LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Oct 2014 08:31

Karan M wrote:Can BR add a gallery of LCA with all different tanks and payload combos seen till date? Very useful for judging progress and countering misinfo

Here is a start:

Clean configuration

R-73s only

Litening pod only

Smokers

R-73s plus drop tanks

R-73/photo pod plus centreline drop tank

1000lb Paveway 2 & Griffin-3 LGBs, R-73s and drop tanks plus litening pod

250kg Griffin-3 LGBs, R-73/photo pod and drop tanks plus litening pod

1000lb bombs, R-73/photo pod and drop tanks plus litening pod

1000lb bombs, R-73s and drop tanks

250kg/450kg(?) HSLD bombs, R-73/photo pod and drop tanks plus litening pod

250kg/450kg(?) HSLD bombs and R-73/photo pod plus litening pod

250kg(?) bombs, R-73/photo pod and drop tanks plus litening pod

250kg/450kg(?) unknown bombs, R-73/photo pod and drop tanks plus litening pod

Practice bombs, R-73/photo pod and drop tanks plus litening pod

Upcoming:

Python-V, Derby and Astra AAM

khan · Post by **khan** » 30 Oct 2014 09:53

I wasn't able to find anything on the web on the R-77 integration.

Are they waiting for the Quartz nose cone to integrate R-77, or is there some other issue?

With AWACS and the high end radars proliferating in the neighborhood- first contact will likely be BVR.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2014 11:00

With the legacy MIG-21s on oxygen,the task at hand, top priority for the LCA programme is to get the first 40 MK-1s ordered asap in sqd. service.The Mk-1 will be more capable than legacy MIG-21s and enough to deal with JF-17s.Those modest but affrodable and capable fighters are being produced steadily by both China and Pak in large numbers,which will resolve Pak's numbers problem.

Simultaneously,MK-2 matters must be speeded up; if it is going to appear beyond 2020,it will inevitably suffer from the obsolescence factor when more capable aircraft are in the air.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Oct 2014 21:12

srai wrote:
indranilroy wrote:...

What bomb is that?

That might be BL755 cluster bomb. It weights 264kg (582 lb).

Or maybe this:

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Oct 2014 21:40

khan wrote:I wasn't able to find anything on the web on the R-77 integration.

Are they waiting for the Quartz nose cone to integrate R-77, or is there some other issue?

With AWACS and the high end radars proliferating in the neighborhood- first contact will likely be BVR.

I don't think they plan to integrate the R-77. Just the Derby and then move on to the Astra.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 01 Nov 2014 00:06

Philip wrote:With the legacy MIG-21s on oxygen,the task at hand, top priority for the LCA programme is to get the first 40 MK-1s ordered asap in sqd. service.The Mk-1 will be more capable than legacy MIG-21s and enough to deal with JF-17s.Those modest but affrodable and capable fighters are being produced steadily by both China and Pak in large numbers,which will resolve Pak's numbers problem.

Simultaneously,MK-2 matters must be speeded up; if it is going to appear beyond 2020,it will inevitably suffer from the obsolescence factor when more capable aircraft are in the air.

Since JF-17 looks to being mainstay of Pakis till 2040, 200 or so LCA Mk2 will be good for us even if we start after 2020. It will allow us to project sufficient strength on both borders and fight a 2-front war.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 01 Nov 2014 00:24

srai wrote:
indranilroy wrote:...

What bomb is that?

That might be BL755 cluster bomb. It weights 264kg (582 lb).

Or maybe this:

Definitely not the BL 755. You can see it on Jaguars here.

Jaguar with armaments by TORQUE AVIATION - PHOTOGRAPHY AND HD FILMS, on Flickr

Jaguar by TORQUE AVIATION - PHOTOGRAPHY AND HD FILMS, on Flickr

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Nov 2014 03:22

It is the 1000 lb HE bomb with the tail unit 1111 attached.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 Nov 2014 18:04

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 3h 3 hours ago

The IAF is also against ordering any more Mk-1s. They have sent a report to GOI on 'issues' with the Mk-I as well.

Further he adds.
* IAF wants ADA to handover Mk-II development to some sort of an industry consortium led by HAL with phoren consultancy support.
* Apparently ramping up LCA prodn numbers currently has supply chain constraints in composites etc.
* However all stakeholders agree that GE et all will set many facilities in India if orders are large enough.
* The IAF is recommending a merger of ADA with HAL.
* Recommendation for a ministry of aerospace has also been made.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Nov 2014 19:07

He also states that IAF will not place more orders for MK-1 - a more potent combatant than the Mig-21 and a good partner for M2Ks. The classic Arjun scenario all over again - refusal to buy a good number of domestically produced weapon in favor of mass purchase of imported weapon. Where is the guarantee that IAF will buy the MK2? If this is the case, shouldn't the LCA development be scrapped in favor the fancy French screw drivers available?

The Rafale will bankrupt India and for every little thing the French will bleed the Indian economy. Case in point - Scorpenes, M2K upgrades!!!

India can never be a player on the global stage with its love of imports that tie up its foreign policy to the whims of its suppliers. We see the stranglehold of this through some of the "important" posters on this forum!

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 01 Nov 2014 20:20

.

I hope with the HAL lead Private Firm will give us a Affordable version of Tejas

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 01 Nov 2014 20:34

Affordable version of Tejas

Rafale will bankrupt India

Sorry but could not help ....

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Nov 2014 20:51

Your point being?

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 01 Nov 2014 21:15

IAF trying to scuttle any potential desi trainer-fighter for fair import maidens is not new news - recent enthusiasm is infused by savings from dropping oil prices.

But this honeymoon is short lived - our growing appetite for oil driven cars and all will overshadow any price drop now or in future. But IAF is inflicted by shortsightedness anyways.

My strong belief is to create a 'Homeland Defense Air Wing' equivalent and fill it up LCA and Tejas homegrown variants. IAF's netas and leadership can continue with their 'Imported Air Force' awards until retirement.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Nov 2014 22:57

I don't know if this belongs in the LCA thread but someone should look at the impact of corrupt weapons procurement practices and their impact on a) Sovereign foreign policy, b) National Security especially when you move away from the bloc that was your supplier for important weapons.

The LCA and the Arjun are capable of becoming mainstays of the IAF and the IA - but will these wings of the Indian Armed forces free themselves from their corrupt procurement practices? Will India remain dependent on one superpower or the other because it needs supplies from the OEM in times of war?

nash · Post by **nash** » 01 Nov 2014 22:59

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 11m11 minutes ago

And the IAF must overtly state that it has *no issues* with Tejas MK-I exports even if doesn't want to order beyond 40.

I think there may be the plan of exporting of Mk-I to other countries in near future to increase and keep the production line busy till Mk-II comes into the picture.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Nov 2014 23:10

IAF does not want to jeopardize the Rafael purchase. It will go to any length to secure the Rafael. And then in the future, India will need to accommodate French views of the world in addition to Russia's to set its foreign policy.

The only way to market the LCA in the global market will be through tie-ups with a private player.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 01 Nov 2014 23:11

IAF only needs to pit the Mig-21s against a squad of Tejas to make a statement

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2014 23:15

nik wrote:But IAF is inflicted by shortsightedness anyways.

You've hit the nail on the head, sir. There are stringent tests carried out during the selection process for IAF pilots, and only shortsighted people are let in. Of those, those who display a particular liking for stuff that is not Made in India are then promoted to the top.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2014 23:30

Vivek K wrote:And then in the future, India will need to accommodate French views of the world in addition to Russia's to set its foreign policy.

Sir, the problem is much worse than that. India's foreign policy has been distorted by the Swiss basic trainer, the British Hawk, the Anglo-French Jaguar, the French Mirage-2000, the Israeli systems on the AWACS, the Brazilian Embraer, and that is without thinking about the effects of the C-130J, C-17, the Apache and the Chinook from the US. No wonder Indian foreign policy is so messed up. All these foreign products should be smashed to pieces (with Made in India hammers) and patriotic people put in charge of procurement.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 01 Nov 2014 23:38

Even on a serious note, the current condition of IAF and their performance during Kargil war doesn't inspire any confidence.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2014 23:44

nik wrote:My strong belief is to create a 'Homeland Defense Air Wing' equivalent and fill it up LCA and Tejas homegrown variants. IAF's netas and leadership can continue with their 'Imported Air Force' awards until retirement.

HAL management should be put in charge of the IAF. The MoD has not been able to control the IAF and persuade them to buy Made in India equipment like the LCA Mk-1, and now the only solution is to hand over the management of the IAF to HAL and DRDO. Once the IAF officers are done with flying fighters, they should just be given on loan to IndiGo or Jet Airways. Problem solved.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2014 23:47

jamwal wrote:

Even on a serious note, the current condition of IAF and their performance during Kargil war doesn't inspire any confidence.

Sir, do you think that the customary 2-pegs of whisky before each sortie may have affected performance?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Nov 2014 23:59

Eklavya, please refrain from such posts. The IAF performed well in Kargil, their preparedness is what is in question.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 02 Nov 2014 00:29

Oohhh... someone is in good mood tonight.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 00:35

Vivek K wrote:Eklavya, please refrain from such posts. The IAF performed well in Kargil, their preparedness is what is in question.

Sir, thank you for so kindly pulling me up. I shall heed your advice. You may not have noticed that jamwal brought up Kargil.

And sir, what is affecting the preparedness of IAF? Are they spending too much time on golf course and vacation and watching IPL?

I would also like to express my appreciation for your illuminating statement above (quoted below):

Vivek K wrote:The LCA and the Arjun are capable of becoming mainstays of the IAF and the IA - but will these wings of the Indian Armed forces free themselves from their corrupt procurement practices?

So, the lack of additional orders for the LCA Mk-1 is because of corruption in the IAF. I am thankful to you for having solved this mystery.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2014 01:21

eklavya wrote:Sir, the problem is much worse than that. India's foreign policy has been distorted by the Swiss basic trainer, the British Hawk, the Anglo-French Jaguar, the French Mirage-2000, the Israeli systems on the AWACS, the Brazilian Embraer, and that is without thinking about the effects of the C-130J, C-17, the Apache and the Chinook from the US. No wonder Indian foreign policy is so messed up. All these foreign products should be smashed to pieces (with Made in India hammers) and patriotic people put in charge of procurement.

And is the fact that the IAF operates 7 different fighter types, equipped with missiles sourced from 4 different sources, all while negotiating for an 8th fighter type, the result of a carefully considered professional policy decision?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 02:24

Viv S wrote: And is the fact that the IAF operates 7 different fighter types, equipped with missiles sourced from 4 different sources, all while negotiating for an 8th fighter type, the result of a carefully considered professional policy decision?

Sir, on the MMRCA thread you argue in the most careful considered and professional manner for acquiring the F-35. Would F-35 constitute an 8th fighter type, or am I missing the point somehow?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2014 02:50

eklavya wrote:
Viv S wrote: And is the fact that the IAF operates 7 different fighter types, equipped with missiles sourced from 4 different sources, all while negotiating for an 8th fighter type, the result of a carefully considered professional policy decision?
Sir, on the MMRCA thread you argue in the most careful considered and professional manner for acquiring the F-35. Would F-35 constitute an 8th fighter type, or am I missing the point somehow?

Sir, are you suggesting I'm responsible for the IAF fielding the previous seven types with overlapping roles and profiles? Or are you perhaps suggesting that there is a consensus among professionals that seven types is the ideal variety of fighter types, a typical AF should field? Strength in unity, unity in diversity?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Nov 2014 05:38

eklavya wrote:
Vivek K wrote:And then in the future, India will need to accommodate French views of the world in addition to Russia's to set its foreign policy.
...All these foreign products should be smashed to pieces (with Made in India hammers) and patriotic people put in charge of procurement.

Indian foreign policy is messed up because of messed up domestic Indian economic policy that has dictated unskilled/under-qualified 'patronage employment' at PSUs.

The plans for the made India hammers and the the ToT to make them have to be be imported. A bidding process involving 673 ASQRS will need to be formulated.

Rigorous tests High (Leh), Hot (Jaisalmer) and Humid (Visakhapatnam) will be needed for said hammer.

The Ministry of Environment will need to certify that wood handles are not bought from Veerappan Inc.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 10:50

Viv S wrote: Sir, are you suggesting I'm responsible for the IAF fielding the previous seven types with overlapping roles and profiles? Or are you perhaps suggesting that there is a consensus among professionals that seven types is the ideal variety of fighter types, a typical AF should field? Strength in unity, unity in diversity?

Sir, I am confused by this attempt to evade the question. Would F-35 constitute an 8th fighter type in IAF, or maybe because it is VLO, we can count backwards, from 7 to 6. Please enlighten us.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2014 11:21

eklavya wrote:Sir, I am confused by this attempt to evade the question. Would F-35 constitute an 8th fighter type in IAF, or maybe because it is VLO, we can count backwards, from 7 to 6. Please enlighten us.

Indeed sir, I'm confused as well by your attempt my question, which as you may recall preceded yours. Was the decision to field seven different fighter types, a professional decision, made by professionals, after a great deal of professional deliberation?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 12:58

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:Sir, I am confused by this attempt to evade the question. Would F-35 constitute an 8th fighter type in IAF, or maybe because it is VLO, we can count backwards, from 7 to 6. Please enlighten us.
Indeed sir, I'm confused as well by your attempt my question, which as you may recall preceded yours. Was the decision to field seven different fighter types, a professional decision, made by professionals, after a great deal of professional deliberation?

Yes, the IAF is a very professional force. Those with gripes are normally just sore at being excluded after professional deliberations.

Now, you explain whether you are advocating an 8th fighter type or not.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 02 Nov 2014 15:16

eklavya wrote:
Yes, the IAF is a very professional force. Those with gripes are normally just sore at being excluded after professional deliberations.

The AF is professional but can't see the overall picture of economies of scale and logistics, RnD and ToT.

They don't have the perspective of how tough it is to make cutting edge products - and neither is it in their JD.

The IAF here is blameless.

The MoD is what is at fault. They have to plan acquisitions and they should go ahead and overrule the IAF and order more LCAs as the MMRCA.

Further, it is the PMO which should get involved here, and I believe that it is involved closely these days. Not for nothing has NMo given Defense to AJetli.

The 20 billion$ shall go far in getting Indian RnD and manufacturing up to speed on modern techniques in every field. Imagine how many software engineers careers will be made, in making software for avionics, radar and the like.
We have to start from ab initio.

Get into the lab, get your hands dirty. Make the prototypes, move forward. That done, setup production lines.
Money will be undoubtedly wasted. But the capabilities that we get for that money will be good.
There is no other sustainable way to compete with the Chinese MilInd complex, which we have to, in the future.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 17:48

mahadevbhu wrote: The MoD is what is at fault. They have to plan acquisitions and they should go ahead and overrule the IAF and order more LCAs as the MMRCA.

The LCA and the MMRCA are not in competition. The LCA Mk-1 does not satisfy IAF operational requirements and LCA Mk-2 (which is expected to do so) is several years off.

If the MoD cancels the Rafale procurement, a significant capability gap will open up. MoD can certainly cancel the MMRCA but they cannot order the resulting capability gap to vanish.

The losers from the MMRCA process (of which there are several: Lockheed, Boeing, Eurofighter, MiG, SAAB) and those that were excluded (Sukhoi, etc) are many and they have nothing better to do that invent excuses for cancelling the process altogether.

Government of India and MoD are responsible for the defence of India, and for that they rely on advice from professionals; not salesmen from competing vendors.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 18:47

More out of curiosity, when did this "gap" come into play? (Trying to learn here.)

The day $20 billion was mentioned the IAF planners should have started the all rolling for an alternative Plan B. So, if there is a gap, so be it.

A far better deal would be to get used French AF Rafale: better price (yeah, from France?) and can be tossed out in 15 years or get brand new ones from France.

Best is to open the M2K line - the IAF was happy with that. Of course now the French will say it will cost as much as the Rafale.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 02 Nov 2014 19:15

Eklavya

1. There's nice to have and there's must have.

2. The IAF must have the numbers of aircraft. They have been cleaning the clocks of the USAF with the mig 21 and i'd reckon they'd do a good job with the LCA mk1 as well.

3. the original mmrca was the m2k.

4. The LCA Mk1 has reached a m2k level of competence or is on the way to getting there given development time and money.
Voila...Order LCA Mk1 in numbers ...

5. The IAF has to hand hold HAL . I would think that they have no clue about RnD otherwise.

6. The focus has to be on system integration in our own airframe. Try to develop the LCA ...slowly...to Rafale levels by adding the 'tronics in. It takes time ...but the experience and capability gain cannot be replaced with love or money.

7. USAF pilots that I have met have themselves exhibited a love to fly the Flankers.
They love suber maneuverability as much as the IAF does. Apart from the f 22 they don't get it in any other airplane. They are getting the f 35 which is a turkey in the close knife fighting school of thought.
And they are ordering 3.5K of those fighters because the OVERALL technology strength is that high. They might complain all they like...but they are getting the F 35 flying barrel.

Bottom line is that the Rafale is too much. We don't have the money to waste ...better develop those capabilities in the LCA in house.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 02 Nov 2014 19:33

eklavya wrote: The LCA and the MMRCA are not in competition. The LCA Mk-1 does not satisfy IAF operational requirements and LCA Mk-2 (which is expected to do so) is several years off.

No one take care of IAF's words ..If IAF rejects something we must admit their is some Flaw there ..But everyone uses the word Corruption and Fancy Screwdriver

If the MoD cancels the Rafale procurement, a significant capability gap will open up. MoD can certainly cancel the MMRCA but they cannot order the resulting capability gap to vanish.

We have a Target of Sqauds in Future. for that we wouldn't going for some underpowered LCA ...every fighter Jets in the IAF is Special in terms of Capability

The losers from the MMRCA process (of which there are several: Lockheed, Boeing, Eurofighter, MiG, SAAB) and those that were excluded (Sukhoi, etc) are many and they have nothing better to do that invent excuses for cancelling the process altogether.

---

Government of India and MoD are responsible for the defence of India, and for that they rely on advice from professionals; not salesmen from competing vendors.

they will talk about Lobby .don't care about Panel's word

interesting is we are not going to Give $20 billions in one day .also French should invest 50% of money in India where they get from MMRCA deal

one more almost most of the Offsite Paper works are finished ..Day's counting for Rafale Official Sign

and a Nice post eklavya sir

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 19:35

Marten wrote:What if $20bn were not available for this purchase? Would the IAF continue this posture?
PS: I do know the monetary aspects are MoD and apparently the IAF is a professional force that doesn't care about this aspect. Therefore the LCA is doomed to being unacceptable unless a larger number of Rafale is available.

The IAF (like many others) is a professional force, which is why it has to depend on what is given to it.

Their stance that a deal was made for 126 MMRCA - now known to be Rafale, is a non starter.

A professional force would say - give us what we want and if that is not possible give us something that we can live with (more to this simple statement granted).

I think the IAF should get teh Rafale, but not at $20 billion.

Get some Rafale for a much lesser price and then give the remaining to the "LCA/AMCA" projects.

I think the same should be done with the FGFA too.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Nov 2014 20:57

Yes, ultimately if the financial situation is awful, the iaf will have little choice and accept what is provided. And it has done so in the past , e.g. mki became possible only because m2k was unaffordable.

But until that is made clear to them , they will continue to push for the best, Rafale, and can't really blame them.