LCA news and discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2009 19:26

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11997
Verma said he had been assured by the DRDO that the LCA's naval variant would be ready for carrier trials by 2013 and for deployment on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya as well as the IAC. He said the navy was doing a concept study 'for more capable carrier-borne aircraft' for the IAC-2.

so the firangi naval a/c is for IAC-2 (hope it has nuke power).

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 05 Dec 2009 10:03

IAF wants EJ200 engines for Tejas, but

Bangalore: The geopolitical factor that determined state-owned Air India's choice of commercial aircraft in the mid-2000 may come into play again in the Indian government's selection of engines for its indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas.

In 2005, when the national carrier's order for 50 aircraft worth $6 billion went to US aerospace company Boeing, its French rival Airbus Industrie had said it was the "geopolitical factor" that had clinched the deal.

DNA Money has learned that Indian Air Force (IAF), which is the user of LCA Tejas, has in its recommendations to the Ministry of Defence favoured the purchase of European aerospace company Eurojet's EJ200 over US aerospace firm General Electric's F-414. These are the only two companies that have bid for the $750 million order for 99 engines.
An IAF official, who did not want to be named, said IAF want the EJ200 to power Tejas so that there is no delay in building the LCA with enhanced power. The government is currently carrying out technical evaluation of the two military aircraft engines.

"The thrust of EJ200 (about 85+ kilonewton) may be slightly lower than F-414 (95+ kilonewton), but it will easily fit into the LCA. And if the weight is reduced, its (EJ200) power will be adequate. Thus, we will not have to change the design of the fuselage," the official said.

The official said since the F-414 was a "fatter" engine with a bigger diameter, it could require redesigning of fuselage. "And if that happens, then all the test flights, many of which have already been carried out, will have to be repeated and the whole programme could get considerably delayed. It will also escalate the cost."

He, however, said the price of the European engine was higher than the American engine. "Generally, aircraft equipments bought from US are cheaper because of their scale of production. European manufacturers do not have the same volumes and so tend to be expensive," he said.

But even though the IAF is pitching for the EJ200, the final decision would be made by the Ministry of Defence with inputs from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) -- the state-owned company that is manufacturing the aircraft -- and Defence Research and Development Organisation.

A defence analyst, who did not want to be named, said looking at direction of the winds in the Indo-US relationship, which is very positive at the moment, the aircraft engine deal could well fall in the lap of the US aerospace company.

He said the order for F-414 would also work in favour of HAL and ADA. "It (F-414 order) will mean more money and work for both of them (HAL and ADA) as the aircraft require redesigning. This way we will get more business. Everybody is trying to push their own agenda," he said. "My guess is that F-414 will be thrust upon the IAF despite the fact that they want the EJ200 because Americans are pushing hard for it."

The two major aircraft and engine manufacturers are aggressively lobbying for the engine deal because its outcome will have a bearing on India's order for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) worth over $10 billion.

"The government is likely to go for aircraft, which is powered by the same engine as Tejas. One argument is that if these fighter jets come in time, then any delay in the Tejas programme will have less significance on the IAF," said the analyst.

vina · Post by **vina** » 05 Dec 2009 10:20

IAF wants EJ200 engines for Tejas, but

Classic FUD marketing . This article is clearly a plant by European Natashas trying to influence the engine decision. Un named, unquoted, selling a marketing spiel.. oh, our product is so great, it should naturally win , but for. Sure. Nice try, but extremely easy to look through.

As for "no delays" , first the single engine version of the EJ 200 (with redundant systems and controls) has to be flown first!. As of now it is close to paperware. Any fool can google around and see that the F414 is the same sizes as the F404, yeah, it has a higher mass flow rate , so the inlet needs to be modified /change. Not a really big deal , that seems to be the real change.

As for "insignificnatly lower thrust of 85KN vs 95KN" that simply rocks.

. The IAF wants a "significant" increase of 5KN over the 80 KN in the current F404 engine they want an MKII version with the whole shebang including engine change and project delays done, but when the difference with the competitor is 10Kn it becomes "insignificant"

. Touche .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2009 10:56

Power to LCA - Eurojet hard-sells its engine to ADA

A hard sell from Eurojet with source

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 05 Dec 2009 11:16

Hi All,
I have been reading the LCA posts for some time now and have been following the LCA development with great interest for many years.
Did anyone notice a tender advertisement in the Hindu paper today by the ADA, calling for quotations for setting up a full Ground Telemetry System for the N-LCA at INS Hansa in Goa?
It is detailed and specs that the system should be transportable to remote locations for off base operations.

So they are going full steam ahead for this. BTW did anyone of you know that one of the senior test pilots of the LCA is a senior navel pilot from the harrier squadron?

Cheers.
chandrasekhar

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 05 Dec 2009 11:26

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 05 Dec 2009 19:54

sunilUpa wrote:IAF wants EJ200 engines for Tejas, but

The official said since the F-414 was a "fatter" engine with a bigger diameter, it could require redesigning of fuselage. "And if that happens, then all the test flights, many of which have already been carried out, will have to be repeated and the whole programme could get considerably delayed. It will also escalate the cost."

I remember reading here on BRF that both engines will not need fuselage redesign (tried looking for it in 2-3 threads but no luck and some extra curd rice in dinner having its effect

). This article says Unkil's engine will need re-design.

Everybody is trying to push their own agenda

This is very clear

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 05 Dec 2009 20:03

vina wrote:
IAF wants EJ200 engines for Tejas, but
Classic FUD marketing . This article is clearly a plant by European Natashas trying to influence the engine decision. Un named, unquoted, selling a marketing spiel.. oh, our product is so great, it should naturally win , but for. Sure. Nice try, but extremely easy to look through.

As for "no delays" , first the single engine version of the EJ 200 (with redundant systems and controls) has to be flown first!. As of now it is close to paperware. Any fool can google around and see that the F414 is the same sizes as the F404, yeah, it has a higher mass flow rate , so the inlet needs to be modified /change. Not a really big deal , that seems to be the real change.

As for "insignificnatly lower thrust of 85KN vs 95KN" that simply rocks. . The IAF wants a "significant" increase of 5KN over the 80 KN in the current F404 engine they want an MKII version with the whole shebang including engine change and project delays done, but when the difference with the competitor is 10Kn it becomes "insignificant" . Touche .

Haha, well said, I agree 100%

Yogi_G wrote:

I remember reading here on BRF that both engines will not need fuselage redesign (tried looking for it in 2-3 threads but no luck and some extra curd rice in dinner having its effect ). This article says Unkil's engine will need re-design.

That was a blog post on Ajai Shook-law's site that basically said the cheapest bidder wins and there will not be a major re-design required!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2009 21:40

with a 30% upthrust capability and a TVN support EJ200 can match or beat the F414 by specs.

btw, what do they mean by Amricans are pushing hard for it!? is it the butter or something poodle stuff happening from the political circle.

this is shameful to even think our democratic nation has to report in such a manner.

we have heard only from pakis such things.

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 05 Dec 2009 22:24

SaiK wrote:
we have heard only from pakis such things.

Saik I think we might not heard of it in open much but American's (you know it well!!) are known to do use these pressure tactics . . . it's up to us whether we buzz or not (and more importantly look after at what serves best to us given all possible option at hand !!)

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 05 Dec 2009 23:34

SaiK wrote:with a 30% upthrust capability and a TVN support EJ200 can match or beat the F414 by specs.

Then the F414 will update it's thrust with the EPE (or whatever they call it program) and out the EJ200
both of them can go up in thrust and currently the F414 has the EJ200 beat and even when they go up in thrust they will have the EJ200 beat...after all 30% of 85 < 30% of 95...ALWAYS!

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 05 Dec 2009 23:44

Raveen wrote:Then the F414 will update it's thrust with the EPE (or whatever they call it program) and out the EJ200
both of them can go up in thrust and currently the F414 has the EJ200 beat and even when they go up in thrust they will have the EJ200 beat...after all 30% of 85 < 30% of 95...ALWAYS!

By that theory, the LCA should be powered by the 180 kN F135 !

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2009 00:04

sunilUpa wrote:IAF wants EJ200 engines for Tejas, but

"IAF official who doesn't want to be named", "Defence Analyst" who doesn't wish to be named, Oh come on! Could this article be any less credible?

The IAF does need to take a decision soon though, because after that will come the price negotiations which in our case could last anywhere from 2 to 10 years.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Dec 2009 07:11

"The thrust of EJ200 (about 85+ kilonewton) may be slightly lower than F-414 (95+ kilonewton), but it will easily fit into the LCA. And if the weight is reduced, its (EJ200) power will be adequate. Thus, we will not have to change the design of the fuselage," the official said.

It seems ADA is zooming on GE engine, so all this extra marketing effort. With EADS being roped in for consultancy, the line talking about weight reduction assumes significance.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 06 Dec 2009 07:38

Article is a last push by Euro for the jet engines ,article does tries to cover all its flay by blaming the government of India that is kinda ridicules , i personally favor 414 with EPE

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 06 Dec 2009 14:42

Now it has become fashion to say "official who doesn't want to be named" and write whatever he wants to write on the behalf of the imaginary official …… It always has been other way around, IAF always wanted to have more powerful engine in fact in the scale of 110 kn range and ADA was in favorer of EJ-200 as it was assumed that it would required less work (In fact now that also does not hold true). What a logic that ADA would prefer more work and more tome to finish the job instead of finish it faster and secure the more order from IAF …..

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 06 Dec 2009 14:52

SanjibGhosh wrote:Now it has become fashion to say "official who doesn't want to be named" and write whatever he wants to write on the behalf of the imaginary official …… It always has been other way around, IAF always wanted to have more powerful engine in fact in the scale of 110 kn range and ADA was in favorer of EJ-200 as it was assumed that it would required less work (In fact now that also does not hold true). What a logic that ADA would prefer more work and more tome to finish the job instead of finish it faster and secure the more order from IAF …..

Proof ??

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 06 Dec 2009 18:59

KrishG wrote:
SanjibGhosh wrote:Now it has become fashion to say "official who doesn't want to be named" and write whatever he wants to write on the behalf of the imaginary official …… It always has been other way around, IAF always wanted to have more powerful engine in fact in the scale of 110 kn range and ADA was in favorer of EJ-200 as it was assumed that it would required less work (In fact now that also does not hold true). What a logic that ADA would prefer more work and more tome to finish the job instead of finish it faster and secure the more order from IAF …..
Proof ??

Sorry

!! couldn't find that on Google .... here are some other source which are talking about 100kn.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/06/stories ... 911200.htm
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lca-n ... t/319117/2
http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/09/stories ... 481300.htm

I think BR folks can help me here as I believe that was published in BR as well(in 2007 – 2008), where it was said that IAF wanted have more powerful engine (in range of 110 kn) to take care of future requirement as well. It was believed that LCA was required major structural changes .... and IAF wanted to do it once forever .....

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 06 Dec 2009 21:03

SanjibGhosh wrote:Sorry !! couldn't find that on Google .... here are some other source which are talking about 100kn.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/06/stories ... 911200.htm
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lca-n ... t/319117/2
http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/09/stories ... 481300.htm

I think BR folks can help me here as I believe that was published in BR as well(in 2007 – 2008), where it was said that IAF wanted have more powerful engine (in range of 110 kn) to take care of future requirement as well. It was believed that LCA was required major structural changes .... and IAF wanted to do it once forever .....

The point I am trying to make is that thrust is not the only concern. There is a 'optimal thrust' requirement for every aircraft. Below that, the a/c under-performances and above that the a/c isn't efficient and will become short-legged. The LCA's optimal thrust range considering it's present empty weight wold be around 90kN-100kN.

The internal fuel capacity would be the same in both Mk-1 and Mk-II, so ADA and IAF would want ensure that they have the engine with just the right amount of thrust, performance and weight so that there is no major decrease in the aircraft's combat radius while increasing the performance of the a/c. ADA could have plans to increase without major dimensional changes, like successfully demonstrated on Gripen-NG, but that should be advantage not an equating factor.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Dec 2009 23:17

F414 is much hevier than Ej200 [about 0.15 ton], that could house a TVN for that weight.
F414 still may have room to grow, but EJ has more room is what I am reading.
F414 is still under Mr. Jackal Hyde Sanction, but EJ too may have components from USA.
Under dry thrust, both F414 and EJ200 match up pretty well for IAF.
For 414 we are talking about 6" or 1/2 feet of more diameter.. definitely a big NO for LCA considering cost escalation and delays to any change in fuselage.
Besides all, none of the Khan companies or Unkill khan himself has openly said to be participating for production and future technologies, as against EADS which has clearly invited India to be a partner with the Eurofighter team. Can't expect that from LM or GE or PW or for that matter Boeing.
Khan laws are a big pain in the neck.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 07 Dec 2009 00:14

SaiK wrote:F414 is much hevier than Ej200 [about 0.15 ton], that could house a TVN for that weight.
F414 still may have room to grow, but EJ has more room is what I am reading.
F414 is still under Mr. Jackal Hyde Sanction, but EJ too may have components from USA.
Under dry thrust, both F414 and EJ200 match up pretty well for IAF.
For 414 we are talking about 6" or 1/2 feet of more diameter.. definitely a big NO for LCA considering cost escalation and delays to any change in fuselage.
Besides all, none of the Khan companies or Unkill khan himself has openly said to be participating for production and future technologies, as against EADS which has clearly invited India to be a partner with the Eurofighter team. Can't expect that from LM or GE or PW or for that matter Boeing.
Khan laws are a big pain in the neck.

It's the opposite! F414 has components made by MTU and other European companies. MTU is a major part of Eurojet, therefore I safely assume whatever tech EJ has will be better than F414

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 07 Dec 2009 02:34

SaiK wrote:F414 is much hevier than Ej200 [about 0.15 ton], that could house a TVN for that weight.
F414 still may have room to grow, but EJ has more room is what I am reading.
F414 is still under Mr. Jackal Hyde Sanction, but EJ too may have components from USA.
Under dry thrust, both F414 and EJ200 match up pretty well for IAF.
For 414 we are talking about 6" or 1/2 feet of more diameter.. definitely a big NO for LCA considering cost escalation and delays to any change in fuselage.
Besides all, none of the Khan companies or Unkill khan himself has openly said to be participating for production and future technologies, as against EADS which has clearly invited India to be a partner with the Eurofighter team. Can't expect that from LM or GE or PW or for that matter Boeing.
Khan laws are a big pain in the neck.

You are also forgetting that while the F414 may be heavier, it is also cheaper than the EJ200. And considering the BIG picture in dollar terms the choice of F414 makes more sense considering that a MRCA choice of Typhoon would be prohibitively expensive compared to the cost of redesigning and testing the LCA. IMO the LCA needs to be redesigned completely again so that the design agency can build a better Mark-II.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Dec 2009 05:23

Brando wrote:...
You are also forgetting that while the F414 may be heavier, it is also cheaper than the EJ200. And considering the BIG picture in dollar terms the choice of F414 makes more sense considering that a MRCA choice of Typhoon would be prohibitively expensive compared to the cost of redesigning and testing the LCA. IMO the LCA needs to be redesigned completely again so that the design agency can build a better Mark-II.

What you are suggesting is to pretty much to kill the LCA program! Do you know how long it takes to redesign and test everything again? Just look at the last 20 years and you'll see why "complete redesign" is not recommended. It is more important to get the LCA in numbers into the IAF. Designs should be "incrementally" improved whenever possible. You never try to get everything "super-duper" the first time around. All of these will happen over time and over many iterations of R&D.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Dec 2009 05:41

Was there a major redesign and testing done for FA-18 A/B to F-18 E/F ? The LCA Mark I and Mark II seem to be in a somewhat similar situation.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Dec 2009 05:55

Gagan wrote:Was there a major redesign and testing done for FA-18 A/B to F-18 E/F ? The LCA Mark I and Mark II seem to be in a somewhat similar situation.

Not quite true situation comparison between the two F/A-18 and the LCA. For the F/A-18, the E/F is an enlarged airframe with diff intakes and other changes. It also had a more fuel carrying capacity and more powerful engines. Because of these extensive changes, E/F had to go through major redesign and testing lasting more than a decade. For the proposed LCA MK.II, ADA/IAF are just trying to increase the thrust by installing a new engine while minimizing, as much as possible, the design changes both externally and internally.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 07 Dec 2009 06:15

srai wrote: What you are suggesting is to pretty much to kill the LCA program! Do you know how long it takes to redesign and test everything again? Just look at the last 20 years and you'll see why "complete redesign" is not recommended. It is more important to get the LCA in numbers into the IAF. Designs should be "incrementally" improved whenever possible. You never try to get everything "super-duper" the first time around. All of these will happen over time and over many iterations of R&D.

The first time around, DRDO had neither the capabilities nor the facilities nor the technical expertise to expedite the process and thus suffered from many failures. Today the expertise and the facilities are already in existence. More over the designers and the engineers of the original LCA would love to take a crack at it again and add many improvements that they couldn't add the first time around! A complete redesign shouldn't take more than a decade at most to become fully operational. With the PLAAF improving the J-10 by leaps and bounds year on year, a complete redesign would make much better sense than producing a fighter mean to deal with yesterday's threats tomorrow.
Besides, choosing the Eurofighter is totally uneconomical for a country like India in the MRCA competition.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Dec 2009 06:23

Brando wrote:
The first time around, DRDO had neither the capabilities nor the facilities nor the technical expertise to expedite the process and thus suffered from many failures. Today the expertise and the facilities are already in existence. More over the designers and the engineers of the original LCA would love to take a crack at it again and add many improvements that they couldn't add the first time around! A complete redesign shouldn't take more than a decade at most to become fully operational. With the PLAAF improving the J-10 by leaps and bounds year on year, a complete redesign would make much better sense than producing a fighter mean to deal with yesterday's threats tomorrow.
Besides, choosing the Eurofighter is totally uneconomical for a country like India in the MRCA competition.

It makes no sense to compare the LCA to the J-10. The two aircraft are in completely different classes. Besides, the LCA is meant to replace the Mig-21s in the IAF and is supposed to be an inexpensive fighter which we can build in large numbers. The current version when equipped with the new engine is adequate for that purpose. Its too late for major design changes now. DRDO can concentrate on improving the avionics instead.

If the designers want to incorporate new technologies and designs they should restart the MCA project. The MCA would be in the same class as the J-10 too.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Dec 2009 06:35

Brando wrote:
srai wrote: What you are suggesting is to pretty much to kill the LCA program! Do you know how long it takes to redesign and test everything again? Just look at the last 20 years and you'll see why "complete redesign" is not recommended. It is more important to get the LCA in numbers into the IAF. Designs should be "incrementally" improved whenever possible. You never try to get everything "super-duper" the first time around. All of these will happen over time and over many iterations of R&D.
The first time around, DRDO had neither the capabilities nor the facilities nor the technical expertise to expedite the process and thus suffered from many failures. Today the expertise and the facilities are already in existence. More over the designers and the engineers of the original LCA would love to take a crack at it again and add many improvements that they couldn't add the first time around! A complete redesign shouldn't take more than a decade at most to become fully operational. With the PLAAF improving the J-10 by leaps and bounds year on year, a complete redesign would make much better sense than producing a fighter mean to deal with yesterday's threats tomorrow.
Besides, choosing the Eurofighter is totally uneconomical for a country like India in the MRCA competition.

What kind of specs are you looking for exactly on the "new" LCA you are proposing?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2009 06:42

By the time the new-LCA is delivered, we have new specs from IAF that makes the Mk-II not suitable for them. Again, the thought is Mk-III, IV, ... it goes on.

capability and maturity is never managable if the user does not user a product at all. LCA-I must be used by IAF, to take any meaning to future blocks.

Neither LM nor Boeing has escaped this process to achieve what they are doing now.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 07 Dec 2009 06:43

nachiket wrote:
Brando wrote:
The first time around, DRDO had neither the capabilities nor the facilities nor the technical expertise to expedite the process and thus suffered from many failures. Today the expertise and the facilities are already in existence. More over the designers and the engineers of the original LCA would love to take a crack at it again and add many improvements that they couldn't add the first time around! A complete redesign shouldn't take more than a decade at most to become fully operational. With the PLAAF improving the J-10 by leaps and bounds year on year, a complete redesign would make much better sense than producing a fighter mean to deal with yesterday's threats tomorrow.
Besides, choosing the Eurofighter is totally uneconomical for a country like India in the MRCA competition.
It makes no sense to compare the LCA to the J-10. The two aircraft are in completely different classes. Besides, the LCA is meant to replace the Mig-21s in the IAF and is supposed to be an inexpensive fighter which we can build in large numbers. The current version when equipped with the new engine is adequate for that purpose. Its too late for major design changes now. DRDO can concentrate on improving the avionics instead.

If the designers want to incorporate new technologies and designs they should restart the MCA project. The MCA would be in the same class as the J-10 too.

Yawn..the J-10 is a medicore aircraft hindered by same problem as LCA...namely the engine. The MCA is supposed to be stealth and J-10 doesn't even match the M2K-5 or F-16 blk 52 or Mig-29k..enuff said.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 07 Dec 2009 14:16

A contract for procurement of 20 Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) in Initial Operation Clearance (IOC) configuration, along with associated role equipment, reserve engines, engine support package, engine test bed and computer based training (CBT) package from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was signed in March 2006. The total contract cost is Rs. 2701.70 crores. The specifications of the aircraft are as per the Air Service Requirements framed by the Indian Air Force. Delivery of the aircraft is expected to commence after IOC is achieved.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Pradeep Majhi in Lok Sabha today.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55263

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 07 Dec 2009 16:46

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
The total contract cost is Rs. 2701.70 crores.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55263

It means approx 29 million $ each....isn't it too much...!

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 07 Dec 2009 17:19

It means approx 29 million $ each....isn't it too much...!

it comes with spare engines, and other maintenance spares and equipments ,original cost will be around 25

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Dec 2009 17:58

sumshyam wrote:
sanjaychoudhry wrote: The total contract cost is Rs. 2701.70 crores.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55263
It means approx 29 million $ each....isn't it too much...!

really ? for an aircraft that gives you similar performance to mirage-2000 and exceeds it in some aspects ?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Dec 2009 18:37

SaiK wrote:By the time the new-LCA is delivered, we have new specs from IAF that makes the Mk-II not suitable for them. Again, the thought is Mk-III, IV, ... it goes on.

capability and maturity is never managable if the user does not user a product at all. LCA-I must be used by IAF, to take any meaning to future blocks.

Neither LM nor Boeing has escaped this process to achieve what they are doing now.

Yes. But Boeings and LMs and McDonnells and Northrops were supported by USAF / USN / USM etc. Here IA and IAF "seem" to be very anti Indian and / or "anti-DRDO" at times

K

Niraj_D · Post by **Niraj_D** » 07 Dec 2009 18:47

Kersi D wrote:
SaiK wrote:By the time the new-LCA is delivered, we have new specs from IAF that makes the Mk-II not suitable for them. Again, the thought is Mk-III, IV, ... it goes on.

capability and maturity is never managable if the user does not user a product at all. LCA-I must be used by IAF, to take any meaning to future blocks.

Neither LM nor Boeing has escaped this process to achieve what they are doing now.
Yes. But Boeings and LMs and McDonnells and Northrops were supported by USAF / USN / USM etc. Here IA and IAF "seem" to be very anti Indian and / or "anti-DRDO" at times

K

Completely agree with you.
or maybe due to delay in various projects they re just playing blame-game to save face rather than co-operating to get things done.... Which leaves National Interest ignored

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 07 Dec 2009 18:48

sumshyam wrote:
sanjaychoudhry wrote: The total contract cost is Rs. 2701.70 crores.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55263
It means approx 29 million $ each....isn't it too much...!

If it is too much then just name two other 4th generation birds that are available at this price.

As a matter of fact, we should be happy even if HAL/DRDO manage to keep the price of LCA MK 2 around 40 million a piece. Anything below that should be seen as 'sone pe suhaga'

.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Dec 2009 18:49

that used to be the case but has changed for the better in case of IAF at least.

the LCA project is a fine example, IAF is now closely involved, they already have ordered 20 aircrafts at IOC stage itself and will probably order more.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Dec 2009 00:30

Yes. But Boeings and LMs and McDonnells and Northrops were supported by USAF / USN / USM etc. Here IA and IAF "seem" to be very anti Indian and / or "anti-DRDO" at times

I met a current Navy Officer recently and all i heard was DRDO bashing. And thats when Navy has been DRDO's best support relative to the IAF and IA. There's a crop of Officers that are mentally very Westernized in India, i would'nt use the word Macualite in this case, but somewhat borders that. The unslick, slow English speaking 'bumpkin' scientist from DRDO who does'nt know which hand to catch a fork is somewhat ridiculed mentally by a class of Officers in the Forces. I tried gleaning the reason and one thing is emerging..there's a dire need that top Officers are drawn from technical backgrounds with deeper understanding of technology/ tech development cycles etc. There must be subset regiments in the Indian Forces (AI, IAF, IN which use only indigenous equipment.)

Today fighting a war is not going to be an Infantry mans strategy, but will require of top coordinators to understand technology. Even the profile of operators must change to tech savvy. I was saddened to read that DRDO had to put black boxes in Arjun to monitor sabotage of the Engine. After putting them, the incidents ceased. The present Army Chief now approves of Arjuns performance.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 08 Dec 2009 11:36

I met a current Navy Officer recently and all i heard was DRDO bashing. And thats when Navy has been DRDO's best support relative to the IAF and IA. There's a crop of Officers that are mentally very Westernized in India, i would'nt use the word Macualite in this case, but somewhat borders that. The unslick, slow English speaking 'bumpkin' scientist from DRDO who does'nt know which hand to catch a fork is somewhat ridiculed mentally by a class of Officers in the Forces. I tried gleaning the reason and one thing is emerging..
Even the profile of operators must change to tech savvy. I was saddened to read that DRDO had to put black boxes in Arjun to monitor sabotage of the Engine. After putting them, the incidents ceased. The present Army Chief now approves of Arjuns performance.

EDITED BIG RANT DELETED
Our scientific community deserves equal respect if not more than our soldiers.