tsarkar wrote:^^ Karan, what you posted only corroborates that LCA TDs were science lab projects, and the process to make it a viable fighter started in the 2001-5 timeframe.
So? Boss, all throughout I have been making the EXACT point that the AF led decision to keep the TDs as science lab programs was FLAWED thanks to their desire to keep the program in a very "lets see and then decide manner" which is where the entire development process was doubled since basic technology had to be reworked or added in much much later.
ADA and HAL were completely inexperienced and went by consultant reccomendations & IAF manuals for existing airframes eg Mirage 2000 - when the IAF joined they wanted something better! If the IAF team had been part of the TD process itself & the TD process was not merely a "demo" but worked on in parallel with a clear roadmap (as versus waiting for FSED approval) we would have saved a heckuva lot of time.
The Mk-1 configuration aircraft started coming after I took over in 2005. The challenge started with PV-2, which is the present Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) configuration aircraft.
Confirms that process from TD to Mk1 started in 2005
So? That is why I posted it in the first place!
The rear fuselage too had to be changed to accommodate GE404-IN20 engine.
There was no Kaveri, and TDs flew with F-404F2J3 that was a temporary engine for the TDs.
As we all know.
Even the MMR (Multi-Mode Radar) underwent changes after the indigenous effort to make one did not succeed. So we had to go for Israeli Elta Radar.
Here is the program head saying we went for an Israeli radar.
As we all know. The Hybrid MMR is NOTHING but an ELTA 2032 with an Indian scanner. Multiple references to it exist.
Karan M wrote:many were late changes because the TD systems were revised completely once IAF came on board in 2006!!
correction. TD's did not have any combat capable systems.
What correction? Who claimed that TD had all combat capable systems?
The point all along which you don't seem to get is that the TD ->PV development choice was FLAWED to begin with since the IAF did NOT specify proper specifications for the TDs themselves to do the heavy lifting.
As such everything had to be redone.
And BTW: The TD's mission computing systems were leveraged for the MiG-27, Su-30 MKI and even DARIN-1 upgrade so with a bit of leverage they could become very well combat capable.
Redone for the LCA PV and will only appear on Super 30 for the Su-30
TD's did not have any radar. Initially it was provisioned for MMR, thereafter Elta 2032
TD's did not have any production standard engine. It flew with GE F-404F2J3, was was provisioned for Kaveri, finally required GE F-404IN20
TD's did not have any LDP.
TD's did not have any HMDS.
TD's did not have any MFD.
TD's did not have any RWR.
TD's did not have any CMDS.
TD's did not have instrumentation like VOR, DME & ILS
TD's did not have any stores capability, so to develop Mk1, stores separation trails were required.
TD's did not have any missiles.
TD's did not have any guns.
So which specific TD systems were revised completely are you referring to?
LOL, here I was pointing out that this was the exact flaw in the program that the TDs didn;t have adequate mission capable systems and you are repeating my words.
Next you just posted a list of handful of items and even there you are wrong. TD's didn't have MFD? What were they flying with, steam gauges?
The TDs had a complete mission computing, display suite which experience was used for upgrade programs.
PS: There is more to an aircraft than just the above avionics, putting them in a list may make them appear a lot but there are over 500 LRUs in the Tejas. That includes the hydraulics, the aggregates, the airframe systems, etc.
All these need to be integrated into a functional platform.
The IAF choosing the flawed TD to PV model ensured the actual FSED started much much later.
I could even post a list of changes from my own notes but this is ending up as a waste of time.
AF goalposts did not change, except for weapons. CAG is clear on that.
The work referred to by PS is the work that went in to make a combat capable aircraft from TD to Mk1.
Or are you saying that IAF should've inducted LCA TDs in squadron service, that did not have radar or a production engine and was completely unfit for combat service?
More circular merry go around.
Lets be clear here. The IAF's "goalposts" or any customers goalposts for anyone even remotely associated with the process of making things, are not an end in themselves. They had to be involved in the process and they weren't. In the case of the LCA, the IAF happily let things slide till 2005 before which they werent bothered with the program and hence it took FSED to actually make the LCA into a combat aircraft.
As versus having done a fair amount of the heavy lifting by TD stage itself and not using this sequential process to begin with!!
IAF came up with high level specs & then disassociated themselves from the program till 2005-6. "AF goalposts didn't change" except the fact that only they knew what their specific interpretation of many of these goalposts would be, which is typical for a program of this nature.
The IAF appointee to the program recently noted that the IAF joined in 2006 and reworked all the design logic and raised hundreds of engineering change requests for the program to make it a viable program. All good, but thats five years after 2001!
Anyways I have wasted enough time on this.
Hopefully ADA and the IAF won't be stupid enough to repeat this flawed, sequential process and the IAF joins the program too late for ALL items in the AMCA itself otherwise we will see more of the usual.
But hey, who knows. We seem to have done much the same for the T-50 with the IAF waiting & watching and as a result we now need an India specific FGFA with no clear timeline of when it will be inducted and what workshare we'll end up having because we lost so much time already and have to agree to whatever the Russians allow us.
As long as our Air Marshals and distinguished scientists and great engineers all sit in their respective ivory towers, we will end up in the same mess again and again.
