LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 15 Mar 2015 14:44

What roles an armed Hawk will be used for ??? Will those armed Hawks be also used for training as well as the roles which the IAF envisages or the armed ones will be separate from the training ones ??? If the roles of armed Hawk overlaps then what will be the airframe life of armed Hawks since obviously they are going to be stressed more than the unarmed ones ??? What will be the investment required to arm the Hawk trainers ??? And the most important question being, is this a critical requirement given the precarious financial condition of the state ???

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Mar 2015 14:51

eklavya wrote:The primary role of the Hawk will remain AJT, and they will not be transferred to frontline squadrons. This will only provide some additional war time flexibility (and the roles to be performed will be quite limited). The incremental cost will obviously be much less than $20m or $26m per aircraft.

Instead of doubling up the Hawk as a light attack aircraft what prevents a two seat Tejas Mk1 from being employed in a LIFT role instead? And just as importantly, as a replacement bird for the SKAT (utterly incorrigible decision to use Hawks).

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Mar 2015 14:52

.... weaponise its fleet of Hawk Mk 132 advanced jet trainers (AJTs) so they could be deployed on strike co-ordinated armed reconnaissance and close air support mission

All Hawks will be used for training in peacetime. In war time, it appears the idea is that some will be diverted for wartime duties. The instructors in the Hawk squadrons are obviously qualified fighter pilots.

Investment required not disclosed. I'm sure it will be evaluated from a technical and financial perspective, like all other projects.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Mar 2015 15:00

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:The primary role of the Hawk will remain AJT, and they will not be transferred to frontline squadrons. This will only provide some additional war time flexibility (and the roles to be performed will be quite limited). The incremental cost will obviously be much less than $20m or $26m per aircraft.
Instead of doubling up the Hawk as a light attack aircraft what prevents a two seat Tejas Mk1 from being employed in a LIFT role instead? And just as importantly, as a replacement bird for the SKAT (utterly incorrigible decision to use Hawks).

The Hawks are required for the AJT role anyway. The incremental investment to arm them provides wartime flexibility.

LCA is being inducted as a frontline fighter, why are you confusing it's role with the AJT?

I guess criticising everything the IAF does is second nature for some people on this board.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 15 Mar 2015 15:03

eklavya wrote:All Hawks will be used for training in peacetime. In war time, it appears the idea is that some will be diverted for wartime duties. The instructors in the Hawk squadrons are obviously qualified fighter pilots.

What Hawks need to be used for training in peacetime ??? Isn't the present training upto the standard that now Hawk's need to be used for it ??? And "wartime duties"

If Hawk's are ever deployed for wartime duties then it is clear signal that shit has hit the roof and IAF has been decimated. You want a Hawk to be deployed for wartime duties but had mucho problem when HAL proposed arming BTT for training purposes !!! Wallah such faith and logic behind supporting bunkum requirements.

eklavya wrote:Investment required not disclosed. I'm sure it will be evaluated from a technical and financial perspective, like all other projects.

Yeah and I am sure Britshits are going to earn a lot for a requirement which is not of any use and not even a critical one but unnecessary investment in foreign platforms when the same can be used for building up indigenous capabilities.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Mar 2015 15:11

What has Hawk's potential wartime role got to do with the basic training platform?

You want to use a basic trainer in wartime role but think Hawk is unsuitable?

Totally incoherent.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 15 Mar 2015 15:19

eklavya wrote:What has Hawk's potential wartime role got to do with the basic training platform?

What "potential" wartime role hain ??? You want to say that a Hawk is capable on it's own to down a frontline fighter of our adversarial air forces ??? Where did you get the idea that I == a hawk supposed wartime potential with BTT platform ??? Comprehension problem or willingly creating strawmen argument to troll and uselessly drag this "debate" ???

eklavya wrote:You want to use a basic trainer in wartime role but think Hawk is unsuitable?

Totally incoherent.

Yeah definitely trolling now, waste somebody else's time. If you cannot comprehend simple sentences then I am not going to reply, you can claim your win.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Mar 2015 15:21

eklavya wrote:The Hawks are required for the AJT role anyway. The incremental investment to arm them provides wartime flexibility.

LCA is being inducted as a frontline fighter, why are you confusing it's role with the AJT?

I'm talking about using it in lieu of the Hawk for the LIFT role. Post-AJT. It would have allowed for a smaller Hawk fleet and larger Tejas fleet.

I guess criticising everything the IAF does is second nature for some people on this board.

So you think the IAF is right to use the Hawk as SKAT's Kiran replacement, do you?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Mar 2015 15:32

After AJT, the pilots move to frontline squadrons.

Sometimes you argue for 2-stage training, and now you are arguing for 4-stage training?

The Hawk orders were placed in 2004 and 2010, and you are saying that in 2004/2010, the IAF should have changed its training syllabus, cut the Hawk fleet, and instead ordered 2-seat LCA (first LCA trainer prototype flight occurred on 26 Nov 2009)?

I would like to see the IJT as the Kiran's replacement, in all possible roles.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 15 Mar 2015 15:43

Viv S wrote:I'm talking about using it in lieu of the Hawk for the LIFT role. Post-AJT. It would have allowed for a smaller Hawk fleet and larger Tejas fleet.

I am sorry but i could not understand this part. What do we mean by smaller Hawk fleet. All the ~120 Hawk AJT were ordered by 2010 by IAF and NAVY so where is an attempt to increase the number or potential to reduce the fleet size. In which year could have Tejas potentially come into picture for LIFT role (AJT proposal dragged for 20 years) and how many AJTs would have been considered sufficient for training compared to the current numbers.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Mar 2015 17:17

eklavya wrote:After AJT, the pilots move to frontline squadrons.

Sometimes you argue for 2-stage training, and now you are arguing for 4-stage training?

The Hawk orders were placed in 2004 and 2010, and you are saying that in 2004/2010, the IAF should have changed its training syllabus, cut the Hawk fleet, and instead ordered 2-seat LCA (first LCA trainer prototype flight occurred on 26 Nov 2009)?

Number of training stages isn't the issue, its the expense and equipment involved that is key. And yes I am saying that the IAF should have reduced the 2010 order, upgraded its syllabus to include segments including hands-on training with higher grade avionics (instead of simulations) and supersonic flight regimes, and ordered 20-30 Tejas trainers with deliveries beginning as Hawk deliveries end.

I would like to see the IJT as the Kiran's replacement, in all possible roles.

How does the IAF's teflon judgement square with the absurd notion of operating an imported SKAT bird in lieu of domestic type like the Tejas?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Mar 2015 17:28

There is no question of using hawks as attack ac in war and training in peace unless all is lost.
To succeed as a unit the pilots must train together for attack missions full time as all frontline units do.
You cannot throw a few instructor pilots on a ad hoc basis at the problem.

Its more likely they will rejoin their old frontline sqdns to increase pilot numbers. Given good ac the gating factor is mostly experienced pilots esp if first week of a war goes hard

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Mar 2015 17:39

dhiraj wrote:I am sorry but i could not understand this part. What do we mean by smaller Hawk fleet. All the ~120 Hawk AJT were ordered by 2010 by IAF and NAVY so where is an attempt to increase the number or potential to reduce the fleet size. In which year could have Tejas potentially come into picture for LIFT role (AJT proposal dragged for 20 years) and how many AJTs would have been considered sufficient for training compared to the current numbers.

We were talking hypotheticals. Hawk deliveries will be carry on ti 2016-17. The Tejas trainer could have been in service by 2015 if early orders had been placed. That's 20-30 aircraft that could potentially have been ordered.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Mar 2015 17:53

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:After AJT, the pilots move to frontline squadrons.

Sometimes you argue for 2-stage training, and now you are arguing for 4-stage training?

The Hawk orders were placed in 2004 and 2010, and you are saying that in 2004/2010, the IAF should have changed its training syllabus, cut the Hawk fleet, and instead ordered 2-seat LCA (first LCA trainer prototype flight occurred on 26 Nov 2009)?
Number of training stages isn't the issue, its the expense and equipment involved that is key. And yes I am saying that the IAF should have reduced the 2010 order, upgraded its syllabus to include segments including hands-on training with higher grade avionics (instead of simulations) and supersonic flight regimes, and ordered 20-30 Tejas trainers with deliveries beginning as Hawk deliveries end.

I would like to see the IJT as the Kiran's replacement, in all possible roles.
How does the IAF's teflon judgement square with the absurd notion of operating an imported SKAT bird in lieu of domestic type like the Tejas?

Makes absolutely no sense to add an extra stage of training when the existing setup is working well (except of course the IJT stage). Trainees are transitioning well from AJT to the front line squadrons, so adding a new stage would be a waste of resources.

IJT would be better suited for SKAT than either Tejas or Hawk. SKAT needs to be as cheap as possible. However, it would only make sense to assign a/c to the display team once training operational requirements are met. This may well mean no SKAT for many more years.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Mar 2015 08:05

eklavya wrote:Makes absolutely no sense to add an extra stage of training when the existing setup is working well (except of course the IJT stage). Trainees are transitioning well from AJT to the front line squadrons, so adding a new stage would be a waste of resources.

The Hawk is already a done deal so altering it at this stage is not an option. However, had they decided to complement it with the Tejas, that would have worked perfectly well too.

IJT would be better suited for SKAT than either Tejas or Hawk. SKAT needs to be as cheap as possible. However, it would only make sense to assign a/c to the display team once training operational requirements are met. This may well mean no SKAT for many more years.

The IJT isn't here so its not relevant. The Tejas on the other hand is very much available. What sense does it make to have the national display team fly an imported trainer? All to save what... $6 mil per aircraft? Not to mention that in wartime, a Tejas-equipped SKAT would have been able to switch to an effective operational role (something even an upgraded Hawk will be poor at).

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Mar 2015 17:49

LCA or IJT will not be used for Skat till they spend years in service.

SKAT needs a tried and tested platform where they throw it around.

IJT - worst option - unknown new engine - will not happen for a long time

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 17 Mar 2015 10:07

Surya wrote:LCA or IJT will not be used for Skat till they spend years in service.

SKAT needs a tried and tested platform where they throw it around.

IJT - worst option - unknown new engine - will not happen for a long time

This is a misguided notion. The LCA has been flown by IAF for nearly 15 years. Hawk -- how many?

The skat dont have a fixed routine they must translate from kiran to Hawk. To think LCA is not aerobatic would be to close your eyes for every AI since 2000.

The dirty "S" word will pop up again. But airshow flying can kill you in a hundred other ways (the redbulls, the malaysian airshow just two recent examples). There is no reason to bring out the S-canon.

No, thats not the reason. Confidence in production quality is the problem. Which is another conversation.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 18 Mar 2015 21:54

Joy ho!

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 33s33 seconds ago New Delhi, Delhi

HAL has been told to increase Tejas output to 16 from next year. But they want more MK-I numbers committed.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 42s42 seconds ago New Delhi, Delhi

There is now some preliminary discussion on an improved MK-I with certain new systems and better maintenance.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 20s21 seconds ago New Delhi, Delhi

This will keep the HAL line buzzing till 2022 when Mk-2 production is expected to take off.

That means MK1+ in between MK1 and MK2.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Mar 2015 00:16

That's excellent news! Hopefully commitment will come. An extra order of 40 more Mk-1 will go a long way in improving our situation. Hopefully we won't see calls for extra mig-29 and hand-me-down qatari mirages.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Mar 2015 03:14

By FY2022 if production is boosted to 16/year starting FY17 then 2+6+16*6=104 LCAmk1 will need to be produced.

IN will be 8 initial NLCA mk1+10 potential further order=18nos.

IAF order will need to be minimum 86 nos up from present 40nos, i.e, 46 nos more.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Mar 2015 03:40

That means MK1+ in between MK1 and MK2.

Hope every plane - in some way - is better than the previous.

They need to ditch this silly MK-I stuff once and for all.

member_28788 · Post by **member_28788** » 19 Mar 2015 05:40

Planned obsolescence programs in forces never go as planned. Everything stretches, overshoots, everywhere. Who would have thought of having upgraded MIG-21s to bis std. or have jaguars for another decade right when we had inducted them.

We can debate LCA's obsolescence in an imaginary scenario, but in the real world schedules, that will not happen. If we induct more LCAs we might prove to be wiser in hindsight ten years down the line. and LCA can be upgraded at will all the time without even bothering about the cost.

Most decisive changes in aircraft tech in decades to come will be the radar tech, the BVR lethality, RWRs & other avionics and engine tech. All of these can and will ultimately come as upgrades to LCA then why fritter so much over induction.

If I can see you from 200Kms, fire a BWR from that distance and if you cant see me (cz i'm too small, single engined low heat signature plane), then it wouldnt matter much if I'm in a 5gen plane or a brick. I may be oversimplifying but the core point is upgrades will help me keep this plane longer than is estimated.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 19 Mar 2015 12:36

Jai Ho!

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 22 Mar 2015 22:54

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618

> Aerodynamics is not the main concern of the IAF via a via the Tejas MK-I. They want better maintainability & survivability aids.
> Both of these issues can be addressed to an extent in an improved Mk-I. See the push for a modern MAWS in this light.
> For instance even in the current series production Tejas Mk-Is, ADA believes that an engine change can be executed in under 2 hrs.
> It is also now being said that 36 out of the 40 MK-Is on order will be delivered in FOC standard.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Mar 2015 23:12

pankajs wrote:Joy ho!
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 33s33 seconds ago New Delhi, Delhi

HAL has been told to increase Tejas output to 16 from next year. But they want more MK-I numbers committed.
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 42s42 seconds ago New Delhi, Delhi

There is now some preliminary discussion on an improved MK-I with certain new systems and better maintenance.
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 20s21 seconds ago New Delhi, Delhi

This will keep the HAL line buzzing till 2022 when Mk-2 production is expected to take off.
That means MK1+ in between MK1 and MK2.

So ..........................

16 per year from next year?

And lines humming till 2022?

Assuming "next year" is 2017, then 6 * 16 = 96 LCAs? Plus the ones that have already mean delivered till 2017?

IF that math is right .............................. I like it.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 23 Mar 2015 00:27

Where is the money for 96 LCAs ? IAF doesn't even have enough squadrons to absorb this many aircraft and will have to raise a few new ones or retire some Migs asap.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 Mar 2015 06:12

Making an LCA takes 5 years (chaiwalla info) and so if the production is boosted from next year 2016 onwards, the LCA delivery table would be

2016 - 6
2017 - 6
2018 - 6
2019 - 6
2020 - 16
2021 - 16
2022 - 16
2023 - 16
2024 - 16
2025 - 16

then next year onwards, MK2 will appear (assuming it completes all testing by 2021 / 2022), so total of 120 MK1's or MK1+

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2015 09:32

What will happen to LCA induction plans if one LCA crashes?

Does anyone actually know the steps that are followed in India when an IAF plane crashes. Does anyone know what steps are followed in India when a yet to be inducted, not fully ready plane crashes before it is accepted into the IAF? I am talking about India. Not some other country.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Mar 2015 09:51

jamwal wrote:Where is the money for 96 LCAs ? IAF doesn't even have enough squadrons to absorb this many aircraft and will have to raise a few new ones or retire some Migs asap.

Apart from two squadrons already committed, I think IAF will have 2 more squadrons which can absorb the Tejas Mk1/Mk1.5. This would take the TOTAL to 80 a/c and should allow IAF to reach 40.5 Squadron strength.

Coming to production capability - IIRC, the standard turn-around time for HAL/indigenously produced components is 30 months. Assuming we can sort out the production capacity and timeline issue(s) in time (2015-16), any increment in production is likely to happen from 2018-19 time period on wards. You also need to factor how many F404-IN20 engines we have and what is the TAT for newer engines if these are ordered in current financial year.

This is how altered production capacity looks to me (88 a/c by 2022):

Fiscal Year/ / Per Annum//Cumulative

2014-15// 2
2015-16// 6 // 8
2016-17// 8 //16
2017-18// 8 //24
2018-19//16// 40
2019-20//16// 56
2020-21//16// 72
2021-22//16// 88

Basically, 2 additional squadron worth of a/c.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Mar 2015 09:56

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".programme.Realisation seems to have dawned upon all stakeholders in the LCA .V.little "pocketmoney" doled out ,and anything is better than a 50 yr old MIG-21 kept flying with duct tape and glue. As long as the DRDO/DPSUs don't use LCA funds for buying SUV's (see the media report today where the DRDO used money set apart for drones to buy SUVs!),with everyone pushing in the same direction to achieve 16/yr production rates,another 40MK-1s/improved Mk-1s can't hurt.
The uncertainities about MK-2's arrival,dates,testing,etc.as there is major weight shedding planned for it,with introduction of many new items (see an earlier post saying that only 25-40% of the Mk-1 will be in the Mk-2),it will be a major challenge to deliver as scheduled and with the promised capabilities. In such a situ,the "bird in the hand" is worth acquiring at least to save sqd. strength from further depleting.

As for the armed Hawks,every type is an asset. In a crisis they should be used where they can deliver.If some stand-off weaponry can be integrated,so be it. Some air forces have dispensed with the second-stage trainer using PC-21s ,etc.which are supposed to replicate jet performance. It does not look like the IJT is going to "appear sooner than later".It was missing at the air show.accidents. It has already reportedly had 3 accidents,If there is another,then "kaput"? If an imported bird is to be acquired instead,then it should have dual capabilities,used for close-support duties when required. There was some mention also about acquiring Tucano type turboprops for COIN duties,any news?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Mar 2015 10:16

Making an LCA takes 5 years now only because the assembly line hasn't yet stabilized. Besides, except for SP-1 and SP-2, all other LCAs have been evolving, which makes it harder to build. Then again, HAL apparently doesn't have machines to lay composites and hand laying is a more tedious process with (in general) lower quality. Once the assembly line stabilizes, a LCA should take around 3 years to build, with more automation coming in as the orders grow.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Mar 2015 10:17

rohitvats wrote:
Apart from two squadrons already committed, I think IAF will have 2 more squadrons which can absorb the Tejas Mk1/Mk1.5. This would take the TOTAL to 80 a/c and should allow IAF to reach 40.5 Squadron strength.

Coming to production capability - IIRC, the standard turn-around time for HAL/indigenously produced components is 30 months. Assuming we can sort out the production capacity and timeline issue(s) in time (2015-16), any increment in production is likely to happen from 2018-19 time period on wards. You also need to factor how many F404-IN20 engines we have and what is the TAT for newer engines if these are ordered in current financial year.

This is how altered production capacity looks to me (88 a/c by 2022):

Fiscal Year/ / Per Annum//Cumulative

2014-15// 2
2015-16// 6 // 8
2016-17// 8 //16
2017-18// 8 //24
2018-19//16// 40
2019-20//16// 56
2020-21//16// 72
2021-22//16// 88

Basically, 2 additional squadron worth of a/c.

Hi,

You can add to this the GOI's plan to have 250 Mk2s by 2025 for which it is prepared to spend 12 billion $. For which we have seen a few reports but not much by way of followup. As the procurement policy was not very clear about the pvt sector putting together a combat aircraft in the country.

But we can be reasonably sure that by the end of the next year, the policies can be streamlined and the capacities can be built. For the execution of such an plan. So the numbers looks like 330 LCA in various iterations, for the IAF.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 Mar 2015 12:38

shiv wrote:What will happen to LCA induction plans if one LCA crashes?

Does anyone actually know the steps that are followed in India when an IAF plane crashes. Does anyone know what steps are followed in India when a yet to be inducted, not fully ready plane crashes before it is accepted into the IAF? I am talking about India. Not some other country.

You need to expand the question to include which type and model and when the crash will occur

My opinion, TFWIW, an LCA Mk1 trainer crash on a training sortie will not do any damage to program, but if the LCA Mk2 testing sortie crash will close the program for ever

Like wise if MK1 crashes while the MK2 is already on the testing path, then it will only impact the MK1 continued production

If MK2 crashes with Kaveri, then Kaveri program will be impacted, no impact to LCA

But yes there are several scenarios and it will have varied impacts. LCA is on a thin wedge here, elephant in the room is how IAF & other stakeholders will view the crash

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Mar 2015 13:10

The better question is why should a crash of a combat jet have any impact on its life. Its not like none of the imported aircraft's have aver crashed.

There have been multiple crashes for multiple reasons. yet most of the platforms have continued to serve the IAF, for a long time. So why treat the LCA any different. That too after nearly 15 years of accident free flight record.

If it crashes, find out the reason and make sure that it doesn't repeat.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Mar 2015 13:32

IF India really wants a MIC they will work through a crash, else India will pay through her nose for imported planes or India will field a sub-par air force.

In the LCA, with every wart she has, India has a great option to build a mature, impact-full MIC.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 Mar 2015 14:58

Going by SARAS experience, any crash will stop the program effectively. Even if Rafale or Su-30MKI (it crashed too) crashes during test runs, it will not impact. It wont be same for LCA

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 23 Mar 2015 16:26

Pratyush wrote:The better question is why should a crash of a combat jet have any impact on its life. Its not like none of the imported aircraft's have aver crashed.

There have been multiple crashes for multiple reasons. yet most of the platforms have continued to serve the IAF, for a long time. So why treat the LCA any different. That too after nearly 15 years of accident free flight record.

If it crashes, find out the reason and make sure that it doesn't repeat.

Because it is designed and made in India. Made in India is bad onlee.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 23 Mar 2015 16:47

Kartik wrote:Making an LCA takes 5 years now only because the assembly line hasn't yet stabilized. Besides, except for SP-1 and SP-2, all other LCAs have been evolving, which makes it harder to build. Then again, HAL apparently doesn't have machines to lay composites and hand laying is a more tedious process with (in general) lower quality. Once the assembly line stabilizes, a LCA should take around 3 years to build, with more automation coming in as the orders grow.

The manual part is specific to tape laying or is the entire process hand lay-up? Question from a layman.

Manufacturing And Certification Of Composite Structures - Issues And Challenges [Aero India 2013] uploaded by Luptonga.

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 23 Mar 2015 22:54

@SJha1618

EADS has been roped in as a consultant for the LCA Navy Mk-2. It might get into production before the Tejas Mk-2. Go figure.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 23 Mar 2015 23:47

Abhay_S wrote:@SJha1618

EADS has been roped in as a consultant for the LCA Navy Mk-2. It might get into production before the Tejas Mk-2. Go figure.

For the record, BAE system consultant for IJT , so !!
Having a consultant and immediately mapping to early production vis a vis IAF version seems strange.
OT and sorry for that. - but still since navy LCA vs IAF LCA was mentioned above--- such hue and cry against Rafale, why not the same for Project 75I, which also is not a cheap deal. After all the navy has nuke sub tech now and experience from Scorpene + DRDO AIP.