LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 02 Dec 2016 12:08

Vivek I am not an expert but I think given our geographical, techno, millitary and political environment such zoo is inevitable. It certainly imposes costs on us, but it also ensures we have a wide range to address our needs..imagine if we did not have mirages during kargil. Just my 2 cents

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 02 Dec 2016 12:32

https://twitter.com/manupubby_ET/status ... 5244834816

Naval LCA not good enough says CNS Lamba. IN will probably shop for a new jet

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2016 12:45

However the French are the less "sanctions-prone" compared to the US and less "no-spares prone" compared to the Russians. The Mirage 2000's high serviceability rates are testimony to that.

As long as you pay them through your nose.

They are all the same.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Dec 2016 13:56

India’s Light Combat Aircraft Advances with New Order
by Neelam Mathews
- November 30, 2016, 10:24 AM

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... -new-order

India’s Ministry of Defense has cleared an order for 83 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), designated Mk1A, from government-owned defense manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). HAL currently has in hand an order for 40 GE F404-engined LCAs for the IAF. Of the 20 to be produced with an initial operational clearance, three have been delivered and the fourth is scheduled to be handed over by early next year. Twenty more will be supplied once they receive the final operational clearance (FOC) by end of 2017.

HAL says it will increase production from eight to 16 a year “once a formal order is received for the 83 Mk1As.” IAF Air Chief Marshall Arup Raha said last year: “We want the LCA Mk1A with an improved radar [Elta's ELM-2052 AESA or active electronically scanned array], electronic warfare, in-flight refueling and better missiles.” But a privately owned OEM said: “While there is to be joint work between HAL and Elta, we don’t know how much of the Elta AESA will be indigenous.” Other OEMs are interested. For instance, Saab confirmed recently to AIN that it is offering its Gallium Nitride technology, developed in Gothenberg, Sweden, for the LCA, rather than part of its Gripen proposal to India.

The LCA Mk2 version, expected to be re-engined from the GE F404 to the F414, is planned for production by 2025. The Indian Navy has expressed its firm requirement for 46 LCA Mk2s that will require a weight reduction of one ton over the Mk1A. Delays to the naval LCA have been attributed in the past to technical complexities; non-availability of infrastructure and critical components and technology denial regimes; extended user trials; and the failure of some of the components during testing.

Meanwhile, an indigenous AESA Fire Control Radar is being developed for the Mk2 by Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), for which Bangalore-based Centum Electronics has designed and developed the Vibration Hardened OCXO (oven controlled crystal oscillators). “The function of OCXO is to generate the clock frequency of 120 MHz, which is in turn fed to a synthesizer that generates the required X-Band frequency for AESA,” said Vinod S. Chippalkatti, vice-president, Centum Electronics, to AIN. “The company was initially challenged three years ago to develop this product, since international companies were not able to meet the specifications and part with the technology. Centum is able to develop and deliver the product, which is lightweight, low-g-sensitive and its phase noise performance is excellent under vibration,” added Chippalkatti.

Meanwhile, under the offset contract not yet signed for India’s buy of 36 Rafales, Dassault Aviation is believed to have agreed to transfer special spray paint and coating technology of benefit to programs such as the LCA.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Dec 2016 14:29

Chinmay wrote:https://twitter.com/manupubby_ET/status ... 5244834816

Naval LCA not good enough says CNS Lamba. IN will probably shop for a new jet

There was mention somewhere (twitter or brf can't remember) some time ago that IN not fully satisfied with NLCA and it may not go on our ACs.

This current statement is slightly confusing to me though. Looks like quoted out of context. Is there a video or something of the CNS..?? Does he mean NLCA in current form only or NLCA even in MK2 form will be inadequate..?? Is it unsatisfactory at this point of time or it will never come up to IN's expectations..??

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 02 Dec 2016 14:34

Chinmay wrote:https://twitter.com/manupubby_ET/status ... 5244834816

Naval LCA not good enough says CNS Lamba. IN will probably shop for a new jet

Looks like SH will eventually be MII.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 02 Dec 2016 14:36

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... s?from=mdr CNS Lanba stated that LCA in its present form is inadequate. IN will support development of NLCA, but will shop elsewhere for carrier-borne aircraft.

If you are on Teetar, do check TLs of Manu Pubby or Angad Singh

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Dec 2016 14:53

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan

Looks like IAC-2 (the new Viraat) will have an imported fighter.

Yes. LCA-N now effectively only a tech-demonstrator. Doesn't meet timelines.

'LCA-Navy doesn't meet our QRs as a carrier-based fighter...can't take off with full weapon, fuel load.' CNS Admiral Lanba

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Dec 2016 15:44

Nice stuff on the AESA. Typical of how DRDO is working with SMEs for some cutting edge stuff despite the usual rubbish from vested sources claiming they don't.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 02 Dec 2016 15:44

There is a faint hope if perhaps the BSF asks for an air arm of their own.. if that also doesn't happen then there is the NCC.. sigh

EDIT

To be fair this seems to be what the chief said

"The MiG-29K will operate from the Vikrant (first Indian built aircraft carrier). But we also need an alternate aircraft now. We are looking for it, as the LCA is not up to the mark yet. In the present form, the LCA cannot take off with its full weapon load," said the Navy chief, adding that within the next five years a new fighter aircraft will be needed for carrier operations.

So who knows after 5 years the NLCA with hopefully a more powerful Kaveri might just be taking off from our carriers

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Dec 2016 16:20

As 83 + 40 Tejas are being inducted in IAF, these 123 will need 123 GE 404 engines, plus in case each fighter goes through 3 engines in its lifetime it will be 123 x 3 = 369 engines. Is it possible that we see these engines being manufactured here?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Dec 2016 16:39

plus in case each fighter goes through 3 engines in its lifetime it will be 123 x 3 = 369 engines.

This myth pops up every few weeks/months and is totally untrue. Neither the GE404 or the GE414 carrying LCA MK1 and MK2 will require 3 engines over its life times. Modules would need to be replaced every few thousand hours but you will not need to buy nearly 400 engines for 123 fighters.

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=2920#p2011725

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 02 Dec 2016 18:30

We already have a State of Art LCA Painting Hanger which was inaugurated by IAF Chief Anup Raha ji, the day he flew SP-1. It is good to know that more special stuff is coming towards LCA.

Meanwhile, under the offset contract not yet signed for India’s buy of 36 Rafales, Dassault Aviation is believed to have agreed to transfer special spray paint and coating technology of benefit to programs such as the LCA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Dec 2016 01:20

brar_w wrote:
plus in case each fighter goes through 3 engines in its lifetime it will be 123 x 3 = 369 engines.
This myth pops up every few weeks/months and is totally untrue. Neither the GE404 or the GE414 carrying LCA MK1 and MK2 will require 3 engines over its life times. Modules would need to be replaced every few thousand hours but you will not need to buy nearly 400 engines for 123 fighters.

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=2920#p2011725

Blame Ajai Shukla for perpetrating this myth. He has mentioned it in at least 3 of his articles in the past.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Dec 2016 01:22

Bhaskar_T wrote:We already have a State of Art LCA Painting Hanger which was inaugurated by IAF Chief Anup Raha ji, the day he flew SP-1. It is good to know that more special stuff is coming towards LCA.

Meanwhile, under the offset contract not yet signed for India’s buy of 36 Rafales, Dassault Aviation is believed to have agreed to transfer special spray paint and coating technology of benefit to programs such as the LCA.

This is RAM coating again, something which we have developed in India, perhaps not in an automated fashion as for the Rafale but it exists. Jaguars were first to get it per public reports.
Believe anything frm the Rafale offsets only when it happens

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Dec 2016 01:40

Kartik wrote:
brar_w wrote:
This myth pops up every few weeks/months and is totally untrue. Neither the GE404 or the GE414 carrying LCA MK1 and MK2 will require 3 engines over its life times. Modules would need to be replaced every few thousand hours but you will not need to buy nearly 400 engines for 123 fighters.

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=2920#p2011725
Blame Ajai Shukla for perpetrating this myth. He has mentioned it in at least 3 of his articles in the past.

I think this entire assumption was based on the Su-30 MKI AL-31FP deal. The GE i think has higher reliability. We actually ran around with a handful of engines and actuators and kept the test program running. Something which the sanction happy types never imagined.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Dec 2016 01:47

Probably the case. The USN publishes data on component EOT and refreshes the costing data on each component for both the engines concerned (in addition to other engines used by it) every few years. There are also papers out there that look at fleet wide data given varying deployment patterns (compared to baseline assumptions) since the combat and deployment utilization of the fleet of both the F/A-18 A-C and E-G have been higher than originally estimated.

titash · Post by **titash** » 03 Dec 2016 04:23

Cross post from Naval LCA thread...

nachiket wrote:The total orders for Mig-29Ks at this point are 45. The Vikramaditya will carry not more than 18-24 of these at any given time. The Vikrant is not going to be ready for commissioning for a few more years. So what exactly is the need for more fighters at this point?

More importantly, what is the need for a second imported fighter type?

CONFIGURATION:
Our carriers today are STOBAR. This configuration inherently limits the capabilities of onboard aircraft no matter how good they are.
With STOBAR, all aircraft e.g. rafale or hornet or super hornet or Su-33 will be as limited as a Mig-29K in terms of the payload they can carry. Only a steam catapult or EMALS will help aircraft realize their full potential.
With STOBAR, the Mig-29K is a multi-role aircraft that can perform superbly in the air defence role, while carrying lightweight anti-ship missiles and bombs in the strike role, and there is no need for a second fighter type, except as a Mig-29K replacement 20 years later.

SIZE:
The 40-45,000 ton VikAd and Vikrant are too small to carry 2 fighter types because they will carry 20-24 jets max with a more likely number being 16.
The Charles de Gaulle is a similar sized carrier that carries only the multi-role rafale today (with a steam catapult).
The old RN carriers Ark Royal & Eagle were the last 40-50,000 ton carriers to see service and deployed a mix of 12 air defence Phantoms and 12 strike Buccaneers as their final air wing (with steam catapults).

WHY A SECOND FIGHTER:
With a CATOBAR configuration, the Rafale with its higher payload capacity is far better than a Mig-29K and is a valid replacement.
If the IN's intent is to buy newer generation more capable fighters to operate off the 65,000 ton INS Vishal equipped with an EMALS, then we should buy 40 rafales or 40 F35s that can either deliver a very large payload (rafale) or bring stealth (F35) to the table, because neither the Mig-29K nor the LCA Tejas is designed to offer either capability.
The LCA Tejas is a valid second type because it helps our strategic capabilities to progress.

To reiterate - the CNS is not stating anything new or something that we didn't know before. The ToI reporter (Rajat Pandit I bet) simply has the statement repackaged with an intent to sensationalize.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 06 Dec 2016 16:55

In morning saw LCA passing in flash, while I was driving, on its landing approach. Couldn't recognise which one it was in split second, but it sure looked like it had 2 missiles on one wing so I hope it was coming from a BVR trial flight.

In last 2-3 months LSP3/4/5 and PV5 only are flying. Good chance it was one of LSP3 or 5 which have Quartz domes.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 06 Dec 2016 18:14

Any news on SP-4 being readied for ground trials? Any news on SP-3 delivery from HAL to IAF, post maiden flight.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Dec 2016 18:28

I've always maintained that a small light single-engined aircraft is an anachronism in today's carrier warfare,unless the carrier is large enough to accomodate at least 70+ aircraft..With BMos-M in development,all our larger naval strike fighters MIG-29Ks,whatever in the future,would carry the missile but not the NLCA.Therefore,given its limited capability in meeting future threats,the NLCA has now been discarded officially.RIP NLCA,you were ssdly stillborn.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Dec 2016 19:11

the problem seems more with the carrier than the aircraft per se...
I think the NLCA has advanced the art of the possible with the LCA itself - so that is a positive development

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Dec 2016 19:32

AdA and HAL need to develop, build and complete testing of the MK2. Once that is complete you'll have a proper Naval LCA variant that can do a lot more missions and is operationally acceptable to the Navy. That's a decade worth of work to do and hope it stays funded.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 06 Dec 2016 19:43

Philip Sir

Is the primary role of our Naval Aircraft going to be just Brahmos launchers ?

What about fleet air defense ? Air denial /Air superiority ?

Surely not all aircraft on the carrier are going to be carrying Brahmos all the time

If carrying Brahmos was the only goal then better that we have a guided missile battle group rather than a carrier battle group

We are not going to be a super power unless we build and use our own military equipment

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 06 Dec 2016 20:16

Philip wrote:I've always maintained that a small light single-engined aircraft is an anachronism in today's carrier warfare,unless the carrier is large enough to accomodate at least 70+ aircraft..With BMos-M in development,all our larger naval strike fighters MIG-29Ks,whatever in the future,would carry the missile but not the NLCA.Therefore,given its limited capability in meeting future threats,the NLCA has now been discarded officially.RIP NLCA,you were ssdly stillborn.

That is very poor statement from a senior knowledgeable BRF member. If you read the statement and know past facts, it is clear that LCA Navy Mk1 was never meant for operational use. Thats where the requirement for MK2 came, which IAF happily joined and than jump off in favour of Mk1A for good reasons (timeline is one of those).

Now Navy might be unhappy with the NLCA MK2 but they are not exiting it. But on the reserve, IN dont want to buy more Mig-29, as Mig-29 and NLCA were supposed to serve IN hand-in-hand. In stead they would like to get another imported fighter. I don't know if it is a good decision at this point. But this is the IN thinking.... lets wait and watch.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Dec 2016 03:12

Lalmohan wrote:the problem seems more with the carrier than the aircraft per se...

Which carrier? There are enough Mig-29Ks to equip the sole carrier we have as well as the one being currently built. Unless of course the IN is so unhappy with the Mig-29K that they needed the NLCA to immediately supplement or replace them. In that case, the good admiral should have clarified that instead of pinning all blame on the NLCA. The NLCA Mk1 was never going to be anything more than a stepping stone (but a necessary one) to the NLCA Mk2 which the Navy really wanted. Since the immediate needs of the IN were being taken care of by the Mig-29Ks, this wasn't really a problem. The IN can afford to wait for the NLCA Mk2 to be realized. If the 29Ks don't turn out to be hanger queens that is.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Dec 2016 08:31

The Navy should clarify if they want a naval LCA or not right NOW.

If the answer is No and they only plan to induct twin engine foreign planes, then do not waste another minute of the country's resources on developing a naval variant of the LCA. This cannot turn into another Arjun fiasco where the project keeps moving and money keeps being wasted even though the product is not wanted.

If there is a commitment, step up to the plate and allocate supplementary funds from the Navy's budget to the MK2's development. "Pay to play" shows commitment to purchase the end product.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 07 Dec 2016 08:57

I'd rather that GoI come down heavily on IAF and IN on one hand and DRDO/GTRE/ADA on the other that they have no choice but to accept Tejas in good numbers in their ranks and MAKE IT WORK. Long term interests of the country far outweigh any feelings of emotional atyachaar.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Dec 2016 09:56

RKumar wrote:
Philip wrote:...........Therefore,given its limited capability in meeting future threats,the NLCA has now been discarded officially.RIP NLCA,you were ssdly stillborn.
That is very poor statement from a senior knowledgeable BRF member.......

And you expect any different? This poster has been peddling foreign products since the inception of this site.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 07 Dec 2016 10:58

Neshant wrote:The Navy should clarify if they want a naval LCA or not right NOW.

Sir, with all due respect, the Navy would have liked to have the naval LCA as of Yesterday!

The IN has a better record than the IAF and the IA of supporting and operating indigenous equipment

The naval chief was perhaps just being pragmatic and hedging his bets

After all he will have to fight with what he has since he might not always have the luxury of choosing the time of the fight

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 07 Dec 2016 11:14

Vivek K wrote:And you expect any different? This poster has been peddling foreign products since the inception of this site.

To be fair, Russian only.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2016 11:19

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 770283.ece

Airing out a decision
Manmohan Bahadur DECEMBER 07, 2016

07THopedArmed.A+GAAV7NVR.3.jpg.jpg
STEP BY STEP:“In any acquisition, a group of defence professionals, on whose training the country has spent a fortune, goes about the selection process diligently.” Picture shows the rollout of the LCA (Navy), in Bengaluru in 2010.—PHOTO: K. MURALI KUMARK Murali kumar
Why the Indian Navy’s non-acceptance of the Tejas fighter aircraft should be accepted as a result of evaluation by specialists

The Indian Navy’s professional decision not to induct the indigenous Tejas fighter aircraft has given armchair critics a new lease of life. Stand by for a lot of their ‘professional’ views against the Navy especially as the Indian Air Force (IAF) is now out of their cross hairs after its decision to induct 120 Tejas MK 1As — a decision which was born out of no other criterion but a professional assessment. It is time we become wise about how the defence forces go about buying aircraft and other equipment that cost millions of rupees per piece. There are operational pressures too which influence decision-making. In this misplaced assault of the ‘armchairists’, the case of the procurement of the Pilatus PC-7 Basic Trainer Aircraft (BTA) by the IAF from Switzerland as against Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s indigenous HTT-40 stands out.

Procurement road map

Every procurement proposal has three basic constituents: the first is the Services Qualitative Requirements (SQR) of the item to be bought. The second is the ‘categorisation’ or the way the item is to be procured, and the last is the grant of ‘acceptance of necessity’ of the competent authority. Thereafter, the request for proposal (RFP) is floated to eligible firms to bid for the equipment. Thus the SQRs are the cornerstone of an acquisition proposal.

Qualitative Requirements are of two types, depending on the categorisation of the case. If the project is under the ‘Make’ (in India) category, since the equipment is being indigenously designed a Preliminary SQR (PSQR) is generated. For all other categorisations an Air SQR, NSQR (for the Navy) or GSQR (Army) is made. The reason lies in the basic dissimilarity between a ‘Make’ project and the other categorisations. Considering that indigenous design capability is not sufficiently developed, procurement rules permit an incremental approach in the ‘Make’ process till the fruition of the prototype. Thus, PSQRs are jointly framed by the IAF and the development agency, taking into account the operational capability required by the former and the designing capability of the latter. As development progresses, PSQRs are fine-tuned till the prototype takes shape and its performance meets the requirements of the PSQRs. The PSQRs are then converted to ASQR (or its equivalent for the other services) and frozen. Therefore, a PSQR is futuristic in character, because inherent in it is the element of technology that is still under development.

On the other hand, an ASQR resides more ‘in the present’ and is indicative of the technology that is on offer by arms manufacturing firms. In most cases, an ASQR is less demanding than a PSQR since the developing Indian entity (in a PSQR case) could be researching and designing a capability that foreign firms are unable to offer, either because they do not posses it or because their governments have not cleared its sale.

A case study

So, what transpired in the BTA project under which the Pilatus was procured? PSQRs were generated in early 2009 for the development of the HTT-40 basic trainer aircraft to replace the HAL-built HPT-32. These PSQRs were a joint effort of the IAF and HAL. However, in May 2009, following a number of crashes of the HPT-32, the aircraft was prematurely grounded by the IAF; this writer was part of the decision- making and recalls the enormity of the repercussions that weighed on everyone present. But there was no way out. The IAF’s training schedule was totally disrupted; HJT-16 Kiran intermediate trainers had to be withdrawn from the Surya Kiran aerobatic team and the Flying Instructors School to put in place an ad hoc basic training profile for rookie trainees. The flying syllabus was drastically curtailed to manage the available flying hours on the Kiran. A basic trainer had to be urgently bought from abroad to tide over the crisis and put the flying training profile back on track. With the HTT-40 nowhere on the horizon, ASQRs were generated to enable worldwide competition. These ASQRs may have been different than the PSQRs for the HTT-40 due the fact that an aircraft had to be found as soon as possible to train pilots for operational squadrons. Of the companies that responded to the RFP, six were shortlisted in the technical evaluation, of which three subsequently qualified in the flight evaluation. The Pilatus PC-7 emerged as the lowest bidder in the evaluation of commercial bids.

As has become the norm in defence procurements nearing fruition, there were insinuations that the ASQRs had been diluted in the selection of the Pilatus. Critics overlooked the fact that in any acquisition a group of IAF professionals, on whose training the country has spent a fortune, goes about the selection process diligently. In the event, the HTT-40 is still at least four years away from gaining operational status and for production to start. Meanwhile, the Pilatus has been going great guns for the past three years at the Air Force Academy, and the IAF’s training profile is back on track, converting rookie youngsters to operational pilots for frontline squadrons. These young pilots are guarding our skies day in and day out.

So, is it a dead end for development of a modern fighter in the country? Far from it as the technologies developed in the Tejas programme should come handy in the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme of the country. Meanwhile, one hopes that the Indian Navy’s non-acceptance of the Tejas is accepted as born out of an evaluation by specialists.

Air Vice-Marshal Manmohan Bahadur (retd.) is Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies.

PS:Typical of ignoramuses,they want to shoot the postman!
Who has killed the fighter? The IN/CNS not me.
Why? Because it is overweight and even MK-1 doesn't meet original capabilities.Moreover,the huger delay in even getting the prototype flying means that even if can be salvaged,it will enter prod/service only by 2020.By then we may see a Chinese naval stealth variant too.
And yes,the NLCA is "stillborn" because it hasn't even made a single carrier landing and take-off.And that's due to no fault of mine.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Dec 2016 11:34

Let those who believe that only Americans and Russians can design proper fighting machines have their say. You have your laugh. Hisaab barabar. There is nothing that one can say to cure biases. But if you guys indulge in personal attacks, I have to act as a moderator.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Dec 2016 11:38

Philip sahaab,
1. NLCA mk1 was never supposed to be operationalized
2. CNS said that development of NLCA will continue according to plan.

Please stop acting as the postman, because you are not. You selectively believe in stories which suit your world view, or parrot the same. So please stop playing the victim card every time. You can't go about poking people, and then complain when they return the favour.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Dec 2016 11:48

I do want to ask AVM Bahadur. Sir how long will be giving PSQRs to desi efforts and ASQRs to imported maal? Why was the HPT-32 deemed unflyable when it's track record is much better than other planes? Why wasn't HPT-32 with chutes cosidered but not taken forward? Why are people questioning favoritism using facts and figures derogated without proper answers? I was watching a recent interview of the DM by Nitin gokhale. He just stopped short of calling the pilatus deal a sham. Why?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2016 14:31

Sorry,Indra,you are an apologist for the death machine the HTT-32.How many pilots did it kill? Whoever heard of birds with chutes,begging the engines to fail! Do other basic trainers worldwide fly with emergency chutes for the aircraft? They have utmost faith in the reliability of their products.The IAF refused to fly them and after a serious selection picked the PC-7.You are an apologist for shoddy desi products without being objective. Several chiefs and AMs have spoken on the issue ,lauding the PC-7's acquisition. If kickbacks were paid and proof found,hang the blighters responsible,but don't like the Bofors gun,denigrate the decision to go in for a good product.

As far as the LCA goes,I've been very objective,wanting a second production line for the IAF variant-read my earlier posts over years,and not wanting a second single-engined line of another firang type like the two 50 yr old Yanqui birds.We can buy/build more MIIs,acquire MIG-29/35s,Jaguars, which will not affect training,maintenance,etc. to make up numbers and acquire at least 200 LCAs,MK-1/1a/2s whatever.That's what I've stated earlier.The NLCA simply doesn't fit the bill for naval carrier ops in current form and even for the future will be overwhelmed by superior aircraft.The IN was the most keen advocate of having a desi carrier strike aircraft,but the ADA/HAL haven't delivered what they want.Accept the fact and move on. Shoving down the IN's throat the NLCA which hasn't even taken off from a carrier in tests isn't the answer to achieving self-reliance.The end product must fit the bill.

This speaks for itself:
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/13616/ ... EfRftJ96M8

Boeing Ends $4.7 Billion HAL Contract Citing ‘Shoddy’ Production Quality
Boeing has ended $4.7 million contract with Indian Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) citing shoddy production quality of components for the nation’s P-8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
“Boeing decided to end the contract after repeated remainders to HAL about its ‘poor quality’ of production. Boeing’s move underlines the need for better strategies by Indian policy makers in order to bolster the order books of defense public sector undertakings (DPSUs),” Financial Express quoted unnamed sources as saying Thursday.
Boeing has shifted its component sourcing requirements in India to private firms in the last few years. Tata Advanced Materials (TAML) and Dynamatic technologies for power and mission equipment cabinets for P-8I aircraft, TAML is also contracted for P-8I auxiliary power unit door fairings. Dynamatic Technologies is on contract to manufacture the aft pylon and cargo ramp assemblies for Boeing’s CH-47F Chinook. Maini and TAL Manufacturing Solutions are on contract to provide C-17 ground support equipment to Boeing.

http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... ar/311032/

Shoddy coordination delayed Tejas by a decade: Manohar Parrikar
The production of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft was delayed for "eight to 10 years" because of shoddy coordination by the Defence Ministry agencies involved and lack of required support, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said on FridayParrikar, who was speaking at a function in Margao town, 35 km from Panaji, also said that 55 per cent of the equipment used in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft was indigenously manufactured.

“In 2001, when Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, the plane (Tejas) took its maiden flight and by 2006-07 it should have been inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF). No one paid attention to it for eight to 10 years,” Parrikar said, blaming the Aeronautical Development Agency, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the Indian Air Force for lack of coordination.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Dec 2016 00:42

Philip wrote:Sorry,Indra,you are an apologist for the death machine the HTT-32.How many pilots did it kill?

I am glad you asked. Over about 30 years, 17 pilots have been killed in 13 crashes on the Deepak. Let's compare that accident rate with the global rate, and the rate of accidents of other aircraft types in IAF.

Let's us rewind the tape to 1990-2000s. According to official audits

Audit scrutiny revealed that the rate of accidents in respect of fighter stream was high and ranged between 1.89 and 3.53. The rate of accidents in MIG-21 variants was still higher and ranged between 2.29 and 3.99.

<SNIP>

3.1.2 On being asked about the accident rate prevalent in other advanced countries, the Ministry in a note inter-alia stated that from the limited information available, the accident rates of advanced countries, the USA and other European nations, were considerably low-approximately 0.38 for the USA and 0.57 for the UK. According to the Ministry, the European aircraft fleet in the IAF compared quite favorably. It was further stated that higher accident rate in IAF was attributable to the medium or low technology segment of the fighter aircraft fleet of non-western origin.

3.1.3 The Committee desired to know about the number of accidents and incidents that took place including total loss in these accidents during 1997-2000. According to the Ministry, during this period, 84 accidents and 1516 incidents took place. This resulted in a loss of 67 aircraft and 28 pilots. Updating the figure of total accidents upto August 2001, the representative of Air Headquarters (HQrs.) intimated the Committee in evidence that during 1991-2000, there had been 283 accidents and 4,418 incidents in the IAF. Of these 283 accidents, 221 aircraft were totally destroyed and 100 IAF pilots lost their lives. In their vetting comments on the information furnished by the Ministry, Audit pointed out that out of 84 accidents reported, 32 accidents occurred in 1999-2000 only. The rate of accident had also shown a steady rise during the past three years.

Now before you jump to blaming IAF's incapability to handle uber Russian ware, let me tell you that the Romanian Mig-21s were crashing at 3 crashes per 10,000 hrs of flight since 1996 and Russian Airforce averaging 1.2 crashes per 10,000 hours for the Mig-29s (which they deemed to be one of their safest aircraft). Mind you, all this while maintaining abysmally low availability rates. By the way, everywhere the Mig 23s and Mig-27s were much much more crash prone than the Mig-21s! During the 2000s and up to now, IAF worked very hard and paid a lot to get the their overall crash rate to 0.6 per 10,000 hrs which is very respectful. Now you would say Indra, why are you comparing fighters with trainers? Actually the crash rates of trainers is higher that fighters in peace time. In the western hemisphere, a crash rate of approximate 0.6- 0.7 crashes per 10,000 hours is considered good.

With all that background, do you know the crash rate for HPT-32? It is 0.325 per 10,000 hrs. You have been singing paeans to the Russian ware. So, who is being the apologist?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Dec 2016 01:29

Philip wrote:Whoever heard of birds with chutes,begging the engines to fail! Do other basic trainers worldwide fly with emergency chutes for the aircraft?

You haven't heard it, doesn't mean that they don't exist! Please read up on ballistic parachute recovery systems. It is not an ideal solution. But it could have been the stop gap.

I am nobody but in my opinion, there is nobody to blame but IAF for its situation in 2010. What was it doing during 1995-2000? The Deepaks were supposed to retire in 2007-8. The natural evolution of HPT-32 to the turboprop version HTT-34 was shot down in 80s. This new engine and fuel system did not seem to have the fuel problem of HPT-32. It could do inverted flights of 30 seconds IIRC. Then in 90s, IAF asked for tandem seat trainers in 90s. Note that interestingly, it allowed the GRob trainer in 2010

Anyways, HAL designed HTT-36 around 1995 which was also shot down. What do you expect in the 2000s? If HAL's execution is shoddy, so was IAF's planning in anticipation of HPT's retirement. By the AVM's own words, he on behalf of IAF was coming up with a "futuristic PSQR" in 2009 for a plane which was supposed to retire in 2007!

Philip wrote: They have utmost faith in the reliability of their products.The IAF refused to fly them and after a serious selection picked the PC-7.You are an apologist for shoddy desi products without being objective. Several chiefs and AMs have spoken on the issue ,lauding the PC-7's acquisition. If kickbacks were paid and proof found,hang the blighters responsible,but don't like the Bofors gun,denigrate the decision to go in for a good product.

The outcome is good, and everybody (including me) is satisfied with that. However, the acquisition of PC-7 is nothing but clean. The ex-chiefs also know it. They are just much better than me at keeping their mouth shut in the interest of national security. Here is Mr. Parrikar speaking about the same. Around the 12:50 mark. He says

DM: I can tell you this much, with certainty, that the cost of acquisition is definitely and surely coming down. You know the reason for it. There are systems which are cheaper by 10% 5%, 20%, but in one case I saw the price drop by one-fifth, i.e. 20%.so the kind of markup that probably existed ...
NG: And why did it exist?
DM: I don't want to comment. People know so many things about Pilatus, Embraer and other things. I don't have to comment on it. There are many things that people know. It may be difficult to prove because of the complexities of such transactions. But I think you can understand

I mean look at ASQR and PC-7's capabilities. They are like carbon-copies! Let me know if you find one item in the ASQR which is different the capability of the PC-7 MkII. IAF has done this before (read the Jaguar acquisition), and then put up a competition in name. The poor South Koreans (newbies) kept asking: "we offered a better aircraft at lower costs, then how did they lose?" HAL could not say so openly and employed Ajai Shukla for airing their views.

Anyways, PC-7 is a great aircraft. It has very high availability and serves IAF's requirements well. I am happy for them. Was it's acquisition by the book. No sir. Not even close.

Philip wrote:As far as the LCA goes,I've been very objective,wanting a second production line for the IAF variant-read my earlier posts over years,and not wanting a second single-engined line of another firang type like the two 50 yr old Yanqui birds.We can buy/build more MIIs,acquire MIG-29/35s,Jaguars, which will not affect training,maintenance,etc. to make up numbers and acquire at least 200 LCAs,MK-1/1a/2s whatever.That's what I've stated earlier.The NLCA simply doesn't fit the bill for naval carrier ops in current form and even for the future will be overwhelmed by superior aircraft.The IN was the most keen advocate of having a desi carrier strike aircraft,but the ADA/HAL haven't delivered what they want.Accept the fact and move on. Shoving down the IN's throat the NLCA which hasn't even taken off from a carrier in tests isn't the answer to achieving self-reliance.The end product must fit the bill.

I have nothing to accept sir. If you did not know Navy's plans then you are late to wake up. Nothing has changed with respect to the IN and the NLCA. India bought 45 Mig-29s enough for Vikramaditya and IAC-II. They are going for aircraft over and above the Mig-29s. Why? I don't know.

Philip wrote: This speaks for itself:
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/13616/ ... EfRftJ96M8
Boeing Ends $4.7 Billion HAL Contract Citing ‘Shoddy’ Production Quality
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... ar/311032/
Shoddy coordination delayed Tejas by a decade: Manohar Parrikar

Absolutely, I am with you in criticizing HAL where it is culpable of. If you ask me to blame HAL for every problem under the sun, then sir I am sorry I am not in the business of passing the buck.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 08 Dec 2016 02:47

I apologise for carrying this on in the wrong thread.

Indranil Said:
I have nothing to accept sir. If you did not know Navy's plans then you are late to wake up. Nothing has changed with respect to the IN and the NLCA. India bought 45 Mig-29s enough for Vikramaditya and IAC-II. They are going for aircraft over and above the Mig-29s. Why? I don't know.

Holy crap it just hit me... yes why are we going for over and above.

Wait I know the answer.... EMALa ... the garland of E-MALA

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Dec 2016 03:04

Khalsa wrote:
Holy crap it just hit me... yes why are we going for over and above.

Wait I know the answer.... EMALa ... the garland of E-MALA

EMALS (if it comes) won't be operational till 2030 at the earliest, when we get IAC-II. Bit too early to be looking for aircraft for that isn't it? Certainly too early to blame the NLCA for not being ready in 2016 to fly off a carrier in 2030.

This is just par for the course when it comes to senior officers talking about indigenous equipment. You can add it to the three-legged cheetah and Mig-21++ comments coming from IAF.