LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by sattili »

dhiraj wrote: Pretty Simple. Let HAL come up with the 40 MK.1 ordered. After this like IAF learnt to live with Mirage and Migs (not meeting the ASR), it will learn to live with MK.1 too. And then if it does not have any option like MK.2 etc then probably would go for more MK.1 (it has a job to do with whatever available )
After knowing what happened to "Marut" I don't think IAF will be that kind to LCA as against foreign planes.
The problem is why the fuss for, order more MK.1 right now else HAL has a problem to build the first 40 in order. Economies of scale, big production line issue, production line going idle, how does all these things come up now. Right now the focus should be on timeline, quality and deliverables.
Would definitely like to understand how an IAF order for say 200 MK.1 mitigated the production line issue for Tejas MK.1 around 2011-12.
I don't agree with the arguments that HAL could only deliver if there is larger order statements, however large order does make economic sense for the companies to invest capital and start production lines. Not just HAL production line think about all those ancillary companies that would get ROI on their capital investment. That is the reason GOI is now offering 12 Billion upfront as committed orders for LCA Mk.2 production setup and build, to attract private players.
member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by member_28819 »

sattili wrote:
DevendraC wrote:Sir, why do you think that Mk1 was even ordered if immediate replacement wasn't the goal?
Currently there are ~150 MiG21s in IAF service, many of those are on front line duty. The order for 40 LCA Mk.1 is not a replacement both in terms of quantity as well as where they will be deployed. LCA Mk.1 will be stationed in Sulur in TN that is not front line deployment. The stated aim (again in public news) is that these planes will be used for type conversion, training and for forming SOPs and tactics for the plane.

So the big question is if ancient MiG21 can be deployed on front line duty, why not LCA Mk.1?
However, if you want to induct Mk1 only because it is better than Mig21, I would urge you to consider the fact that Mig21s shouldn't even be part of IAF. They are on borrowed time. Even then they will be gone by 2022. LCA is supposed to last until 2050-2060. So its not fair to compare Mig21 with LCA's ASR. Same goes for Mig27s and Mirage 2000.
The argument for the LCA Mk.1 immediate induction stems from IAFs own statements about declining Squadron strength and immediate need for beefing up numbers. Going by the history IAF did grant concessions to other foreign aircraft and inducted them much before full capability of those planes are delivered, LCA Mk.1 is much mature on those lines and it definitely has use in the IAF squadron service. What would be glad to see is IAF increases its LCA Mk.1 orders as the interim solution and orders LCA Mk.2 for the long term needs.
Again, that frontline deployment of Mig21 is on borrowed time and will be only for a decade at max. LCA will have to serve till 2050-60. It makes more sense for frontline deployment of Mig21 as it is still is a good interceptor, IAF has trained pilots for Mig21 and infrastructure exists for Mig21 on places where it is deployed.

IAF is definitely concerned about declining squadron strength but that doesn't mean that it should accept any aircraft in service. The comparison with concessions to foreign fighters is invalid since those aircraft were eventually upgraded to meet the requirements. Mig29 wasn't operational when it was inducted, however later the aircraft was upgraded to its full capability. Such upgrades cannot convert Mk1 to Mk2 since both are different airframes.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

DevendraC wrote: Yep. I did not mean anything more than that. The poster asked for a reason of less number of Mk1s and I gave him one.
I know what answer you provided - that answer is the problem. There a lot more to the topic than the answer you provided. Your answer is incomplete.

OK. Let it slide.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

but that doesn't mean that it should accept any aircraft in service
Opened another can of worms.

IAF has accepted "any aricraft"s in the past, so why not the LCA (which BTW, is not an "any" aircraft - it is capable).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

The comparison with concessions to foreign fighters is invalid since those aircraft were eventually upgraded to meet the requirements.
Is the LCA a stagnant effort?

(Slow day)
Mig29 wasn't operational when it was inducted, however later the aircraft was upgraded to its full capability.
Thanks to the IAF, which is what the IAF should be doing with the MK-I. (There is an air force or two that have actually returned the MiG-29!!!!!)
Such upgrades cannot convert Mk1 to Mk2 since both are different airframes.
No one has asked for such an upgrade.

And, if the ASR is not met, relax it. Just as it was done for others. All Air Forces do that.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by rohitvats »

sattili wrote:After knowing what happened to "Marut" I don't think IAF will be that kind to LCA as against foreign planes.
What happened to Marut was shortsightedness on part of MOD which would not fund higher thrust engines and HAL not being able to resolve the problem with main cannon on the aircraft. There was an article posted on BRF by an ex-IAF officer who had flown the type and clearly mentioned that while engine problem persisted, the a/c was considered good in A2G role. But HAL was already angling for Marut Mk2 w/o bothering to solve the main gun issue on Mk1. So, neither the engines happened for Mk2 to be realized nor HAL solved the cannon issues for Mk1 to be truly successful.
I don't agree with the arguments that HAL could only deliver if there is larger order statements, however large order does make economic sense for the companies to invest capital and start production lines. Not just HAL production line think about all those ancillary companies that would get ROI on their capital investment. That is the reason GOI is now offering 12 Billion upfront as committed orders for LCA Mk.2 production setup and build, to attract private players.
What's with equating LCA Mk1 order number and economies of scale? Is HAL going to loose money by building ONLY 40 a/c or are any of the vendors going to loose money on this order size? It will impact the price per unit of the a/c but where does ROI come into picture? Is the HAL or it's vendor going to charge same for 40 units and 120 units? No, I don't think so.

As for LCA Mk2 and GOI commitment - Any private player will have to start from ground up and build a manufacturing facility and capability from scratch. Please don't compare them to HAL which already has huge infrastructure in place paid for by the taxpayers money. And there is a huge circular logic when it comes to HAL talking about ROI and margins and generating profits.

GOI---> Services--->HAL--->GOI.

In pure simple terms, GOI actually takes a percentage cut on the money it gives to armed forces to purchase systems from DPSU.
member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by member_28819 »

NRao wrote:
DevendraC wrote: Yep. I did not mean anything more than that. The poster asked for a reason of less number of Mk1s and I gave him one.
I know what answer you provided - that answer is the problem. There a lot more to the topic than the answer you provided. Your answer is incomplete.

OK. Let it slide.
I never said my answer was exhaustive. If you have anything more to add to it, you are very welcome.
member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by member_28819 »

NRao wrote:
but that doesn't mean that it should accept any aircraft in service
Opened another can of worms.

IAF has accepted "any aricraft"s in the past, so why not the LCA (which BTW, is not an "any" aircraft - it is capable).
IAF has accepted those aircraft which have met its requirement in the past. Mk1 doesn't
member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by member_28819 »

NRao wrote:
The comparison with concessions to foreign fighters is invalid since those aircraft were eventually upgraded to meet the requirements.
Is the LCA a stagnant effort?

(Slow day)
Mig29 wasn't operational when it was inducted, however later the aircraft was upgraded to its full capability.
Thanks to the IAF, which is what the IAF should be doing with the MK-I. (There is an air force or two that have actually returned the MiG-29!!!!!)
Such upgrades cannot convert Mk1 to Mk2 since both are different airframes.
No one has asked for such an upgrade.

And, if the ASR is not met, relax it. Just as it was done for others. All Air Forces do that.
Since LCA Mk1 cannot be upgraded to Mk2, it will never be able to meet the ASR, this is a simple fact. So yes, Mk1 is indeed a stagnant effort since it can never meet the requirements. Thats why IAF is justified in not ordering more of them. You don't understand my post, IAF cannot do what it did with Mig29 since Mk1 cannot be upgraded to Mk2. The first LCA to meet the requirements will be Mk2, not Mk1.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by rohitvats »

sattili wrote:Currently there are ~150 MiG21s in IAF service, many of those are on front line duty. The order for 40 LCA Mk.1 is not a replacement both in terms of quantity as well as where they will be deployed. LCA Mk.1 will be stationed in Sulur in TN that is not front line deployment. The stated aim (again in public news) is that these planes will be used for type conversion, training and for forming SOPs and tactics for the plane. So the big question is, if ancient MiG-21 can be deployed on front line duty, why not LCA Mk.1?
The simple answer to your big question is that Mig-21 is an operational fighter aircraft with all the systems in place. It is a known quantity. LCA Mk1 is NOT.

A fighter aircraft is like your boxer in the ring - all glamorous and sexy with 6 pack abs and something which everyone sees and cheers. What people generally don't get to see is the entire ecosystem required to ensure that this sexy piece of fighting machine can last those rounds in the ring and deliver the KO punch.

As we debate this topic about capability of LCA versus Mig-21 ad-infinitum, what we forget is the less glamorous part about engineering support, logistic, spare-parts and other consumables. Not to forget the part about putting the a/c through it's paces and working out the whole SOP - for flying as well as engineering support.

You only need to have a look at induction of other a/c type in IAF service - from initial Mig-21 to Su-30 MKI; however, there was one major difference from Tejas induction - those a/c were supported by mature OEM with established ecosystems. IAF or HAL always had the luxury of getting the OEM involved to sort out issues. Here, everything needs to be done in-house.

This might put the argument in right perspective (http://www.forceindia.net/DefExpo2014_B ... Brink.aspx):
Air Marshal Phillip Rajkumar (retd), who was closely associated with Tejas programme, told FORCE that the grant of the IOC was “a very big milestone both for Indian industry and the IAF as we have been able to bring a 4th generation fighter into service.” An important aspect for the Tejas programme will be the time taken to operationalise the first Tejas squadron which will operate out of Sulur in Tamil Nadu. For a squadron of 20 pilots to work up to FOC, they would first have to go through the conversion course and then fly a couple of hundred hours on the aircraft to get comfortable, undertake weapons delivery and undertake exercises.

According to A.M. Rajkumar “that one could not call a squadron ready till it has re-equipped with a new aircraft, in less than 24 to 30 months.” He adds that “It would also depend on the kind of product support that can be provided to the squadron to sustain the minimum flying effort.” By the end of the squadron work-up a combined total of 4000-5000 hours would have to be flown on the Tejas. This will be a tricky period, as traditionally almost every newly inducted type with the IAF has suffered maintenance issues during their early years in service. The onus here will be solely on HAL to ensure adequate production, maintenance, spares and logisitics support, so that the required number of flight hours are obtained. With the IAF likely to get its first full squadron only by 2017, the IAF can hope to declare the Tejas fully operational and in squadron service only by 2020.


Assuming 80% availability rate for 20 a/c, 4,000 flying hours over 24 month period amount to average of 125 flying hours per annum per a/c! Compare this with total flight hours flown by Tejas during the development phase.

You would've read the recent report from Ajai Shukla on spare part requirement of our Su-30 MKI fleet. He says that as per HAL estimates, a fleet requires/consumes 5% of it's value in spares per annum.

Here is the link to the report: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/10/g ... -poor.html

Now, HAL has given an estimate of INR 162 Crore per a/c for first 20 lot of Tejas; if I take the same logic as given for Su-30 MKI, the first Tejas fleet will consume spare parts amounting to INR 162 Crore (fleet value: INR 3,240 Crore). If the whole fleet of first 40 a/c costs the same, the per annum number is INR 324 Crore.

Question is, is HAL ready with an ecosystem to support this level of spare part consumption for LCA Mk1 from day 1 of induction of fighter in squadron service? This when Tejas is a new system unlike operational fleet like Su-30 MKI where HAL came-up with spare part consumption requirement per annum based on 5-year study of pattern of consumption.

Both IAF and HAL will find out first time what will be the pattern and percentage of consumption for Tejas post induction. Testing an a/c as part of development process under watchful eyes of scientists and test pilots with critical parameters being monitored is different from putting the a/c through it's paces in Squadron service. There will be no controlled environment of NFTC here.

Long story short - induction of Tejas is as much a test of the aircraft as it is of the entire ecosystem to ensure a certain serviceability rate. And this is about to be discovered.

And till that happens, I don't think Tejas is going to be based out of western or eastern airbase like the 'antiquated' Mig-21.
The argument for the LCA Mk.1 immediate induction stems from IAFs own statements about declining Squadron strength and immediate need for beefing up numbers. Going by the history, IAF did grant concessions to other foreign aircraft and inducted them much before full capability of those planes are delivered. LCA Mk.1 is much mature on those lines and it definitely has use in the IAF squadron service. What would make me glad is to see IAF increase its LCA Mk.1 orders as the interim solution and orders LCA Mk.2 for the long term needs.
How does ordering more LCA Mk1 become an 'interim' solution? Plus, how does it help in arresting decline in numbers simply by ordering more?

By all estimates, IAF will see full capacity of Mk1 not before 2020. May be more. Hopefully, LCA Mk2 should reach complete maturity by 2022. And first squadron enters service by 2024. What do we gain in interim period of 4-years? Assuming production rate of 10 LCA Mk1 by this time, that is aircraft worth 2 Squadrons.

Frankly, I'd rather wait for LCA Mk2 by 2024 than put money on 2 x Squadrons more of Tejas Mk1.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

On understanding your post, you are right..........it is just too confusing.

Your argument on the MiG-29 seems to indicate that the IAF purchased the plane *knowing* that it did not meet their ASR and were depending on the Soviets word that it would be upgraded. And that there was a known solution for the problems it faced.

How about the Su-27/30?

Mirage 2000?

MiG-21?

Jags?

Are you saying that all these vendors sold a product to the IAF and that the IAF bought a product knowing that they needed features that did not meet the IAF "ASR"? All of them have been or are being upgraded.




And, just BTW, there is not one person that I have come across that has even dreamt of "upgrading" the LCA MK-I to a MK-II ........................ outside of you!!!

And, if you can add to an ASR, you certainly can take something out too. Take it out and check that square that says "Meets the ASR".
Frankly, I'd rather wait for LCA Mk2 by 2024 than put money on 2 x Squadrons more of Tejas Mk1.
I would too. Provided that decision has no other side effects.
Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Akshay Kapoor »

Very good points Rohit. I enjoy your reasoned analysis like to name a few Karan M, Shiv, Indranil, Philip and ofcourse Singha, Ramana and Rahul M. Not everyone agrees with each other all the time but it adds to the discussion and knowledge.
member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by member_28722 »

Great post Rohit ... IMHO the below point is critical and I think this was not coming up much in previous LCA discussions here or in other threads
Long story short - induction of Tejas is as much a test of the aircraft as it is of the entire ecosystem to ensure a certain serviceability rate. And this is about to be discovered
member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by member_28819 »

NRao wrote:On understanding your post, you are right..........it is just too confusing.

Your argument on the MiG-29 seems to indicate that the IAF purchased the plane *knowing* that it did not meet their ASR and were depending on the Soviets word that it would be upgraded. And that there was a known solution for the problems it faced.

How about the Su-27/30?

Mirage 2000?

MiG-21?

Jags?

Are you saying that all these vendors sold a product to the IAF and that the IAF bought a product knowing that they needed features that did not meet the IAF "ASR"? All of them have been or are being upgraded.



I don't understand if you are being sarcastic or serious. Either I am not replying to first part of your post
And, just BTW, there is not one person that I have come across that has even dreamt of "upgrading" the LCA MK-I to a MK-II ........................ outside of you!!!
Then you should also stop dreaming about the idea that Mk1 will ever meet the requirements of IAF since upgrading it to Mk2 would be the only way to do that. Since we know that cannot be done, hence IAF cannot go the Mig29 way with Mk1.
And, if you can add to an ASR, you certainly can take something out too. Take it out and check that square that says "Meets the ASR".
And why should IAF do that exactly? To satisfy you? If IAF accepts a weapon in service that doesn't meet the requirements, and then in war the weapon is found wanting, who will take the responsibility? You?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by brar_w »

rohitvats wrote:
sattili wrote:Currently there are ~150 MiG21s in IAF service, many of those are on front line duty. The order for 40 LCA Mk.1 is not a replacement both in terms of quantity as well as where they will be deployed. LCA Mk.1 will be stationed in Sulur in TN that is not front line deployment. The stated aim (again in public news) is that these planes will be used for type conversion, training and for forming SOPs and tactics for the plane. So the big question is, if ancient MiG-21 can be deployed on front line duty, why not LCA Mk.1?
The simple answer to your big question is that Mig-21 is an operational fighter aircraft with all the systems in place. It is a known quantity. LCA Mk1 is NOT.

A fighter aircraft is like your boxer in the ring - all glamorous and sexy with 6 pack abs and something which everyone sees and cheers. What people generally don't get to see is the entire ecosystem required to ensure that this sexy piece of fighting machine can last those rounds in the ring and deliver the KO punch.

As we debate this topic about capability of LCA versus Mig-21 ad-infinitum, what we forget is the less glamorous part about engineering support, logistic, spare-parts and other consumables. Not to forget the part about putting the a/c through it's paces and working out the whole SOP - for flying as well as engineering support.

You only need to have a look at induction of other a/c type in IAF service - from initial Mig-21 to Su-30 MKI; however, there was one major difference from Tejas induction - those a/c were supported by mature OEM with established ecosystems. IAF or HAL always had the luxury of getting the OEM involved to sort out issues. Here, everything needs to be done in-house.

This might put the argument in right perspective (http://www.forceindia.net/DefExpo2014_B ... Brink.aspx):
Air Marshal Phillip Rajkumar (retd), who was closely associated with Tejas programme, told FORCE that the grant of the IOC was “a very big milestone both for Indian industry and the IAF as we have been able to bring a 4th generation fighter into service.” An important aspect for the Tejas programme will be the time taken to operationalise the first Tejas squadron which will operate out of Sulur in Tamil Nadu. For a squadron of 20 pilots to work up to FOC, they would first have to go through the conversion course and then fly a couple of hundred hours on the aircraft to get comfortable, undertake weapons delivery and undertake exercises.

According to A.M. Rajkumar “that one could not call a squadron ready till it has re-equipped with a new aircraft, in less than 24 to 30 months.” He adds that “It would also depend on the kind of product support that can be provided to the squadron to sustain the minimum flying effort.” By the end of the squadron work-up a combined total of 4000-5000 hours would have to be flown on the Tejas. This will be a tricky period, as traditionally almost every newly inducted type with the IAF has suffered maintenance issues during their early years in service. The onus here will be solely on HAL to ensure adequate production, maintenance, spares and logisitics support, so that the required number of flight hours are obtained. With the IAF likely to get its first full squadron only by 2017, the IAF can hope to declare the Tejas fully operational and in squadron service only by 2020.


Assuming 80% availability rate for 20 a/c, 4,000 flying hours over 24 month period amount to average of 125 flying hours per annum per a/c! Compare this with total flight hours flown by Tejas during the development phase.

You would've read the recent report from Ajai Shukla on spare part requirement of our Su-30 MKI fleet. He says that as per HAL estimates, a fleet requires/consumes 5% of it's value in spares per annum.

Here is the link to the report: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/10/g ... -poor.html

Now, HAL has given an estimate of INR 162 Crore per a/c for first 20 lot of Tejas; if I take the same logic as given for Su-30 MKI, the first Tejas fleet will consume spare parts amounting to INR 162 Crore (fleet value: INR 3,240 Crore). If the whole fleet of first 40 a/c costs the same, the per annum number is INR 324 Crore.

Question is, is HAL ready with an ecosystem to support this level of spare part consumption for LCA Mk1 from day 1 of induction of fighter in squadron service? This when Tejas is a new system unlike operational fleet like Su-30 MKI where HAL came-up with spare part consumption requirement per annum based on 5-year study of pattern of consumption.

Both IAF and HAL will find out first time what will be the pattern and percentage of consumption for Tejas post induction. Testing an a/c as part of development process under watchful eyes of scientists and test pilots with critical parameters being monitored is different from putting the a/c through it's paces in Squadron service. There will be no controlled environment of NFTC here.

Long story short - induction of Tejas is as much a test of the aircraft as it is of the entire ecosystem to ensure a certain serviceability rate. And this is about to be discovered.

And till that happens, I don't think Tejas is going to be based out of western or eastern airbase like the 'antiquated' Mig-21.
The argument for the LCA Mk.1 immediate induction stems from IAFs own statements about declining Squadron strength and immediate need for beefing up numbers. Going by the history, IAF did grant concessions to other foreign aircraft and inducted them much before full capability of those planes are delivered. LCA Mk.1 is much mature on those lines and it definitely has use in the IAF squadron service. What would make me glad is to see IAF increase its LCA Mk.1 orders as the interim solution and orders LCA Mk.2 for the long term needs.
How does ordering more LCA Mk1 become an 'interim' solution? Plus, how does it help in arresting decline in numbers simply by ordering more?

By all estimates, IAF will see full capacity of Mk1 not before 2020. May be more. Hopefully, LCA Mk2 should reach complete maturity by 2022. And first squadron enters service by 2024. What do we gain in interim period of 4-years? Assuming production rate of 10 LCA Mk1 by this time, that is aircraft worth 2 Squadrons.

Frankly, I'd rather wait for LCA Mk2 by 2024 than put money on 2 x Squadrons more of Tejas Mk1.
Great Analysis!
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by rohitvats »

People really need to read this article from 1984 about induction of Mirage 2000 and simultaneous discussions on Mig-29. This tells you how we ended up with different a/c type.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/fren ... 60805.html
The Mirage is no longer a mirage. Last fortnight, in the famous wine country of Bordeaux in the south of France, the first fully assembled Mirage-2000 built for the Indian Air Force (IAF) glided off the assembly line at Dassault-Bregeut's sprawling plant at Marignac.

The sleek, delta-winged fighter will undergo technical and avionic trials before being formally handed over in mid-September to IAF pilots currently training with the French Air Force's first Mirage-2000 fighter squadron. The first Mirage will be ferried across to Indian soil early next year for induction into the country's ballooning fighter aircraft inventory.

Last fortnight's champagne uncorked at Marignac was also for the benefit of Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh, IAF chief who had been invited to France for the occasion, albeit indirectly. In fact, the unveiling of the IAF Mirage at Marignac was underscored by two rather significant factors.

One was that the announcement came from Dassault-Bregeut who flew down a senior public relations official to New Delhi specifically to break the good news. The second was that Dilbagh Singh had been invited to France by his counterpart in the French Air Force and the timing of his visit with the unveiling was hardly a coincidence.

The French Government has majority control of Dassault and it would be safe to assume that Singh's invitation was tied in to the event at Marignac. Singh was also privileged to fly in one of the Mirage-2000s and according to French officials pronounced him self "quite satisfied".

But the key question is whether the Indian Government holds similar views. There was additional significance in the fact that Dassault found it necessary to fly down a spokesman to New Delhi. When the original Mirage deal was signed, the 'Intention to Proceed' contract was for an initial order of 40 aircraft for outright purchase in fly-away condition and an option to produce another 110 Mirages in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Bangalore, for which Dassault was agreeable to provide a total technology transfer.

The deadline for that option, significantly enough, expires on June 30 and so far the Indian Government has given no indication that it will sign the second part of the contract. ( We were as fvcked-up in 1984 as we are today when it came to defense procurement and long term vision) Defence Ministry officials remained tight-lipped about the production element of the deal except to say that no final decision had been taken yet. Mirage spokesmen say there are "positive signs" that the Indian Government will take up the option but that they are clearly worried is evident by the events of last fortnight.

Clearly, they have good reason to be perturbed. In financial terms, the Indian option offers Dassault the biggest-ever contract for the Mirage, even bigger than that of the French Air Force. So far, only Abu Dhabi, Egypt, Peru, India and the French Air Force have contracted for the Mirage-2000 and the Indian option will obviously give the programme a major financial boost. (Sounds eerily similar to the Rafale deal???)

But Dassault's worry extends beyond mere financial considerations. It is more rooted in the nature of the competition that has forced the Indian Government to review the second part of the Mirage contract; namely, the Soviet Union.

Or, to be more specific, the MiG-29. The first sign that an attempt to scuttle the Mirage-2000 production programme was being made came when the Soviets offered India the MiG-29 the latest in their inventory (it is meant to enter Soviet operational service in 1985), during Defence Minister R. Venkatraman's visit to Moscow last August. The offer was repeated during Soviet Defence Minister Marshal Dmitri Ustinov's visit to New Delhi a few months later.

There have been other pointers in plenty. Shortly after his return from Moscow, Venkatraman stated in Parliament that India was going to select a "futuristic aircraft to meet the challenge posed by the presence of the F-16 in a neighbouring country". The inference was clearly with regard to the MiG-29. Since then, Defence Ministry spokesmen have gone out of their way to sing the praises of the MiG-29, particularly its superiority over the F-16.

A team of IAF pilots have already visited the Soviet Union for test flying the aircraft and reportedly returned enamoured of the aircraft's versatility (posting an excerpt after this article from BR about the IAF test pilot who evaluated 'RAM-L' AKA Mig-29). However, very little is actually known about the aircraft's actual performance and characteristics. It is undoubtedly a major improvement on previous Soviet fighters.

In March, 1983, the US Department of Defence published a document on Soviet military power which described the MiG-29 as a twin-engined aircraft with improved range, thrust-to-weight ratio and manoeuvrability that represented a "concerted effort by the Soviet Union to close the technological gap with the West". The document describes the MiG-29 as a supersonic all weather counter-air fighter with lookdown-shootdown weapon systems and beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles.

According to the latest edition of Jane's, the MiG-29 is likely to have a true dual-role air combat/attack capability similar to the F-16 and F-18. However, there are doubts regarding claims that the aircraft is capable of speeds up to Mach 2.8 since it is made of conventional materials that would be unable to withstand the kinetic heating associated with that performance.

But the bottom line in the MiG-29 offer, and one that the Defence Ministry will no doubt take undue consideration of, is the inevitable cost factor. According to sources, the MiG-29 is being offered to India with a price-tag of slightly under Rs.5 crore per aircraft which is about half the cost of the Mirage-2000.

The obvious intention is to phase out the production of the MiG-21 Bis, the backbone of the IAF strike force, in time to switch over to the MiG-29 production project. The MiG-21 was originally intended to be phased out in mid-'84 but latest indications are that it will extend into 1985-86 though production will be considerably scaled down in the extension period. In fact, that process has already started with HAL's production schedule for 35 MiG-21s in 1983-84 having been scaled down to 17 aircraft.

But the wisdom of that decision is questionable, as the French are quick to point out. Their reasoning is that there is nothing to stop India from producing the MiG-29s at their Nasik plant, where the MiG-21s are currently being manufactured.

But that should not deter the Government from going in for the Mirage-2000 production line at HAL's Bangalore factory where the Jaguars are being assembled. The French argument is that since Bangalore is already geared and equipped to produce western aircraft, it would be logical and far more practical to switch from Jaguar production to that of the Mirage-2000.

The French also insist that the Mirage is no less superior to the F-16 in terms of long-range striking capability, the radar system and armaments which enables the Mirage to detect, lock in and fire its weapon system far in advance of the F-16.

The French also point out that Soviet aircraft like the MiG-29 may be cheaper than those available in the West, but actually work out as expensive because of the shorter life-span of the parts. Soviet aircraft engines, for instance, have about half the life-span of western aircraft engines like the Snecma M53 being fitted on the Mirage. (Sounds familiar? Something we - IAF - learnt the hard way)

There is also the unquestionable fact that the technology transfer being offered by the French for the Mirage production will offer HAL unrestricted access to state-of-the-art aircraft technology which could be later used for India's own future projects like the proposed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme. :cry: :cry: :cry:

It would, for instance, give HAL engineers a firsthand knowledge of third generation aircraft technology like chemical etching and milling and, more important, the manufacture of components made from composite materials which are being billed as the future wonder material for aircraft production in the '90s because of its lighter weight and strength. The Mirage uses components built of carbon and boron fibre and this is one area where the Soviets are still far behind the West.

Other access would be to the advanced avionics and the fly-by-wire electrical flight control systems. But the main point the French are trying to hammer home is the industrial investment it represents for HAL and the Indian aeronautical industry.

Their estimates are that airframe production work alone represents 1.2 million working hours. This figure would double if India agrees to manufacture the Snecma engine and triple if it opts for producing the avionics as well.

Production of the Mirage, the French point out, would also provide the Indian aircraft industry with adequate workload for the next 20 years since a combat aircraft generates about the same workload in overhaul, spare parts and ammunition as the aircraft's operational life.

But statistics and graphs are less likely to impress the Indian Government than political pressure which is one area where the Soviets score heavily. The MiG-29 decision, or, for that matter, the Mirage production decision, will evidently contain a powerful political element.

As it is, the Soviets, in the last year, have slowly wrested back their domination of Indian arms inventory, particularly in regard to the IAF. India now has the MiG-23 BN for tactical strike, replacing the slower SU-7s, the MiG-21 Bis, FL and MF and the MiG-23 MF for interception and the MiG-25 RU for high-level re-connaisance. The MiG-27 is due to be inducted for ground attack and the AN-32 and IL-76 for transport.

Against that background, it is evident that the Soviets have convinced the Indian Government that military dependence on Moscow does not necessarily translate into political dependence and that they are as prepared as the West to grant India access to the latest weaponry and, at a cheaper rate.

India will gain technologically if it does opt for the Mirage production but indications are that it will ask Dassault to extend the deadline. By which time the Mirage may yet turn out to be a mirage.
From BR:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... thi02.html

On Mig-29:
An year and a half later , in Feb 84, Prithi led a team including Wg Cdr Mittal to Russia to evaluate what the west called ‘the RAM-L’ (Ramenskoye-L) , a Mikoyan initiative to counter the F-16/F-15. The aircraft was later christened the MiG 29. The evaluation was done at Zhukovsky, the Russian flight test centre outside Moscow which also housed the Gromov flight research centre. Prithi was given a dual by Mikoyan’s senior most test pilot - General Fedotov, a hero of the Soviet Union winner for his speed and altitude record breaking flights on the MiG 25. The MiG 29 at the time displayed the highest performance especially, in sustained turn capability and fielded the latest air to air weapons, the R-60 and R- 27.

One of the memorable experiences was flying in the Russian winter where one came off a radar vector and looked for a dark patch of runway strip in an ocean of flat white. A second evaluation was made in the summer of 1984 in the southern province of Kazakhstan where range firing was done from Marie, just north of Afghanistan.

Here for the first time ever, a customer was allowed to fire and evaluate air to air weapons by the Russians. One experience was firing an R-60 close combat missile at a MiG 21FL drone, the aircraft just disintegrated and stopped in the air. Prithi almost flew through the debris of the resulting hit.
On Mirage-2000:
With the induction of F-16s by the PAF, the IAF decided to evaluate the only other advanced fly-by-wire aircraft available for sale to India-the AMBDA Mirage 2000. Prithi arrived in Istres, the home of Dassault’s flight test centre, in Dec 80 along with Wg Cdr S Krishnaswamy. Here, after a quick trainer trip the team flew prototype 04 in all the air to air and air to ground configurations whilst the radar, the underdevelopment- RDM was flown on the test bed Mystere 20 ac. The Mirage 2000 remains the most exhilarating aircraft ever flown by Prithi.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

By all estimates, IAF will see full capacity of Mk1 not before 2020.
Notwithstanding an issue with the supply chain, the major argument has been to increase the production rate. That would answer the 2020 date. They can be delivered earlier.
May be more. Hopefully, LCA Mk2 should reach complete maturity by 2022. And first squadron enters service by 2024. What do we gain in interim period of 4-years? Assuming production rate of 10 LCA Mk1 by this time, that is aircraft worth 2 Squadrons.
IF we are going to see IAF as a different entity (one that suffers because of order more MK-I) then we might as well pack up the idea of "indigenous". India is at a point where she can break through that barrier to be able to stand on her own two feet and everyone will have to bear some pain. In this case the IAF.

What are the gains in the 4 year period: supply chain. You can never expect those companies that supply you with to remain idle - that will not work. I would expect that the cost of keeping the line "moving" would be cheaper than to restart the line after 4 years gap. Then, some of your suppliers may not even be in existence - and some may go out of business just because of this 4 year gap.

Like I said relax that ASR, do whatever has to be done, but do NOT break the back of this system.

Keep the line moving - even at 8 a year - until the MK-II comes, then use the MK-Is as spares. ??????

There is price to be paid for local design + dev work. Make-in_India will have a huge cost - no two ways. Either pay the Indian in India or teh Foreigner abroad.

Aap ki chal.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

DevendraC wrote: I don't understand if you are being sarcastic or serious. Either I am not replying to first part of your post
Did not expect you to.

All those planes had problems and yet the IAF accepted them.
Then you should also stop dreaming about the idea that Mk1 will ever meet the requirements of IAF since upgrading it to Mk2 would be the only way to do that. Since we know that cannot be done, hence IAF cannot go the Mig29 way with Mk1.
There are other aspects (see my previous post) that matter. The IAF cannot be seen as a sole entity that suffers. My not keeping the line moving others suffer too and just could be that teh entire programs suffers. A gap of a few years means supply cahin shuts down. Restarting it could cost more than a restart.
And why should IAF do that exactly? To satisfy you? If IAF accepts a weapon in service that doesn't meet the requirements, and then in war the weapon is found wanting, who will take the responsibility? You?
Because in *all* this the IAF is NOT the only entity out there.

The fundamental question that needs to be answered is: Does *India* waat a local program for designing and building fighters. IF the answer is yes, then the IAF (in this case) has to suffer - for the bigger good. Actually it is no suffering. The IAF is only helping another part of itself (HAL/ADA/DRDO) to catch up.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

Look at GE/LM/Sukhoi/Mitsibishi/Thale as "other". Let them suffer.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2405
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Thakur_B »

LRDE has called out tender for liquid cooling system for AESA Project L-273 (Uttam). Last known the array was undergoing ground tests and the processors were incorporated on the flying testbed "Hack" and undergoing testing with the existing mechanical array.
LRDE is developing Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) based fire control radar for LCA Mk1 and Mk2 platform under project Uttam. The AAAU is mounted on aircraft's bulkhead with an interface frame and will be protected by radome. Additional Radar LRUs are housed in front fuselage of the aircraft behind the AAAU between station 1 and station 3 as shown in figure 1 & 2. The mounting frame has three decks of which middle and bottom deck are allotted for the radar LRUs.

AAAU dissipates 2650 watts of heat during operation and needs to be cooled with a suitable cooling system. Considering the various options available , availale space, geometry constraints, available cooling medium etc, it has been decided to go for "Liquid Cooling System" to dissipate the heat. This cooling system consists of cooling pump & flow circuits and liquid to air heat exchanger. But ADA has a qualified heat exchanger that meets the cooling requirement of AAAU that can be integrated in the aircraft. In view of the above it has been decided to develop "Liquid Circulation System(LCS)" utilising the existing heat exchanger (3.0 KW).
Image
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Yagnasri »

The main problem is the idea that IAF ( and IA in case of Arjun) is not supportive of national efforts and is only interested in imports. IAF is not helping its ( and also national) cause by not getting more involved in the LCA project at least in Mk2 level.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Picklu »

DevendraC wrote: However, if you want to induct Mk1 only because it is better than Mig21, I would urge you to consider the fact that Mig21s shouldn't even be part of IAF. They are on borrowed time. Even then they will be gone by 2022. LCA is supposed to last until 2050-2060. So its not fair to compare Mig21 with LCA's ASR. Same goes for Mig27s and Mirage 2000.
Also, here is one part for which I want to point out the disconnect with reality.

The Mig21 soldiering on are not the ones that were inducted. The LCAs that will last till 2050-60 will not be the ones that are inducted before 2020.

No operational aircraft in major AFs last for more than 10-15 years. After that, it gets into an MLU and the MLU-ed version continues on. In many cases, these MLU-ed versions are almost completely new build. Check the price for Mirage2K upgrade vs the original price of M2K.

So, it is a fallacy to say the current mk1 is not suitable for 2050 as it is not supposed to be.

Yes, they can not be upgraded to "currently envisioned mk2" standard but who knows the future. There might be a MLU mk3 version even better than currently envisioned mk2 version and with the advance to technologies, it would be possible to upgrade the mk1s to that standard. The operative word here is "currently envisioned"; why we should restrict future possibilities based on our current assumptions? The current F16s were unthinkable at the time of its induction.

My point is simple. We have a number gap right now. We should not point to the future to block the closure. Let's close the gap right now and then think of how to upgrade them to the future standards. Many of the current ones will be EOLed anyway, like most of the early inductions of soviet planes.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5360
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Cain Marko »

Rohit, take a bow. Both those posts ('re. Lca and mig29vm2k) were illuminating, and clearly illustrate why the situation is what it is. It amazes me that folks expect massive orders for the mk1 when the IAF has waited 5 years over the initially stipulated time for the delivery of the MK1 by ADA/HAL . Iirc, 20.birds by 2010-11 I think it was. Forget 20, we still don't have one. The moment the delays became clear, especially with the short fall in performance, the time for additional orders for the mk1 started running out. Now, that opportunity is all but gone. Still, I feel that iaf will have little choice but to order more mk1s, even if it is a small order soon or later, around 20 would be my guess because one doubts the mm2 is coming on time that is by 2020, would hardly be surprising if the first FOC bird is ready only by 2025. Only a real emergency is going to change this.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Picklu »

CMji, you are thinking that mk2 will be available soonish. I (and certainly IAF) don't think so.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by rohitvats »

NRao wrote: Notwithstanding an issue with the supply chain, the major argument has been to increase the production rate. That would answer the 2020 date. They can be delivered earlier.
First, production rate is not a stand-alone variable.

The ability of IAF to absorb a particular aircraft type is also a factor. What will IAF do with more planes at point X if they don't even have manpower to man these aircraft?

Another factor is the ability of OEM to solve the glitches that will definitely arise given that it's their first outing and they will also be working towards ensuring that entire ecosystem is in place and works like a well-oiled machine. HAL will have to ensure they can supply every item required along with the planes so that these a/c can be flown and utilized in an optimal manner.
IF we are going to see IAF as a different entity (one that suffers because of order more MK-I) then we might as well pack up the idea of "indigenous". India is at a point where she can break through that barrier to be able to stand on her own two feet and everyone will have to bear some pain. In this case the IAF.

What are the gains in the 4 year period: supply chain. You can never expect those companies that supply you with to remain idle - that will not work. I would expect that the cost of keeping the line "moving" would be cheaper than to restart the line after 4 years gap. Then, some of your suppliers may not even be in existence - and some may go out of business just because of this 4 year gap.

Like I said relax that ASR, do whatever has to be done, but do NOT break the back of this system. Keep the line moving - even at 8 a year - until the MK-II comes, then use the MK-Is as spares. ?????? There is price to be paid for local design + dev work. Make-in_India will have a huge cost - no two ways. Either pay the Indian in India or the Foreigner abroad. Aap ki chal.
First - my argument is not against inducting more LCA Mk1.

I'm trying to address the erroneous notion that by simply ordering more LCA Mk1, IAF can arrest the decline in Squadron numbers in a timely manner. It will not. Next five years, from 2015 to 2020 are required for both the entities to sort out all the issues associated with new a/c type. If people feel that only thing that matters when it comes to development of a/c is it meeting IOC and FOC, then they're living in La La Land. agupta has already given a wonderful explanation of what constitutes a system.

Secondly, the oft repeated argument about LCA Mk1 being better than Mig-21 etc. As IAF test pilots have said on record, it has better handling than even Mirage-2000. Fine. We've a wonderful aircraft. But we still have to put in place a complete system to exploit the machine. And that will take time.

At the expense of repeating myself, the period between 2015-2020 is crucial to iron out all the issues with production and support.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By all means, get the IAF to order one or two more Squadrons of LCA Mk1 (I don't see numbers beyond this) but please don't forward these erroneous arguments of comparing with Mi-21 or arresting decline in Squadron numbers. The requirement to ensure that production line remains open between Mk1 and Mk2 production is good enough to stand on it's own merit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And frankly, the comments about comparing Tejas Mk1 with Arjun are product of lazy minds and group think w/o any application of thought.

Here is a senior and illustrious IAF Squadron (45 Squadron) earmarked to receive Mk1 and waiting for a/c to roll out form HAL production line. The Mig-21 which shot down PN Atlantique in Gujarat in 1999 was from this Squadron. Commitment to LCA Mk2 is already there. And both IAF's and Navy's future requirement are riding on this type.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by rohitvats »

Yagnasri wrote:The main problem is the idea that IAF ( and IA in case of Arjun) is not supportive of national efforts and is only interested in imports. IAF is not helping its ( and also national) cause by not getting more involved in the LCA project at least in Mk2 level.
Actually, the problem is attitude of people on this forum and not IAF.

It is very easy to point fingers at Services and post one liners denouncing them as 'anti-indigenous this and anti-indigenous that' w/o bothering to do even a wee bit of analysis. The worst part is extrapolating completely unrelated events to situations which are more complex. Like using Arjun and Tejas Mk1 in the same argument.

People like me (and others on BRF) who have taken a consistent stand against IA on Arjun saga was basis some amount of reading on the subject. And not because of 'perception'. The onus is on the poster(s) to take an informed stand.

But honestly, I don't see that happening. It is all very easy to point fingers and express your frustration at Service(s) - and in the bargain, also be seen as uber-patriot supporting domestic MIL-IND complex.
Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Akshay Kapoor »

Can we have a discussion on tactics and which forward air bases we can base Tejas MK 1 in. I think on BR we often dragged into discussions about platforms and production and R&D rather than tactics and combat.

We know the AoA, STR and ITR. Lets see if we can figure out what tactics best support those. Karan M , Rohit, Indranil, Rohit M , Vivek Ahuja?
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5729
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Kartik »

Something to look out for the N-LCA..am posting just a snippet of the article on the F-35C's first arrested landing on an aircraft carrier. A question for the Navy folks at AI-'15, on whether the N-LCA's FBW will also be augmented during approach to allow for a more stable landing.
...

What most impressed Buss was the stability of the F-35 on approach. Both CF-3 and CF-5, as the test jest are designated, made ideal arrested landings on the third deck wire.
“The most remarkable thing was how steady and stable it was on approach. I didn’t see a lot of control surface movement,” he says. “Both aircraft landed exactly where we wanted them to.”
The F-35C is augmented with a new “delta” control law to improve stability on a fixed glideslope to a carrier deck, a first for a manned aircraft landing on a carrier.

The ship and both F-35Cs will stay at sea for the next two weeks, during which time the envelope for flight operations will continually be opened. Changes will be made in the attitudes of the landings as well as direction and speed, Buss said. The test pilots will next try cross-wind landings, landings with the deck at variable pitch angles. Night landings are scheduled for 13-15 November.
..
FG link
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7794
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Prasad »

If Rohit's argument is that the IAF will place MK2 orders instead of MK1 after a couple of squadrons, will HAL take until 2020 to build those planes? Even at say 8 per year initially, they'll build 40 in less than 5 years as the production line matures. How will the production line mature if it is going to stop and take a rest after a short walk? Also, if the whole point is that HAL might not be able to provide an entire ecosystem of spares and support, how will not ordering aircraft, putting them to use and servicing them help?
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5729
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Kartik »

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Can we have a discussion on tactics and which forward air bases we can base Tejas MK 1 in. I think on BR we often dragged into discussions about platforms and production and R&D rather than tactics and combat.

We know the AoA, STR and ITR. Lets see if we can figure out what tactics best support those. Karan M , Rohit, Indranil, Rohit M , Vivek Ahuja?
actually we don't know the STR and ITR. We have only got vague comparisons and a general idea based on what we know was put in the ASR..the requirement was to be able to meet the ITR of the Mirage-2000 (which I think it does handily) and the STR of the MiG-29, which is a difficult proposition considering the excess thrust the Fulcrum possesses..but with the Tejas Mk1 having achieved 26 deg AoA, the STR is no longer even mentioned as an issue.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by vishvak »

Prasad wrote:If Rohit's argument is that the IAF will place MK2 orders instead of MK1 after a couple of squadrons, will HAL take until 2020 to build those planes? Even at say 8 per year initially, they'll build 40 in less than 5 years as the production line matures. How will the production line mature if it is going to stop and take a rest after a short walk? Also, if the whole point is that HAL might not be able to provide an entire ecosystem of spares and support, how will not ordering aircraft, putting them to use and servicing them help?
Exactly, sir. One use additional LCAs for training, maneuvers- and iron out differences till MK-2 are inducted in numbers. Once you have LCA MK-1 in hand, future needs may become apparent, who knows.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5729
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Kartik »

rohitvats wrote: First, production rate is not a stand-alone variable.

The ability of IAF to absorb a particular aircraft type is also a factor. What will IAF do with more planes at point X if they don't even have manpower to man these aircraft?
The first few pilots to convert to the Tejas Mk1 will be qualified instructors on other types who will be identified as the nucleus of the new Tejas Mk1 force. If the IAF cannot staff the first squadron with such experienced flight crew, that really is the IAF's issue.

Look at how the first Su-30K/MK squadron was staffed with experienced hands from various mounts, who used the first squadron's airplanes at a very high utilization rate and then eventually went on to form the nucleus of the newer squadrons that were coming up.

An experienced hand will not take too long to qualify on the Tejas Mk1, that one can be sure of. The aircraft itself is forgiving, easy to handle and the avionics are pretty much at the top of the pyramid as far as the current IAF orbat goes.
Another factor is the ability of OEM to solve the glitches that will definitely arise given that it's their first outing and they will also be working towards ensuring that entire ecosystem is in place and works like a well-oiled machine. HAL will have to ensure they can supply every item required along with the planes so that these a/c can be flown and utilized in an optimal manner.
That is a given, which is why Sulur is the first chosen base. HAL can depute teams to Sulur and get engineering work done quickly with less time taken for transporting those till a depot can be built up. That is where HAL has to stand up and win the IAF over. It can make or break the future of the Tejas in the IAF- if the first couple of squadrons report low availability and poor spares/repair support, then the IAF will not hesitate to use that against it in the future.

First - my argument is not against inducting more LCA Mk1.

I'm trying to address the erroneous notion that by simply ordering more LCA Mk1, IAF can arrest the decline in Squadron numbers in a timely manner. It will not. Next five years, from 2015 to 2020 are required for both the entities to sort out all the issues associated with new a/c type. If people feel that only thing that matters when it comes to development of a/c is it meeting IOC and FOC, then they're living in La La Land. agupta has already given a wonderful explanation of what constitutes a system.
But, the crucial thing is this- you need to get the system going. The LCA has seen both ADA and HAL occupied in the design and development to the detriment of the manufacturing, operationalisation and sustainment phases.

Had a phased approach been adopted, wherein the LCA team was given the goal of first opening the flight envelope with an emphasis on air-to-air capabilities with a WVR weapon integrated and then attempt to make the platform multi-role, perhaps we'd have seen a squadron already flying the LCA and the eco-system for sustainment activities already in place. Instead, the LCA team were told that the IAF wanted everything ready before they would induct the first batch itself. And so we have capabilities being developed which on most other fighters have been developed or are being developed, after the fighter had entered squadron service and a pool of pilots were already proficient on the type.

The focus has been on developing a multi-role fighter. Whereas if early induction was the IAF's priority, the focus should have been to get it into service with a set of capabilities that would, over a period of time, get upgraded and eventually the platform would be multi-role. That way you'd have seen an evolving Tejas Mk1 in service instead of having everyone's energies dedicated in evolving the Tejas Mk1 into a fully multi-role, fully capable fighter.
Here is a senior and illustrious IAF Squadron (45 Squadron) earmarked to receive Mk1 and waiting for a/c to roll out form HAL production line. The Mig-21 which shot down PN Atlantique in Gujarat in 1999 was from this Squadron. Commitment to LCA Mk2 is already there. And both IAF's and Navy's future requirement are riding on this type.
And they're waiting because they didn't want anything but a fully multi-role, IFR capable Tejas Mk1 from day 1.

Take a look at programs world-wide. Most fighters have evolved into full multi-role capability well after squadron service. the JF-17 was integrated with a WVR weapon and dumb bomb dropping capability when it joined service, the Su-35 still hasn't even attained IOC and is in RuAF service, the F-35 is in the user's hands without having attained IOC and everyone knows just how immature the Rafale F1 and Typhoon Tranche1 fighters were when it came to multi-role capability when they entered service.

There is something wrong with the IAF's own management of goals and targets for the LCA program. Perhaps it was sheer distrust in HAL and ADA's capabilities and fulfillment of promises (one couldn't blame the IAF entirely for that), but they literally have waited till a complete product is delivered to them.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5729
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Kartik »

guys, watch out for news on the NP-2's first flight..was supposed to happen right after Diwali..high speed taxi trials and ground tests were completed before Diwali itself.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1384
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by mody »

The basic point is that by now, the IAF should have a fairly good idea about the capabilities that the MK1 brings to the table. They should have a very good idea about how the plane will shape up, once it achieves FOC, over the next 4-6 months. Majority of the goals for the FOC are already achieved.
Having this knowledge, if the IAF is still saying that it is not interested in anymore LCA MK1, beyond the contracted 40 nos., its a big negative vote for the LCA, coming from the IAF.

By all accounts, the LCA MK1, has shaped up to be a reasonable fighter aircraft, and will be superior in performance to the existing M2K in IAF inventory, except for payload capacity and range. It will exceed the performance of the MiG-21 Bison on all counts.

Given that the IAF is running short on squadron strength, their seemingly low interest and lack of confidence in the LCA MK1, seems odd.
To my novice mind, it seems the only plausible reason is that the IAF might feel that going the whole hog on the LCA, will mean curtains for the MMRCA acquisition.
At this point in time, MMRCA makes absolutely no sense. The Rafael is very good fighter aircraft, but the 30 Billion price tag, over the next 30 years, is simply not affordable. If the contract had been signed around 7-8 years ago, then it would made sense. The protracted testing and years of negotiations has basically killed the program.

Also, all the talk about the time it will take IAF to absorb the LCA and make it a real frontline fighter in IAF serice, also applies to the Rafael. Even if the contract for the Rafael is signed by March 2015, the first 18 will arrive by 2018 end. Hence Rafael can become frontline fighter for the IAF only beyond 2020 at the earliest. A shorter timeline as compared to the LCA, but still not before 2020 at the earliest.
The advantage with LCA MK2 will be that by the time it starts arriving in 2020-2022(hopefully), it will be almost ready for absorption in the IAF without delay, due to the MK1 having been in service for over 5 years.
Having 3-4 squadrons of the LCA MK1 will help the IAF tide over the crunch and train a whole lot of pilots for a future in which LCA will be a major part of the IAF.
Some the MK1 planes can later be used for the LIFT role and roles similar to MIGOFTU.

Whether we like it or not LCA and MMRCA have now certainly gotten intertwined. Is it worth opting for a plane that will cost around 700 crores and make us forever dependent on France, or go the whole hog for a plane that will be close enough in performance over a number of categories and will cost about 200 crores only. Not to mention the 1/4 cost of the weapons that the later will employ.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by srai »

Marten wrote:For people who're genuinely interested in understanding how the LCA did during certification.
(Folks who quote one para out of context should pay heed, to both the following content, and their abilities of comprehension (TM Somnath.)
3.4 Compliance of Air Staff Requirements
Air headquarters released the ASR of LCA on 1985. This broadly captures the qualitative requirementsof LCA. During induction to Indian Airforce, it is the role of CEMILAC to declare whether all the paragraph of ASR has been met. In this respect, RCMA(A/C) examined all the ASR requirements and established its compliance through design, analysis and testing (ground and flight).
5.0 Tasks for FOC
The clearance of LCA has been approached in two phases IOC and FOC. Most of the requirements for FOC have been met. While Safety and Performance is ensured for IOC, certain advance features likeAutopilot, carefree maneuvering, all weather clearance which includes, lightning and wet runway test and elimination of toe strike during ejection are yet to be demonstrated. These will be addressed for FOC. CEMILAC would follow the incremental and progressive approach for the clearance of the same for FOC.
Regarding the para quoted earlier without context - this relates to MIL Std. I leave it to the good sense of readers rather than having to explain this to well... folks who have an agenda.
3.3 Compliance of Military Standard /Specification
ASR calls for compliance to Military Standard. Also, following Military standard has a commercialviability that would enable world-wide operation of the aircraft and hence it is preferable to follow theserequirements. While taking up the task of design and development of LCA, the designers have taken the relevant Military standard into consideration vis- a- vis requirements specified in ASR.

A total of 43 main Military stds/specs. associated with several other standards were considered for design of aircraft and its system. RCMA(A/C) has taken a lead role to understand the compliance of these standards with respect to design of LCA and performance expected by airforce during operation of aircraft by squadron pilots. Each paragraphs of these standards were meticulously studied and correctly interpreted, only then approved for their compliance.

The compliance of the standard with short falls has been properly documented and have become part of system certification. Project Management team (PMT) of IAF have also helped the designers for correct interpretation of standards viv-a-vis the performance specified in ASR. The short falls have been scrutinized in depth. Insome cases the shortfall has been considered as design limitation, which may not be feasible to comply,but can be addressed in the next variant.
And now, for the real crux of the matter! Suitability and general ability (quotes from Cmde. Maolankar, Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj are already on this forum BUT if folks insist, we could add the links in the separate post).
Ministry of Defence - Press Release dated 20-Dec-2013
Since IOC-1, ‘Tejas’ has accomplished significant milestones. Till date, more than 2450 sorties have been completed to achieve the flight test goals towards IOC-2. The design issues were resolved with System Engineering approach and by periodical reviews with participation of external experts.

The salient features which have been achieved in IOC-2 include Safe flying up to High angle of Attack as mandated by the users. This has considerably enhanced the combat performance of the aircraft. The Flight control system evaluation has also been completed. The time for initial built-in test has been reduced considerably which enables faster turn around and enhanced operational readiness of aircraft. The Brake system has been improved significantly in terms of energy absorption capability during landing, thus ensuring prompt turn-around of the aircraft. Significant improvement in Cockpit ergonomic and lighting system has been accomplished for improved night flying. In-flight re-light capability was demonstrated to ensure enhanced safety and reliability of the aircraft. This is a major achievement. Avionics and Weapon system of the aircraft have been revamped for effective mission superiority. Helmet Mounted Display Sight (HMDS) has been fully integrated in Tejas and R73E missile firing has been successfully demonstrated using HMDS.

Multi Mode Weapon multirole capability of Tejas was demonstrated during its participation in Iron Fist. Air to Ground mission and Air to Air missions were demonstrated by dropping Laser Guided Bombs and R73E firing in single pass. Laser Guided Bomb firing has been achieved for IOC-2 to user’s satisfaction.
Aircraft readiness for missions in terms of its readiness and Operational Readiness Platform (ORP) and Turn Round Service (TRS) and easier maintainability has been achieved as per requirement thus enhancing operational readiness of the aircraft. Tejas has passed all the tests for “All Weather Clearance” of the aircraft. The Aircraft has been cleared for fly without any telemetry support.

IOC-2 shall enable Air Force to carry out air superiority and offensive air support missions, forward air field operations, all weather multi role operations, Electronic counter measures and night flying operations.

LCA Tejas is capable of flying non- stop to destinations over 1700 km away (Ferry Range). It's Radius of Action is upto 500 km depending upon the nature and duration of actual combat.

LCA is powered by the F404/IN20- a well proven turbofan engine, designed and manufactured by General Electric Aircraft Engines, USA. The Engine is modular in construction, consisting of six modules, ensuring easy maintenance. The F404-GE-IN20 is a low bypass turbofan engine, with augmented thrust provided by the afterburner.
Disclaimer: I do not believe the questions raised by many folks regarding capability of the aircraft. HAL might not be in a position to accelerate production.
As for those asking about how a larger order (more than 40 a/c) could improve capabilities - it might or not improve economies of scale, but a second line will definitely improve supplier abilities given that they can also invest in more efficient production methods. Operations Management 101 for those who are interested. LM, Boeing et al score over others here - the ability to keep your suppliers alive and kicking matters. We're not talking of two autoclave machines, just to be sure. Think about the 800 odd suppliers for parts.

More importantly, the straw man of "only 10 more years to go before the next super duper plane arrives" needs to be destroyed. This is Arjun redux - make no mistake about it.
We have a capable aircraft that can perform point defence, CAS, and intercept well. The only thing that keeps even the well wishers of the services from accepting this bird is the need to have that slightly better plane that is out there for a little more money from mod-papa's pockets. Nope. Cancel the MRCA order and get cracking whichever way you need to Mk1 AND Mk2.

Strangest part is that on Bharat Rakshak, we have people who are more forces-rakshak only. DPSUs and Research Labs are NOT from Pakistan.

Dump those strawmen of confidential ASRs with reqs missing - the IOC certificate has proven it meets requirements. PERIOD!
There has been enough shit floating around to malign both sides - think about what this bird means in terms of our two-front preparedness.
Well said!
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by srai »

Kartik wrote:
rohitvats wrote: First, production rate is not a stand-alone variable.

The ability of IAF to absorb a particular aircraft type is also a factor. What will IAF do with more planes at point X if they don't even have manpower to man these aircraft?
The first few pilots to convert to the Tejas Mk1 will be qualified instructors on other types who will be identified as the nucleus of the new Tejas Mk1 force. If the IAF cannot staff the first squadron with such experienced flight crew, that really is the IAF's issue.

Look at how the first Su-30K/MK squadron was staffed with experienced hands from various mounts, who used the first squadron's airplanes at a very high utilization rate and then eventually went on to form the nucleus of the newer squadrons that were coming up.

An experienced hand will not take too long to qualify on the Tejas Mk1, that one can be sure of. The aircraft itself is forgiving, easy to handle and the avionics are pretty much at the top of the pyramid as far as the current IAF orbat goes.
Another factor is the ability of OEM to solve the glitches that will definitely arise given that it's their first outing and they will also be working towards ensuring that entire ecosystem is in place and works like a well-oiled machine. HAL will have to ensure they can supply every item required along with the planes so that these a/c can be flown and utilized in an optimal manner.
That is a given, which is why Sulur is the first chosen base. HAL can depute teams to Sulur and get engineering work done quickly with less time taken for transporting those till a depot can be built up. That is where HAL has to stand up and win the IAF over. It can make or break the future of the Tejas in the IAF- if the first couple of squadrons report low availability and poor spares/repair support, then the IAF will not hesitate to use that against it in the future.

First - my argument is not against inducting more LCA Mk1.

I'm trying to address the erroneous notion that by simply ordering more LCA Mk1, IAF can arrest the decline in Squadron numbers in a timely manner. It will not. Next five years, from 2015 to 2020 are required for both the entities to sort out all the issues associated with new a/c type. If people feel that only thing that matters when it comes to development of a/c is it meeting IOC and FOC, then they're living in La La Land. agupta has already given a wonderful explanation of what constitutes a system.
But, the crucial thing is this- you need to get the system going. The LCA has seen both ADA and HAL occupied in the design and development to the detriment of the manufacturing, operationalisation and sustainment phases.

Had a phased approach been adopted, wherein the LCA team was given the goal of first opening the flight envelope with an emphasis on air-to-air capabilities with a WVR weapon integrated and then attempt to make the platform multi-role, perhaps we'd have seen a squadron already flying the LCA and the eco-system for sustainment activities already in place. Instead, the LCA team were told that the IAF wanted everything ready before they would induct the first batch itself. And so we have capabilities being developed which on most other fighters have been developed or are being developed, after the fighter had entered squadron service and a pool of pilots were already proficient on the type.

The focus has been on developing a multi-role fighter. Whereas if early induction was the IAF's priority, the focus should have been to get it into service with a set of capabilities that would, over a period of time, get upgraded and eventually the platform would be multi-role. That way you'd have seen an evolving Tejas Mk1 in service instead of having everyone's energies dedicated in evolving the Tejas Mk1 into a fully multi-role, fully capable fighter.
Here is a senior and illustrious IAF Squadron (45 Squadron) earmarked to receive Mk1 and waiting for a/c to roll out form HAL production line. The Mig-21 which shot down PN Atlantique in Gujarat in 1999 was from this Squadron. Commitment to LCA Mk2 is already there. And both IAF's and Navy's future requirement are riding on this type.
And they're waiting because they didn't want anything but a fully multi-role, IFR capable Tejas Mk1 from day 1.

Take a look at programs world-wide. Most fighters have evolved into full multi-role capability well after squadron service. the JF-17 was integrated with a WVR weapon and dumb bomb dropping capability when it joined service, the Su-35 still hasn't even attained IOC and is in RuAF service, the F-35 is in the user's hands without having attained IOC and everyone knows just how immature the Rafale F1 and Typhoon Tranche1 fighters were when it came to multi-role capability when they entered service.

There is something wrong with the IAF's own management of goals and targets for the LCA program. Perhaps it was sheer distrust in HAL and ADA's capabilities and fulfillment of promises (one couldn't blame the IAF entirely for that), but they literally have waited till a complete product is delivered to them.
Agree! LCA Mk.1 at IOC/FOC are already a "mature" product from a capability perspective. I don't really understand why the IAF is staunchly opposed to ordering more? Even if there are no further orders in the future, the IAF should at least keep that option open. Why can't the IAF be saying things like if LCA Mk.1 meets x criteria by x year we will order x number more???

I also don't really understand "no Plan B" attitude of the IAF. It is always necessary to have "Plan B" otherwise the IAF will keep getting stuck in the rut it is now.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

First, production rate is not a stand-alone variable.

The ability of IAF to absorb a particular aircraft type is also a factor. What will IAF do with more planes at point X if they don't even have manpower to man these aircraft?
In a perfect world that is all fine, I have no issues with all that.

BUT, for the past 60 years India, in general, and the MIC/Services in particular has never been a perfect world.

So, despite the warts all over, the IAF will have to bite that bullet real hard.

Secondly, I would suggest that "we" become a predominant view in discussions than "I" and "them" or "us" and "them" - very, very hard I know, but in the absence of an apex team to provide direction the IAF has to cooperate in broader matters.

Thirdly, just because the IAF is far more gung-ho on the MK-II it does not mean that the MK-II will solve their problems. There is that small chance that the MK-II will throw a wrench in their plans.

In short: For the sake of this industry, the IAF too has to feel some pain - just like the rest of us (tax payers facing the greatest in peace time) (as us that are paying for the F-35).
I'm trying to address the erroneous notion that by simply ordering more LCA Mk1, IAF can arrest the decline in Squadron numbers in a timely manner. It will not. Next five years, from 2015 to 2020 are required for both the entities to sort out all the issues associated with new a/c type. If people feel that only thing that matters when it comes to development of a/c is it meeting IOC and FOC, then they're living in La La Land. agupta has already given a wonderful explanation of what constitutes a system.

Secondly, the oft repeated argument about LCA Mk1 being better than Mig-21 etc. As IAF test pilots have said on record, it has better handling than even Mirage-2000. Fine. We've a wonderful aircraft. But we still have to put in place a complete system to exploit the machine. And that will take time.


This is not about the IAF, selection of air crafts, mix of air crafts, etc. Yes, the MK-I would be an appendix of sorts (IF I am to believe it is a near dud). It is about keeping the knowledge, experience, expertise, what-ever-is-there, from fading away and having to pay even more to restart the process.

However, along the way the MK-I will provide some relief, it is not that much of a dud to be a burden on the IAF - things could be far better, but some other part of the same body needs help so the IAF has to pull more than its weight.

A great example is the rafale. The French are providing a great example in this respect. IF the Rafale were not on a slow boil it should have faded by now.


With that I think I am done on thsi topic.


This is about letting the aero industry industry in India ripen. It is nearly there and needs a little help from the IAF. The IAF needs to pitch in.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by NRao »

Perhasp this is old news to some here .................

Tactical Missile Pragati Readied for Export
Earlier, apart from BrahMos missile, the DRDO had announced that the surface-to-air short range missile Akash can be exported. Now, the DRDO is getting ready to export Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, Prahar class of missiles and a number of other systems.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Sagar G »

Nobody here knows on which parameters the current Tejas doesn't exactly meet the ASR requirements but yet people are claiming that Tejas Mk.1 isn't ready to fight a war. No one has said so including IAF and only if they have valid reasons to show that Tejas Mk.1 fails to meet critical parameters which affects it's warfighting capability then only the IAF's stance of not ordering more Tejas Mk.1 is justified. Aero India 2015 is right around the corner, BRFites visiting now know what they must ask to the ADA men and Mao.

Till then savour the dumbass "suggestions" given by IAF regarding Mk.2.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Post by Indranil »

^^^ Nah! Your "suggestions" are the only wiseass ones here.
Post Reply