LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby deejay » 30 Jun 2014 14:25

Since a lot of discussion is being made on the money available, the current problem, IMO, is mainly due to lack of a new budget being presented this Feb - March. Hence, all funds have dried up. New funds will come in after the budget which would bring clarity.

On the whole though our economy is not galloping and the budgetary increase for defence will reflect this.

IMO, priority in the new budget will go for the new Mountain Strike Corps. The Air Force will probably get one odd new procurement approved and the AH 64 / Rafale will be up there for this slot. It will be a surprise if both get approved this FY. What the current government will never let happen is withdraw support to LCA. There are too many clues of support from the GOI for indigenous platforms including the statement of NaMo at the PSLV launch today.

anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby anirban_aim » 30 Jun 2014 15:14

*Speculation Alert*

My two bits:

1. Vayusena wants the Raffa bad

2. Money is a concern so the deal might be delayed or watered down in no of units.

3. That the French are concerned and others are smelling an opportunity is obvious.

4. Putting 1, 2 and 3 together, Rafa will come but the deal will be watered down. (though Gyaanis on the forum have previously discounted this probability)

5. Attack helos will be prioritized as they fit with the larger picture of Cold start and given that VKS is in the govt (Some may discount his influence on defense purchase matters, but i am inclined to think he will have an influence at least at the generic idea level. The level at which most politicos will operate in fields requiring specialization)

But then again all this is conjecture from my side.

*Speculation Alert End*

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2780
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby JTull » 30 Jun 2014 21:01

If we want to compare brochure ranges of videshi maal to LCA then why not let LCA be exported. We'll get to know it's brochure range as well. Why give these paid news articles any bandwidth in the meantime?

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby kuldipchager » 01 Jul 2014 07:02

I will never believe that frechfighter refel will have reach 3000 KM like SU 30.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vic » 01 Jul 2014 07:59

LCA cannot even reach Delhi from Bangalore while Rafail can fly all the way from Delhi to Switzerland and bomb the secret accounts with Dollars and Euros.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vishvak » 03 Jul 2014 22:11

vic wrote:LCA cannot even reach Delhi from Bangalore while Rafail can fly all the way from Delhi to Switzerland and bomb the secret accounts with Dollars and Euros.

:rotfl: LCA couldn't even take off at the beginning and reach anywhere else in Bangalore even! Long story, vic ji, which I am sure you know better!

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby kuldipchager » 03 Jul 2014 23:10

vic

Post subject: Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2014 07:59



Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2268

LCA cannot even reach Delhi from Bangalore while Rafail can fly all the way from Delhi to Switzerland and bomb the secret accounts with Dollars and Euros.



Somebody having wet dream of Rafail.Nobody will believe that refail is longer range like SU 30.
No hard feeling.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5206
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby jamwal » 03 Jul 2014 23:24

Kuldip jee,
It's meant as a joke.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 11 Jul 2014 17:48

Indian Navy Light Combat Aircraft to soon begin test flights

The naval variant of India's indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) is due to soon begin ramp trials.

Avinash Chander, scientific adviser to the Defence Minister and Director General Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), told India Strategic magazine (http://www.indiastrategic.in) that the LCA-Navy had already done more than 25 test flights from a runway. As these were successful and met the designated parameters, the aircraft will now be deployed at a naval base in Goa to commence ramp flights, probably after the monsoon.

Goa, on the Arabian seafront, has a major naval air station, INS Hansa, where the MiG-29Ks for Indian aircraft carriers are also located.

The station has a 14-degree ramp along with necessary testing sensors and paraphernalia to monitor the flights and was specifically built as part of the indigenous LCA-Navy development programme. But as it is a national naval asset, it is shared by the MiG-29Ks for training pilots and flight tests.

Both the aircraft need the same degree in the ramp, matching the one on INS Vikramaditya, acquired from Russia, and INS Vikrant, now being built at the Kochi shipyard.

Chander said that the flight tests are being conducted with LCA Mark-I to prove certain technologies and to familiarise the naval pilots with them. One aircraft is operational, another is on the anvil and a third will son be available to complete the trials. After that, for full weaponised operations aboard carriers, will come the LCA Mark-II powered by GE 414 engines, according to India Strategic.

The naval variant, being tested from the HAL airport in Bangalore, has a bigger undercarriage that Hindustan Aeronautics has built to facilitate deck landings. The development programme is coordinated by a one-star naval pilot

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby JayS » 21 Jul 2014 11:09

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140720/DEFREG03/307200009/India-s-20-Year-Late-LCA-Faces-Fresh-Delays

So this "Source from IAF" says FOC is not gonna be achieved by Dec'2014.

Seriously what's happening?? Its almost August now. ADA site also seems to be down for 3-4 days now. Any news, updates, chaiwalla gupshup???

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28677 » 21 Jul 2014 17:46

abhik wrote:
deejay wrote:IMO, the IAF is gambling on the fact that LCA MK II will not take too long to happen. Which is why they are only planning to equip two sqns with the MK I and the rest with the more capable MK IIs. Their calculation probably is that by the time these 40 Mk I's are delivered the Mk II will be ready for production and hence no further need to buy MK I's when a far superior Mk II is available.

Light and cheap fighters make sense only when you buy them in numbers and fill up a large chunk of your squadrons. Now, about 1/3 of the IAF's squadrons are already (or will be in the near future) taken up by the heavies i.e the MKI. Another ~1/3 of the fleet (Mig-29, M2000 and Jags) do not need to be replaced in the immediate future but when they are, they will be replaced by heavier FGFA and AMCAs. The rest is going to be split between the MRCA and the LCA(about 1/6th of the fleet each). So long term you are going to see the IAF going from a mostly light to mostly medium-heavy. Quite clearly the IAF future plans do not hinge on the LCA, The 6 squadrons the minimum that the IAF can order and get away with. IMO they might be gambling on the Mk2 failing.


If what you said above is true, then it simply means 2 things:-

1. IAF fooled DRDO by under-quoting IAF's mission profile needs, for next 4 decades(1988/1993 to 2028/2033). Four decadeas is what any VaayuSena takes into account before going in for any fighter squadron acquisition.
OR
2. IAF did a massive miscalculation by asking a light-weight, 4th generation, under-powered small bird in 1988 which would be "out-dated" by just 2007(when IAF changed original requirements and asked for MK-II).

We can't blame DRDO in either case.(just like noone remembers what a big failure GE engines were when they initially started R&D. People remember successes, but don't pay attention to fact that for every GE success, there were 5 failures behind it when research area is new.)
The only question remains - did IAF miscalculate? or they did this on purpose?
On purpose - "Oh, these drdo indian guys can't make 4th Generation planes. Lets divert them to something to keep them busy, while we will get what we really 'need' from Soviets".

Its also important to note that IAF started showing interest in LCA only after fall of Soviet Union, when they were stuck in a hole. USA and EU are now jumping in to replace Russia as prime-supplier.
Clearly, IAF is happy to maintain their old 5 decade old policy of relying on foreign supplier.

When i look at what happened to Marut, it further convinces me that dumping Rafale is in Indian long-term interests. Within 10 years, Kaveri-II will be ready but is IAF ready to pay the bills for a Swadeshi engine-test-bed? They simply lack the strategic long-term view.

Just like in other thread i mentioned - "PSU managers suffer from job-insecurity/prosecution_under_IPC syndrome so they avoid taking big, ambitious decisions which are needed for success in key R&D areas".
Similarly, IAF brass also suffers from same syndrome 'Why me? Let some other guy take the risk. I want my service record clean so i will play Safe'".
This "i won't take the risk, i am happy with a normal job record" trait is common in every public firm in India! We need to allow risk-taking and convince managers that they won't be "prosecuted" or "jailed" if they make some blunder.

Problem is in leadership, not engineers.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 21 Jul 2014 23:51

When i look at what happened to Marut, it further convinces me that dumping Rafale is in Indian long-term interests. Within 10 years, Kaveri-II will be ready but is IAF ready to pay the bills for a Swadeshi engine-test-bed?



Rafale and LCA are now mutually exclusive acquisitions/Programs. Both are paramount for plugging the dwindling IAF squadrons.

Kaveri engine program has been officially 'de-linked' from LCA. Unlike Marut, Tejas doesn't have any vendor issues regarding a Powerplant. MK2 will be flying with GE-414 INS6 and that's final. In-fact, entire LCA fleet of 120 odd aircraft's if ordered by IAF has to be done and dusted by 10 yrs.

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28677 » 22 Jul 2014 01:40

Ganesh_S, my comment was in context of bigger picture, not squadron-strength or LCA.

Seeing "squadron strength" in isolation of larger, long-term interests is what has always kept IAF dependent on foreign suppliers.("Our squadron strength is low. We need planes RIGHT NOW. We can't wait for HAL to upgrade Marut")

I am not anti-Rafale. Infact, i would say same for any other foreign plane, be it F-18 or F-22. IAF has wasted enough money on foreign planes now. Heck, there is none amongst top 5 nations whose entire airforce has 95% imported planes.

Buy extra 50 Su-MKI and spend the rest on building world-class engine test infrastructure, rigs. Start a DARPA type project. Rafale is wastage. (Infact, i admire MMS for buying 45 extra Su-MKI and delaying Rafale onto next government. My guess is, even he made a judgement that Rafale doesn't offer the value for its costs. You can blame Congress for anything, but MMS had a pretty damn good judgement about things which he directly dealt with. Also, his Oxford/western education and World-banker background gave him a sound/calm mind which makes good, sane decisions. The more i am re-studying past 10 years and evolving world picture, the more i am getting convinced that MMS was a genius. He foresaw many trends.)

Ask an airmen - "Are u happy with squadron strength?". Answer will be "No" 99% times. Why would he say "yes" if he sees that Govt. has too much money to spend on goodies? Politicians and our leaders need to understand this psychology.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 22 Jul 2014 03:30

Seeing "squadron strength" in isolation of larger, long-term interests is what has always kept IAF dependent on foreign suppliers.("Our squadron strength is low. We need planes RIGHT NOW. We can't wait for HAL to upgrade Marut")


Keeping sentiments aside, do you realize the crisis with Marut was lack of suitable powerplant. I mean would you expect IAF to wait for GOI to fund a new engine development and keep inducting Marut further 30 years down the lane ?

I am not anti-Rafale. Infact, i would say same for any other foreign plane, be it F-18 or F-22. IAF has wasted enough money on foreign planes now. Heck, there is none amongst top 5 nations whose entire airforce has 95% imported planes.


Tejas has spent its fair share of time in development. If MK2 doesn't resolve IAF concerns (drag/acceleration whatever it may be) then expect orders to be cut short. The situation will be same a couple of decades later if we don't conclude LCA ASAP and move on towards developing AMCA.

Buy extra 50 Su-MKI and spend the rest on building world-class engine test infrastructure, rigs. Start a DARPA type project. Rafale is wastage. (Infact, i admire MMS for buying 45 extra Su-MKI and delaying Rafale onto next government. My guess is, even he made a judgement that Rafale doesn't offer the value for its costs. You can blame Congress for anything, but MMS had a pretty damn good judgement about things which he directly dealt with. Also, his Oxford/western education and World-banker background gave him a sound/calm mind which makes good, sane decisions. The more i am re-studying past 10 years and evolving world picture, the more i am getting convinced that MMS was a genius. He foresaw many trends.)


Hold your breath, MMS didn't order additional Super sukhoi's with intention of filling squadron numbers. Neither did he spend any savings on world class infrastructure. Super 30's had their role predefined hence integration of brahmhos. As for Rafale, the deal hasn't been signed yet because of contractual obligations and funding. FYI, IAF might end up inducting Rafale's before Super sukhoi's.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 22 Jul 2014 03:46

"Ask an airmen - "Are u happy with squadron strength?". Answer will be "No" 99% times. Why would he say "yes" if he sees that Govt. has too much money to spend on goodies? Politicians and our leaders need to understand this psychology."


Its not about numbers alone, its about threat perception & counter capabilities as well.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 Jul 2014 04:04

vic wrote:LCA cannot even reach Delhi from Bangalore while Rafail can fly all the way from Delhi to Switzerland and bomb the secret accounts with Dollars and Euros.


And get you a date with Carla Bruni.

There's 'fail', 'epic fail' and there's 'Rafail' :)

BTW, the RAF is phasing out EF2Ks in 2030 just some dozen years after it would have been delivered to us as SOA

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8226
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 22 Jul 2014 04:38

MahaKaal wrote:Buy extra 50 Su-MKI and spend the rest on building world-class engine test infrastructure, rigs. Start a DARPA type project.

What is a DARPA type project? Will it save us if China stormed into Arunachal today? Also, do you know the success rate of DARPA projects?

Out of interest (and frankly out of boredom of reading comments from posters in various forums), I started reading about the evolution of engines in different countries from whatever I could get from the net. Frankly, I am yet to come across original engine designs where the sparks came from govt. projects, except for the ones after WW-I and WW-II where they basically asked their scientists to copy designs. Then, the ingenuity lied in the mechanical engineering. Now it is materials, which you can't copy (see how the Chinese are struggling because they can't mold an aero-engine). All the original engines in history came from entrepreneurial geniuses who grew up working in garages working with their fathers as kids. Our kids are not educated that way, we can solve Schrodinger's equations, but can't replace the switchboard in our houses. Actually, we actively discourage ourselves, leaving it as a job for the less-paid, less-qualified, lowly repairmen.

We neither have the appetite to digest failure or the ability to reward success for scientists to flourish. Our scientist should provide brilliance as part of their karma and because of their crazy fun of discovering new things!!! they should be the ones who don't care about their dresses, beard, and with a torn jhola.

And, you are right that MMS is not responsible for this. But for me, it is not because of his brilliance (and I respect the man and his understated nature). For me, the fault does not lie with him, because just the PM of the country cannot be blamed for the debacle we find ourselves in. We love pointing fingers, but we as a culture have lost the capability of seeding scientists and allowing them to flourish. We actively discourage it. We would prefer our kids to become a IPL player or atleast a banker at Goldman Sachs!

MahaKaal wrote:Ask an airmen - "Are u happy with squadron strength?". Answer will be "No" 99% times. Why would he say "yes" if he sees that Govt. has too much money to spend on goodies? Politicians and our leaders need to understand this psychology.

It is a balancing act. Brilliant solutions are risky and come from among hundreds of failures. To reap the benefit of the success, you have to fund the failures as well. Question is how many failures can you absorb while maintaining operational readiness. You like the balance that MMS govt. (intenional or unintentional) chose. Some others like the balance somewhere else.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Philip » 22 Jul 2014 06:30

The mainstay of the IAF for half a century has been the MIG-21.It is still the largest type in our inventory.Over a decade ago,Shiv and I after much thought,thinking hats et al,decided that the best replacement for the MIG-21 was the er..MIG-21! That was aeons before Cope exercises,etc. I still remember the day when with proud announcements,the green light was given by Rajiv G after a presentation,to the LCA.it was way back in the '80s.India Today carried a spl. feature on it.Anyway,cutting a long,long,long story short,what was envisaged at the time was a better MIG-21 replacement,and with our happy experience with the little Folland Gnat/Ajeet,a light fighter,light on the purse,heavier in capability,but fundamentally a MIG-21 replacement.

Those '80s yardsticks,requirements somewhere along the way got hijacked and a mini M-2000 capable aircraft was the ambition.With the key parameters fixed,esp. the underpowered engine for the task,Kaveri development being a sick joke,US sanctions too that lost us many years in delays,we are still struggling to achieve FOC for Mk1.When MK2 will arrive is anyone's guess,as it will involve much redesign.Therefore,while being optimistic and wishing the programme well,we should be a bit realistic and realise that Tejas might finally consist of not more than 10-15% of our inventory in the future,when the MIG-21s were about 50% or more.Even that will be a fine achievement.Unless MK-2 is validated for serial production by 2020,not more than 100-150 aircraft can be built by 2030.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2014 07:13

LCA was expected to replace the -21 in capability. Does not mean in terms of quantity. And, even today, I am sure the thinking is changing. Which is why I had said - about a year ago - make the LCA a tech demo. Forget the LCA, I think even the Rafale will be out dated in a decade or two. OR India will have to rely very, very heavily of France, et al on constantly upgrading the Rafale (and the MKI).

Induct what has been promised, but do not hang on to a plane for the sake of hanging on. Granted it has consumed much funds (understatement of the decade).

I think this constant comparison to older technologies needs to change. I can understand the leaning to do so - it is natural. But, heck the future is changing far faster than what we are used to. Technologies are advancing so quickly that it is ridiculous to even think the way we did 10 years ago.

To outdo others is one dimension and a huge challenge by ltself, to outdo yourself is even worse.

And I am betting that by 2050 the threat perceptions of India will be very different than that for, as an example, of France and Indian one will be worse. So, IMHO, what is really France going to help India with in 2050 is beyond me.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Gurneesh » 22 Jul 2014 08:08

I think much more disheartening than the delay in FOC is the fact that not a single SP aircraft has flown even after almost 7 months and HAL was supposed to deliver 4 this year!

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby abhik » 22 Jul 2014 09:56

If we ditch the LCA today there we might ditch the AMCA, or whatever, tomorrow. After all the by the time the AMCA comes out the American 6th gen fighter will also be out and then we will have another round of complaining. One thing we are missing here is that the LCA is dirt cheap(currently the cost of each LCA is equal to the cost of the A-to-A missiles loadout of a single Rafale), so they can be replaced, when there is better alternative, much earlier than say a Rafale. Say 15-20 years in service instead of the standard 30.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5206
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby jamwal » 22 Jul 2014 10:12

MahaKaal wrote:
Buy extra 50 Su-MKI and spend the rest on building world-class engine test infrastructure, rigs. Start a DARPA type project. Rafale is wastage. (Infact, i admire MMS for buying 45 extra Su-MKI and delaying Rafale onto next government. My guess is, even he made a judgement that Rafale doesn't offer the value for its costs. You can blame Congress for anything, but MMS had a pretty damn good judgement about things which he directly dealt with. Also, his Oxford/western education and World-banker background gave him a sound/calm mind which makes good, sane decisions. The more i am re-studying past 10 years and evolving world picture, the more i am getting convinced that MMS was a genius. He foresaw many trends.)

Ask an airmen - "Are u happy with squadron strength?". Answer will be "No" 99% times. Why would he say "yes" if he sees that Govt. has too much money to spend on goodies? Politicians and our leaders need to understand this psychology.



:rotfl:
Is it an alt account for Vina ?

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_20292 » 22 Jul 2014 12:19

Ganesh_S wrote:
Tejas has spent its fair share of time in development. If MK2 doesn't resolve IAF concerns (drag/acceleration whatever it may be) then expect orders to be cut short. The situation will be same a couple of decades later if we don't conclude LCA ASAP and move on towards developing AMCA.



In general,
you will find that,

Profitable Development that pays the scientists lunch money,

Comes from orders first and development later.

Rather than development first, and then we'll order if we

feel like, later.
:!:

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28677 » 22 Jul 2014 13:31

Ganesh_S wrote:
Seeing "squadron strength" in isolation of larger, long-term interests is what has always kept IAF dependent on foreign suppliers.("Our squadron strength is low. We need planes RIGHT NOW. We can't wait for HAL to upgrade Marut")


Keeping sentiments aside, do you realize the crisis with Marut was lack of suitable powerplant. I mean would you expect IAF to wait for GOI to fund a new engine development and keep inducting Marut further 30 years down the lane ?


And so IAF killed the domestic R&D house itself, just to justify their imports? Wonderful. Again, we are repeating same old mindset with Rafale. Same old arguments, its getting boring now.Even my younger cousin's friends(who are in 12th now and toppers) question whether IAF really respect Indian brains? They often wonder whats so proud & respectful in bragging on imported goodies. They even tell me how sad they feel when they see American airforce flying in their own home-made stuff, it helps their American brand & exports in other areas.(they have a business sense)

Tejas has spent its fair share of time in development. If MK2 doesn't resolve IAF concerns (drag/acceleration whatever it may be) then expect orders to be cut short. The situation will be same a couple of decades later if we don't conclude LCA ASAP and move on towards developing AMCA.


Why you are repeating same old wine, which has been discussed here before?

1. "Fair share of time" is perceptive. Provide a comparison between KAVERI-I and GE's first venture into engine-making.
We did it much faster(with no autonomy to PSU management with regards to business decisions, plus IAF refusing to fund a TEST_BED for Kaveri engine out of its own budget because they simply don't WANT LCA to succeed). Do check how much USAF officers/managers take pride in funding even private players out of their own funds.

2. MK-II is IAF's mistake(sudden change of mind - "oh sorry, our requirements have changed. We were wrong in our 1989 estimations"). Such "sudden change of specs" doesn't happen with imported vendors. Services accept even 2nd-class products at high-costs and within 6 years, they goto BEL for re-fitting(repair).

Hold your breath, MMS didn't order additional Super sukhoi's with intention of filling squadron numbers. Neither did he spend any savings on world class infrastructure. Super 30's had their role predefined hence integration of brahmhos. As for Rafale, the deal hasn't been signed yet because of contractual obligations and funding. FYI, IAF might end up inducting Rafale's before Super sukhoi's.


Same as above. Neither Rafale, nor Marut's suspension are a wise decision. IAF simply lacks interest in getting their boots on laboratories the way USAF does it with their own man(Americans). That's the reason America has more respect even today - their seniors don't disappoint the team.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 22 Jul 2014 13:50

mahadevbhu wrote:
Ganesh_S wrote:
Tejas has spent its fair share of time in development. If MK2 doesn't resolve IAF concerns (drag/acceleration whatever it may be) then expect orders to be cut short. The situation will be same a couple of decades later if we don't conclude LCA ASAP and move on towards developing AMCA.



In general,
you will find that,

Profitable Development that pays the scientists lunch money,

Comes from orders first and development later.

Rather than development first, and then we'll order if we

feel like, later.
:!:


That's true for Private sector firms. In a state owned company it's taxpayers money that is ploughed into technology development. IAF should not be expected to amortize development costs with it's limited budget.

Whatever the case, IAF has the requirement provided HAL and its associated consortium can deliver the product, If not the taxpayer stands to lose his money which is fine for the moment.
Last edited by Ganesh_S on 22 Jul 2014 21:58, edited 1 time in total.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 22 Jul 2014 14:01

And so IAF killed the domestic R&D house itself, just to justify their imports? Wonderful. Again, we are repeating same old mindset with Rafale. Same old arguments, its getting boring now.Even my younger cousin's friends(who are in 12th now and toppers) question whether IAF really respect Indian brains? They often wonder whats so proud & respectful in bragging on imported goodies. They even tell me how sad they feel when they see American airforce flying in their own home-made stuff, it helps their American brand & exports in other areas.(they have a business sense)


And how did it do that ?

Why you are repeating same old wine, which has been discussed here before?


Don't you think its a bit early for you to post such questions? :roll:

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 22 Jul 2014 14:15

1. "Fair share of time" is perceptive. Provide a comparison between KAVERI-I and GE's first venture into engine-making.
We did it much faster(with no autonomy to PSU management with regards to business decisions, plus IAF refusing to fund a TEST_BED for Kaveri engine out of its own budget because they simply don't WANT LCA to succeed). Do check how much USAF officers/managers take pride in funding even private players out of their own funds.


You still don't get the point, do you ?

Kaveri has been 'de-linked' from LCA

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_23891 » 22 Jul 2014 15:41

Ganesh_S wrote:
Ganesh_S wrote:
Tejas has spent its fair share of time in development. If MK2 doesn't resolve IAF concerns (drag/acceleration whatever it may be) then expect orders to be cut short. The situation will be same a couple of decades later if we don't conclude LCA ASAP and move on towards developing AMCA.



That's true for Private sector firms. In a state owned company it's taxpayers money that is ploughed into technology development. IAF should not be expected to amortize development costs with it's limited budget.

Whatever the case, IAF has the requirement provided HAL and its associated consortium can deliver the product, If not the taxpayer stands to lose his money.


The taxpayers are going to lose their money anyway under any outcome till IAF or ther defence arm is not acting as stakeholder rather a cry baby type customer. It should be working with DRDO labs as team for common objective. For that there has to be joint funding & tasking from respective defence arm and DRDO labs for R&D in order to ensure joint responsibility for any project. The production agency part of the project must be bound by penalty clause.

I do not think anybody cares for taxpayers money in present modus operandi.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Jul 2014 16:35

Ganesh_S wrote:Tejas has spent its fair share of time in development. If MK2 doesn't resolve IAF concerns (drag/acceleration whatever it may be) then expect orders to be cut short. The situation will be same a couple of decades later if we don't conclude LCA ASAP and move on towards developing AMCA.


Arun Menon wrote:
Leo.Davidson wrote:Pumping all of the money on the LCA is baffling. I've always compared the LCA to an auto-rickshaw; useful, (the auto-rickshaw being) nifty, economical and you name it. But neither are a hero nor the solution. This LCA plane will not save our skin in war; we'll lose the war because of it. We need a tank, a truck, an SUV, a roadster, ....; we shouldn't be racing with an auto-rickshaw.

Note: Pun intended...


This guy doesn't even have the capability to count it seems.

Dassault Rafale:
---------------
First flight 4 July 1986
Introduction 18 May 2001

Program cost €45.9 billion (FY2013) (US$ 62.7 billion)



HAL Tejas:
----------

First flight 4 January 2001
Introduction 20 December 2013

Program cost US$1.2 billion



These are the two planes this guy is comparing. From first flight to introduction the Rafale took LONGER than the Tejas. Also, the program costs are beyond comparison (at least 50 times more). All this when the experience that Dassault has designing and manufacturing aircraft is light years ahead than that of ADA and HAL. Yet this individual has the gall engage in vitriolic verbal diarrhea.

Then again, all this is pointless, because TROLLS don't care about facts anyway.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=1690966

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby RKumar » 22 Jul 2014 16:55

just tired of hearing .....30 in making, 10 years delayed, still not got IOC or FOC etc etc, some simple facts comparison

Image

*Can anyone suggest a good image hosting site... thanks

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SanjayC » 22 Jul 2014 17:29

^^^ There you go. Press the quote button on this post and you will get the code for image between img tags. Paste that in your post. For free image hosting, use http://tinypic.com/

Image

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby RKumar » 22 Jul 2014 18:09

Thanks SanjayC

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28677 » 22 Jul 2014 18:15

Ganesh_S wrote:That's true for Private sector firms. In a state owned company it's taxpayers money that is ploughed into technology development. IAF should not be expected to amortize development costs with it's limited budget.


Same old colonial argument - "I have 20 billion dollars for funding FRANCE's laboratories and getting 126 planes, but giving 2 Billion dollars to indian weapons maker is wasteful because i don't have money."

Lets get this clear:
1. If you need world-class product, then provide world-class funds and facilities to DRDO(and GTRE who is working without any test-bed because IAF is unwilling to help with funding/leasing indian scientists with a engine Test-bed)
2. If you pay crappy, low funding, then you will get only a crappy, compromised product.

USAF pays fat money and gets a nice fat product. IAF loves to pay third-world price, and they don't want to fund research in Indian universities(like USAF owns up responsibility & funds within the United States, they don't go around the world spending like a crazy, mad man)so they get a third-world quality plane.

If you still don't understand, then don't blame Indian scientists for that. Plus, foreign vendors are supported by their own airforce, not like our IAF who just sits and complains. USAF guys work in laboratories, they don't waste time even if product under-delivers sometimes because they know "American(home-made) is always the Best".

Whatever the case, IAF has the requirement provided HAL and its associated consortium can deliver the product, If not the taxpayer stands to lose his money.


This colonial sahib attitude is the reason IAF has become a joke in the world(95% imported planes).

member_28677
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28677 » 22 Jul 2014 18:21

SanjayC wrote:^^^ There you go. Press the quote button on this post and you will get the code for image between img tags. Paste that in your post.


That "Rafale vs. Tejas" Chart is misleading because it doesn't count the investment and time efforts which went into Parent project lines before Rafale started. All of those investments were the reason Rafale got a "kickstart". Rafale is not the "begin from scratch" work which French took up. That chart is comparing apples and oranges, an incomplete picture without counting the massive 3 generations technology GAP that DRDO crossed in just 1 project. This isn't the case with Rafale. Anyways, soon TATA/Mahindra will poach experienced designers from LCA-team and that will speed up their transport plane project. Common people(like us) will praise private players but secret lies somewhere else. (Read how ONGC's ex-technicians are the bedrock of Reliance's oil empire)

Correct comparison would be - Start counting time and money spent from FIRST aircraft project in French history. Then lets see who scored better. DRDO and GTRE has done better job than Europe, in their 1st attempt itself. I am proud of LCA team and DRDO. They have beat my expectations.

If you want a genuine comparison then after 20 years, do a comparison of "AMCA vs. F-16 Block I" development time schedule and you will be surprised to see AMCA beat F-16 development time schedule(assuming foreign suppliers don't delay the engines).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 22 Jul 2014 18:52

F-16 program was a very fast program, Just 5-6 years from down selecting 2 design teams the aircraft was being produced in two production lines - one in Europe and one in the US. The IOC of the F-16 was less then 5 years from the first flight of the prototype. It would be tough for any clean sheet aircraft to match that even ones being made by established aerospace companies.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby merlin » 22 Jul 2014 19:50

brar_w wrote:F-16 program was a very fast program, Just 5-6 years from down selecting 2 design teams the aircraft was being produced in two production lines - one in Europe and one in the US. The IOC of the F-16 was less then 5 years from the first flight of the prototype. It would be tough for any clean sheet aircraft to match that even ones being made by established aerospace companies.


How many decades of experience did the designers leverage there?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby RKumar » 22 Jul 2014 20:14

I have also added F-16, it still took 11 years, when it had a number of problems including deep stall. It was accepted into the service 6 years after first flught and 2 years after production configuration was fixed. I could not find what were the capabilities like air to air and air-to-ground etc. If some one can provide me this or any other valuable information, I will keep adding to this matrix.

*Of course we started without any valuable experience

Image

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Ganesh_S » 22 Jul 2014 21:48

Same old colonial argument - "I have 20 billion dollars for funding FRANCE's laboratories and getting 126 planes, but giving 2 Billion dollars to indian weapons maker is wasteful because i don't have money.


what makes you think 20b$ deal is funding Laboratories in France? do you have a breakdown of how money is being spent? MMRCA and LCA are mutually exclusive so its not Dassault's fault if LCA doesn't make the cut.

Lets get this clear:
1. If you need world-class product, then provide world-class funds and facilities to DRDO(and GTRE who is working without any test-bed because IAF is unwilling to help with funding/leasing indian scientists with a engine Test-bed)
2. If you pay crappy, low funding, then you will get only a crappy, compromised product.


World class products cannot be churned overnight simply by pumping more money. A lot more has to be done at institutional levels which is time consuming. If more funds are needed then its the union government's responsibility and not IAF. IAF which is facing couple of hostile neighbors with advancing capabilities has to ensure it's operational preparedness by inducting world class products.

USAF pays fat money and gets a nice fat product. IAF loves to pay third-world price, and they don't want to fund research in Indian universities(like USAF owns up responsibility & funds within the United States, they don't go around the world spending like a crazy, mad man)so they get a third-world quality plane.


:rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2014 22:47

what makes you think 20b$ deal is funding Laboratories in France? do you have a breakdown of how money is being spent?


Will have to dig it out, but French DM was clear that Dassault will have to lean on exports for future funding. France could be expected to support their own strategic needs (fair enough), but with internal orders grinding to a near halt, Indian (and other export) orders will be crucial to the French Labs - to a very large extent, how much is perhaps debatable.

MMRCA and LCA are mutually exclusive so its not Dassault's fault if LCA doesn't make the cut.


Perhaps.

But, it is not late to combine them. India has to have a far better idea of what the future holds for her and IMHO should reconsider all alternatives including FGFA. Much has changed, including the F-35 (not as a purchase, but as a demonstration of what the future could hold - France does not offer such a future). Point being Indian MMRCA decisions are out dated by now.

I think India/Indians need to look after their own interests and the IAF thinking of the Rafale as the only alternative is not in the best interest of India (IAF, yes).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby brar_w » 22 Jul 2014 22:52

merlin wrote:
brar_w wrote:F-16 program was a very fast program, Just 5-6 years from down selecting 2 design teams the aircraft was being produced in two production lines - one in Europe and one in the US. The IOC of the F-16 was less then 5 years from the first flight of the prototype. It would be tough for any clean sheet aircraft to match that even ones being made by established aerospace companies.


How many decades of experience did the designers leverage there?


My point was that the F-16 developmental program is not the correct program benchmark for AMCA time-lines.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests