LCA news and discussion

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Oct 2009 08:13

So if Rao sahab is right, then we need to consider disbanding DRDO, right? Wrong!! We need to re-strucutre, create profit centers, infuse pvt sector partners and bring the IAF, IN and IA chiefs into the Boards of these organizations to improve their functioning. These labs should be free to develop and sell products to friendly allied nations. For example the Arjun tech should be sold to a pvt sector partner and he should manage all sales - even to the IA with the labs getting a fixed return to cover development costs.

The recent progress made by LCA is very discouraging.Post 2001 there was some excitement with the launch of new TDs and PVs. Now HAL is bogged down in looking for partners for flight testing. The sole aim of these partners is that LCA should fail so they will delay the flight tests as long as possible and keep blaming DRDO so that IAF loses patience and cancels the development program. By opting for a foreign partner for flight testing, ADA/HAL/DRDO have shown themselves to be totally incompetent in aircraft development. All that talk about "having fixed number of parameters to test etc."....... Launch of the LSPs and the trainer is being held back? Short of parts again, eh?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2009 08:15

PM. Just need good PM.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Oct 2009 09:06

NRao wrote:PM. Just need good PM.

Amen!

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 07 Oct 2009 09:15

Vivek K wrote:
NRao wrote:PM. Just need good PM.
Amen!

LOL. Imagine the opposition telling the poor, illiterate and downtrodden in far off villages that they must elect a better PM for faster completion of LCA!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Oct 2009 09:22

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Oct 2009 09:35

DMurphy, NRao meant PM as in program management/program manager, not Prime Minister.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Oct 2009 11:01

RaviBg wrote:DMurphy, NRao meant PM as in program management/program manager, not Prime Minister.

yeah, we'll take one of those too!

CM.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 07 Oct 2009 12:42

RaviBg wrote:DMurphy, NRao meant PM as in program management/program manager, not Prime Minister.

Well...lets just say i'm not much of an einstein!

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 07 Oct 2009 17:38

NRao wrote:
Because the people who started the LCA effort and left for various reasonS, were the very best Indian brains that were working in the US/UK/France and decided to come back to India. Everyone of them, then, had a standing offer to come back to the West. They had studied+worked under some of the best, in some cases the best, aeronautical engineers that the West had to offer. The game plan they had is not what is out there today - for a variety of reasons.

One cannot compare the LCA effort to that of the MKI effort, etc. The LCA has nothing to do with Russia or the US, etc. It became that a way as things got out of hand.

So does it give them privilege to mess with the project...What made them believe and agree that we could get Unkil consultancy for the such hi tech project (atleast It was hi tech then). How many countries in the world had been benefited from Unkil's consultancy then, that made us decide to go with them or even now can we name any single country whom unkil has helped?

Will give you one more example of literally playing with the project. Consultancy for Air force version was given to Boeing who specialize in Navy aircraft whereas for N-LCA it was given to LM who has never produced carrier based aircraft in last 3 decades at least...Of course we may argue on this point but you will have to agree that LM for IAF LCA and Boeing for N LCA would have made the process faster considering their relevant experience and would have avoided them sharpening their skills on the other type of aircraft from our money.

Yet another example is consultancy given to LM when US had already showed its color in Boeing case..

Do we expect EADS to genuinely help us in LCA? No way it will do so. Not at least before MMRCA is awarded. A successful take off of LCA Mk 2 will restrict no of MMRCA forget the option for other 63 aircraft...

Many claims that Russians engine are very smoky and had hell lot of problem. But we have to understand one thing that we did not have choice. Perfection is to be looked only when we are in advanced stage. We tried excessive perfection when we did not have built a glider on our own previously...
Had we gone with those smoky engine from day one, we would have save a lot of time - delivery hold of GE engines after POK II and now refitting it with advanced engine of MK series would not have been a problem.

Still we want to give consultancy of N LCA to Unkil / EU who are all having VTOL/STOL/CATOBAR aircrafts but we are not willing to give it to Mig who has just successfully tested MIG 29k for IN using the same STOBAR with SKI jump which N LCA is proposed to use.

I don't think it is as it is because things went out of hand. It is intentional, well planned, systematic effort to sabotage the effort so we keep buying weapons from those countries and that they can use what I call as variant of GUN BOAT DIPLOMACY on us.

-Nitin

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 07 Oct 2009 23:31

nrshah wrote: So does it give them privilege to mess with the project...What made them believe and agree that we could get Unkil consultancy for the such hi tech project (atleast It was hi tech then). How many countries in the world had been benefited from Unkil's consultancy then, that made us decide to go with them or even now can we name any single country whom unkil has helped?

-Nitin

You are completely wrong my friend! Unkil was never selected as the consultant for LCA at the beginning of the project. It was Dassault Aviation which was selected as the design consultant back then and that's one of the reasons why LCA has some amount of resemblance to Mirage. Dassault even offered the Flight control system for LCA, which of course was refused and India went ahead to develop it's own FBW system.

nrshah wrote: Do we expect EADS to genuinely help us in LCA? No way it will do so. Not at least before MMRCA is awarded. A successful take off of LCA Mk 2 will restrict no of MMRCA forget the option for other 63 aircraft...
-Nitin

EADS plan wrt India -

LCA consultancy ------> LCA Mk-2 engines & consultancy -------> EF for MMRCA

Frankly, the winner of MMRCA deal willn't be decided until 2012-13 at the earliest whereas the LCA Mk2 timeline states the first flight by 2012-13. EADS believes that helping India with LCA Mk-2 will better EF's in the MMRCA. The Mk-2 design has to be frozen by what? 2011 at the latest.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Oct 2009 09:37

KrishG wrote:You are completely wrong my friend! Unkil was never selected as the consultant for LCA at the beginning of the project. It was Dassault Aviation which was selected as the design consultant back then and that's one of the reasons why LCA has some amount of resemblance to Mirage. Dassault even offered the Flight control system for LCA, which of course was refused and India went ahead to develop it's own FBW system.

Ya, But we definitely took help of Unkil (LM) for FBW. Remember all those codes that were developed were confiscated by LM following Pok 2... It only delayed the first flight...

Russian had FBW tec then on Flanker. What made us ignore them. They were in need of money post cold war and would have been more than happy to help us for money.

And my issue is not what has happened in past. There is no way we can do anything about it. My concern is present and future. In spite of knowing the nature of unkil help, why are we attracted towards them?

Did LM termination from FBW and holding FBW codes wasn't enough that we gave LCA consultancy to Boeing. Boeing consultancy was terminated for various reason one of them being unkil permission for export. I dont remember the source but i think it was INDIA DEFENSE. And as if it is not enough, we gave N LCA consultancy to LM and we know the result..

Again Mig, inspite of being able to develop Mig 29K for IN using same take off / recovery mechanism as Tejas will have, was ignored.

Now we want engines from Unkil. Can we even dare to think of exporting LCA with GE engines when they wanted their permission even for small 20 mn USD consultancy?

-Nitin

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 08 Oct 2009 09:49

nrshah wrote: Now we want engines from Unkil. Can we even dare to think of exporting LCA with GE engines when they wanted their permission even for small 20 mn USD consultancy?
-Nitin

I agree with Nitin on this point. Using Unkil's engine means LCA may be grounded in the times of dire need.
Also, the decision to take Unkil and European help in LCA that led to the part of the mess that LCA is in today is a bit strange.
Was there a reason why we did not approach the Russis? Maybe the russis refused to help.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 08 Oct 2009 09:51

i somehow get the feeling that india/usa want to be partners desperately. but the events get ahead of them. both of them dont know how to put the pak genie in the bottle.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Oct 2009 10:26

AmitR wrote:Was there a reason why we did not approach the Russis? Maybe the russis refused to help.

Don't seem logical when they helped in Arihant / Proposed Futuristic MBT in joint development / MTA / PAK FA / FGFA / Space missions / Nuke power plants incl enrichment and reprocessing tech etc.....

-Nitin

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Oct 2009 19:32

DRDO

(3D MMR)
The software for the air to air mode has been developed considerably (including search and track while scan in both look up and look down modes) but air to ground modes are being still worked upon. The radar development was shown to be considerably more mature than previously thought. At Aero India 2009, it was revealed that the 3D MMR project has been superseded by the new 3D AESA FCR project led by LRDE. The MMR itself has been completed with Elta Israel's assistance and now involved Elta 2032 technology for Air to Ground mapping and targeting. This "hybrid" MMR has been trialled, validated and will be supplied for the initial MK1 LCAs of which 2 Squadrons worth are to be ordered by the Indian Air Force (around 40 units). The MK2 LCA will receive the new AESA radar.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 08 Oct 2009 23:54

Post subject: Re: LCA news and discussion Reply with quoteDRDO
Quote:
(3D MMR)
The software for the air to air mode has been developed considerably (including search and track while scan in both look up and look down modes) but air to ground modes are being still worked upon. The radar development was shown to be considerably more mature than previously thought. At Aero India 2009, it was revealed that the 3D MMR project has been superseded by the new 3D AESA FCR project led by LRDE. The MMR itself has been completed with Elta Israel's assistance and now involved Elta 2032 technology for Air to Ground mapping and targeting. This "hybrid" MMR has been trialled, validated and will be supplied for the initial MK1 LCAs of which 2 Squadrons worth are to be ordered by the Indian Air Force (around 40 units). The MK2 LCA will receive the new AESA radar.

Information in Wikipedia is not accurate. this hybrid MMR has been trialled on which aircraft? hawk ?
If everything going gr8 with MMR why not integrate it with the LCA. There is hell lot of weapons testing to be completed on LCA.

The IOC date of 2011 is far too optimistic for MK1 looking at the current phase of testing and work to be done.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Oct 2009 00:36

vishnu.nv wrote:
Information in Wikipedia is not accurate. this hybrid MMR has been trialled on which aircraft? hawk ?
If everything going gr8 with MMR why not integrate it with the LCA. There is hell lot of weapons testing to be completed on LCA.

The IOC date of 2011 is far too optimistic for MK1 looking at the current phase of testing and work to be done.

the Hawk Mk.128 doesn't have a radar- so how can it be used to trial a MMR ? its done on the Hack. and the integration with LSP-2 will be done, probably is going on as we speak, which is why LSP-2 has been delayed so far.

as for weapons testing, R-73 has been tested without radar, dummy bombs of 1000 lbs category have been dropped and the Litening has been integrated- anyway, more can be done during the period from IOC to FOC. thats what IOC is for- the Tejas doesn't have to be tested with all its weapons when it enters Initial Operating Capability- more important is to test it at all points of its flight envelope. thats what EADS is looking to do right now- get acquainted with the Tejas flight programme so they can advice on what tests could be avoided or what NFTC really needs to look into.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 09 Oct 2009 03:49

karthik,

sorry, I meant Hack only.

The integration of Radar has to be completed by march 2009. Now its October. More over look at the Tejas timeline's here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas_timeline

Nothing much this year from Hal's side. No Trainer, LSP3 ? Is this the rate in which they are going to do the production Run? Lets Hope 2010 will be a good Year for LCA. Or we would have to see another extension in the time line for IOC?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Oct 2009 04:29

vishnu.nv wrote:karthik,

sorry, I meant Hack only.

The integration of Radar has to be completed by march 2009. Now its October. More over look at the Tejas timeline's here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas_timeline

Nothing much this year from Hal's side. No Trainer, LSP3 ? Is this the rate in which they are going to do the production Run? Lets Hope 2010 will be a good Year for LCA. Or we would have to see another extension in the time line for IOC?

Nothing much ? they're still testing the other prototypes. PV-5 is built and ready, but there have been some post-production issues that have held up the first flight. what exactly those issues are, we won't know unless someone knows the right guys in ADA/HAL.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 09 Oct 2009 16:41

RKumar wrote:DRDO
(3D MMR)
The software for the air to air mode has been developed considerably (including search and track while scan in both look up and look down modes) but air to ground modes are being still worked upon. The radar development was shown to be considerably more mature than previously thought. At Aero India 2009, it was revealed that the 3D MMR project has been superseded by the new 3D AESA FCR project led by LRDE. The MMR itself has been completed with Elta Israel's assistance and now involved Elta 2032 technology for Air to Ground mapping and targeting. This "hybrid" MMR has been trialled, validated and will be supplied for the initial MK1 LCAs of which 2 Squadrons worth are to be ordered by the Indian Air Force (around 40 units). The MK2 LCA will receive the new AESA radar.

Prasanth · Post by **Prasanth** » 10 Oct 2009 17:40

edit.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Oct 2009 17:44

Basically we will be up agaisnt 3rd Gen Mig 21 derivaties most of the time in future. Can't we have more LCA Mk1 which I feel more than suitable to provide point defence and also some limited air to ground capability. We do not need tons of bombs when you can hit with pin point accuracy right ?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Oct 2009 17:53

parijat, why waste energy responding to a wiki expert ? simply report such posts as OT.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Oct 2009 18:01

Narayana Rao wrote:Basically we will be up agaisnt 3rd Gen Mig 21 derivaties most of the time in future. Can't we have more LCA Mk1 which I feel more than suitable to provide point defence and also some limited air to ground capability. We do not need tons of bombs when you can hit with pin point accuracy right ?

Why do you think so? China would quickly replace their outdated fighters with J-10s. Agreed, tejas even with ge-f404 is a worthy figher, but it I guess IAF has to think of distant future too. They apparently find it prudent to sacrifice a couple of years to get a much better fighter. But this has been much discussed before. The arguments and counterarguments are present in the previous pages. So, I would humbly suggest not to go in circles here.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 10 Oct 2009 18:27

Parijat Gaur wrote:Why do you think so? China would quickly replace their outdated fighters with J-10s. Agreed, tejas even with ge-f404 is a worthy figher, but it I guess IAF has to think of distant future too. They apparently find it prudent to sacrifice a couple of years to get a much better fighter. But this has been much discussed before. The arguments and counterarguments are present in the previous pages. So, I would humbly suggest not to go in circles here.

Agreed. But then what is the issue in replacing Mig 21 with LCA MK 1? Ofcourse we can upgrade them to MK 2 level when it becomes available. This is exactly every country does except our very professional IAF who wants everything very perfect right from word go. Every effort takes it own time for perfection. Rafale/ Typhoon were inducted in tranches.. but we, no way....

And are they prudent who feels it is prudent to wait for couple of years... and how sure are we that it will be couple of years and not beyond.. MMRCA is still not decided inspite of being thought of it 2001-02. The most optimistic time that is being thought of first unit is 2014... 14-15 years after conceived. Their prudence is costing us in shortage of fighters. We are losing our conventional edge over TSP, forget PRC.. Have those prudent people taken guarantee from PRC / TSP not to misadventure in these couple of years...

LCA MK 1 is any day better than Mig 21 even bison variant in terms of no of hard points / range/ mid air fueling / safety / aero dynamics / FBW etc. Not to mention the inputs it will provide which will go long way in improving Mk 2/MCA/UCAV etc

-Nitin

Prasanth · Post by **Prasanth** » 10 Oct 2009 18:32

awesome, discussing chinese helicopters in LCA thread !
Rahul.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Oct 2009 18:57

please ignore the troll.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 10 Oct 2009 19:54

prashnathji! when did HAL boasted that ALH is entirely their original design

? its a well known fact that MBB aka eurocopter of EADS assisted HAL in the design and development of ALH.Yaar! dont make this another POK-II bashing thread which threw out a learned member/webmaster! please stick to LCA!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Oct 2009 20:37

rrao wrote:prashnathji! when did HAL boasted that ALH is entirely their original design ? its a well known fact that MBB aka eurocopter of EADS assisted HAL in the design and development of ALH.Yaar! dont make this another POK-II bashing thread which threw out a learned member/webmaster! please stick to LCA!

It is openly acknowledged that HAL used consultancy for ALH program. But there is a difference between consultancy and "copy".
Hence my objection.
But we do not need to overreact. There is no need to compare this is pok-2 thread. I would assume good intentions by the poster here. Perhaps I am ignorant in this matter. I will be happy to be educated. But as I said before, this is not the place. I would not write any post on this matter at this forum from hereon.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 10 Oct 2009 21:14

What's the point you are trying to make on this particular thread ?? Please move your discussion to the

thread !

exactly ! second that !

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 10 Oct 2009 21:27

What do you think about the future of the LCA?

The IAF has already ordered 20 LCA MkI aircraft and they are also talking of an order of a few trainers of the same class to keep the line going. ADA has also issued an RFP for the new engine. This, of course, will mean design modifications on the aircraft, which will be a fairly major work.

What do you think about the EADS contract for the LCA?

The EADS will be working as a consultancy agency on certain aspects of LCA MkI. Whatever suggestions EADS gives will also have to be incorporated in LCA MkII.

Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Ashok Nayak

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... 52&page=21

Does this means that apart from the first 20 LCA, what ever order is coming for LCA MK1 will be of trainers?

The Design consultancy EADS is undertaking is not for the MK1, The suggestions made by the Eads will be incorporated in to MK2 version.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 11 Oct 2009 18:38

I have said it in the past and will say it again.

The Indian PSU's have a fundamental flaw in the management philosphy. They are more concerned with keeping people happy then producing results. They discorage risktaking, and encorage status quoe.

ITI, Air India, Ashoka Hotels, BHEL, ONGC, Indian Oil etc are all underpreformers. Hence it is not surprising that DRDO, HAL, etc fail to deliver.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Oct 2009 18:39

nrshah wrote:
Parijat Gaur wrote:Why do you think so? China would quickly replace their outdated fighters with J-10s. Agreed, tejas even with ge-f404 is a worthy figher, but it I guess IAF has to think of distant future too. They apparently find it prudent to sacrifice a couple of years to get a much better fighter. But this has been much discussed before. The arguments and counterarguments are present in the previous pages. So, I would humbly suggest not to go in circles here.
Agreed. But then what is the issue in replacing Mig 21 with LCA MK 1? Ofcourse we can upgrade them to MK 2 level when it becomes available. This is exactly every country does except our very professional IAF who wants everything very perfect right from word go. Every effort takes it own time for perfection. Rafale/ Typhoon were inducted in tranches.. but we, no way....

And are they prudent who feels it is prudent to wait for couple of years... and how sure are we that it will be couple of years and not beyond.. MMRCA is still not decided inspite of being thought of it 2001-02. The most optimistic time that is being thought of first unit is 2014... 14-15 years after conceived. Their prudence is costing us in shortage of fighters. We are losing our conventional edge over TSP, forget PRC.. Have those prudent people taken guarantee from PRC / TSP not to misadventure in these couple of years...

LCA MK 1 is any day better than Mig 21 even bison variant in terms of no of hard points / range/ mid air fueling / safety / aero dynamics / FBW etc. Not to mention the inputs it will provide which will go long way in improving Mk 2/MCA/UCAV etc

-Nitin

Our people want best thing in all aspects. We do have serious shortage in no of planes. Why we are forgetting that. We can start production line now and can fill gaps that will be left by Mig 21/23/27 retirement. Now we can produce Jag with 21 cen things and can do Mk1 Lca so why are we not doing it. It will give us no we badly needed. We need huge no of platforms against China and all the China platforms are not going to be even 4th Gen in near future. What gurus say.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Oct 2009 19:10

nrshah wrote:
Parijat Gaur wrote:Why do you think so? China would quickly replace their outdated fighters with J-10s. ..... So, I would humbly suggest not to go in circles here.
Agreed. But then what is the issue in replacing Mig 21 with LCA MK 1? Ofcourse we can upgrade them to MK 2 level when it becomes available. This is exactly every country does except our very professional IAF who wants everything very perfect right from word go. Every effort takes it own time for perfection. Rafale/ Typhoon were inducted in tranches.. but we, no way....

And are th....dge over TSP, forget PRC.. Have those prudent people taken guarantee from PRC / TSP not to misadventure in these couple of years...

LCA MK 1 is any day better than Mig 21 even bison .... etc

-Nitin

Narayana Rao wrote:
Our people ....... Now we can produce Jag with 21 cen things and can do Mk1 Lca so why are we not doing it. It will give us no we badly needed. We need huge no of platforms against China and all the China platforms are not going to be even 4th Gen in near future. What gurus say.

This thread is beginning to feel like MRCA thread going in circles. These things have been much discussed in detail in the previous pages.

Nitin,
No, we will not be able to upgrade lca mk-1 to mk-2 standard in the future. There will be structural changes required which will go way beyond the scope of term upgradation.
So IAF has 2 choices:
1> Produce lca mk-1 in large nos. They cannot be upgraded to mk-2 standard in the future. So, IAF is left with them till they retire.
Good short term measure for stop gap purpose, but not so good in the long run.
2>Wait for some years, get mk-2 and then mass produce. Good in the long run

IAF went with the second option. And IMHO they did the right thing. Though of course, many would beg to differ. Everyone has there own opinion.

Narayana,
How do you propose do build lca mk1 now? There is not even a working radar for it at present.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 11 Oct 2009 19:19

Narayana Rao wrote: We do have serious shortage in no of planes. Why we are forgetting that. We can start production line now and can fill gaps that will be left by Mig 21/23/27 retirement. Now we can produce Jag with 21 cen things and can do Mk1 Lca so why are we not doing it. It will give us no we badly needed. We need huge no of platforms against China and all the China platforms are not going to be even 4th Gen in near future.

- I also was in mind that the best way for LCA success - is following with f404 until Kaveri is ready, without starting a game with a new engine. Sure, Nitin and NRao remember I said it when the issue of a new more powerful engine for LCA was arisen. Thus I have said, that despite India always has a possibility for turning to RD-33 (in case of sanctions) this would be spared for the worst case, because of issue tech complexity. Then I have called the 'triplication' of LCA engines (f404, a mentioned foreign engine, Kaveri) the most stupid thing I saw before. Now I try to find a rational cause for such 'stupidness'. And my feeling is as follow: they don't want an American engine on LCA period. Even the prospect for future change f404 to Kaveri for all LCA fleet doesn't attract them apparently.

Assuming this is true, in reality the choice is remained between EJ200 and RD-33MK/MKV. THe participation of f414 in the current LCA engine request of propositions is rather virtual, to put the prices down and avoid unpleasant questions from the Americans. As ensued from the HAL's chief interview recently published in Indian Force, they are ready for significant airframe rework. In other words, they don't exclude an RD-33 version on LCA Mk.II on a technical basis.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 11 Oct 2009 19:55

Igorr wrote:And my feeling is as follow: they don't want an American engine on LCA period. Even the prospect for future change f404 to Kaveri for all LCA fleet doesn't attract them apparently.

This is not desirable. They should kick start production of LCA using F 404 IN in interceptor role, atleast till our honeymoon with unkil lasts. Then we are already working (buying) new 95-100 Kn engine and then Kaveri is not dumped. One day or other, believe me or not, it will fly one of the IAF's most potent aircraft.

Why these guys fail to understand that no product will mature unless it is put to operational use. All specs, design etc are ok but only operational use will tell how effective it is besides weeding out discrepancies.

We would have produced at the max 80 LCA mk 1 by 2014 assuming 15 PA. Considering a cost of 150 crore (which is for NLCA), the total cost is 3Bn USD. I dont think even if we have to keep those 80 - 100 odd MK1 till retirement, it is an issue... Rather it is cost effective solution to increase the no of aircraft where these will complement more potent MKI / MMRCA / PAK FA / MCA. And as some of my friend quoted, that for a fairly long foreseeable future we will see our adversaries not having 4/4.5 gen aircraft(TSP buying over 150 JF 17), LCA will be more than enough for them.

-Nitin

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Oct 2009 20:02

I think starting a production line for LCA Mk1 will be useful in many aspects. Increase confidence of the people in volved, good interceptor at least for point defence and can go into pak any day in offencie role if needed with reasonable chance. Can be used for traning, giving us much needed no's even in interceptor role which will free other platforms for other roles etc and so on. We are starting to do something new here and IAF wants to do it perfect. I have a feeling even if Raptor is offered to IAF in a war against Lanka it may want to have better one.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 12 Oct 2009 11:44

Rishirishi wrote:I have said it in the past and will say it again.

The Indian PSU's have a fundamental flaw in the management philosphy. They are more concerned with keeping people happy then producing results. They discorage risktaking, and encorage status quoe.

ITI, Air India, Ashoka Hotels, BHEL, ONGC, Indian Oil etc are all underpreformers. Hence it is not surprising that DRDO, HAL, etc fail to deliver.

I would like to put it in a different way... Indian PSUs work differently compared to western counterparts and are more conservative than their european counterparts. That culture saved them on many occasions and on many occasions it was disastrous too. There is no meaning in blindly blaming Indian PSUs or trying to change it to another western MNC. MNCs can take risks, talk about efficiency and dynamics, show rapid growth and also can shut shop one fine morning. Think about IOC. ONGC, DRDO, SBI etc closing down… scary right ??

Remember the single biggest thing that saved India from the current recession is SBI, not any of the private companies known for their efficiency. Everywhere else banks collapsed pushing economies to rock bottom while SBI stood like a rock. Of course this is my personal opinion, others may differ. I showed my gratitude by opening an account and deposited some money, a small thanks from an ordinary Indian.

Coming back to LCA, ADA & DRDO & HAL work under lot of constraints. LCA is just one among many projects they execute. Even though we don’t a world fighter ready now, we all know that it will happen in the near future. That itself is a good thing. The probability of LCA being a success is very high. So instead of blaming HAL, forgive them for the time being and support them during tough times. I am sure few of our members belong to those companies. How do they feel if a forum like BR starts supporting them, congratulating them for their good work? I am sure they will feel good and motivated.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 12 Oct 2009 11:53

The success of LCA is imperative and there is no other option apart from it , it is earmarked to fill a void of roughly 16 squadrons in the IAF and an awful lot is riding on it in terms of manturing of our aerospace industry.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 12 Oct 2009 12:10

Parijat Gaur wrote:So IAF has 2 choices:
1> Produce lca mk-1 in large nos. They cannot be upgraded to mk-2 standard in the future. So, IAF is left with them till they retire.
Good short term measure for stop gap purpose, but not so good in the long run.
2>Wait for some years, get mk-2 and then mass produce. Good in the long run

IAF went with the second option. And IMHO they did the right thing. Though of course, many would beg to differ. Everyone has there own opinion.

The option should have been make and induct Mk-I in numbers, perfect it and take that learning to Mk-II. When mk-II production lines starts, sell the second hand mk1s to some Kazhakistan, Indonesia or new African friends - establishing supply chains, international customers etc