LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 03 Oct 2015 21:06

vasu raya wrote:seems like the MMRCA question is now rephrased, an L1 fighter that brings in a production line as well and the carrot might be after the 100 run the same production line can then be rejigged to manufacture Mk2 by the private sector, also try bringing in a lot of supply chain commonality.

the bitter side, all upgrades to the SH or F-16 to bring it to Rafale's capability can be done on Paki F-16's too
China got a Boeing airliner assembly line, a much better economic investment from a national economy sense

Interesting point. I think what is happening is LM and Dassault are duking it out in the shadows. Dassault IMO will have to cut the price drastically if it wants to compete with the F-solah. There is no way that the gov is going to pour money into 36 rafales and not purchase more. F-16 IN is already ahead of Tejas. If LM can team up with a private and get the production going, the MKII production may be an easy fit.

This of course wouldn't be the ideal situation. F-16, Rafale, etc. while being ahead of the Tejas can't substitute for indigenous development. There will also be the issue of overlap in capability. MK1A and II will have the capability to challenge any fighter from China and Pakistan and will be able to deliver LGBs and other munitions.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Oct 2015 21:10

nirav wrote: Even thats fallacious. Production levels are contingent on placed orders. <SNIP>

All that sweet and nice but what if the production agency has a proven track record of NOT delivering products on time?

Let me give you a simple scenario: You need 100 units of Product X. And are forced to place order on Company Y for the same because it is a sister concern. But you know they don't deliver on time. So, if you place the entire order on them, not only will the order not be delivered on time, you cannot hope for get an alternate solution because as far as the management is concerned, you've already placed the order for the full quantity.

So, what would you do? Place the order for only 40 units on Company Y. And when it does not deliver on time, raise the issue with management and get another Company Z to produce balance 60 units. While the order for first lot of 40 may get delivered late, at least the delivery by Company Z will be on time. You'll be in a RELATIVELY better situation than placing all your eggs in one basket.

Now, in case of LCA and HAL, the situation becomes still more complicated. Because if HAL does not deliver on time, not only will there be no more order for LCA, there will be no more LCA itself! Because HAL is the only game in town. And they know that. End result - you'll more number of foreign aircraft.

Because whether HAL delivers on time or not, the requirement and challenge faced by IAF remains. And needs to be addressed.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Oct 2015 21:16

Well, we need to pray and hope that under no circumstances we go for F-16...because if this happens, then LCA Mk2 will have not future.

I think for once, we've cracked this logjam - LCA Mk1A is the answer with whatever weight saving, AESA Radar and better placement of LRUs. However, from the Chief's statement, it seems IAF is willing to bet for higher numbers even at current LCA Mk1 FOC standard.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 03 Oct 2015 21:25

To me , it seems now only two issues are remaining . 1. FOC for LCA MK1 2. Production bottleneck at HAL.

First part we will leave to ADA and IAF to tackle and we are already discussing that.

The matter of HAL production is perhaps not looked at critically in this thread. We can now look for reasons of this shortcoming and ability/inability of HAL to ramp up production and what needs to be done and finances required upfront. What internal/external factors factors are under control of HAL and what it can not control and need help. Could it be that supply of critical components be a limiting factor in production of HAL technicians and Engineers are not up to the challenge in the light of their past performance. or whether management is at fault or not fully on board. What are their reservations in setting up production lines for 36/40 A/c per year. Even for 120-140 it would take 5 to 6 years in production run after line is fully operation.

With current order scenario , it makes sense to discuss HAL in depth for LCA production.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Oct 2015 21:27

Yes, the ball now is truly with HAL...do we have statements from two of the three stakeholders, time for ADA to say something that will keep jingoes alive on drip feed..

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 03 Oct 2015 21:30

IAF Chief statement indicate total 120 LCA mk1 & mk1A to be inducted which means that 80 LCA mk1A after 40 LCA MK1 are produced by 2019.

That fits in timeframe for Uttam aesa to be developed by 2019.

80LCA mk1A in 2019-2023 timeframe will require production being enhanced to more than 16/year by 2023.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Oct 2015 21:34

^^^ FOC for LCA Mk1 is prerequisite for LCA Mk1A to become reality.

I pray and hope we've not run into issues of missile integration with LCA radar. Because I find the comment from IAF Chief on missile integration part a bit strange. He, or others IAF Chiefs, have never pointed any specific issue when it came to LCA. Sure, there were comments like Mig-21++ and 'does not meet ASR' but nothing specific. This has happened, IIRC, for the first time.

Hope getting AESA into picture at this stage is not an attempt to retrieve the situation by junking Indian MMR and going the whole hog with Israeli radar.

For some reason, my spider sense tells me that HAL is making a desperate attempt to get the orders increased because something is broken somewhere. They're talking a difficult path when the tendency with HAL has been to tread know tracks. This cannot be due to sudden found love for IAF or LCA. I hope I'm wrong.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 03 Oct 2015 22:11

rohitvats wrote:
nirav wrote: Even thats fallacious. Production levels are contingent on placed orders. <SNIP>
All that sweet and nice but what if the production agency has a proven track record of NOT delivering products on time?

..

Now, in case of LCA and HAL, the situation becomes still more complicated. Because if HAL does not deliver on time, not only will there be no more order for LCA, there will be no more LCA itself! Because HAL is the only game in town. And they know that. End result - you'll more number of foreign aircraft.

Because whether HAL delivers on time or not, the requirement and challenge faced by IAF remains. And needs to be addressed.

There were slippages in MKI production. IAF didn't stop the line nor the orders.

As far as the LCA is concerned, IAFs treatment of the program has been nothing but filled with bias.
Im not aware of IAF insistence on IOC/FOC of any other jet in its inventory as it has done for the LCA.

Also, when the first 20 order was placed, the LCA in its IOC config was good enough for point defence and theater precision strike. The bakis ordered the bandars in the 100s with lesser capability, whereas Hon. ACM wants proof that BVR works and that it can refuel aerially for IAF to "accept" the LCA.
Eventually on the western front, the Bandar, F7PGs are a huge chunk of the "challenge".

Anyway, going by the way things are happening, looks like the possibility of a Pvt sector line for LCA is certain.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 03 Oct 2015 22:16

nirav wrote:
Also, when the first 20 order was placed, the LCA in its IOC config was good enough for point defence and theater precision strike. The bakis ordered the bandars in the 100s with lesser capability, whereas Hon. ACM wants proof that BVR works and that it can refuel aerially for IAF to "accept" the LCA.

Seems from now on the ACM of the Indian Air Force needs to take lessons in warfighting and planning by reading internet forums.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 03 Oct 2015 22:20

rohitvats wrote:

For some reason, my spider sense tells me that HAL is making a desperate attempt to get the orders increased because something is broken somewhere. They're talking a difficult path when the tendency with HAL has been to tread know tracks. This cannot be due to sudden found love for IAF or LCA. I hope I'm wrong.

I think it is about time that we start thrashing HAL with equal fervor , may be in separate thread, "HAl and LCA" or like. HAL should not have the option to promise something and get away with not delivering it. Heads must roll in the event of failure to keep timelines. They should know that their a$$ is on line now. They should come up with all issues and ways and means to sort it out.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 03 Oct 2015 22:23

Anyway, going by the way things are happening, looks like the possibility of a Pvt sector line for LCA is certain.

I agree. There is simply no other way. Beginning of the end of HAL as we know it if a private is allowed to setup a parallel line. Once production goes, it'll all go soon enough. It looks like things are slowly coming together. IAF is firmly behind the Tejas. I say just say bite the bullet and work hard to create a MIC and end this MMRCA bullsh*t once and for all.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Oct 2015 22:41

Are yaar for once there is positive newjj and everyone is still bickering.

So yes Arup Raha and co have been apparently told to sort things out and get things in place for the LCA and his recent comments indicate some amount of grumpiness given his quid pro quo aka the Rafale is not on the table.. but that is exactly the GOIs prerogative. To make those sort of decisions keeping multiple factors in mind. And frankly, there have been enough mistakes by the IAF on the LCA already, and it's not exactly learnt from those so a firm decision by the RM/MOD was overdue. And in turn the MOD/RM will do the same to HAL, so its not gonna be easy there either. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed at HAL and this MOD will do it. The pvt sector is now a viable alternative elsewhere for the future and HAL will be told the same..if they dont fix their Mk1 activity..am sure the LCA production will have a direct line/status reportage to the RM.

Meanwhile ...we got good news on LCA Mk1A and lets see what the firm expectation from HAL is - what does the aircraft include etc.
Also hopefully IAF commits to a firm number of Mk2 as well. This wait and watch does a mess for production planning for the downstream suppliers who we need for indigenous assembly. The 80 Mk1A will now help with that order placement but prices can go down even further with a Mk2 run.

Anyhoo....enjoy some beer and wait for some firm details to emerge.

But with only 100 LCA no private line will occur at least for Mk1A...the 100 order is for HAL to go to 16/yr. What is planned however is HAL is an integrator and large modules including wings etc could come from private suppliers...lessee..

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Oct 2015 23:05

^^ Agree with what Karan says. For once there is a sign of good things happening for LCA. After so many years, finally IAF seems to have come around (and I don't think without some hard talk from MOD) now lets wait a while and give some chance for HAL to come clean on their part (I am assuming MOD is whipping some asses in HAL as well).

This thread goes into all this "IAF vs HAL vs ADA" discussions every time. So much has been said and done already still it comes to square one. Its almost funny.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 04 Oct 2015 01:31

maxratul wrote:
nirav wrote:
Also, when the first 20 order was placed, the LCA in its IOC config was good enough for point defence and theater precision strike. The bakis ordered the bandars in the 100s with lesser capability, whereas Hon. ACM wants proof that BVR works and that it can refuel aerially for IAF to "accept" the LCA.

Seems from now on the ACM of the Indian Air Force needs to take lessons in warfighting and planning by reading internet forums.

iirc USAF had quite a few good things to say about the efficiacy of the Mig 21 bison and tactics used by IAF pilots during Cope India with mixed formations of Mig 21/Mig 27 and the Sukhois.

Fast forward 2015 and the LCA has demonstrated WVR HOBS capability, LGB capability, CCIP and CCRP modes have been tested and air force leadership is still making these contingent statements about accepting LCA only after it proves BVR and IFR ..

for a Mig 21 replacement, present day IOC version too is wayy better. If nothing else, its better for the fact that its safe to fly ! Hasn't crashed !

Our armed forces rank and file have always fought with honour and done the country proud with whatever they had at their disposal. IF the LCA falls short on certain parameters, im certain the air men will find a way to employ it with different tactics ..

Its the brochuritis amongst the higher ups in IA and IAF that needs to be weeded out urgently. Had MoD not stepped in, LCA was clearly on Arjun trajectory.

And if your gonna use your argument for avoiding criticism, then we might as well shut BRF. Whats the point ?

RoyG wrote:
Anyway, going by the way things are happening, looks like the possibility of a Pvt sector line for LCA is certain.
I agree. There is simply no other way. Beginning of the end of HAL as we know it if a private is allowed to setup a parallel line. Once production goes, it'll all go soon enough. It looks like things are slowly coming together. IAF is firmly behind the Tejas. I say just say bite the bullet and work hard to create a MIC and end this MMRCA bullsh*t once and for all.

+1 for Junking the Rafale.

For HAL, it could possibly be a wake up call .. MoDs pro activeness could get HAL more accountable . While not perfect, HALs license manufacturing business faced quite a few schedule slippages due to factors beyond HALs control .. They managed pretty okay with the ALH - Dhruv.

Im positive that with competition and with an active MoD, HAL could be made more efficient.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Oct 2015 01:34

RoyG wrote:
Anyway, going by the way things are happening, looks like the possibility of a Pvt sector line for LCA is certain.
I agree. There is simply no other way. Beginning of the end of HAL as we know it if a private is allowed to setup a parallel line. Once production goes, it'll all go soon enough. It looks like things are slowly coming together. IAF is firmly behind the Tejas. I say just say bite the bullet and work hard to create a MIC and end this MMRCA bullsh*t once and for all.

whichever private player comes in, they will mercilessly strip manpower from HAL.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 04 Oct 2015 02:00

whichever private player comes in, they will mercilessly strip manpower from HAL.

You're correct. They will lure the developers and experts with $ and better management. All this business of privates have no experience is just hot air. They'll simply just buy it. With the right incentives, it will be very hard for HAL to compete in the medium to long term. The potential for revenue is huge.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Oct 2015 02:08

HAL seems to be the whipping boy for many here. Yes, to some extent, they are at fault announcing timelines they couldn't make. They are not perfect by any means. I have the following questions to them:

My question is when did the IOC-2 standard get certified for production to commence? Hint: Dec 2013

How was HAL supposed to built planes without that freeze in standards especially when the customer wanted that config for first 20 order?

How long do foreign manufactures like Boeing, LM and Dassault take to deliver (from established and active production lines that is)? Hint: around 36 months

How many months has it been since IOC-2? Hint: 21 months

How is HAL, with all its imperfections, supposed to deliver planes faster than what other international aerospace leaders can do that too from established and active production lines?

If wanting planes faster (and to be supportive of a fledging indigenous aerospace industry), why wasn't IOC-1 standard (obtained Jan 2011) ordered? Hint: it was called a "three legged cheetah" by the IAF chief back then and no orders were placed

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 04 Oct 2015 02:57

nirav wrote: And if your gonna use your argument for avoiding criticism, then we might as well shut BRF. Whats the point ?

criticizing policy is different, casting doubts on the core competency of the IAF leadership is different. if we give importance to khan opinions, next someone will be suggesting we retire our MKI fleet

Success criteria for LCA is destroying TSP/Chinese air and ground assets - nothing else. For meeting that success criteria, the plane needs modern day avionics and capabilities - the IAF is not pulling out unobtanium specs out of its musharraf here.

induction for the sake of induction will not help Tejas - the IAF had already agreed for whatever number it is in IOC config to sort out teething issues (HAL still hasn't delivered those). We all want the LCA program to succeed. Tejas has the capacity to become a world class plane, and the IAF is rightly being a hard taskmaster to ensure that the LCA fulfills its potential.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 04 Oct 2015 03:30

maxratul wrote:

criticizing policy is different, casting doubts on the core competency of the IAF leadership is different.

Maybe the leadership can show acumen by not letting out "conditions" for accepting the LCA in public ?
Or calling it Mig21++ or a three legged cheetah ?

Success criteria for LCA is destroying TSP/Chinese air and ground assets - nothing else. For meeting that success criteria, the plane needs modern day avionics and capabilities - the IAF is not pulling out unobtanium specs out of its musharraf here.

If THATS the success criteria, im afraid IAF will have to send a RFP to Lorn Vishnu for his Sudarshan Chakra. Hope the Lords weapon meets ASR.

induction for the sake of induction will not help Tejas - the IAF had already agreed for whatever number it is in IOC config to sort out teething issues (HAL still hasn't delivered those). We all want the LCA program to succeed. Tejas has the capacity to become a world class plane, and the IAF is rightly being a hard taskmaster to ensure that the LCA fulfills its potential.

This is funny @ hard taskmaster. Reminds one of Arjun MK1/2 and IA being a similar hard taskmaster ..

Nothing btw has changed since IOC2 in Dec 13 except the govt at the centre. And the fact that the 126 Rafale deal got cancelled.

And as far as deliveries are concerned, kindly check the helpful hints Srai has dropped in his post above.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 04 Oct 2015 04:35

It is foolish to be an apologist for a blatantly incorrect policy - the LCA is not being a fair taskmaster in doubting the LCA. It shows that they still have not taken ownership for the design. That will be IAF's undoing. They are a competent, professional force. It is time they woke up to the reality of a nation working to achieve its position in the world order. The LCA is ready to more than replace the Mig-21. Time to be realistic in expectations. Or orders should be placed quicker.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Oct 2015 06:30

ACM Raja sure knows how to kick GOI in the teeth.
No Plan B etc.
Now wants 100 Rafales.
Brave words or obstinate?

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 04 Oct 2015 06:59

rohitvats wrote:^^^ FOC for LCA Mk1 is prerequisite for LCA Mk1A to become reality.

I pray and hope we've not run into issues of missile integration with LCA radar. Because I find the comment from IAF Chief on missile integration part a bit strange. He, or others IAF Chiefs, have never pointed any specific issue when it came to LCA. Sure, there were comments like Mig-21++ and 'does not meet ASR' but nothing specific. This has happened, IIRC, for the first time.

Hope getting AESA into picture at this stage is not an attempt to retrieve the situation by junking Indian MMR and going the whole hog with Israeli radar.

For some reason, my spider sense tells me that HAL is making a desperate attempt to get the orders increased because something is broken somewhere. They're talking a difficult path when the tendency with HAL has been to tread know tracks. This cannot be due to sudden found love for IAF or LCA. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree with RV here.

The Chief pointing out specific goalposts of Radar/BVR/IFR implies there are problems with completing these items for FOC.

At this point, I would say that if the Desi MMR is not working out then try out imported Israeli Elta 2032 for FOC. It will be easier to integrate with Derby/ Python also. Work on the Desi MMR in parallel, and maybe it will be ready for the next tranche.

As far as IFR is concerned, I still do not understand why it is so essential for FOC. If the LCA, without refuelling, can spend enough time in CAP/ CAS sorties as the Mig 21/ 27, then it is good enough to replace them in those roles today. The IFR can come later.

The most important thing right now is to complete the FOC, produce the first 20 and have the first IAF squadron formed as quickly as possible. If Israeli help is needed in getting through this last mile quickly, go for it. The Americans, Russians or the Europeans are not going to help operationalize the LCA quickly.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Oct 2015 07:35

Forget HAL. How much pressure do you think the French will now feel - with CAS talking about Rafale or something similar?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Oct 2015 07:39

Latest piece I toilet by pundit ji has a little infographic that states that the lca mk2 has been scrapped in favor of mk1a and amca

http://m.timesofindia.com/photo/49212325.cms

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Oct 2015 08:11

The only thing that looks similar to Rafale is LCA Mk2. Few inlet modifications and skin treatment.. there you go!

it can also add some passive AESA t/rs on its wings (front and top) for stealth mode ops.

If looks are all onlee important.. make it so! put a Rambha front as well.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 04 Oct 2015 08:36

As per CAG, the BVR missile ie Derby was specified by IAF only in 2013.

Also HAL has neither spent the money nor set up the production line sanctioned in 2003

Both IAF & HAL want imports with earlier UPA RM & MoD encouraging them. Lets see what present RM wants?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Oct 2015 08:45

Achtung Bitte Achtung Bitte

as per TOI print edition today

- it reiterates the improvements from Mk1 to Mk1A and that 120-140 will be built with improved EW, IFR, aesa radar.
- Mk2 is scrapped
- AMCA is being fast tracked and 1st prototype demanded flying in 2023 or 2024.
- Modi to visit Rus soon and get some details on PAKFA. apparently it CANNOT supercruise yet which punches a hole in the look first shoot first deal. probably the Rus are hiding other incovenient facts about the 5th gen engine and test progress.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Oct 2015 08:47

so it looks like around 12-15 airframes per year of MK1A will be built from around 2018 to 2028 a good ten year run and 6 squadrons

the 40 of Mk1 will surely take upto 2020 @ 8-10/year in parallel.

HAL will have to build new assembly line and scale up its production process NOW if it wants to start churning out mk1A in 2018.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Oct 2015 09:02

Anything about when mk1 foc will be achieved.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Oct 2015 09:31

nirav wrote: There were slippages in MKI production. IAF didn't stop the line nor the orders.

Actually, the scenario I quoted earlier to you applies very well to the Su-30MKI production.

Slippages in case of Su-30MKI were made up by ordering more aircraft from Russian in CKD condition or in a state where maximum work had been done by the Russians. This allowed HAL to manage a part of slippage. Though, what this also meant that percentage of a/c to be imported with high Russian involvement was much higher that what was planned. Because HAL could not manage production rate at its end. It also meant that more money was spent than was envisaged because a higher outflow went to Russians.

This is as good as having a parallel production line. Albeit where the price/product is higher. But when push comes to shove, the numbers can be met.

No such comfort level with HAL only producing LCA.

As far as the LCA is concerned, IAFs treatment of the program has been nothing but filled with bias. I'm not aware of IAF insistence on IOC/FOC of any other jet in its inventory as it has done for the LCA.

I know IAF's 'lack of involvement' in LCA Program is a favorite whipping tool but pray, do tell me how does that address the issue of HAL's track overall record? And one especially with LCA? I hope you're not implying that since IAF has had 'hands-off' attitude earlier with LCA, it cannot demand accountability from HAL? Though, even by most accounts, IAF has been completely on-board since 2007.

As to IOC and FOC of other aircraft - this is another favorite whipping tool. But one that is bereft of logic and reasoning.

For one - IOC and FOC would apply to underdevelopment aircraft. It would've surely applied to Mirage-2000, Mig-29 or Su-30. But in their respective countries when these were under-development. What IAF inducted were fully certified aircraft.

Now, inducting Mirage-2000 with missile component is not same as inducting Mirage-2000 without 'missile firing' capability. We got missile separately; missile firing 'capability' came with the aircraft.

Also, when the first 20 order was placed, the LCA in its IOC config was good enough for point defense and theater precision strike.

Now, the above is a classic case of putting cart before the horse.

On the one hand, you cry murder when IAF Chief calls LCA a Mig-21++ and on another, you're making an argument for inducting LCA as a point defense fighter? A point defense fighter which comes without gun firing capability? Never mind that the main point defense fighter in IAF's inventory, Mig-21 Bison, itself has capability of firing the BVR missile.

The bakis ordered the bandars in the 100s with lesser capability, whereas Hon. ACM wants proof that BVR works and that it can refuel aerially for IAF to "accept" the LCA.

Pakees can do anything because the armed forces control every facet of defense sector. HAL counterpart in Pakistan would dare not do even 1% of antics it does in India or there would be literally hell to pay.

IAF Chief is only asking for what was promised and agreed. And like any operator, he will ask for proof whether it works or not. Because he has a small problem of defending the country's sky to address.

All this chest-beating about IOC and FOC came about because FOC has been getting delayed.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Oct 2015 09:38

srai wrote: My question is when did the IOC-2 standard get certified for production to commence? Hint: Dec 2013
How was HAL supposed to built planes without that freeze in standards especially when the customer wanted that config for first 20 order?

A question to you: Who gave the timeline for production of LCA in IOC-2 configuration? Was it IAF, MOD or HAL?

If it is such a common knowledge that HAL requires 36 months to deliver that you quote it confidently here, I'm sure the chaps at HAL also know this. So, on what basis did they give the timeline that they did? And repeatedly?

Why blame others when they hold HAL for the timeline it promised?

If wanting planes faster (and to be supportive of a fledging indigenous aerospace industry), why wasn't IOC-1 standard (obtained Jan 2011) ordered? Hint: it was called a "three legged cheetah" by the IAF chief back then and no orders were placed.

Because IOC-1 standard was nothing but an exercise at salvaging some good PR for design and development agency, given the repeated slippages in timeline. IOC-1 and IOC-2 came about because of it and not because IOC-1 was some milestone which was supposed to be met by LCA.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 04 Oct 2015 09:47

Singha wrote:Achtung Bitte Achtung Bitte

as per TOI print edition today

- it reiterates the improvements from Mk1 to Mk1A and that 120-140 will be built with improved EW, IFR, aesa radar.
- Mk2 is scrapped
- AMCA is being fast tracked and 1st prototype demanded flying in 2023 or 2024.
- Modi to visit Rus soon and get some details on PAKFA. apparently it CANNOT supercruise yet which punches a hole in the look first shoot first deal. probably the Rus are hiding other incovenient facts about the 5th gen engine and test progress.

Singha, i wont be surprised if LCA 2 for IAF is scrapped. i 'speculated' as such -

viewtopic.php?p=1908625#p1908625

the big question is when will they be ordering the GE 404IN20 engines?

srai, what is the status on the engines already with us? how many are used, how many still there?

also IIRC 99 engines of GE 414 were ordered for the mark 2 version with local assembly. if 'scrapping' of LCA 2 (for IAF) is true, then the requirement for those engines would be low (only IN numbers). probably it means no local assembly and direct procurement.

srin · Post by **srin** » 04 Oct 2015 09:51

I don't think either ADA or HAL's timelines have been credit-worthy.

Having said that, how do you split 40 aircraft production over 5-6 years ? If IAF says, take two years to ramp up, and then manufacture 16 aircraft per year till the next version (Mk2 or Mk1A or whatever) is acceptable to us, I don't think a production agency would have problems with that.

Also, with all these rumours floating and fingers pointed at each other via selective media leaks - wth is the MoD doing ?

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 04 Oct 2015 09:58

rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote:
If wanting planes faster (and to be supportive of a fledging indigenous aerospace
industry), why wasn't IOC-1 standard (obtained Jan 2011) ordered? Hint: it was called a "three legged cheetah" by the IAF chief back then and no orders were placed.

Perhaps you (sari) might like to revisit https://tkstales.wordpress.com/2012/04/ ... s-arrives/

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 04 Oct 2015 09:58

This whole rafale business is bullsh*t. The airforce should just dump it and should just place an order for 300+ LCA variants and rope in the private sector for production. I can't understand why the more Su30s and LCA's can't plug the numbers.

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 04 Oct 2015 10:03

Regarding ACM statement where he expresses his concern over three main issues - radar, missile and IFR.
I can understand radar and missile integration part - but IFR part, its inexplicable.
This is something that could have been integrated after induction, and surely not a show stopper or a reason to be cited as a condition for induction of LCA-1A.

This is ironic that the stated goal of LCA was to replace Mig-21. Does Mig-21 has a IFR probe?
If not, why its being held as one of a main condition for LCA-1A?
Its something to value this feature as a value addition and 'desirable'; its entirely different to treat it as 'must'.

Just my 2 naya paisa.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 04 Oct 2015 10:07

dipak ji ..thats no argument. times are changing ..requirements keep changing... does Tejas have to be == to Mig 21 or superior?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 04 Oct 2015 10:18

rohitvats wrote:.....

I pray and hope we've not run into issues of missile integration with LCA radar. Because I find the comment from IAF Chief on missile integration part a bit strange. He, or others IAF Chiefs, have never pointed any specific issue when it came to LCA......

rohit,

ACM's concern may be based on the fact that Cobham radome was also not upto the mark in the first lot they supplied and they were working on it again and added delays due to it. as for the radar and integration itself, no issues except the 15% increase in range due to the new radome ordered.

quoting dr.Tamilmani from the second link -

All major critical challenges achieved DRDO Director-General (Aero) Dr K Tamilmani told OneIndia that the project has achieved all major challenges so far. "So far there are no critical challenges to overcome. A number of Tejas variants are undertaking trials and that's a positive sign for the project," Dr Tamilmani said. When specifically asked about the FOC dates getting postponed, the top DRDO brain said: "We are awaiting for some more components (nose cone quartz radome and the air-to-air refueling probe) to arrive. There is a delay from the part of getting them." He said Tejas has proven multiple test-points related to its weapon release. "Functional aspects of the radar have been proved. Issues related to range will be fixed with the new radome," he added.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 04 Oct 2015 10:29

LCA Mk2 is out of HAL's scope for now. Only way for making it reality is to give to the pvt sector. But then the question arises, can the country afford two separate production lines for essentially the same aircraft - diff versions.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 04 Oct 2015 10:50

Paul wrote:LCA Mk2 is out of HAL's scope for now. Only way for making it reality is to give to the pvt sector. But then the question arises, can the country afford two separate production lines for essentially the same aircraft - diff versions.

As Rohitvats garu said above, India ordered more Su-30 MKIs CKDs from Russia since HAL is not keeping with the pace. It means we are relying 2 production lines for our SU-30s. If we need 2 lines for Su-30s, then whats wrong if we have 2 production lines for LCA (both lines will be in India only). No major nation can establish their own MIC having to rely on just 1 indigenous company and just 1 production line for huge numbers in quick time.

Its private sector headache (beg, borrow or steal), if they live up to their promises, there is nothing in trying them. 20 years back, has anybody thought someone will dethrone DoT/BSNL from telecommunication space.

If private sector proves their mettle in LCA, give a production line of AMCA too, even encourage them to produce different variants on LCA/AMCA platform (like Su-34).