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.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Nov 2014 21:12

Well, we hope that things will be different with modi at the helm. My guess is that iaf will be required to be more proactive towards the psu, while at the same time get some leeway in terms of authority and purchases. I feel their greatest gripe is responsibility without authority.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

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

Postby kmc_chacko » 02 Nov 2014 21:43

till date i didn't understand why IAF insisting for upgraded Mig-21s, they could have replaced each with LCAs. This could have given encouragement to HAL, DRDO & NAL. If R&D and Induction had gone in parallel, I think by now LCA would have matured plane. IAF would have maintained a healthy force and by now infrastructure for LCA would have been developed. Pilots could have understood the indigenous fighter more and helped the R&D by giving valuable updates. In other way they could have developed a Aeronautic Industry with private participation. we could have made LCA more indigenous than it is presently.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Nov 2014 22:24

^ Yes, that is a puzzle. I feel Modi will put foot down and make them order mk1 after FOC. Methinks IAF is not pushing for LCA because they feel that Rafale purchase could be endangered by larger nos of LCA. Just a guess. Modi will assuage that fear - buy *some* Rafales and make them order LCA.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 02 Nov 2014 22:37

Marten wrote:What if $20bn were not available for this purchase? Would the IAF continue this posture?
PS: I do know the monetary aspects are MoD and apparently the IAF is a professional force that doesn't care about this aspect. Therefore the LCA is doomed to being unacceptable unless a larger number of Rafale is available.


Sir, if the government doesn't have the money, then the aircraft will not be acquired.

The IAF started asking for the AJT in the mid-1980s and received it in 2008! Did pilot training suffer: you can certainly bet your life on it! No point pretending otherwise.

IAF is part and parcel of the government; it is not some outsourced security agency, a wayward step-child, or an estranged wife with a credit card habbit. IAF is the pride of the people of India and the GoI.

The MoD is continuing negotiations with Dassault because that is the overall plan of the Government of India, not because IAF is forcing MoD to do anything.

If GoI says that the budget is not there, please can you do with fewer aircraft / different type, of course the adjustment will be made, to the force posture, to tactics, to strategy, to everything. Will the IAF be less effective: for sure it will be (no point pretending otherwise). But, MoD needs to make that decision. As of now, MoD has not asked IAF for Plan B and is negotiating with Dassault for Rafale.

Right now it is just the losers from the MMRCA process asking for cancellation. That should tell you everything.

LCA development is not being denied money or manpower. There is not one statement from DRDO/ADA/HAL that says LCA development has been held up due to lack of financial resources.

MMRCA vs LCA is not the choice facing the GoI.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 02 Nov 2014 23:22

Since it is mentioned that HAL is not being treated fairly for LCA by the IAF, why does HAL not give a fitting reply to all the critics by doing the following :
- LUH rollout and first flight by 2015
- LCH production line by 2017
- Tejas MK.2 proto roll out by 2015 and ready for induction 2020 (best case)
- IJT 2015
- 40 Tejas Mk.1 by 2016

Though the above may still be less than the Rafale deal size but still they are important and DELAYED. No statement is available where HAL or any agency has complained about lack of fund for any of the above program and in a few case lack of order.
I hope the above list is in no way an unjustified expectation from our leading Aerospace organization.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 02 Nov 2014 23:39

Instead of sitting around and finding creative excuses against local weapon systems when they are ready, how about the armed forces take ownership of the development process and be in involved in the design and production issues?

How does one set up a large manufacturing line for 40 aircraft?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5211
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 03 Nov 2014 00:35

I remember reading a book by Air Commodre Jasjit Singh in which he mentions that Indian Air Force was supposed to have 62 squadrons and 45 was chosen as a compromise. At present, we have 38-39 squadrons. Even then idea of upgrading Mig-21 is being raised, seriously ? Same IAF accepted Mig-23, Mig-27, Mig-29 which spent more time more time in repairs than on air and they have problems accepting LCA. Who is the idiot here ? Maybe babooze in MoD are somewhat responsible for this, but IAF is not blame free either. You can't blame everything on MoD. People blaming MOD, HAL, GoI for everything wrong under the sun should keep in mind that staff for armed forces doesn't come from a stock different from rest of population. There are corrupt and incompetent folks in armed forces too and they are as much to blame as anyone else. Anyone who has read Tejas Story written by Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar and followed the program in some detail should know first hand how idiotic IAF has been with the indigenous project.


On an unrelated note, performance of pilots (and ground crew) during the war should not be put in same league as that of the IAF as a part of Indian defence strategy.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 03 Nov 2014 02:07

eklavya wrote:Yes, the IAF is a very professional force. Those with gripes are normally just sore at being excluded after professional deliberations.

Don't duck the question please. Was a force compromised of seven different fighter types the product of a professional approach or a result of poor planning? If the answer is both, it would imply that 'professionals' are still human and a bureaucratic organisation comprised of professionals is still capable of delivering a chaotic result.

Now, you explain whether you are advocating an 8th fighter type or not.

Right after you, I promise.

________________

And yes I'm sore. Not because I'm excluded but because we've fought a war with China with a humiliating result.

As of today, the PRC is inducting four times as many fighter aircraft as we are, their pilots have started flying 200 hours annually, they're are increasing their exposure to western operational philosophies and exercising with western-patterned forces (like the TuAF and PAF).

Point being, the IAF's adversaries are staffed by competant professionals as well. We can't match Chinese budgets but we can hope reduce that edge through smarter purchases. The IAF's (or IA's) choices unfortunately don't reflect a focus on cost effectiveness, and that's aggravating their situation vis a vis the PLAAF.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Nov 2014 03:00

Viv S wrote:Don't duck the question please. Was a force compromised of seven different fighter types the product of a professional approach or a result of poor planning? If the answer is both, it would imply that 'professionals' are still human and a bureaucratic organisation comprised of professionals is still capable of delivering a chaotic result.


Hope you don't mind if I take a stab at that question Viv, the seven/multiple fighter type menagerie was not so much a fault of IAF's or for that matter even the MOD. It was a case of (and to some extent still is,) a case of 'beggars can't be choosers'. At that point in time , late 70s till late 90s, India was in no shape to be able to afford any particular bird that it truly preferred, aka Mirage 2000. Time and time again, the exigencies of the moment (horrible economy) prevented an extra purchase which was initially thought possible - and this may happen again in the case of the MRCA. Ultimately, the MKI came in lieu of the M2k iirc. Under the circumstances Russian birds such as the 23s, 27, 29s, all came in at ridiculously low prices as did other hardware, often traded for with goods instead of valuable $s forex.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 03 Nov 2014 05:00

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:Yes, the IAF is a very professional force. Those with gripes are normally just sore at being excluded after professional deliberations.

Don't duck the question please. Was a force compromised of seven different fighter types the product of a professional approach or a result of poor planning? If the answer is both, it would imply that 'professionals' are still human and a bureaucratic organisation comprised of professionals is still capable of delivering a chaotic result.

...


What is "professional" anyways? You can be a professional and specialised at something specific but not in everything.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 03 Nov 2014 09:52

Viv S wrote:Don't duck the question please. Was a force compromised of seven different fighter types the product of a professional approach or a result of poor planning? If the answer is both, it would imply that 'professionals' are still human and a bureaucratic organisation comprised of professionals is still capable of delivering a chaotic result.


The current composition of the IAF is the result of a highly professional approach.

Accusing the customer of "poor planning" provides some consolation to failed salesmen.

Viv S wrote:Right after you, I promise.


I fully support the MMRCA process.

You are advocating the F-35, and before that Typhoon, and before that something else.

Viv S wrote:Not because I'm excluded but because we've fought a war with China with a humiliating result.


Everybody else in Vayu Bhavan and South Block forgot about 1962.

Viv S wrote:The IAF's (or IA's) choices unfortunately don't reflect a focus on cost effectiveness, and that's aggravating their situation vis a vis the PLAAF.


The IAF and MoD decision in the MMRCA process fully reflect cost effectiveness. The Rafale will put the IAF in a strong position vis a vis the PLAAF.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 03 Nov 2014 10:39

pankajs wrote:
Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 3h 3 hours ago

The IAF is also against ordering any more Mk-1s. They have sent a report to GOI on 'issues' with the Mk-I as well.
Further he adds.
* IAF wants ADA to handover Mk-II development to some sort of an industry consortium led by HAL with phoren consultancy support.
* Apparently ramping up LCA prodn numbers currently has supply chain constraints in composites etc.
* However all stakeholders agree that GE et all will set many facilities in India if orders are large enough.
* The IAF is recommending a merger of ADA with HAL.
* Recommendation for a ministry of aerospace has also been made.


:roll: Is it based on their biases or based on a comprehensive study? Have they taken inputs from everyone involved and used unbiased 3rd parties to validate their recommendations? What is the IAF doing in return to create a culture that supports indigenous R&D in the likes of the IN?

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 03 Nov 2014 10:57

Marten wrote:There is certainly an issue here - and it is not about the LCA machine itself


The issue is the machine and whether it meets operational requirements. Mk 1 does not. DRDO also accepts this.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

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

Postby P Chitkara » 03 Nov 2014 16:22

So, what is coming out is:

1. MK1 is superior to the 21
2. IAF doesn't wan to commit more than 40 of them

In light of fast depleting squadron strength, what is the reason IAF doesn't want to commit to increased numbers?

I do understand that complete upgrade from MK1 to MK2 may not be a very viable option if MK2 is going to be longer then the MK1 (changes a lot of things). Is there any reason other than this that I don't know of?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 03 Nov 2014 16:39

Cain Marko wrote:Hope you don't mind if I take a stab at that question Viv, the seven/multiple fighter type menagerie was not so much a fault of IAF's or for that matter even the MOD. It was a case of (and to some extent still is,) a case of 'beggars can't be choosers'.

Accounting for the financial aspects of acquisition is also a critical part of the planning process. If the service/MoD hasn't foreseen the possibility of a downturn in economic conditions, than we end up with the situation we were in last year - without enough funding for IAC construction to carry on unhindered.

At that point in time , late 70s till late 90s, India was in no shape to be able to afford any particular bird that it truly preferred, aka Mirage 2000. Time and time again, the exigencies of the moment (horrible economy) prevented an extra purchase which was initially thought possible - and this may happen again in the case of the MRCA. Ultimately, the MKI came in lieu of the M2k iirc. Under the circumstances Russian birds such as the 23s, 27, 29s, all came in at ridiculously low prices as did other hardware, often traded for with goods instead of valuable $s forex.


We shelved the Marut program entirely (i.e without replacement/upgrade) and then went on purchase Jaguars from the UK. We licensed built the Jags, and then added another line of MiG-27s to also be license-built at HAL. We responded to the PAF's F-16 acquisition with two squadrons of MiG-23MFs. And then two squadrons of Mirage 2000s, four years later. And then three squadrons of MiG-29s. And five years later we were negotiating with the Russians for the Su-30. The first RFI for the MMRCA was released in 2001 and the its deliveries will begin no sooner than 2018.

Some of that you can chalk up to bad luck, but at a point one has to admit that planning went haywire resulting in the IAF operating an absurd variety of aircraft.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 03 Nov 2014 16:48

P Chitkara wrote:So, what is coming out is:

1. MK1 is superior to the 21
2. IAF doesn't wan to commit more than 40 of them

In light of fast depleting squadron strength, what is the reason IAF doesn't want to commit to increased numbers?

I do understand that complete upgrade from MK1 to MK2 may not be a very viable option if MK2 is going to be longer then the MK1 (changes a lot of things). Is there any reason other than this that I don't know of?


IMO, the IAF realises that they won't have funding left to purchase more LCA Mk.1 after spending $20 billion on the Rafales. So they are finding all excuses to not order more or delay ordering more long enough to get the Rafale deal signed. After that, they can continue to say the LCA Mk.1 is not even close to comparable to the Rafale and that they have no more funds to spend. JMT.

Granted that the LCA Mk.1 FOC is still a few months off and the first SP deliveries of the IOC-II configuration have only recently taken place, it is still questionable when it comes to the limited quantities being orders by the IAF (and then insisting they are not flexible on this at all). The IAF has asked for a fully combat capable Mk.1 aircraft with the integration of quite a few air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons, including BVR AAMs, PGMs and AAR. You can ask for all these but then can't expect to complete trials for all this in a very short-period of time. Look at EF for example; it only got its A-to-G capability in the last two years or so--some 10 years after induction. As is, the Mk.1 aircrafts are much more capable than the retiring MiG-21s/27s, which are being number-plated in masses over the next few years. Then there is also the MOFTU which need new aircrafts for operational training of rookie pilots. I would say 4 LCA Mk.1 squadrons (80 aircrafts) should be bought. This would keep production lines humming and give sufficient time for the Mk.2 version to materialise sometime post 2020.
Last edited by srai on 03 Nov 2014 17:22, edited 2 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 03 Nov 2014 17:04

eklavya wrote:The current composition of the IAF is the result of a highly professional approach.

Accusing the customer of "poor planning" provides some consolation to failed salesmen.

Question was did that result in an optimum force configuration?

I fully support the MMRCA process.

You are advocating the F-35, and before that Typhoon, and before that something else.

The MMRCA was constituted at a time when the Tejas was still in the early prototype stage and no fifth generation fighters were in service. Its been delayed so long that not only will the Tejas be in squadron service by the time the Rafale is inducted but as many as 12 countries will be operating stealth fighters. The PLAAF has long held a numerical edge, but as a result, for the first time in 60 years it will have qualitative superiority over the IAF as well. If the MMRCA remedied that, I'd be fully supportive as well but despite costing $20bn+, it unfortunately doesn't.

Everybody else in Vayu Bhavan and South Block forgot about 1962.

The IAF and MoD decision in the MMRCA process fully reflect cost effectiveness. The Rafale will put the IAF in a strong position vis a vis the PLAAF.

What 1962 demonstrated is that professionalism without requisite material parity and planning can result in an ignominious defeat. Can the Rafale take on four J-10Cs and win? Even Arthuro doesn't think so. With the F-35 and/or the PAK FA, you still have a shot at prevailing against those odds. With the Tejas you can induct enough to prevail in a defensive scenario when supported by force multipliers.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 03 Nov 2014 17:50

The current composition of the IAF is the result of a highly professional approach.

Accusing the customer of "poor planning" provides some consolation to failed salesmen.


An organization such as the IAF should have a Planning department, which should have multiple planning groups. It is not unusual for one such group to not be optimal. So, as an example using this scenario, it could be that the group that did the composition planning did a great job and the group did the MMRCA planning did not do a good enough job. And, not-doing-a-good-enough-job is *not* a black mark. It happens. Multiple things can go wrong in factors that ensure the sanity of a plan.

The problem - as I see it - in the MMRCA case is that they did not have a Plan B, and still are not working on one (it seems). I would expect a contingency plan for such major plans. CPs are normal ops.

?????

highly professional approach


Every, good professional will fail.

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

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

Postby member_20292 » 03 Nov 2014 23:14

eklavya wrote:
Marten wrote:What if $20bn were not available for this purchase? Would the IAF continue this posture?
PS: I do know the monetary aspects are MoD and apparently the IAF is a professional force that doesn't care about this aspect. Therefore the LCA is doomed to being unacceptable unless a larger number of Rafale is available.


Sir, if the government doesn't have the money, then the aircraft will not be acquired.

The IAF started asking for the AJT in the mid-1980s and received it in 2008! Did pilot training suffer: you can certainly bet your life on it! No point pretending otherwise.

IAF is part and parcel of the government; it is not some outsourced security agency, a wayward step-child, or an estranged wife with a credit card habbit. IAF is the pride of the people of India and the GoI.

The MoD is continuing negotiations with Dassault because that is the overall plan of the Government of India, not because IAF is forcing MoD to do anything.

If GoI says that the budget is not there, please can you do with fewer aircraft / different type, of course the adjustment will be made, to the force posture, to tactics, to strategy, to everything. Will the IAF be less effective: for sure it will be (no point pretending otherwise). But, MoD needs to make that decision. As of now, MoD has not asked IAF for Plan B and is negotiating with Dassault for Rafale.

Right now it is just the losers from the MMRCA process asking for cancellation. That should tell you everything.

LCA development is not being denied money or manpower. There is not one statement from DRDO/ADA/HAL that says LCA development has been held up due to lack of financial resources.

MMRCA vs LCA is not the choice facing the GoI.


Fair enough but it is something that some of us are concerned about. Some of us do not want the LCA to be an Arjun

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28722 » 04 Nov 2014 03:25

eklavya wrote:Sir, if the government doesn't have the money, then the aircraft will not be acquired.

The IAF started asking for the AJT in the mid-1980s and received it in 2008! Did pilot training suffer: you can certainly bet your life on it! No point pretending otherwise.

IAF is part and parcel of the government; it is not some outsourced security agency, a wayward step-child, or an estranged wife with a credit card habbit. IAF is the pride of the people of India and the GoI.

The MoD is continuing negotiations with Dassault because that is the overall plan of the Government of India, not because IAF is forcing MoD to do anything.

If GoI says that the budget is not there, please can you do with fewer aircraft / different type, of course the adjustment will be made, to the force posture, to tactics, to strategy, to everything. Will the IAF be less effective: for sure it will be (no point pretending otherwise). But, MoD needs to make that decision. As of now, MoD has not asked IAF for Plan B and is negotiating with Dassault for Rafale.

Right now it is just the losers from the MMRCA process asking for cancellation. That should tell you everything.

LCA development is not being denied money or manpower. There is not one statement from DRDO/ADA/HAL that says LCA development has been held up due to lack of financial resources.

MMRCA vs LCA is not the choice facing the GoI.

An apt summary ... kudos!!

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 17:41

P Chitkara wrote:So, what is coming out is:

1. MK1 is superior to the 21
2. IAF doesn't wan to commit more than 40 of them

In light of fast depleting squadron strength, what is the reason IAF doesn't want to commit to increased numbers?

I do understand that complete upgrade from MK1 to MK2 may not be a very viable option if MK2 is going to be longer then the MK1 (changes a lot of things). Is there any reason other than this that I don't know of?


MK1 cannot meet the ASR requirements drafted for LCA project. IAF accepted 40 as a compromise. MK2 will meet all requirements and will be inducted in greater numbers.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 04 Nov 2014 17:59

Can you list the requirements it cannot meet?

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 18:09

Vivek K wrote:Can you list the requirements it cannot meet?

The ASR is confidential. However it has been known for a long time that LCA Mk2 was planned only because Mk1 could not meet the ASR requirements. This has already been confirmed by various media sources.

This is an old article from the hindu confirming the same
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 389203.ece

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 04 Nov 2014 19:03

DevendraC wrote:This is an old article from the hindu confirming the same
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 389203.ece


Just quoting the article

The IAF is also worried about the slow pace and quality of work at HAL. More so, because it will not be able to deliver by 2013, as scheduled, the 20 aircraft for which orders have been placed. Defence Minister A.K. Antony recently said the Tejas would enter squadron service by 2011, which date, according to officials, is highly optimistic as hardly 10 or 12 test sorties are now being undertaken. The IAF expects the final operational clearance for the Tejas only after 2012.


IAF stands vindicated. And now the excuse that because the order size is small and there is high probability of HAL completing the MK.1 order much earlier resulting in idle production line so it is very much justified for HAL to go for a no/slow production rate. Strange. :roll:
Come on HAL is a government enterprise and can it focus on the thing for which it was created in the first place i.e make Quality Planes for India rather than profit/loss or one is unable to give up the habit of spoon feeding .
I am unaware so would definitely like to know as to why BAe was required as a consultant for the design issue of IJT. Why HAL could not take care of it on its own or why ADA was not involved ?

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 19:10

Marten wrote:
DevendraC wrote:MK1 cannot meet the ASR requirements drafted for LCA project. IAF accepted 40 as a compromise. MK2 will meet all requirements and will be inducted in greater numbers.

Which brings to mind the question - which specific ASR requirements were not met? And what compromises would have the IAF taken in this regard?
Is the compromise really one, is the real question! I'm not looking for an answer anymore though, since the IAF is evidently not going to be ever be convinced to take up Mk 1 as every other country out there did for their own products.

As I have said before, the ASR is confidential, hence it is not known that which requirements were not met. I don't understand why do you think the compromise was not a real one. There is nothing to indicate the same. DRDO/HAL/ADA also have never made any public statement claiming that Mk1 met the requirements.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Nov 2014 19:29

IAF stands vindicated. And now the excuse that because the order size is small and there is high probability of HAL completing the MK.1 order much earlier resulting in idle production line so it is very much justified for HAL to go for a no/slow production rate. Strange.


It *always* will. All Services will. Nature of this beast.

The nature of developing a new plane is that they never meet deadlines - they cannot.

In the JSF (Turkey) thread check out a youtube presentation posted by brar on the development of the JSF. The presenter complains about why the F-35 team decided to include a maturing helmet in the deadlines. Bound to fail to meet the deadline.

Then check out what he suggests as a solution. *That* solution (thinking) is what the IAF needs to adopt. The IAF does that for foreign planes!!!! So, why not for Indian planes.

Most of all India *needs* an apex body to direct traffic. That is where the "failure" is. And, the need for such a body is reflected in the circular arguments we all make and have been making for 15+ years I have been on BR and nothing has changed in India WRT IAF/IA.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Nov 2014 19:52

IAF stands vindicated


One more point.

Do we have any idea the amount of data that the IAF has provided to the vendors of the planes they have used, who then go ahead an improve their products?

Su-30MKI.

GE engines.

The IAF should charge these vendors for the data they glean to improve their products. The IAF will make millions of $$. Or the IAF should get a squadron free of cost (for the MKI) or 25 engines from GE free.

Industrial Internet!!!!

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 20:00

Marten wrote:
DevendraC wrote:As I have said before, the ASR is confidential, hence it is not known that which requirements were not met. I don't understand why do you think the compromise was not a real one. There is nothing to indicate the same. DRDO/HAL/ADA also have never made any public statement claiming that Mk1 met the requirements.

So you have no real way of knowing but will gas anyway? If not for the IN, there would be no Mark 2. Further there is no indication that the ASR was not met!

Please don't use straw men, and double blind negatives to make this pitiable case.

You are the one who is gassing here. I have already posted an article from the Hindu which clearly says that Mk1 cannot meet the requirements. You haven't posted jack. Just because you refuse to accept it doesn't mean that the ASR was met.
Last edited by member_28819 on 04 Nov 2014 20:14, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Nov 2014 20:14

DevendraC wrote:You are the one who is gassing here. I have already posted an article from the Hindu which clearly says that Mk1 cannot meet the requirements. You haven't posted jack. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean that the ASR wasn't met.


Not the biggest of deals, but ........ He did not post, but you did not research beyond a certain time....Well.

IIRC the "ASR" was modified as time went along (BVR, etc was not included in the initial one) .......... an article published after the one you had posted as an example

2013 :: LCA Tejas Flight Test Chief's Candid Review Of Aircraft

The ASR document however, mandated the use of US military specifications and standards of the day as the guiding document for design. The relevant standards and specifications were to have been culled out by D Aero at DRDO HQ. Any concessions were to be sought from IAF HQ. There is no evidence to show that a comprehensive process was followed. This apparent lapse has lead to a number of challenges in design that we face today; so close to deployment


Then there is an interesting comment by a reader:

Muthanna praises the ASR given by IAF as world class documenet comparing it to some US standards in 1994.

But IAF could not anticipate the need for longer range BVR weighing significantly heavier with even more launch stress on wings than the one’s available in the eighties.

This lack of foresight is also one of the reason for delays, and weight increase in Tejas which led to the kaveri engine’s thrust falling below the level required for Tejas ,

because later wings needed to be significantly strengthened to carry long range heavy BVRs.

As usual it is quite easy to pat IAF on the back and pounce on ADA for all the so called troubles on LCA.The original ASR which is posted in ADA site calls for top speed of mach 1.5 at tropopause and 17 deg STR, which Tejas has exceeded even in MK-1 version and even with partially opened flight envelope has been exceeded by mk-1 itself within the partially opened flight envelope.



I think there is enough blame to go around and all need to share it.

The LCA is a great project and a huge success. Nothing to regret about it.

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 20:22

NRao wrote:
DevendraC wrote:You are the one who is gassing here. I have already posted an article from the Hindu which clearly says that Mk1 cannot meet the requirements. You haven't posted jack. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean that the ASR wasn't met.


Not the biggest of deals, but ........ He did not post, but you did not research beyond a certain time....Well.

IIRC the "ASR" was modified as time went along (BVR, etc was not included in the initial one) .......... an article published after the one you had posted as an example

2013 :: LCA Tejas Flight Test Chief's Candid Review Of Aircraft

The ASR document however, mandated the use of US military specifications and standards of the day as the guiding document for design. The relevant standards and specifications were to have been culled out by D Aero at DRDO HQ. Any concessions were to be sought from IAF HQ. There is no evidence to show that a comprehensive process was followed. This apparent lapse has lead to a number of challenges in design that we face today; so close to deployment


Then there is an interesting comment by a reader:

Muthanna praises the ASR given by IAF as world class documenet comparing it to some US standards in 1994.

But IAF could not anticipate the need for longer range BVR weighing significantly heavier with even more launch stress on wings than the one’s available in the eighties.

This lack of foresight is also one of the reason for delays, and weight increase in Tejas which led to the kaveri engine’s thrust falling below the level required for Tejas ,

because later wings needed to be significantly strengthened to carry long range heavy BVRs.

As usual it is quite easy to pat IAF on the back and pounce on ADA for all the so called troubles on LCA.The original ASR which is posted in ADA site calls for top speed of mach 1.5 at tropopause and 17 deg STR, which Tejas has exceeded even in MK-1 version and even with partially opened flight envelope has been exceeded by mk-1 itself within the partially opened flight envelope.



I think there is enough blame to go around and all need to share it.

The LCA is a great project and a huge success. Nothing to regret about it.

Sir, the fact that LCA Mk1 did not meet the ASR is not debatable, it is even mentioned in the IOC1 certificate of LCA Mk1, which is given here
https://www.scribd.com/doc/66350407/Air ... he-Process
Project Management team (PMT) of IAF have also helped the designers for correct interpretation of standards viv-a-vis the performance specified in ASR. The short falls have been scrutinized in depth. Insome cases the shortfall has been considered as design limitation, which may not be feasible to comply,but can be addressed in the next variant.


I am not debating whether IAF shares blames in LCA mess or not. I am simply saying that Mk1 did not meet the requirements. There is no gray area here, either an aircraft meets the requirements or it doesn't. Mk1 didn't.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 04 Nov 2014 20:43

The Mirage 2000, the Mig-21s, Mig-27s do not meet the ASR. What to do?

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 20:47

Marten wrote:This is where you are wrong! With a moving goalpost and confidential ASR (and please don't ask me to give you references - there are many on this board itself!), how could anyone say the requirements were not met!

If you had said demonstrated, we would have to agree! This is where your understanding is wrong. There are no real shortcomings - the Mark 1 post FOC is what the IAF asked for over multiple ASRs. That there is the opportunity for a Mark 2 due to the IN requirements also helped them!

To paraphrase your line of thought -
Did not meet reqs. - Which ones?
The ones in the ASR - which ASR or reqs?
I can't say for sure coz I don't have a copy. - Ok, so what's the fuss all about?

I leave you with the thought - how do you "know for sure"???

I know for sure because it has been reported for sure that the requirements were not met. Going by your line of reasoning, one can even question whether Dhruv met the requirements or not since its requirements are also not known. I can raise same questions for Kamorta class, Kolkata class, etc, Requirements of none of those weapons are known.

You have been repeatedly saying that there are no real shortcomings, then why haven't you been able to produce something to support your point of view? I have demonstrated as I said, you just refuse to see it. I did not publish that article in the hindu or write that cemilac document. They exist and clearly say that ASR requirements were not met by Mk1.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby sattili » 04 Nov 2014 20:52

@DevendraC : Major quibble for many of us in the forum is not about meeting the current version of the ASR. Perhaps if you look at the history, LCA is conceived as a replacement for MiG21 in our service and ASRs which were issued at the time reflected those requirements. However IAF revised the ASR after the design work has started on LCA and hence it didn't meet the revised ASR (based on whatever being said in public since ASR is confidential).

So the questions being asked here is why not employ LCA Mk.1 as the MiG21 replacement immediately (as it was conceived) and let LCA Mk.2 meet the current ASR?
Last edited by sattili on 04 Nov 2014 20:59, edited 2 times in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 04 Nov 2014 20:54

DevendraC wrote:... They exist and clearly say that ASR requirements were not met by Mk1.


LCA Mk2 was actually an IN requirement.

This one is from Aero India 2013:
Kartik wrote:Next, I went to the ADA stall and just asked aloud if anyone could talk to me about the Mk2. A gentleman in a suit stepped up and said “Yes, what do you want to know about it? Which one, the IAF Mk2 or the Navy Mk2?” and I said “IAF Mk2” and he laughed and said “oh, you disappointed me, I was hoping you’d say Navy Mk2”..:D Turned out, it was Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program..I was blown away by this gentleman. Here was one of the top decision makers of the Tejas program and he was warm, friendly, forthcoming and genuinely interested in talking about the program without even asking me what my background was (till much later in my conversation). He was an engineer on the Sea Harrier, having served on the Viraat. Said he was rookie when Cmde Maolankar commanded the squadron. The salient points of the conversation with him were:

- The Tejas Mk2 is being lengthened by 0.5m only and not 1m as that big gasbag Prasun Sengupta was fibbing about. We really ought to never take him seriously at all. The reason cited were CG change primarily.
- F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN’s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.
- The fuselage on the Mk2 will be slightly wider as well due to the larger diameter of the F-414 engine. This will be used to put onboard additional fuel
- The widening of the fuselage will push out the wings a bit, thus increasing wing span. Otherwise no increase in wing span as such. It doesn’t need it, since the wing area is massive already
- Additional fuel will be required primarily to offset the additional weight (he said approx. 200 kg additional) and higher SFC of the F-414 engine. So, it appears that the Tejas Mk2’s range may not go up significantly over that of the Mk1.
- He confirmed that the intake size will go up by approx. 10 mm for the Mk2.
- There is a LOT of work that is required to be done due to engine change. This is something jingos must keep in mind since jingos keep asking if this or that engine can be used or not on a platform..pumps, motors, fuel supply lines, nearly everything associated with the engine requires re-design due to an engine change due to higher fuel flow rates for a larger engine and the different specs of the power generation on board. Plus, the higher weight means localized structural strengthening as well, all of which takes time

...

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby sattili » 04 Nov 2014 20:55

indranilroy wrote:The Mirage 2000, the Mig-21s, Mig-27s do not meet the ASR. What to do?

+1

Infact it would be prudent to see which planes in our inventory will meet the ASR which was stipulated for LCA

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Nov 2014 20:57

DevendraC wrote:
P Chitkara wrote:So, what is coming out is:

........................................................

MK1 cannot meet the ASR requirements drafted for LCA project. IAF accepted 40 as a compromise. MK2 will meet all requirements and will be inducted in greater numbers.


That was your first post.

Let me ask you this: Are you claiming that the LCA MK-I did not meet the ASR is the entire and complete truth? That there is nothing more to that statement than that?

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 21:00

sattili wrote:@DevendraC : Major quibble for many of us in the forum is not about meeting the current version of the ASR. Perhaps if you look at the history, LCA is conceived as a replacement for MiG21 in our service and ASRs which were issued at the time reflected those requirements. However IAF revised the ASR after the design work has started on LCA and hence it didn't meet the revised ASR (based on whatever being said in public since ASR is confidential).

So the questions being asked here is why not employ LCA Mk.1 as the MiG21 replacement immediately and let LCA Mk.2 meet the current ASR?

Sir, why do you think that Mk1 was even ordered if immediate replacement wasn't the goal?

However, if you want to induct Mk1 only because it is better than Mig21, I would urge you to consider the fact that Mig21s shouldn't even be part of IAF. They are on borrowed time. Even then they will be gone by 2022. LCA is supposed to last until 2050-2060. So its not fair to compare Mig21 with LCA's ASR. Same goes for Mig27s and Mirage 2000.

member_28819
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28819 » 04 Nov 2014 21:02

NRao wrote:
DevendraC wrote:
That was your first post.

Let me ask you this: Are you claiming that the LCA MK-I did not meet the ASR is the entire and complete truth? That there is nothing more to that statement than that?

Yep. I did not mean anything more than that. The poster asked for a reason of less number of Mk1s and I gave him one.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23694 » 04 Nov 2014 21:16

The Mirage 2000, the Mig-21s, Mig-27s do not meet the ASR. What to do?


Pretty Simple. Let HAL come up with the 40 MK.1 ordered. After this like IAF learnt to live with Mirage and Migs (not meeting the ASR), it will learn to live with MK.1 too. And then if it does not have any option like MK.2 etc then probably would go for more MK.1 (it has a job to do with whatever available )
The problem is why the fuss for, order more MK.1 right now else HAL has a problem to build the first 40 in order. Economies of scale, big production line issue, production line going idle, how does all these things come up now. Right now the focus should be on timeline, quality and deliverables.
Would definitely like to understand how an IAF order for say 200 MK.1 mitigated the production line issue for Tejas MK.1 around 2011-12.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 505017.ece

Below is ex-DRDO chief's opinion in March 2013
“Today, HAL has 3rd generation production lines and we need modern ones to replace it. Tejas is a 4th generation aircraft and if we have the vision of exporting this aircraft one day, then rolling out quality aircraft is the key. The problems faced by Tejas are all related to auxiliary systems, be it the fuels lines or lightening arrester. Tejas Mk-II will be the future mainstay and we need to address quality concerns at the earliest,” Saraswat said.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby sattili » 04 Nov 2014 21:22

DevendraC wrote:Sir, why do you think that Mk1 was even ordered if immediate replacement wasn't the goal?

Currently there are ~150 MiG21s in IAF service, many of those are on front line duty. The order for 40 LCA Mk.1 is not a replacement both in terms of quantity as well as where they will be deployed. LCA Mk.1 will be stationed in Sulur in TN that is not front line deployment. The stated aim (again in public news) is that these planes will be used for type conversion, training and for forming SOPs and tactics for the plane.

So the big question is, if ancient MiG21 can be deployed on front line duty, why not LCA Mk.1?

However, if you want to induct Mk1 only because it is better than Mig21, I would urge you to consider the fact that Mig21s shouldn't even be part of IAF. They are on borrowed time. Even then they will be gone by 2022. LCA is supposed to last until 2050-2060. So its not fair to compare Mig21 with LCA's ASR. Same goes for Mig27s and Mirage 2000.

The argument for the LCA Mk.1 immediate induction stems from IAFs own statements about declining Squadron strength and immediate need for beefing up numbers. Going by the history, IAF did grant concessions to other foreign aircraft and inducted them much before full capability of those planes are delivered. LCA Mk.1 is much mature on those lines and it definitely has use in the IAF squadron service. What would make me glad is to see IAF increase its LCA Mk.1 orders as the interim solution and orders LCA Mk.2 for the long term needs.
Last edited by sattili on 04 Nov 2014 21:33, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests