LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Sep 2014 13:40

nileshjr wrote:<SNIP>Not making an issue about why no Air Chief didn't fly Tejas so far. But on the point you made about confidence:

Tejas is been flown by bunch of IAF pilots for over a decade now, without any incidence. I am sure CAOS wouldn't be (or wouldn't need to be) doing 9G manoeuvres or some fancy "air show" stuff with the LCA. Its more like a symbolic gesture, isn't it?? If a decade long flying experience of IAF boys cannot instill confidence in CAOS's mind for some docile symbolic flight, then what would??

What's the need to look for conspiracy theory everywhere?

LCA has been flown for decades by 'TEST PILOTS' of the IAF. There is a heck of a difference between a Test Pilot taking up an a/c to validate test parameters and a regular fighter jock flying the a/c with the full confidence in the machine. Each sortie by a TEST PILOT is a careful and deliberate exercise - a controlled experiment/test of sort. Which is preceded by detailed planning and briefing and has a post-sortie analysis as well. The complexity of the tests differs.

And these are pilots who would have spent time to undergo 'conversion' to fly the aircraft. You don't simply hop into the a/c and take-off into blue yonder.

Finally, it also matters when the trainer became available and was considered 'fit' enough to take another pilot in the rear seat.

In case you'd followed the news, you'd have read that LCA needed to meet IOC-2 before it could be 'released' to regular pilots of the IAF.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 06 Sep 2014 13:50

rohitvats wrote: There is a heck of a difference between a Test Pilot taking up an a/c to validate test parameters and a regular fighter jock flying the a/c with the full confidence in the machine.

<snip>

In case you'd followed the news, you'd have read that LCA needed to meet IOC-2 before it could be 'released' to regular pilots of the IAF.

You want to say IAF management has enough confidence in the machine to have one of the honchos take a flight. It is plausible that it is a flight to send out a message.

I would not contest that view.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Sep 2014 13:54

When I look at the LCA saga. The most troubling aspect for me is the absence of a suitable domestic engine for it. This makes it another potential HF 24.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Sep 2014 14:27

ravi_g wrote: You want to say IAF management has enough confidence in the machine to have one of the honchos take a flight. It is plausible that it is a flight to send out a message. I would not contest that view.

That is the point. IMO, it is both a matter of confidence in the platform and more involvement from the IAF's side. The project is in the last and most crucial phase of it's life - transition from a R&D project to actually entering service as a fighting platform. IAF has raised the Squadron to receive the aircraft and are awaiting this transition to be completed. And rest assured - some of the best fighter jocks would've been nominated to this squadron.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 06 Sep 2014 14:48

merlin wrote:
deejay wrote:September is the month for the delivery of the first LCA to IAF. Hope it happens.
It was June earlier. Missed. Now September. Will be missed as well.

deejay wrote:merlin ji, any source?

Tejas FOC delayed again, Indian defence minister admits

http://www.janes.com/article/41342/teja ... ter-admits

The December 2014 deadline for India's long-delayed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk I to secure its final operational clearance (FOC) is being extended to March 2015, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley told parliament on 18 July.

Senior Indian Air Force (IAF) officers told IHS Jane's on 30 July that considering the aircraft's numerous technical shortcomings, FOC could be pushed back even further.

The LCA Mk II is scheduled for flight trials by 2018, but IAF sources said this deadline will almost certainly be postponed to 2020-21 as the platform's rear fuselage will require major re-engineering to accommodate the heavier F-414 engine.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Sep 2014 15:21

There we go again. Another slippage. And no consequences.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 06 Sep 2014 15:22

rohitvats wrote: What's the need to look for conspiracy theory everywhere?

LCA has been flown for decades by 'TEST PILOTS' of the IAF. There is a heck of a difference between a Test Pilot taking up an a/c to validate test parameters and a regular fighter jock flying the a/c with the full confidence in the machine. Each sortie by a TEST PILOT is a careful and deliberate exercise - a controlled experiment/test of sort. Which is preceded by detailed planning and briefing and has a post-sortie analysis as well. The complexity of the tests differs.

And these are pilots who would have spent time to undergo 'conversion' to fly the aircraft. You don't simply hop into the a/c and take-off into blue yonder.

Finally, it also matters when the trainer became available and was considered 'fit' enough to take another pilot in the rear seat.

In case you'd followed the news, you'd have read that LCA needed to meet IOC-2 before it could be 'released' to regular pilots of the IAF.

No conspiracy Saar. I started with "not making an issue about no air chief flying Tejas", didn't I?? Where did you see me making conspiracy theory out of it?? I don't like to get in to pointless discussions of "Army vs DRDO" and the blame games, its pointless to me.

My point was on the level of confidence. Somehow I couldn't digest the thing that one of the LCA test plane could not have been configured for a simple flight plan with ample confidence just to have a symbolic flight by someone by top IAF personal. I accept the fact that probably its the procedural hindrance that no one from IAF is allowed to fly LCA before IOC-2, and since IOC-2 the IAF top brass may not have had time availability for such flight. Or the trainer jet was not available to fly or any other technical difficulty. I am merely contesting, only confidence could not have been the issue as IAF should have enough confidence on LCA for a simple flight after say 2010-11 onwards at least. By then LCA platform was quite matured.

I am not trying to say IAF didn't took the first chance it got for flying LCA. I am merely saying it could not have been only due to lack of confidence. That they should have had even before IOC-1.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 06 Sep 2014 16:17

anirban_aim wrote:

http://www.janes.com/article/41342/teja ... ter-admits

This is the FOC news. Any news on the SP 1 delivery in September?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 06 Sep 2014 17:14

LCA MK II first flight in 2021, so the earliest we can hope for FOC is 2024. Will a Gen 3.5 aircraft be relevant then?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Sep 2014 19:19

^ If it is a solid 3.5 gen airframe with few aerodynamic vices then it will be relevant. The mk1 is not that plane. However let's hope mk2 is a true redesign based on the gyan we have received so far and not merely a cosmetic effort to fit a new engine and meet deadlines. It is good that we are talking about MCA ityadi but we need to pour that energy into mk2 here and now. And as mentioned above by Pratyush, the real problem is the lack of our own engine. I simply refuse to believe that if the mandate is released to India Inc and not just a small, secretive coterie of PSUs, we will not be able to engineer a breakthrough in reasonable time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2014 19:24

Teething problem, usual in all such air craft projects. The impatience is understandable. But, it is what it is. And the experience is worth its weight in gold.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 06 Sep 2014 21:13

deejay wrote:merlin ji, any source?

No source. Just past record. I have full confidence they will miss this deadline as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Sep 2014 21:19

^from the janes:

Official sources said "several hundred" of the single-engine fighter's test points and other operational parameters needed validation by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification in Bangalore. This could take at least 12 months, if not longer, to complete.

continues to encounter "inadequacies and problems" in integrating its radars and sensors, industry sources said.

The efficiency of its electronic warfare suite to deliver rockets, laser-guided bombs and beyond-visual-range missiles remains questionable, as does its mid-air refueling capability.

HAL's "inadequate production facility" was capable of building only four LCA Mk Is per year, instead of a projected eight platforms.

"The LCA programme desperately needs greater accountability and urgency,"

don't we think we need to have a good source of information on these matters rather media joining different bits and pieces of stories and cooks up points.

it is time, we address specific areas and clearly spell the timelines ahead without phuck ups anymore

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 06 Sep 2014 22:31

DRDO chief had said some time back, all of the above points were progressing well but A2 refueling probe was the time-consuming activity left. Jane's tid bits are questionable in that regard.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 06 Sep 2014 22:39

Take the Janes report with a bucket of salt. The reporter is Rahul Bedi. Enough said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2014 23:19

Take any news from Rahul Bedi and Vivek Raghuvanshi with bag full of salt they just make up things very often

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Sep 2014 23:42

Vipul wrote:LCA MK II first flight in 2021, so the earliest we can hope for FOC is 2024. Will a Gen 3.5 aircraft be relevant then?

From which hole did u drag out this divine revelation. What is a Gen 3.5 aircraft and what makes you think LCA is one?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2014 01:11

LOL is that a Bedi report? The turd spares no effort in cooking up stuff. Inadequacy of EW when its not even meant for Mk1 but Mk2 and the IAF has a proven 8222 SPJ pod which it has integrated on Jags, MKI, MiG27 and the Bison...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2014 01:13

Ha ha SivaB and Audtin got there before me. Well spotted guys.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Sep 2014 01:32

Apologies. mea culpa not looking who wrote the article.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Sep 2014 06:51

Marten wrote:Chacko, have you heard anything about the SPs? Are more changes being made to accommodate some incremental improvement? Serious question.

You know the schedules with OBOGS, new HUD etc. All are pre-planned ones. I suppose there might not be 100% identical copies in MK-1.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Sep 2014 09:24

Yearly production capacity of 4? I thought it was 3 or 4 time more that that. By the way which units of HAL are actually doing production ( sorry Assembly) of AC? what is their capacity per year?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 08 Sep 2014 09:33

Narayana Rao wrote:Yearly production capacity of 4? I thought it was 3 or 4 time more that that. By the way which units of HAL are actually doing production ( sorry Assembly) of AC? what is their capacity per year?

Not at all, that number of 04, is not what I read. I think it is like 08 per year initially and scaled up to 16 per year later. The present delays are most likely teething in nature as it is the start of the production line. Though, in the photos that were shared some pages back SP 1 looked very close to completion.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Sep 2014 10:25

We need something like 40-60 AC per year sir to fill the huge retirements in near future and possible huge opportunities for exports.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Sep 2014 10:55

^^^

The engine will be the biggest bottleneck for the accomplishment of your goal. In addition to the engine the lack of the assembly capacity for that many aircraft will be the second bottleneck.

The third bottleneck would be the IAF demanding the Mk 2. The IAF will have to increase the order for the MK 1, to 200 + ACs while the MK2 comes on stream.

The same will have to be done with the AMCA. That the IAF takes 200 + Mk2s while the AMCA coem on stream. But that is for the MOD and the IAF to decide.

In short we are asking for a revolution in Indian defense procurement.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 08 Sep 2014 10:59

In order for the revolution to happen defense procurement reform and private sector taking the lead is the only way out.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Sep 2014 11:29

chackojoseph wrote:
Marten wrote:Chacko, have you heard anything about the SPs? Are more changes being made to accommodate some incremental improvement? Serious question.
You know the schedules with OBOGS, new HUD etc. All are pre-planned ones. I suppose there might not be 100% identical copies in MK-1.

What OBOGS and new HUD? There is no OBOGS in Mk. 1, that's slated for Mk. 2 and there is no new HUD either.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Sep 2014 12:25

merlin wrote:
What OBOGS and new HUD? There is no OBOGS in Mk. 1, that's slated for Mk. 2 and there is no new HUD either.

True. But, but they will be progressively tested in MK-1. Most MK-II will be already tested.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Sep 2014 12:38

RoyG wrote:In order for the revolution to happen defense procurement reform and private sector taking the lead is the only way out.

Is it not Modi proposing to do? IAF has to explain why Mig21s etc needed to be replaced with 30 Bil $ 126 AC against Paki's and from where it expects the nation to fund all its "requirements". Perhaps IAF needed to be told that they need to make their demands based among others on the resultant cost to the nation. A reasonable size of the order unlike the 20plus 20 AC order as of now will make building of capabilities a rewarding enterprise for Private Sector.

Finding a Tejas Limited with all the tech, men and facilities transferred to it will be a very good idea.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 08 Sep 2014 13:47

Chacko,
Per your interactions with the HAL and IAF, what do you feel looks like the most realistic date for MkII induction?

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 08 Sep 2014 14:08

^^ cute question.

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Sep 2014 14:14

The fact is that there is 6-18 months delay in FoC. But if the production order is of 20+20+6 LCA Mark-1 is not subject to FoC then there would be no delay in overall scheme of things.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 08 Sep 2014 15:43

Narayana Rao wrote:
RoyG wrote:In order for the revolution to happen defense procurement reform and private sector taking the lead is the only way out.
Is it not Modi proposing to do? IAF has to explain why Mig21s etc needed to be replaced with 30 Bil $ 126 AC against Paki's and from where it expects the nation to fund all its "requirements". Perhaps IAF needed to be told that they need to make their demands based among others on the resultant cost to the nation. A reasonable size of the order unlike the 20plus 20 AC order as of now will make building of capabilities a rewarding enterprise for Private Sector.

Finding a Tejas Limited with all the tech, men and facilities transferred to it will be a very good idea.

30 Billion $

where will the pricing reach. Is it like Futures & Options?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Sep 2014 05:56

P Chitkara wrote:Chacko,
Per your interactions with the HAL and IAF, what do you feel looks like the most realistic date for MkII induction?

Anywhere between 2018 - 20. This bird will be rapidly prototyped and requires less testing as MK-1 has already done most of it.

Note: Induction may take more time as it depends on other factors too like infrastructure etc.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 Sep 2014 06:01

30 Bil $ is the price reported for Rafale Deejay sir.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Sep 2014 09:41

Narayana Rao wrote:30 Bil $ is the price reported for Rafale Deejay sir.

That is like $238 mil per bird over its life I assume. No way we should buy that. If that be the case the French will not be able to get this deal. And that is good news for the LCA programme, DRDO, HAL etc.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 14 Sep 2014 16:22

Nothing much to report ...to revive this page

2700th flight on 03 Sep

TD1 : 233, TD2 : 305
PV1: 242, PV2: 222, PV3: 387, PV5: 61
LSP1: 74, LSP2: 294, LSP3: 225, LSP4: 128, LSP5: 278, LSP7: 118, LSP8 : 108
NP1: 25

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 14 Sep 2014 18:34

WHat about the 23 mm Cannon? Has the testing begun on the gun and its vibration impact?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 16 Sep 2014 17:17

Pratyush wrote:^^^

The engine will be the biggest bottleneck for the accomplishment of your goal. In addition to the engine the lack of the assembly capacity for that many aircraft will be the second bottleneck.

The third bottleneck would be the IAF demanding the Mk 2. The IAF will have to increase the order for the MK 1, to 200 + ACs while the MK2 comes on stream.

The same will have to be done with the AMCA. That the IAF takes 200 + Mk2s while the AMCA coem on stream. But that is for the MOD and the IAF to decide.

In short we are asking for a revolution in Indian defense procurement.

to the 'bolded', not happening. if the report is true, the IAF wants to induct LCA 1s as only advanced lead in trainers while they have/had no issues with Mig 21s operating as a frontline fighter. this when LCA 1 compares well or even better with Mirage 2k as per the LCA test pilots. IAF operates many a/c's which are underpowered incl Mig 21s as compared to the LCA 1.

besides the LCA 2 they want to wait for was never 'their' requirement, only Navy's (understandably) - which they latched on to - as was revealed by none other than the great Mao himself to Kartik in aero india 2013.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Sep 2014 19:14

pragnya wrote:... if the report is true, the IAF wants to induct LCA 1s as only advanced lead in trainers while they have/had no issues with Mig 21s operating as a frontline fighter. this when LCA 1 compares well or even better with Mirage 2k as per the LCA test pilots. IAF operates many a/c's which are underpowered incl Mig 21s as compared to the LCA 1.

besides the LCA 2 they want to wait for was never 'their' requirement, only Navy's (understandably) - which they latched on to - as was revealed by none other than the great Mao himself to Kartik in aero india 2013.

If the IAF is wanting LCA Mk.1 as advanced lead-in trainers, why are they asking for integration of everything (CCM, BVR, PGM, AAR, EW, etc.) on Mk.1 FOC itself? IMO, the IAF should be ordering another 40 LCA Mk.1s because there is going to be two/three year gap in production between first 40 Mk.1 order and Mk.2 - projected to be ready only around 2020/22 timeframe.

"Bird in hand is better than two in the bush!"