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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 03 Oct 2015 07:54

SaiK wrote:shiv ji, on the fuselage <-> spar stress, we have this engine as dead weight that is given (not changeable). now, does that come in way of reducing the fuselage weights because it has to have the minimum strength to take a 1T load dead weight on ground?
[plus the forward thrust stress]

I am wildly guessing that max fuselage weight with engine, fuel, avionics, cockpit etc is about 5000 kg. A 25 kg reduction is no use. But a 250 kg reduction, to 4750 kg is 5%. Assuming an airframe is stressed for a maximum of 10G we see that the spars have to bear a temporary stress of 50 tons if the fuselage weight is 5000 kg and 47.5 tons if the fuselage weight is reduced by 250 kg.

If the engineering is dead accurate - the wing attachment structures could be modified to take 47.5 tons max rather than 50 tons. That may not sound like much - but a few hundred grams here and there in a hundred different places could lead to considerable weight savings. This corresponds to what I think are "best practices" in aircraft design.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 03 Oct 2015 08:17

we are all fitting a tremendous number of theories to explain the Mk1A. I hope its not the simplest explanation - HAL unable to cope and trying to buy time with a carrot.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kakkaji » 03 Oct 2015 08:22

Karan M:

I am guessing that 3 can be done much faster (perhaps with an Israeli EW pod) than 4 and 5.

In that case, 3 can be put on the second batch of 20 (also retrofitted to the first batch of 20). Call it Mk1A

4 & 5 can be on the third batch onwards. Call it Mk1B.

Weight reduction can also be done in tranches. The easiest 100kg in one batch, then the more difficult stuff and so on.

Am I making sense?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 03 Oct 2015 08:36

Singha wrote:we are all fitting a tremendous number of theories to explain the Mk1A. I hope its not the simplest explanation - HAL unable to cope and trying to buy time with a carrot.


Now HAL has no more reasons for excuses. Let's see if HAL can deliver 4 LCA IOC2 by March 2016 and then scale up production to 16 units/year by 2019.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 03 Oct 2015 08:55

^Besides, its not like IAF is going to let them get away with excuses, given the acrimonious history between the two. Given that the IAF has been brought on board with this plan, one has to agree that something solid has been presented.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 03 Oct 2015 09:03

While we are waiting for LCA MK-2 which would be the type what IAF wants, it would be better to have a look at the philosophy of hugely successful production run of F-16 program of US.


Just checking Wiki entry on variants of F-16 throws up interesting insight ( we knew but do not follow)
production of F-16 was in Pre-production and Production variants.
Pre-production had two variants YF-16 (two prototypes) and F-16-FSD which was ordered by USAF totalling 8 in number.

Thereafter , it has gone into full scale production in Blocks. Each successive blocks denote minor or major changes in F-16

The first off the lot was F-16 A(single seater) and F-16 B( twin seater) ( blacks 1-20)

F-16/A -375 nos
F-16/B-125 nos.

F-16 C/D Block 25 209/35 nos ( radar, avionics and FCS, MFD, precision night attack capability.. etc)

F16 C/D Block 30/32 733 nos ( included export variants) ( INS, GPS, Litening Pod, New engine,JDAM,improved EW Suite..)

F-16 C/D Block 40/42 615 nos (exported)( LANTRIN pod,, NVIS, JSOW, WCMD, Paveway etc)

F-16 C/D Block 50/52 and +

F-16 E/F ( for UAE )

F-16 A/B Block 15 ADF

F-16 A/B Block 15 OCU

F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU

F-16C/D Block 30 F-16N/TF-16N For NAVY

F-16CJ/DJ Block 50D/52D For SEAD Mission of USAF

F-16C/D Block 52M For Greece

F-16 Özgür For Turkey

F-16I Sufa For Israel

A-16 For CAS ( Not produced)

F/A-16 Retrofitted existing F-16 Block 30/32 for CAS and BAI

F-16A(R) for Netherlands

F-16 Recce Reconnaissance variant

RF-16A/C For Danish AF.

There are other variants also listed and many are country specific ( as also quoted above)

Clearly USAF was on board fully to give bulk orders in initial lots and later secured huge orders from other countries. Each successive blocks featured enhancements or major improvements from its previous iteration and as and when new tech became available.The cost of development got amortised easily due to huge orders. This is one highly successful programe of US . I am quite confident that we could adapt these philosophies to suite our needs and requirements and develop a successful LCA program in Block mode.

For full details please refer to wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_D ... n_variants

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3610
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Paul » 03 Oct 2015 09:24

Their was a news item some time ago the Israel was going slow on the Derby supply for testing on Tejas we had pull from stock for the Harrier. Might want to be prepared for these speedbumps as well.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 03 Oct 2015 09:44

Paul wrote:Their was a news item some time ago the Israel was going slow on the Derby supply for testing on Tejas we had pull from stock for the Harrier. Might want to be prepared for these speedbumps as well.
The problem about some reports is that we will never know if they are paid news items from competitors.

Defence nowadays is all about big business - the actual defence part is important only to us - for the rest it is sales sales and more sales

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3610
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Paul » 03 Oct 2015 11:59

Livefist ‏@livefist 15m15 minutes ago
Ready to induct 120 LCA Mk1 on 2 conditions: higher production rate & proof/demo of radar/missiles/IFR: IAF chief Arup Raha

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 03 Oct 2015 12:18

Livefist ‏@livefist 40m40 minutes ago
Need more than 36 Rafales. At least 6 squadrons of MMRCA type required. Can be other than Rafale: IAF chief Arup Raha

Livefist ‏@livefist 40m40 minutes ago
Work has begun on India's 5th gen AMCA. 15 year schedule planned: IAF chief Arup Raha

Livefist ‏@livefist 33m33 minutes ago
Ready to induct 120 LCA Mk1 on 2 conditions: higher production rate & proof/demo of radar/missiles/IFR: IAF chief Arup Raha

Livefist ‏@livefist 23m23 minutes ago
Déjà Vu: 'Hope to conclude deal for 36 Rafales by the end of this calendar year': IAF chief Arup Raha

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21057
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 03 Oct 2015 12:25

Finally some clarity from the chief himself.This is v.good news.This now calls for HAL/ADA to deliver.As Ramanna has said,
Only if you build in quantity you will find the nitty gritty issues. By throttling the initial production the system is ensuring LCA bugs will not be discovered
,a higher prod. rate is essential for it to be a genuine replacement for the hundreds of MIG types awaiting retirement. Economics have also come into the picture,as by now everyone knows that funds are limited and there is a limit as to what the GOI can afford from abroad. If e are able to build 16/yr initially,it surely can be raised to 20+ so that by 2030 we would have at least 240+ aircraft. 272+ MKIs,supported by the upgraded med. aircraft (MIG-29s/M2Ks) and Rafales would give approx. another 140+,100+ UG Jaguars,but it would still leave another 150-200 if we want the 45 sqd. magic fig. Would it be poss. for HAL/ADA to get a pvt. manufacturer to also build the LCAs in parallel under licence,or would the establishment veto that prospect?

Rohit,tx for that piece of v.imp news.So the CoAS has finally come to the conclusion that another type of MMRCA could serve us well! That opens up the game to the Gripen,MIG-29/35,etc.The cost will be the deciding factor since the Rafale will eat up so much of the IAF's budget.

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 » 03 Oct 2015 12:38

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Guys. In case folks are not able to read between the lines, let me put this out here in open, especially the "sensitive" one.

1. The Rafale requirement is NOT tactical. The Rafale is meant primarily for nuke strike role with air dropped /cruise missile equipped nukes.

2. That is the Air Force trying to remain relevant/retain a nuke strike role. Sorry, that is so mid 20th century and is not required anymore.

3. The nukes are going to be on IN subs and there will be land based component. That is the crux of it. The land based thing is probably going to be with the Army if the Prithvi stuff is any experiene.

4. The IAF is Nook Nood (or will be soon) after the Mirage 2K. That is the cold fact. And it doesn't like it.

Now remove the IAF's long-schlong measuring contests with the Navy and Army and recognise that the the IAF really has NO strategic strike role (oops, that must hurt for every airforce anywhere always pride itself as the long arm that can strike deep and hard into the enemy and historically had the strategic role, but that is what technology has done) and evaluate the IAF's role in the cold reality of it being a tactical force that will be focused on air dominance/ superiority and tactical strike and battlefield close air support (there too, it is getting squeezed by the army's air wings), then somethings stand out VERY clearly.

a. The Rafale is NOT needed. It is too expensive and really doesn't bring much to the table in a purely tactical role
b. The SU-30 and the LCA together serve our tactical strike needs (both longer range and short range) much better
c. Same is true with air superiority and battle field CAS, where the Rafale will be too few in numbers and also doesnt bring anything to the table the other two don't do to justify that acquisition.

Yes, Karnad and others are right. The Rafale /MMRCA is NOT needed. What you need are updated SU-30s and rolling out 250 LCAs in Mk1, MK1A (the MK1 will get upgraded into MK1A eventually) and Mk2.

The IAF frat boys who want long-schlong contests with the Army and Navy can go jump.

Yeah. If the HAL manages to take 200Kg off the landing gear, thanks to the design spiral which I wrote about earlier, the overall weight reduction will be much higher than 200Kg. For e.g., the 200Kg of the landing gear is behind the CG, so depending on the lever arm's length from the CG, you probably are looking at taking around 50 to 100kg off the ballast in the nose! . So your weight reduction is actually 250Kg. Now, that will probably go through another round of optimisation (your empty weight is no 250kg less) and you probably shave off another 20kg off the landing and 10kg of ballast (say), and you get something like 300Kg off! And if you put in OBOGs and take out heavy oxygen air tanks or whatever they are using the MK1, you probably are looking at more gains in the empty weight . Sure take off the remaining ballast and put in the AESA and you are done.

member_28397
BRFite
Posts: 234
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28397 » 03 Oct 2015 13:21

rohitvats wrote:Livefist ‏@livefist 33m33 minutes ago
Ready to induct 120 LCA Mk1 on 2 conditions: higher production rate & proof/demo of radar/missiles/IFR: IAF chief Arup Raha


still putting conditions :shock: seems like IAF still didn't put her heart in Tejas time they get ultimatum for every 3 Tejas flying in IAF colors they will get one trophy Rafale. :evil:

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 03 Oct 2015 13:59

nileshjr wrote:I, personally, hold MoD (and GOI in general) for failure of the programs. It was their responsiblity to ensure all stake holders - IAF, ADA, HAL - work with synergy.


agree. should have been done eons ago. seems MOD(I) has wielded his/it's authority (behind the curtains ofcourse 8) ) unlike the UPA regime, and made all stake holders - 'aware' of the bankruptcy in the Rafale deal and the fact that 'only' LCA can fill up the numbers that IAF needs at much reduced LCC with 'operational independence' with a couple of SU 30MKI sq thrown in (probably).

i guess it is time to put a moratorium for a few years on new acquisitions (except the ones on going and emergency ones) so that support/spare/maint/overhaul ecosystem is built up for the existing squadrons for higher availability in addition to strenghtening ADS across the board.

HAL needs to pull up socks to deliver as Mig 21/27s are up for phase out. a higher prod rate will mitigate it to some extent. btw has the MOD permitted HAL on their request to hike LCA prod rate?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 03 Oct 2015 14:08

MaharathiArjun wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Livefist ‏@livefist 33m33 minutes ago
Ready to induct 120 LCA Mk1 on 2 conditions: higher production rate & proof/demo of radar/missiles/IFR: IAF chief Arup Raha


still putting conditions :shock: seems like IAF still didn't put her heart in Tejas time they get ultimatum for every 3 Tejas flying in IAF colors they will get one trophy Rafale. :evil:


How does putting heart into the system translate into an active combat ready platform IF it is not produced on time or it does not meet the requirement of the user?

For once, how about being in the shoes of the IAF Chief and thinking in terms of getting actual combat capability to do the job done? Ordering XYZ LCA makes no difference to him or IAF unless they're delivered. And delivered on time.

Time and again, it seems the Air Defense of this country is the responsibility of ONLY the IAF...every other stakeholder is singing his own tune. HAL wants more orders but delivering on time does not seem to be their priority. Government forms a body in the form of ADA which does not have control outside its office on anything dealing with LCA. And now we have the production agency suggesting major iterative changes with main design & development agency nowhere in the picture!

In the middle of this dysfunctional system sits IAF...while there is no skin of anyone's back if HAL does not deliver on time or ADA screws on project management, all hell will break loose if IAF slips in their responsibility.

People talk about building the aeronautical complex and castigate the IAF for not being supportive above....what everyone forgets that no one seems to be bothered about helping the IAF in it's prime responsibility - defending Indian skies.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 03 Oct 2015 14:20

Tyagi’s kin took €1.05 million: ED

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article7712885.ece

One wonders how much the MMRCA was supposed to bring in. With leaders like these, is the IAF truly blameless?

Disclaimer: I am very much aware of the forest of heroes in the IAF and in no way disrespect it.

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby sharma.abhinav » 03 Oct 2015 14:22

A question to gurus please:
Is it feasible/possible that Tejas MK1A be Tejas MK2 minus the 414 engine. What I mean here is that will Tejas Mk1A incorporate all the aerodynamic improvements sought in Tejas Mk2 and still be powered by 404 engine.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 03 Oct 2015 15:56

^^^

Look there can be and will be many iterations (major/minor) to constantly improve LCA Mk.1. Why try to cramp everything into Mk.1A? Besides, you have to think about how much flight testing and validation efforts will be required on top of R&D engineering before it can be certified for production. There will be Mk.1B, Mk.1C, etc. to constantly improve the base platform in smaller incremental blocks.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Oct 2015 17:40

point is don't ask for upgrade if you have not used (in squad) it once. PERIOD!

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 03 Oct 2015 18:08

rohitvats wrote:How does putting heart into the system translate into an active combat ready platform IF it is not produced on time or it does not meet the requirement of the user?

For once, how about being in the shoes of the IAF Chief and thinking in terms of getting actual combat capability to do the job done? Ordering XYZ LCA makes no difference to him or IAF unless they're delivered. And delivered on time.

Depends. Was it a throwaway comment by the IAF Chief ("we need it work right") and or was a specific demand ("no additional orders till such-and-such capability is demonstrated")? The first case shouldn't bother us at all but, if true, the second reflects pointless obstinacy on the IAF's part.

At this point, there should not be any doubts about the integration of IFR, radar or Derby in the minds of anyone following the program (which one presumes includes the IAF). Given how far it has come, technologically speaking these are very minor hurdles and therefore do not justify delaying sanction for a ramp up in production capacity.

People talk about building the aeronautical complex and castigate the IAF for not being supportive above....what everyone forgets that no one seems to be bothered about helping the IAF in it's prime responsibility - defending Indian skies.

The alternative is to flog the IAF's MiG-21s & MiG-27s longer. The IAF's preferred solutions cannot be adopted given our budget constraints.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Surya » 03 Oct 2015 18:13

Why would the ACM make such statements?

especially in todays world people can dig up and find out that SU 30s had limited ability in the first few revs and even M2ks did not come with all missiles?

He could have limited it to HAL production levels.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 03 Oct 2015 18:21

^Pressure tactics to get the desired gold plated toys.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7534
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 03 Oct 2015 18:30

Integrated development of a brand-new homegrown product is essential to get it to full capability and service in the quickest possible time. So asking for a perfect finished product before you start using it doesn't make sense. So like the tranche/block/F1-2-3 types, the IAF should be ok with taking in limited capability fighters and use them as further development is done and at the same time taking in user feedback from operations. HAL is yet to produce enough fighters for the IAF to do even a miniature squadron. At this rate, we're going to get FOC rated fighters being sent to IAF instead of IOC2, given that we have the radome and radar testing going on right now. Maybe even IFR testing might be done by the time they ramp up production. They're that late, for many reasons.

So what should've been done? MoD should'ev cracked heads long ago but we had st anthony. So fret not, everyone is stressed and should be for that matter. Let HAL get cracking and once IAF gets its hands on a min of 4 fighters, ensure they put them to use without grumbling. Simple?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 03 Oct 2015 18:40

Arun Menon wrote:^Pressure tactics to get the desired gold plated toys.


Pressure tactics to speed up things?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 03 Oct 2015 18:54

Speaking for myself, Whether Rafale are ordered or not is a non-issue till LCA are ordered in numbers. My problem is that foreign lobbies try not only to get orders for their own products but also destroy any possibility of indigenous products ever being manufactured.

It is good to hear that IAF wants well tested LCA complete in all respects but it gave USD 2.5 Billion order for Barak-8 without a single test, zero, nil, nada test. Israeli lobby tried and is still trying to kill Akash. Army continues doing Arjun on not only Akash but on Nag, Prahaar etc.

The business about Weight reduction of 1000kg and AESA etc for Mark-1A was leaked/written for the first time by Ajai Shukla in August 2015. Now it seems that NDTV copied the details but added 7 squadrons are being ordered.

Ajai Shukla has now in the latest article stepped back from Weight reduction of 1000kg and AESA but talked about 100-120 LCA being ordered. This has now been confirmed by livefist.

I think that sum total is that IAF may been asked to lump LCA Mark-1 itself and they have been told that they are welcome to call it Mark-1A instead of three legged cheetah.
Last edited by Gyan on 03 Oct 2015 19:05, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23623
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chetak » 03 Oct 2015 19:05

It seems that this is what they really want :)


IAF wants over 100 Rafale or similar jets

New Delhi, Oct 3

Indian Air Force today said it would need at least six squadrons comprising 108 Rafale or similar jets to shore up its capabilities as it hoped that the contract for 36 French fighter aircraft would be inked by year-end.

Noting that two squadron of 18 Rafale jets each might not be enough, Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said his force would like to have at least six squadrons of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA).

He hinted that even though the Rafale is the front- runner, India may go in for another aircraft with similar capabilities "if the deal is good".

"Definitely, we would like to have MMRCA variety of aircraft.

At least about six squadrons to my mind.

Let us see, there may be some other alternatives as well," Raha said addressing a press conference ahead of the Air Force Day on October 8. He was replying to questions about the possibility of India Air Force wanting more than the 36 Rafales under a government to government deal announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his trip to France in April.

Asked if the additional four squadrons of aircraft will be Rafales or if there is a possibility of other players getting into play, Raha said, "I may wish to have Rafale.

But there are equally good aircraft.

So if the deal is good and the government decides we need to have six of similar squadron.." "There are alternatives.

I cannot say I only want Rafale.

I want capability of Rafale type aircraft.

So the government will have a look at it and based on urgency and the type of contract is signed with Dassault Aviation, further decisions may be taken by the government.

I cannot predict," he said.

Admitting that the IAF is currently "short" in terms of authorised strength of 42 squadrons, Raha said more aircraft are needed to replace many more squadrons in coming years.

"The need is there.

As Air Force, we will like to have more of these (MMRCA) but it will have to be viable in terms of cost, in terms transfer of technology and in terms of Make in India policy that the government is trying to implement.

"So if those terms and conditions are good, then I am sure we will be able to get more.

But as of now we are looking at 36," he said.

With the government cancelling the multi-billion tender for 126 MMRCA, there is renewed hope in the aviation industry that India may go in for fresh bids to fill up the gaps.

From Swedish firm Saab to US' Lockheed Martin and the France's Dassault Aviation, most of the global aircraft manufactures have offered their jets in line with the government's push for 'Make in India'

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Oct 2015 19:06

deejay wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:^Pressure tactics to get the desired gold plated toys.

Pressure tactics to speed up things?

the benefit of doubt is always against afsars in an era and setup for corruption. we have an advanced established model with loopholes to conclude.

big shots may be careful in what you say. you aren't big for no reason.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 03 Oct 2015 19:15

Surya wrote:Why would the ACM make such statements?

especially in todays world people can dig up and find out that SU 30s had limited ability in the first few revs and even M2ks did not come with all missiles?

He could have limited it to HAL production levels.


Even thats fallacious. Production levels are contingent on placed orders. It was after a lot of haggling that the order for the second 20 was placed. and then a requirement for MK2 floated, and a tender for its engines placed and L1 declared. The current rate of production is thanks to such tactics, and now suddenly the rate cant be hiked to 32+ a/c a year ...

If it hadn't been for the RMs putting his foot down, the LCA program could very well have had it.

Its about time for RM to seriously start considering appointments of service chiefs who are in sync with the Govts Make in India agenda.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 03 Oct 2015 19:31

nirav wrote:Its about time for RM to seriously start considering appointments of service chiefs who are in sync with the Govts Make in India agenda.


Agree, but apparently there is a succession plan/system set up by the congi system. Is it any wonder that the Tyagis are fouling the name of our armed forces? It is more than a whimsical fancy that make these people cry for foreign goodies.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28990 » 03 Oct 2015 19:37

I do not understand this hand wringing over the IAF's alleged lack of support for the Tejas. The IAF has been waiting for two plus decades and got only one fighter till date, that too lacking in mission critical capabilities (yes, for a CAP role BVR, RWR, IFR, EW are all critical necessities, and no - Mig 21/27 not having one or more of these is not an excuse).

HAL rona dhona over lack of orders is a farce - 40 orders are enough to start and stabilize a production line for eventual ramp up. Now with increased orders even this excuse is gone - lets see when the first squadron is operational.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3610
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Paul » 03 Oct 2015 19:40

Has the Tejas gun problem been solved? It does not seem to be a problem for the ACM as it is not listed in the preconditions

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby RoyG » 03 Oct 2015 20:08

I think if HAL doesn't let a private player take part in production of LCA and get the numbers up we are looking at F-16 flying right through the door. 120 ordered. No excuses now.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Oct 2015 20:13

ACM comments are very interesting...on the one hand the force is very weary of hal and is concerned about on time delivery of capability...on the other, there is willingness to increase numbers, something that folks were blaming iaf for. Now there is no fig leaf for production and development agencies, iaf support is out in the open. This was obvious to many, but I guess sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious..

Best part is iaf is not the one clamoring for souped up lca with AESA and what not, it is happy to order more lca at foc std. Increasingly it looks to me that the folks who promised to deliver an foc std bird at a particular timeframe are unable to do so and are now offering a carrot in the form of a mk1.a or whatever...

RoyG saar is right, no wonder every one from LM to Saab are visiting dilli

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby RoyG » 03 Oct 2015 20:31

Cain Marko wrote:ACM comments are very interesting...on the one hand the force is very weary of hal and is concerned about on time delivery of capability...on the other, there is willingness to increase numbers, something that folks were blaming iaf for. Now there is no fig leaf for production and development agencies, iaf support is out in the open. This was obvious to many, but I guess sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious..

Best part is iaf is not the one clamoring for souped up lca with AESA and what not, it is happy to order more lca at foc std. Increasingly it looks to me that the folks who promised to deliver an foc std bird at a particular timeframe are unable to do so and are now offering a carrot in the form of a mk1.a or whatever...

RoyG saar is right, no wonder every one from LM to Saab are visiting dilli


Markoji, this is the problem with HAL and this is what some forum members don't understand. HAL is in a crisis. They are run by a typical sab chalta hai attitude and they just won't be able to meet the given demand within the time frame. No amount of paradropping professionals and reform is going to make it work. For something like aircraft with such a large volume of orders, upgrades, maintenance, R&D etc. we need 2-3 aircraft makers competing. The production part is the lowest hanging fruit. The problem for HAL is, if they let a private player like TATA start making jets, what's to stop them from starting their own lab and moving into design. HAL will either shrink or get knocked off altogether.

IMO, the most ideal situation would be to cancel the Rafale deal, purchase more Su30's and get a parallel line for LCA production established and pour all the money into LCA MKIA, II and rope in private players in a big way. If HAL can't compete, let them perish.

If they can't let a private player in, LM will get their F-16 through the door and create competition by teaming up with a private player. It's their choice now.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3547
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby fanne » 03 Oct 2015 20:43

1)No official MOD statement yet on numbers and milestones. It looks like hard negations are going on and something is afoot.
2)LCA should get FOC - A fighter has to fight and hopefully win (or draw at least, or make the adversary change his plan/tactics to its detriment). A dud LCA is no good. Good news is it is almost there. Own EW/Radar and our own missiles (derby etc have been delayed/denied in not so recent past) should be certified. It can run in parallel and retrofitted. IFR, why we need with 6 refueller, or even 12 in the future. We will have 270 SU30MKI, 120 Mig 29 and mirage 2000 and 100 Jags to top off, before we would think topping off LCA. Certain tactical conditions will work to our disadvantage, but then it is small price to pay for getting LCA out of the door. Let that be Mk2 goal.
3)IAF is still reluctant, it is hoping HAL fails to deliver. ADA goofs up at the goalpost (though all indications are no FOC roadblock for production to start)
4)HAL would have wished it had nothing to do with LCA. It was happy pointing lack of order from IAF for not setting up prod line. The other excuse was that final config has not frozen. Now all that gone, the truth is HAL lacks capability. By itself, it would not be a problem, given time and resource it can overcome that, but it intent still is in question. It will be clear soon, how things are.
5)The only way out is for MOD to take leadership, which MP is doing. They should also get a private line going. We are not reaching 55-60 Sq force ( IAF projection needed to counter modernized PLAAF and PAF), without some 400 LCA. That is big enough number for 2 lines.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 03 Oct 2015 20:48

Viv S wrote: Depends. Was it a throwaway comment by the IAF Chief ("we need it work right") and or was a specific demand ("no additional orders till such-and-such capability is demonstrated")? The first case shouldn't bother us at all but, if true, the second reflects pointless obstinacy on the IAF's part.


Pointless obstinacy? Your skin in the game is no more than writing a post on a forum like this. As is mine. If things don't work out, nothing happens to your daily life, nor does it to mine. For ignorance is bliss. And none of us will get to see the real picture which IAF and its planners deal with everyday.

But for someone whose job is to ensure the defense of Indian skies 24 x 7 and without fail, everything and anything to do with a platform counts. LCA joining in large numbers in preset form (Mk1) might give a sense of achievement & fulfillment to people on the forum but it does not if does not address the requirement of the operator and allows him to do his duty, the country of origin will be hardly any solace.

At this point, there should not be any doubts about the integration of IFR, radar or Derby in the minds of anyone following the program (which one presumes includes the IAF). Given how far it has come, technologically speaking these are very minor hurdles and therefore do not justify delaying sanction for a ramp up in production capacity.


All very nice and dandy to say when one does not have the full picture. By same logic, a couple of SP aircraft should have already been with IAF. And IJT should've been already in service training rookies pilots.

The alternative is to flog the IAF's MiG-21s & MiG-27s longer. The IAF's preferred solutions cannot be adopted given our budget constraints.


IAF's preferred solution is not a cookie cutter approach which you make it to be....LCA and MMRCA are not in the same league. Whether we get Rafale or more Su-30MKI, the 7 squadron worth of slot for MMRCA will not be filled by LCA.

There is enough requirement which LCA can fill on its own. And present development with respect to LCA Mk1A vindicates IAF's earlier stand on LCA Mk1. LCA Mk1A reaches that much closer to ASR and that is the horse IAF is willing to bet on. The numbers are in the open. Question is - will the production agency manage to fill the IAF requirement?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby vasu raya » 03 Oct 2015 20:48

seems like the MMRCA question is now rephrased, an L1 fighter that brings in a production line as well and the carrot might be after the 100 run the same production line can then be rejigged to manufacture Mk2 by the private sector, also try bringing in a lot of supply chain commonality.

the bitter side, all upgrades to the SH or F-16 to bring it to Rafale's capability can be done on Paki F-16's too
China got a Boeing airliner assembly line, a much better economic investment from a national economy sense

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 03 Oct 2015 20:55

China gets a check out line for painting and interiors for the 737, and an assembly line for the A320. Getting another type for 4-5 squadrons (over and above the 2-3 rafale squadrons) will only make sense if that other type is either more MKI's or the LCA..

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 03 Oct 2015 20:57

rohitvats wrote:Livefist ‏@livefist 40m40 minutes ago
Need more than 36 Rafales. At least 6 squadrons of MMRCA type required. Can be other than Rafale: IAF chief Arup Raha

Livefist ‏@livefist 40m40 minutes ago
Work has begun on India's 5th gen AMCA. 15 year schedule planned: IAF chief Arup Raha

Livefist ‏@livefist 33m33 minutes ago
Ready to induct 120 LCA Mk1 on 2 conditions: higher production rate & proof/demo of radar/missiles/IFR: IAF chief Arup Raha

Livefist ‏@livefist 23m23 minutes ago
Déjà Vu: 'Hope to conclude deal for 36 Rafales by the end of this calendar year': IAF chief Arup Raha



Air Chief can not give statement just like that without getting clearance from Govt first. I am sure when he says all those things it means more than what words convey. It could be what Viv_S says, the option to walk away, to consider other aircrafts as well, Putting pressure on HAL and signalling AMCA. Negotiating teams from Dassault would be working overtime to decipher these signals. Must be to control price inflation, I think. And a time line. Conclude deal by December else we might talk to others. There you go, septimus_p for SU30MKI and Viv_S for F-35 or is it EuroFighter. Ray of hope is creeping through the crack.

I agree with rohitvats that IAFs primary responsibility is to defend the sky. I believe that IAF should be capable to defend the sky on a long term basis. This can not be done on the basis of merely imported maal. It could provide short term solution, like getting 36 Rafale. We can't afford more as it appears or perhaps we want to use money in MII and local industries.. For long term we have to go indigenous. Else we would be counting our inventories in number of days and weeks. And for that we need to support whatever efforts are there in that direction. And yes, there has to be synergy among the stakeholders: GOI, MoD, IAF, HAL and ADA, as they all are accountable to mango man of this country who pays for them.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 03 Oct 2015 20:59

Surya wrote:Why would the ACM make such statements?

especially in todays world people can dig up and find out that SU 30s had limited ability in the first few revs and even M2ks did not come with all missiles?

He could have limited it to HAL production levels.


And why not?

Who listens to what the IAF or Service Chief has to say? Can even the MOD ensure timely delivery of aircraft by HAL? Or ensure that the timeline promises made repeatedly by the design & development and production agency will be met? For once?

Who else apart from him is worried about the falling aircraft numbers?

If HAL can do all that it is promising to do, and if it even manages to reduce weight by 300-400 kilogram, why was it silent all along the development of LCA? If we will end up using an Israeli AESA Radar on LCA Mk1A, why was so much time wasted in development of radar? Does it even remotely appear that HAL is concerned about IAF's position and requirement?

On the contrary, it seems that HAL thought that given IAF's position, it will have to order more LCA Mk1 in present form! And came about to suggest the Mk1A route only when it realized that no amount of pressure would get IAF to commit more Mk1 numbers. And hence, till Mk2 comes along, the production capacity would remain idle. And out comes the Mk1A proposal. Something which will allow production line to hum till Mk2 comes along in 2023-24 time frame.

People on this forum have been raising aspersion about 'Imported' Air Force....Let me ask a counter question: Which 'Hindustan' does 'H' in HAL stand for?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests