LCA News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Nov 2010 03:42

Srai sahab,

I have no reason to doubt AM Rajkumar. But there have been many reports where very senior officials have pegged IOC of Tejas Mark II at 2014.

If the airframe is finalized till then, it would make more sense to build tejas Mark II airframes. We can fill in the guts as time progresses (2018 or whenever).

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Nov 2010 04:00

indranilroy wrote:Srai sahab,

I have no reason to doubt AM Rajkumar. But there have been many reports where very senior officials have pegged IOC of Tejas Mark II at 2014.

If the airframe is finalized till then, it would make more sense to build tejas Mark II airframes. We can fill in the guts as time progresses (2018 or whenever).

It's really about risk-mitigation. Any new complex program will have some delays or other unforeseen circumstances. It never goes exactly according to plan. IAF does not have the luxury to wait because of large numbers of MiGs being retired in the next five years. Only new plane being inducted during that time are the Su-30 MKIs. (MRCA induction will be closer to 2015+.) They have a product (Mk.1) that is ready and being locally manufactured. It will be a worthy "partial" replacement for these MiGs. There is very little risk associated with this option.

IOC in 2014 for LCA Mk-2 is quite optimistic given the amount of changes ADA has to make to the airframe and additional testing that needs to be conducted. From what I have understood from various news reports/interviews is that LCA Mk-2 version with all its changes will make its maiden flight in 2014/15. This is quite different than stating that it will achieve IOC by then. If it flies in 2014/2015, then as AM Rajkumar states one has to add flight-testing to reach IOC, which will take another 2 to 3 years. Then FOC is achieved in another 2 to 3 years.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 28 Nov 2010 04:01

Why not induct the mark-1 aircraft and use them. when the mark 2 comes online and the IAF wants the mark2 find an export customer and sell it? I'm sure we can find a customer for those used aircraft.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2010 04:14

Rahul M wrote:I don't think with the way the MC was designed integrating jammers would take too much time. it's even possible it has been done but they haven't bothered to tell us.

what is the G-limit of bisons ? 8, 8.5 G ?

No matter how one slices and dices it, the payload versus pylon combination of the Bison are so limited vis a vis the LCA MK1, that the claims of "limited payload" on the LCA fall flat and become a joke, really.

There are images of "ready" Bisons on BR website available via Google search, that show a ready Bison armed with 3 fuel tanks, and a R-73E missile and a R-77 missile. Clearly, a Bison without extra fuel tanks is point defence at best, and it needs fuel.

In contrast, see LCA Test Pilots comments on the aircraft that the Ge404 is so fuel efficient it sips fuel. The LCA has basically much more range than a MiG-21 to begin with given it carries equivalent internal fuel 3000 Kg vs 2690 Kg, and has a more fuel efficient engine.

Then lets look at payload. The LCA has seven hardpoints available.

Considering the aircraft can currently carry a payload of around 2.5T at least, that translates to 7 pylons (700 Kg)+ 4 Air to Air Missiles (double that on a Bison, at 2R73E - 210 Kg and 2 R77, 350 Kg) at 560 kg, leaving 1240 Kg available for the fuel, which can be carried on 3 pylons! In contrast, the Bison can either carry 2 of 490 Ltr tanks, or these 2 and a 800 Ltr tank but then has only 2 pylons left for missiles! How good is that! In Air to Ground, two R73 Missiles and two 500 Kg LGBs can be carried plus around 1000 Kg of extra fuel. If IFR is activated for MK1, then things become even better.

The LCA on top of it, has an internal jammer. The Bison requires a pylon for that as well. LCA has a special pylon for LDP and additional jammer. Bison has none.

See http://www.lca-tejas.org/images/lcaweapup8.jpg

The LCA MK1 whacks the Bison all around in terms of payload & range combination flexibility even in the scenario where its payload is limited to just 2.5T. Plus, it has better avionics & systems, giving more capability.

LCA MK1 has glass cockpit, the best Bison has 1 MFD screen. LCA MK1 has full ELBIT DASH Helmet Display. Bison has Helmet Cueing sight not a display.

LCA radar has a range of the order of 120 Km. The Bison radar range is 57 Km (50% of that of LCA). LCA RWR, jammer etc are also more modern than that on Bison and do not require extra pylon.

It will also be easier to fly than the earlier MiGs thanks to FBW, and maintenance will also be easier due to newer technology and systems.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Nov 2010 04:33

When can we expect FOC for the Mk1?. I know IOC will be in december/March so can we hope FOC is achieved by end 2012? The EW suite is not much of a concern, apart from the different Tarang Mks, they have enough experience to fit something decent in that dept. Btw, is the jammer internal? Weren't they working on some kind of RWJ?

IMHO, the big concern is BVR integration. I hope they are not waiting for the Astra to certify BVR on the LCA. Either R77 or Derby should do.

And yes, an extra order for Mk1s does not seem like a bad idea at all. With floggers crashing on a regular basis, the Mk1 Tejas would make a decent replacement. And if they can get an RVV AE hooked to it, nothing like it. A Tejas with centerline EFT, 2 X450kg paveways, 2 X 250kg bums, Litening, 2 R73, 2X77 would make a rather decent multirole bird. It all depends on how easily FOC is achieved, if they can manage this in a year or so after IOC, I am sure we can expect an order for 1-2 extra sqds.

Numbers are critically important at this juncture (28 operaton sqds), ramping up production to about 10-15 p.year for the next five years would seriously help. Once the Mk2s start coming online, they can either revamp the older birds or just keep flogging them.

As of now what do the numbers look like for the Tejas?
8 LSP - production std.
20 + 20 = 48 nos.

I'd like to see these in the air by 2014. But let us see what happens.

CM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2010 04:50

Also, from the above calculations I may actually understate LCA MK1 performance.

Empty weight LCA: 6500 Kg + 3000 Kg internal fuel, 9.5T.

Now, fitted with 7Pylons and 2 AAMs, its weight is given as 10.5T, by Ajai Shukla. He quotes MTOW as 13T giving us a max payload of 2.5 T.

Subtracting 350 Kg for 2 BVR missiles, thats around 2,150 Kg for fuel. Say 1800 Kg, with 350 Kg for tanks themselves.

JP-4 weighs 3.103 kg per gallon ie 3.78 Liters.

MiG-21 can -best- carry 1780 Liters of external fuel (1459 Kg) and just 2 missiles! (if bomb in below pic is replaced by another tank)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... iG21Bison/

Here, LCA MK1 can carry same amount of external fuel but with 4 missiles!!

(Source for LCA fuel 2008, Ajai Shukla: The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried. The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons… carried on its pylons.
....
The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So you’ll have to shed one ton)

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Nov 2010 04:59

Karan M wrote:Also, from the above calculations I may actually understate LCA MK1 performance.

Empty weight LCA: 6500 Kg + 3000 Kg internal fuel, 9.5T.

Karan, iirc, the internal fuel is at around 2400kg or 3000 liters. empty equipped @ 9500 = 6500 empty + 2500kg fuel + 500kg pylons, fluids, ammo etc. So, theoretically they should manage payloads around 3-3.5 tons.

What I'd really like to see is a quick integration of a BVR missile. Will it be the R77 or is the Derby more likely considering Israeli involvement on the radar side? Or will they just wait for the AStra?

CM

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2010 05:04

Cain Marko wrote:When can we expect FOC for the Mk1?. I know IOC will be in december/March so can we hope FOC is achieved by end 2012? The EW suite is not much of a concern, apart from the different Tarang Mks, they have enough experience to fit something decent in that dept. Btw, is the jammer internal? Weren't they working on some kind of RWJ?

It is an internal jammer per news reports.

IMHO, the big concern is BVR integration. I hope they are not waiting for the Astra to certify BVR on the LCA. Either R77 or Derby should do.

Navy has asked for Derby, so that will be there clearly. R-77 seems the logical option for AF.

And yes, an extra order for Mk1s does not seem like a bad idea at all. With floggers crashing on a regular basis, the Mk1 Tejas would make a decent replacement. And if they can get an RVV AE hooked to it, nothing like it. A Tejas with centerline EFT, 2 X450kg paveways, 2 X 250kg bums, Litening, 2 R73, 2X77 would make a rather decent multirole bird. It all depends on how easily FOC is achieved, if they can manage this in a year or so after IOC, I am sure we can expect an order for 1-2 extra sqds.

Even with your heavy loadout (1400 Kg of Bombs, 200 Kg pod, 350 Kg missiles versus 2500 Kg payload), we still have approximately 500 Kg for fuel available. 100 Kg as tank weight, 400 Kg of fuel, giving around 490 Liters for fuel.

Numbers are critically important at this juncture (28 operaton sqds), ramping up production to about 10-15 p.year for the next five years would seriously help. Once the Mk2s start coming online, they can either revamp the older birds or just keep flogging them

Agreed

As of now what do the numbers look like for the Tejas?
8 LSP - production std.
20 + 20 = 48 nos.

Navy has also ordered a few planes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2010 05:08

Cain Marko wrote:
Karan M wrote:Also, from the above calculations I may actually understate LCA MK1 performance.

Empty weight LCA: 6500 Kg + 3000 Kg internal fuel, 9.5T.
Karan, iirc, the internal fuel is at around 2400kg or 3000 liters. empty equipped @ 9500 = 6500 empty + 2500kg fuel + 500kg pylons, fluids, ammo etc. So, theoretically they should manage payloads around 3-3.5 tons.

Right you are! In fact, this again, points to how even how my numbers may be an underestimate of the LCA payload, despite what Ajai Shukla has said!!

My point was, that even with 2.5 T payload (apart from claimed weight with fuel/pylons and 2 R73 missiles at 10.5T), the LCA is more than a match for the Bison no matter how we look at it.

What I'd really like to see is a quick integration of a BVR missile. Will it be the R77 or is the Derby more likely considering Israeli involvement on the radar side? Or will they just wait for the AStra?

CM

The Navy has asked for a Derby, whereas the AF standard missile is a R-77. They will have to integrate both is my guess, but former will be more easy given Israeli involvement with radar & that HAL has also been upgrading SHAR with an Elta radar plus Derby combo.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Nov 2010 05:20

Karan M wrote:My point was, that even with 2.5 T payload (apart from claimed weight with fuel/pylons and 2 R73 missiles at 10.5T), the LCA is more than a match for the Bison no matter how we look at it.

For the most part, yes. Esp. when it comes to ground attack, which is precisely why I agreed with Rahul when he thought it better than an A2S optimized a/c like a flogger. But not air to air (primary mission of the Bison), not until the LCA envelope is fully opened and it has a bvr weapon with it. But once that happens, there is little doubt that the LCA would excel it, even in the Bison's primary role.

CM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2010 06:15

But Bison is meant for more than air to air. It's been seen & has demo'ed, rocket attacks, dumb bomb attacks, has been seen with TV guided bombs and its air to air missiles are just one part. Its clearly meant for a multi-role purpose.

Plus, obviously, we are speaking of the IAF ordering an additional 2 squadrons of the LCA MK1 once FOC is achieved, by next year or thereafter, to give them substantial combat punch while adding to the production stability.

Envelope expansion is now just a matter of time with EADS helping in deciding what is critical & what is not, and Radar-BVR weapon integration is also not a stopping block, given both resources available (domestic and partner).

While the Bison may have an edge in top speed, I doubt that will be of any effect versus the average Mach 4.5 Air to Air missile.

Of greater relevance, the LCA MK-1 will thoroughly outclass the Mirage 3 & J-7 fighters in PAF service, across many key points, especially avionics & will be competitive in aircraft performance, payload/range etc. Around 180 Mirage 3/Vs are in service, and around 180-190 F-7 variants. The probability of a LCA facing these types while striking in the air to ground function,( escorted by other LCAs) out of the total PAF fleet is highest, especially since F-16/J-10s will be pulling escort duty for high value assets, or be tasked in reserve for the strategic mission or trying deep strike. To keep up with Joneses (India), Pakistan is buying "force multipliers", which unless they are heavily supported round the clock by escort, are sitting ducks

The J-7s in PAF service either have ranging radars, or limited air to air sets without BVR capability. Kept aware by AWACS, a LCA would not have any significant issues taking on these aircraft at long range.

The Mirages, which double up for Air Defence, also suffer from restricted avionics and are aging. In WVR, they would not have advantages against the LCA. In BVR, they would be again challenged by a smaller target, with a better radar.

The JF-17, all talk apart, is in the same stage of development as the LCA, despite being a much simpler design. By the time it gets into series production at any rate, India would have the MMRCA and LCA MK-2.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Nov 2010 10:07

more orders will not work, example Arjun orders. If they do not meet acceptance tests they'll not be accepted even if produced. What counts is progress in project and product maturity, a good example is Akash.

Against firm order of 28 LCAs, only 5 have been produced in last 5 years. Where is the case for ordering more and how would it help LCA if they can't use that money because they don'y have IOC/FOC? Order's must be won not given as favors. DRDO's R&D is funded from a separate budget they are not reliant on profits generated from sales of their products like private western companies.

As of now LCA does not have manufacturing or production related issues that need further investments. HAL has received ~$500MM from IAF to build production facilities for series production. Another order of 20 is assured if HAL/ADA can build capacity and execute current order. R&D funding has been fully approved for Mk1 and Mk2 til 2018 and MCA too have started to receive funding.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Nov 2010 10:08

I would rather use that money to order more Akash, Arjun, ALH and Ground radars

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Nov 2010 10:31

Cain Marko wrote:What I'd really like to see is a quick integration of a BVR missile. Will it be the R77 or is the Derby more likely considering Israeli involvement on the radar side? Or will they just wait for the AStra?

CM

CM , PS has stated in that interview to force that BVR will come with the second batch of Mk1 by 2014 which is the FOC date as per him.

That would be Derby or Astra if its the Israel/India radar .

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Nov 2010 11:01

If the IOC for MK 2 as mentiond by AM Philip is is 2018. Then it would be best if the IAF went for a large numbers of the MK 1. Right now it is better then nearly every mig in service out of the box.

On second thoughts, it seems to be fetish of the Armed forces to start asking for mk 2 even before the mk1 in service in large numbers. The strengths and weakness are understood.

Asking for an upgrade after understnding the weakness is one thing. But the damm thing is not even in service and you are asking for MK 2.

In the meantime the MIGs will be running out of service and operational lives. the force numbers will be arround approx 590 combat jets if the 2018 deadline is to be followed.

In 2018 the orbat may include

260 MKI Approx
40 Mirage Approx
60 Mig 29 Approx
150 (Approx)Jags and 27s

510 Of the existing fleet.

Every thing else will be gone.

the new AC will be

40 LCA
40 of the 126/200 MRCA

80 of the planed aircrafts.

For a total of 590 aircrafts.

Will the numbers be sufficient to deal with teh threats at that time.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Nov 2010 11:48

Pratyush wrote:If the IOC for MK 2 as mentiond by AM Philip is is 2018. Then it would be best if the IAF went for a large numbers of the MK 1. Right now it is better then nearly every mig in service out of the box.

On second thoughts, it seems to be fetish of the Armed forces to start asking for mk 2 even before the mk1 in service in large numbers. The strengths and weakness are understood.

Asking for an upgrade after understnding the weakness is one thing. But the damm thing is not even in service and you are asking for MK 2.

In the meantime the MIGs will be running out of service and operational lives. the force numbers will be arround approx 590 combat jets if the 2018 deadline is to be followed.

In 2018 the orbat may include

260 MKI Approx
40 Mirage Approx
60 Mig 29 Approx
150 (Approx)Jags and 27s

510 Of the existing fleet.

Every thing else will be gone.

the new AC will be

40 LCA
40 of the 126/200 MRCA

80 of the planed aircrafts.

For a total of 590 aircrafts.

Will the numbers be sufficient to deal with teh threats at that time.

590/18 = 33 squdron appox, I didn't understand problem from manufacturing more Tejas Mk1 atleast to make up the minimum required force level of 39.5 sq

by 2020 IAF will have to replace Migs, Mirages & Jaguars using PAKFA/FGFA approx 300 fighters. AMCA will replace Su-30 Mki's and Tejas will have to fill the gap to make upto 40 sq level.

GoI should concentrate on longer term plan instead of shorter term plan i.e., induct more indigenous fighter and encourage for development of technology for AMCA & LCA instead of MRCA. We are waiting for MRCA for past 5 years it will take another 2 years to induct if we decide in another 6 months. so by that time MRCA will be inducted it will be atleast by 2013-14, the same time of Tejas Mk2 will be start to fly.

My question is why we are spending $10+Billion on buying a fighter when we can make atleast 50% indigenously in form of Tejas Mk2 at the same time, with maximum returns. Instead of buy fighter we should spend money for building better infrastructre for testing Fighters, Engines & EW suits and missiles, encourage private players to do the work for GoI. Just like LM & Boeing, we have TATAs, Reliance, Mahindra's & L&T's who have world class abilities, they just need an encouragement.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Nov 2010 12:04

Marten sahab, I am not speaking of build and store.

If the airframe of Tejas Mark II is finalized by 2014-2015, it makes much more sense to pack whatever we are putting on the Tejas Mark I on the Mark II frame. It will have all the upgrade potential! Whatever is developed to 2018 can always be upgraded on the airframes built post 2014.

However if we order Tejas Mark Is , all these airframes will never be able to perform at Tejas Mark II level because they will be structurally so different.

To be frank, I totally understand IAFs stand here. 2014-2015 is not so far off. After the first squadron is erected, many a things will be ironed out. HAL itself will be able to streamline the production/surplus parts etc. It takes time to go from LSP to SP. 2-3 years definitely. The initial production rates of 8 per year has been decided by HAL. HAL only sought orders for a further squadron to keep the production lines open till Tejas Mark II arrives. They have got the second order. All this seems very reasonable to me.

I am quite sure IAF/HAL/MOD wouldn't want to see the Tejas production line sitting idle. But they are also correct when they are ready to wait for those 3-4 years to make the choice for whether to go for more Mark Is or get the Mark IIs if the airframe is ready by 2015.

I also want to see hundreds of LCAs flying as soon as possible. But for want of 2-3 years if I see a better spread of MArk Is to Mark IIs, I would rather wait. I will be here for some time. YOu will definitely seeing me shouting at the top of my voice to increase production rate of Mark IIs to 28 or 32 per year.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Nov 2010 12:19

Many of us have asked why don't we fill up the 6-8 squadrons worth of deficit with Mark Is.

I have a few questions, is HAL/other infrastructure ready to build at a rate to fill up 6-7 squadrons within 3-5 years?

IIRC HAL set the 8 per year initial speed, right?! It is not Kamra which is getting CKDs to assemble!

These squadrons will be operational for 25-40 years. If you are willing to give them a 2-3 year delayed start, they will get a much better and refined plane.

And these 2-3 years are not a "delay" per say. Till then a lot of production/maintenance/supply-chain/operational requirements will be smoothened and we can churn out Mark IIs by the hoards.

Many have marked out the Su-30s were not what we see them as today. But we people failed to mark out the initial rate of production of Su-30 MKIs. And this is when we were importing many of the parts to be assembled. The same was seen with the initial Hawk production.

It is only worth the wait to make a better call 2 years from now when we know the state of Tejas Mark I production and Tejas Mark IIs development status that we decide whether we should order more Mark Is or instead go for Mark IIs.

JMT

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Nov 2010 12:39

For LCA MkII ... the production rate should be 40 A/C's/ye with two production line (20 bangalore / 20 nasik)... one at bangalore and the other one at nasik division... Nasik division has been responsible for MIG 21 /23-27 production and over haul as well as SU 30 series ... I am sure if another line is opened at the nasik division it will be greatly affect production rates...AS MMRCA doesn't seem to coming nasiks way bcos of SU 30MKI line being there

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Nov 2010 14:20

>>IIRC HAL set the 8 per year initial speed, right?! It is not Kamra which is getting CKDs to assemble!

Yes, so far from the available information, initial speed is 8 per year followed by 12. It is the IAF who sets the agenda. So if IAF started feeling the LCA, as they ordered more Akash after intial 2 Sqds, there is a chance of getting more orders and so the speed of realizing those orders by HAL.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2010 19:54

For sead ops, would the integrated MMR suffice or we would have to take the siva pods? An integrated hadf would be great part of a multifunctional/role AESA system. What does IAF specs say on the weapons integration along with the list of other things in terms of flying params for FOC?

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 28 Nov 2010 21:23

Hmmm...the zeal with which some poster are comparing the Bison and LCA...they are actually letting potential enemies know the strengths and weakness of the Bison. Loose lips sink ships.
Avram

astal · Post by **astal** » 28 Nov 2010 21:45

indranilroy wrote:Many of us have asked why don't we fill up the 6-8 squadrons worth of deficit with Mark Is.

I have a few questions, is HAL/other infrastructure ready to build at a rate to fill up 6-7 squadrons within 3-5 years?

JMT

indranilroy,

The reason that we need to order more LCA mark I's really has little to do with the Bisons though LCA would be a great replacement. There will always be the next great fighter coming on the horizon. Do we not order MRCA and Su 30's because a more capable FGFA is around the corner?

There are many uncertainties associated with LCA Mark II (or what they eventually choose to call it). It took 3 years to decide between two engines. Approval from U.S. congress/govt for export of technology for the F414 are pending. They will probably have to go through a long set of flight tests. MRCA manufacturers will do everything within their means to scuttle LCA. Based on our experience with Tejas Mk 1, surely we need to be cautious and hedge our bets. LCA Mk 1 is perfect as a hedge. Induction in numbers ensures that we don't dump Tejas Mk 2 for some expensive MRCA. Since P.Rajkumar mentioned there is 75 % parts commonality, most of the manufacturing infrastructure will be re-used.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Nov 2010 00:10

Astal sir,

I never likened the LCA to any of the Mig versions!

Neither am I against more Tejas Mark I.

The structural changes for Tejas Mark II have been outlined, lengthened fuselage, bigger wings(?), refined aerodynamics, different air intake for the GE 414 and weight savings. I don't think that US congress will disapprove the GE414s, they need it as much as we do

.

If I am not wrong I had read that the first flight for the Tejas Mark II is around 2014. So I believe that the airframe has to be ready by then. Make a decision then. we would have operational experience for the Tejas Mark I by then and will know where Tejas Mark II has reached in the scheme of things. We can make a much more informed decision then rather than speculate from now.

These 2 or 3 years of wait before further orders is not a delay IMHO. This is very typical of setting up the production lines and operationalizing a new fighter! It's only good that our wait and watch time and this streamlining time overlaps.

P.S. I think I am repeating the same thins over and over. I will rest my case here.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Nov 2010 03:25

asprinzl wrote:Hmmm...the zeal with which some poster are comparing the Bison and LCA...they are actually letting potential enemies know the strengths and weakness of the Bison. Loose lips sink ships.
Avram

Avram, whatever comparisons were done here were based on open source info. I'm pretty sure any sort of analysis that can be done by military enthusiasts on a public forum from open source info would be well within the capabilities of foreign military intelligence agencies. There was no classified information leaked here.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 29 Nov 2010 04:53

Not getting Mark II until 2018, IAF should be in a real bind. And if their plan is to get just the 40 that too to keep the production lines open, spare a thought for the IAF who has to keep up their fighters in the air.

May be a discussion thread on how Mark I compares to the Migs now might be in order in the forum for us armchair people to know what are the real prospects of the Mark1.

So without any delays anticipated if the IOC for the Mark II if it is going to be 2018 and considering the production in the first year or two would be about 12 per year max, LCA is going to be produced even after the MRCA assembly lines are closed into the 2020 - 2030 timeframe, a bit damper. But considering that similar technologies could be back fitted into the birds from the development of AMCA and FGFA, this one would remain potent for few decades.

May be India should have one eye on the export market also for the future so that some exports of these technologies would be possible in 2020 timeframe.

vic · Post by **vic** » 29 Nov 2010 10:32

Kanson wrote:>>IIRC HAL set the 8 per year initial speed, right?! It is not Kamra which is getting CKDs to assemble!

Yes, so far from the available information, initial speed is 8 per year followed by 12. It is the IAF who sets the agenda. So if IAF started feeling the LCA, as they ordered more Akash after intial 2 Sqds, there is a chance of getting more orders and so the speed of realizing those orders by HAL.

Subramanium from ADA has already stated that they want order/s for 60 LCA Mark-1s. I think IAF is doing an Arjun on LCA Mark-1 without even having a T-90 up its sleeve. In any case first batch of 20 SPs were ordered way back in March 2006 and thereafter IAF has still not placed foraml order for second batch of LCAs and is negotiating/read foot dragging.

vic · Post by **vic** » 29 Nov 2010 10:36

Karan M wrote:.....Plus, obviously, we are speaking of the IAF ordering an additional 2 squadrons of the LCA MK1 once FOC is achieved, by next year or thereafter, to give them substantial combat punch while adding to the production stability.

Envelope expansion is now just a matter of time with EADS helping in deciding what is critical & what is not, and Radar-BVR weapon integration is also not a stopping block, given both resources available (domestic and partner).

While the Bison may have an edge in top speed, I doubt that will be of any effect versus the average Mach 4.5 Air to Air missile.

Of greater relevance, the LCA MK-1 will thoroughly outclass the Mirage 3 & J-7 fighters in PAF service, across many key points, especially avionics & will be competitive in aircraft performance, payload/range etc. ................

I think that even if LCA Mark-1 is limited to point defence, it will release other Indian fighters for heavy duty work. I think that we should order atleast 100 LCA Mark-1s

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 29 Nov 2010 11:11

Those pilots who criticized Tejas, never flew her.
Those pilots who flew her, never criticized her.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Nov 2010 11:30

Dileep wrote:Those pilots who criticized Tejas, never flew her.
Those pilots who flew her, never criticized her.

Wah, Wah!. Subanallah! What a pithy couplet. Ranks right there with Shivji's one on Pakiness ingrained in Pakis and fungible across national boundaries.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Nov 2010 11:32

wah kya sher arz kiya Ustad!
bahut barhiya!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Nov 2010 11:36

PMO needs to step in and ensure order of 40-60 more is placed to keep production at full tilt until Mk2 comes. many elements of Mk2 can then be backported into Mk1 (100 in total) like better radar, ecm, avionics in a MLU around 2020. in short it should progress like the F-16 blocks....after the first 40, I think the remaining 60 itself can be a Mk1.5 standard as by then many of the Mk2 stuff will be available like EL2052 radar maybe, sudarshan, astra, IRST etc.

the Mk1.5 should be able to match the Mirage2000 upg we are going in for. Mk2 will be superior. the Mk1 should able to match the current M2k in aerodynamics and outperform in avionics and weapons being 20 yrs newer.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Nov 2010 12:05

Indranil,clarification.The LCA MK-1 should be better than the Bison,which is superior to the older MIG-21s.It should/must therefore be significantly better than the JF-17 ,being boutght in large number by Pak and the PLAF,which will be its rival.However,the first LCK MK-1 sqd. is reportedly going to be based at Sulur in the south,close to B'lore (flying time) allowing any glitches/support easily available form HAL.It can only fulfil the pt.def. role.Reports about Pak's inflight refuelling capability have anaylsts worrying about Pak's ability to thus strike targets in India as far off as B'Lore and H'bad.I personally don't think that more than 40-60MK-1s should be acquired,because the production rate officially mentioned was 8-12 max per year.This means that even if we start MK-1 production in earnest from 2011,we will have only two sqds (40) by 2015/16 ,when MK-2 should've been perfected and perhaps 100-120 max by 2020.This number is far too little for the IAF's requirements,remembering that the MK-1s will not give the IAF the full capability required and they may not be able to be upgraded to MK-2 std. if there is significant redesign of fuselage,intakes,etc. for MK-2.I simply can't see the releavnc eof building more LCAs oither than replacing the first Mk=1s after 2020,as an entire decade of aerospace dev. woul;d've taken place by then and the capabilities of combat aircraft,manned and unmanned would've soared by then.

This is why we have to acquire extra aircraft other than the MMRCA of which another 120+ will take HAL at least 8 years to build.If the manufacturer of whichever aircraft is chosen can also supply two sqds. immediately,the final version can arrive later as was done with the SU-30s,where the first lot is to be returned to Russia once MKIs roll out in full force.If this is not poss. then we must acquire another 80-120+ aircraft of another type Gripen/MIG-35s most cost-effective types.

arijitkm · Post by **arijitkm** » 29 Nov 2010 12:19

If it is possible after 40, Ada get order for one more squadron of Lca mark-1 with kaveri as power house?
The current order for 40 (20+20) will be completed around four years.(initial production @ 8/per year for 2 yrs and then 12/ per year for next two yrs.). Then after four years the production line will be sitting idle. In the mean time Kaveri (in current state) will be mature enough.
So if we make lca mark-1 with kaveri engine around 2015-16, it will also help us for future export.

Any Guess ???

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Nov 2010 12:38

Regardless of the role the LCA can perform today. It is better then or equal to other platforms currently in service doing the same roles. That alone ought to gaurantee that the LCA will be ordered in huge numbers.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Nov 2010 13:17

Fielding a new aircraft is fraught with risks which cannot be taken lightly. There are production/maintainance/design issues involved which cannot be predicted. Even after decades of service, new problems still surface (Mig-29, Typhoon etc being few egs).

OK...let HAL manufacture 50 aircrafts/year and give IAF 200 mk1s as per the wet dreams here. Remember the initial engine problems of MKI for which they had to be sent back to Russia? What is something similar happen with mk1s? HAL will leave every project aside and repair all 200 mk1s which will remain grounded for how long? What if the problem was found in production line and is much more easier to rectify in production stage?

Mind you..some problem or another "will" be found in the mk1s. Hopefully, the problem will not be a serious one and could be easily rectified. This will not be because of any incompetence on our side but because this is a fact of life for all newly developed aircrafts.
But what if the problem is a serious one? What would this mess do with India's and HAL's reputation? What will this do to IAF's confidence in indigenous weapons? It will make Tejas and India a laughing stock. What will this do to the prospects of HAL to be sanctioned future projects like MCA?

So..IAF decided to take no risks and decided to get all the design/manufacturing/maintainance issues be ironed out first. The feedback from this will be used in mk2s to give a more better aircraft will less initial risks.

Also, with 40 mk1s in place with all the issues known, IAF has now the luxury of ordering any no of mk1s. If mk2 IOC is near..they can instead order more mk2s.

So, low and slow is the best way to go (nice...that even rhymed

).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Nov 2010 13:21

btw Philip the Mk1 is qualified for ground attack with LDP and dumb munitions also as you know. so its not just a air defence a/c only. and unlike the JF17 whose radar and avionics story is still up in the air (pardon the pun), the Mk1 has the EL2032 on its nose.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 29 Nov 2010 13:49

Gaur wrote:Also, with 40 mk1s in place with all the issues known, IAF has now the luxury of ordering any no of mk1s. If mk2 IOC is near..they can instead order more mk2s.

Except that we dont see any evidence pointing towards more Mk1s !

The first thing I would look for is an RFP/RFQ for more 404-IN20 engines, radar compoents from Israel etc. Once they float that, we can sure that in the next 2-5 years we can see more MK-1s.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Nov 2010 14:11

^^
No evidence is found because the decision to induct more mk1s could not have been taken place at such an early stage. There are numerous factors which would decide that. I have given my views in plenty regarding this in my previous post.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 29 Nov 2010 14:28

Completely agree. But how soon can IAF give a green flag? and how soon can HAL ramp up the rate of production hence?

The only concern is IAF might come back saying "its too little too late, let me wait for LCA Mk2 (when I increase the MRCA number from 126 to 226)"