Indian Military Aviation

[Karan M]

Now this statement makes me wonder - aren't the newer engines, whether the 414s or the EJ-200s supposed to have even better SFC than the older 404 variants? IOWs, despite higher power, they are advertised as more economical - at mil power and in full AB. This is being disputed by AM Rajkumar (and others in the past iirc) it seems. Or am I missing something?

CM.

I think AM is making comments on the general principle, more thrust more fuel, not referring to the GE series in specific. In fact, the entire article is mostly on a general level about trade offs.

[Avarachan]

Karan M, I agree with you regarding the LCA MK1. Hopefully, the IAF will order a few more squadrons of it. (Either that, or acquire some squadrons of used Mirages or Mig-29's.) This IAF philosophy of "waiting for the best" is dangerous given the speed with which the Chinese can now churn out fighter aircraft.

The book, "Poorly Made in China," is an insightful look into the Chinese mentality. The author, an American consultant named Paul Midler, recounts many hilarious stories about Chinese manufacturing issues. But the one thing he is in awe of is the skill of the Chinese in copying other's products, and the raw speed with which they can then manufacture those copies. The IAF needs to keep this in mind, and adjust accordingly.

http://www.paulmidler.com

[Indranil]

It all depends on Tejas Mark I evaluation of the IAF and when Tejas Mark II comes along. If Tejas Mark II would be nearing IOC 2014-2015, we can atmost expect 1 or 2 more squadron to keep the assembly line open till series production of LCA Mark II starts off. This is provided that the LCA Mark I wins over the IAF. I would be very happy with 60-80 Tejas Mark I.

If Tejas Mark I does well and the IAF inputs through operationalizing the Tejas Mark I goes into Mark II. I am pretty sure we will see more than 200 Tejas Mark II. or MarkII derivatives (like the twin engine one people have been talking about).

Dreaming ... am I May be, but something tells me this might come true if HAL can start producing 28 or so LCA per year sans 2015-2016.

[Karan M]

Karan M, I agree with you regarding the LCA MK1. Hopefully, the IAF will order a few more squadrons of it. (Either that, or acquire some squadrons of used Mirages or Mig-29's.) This IAF philosophy of "waiting for the best" is dangerous given the speed with which the Chinese can now churn out fighter aircraft.

Agreed! The only issue I have with used Mirages & MiG-29s is the fact that former cost an arm and a leg to upgrade (and we have to, as the original systems are going out of production year by year) and the latter, may be a better/less expensive choice as MiG is still making these aircraft, but some GOI beancounter would counter them with MRCA being purchased and hence why is this needed etc etc. IMO, the LCA MK1 offers the best bang for the buck & would get the necessary clearances if the IAF really pushes for them, plus make a difference to our combat capability and industrial planning.

The book, "Poorly Made in China," is an insightful look into the Chinese mentality. The author, an American consultant named Paul Midler, recounts many hilarious stories about Chinese manufacturing issues. But the one thing he is in awe of is the skill of the Chinese in copying other's products, and the raw speed with which they can then manufacture those copies. The IAF needs to keep this in mind, and adjust accordingly.

http://www.paulmidler.com

Many thanks for this link & the book reference. I do recall reading about it, but the excerpts on google books are fascinating.

[shiv]

This may sound like a stupid question. Is there any official (ADA/HAL/IAF) using the names LCA "Mark I" or "Mark II"? If so please point me to a link.

[Karan M]

Shiv

P Subramanyam (ADA head) has used the terms himself. The exact quote, from a recent interview (available, if you search for the quote below: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&o ... rweight%3F) in October 2010 mentions both the designations. I repeat the quote.

What is being done to address concerns that the LCA is overweight?
When you consider the amount of features and functionality given in the Tejas, we feel the weight is reasonable. We had planned initially for a fighter in the 5.5 tonne category but currently it has grown to about 6.5 tonne. The penalty of the weight increase is visible in one or two performance parameters. Some parameters like the sustained turn rate and the severity of other performance requirements earlier are not there now because of change in weapon systems. Particularly guided missiles, which today are all aspect missiles slaved to Helmet Mounted Display Systems (HMDS), advanced electronics and radar. Due to the weight growth, there have been certain deviations in the performance parameters. The IAF has validated these deviations to be compensated by advanced weapon systems which were not available in 1985. We will not incorporate any changes in the Mk-1 version as it is ready for production. In the Mk-2 version of Tejas, we expect to see weight savings of around 300 to 500Kg which will come from weight optimisation in the aircraft structures alone.

Hope this helps.

[Singha]

excellent post - clarifies the empty weight, the performance parameters and the workaround and is recent quote from impeccable source.

[vardhank]

Rohitvats,
Looks like we have a problem here. After your post came up, I went off thinking. Then I came back and read vic's and kanson's posts - so now it appears AVM Rajkumar's story isn't entirely complete. It doesn't appear that it was the DRDO's unilateral decision to go for a more advanced fighter. It came up because the IAF had planned on a 'bridge' to the LCA and dropped that idea.
But fine. Mea culpa - I shouldn't have risen to your bait and firmed up my stance on the IAF delaying the LCA, which I admit is not something I can back up. Perhaps I'll find the posts/articles that led me to think this, but for now, I'll take back what I said.

However, my original post was something larger, about the overall planning and strategy of the IAF - as I said, you went down this one branch, and we didn't look at the rest at all. Given vic and kanson's posts at least, and given what I remember from earlier discussions on BRF and keypubs (nothing again that I can back up with saved data), my main thrust seems fairly accurate.
Do you contest that a parallel project would have been a better idea? That the IAF should have insisted on getting the simple Ajeet replacement that AVM Rajkumar's testimony talks of, leaving the other tech to be developed as a side project?
Do you contest that the decision not to buy/produce more Mirages and instead looking to the MMRCA was not an ideal one when we had problems with numbers?
This is what I mean by stewardship, not the one channel we've hurtled down in this discussion.

[Kanson]

Regarding the *low cost* alternative for Mig-21/Ajeet line from Rajkumar, we went for composites as it upto 20% cheaper material wise compared to conventional materials and has more durability. Everything was done with some meaning and not the way he reported.

[rohitvats]

Rohitvats,

Looks like we have a problem here. After your post came up, I went off thinking. Then I came back and read vic's and kanson's posts - so now it appears AVM Rajkumar's story isn't entirely complete. It doesn't appear that it was the DRDO's unilateral decision to go for a more advanced fighter. It came up because the IAF had planned on a 'bridge' to the LCA and dropped that idea.

Good Sir, I have quoted verbatim from AM Rajkumar's book and nowhere does it say that IAF wanted a 'bridge' to LCA. Kanson has posted what he thinks....I don't know whether he has info/data points to back that up. The opinion I have is based on what AM Rajkumar wrote in his book....you can form contrary opinion.

But fine. Mea culpa - I shouldn't have risen to your bait and firmed up my stance on the IAF delaying the LCA, which I admit is not something I can back up. Perhaps I'll find the posts/articles that led me to think this, but for now, I'll take back what I said.

The 'bait' that you refer to was put in for the very purpose that you have a look at the basis of your assertions. It is honorable of you to accept the mistake. As I said earlier (and Rahul M), there is enough material for valid criticism of IAF - some of which is covered by Rajkumar himself. But then again, as Karam M said, all that is history now.

However, my original post was something larger, about the overall planning and strategy of the IAF - as I said, you went down this one branch, and we didn't look at the rest at all. Given vic and kanson's posts at least, and given what I remember from earlier discussions on BRF and keypubs (nothing again that I can back up with saved data), my main thrust seems fairly accurate.

No sir, it does not. In the words of AM Rajkumar, the seeds of delay were sown the day we opted for doing everything at one go for LCA. Plus, ofcourse, the story about FBW is another aspect to it. As for IAF wanting gold plated stuff, what you term as gold plated is pretty "normal" in todays time. The aircraft is entering service in 2011 and not mid 90s. You don't drive by looking into rear view mirror, do you? So, how come IAF should settle for something today which represents a generation older stuff? As for the force planning and projection on part of IAF, what exactly is wrong with that? I hope you do know that all that IAF wanted many-many moons ago was Mirage-2000. But the babus sat on it (nothing unusual). And now you have the dog and pony show in the form of MMRCA. Why lay the blame at the doorsteps of IAF?

Do you contest that a parallel project would have been a better idea? That the IAF should have insisted on getting the simple Ajeet replacement that AVM Rajkumar's testimony talks of, leaving the other tech to be developed as a side project? Do you contest that the decision not to buy/produce more Mirages and instead looking to the MMRCA was not an ideal one when we had problems with numbers?

Again, why blame the IAF for MMRCA fiasco? As I said earlier, IAF wanted the very Mirages you talk about; the MOD never showed any enthusiasm for it. So, what gives?

On the side project - can the DRDO undertake such R&D developments? Does the MOD allow it, in absense of demand from IAF? I don't know. Someone more informed can answer. But why blame the IAF for it? They asked for a replacement of Ajeet/Mig-21, DRDO/ADA promised LCA (inspite of reservations on part of IAF - documented as such in AM Rajkumar's book) and we are where we are. On a side note - if LCA suffered so much in terms of funding, where would have the funds come from for a parallel project?

[SriSri]

Boeing Offers F/A 18 Naval Variant for Indian Navy Fighter Jet Requirement

[vardhank]

Rohitvats,
You call my information hearsay. How is yours different? It's the memoir of a man who may have seen things in a different light, or might have his reasons for not putting the entire picture in (note: I'm not accusing AVM Rajkumar of anything - such reasons are often perfectly benign). Neither of us has a time-machine to go verify any of this. I'm forming an opinion based on my sources of info, you're forming one based on yours. As I've said before, I don't have access to a lot of military sources, so I'm willing to accept your facts as genuine at least, even if they aren't supplying the full picture.
A few posts ago, you mentioned Kanson was one of the people who had backed up his opinions - now you're saying he's just posted what he thinks. How's the snow, then?
Like I said, I'm willing to defer to your sources for the moment. However, it doesn't make sense for you to allow only an opinion supported by the sources you consult, and to say that on opinion supported by contrary sources is wrong.
I have my view, you have yours. Fair enough. No one's put me on a jury here - my opinion doesn't particularly count. Neither does yours, unless you ARE on part of some body that's looking into such things. If you are, you'd do well to check contrary sources as well. I don't think people like Kanson and Kartik (read his post in the LCA thread today, re the JF-17, where he says, "They only did one thing- keep the design specs achievable and give the program full-hearted support, unlike the IAF.") are coming up with opinions out of thin air.

[Austin]

Regarding the *low cost* alternative for Mig-21/Ajeet line from Rajkumar, we went for composites as it upto 20% cheaper material wise compared to conventional materials and has more durability. Everything was done with some meaning and not the way he reported.

Well I am sure Rajkumar would know better then most other here would known on Tejas , isnt it ?

[chackojoseph]

Air Commodore R Radhish takes over as CO of Kalaikunda Airbase

Air Cmde Radhish is a fighter pilot who was commissioned in June 1985 after passing out from the Air Force Academy and has flown over 2500 hours. He has flown Ajeets, Mig-23s and Mig-27s.

[Jagan]

Air Cmde Radhish is a fighter pilot who was commissioned in June 1985 after passing out from the Air Force Academy and has flown over 2500 hours. He has flown Ajeets, Mig-23s and Mig-27s.

Some names are very familiar. Ejected out of an Ajeet in 87

[chackojoseph]

Some names are very familiar. Ejected out of an Ajeet in 87

You could change R to Radhish.

[Kanson]

Regarding the *low cost* alternative for Mig-21/Ajeet line from Rajkumar, we went for composites as it upto 20% cheaper material wise compared to conventional materials and has more durability. Everything was done with some meaning and not the way he reported.

Well I am sure Rajkumar would know better then most other here would known on Tejas , isnt it ?

what next? You going to ask to toll the bells, do maha arthi and fall flat at his altar?

If you disagree with my statement, better then counter that by proving how costly composites are than the conventional materials. Having respect doesn't mean i have to agree with everything he says.

He came to the scene from 90s onwards. He was not there during Project Definition phase which happened in 80s. Whatever he says about PD phase is not from his first hand experience and may not be accurate.

Second, being from IAF, it comes as natural tendency to toe the parent org line. This is natural to everyone, i'm not complaining. When there is diverse views, it is better to take the opinion from both sides to have a proper judgment at hand, rather than engaging in rhetorical statements.

To examplify:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-t ... -i/250153/

The book also points out that as early as 1994, the Air Force was informed that the project was running behind time and the indigenous fighter would not be available for induction till the next decade.

As reported, Rajkumar's info states only in 1994, the project status was communicated to IAF. But earlier i provided proof that the status was communicated as early as 1991. Presenting it once again.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/[b]1991[/b]/1991%20-%203003.html
LCA delays push Indian air force toward MiG-21 upgrade

Indian air force considers upgrade of MiG-21 fleet

The Indian air force is considering carrying out an extensive upgrade to part of its fleet of almost 500 Mikoyan MiG-21 Fishbed fighter aircraft in the wake of delays to the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme.

Areas being considered for modernisation on MiG-21s include avionics, engines and airframe; in the case of the latter, one possibility being studied is wing re-shaping to improve manoeuverability. Avionics upgrades could see the fitting of a Western radar, while options for a new powerplant include the Klimov RD-33, which powers the MiG-29, 48 of which are already in service with the air force, and the Turbo-Union RB.199.

The first production LCA is not now expected to fly until 2005. Two technology demonstrators are being built and are expected to be ready in 1995-6. Indian minister of defence Sharad Pawar has told the Indian parliament in New Delhi that a final decision on the number of prototypes to be built will be taken after the flight trials of the demonstrators. In the meantime, India is still expected to begin some MiG-21 retirements in 1995 as scheduled.

The Indian Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal N C Sun, says that the air force combat capability would in no way be weak ened following LCA programme delays, but adds that there is a move to upgrade the MiG-21s. Another factor which is likely to be fuelling air force desires to fill the capability gap until the LCA enters service is interest by the Pakistan air force in procuring upgraded F-7 fighters from China (Flight International, 16-22 October). The F-7 is the Chinese copy of the MiG-21.

Sharad Pawar assumed office as Defence minister in 1991 and demitted office in 1993.

I'm not going to the extent of saying, Rajkumar is wrong even though it appears he is but i merely point out that there are more than one view and Rajkumar only represents one particular view. Unless you heard out every view, you may not know what really happened.

Further, the first delay to LCA project happened here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement for the LCA were not finalised until October 1985. This delay rendered moot the original schedule which called for first flight in April 1990 and service entry in 1995; however, it also proved a boon as it is gave the ADA time to better marshal national R&D and industrial resources, recruit personnel, create infrastructure, and to gain a clearer perspective of which advanced technologies could be developed indigenously and which would need to be imported.

I wonder, if the ASR issued in 1985 as well as in late 1970s are for a low-cost replacement for Mig-21/Ajeet as mentioned by Rajkumar, then why it took so long for issuing the ASR in 85, if there is already an ASR for the same replacement done in 1970s.

[rohitvats]

Rohitvats,

You call my information hearsay. How is yours different? It's the memoir of a man who may have seen things in a different light, or might have his reasons for not putting the entire picture in (note: I'm not accusing AVM Rajkumar of anything - such reasons are often perfectly benign).

Neither of us has a time-machine to go verify any of this. I'm forming an opinion based on my sources of info, you're forming one based on yours. As I've said before, I don't have access to a lot of military sources, so I'm willing to accept your facts as genuine at least, even if they aren't supplying the full picture.

Good sir, you have not been able to provide any back up for all the points you raised and accused IAF of wrt Tejas, you have faulty premise on the MMRCA and IAF future planning and you are calling the points posted by me as heresay? You can choose not to believe AM Rajkumar but I do hope you have a solid reason for that apart from plain ego - otherwise, the loss is yours, not mine.

A few posts ago, you mentioned Kanson was one of the people who had backed up his opinions - now you're saying he's just posted what he thinks. How's the snow, then?

There is enough material and analysis posted by Kanson (Kanson, sorry for your name being dragged here) on which I can form an opinion of him. But that does not mean I agree to whatever he says. On the IAF wanting Mirage level performance-is that what IAF wanted from start? Or added once it realized that the product is going to come in quite some time in future? So, the point does not have meaning without these qualifiers. But, I am not interested in this historic debate because it serves no good. And that is why I never questioned him on this.

Like I said, I'm willing to defer to your sources for the moment. However, it doesn't make sense for you to allow only an opinion supported by the sources you consult, and to say that on opinion supported by contrary sources is wrong.

Good point - what is that contrary source? Is that not what I have been asking from you since the inception of this debate? Is an anonymous poster on BRF a source? Or a book by someone who has been involved with Tejas programme a better source -especially when, it is obvious from reading his book that he does not have an axe to grind against anyone - least of all DRDO?

I have my view, you have yours. Fair enough. No one's put me on a jury here - my opinion doesn't particularly count. Neither does yours, unless you ARE on part of some body that's looking into such things. If you are, you'd do well to check contrary sources as well.

Quite right - but when you post your views on the forum, others have the right to challenge you on the same. And it is your duty to provide back-up or reasons for your assertions. To just say that this is my POV because I feel so, is like sticking your head in the sand like an Ostrich.

I don't think people like Kanson and Kartik (read his post in the LCA thread today, re the JF-17, where he says, "They only did one thing- keep the design specs achievable and give the program full-hearted support, unlike the IAF.") are coming up with opinions out of thin air.

No, they are not and I'm aware of them. But did you also read that post by Karan M about all this being history and beyond 2000 there was full support from IAF for the programme.

This is my last post on the topic. This is not going anywhere.

[Austin]

To be fair to Rajkumar he knows better than any thousand link you can give me on this subject and then trying to put up your case.

Even though he may have entered the scene in 90 he has long associating with the project and being an Airforce man has this feet firmly on the ground.

One can easily argue that PS will toed ADA line since he is from scientific background and that comes natural to him.

But the end result is for all to see , no Mk1 beyond 40 odd aircraft and now the next big leap of faith is in Mk2 projected to come out in 2016 or 2018.

Which means IAF is without Tejas when it badly needs it in face of depleting squadron strength.

So P Rajkumar statement carries more credibility and value when you see the end result.

[Kanson]

To be fair to Rajkumar he knows better than any thousand link you can give me on this subject and then trying to put up your case.

Even though he may have entered the scene in 90 he has long associating with the project and being an Airforce man has this feet firmly on the ground.

So P Rajkumar statement carries more credibility and value when you see the end result.

This is your opinion. You can have your opinion. But don't ask me to toe your line of thoughts. Rajkumar could be anyone but not the only one.

One can easily argue that PS will toed ADA line since he is from scientific background and that comes natural to him.

But the end result is for all to see , no Mk1 beyond 40 odd aircraft and now the next big leap of faith is in Mk2 projected to come out in 2016 or 2018.

Which means IAF is without Tejas when it badly needs it in face of depleting squadron strength.

This is another set of half-baked statements just made for the purpose of making argument.
I provided a link where the then drdo chief saying beyond 2000 IAF and drdo is in synch. Whatever be the results and whatever be the decisions, it was/is taken in consent with IAF. If IAF wants the aircraft in 2018 it is their decision.

[shukla]

X-post

India to built two test ranges of electronic warfare systems
Business Standard/ Press Trust of India

India would build two ranges for testing radar-based electronic warfare systems as it seeks to strengthen its capability in the field, seen to be vital in war scenarios. One range would come up in Chitradurga in Karnataka and another in Tandur in Andhra Pradesh, which would test "non-communication" and "communication" EW systems, respectively, a key defence official said today.

These two would be part of the 4,000-acre aeronautical test range in Chitradurga, some 200 km from here, and the 8,000-acre one in Tandur, some 135 km from Hyderabad. At present, EW systems are tested in the IAF range in Gwalior in a limited way. Once the two new testing ranges (in Chitradurga and Tandur) are operational in 2012-13, experimental and R&D tests can be conducted, said Prahlada, Chief Controller, R&D (Ae & SI), Defence Research and Development Organisation.

Speaking at the India National Electronic Warfare Workshop (EWWI-2010), he said an investment of Rs 200 crore each is expected in the two test ranges. "Electronic Warfare is becoming a very important area because... You may have all weapons but if somebody jams you (the weapons), you are as good as useless. Before firing the missile, you are already decimated," he said. "Without electronic warfare, you cannot win a war. Once you have it (EW capability), you have to test it, you can't wait for a war to test it," Prahlada said.

He said the present EW systems have been integrated with MiG-27 fighters and operational flights are slated next year. They would be integrated with MiG-29 fighters and the light combat aircraft next year. In 2012, Prahlada said India would fly a fourth-generational EW system, which is being developed by Defence Avionics Research Establishment and Defence Electronics Research Laboratory.

Prahlada also said DRDO was expecting a budget of Rs 9,000 crore in 2011-12 in the area of strategic systems and tactical defence.

[vic]

I think that LCA mark-1 should be considered for filling in the numbers like we did with Akash missile. ADA is already angling for 60 LCA Mark-1, and I think that is the right road to go on!

[Austin]

This is your opinion. You can have your opinion. But don't ask me to toe your line of thoughts. Rajkumar could be anyone but not the only one.

I am fine with that , I too don't see the need to toe your line of thoughts

I provided a link where the then drdo chief saying beyond 2000 IAF and drdo is in synch. Whatever be the results and whatever be the decisions, it was/is taken in consent with IAF. If IAF wants the aircraft in 2018 it is their decision.

They cant get the MK2 any earlier even if IAF wanted to have it , so its more or less fait accompli

[Kanson]

I am fine with that , I too don't see the need to toe your line of thoughts

Good then.

They cant get the MK2 any earlier even if IAF wanted to have it , so its more or less fait accompli

That is the case even for MMRCA. So what's the fun?

[Rahul M]

vardhank, exactly which source is your opinion based upon ? you said you have your own sources and you chose to believe those as against that of AM Rajkumar (!! I suppose you know who he was ?)
in that case your sources better be good ones.

[Austin]

They cant get the MK2 any earlier even if IAF wanted to have it , so its more or less fait accompli

That is the case even for MMRCA. So what's the fun?[/quote]

The fun part would be a fighter with decades of inservice operational experience and a production line that can run parallely in both countries if required , compared to a new fighter that hopefully gets delivered by then.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

Further, the first delay to LCA project happened here.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas)

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement for the LCA were not finalised until October 1985. This delay rendered moot the original schedule which called for first flight in April 1990 and service entry in 1995; however, it also proved a boon as it is gave the ADA time to better marshal national R&D and industrial resources, recruit personnel, create infrastructure, and to gain a clearer perspective of which advanced technologies could be developed indigenously and which would need to be imported.

I wonder, if the ASR issued in 1985 as well as in late 1970s are for a low-cost replacement for Mig-21/Ajeet as mentioned by Rajkumar, then why it took so long for issuing the ASR in 85, if there is already an ASR for the same replacement done in 1970s.

Kanson, you're relying on wikipedia to arrive at a conclusion. Question is - to whom the ASR should have been sent?

From AM Rajkumar's book:

IAF approached HAL in late 1970s (ACM Latif was CAS from 1978 to 1981) for the Mig-21 replacement. Post inputs from aeronautical engineers, GOI took decision to develop something like LCA. IAF issued AST - Air Staff Target to HAL - which contained preliminary set to objectives and operational requirements. It was the job of HAL to appraise the Air HQ whether the objectives can be met based on inhouse technologies or new R&D will be involved (domestic and foreign input).

The HAL assessed that the AST could not be met in the given timeline and would require not only harnessing the industrial base of the nation to develop the required technologies but also great amount of time and resources. It is then they agreed to setting up of seperate programme management agency for LCA.

Dr. Arunachalam prevailed upon GOI to set up the ADA in 1985 and entire set-up in place - including the short-listing of foreign partner. To this ADA, IAF issued ASR in 1985 after consultations with DRDO, MOD and HAL.

So, how could have the non-existent ADA marshalled national resources and done all the exotic things?

[SriSri]

Air Force 22 Attack Helicopter Deal - Field Trials for Boeing AH-64 Apache Longbow Helicopters Conducted

[Kanson]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas)

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement for the LCA were not finalised until October 1985. This delay rendered moot the original schedule which called for first flight in April 1990 and service entry in 1995; however, it also proved a boon as it is gave the ADA time to better marshal national R&D and industrial resources, recruit personnel, create infrastructure, and to gain a clearer perspective of which advanced technologies could be developed indigenously and which would need to be imported.

I wonder, if the ASR issued in 1985 as well as in late 1970s are for a low-cost replacement for Mig-21/Ajeet as mentioned by Rajkumar, then why it took so long for issuing the ASR in 85, if there is already an ASR for the same replacement done in 1970s.

From AM Rajkumar's book:
........
Dr. Arunachalam prevailed upon GOI to set up the ADA in 1985 and entire set-up in place - including the short-listing of foreign partner.

hmm..1985? If everyone here can agree with this, i have no issues.

From AM Rajkumar's book:
.............
To this ADA, IAF issued ASR in 1985 after consultations with DRDO, MOD and HAL.

It still didn't address the question of starting date for preparing the ASR. Every activity must have a start date. From your excerpts from the book..
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 60#p983360

When some of the leading aeronautical personalities approached PM IG in the early 1980s with a request to be given a chance to prove their design capabilities, she took the bold step of asking them to design a state of the art fighter for the IAF.

The planners at the AirHQ got to work and issued Air Staff Requirement (AST) for a cost effective replacement for the Ajeet and MiG-21. The aeronautical scientists and engineers did not agree with that approach, and wanted to utilize the opportunity to bridge the technology gap that had opened up between India and the advanced countries of the world since the Marut(HF-24) programme of the 1960.

So the planners at AirHQ went to work to issue ASR after Indra Gandhi gave a nod for building modern aircraft. ASR was finalized in October 1985. IG was assassinated in October 1984. Even If we go by this timeline it is one year.

[Kanson]

That is the case even for MMRCA. So what's the fun?

The fun part would be a fighter with decades of inservice operational experience and a production line that can run parallely in both countries if required , compared to a new fighter that hopefully gets delivered by then.

against the cost of ? LCA Mk1 FOC is 2 yrs after IOC. Before any MMRCA bird can be produced in India (i.e. min 2 yrs after the purchase of MMRCA) LCA Mk1 will be flying in Sqd service.

Mk2 which will stand shoulder to shoulder with any MMRCA is projected to cost around 25 million USD only.

[shukla]

Ozone Depleting Substances Substitution Clause in Indian RFPs
Defenseworld

For new weapon systems in the pipeline, inclusion of a clause in RFPs for provision of alternatives is being considered. The use of recycled Halon recovered from phased-out or downgraded aircraft and equipment is being planned. OEMs of existing weapons system are being asked to find suitable alternatives for full life-cycle support in respect of Halons, stated the Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik in Delhi today.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is adopting a multi-pronged strategy to combat ozone depletion including limiting the use of Halon to mission critical uses, tighter control laws and incorporating accountability towards phase-out of ODS (Ozone Depleting Substances) said the Air Chief. While highlighting initiatives taken by the IAF, and encouraging alternatives, the Air Chief however, clarified, “Mission accomplishment remains paramount for the Armed Forces. Substituting an ODS would only be done, if it doesn’t impinge on operational effectiveness of the system in question.”

[SriSri]

Army Transport Helicopters Deal - Boeing Offers CH-47 Chinooks

[Austin]

against the cost of ? LCA Mk1 FOC is 2 yrs after IOC. Before any MMRCA bird can be produced in India (i.e. min 2 yrs after the purchase of MMRCA) LCA Mk1 will be flying in Sqd service.

PS has stated in the Force interview that Mk1 will get FOC by 2014 ,MMRCA production should start in full swing by 2015-16 and if required they can in parallel run the production line in host country and India if HAL cannot deliver the numbers needed by IAF in defined time.

Mk2 which will stand shoulder to shoulder with any MMRCA is projected to cost around 25 million USD only.

Lets see if Mk2 meets its own deadline to deliver the promised fighter it by 2017-18 and then we can think about comparing with MMRCA and cost.

[Kanson]

PS has stated in the Force interview that Mk1 will get FOC by 2014 ,

If I say FOC in 2016 and PS says 2014, it is a problem. Any thing wrong if it happens before 2014? It will happen before.

Lets see if Mk2 meets its own deadline to deliver the promised fighter it by 2017-18 and then we can think about comparing with MMRCA and cost.

If the team can meet the IOC deadline, then definitely they can deliver Mk2 as promised.

[Pratyush]

When we talk of the MK 2 in service by 2017 are we refering to the IOC or the FOC. If it is the IOC. Then will the IAF be limited to just 40 odd LCAs for the next 7 years.

If that is the case HAL will not have any incentive to ramp up the production of the aircraft. In order to meet the shortfall in numbers.

[shiv]

Not sure why I did this. Maybe because Prodyut Das said X cm increase in size of radar dish is Y km more of radar range.

I took 3 pics of aircraft "in the neighborhood" and tried to calculate the size of the base of the radar cone;

Here are the images I used and the results. I calculated the size based on pixel length of the aircraft as a ratio of published length from Unkal Googal and Aunty Wickee. Anyone can do it.
(The image below has been resized to 50% of the originals that I used)

[DavidD]

The calculations are right, but the J-10 pic is a bit tilted(angled from the back), can you find a more straight shot?

[Viv S]

The calculations are right, but the J-10 pic is a bit tilted(angled from the back), can you find a more straight shot?

That actually applies to the first two as well. Since the surface we're seeing is flat, we can't tell whether its perfectly level or inclined into or out off the plane (unless you calculate a ratio of wingspan to length in the picture and compare with stats). But, the pics do the basic job of affirming that the Tejas while the smallest of three will still field a comparable radar.

[Austin]

Any information on the use of composites on J-10 preferably by weight ? Tejas has substantial composite usage by weight 43 - 45 %

[Juggi G]

Government is in Favour of Aircraft Modernization, Says Air Chief P.V. Naik

Government is in Favour of Aircraft Modernization, Says Air Chief P.V. Naik
From ANI
By Shivaji Salunke

Pune, Nov.29: The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik said here today that the steps were being taken to modernise the Indian Air Force.

Interacting with mediapersons on the sidelines of the Passing Out-Parade of the 119th course of the National Defence Academy (NDA) in Pune, Air Chief Marshal Naik said the Government is keen to update the aircraft as well as helicopters.

"Our government is all in favour of modernization. There is no dearth of money. The procedure every year is being streamlined more and more. As we find some fault, we go back and we revise the procedure," said Naik.

The Air Chief Marshal said the recent helicopter crash in Arunachal was a "major loss"."It's a very major loss. In every accident ... there is a loss of life and in transport aircraft like helicopters we lose more lives.

He added that at First Sight, the Helicopter Crash was Caused by "A Technical Fault but We Don't Know."

On November 19, 12 personnel including eight IAF officials on board a Mi-17 helicopter were killed when it crashed at Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.