LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

[Wickberg]

IAF needs to have at least one squadron operational for a couple of years before you can talk about exports. Sweden tried to sell Gripen to Finland in the early 90´s (to replace Drakens and MiG-21) before it was operational in the SwAF and it failed.In stead they bought F/A-18´s and now they are actually looking at the Gripen NG as the replacement of the Hornets. Who knows. Perhaps a LCA Mk.5 could be an export product 40 years from now?

if you'd just stuck to being rational, talking about how the IAF needs to induct the Tejas Mk1 and have it in service for some time before export nations take real interest, I'd have agreed with you. But the last statement you made pretty much proves that you're here to troll..something you've shown in the past as well. Admins, keep an eye out for this fellow.

Not trolling, just making observations and comparisons. The Gripen NG can be considered Gripen Mk.5 and Mk.6 and it took some 25 years after the original "Mk.1" and is now getting attention from foreign customers. Considering the annual production numbers claimed by HAL/ADA and the history of delays why is it so hard to believe in a LCA Mk.5 40 years from now?

[member_28722]

This is what the production rate plan is:

• 4 -> 2014-15
• 6 -> 2015-16
• 9 -> 2016-17
• 12 -> 2017-18
• 12 per year capacity -> post 2017-18

You can add a few months after production complete for delivery to the IAF since quality/validation testings need to occur prior to handover.

Thanks
This schedule makes sense as IAF is committed to the Mk2. HAL is also not asking IAF for more orders and neither is the Gov. It would be better to develop Mk2 on time to go into production in 2019. With Mk2, we should start with a second production line and both ultimately churning out 14-16 per year by 2022. An achievable aim.

[member_20292]

Not trolling, just making observations and comparisons. The Gripen NG can be considered Gripen Mk.5 and Mk.6 and it took some 25 years after the original "Mk.1" and is now getting attention from foreign customers. Considering the annual production numbers claimed by HAL/ADA and the history of delays why is it so hard to believe in a LCA Mk.5 40 years from now?

yes. Your post reeks of respect for us humble brown folk in our caves trying to make aircraft.

Now, run along .

[Wickberg]

Not trolling, just making observations and comparisons. The Gripen NG can be considered Gripen Mk.5 and Mk.6 and it took some 25 years after the original "Mk.1" and is now getting attention from foreign customers. Considering the annual production numbers claimed by HAL/ADA and the history of delays why is it so hard to believe in a LCA Mk.5 40 years from now?

yes. Your post reeks of respect for us humble brown folk in our caves trying to make aircraft.

Now, run along .

Yeah, you keep telling yourselves that. Still. it does´nt change the facts. How much you want to draw the racist-card or wathever. The LCA is still not in operational service and its 1st squadron won´t be in years. And some of the people here actually fantazazing about exporting the plane?! And some even thinks it´s an indigenous Indian aircraft, jesus. The two main parts of a fighter is its engine and radar, how much Indian brainpower has been put into that?

[Indranil]

Almost the same as the Swedes have put into the Gripen. Let us all keep this civil and discuss planes only and not the people behind it.

[Avarachan]

Yeah, you keep telling yourselves that. Still. it does´nt change the facts. How much you want to draw the racist-card or wathever. The LCA is still not in operational service and its 1st squadron won´t be in years. And some of the people here actually fantazazing about exporting the plane?! And some even thinks it´s an indigenous Indian aircraft, jesus. The two main parts of a fighter is its engine and radar, how much Indian brainpower has been put into that?

Wickberg, I recommend that you study the respective FCS's of the Tejas and the Gripen. The Tejas's FCS is Indian. The Swedes had to get British (et al.) help for the Gripen's FCS.

[vasu raya]

personally, i don't think khan will raise any objections over sales to Vietnam, but if we don't secure a sale within in the next few years we may have to worry about the LCA competing with khan's aircraft for sales to Vietnam.

the challenge at this stage is figuring the likely nos due to the lead times involved, also the way the first Su-30 squadron was 'worn out' and returned to Russia is something we can do with the exported Mk1s in future

This is what the production rate plan is:

• 4 -> 2014-15
• 6 -> 2015-16
• 9 -> 2016-17
• 12 -> 2017-18
• 12 per year capacity -> post 2017-18

You can add a few months after production complete for delivery to the IAF since quality/validation testings need to occur prior to handover.

Thanks
This schedule makes sense as IAF is committed to the Mk2. HAL is also not asking IAF for more orders and neither is the Gov. It would be better to develop Mk2 on time to go into production in 2019. With Mk2, we should start with a second production line and both ultimately churning out 14-16 per year by 2022. An achievable aim.

This says that the Migs will not be phased out squadron for squadron with the Tejas

[Thakur_B]

Yeah, you keep telling yourselves that. Still. it does´nt change the facts. How much you want to draw the racist-card or wathever. The LCA is still not in operational service and its 1st squadron won´t be in years. And some of the people here actually fantazazing about exporting the plane?! And some even thinks it´s an indigenous Indian aircraft, jesus. The two main parts of a fighter is its engine and radar, how much Indian brainpower has been put into that?

Infinitely more than what the swedes have even attempted for Gripen. Remind me again, where exactly is the engine and radar for Gripen NG coming from ?

[Viv S]

Almost the same as the Swedes have put into the Gripen.

Much more really.

[srai]

This is what the production rate plan is:

• 4 -> 2014-15
• 6 -> 2015-16
• 9 -> 2016-17
• 12 -> 2017-18
• 12 per year capacity -> post 2017-18

You can add a few months after production complete for delivery to the IAF since quality/validation testings need to occur prior to handover.

Thanks
This schedule makes sense as IAF is committed to the Mk2. HAL is also not asking IAF for more orders and neither is the Gov. It would be better to develop Mk2 on time to go into production in 2019. With Mk2, we should start with a second production line and both ultimately churning out 14-16 per year by 2022. An achievable aim.

First Tejas rolls out, but production line at mercy of further orders

...

Says a top MoD official: “This is a test case for defence manufacture. We have a Defence Production Policy, a Defence Export Policy, and a Make in India slogan. But none of these are of use unless the IAF recognises the benefits of ordering more Tejas to keep the assembly line running.”
...

[Wickberg]

Almost the same as the Swedes have put into the Gripen. Let us all keep this civil and discuss planes only and not the people behind it.

I have not claimed anything else, nor has SAAB. SAAB is just a company who put a multirole jetfighter together with the hopes to sell it, it did and still does. I still go back to my original post, if the LCA is ever gonna get export-orders it has to be an mature operational fighter in service in the IAF. And I don´t see that coming within at least a 5 year period. It´s the talk about LCA is gonna be an sure export-success and being an "indigenous Indian project" on this board that makes me cringe. I love that fact that India (and South Korea, China, China/Pakistan, Japan etc) is producing jet fighters/concept. Sick and tired of the old US, Russia monopoly and love the diversity, but let ourselves not get to bigheaded. At the present even the JF-17 seems more likely to get its first export-order than the LCA...

[Viv S]

I have not claimed anything else, nor has SAAB. SAAB is just a company who put a multirole jetfighter together with the hopes to sell it, it did and still does.

How much Swedish 'brainpower' went into it, considering that the radar was British and the engine American? Because most (ignorant?) people including the Swedes seem to consider the aircraft indigenous to Sweden.

I still go back to my original post, if the LCA is ever gonna get export-orders it has to be an mature operational fighter in service in the IAF. And I don´t see that coming within at least a 5 year period.

If it is to be an export success, the planning (in terms of customization, production and marketing) has to begin now, not five years in the future.

[Viv S]

All your posts are quite fine. Except for the last lines.

He's put indigenous Indian project in quotes in his last post. You see that as fine?

[member_20292]

why should wickberg NOT be banned for trolling?

[Kartik]

Yeah, you keep telling yourselves that. Still. it does´nt change the facts. How much you want to draw the racist-card or wathever. The LCA is still not in operational service and its 1st squadron won´t be in years. And some of the people here actually fantazazing about exporting the plane?! And some even thinks it´s an indigenous Indian aircraft, jesus. The two main parts of a fighter is its engine and radar, how much Indian brainpower has been put into that?

you really had to go do this, didn't you? Now we have to expose the Gripen for what it really is--a product heavily reliant on international suppliers and designers, with not very significant Swedish content. Remove those international suppliers and Sweden would never have gotten the Gripen into service for another decade and half.


ENGINE
- Gripen C/D's engine- F-404 derivative with some work done by Volvo Flygmotor to increase thrust and for birdstrike requirements. Effectively an American engine since GE retained technical responsibility for the engine and Volvo was primarily entrusted with some testing/development and manufacturing parts upto 35% of the engine's value.
I won't go into the developmental troubles in developing the RM12 variant - like the fan blade cracks, "thrust droop" and resonance issues since those are par for the course for any product development program.

Volvo Flygmotor has now completed l,400hr of bench testing on the RM12 engine, which is a General Electric
F404 modified to meet Swedish requirements. the front end is beefed up to withstand birdstrikes better, and thrust is up by 10 per cent on the F404.

AIRFRAME

- Wing design, wing torsion box, fuel tank installation, electrics, hydraulics- British Aerospace

The wing is a joint Saab/British Aerospace development. BAe is building wings for the first two prototypes, and is responsible for design of the wing torsion box and installing fuel tanks, electrics, and hydraulics.
Saab designs the control surfaces, pylons, and the wing/fuselage joints and fairings. After completion of the prototype articles, production of the wing will pass to Saab's Linkoping plant entirely.

-Carbon Fiber material from Ciba Geigy of Switzerland


AVIONICS

- PS/05A- Radar - 30% work by Ferranti of Italy. Ferranti involved in the design of the signal data processor and the scanner mechanism.

Ferranti is to share in development of the radar for Sweden's JAS 39 Gripen. It will have about 30 per cent of
the radar, under an agreement signed with radar maker LM Ericsson. Ferranti will invest its own
money in development and production of its radar share, aiming to make a profit on subsequent sales.

The multimode pulse- Doppler set being worked on in conjunction with Ferranti uses some of the technology developed by the latter for Blue Vixen, which is to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier.

- Triplex redundant Fly-by-wire system with single analog channel- developed by Lear Siegler of the US

The Gripen's flight control system computers are produced by the US firm Lear Siegler,as is the system in
Israel's Lavi next-generation fighter. Unlike Gripen, the Lavi will have a quadruplex computer.
Hokborg explains that Sweden went for triplex rather than quadruplex because "we wanted to have as simple a system as possible without compromising on safety. We strongly believe it is sufficient," he
says. "It is a good and flexible system."

Of course, right after this, the first prototype crashed thanks to a bug in the FBW software.

- Heads Up Display and 3 MFDs- developed by Hughes Aerospace

-Stick, throttle and HOTAS controls - Page Engineering of UK

The UK firm Page Engineering, an AB Electronic Products subsidiary, will develop the stick and the throttle lever for the first 30 aircraft.

- PCBs for the Gripen avionics system- Ferranti of Italy

As for the original Gripen being over weight, here we go

Any problems with Gripen?
Tommy Ivarsson: "Well, the weight is still slightly over what it should be, but every day we find ways of trimming it back. It will be in spec, because it has to be." Can't Saab use aluminium-lithium alloys for the metal parts of Gripen, which is 30 per cent composite construction? "I wish we could. That would solve the problem overnight and give us plenty in hand. But the fact is that there is no aluminium-lithium available. Not in sufficient flight-proven quantities. It's around, but, as I say, it's not been approved for flying yet".

Of course, we know how Saab execs went around the world with PowerPoint presentations in hand claiming that the Gripen NG would weigh something and then the actual Gripen E ended up being more than 1000 kgs over that weight.

We haven't even started picking the Gripen E apart and see what all comes from where all..radar, engine, EW equipment, canopy, ejection seat, undercarriage, weapons..

[Wickberg]

I have not claimed anything else, nor has SAAB. SAAB is just a company who put a multirole jetfighter together with the hopes to sell it, it did and still does.

How much Swedish 'brainpower' went into it, considering that the radar was British and the engine American? Because most (ignorant?) people including the Swedes seem to consider the aircraft indigenous to Sweden.

I still go back to my original post, if the LCA is ever gonna get export-orders it has to be an mature operational fighter in service in the IAF. And I don´t see that coming within at least a 5 year period.

If it is to be an export success, the planning (in terms of customization, production and marketing) has to begin now, not five years in the future.

I can not be a spokesperson or be accounted for what other people have said. My only point is to point out (no pun intended) is that some members on this forum needs to get off their high horses and realize that the LCA is never gonna be a success until it´s in full service within the IAF. And actually, I have not seen a real strive for that to happen (officially). So go ahead, ban me for trolling or wathever, it´s just an outsiders view of the LCA-project...

[Cain Marko]

First Tejas rolls out, but production line at mercy of further orders

...

Says a top MoD official: “This is a test case for defence manufacture. We have a Defence Production Policy, a Defence Export Policy, and a Make in India slogan. But none of these are of use unless the IAF recognises the benefits of ordering more Tejas to keep the assembly line running.”
...

Thanks for that article, but I I remain a bit skeptical, seems like one of Shukla's tactics to push DRDO products, which I don't consider a bad idea perse, but there is not a single source therein with a name except a mysterious MOD official.

Like I said, a standing order for 40 birds remains. Not any different from the mki. More will come, possibly even mk1s

[Wickberg]

Yeah, you keep telling yourselves that. Still. it does´nt change the facts. How much you want to draw the racist-card or wathever. The LCA is still not in operational service and its 1st squadron won´t be in years. And some of the people here actually fantazazing about exporting the plane?! And some even thinks it´s an indigenous Indian aircraft, jesus. The two main parts of a fighter is its engine and radar, how much Indian brainpower has been put into that?

you really had to go do this, didn't you? Now we have to expose the Gripen for what it really is--a product heavily reliant on international suppliers and designers, with not very significant Swedish content. Remove those international suppliers and Sweden would never have gotten the Gripen into service for another decade and half.


ENGINE
- Gripen C/D's engine- F-404 derivative with some work done by Volvo Flygmotor to increase thrust and for birdstrike requirements. Effectively an American engine since GE retained technical responsibility for the engine and Volvo was primarily entrusted with some testing/development and manufacturing parts upto 35% of the engine's value.
I won't go into the developmental troubles in developing the RM12 variant - like the fan blade cracks, "thrust droop" and resonance issues since those are par for the course for any product development program.

Volvo Flygmotor has now completed l,400hr of bench testing on the RM12 engine, which is a General Electric
F404 modified to meet Swedish requirements. the front end is beefed up to withstand birdstrikes better, and thrust is up by 10 per cent on the F404.

AIRFRAME

- Wing design, wing torsion box, fuel tank installation, electrics, hydraulics- British Aerospace

The wing is a joint Saab/British Aerospace development. BAe is building wings for the first two prototypes, and is responsible for design of the wing torsion box and installing fuel tanks, electrics, and hydraulics.
Saab designs the control surfaces, pylons, and the wing/fuselage joints and fairings. After completion of the prototype articles, production of the wing will pass to Saab's Linkoping plant entirely.

-Carbon Fiber material from Ciba Geigy of Switzerland


AVIONICS

- PS/05A- Radar - 30% work by Ferranti of Italy. Ferranti involved in the design of the signal data processor and the scanner mechanism.

Ferranti is to share in development of the radar for Sweden's JAS 39 Gripen. It will have about 30 per cent of
the radar, under an agreement signed with radar maker LM Ericsson. Ferranti will invest its own
money in development and production of its radar share, aiming to make a profit on subsequent sales.

The multimode pulse- Doppler set being worked on in conjunction with Ferranti uses some of the technology developed by the latter for Blue Vixen, which is to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier.

- Triplex redundant Fly-by-wire system with single analog channel- developed by Lear Siegler of the US

The Gripen's flight control system computers are produced by the US firm Lear Siegler,as is the system in
Israel's Lavi next-generation fighter. Unlike Gripen, the Lavi will have a quadruplex computer.
Hokborg explains that Sweden went for triplex rather than quadruplex because "we wanted to have as simple a system as possible without compromising on safety. We strongly believe it is sufficient," he
says. "It is a good and flexible system."

Of course, right after this, the first prototype crashed thanks to a bug in the FBW software.

- Heads Up Display and 3 MFDs- developed by Hughes Aerospace

-Stick, throttle and HOTAS controls - Page Engineering of UK

The UK firm Page Engineering, an AB Electronic Products subsidiary, will develop the stick and the throttle lever for the first 30 aircraft.

- PCBs for the Gripen avionics system- Ferranti of Italy

As for the original Gripen being over weight, here we go

Any problems with Gripen?
Tommy Ivarsson: "Well, the weight is still slightly over what it should be, but every day we find ways of trimming it back. It will be in spec, because it has to be." Can't Saab use aluminium-lithium alloys for the metal parts of Gripen, which is 30 per cent composite construction? "I wish we could. That would solve the problem overnight and give us plenty in hand. But the fact is that there is no aluminium-lithium available. Not in sufficient flight-proven quantities. It's around, but, as I say, it's not been approved for flying yet".

Of course, we know how Saab execs went around the world with PowerPoint presentations in hand claiming that the Gripen NG would weigh something and then the actual Gripen E ended up being more than 1000 kgs over that weight.

We haven't even started picking the Gripen E apart and see what all comes from where all..radar, engine, EW equipment, canopy, ejection seat, undercarriage, weapons..

.
As I said, I have never claimed otherwise. The fact still remains, the SwAF got its fighter they wanted (otherwise they would have gotten the F-16 or the F/A-18) and SAAB continued to produce fighter jets, not only to Sweden but to many other countries as well.
What´s the goal of the LCA-project? To replace the MiG-21 fleet? To improve the IAF force? To better the Indian avionics.industry?
Has it done one of these goals? If yes, good work now you only have two more goals to achieve. If no, it´s a bust, move on to better projects....

[Cain Marko]

As for Mr. Wickberg, I will just put it down to some insecurity and plenty of flaming - some countries have already expressed interest in the tejas, including Germany.

[Wickberg]

As for Mr. Wickberg, I will just put it down to some insecurity and plenty of flaming - some countries have already expressed interest in the tejas, including Germany.

Yeah, and India expressed, (how many interests?), during the MRCA despite having several own projects in the pipe. See, this is the thing I´m talking about, Do you really think Germany would buy the LCA and why?

[Viv S]

I can not be a spokesperson or be accounted for what other people have said. My only point is to point out (no pun intended) is that some members on this forum needs to get off their high horses and realize that the LCA is never gonna be a success until it´s in full service within the IAF.

Can you point out who on the thread or forum said that the LCA will be a success without being in 'full service' with the IAF? And can you then point out how many aircraft should be produced before a fighter aircraft becomes 'eligible' for exports? (So that I can then point out the aircraft that were marketed for export, often successfully, before that production limit was achieved.)

And actually, I have not seen a real strive for that to happen (officially). So go ahead, ban me for trolling or wathever, it´s just an outsiders view of the LCA-project...

Actually, its the repeated insinuations about the Tejas being some sort of Israeli or American gift to India, as opposed to an aircraft developed by (the very Indian) ADA and allied agencies, that amounts to trolling.

[vishvak]

This is also a good enough reason to invest heavily in engines tech. Better to improve our own exclusive engines than others that are sold to others still. We should look at new Russian engines for 5-gen fighter jets as a valid alternative for Tejas too, even if it means just to learn as much as possible. Perfecting multiple engines will make sales of Tejas appear more competitive still. Ignore the naysayers when the whole world is interested in the Tejas, including Germany, since Germany is one of the most industrial advanced countries.

[Viv S]

See, this is the thing I´m talking about, Do you really think Germany would buy the LCA and why?

Light Strike & Training: Alpha Jet replacement. Its a role currently performed by due-for-retirement Tornados with pilot training being carried out in the US. As to the why, its the cheapest fighter-trainer in the world (costs only slight more than BAE Hawk), and funding is an issue for the German military.

[shaun]

What is the current funding for LCA ?? For LCH, hal have invested from it own coffers , the reason cited is that they have big orders , i think its just one side of the story . LCH is derived from Dhruv with which HAL have tested domestic as well as some export successes. With LCH they feel the same confidence because its designed in house with proven technologies . Anyway ,HALs helicopter division contributing a large share of profit for HAL.

[srai]

^^^

HAL is funding HTT-40 from its own coffers as well. I think this is a growing trend with DRDO/HAL/OFB because in the Indian context it is not typical for the armed forces to sanction a project and pay some of their money up-front. There is also a lead time required for R&D which is not feasible from "official sanction" date to delivery timeline especially when the armed forces have plenty of "uber" options to choose from aboard. I think the lesson being learnt is that they need to be more proactive with anticipating the need and using that to do R&D on critical technologies and rapid low-cost prototyping/proof-of-concept for demo and further development. Opens a door for export-oriented products as well.

[HKumar]

As for Mr. Wickberg, I will just put it down to some insecurity and plenty of flaming - some countries have already expressed interest in the tejas, including Germany.

Yeah, and India expressed, (how many interests?), during the MRCA despite having several own projects in the pipe. See, this is the thing I´m talking about, Do you really think Germany would buy the LCA and why?

I have an outsider view too (inspite of my handle). I actually agree with the gist of your post about LCA not export ready until it proven operationally with IAF. But you come across as a bitter sore loser with your reasoning. There was/is no need to put down others... even after being corrected multiple times on bare facts... You seem to use Gripen as a gold standard for comparison. This is silly and absurd.

With history of Saab and access Swedes have to NATO technologies and 14B US $s, It is surprising that it took that long time to develop and most importantly that long to sell the darn thing. Bribing foreign buyers sealed the deal in many instances. Compare that to funding for LCA, the technology embargo and technical difficulties in first time fighter development, the Gripen starts to lose some of that sheen.

The chances that, a first/second generation fighter, from a country with no previous history of fighter (actually proven winged aircraft IMO) development and whose AF hasn't whole hardheartedly embraced the fighter, will be sold to other AFs especially western AF, are low. The buyer AF needs to buy into the culture that comes with the aircraft - training, maintenance, spares, updatability and reliability. Until this capability and workflow is in place, It is hard to visualize selling aircraft.

[Viv S]

What is the current funding for LCA ?? For LCH, hal have invested from it own coffers

The LCH was/is developed by HAL, which is a PSU that can afford to invest company funds in the program. The Tejas in contrast, was developed by ADA/DRDO which is conglomeration of research labs. Little commercial activity involved, so their funding comes almost exclusively from the govt. They don't have any 'coffers' of any significance, from which to further invest in the LCA program.

[shaun]

^^^

HAL is funding HTT-40 from its own coffers as well. I think this is a growing trend with DRDO/HAL/OFB because in the Indian context it is not typical for the armed forces to sanction a project and pay some of their money up-front. There is also a lead time required for R&D which is not feasible from "official sanction" date to delivery timeline especially when the armed forces have plenty of "uber" options to choose from aboard. I think the lesson being learnt is that they need to be more proactive with anticipating the need and using that to do R&D on critical technologies and rapid low-cost prototyping/proof-of-concept for demo and further development. Opens a door for export-oriented products as well.

Funding is always an issue , for national projects like LCA blank cheques should be issued !!!

[Avarachan]

Now we have to expose the Gripen for what it really is--a product heavily reliant on international suppliers and designers, with not very significant Swedish content. Remove those international suppliers and Sweden would never have gotten the Gripen into service for another decade and half.

Kartik, thanks for this great post. I didn't know that the Gripen program had such extensive foreign assistance.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1750497

[Wickberg]

I have an outsider view too (inspite of my handle). I actually agree with the gist of your post about LCA not export ready until it proven operationally with IAF. But you come across as a bitter sore loser with your reasoning. There was/is no need to put down others... even after being corrected multiple times on bare facts... You seem to use Gripen as a gold standard for comparison. This is silly and absurd.

With history of Saab and access Swedes have to NATO technologies and 14B US $s, It is surprising that it took that long time to develop and most importantly that long to sell the darn thing. Bribing foreign buyers sealed the deal in many instances. Compare that to funding for LCA, the technology embargo and technical difficulties in first time fighter development, the Gripen starts to lose some of that sheen.

The chances that, a first/second generation fighter, from a country with no previous history of fighter (actually proven winged aircraft IMO) development and whose AF hasn't whole hardheartedly embraced the fighter, will be sold to other AFs especially western AF, are low. The buyer AF needs to buy into the culture that comes with the aircraft - training, maintenance, spares, updatability and reliability. Until this capability and workflow is in place, It is hard to visualize selling aircraft.[/quote]

Well, I´m not bitter nor a sore loser. There is simply no need of that. Why comparing it to Gripen? Well, it´s a single engined multi-role jet fighter who started at the same time by countries outside the USA/Russia/Euro-conglomerates, it even shares most of the enginedesign. It´s not easy to find any other jet to compare with, it would be the JF-17 but I´m afraid this forum would go bananas if anyone would. You could also compare it the Yugoslavian Novi Avion or the Israeli Kfir but we all know how those ended up...
You are right that we agree on the fact that LCA has to become a mature fighter within the IAF before being exported, but I have to disagree some about the SAAB history. SAAB has never been accused or proven guilty of bribing foreign customers. BAe on the other hand, (when the company handled the Gripen sales), were proven to have their hands down in some Austrian pantpockets.

[Viv S]

It´s not easy to find any other jet to compare with, it would be the JF-17 but I´m afraid this forum would go bananas if anyone would.

Feel free to compare. Rest assured, no one is going to go 'bananas'. Here I'll start you off -

1. The JF-17 was developed in China, by Chinese scientists and engineers. China has had a head-start over India when it comes to aircraft development (after Indian efforts in the '60s were abandoned), a fact acknowledged by most posters here. And they've been backed by far larger budgets.

2. Metal airframe vs composite airframe.

3. 3 channel FBW including an analog element vs full quadruplex system.

4. 4000 hr air-frame life. (3000 hrs according to some sources.)

5. No trainer version.

6. Entered service without HMS, LDP, BVR weapon or refueling probe. BVR missile to be available only on the Block 2 variant, to be delivered next year. Refueling probe to be available late 2016. No timeline released for HMS & LDP integration.

The difference here is the PAF being badly short on 4th gen aircraft was willing to induct two squadrons of interim variants with very limited capability to make up numbers, while the IAF insisted on the full IOC standards being achieved first.

The Tejas still remains a far more capable aircraft, delivered in the same time-frame as the definitive variant of the JF-17.

[Indranil]

Wickberg,

Actually, I agree with you that sophisticated combat aircraft from novices rarely make it in the export market within the first few years of its production. And, I think it is impractical of us to imagine that LCA will be any different. This is why I think IAF should field as many planes as we can manufacture. This removes the requirement for export orders and advertises the LCA to the world. I also agree with you that as it stands today, the JF-17 has a better chance of export than LCA. Simply because it has been fielded and not because of its capabilities. Another reason why I have been screaming for early adoption of the LCA Mk1.

But there is reason for optimism. LCA enters the market in a niche. It is phenomenally cheap for its capabilities. The JF-17 is a generation behind and still costs almost the same. Infact the LCA costs only 35% more than the Scorpion! Guess, where the first orders for Scorpion are likely to come from! The nearest competitors for the LCA is the FA-50 which is 20-30% more expensive, and even then there are export orders from the get go. The Gripen costs more than twice the FA-50!

Finally I come to answering your important questions:

Q. What´s the goal of the LCA-project?
A. The primary goal was to be able to design and build combat aircraft in India. We have succeeded in many aspects and failed in some. Let us examine the 'failures'. Looks like an indigenous AESA radar called Uttam is a certainty on Mk2 (right now they are looking for cooling mechanisms). This would not have been possible without the hybrid MMR radar on Mk1 which is designed in India and has Indian and Israeli parts. Kaveri was not a "failure" either. It generates 100% and 96% of its designed dry and wet thrust. Albeit, it needs to stand the test of time. But guess what our UCAVs are powered by. We could not have built these UCAVs without Kaveri. We could not build our Nirbhay cruise missiles without Laghu Shakti turbofans which is designed by GTRE (the same folks who designed Kaveri). Meanwhile HAL is currently building (not designing) prototypes of a 25 kN low-bypass engine.

You probably understand why we are proud of these achievements. We all wanted these earlier. But, there is a plethora of reasons behind that. All I can say is that we are out of the woods now.

Q. To replace the MiG-21 fleet?
A. Even if I said that the LCA Mk1 is equivalent to a Gripen A/B, would you not agree that it is more than enough to replace our Mig-21s? IAF says it will only accept a Gripen NG as a replacement for Mig-21.

Q. To improve the IAF force?
A. Of course it is critical to the ongoing modernization of the IAF. The IAF has come around in the last 5 years with its attitude towards LCA. You will see hundreds of LCAs being fielded by IAF. And that is a certainty.

Q. To better the Indian avionics.industry?
A. I think you meant the aero-industry in general. We have regained design capability after many decades. Without LCA, AMCA, IJT, IUSAV etc. would not have happened. We have gained expertise in aerodynamics, structures, composites, FBW, hydraulics, glass cockpit, antennas and sensor fusion. We have built many Tier I and Tier II suppliers. We know how to test fly and certify aircraft. We have made huge gains!

[nachiket]

6. Entered service without HMS, LDP, BVR weapon or refueling probe. BVR missile to be available only on the Block 2 variant, to be delivered next year. Refueling probe to be available late 2016. No timeline released for HMS & LDP integration.

The difference here is the PAF being badly short on 4th gen aircraft was willing to induct two squadrons of interim variants with very limited capability to make up numbers, while the IAF insisted on the full IOC standards being achieved first.

Well the IAF is also critically short of fighters. Isn't that why the Rafale acquisition is so important? But the IAF never seems to have entertained the idea of inducting a squadron of IOC level Tejas fighters so that they will have a headstart in making it operational once the the final config LCA's start coming in. They could have gained valuable experience in its flight and maintenance characteristics which will now happen after the first FOC Tejas is delivered.

This insistence on the LCA having AAR and full multirole weapons capability right from the beginning seems at odds with how other AF's around the world induct their fighters. Indeed, it seems at odds with how the IAF itself has inducted fighters in the past. An indigenous product deserves some special treatment. But the IAF seems to have gone the wrong way in giving it special treatment.

Just as a data point, the Rafale couldn't drop LGB's until about 6-7 years after the French AF received its first one.

[Viv S]

Well the IAF is also critically short of fighters. Isn't that why the Rafale acquisition is so important? But the IAF never seems to have entertained the idea of inducting a squadron of IOC level Tejas fighters so that they will have a headstart in making it operational once the the final config LCA's start coming in. They could have gained valuable experience in its flight and maintenance characteristics which will now happen after the first FOC Tejas is delivered.

No dispute here. And even if we take it that what's done is done, fact still remains that its still treating the Mk1 merely as a stepping stone to the Mk2, despite public lamentations about its falling squadron strength.

Just as a data point, the Rafale couldn't drop LGB's until about 6-7 years after the French AF received its first one.

And that too only because the AF induction was deferred to service the French Navy's more urgent requirements. Damocles integration allowing the aircraft to independently designate targets was completed a full ten years after it entered service with the Navy.

[member_20292]

People should notice the LCA wing design from all aspects to realize just how original it is in design.

Compare to Japan's, Koreas , Taiwan's and PRCs F16 rip offs.......

[Cain Marko]

Just had a thought - why ADA did not go with the EJ200 (which I sure hoped it would): because the GE-404-IN20 has pretty much the same thrust level ~ 90kgf? Also, why do some reports suggest that the PV6 is the first LCA with the new (IN-20) engine? I thought this particular engine was integrated years ago?

[nachiket]

Just had a thought - why ADA did not go with the EJ200 (which I sure hoped it would): because the GE-404-IN20 has pretty much the same thrust level ~ 90kgf? Also, why do some reports suggest that the PV6 is the first LCA with the new (IN-20) engine? I thought this particular engine was integrated years ago?

PV6 is the first trainer with the IN-20 engine. The later single seat LSP's (7 onwards?) already fly with the IN-20.

[srai]

Just had a thought - why ADA did not go with the EJ200 (which I sure hoped it would): because the GE-404-IN20 has pretty much the same thrust level ~ 90kgf? Also, why do some reports suggest that the PV6 is the first LCA with the new (IN-20) engine? I thought this particular engine was integrated years ago?

PV6 is the first trainer with the IN-20 engine. The later single seat LSP's (7 onwards?) already fly with the IN-20.

Talking about T:W, here are some comparison numbers for equivalent class:
F404 turbofan engines (F404-102/402, RM12, F404-IN20)

Code: Select all

Aircraft               Weight (empty)          Engine          Thrust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KAI/LMTAS T-50           6,470 kg           F404-GE-102        78.7 kN
Saab Gripen C/D          6,800 kg            F404/RM12         80.5 kN
LCA MK1                  6,500 kg           F404-GE-IN20       84 kN

History Of The F-16 Fighting Falcon

...However, the Lightweight Fighter Mafia will point out that thrust-to-weight ratio is not the only indicator of aircraft performance. The figure doesn’t account for the effects of wing loading and aerodynamic drag. A better measure of performance is energy rate (or Ps), which is a function of thrust, weight, velocity, and drag. Every external payload extracts a performance price in aerodynamic drag....

[Ramu]

"@ajaishukla: Recd terrible news that my friend Air Cmde Parvez Khokhar found murdered in Banglr. Was LCA chief test pilot and India's air attache to Pak."

[Aditya_V]

If True, Arjun programme Director, LCA chief Test Pilot, BARC engineers and Vizag Nuke submarine engineer incident indicates there is a definate mafia out killing these persons which must be investigated.