LCA News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 19:25

1. The LCA has had a normal growth pattern. Certainly it could have used better management, funds, etc., but it is not "late". Would have been nice to have had it completed earlier

2. The "LCA" and "core competency" that the "LCA" provided are two very different things. While the "LCA" will provide short term benefits, it is the "Core competency" that will provide long term benefits

3. The importance of completing the "LCA" effort is 1) to provide the user a good platform, and 2) to complete the "core competency" cycle. Both have their place on the ladder of importance, but play two different roles. The "LCA" effort is important to the user, an immediate impact role, while the "core competency" role is important to the industry, a long/longer term role

4. I do not support an evolutionary "LCA", the MK II should be the last major effort. a) It has served its purpose extremely well and b) the "next step" (perhaps a stealth plane) would be far better served with a brand new design rather than an "Advanced" LCA (ALCA) - an issue of RoI. A MK III would consume more resources and provide very little benefit (as compared to the same effort in a newer design and the benefits from that new design)

5. The AMCA can learn from the LCA, but I very much doubt that it can evolve from the LCA

6. Yes, aircrafts around the world have evolved from one to another, but that was when technologies grew at a relative slow pace. Today, even in India, the technologies are growing much faster than yesterday, so I do see the experiences translating over, but not so much the technologies

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 26 Aug 2013 20:02

Before we draw conclusions reported I Philip ji post about production rates not being linear
We need to understand the installed capacity to make engines
If the HAL produced more than installed capacity per unit time like z per month then we should be worried other wise find fault by batch series number
All these shoddy business has so with pilatus Swiss made basic trainee

member_22868 · Post by **member_22868** » 26 Aug 2013 21:22

LCA-Tejas has completed 2298 Test Flights Successfully. (24-Aug-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-368,LSP1-74,LSP2-281,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-93,LSP5-209,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-23)

Did not highlight since previous data is not available. From the link:
http://www.ada.gov.in/archives.htm

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2013 03:15

We are going to attempt a JSF/F-22 class of aircraft and that programme (JSF) has taken the US with all its technological capabilities two decades yet not fully finished.The US began the programme in 1994.It was the culmination of the foll. concepts,a few facts in brief:

Wik

The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects.[2][3] The merged project continued under the JAST name until the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.[4]

Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996,to LM and Boeing.In April 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies, apparently Chinese, had penetrated the database and acquired terabytes of secret information about the fighter, possibly compromising its future effectiveness.Cost overruns have plagued the programme and many allies have reconsidered their planned orders,cutting numbers or cancelling options.

From Wik.

Performance concerns

Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of simulations by RAND Corporation in which numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refueling.[21]

As a result of these media reports, then Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon requested a formal briefing from the Australian Department of Defence on the simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate and that it did not compare the F-35's performance against that of other aircraft.[22][23]

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement: “Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”[24]

War games programs by RAAF Wing Commander Chris Mills (retired) showed a high loss rate when compared to Chinese operated Sukhois.[25]

Furthermore, Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons” with an 'Aviation Week' article casting an extremely skeptical eye over the (USAF) source of claims that the F-35 would be '400% more effective' than projected opponents.[26]

Anyway,whatever the ultimate truth of the JSF's cost and capability,it has taken the US almost 20 years to get to the current situ.The aircraft will enter service in strength only by 2020.Now this is approx. 25 years after the programme began.The US has had the advantage of having two world aircraft majors competing with their prototypes and two engine manufacturers,GE and P&W for the same.I frankly cannot see India developing a 5th-gen fighter on its own,without the strength of the aviation industry of the US in a shorter time.We are struggling to complete the first phase/avatar of LCA programme,30 years+ on!
Therefore even if we begin a totally new aircraft programme,in 2014,it will be around 2035 by US standards when the programme will deliver results. We have no capable engine manufacturer ,yet to perfect any AESA radar of worth,no desi IRST sensors,rely mainly upon foreign weaponry,etc.With these handicaps the going is going to be very tough.Unles we enter into collaboration with foreign entities for critical components,we will extend the developmental timeframe suggested.

What will we also get by then? An aircraft hopefully of the same tech capability than the FGFA,perhaps with FBL,etc. the equiv. of the JSF being tech. more advanced than the F-22.But the aircraft is going to come 15 years after the FGFA enters service with India! By then,aviation tech would've developed even further.The DRDO chief is talking even now about 6th-gen unmanned hypersonic aircraft for the future.

However,hopefully by 2020,the LCA MK-2 would've been perfected and entering production.Even at the low rate of "8 /yr",from 2015-2020 all 40 of the first lot of MK-1 LCAs would've been built.From 2020 the rate could go upto 16/yr and another 80 built by 2025.The MK-2 will experience some redesign to accommodate the larger engine,so there is even further scope to expand the envelope and improve the aircraft incorporating stealth features in a reliable platform,just as the Russians are doing with the SU-35 right now,validating some of the FGFA/T-50 technology.(We saw an F-16XL variant that was never produced,it had considerable design changes).As SoKo and others are contemplating,a lesser single-engined stealth bird than an F-22 is more affordable and more achievable than emulating the US's costly programmes.By 2025,a stealthy MK-3 could enter production.It gives us 10+ years to develop the MK-3.By then we would've had 120+ LCA MK1 and 2s in service.A perfect platform to start MK-3 production,with another 80 built by 2030.Thus by 2030 we would possess 200 LCAs,80 in stealth avatar,instead of waiting for the first new fighter by the same date!

BY 2030,we would also possess around at least 80-120 FGFAs of the estimated 144,giving us a total of approx. 200 stealth aircraft in heavy and light roles,120 LCA Mk1 &2s, apart from 120+ Rafales/MMRCAs,whose entry into IAF service will begin around 2017/18,270+ SU-30MKIs/Super Flankers,plus 120+ upgraded MIG-29s.M-2000s,etc.More than 800+ aircraft.I am not adding numbers of UCAVs that might also enter service,at least 40 of them should be with us by then.That would be a considerable force and a realistic target to achieve.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Aug 2013 06:41

The MMRCA is a waste of money. We will be spending money we don't have and also Dassault will not transfer tech so we will not gain anything from it. Our Engineers cannot reverse engineer aircraft tech so the Rafale is a total waste of money borrowed from future generations.

The LCA on the other hand is a product available to us TODAY. It has been tested in all roles and has performed its job well in these tests. Any shortcomings can be perfected with time. What stops us from ordering 200 LCAs? Our corrupt mindset or the corrupt procurement armed forces mafia that will not make billions from the French if the LCA replaces the Rafale?

We need to cancel the MMRCA drama and set up a production line for 200 Mark 1 LCAs.

We have lost half the air force strength in crashes of obsolete Russian aircraft that were probably good for their time but we still fly them as front line aircraft endangering the lives of our pilots and the morale of the force. The LCA has demonstrated its ability to fly in all conditions and we have not lost a single aircraft in more than a decade of flying. We need the LCA in squadron service and in numbers so that we can learn from the inevitable mistakes in design.

Whenever I think of the Rafale, the saying - " A fool and his money are easily parted" comes to mind.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Aug 2013 06:59

well with the way the economy is tanking all these fancy toy buys will come to an end soon

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2013 07:48

There was an author, who when the FGFA deal was signed, had mentioned, that in the FGFA the Russians will get India to pay for the development of the plane and then have India buy the plane at cost.

Seems like he is right. Estimated price of a PAK-FA, on wiki, is $54 mil and that of a FGFA $100 mil. The PAK-FA has no proper engine (will come in 2020 - if it succeeds), paper radar, etc., Like that author stated, next two Indian generations will be in debt to the Russians if India were to buy that plane.

Then they will pawn the Yak trainer, after that perhaps the naval variant.

I agree. A 200 order of LCA MK I, followed by plenty of AMCAs.

Better to have the IAF shackled to an Indian producer than a Russian for sure, and perhaps even a French.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Aug 2013 07:49

They aren't toys, but tools necessary for the defense of the nation. Specifically, the LCA is developed within India and the money spent on it will stay at home.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Aug 2013 07:52

And the LCA will teach a generation of men that will learn the craft of making aircraft from scratch instead of learning to buy fancy screwdrivers to screw the nation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2013 08:06

True Surya,one shares your sentiments.However,even if the LCA is cleared for series production by next year,the official rate of production has been given as "8/yr." That will mean only 40 underpowered Mk-1s by 2020.They cannot perform the medium multi-role tasks that the Rafale can (arguably the best western 4++ fighter in service today) ,chosen after the most exhaustive IAF technical evaluation.At best,they can be a notch better than the Bisons and would be new.If we ditch the Rafale,we have to replace it with another cheaper medium type especially for the strike role.If the M-2000 was still in production,we could've bought more.It isn't.That leaves only the MIG-29/35s which are in production for the IN and Russia,easy to induct and operate.The most cost-effective solution.However,that makes us over reliant upon Russia,with whom we have had support problems in the past.Plus,taking another decision will only mean more paper-work,babudom and delay the crisis in the IAF's inventory even further.One may ask what about more SU-30s? We are already exercising that option,with about 240-270 reportedly the final figure.But these are two-seaters,more costly to operate,requiring double the pilots of which there is a shortage.I don't think that the IAF want the single-seat SU-35 too when the FGFA is a future acquisition.The upgraded SU-30s ,"Super Flankers" whatever,which will carry Brahmos would suffice.Our existing M-2000s (v.expensive),MIG-27s,MIG-29s and Jaguars are all being upgraded.This will extend their lifespan for another decade+ at least,but the number shortfall will eventually kick in.

Therefore due to the current eco crisis,we will have to "cut our coat according to our cloth".Rafale numbers acquired will have to be brought down,maybe 80 in a first order with options for a further 40-80.Perhaps ordering two sqds. from France (like we did with the M-2000) first will guarantee the timely arrival and quality of the aircraft before we can firm up our own manufacturing capabilities that should mature with LCA experience.Worldwide nations are reducing production (France reducing Rafale production) as defence budgets are falling.We are the proud holders of the record of being world's largest arms importer! That has to be turned around.

With AKA now jumping into action after the sub disaster,why can't he do the same with all the other pending defence decisions? Finalise the Rafale deal soon before the eco-crisis worsens and the elections are upon us. The Chinese are at the gates and the Pakis killing of our soldiers at their pleasure.We should realise that while we are not yet at war,war could come upon us at any moment.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Aug 2013 08:23

^^^^^What a load of b$ll!. Pray list the tasks that the Rafale can perform better than the LCA in the context of a specific combat theater. People such as this would give anything for imports. This is the recipe that has landed us in the present soup.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2013 09:28

There is no comparison! The two are different kettles of fish.It would be wrong to compare both.If it was the Gripen,yes one could make a serious evaluation.We need both types.The LCA is a lightweight fighter single-engined and the Rafale a medium sized one twin-engined.In just two performance aspects,combat radius and payload,the Rafale is streets ahead of the LCA.The LCA was primarily meant to replace the MIG-21s.The "omni-role" Rafale is also meant to bosst the strike capability of the IAF,will also have a more capable RBE2 AA AESA radar in comparison with the MMR/Israeli EL/M 2032.Here are some very basic data.Please also remember that the Rafale has had combat experience in Afghanistan and Libya unlike the LCA.It is also N-capable,a definite asset to the IAF which would use it replacing the M-2000s for that role. In addition,if the deal goes through,the first 18 Rafales will be delivered by 2017.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
Raafale

quote]Performance

Maximum speed:
High altitude: Mach 1.8+ (2,130+ km/h, 1,050+ knots)
Low altitude: Mach 1.1+ (1,390 km/h, 750 knots)
Range: 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi)
Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission
Service ceiling: 16,800 m (55,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 304.8+ m/s (60,000+ ft/min)
Wing loading: 306 kg/m² (62.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.988 (100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile) version M
[/quote]

Armament

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GIAT 30/719B autocannon with 125 rounds
Hardpoints: 14 for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg (21,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance and provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles:
MBDA MICA IR or EM or Magic II and
MBDA Meteor air-to-air mssiles in the future
Air-to-ground:
MBDA Apache or
Storm Shadow-SCALP EG or
AASM-Hammer or
GBU-12 Paveway II or
AS-30L
Air-to-surface:
AM 39-Exocet
Deterrence:
ASMP-A nuclear missile
Other: ***Thales Damocles targeting pod
RECO NG (New Generation) reconnaissance pod
up to 5 drop tanks
The Rafale can also carry a buddy-buddy refuelling pod[

vionics

Thales RBE2 radar
Thales SPECTRA electronic warfare system.
Thales/SAGEM-OSF Optronique Secteur Frontal infra-red search and track system.

Tejas/LCA

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

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8[97] (1,920 km/h) ; (CAS) at high altitude
Range: 850 km[98] (459 nmi, 528 mi)
Combat radius: 300 km[98] (162 nmi, 186 mi)
Ferry range: 3,000 km[64] (1,840 mi)
Service ceiling: 15,250 m[97] (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 247 kg/m² (50.7 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.07[90]
g-limits: +8/−3.5 g[90]

Armament

Guns: 1× mounted 23 mm twin-barrel GSh-23 cannon with 220 rounds of ammunition.
Hardpoints: 8 total: 1× beneath the port-side intake trunk for targeting pods, 6× under-wing, and 1× under-fuselage with a capacity of 4,000 kg external fuel and ordnanc (5000kg for Mk-2)

Missiles:
HAL Tejas carrying R-73 missile and Drop Tank.
Tejas weapon display Aero India 2011

Air-to-air missiles:
Python 5
Derby[102]
Astra Beyond Visual Range missile
Vympel R-77
Vympel R-73
Air-to-surface missiles:
Kh-59ME (TV guided standoff Missile)
Kh-59MK (Laser guided standoff Missile)
Anti-ship missiles
Kh-35
Kh-31
Bombs:
[99]
KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs
GBU-16 Paveway II
FAB-250
ODAB-500PM fuel-air explosives
ZAB-250/350 incendiary bombs
BetAB-500Shp powered concrete-piercing bombs
FAB-500T dumb bombs
OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
RBK-500 cluster bomb stake
Others:[99]
S-8 rocket pods
Bofors 135 mm rocket
Drop tanks for ferry flight/extended range/loitering time.
LITENING targeting pod[100][101]

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 27 Aug 2013 10:09

Vivek K wrote:^^^^^What a load of b$ll!. Pray list the tasks that the Rafale can perform better than the LCA in the context of a specific combat theater. People such as this would give anything for imports. This is the recipe that has landed us in the present soup.

For a long range strike against China, LCA will not be suitable while Rafale will be.
Rafale is is a good aircraft; only the cost of acquisition for that capability is the question mark.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Aug 2013 11:01

Marten you are right. It is appalling how much some folks kiss foreign maal and go to great lengths to prove Indian is worse (i.e. passing off ferry range as combat radius). Only later we find out that the nice brochure specs did not actually work in our conditions and the foreign vendor would charge billions more to integrate local weapons and devices on to the great foreign Trojan horse! I am done with this thread and the LCA. If we are set to leave LCA like the Arjun in testing mode for another decade rather than unleash them on the battlefield then who am I to change our minds.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 27 Aug 2013 12:12

Lets stick to : LCA News and Discussions

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 27 Aug 2013 13:40

With AKA now jumping into action after the sub disaster,why can't he do the same with all the other pending defence decisions? Finalise the Rafale deal soon before the eco-crisis worsens and the elections are upon us.

The Chinese are at the gates and the Pakis killing of our soldiers at their pleasure. We should realise that while we are not yet at war,war could come upon us at any moment.

This sentence deserves to be the first post in a host of Military & Strategic threads. This describes our entire foreign policy more beautifully than an entire thread. A root cause of what we are today according to me. I have been meaning to post this for a while.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2013 17:09

VAYU 4/2013.
Air Cmde.(Retd) Parvez Khokar,former Dir. of the NFTC,engaged with the LCA developmental flight tests puts it straight",on the latest status of the LCA.

"Do we want the Tejas-or not?

It is a long article,have just posted brief details,but these are just a few points:

The aircraft barring the air intakes,affecting the thrust,appear to be meeting required objectives.The thrust problem is not due to the "reliable engine",but air intake redesign required. (Probably at the MK-2 stage?).ADA must "pull its head out of the sand" and address this problem,long term solution,not poss. for IOC or FOC deadlines.

Engine restarting in air not yet done.Must be done before entering service IOC.Being delayed ,deferred to FOC.IAF to take a call on this safety issue.

AOA 28 deg. req., 24 deg. met.22 deg. should be adequate to commence "conversion training".

Weapons integration going on well.R-73 fired with HMD,Litening pod integrated.Weapons integration not an issue.

Systems integration no major problem,but the cooling of the avionics bay is inadequate.

Autopilot is working well in basic mode,advanced mode /weapons delivery being developed for FOC.

Control laws,no major deficiency.Very good achievement in comparison with western fighters dev. of the same,impressed at the air shows,and potental of fulll envelope can be envisaged.

Is it fit for induction?

"No.not yet". Compelling reasons.

Lack of proper flight and maintenance documentation .IAF had problems on this score earlier with Soviet/Russian origin aircraft.Whom will it turn to for an Indian aircraft? Documentation the weakest aspect of the programme. All 12 aircraft built so far difffer in SOP.Doubtful that HAL have the expertise for this class of aircraft and not willing to employ experts for the same,expensive to engage.HAL making a virtue of delays.Lack of foresight not funds is the problem.Pilot manuals not completed,will be done once design is frozen,says HAL.Mystery why SP-1 is not being used for the same as a bench mark for the manuals.Could take a year or more.

Review of IOC.ADA continuing to delve in its "favourite pastime of postponements and extensions".Postponement from June 2013 to Dec. 2013 has already been granted by the DM.But come Dec...? It must be stopped now.candid and honest review to be undertaken and the IAF to take an "irrevocable decision to form a handling flight" for the envelope cleared thus far.

Aircraft for handling flight: Where are they?

"Not one LCA is ready for induction!"
HAL's schedule: First in 2014 (if no more slippages),second in "late 2014".3 produced in 2015,After this "ramped up to 8 per yr."
By this reckoning,a handling fight would arrive only in 2016 and an additional 6 aircraft by end 2017,to form the first sqd.Is this an acceptable time-line?

A matter for serious concern is that "HAL does not consider Tejas as their baby".This has manifested itself in "every single Tejas produced,being well behind schedule,quality control issues left unsaid".

At a recent meeting with "very senior executives of HAL",they lamented about lack of work in the future at the Bangalore Complex after the Hawk and HJT-36 were completed and the Rafale deal was delayed."There was not an iota of concern or mention of Tejas.Is the MOD unaware of HAL's stepmotherly treatment of Tejas? If they are,what action have they taken to ensure that the taxpayer's investment is given the respect it deserves?"

These are the facts.If the ADA or HAL wish to refute the facts with info not in the public domain they are welcome to do so.However.mere promises and intention for the future cannot be credible facts.Performance is the only gauge that can restore their credibility and gvie the nation the indigenous fighter that hs for so long been waited by so many.

The ball is squarely in AKA and the MOD's court to ensure that the ADA/HAL deliver on time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2013 18:28

First page only :: Vayu :: Do we Want the Tejas - or Not

When full material is posted one gets some very interesting nuggets:

The Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) is a tacit understanding between the user (IAF, in this case) and the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM, in this case ADA), that on completion and certification of a pre-determined envelope of flight, the User will induct the aircraft, in limited numbers, until the full envelope has been cleared and certified (FOC). In the case of the Tejas, there are actually two OEMs: ADA who has designed and developed the aircraft and HAL, which manufactures the aircraft. Whilst there is no universal yardstick for determining how much of the envelope must be cleared and certified in order to obtain the IOC, but a globally acceptable norm is that on completion of the IOC, two mandatory requirements must be fulfilled.

• The aircraft must be completely safe to fly within the cleared envelope, by service pilots.

• It should be capable of imparting operational training and have limited operational usage, within the cleared envelope.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2013 18:46

Some extra quotes from the first page.I have posted details in brief skipping the intro. NR's above post from the intro. establishes the parameters/yardstick of inducting the aircraft into initial service.From the author's article,it appears that there is weak cooperation between the ADA and HAL.The IAF's responsibility in support of the programme is also needed if the entire exercise is to succeed as envisaged,

"The promised completion of the agreed upon IOC was set as end June 2013.This date will undoubtedly slip to end Dec. 2013 and then another promised date and another...ad infinitum".

"A brief look at the current status of the Tejas can determine whether or not the aircraft is ready to be inducted".

Of the two foll. requiremernts,

• The aircraft must be completely safe to fly within the cleared envelope, by service pilots.

• It should be capable of imparting operational training and have limited operational usage, within the cleared envelope.

The first appears to be almost completed except for the relighting of the engine during flight (deferred to FOC),where he says that the IAF must take call it being a safety matter.AOA is less than expected but sufficient.

The second seems to have already been achieved with weapons firing,R-73 missiles fired,etc.the aircraft is easy to fly,etc.From the feature,it can certainly be used in limited combat.

The key shortcomings are the documentation,pilot manuals,maintenance manuals,,etc.,crucial for support once in service and the very slow rate of production of aircraft.Here a manpower shortage seems to exist for the voluminous work required.Surely,the manpower of the other HAL "favourites" like the HTT-40,etc., can be put to good use for the LCA to meet deadlines? This was stated by the COAS himself not to long ago.

Since these areas have been identified,a concerted effort should be made to address the same.From the author,it also appears that there is no shortfall in funds for the programme,so freezing the design of MK-1 series and establishing a more capable production line is essential.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2013 18:56

Does that article consist of only negatives?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Aug 2013 19:30

why correction pointers are considered as negatives? take it constructive and look towards correction process.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Aug 2013 19:42

They aren't toys, but tools necessary for the defense of the nation.

yea yea

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2013 19:50

SaiK wrote:why correction pointers are considered as negatives? take it constructive and look towards correction process.

The article has "correction points", it is the post that tends to be negative.

The delta between the old and revised post should shed some light on what I am saying.

Reproting and holding a view are two different things.

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 27 Aug 2013 22:39

Vivek K wrote:Marten you are right. It is appalling how much some folks kiss foreign maal and go to great lengths to prove Indian is worse (i.e. passing off ferry range as combat radius). Only later we find out that the nice brochure specs did not actually work in our conditions and the foreign vendor would charge billions more to integrate local weapons and devices on to the great foreign Trojan horse! I am done with this thread and the LCA. If we are set to leave LCA like the Arjun in testing mode for another decade rather than unleash them on the battlefield then who am I to change our minds.

The Rafale is expensive, no doubts about that. But it is the front line fighter of France, built by Dassault which has decades of experience building excellent fighters. It is an impressive aircraft. No doubt about it.

While the 2 fighters are different, comparisons are difficult. One type of comparison isn't. These are fighter aircraft. If you have to take one up against the enemy, which one will be chosen at this point. Little arguement on which fighter will be chosen.

This doesn't mean that the LCA is not needed. Actually it is needed very badly. Everyone on this thread is asking for it to go into production, in big numbers and soon. The sooner it gets inducted into the IAF, the sooner feedback on how it performs can be taken into account for modifications and improvements to the mark ii, iii... versions.

I agree that comparing the two is counterproductive. If the comparison is due to where we spend our money, the argument won't work in the LCAs favor. It has nothing to do with foreign vs idigenous. It is comparing an aircraft that has been proven in battle vs one that has not completed testing and not yet inducted into the Airforce. The arguement is that both are needed. Not just one.

All that said. Can't wait till the LCA is inducted with the IAF. And production facilities are cranking them out in decent numbers. It will be a tremendous moment for Indian aviation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2013 00:13

The LCA is now on the verge of induction and just a little more concerted effort needs to be made by all concerned for a great milestone to be achieved for the nation.We on BR as observers,bystanders,swing from elation one day/year to frustration and depression the next as the fortunes of projects fluctuate.We have no control over the events being mere commentators and recorders of history.Some of us have been following the progress of the LCA and other projects before the P-2 tests in the last century!

We as a nation seem to lack a few essential qualities neccessary for success.Leadership,teamwork and discipline. It isn't the defence industry alone,you find it everywhere.We are great individuals,brilliant minds,etc.,but find it very difficult to set high standards by example,fall in line,work together and obey rules. The manner in which we flout road rules displays our indiscipline.Yet,the same species when abroad behave like good citizens because they know that if they flout the rules they will suffer for it.If they don't work together,they will be left out and sacked if targets aren't met.

The Air Cmde. who was part of the programme, has given us his comments on the project's status,progress made,etc.,and the remaining effort needed to "cross the tape". But some of his remarks are saddening,esp. the bit about the aircraft allegedly not being HAL's baby and thus receiving stepmotherly treatment,hence my above intro remarks.Just a quick retrospect.Leadership-the GOI/MOD failed to provide the neccessary leadership as the major stakeholder,never filled the post of DG ADA for ages.Without a boss,unlike the missile programmes ,it thus lacked direction and proper management.Poor teamwork,the project was tossed between the ADA and HAL,with the IAF always able to buy a foreign product for its needs, an indifferent bystander.Discipline-continuous delays and slippages by all concerned,"Indian Standard Time".

We don't see this happening in general with the Chinese projects.They stay focussed and keep on relentlessly believing in themselves,possessing a nationalistic spirit and though we might have laughed at their wares earlier,we laugh less at them these days.The Russians,now that a dictator is at the helm of affairs,are scared sh*tless that they'll be sent to some gulag or purged if they don't perform.The West,want to be the best,dominate the world and make money,heaps of it! Greed spurs them on.What about us? It's why the author,embedded in the programme earlier has titled his article,"Tejas,do we want it or not?"
[/b] .The negativism or positivism lies with those in charge and responsible for the programme's success from the GOI/MOD downwards to designers and manufacturers ,right to the end-user.Having got this close,cooperation from all involved is now a matter of national concern.The whip has to be cracked to stay the course.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2013 01:14

PS:I have just read the foll. by a former Chairman of HAL ,Wg Cdr. IM Chopra.It is an illuminating review and gives a deep insight into the problems that ail HAL in particular and Indian aviation industry in general.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... hopra.html

HAL and the Indian Aviation Industry
(What ails HAL? A former Chairman of the HAL writes about the organisation's strengths and weaknesses.)
Wg Cdr I M Chopra (Retd)

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 Aug 2013 16:11

LCAs to be ready by mid-2014, says India's top scientist

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 162159.cms

"Production rate, I believe is around 16-20 per year and huge orders would assist in good production rates," he said.

adarshp · Post by **adarshp** » 30 Aug 2013 16:54

Flight Test Update...

LCA-Tejas has completed 2302 Test Flights Successfully. (28-Aug-2013).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-369,LSP1-74,LSP2-281,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-93,LSP5-209,LSP7-53,NP1-4,LSP8-24)

26 flights since July 30th, so close to a flight a day. In May/ June/ July we had close to 140 flights. More than 300 flights overall this year. Hope to see this continue and getting IOC-2 ready in September or even October would be a very welcome development at this stage.

adarshp · Post by **adarshp** » 30 Aug 2013 16:59

dhiraj wrote:LCAs to be ready by mid-2014, says India's top scientist

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 162159.cms

"Production rate, I believe is around 16-20 per year and huge orders would assist in good production rates," he said.

Production rate of 16-20 would mean a new assembly line which hasn't been setup yet. I hope this is put in place in 2014 as soon as FOC is in striking distance. To do that planning work has to start now. Mk1 FOC along with Mk2 rollout in 2014 and seeing the expected performance gains would go a long way in revitalizing this programme...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Aug 2013 17:05

they must be joking of that production rate, if they have not yet established parts and LRU manufacturing separate. if it is only the assembly line, i can see that happening... still, how many lines are we talking? and what is the rate per line are we talking?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Aug 2013 17:10

adarshp wrote:26 flights since July 30th, so close to a flight a day.

Yes, that was promised by the new DRDO chief. One hopes that each flight is moving us that much closer to IOC 2.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2013 01:56

Tejas to be ready by mid-2014: DRDO chief

Some very surprising and welcoming numbers

HYDERABAD: Work is at full throttle to roll out the country's first indigenous light combat aircraft Tejas and the first fleet would be out by mid-2014, chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation, Avinash Chander, said.

The lightweight multi-role combat aircraft, which has been in the making for 30 years, has gone through several phases of streamlining in the drawing room after the armed forces expressed reservations about its faulty initial design. The LCAs are supposed to replace India's ageing fleet of MiGs, and Chander, who is also the scientific advisor to defence minister, said things have finally fallen into place.

"The production work has already started at full throttle. Currently there are no bottlenecks to prevent rolling out of the first lot of these indigenously built LCAs by middle of next year," Chander told TOI. "The production rate, I believe, is around 16-20 per year and huge orders would assist in good production rates," he said.

Although the time frame for getting the initial operational clearance-2 for Tejas has been set as 2013 end, Chander said he was confident that the aircraft will be ready for the clearance by end of September. "Final Operational Clearance (FOC) for our first modern light combat aircraft would follow soon thereafter. Meanwhile, these two processes can go on parallel tracks to save time in delivery and induction once the IOC-2 and FOC are given," said the DRDO chief. For obtaining IOC-2, clearance has to be given at three different levels, including one from the defence minister and another from the chief of air staff.

Engines manufactured by US-based General Electric Aviation would be powering these indigenously manufactured LCAs after the global giant won the contract in 2010. After the initial supply of 99 engines (GE F-404 and GE F-414) for IAF and Indian Navy, the rest shall be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in India after obtaining a licence under a transfer of technology agreement. HAL will than manufacture 40 GE F-404 engines in two lots of 20 each for Tejas Mk-I and another 100 GE F-414 engines for Tejas Mk-II.

Officials said that having undergone extensive weapon trials, weather trials, various angle attacks and having checked various parameters, LCA Tejas will be capable of carrying out long range beyond visual range weapons.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 02 Sep 2013 07:30

NRao wrote:"The production rate, I believe, is around 16-20 per year and huge orders would assist in good production rates," he said.

Is there a hint there? if they go only for couple of Rafale squadrons (no TOT, all buy) required for the kick the door open air campaign then the remaining nos can be fulfilled by Tejas Mk2, then the production rate can be around 2 squadrons per year replacing as many Mig-21s

mody · Post by **mody** » 02 Sep 2013 12:28

The vayu article doesn't seem to all negative.
The main grouse that the IAF seems to be having currently with the LCA program, is the lack of documentation and their lack of faith in HAL.
As far as the aircraft and its performance itself is concerned, it seems they are satisfied with where it stands currently.

With regards to the documentation, it was always going to be a short coming. Given that this is our first aircraft development effort, to expect ADA and HAL to be able to come up with the full operation and maintenance manual and pilot training manual, at the time of IOC, is foolhardy. Also the IAF seems to be forgetting its own role in this project. While accusing the HAL of giving the LCA a step motherly treatment and not treating it as its own baby, the IAF should also realize that they too have to treat the LAC as its own baby and not just a product that it intends to buy.

The pilot training manual for the LCA, will have to be and should be a collaborative effort between the ADA and the NFTC/IAF.
The operation and maintenance manual for the LCA will also have to be separate project, that would have to be taken up between the IOC and FOC timelines and would have to be collaborative effort between the ADA, HAL and the IAF.

Most imported aircrafts also do not come with up to the mark documentation and the pilot training manual for all imported aircraft's, has also been worked on a tweaked by the IAF, over the life of the aircraft in IAF inventory.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Sep 2013 13:04

mody wrote:The vayu article doesn't seem to all negative.The main grouse that the IAF seems to be having currently with the LCA program, is the lack of documentation and their lack of faith in HAL. As far as the aircraft and its performance itself is concerned, it seems they are satisfied with where it stands currently.

With regards to the documentation, it was always going to be a short coming. Given that this is our first aircraft development effort, to expect ADA and HAL to be able to come up with the full operation and maintenance manual and pilot training manual, at the time of IOC, is foolhardy. Also the IAF seems to be forgetting its own role in this project. While accusing the HAL of giving the LCA a step motherly treatment and not treating it as its own baby, the IAF should also realize that they too have to treat the LAC as its own baby and not just a product that it intends to buy.

The pilot training manual for the LCA, will have to be and should be a collaborative effort between the ADA and the NFTC/IAF.
The operation and maintenance manual for the LCA will also have to be separate project, that would have to be taken up between the IOC and FOC timelines and would have to be collaborative effort between the ADA, HAL and the IAF.

Most imported aircrafts also do not come with up to the mark documentation and the pilot training manual for all imported aircraft's, has also been worked on a tweaked by the IAF, over the life of the aircraft in IAF inventory.

Please don't jump the gun.

This lack of documentation - for maintenance and flying training is the very issue raised in AI'13 by IAF. And at that point in time, someone had replied on the progress.

We somehow want to sweep every shortfall of HAL/DRDO when it comes to LCA as learning curve.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Sep 2013 13:47

Its impossible for IAF to use a a/c in operation without proper documentation, on

How the a/c is to be flown
How the a/c is to be maintained
How the a/c is supposed to be serviced (for longer terms than basic maintenance)

How can a a/c be deployed in large numbers without the above? There is a difference between test pilots, pilots at ASTE and pilots on operational squardarn isnt it.

Are all the pilots and maintenance crew supposed to discover the machine through trial and error (and consequent loss of life and a/c) -- hasn't the DPSUs killed enough pilots through their trainers and faulty engines of mig 21 already?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2013 18:14

mm.. can't they employ tech doc writers instead? I would think technical writers have to sit with the product techies to know the details, and further know IAF requirements especially on the operational aspects.

I would like these drafted out much earlier as the design gets solidified, and testing begins. imho, higher quality and matured orgs usually does the user manuals and technical documents before testing begins.. so that tests are done based on the ops and tech docs. that way, V&V makes more sense.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 02 Sep 2013 19:02

mody wrote:With regards to the documentation, it was always going to be a short coming. Given that this is our first aircraft development effort, to expect ADA and HAL to be able to come up with the full operation and maintenance manual and pilot training manual, at the time of IOC, is foolhardy. Also the IAF seems to be forgetting its own role in this project. While accusing the HAL of giving the LCA a step motherly treatment and not treating it as its own baby, the IAF should also realize that they too have to treat the LAC as its own baby and not just a product that it intends to buy.

Whattt !!!!! Take responsibility for indigenization and lose opportunities to bitch about indigenous programmes at international air show, make below the belt remark about indigenous programmes, change QR's as and when to kill indigenous projects, not respond to developmental efforts proposed by our agencies.

Nahhhhh there is no fun in that, is there huh ????

See the documentation is the last straw on which IAF can hang on and bitch about LCA for some more time before they grudgingly accept an SDRE made aircraft. When IAF has been called a "reluctant customer" by an IAF guy himself I don't think there is anything left more to be said about IAF's intent w.r.t. LCA. You might remember that some time back IAF was whining about LCA in Aero India-13 and this documentation question had come up which was answered by a CEMILAC person, I had posted in text what he had said then and the video of the same is also out there but since quite a few people here have selective amnesia so let me post that again

About documentation of LCA.

A guy asked if there is some software/course for documentation and certification of the same and something something which I don't have the patience to type so I am Fast forwarding to where Air Commodore takes up he says,

There are agencies who have been assigned with this particular task of certifying the documentation which has been carried out OK and I have already brought out in this particular regard that the documentation is far from acceptable especially if you are talking of LCA the documentation is not ready at all I don't know about the operator's manual but as far as servicing schedule is concerned they are not ready the second line servicing schedules are not ready the overall procedure which would be required to undertaking the ROH of various segregates are in nowhere readiness the second line testers are not in any readiness so I only wonder as to how we are going to exploit this particular aircraft.

The Chairman conducting the session says There are very clear cut guidelines on what the documentation should be for the user and then says somethings more expalining his point but I again FF a bit to the part which according to me was the most accurate and to the point thing that happened in that "session". The Chairman asks Mr. Baghel from CEMILAC to explain about it and he says....

Your problem over the documentation and Vibhas is also telling LCA documentation let me assure you when we started given IOC-1 for the LCA we had made the list of the document which by and large services are using to operate there fleet in the services It is maintenance manual, servicing manual and related to flight manuals also. There are in my memory 34 manuals are there which we have taken the responsibility to co-ordinate the 6 flight manuals other manuals are as per the standard it is being followed there is no need of any certification these are the standard guideline as per the standard and the LCA they have hired the services of documentation agency and they are in the process almost all the documents are getting ready it is being certified by CSDO and other relevant agencies of IAF so don't say the documents are not being certified document is very well defined and being certified by the services themselves.

Then he continues a bit with the guy who asked the question and says that "Documentation is a purely services requirement and they have to certify, there agency CSDO and other relevant agency to certify it".

But then bitching makes one more patriotic I guess.......

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2013 19:43

finger pointing is the easiest thing to do and costs nothing... when it comes to failures, people flee. and when it comes to taking decision, they fight who should take and what should be done politics. maturity of organization comes from operational inputs to design for production needs. everything else in between are mandatory and should have the fingers chopped that shows the other direction. what we are talking is not a small product.. it is a large program! .. we should name the team that conduct the program, right in the charter, and ask them to come out with media question hour.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Sep 2013 22:56

Sagar G wrote:
Whattt !!!!! Take responsibility for indigenization .

IAF is always ready to take responsibilities, please place ADA/HAL under IAF. Otherwise, all the responsibilities bizness is hot air.

IAF is not responsible for documentation. Those responsible have failed to deliver. Its that simple.