LCA News and Discussions

[chackojoseph]

This is for Marten, cause he asked for it.

LCA Tejas trainer

LCA Tejas trainer

[tsarkar]

tsarkar et al. After looking at the final billboard figures of the MK1 empty weight, it is a great job that ADA have done.

Agreed, doesn’t matter whether machete or khukri, as long as it chops fine. The issue is what goes behind the Machete or Khukri. I’ll explain and answer that question a little later.

So, I really don’t think there is any "under design/over design" whatever.

Unfortunately, quite contrary to published facts. We’ve the example of the naval version MLG being redesigned. And naval version design & sheet cutting was initiated much later than the AF version.

Now from the initial 5500 kg to 6500kg, what could have accounted for the weight growth ? Well, my guess is that the initial 5500kg was for a Mig21 replacement.

Now, this is speculation and let me clarify the bolded parts. This is another BR myth that ASR’s were repeatedly changed, and the bar was raised.

Firstly, Staff Requirements typically specify performance criteria, like maneuverability, range, payload & speed. Empty weight and TWR are derived from these performance criteria by the designers. For example, with “x” engine to have range/endurance “y” with payload “z” at speed “w” will back-calculate in an indicative empty weight of “v”. There is no record or proof that ASR was changed by IAF increasing payload/speed/range/endurance.

The only improvement suggested by IAF was when it emerged around 2003-5 that outer pylons were rated to carry obsolete R-60 at max “g”, and the pylon rating was increased to carry R-73E, that is around 60 kg heavier. Surely this doesn’t result in ~1000 kg empty weight increase. Similarly, OBOGS development was initiated for Jaguar DARIN upgrades and incorporated for Tejas. It weighs much lesser than bottled oxygen.

Secondly, because MiG-21 were the oldest fighters on the IAF flight line, it was naturally assumed by everyone that Tejas will be the line replacement for MiG-21. In reality, Su-30 was the line replacement of MiG-21 series. However, nowhere and at no point of time did IAF cut-paste MiG-21 performance criteria while drafting Tejas ASR.

It is highly probable that the IAF ASRs are much tougher than the Swedish ones for the Gripen C/D!

To the contrary, Tejas ASR corresponds to the earlier Marut! http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... arut1.html

The Marut was conceived to meet an Air Staff Requirement (ASR), that called for a multi-role aircraft suitable for both high-altitude interception and low-level ground attack. The specified performance attributes called for a speed of Mach 2.0 at altitude, a ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,290 m) and a combat radius of 500 miles (805 km). Furthermore, the ASR demanded that the basic design be suitable for adaptation as an advanced trainer, an all-weather fighter and for 'navalization' as a shipboard aircraft. It was directed that this aircraft be developed within the country. As an aside, it might be worth noting that the design philosophy and ASR for the current Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is quite similar.

As you may note, no empty weight was specified. Also, please note ASR speed and altitude for Marut were higher than Tejas design specifications of Mach 1.8 and 16,000 meters respectively. Achieved Tejas performance is Mach 1.6 and 15,000 meters. IAF has not complained about this.

So to set the record straight, the IAF specified pretty normal and standard performance criteria for Tejas. Let’s lay the myth to rest that IAF ASR was initially MiG-21 specs midway upgraded by IAF to higher specs.

Now, to answer the question of why there is so much heartache about the Tejas project, I bring back the concept of simpler fighters. When anyone mentions simple fighters, most BR members wince thinking IAF loves Gnats, MiG-21 and bullock carts. Nothing is further from the truth. Simple fighters doesn’t mean lackluster performance.

Simpler fighters means using simpler means to achieve superior ends.. That is the challenge and the beauty of engineering. The present Tejas project is a classic example of complex means achieving standard ends.

At the end, we console ourselves that whether machete or khukri, it chops, but when one ends up using exotic materials and control laws to end up with standard ends, the question arises whether the means were worth the ends.

Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Godavari frigates, using the capable Leander hull-form, and broadening the beam for two helicopters. IN ships, as a standard practice, started carrying two helicopters for superior ASW capability before or at the same time as US Navy/Royal Navy/Soviet Navy. Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Arleigh Burke destroyers, that are still being built in 2011 for threats faced over next 30 years, based on proven 70’s Spurance hullform. Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Kolkata destroyers carrying Elta 2248 AESA and 48 Barak 8 missiles for area air dominance with Kashin design influences in its pedigree.

Complex-means-standard-capability projects are the Zumwalt destroyers carrying same VLS and Radars that the Kolkata does. Is the complex hullform worth the marginal incremental capability growth?

So, good engineers do the assessment on pros and cons of maneuverability of stable fighters vis-à-vis unstable fighters. Are not stable fighters maneuverable? What is the risk of developing complex control laws vis-à-vis the incremental maneuverability offered? What benefits do composites offer vis-à-vis metals? Can not the same performance be eked out by metal airframes?

This IS a Gripen C/D class fighter with all the bells and whistles that go into it and has come out slightly LIGHTER than the Gripen.

And the Gripen is built mostly with “heavier” metal and Tejas with “lighter” composites. Good proof of the miracle of engineering using lighter composites and coming up with something only slightly lighter than Gripen Nothing against composites, but the results don’t match the initial hype of composites. So maybe using metal wasn’t that bad of an idea after all if it reduced risk and complexity?

Now, many praise the Navy for being more indigenous. But how many know the tight project governance exercised by Navy chaps that prevent the DRDO chaps from doing esoteric intellectual scientific exercises not proportional with benefits realized?

Case in point – K series missiles – http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ma ... ssile.html
K series missiles are DRDO staffed but Navy managed while Agni series are DRDO staffed and managed. Comparing the Navy run Shourya length 10.22 meters diameter 0.74 meters weight 6500 kg with DRDO run Agni 1 length 15 meters weight 12000 kg offering same throw weight and range (~700 km). Also, Shourya is built of maraging steel while Agni uses composites.

Yet despite everything there we still don’t learn. Dileep mentioned in some thread that the civil airliner RTA specs are higher than Boeing 787 Dreamliner. No IAF is drafting the ASR here. Whom will you blame there when such impractical specs won’t be met?

Anyways, in hindsight, all is well as long as the Tejas performs. And DRDO has learnt its lessons and is today focused on delivering capability rather than tom-tomming research hype. And outright inaccuracies need to stop that OBOGS & internal jammer added weight, or IAF initially had MiG-21 specs that they later enhanced.

[pragnya]

@Singha

i am taking the specs from LM site - a link for which i have provided below and looking at the engine i guess it is F16 C/D version.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... tions.html

my calculation gives this -

LCA MARK 1/2..................F 16

0.88/1.16........................1.04

please note in all my calculations (including the previous posts) i have also added 100kg as the 'pilot weight' and have not included LDP weight.

cheers.

[Sanku]

^^^ tsarkar, marginal nitpick, K series was conceptualized much after Agni so it does use the prior learning.

However having said that. Magnificent post. I am going to cross post this in tank thread in the hope that some sense gets in that thread.

[chackojoseph]

Firstly, Staff Requirements typically specify performance criteria, like maneuverability, range, payload & speed. Empty weight and TWR are derived from these performance criteria by the designers. For example, with “x” engine to have range/endurance “y” with payload “z” at speed “w” will back-calculate in an indicative empty weight of “v”. There is no record or proof that ASR was changed by IAF increasing payload/speed/range/endurance.

The statement is wrong. The initial ASR was loosly termed to the MK1 specs. In 2004 the second and final spec was formed.

Now if someone says that ASR change is a minor thing and

The only improvement suggested by IAF was when it emerged around 2003-5 that outer pylons were rated to carry obsolete R-60 at max “g”, and the pylon rating was increased to carry R-73E, that is around 60 kg heavier.

is nothing big, then I am speechless....

He also forgets that the initial ASR from 80's and the latest equipment in 2010's will not have a bearing, then again, its funny.
========================

Actually what happed during ASR was even worse.

IAF wanted enhanced thrust, wing had to be done for newer weapons among other. Now,is that "pretty standard" set by IAF.

====================

The truth is

1) Loose ASR was set
2) proof of concept demanded
3) IAF floated new ASR, DRDO said that it will be a part of Mark 2.
3.5) DRDO put in latest and a number of gadgets, which was part of IAF ISR.
4) For major rework, DRDO asked it to be called mark 2.

Marten,

Welcome!

[tsarkar]

You're right, Sanku, however both projects were single digit years apart and the pool of technologies available to both is essentially the same. Also, Shourya uses "old" maraging steel. The difference I wanted to highlight is the tight end user control and cost benefit analysis done.

Also, my views on Arjun are different than on Tejas While the similar development glitches have occured, I am not in favour of reduced-capability-for-simplifying-means. Deployability should not create constraints that affect employability.

[manoba]

This is for Marten, cause he asked for it.

LCA Tejas trainer

LCA Tejas trainer

Wow... what a beauty!!! The much improved pilot's visibility is very clear from the second photo.

Thanks Chacko ji though I'm not Marten.

[tsarkar]

1) Loose ASR was set
2) proof of concept demanded
3) IAF floated new ASR, DRDO said that it will be a part of Mark 2.
3.5) DRDO put in latest and a number of gadgets, which was part of IAF ISR.
4) For major rework, DRDO asked it to be called mark 2.

Proof, my friend, of new ASR & latest and a number of gadgets Otherwise, its speculation.

How radically different was Tejas so-called "new ASR" performace specs from Marut ASR specs? Also, what is ISR? Never heard of this term.

[Rahul M]

And the Gripen is built mostly with “heavier” metal and Tejas with “lighter” composites. Good proof of the miracle of engineering using lighter composites and coming up with something only slightly lighter than Gripen Nothing against composites, but the results don’t match the initial hype of composites. So maybe using metal wasn’t that bad of an idea after all if it reduced risk and complexity?

on the contrary if we built the tejas as an all metal aircraft it would probably have been significantly heavier than the gripen, instead of about 250 kg lighter as it is now.
the gripen itself uses composites heavily, as much as 25% by weight of airframe. considering that the tejas has a larger wing and similar airframe size, this is a very significant achievement.

[chackojoseph]

1) Loose ASR was set
2) proof of concept demanded
3) IAF floated new ASR, DRDO said that it will be a part of Mark 2.
3.5) DRDO put in latest and a number of gadgets, which was part of IAF ISR.
4) For major rework, DRDO asked it to be called mark 2.

Proof, my friend, of new ASR & latest and a number of gadgets Otherwise, its speculation.

How radically different was Tejas so-called "new ASR" performace specs from Marut ASR specs?

tsarkar,

You need a proof for new thrust requirement? Its open source. Its well documented.

This is ridiculus, even air chief is on recordes for the newer capabilities for LCA. Even with mk 1, he says that it has to be improved.

Tejas, ASR is not just about performance specs of marut. For example, maruts never fired missiles and did not have radars.

or your question is not clear.

manoba,

I will tell you a joke. One of my collegues (when I used to work for someone else), once faxed from Head office to regional office stating "Top Secret, For RM's eyes only"

When I meant Marten and have posted on a public forum, its not only for marten

[vina]

Cross posting from the Armor thread. Dunno why Sanku posted this there, but all the same, posting here as well.

The only improvement suggested by IAF was when it emerged around 2003-5 that outer pylons were rated to carry obsolete R-60 at max “g”, and the pylon rating was increased to carry R-73E, that is around 60 kg heavier. Surely this doesn’t result in ~1000 kg empty weight increase. Similarly, OBOGS development was initiated for Jaguar DARIN upgrades and incorporated for Tejas. It weighs much lesser than bottled oxygen.

Sanku Maharaj. I usually dont respond to your posts because it is simply beyond any point to apply logic and reason to you, but let me try again.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD/ADMISSION anywhere from official sources that the wings were stiffened (in torsion mainly) because of the newer weapon requirements from the original ASR. DDM and the rest of the world picked it up precisely after a certain poster called Vina (er.. yours truly) speculated here in BRF that the reason why we are NOT seeing carriage and separation trials were because of aeromechanical problems because the original weapon specs were upgraded and hence there was a wing redesign and that led to delays of a year or so.

A poster called Sivab who was a structural engg in ADA earlier posted yes, that was so (after that he doesnt post here anymore) and there was a wing redesign after the weapon specs were updated after the TD phase was over and the PV and LSP phases were beginning!

Now , what makes you conclude that the change in the ASRs for the weapon loads specified ONLY that the wing tip missiles had to be something else other than the R-60 ? How do you know that the pylon capacities were not increased for other stations ? Do you have access to the ASR ?

Also, I do think that the 5500kg empty weigth was the target for the TDs. Now for LSP and the production versions, those are really completely different animals under the skin and are operational fighters. The newer specs will account for a lot of difference!

The Marut was conceived to meet an Air Staff Requirement (ASR), that called for a multi-role aircraft suitable for both high-altitude interception and low-level ground attack. The specified performance attributes called for a speed of Mach 2.0 at altitude, a ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,290 m) and a combat radius of 500 miles (805 km).

. The English Electric lighting can supercruise and easily hit mach 2.5 and so could the F-104 and have a higher ceiling than 60K feet. So does that mean that all British and American fighters that came after the EE lightning (including the Tornado, Typhoon, all the Teen Series fighters and F-35 ) don't meet the ASR of the Marut (60K ceiling and Mach 2 and 500 NM range?) and are hence "obsolete" or whatever you were trying to convey?

Furthermore, the ASR demanded that the basic design be suitable for adaptation as an advanced trainer, an all-weather fighter and for 'navalization' as a shipboard aircraft.

That is the specs you dreamed up last night in your sleep!. Fact is the Navy approached the ADA for the LCA to examine if it can be Navalized after the TD phase and the ADA jumped at the offer!. Nowhere in the intial specs were it to be a carrier board fighter ever mentioned . Go search through all the records and the history of the LCA Navy!.

Mach 1.8 and 16,000 meters respectively. Achieved Tejas performance is Mach 1.6 and 15,000 meters. IAF has not complained about this.

Why will the IAF "complain". That is the desing and requirements they signed off on!.

So to set the record straight, the IAF specified pretty normal and standard performance criteria for Tejas. Let’s lay the myth to rest that IAF ASR was initially MiG-21 specs midway upgraded by IAF to higher specs.

Well, I know I am wasting my time here. The LCA ASRs are incredibly tough. The service ceiling and top Mach no is not the key things and infact the most easily achiveable in any design. The LCA specs are light years ahead of the Mig 21 specs in terms of maneuverability, range and field performance.

Simpler fighters means using simpler means to achieve superior ends.. That is the challenge and the beauty of engineering. The present Tejas project is a classic example of complex means achieving standard ends.

Well, big words don't make one an engineer, esp when I dont see any logical thinking or rather the lack of it that makes one wonder if you can do any real engineering other than word smithing!

Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Godavari frigates, using the capable Leander hull-form, and broadening the beam for two helicopters.

I am sure you have no idea what a waterline is or a buttock is and then we have simplistic notion of "wider beam" (err. forgeting about length) that gave you a magical 2 helicopter capability, while attaining top speed with the same machinery as the Leander!. And that the displacement grew by a thousand tons or so and the Godavari is essentially a brand new hull form is lost on you. Ah well, like I said no point trying to tell you this.

Complex-means-standard-capability projects are the Zumwalt destroyers carrying same VLS and Radars that the Kolkata does. Is the complex hullform worth the marginal incremental capability growth?

So, good engineers do the assessment on pros and cons of maneuverability of stable fighters vis-à-vis unstable fighters. Are not stable fighters maneuverable? What is the risk of developing complex control laws vis-à-vis the incremental maneuverability offered? What benefits do composites offer vis-à-vis metals? Can not the same performance be eked out by metal airframes?

I already posted on all this earlier the LCA thread . To cut the long story short and puncture your make believe engg world, yes, in this day and age, you CANT do it without an unstable design and a large percentage of composites. Heck, even large commercial airlines are going for augmented stability designs since 1980 (for fuel efficiency alone)!

And the Gripen is built mostly with “heavier” metal and Tejas with “lighter” composites. Good proof of the miracle of engineering using lighter composites and coming up with something slightly lighter than Gripen Nothing against DRDO and nothing against composites, but the results don’t match the initial hype of composites. So maybe using metal wasn’t that bad of an idea after all?

Gripen is a metal airplane ? The Swedes will be very very cross if you say that. It has something like 35 to 40% composites!. Hello, wake up and smell the coffee.

Now, many praise the Navy for being more indigenous. But how many know the tight project governance exercised by Navy chaps that prevent the DRDO chaps from doing esoteric intellectual exercises not proportional with benefits realized

Yet despite everything there we still don’t learn. Dileep mentioned in some thread that the civil airliner RTA specs are higher than Boeing 787 Dreamliner. No IAF is drafting the ASR here. Whom will you blame there when such impractical specs won’t be met?

The IAF is going to draft the specs for an civilian airliner ? That is laughable. If you get in Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, British Air , Emirates or any top airline and ask them what kind of plane they will want to buy, guess what kind of specs you will get , yes, something that will be tougher than what is out there today ! Get it ?

If you cant make the best, you cant sell in the civil world. Simple. Have a nice day. KF and JetAir will import he best that is out there and beat the cr*p out of any competitor that flies a gas guzzling pig that you manage to put out in an all metal airframe with 25 year old tech engines.

Anyways, in hindsight, all is well as long as the Tejas performs. And DRDO has learnt its lessons and is today focused on delivering capability rather than tom-tomming research hype. And outright inaccuracies need to stop that OBOGS & internal jammer added weight, or IAF initially had MiG-21 specs that they later enhanced.

After seeing the pics of the LCA with the inflight refuelling probe, you can bet the last dollar that you have that the operational MK1 WILL have an OBOGS and not gas cylinders . No way you can top up oxygen in cylinders when you have unlimited endurance with the inflight refueling.

Now write this imposition a hundred times. You might see the light.

The Weapon specs were revised from the TD to Operational fighter. The R-60 is not the only weapon that the fighter carried. Next time I quote what vina found, I will try to comprehend it in entirety and not just what my fellow DDM vomits

[Kailash]

Sorry if this is OT, but in huge s/w company, I have seen departments which does pure research in cutting edge technologies. Their task is to just proove that something is technically possbile/feasible with that technology in hand. Other departments which deal with specific domains/customers (say an Insurance, Banking or Healthcare etc) use these research papers as starting point and customize it heavily to achieve their goals.

The point here is that DRDO was working on an ASR given by the (exclusive) client. They were trying to develop the technology as well as engineer a product in parallel. For DRDO/ADA, when it comes to scientific research and engineering, the more onus is on science. But it is not entirely fair to blame them because the project has created many spinoffs.

IMHO, scientific research would be decoupled from product development. Allocate separate funds, let them work on creating technology in their labs. Tap into the Masters and PhDs students from universities, private sector consultants if they dont have the expertise at DRDO.

Long term - align with the goals of customers - what kind of technology the customer wishes, what they want their money invested in - priorities (must haves), compromises (good to haves), upgrade plans (mk1, mk2) etc. Short term goals - hook or crook get the technology developed locally.

[merlin]

My conspiracy theory is that designed empty weight could not be met simply because there was less confidence on composites and hence over-engineered adding to weight. Once confidence is acquired, weight can be shaved. But it may turn out that 5.5 tons is impossible to meet.

[tsarkar]

You need a proof for new thrust requirement? Its open source. Its well documented.

Chacko,
Surely STR, AoA issues were present before the engine thrust requirement came? Had the designers and engineers being able to extract performace from that airframe with the GE404 engine, there would be no need for the new engine. You surely do realize the new engines is a cure to performance deficiencies. How can you call the cure a requirement? Surely, had the IAF not agreed to the new engine option, the bird would be as dead as the DODO?

Any other "new" systems or "changed requirements" that you can find that added weight/affected performance?

[geeth]

Simple-means-superior-capability projects are like the Godavari frigates, using the capable Leander hull-form, and broadening the beam for two helicopters.

How many times did the Navy park two helos onboard G-Class? The design was supposed to accommodate 2 Sea Kings - could they do it?

IMO, the days when superior capabilities could be achieved by simple means is gone. It should have been amply clear from the Subramaniam (ADA Chief) interview, what was achieved from Project LCA. It (LCA) was tough, not only due to the complexity of the task, but also the lack of expertise available with Indian Defence/Private Industry. Godavari project cannot be compared, because it was relatively simple and most of the equipment onboard were outright purchases from abroad - Boiler - Yarrow/Babcock-Wilcox (Dockyard Licence), Main turbine produced under licence, Gearbox - Swiss, Generator British, Propeller & Shaft - British, Stabilizer - Vosper thronycroft - British, Missiles - Russian, Torpedos - Italian, SatNav - American, Log - French, A?A Guns - Russian, Weapon Radars - Russian, LRW Radar - BEL make (under Licence)

I Don't know which of the nations from U.N are left out.

All said and done, it was still worth it - because, from there only, the Directorate of Naval Design got the confidence and took off.

As told many times before, there was no point in making a third Gen a/c to start with and then go for more complex platforms. If so, we wouldn't be talking about AMCA now.

Also, it is a recorded fact that the A/F HQ had changed the specs of the a/c many times - they continue to do so. I find it amusing that even the scientists are finding it interesting to keep on fiddling with the specs - see what happened to the GLSV - nobody can say which is a standard design. Everytime, it is made to order, as per the weight of the customer's satellite!

[SaiK]

Say for Mk2, how much of wing tunnel works and CFDs need to be done if we have to increase nose width little bit more to accommodate a wider antenna (say 30% increase by area) shaped more like AMCA/pakfa looked from the front? This should also give extra room for additional internal fuel, retractable fuel probes, aesa side lobes, and perhaps an experimental bed for various AMCA LRUs.

[Rahul M]

LCA's changing requirements. from an interview of PS Subramanium in the week.
full interview here http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1002876 .

After a long delay, the LCA is ready. How does it feel?
Everyone talks about the delays. It is not correct to say that the programme started in 1983, when the government first thought of working on a combat aircraft. They decided to put Rs:560 crore seed money for preparing the project definition, but there was no clarity. Even the air staff requirement (ASR) [standards for the engine] came only in 1985. In 1987-88, the project definition was prepared and the proposal to make prototypes was submitted. The government said they cannot take a risk with that kind of money and they split the programme into two parts; technology demonstration (TD) programme and proto-vehicle development project. In 1993, they gave Rs:2,199 crore for the TD. So, the actual programme started only in 1993.
In fact, clarity came only in 2004-05. In 2001, we flew the first aircraft and in 2004, we did the TD for the government, after which they released ?3,320 crore. The first proto vehicle (PV1) came out in December 2005. The IAF got confidence in the programme and gave the standard of preparation of fighter aircraft. So, the fillip came in 2005. From then on, the programme has been progressing rapidly, especially after Defence Minister A.K. Antony tilted the balance in favour of the LCA by publicly stating that the government would support the project, irrespective of any developments.

[Lalmohan]

sounds like good ol' waterfall development takniki, when RAD/Agile was needed!

[tsarkar]

The IAF got confidence in the programme and gave the standard of preparation of fighter aircraft.

Rahul, the quoted part doesnt mean ASRs changed. The ASRs specifying range, payload, etc, remained the same, only weaponization & avionics fit proceeded. When one weaponizes, it is done within the envelope. Any weaponization plan is never done outside the envelope. This includes stores management, wiring, pylons, datalinks, nitrogen cooling for seekers, etc.

The design specs, derived from DRDO intepretation of how it planned to fulfill IAF ASR, were 5500 empty, 8500 NTOW, 12500 MTOW and 4000 payload. This was before TD's flew. The weaponization typically is accounted for in empty weight by designers.

How can you claim to design a fighter when you dont account for stores management computer, pylons and wiring in the empty weight?

Looking from another angle, will the ITR, STR, AoA improve if we strip all weaponizing & avionics and fly it like a free bird? No, this will not shave off much weight and performance issues will still remain.

All I'm saying is let us not raise the IAF-changed-specs bogey. That is incorrect. The IAF is doing all it can to help.

[Lalmohan]

My conspiracy theory is that designed empty weight could not be met simply because there was less confidence on composites and hence over-engineered adding to weight. Once confidence is acquired, weight can be shaved. But it may turn out that 5.5 tons is impossible to meet.

no need for CT, i think this was directly said so by a DRDO/HAL/ADA babu some time back

[SaiK]

I think the glue to the two sides of the coin (DRDO & Armed forces (users)) is our esteemed elected babooze. This is where the problem is, w.r.t funding, politics, decision making, and most importantly how these men behind great machines are respected and paid.

We have no problems in taking expenses incurred due to loss, brain drain, project schedule slippage due to all these factors for 1000s of crores, but we would not pay the right people and put the right people for the right job. This is the politics.

Requirements changes, and DRDO creating entirely new product are easily achievable target, and plausible. The impossible seems to be the political system that is hampering many projects, especially funding and growth.

[chackojoseph]

Chacko,
Surely STR, AoA issues were present before the engine thrust requirement came? Had the designers and engineers being able to extract performace from that airframe with the GE404 engine, there would be no need for the new engine. You surely do realize the new engines is a cure to performance deficiencies. How can you call the cure a requirement? Surely, had the IAF not agreed to the new engine option, the bird would be as dead as the DODO?

Any other "new" systems or "changed requirements" that you can find that added weight/affected performance?

tsarkar,

The STR, AOA etc are something that is universal. All planes (modern) have similar specs. The data you are asking did not exist. You can prove otherwise, but, till then, AFIK, LCA and all other plane makers have aimed for similar specs. LCA designers have gone a step above and they came up with a design which is more unstable and hence more manouverable.


There are 2 reasons for engine change:

The old engine is good enough for the plane, if the 2004 ASR would not have evolved. For a 1980 spec, even GE-404 is overpowered. For today's spec, GE 404 is not flat rated. Kaveri is supposed to be. At most combat levels flat rated kaveri should have performed very well. GE-404, by not being flat rated, unfortunately has a problem at sea levels etc. Hence, there is a requirement for a higher thrust engine. (first reason)

You should understand that the airframe is perfectly capable of the current mordern day performance matrics. So is fly by wire. But, not the GE-404 engine "at certain conditions." Had kaveri been online and IAF stuck to old requirement, probably the higher thrust engine would have been a back burner.

K-10 is of higher thrust as there is no indication that it is flat rated. I remember, back in 1998, when we used to debate, we used to say that "Since kaveri is "flat rated," it need not have higher thrust." We used to respond to the same question you are asking "did the maker not know that the thrust was not enough?" So, its nothing new you are telling us. Actually, it was a part of my debate till 2007. But, if you remember correctly, I was the first one to reveal that GE-414 is in offering.

Now, had the new engine not come, it wouldn't have been a "DODO." IAF had not predicted the quantum leap in technologies back in 1980's. They had wanted a replacement for MiG-21 or GNAT like charesteristics with a more modern plane. Sole purpose was 1) Point air defence 2) CAP 3) A2A.

(secnd reason) The armament weights have increased. If you couple it with the wing loading of LCA, then there is a requirement for higher thrust (not all the time).

Please compare how much the avionics have changed since 1980's. Not just technological change, see how many new avionics have come into the LCA. Just catalogue them. Then, there is a case of radar. The more powerful they are getting, the more power they require. Infact, the radar is the maximum consumer of power in the aircraft. New engine would have been required, since LCA is expected to carry an AESA after some point of the time.

To sum up

1) You are rehashing a "very old argument."
2) The current engine is good for the 1980's forecast.
3) Kaveri engine if would have come up, the debate would have been in back burner. GE-404 is not flat rated, so it looses performance at "some levels."
4) Airframe and flyby wire are capable of what is mordern benchmark.
4) electronics have increased in quality and quantity and hence the requirement for power.
5) Armamments have become heavier.

Imp: Your argument is that the performance specs like STR etc are the only point of ASR is wrong. You claim that avionics change does not effect the performance of the aricraft is also wrong. ASR includes everything includes everythin. On every change in electronics, there is a trade off. As I have mentione the radar and power requirement. Also, it will be foolish to say that IAF gave the STR, TR etc, which my friend is not different from what LCA can perform and which is not different from what any aircraft of similar class can perform.

[vina]

Surely STR, AoA issues were present before the engine thrust requirement came? Had the designers and engineers being able to extract performace from that airframe with the GE404 engine, there would be no need for the new engine.

Surely you do realize that STR and AoA are intimately related and unless you open the AoA to the required 24/25 deg whatever for a near 88 deg bank angle, you cannot pull the full G load and without that you cannot meet the design STR!

Now everyone knows that the full AoA envelope has not been opened out and that is not an "issue", but a testing phase thing and will eventually get done. For eg, even the Eurofighter until very recently was not full G qualified and used to make some lame fly by routines in Farnborough and other airshows until the envelope was opened out!

Right now, more than the engine, the aircraft cannot pull it's full g load and STR because the envelope is not opened.

The higher thrust engine is mainly for hot /high weather conditions where there is a loss of installed thrust due to higher ambient temperature and lower air density. If you want to protect field performance against that degradation that is what you need , higher thrust.

From what I remember, what the LCA couldn't meet with the old engine was the take off run distance at Arakkonam in peak summer. Now if you put a Gripen C/D through the same test with it's current engine, it wont be able to do it either. There is no aerodynamics at play here, just pure installed thrust to weight ratios to reach rotation speed.

[tsarkar]

Vina, the post was mine that Sanku re-posted. To clarify your questions,

There is ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD/ADMISSION anywhere from official sources that the wings were stiffened (in torsion mainly) because of the newer weapon requirements from the original ASR. DDM and the rest of the world picked it up precisely after a certain poster called Vina (er.. yours truly) speculated here in BRF that the reason why we are NOT seeing carriage and separation trials were because of aeromechanical problems because the original weapon specs were upgraded and hence there was a wing redesign and that led to delays of a year or so.
A poster called Sivab who was a structural engg in ADA earlier posted yes, that was so (after that he doesnt post here anymore) and there was a wing redesign after the weapon specs were updated after the TD phase was over and the PV and LSP phases were beginning!
Now , what makes you conclude that the change in the ASRs for the weapon loads specified ONLY that the wing tip missiles had to be something else other than the R-60 ? How do you know that the pylon capacities were not increased for other stations?

Agreed, however ADA design specifications, that was derived from IAF ASR, included payload and empty weight. Typically, Store Management Systems, pylons, wiring covered under empty weight. When designing a fighter, certain tolerances have to be built into the airframe and accounted for as a part of empty weight. Obviously design is not right when we have to stiffen the wing when weaponization commences. Shouldn’t these tolerances have been built in the first place?

Also, I do think that the 5500kg empty weigth was the target for the TDs. Now for LSP and the production versions, those are really completely different animals under the skin and are operational fighters. The newer specs will account for a lot of difference!

What new specs? Do you mean weaponization is a new spec? Will the TD or PV or LSP stripped of avionics and wiring achieve all performance criteria? No

Furthermore, the ASR demanded that the basic design be suitable for adaptation as an advanced trainer, an all-weather fighter and for 'navalization' as a shipboard aircraft.

That is the specs you dreamed up last night in your sleep!. Fact is the Navy approached the ADA for the LCA to examine if it can be Navalized after the TD phase and the ADA jumped at the offer!. Nowhere in the intial specs were it to be a carrier board fighter ever mentioned . Go search through all the records and the history of the LCA Navy!.

These were expectations from Marut ASR, that you are misreading as expectations from Tejas.

The LCA ASRs are incredibly tough. The LCA specs are light years ahead of the Mig 21 specs in terms of maneuverability, range and field performance.

Agreed. The Tejas certainly more than doubles the operational payload of the MiG-21, carries lot more and superior avionics, and certainly improves upon other parameters, but everything is standard for its generation. There is nothing that IAF specified that crippled its performance.

Gripen is a metal airplane? The Swedes will be very very cross if you say that. It has something like 35 to 40% composites!. Hello, wake up and smell the coffee.

Well, I did get a chance to visit the Saab factory, and A/B model is only 20-25% composites. Tejas has 40-45% weight as composites.

If you get in Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, British Air , Emirates or any top airline and ask them what kind of plane they will want to buy, guess what kind of specs you will get , yes, something that will be tougher than what is out there today ! Get it? If you cant make the best, you cant sell in the civil world. Simple. Have a nice day. KF and JetAir will import he best that is out there and beat the cr*p out of any competitor that flies a gas guzzling pig that you manage to put out in an all metal airframe with 25 year old tech engines.

Yet if PV Naik requests performance deficiencies be removed before squadron serviced, he is criticized for being too demanding. Double standards for KF and Jet vis-a-vis IAF.

I already posted on all this earlier the LCA thread . To cut the long story short and puncture your make believe engg world, yes, in this day and age, you CANT do it without an unstable design and a large percentage of composites. Heck, even large commercial airlines are going for augmented stability designs since 1980 (for fuel efficiency alone)!

Yet the MiG29K/KUB does it, beat the Rafale in that competition, and will be the backbone of Fleet Air Defence for atleast the next 30 years.

Geeth, correct, but it carries Chetak and Seaking, and the twin helicopter capability has been operationally useful.
Also agree that third generation aircraft cannot catapult to fifth generation bird. However, a fourth generation could be built using more manageable and less complex means, got into service, and incremental advances added. Like getting the bird on the flight line using the Dassault analogue FC system and use the indigenous system in the next mark.

The old engine is good enough for the plane, if the 2004 ASR would not have evolved.

What are the incremental performance requirements of the 2004 ASR vis-a-vis original ASR?

(secnd reason) The armament weights have increased. If you couple it with the wing loading of LCA, then there is a requirement for higher thrust (not all the time).

Well the 4000 kg payload design specs during the 90’s have shrunk to 3000-3500 kg for IOC birds. Also, for all aircraft, sum of pylon ratings do not accurately add up to total payload. The wings cannot carry more than total payload, even though sum of pylon rating may be higher.

Anyways, the Tejas today is a good plane, however, no way did the IAF do anything to stunt its growth.

[tsarkar]

Surely you do realize that STR and AoA are intimately related and unless you open the AoA to the required 24/25 deg whatever for a near 88 deg bank angle, you cannot pull the full G load and without that you cannot meet the design STR!

Now everyone knows that the full AoA envelope has not been opened out and that is not an "issue", but a testing phase thing and will eventually get done. For eg, even the Eurofighter until very recently was not full G qualified and used to make some lame fly by routines in Farnborough and other airshows until the envelope was opened out!

Right now, more than the engine, the aircraft cannot pull it's full g load and STR because the envelope is not opened.

The higher thrust engine is mainly for hot /high weather conditions where there is a loss of installed thrust due to higher ambient temperature and lower air density. If you want to protect field performance against that degradation that is what you need , higher thrust.

From what I remember, what the LCA couldn't meet with the old engine was the take off run distance at Arakkonam in peak summer. Now if you put a Gripen C/D through the same test with it's current engine, it wont be able to do it either. There is no aerodynamics at play here, just pure installed thrust to weight ratios to reach rotation speed.

You're right here. The envelope has not been opened, and we had to seek help as well to open the envelope.

However, as I mentioned earlier, couldnt we have got the bird on the flight line faster using the Dassault analogue FC system, open the envelope, and use the indigenous system in the next mark?

[chackojoseph]

What are the incremental performance requirements of the 2004 ASR vis-a-vis original ASR?

..... Well the 4000 kg payload design specs during the 90’s have shrunk to 3000-3500 kg for IOC birds. Also, for all aircraft, sum of pylon ratings do not accurately add up to total payload. The wings cannot carry more than total payload, even though sum of pylon rating may be higher.

Anyways, the Tejas today is a good plane, however, no way did the IAF do anything to stunt its growth.

tsarkar,

2) On the shrinkage of loads: why have you just picked up only the weapon load, why are you silent on the power requirements of the avionics.

1) You point out the old requirements, I will put up the new requirements against it. I hope this will put equal work load on both of us. This will also satisfy point 2).

[Rahul M]

Rahul, the quoted part doesnt mean ASRs changed. The ASRs specifying range, payload, etc, remained the same, only weaponization & avionics fit proceeded.

err, don't you see a contradiction in your statements ?

a proper ASR for a fighter 'includes' weaponisation, avionics and sensor requirements. now clearly, either IAF's earlier 1985 set of requirements on these aspects was either half-baked, requiring a revision in 2005 or it was absent altogether. the later case is more likely since IAF and GOI in all their wisdom wasted time with a TD program. IAF didn't even bother to put its requirements in concrete before an year had passed since LCA completed its TD phase !!

before the 'clear' ASR of 2005 ADA had to proceed on the basis of the half-baked ASR available to them which made little mention of what was to be put inside the aircraft. not surprisingly they (under)estimated the empty weight to be 5500 kg.
the empty weight increase became inevitable once the full extent of IAF's requirements became known. now, I've read your theories about why that can't lead to an weight increase more than once and pardon me if I find it a little hard to digest.
from what we know, IAF's ASR-2005 calls for many more internal systems than ASR-1985 (whose requirements were most probably non-existent) and PV onwards LCA has started to incorporate these items in phases. now you claim that should not lead to any weight increase.
that is almost unthinkable in the real world. if you can find me at least one example of an aircraft where the upgraded one with more electronics has ended up significantly lighter than its predecessor perhaps it will be more believable.

[Lalmohan]

anyone with access to Janes aircraft yearbooks can look up the old declared intent for LCA - its been a while since i've looked but there used to be a description of the LCA every year... i think you'll find that the description has changed over time

[tsarkar]

why are you silent on the power requirements of the avionics.

Chacko, the F404 is amply capable of fulfilling hotel electricity loads. We don’t need F414 because we fell short of electricity.

err, don't you see a contradiction in your statements ?

a proper ASR for a fighter 'includes' weaponisation, avionics and sensor requirements. now clearly, either IAF's earlier 1985 set of requirements on these aspects was either half-baked, requiring a revision in 2005 or it was absent altogether. the later case is more likely since IAF and GOI in all their wisdom wasted time with a TD program. IAF didn't even bother to put its requirements in concrete before an year had passed since LCA completed its TD phase !!

before the 'clear' ASR of 2005 ADA had to proceed on the basis of the half-baked ASR available to them which made little mention of what was to be put inside the aircraft. not surprisingly they (under)estimated the empty weight to be 5500 kg.
the empty weight increase became inevitable once the full extent of IAF's requirements became known.

No, you are incorrect in assuming that if IAF does not specify a throttle or stick, ADA doesnt need to include that in the design. Standard avionics required to fly a plane need to be included in the design specifications drawn up by the designer. Including radar, radios, flight instruments. Now, if you told me IAF didnt specify a radar, when why was MMR development carried out? There is not one single piece of avionics that is additional to what is required in a standard fighter.

By your logic, TD1 or PV1 flew without any radar, so they should have achieved full performance? Yet they never did.

now, I've read your theories about why that can't lead to an weight increase more than once and pardon me if I find it a little hard to digest.
from what we know, IAF's ASR-2005 calls for many more internal systems than ASR-1985 (whose requirements were most probably non-existent) and PV onwards LCA has started to incorporate these items in phases. now you claim that should not lead to any weight increase.

I am surprised Rahul the best more internal system you could come up with were a non existant jammer and an OBOGS that reduces weight, yet keep claiming more internal system. What are these more internal system?

HMDS replaced normal helmet and maybe added a few kgs. Litening is an external pod. MFDs replaced standard cockpit instruments, it LCA didnt have them from day 1. Standard IAF radios are used.

MAR plumbing can definitely increase some weight, however I believe Cobham is still developing the system and it'll come in Mk. 2.

that is almost unthinkable in the real world. if you can find me at least one example of an aircraft where the upgraded one with more electronics has ended up significantly lighter than its predecessor perhaps it will be more believable.

Correct, if we replaced older MiG-21 radar with a phased array, then weight will increase. However, the Tejas was designed for a phased array in the first place!

anyone with access to Janes aircraft yearbooks can look up the old declared intent for LCA - its been a while since i've looked but there used to be a description of the LCA every year... i think you'll find that the description has changed over time

In that case, the ASR would be available to the general media. Publications like Janes publish open source information, or that gleaned from designers during international airshows or lab or factory visits.

[chackojoseph]

Chacko, the F404 is amply capable of fulfilling hotel electricity loads. We don’t need F414 because we fell short of electricity.

So, that's all you can come up with?

[Vivek K]

tsarkar - can you please boil your gripe with the LCA in one short post! Seems all ex service types are coming out against domestic purchases!

[tsarkar]

^^^ If you can point out any reason, other than overdesign, that added weight, I would happily accept that. But I cannot accept that Tejas needs DG sets to power avionics. Typically most turbofans generate ample electricity, and F404 is best of breed. Maybe the Tumanski of MiG21 might struggle to power the Kopyo, but even that scenario is highly unlikely.

Vivek - Its a good fighter, I have absolutely no gripe against it, just that the design process could have been faster/better and we could have seen more of them on the flight line earlier.

[chackojoseph]

^^^^It has already been explained. It is you who is failing to come up with arguments. You have not explained why GE-404 is enough for current armaments + current avionics and can perform at all levels, as you claim.

Typically most turbofans generate ample electricity, and F404 is best of breed. Maybe the Tumanski of MiG21 might struggle to power the Kopyo, but even that scenario is highly unlikely.

Back this up.

[Lalmohan]

tsarkar
on janes - no ASR's but atleast a published record of public domain psuedo-ASR history; i think it would show an evolution from MiG21bis equivalent to a M2K equivalent in terms of ambition

on development process - partially agree; i think if in the 80's we had built a super 21 bis and then in the 90's built a super tiger shark and now built an M2k++ then your philosophy is fine (and frankly i support it). to some extent that is exactly what the chinese have done.

DRDO/IAF ofcourse said we would do the first and finally built the last. i am sure that political and other factors also had a part to play in this process, as well as the need to develop our technological infrastructure and research base

on excess power from the engine being used to drive generators, i doubt very much if that makes a huge difference to engine performance, there are also ram air turbines and apu's that are used for generating power, as well as batteries and UPS's

the additional thrust from the new engines is to tonk the baby around the sky better

[SaiK]

It is absolutely nothing wrong in changing requirements, as long as the change does not disrupt totally the planned delivery schedule. Now, if that is not included and reported in a project it speaks volume about our project management.

Tranche based development approach is the way to go, and as agile one can think of it can be. Of course there are certain restrictions in terms of how well they are funded, and people of best brains are retained for the success of the project in terms of time.

One of the reason, I felt we are ignorant on the amounts wasted due to various losses and brain drains, and project cost escalations, but have nothing in our nerves to ask or realize the defects to plug these gaps, are well within reach of our normal thinking process.

The faults are realized, and are now slowly being corrected by our babooze. Thanks to their acceptance of commission reports. hail the new DPP!

[Rahul M]

err, don't you see a contradiction in your statements ?

a proper ASR for a fighter 'includes' weaponisation, avionics and sensor requirements. now clearly, either IAF's earlier 1985 set of requirements on these aspects was either half-baked, requiring a revision in 2005 or it was absent altogether. the later case is more likely since IAF and GOI in all their wisdom wasted time with a TD program. IAF didn't even bother to put its requirements in concrete before an year had passed since LCA completed its TD phase !!

before the 'clear' ASR of 2005 ADA had to proceed on the basis of the half-baked ASR available to them which made little mention of what was to be put inside the aircraft. not surprisingly they (under)estimated the empty weight to be 5500 kg.
the empty weight increase became inevitable once the full extent of IAF's requirements became known.

No, you are incorrect in assuming that if IAF does not specify a throttle or stick, ADA doesnt need to include that in the design. {clearly, we are not talking about throttle or stick, the aircraft won't have flown otherwise. facetious comments like this don't enrich the discussion} Standard avionics required to fly a plane need to be included in the design specifications drawn up by the designer. Including radar, radios, flight instruments. {again, we are not talking about 'standard' avionics like radios and altimeter. firstly, the entire avionics suite was upgraded post 2005, with a new mission computer and stores management system to boot. I don't even remember the full extent off-hand. every aircraft in history that has had such an upgrade has gained weight and LCA is no exception.} Now, if you told me IAF didnt specify a radar, when why was MMR development carried out? {radar, throttle and stick are not the only systems on a fighter, as you are making it out to be}There is not one single piece of avionics that is additional to what is required in a standard fighter. {that 'standard fighter' ASR didn't include the level of RWR IAF expects today which is also heavier, needs more cooling, associated cables, leading to strengthening of attachment points. the airframe then needs to be compensated to cater for the extra weight and the vicious cycle of weight increase continues. items like EW system, OBOGS and AFAIR IFR were absent altogether in original ASR. that's not to mention the outboard pylon saga which alone would have contributed a couple of hundred KG's of weight, if not more}

By your logic, TD1 or PV1 flew without any radar, so they should have achieved full performance? Yet they never did.
{err what ? everyone knows that a fighter without its radar flies with a ballast of equivalent weight to compensate the CG. it doesn't make any difference to overall weight. TD1 or PV1 had not opened the full envelope and you never heard a squeak about shortfall in performance before 2007 did you ? the TD's were over the expected 5500 kg due to usual over-engineering in a first prototype but not by much, a couple of 100 kg's if I remember correctly from AM Rajkumar's book. the major weight increase to ~ 6800 kg came after IAF's revised ASR in 2005, further illustrating my point), for the particular design choices of LCA that meant it ended up sub-performance (coming to that later) }

now, I've read your theories about why that can't lead to an weight increase more than once and pardon me if I find it a little hard to digest.
from what we know, IAF's ASR-2005 calls for many more internal systems than ASR-1985 (whose requirements were most probably non-existent) and PV onwards LCA has started to incorporate these items in phases. now you claim that should not lead to any weight increase.

I am surprised Rahul the best more internal system you could come up with were a non existant jammer {so the RWJ is non-existent now because it conflicts with your pet theory ? }and an OBOGS that reduces weight, {please show me a shred of proof that LCA OBOGS reduces weight. and please don't post the link of some completely irrelevant yankee OBOGS as proof.} yet keep claiming more internal system. What are these more internal system? {answered and explained earlier. your book keeping method of adding items by individual weight (even that sometimes taken from unrelated systems viz. OBOGS) is not valid in real life. each item means additional cooling requirement (heat exchangers), cabling, cabinets and all of that needs to be secured robustly to be able to survive in a high G environment. in turn the airframe needs to be strengthened as well. for a number of new and/or upgraded systems, it all adds up.}

<snip>

MAR plumbing can definitely increase some weight, however I believe Cobham is still developing the system and it'll come in Mk. 2. {that's the retractable one. MK1 already has a non-retractable IFR. ajai shukla has a pic in his blog. IFR plumbing adds serious weight I believe }

that is almost unthinkable in the real world. if you can find me at least one example of an aircraft where the upgraded one with more electronics has ended up significantly lighter than its predecessor perhaps it will be more believable.

Correct, if we replaced older MiG-21 radar with a phased array, then weight will increase. However, the Tejas was designed for a phased array in the first place! {no one is saying the radar added weight, I've mentioned the systems and factors that led to weight increase.}

just that the design process could have been faster/better and we could have seen more of them on the flight line earlier.

tsarkar ji, for that the govt should have funded the project in 1989 in stead of when it eventually did, in 1994. count from 1994 and you would find that the LCA has taken just 17 years from program start to IOC, even with the estimated 2 years lost due to US sanctions ! that compares exceedingly well even with projects like gripen, rafale and eurofighter which took 15, 17 and 18 years respectively. even more time has been lost due to the disconnect between IAF and ADA, on IAF's recommendation ADA had to prove it was 'worthy' of developing a fighter by fulfilling a TD phase first and IAF refused to have anything to do with the project till that phase was completed, they didn't even bother to update their requirements ! it was only from ACM Major's tenure that the attitude started changing. I'm sure ADA has some blame to shoulder for not completing it earlier but IAF has as much to blame if not more while the MOD/GOI's share is more than the two combined.
I just hope the story is not repeated with AMCA.

[chackojoseph]

The issue is not changing requirements. The problem is one part of the services changing requirement and the other part booing that the product is a failure. IMO, the people who are responsible for changes should convey the change and the reason down the line and make everyone aware of the new situation.

[Sanku]

It would help if people actually posted proof of what tsarkar asked for viz, which ASR elements changed.

What specific ASRs changed, and how they effect the weight. Those are the points. So far the ones listed are not shown as how they would impact the weight (including the various support requirements for them) Lets see the list and lets see the impact of support weight calculations to a degree.

There appears to be a lot of hear-say, however we need not go by popular hype either which way (in saying LCA is a disaster, or LCA exactly as expected)

[Raman]

{err what ? everyone knows that a fighter without its radar flies with a ballast of equivalent weight to compensate the CG.

Quite right. In fact, Ajai Shukla's newest LCA pictures show the very thing

I also want to raise one more point. Much is made of a weight difference of only 60kg between an R-60 and an R-73E. However, consider that it will translate to an additional structural load requirement of 60kg * 6G (conservative ASR requirement) * 1.5 (safety factor) * 2 (wings) = 1080 kg. Since these loads are at the outermost pylon, we have to further multiply by the 3+ mts distance between the pylon and the wing attachment point to get the bending loads. It adds up quickly.

[Vivek K]

Vivek - Its a good fighter, I have absolutely no gripe against it, just that the design process could have been faster/better and we could have seen more of them on the flight line earlier.

That should be the end of the debate. We can not fix the past. We must realize that we have a good platform in our hands now (late or not, poorly managed in development or not) AND it must be fully exploited. Mk2 will remove the shortcomings of Mk1 and Mk3 will improve it even further someday.

India was low tech in general with no industrial capability to talk about when this program started. Times have changed. The program started in a poor country with low tech and comes to fruition when the same country is transformed to a richer, higher tech nation. Now everybody wants to stuff a MKI in a LCA or a M1 into a T-90 or in short run before you can walk!

It would have been ideal if 30 years ago, India had started improving the Mig-21Ms on its own instead of perhaps going in for the bis. However, the LCA is the present and no amout of wishful thinking will change how things stand. Therefore instead of cursing the current avatar, discussion here should be focussed on how to maximize its usefulness.