LCA news and discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Vivek K » 14 Apr 2010 00:18

Babu Pandey - Please read your history again. Also bring out crashes per 10,000 operating hours. IAF's Mig-21s for a brief period had some issues due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The older types (FL, PF and M?) have already been retired. The ones flying are the later generation bis upgraded to bison standard and the un-converted bis aircraft. These have performed well against most types and have proven to be good on safety.

These will be replaced once the IAF can entrust the backbone of their fleet to the LCAs.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7442
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Prasad » 14 Apr 2010 00:20

Vivek K wrote:HAL needs to invest more for the production facilities for LCA. Since HAL is a PSU it is not expected to operate on a profit basis. What is therefore stopping HAL from building up production lines? They need to get more birds built, install the radar and get MK1 in squadron service.


Did you read the report tabled by the def min which was posted earlier in the thread. please read through that before calling for a billion dollar investment into production facilities. please please please read through them!

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Vivek K » 14 Apr 2010 00:59

One LCA per year is being produced. No one is asking for facilities to produce 50 per year at the moment. We need to be able to produce at least 8-10 aircraft per year. Will that take $1 billion?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4915
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 14 Apr 2010 01:27

babbupandey wrote:
My apologies for hurting your sentiments but that does not justify you calling me a DDMite


I didn't call you a DDMite. Read what I wrote carefully "BRF is not a DDM forum where ignorant DDMites can say anything they want and get away with it."

It says that BRF is NOT a DDM forum where its members (and like BRFites those would be called DDMites) can say anything they want and get away with it.

My point was simple, Mig-21 is old and should be retired. No amount of retro-fitting and upgrade will help. Please face the truth, IAF is losing brilliant pilots because of this plane, it may have served us well but it is high time that we stop being sentimental and move on.
Here is the reason why I called them flying-coffins:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/06/13/stories/2003061300010801.htm
Stats (up to 2003)
350 crashes
170 lives

Here is one more interesting detail to note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiG21operators.png
We are the only country with a sizable military (so-called aspiring global power) to operate them even today.


No one in their right mind will deny that the MiG-21 needs to be retired. the IAF had been planning on that since the 1980s. its a testament to the monumental red-tapism and sheer incompetence of the MoD that the Hawks came into service in 2007 or so when the first Hawk AJT was evaluated by the IAF in 1986 ! Till then MOFTU was performing duties it should never have been asked to do in the first place.

I've read umpteen articles on the MiG-21 and I know that the MiG-21 has a high attrition rate. But do you know just how many MiG-21s have served in the IAF ? nearly a 1000.

Do you know that at one time nearly 50% of the total annual fighter flying hours of the IAF were on MiG-21s, which in turn constituted nearly 70% of all fighter flying done by the IAF when calculated on a sortie to sortie basis ? Do you know that the MiG-23 had a far worse attrition rate despite being a generation newer than the MiG-21 ?

I know that its a difficult fighter (being very high performance) to fly and needed careful handling at some stages of flight and required skill and concentration when maneuvering as it could see speed decay very fast without giving any idea to the pilot from the aircraft's attitude. So the pilot needed to be scanning his instruments all the time, but at the same time not get so engrossed as to lose his bearings That problem was further exacerbated by other issues with the MiG-21 like a cluttered cockpit and poor Situational awareness as a result, but that was true of most of that generation's aircraft (except the Draken). It was difficult to land in one because its landing speed was very high and forward visibility poor. It had less endurance which meant diversions due to bad weather could not be attempted.

Besides, attrition rates on all fighters of that generation was poor. Just check the F-104 and F-106's attrition rates.

But it was the fact that the IAF was forced to use it in a role that it was NOT designed to be used for that led to a large number of those crashes. Teaching a pilot to fly a fast jet on something like the MiG-21 (which was optimized for high altitude interception) is like using a Formula One car to teach lane driving to a pupil who just got his driving licence. Even experienced guys cannot handle a Formula One car the first few times. On the MiG-21, one mistake and you're done. If there is anyone to be blamed for that situation, it is the GoI, which for 2 decades did not buy the AJT for the IAF and forced it to use the MiG-21 to train pupil pilots.

yet, as an aircraft, it has provided the IAF with tremendous service. For that, I respect and love the MiG-21.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kanson » 14 Apr 2010 01:57

Rahul,

'
Time overrun is encountered because of time taken to overcome technological complexities, foreign exchange crunch in 1991, revised systems requirements by the IAF and export restrictions by the US,' Mukherjee added.


The IAF's Air Staff Requirement for the LCA would not be finalised until October 1985. This delay rendered moot the original schedule which called for first flight in April 1990 and service entry in 1995;


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-t ... -i/250153/
Ego clashes between the officials of DRDO and the IAF, that continues even today, have played a major role in delaying the ‘Tejas’ indigenous fighter aircraft project by over a decade, claims a new book written by a former senior Air Force officer.

The Tejas Story, authored by Air Marshal P Rajkumar (Retd), who headed the project for nine years till 2003, traces the history of the Light Combat Aircraft over the past two decades and points to several “personality based” clashes among the officials of IAF, DRDO and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited that “continued to dog the programme”.

The book also points out that as early as 1994, the Air Force was informed that the project was running behind time and the indigenous fighter would not be available for induction till the next decade. However, this warning seems to have been ignored as the Defence ministry woke up to the problem of dwindling IAF squadrons only this year by floating global tenders for 126 medium multi-role fighters.


Everyone knows what was the problem, those who were deeply involved knows much more than what ordinary abdul can talk abt. It was addressed, licked over and new methods were devised, so many thing happened in the past 20 yrs and past IAF Chiefs touched on these topics and Gaddi has moved forward. It will be prudent for the current one to take the Gaddi from where the previous one has left rather than talking abt 20 yrs story. This is 20 yrs story is as good as talking how India is a poor country in early 50s...kind of story.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4302
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Apr 2010 02:05

Kartik if Tejas clears IOC by 2011 March, can't we already start having them replace Mig 21s already as Vivek K States:
What is stopping LCA from being produced in larger numbers now? Remember that info in public domain is 6-9 months old. The LCAs FCL/FBW is proven and the flight envelope is open, AOA, speed numbers, weaponization is probably in wrap up stage. Hot weather, Cold weather and sea level trials are complete. The bird is ready to go to work.

Or do we have to wait till FOC for some technical reasons?
I mean otherwise Tejas even at minimum and most cautious payload/radar/performancewise would still be a huge leap from Bison.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4915
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 14 Apr 2010 03:22

Manish_Sharma wrote:Kartik if Tejas clears IOC by 2011 March, can't we already start having them replace Mig 21s already as Vivek K States:
Or do we have to wait till FOC for some technical reasons?
I mean otherwise Tejas even at minimum and most cautious payload/radar/performancewise would still be a huge leap from Bison.

Of course it will start replacing the earlier variants of the MiG-21s. But not the Bisons as yet. They're BVR capable, the Tejas isn't as yet. The Tejas will be BVR capable by the time it reaches FOC in 2012. Payload and performance wise it will be a big jump no doubt, but the MMR has yet to be flight tested on the Tejas and we don't know what hiccups they'll face then. So as of now, the Bison's Kopyo radar offers a decent capability that can only be replaced when the Tejas is ready with its MMR and R-77 integrated and tested.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4302
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Apr 2010 04:01

^^Thanks Kartik! :)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Viv S » 14 Apr 2010 04:12

Kartik wrote:Of course it will start replacing the earlier variants of the MiG-21s. But not the Bisons as yet. They're BVR capable, the Tejas isn't as yet.


??? I always assumed the Tejas would have the MMR equipping it, failing which the EL/M-2032/52 was to be installed.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16883
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 14 Apr 2010 06:55

Kanson wrote:Rahul,

'
Time overrun is encountered because of time taken to overcome technological complexities, foreign exchange crunch in 1991, revised systems requirements by the IAF and export restrictions by the US,' Mukherjee added.


The IAF's Air Staff Requirement for the LCA would not be finalised until October 1985. This delay rendered moot the original schedule which called for first flight in April 1990 and service entry in 1995;


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-t ... -i/250153/
Ego clashes between the officials of DRDO and the IAF, that continues even today, have played a major role in delaying the ‘Tejas’ indigenous fighter aircraft project by over a decade, claims a new book written by a former senior Air Force officer.

The Tejas Story, authored by Air Marshal P Rajkumar (Retd), who headed the project for nine years till 2003, traces the history of the Light Combat Aircraft over the past two decades and points to several “personality based” clashes among the officials of IAF, DRDO and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited that “continued to dog the programme”.

The book also points out that as early as 1994, the Air Force was informed that the project was running behind time and the indigenous fighter would not be available for induction till the next decade. However, this warning seems to have been ignored as the Defence ministry woke up to the problem of dwindling IAF squadrons only this year by floating global tenders for 126 medium multi-role fighters.


kanson, I don't need those reports to tell me the causes of the delay in tejas ! :D
I've myself mentioned it in my earlier post above and in greater detail in previous pages of this thread. that does not take away from the fact that the bulk of the delay is not IAF's doing.
Everyone knows what was the problem, those who were deeply involved knows much more than what ordinary abdul can talk abt. It was addressed, licked over and new methods were devised, so many thing happened in the past 20 yrs and past IAF Chiefs touched on these topics and Gaddi has moved forward. It will be prudent for the current one to take the Gaddi from where the previous one has left rather than talking abt 20 yrs story. This is 20 yrs story is as good as talking how India is a poor country in early 50s...kind of story.

AFAIK he is taking the gaddi forward, so this point is moot. he can air his legitimate gripes and as long as he continues to support the program, I don't see what the problem is.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16883
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 14 Apr 2010 06:58

Viv S wrote:
Kartik wrote:Of course it will start replacing the earlier variants of the MiG-21s. But not the Bisons as yet. They're BVR capable, the Tejas isn't as yet.


??? I always assumed the Tejas would have the MMR equipping it, failing which the EL/M-2032/52 was to be installed.

the operative word is yet. LCA with MMR isn't certified yet.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Vivek K » 14 Apr 2010 07:20

Rahul, since open source info is 6-9 mths delayed could the MMR already be in the LCA?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16883
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 14 Apr 2010 07:36

didn't someone (K mehta ?) confirm that it is so and something else is holding up the first flight ?
here it is : viewtopic.php?p=850620#p850620

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby SanjibGhosh » 15 Apr 2010 18:18

India surrounded by difficult neighbours: Parliamentary panel
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 48478.html


The committee also pointed to the “sorry state of affairs” in the LCA project, “which is still to see the light of the day” even 27 years after being sanctioned.

“The committee emphasise that the various problems being faced with the Tejas engine should be sorted out expeditiously. The Tejas should be commissioned expeditiously either by choosing the option if importing the engine or persisting with (the indigenous) Kaveri (engine).

“All the desired steps should be taken so that Tejas is operational by the stipulated time frame (of December 31, 2018 ) and there is no further cost escalation (beyond the sanctioned Rs.10,791 crore),” the committee maintained.



December 31, 2018 :( :( .... Oh No ....

arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby arya » 15 Apr 2010 18:59

All the desired steps should be taken so that Tejas is operational by the stipulated time frame (of December 31, 2018 ) :shock:

In its 94-page report tabled in the Lok Sabha Thursday, the committee dealt with a variety of issues like delays in the Tejas light combat aircraft project. :rotfl:

what i say!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Apr 2010 20:03

The mark2 variant of tejas was suppose to get operational by 2015 , 2018 is really long shot we could see 5th Gen PAK-FA entering squadron service by then.
Last edited by Austin on 15 Apr 2010 20:28, edited 1 time in total.

arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby arya » 15 Apr 2010 20:04

He is talking about 2018 for LCA Mark II with fully certified thrust requirements, proven Radar and new generation avionics![/quote]

dhanyabaad

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shukla » 15 Apr 2010 20:40

Add on to the previous report..

DRDO, IAF rapped for time, cost overruns in LCA project

A Parliamentary panel on Thursday slammed the DRDO and the IAF for the 27-year delay and the cost overruns in their Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, describing it as "a very sorry state of affairs". It also asked the defence ministry to commission the indigenous fighter jet Tejas expeditiously after obtaining its operational clearance within the stipulated time-frame and without cost escalation by taking all desired steps.

"The committee concludes that this is a very sorry state of affairs. Even when 27 years have passed since LCA was sanctioned, it has still to see the light of the day," the parliamentary committee on defence said in its latest report tabled in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. "All desired steps should be taken so that Tejas is operational by the stipulated timeframe and there is no further cost escalation," the report said.

The LCA, sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs 560 crore, is slated to be ready for initial operational clearance only by December this year. The first phase of the project was completed in April 2004 at a cost of Rs 2,188 crore. The sanctioned cost of the second phase was Rs 3,301.87 crore and the originally scheduled date of completion was December 31, 2008.

The defence ministry informed the panel that in November 2009 further sanction was accorded for continuing full scale engineering development of LCA, touted to be a fourth generation fighter jet, till December 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5,302.98 crore.

The committee noted that the engine of Tejas was running into serious problem and the option of either importing an engine or persisting with the indigenously developed Kaveri engine was finally decided upon by favouring a foreign engine for which tenders had been issued. "The committee emphasises that the various problems being faced with Tejas engine should be sorted out expeditiously," the report said.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20444
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Apr 2010 12:27

Austin,absolutely spot on.This is what I've been saying for the last few years,that the delays will see more modern aircraft planned for the IAF take wing and be in production by the time the LCA is perfected.Who will then want an aircraft whose origins go back to 30 years (by then)! As a former VCoAS told me some time ago,the entire project has been a "fraud upon the nation",as various GOI's of the day,chief scientific advisors to the GOI,DRDO and IAF chiefs did not take clear decisions relating to the project management,where every entity wanted to protect their turf and made unachievable claims/dates for their parts of the project,the key offenders being those responsible for the (Kaveri) engine,GTRE.With no overall boss in charge,who could kick ass,the project became a "committe creature",no responsibilities whatsoever for those involoved and a huge cost incurred to the taxpayer.We are now told that another 3000 crores+ is needed further and there is no future guarantee of success still! This amount can instead be used to buy new aircraft .It is a scandal that despite a whole year+ after the last air show,that a decision for a new engine for the MK-2 version has not been taken.Instead we are buying transport aircraft (C-17s) in haste and sending out urgent calls for basic trainers-also needed in the light of the lack of indigenous alternatives.

It beggars the question that there very well might be a conspiracy at the highest level to "bury" the bird,or make it so irrelevant by the time it is perfected (2018 now!) in comparison with newer types both in service in India and those in service with our enemies.The "go slow" on the LCA will obviously benefit the winner of the MMRCA deal,which is why the deal is being spoken of amounting to approx. 200+ aircraft.A "quick" decision on the MMRCA might very well suddenly be thrust upon us using the excuse of the failure of the LCA as the reason to buy "foreign"! Who can complain then? Indian indigenous aerospace industry is being treated like the "second-wife's-children".The GOI must come clean and tell the country whether they truly want indigenous efforts to succeed ,or that this is just another perpetual tamasha where huge amounts can be spent producing nothing of relevance, keeping our babus and PSU's "busy",while also keeping foreign manufacturers and vested interests happy !

I only wish that the PC had pin-pointed the key individuals who headed the problematic divisions/outfits which failed to deliver and asked for their heads.Putin sacked the head of the Bulava missile project afer repeated failures.Why is there no accountability in our country? With both the COAS and the PC now having expressed their displeasure,surely it is past time for the GOI to act immediately to either rescue the project by pursuing the project on a war footing,or else dump it and use the money saved elsewhere ,perhaps on the 5th-gen project,which from the success of the SU-30MKI acquisition and development has a far greater chance of meeting its induction timeframe..

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 956
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby K Mehta » 16 Apr 2010 14:13

Interesting thing to note is that the IOC and FOC dates are the same in the report too (not in the ToIlet version, but other versions). No actual delay. The 2018 date seems to be for Mk-II. Sensible in my opinion.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kailash » 16 Apr 2010 14:27

The "go slow" on the LCA will obviously benefit the winner of the MMRCA deal,which is why the deal is being spoken of amounting to approx. 200+ aircraft.A "quick" decision on the MMRCA might very well suddenly be thrust upon us using the excuse of the failure of the LCA as the reason to buy "foreign"!


How so? MMRCA is already a certainty. The current Tejas mk-1 is not comparable or as battle proven as any of the contenders.

And for all the talk, the mk-2 is a paper plane still. Comparing that with the later batches of an MMRCA contender with upgrades available at that time would be ridiculous. Mk-2 engines are not finalized, AESA needs help, dont know how major the airframe mod will be (considering the engine is not selected), not sure about the amount of testing it would take for IOC/FOC. And what guarantee would the customer have that there wont be a hefty price raise on the mk-2?

If I were IAF/IN would rather depend on proven MRCA craft with an established delivery schedule and supply chain.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 16 Apr 2010 14:36

^^^That is the only thing Phillip is trying to say...The longer LCA Mk2 takes, higher are the chances of MMRCA numbers increasing...

Kailash wrote:If I were IAF/IN would rather depend on proven MRCA craft with an established delivery schedule and supply chain.


Do you know, before MMRCA or any aircraft is proven, some AF/Navy takes pain to induct it in an unproven state without established delivery schedule and supply chain.... This is the pain they have to take to support indigenous development and we find it comfortable to order the same once proven and then while ordering, bloggers /forums like us continue to debate on risk of sanctions, prices, level of TOT, strategic partners and what not...

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kailash » 16 Apr 2010 15:47

^^^That is the only thing Phillip is trying to say...The longer LCA Mk2 takes, higher are the chances of MMRCA numbers increasing...


Sorry, but I dont see the relationship between the two. If Mk-2 were to be proven and available right now, do you think IAF will cut on the number of MMRCA? or not increase their numbers to 200 ?

That is just a supposition. MMRCA has happened - it might have started as filler for the LCA - not anymore - it has outgrown the LCA's specs (including mk-2 versions') long back. Most contenders belong to the medium weight catagory and are not directly affecting the number of Light aircrafts that IAF will operate!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16883
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 16 Apr 2010 16:24

the 2018 date seems too far out, even if for Mk2, that is 8 years from now ! that somehow doesn't seem right to me.
“All the desired steps should be taken so that Tejas is operational by the stipulated time frame (of December 31, 2018 ) and there is no further cost escalation (beyond the sanctioned Rs.10,791 crore),” the committee maintained.

could it be that they mean operational in sqdn strength in numbers that have been sanctioned ?

if it is indeed FOC @ 2018 then then that's simple bad news for the program. I fear they are trying to put too many bells and whistles into Mk2 while the prudent way would be to get the basic Mk2 in air ASAP and add the gizmos in phases.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1640
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sid » 16 Apr 2010 16:30

+ 5 years delay is normal for our so called indigenous projects. This revised date of 2018 is really sickening. What were they doing when they wasted 2 years for selecting appropriate engine for MK II? They are not not even done yet with engine selection. Assume next 3-4 years to finalize the engine then, 2-3 years for integration and first flight then 5 years for something else.

Do we plan to induct it by 2025 because at current pace even 2018 seems far fetched!!

Jeez, don't they know the meaning of deadline?

biswas
BRFite
Posts: 503
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 20:42
Location: Ozzieland

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby biswas » 16 Apr 2010 16:49

Sid wrote:+ 5 years delay is normal for our so called indigenous projects. This revised date of 2018 is really sickening. What were they doing when they wasted 2 years for selecting appropriate engine for MK II? They are not not even done yet with engine selection. Assume next 3-4 years to finalize the engine then, 2-3 years for integration and first flight then 5 years for something else.

Do we plan to induct it by 2025 because at current pace even 2018 seems far fetched!!

Jeez, don't they know the meaning of deadline?


2018 is for the MkII version I believe.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby nrshah » 16 Apr 2010 17:25

Sorry, but I dont see the relationship between the two. If Mk-2 were to be proven and available right now, do you think IAF will cut on the number of MMRCA? or not increase their numbers to 200 ?

That is just a supposition. MMRCA has happened - it might have started as filler for the LCA - not anymore - it has outgrown the LCA's specs (including mk-2 versions') long back. Most contenders belong to the medium weight catagory and are not directly affecting the number of Light aircrafts that IAF will operate!


Just to remind you, atleast 2 contenders in MMRCA are not proven and still considered

LCA outgrown by MMRCA contenders?? Atleast you should have mentioned specific contender that outgrows it...
LCA MK 2 is similar to gripen NG (specificationwise and both are not proven).

Besides, if you compare Tejas with current inventory of Mig 21,23, 27, Jaguars and to some extent Mirages, it fairly matches and even exceeds them.

A ready to induct Tejas MK 2 will question the requirements to go for higher no of MMRCA if not the original number.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby akimalik » 16 Apr 2010 17:28

biswas wrote:
Sid wrote:+ 5 years delay is normal for our so called indigenous projects. This revised date of 2018 is really sickening. What were they doing when they wasted 2 years for selecting appropriate engine for MK II? They are not not even done yet with engine selection. Assume next 3-4 years to finalize the engine then, 2-3 years for integration and first flight then 5 years for something else.

Do we plan to induct it by 2025 because at current pace even 2018 seems far fetched!!

Jeez, don't they know the meaning of deadline?


2018 is for the MkII version I believe.


Hi, any possibility that 31/12/10 was incorrectly interpreted as 31/12/18?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Austin » 16 Apr 2010 17:46

Philip wrote:else dump it and use the money saved elsewhere ,perhaps on the 5th-gen project,which from the success of the SU-30MKI acquisition and development has a far greater chance of meeting its induction timeframe..


Co-development is the key thing if project is to be delivered on time and as far as possible within budget , Key technology risk mitigated at early stage with partners and there is to be a greater acceptance for home grown product among the defense service , it equally applies to new project like MCA,FMBT ,SSK, Transport aircraft.

I really do not see the need and the funds being available to develop in parallel two 5th Gen project but if they ever do , I hope for MCA project DRDO/MOD chooses the co-development route and opts for a partner in this project early on does not matter who , there is a greater chance the project will succeed and delivered to end users satisfaction.

My fear is if the Tejas mk2 project fructifies by 2018 , they would complain the technology is close to being obsolete and they do not need more than 4 squadron of Mk2 , so go ahead and develop Mk3 or just close the project.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Asit P » 16 Apr 2010 17:58

Rahul M wrote:the 2018 date seems too far out, even if for Mk2, that is 8 years from now ! that somehow doesn't seem right to me


Rahul, I guess this report throws some clarity on the same:-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 813290.cms
The overall developmental cost of Tejas Light Combat Aircraft has quietly zoomed past the Rs 13,000-crore mark, with the government sanctioning the extension of the fighter's "full-scale engineering development'' (FSED) till December 31, 2018.


"With Tejas prototypes clocking 1,350 flights till now, the "final operational clearance'' for the IAF variant is now slated for December 2012.

So, IAF should have its first Tejas squadron of 20 fighters by 2014-15. Even Swedish Gripen fighter's developmental cost was around Rs 12,640 crore,'' said an official.


Clubbing these two quotes, we can assume that while Tejas will get its FOC in 2012 and while IAF will start inducting it from thereon, our scientists will continue to work on some upgrade/fine tuning projects in the background.

I see this report as an approval of the Indian government to fund the LCA program till 2018 (even if MK II has been developed and inducted before this time line). In my humble opinion, this report should not be interpreted as an index of time line for the development and induction of LCA MK-II. It has got more to do with the government's financial support to the LCA project (till a particular time period) and less to do with the time line of LCA's development & induction.
Last edited by Asit P on 16 Apr 2010 18:04, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20444
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Apr 2010 18:00

It looks like we are almost all on the same line of thinking.The big Q is ,what is the MOD/GOI doing about it? Who is the troubleshooter in charge who can accelerate matters? It is going to be a crying shame if the Pakis produce their Jets-Li in the future in large number -I'm sure a few hundred by 2018,when our LCA MK-2 is declared perfected!

Or perhaps the entire LCA project is a sceret plan for the Porkis to rush ahead with their inferior Jets-Li,while we spring a massive surprise upon them and buy hundreds of superior West-jets making politicos,babus and western MNCs velly,velly happy! Does it really matter to the already doubly bent taxpayer suffering under the price burden? So let's all celebrate at the LCA delay.Long may it delay.The Porkis are falling into our most devious of deviant Chanakyian traps...Wah!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16883
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 16 Apr 2010 18:17

Asit, thanks for that report. it clears up one thing, the project has to be completed in all its aspects by 2018, it might not mean that 2018 is the Mk2 FOC deadline, more likely FOC will be earlier but some more advanced aspects (sensor fusion etc) will be completed only by that date.
all this report says is GOI has extended the funding period from the 11th plan to the 12th plan period.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Apr 2010 18:28

or just close the project


ALL projects have to be closed.

Now the issue is (seems to be) the value of the LCA to the IAF ONLY in terms of contributing to the number of squadrons. That is it.

IF (granted a huge IF) the components are mature then the "LCA" WILL live in other forms - MCA as an example.

Failure in a sense, but yet will live on to contribute to other aspects of the IAF. Just part of the game.

The good news is that "India" seems to be waking to this thing called urgency. THAT by itself should help build more squadrons for the IAF.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9993
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby sum » 16 Apr 2010 21:33

Asit, thanks for that report. it clears up one thing, the project has to be completed in all its aspects by 2018, it might not mean that 2018 is the Mk2 FOC deadline, more likely FOC will be earlier but some more advanced aspects (sensor fusion etc) will be completed only by that date.

Honestly, going by current state of affairs, even 2018 seems a very,very long shot for Mk2 FOC. Even a basic Mk2 being in the air in 2018 will be a achivement ( going by the "urgency" in engine selection, AESA development etc)

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Carl_T » 16 Apr 2010 21:39

If the radar is not ready why not just fit in the ELM AESA radar that is being offered??

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Katare » 17 Apr 2010 01:23

From MoD annual report for year 2008-09

All trials are progressing
well towards grant of Initial Operational
Clearance (IOC) to the aircraft by 2010
and Full Operational Clearance (FOC) by
2012. IAF has placed its first order of 20
aircraft. The first batch of 10 aircraft will be
delivered to IAF by mid 2010 and the next
batch by November 2011.
Also, 2 Trainerversion
PVs and 6 LSPs aircraft are presently
under various stages of built-up.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2010 01:42

Katare wrote:The first batch of 10 aircraft will be
delivered to IAF by mid 2010 and the next
batch by November 2011.


:-? The LSP-3 is yet to get off the ground. I understand the Tejas' flight testing is over and only radar testing remain. If the FCR is the hold up, it shouldn't impede rest of the program. Integrate the EL/M-2052 and deliver the first four aircraft to the IAF by the year's end. Let the MMR development take its course.

I'm pretty sure that approach would be backed by the IAF. The ADA on the other hand may well decide integration of indigenous radar is a higher priority than expediting deliveries to the IAF. I hope that's not the case.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby merlin » 17 Apr 2010 14:20

Viv S wrote:
Katare wrote:The first batch of 10 aircraft will be
delivered to IAF by mid 2010 and the next
batch by November 2011.


:-? The LSP-3 is yet to get off the ground. I understand the Tejas' flight testing is over and only radar testing remain. If the FCR is the hold up, it shouldn't impede rest of the program. Integrate the EL/M-2052 and deliver the first four aircraft to the IAF by the year's end. Let the MMR development take its course.

I'm pretty sure that approach would be backed by the IAF. The ADA on the other hand may well decide integration of indigenous radar is a higher priority than expediting deliveries to the IAF. I hope that's not the case.


Who said flight testing is over?

The flight envelope has not been fully opened up yet, the last I heard.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2010 15:16

merlin wrote:Who said flight testing is over?

The flight envelope has not been fully opened up yet, the last I heard.


According to Vayu Mag, the Dabolim trials last year were the last leg in achieving the designated flight envelope for IOC.

http://img706.imageshack.us/i/21122009082.jpg/

Manu
BRFite
Posts: 765
Joined: 28 May 2003 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Manu » 17 Apr 2010 21:26

At some stage we might have to stop trying to defend the indefensible. It seems the LCA will never be the backbone of the IAF*. Even the most patriotic Rakshak will have to wake up and smell the coffee.

The real worry is how are we ever going to get up to the sanctioned squadron strength....if ever.

2 Front war is the doctrine. :evil:

It seems Army, Air force and the Navy (in that order) are all suffering from equipment delays, equipment ageing and poor domestic/indigenous capability. Stuff is always "planned"/"in development"...aside from Rocketry/Missiles...nothing substantial really ever sees the light of day. You may classify this as a whine, but I think the facts on the ground will support my contention.

Really depressing situation.

* MiG 21 being the backbone for IAF for many, many years - is not being replaced by LCA as the replacement backbone.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests