LCA News and Discussions

[Abhibhushan]

The Tejas Debate

[pragnya]

Pragnya across the industry the way things work are if you send in a proposal with certain 'xyz' feature listed down; the end user will take it at face value. If DRDO included FBW in it's proposal back in 82 then the whole debate should end there, it's plain and simple.

negi saab, that is exactly what i have been telling to CM. and that IAF knew it in 1982.

Key thing to note is that the quad FBW which was to be designed with American assistance ran into rough waters because of Khan playing bait and switch. It is unfair to do a post mortem on this aspect and pin the blame on any one party for when the choice was made no one knew about the future, who knows something similar could have happened with ADA opting for the Ana-Digi FBW which the French were supposed to help us with too.

agree totally.

and again it is not a post mortem i am doing. i am only trying to tell CM that his beleif that FBW and other bells and whistles were not IAF's requirement but wishes of the scientific community ala DRDO/ADA - is wrong.

[suryag]

Abhibhushan sir read your post, Veena -> Vina please

[SaiK]

One CAN specify flying attributes, that warrants a FBW system, and FADEC for engines. For example, one could write requirements such that it forces the designer to choose a particular system.

BTW, if IAF starts designing then IAF should have built a plane for itself. Why ask DRDO etc to build one. It is quite silly to say, IAF did not ask for FBW or FADEC or this and that technology.

Analogy: Did the Televisions viewers care about viewing High Definition channels? why did HD TV came out? Is this the fault of designers and thinkers?

technical advancement is part and parcel of this engagement.. we can't just trash that and argue FBW was not asked by IAF.

In fact, IAF need to ask for it.. It is the desire to match the world.. if pakis are flying FBW systems, do you all think IAF will accept anything less?

If we progressing as a reactive society, then we will never be proactive ever.

[Indranil]

Abhibhushan sirjee,

I am a great fan of your posts and blog. I disagree with posters here that a large part of the blame is on the IAF's festish for foreign 'things'.

For example, I think the trainer blame (according to me) falls fair and square on HAL. as a company, it should have had a flying prototype from funds resourced internally. For example isn't M&M doing the same with NM5, GA-10, GA-18. Aren't Tatas and Mahindras coming up with prototypes of the FICVs, MPVs and trucks and Bharat Forge and L&T with howitzer's?

As a company HAL was terribly short sighted or lazy or inefficient to visualize and capitalize on a sure-hot marketing opportunity.

[negi]

negi, you can't compare the induction of the Mig-29 in the 80s with that of the LCA.

Who is comparing ? I merely posted it as a data point to show how IAF inducted an aircraft without digital FBW around the same time period when ASR for Tejas was supposed to be have been drafted, nothing more nothing less.

Even if the the LCA had been designed without an FBW, it still could not have been ready for induction before the late 90s. Especially since the main funding did not materialize before 93. Now which aircraft did the IAF select for induction in that period? The MKI, which as you know is an unstable triplane with an all digital quad-redundant FBW. The LCA had it been ready for IOC by the end of the 90s without an FBW would have looked thoroughly outdated compared to any other aircraft which was being inducted at the time anywhere in the world and was unlikely to have been acceptable to the IAF (even if they originally had been averse to an unstable FBW equipped jet when the program was beginning).

This is again a BRF fad; who says that anything without a digi quad FBW is an outdated AC ? If your AC can meet performance parameters no one cares if it is quad FBW digi or analog for that matter. Even the M2K is not a full quad FBW AC and yet it was the original platform of choice when IAF wanted a follow up order for the M2K (and this was in 90s) which later lead to MRCA tender.

MKI was selected much later and it was primarily selected again because of the need for a deep penetration strike AC to claim that IAF selected it because it has quad FBW is like placing cart before the horse; fact is at that point in time there was no one in the west willing to sell a platform in that league to India and obviously Ru had the Flanker on offer; now if it is a quad FBW design is a different matter.

Btw I am not sure if FBW is the piece which caused the apparent delay; to me it looks like bigger and more fundamental modules like the radar and engine took a lot of time to finalise and integrated with the AC, the FBW afaik has been working like a charm since the first test flight.

[Cain Marko]

seems you have not followed CM's posts where he has been saying FBW was not IAF's requirement and that it was 'scientific community's' wish. i was answering him quoting tks article.

In the above case of the DFBW, I was specifically refering to the incident where Dassault's "hybrid" proposal, which was supported by the IAF,was disregarded by the ADA in favor of Marietta's DFBW. In general though, my point is very straightforward: The IAF specifies performance and timeframe requirements. But not HOW those are to be achieved. Point is, were the requirements so exotic that technologies such as DFBW, composites etc were compulsory and hence DRDO's response? Somehow I doubt that.

Even an a/c such as the Mig-29, without all of the above technologies was rather effective in its role of Air superiority. Again, with reference to TKS's article, the IAF it seems was not very convinced about the way DRDO was going about meeting the requirements for a MiG-21 replacement.

Under the circumstances, I find it rather unconvincing that the delays and difficulties that were faced by the LCA program were largely a result of the IAF's "step motherly" treatment of the project. Once again, there is no doubt about the technological/industrial achievement of this program, but I cannot agree that it achieved it's second goal - that of providing the IAF a fighter in a given timeframe. AFAIK, it has not happened that the DRDO has provided the IAF with something competitive and the IAF has summarily rejected it. The idea that the IAF does not support indigenous products is utterly unproved. Perhaps they could have been more involved, as was the Indian Navy, and that comparison has its own flaws, but there is little to suggest that the IAF as an institution was all about "phoren" maal, and had no tolerance for SDRE products/projects - ridiculous.

End Result: If the IAF is to be blamed for being "hands off" and "shortsighted", the ADA folk need to be blamed for being "overambitious" and "impractical".

[Cain Marko]

It obviously impossible to get the ASR from 1985 and post it online here. But these things about the LCA are well known

This is FALSE; actually a lot of things on BRF get wrongly painted in B&W when in the real world the reality is somewhere in between.

IAF's ASR for what is today known as MRCA too was very modest to begin with in fact originally it was supposed be essentially a follow up order of the M2K's latest variant , to say that IAF wanted LCA to have a F-16 level performance in 1985 itself is a baseless claim.

Going by the kind of platforms IAF has inducted till date and the way it goes about shortlisting them and evaluating them it sounds highly unlikely that back in 1985 i.e. hardly 5 years after USAF started inducting what was then world's most advanced fighter AC , IAF would demand for an AC of matching performance . Going by that yardstick IAF should have floated an ASR for F-22 like performance for the MRCA .

The ASR requirements by themselves are functional in nature no one says that they need a cranked delta design in ASR , that choice is essentially the one made by designer. In fact even the MTOW is listed as a 'range' and not a fixed number . Basically only performance and functional specs for designated mission requirement are listed. This impression that ASRs are written to match a certain platform is something I have only read on BRF.

+1 - I have been trying to say this but could not get it across.

[Cain Marko]

If you can show me proof that in 1985 ASR the IAF wanted the LCA to have F-16 performance, I'll stop this argument as my whole premise is compromised. It would be insane for the IAF to make such a demand - replace the MiG-21 with an F-16.

It obviously impossible to get the ASR from 1985 and post it online here. But these things about the LCA are well known , especially to the old timers like Sunil Sainis, George J (GJman who still does a cameo appearance every now and then), B.Harry (who passed away, but what brilliant work he did in writing about this. Our DDMs should learn from him) and of course the likes of Enqyoob. Unfortunate that many of them stopped coming here for a variety of reasons. But they all did a great job of publishing and writing in the BR Monitor that documents much of what happened.

A good place to start will be here BR LCA/Tejas Resources which has a couple of published articles and in particular the one by Air Marshal MSD Wollen he absolutely would know the ins and outs of what happened those days from where he was..According to him , the

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development. Requirements of flight performance, systems performance, reliability, maintainability criteria, stores carnage, etc. are spelt out. Concessions or a higher standard of requirements have to be mutually agreed upon by the IAF (customer) and ADA (constructor).

The ASR has gone revisions since 1985 (twice I think) and what we have today is of a higher requirement (obviously, don't blame the IAF, the situation changes, but that will result in delays and budget hikes).

From TKS's writing, the IAF was looking for a far more modest MiG-21 replacement. It was the DRDO's initial plan/proposal that was overly ambitious:

It is possible that the planning and definition and requirements of what went into Tejas was done by others in IAF , possibly above his pay grade and he was not in the loop. But facts are facts.

The IAF knew that it was ambitious alright, but it was required for very very good reasons. Read up the articles in the BR Monitor archives on how the IAF wanted those addressed. There were four programs if I remember correctly (Gripen, LCA, Novi Avion and I think an Indonesian program which got killed) that looked at exactly similar small, lightweight , single engine fighters and all of them came up with remarkably similar configurations (Delta winged, FBW, high composite). That 3 countries come to a similar solution is not an "accident" or a whim of "technocrats" or whatever. Those were sound logical choices.

It was also to contain all functionalities of a small agile low-observable fighter that could be found anywhere in the world at that point of time. Its projected weight was to be seven tons empty. It was to be designed and developed within about ten years. This dream, the DRDO felt, was achievable. Personally I disagreed with that statement.

Firstly, there was no other like that anywhere in the world at that point in time (the F-16 and M2K and Mig29 are bigger planes) and the Mig21 was outdated.

Also, despite all the skepticism, it WAS designed and developed in about ten years. With work starting in 1989 to first flight in 2000/1, it is about 10 years, DESPITE sanctions and 90s economic crisis.

Where we lost out is during the flight test stage from 2001 to today due to lack of prior experience and of course the well know reasons of IAF going comatose from 2000 to 2007!

Point is, TKS is "whining" about the same - overpromise and underdeliver tendency of the agencies involved. ANd all of the above is around 1982 - long before IAF drew up any ASRs!! Kind of hard to believe that the IAF had floated an F-16 requirement in those days, as a MiG-21 replacement no less, and the DRDO responded with all of the above.

Despite all the "skepticism", the tech developments have delivered fully, except in Radar(bad choice of agency there) and Engine (that was always tough, but partly there). The IAF ASR in 85 did reflect the F-16 acquisition by Pakistan , just like the Arjun's revised one in the 80s, reflected the possible transfer of M1-A2 to Pakistan (Zia Ul Haq got his 72s from the mangoes after witnessing firing trials of M1 Abrams in Pakistan) .

In fact, this whine about "I wanted an evolved Mig-21, while you give me an F-16 in a Mig-21 form factor" is uncannily similar to the whine in the Arjun case "I want a 50 ton Evolved T-72 while you give me Western Style MBT of 57 tons!" In both cases, you got what you wanted. To go back and claim ifs and buts and what was "really wanted" and if only we had done X or Y and not done what we currently did, we could have got "something" a decade ago is simply being ridiculous.

Not sure we went "on our own" at all. They just hooked the LCA project to a technological superpower that was utterly whimsical (and even capricious towards Indian POV), and paid the price (rejecting safer, albeit less fancy alternatives). A mistake that we rue till this day, and might even in the future.

What I meant was singing up with the Yugoslavs. We burnt our fingers with them the 60s/70s in shipbuilding. They were the closest to us in terms of ideology and rhetoric and requirements (Socialism, Non Alignment and replacing Mig-21s) and I just thank the heavens some very smart Foreign Service babu decided to hitch our program with theirs. That would have been monumentally stupid , similar to hitching the Marut program to an Egyptian engine!

The cold hard fact is that the Americans were willing to support us a lot more in the LCA program than the French did in critical areas. Pokhran-II and the subsequent events are a catharsis that drained the poison that blocked Indo-US relations nu-necessarily for all those years since the 60s. That is gone now and I don't see why we cant have relations with the US on the lines that France has with the US in defense and other matters.

Vinaji, assuredly, I have read much of what you suggested above. But I am certainly not convinced that the LCA delays happened mainly due to the "non involvement" of the AF.

[Virupaksha]

Negi,

Remember whatever the ASR for MRCA was, which you call "very modest" F-16, F-18, Su-35, Gripen didnt make the cut. Infact there are exactly 4 planes in the world which can probably make the "very modest" MRCA ASR cut, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter & typhoon. Infact the only new entrants into that club by 2030 might be PAKFA & JXX.

That is indeed a "very modest" ASR.

[Cain Marko]

The Tejas Debate

Nice article, sums up and provides evidence to some of what I had been saying earlier.

[SaiK]

True.. I think the comparison what vina is bringing out is with IN. There is more candid positive support (or less negative support - ref: 3 legged cheetah case) from IN than IAF. I think genuinely, both IN and IAF would love to fly LCA, all indigenous, with zero import components.

The fact remains.. delays and schedule.. project planning sucked to the core.. bad budgeting, and mangers and organizations have no clue on costs, resource requiremetns, etc.. and would only chest beat achievements (which is required btw) and lose focus on the critical aspects and requirements of the project.

Just imagine, if Russkies nor the khaans were interested in supporting LCA.. control laws would not have been sanctioned, in the sense, the team would not be in LM workshop. Kaveri engine would not get gromov support. When it comes to business and inter gov politics, there is always a back-scratch arrangement, or a poodle-ness aspect.

I think the blame on "scientists" is wrong.. as is on IAF. But, I do find lot of corrections that need to happen from IAF and project management and engineering teams. The architecture of LCA (deployment arch) is wrong, in the sense it should have been modular in terms of indigenization., and work with companies who are willing to share modular APIs and to interface with LCA [la GE engines].

There should have been modular replacement strategies in the architecture of the subsystems. specifications should have drawn out earlier with +/- variances in these.. all these would mean a different plane, and not LCA.

I think we have to also agree that LCA as is, getting there to be 80% indigenous.. this is the achievement we all want to boost on.. and congratulate them, rather pass negative comments or bash IAF or anyone, who is on the critical path.

I would like people bashing Gov, mod, management and engineering decision makers where they have committed blunders in terms of budget, planning, quotas, team management, brain drain, salaries, etc.

[Cain Marko]

Negi,

Remember whatever the ASR for MRCA was, which you call "very modest" F-16, F-18, Su-35, Gripen didnt make the cut. Infact there are exactly 4 planes in the world which can probably make the "very modest" MRCA ASR cut, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter & typhoon.

That is indeed a "very modest" ASR.

He was referring to the original requirements, which were easily met by the Mirage 2000-5. The MRCA requirements changed considerably after GOI intervention, post 2005 elections when the race was opened up to all and sundry by the new govt. Going to the original point, if the IAF was so desperately after state of the art tech for its MiG-21 replacements, why were they happily using/inducting the MiG-29 as their premier air superiority fighter at the same time? And if the MiG-29 could meet AF needs without even FBW or RSS or composites or glass cockpit etc. why the need for these things in a much smaller low end, LCA?

IOWs, it is not the tech but the performance/capability that is critical to the AF.

Vinaji's argument otoh is different - his point is that without these technologies, the end product would have been useless suggesting the MiG-29s loss in the MRCA as proof of this. However, it remains that the F-16, which had all of these qualities also lost in the race.

[Virupaksha]

As the TKS post seems to indicate, if only it was about the past.

Okay IAF was turfed out of design. So the appropriate IAF response is, we will not the support the design at all. His post is logical only if we accept this as the logical premise.

If we start questioning that premise, his whole explanations fall like a pack of cards. Because, IAF seems to have forgotten whoever it is who does the design, it is at the end of day for IAF only.

[negi]

Negi,

Remember whatever the ASR for MRCA was, which you call "very modest" F-16, F-18, Su-35, Gripen didnt make the cut. Infact there are exactly 4 planes in the world which can probably make the "very modest" MRCA ASR cut, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter & typhoon. Infact the only new entrants into that club by 2030 might be PAKFA & JXX.

That is indeed a "very modest" ASR.

Virupaksha mahashay you are unfortunately trying to fit the MRCA tendering process to your pov.

I said that today's MRCA was originally supposed to be a follow on order for the M2Ks there were even reports of negotiations with the French to have a manufacturing line of M2Ks established in India, it was only when the deal did not make it through and years passed by that a new tender was floated even there if you would observe IAF did evaluate the response to the RFP and only then did it invite vendors for F-16, F-18 SH, Mig-35 and the Euro canards (so you can look at the types of platforms in question and see for yourself if the ASRs are design specifc) . You see at this point in time OEMs specs and performance numbers are taken at face value. It was only during the trials in Rajasthan and Leh that actual performance metrics could be evaluated. From what is published in media we are told only Rafale and EF Typhoon made the cut (it could also very well be that these platforms exceeded the baseline set by the IAF , who knows but now to claim that see IAF only selected Rafale and hence it's ASRs are to demanding imho is not a right assertion to make). I am not sure from where did you get F-35 and F-22 into the discussion here.

[Virupaksha]

Negi,

Remember whatever the ASR for MRCA was, which you call "very modest" F-16, F-18, Su-35, Gripen didnt make the cut. Infact there are exactly 4 planes in the world which can probably make the "very modest" MRCA ASR cut, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter & typhoon.

That is indeed a "very modest" ASR.

He was referring to the original requirements, which were easily met by the Mirage 2000-5. The MRCA requirements changed considerably after GOI intervention, post 2005 elections when the race was opened up to all and sundry by the new govt. Going to the original point, if the IAF was so desperately after state of the art tech for its MiG-21 replacements, why were they happily using/inducting the MiG-29 as their premier air superiority fighter at the same time? And if the MiG-29 could meet AF needs without even FBW or RSS or composites or glass cockpit etc. why the need for these things in a much smaller low end, LCA?

IOWs, it is not the tech but the performance/capability that is critical to the AF.

Vinaji's argument otoh is different - his point is that without these technologies, the end product would have been useless suggesting the MiG-29s loss in the MRCA as proof of this. However, it remains that the F-16, which had all of these qualities also lost in the race.

Cain /Negi,

What makes you think that if the IAF wanted state of art today, it didnt want state of art of that day. When the proposal was originally mooted. Mirage 2000-5 was infact state of art of early 90s. IAF did not want the mirage 2000s, but the then latest 2000-5s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ia/mrf.htm

The United States imposed military sanctions on Delhi following India's May 1998 nuclear tests. But the sanctions were phased out starting in late 2001, following September 11th, and bilateral ties have since flourished.

As of 2000 the French were negotiating the sale of 10 Mirage 2000, which the IAF needed to make up for attrition. The deal had been stalled since 1990 over price. The Mirage 2000 with IAF in 1985 technology, while the version under discussion was 1996 technology, but is not the latest Mirage 2000-5. In November 2002 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited along with the Indian Air Force participated in joint technical discussions with M/s Dassault Aviation, M/s Thales and M/s Snecma, France to assess the feasibility of production and transfer of technology for manufacture of Mirage 2000-5 MK II aircraft. The discussions are at a preliminary stage.

As of March 2002 the IAF reportedly had plans to acquire as many as 126 Mirage 2000-5s to equip seven squadrons. The IAF reportedly wanted 36 Mirage 2000-5s to be delivered in completed form, with the remainder to be assembled by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) at Bangalore.

Infact as the above article shows, it was precisely where the MRCA was stuck.

[Virupaksha]

Virupaksha mahashay you are unfortunately trying to fit the MRCA tendering process to your pov.

I said that today's MRCA was originally supposed to be a follow on order for the M2Ks there were even reports of negotiations with the French to have a manufacturing line of M2Ks established in India, it was only when the deal did not make it through and years passed by that a new tender was floated even there if you would observe IAF did evaluate the response to the RFP and only then did it invite vendors for F-16, F-18 SH, Mig-35 and the Euro canards (so you can look at the types of platforms in question and see for yourself if the ASRs are design specifc) . You see at this point in time OEMs specs and performance numbers are taken at face value. It was only during the trials in Rajasthan and Leh that actual performance metrics could be evaluated. From what is published in media we are told only Rafale and EF Typhoon made the cut (it could also very well be that these platforms exceeded the baseline set by the IAF , who knows but now to claim that see IAF only selected Rafale and hence it's ASRs are to demanding imho is not a right assertion to make). I am not sure from where did you get F-35 and F-22 into the discussion here.

On the contrary negi mahodaya, I am going by exactly what the IAF said instead of selective picking of facts to choose the favorite narrative.

It was the IAF/MoD which shouted through the roof when the cut was made that it followed procedure to the T and tried to eliminate all "subjective" parameters. IIRC there were a plethora of articles at that point of time which said that they only checked performance against the ASRs and it was a tick if it passed and no extra marks if it performs in some extra ordinarily. It was to be a L1 tender for the aircraft which meets the ASR in its trials.

With this back ground and knowing that only two made the cut, lets just say it was a little too difficult for me to digest "too modest" and "MRCA ASR" in the same sentence. MRCA ASR is an ASR with state of the art parameters of that time & has remained so. MRCA was never about mig21++++++ or any such modest thing.

[negi]

Boss you need to revisit the discussion.

My first point was that IAF's ASR for Tejas was not asking for a F-16 like performance as being implied here. F-16 is heavier and faster bird (Mach 2+). Tejas was never supposed to do that even ADA/DRDO never claimed it would on paper neither did IAF at any point in time said that they wanted it to do so.

F-16 was inducted by the USAF somewhere in 1980 or around it was at that point in time beyond the state of the art for us (that term is loosly thrown around here) ; state of the art for rest of the world including us was behind that technology level just like today while for most of the world Typhoon, Rafale or even the MKI might be state of the art USAF has moved on to the F-22.

MRCA proposal when originally floated was nothing but a follow on order for the M2k, by claiming that it was not 2000 but in fact 2005 you are now splitting hairs (btw it would help to know that Vajra upgrade is exactly about the same thing i.e. 2000s being upgrade to 2000-5 MKII std); it is but obvious that when you place a follow on order for a platform which usually has a service life spanning at least 2-3 decades the order more often than not is for more capable/feature-rich as compared to the first tranche . That deal never materialized primarily because the French played hard ball, later when they approached us they wanted to push Rafale instead and by that time we had moved on from single vendor deals. Today more than a decade later you want the IAF to go to the market for an AC with M2k specs ?

[Virupaksha]

Nope, I dont expect IAF to go MRCA with M2K specs, nor do I expect MRCA specs being called modest.

[negi]

^ You have just picked up a word and wish to conduct a much bigger debate around it ?

Even there if you re-read my first post where I used that word; I said something to the tune of requirements being modest to begin with i.e. it was supposed to be a follow on order for the Mirage2000 family (2000-5 Mk II ) nothing more nothing less, so where am I wrong with saying it was modest ? Do you expect one to use modest only if IAF wanted to augment the existing M2K numbers with Mirage III ? Seriously man lets not argue for the heck of it.

[Virupaksha]

Ah come on, in multiple posts you were using the "very modest" nature of MRCA ASR to buttress that the IAF would have given LCA ASR to be modest as well (and mind you, that was the only actual "proof" you offered).

I only showed that on the contrary MRCA ASR wasnt modest at any time by any stretch of imagination (and thus LCA's need not have been)

Eg: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1278693

[negi]

Boss why don't we put an end to this; so tell me what according to you is a modest requirement for augmenting the M2K fleet ? And I shall rest my case.

Btw this my exact comment from your link.

IAF's ASR for what is today known as MRCA too was very modest to begin with

I am getting a feeling that I am arguing with SCM jr.

[Virupaksha]

Congratulations, when on losing side of an argument, you make it personal.

Properly read what you have yourselves written and the logical claims you used to try to prove your point. I have taken the core of your logic & demolished it and so what do you do, you make it personal. In my previous posts, I have only talked about how that constructs is based on false premises. made. But yaa if you are on a personal crusade of point making & insulting others, its your call. Please excuse me from this.

[negi]

Well I am merely questioning your comprehension abilities; because post after post you have been harping and whining about my statement about MRCA requirements being modest to begin with which I still stand by.

I even stated that I shall rest my case and concede my ground if you tell me what would otherwise have been a modest replacement for M2K , specially when MRCA to begin with was nothing but a follow on order for the M2K which is what I stated in my first post which for some reason caused you so much takleef.

You are incorrectly using the current MRCA shortlists to draw conclusions about the MRCA ASR when I had clearly mentioned what MRCA requirement was about back when M2K numbers were to be augmented; it's been more then 15 years since requirements for MRCA were first broached upon, when the original deal did not materialize and GoI had long moved away from single vendor tenders present MRCA deal happened; so I am not sure where is the confusion.

Btw technically speaking if you go out today and ask for M2K it will be a more challenging requirement than getting Rafale; the production line for M2K is no longer in operation, that is what happened with the original MRCA proposal.

[vic]

My understanding is more simple. USA offered super leading edge technology at that time to India and aszhole moron idiot babus did not assign adequate funds to absorb the technology. Lca required usd 20 Billion and not a few hundred million

[vina]

Vinaji's argument otoh is different - his point is that without these technologies, the end product would have been useless suggesting the MiG-29s loss in the MRCA as proof of this. However, it remains that the F-16, which had all of these qualities also lost in the race.

Ok. Let me explain that in detail. To get the equivalent performance of a innovative break through plane like the F-16 (which it was at that time) which was all about maximizing efficiency, a conventional layout plane has to do it with massive excess installed thrust. The Mig-29 has far higher installed thrust (as does the F-15) to get the equivalent Air to Air performance . It really is a Rafale /Eurofighter class airframe ,in terms of installed thrust and size but with the performance of only an F-16 ! The Mig-29 loses out due to the larger wing area than it would have otherwise needed if it were FBW and also the resulting higher induced drag and trim drag.

Net result, the F-16 has a far higher range and payload than the Mig-29 which is notoriously short legged. The Mig-29 simply would not have been able to do the nearly 2000km round trip Osirak strike that the F-16 managed , even if the Mig 29 had ground attack capabilities back then . The Mig29 by the IAF purchase in response to the Pakistani F-16s was the equivalent of the "T-90 " purchase the Army made when the Pakistanis acquired the T-84 UD. It was meant for pure air defense/superiority role.. more point defense in reaction to an immediate threat.

The F-16 as it is today a grand old man doddering on it's last legs. The wing loading has increased with increased weight over the ages and it is no where the lighting rod in terms of field performance that it was when it was in it's teens like the Blk-15.No wonder it lost the MRCA contest when it was decided purely on performance.

Remove the conformal tanks, you will see the inherent absolute beast revealed, but then it wont have the range anymore compared to the others. The Pakistani Blk-52s indeed are a pretty serious threat as of today (they dont have the conformal tanks I think), now that they too have the full BVR and night capabilities that the versions during Kargil lacked. If the F-16 XL had been picked over the F-15E, it would still be competitive today . But the USAF wanted to keep the F-15 line open and hence was killed.

The F-18 is easy to fathom, with that kind of wing form optimized for carrier ops. It will have the highest trans sonic drag and the slowest acceleration, despite those engines. It would be very good at the low speed end and okay once it gets past Mach 1.2 or so. But before it gets there, the others would have roasted it in the crucial medium speed and trans sonic regimes.

Coming back to the point. If you wanted to have competitive fighter with a conventional layout , it run up against our Achilles heel, engines! So if with a Mig 21 engine, you wanted to match the maneuverability of an F-16, you would need a smaller and lighter airframe than the Mig-21 and probably end up with less range and payload as well! The best you could have done is taken an existing engine and enhance airframe efficiency via technology, ie FBW and composites, and not seriously trade off range and payload in the pursuit of maneuverability.

[Singha]

btw the Paki block52 F16s have the conformal tanks as standard kit.

its the older F-16s now converted to MLU std in PAF (somewhere like block40) which fire all the same weapons and use the same new radar but lack the CFT.

so the PAF will likely use the higher number of MLU F16s in air defence role with amraamC5 & sidewinder (backed by JF17) while reserving the block52 for DPSA missions with PGM/JDAM.

[negi]

Ok. Let me explain that in detail. To get the equivalent performance of a innovative break through plane like the F-16 (which it was at that time) which was all about maximizing efficiency, a conventional layout plane has to do it with massive excess installed thrust. The Mig-29 has far higher installed thrust (as does the F-15) to get the equivalent Air to Air performance . It really is a Rafale /Eurofighter class airframe ,in terms of installed thrust and size but with the performance of only an F-16 ! The Mig-29 loses out due to the larger wing area than it would have otherwise needed if it were FBW and also the resulting higher induced drag and trim drag.

This makes little sense; strictly speaking what is the relation between wing area and FBW ? If that is indeed true then why does a quad FBW Tejas have such a huge wing area (Btw Mig-35 which is a FBW design has a bigger wing area than the baseline Fulcrum) ? Also Mig-29 in it's time was far from conventional design, it's major drawback was short range but it was primarily due to fuel guzzling RD-33s . This comparison of Mig-29 with F-16 sizewise and to deduce that it was inferior because it did not have FBW sounds naive to me.

The fact is folks who designed and made these aircraft made them for a definite purpose and with constraints presented at that time; the Mig-29 project to begin with was meant to serve as a fast interceptor and capable of operating from forward areas , engine technology wise Ru has always played catch up and moreover since baseline fulcrum was an inherent stable design and did not have digital FBW the control surface actuators were bigger and occupied more space, that is what caused the airframe to be bigger for the amount of payload it carries.


Since whatever Khan has to say these days passes of as bible; it would help to read up on Amrika's evaluation of the Mig-29s in the German AF.

[vina]

The Tejas Debate

Good to hear your perspective.

I do feel that the govt's decision of getting the IAF out of the airframe business was correct. It is too specialized a field and requires a whole different set of skills than what a force trained for fighting would possess , unless the IAF too like the Navy goes and recruits Naval Architects, either builds a specialized cadre staffed with trained Aerospace engineers hired from outside and/or trained in IAF technical schools ,even if it is restricted to purely design , concept studies and architecture and not goes into actual building (which will require an even wider set of skills in manufacturing, sales,supply chain etc).

When the decision was made, what actually prevented the IAF from putting up money and sponsoring critical projects in these areas in HAL, NAL, DRDO labs and Academia like IITs an IISc ? I don't recall a SINGLE such significant project in all these years. Yeah, it probably would have been a trade off of producing 5 airframes less say (1 less Mig21, 23, 27 and Jaguar) to have a 100crore project for investing in composites , avionics and sharply focused FBW project , even if you had no separate R&D budget . That kind of money would have gone an incredibly long way in the 70s and 80s when a 4 figure salary was rare. Who had that kind of strategic vision back then. Can the IAF do it even today ? I don't think so. So really, with the Govt not putting up the money (they obviously wont put up the money without seeing an application and not fund R&D purely on stand alone) for that sort of thing, it simply fell between the cracks and did not get done at all, until the LCA project. Rightly or wrongly , I personally think the blame has to go to the IAF for that, because, it was the ultimate user and beneficiary of any research on those lines. It did drop the ball there.

What happened with the AJT was very difficult to believe. I did not for a moment suggest that the Ajeet trainer as it came out HAL was what the IAF wanted. But it could not have been too far away either and with the Adour already licensed and the Ajeet experience under the belt, that would not have been too difficult to get to an acceptable AJT. It was a dropped ball for sure.

About the HPT-32 , it is mind boggling. It was not something that came up all of a sudden 2 years ago. It was always known. Another dropped ball there . To give the much maligned HAL it's due, it did come up with the trainers that the IAF needed, but was cold shouldered. And true to form and sterotype, there we are back to importing and assembling the Hawk and an ab-initio trainer.

The LCA project is on the verge of success, detractors either in the IAF or outside be damned and it has rebuilt the industrial base that was allowed to atrophy and in the process produced a pretty useable plane.

In fact, if we had just gone with an say an upgraded Mig-21 in the 80s alone and also not built the LCA, it would be obsolete today and we would be out there shopping for a "modern light fighter" and be buying the Gripens in addition to the Pilatus and the Hawk and Rafale! Such a scenario was a distinct possibility because I seriously doubt india doing 2 major projects at that time with the resources at hand.

[sudeepj]

OT for LCA, but relevant to aeronautical development.

Apparently, the OBOGS on the F22 raptor has some issues in it, so bad that tens of pilots have experienced Hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the blood stream), and pilots are too scared to fly.

Two pilots out of the two hundred have refused to fly the plane, while
"there have been entire squadrons that have stood down and refused to fly the plane".

"In a room full of raptor pilots, we always have whats called the 'raptor cough'"

"then people started coughing up black sputum"

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7407680n

Sorry, no transcript.

What would have happened to a desi product if something like this had happened?

[negi]

When the decision was made, what actually prevented the IAF from putting up money and sponsoring critical projects in these areas in HAL, NAL, DRDO labs and Academia like IITs an IISc ? I don't recall a SINGLE such significant project in all these years.

I hope you do realize that IAF does not have any money so to speak; it's purchases and weapons have to get passed through the MoD only after stuff has been signed in triplicate. I am surprised that despite having read about the Tejas story and the lack of funds when it came to sponsoring such projects as far as the GoI is concerned you choose to pin the blame about insufficient funds on the IAF.

[vina]

This makes little sense; strictly speaking what is the relation between wing area and FBW ?

In an conventional stable layout, the wing and the tail plane work at cross purposes. In an unstable layout,the wing and the tail plane work the same way and will need an FBW to stabilize the plane artificially. Yes, the wing area will be correspondingly smaller for a given airframe weight than in a stable layout (and also have less drag, all else being same).

If that is indeed true then why does a quad FBW Tejas have such a huge wing area (Btw Mig-35 which is a FBW design has a bigger wing area than the baseline Fulcrum) ? Also Mig-29 in it's time was far from conventional design, it's major drawback was short range but it was primarily due to fuel guzzling RD-33s .

Lighter wing loading...more maneuverable the plane. But anyways, Gripen has a smaller than LCA wing , for an equivalent size plane for eg.

I am not sure if the Mig-35 is an unstable layout. If you have details I will stand corrected. The short range of the Mig-29 is due to the low fuel fraction. It carries proportionally less fuel in the first place, needs thirstier engines and compounds the problem. It comes to the fundamental design choice.

This comparison of Mig-29 with F-16 sizewise and to deduce that it was inferior because it did not have FBW sounds naive to me.

Facts are facts. A smaller , lighter plane has more range, payload and maneuverability (mostly evenly matched, slightly better in some areas) than a bigger plane with higher T:W ratio.

[negi]

Yes, the wing area will be correspondingly smaller for a given airframe weight than in a stable layout (and also have less drag, all else being same).

Again are you talking about the wing area or only the control surfaces ? May be I am missing something but as far as I understand the statement "the wing area will be correspondingly smaller for a given airframe weight than in a stable layout" cannot be universally applied simply because the biggest criteria for wing design are flying characteristics which in turn are governed by mission requirements.

for eg. Jaguar is a stable design but it has a lower wing area than many unstable designs with FBW.

I am not sure if the Mig-35 is an unstable layout. If you have details I will stand corrected. The short range of the Mig-29 is due to the low fuel fraction. It carries proportionally less fuel in the first place, needs thirstier engines and compounds the problem. It comes to the fundamental design choice.

I am not sure about the layout myself (Igorr claims that it's unstable in pitch) however I do know Ru has moved to 3 channel FBW with quad redundancy for both the Mig-29K and 35. They however do have much bigger rudder and wing area than the baseline fulcrum.

Facts are facts. A smaller , lighter plane has more range, payload and maneuverability (mostly evenly matched, slightly better in some areas) than a bigger plane with higher T:W ratio.

Err it is statements like above which confuse me; for instance isn't Su-30 MKI a bigger AC than say Mirage 2000 ?

[chackojoseph]

As the TKS post seems to indicate, if only it was about the past.

Okay IAF was turfed out of design. So the appropriate IAF response is, we will not the support the design at all. His post is logical only if we accept this as the logical premise.

If we start questioning that premise, his whole explanations fall like a pack of cards. Because, IAF seems to have forgotten whoever it is who does the design, it is at the end of day for IAF only.

While I believe him that IAF has been boxed out by HAL, the second part I do not agree. The times when he is mentioning, at the same time Project Devil was dream't by Gp. Capt V.S Narayanan. Concepts like INS etc were developed then. The route taken in this project by IAF was correct and IAF should have pursued it.

[suryag]

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1844 Test Flights successfully. (04-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-50,LSP4-51,LSP5-81,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1842 Test Flights successfully. (04-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-340,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-49,LSP4-51,LSP5-80,LSP7-2,NP1-1)

[koti]

When the decision was made, what actually prevented the IAF from putting up money and sponsoring critical projects in these areas in HAL, NAL, DRDO labs and Academia like IITs an IISc ? I don't recall a SINGLE such significant project in all these years.

Saab, when criticizing IAF/Army for being poor supporter of indigenous development, arn't we ignoring the example of Dhruv?
Inspite of very competent foreign competition, Dhruv has a sound order book from IAF and Army. This is likely to be the case for WSI and LCH too...
What is your take on this?

[chackojoseph]

When the decision was made, what actually prevented the IAF from putting up money and sponsoring critical projects in these areas in HAL, NAL, DRDO labs and Academia like IITs an IISc ? I don't recall a SINGLE such significant project in all these years.

Saab, when criticizing IAF/Army for being poor supporter of indigenous development, arn't we ignoring the example of Dhruv?
Inspite of very competent foreign competition, Dhruv has a sound order book from IAF and Army. This is likely to be the case for WSI and LCH too...
What is your take on this?

He said "Sponsoring critical projects" and not "order book." I think you misread.

[koti]

^Yes.
I was expecting a more generic response anyway.
Maybe this quotation puts me in a better position:

The Navy was the exception. No wonder the Navy today has a home built Nuke Submarine, while the Airforce is importing an ab-initio trainer and the Army is importing Tatra Trucks (and cant even put the steering column in the correct place for our roads), while ironically we have a very strong domestic truck industry that is pretty competitive with anything anywhere! There is a point in that, I am sure.

+1

I wanted to make a point that maybe the Army has a point in preferring a more proved system to a potential one. Like T90; not about its operational history but its parent organization.
Same with the IAF and LCA saga. Most of the opinion here about the JSF is against its time delay and cost for value. I can't help to think on similar terms wrt Tejas too.

[maitya]

Yes, the wing area will be correspondingly smaller for a given airframe weight than in a stable layout (and also have less drag, all else being same).

Again are you talking about the wing area or only the control surfaces ? May be I am missing something but as far as I understand the statement "the wing area will be correspondingly smaller for a given airframe weight than in a stable layout" cannot be universally applied simply because the biggest criteria for wing design are flying characteristics which in turn are governed by mission requirements.
<...snip...>

What is this? Are you deliberately being obtuse here - you have been with BRF long enough to answer all your questions yourself, if you have been following (which you were and that too with quite a lot of enthusiasm) excellent posts by Shalav (and Raman and others) in the not-too-distant past.

A Delta-Winged aircraft, because of it's high wing-area (thus low wing-loading) is best suited for slice-and-dice, high-speed, high elevation, transonic/supersonic sexy-fighter-type flight profile. For low level mud-mover role, you need a low wing-area wing so that "your eyeballs don't get popped" due to extensive buffeting that you are going to experience below a certain altitude.
(Why? high-school phyzziks tells us that since the density of air changes more frequently in the lower altitudes due to various factors like induction heating of the air layers from the earth's surface, localized land breeze disturbing the inherent tendency of lighter and hotter air rising and getting replaced by the cooler higher altitude air yada yada yada).

Now what has FBW got to do with this?

Imagine a scenario - a super- intellectual-armchair-designer (like moi ) decides to bolt-on a delta wing on a low level mud-mover like Jaguar - and the aircraft becomes un-flyable below a certain altitude. But, one may ask, why can't the pilot adjust the elevons (ailerons + elevators) in such a way that these buffeting can be countered?

There-in lies the problem - how will a human ever-so-slightly adjust the elevons (and rudder as well) around 10/15-times-a-sec.
Well, bring the computers to do so, and the solution is more or less solved (not fully solved as it will still remain un-flyable below an even lower altitude - but that problem will be there for Jaguars as well - something (not entirely sure) attributable to lag between what the digital computers orders to the analogue and the electro-mechanical systems and hydraulic servos and their motors could manage).
Presto, see, you have got something that looks like a M2K isn't (I know, I know no twin engines etc.).

USSR tried to solve this ambiguity, by having swing-wings in the 27s - make it a delta shape profile (lower drag at high speed etc.) in the higher altitudes by swinging it back and make it swing it out to a lower-swept angle for lower altitude, facilitating slower but stable handling at lower altitude (this arrangement itself added considerable dead weight to the platform, betw - now you need servos to move the whole wing etc).

So if you need a true multi-role aircraft the easiest (so obviously not the only way) way is to take the delta-wing route.

But why FBW?

Problem with delta-winged aircrafts is the difficulty of keeping the centre-of-gravity and centre-of-pressure properly aligned/matching - all this while trying to solve a dynamic weight distn/load planning problem wrt to the fuel, armaments etc alongwith the static weight distn of the other systems/structure.
Any mismatch will have the pilot constantly trying to rectify the pitch-up (or down, but mostly up) problem.
(Note, this is very simplistic scenario, things become really complicated with stuff like if the axis on which the CoP and the axis on which CoG lies are slightly offset raising interesting torque problems to solve).

Further note this problem is actually an opportunity as pitch up helps in securing more angle-of-attack - but since this pitch-up is uncontrolled and unpredictable (due to the dynamic nature of the problem with so many variables), it’s not desirable design.

Well undesirable for humans maybe with their limitation of "processing power" (like moi ) and more importantly, the latency between the decision and actually effecting a configuration change (e.g 0.5deg elevon down) - but not so for computers.
As long as they have proper inputs from various sensors (accelerometers, gyros, airspeed/pressure sensors etc etc.) they are perfectly capable of processing and effecting such configuration changes 10-12 times/sec.


Another interesting aspect is the configuration flexibility a FBW enabled aircraft provides:
For example, a MiG-21 with a delta wing etc couldn’t use quite a bit of these advantages (like say a M2K does) because of it’s lack of FBW controls – think about it, if magically somebody in LRDE masters X-band AESA tech today and proposes Kopyo replacement, what is the most difficult challenge the structural engineers of will be saddled with.
Most probably the AESA soln (assuming with the same volumetric form-factor of Kopyo) will be of a higher weight and how to counter-balance it without impacting the CoG/CoP balance of the aircraft. No such issues with a FBW-enabled aircraft (where the flight control algos and parameters can be suitable adjusted) – of course to a certain degree only, I doubt if M2K is saddled with 350kg beast can counter it, FBW or no-FBW.

And that's what the crux of FBW - atleast to a layman like moi.

So, anybody who suggests trying to get a 4 or 4++ (++ seems to be latest fad nowadays ) gen aircraft sans FBW is being plain dishonest - and thankfully the DRDO/ADA didn't heed to these type of howls back then.

Betw bringing various other wing-configuration and less-optimised-soln (for, say stealth attributes) to this discussion is only going to convolute this above principle – there are swept wing designs (or a forward-swept wing etc) with slightly diff form factors and skin contours that brings out interesting flight dynamics problems to solve, which absolutely requires FBW controls – but that’s a diff discussion altogether.

Again the usual rant - take FWIW pls - quota over for a month or so, I guess. Sigh!!

[pragnya]

CM,

In the above case of the DFBW, I was specifically refering to the incident where Dassault's "hybrid" proposal, which was supported by the IAF,was disregarded by the ADA in favor of Marietta's DFBW.

i am afraid that is not true. if you are referring to the conference in 1982 where tks also made a presentation (among other groups) - it is very clear it was only a forum called by AOC for obtaining field opinion. and it was tks group's opinion - as you have rightly pointed above 'but' it was one among many groups who had different opinions - certainly not that of IAF. infact tks mentions it himself -

The other two major stations of the SWAC, Jodhpur and Bhuj, had kept their presentations simple. They functioned on the premise that the DRDO would deliver what ever was being promised. They just asked for a few additional items like laser ranger.

there is absolutely no evidence that suggests to which inputs were incorporated in the final ASR in 1985 and from which groups from the conference. but if you closely look at the aspect of ACM Idris latif walking out at tks presentation, it becomes (IMHO only) amply clear that tks inputs were not taken seriously by the chief/AHQ - as borne out by the later development of the programme which is known to all - and if you put the ACM's action in a larger context of LCA programme being part of a much broader idea of creating a future MIC for aerospace needs of india, you would agree that IAF went along with GOI/DRDO. it was a must/right - otherwise it would have been another 'missed' opportunity. i for one commend the ACM for being a visionary. my salute to him.

LCA - i repeat, was never about 'only' building a replacement for Mig 21 'but of bridging' the lost ground in terms future aerospace needs of india and being self reliant.

In general though, my point is very straightforward: The IAF specifies performance and timeframe requirements. But not HOW those are to be achieved. Point is, were the requirements so exotic that technologies such as DFBW, composites etc were compulsory and hence DRDO's response? Somehow I doubt that.

your point may be straight forward but unfortunately the road is not.

from air marshal wollen's article -

The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development. Requirements of flight performance, systems performance, reliability, maintainability criteria, stores carnage, etc. are spelt out.

now see that requirement in the context of the confernce in 1982 and ACM's action thereon which makes it crystal clear to me that 'AHQ went with the outline DRDO' sent them and also added some more like LDP. in summary IAF was in the know of the systems, performance and timelines and went along. your point i am afraid is not correct atleast to me.

also if you look at LCA in a narrow perspective of the programme being just a replacement for Mig 21 and nothing more than that, then i won't be able to answer you as i have stressed on the point of a broader context on which, IMO - IAF, DRDO/ADA, GOI were on the same page.

Even an a/c such as the Mig-29, without all of the above technologies was rather effective in its role of Air superiority. Again, with reference to TKS's article, the IAF it seems was not very convinced about the way DRDO was going about meeting the requirements for a MiG-21 replacement.

not IAF only tks group. i think it is clear from the tks article. this is borne out by the development programme from the start which includes FBW/LDP/MMR/COMPOSITES/ENGINE/EW/GLASS COCKPIT among others. most have been successful and some partial successes.

Under the circumstances, I find it rather unconvincing that the delays and difficulties that were faced by the LCA program were largely a result of the IAF's "step motherly" treatment of the project.

i never said that. but it was one of the factor among others i myself and Negi pointed out. but it is no secret, after ACM idris latif's exit, IAF was not enthusiatic about LCA and did not take active interest/participation in it. the last 6 years is an exception which is good for IAF and India. i gave the example of IJT Sitara in my last post which illustrates the fact that if it had been otherwise LCA would have happened earlier IMO.

Once again, there is no doubt about the technological/industrial achievement of this program, but I cannot agree that it achieved it's second goal - that of providing the IAF a fighter in a given timeframe. AFAIK, it has not happened that the DRDO has provided the IAF with something competitive and the IAF has summarily rejected it. The idea that the IAF does not support indigenous products is utterly unproved. Perhaps they could have been more involved, as was the Indian Navy, and that comparison has its own flaws, but there is little to suggest that the IAF as an institution was all about "phoren" maal, and had no tolerance for SDRE products/projects - ridiculous.

ex ACM PN described it is Mig 21++ at the IOC function!! so what was meant as Mig 21 replacement has outgrown that!!! so where is the problem?? infact if they had followed Gripen it would have been inducted @IOC and improvements would have happened concurrently. atleast IAF is happy now and they are participating in the programme in a big way which is good and needs to be appreciated.

End Result: If the IAF is to be blamed for being "hands off" and "shortsighted", the ADA folk need to be blamed for being "overambitious" and "impractical".

you have a right to blame ADA but was there any other choice 'if' the goal was to leapfrog to 4+ gen as told by PS in the interview i linked in the past??