAF. It should be IAF's job to develop and procure the fighters. Why would they not want to develop that capacity within? - Number of planes that IAF buys like MRCA or MKI or even the famous Mig 21 are more than what are deployed by many airforces in the world. Would be shocked to know that IAF high honcos are making operational plans daily since 70s. Who are they fighting? Well, no getting away from their responsibility of having a strategic view of requirements and also bench marking themselves externally with other AFs and developing the capacity in house - and this not rocket science, they have been interacting with other AFs for a long time. Puzzles me that they have ignored this all along and the nerve to call LCA a mig 21++ in public just shows where IAF stands on this.

You want the IAF to build indigenous industry and that too with a civilian leadership that is itching to put it in its place every chance it gets? If DRDO provides them a product that meets their needs, they buy it, period. Should be enough. Even today - why did they buy Akash? All the EW equipment - tarang et al otherwise? This is backwards logic, customer goes to producer saying this is what we need, that too when producer has zilch experience to back them. Should be the other way, producer goes to customer saying, "hey this is what we can do for you, and here is what we have already done". IF customer is not happy, specs ought to be revised. in the case of the LCA it was the customer who had to revise!

CM sir, please do read this post again. It probably explains the exact same thing that should be avoided - It is the customer that has to come in with the requirements and the production house will do its best to get it done - How do you think other AFs work? LCA is being treated as a DRDO project and not IAF's. If IAF does not buy the LCA after it is developed, does DRDO sell it to SriLanka and Vietnam? Infact it is in IAF's interest to work with any organization that can help them. It would be unfortunate if a giant ego is what has stopped IAF from cooperating. Even when DRDO came up with the LCA plan, with what ever it thought of doing, IAF should have jumped right in and managed what it needed. If that were to happen and IAF was involved and noted the risks and enforced the timelines by making descisions on the radar/Engine or anything else that was delaying the project and enforcing plan B, good or bad, who knows, IAF might have had some version of LCA flying by now. DRDO seems to be in a double whammy here, on the receiving end just for trying especially from an organization that was sitting on its backside on this issue.

BTW - Just to clarify, IAF is not doing any great service(or throwing bakshesh) to DRDO by buying LCA or Akash.

Pet peev: IAF and even IA should be hit where it hurts the most. Joint Chief of staff has to be appointed from Navy for the next 10 years, with an additional responsibility for him of overseeing these IAF/IA projects. Or better yet, depute some navy personnel to IAF and IA to oversee these projects and by inference (IAF/IA men!) - that would be the day.

[saumitra_j]

When Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar invited ACM Tipnis for the first flight of LCA, he had to use words like "we are building this plane for the IAF Sir, not for the enemy air force" ... and that about sums up IAF attitude for LCA. Since they knew that the LCA was not going to solve their operational needs, why didn't the powers that be tell the GOI to separate the project from their operational requirements? That way they could have happily supported the development of LCA and got the Bison as well... which happened anyway. Instead they disagreed privately, told the world that they are counting on the LCA as Mig 21 replacement .. knowing fully well that it was not possible.... IAF and IA have to invest in R&D programs like the Navy does...which they have started doing to some extent now but have not done in the past. Just like DRDO is guilty of messing up on Kaveri, so are the IAF and IA for not supporting LCA and Arjun. Hopefully this will change in the coming years....

[Cain Marko]

CM, please do read this post again. It probably explains the exact same thing that should be avoided - It is the customer that has to come in with the requirements and the production house will do its best to get it done - How do you think other AFs work? LCA is being treated as a DRDO project and not IAF's. If IAF does not buy the LCA after it is developed, does DRDO sell it to SriLanka and Vietnam? Infact it is in IAF's interest to work with any organization that can help them. It would be unfortunate if a giant ego is what has stopped IAF from cooperating. Even when DRDO came up with the LCA plan, with what ever it thought of doing, IAF should have jumped right in and managed what it needed. If that were to happen and IAF was involved and noted the risks and enforced the timelines by making descisions on the radar/Engine or anything else that was delaying the project

Venkat, no need for sir. I get to learn as much as you do from everybody here. Re. your point above, and that of Raman & Vinaji's below:

It is incumbent on the IAF/IA to drive the development/packaging of said technologies into a product and pushing the agenda for further avenues of research.

Unfortunately, in something as complex , expensive and risky it is the "should be the other way" that works. World over, without exception, it is the customer who puts up specs AND money to develop a new concept.

It is not as though the IAF did not approach the DRDO/HAL for its needs....who do you think prompted the LCA initiative in the first place - who floated that initial need for a air superiority bird with secondary CAS duties? The IAF wanted a homegrown product - just not one that was impossible to achieve in its required timeframe. The sequence here is as follows:

Customer - expresses clear desire for certain product.
Producer - comes up with an idea to meet above that is v.impractical
Customer - rejects the impracticality and suggests simpler product.

It is now incumbent upon any producer to scale down its fancy desires and meet with customer needs and not the other way around. Let us not make the IAF to be some kind of villain here although it clearly made some errors in the entire process, esp. the revision around 2005. There is v.little it could have done to have expedited the process in the 90s - the sanctions, economy and technocrat's incessant demand for greatest and best were beyond its control and pretty much screwed the project.

Once again, the DFBW FCS is a clear indication of this. Had a simpler model (Dassault) been chosen (again as the IAF wanted), things might have been better. Instead they went with Marietta, sanctions followed, and the rest is history.

People complain that the IAF stayed away from the project, but it seems to me that the main customer was shooed away every time it tried to say something. Even in the initial committee and society that was set up, iirc, IAF types never led any tier, they were lower down in the hierarchy. Give the customer this kind of treatment and you expect cooperation?

[Cain Marko]

When Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar invited ACM Tipnis for the first flight of LCA, he had to use words like "we are building this plane for the IAF Sir, not for the enemy air force" ... and that about sums up IAF attitude for LCA. Since they knew that the LCA was not going to solve their operational needs, why didn't the powers that be tell the GOI to separate the project from their operational requirements? That way they could have happily supported the development of LCA and got the Bison as well... which happened anyway. Instead they disagreed privately, told the world that they are counting on the LCA as Mig 21 replacement .. knowing fully well that it was not possible.... IAF and IA have to invest in R&D programs like the Navy does...which they have started doing to some extent now but have not done in the past. Just like DRDO is guilty of messing up on Kaveri, so are the IAF and IA for not supporting LCA and Arjun. Hopefully this will change in the coming years....

I am all for a correct attitude etc when it comes from the IAF, but what about correct attitude from scientific community and babus towards services? This needs to be understood - the IAF and the other services are well respected by the Indian people because of their integrity, professionalism and excellent record in face of serious odds. They do their job very well. The scientific community needs to understand its primary customer's needs and deliver accordingly. But I do agree that even if they can't deliver a perfect product, Army types should be more accomodating. The Arjun fiasco is a shame for the IA. But it cannot be equated with the LCA and the IAF imho.

People question the scientific community because of an interminable tendency to overpromise and under deliver, whatever the reasons might be. Time for them to start waking up - promise small, and deliver big, it goes down much smoother in that sequence. However, aam janta still has lot of pride for its scientists, no one questions their integrity and nor should they. But people do question their competency (not in tech achievement) but in project management, and rightly so. Wouldn't have tareekh pey tareekh otherwise.

People despise babus and netas because the system in general is perceived as horribly corrupt with little to no integrity. And rightly so.

[SaiK]

I think you all are looking at projects and products as individuals and people, and not as processes, functions and components. Once, you start looking at it, then engineering happens, and that would be the ideal path to corrections from existing methods.

[chackojoseph]

I am all for a correct attitude etc when it comes from the IAF

Let it come and let us see after that.

[Cain Marko]

Again.. Go Navy! They lost the INS Khukri in 1971, they took it to heart,recognized their drawback in ASW. What would the IAF done in a similar situation ? Shopped around in the global bazaar for sonars!

HOw do you know? IAF has done plenty of jugaad on its own as well. Even TKS's Darin story fits the bill.

Is that what the Navy did ? They looked around, and then sent one of their star students from their technical school (he joined the Navy as a 16 year old kid) to work with EE folks at IIT-Delhi and in a decades time had a cutting edge sonar using latest signal processing techniques that would rank in the top drawer with anything in the world including American systems, much better than anything the Soviets could field despite "all the massive investment in hardware" , and all the Indian ships and subs have had domestic sonars ever since !
It was not impossible. It just needed investments and foresight and the ability to reach out to a broader set of people!

Fair enough, the IN is the most supportive amongst the services. But then the IAF has been using home built EW for quite some time as well.

Nope. In the late 80s, the LCA config was the right choice to go with. For a Bandar, you should have done the project in the mid to late 70s, not eighties. The obsolescence was already knocking on the door for the Bandar types and would be a laughing stock just like the Bandar is today.

Disagree here. A simpler version of the LCA would have provided the IAF what it needed, WHEN it needed it, and by now they could have built upon this experience in tranches, adding more esoteric technology in a stepwise fashion. Has been done before quite successfully. A less riskier approach if you will.

Well, when it enters service, the "low end" fighters will be the M2K and Mig29 Upg!

I certainly hope and believe so. Especially, when the Mk2 enters service.

That is clutching at straws. That kind of airframe is obsolete today. The Mig-35 got kicked out of the MRCA contest for eg.

Again, disagree. That kind of airframe can still be very competitive. Flanker is another example.

Any electrical engg (I am not one, but do ask around) will tell you that a digital system is much easier to design than an analog, easier to debug, modify , maintain and a whole host of things. What the Frenchies wanted to do was to sell the old analog FBW from the M2K and not give the new Digital one they developed for the Rafale. It was a correct decision to go with the digital one. The first thing that would have got thrown out in any case was the old analog FBW. We already invested in that effort. The FBW delays were really due to the Nuke test.

Not so. The M2K, at that point in time was still very much state of the art, and Dassault offered a hybrid FBW. 3 digital + 1 analog, and the IAF was quite satisfied with it. Even if it was completely analog, so what? Convert to digital later, no? The problem iirc, was that the Rafale's FBW was still not totally developed.

Too late. The Mig 21 upgrade should have come in the mid to late 70s. The Chinese actually produced the Mig 21 until 2003!

Events show that the MiG-21 upgrade made the bird very competitive even in the 2000s.

If you cant invest in R&D and competency building, you not get anything worthwhile within decent timelines, unless you plan on going comparison shopping forever that is

Competency building takes time and investment, and a solid amount of support from the GOI (that is where the money comes from). This critical element India simply did not have in the past. Until such a time that you invest plenty into R&D, things are not going to happen. Don't blame the IAF for this - they don't control the purse-strings.

For eg, the IAF hasn't spent a single paisa for the LCA development (just like the Army with the Arjun). Contrast that with the Navy, who approached the ADA (see, unlike you expecting the ADA to come to you with a ready made product, a sister service actually goes and says, this is what we want, can you make it ?) , spent money (close to a 1000 crores or something) , put a senior team with impressive people there at Bangalore , knowing fully well that the plane as it is is not going to be what they will eventually want, but are investing in it all the same to come up with the MK-II version they REALLY want and worked through teething troubles in design of landing gear, arresting systems and everything!

Fair enough BUT saar, for better or worse, the IN already enjoyed the luxury of being WAAY ahead of anything it supposedly faced in it's areas of operation. It could afford to do the above because it's threats were not so serious or immediate. If their enemy was the USN, they'd be investing in phoren maal, left, right and center.

Why did the IN's very own CNS criticize the ADA so recently? Your comparison of IAF vs. IN is inapplicable for a variety of reasons.

Like I said earlier, threat perceptions are very important - the parity between IAF and its enemies was far closer and sometimes even favored the enemy (in terms of quality), was not the same as the parity between IN and PN/PLAN.In light of this obvious difference the GOI, gave more $$s to the IAF/IA so that they could purchase imported goodies every now and then. No such luxury for the IN, not that it's need was that desperate either.

The IAF placed "Kicked upstairs" people there, didn't want to hear of it at all and couldn't be bothered.

TKS, with whom this whole thing started, does not sound like one of the above.

[Cain Marko]

I am all for a correct attitude etc when it comes from the IAF

Let it come and let us see after that.

It's already there and has been there for long enough - the Akash purchase should banish any doubts!

[Cain Marko]

cm, a nitpick...

Oh but they were not, it was hoped that the LCA would be flying by 1995. As soon as they realized the ambitious nature of the program they decided to upgrade the 21.

when the funds for FSED came only in 1993 (as per MOD annual report) how could anyone (least of all IAF!!) hoped that LCA would have flown by 1995!!

are you saying IAF did not know the LCA funding timelines at all??

No Pragnya, what I am saying is that the IAF saw the scientific community's plans a LOT earlier, and raised questions. They were summarily ignored, and consequently, the IAF took a more pragmatic approach. They knew the LCA was too risky to depend upon. What they were hoping for is a bird that could be inducted in the 90s as a replacement for the MIG-21, nothing fancy, just a solid solution. What they got was a promise of a MiG-21 sized F-16, which they knew was impossible, at least in the timeframe they needed it. And they were dead right.

[chackojoseph]

It's already there and has been there for long enough - the Akash purchase should banish any doubts!

And Akash is being delivered as promised.

as IAF worked on its attitude from 2004, the LCA program has gone good amount of distance. The IOC is within another 12 months and simultaneously the IAF familirisation / test flights will start. As they progress, the Mk-2 will be available. Hopefully IAF will keep the attitude.

[Cain Marko]

^ Point is sir, what about scientific community's attitude? Are they listening to the user? If so, why was the CNS complaining the other day? Again, the case of serious - 'overpromise and underdeliver' continues.

[chackojoseph]

^ Point is sir, what about scientific community's attitude? Are they listening to the user? If so, why was the CNS complaining the other day? Again, the case of serious - 'overpromise and underdeliver' continues.

Meeting the Framing the requirements jointly + IAF test pilots + meeting the GSQR + accommodating the additional requests = listening to user. One small point I wanted to make. Initially, during the proof of concept, thank heavens that they disagreed with the User and brought out a superior airframe and flight control.

What are the over promises and under deliveries you are trying to tell?

CNS was complaining about the delays in delivery. The prime problem was the undercarriage. No matter how much they listen to user, the aircraft carrier landing is a challenge to be overcome. Navy wants LCA kind for its carrier. One of the problem why IN is not expanding its carrier fleet is "where to find the aircraft?" The possible future aircraft's are f-35 and Rafale. Both are not LCA naval class. Then there is paper Sea Gripen and naval Euro fighter. Paper Gripen is close to what Navy wants, but, LCA Naval is half paper. CNS will complain more and wring his hands. There is no other option at the moment. LCA naval still faces challenges as it has not actually landed on a carrier or a simulated carrier. This landing gear problem will bring more tears in navy's eyes for some time. there is going to be high decibel wailing by CNS in future.

[venkat_r]

I am all for a correct attitude etc when it comes from the IAF, but what about correct attitude from scientific community and babus towards services? This needs to be understood - the IAF and the other services are well respected by the Indian people because of their integrity, professionalism and excellent record in face of serious odds. They do their job very well. ....

People despise babus and netas because the system in general is perceived as horribly corrupt with little to no integrity. And rightly so.

I cannot begin to compare the negative publicity and flack that DRDO received on the LCA program, while IAF hides behind their professionalism and just to make the matters worse joins and leads to criticize the LCA program and the DRDO in public - all this while when contributors to this program should have received laurels for what they have achieved inspite the odds.

Also IAF is not above the corruption level or above the sada civilian people - Do a great job, but do not expect to be treated above others, If that is the expectation then AF got it wrong.

[SaiK]

It is all covered in UE and RE (usability and requirements).. This is a problem for the next generation if usability is not considered, and requirements are not engineered.

Correct the process, and that is all is required.

[Cain Marko]

What are the over promises and under deliveries you are trying to tell?

You answered your own questions....

1) CNS was complaining about the delays in delivery. The prime problem was the undercarriage.

No matter how much they listen to user, the aircraft carrier landing is a challenge to be overcome.

ACtually the CNS is on record saying exactly this. The ADA kept saying the difference is small, only 15% from AF version, while the IN insisted that it is a huge issue.

CNS will complain more and wring his hands. There is no other option at the moment. LCA naval still faces challenges as it has not actually landed on a carrier or a simulated carrier. This landing gear problem will bring more tears in navy's eyes for some time. there is going to be high decibel wailing by CNS in future.

BS. CNS is not wailing about the problems involved, he already knows their magnitude. He is patently wailing about ADA's attitude of waving off these issues and behaving as though they are small issues.

This is the inherent problem - big promises initially - "oh we can deliver, we can make lightest, fastest, bestest etc., we can make mini F-16 blah blah " and then offering the same reasons that the rest of the world already had warned them against, for not getting things done on time.

[Cain Marko]

Many on the forum are convinced that the LCA problems are inherently the IAF's fault thanks to their lack of "vision" and foresight. May I present an entirely opposite view? It is the IAF that has shown vision/foresight and the others including the tech-scientific community have been short-sighted.

When your day-to-day job is to assess threats and enemies, you understand them much better.

In the 80s (and even today) the IAF well knew that US has a penchant for imposing sanctions at the most critical junctures. Hence it vehemently opposed it's involvement in the LCA. The technocrats otoh, and even RG were quite enamored with Reagan's overtures and US tech, and couldn't wait to get on board.

End Result - Marietta was chosen over Dassault. Sanctions (as the IAF expected) again came into play. Project was seriously delayed. Whose fault was it for going in favor of the US? And people have the gall to defend this sad decision!

In its pragmatism, the IAF still stays away from anything that is susceptible to sanctions from the US. No wonder the US MRCA candidates were rejected. All of their entries are only entertained in support roles, never as serious contenders for the spearhead role. Be it apaches or C17s.

Today and in the foreseeable future, the LCA will have US engines. What an achilles heel! If let us say TSP does another 26/11 and India responds with a swift jhapad. And the US in turn responds with sanctions thereby neutering GE engines. What happens to an LCA fleet of some 200 a/c? Hangar queens? Iran and Tomcats situation.

This myopia also effectively hampers India from conducting a nuke test for similar fears. Nice way to handicap a nation wonlee, LCA thanks to these constant moves towards the US (repeatedly even after 1998 sanctions) could become a trojan horse. We may rue the day that the EJ-200 was not chosen. Godspeed to the Kaveri-Snecma JV.

Just a theory. Takes cover.

[Cain Marko]

I cannot begin to compare the negative publicity and flack that DRDO received on the LCA program, while IAF hides behind their professionalism and just to make the matters worse joins and leads to criticize the LCA program and the DRDO in public - all this while when contributors to this program should have received laurels for what they have achieved inspite the odds.

Also IAF is not above the corruption level or above the sada civilian people - Do a great job, but do not expect to be treated above others, If that is the expectation then AF got it wrong.

Fair enough. But it remains that while team LCA might have achieved a lot technologically, it has not executed its second mandate even remotely - provide the AF an a/c that it can induct in the near term as a replacement for the Mig-21.

Had the LCA been available even in a modest form - just a Bison type, the IAF wouldn't be flogging fishbeds today.

Had the Dassault option for the FBW been chosen, and perhaps a modded M88 or even RD-33 to go with it, FCS development time, and engine might not have been such an issue. As it stands, it took almost a decade to get the FCS going (until first flight 2001). Dassault with its team of engineers bailed out, Marietta/LM dilly-dallied in its consultancy and things were considerably slowed down. And then you have the sanctions. The ADA was squarely responsible for this decision that contributed considerably to the delays.

[suryag]

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1842 Test Flights successfully. (04-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-51,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1841 Test Flights successfully. (02-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-50,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

[Roperia]

Now, team LCA gearing up for fifth naval prototype

[SaiK]

We may rue the day that the EJ-200 was not chosen. Godspeed to the Kaveri-Snecma JV.

Just a theory. Takes cover.

Don't have to.. I have already rued over the EJection of the euro thruster with tvn. This was the one we wanted. It is all bogus for not allowing them to accept the quotation a tad late.

Projects of national importance can delay, and it is public answer. I am sure, millions would voted yes for that pretty much delta delay while compared to delays we are talking.

Sins will have repercussion. We believe in karma. The primary being mishandling of the whole engine project right from the charter.

[SaiK]

Now, team LCA gearing up for fifth naval prototype

and NP 4 (LCA MK-II) to be powered by the GE-414 engines and cannot change that now. But NP 5, we now think, will be necessary, keeping in mind the certification process,” Subrahmanya said. And the only thing left before India signs deal with GE Aviation for 99 GE-F414 engines now is the clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

wow! we can cancel it still!!!!

I want $ pumped into Kaveri up-thrusted.. it is worth million times the investment for the nation... and no firang help.

[venkat_r]

Fair enough. But it remains that while team LCA might have achieved a lot technologically, it has not executed its second mandate even remotely - provide the AF an a/c that it can induct in the near term as a replacement for the Mig-21.

Had the LCA been available even in a modest form - just a Bison type, the IAF wouldn't be flogging fishbeds today.
.

Agree with that, without comment. But putting the blame squarely on DRDO is not right. My point is that IAF should have taken interest instead of hiding their head in the sand. If IAF did not think LCA is going to work out why whine? By the way who lost when LCA is delayed, IAF itself mainly and who is going to gain when LCA is inducted? Being indifferent and trying to lord over 'bloody civilians', and if as you mentioned in one of above posts, stayed away from the project due to the khan, which ever way you slice this IAF got things wrong. in this case no excuse would be good enough - simple lack of vision for IAF

[negi]

So the question that arises is who or what prevented the IAF from taking a pro-active approach and being a major stakeholder right from the beginning, involving itself deeply in the program management aspect of LCA so that they could have a big say in critical design choices?

Well it is not about who prevented IAF from being involved but rather if LCA was IAF's baby to begin with. Right from Godavari class to Kolkata class all these projects are conceived by the IN hence it is obvious that IN drove those projects , LCA although conceived keeping ASRs in mind was not IAF's project to begin with because it was never IAF's mandate to do so.

While I do not wish to trivialize IN's vision and contribution to ship building in India fact is likes of MDL and GRSE had decades of experience in ship building even before GoI took over them however there was no such organization which was building ACs in India then it is hence a completely different situation when it comes to setting expectations with regards to building a 4th gen fighter with all the key modules to be built in house.

Even there the IN went about ship building in small steps i.e. take example of the Godavari class which was basically a modified Leander class frigate with Signaal and EL/M STGR , the steel itself was imported. For subsequent designs a lot was retained from the Kashin class (R class) . Look at Tejas everything about it was exotic so to say i.e. we had never operated an AC with such technology leave alone designing or building one, so it was obvious for the project to run into rough waters.

TKS’ own article gives evidence of a service wide lack of knowledge on how developmental programs should proceed. They really do seem to lack foresight and sit on their haunches till a platform ‘suddenly’ becomes dangerous (e.g.HPT-32) or obsolete (Marut, Ajeet, MiG-21). Only on the Su-30MKI are they showing some foresight, by coming up with a Super-30 upgrade while the fleet is still young.

If you would observe IN's airwing itself is not doing any better on that front. The bears go to Ru every quarter or 6 months for an overhaul moreover not all 8 are operational at any given point in time, Harriers too have dwindled in numbers. It is the surface fleet where we are doing good, coming to Subs French are squeezing us there it's just that unlike Ru they are going about it in relatively gentler fashion. Arihant is a completely different project we have had assistance there , how much I don't know.

The IAF treated this project like a step-daughter and was hardly involved in the initial stages, hoping that the program would die off as technology denial, scope creep, technical challenges and missed deadlines eventually mounted to an insurmountable level. Why did they wait till 2006 to depute a team for program management? Even AM Rajkumar mentions how his deputation to the LCA program was almost like exile and his promotion was stifled on the excuse that he was posted to Bangalore and that it was an “easy posting”.

I agree about IAF's indifference and yes I share your sentiments and views on that front , however to say that it hoped that program would die is imho a bit of exageration . Coming to AM Rajkumar's point well the fact is same happens in the IN or even IA , in fauj if you are not in midst of action you miss the 'points'. Even in IN it is the folks from executive branch that go to the top. Look at all the IN chiefs all of them are NDA passouts and even within that group they are either shipmen, submariners or naval aviators. You get max points for sea service or for being posted in a Squadron as an aviator, if you are on TD (temporary deputation) you unfortunately miss out on points.

The IN actually deputes its personnel to its ship building programs and has the skill set to design its own ships via its own design organization..where is the IAF’s own design house that assists ADA/HAL in their new aircraft programs?

India to be honest was doing pretty good in ship building when IN came into being likes of MDL and GRSE are as old as the 'I'N itself.
Also as compared to both IA and IAF , IN has higher percentage of engineers because they 'need' them due to the 'type' of platforms which IN operates. In fact IN has been imparting courses like Naval Architecture and Design even before any indigenization drive started for instance Naval College of Engg Lonavala dates back to 1960.

The biggest problem is that the IAF views itself purely as an end-user and compares the product to off-the-shelf acquisitions from abroad. It wants to skip all the effort and pain involved in designing and developing a product that really suits its own needs the best.

I think that is your opinion and if it is based on just how Tejas program has come along then I am afraid it is not entirely true, they can be blamed for indifference and may be even for being demanding user when it came to instances like wing redesign due to insistance on firing R-73 from wingtips but they have inducted indigenous stuff when it made the cut for eg Akash. What you have described actually applies to program like Arjun where I would agree that IA's attitude and intent could be questioned.

[SaiK]

see... whatever IAF features (sub systems) matures on LCA, IN gets those value additions. It does not matter if IN or IAF which supports, but the end product must verify and validate all requirements.

basics 101

[SidSom]

Fair enough. But it remains that while team LCA might have achieved a lot technologically, it has not executed its second mandate even remotely - provide the AF an a/c that it can induct in the near term as a replacement for the Mig-21.

Had the LCA been available even in a modest form - just a Bison type, the IAF wouldn't be flogging fishbeds today.

Lets be realistic here. The ASR was never defined for LCA to be a MiG replacement 90kN instead of ~ 40kN engine you must be kidding me (among other things).

[Singha]

let us suppose a Tejas at the level of a Mig21Bison were available for FOC in 2000. IAF would deny it saying its already outdated and it cannot meet emerging threats and they wont waste money building up training and logistics newly for a bandar-- type aircraft in this day and age.

if the FOC of this bandar-- had been in 1990 then IAF might have accepted it...but then the proj itself kicked into higher gear around that time in early 90s.

so delivering a bandar-- early would just have been rejected. the minimum IAF will accept is likely around F-16-block40 level...and thats where the IOC is headed toward on current platform.

[sum]

A new NP-5 emerges!!

Now, team LCA gearing up for fifth naval prototype

Learning from its experience with the air force version of the light combat aircraft (LCA), Team LCA is gearing up for the design and development of NP-5, the fifth prototype of the naval variant of the LCA.

P S Subrahmanya, chief of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the nodal agency for the LCA programme, said: “We believe that we would need more than two aircraft to go through the certification process and get the aircraft inducted into the Navy and so, we will have NP-5.”

NP-5 will be in addition to LCA-NP 1, the first prototype (twin-seater trainer) which completed its maiden flight on April 27, 2012, and LCA-NP 2, a single seat fighter, which is in the process of development.

Although ADA is yet to decide whether the prototype will be a fighter or a trainer, sources said: “The Tejas (IAF version), which has more than six aircraft flying ‘continuously’ is yet to complete the certification process. So we have learnt that it would be very time-consuming to try and get through the process with only two aircraft for the naval version.”

The prototype will be powered by the GE-404 engine that powers other LCAs.
“This will be the fifth prototype because we have already allocated and released the designs for NP 3 and NP 4 (LCA MK-II) to be powered by the GE-414 engines and cannot change that now. But NP 5, we now think, will be necessary, keeping in mind the certification process,” Subrahmanya said. And the only thing left before India signs deal with GE Aviation for 99 GE-F414 engines now is the clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC), which was set up in late 2010 has finalised the deal after having surpassed all the hurdles before it and the file is now expected to go to the CCS anytime. The PNC, comprising representatives from the Indian Air Force (IAF), the Navy, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), HAL, ADA and the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) negotiated with GE and the US government for over 15 months before coming to a conclusion.

[SidSom]

Any Ideas when the NP2 was supposed to be out...

[chackojoseph]

1) CNS was complaining about the delays in delivery. The prime problem was the undercarriage.

No matter how much they listen to user, the aircraft carrier landing is a challenge to be overcome.

ACtually the CNS is on record saying exactly this. The ADA kept saying the difference is small, only 15% from AF version, while the IN insisted that it is a huge issue.

CNS will complain more and wring his hands. There is no other option at the moment. LCA naval still faces challenges as it has not actually landed on a carrier or a simulated carrier. This landing gear problem will bring more tears in navy's eyes for some time. there is going to be high decibel wailing by CNS in future.

BS. CNS is not wailing about the problems involved, he already knows their magnitude. He is patently wailing about ADA's attitude of waving off these issues and behaving as though they are small issues.

This is the inherent problem - big promises initially - "oh we can deliver, we can make lightest, fastest, bestest etc., we can make mini F-16 blah blah " and then offering the same reasons that the rest of the world already had warned them against, for not getting things done on time.

The difference is actually the 15%. ADA is right about it. The landing gear is the problem. No matter how you put it that "CNS is patiently waiting etc etc" the thing is that the carrier landing is not going to be easy to master.

it is not that what ADA says that "we can offer lighteest ... blah!" the fact is that its the GSQRs. They want that plane as there is no alternative.

I would have understood if the guys were working 9-5 and taking all holidays and not delivering. They are racing over time to deliver.

I disagree with you when you say "ADA's attitude of waving off these issues and behaving as though they are small issues." On contrary, they have actually said that its a challenge. They had approached for landing gear help from various quarters even before the naval project was officially sanctioned. I remember, even in 2004, there was news of LCA designers approaching US for landing gear.

[chackojoseph]

Fair enough. But it remains that while team LCA might have achieved a lot technologically, it has not executed its second mandate even remotely - provide the AF an a/c that it can induct in the near term as a replacement for the Mig-21.

Had the LCA been available even in a modest form - just a Bison type, the IAF wouldn't be flogging fishbeds today.

Had the Dassault option for the FBW been chosen, and perhaps a modded M88 or even RD-33 to go with it, FCS development time, and engine might not have been such an issue. As it stands, it took almost a decade to get the FCS going (until first flight 2001). Dassault with its team of engineers bailed out, Marietta/LM dilly-dallied in its consultancy and things were considerably slowed down. And then you have the sanctions. The ADA was squarely responsible for this decision that contributed considerably to the delays.

No, the Mk-1 does gives IAF enough to replace Bisons in near term. its avaliable in modest form for near term induction. By 2012 end the FOC will let it be.