What more can IAF do?
Are you serious ...
Let's see ... how about specifying realistic performance parameters in the ASR? Performance parameters derived from experience of flying the platforms for decades that LCA was supposed to replace? But no, what we have is a copy-paste of different brochures is it?
Or worse, it may have started with a realistic performance parameters, and then 1-2deg/sec kept on being added as it went up the chain, is it? Like the way, it's alleged now that Army went about specifying Multi Caliber Assault Rifle requirement?
And if you are thinking that it's only about turn-rates, think again ... how about specifying the performance aspects of the turbofan? Something like "I don't care what kind of contemporary engines are there today, give me these performance parameters, as this is required since I'm saying it is required
Wrt turn-rates here's what I'd posted sometime back ...
You may want to also refer to this post wrt lay-man pov of Turn Rates
But then again, since everybody is into merrily posting brochure/internet based "data" on Turn Rates of various platforms, I thought I should join also
ITR (Instantaneous turn rate)
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 degree , M 0.7 , 8 Gs
- M2000-5 : 23 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs
- Rafale : 25 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs
STR (Sustained turn rate)
- M2000-5 : 17 deg/s , M 0.7 , 6 Gs
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 deg/s , M 0.75 , 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s , M 0.7 , 7 Gs
Note: See how the Mach Number and the Gs required to achieve these turn rates are mentioned - "conditions" as mentioned above
Can you ask around your buddies as to what exactly was the rational of specifying the ITR of a delta planform platform (M2K) and STR of a swept-wing platform (F-16 or MiG-29), in the same single-engined-non-TV platform?
And where you are at it, pls let them enlighten us via you, exactly which brochure specified that kind of a performance?
And if your argument would be "so what, DRDO and ADA accepted this ASR, so it's not an IAF problem anymore
", pls spare us of it. Have been argued multiple times - suffice to say, two wrongs can't make anything right and moreover, disagreeing to IAF ASR would have meant no program to work on, in the first place.
Wrt criticism of weight-gain due to requirement-creep, I think you have missed the whole argument.
The "problem/pushback" is not so much with such kind of requirement creep (like R73 as WVR weapon instead of R60 - it's almost sacrilegious to expect any self-respecting AF to fight with an obsolete weapon, as is evidenced by withdrawal of R60 from active duty from it's squadrons, just because they specified for it a couple of decades back).
Only criticism can be, if IAF was fore-sighted enough with specifying the other future-proof requirements of the ASR, why miss only this one (actually, as is evidenced, in the CAG report, almost entire weapon-type specifications, seems to have not been foresighted enough - but that's a separate point of discussion).
Coming back to the topic, point is any such program, that runs for 2 decades is bound have such requirement change - so why should this program and IAF be any exception?
In fact, I'd wager so much so, that if IAF didn't specify these requirement creeps, after FSED phase and accepted the platform as it is, it would have got criticized as not strategic thinking enough. Sort of circular logic, in play.
But the issue is not per se with this score-creep ... it is with of constantly disparaging the program (not only via retired assorted bum-chums but even by serving ones) that the LCA being over-weight so, by implication, not suitable for services due to failing the ASR and thus by further insinuation, let us import a foreign platform for replacing the fast getting obsolete platforms. It's this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place.
I'm not going to touch the Kaveri turbofan specification, just now, as it not as simple as the ones listed above (though sufficient details are available in BR itself).
Now coming back to your outrageous claim that "IAF does not give soundbytes like IN
Boy if that is what you infer, after following this program over the years, I've nothing else to say. Fact is IAF is very adept is making known its’ view-point to the media either via it's retired folks or even by serving ones.
And as far as this program goes, the 99% of those media articulation by IAF is downright damning ("late
" etc) , disparaging ("three-legged cheetah
", "late-coming aircraft
" etc) and worse that of trying to cleverly package these so-called-inadequacies (many of which is because of it's own attitude and change requests) and create an artificial demand for imports
But to be fair, there're some voices (all of them are from ex-and-present IAF test pilots associated with the program, who actually flew this aircraft, provided their feedback and then validated them back) who have supported and encouraged the program - quite a few of which are available in this forum itself. But they are small minority in the sea of negativism-and-disparaging attitude by IAF towards LCA.
Indeed Dileepji was was right, when he said here
, and I quote,
Dileep wrote:Who flew her, never complained about her
Who complained about her, never flew her.
As they say, exceptions prove a rule - so wrt IAF general attitude towards LCA, it's quite evident, what it is really, regardless of your views.
You compare Navy and IAF attitude ... pls don't!! As there's no need of comparing stuff that are completely opposite of each other (examples have been given from time to time, no need of repeating it countless number of times).
How many times have IAF come out and praised the successful CLAW development or the CFRP basic structure or system integration or the basic relaxed-stability aero-design or even how many of the in-service systems or subsystems (project Vetrival, rings any bell) are direct offshoots of this program itself.
Also, pls let us know that, was it a mere coincidence, that this degree of negativism went thru the roof after the navy program started getting traction and showing results. Were they little nervous that their attitude will now get contrasted aginst and their bluff is going to getting called now ... one wonders!!
And lastly your point wrt, and I quote
tsarkar wrote:The reason I posted this was whenever IAF uses a foreign system, many forum members like characters from the “Lord of the Flies” viciously accuse them of being under the influence of Natashas without any reason or logic.
Well , let me just re-phrase it for you …The reason I posted above is because whenever IAF attitude of willful neglect and plain-disdain towards indigenous programs while tom-toming various foreign platforms gets criticized, few forum members like characters from the “Lord of the Flies” viciously accuse them of being ignorant, amateur, unpatriotic etc without any reason or logic.
Every action has an equal and … Go figure!!