LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

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.
titash
BRFite
Posts: 398
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby titash » 04 Jun 2015 20:45

Rakesh wrote:
ramana wrote:This response is Forum Member Maturity Index (FMMI) level 2.0

A next level 3.0 would be to look up youtube and find the link and post it here.

FMMI Level 4.0 is another member post the link.

FFMI level 5.0 would be if titash had posted the link himself.

:rotfl: I already completed level 3. Could not find it, otherwise I would not have requested the link.


I hereby claim level 5.0 :((

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLftjzi7QDY

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9774
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jun 2015 20:46

titash wrote:I hereby claim level 5.0 :((

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLftjzi7QDY

I bow to your Forum Member Maturity Index.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9774
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jun 2015 21:43

I saw the entire interview. I agree 100% with Titash's assessment. I believe both air chiefs handled themselves very professionally in the face of Thapar's twisted logic and questioning. Air Chief Marshal PV Naik - as always - was superb.

I can understand why the Press and some folks here are claiming that the Raksha Mantri is flip flopping. But read between the lines and you will find what you are looking for.

Image

If the current Rafale deal does get signed, I still believe that more than 36 Rafales will finally join the IAF's stables. There will be - and our own Karan M alluded to that fact if I am not mistaken - around 4 Rafale squadrons. That makes 72 Rafales. Combined that with the three Mirage 2000 squadrons that are being upgraded to the Dash 5 standard and you have seven squadrons. Of the 59 Mirage 2000s that the IAF acquired, there have been nine 'known' losses. Seven from the warbirds link below and another two more from the TOI link below that. That leaves around 50 Mirage 2000s still in service.

http://www.warbirds.in/Crashes/crpage.php?qacid=67&qafdb=IAF&datesall=ON

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mirage-2000-crashes-in-Rajasthan-second-accident-in-11-days/articleshow/12155431.cms

72 Rafales + 50 Mirage 2000s brings you to 120 MMRCA...six short of the original order, but obviously not 90 more birds as the Raksha Mantri has said. While the numbers do not go up, the capability definitely does and in a fairly significant way. Call me crazy, but I think this is what is going to happen....if the Rafale deal of 36 is signed. To all who was involved in this in the GOI....Jai Ho.

And chaanakya....+10 to you for a great post.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2015 00:22

Media doing mischief?

http://www.heraldgoa.in/Goa/Toning-down ... 89289.html

Toning down of Rafale deal miffs IAF top brass :P

Upset with Defence Minister for not only justifying it but also going on record to say that 126 fighter planes were “not required”
By TEAM HERALD | 03 Jun, 2015, 01:34AM IST

NEW DELHI: There is a virtual revolt in the Indian Air Force over Prime Minister Narendra Modi shooting down its requirement of Rafale fighters from the previous United Progressive Alliance government's $20-billion deal for 126 to just 36 without any consultations to know its exact operational requirement.

The Indian Air Force brass is further upset with Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar not only justifying it but also going on record to say that 126 fighter planes were not only “economically unviable” but also “not required.”


Wondering whom Parrikar had consulted to know about the requirement of just 36 fighters, the IAF brass on Tuesday sent in a blueprint of its needs to reconsider the decision announced by Modi during his France trip.

Their plea is not to cripple the force already facing a crisis in its modernisation plans since just 36 fighters were too little to plug the capability gap that is already widening because of the retirement of older aircraft. They say Parrikar's claim to fill the gap with indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) is ridiculous since they cannot meet the requirement of the medium multi-role combat aircraft the force needs desperately. :wink:

{Take that!} :P

Sources in IAF said the force had projected an immediate requirement of 126 Rafale-type medium multi-role combat aircraft, though it would be actually needing 400 jets over the next 10 years. 8)

{Now from 126 imports to 400 imports onlee} :P

Just 36 Rafale jets would not be able to meet the shortfall to be caused by phasing out all MiG-21s and MiG27s by 2022.

The IAF has 34 fighter jet squadrons having 16 to 18 planes each against the projected requirement of a minimum of 42 squadrons in the eventuality of a simultaneous war with China and Pakistan. The fleet of 640 fighter jets available with the IAF mostly have old technology and many of them are nearing their lifespan and cannot be carried on for ever.

{Those Sukhois are very old technology. Only 270 of them. The Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 upgrades, another 100 planes have very very old technology too} :lol:

The top brass, therefore, decided to tell Parrikar that the government cannot compromise on the requirement already vetted and cleared by all authorities over the past many years to have a 42-squadron strong fleet. According to them replacement of 260 obsolete MiG-21s and MiG-27s, the single-engine jets of the Soviet Union era, cannot be delayed.

Former IAF chief Fali Homi Major, during whose tenure the initial tender was floated for the combat aircraft in 2007, said 36 fighter jets were too few considering the requirements. "If we are looking at creating 42 squadrons of fighters for the Air Force as planned, just two squadrons of 36 aircraft would be too little by itself," he said calling for placement of order for a larger number.

Only last October, present IAF chief Air Marshall Arup Raha had called for quick induction of both medium multi-role and light combat aircraft, saying "we are left with quite a few with a majority of our fleet being in a phase-out meet." He reiterated the demand at the Aero-India show in February, stressing: "We urgently need planes...may not necessarily be Rafales."

Former IAF Vice-Chief Air Marshal (retd) P K Barbora put a question mark on the defence minister banking on the indigenous light combat aircraft to fill the gap, pointing out that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) cannot be depended to even quickly produce enough Tejas to meet the need of retiring the old aircraft.

{But HAL can make them fast enough if they are imported} :P

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2015 01:26

I have no idea what the problem is with the IAF top brass.

All they have been asked to do is make a Plan B, which is what they should have done in the first place.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 05 Jun 2015 01:26

Above article is wrong.
NaMo called and listened to ACM Raha before he announced the 36 Rafale buy.

Former officers should talk to ACM Raha before they undermine him.
The former deal was for 18 flyaway a/c and rest 108 to be made in India.
Now its 36 flyaway condition to fill urgent needs.
The old deal is cancelled.
A new one is under negotiation.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shalav » 05 Jun 2015 01:32

The question we should ask is - why didn't AM Raha and his predecessors have a Plan 'B' in the first place?

What sort of long term outlook do they have if they let the squadron strength fall during their tenure?

Why did the IAF not show long term vision under their watch?

Don't blame the people and the govt. for not wanting to spending $20b+ just because you can't plan properly.

DDM obviously will not or does not want to ask these questions.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Prem » 05 Jun 2015 01:38

Half baked Plan A+/B-

Lets assume LCA is getting late , then there is also good chance for UAE and Qatari Mirages becoming available ( through Dassault) to increase the numbers in IAF. This will be satisfactory outcome for all the parties involved in Selling, buying and the user.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shalav » 05 Jun 2015 01:39

Sometimes I think Modi and MP are deliberately foisting the budget hardships IN had to face onto the IAF. This hardship made the IN move succesfully towards indigenisation! They still have a way to go, but the results are there for all to see.

Capital spend-wise the IAF has the 2nd highest per-unit expense after the IN, maybe the IAF chiefs will learn to develop cutting-edge technologies with local solutions instead of acting like spoiled children in a sweet-shop.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2015 01:55

Jhujar wrote:Half baked Plan A+/B-

Lets assume LCA is getting late , then there is also good chance for UAE and Qatari Mirages becoming available ( through Dassault) to increase the numbers in IAF. This will be satisfactory outcome for all the parties involved in Selling, buying and the user.


Qatari etc Mirages will all have to be brought upto IAF standard Mirage upg. Wont be cheap, wont come fast.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby RamaY » 05 Jun 2015 01:56



Thanks Rakeshji!

I too searched for it but couldn't find it.

For a change (I hate myself for saying this) I don't find Thappad wrong for asking those questions.

But I find this fault with both the gentlemen who were pompously giving their opinions.

This interview happened on June 4th. The PTI interview of Parikkar happened on May 24th. But both the gentlemen claimed that they didn't go thru that interview but are on national TV giving commentary on that. Let's remember that these two gentlemen were senior Air Force commanders, yet they didn't follow or read Parikkars interview as part of their normal life nor they cared to read the interview before coming on to the TV (I am sure they were given at least a couple of hours time before the interview).

This is the preparedness of these gentlemen about Air Force and that too when giving opinion on the subject. That I think is very unprofessional of them.

The other technical fallacies are explained by other posters.
Last edited by RamaY on 05 Jun 2015 02:01, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_23891 » 05 Jun 2015 02:00

chaanakya wrote:Most importantly float the idea that next IAF chief would be not selected on seniority but with support for MII and Indigenous program. That could re-orient the thinking of many.


++10.... Chanakya Shri insightful post with very practical solution.

We must make the MII guru mantra and it will realize our story of Indian dreams . It must be like either one is with MII or against it.

MII must be used as a double edge sword to cut through the arms lobby, bureaucracy nexus rooted in our system.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 05 Jun 2015 06:01

titash wrote:
vina wrote:Haah. Finally something to warm the cockles of my heart. Just got off watching Karan Thapar's program with him interviewing former Air Chief Marshals Fali Major and PV Naik.
...............


I watched the video on YouTube last night. P V Naik actually came out very reasonable. He explicitly stated that "the LCA is a top notch aircraft" and "people who have flown it/dealt with it will swear by it". His concerns were more on the production/induction/squadron formation schedule if anything else.
..............
To his credit P V Naik seemed to be very uncomfortable with Thapar putting words in his mouth.



Wasn't PV Naik the air chief who presided over IOC 1 and called the Tejas a "third gen aircraft" and a "Mig-21++" in his speech at the IOC ceremony? This sudden change of heart is surprising, unless he is now speaking his mind as opposed to the earlier comments where he could have been under orders from "interested" MoD babooze or maybe the Cosa Nostra.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23567
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chetak » 05 Jun 2015 06:18

^^^^^^^

maybe he sees a governorship in the offing??

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 05 Jun 2015 07:30

Qatar has 12 mirage2000-5 (9 single, 3 two seaters) which might be equivalent to the IAF upg. I am sure their main AAM would be mica.
UAE has 30 machines but deliveries started in 1989 so these are really old machines and have likely not been MLUed
Greece has about 25 M2k-5-mk2 and a bunch of older and might be willing to dispose them

but again all these will differ in their comms gear and such...they will all need a 2 yr overhaul/normalization process to be ready for the IAF lineup....and none but dassault is qualified to do it....and their fees will be steep for sure.

in the end its just easier and better to build more Tejas!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 05 Jun 2015 07:32

the only machines that IAF might be directly able to procure and use off the AN124 hauler might be the malaysian Su30MKM and the algerian flankers.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srin » 05 Jun 2015 08:12

To say that the Rafale is not a replacement of LCA because it is medium-weight class is a bit disingenious. The objective has always been to arrest the falling squadron numbers. Now tell me - what is causing the squadron numbers to fall ? It is the Mig-21s and Mig-27s (and Mig-23 at that time) crashing and getting obsolete (and not being upgradeable).
The MMRCA started because IAF wanted more Mirage-2000 (which isn't a medium weight fighter) which were going out of production. Then it evolved into a saga that has kept us entertained on these forums for so many years.

Yes, at that time, Tejas wasn't available but now it is. So, using the medium-class fighter bogey to shoot down Tejas is being a bit stubborn.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby RamaY » 05 Jun 2015 08:13

Another logical fallacy in that interview is the question & associated commentary about IAF having to deal with too many types of aircraft.

Irrespective of how many Rafaels and how many LCAs we buy, they will be of two different aircraft types. If this was the concern why did IAF buy Mig-29K and Su-30MKI before? Or why Rafael now and not go for a mix of Mig-29 or Su-30? Or are they indicating that LCA should be cancelled so we will have only 7 aircraft types to begin with? And what is their recommendation on FGFA (yet another type of aircraft)?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jun 2015 08:45

RamaY wrote: But I find this fault with both the gentlemen who were pompously giving their opinions.


What was the 'pompous' part of the opinion given by them? Care to elaborate?

This interview happened on June 4th. The PTI interview of Parikkar happened on May 24th. But both the gentlemen claimed that they didn't go thru that interview but are on national TV giving commentary on that. Let's remember that these two gentlemen were senior Air Force commanders, yet they didn't follow or read Parikkars interview as part of their normal life nor they cared to read the interview before coming on to the TV (I am sure they were given at least a couple of hours time before the interview).

This is the preparedness of these gentlemen about Air Force and that too when giving opinion on the subject. That I think is very unprofessional of them. <SNIP>


Did it strike you that both the gentlemen were trying NOT to fall into the trap of reinforcing the agenda of Karan Thapar - 'that RM Parrikar/NM made a mistake by ordering ONLY 36 Rafale jets'.

That each time Karan Thapar tried to push the above line and foist his words into their mouths they rebuffed him? And continued to say that their is definitely more to RM decision for 36 more a/c and things will pan out for good in future?

As for your other comment on multiple a/c type - please listen again to what ACM Major was saying - that having only 36 a/c adds to another type w/o offering the benefit of economy of scale. And what happened in past - of IAF operating a/c type which Soviet Union deemed fit to give India - is not the model for future. God willing, if AMCA comes on time, IAF for once will have only 3 major fighter types. That is the goal of which Tejas is one major stepping stone.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jun 2015 08:48

Hobbes wrote: Wasn't PV Naik the air chief who presided over IOC 1 and called the Tejas a "third gen aircraft" and a "Mig-21++" in his speech at the IOC ceremony? This sudden change of heart is surprising, unless he is now speaking his mind as opposed to the earlier comments where he could have been under orders from "interested" MoD babooze or maybe the Cosa Nostra.


Well, in the very same video he still calls Tejas as Mig-21++ and all that written by the poster above. It is BRFites who were breast beating about ACM being condescending to Tejas inspite of him clarifying even then what he meant by the comment. And considering the number of waivers at IOC-1 stage, he was not off the mark.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 05 Jun 2015 09:10

Singha wrote:Qatar has 12 mirage2000-5 (9 single, 3 two seaters) which might be equivalent to the IAF upg. I am sure their main AAM would be mica.
UAE has 30 machines but deliveries started in 1989 so these are really old machines and have likely not been MLUed
Greece has about 25 M2k-5-mk2 and a bunch of older and might be willing to dispose them

but again all these will differ in their comms gear and such...they will all need a 2 yr overhaul/normalization process to be ready for the IAF lineup....and none but dassault is qualified to do it....and their fees will be steep for sure.

in the end its just easier and better to build more Tejas!


people who fly the LCA have something to say which is diametrically opposite to the loose comments from whom who have not flown them at all!! for instance -

viewtopic.php?p=1836336#p1836336

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: "As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF's upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario."


this whole procuring of older mirages need to be put to rest. apart from shelf life, the cost of integrating them into the IAF system will be huge - may be more than a cost of an LCA itself.

the LCA 1 can replace Mig 21/27s, so only 'replacement for Mig 21' is non starter. apart from 40 on order, some more should be ordered for Mig 27 replacement too. yes this will take time but this is a 'necessity'. the focus needs to be - to streamline production by eliminating QC issues if any, build support chain, increase prod rate.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 05 Jun 2015 09:27

rohitvats wrote:please listen again to what ACM Major was saying - that having only 36 a/c adds to another type w/o offering the benefit of economy of scale.

That did not seem to be a problem with
1. Su-7
2. MiG 29
3. Mirage 2000
4. C-130
5. C-17

Why should it be portrayed as a problem even before one is bought or delivered?

The MiG 23, later the MiG 29 and finally the Mirage 2000 were all bought in response to the F-16 threat from Pakistan. Ultimately India ended up manufacturing the MiG 27 variant of the MiG 23 as a ground attack aircraft - a far cry from the interceptor role that it was originally bought for. And both the MiG 23 and 27 have a pathetic flight safety record - which is mistakenly pasted by the media on the MiG 21

The Mirage 2000, (36? Or 40 in number?) which was bought as a hedge against the F-16, was ultimately the only aircraft capable of using PGMs in Kargil - again a far cry from the interceptor role it was bought for.

Finally - the Jaguar which went through an agonizingly long DPSA selection process was inducted AFTER REMOVING the inflight refuelling plumbing. It came with a nearly useless bomb aiming system which had to be upgraded in India with DARIN I and II. It had no way of protecting itself and the overwing Magic missiles were an adaptation that India found convenient although the British supervised the testing and cleared it post purchase. The Jaguar was useless for Kargil.

The Su 30 as primarily an interceptor and it carries a lot of dumb bombs. Does it have a multimode radar? I don't know. What PGMs is it capable of deploying? One or two of the Russian ones - maybe KAB 500 and something else? I don't know for sure. But no news of Paveway/Paveway clone LGBs. Brahmos is in future. The MiG 21 Bison is actually capable of dropping PGMs nowadays in a ground attack role. Ironic and funny.

So we have:
1. Dedicated interceptors (Mirage 2000, MiG 23, MiG 21) secondarily adapted for attack role after purchase in limited numbers from a foreign country
2. Dedicated attack aircraft called "Deep penetration strike aircraft" bought after removing plumbing to increase range. Their performance in terms of ITR/STR is probably quite poor because of high wing loading. High altitude performance is poor. And we added air defence capability after buying them and then added plumbing for refuelling

The LCA is the only thing we have that is getting close to "multirole". Forget AMCA - that sperm and ovum have not even met yet.

Fact is that there is no option for the country other than gradually moving over to in house development. The best time to do it is in a time of relative peace and a time when we have a potent missile force to punish enemies who may think that they can try something silly during a transition phase.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vina » 05 Jun 2015 10:27

shiv wrote:That did not seem to be a problem with
1. Su-7
2. MiG 29
3. Mirage 2000
4. C-130
5. C-17


Wrong strategy in public debating in India. You are trying use facts and logic and reason. Doesn't work. You should shout at the top of your lungs some really outrageous things to grab attention (if only for a few no seconds, get eyeballs, do max damage and get out!).

What you are arguing is like arguing with the army " that Arjun @ 55 tons is too big and heavy" fetish. I could argue that my Grandpa fought in the same army using a Centurion which weighed as much as the Arjun MK1 does! Grandpa's Army didn't have a problem with handling a 60 ton tank in the India of 50/60/70s with far crappier infra, all around while in India of 2015, the Army can't handle a similar 60 ton tank and quotes "Strategic Mobility" (whatever that Kakkoose is).

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jun 2015 11:05

shiv wrote:
rohitvats wrote:please listen again to what ACM Major was saying - that having only 36 a/c adds to another type w/o offering the benefit of economy of scale.


That did not seem to be a problem with
1. Su-7
2. MiG 29
3. Mirage 2000
4. C-130
5. C-17

Why should it be portrayed as a problem even before one is bought or delivered?<SNIP>

Fact is that there is no option for the country other than gradually moving over to in house development. The best time to do it is in a time of relative peace and a time when we have a potent missile force to punish enemies who may think that they can try something silly during a transition phase.


Shiv - before I reply to your post, can you please clarify what you understood by 'only 36 a/c' part? I meant Rafale while your post talks about need for LCA. Are we on the same plane?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 05 Jun 2015 11:23

yes Vina, the only tanks which have fought and won tank battles for IA have been the centurion and the vijayanta I think. the PT76 may be knocked out some M24 "Chaffee" tanks in the BD sector...one such damaged specimen is still rusting in the dispur capital complex. my uncle took me one day as a kid and I had fun crawling in and out of its holes...the side skirts bore bullet holes and the turret had a couple of holes where shells had gone in iirc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garibpur

the T55 did not see action and the rest of T-series came after 1971.

the hostile relations with the West after 1971 I think opened the gate for USSR to start dumping their arms on us using rupee trade and barter trade which suited the despotic IG regime which had by then run the economy into the ground and started their infamous 'garibi hatao' slumlord brand of development.

somewhere along the way the brilliant flexibility, improvisation, co ordination with guerilla elements, combined arms ... shown in the BD war got lost, a dull grey soviet style mentality took over, without the massive weight of tanks and artillery the soviets used to make their thing work. its as if more one draws closer to TSP border, IQ collectively declines .... we need to go back to the kind of campaigning run in the BD war - agile, flexible, using limited resources creatively, crawling so far up the enemy's backside they were scratching their ears most of the time, scare tactics and sleep deprivation like random bombing of C3 nodes 24x7...perhaps generals like Jacob and Maneckshaw are hard to find these days.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 05 Jun 2015 11:57

I agree with Shiv about the futility of acquiring second hand M-2Ks and upgrading them.The cost of just one M-2000 UG is more than the cost of an equally capable brand new MIG-29K! What has to be done is to set up a task force to see what on earth ails the LCA programme.

These are the clear facts.After years of being treated stepmotherly,the IAF came aboard the LCA programme when it realised that funds were unavailable for firang MIG-21 replacements.It had its heart sold on acquiring a Western MMRCA/Rafale creating the MMRCA requirement. Thanks to years of fruitless negotiations after the Rafale was selected,with a huge increase in unit/TOT programme cost, the deal has been scuppered with a "one-time password" buy of just 36. It also agreed to just 40 MK-1s with lower performance specs,in the hope that LCA Mk-2 would deliver what it needed. But even here there has been a substantial delay in delivering even the Mk-1,with MK-2 not even in prototype form! I can't understand why the Mk-2 prototype was not accelerated during the last few years immediately after the Mk-1 order for 40 was placed. The engine has been chosen a long time ago,the GE-414,the desi AESA radar is coming along well,weaponry is the same and one doesn't see any major differences (refueling probe) in technology demanded ,apart from better range,thrust,aerodynamics/improved all- round combat capability.

If you look at the Arjun Mk-2 additional requirements,they seem more substantial like active/passive missile defences,etc., new features which one can see some of on the new Russian MBT/T-14.

Therefore,by now in 2015,the MK-2 prototype should've been unveiled with a first flight during the year. At least the first 40 aircraft production line should've been running smoothly with one sqd. delivered. The new DM said last year that the first series prod. aircraft "would be delivered by Mar 2015".Where are they? This is the most important programme of HAL.However,it has "spread its wings too far",with its efforts to produce a basic trainer (yet to fly),IJT again drastically delayed,and busy with many other programmes like MKI production,MIG-29 and M-2000 upgrades,Jag upgrades to come,instead of concentrating on the two most important programmes the LCA and its share of the FGFA JV for the 5th-gen stealth fighter.

One can only conclude that HAL has bitten off more than it can chew.It has to get its priorities right. The ball is now squarely in the GOI's side of the net. As principal stakeholder with a grand vision of "make in India" and little money in the kitty,it has to crack heads in HAL to deliver the promise of the LCA still unkept.

Singha,there was a lot of vision in the IA post '71.For example Gen.Sunderji with his emphasis on fast mobile armoured formations,and a recent article I read about his vision for rapid deployment air-mobile brigades using helos,etc. which would've been pretty useful during Kargil. Soviet doctrine was not of the "Maginot Line" mentality! Anything like it. It was NATO who were obsessed with dealing with a Soviet "molniya/blitzkrieg" and developed tactical N-missiles to stop Russian tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap,etc. That is why the Soviets emphasized building smaller lighter faster moving T-series tanks like the T-72 which could be mass produced very easily and cheaply.I posted some time ago the astounding annual Soviet production of tanks,CIA estimates around 3,000.

What the IA needs today is a greater air-mobile capability,several special forces units which will operate behind enemy lines at the outbreak of war,plus the control of all the attack helos along with light COIN class aircraft,which will give it seamless NCW operational capability unlike repeatedly asking for IAF support,resulting in crucial time delays. The IA's tank fleet is not that bad at all in comparison with that of the Pakis.T-90s,upgraded T-72s will be able to take care of the Paki tanks,apart from whatever Arjuns are in service.It is in the high Himalayas/Tibetan frontier where the IA will have to deal with Chinese tanks.It must acquire a light tank with a heavy main gun which is easy to operate and support at those heights.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby geeth » 05 Jun 2015 12:08

^^^If the top brass had decided to purchase only 36 Rafale, it only means :

1. We cannot afford this plane in numbers. Unlike the previous Govt, this a/c is not looked at as MMRCA. It was made amply clear by defence minister when he declared that MMRCA is dead. In any case IAF was originally looking at something as capable as M2K. So they can't crib that their operational strategy goes for a six by buying more LCA.

2. When the Govt has decided that nothing more than 36 nos will be purchased, instead of cribbing about the numbers, Look at some other a/c for its replacement. The only thing available and affordable is LCA, which is comparable in range and performance to M2K.

3. If the crib is that it only adds another a/c to the kitty, then recommend to the Govt that it is not needed..and make more SU30 MKI in India. Or recommend for acceleration on development of AMCA. If the requirement is immediate, either take 36 Rafale, or if that number is inadequate, take another 100 MKI.
4. When the Govt has decided on 36 nos (but not finalised yet), it could be because of strategic, economical or polititical, or a combination of reasons. IAF is a unique force (even Navy for that matter ) where you will find many a/c in small nos....so taking this number 36 in isolation without looking at the reasons and background behind it is a worthless exercise. Purchase of AWACS, MIG 25, CHINOOKS, APACHE and a whole bunch of other a/cs wouldn't make any sense in that case.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vina » 05 Jun 2015 12:21

whole bunch of other a/cs wouldn't make any sense in that case


There we go again. Wrong communication / headline management strategy.

Shiv's case should have been put as this .

Air Force Looks to Waste a Further $25Billion

"Air Force Is Inefficient as it has frittered away too much resources into too many models of fighter jets with overlapping roles. This lack of economies of scale has resulted in a loss of nearly $40000000 billion dollars in the past 30 years. Now the Air Force is looking to compound the loss due to it's incomprehensible policy, by asking for 126 Rafales costing nearly $100 billion dollars, while a fleet of upgraded newly built SU-30 MKIS will cost only $5billion and deliver 3 time the range and 4 times the payload of the Rafale!"

For the Army, it would be something like this.
Armoured Columns have debilitated over the past 30 years.

The Indian Army has become a very inefficient and stodgy force. While in the post independence years upto the mid 70s with India having a nearly non existent infrastructure, the Army won it's most brilliant victories in 60 ton Centurion tanks. In 2015, the Army's Armoured Corps have become so debilitated that even with the vastly improved infrastructure of today, the young 'uns can't handle even a 55 ton tank anymore

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 05 Jun 2015 12:26

It is simply a matter of price/cost.The media today had reports that the Indo-Israeli deal for SPIKE ATGMs was in doubt because of the horrific price increases.TOT cost demands,including a % on every missile manufactured in India! If the report is true then this deal is heading for the dumpyard.

Had the French "held the price line" on the Rafale to around $12-15B,the deal would've scraped through methinks in its entirety.

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_20453 » 05 Jun 2015 13:19

I see only one way out. DM should force the IAF to accept the LCA mk 1/1.5. I think if the DM goes forward and sanctions additional 100 LCA mk-1.5s all to be delivered latest by 2020/21, IAF will have no choice but to live with it. I think an immediate effort to double production rate from 16 next year to 30 annually by 2017 and to 40 by 2018 needs to be done. The additional 100 orders should be placed this year & production is increased to 40 in the next 2 years, it would allow for delivery of entire order of LCA mk-1/ 1.5 by 2021. Meanwhile LCA mk-2 achieves FOC by 2021 and the production can be rejigged to LCA mk-2.

While the immediate 40 are delivered between ( 2015-2016/2017), the 1st 2 squadrons can be IAF's TACDE squadrons i.e. meant to evolve the fighter's operational tactics and act as operational test aircraft for future evolutions, act as aggressors during exercises etc. The next 40 would be the LCA mk 1.5 (delivered 2018). The next block of 60 LCA mk- 1.5 should form The next 60 would be (delivered between (2019-2020) LCA Mk-1.5 fighters twin seater LIFT trainers ( 20 for the IN & 40 for IAF), they should form the last stage of pilot training, this will dramatically improve pilot capability & reduce accidents due to pilot errors.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby geeth » 05 Jun 2015 13:45

The catch is ...they have procured engines for only 40 LCA. IIRC..F404 is not going to be licence produced. Heck..even 414 deal is not yet inked. What if Amreekhan start playing with Indian LCA choohah? Wait for Kaveri?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jun 2015 13:49

Or may be order the kaveri to be put in production. That ought to reduce the ability of the khan to play Kat and chooha games with us.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 05 Jun 2015 14:11

rohitvats wrote:Shiv - before I reply to your post, can you please clarify what you understood by 'only 36 a/c' part? I meant Rafale while your post talks about need for LCA. Are we on the same plane?

Rohit, I meant Rafale, like you did but as an afterthought let me explain how it applies to the LCA as well

What did Fali Major mean when he said:
having only 36 a/c adds to another type w/o offering the benefit of economy of scale.


Economy of scale in the case of the Rafale means that it will cost X Rupees for the Rafales, and Y Rupees for the infrastructure/training/maintenance. The idea is that if X is large (a larger order for Rafales) the Y part remains about the same, so when you scale up the order it becomes more economical. In other words the tip I pay to the barman is the same whether I have 3 drinks or one drink, so it makes more economic sense to buy three drinks. Fair enough, let me accept this as a valid economic argument. In other words a small, limited aircraft order of 2 Rafale squadrons is a mistake in terms of "economy of scale"

Now let us go back in time and check if the IAF has made this sort of mistake in the past, where the small order of planes was overshadowed by the pain and money for infrastructure, maintenance and training. It turns out that the IAF has done that in teh past with the Su-7, the MiG 23, the MiG 29 and the Mirage 2000. Once again the IAF has placed a small order for C-130s and C-17s and on the face of it - it looks like another blunder that does not offer the benefit of "economy of scale".

So why did the economy of scale argument not come up when all those limited orders were being placed? The answer is that those limited orders were placed for "operational necessity" and "operational preparedness" and we all must accept that operational preparedness is paramount and scores over bean counting like "economy of scale" - the bania argument.

Why do we need Rafales? You know the reason but I will repeat for the benefit of others. The IAF wanted Mirage 2000s. The government of Sonia Gandhi said "Let us have a competition and we will buy you the winner". So the MMRCA fly off was held and the Mirage 2000 was never in it. The IAF had lost there and then and were led on a wild goose chase expecting to get 4+ generation when they asked for 3 plus gen. If the fukin government had shut its Italian trap back then and got the Mirages then the IAF would not be squirming and being called fools now. We now need Rafales because of 'Operational necessity". Those 36 Rafales will have to be bought for reasons of operational necessity, just like the Su-7, MiG 23s, MiG 29s and Mirage 2000s were bought in the past for "Operational necessity". Economy of scale is atta for rotis. Operational necessity is IV fluids. The economy of scale argument does not apply when it comes to operational necessity.

The economy of scale argument made by respected Fali Major sir is a bogey because the exact same "economy of scale" argument applies to the LCA as well. Give bigger orders, and make the LCA cheaper overall, and get an aircraft approximately on par with the Mirage 2000 the IAF wanted but cannot get now, but get the MiG 21++ that they originally wanted. They are also getting a plane designed to be multirole from the outset. Unlike the MiG 23.And the MiG 29. And the Mirage 2000. And the Su-30 MKI.

Remember the IAF is getting an extra 36 Rafales over and above this. So what is there to complain about?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2015 16:36

How are 36 LCA OK for AF but 36 Rafale not OK?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 05 Jun 2015 17:31

@Shiv ^^^ "Once again the IAF has placed a small order for C-130s and C-17s and on the face of it - it looks like another blunder that does not offer the benefit of "economy of scale".

brar_w will doubtless weigh in but these are FMS sales IIRC. They leverage the economies of scale created by US purchases of these items in quantity. Even the imported infrastructure related to these FMS sales benefits from the same scale economies.

From an economy of scale POV, the Rafale is a disaster. The French don't have economies of scale and the cost increases exponentially when you import.

Done right, the LCA can have better economies of scale than Rafale. The GE engines (a couple of thousand units over the SH, Gripen and Mako) can be amortized over the AMCA as well. If you know your manufacturing, you can reuse a lot of the toolsets LCA/AMCA.

But that requires strategic directives not wishlist from fighter jocks.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 05 Jun 2015 17:43

geeth wrote:The catch is ...they have procured engines for only 40 LCA. IIRC..F404 is not going to be licence produced. Heck..even 414 deal is not yet inked. What if Amreekhan start playing with Indian LCA choohah? Wait for Kaveri?


That is how short a leash IAF is having the LCA project on. MoD is not getting the guts to shove it down the throat. HAL/DRDO have not made a credible effort to find an export customer. Americans can be tamed - gripen sells with the same engine. A single engine light fighter in 4th gen is no competition for USA which is trying to move entirely into exporting 5th gen fighters. F16 is just upgrade business, F18 exports are not doing phenomenal numbers.

They will grab any chance to sell so many engines.

My only question is LCA is touted to only replace the mig21s, what about the other migs, mirages and jags? Capability can be built over time, number and inventory of components needs lot more planning and lead time.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby arshyam » 05 Jun 2015 18:07

geeth wrote:The catch is ...they have procured engines for only 40 LCA. IIRC..F404 is not going to be licence produced. Heck..even 414 deal is not yet inked. What if Amreekhan start playing with Indian LCA choohah? Wait for Kaveri?
Yes, this has been in my mind too - what if the current order book is due to the lack of more engines? Is everything okay on that front, I mean has GE supplied the 40 or are we still waiting on them, having received a few engines for the TDs and LSPs? If we don't address this soon, it will be another stick to beat the LCA with.

Kailash wrote:That is how short a leash IAF is having the LCA project on.
To be fair, this cannot be put on the IAF - is there any public resrouce backing this claim? Ordering enough engines is the MoD's responsibility, and if they haven't acted on getting enough engines to address production rates, that is not IAF's fault. Agree with the rest of your post.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 05 Jun 2015 18:30

Cosmo_R wrote: They leverage the economies of scale created by US purchases of these items in quantity. Even the imported infrastructure related to these FMS sales benefits from the same scale economies.

From an economy of scale POV, the Rafale is a disaster. The French don't have economies of scale and the cost increases exponentially when you import.

Done right, the LCA can have better economies of scale than Rafale.

Economy of scale is a worthless expression when it comes to operational readiness for war, or when under threat. That is why the expression was never used when India bought all those aircraft that I mentioned.

The Mirage 2000 purchase that was requested before this MMRCA saga started was because the LCA was late and "operational readiness" had to be maintained. What has happened now is that the LCA is almost there but the Rafale has not come. It appears that the LCA - late as it is will still not come in the numbers needed for operational readiness. hence there will have to be a purchase of at least a few Rafales.

Plan B is to allow IAF squadron strength to deplete to 25 squadrons or 20 before Tejas comes in numbers. This has been obvious for any keen observer for many years even if it was never called as Plan B. Plan B was not a plan. It is the default fate when older aircraft are retired and newer ones don't come in the numbers required within the anticipated timeline. You can only extend the MiG 21 lifetime so much and guess one way in which that can be done? By flying them less. We don't really want that. we are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, but we simply must choose one, not both.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 05 Jun 2015 19:04

srin wrote:To say that the Rafale is not a replacement of LCA because it is medium-weight class is a bit disingenious. The objective has always been to arrest the falling squadron numbers. Now tell me - what is causing the squadron numbers to fall ? It is the Mig-21s and Mig-27s (and Mig-23 at that time) crashing and getting obsolete (and not being upgradeable).
The MMRCA started because IAF wanted more Mirage-2000 (which isn't a medium weight fighter) which were going out of production. Then it evolved into a saga that has kept us entertained on these forums for so many years.

Yes, at that time, Tejas wasn't available but now it is. So, using the medium-class fighter bogey to shoot down Tejas is being a bit stubborn.


Why do you say "disingenuous" ? Did you see lack of sincerity in my statement? To be very frank , using such words diverts attention from your main argument which might be otherwise examined on merit just as you might do with others.

However, can you explain how a single engine light plane could be replacement for Twin engine heavier plane?

I have no idea though I can guess that Rafale could replace Vajra and Shamsher. I also have doubt that 36 could be for SFC or may be for very special missions. Both these A/cs are nearing their EOL. Upgrades will carry them thus far and no further. We do have to bridge the gap till AMCA/FGFA or equiv becomes available.

I think LCA is indeed a replacement of MIG 21/27 as indicated by its ASR. Gurus may confirm. As these are required in bulk numbers for Baki front. If it is largely meeting the requirements then let us support it and tell the world that we are going to make 1000 LCAs and some for exports at cheaper prices. You know Rs 7 per Km argument. We can do it The only hitch is few critical technologies incl engines. I am sure our engineers and Scientists are up to the challenge.

We can involve our technical institutions and private industries as well in this .

Let us use LCA to bomb the sh!t out of bakis in one or two missions then IAf can claim to have the plane in active service and we can explore export variants options.

I like the approach of IN and in no time ADA could give them Naval version for testing. That calls for huge expansion of ADA scope and funding.

Do you know how much was allotment to MNREGA/Farm Loan Waiver program or Loans advanced by Banks/LIC to Industries supporting UPA or the amounts involved in scams by congoons. LCA outgo is peanuts compare to those figures.

MNREGA $2.5(?) Bn or Rs. 11300 cr.( 2006-07) when it started.
FARM Loan Waiver Scheme $3.5 Bn(?) or 52000 cr ( 2008)
Kingfisher holds NPA 6500 cr in principal and interest. The NPAs comprising ten defaulters amount to Rs 28,152 crore, which in percentage terms is 1.73 per cent of total loans. The outstanding loan to industry at the end of December 2014 rose to Rs 22.53 lakh crore as against Rs 22.13 lakh crore at the end of March 2014.

And we have no funds. Thank you UPA.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 05 Jun 2015 20:27

shiv wrote:.... What has happened now is that the LCA is almost there but the Rafale has not come. It appears that the LCA - late as it is will still not come in the numbers needed for operational readiness. ....
..


This is the part I don't understand. If a few LCA can be inducted, why can the production not be ramped up? It does not have to be done by HAL which really has limited experience of assembly line manufacturing.

I really don't see the Rafale as a gap filler especially when only 36 are to be bought. It seems more like a sop to the French and to the IAF. Putting it into the 'SFC' deflects criticism for the half-a$$ed procurement methodology. Presumably you then shift the 40 MKIs back into the general pool.

Plan B is not a good way to run an airforce.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests