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.
Post Reply
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by pragnya »

ramana wrote:* Pragnya, You said a2A refueling is delayed. Did IAF accept that?
ramana,

no word from them on that particularly other than the retired/'unnamed' top officials generally criticising the programme. besides since the suppliers being 'foreign', does your question has any grounds?

IFR is more of a drop fit as the plumbing is taken care of and won't affect the timelines in any significant way. Radome too - this may improve the range but is not an obstacle for FOC as the 'functional' aspects of the radar have been proven to the IAF as per dr. Tamilmani, which i posted a few weeks back in another thread.

Saurav jha had a good details in his piece.
However FOC for the Tejas Mk-I is now expected to be achieved only by late 2015. This, according to Dr K. Tamilmani, Director General (Aero),DRDO, is chiefly on account of delays in receiving two significant parts from an overseas vendor that will need to be certified for FOC acceptance. These are of course a bolt on inflight refuelling (IFR) probe and a new quartz nose cone radome, both of which are being procured from different divisions of UK's Cobham. While the Tejas program was earlier expecting to receive the IFR probe by September 2014 and the quartz nose cone by November 2014, it seems that the probe will only reach Indian shores by the end of January 2015 and the first of a total three units of the new nose cone will arrive a month or so later. It is understood that IAF teams have been making visits to Cobham to lean on them to deliver these items faster.

'If Cobham had kept its delivery timelines, the idea was to wrap up ground check outs for the IFR probe in October-November and then commence flight trials says. Some 20-25 day/night flights at different altitudes and speeds would be needed to clear the IFR system and had the probe been delivered in September, it would have easily been cleared before mid-2015', says Dr Tamilmani . He also says that adding the probe itself and flying it is not an issue since it has already been integrated on the hi-fidelity Tejas simulator developed by DRDO's Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and has even been flown by test-pilots on it.

Now the new quartz nose cone supplied by Cobham replaces an indigenous one and is expected to help the Mk-I's multi-mode radar (MMR) (which has an indigenous antenna and scanner but an Elta EL/M-2032 processing back end) achieve 60 per cent more range than with the latter. The indigenous nose cone has of course already been fully qualified for all modes of the MMR but the current loss through this composite part limits the MMR's detection range to around 50 kms for a fighter sized target and this is expected to increase to more than 80 kms with the new quartz nose cone.

According to Dr Tamilmani, the first nose cone that Cobham made 'had problems' with appreciable losses which led them to making a second cone that is still undergoing structural load tests in the UK. This second nose cone will be supplied to India only in February 2015 and besides spot checks some 50 sorties will have to be flown to qualify this new nose cone. Though three Tejas flight vehicles outfitted with the MMR are ready to receive the new quartz nose cones, the delivery schedule is staggered with the remaining two being delivered at an interval of a month each after the first one. So as per Dr Tamilmani, there are no technological issues deferring FOC but merely process related ones subject to the vagaries of the foreign supplier for the two aforesaid parts.

Now while the Tejas Mk-I does boast many frontline technologies, its aerodynamic performance unfortunately cannot meet the 1995 ASR in its entirety. Truth be told the ASR agreed upon by ADA at the time would in any event have been difficult for the Mk-I to achieve in its current state with or without canards. This is perhaps a reason why only forty units of the Tejas Mk-I fighter version have been ordered till date by the IAF. An order for 16 units of the type trainer developed for the Mk-I are also expected from the IAF, with the definitive configuration for it taking to the air last month in the form of PV-6. The IAF has also had concerns about the Mk-I's turn-around time and wanted certain modifications not all of which could be executed on the Mk-I design which has obviously been frozen ages ago. Over the years there were also additional requirements raised by the IAF to keep the aircraft contemporary which included things like the integration of a supersonic drop tank and these were met according to Dr Tamilmani. Anyway concerns about maintenance apart, the Mk-I has shown its reliability by flying up to three sorties on a single day during trials in both Leh and Jaisalmer on several occasions.

More Mk-I orders are therefore not ruled out since at the end of the day the Tejas Mk-I is superior to Mig-21s of any vintage flying with the IAF today, some of which are expected to serve into the early 2020s. Moreover the Tejas Mk-I acquitted itself exceedingly well during Iron Fist (IF) 2013 with its deployed weapons being bang on target during that demonstration, a fact that is often missed by commentators in India. In a single sortie during IF-2013, the Mk-I demonstrated air-to-air capability by firing a R-73E missile and air-to-ground capability by dropping laser guided bombs (LGBs) directed by a LITENING pod carried on one of its pylons.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2014/12 ... spect.html

so, IMO, from the things from your list -
ramana wrote:Was IOC-II achieved?

Progress on six criteria?
1) Derby & Python integration
2) GHh-23 gun
3) Air 2 Air refuelling
4) braking system
5) radome
6) new radar
I guess 1, 5, & 6 are linked.
what else?
1) functionally proven with the existing radar. new Radome from Cobham (still in testing?) will take care of the range aspect.
2) gun - no info on this.
3) drop fit. not an obstacle.
4) this is licked at IOC 2.
5) awaited. in testing.
6) Uttam for LCA 2.

HAL is proposing an interim with an israeli AESA radar - http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _Radar.htm
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

pragnya wrote:It is understood that IAF teams have been making visits to Cobham to lean on them to deliver these items faster.
IAF teams? Not HAL teams?
Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Hobbes »

Now while the Tejas Mk-I does boast many frontline technologies, its aerodynamic performance unfortunately cannot meet the 1995 ASR in its entirety. Truth be told the ASR agreed upon by ADA at the time would in any event have been difficult for the Mk-I to achieve in its current state with or without canards.
Is a cause the unmet ASR spec the ITR and STR numbers which the gurus here have pointed out cannot both be met simultaneously?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Pragnya thanks. Glad its on track and thread has quitened down.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

^^^ Refering to the back and forth between Shiv Ji and Chaanakya Ji, may I humbly interject on the pilot vs soldier debate without discussing the pros and cons of the swarm attack:

A pilot is also a soldier so why do we lay greater halo to the loss of pilot - it is mostly training cost and time to train. There is no shortcut here and even a noob / rookie jock will take upwards of two years after NDA etc to commence flight ops from the line. Pilot with 10 years of flight experience and 2000 - 3000 hrs on a fighter is a very small number.

IAF has ~500 fighter planes including trainers (fighter class)- All together ~500 pilots plus if we add another ~500 pilots who are serving in the Air ranks, missiles, UAVs etc with some fighter experience, basically that is the pool of pilots available. Out of this pool pilots fully ops on type (any type) current and capable for all roles, specially lead roles are very few. For eg: for 50 M2ks today how many pilots will we have who are capable of basically using it for all roles - my guess around 20. There will be others who had qualified on all roles in the past but if we want them to do that again they need to undergo the full training on type all over again with some small shortcuts. In war time will we have this luxury of time?

Loss of a pilot does not assume loss of noobs only, and if the experienced guys go down who is left to fight using those uber expensive machines?

Refer Kargil - The IA sent its youngest & freshest lot to fight, in the IAF only those with minimum 04/05 yrs experience were sent.

The above thought is listed from IAF's perspective but is true for all Air Forces of the world.

So a pilot is no one special, it is his/her training and time plus cost to train that makes his loss / attrition more difficult to replace. Hence, unnecessary losses may be avoided in war.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by srai »

deejay wrote:... Out of this pool pilots fully ops on type (any type) current and capable for all roles, specially lead roles are very few. For eg: for 50 M2ks today how many pilots will we have who are capable of basically using it for all roles - my guess around 20. There will be others who had qualified on all roles in the past but if we want them to do that again they need to undergo the full training on type all over again with some small shortcuts. In war time will we have this luxury of time?

...
I think that is a good rational for limiting the number of combat a/c types in the IAF. Get fewer types but more of each of them. Training of pilots and maintenance crews along with inventory of parts and weaponry would all benefit. The IAF of today is not structured to fight a long-duration war.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

shiv wrote:
pragnya wrote:It is understood that IAF teams have been making visits to Cobham to lean on them to deliver these items faster.
IAF teams? Not HAL teams?
It may be a direct IAF order on the OEM for which the IAF may also bear sole responsibility.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

shiv wrote:
pragnya wrote:It is understood that IAF teams have been making visits to Cobham to lean on them to deliver these items faster.
IAF teams? Not HAL teams?
Indian embassy may have an Air Attache. He might have visited Chobham with his colleague/s. Typically such work is deputed to whosoever is in country. Air Attache would be busy with Hawk and other Britain related stuff too.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by srin »

chaanakya wrote:
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.
Not yours, but IAF's.
If they wanted only twin engines, why did they evaluate Gripen and F16 ?
If you want a heavier plane with twin engines, you already have one. And we will shortly have 272 of them.
If you want a lighter plane, then you (will) have the LCA Mk1.

The stress on only medium category when adequate and cheaper substitutes are available is disingenuous.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

srai wrote:
deejay wrote:... Out of this pool pilots fully ops on type (any type) current and capable for all roles, specially lead roles are very few. For eg: for 50 M2ks today how many pilots will we have who are capable of basically using it for all roles - my guess around 20. There will be others who had qualified on all roles in the past but if we want them to do that again they need to undergo the full training on type all over again with some small shortcuts. In war time will we have this luxury of time?

...
I think that is a good rational for limiting the number of combat a/c types in the IAF. Get fewer types but more of each of them. Training of pilots and maintenance crews along with inventory of parts and weaponry would all benefit. The IAF of today is not structured to fight a long-duration war.
I don't see how that solves the problem. If for every 50 aircraft of a type we have 20 fully ops pilots the attrition of pilot still remains a problem.

No, the argument for common or minimum types of aircraft is logistics and maintenance and not pilot availability.
member_28932
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_28932 »

ramana wrote:Was IOC-II achieved?

Progress on six criteria?
1) Derby & Python integration
2) GHh-23 gun
3) Air 2 Air refuelling
4) braking system
5) radome
6) new radar
I guess 1, 5, & 6 are linked.
what else?
1) functionally proven with the existing radar. new Radome from Cobham (still in testing?) will take care of the range aspect.
2) gun - no info on this.
3) drop fit. not an obstacle.
4) this is licked at IOC 2.
5) awaited. in testing.
6) Uttam for LCA 2.

HAL is proposing an interim with an israeli AESA radar - http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _Radar.htm[/quote]

One question here to anybody who knows.

Redomee was not only to be made of Quartz but redome design change including the plug and down nosecone to improve the aerodynamic performance was under consideration. Has theese design changes been carried out?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

financial express:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/abba/mon ... money.html

Swedish defence minister Peter Hultqvist will be visiting India from June 9 to June 12, and it is likely that discussions between him and defence minister Manohar Parrikar will include the possibility of India re-looking at Saab’s Gripen NG single-engine light combat planes for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

What has led to the possibility of Gripen being back on the circuit is the fact that while the government has ordered 36 Rafales from French Dassault Aviation, outside the tender for the 126 MMRCA tender, Parrikar has been saying that the IAF may get low-end, light combat planes to replace its MiG-21 fighters.

Meanwhile, MoD’s official spokesperson Sitanshu Kar tweeted: “Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist to visit #HAL and #BEL in Bengaluru during his visit to India next week.”

Ahead of President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Sweden last week, secretary (West), ministry of external affairs, Navtej Sarna, had told mediapersons that “Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist, would be in India for two days beginning June 10 during which he would explore the possibility of engaging with New Delhi in the defence sector.”

With changed FDI rules and the ‘Make in India’ campaign, it is expected that the Swedish government would look at India as a manufacturing base, Sarna said.

During Mukherjee’s recent visit to Stockholm, the Swedish government had discussed the possibility of Gripen filling the gap in the IAF’s depleting fleet strength, owing to plans to phase out MiG-21s from 12 combat squadrons beginning 2016-17. Both countries have decided to restart the bilateral strategic dialogue after four years, besides finding ways for investment by the Nordic country in India’s defence sector under ‘Make in India’.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

We should buy 40 Gripens and then think about 46 JSFs. 126 MMRCA done.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

36 Rafale
40 Gripen
46 JSF
36 F22
66 EF2K
111 PAKFA
240 SU35 MKI
... did I miss anything else?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

Karan M wrote:We should buy 40 Gripens and then think about 46 JSFs. 126 MMRCA done.
some J-20, JF-17, Eurofighters, Gripen E/F, Su-25 also :lol:
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by UlanBatori »

Aditya, you forgot 250 Fiat G-91s. 150 Messerchmitt 262 Schwalbes (arre: JET airplane onlee yaar!) . 400 Mitsubishi Zeros. 600 Japanese Yokosuka MXY7 Ohkas - one for each Member of Lok Sabha with enough left over the Senior Cabinet Secretaries.

How "Make in India" is used to "Screw India":
Note Gripen Deal above: Parikkar is going down the well-trodden path of Rajiv Gandhi/Bofors etc.
Let me repeat Stage 3 of what I posted a page back:
Business competitive interest also dictates that once the competitor is close to going into production, there is only a small window left to sabotage their technology, by offering them a slightly superior product at a substantially lower cost - dumping, even.
Gripen deal should be looking irresistibly sweet about now... bitter in 15 years.
Look at history: Back in WW2, my grand-uncle used to work in an Ordnance Factory near Kolkatta. India used to supply a good deal of the artillery shells for the Brish1t Empyah. Since the Japanese were defeated at the Assom border, and the POK war of 1948 and the China war of 1962 and the Kashmir/East Bengal war of 1971, the need for mountain artillery was clear as crystal.

Yet in 1999, the Indian govt had to go pay for artillery SHELLS (not the guns, mind you, the dumb SHELLS) at outrageous prices on the arms black market to dislodge the pakis from Kargil. Probably 200 of the 500 dead jawans, and the dead IAF pilots, died because the mofos had not bothered to accumulate enough AMMUNITION to blast the entire peaks off the planet.

So what is so great about a Bofors shell? It has External Burning aka Base Burning. Some propellant is ejected out the sides, to burn in the separated flow at the base of the shell, and compensate Base Drag and give it that extra oomph to get over a tall mountain. Is THAT so big a deal for the nation that specialized in fireworks? Could Tenkasi Monkey Brand Fireworks, or whoever supplies the 4-stage Solid-Propelled Pattern Explosion Specials for all the Indian festivals, not have done that with a bit of time and funding, hain?
New Delhi and Bangalore need some nice broad avenues like they have in LaHore and Islamagood. With nice lamp-posts, marked 'Defence Minister'. 'Director of Long-Term R&D'. 'Admiral Rear-Lobbi', 'Air-Cheap Masala' etc.
Perhaps BRF could initiate some Petitions to the President of India on these issues. Anmolize them on fB and Teetar and YouTube. Only way I see to get them out visible.
India HAS a nice Light Combat Aircraft platform. Someone needs to explain this to the Indian public. It even LOOKS like a Gripen. I think it has far more engineering talent inside than the Gripen.
How many Saab fighters have actually been used in combat and with what result? As many as Gnats/Ajeets built by Indian HAL? As many MiGs as built by Indians? Even as many HF-24s built by Indians? The Saab fighter is simply a means of advertising PR for the Turbo-Charged Saab Downhill Racer cars that manage to get all black-filled circles in Consumer Reports.
The Modi govt is going down the well-trodden Bofors path again. Sad.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 09 Jun 2015 01:24, edited 1 time in total.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by UlanBatori »

Bottom line: If, starting TODAY, Saab can manufacture Gripen Light Combat aircraft in India in time for the IAF, then why can't INDIA manufacture Tejas Light Combat aircraft in India in time for the IAF? This stinks to Houristan.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by fanne »

Lca is in an unfortunate place, Hal does not want to manufacture it, iaf does not want it, politicians (of secular verity) can't get bribe money, for Ada it is a science project, for babudom it is punishment posting. Who wants Lca again?
member_27845
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by member_27845 »

If the IA / IAF brass want $$$ / Natashas / etc , I think DRDO / HAL / Avadi should have the budget to take care of these needs , if it helps in getting orders for desi products.

The DRDO / HAL / Avadi should ensure customer " satisfaction " in all respects and not just product design and build quality

I feel this a lot cheaper in the long run than paying top $$$ and importing stuff and becoming a captive customer for decades
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

The problem is this..

if mr parikkar can't understand LCA, then none of the babooze can.
forgedaboud mathy saab for a sec
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by srai »

deejay wrote:
srai wrote:{quote="deejay"}... Out of this pool pilots fully ops on type (any type) current and capable for all roles, specially lead roles are very few. For eg: for 50 M2ks today how many pilots will we have who are capable of basically using it for all roles - my guess around 20. There will be others who had qualified on all roles in the past but if we want them to do that again they need to undergo the full training on type all over again with some small shortcuts. In war time will we have this luxury of time?

...{/quote}

I think that is a good rational for limiting the number of combat a/c types in the IAF. Get fewer types but more of each of them. Training of pilots and maintenance crews along with inventory of parts and weaponry would all benefit. The IAF of today is not structured to fight a long-duration war.
I don't see how that solves the problem. If for every 50 aircraft of a type we have 20 fully ops pilots the attrition of pilot still remains a problem.

No, the argument for common or minimum types of aircraft is logistics and maintenance and not pilot availability.
Valid point.

My point works when there are only two or three types instead of seven. So with fewer types (say three types), you have a larger pool of fully qualified pilots for each type since the quantity is greater for each. Let's say the IAF had 200 each of MKI, Rafale and LCA. For each type, the IAF would have around 80 fully qualified pilots for all roles. The situation of losing 10 of these pilots out of 80 would be a lot less critical than losing 10 out of 20. It may also be possible to increase the number of fully qualified pilots per type with less types involved.

Question: How many rotation on types do the IAF pilots do in their career?
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by RamaY »

batoriji

Prophetic onlee...
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

So back to whines at drop of a hat. Grippen could be to incentive the French.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Gripen is a Tejas stopper and that's what its being pitched for. If we have to incentivize the French, why didn't we engage with the EF team or even (gawsh) the Russians publicly on the Su-35 or Su-30 upgrade without it being hush hush?
From news so far:
IAF :(( :(( about fleet strength
Parrikar :shock: :shock: at cost of 126
Modi does :idea: at 36
Parrikar goes 8)
Dassault goes :mrgreen:
IAF goes :|
So now enter Gripen
People who realize how important Tejas is go :-? :x
Rest of world goes :lol: :-?
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

Srai ji, No, the training time and cost do not reduce and ratio for fully ops on all roles for even two/ three types does not improve from what I have said earlier. Basically, it is very time taking and costly to train pilots to the level of proficiency for the degree of complexity modern aircraft throw up. While flying skills are less of a challenge, mission familiarity, equipment familiarity and delivery of the ever costly weapons is a highly skilled and precise job which really takes a lot of practice - simulated and real.

Imagine training one pilot for a 04 aircraft mission which requires total 08 hours of flying with eight starts and switch off cycles. Now, imagine doing it for 500 pilots. It is really difficult to keep finding 04 aircraft with 03 other pilots to fly the formation for 01 trainee and get him/ her to the requisite flying standards. Mostly, it requires a lot of operational planning and hence Line Sqns are not the right place for standard training. Therefore, we have places like MOFTU and OCU.

Now, suppose you trained on type 77 and graduated to Bis and then BISON, all three are different types for the pilot and will involve separate techincal training, conversion on type flying training and then role training that those types are good for.

Add to this there is constant 'currency' requirements. For eg: If I as a pilot have last done my bombing within 'X' period I may be current for bombing on type. As soon as the time is 'X +' my currency lapses and perforce I will need supervised / instructional / check flight before being cleared for bombing again. How, does it happen that my 'currency' is allowed to lapse? Well, there are limited ranges and even more limited slots plus the relevant bombs may not be available and hence my 'currency' may lapse. Or I missed because, I broke my shoulder bone while playing a cricket match or fractured a leg while trying to ride stairs on a Bullet 500 cc.

There is no standard on how many types of aircraft one may change on to. Once, line flying commences mostly on Mig 21's, 27's, Jaguars the pilot stays on type for around 06 years (not a rule) before courses like Flight Instructors course or FCL/FSL/HCL or Test Pilot's course become open. Based on merit the pilots are routed to these courses and then the journey is different. Out of these courses FCL/FSL/HCL is the highest rated course.

If one is a QFI, expect a 03 yr tenure in training command and then return to Line Sqns where a re conversion is required even if going back to original squadrons.

Once a pilot completes tenure as a CO of flying sqn his flying days are effectively over with mostly staff and headquarters posting. A lucky few come back as Station Commanders and AOC's etc and get some flying, others are mostly warming seats in hope to get some flying.

If you ask me, an IAF pilot is truly repaying all expenses on his / her training from 06th year of his / her flying to the 18th year. Out of this exclude a lot (approx 60%) of people who are out for around 03 yrs because of courses and training command duties. Another 01 year around the 12th year of service for Staff College. So pilot availability is and will be restricted. Notice, the type of aircraft plays no role here. Plus cross type familiarity is a great benefit in actual ops.

So what happens when you lose a 10 yrs of experience pilot with approx 1500 hrs of flying experience behind him? How do you find his replacement? How long will it take? How much will it cost?

The modern aircraft are very complex and prohibitively expensive and IMHO, it is criminal to let anyone take a chance with it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

KaranM, , The Grippen was a MMRCA competitor. Its a Rafale stand-in. Not for LCA substitute.
Rafale is not only about IAF woes but something else. Its about Areva deal.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Deejay, "Once a pilot completes tenure as a CO of flying sqn his flying days are effectively over with mostly staff and headquarters posting. A lucky few come back as Station Commanders and AOC's etc and get some flying, others are mostly warming seats in hope to get some flying. "

Is this because of airframe scarcity?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

ramana wrote:KaranM, , The Grippen was a MMRCA competitor. Its a Rafale stand-in. Not for LCA substitute.
Naam ke waste. In reality, its basically a Tejas stopper since there is little between a Tejas follow on and the Gripen NG. If we take a look at the Tejas Mk2 (especially the Naval version), its well on the way to a NG. The NG is nothing but an expanded Gripen C, packed with whatever Selex and other world OEMs can provide. If Tejas was not about indigenous industry, we can actually do the same.

The Swedes knew this & hence ran a very effective FUD campaign via the usual suspects to run down the LCA program @ time of MMRCA etc. It didn't quite work out because the gap between the Rafale/EF/FA-18 vs the Gripen NG type is fairly substantial. And the IAF went for the best.

Look at the Swiss contest as well. Again, there, the Gripen NG was nowhere in the picture versus the EF/Rafale in performance.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Scrib ... ipen+swiss
(First link)

BTW, the MMRCA contest itself was not really "M" but more like MRCA since both single engined and twin engined fighters were in the same group with no real analysis done about which type brought what to the table.

The "minimum benchmarks for which the aircraft competed" were mostly based off the Mirage 2000-V. No kidding. That's what allowed real clunkers like the MiG-35 to claim they met the IAF requirements and even the Gripen NG to be in the competition.

Problem is that in the 2020 timeframe, let alone the 2030s, most of the MRCA competitors will be hardpressed versus the truly advanced types which are proliferating both SAMs and otherwise.

The Gripen NG for instance was dropped by the Norwegians once they analyzed the PAKFA/T-50 threat. They chose the JSF instead.

In our case, we face advanced SAMs - S3XX and the J-20 style platforms. For A2A, the EF is better. Larger radar (100 nm class in the MSA version itself). For strike the Rafale. It offers useful A2A with Meteor and passive/offboard sensors.
The Gripen is simply not good enough in either role. Falls between two stools and neither has the range to payload to be a proper deep striker like the Rafale OR the raw brutal performance of the EF.
Rafale is not only about IAF woes but something else. Its about Areva deal.
Yes, we know that. But that doesn't mean we buy the Gripen and add another logistical challenge of an unproven type to our menagerie and that too a fighter which brings little to the table vs a Rafale.

If an analysis is done of "adding 90 Gripens" with attendant lifecycle costs versus 36 more Rafales and we factor in the impact of the Gripen on domestic programs (all negative given prior tactics), we will know its nothing but another Vickers tank in the making.
Last edited by Karan M on 08 Jun 2015 19:32, edited 2 times in total.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

@KaranM: No, it is mostly because of vacancies and IAF requirements in staff positions with relevant flight ops requirement. Plus, beyond 40 yrs of age, all the regular high "g" maneuvering isn't sustainable for even the fittest.

There are many on the civil street doing high "g" aeros even close to 60 and beyond but it is a personal thing on private money. Trust me lots of back bones get damaged by the time one hangs up the flying over all.

Even the Station Commanders and AOC's get very little flying.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Understood, and just backs your point about how "exclusive" the fighter pilot pool really is, given numbers we have and training required.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

we are all actually like :oops: with so many illogical decisions been made thus far.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by RamaY »

Are we doing a mistake mixing LCA program with MMRCA and other programs?

My understanding is that LCA involves many plug-n-play technologies. Am I wrong?

What is complete & ready in LCA program, that can be plug-n-play on another platform? Radar/HUD/Avionics/????
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

If you read up on the MMRCA competitors you'll get an idea of which platform fits where and what its antecedents were.

There is no plug and play technology. You can develop variants of items from one platform for the other but they need to be customized.

You can't take Tejas tech and plug it into some MMRCA overnigh to indigenize it. Or vice versa.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by tsarkar »

Derby firing will need to await new radomes.

Why was not the radome and the radome manufacturer of the highly successful LUSH upgrade used? http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/02/ ... -lush.html

Here's that radome up close & personal http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 766191.jpg

The LUSH radar & radome achieved some pretty impressive results http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07/ ... -test.html

I'm sure the Program Managers would not have overlooked this, and maybe the issues were tougher.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Indian Antenna + EL/M-2032 passed testing but did not enter production.

For production aircraft, HAL will use fully imported EL/M-2032 including its own factory fitted antenna like it used for Sea Harrier and Jaguar IM upgrades. Reason being, in production, integrating the antenna with the back end processor & again testing it would've been a pain. For H&D purposes, it'll come labeled MMR from Israel itself. Happy to be corrected on this, though, but no one is manufacturing MMR antenna here or integrating the two for production aircraft.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

ADA ordered a bunch of scanners and servomotor mechanisms from ECIL. These units were integrated on seven LCA.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by RamaY »

Karan M wrote:If you read up on the MMRCA competitors you'll get an idea of which platform fits where and what its antecedents were.

There is no plug and play technology. You can develop variants of items from one platform for the other but they need to be customized.

You can't take Tejas tech and plug it into some MMRCA overnigh to indigenize it. Or vice versa.

Thanks. I was just thinking loud if any of the LCA program benefits can be realized on other (existing) platforms.

The difference between program management & project management is that in project management the emphasis is to achieve project goals/objectives where as in program management the emphasis on "benefit realization" even if one or more projects get deprioritized/cancelled/delayed.

In otherwords, a project is considered "failed/delayed" if it doesnt meet "Scope/Schedule/Cost" constraints/goals; but a program is considered "successful" if it achieves the stated benefits (IAF squadrons increased to 42 with blah blah technology and capability parameters) are achieved even if one or more component projects "Fail/Cancelled/delayed".

Hope you get the drift... me think LCA is a program.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

not a plug-n-play, but plug-n-learn-n-adapt. certain areas we did leverage LCA LRUs to upgrade MKI components (shaktivel project). the play happens by way of choosing the the architecture and design - COTS, I/F BUS, protocols and stds, stores mgmt, etc.

of course, we can rightfully complain IAF that they used LCA to enhance MKI platform, and ditched it! the capability and maturity that comes with building the state-of-the-art is never gotten by buying PAKFA or Rafale from firang nations.
Last edited by SaiK on 08 Jun 2015 20:58, edited 1 time in total.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

I am actually a little worried with the proposal of putting the EL/M 2052 on the LCA Mk1.5? It has already been embargoed once.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

The LCA quartz radome is it made from composites?
I get the need for quartz for R/F transparency requirements.

How was the local radome made?

Also is Derby like AMRAAM?

Tsarkar, If the new AESA radar is fitted will the Derby work with it? Right now the specs say monopulse ELTA radar with Derby similar to the LUSH.

To my simple mind looks like the MMR goals have changed to AESA radar from the old MMR.
KaranM?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

Rama
The LCA is a program and a project. One has come good, other will. Its but a matter of time now.
As regards what can be leveraged from the LCA? Pretty much everything, it would take far too much time to type it out.
Everything from testing, certification, systems development.
IAF upgrades already leverage Tejas experience. Multiple DRDO programs likewise.
Suggest you see:
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48651.html
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 011%20.pdf
http://www.tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas%20Brochure-2015.pdf
http://www.nal.res.in/pdf/NAL%20contrib ... rogram.pdf
Post Reply