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.
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 » 09 Oct 2015 16:46

Mirage 2000 did come with Super 530D and Magic from the onset,

Doubt it. The Mirage 2000s that escorted the AN32s over Jaffna for operation Poomalai probably flew with just the guns per reports of that time. There was a CAG report on the missiles for the Mirages being inducted much later (iirc). Lets face it , the M2Ks came up to full capability only much later after induction.

As for the 18 SU-30Ks, they were incapable of dropping even a dumb bomb and basically sat out the Kargil war, they could not even play escort /air defence, air dominance roles. They were the classic definition of hanger queens. So why did the IAF induct them ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 09 Oct 2015 16:53

^^ From what I know the Su-30K during Kargil was just A2A capable , it was not a multirole fighter then and the squadron was just coming up in Pune so it was kept out of conflict.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby hnair » 09 Oct 2015 16:57

Yeah, the escort for "Jaffna humanitarian airdrop" by brand new M2K were allegedly without any missiles, because they were not yet with India. I too remember the 1987 articles in Frontline about it, where the IAF sources said they were very jittery, though the SL has no serious airforce.

Although, the SU-30Ks were the training and acclimitazation ones, before the MKI started trickling in. There are photos right here in BRF, where these airframes looked heavily used and beaten up, by the time they were give back to Russia. Unless someone went up into the flap hinges and beat up the areas with a ball-peen. Those 30Ks would not have won any Hangar Queen events. Except maybe at a KSRTC depo or so

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Surya » 09 Oct 2015 17:10

The Su 30s during Kargil sat out of the main theatre but were planned if the baloon went up and the war spread

they were lined up in some places for a sweep

yes purely A2A role

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 09 Oct 2015 17:23

On a weight reduction note, how difficult (timewise) would it be to incorporate DSI on the MK1A ?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 09 Oct 2015 17:28

hnair wrote:Yeah, the escort for "Jaffna humanitarian airdrop" by brand new M2K were allegedly without any missiles, because they were not yet with India. I too remember the 1987 articles in Frontline about it, where the IAF sources said they were very jittery, though the SL has no serious airforce.
...


According to this book, Mirage-2000s were carrying two Magic-II AAMs.

The Sri Lankan Interlude 1987-90: Chapter 1 : Operation Poomalai - The Jaffna Food drop
The day was June 3rd, 1987, and the place was the Maharajpur Air Force Station near Gwalior. Home to the two elite Mirage 2000 Squadrons of the Indian Air Force, Maharajpur was one of the key airbases of Central Air Command. The time was 0530 hours. Daylight has not yet broken out, when Wg Cdr Ajit Bhavnani received received an important message. Bhavnani was the Commanding officer of the No.7 Squadron 'The Battle Axes'. He was the first CO of the Squadron after it had inducted the state of the art Mirage 2000H fly by wire fighters and was himself trained in France before the induction. He had commanded the Squadron for over three years and was preparing for his move to Air HQ after his tenure was to end on June 22nd. However fate seemed to have destined that he would fly just one more important mission for the country. The message he received was a directive to immediately move some of his aircraft to the south of the country. The destination was the HAL Airport in Bangalore. A giant Illyushin 76 was allocated to him to move supporting personnel and equipment to Bangalore airport.

At 1130 Hrs, Bhavnani took off in his Mirage 2000, followed by five of his most experienced pilots which included S/L 'Joe' Bakshi, S/L NA 'Pots' Moitra , JS 'Panne' Panesar and Keshav Sidhu. After the one and a half hour flight, the Mirages approached Bangalore airport but were directed to land at Yelahanka airfield to the north of Bangalore. The Pilots had no idea as to what their mission was. Only towards the night at around 2100 hours did the pilots get their briefing. They were to fly as escorts to a group of An-32 Transport aircraft that would be dropping relief supplies over Northern Sri Lanka.

...

Designated as 'Eagle-Mission-4', the An-32s formated and climbed upto 12000 feet altitude. As they crossed the Coramandal coast at around 1645, they were met by four Mirage 2000s led by Bhavnani who had taken off about the same time as the An-32s. The Mirages were carrying three drop tanks and two Matra Magic II Air to Air Missiles, just in case the Sri Lankan Air Force made an appearance. As it turned out later, they were not needed.
...

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 » 09 Oct 2015 17:31

Surya wrote:yes purely A2A role

Exactly. Note , no Bars radar either. So it was a plain jane radar and R73 and probably R27 and R77

A2G – again, only bombs. No missiles like Kh-59 requiring datalink. The Litening pod is useful because it give a FLIR capability. That dispenses with the need for an IRST.


There. You have the answer to that. Lot more than what the SU-30 had at induction. The LCA did precision strikes in exercises (pics and videos available online in BRF), while the SU-30K could not even drop a dumb bomb!

To summarize
The LCA as it is today has more A2A capability than the M2K and more A2G capability than the SU-30K when they were inducted into IAF service

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby hnair » 09 Oct 2015 17:36

srai, I dont remember the CAG reports, but there was a bit of a flap about sending "expensive brandnew fighters in a lightly armed fashion". Not much via nic net on past CAG reports

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 09 Oct 2015 17:46

Kanson wrote:Dated article, very much relevant to the numbers being discussed...

IAF will buy 14 Tejas squadrons, lowering costs
Ajai Shukla | New Delhi February 11, 2014 Last Updated at 00:46 IST
Today, that figure quietly swelled to well above 300, with the government indicating the IAF would have at least 14 Tejas squadrons.

Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.

In a written statement tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, Antony’s deputy, Jitendra Singh, stated, “The MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircrafts of the IAF have already been upgraded and currently equip 14 combat squadrons. These aircraft, however, are planned for being phased out over the next few years and will be replaced by the LCA.”

So far, the IAF has committed to inducting only six Tejas squadrons — two squadrons of the current Tejas Mark I, and four squadrons of the improved Tejas Mark II. In addition, the navy plans to buy 40-50 Tejas for its future aircraft carriers.


Reflect what current Chief is saying on Sqd. nos. Instead of 4 Sqd of Mk2, it is now Mk1A.

Reg. cancellation of Mk2 mentioned in ToI article, that was borne out of IAF shooting-itself-in-the-foot arguments in demanding more MMRCA type aircrafts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7mta-K7FaA

This Press conf on Airforce Day is suppose to be on the lines of "Help will always be given at Hogwarts who seeks it", but generated more smoke than clarity on LCA numbers.

So I thought the dated BS article will help to solve the mystery. Per this article, 14 Sqds. need to be replaced with LCA of Mk1 and Mk2 types and in numbers well above 300. IAF agreed to only 6 Sqds of LCA. 2 Sqds of Rafale is in pipeline. So with no change to LCA current order of 6 Sqds, How the remaining 6 Sqds [6+2= 8; 14-8= 6] will be fulfilled?

Chief talks about another MMRCA type aircraft of 6 Sqds. Is it this MMRCA that may fill the 6 Sqds gap? Answer is NO.

In the press conference, Chief mentioned to the Q of the need of more Sqds, @20:38 "as of now we are prepared only for 36" ; that is 34, current Sqd strength + 2 Sqds of Rafale.

and continues to say that after 25:38 mark, as a long term plan we are planning to have 42 Sqds by 2027. That is 42-36[34+2]= 6 Sqds. Very probable that this is the 6 Sqds that is mentioned for the new MMRCA type.

I think there is no other way to ram up the Sqd strength to 42 by 2027, by scarifying LCA Mk2. Considering Mk1 production run of 7 yrs, i.e around 2022, the production line should be utilized for LCA Mk2 and this needs to be done to maintain the current strength with MiG-21/27 retiring.

Considering Make in India policy, cost and the nightmare of negotiations & tech transfer, no other aircraft from foreign can make it other than LCA Mk2 unless Su-30 numbers are increased. IAF is not interested in Su-30 either.

From Chief words, they are not increasing or decreasing Tejas order, as 6 Sqdns was already committed and they are ready to take more. More than the 120/6 Sqds as and when they are available.

Whichever way one may look LCA orders are not going to be 120 alone.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 09 Oct 2015 17:51

vina wrote: Doubt it. The Mirage 2000s that escorted the AN32s over Jaffna for operation Poomalai probably flew with just the guns per reports of that time. There was a CAG report on the missiles for the Mirages being inducted much later (iirc). Lets face it , the M2Ks came up to full capability only much later after induction.

As for the 18 SU-30Ks, they were incapable of dropping even a dumb bomb and basically sat out the Kargil war, they could not even play escort /air defence, air dominance roles. They were the classic definition of hanger queens. So why did the IAF induct them ?


What's with putting the horse before the cart?

Mirage-2000 coming w/o missile when inducted is NOT same as Mirage-2000 w/o missile firing capability at time of induction! LCA at IOC-2 stage is WITHOUT BVR firing capability; it fires the R-73E in this configuration but not the gun. And god forbid, if yellow matter hits the fan, it will also sit out of combat like those Su-30K.

But like Su-30K, IAF is inducting them for exactly the same purpose...raise a cadre of pilots and engineers who're familiar with the a/c and can form the nucleus for future expansion.

Frankly, all these are arguments to somehow show IAF giving preferential treatment to foreign stuff but treating LCA in a different manner are getting stale!

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 09 Oct 2015 18:25

rohitvats wrote:...LCA at IOC-2 stage is WITHOUT BVR firing capability; it fires the R-73E in this configuration but not the gun. And god forbid, if yellow matter hits the fan, it will also sit out of combat like those Su-30K.

...


IOC-2 is fairly capable from combat perspective:

  • A2G -> 450kg HSLD, 1000lb GP, 250kg HSLD, Practice bombs [CCRP/CCIP modes]
  • PGM -> Griffin-3 LGB and Paveway-2 LGB w/ Litening Pod
  • AAM -> R-73 w/ HMD and multi-mode radar
  • Drop tanks -> 1200ltr, 800ltr and 725ltr
  • EW -> RWR and chaff/flares

Not to forget, IOC-2 standard LCA showed its multi-role capability during Iron-Fist 2013 where it dropped LGBs followed by AAM launch against an aerial target all in one sortie. They also flew multiple sorties a day to prove its combat turn around time.
Last edited by srai on 10 Oct 2015 06:21, edited 2 times in total.

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 » 09 Oct 2015 18:39

HAL has gained experience in trimming weight by working on the landing gear of NP-2 that is lighter than NP-1. Along with re-arranging the internals, Mk-1A is a low risk option as Mk2 is developed.

Yes. As long as someone doesn't start that 100% indigenous whine fest again. Which is what you can guarantee the Natashas and Shovelers are going to do next.

I don't see Mk2 entering squadron service before 2025.

MK2 is now MMRCA class. So there you are. Exactly what the IAF chief wants as additional MMRCA squadrons in addition to the 2 Rafales. MK2s.

I'm willing to wager there will be 200+ Tejas in IAF service. Like Akash. There are barely a handful of other fighters on sale, and manufacturers are loathe to transfer technology, making Tejas the only viable option for the IAF's 42 squadrons.

Yes. I just hope this finally dawns on the IAF. All promises of wholesale transfer of F16 or Gripen production lines are a monkey trap. A classic bait and switch that will perpetuate dependency and with all strings attached.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 09 Oct 2015 19:06

Mirage-2000 coming w/o missile when inducted is NOT same as Mirage-2000 w/o missile firing capability at time of induction!


Rohit sir, that's kind of the point.

If the IAF/MOD/Whoever had not much issues in inducting a costly foreign plane without a core capability then why so little support for a fledgling home grown product :|

Unless the end user accepts the platform and puts it to their usual real-time rigorous grind how will the precious lessons be learned and the experience gained used in making improved iterations or new platforms (AMCA,....)?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 09 Oct 2015 19:20

Gentlemen. Do not ignore, or underestimate, the drones !

The Tejas, with it's cousin, will also be required to hunt down the multitude of Drones and the Light Attack / Advanced Trainers which will inevitably be gifted to the PAF by it's benefactors.

Cross post

A Sharma wrote:‘The LCH fills in an important gap for intercepting and engaging UAV’

Wg Cdr (retd) Unni Pillai, Chief Test Pilot (Rotary Wing) HAL

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Oct 2015 19:25

Manish_P wrote:Gentlemen. Do not ignore, or underestimate, the drones !

Manish - jet aircraft at their slowest are still too fast to formate with slow flying drones. Hence helicopters will be used. Drones must be visually identified as being unmanned and not simply some poor civilian microlight or flying club aircraft that is off course.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 09 Oct 2015 19:37

Shiv ji

Partially agree on the drones.. which is why i also mentioned those pesky 'Light Attack / Advanced Jet trainers' :)

Coming back to the drones, yes positive identification might be a must. Even with IFF. Depends on the ROE.

In any case it would make for some fun videos.. remember this

BTW civilian microlights / flying club aircraft would be extremely foolish to fly close to contested air space in a hot war :D

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Oct 2015 19:43

Manish_P wrote:
BTW civilian microlights / flying club aircraft would be extremely foolish to fly close to contested air space in a hot war :D

Hot war is not the problem - anything will get shot down. 99.99% of the time is peacetime. It is peacetime when airspace needs to be watched 24x7x365. Also with reports of LeT types learning to fly microlights/hang gliders - we are most likely to see them coming in like Mumbai attackers except by air.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 09 Oct 2015 19:54

It is peacetime when airspace needs to be watched 24x7x365.


Exactly that, Sir!

Hence very good to also have our nimble-but-potent, quick-to-the-spot, easy-on-operating-costs LCA in the hundreds in addition to the dozens of gold-plated hard hitters who will take the fight to the enemies home turf

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4059
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby kit » 09 Oct 2015 20:27

OT ., but arent the Hawks being modified for light attack roles .. like shooting down a drone etc ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 09 Oct 2015 20:31

rohitvats wrote:
vina wrote: Doubt it. The Mirage 2000s that escorted the AN32s over Jaffna for operation Poomalai probably flew with just the guns per reports of that time. There was a CAG report on the missiles for the Mirages being inducted much later (iirc). Lets face it , the M2Ks came up to full capability only much later after induction.

As for the 18 SU-30Ks, they were incapable of dropping even a dumb bomb and basically sat out the Kargil war, they could not even play escort /air defence, air dominance roles. They were the classic definition of hanger queens. So why did the IAF induct them ?


What's with putting the horse before the cart?

Mirage-2000 coming w/o missile when inducted is NOT same as Mirage-2000 w/o missile firing capability at time of induction! LCA at IOC-2 stage is WITHOUT BVR firing capability; it fires the R-73E in this configuration but not the gun. And god forbid, if yellow matter hits the fan, it will also sit out of combat like those Su-30K.

But like Su-30K, IAF is inducting them for exactly the same purpose...raise a cadre of pilots and engineers who're familiar with the a/c and can form the nucleus for future expansion.

Frankly, all these are arguments to somehow show IAF giving preferential treatment to foreign stuff but treating LCA in a different manner are getting stale!


Will the MiG-27s and Jaguars without BVR firing capability sit out the conflict 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 » 09 Oct 2015 20:39

kit wrote:OT ., but arent the Hawks being modified for light attack roles .. like shooting down a drone etc ?

Possibly. An aircraft will have to be able to go as slow as 150 kmph . Even Hawks will be a stretch - and a high performance fighter just about staying in the air at 400 kmph will flash by a drone/microlight and go miles ahead before it can turn around. If there are clouds then the target may be lost. Nothing like a helo that can fly literally from zero (hover) to just under 300 kmph (both LCH and Apache)

Hawks can do close air support (like their grandfather the Hunter) circling around the battle zone and picking out targets that appear tens of km before they get to support enemy force.

This is OT for this thread

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srin » 09 Oct 2015 20:56

Why does an aircraft have to match speeds with a drone to take it out ? What matters is the sensor and weapon. In Gulf war, a Mig-25 has taken out predator drone using an AAM.

The only reason to not use a full air superiority fighter would be the inefficiency.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Oct 2015 21:08

srin wrote:Why does an aircraft have to match speeds with a drone to take it out ? What matters is the sensor and weapon. In Gulf war, a Mig-25 has taken out predator drone using an AAM.

The only reason to not use a full air superiority fighter would be the inefficiency.



Shooting down is not the issue. That can be done by Kiran or Su-30 also

Visual identification is nearly impossible when you can only flash by 200+ kmph faster than the other craft. Signalling, in case it is manned is impossible.

Here is a great answer posted several days ago in the military helo thread. With NVGs and IR cameras even the limitation that Aditya speaks of is not an issue
Aditya G wrote:The air force will visually ID any object and convey a warning before shooting anything out of the sky. Warning is conveyed with hand gestures, certain maneuvering and flares. Try to take photo/video evidence (HUD recorder and like).

If the transgresser is found to be a UAV, then perhaps all that will not be required. But you still need to send your manned asset on an intercept course.

The LCH truly is an excellent platform for this role, in part thanks to twin set of eyeball mark-2. The only limitation will be achieving night time intercepts i guess.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 09 Oct 2015 21:12

What about HTT-40 as UAV killer?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Oct 2015 21:13

Gyan wrote:What about HTT-40 as UAV killer?

Certainly.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Oct 2015 21:28

In the gulf wars and against Libya - the western air forces simply set up "no fly zones" in which anything flying would be shot down. In wartime even the IAF will react like that.

But the problem is peacetime. which is more than 99% of the time, when exactly the same amount of vigil has to be maintained and yet a blanket order to shoot anything down cannot be given.

UAVs/Microlights are slow and stealthy. Detecting them is difficult. They don't show up on radar and their IR signature is virtually absent. So how do you detect them? How do you detect a plane that is just 10-20 feet long, made of composites and uses a motorcycle engine? How can you use radar guided or IR guided missiles against targets that are virtually invisible? Shooting a MiG 25 in a no fly zone in wartime should be easy in comparison. Huge plane. Huge IR signature.

Here is a Wiki description of the Galileo Falco which the shitistanis use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selex_ES_Falco
The Falco UAV is 17 feet (5.2 m) long, 6 feet (1.8 m) high, has a 24-foot (7.3 m) wingspan and a top speed of 134 mph (216 km/h). A maximum altitude of around 16,400 feet (5,000 m) and endurance of up to 14 hours can be attained. As well as providing the Falco air vehicle, Selex ES offers a range of sensors, including EOST 46 electro-optical/infrared turret, Gabbiano 20 multi-mode surveillance radar and the PicoSAR radar. The latter is a compact, active "e-scan" radar providing synthetic aperture radar imagery and ground moving target indication. When used in conjunction with change detection software, the PicoSAR can be a powerful counter-IED tool. The Falco can also carry the SAGE electronic warfare suite for accurate direction-finding, classification and geo-location of emitters.

The Falco EVO System has a payload capacity of up to 100 kg and an extended endurance of up to 18 hours.[

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 09 Oct 2015 21:55

pragnya wrote:deejay sir,

can the later LSP like 5,7,8 can be used for training purposes (at least basic stage if not advanced) so that by the time SP versions come, the pilots will have a headstart!! if not, what happens to these airframes? they are pretty new and flown sparingly.

any info how many GE 404IN20s are used and how many left? do they have spare engines for the SPs to be produced by march 2016? anyone?

Karan M, mk1A is supposed to be fitted with an ext jammer possibly the israeli one. can the tusker pod - which was supposedly being improved - be used in place of the israeli one?

TIA

Pragnya Sir, why?

LSP 6,7,8 will not help in training in any other role but pure flying. I believe the simulator is getting ready or already ready. That can be used. So, the IAF may as well start with IOC block of Tejas.

LSP 6,7,8 and PVs and TDs can remain with ASTE, NFTC, etc to continue testing for new developments.

Folks, I may be wrong and I may be pooping on the high spirits post the order, but the way I see it, the important journey for Tejas is just getting started. The baby is just getting delivered. There is an entire life time of a journey ahead.

As IAF takes in the aircraft, teething issues will surface - Production schedules, spares, maintenance, down times, poor response, demanding customer. This time the pilots will be the real line pilots. They are as professional as the TPs, but they are not working with developers and designers and their patience will be lesser, their demands will be greater. Rightly so, because once they start off, they will be training for operational work and none of us will expect anything but the highest standards from them.

I am sure HAL dealing with ADA was a different ball game and HAL dealing with a Fighter Sqn and Air HQ will be a different thing all together. For the sake of Tejas and its smoothest possible entry in to service, it is, in my opinion, best to follow the contract to the last detail.

Anyways, the pow-wow that IAF and HAL will have over Tejas post induction will be worth a lot of pop corns if folks can overcome their heartburns :) .

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7413
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby disha » 09 Oct 2015 22:59

Apologies for editing your post., but this needs to be highlighted with more information.

vina wrote:To summarize
The LCA as it is today has more A2A capability than the M2K and more A2G capability than the SU-30K and Jaguar when they were inducted into IAF service

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 09 Oct 2015 23:11

srin wrote:Why does an aircraft have to match speeds with a drone to take it out ? What matters is the sensor and weapon. In Gulf war, a Mig-25 has taken out predator drone using an AAM.

The only reason to not use a full air superiority fighter would be the inefficiency.


I have a good story about this. This meaning use of helicopters for UAV. In the story I am suitably modifying the names of places, pilots, aircraft, controllers, formations etc for no reason what so ever.

Back in 2002, post Op Parakram, things slowly limped back to normal until the ceasefire was agreed to, which was also abnormal in a way.

Those days, somewhere in northern sector, namely Jammu, I was posted in a Mi 17 unit. Among other things, my unit was tasked to man helicopter ORP (Operational Readiness Platform) for UAV incursions from Pakistan to India. Just before I had come in to the unit, one of our unit helicopter had come face to face with a Paki UAV. As it happened, without any weapons, all one can do is formation flying and that is what this helicopter did. Soon, the Paki radar picked up the MI 17 and the UAV turned and flew back in to Pakistan. Our helicopter too came back. Back on ground, the Captain of the aircraft got some solid firing from one and all -

"You idiot, you let it go? :twisted: "
"What could I have done? :eek:
"Why didn't you throw something at it, your gunner (loadmaster) could have done it? :evil: "
"What could I have thrown? :-? "
"Your briefcase maybe? :x "
"But my briefcase had my overnight kit" :((

Afterwards, everybody :rotfl: for a long time.

But, the story doesn't end here. As the wise ones say - never laugh at others, it may happen to _______

So, one year plus later, the poor soul who had done formation flying with a Paki UAV was long posted out and folks had forgotten about the incident. Most of the unit was out flying. It was around 1600 hrs. Amos (Code name)and me were hanging around waiting to call it a day and hit the bar (Bravo Alpha Romeo). Just then the phone rang - the red one. The one which should not ring. I was the junior so I dived for the phone. Peacock (another code name) literally shouted from the other side -"ORP launch". I recognised the voice from the radar unit and said " Peacock - we are not on ORP today". Peacock said " You want me to tell that to the Makkhan (codename for Paki UAV)" and I replied "Are you sure it is not Ghee (codename for Indian UAV)" Peacock said " Will you bloody launch".

07 minutes was ORP activation time if one was on ORP; we found an aircraft, got the ground crew and got airborne in 09 minutes when we were not on ORP. Not bad, not bad at all. Except, we were unarmed. Both Amos and me were very sure that we would not see anything as on so many other occasions. You see, the Paki radars would pick up the Mi 17 on take off from Jammu and their UAV's would turn back in to their airspace.

Anyways, this time our radar controller, Peacock, vectored us into the sunset, i.e. due West straight towards the IB. We were below 1000 ft planning a zoom climb close to 'Makkhan'. Suddenly, I saw something and I shouted "Cobra". Amos, started peering all around "What, snake in cockpit?" and I said "No you genius - Huey Cobra, 12 O'Clock, 02 Kms, same level". Amos was on controls and the turn he executed would shame a TACDE HCL. And as we were turning, I saw the Huey do the same and high tail it as fast as he could.

"Peacock, confirm vectoring us to Makkhan?" "Ofcourse, why have you turned?" "Peacock, request urgent meeting at Bravo Alpha Romeo, 1900 hrs sharp. Everythings on you." "Err .... but ... okkk"

And we came back - the whole welcome committee was there - CO, COO, Stn Cdr, Radar CO, Flt Cdr, STO, Security Offr, etc, etc. And the CO let us have it:
CO "WTF happened?" :twisted:
Amos "I don't know, but there was a Cobra" :eek:
CO "WTF, Cobra?" :evil:
Me " Huey Cobra" 8)
CO"Are you sure it was not a flock of birds?" :lol:
Amos "Positive" :-?
CO "So why did you not go after it" :x
Amos "And do what" :-o
Me "And Sir, we would have crossed the International Border" :P
CO "And you might have won an Ashok Chakra ..." :lol:
Stn Cdr "Or not" :lol:
Flt Cdr" For now, go to my office, write down a written warning for failing to carry out duties and sign them" :D
CO "Flt Cdr, march these two bloody jokers up tomorrow to my office" and then they all went :rotfl:

P.S.: That idiot Peacock is yet to keep his appointment at Bravo Alpha Romeo.
P.P.S.: Peacock had indeed vectored us to a flock of birds, which is not so rare. What is very rare that the Paki radar controller had vectored its helicopter to the same flock of bird thinking it was an Indian UAV, or so we guessed.
P.P.P.S.: I am positive that even the Paki was unarmed though, today I am not positive that it was a Huey Cobra. :)

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 09 Oct 2015 23:23

Nice write-up. Would strongly urge you to do a formal piece for site.

I was surprised to learn that Pakistan had UAVs in 2002?!! :-? What kind?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 09 Oct 2015 23:29

>>Flt Cdr" For now, go to my office, write down a written warning for failing to carry out duties and sign them"

This was a joke, right? you weren't actually censured?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 09 Oct 2015 23:43

^^^ Multiple types, do not remember the types. Sorry. But they flew usually below 10000 ft and around 120 kmph, hence the idea of using fighters was dropped. Plus they would never venture deep inside Indian airspace.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 09 Oct 2015 23:47

Karan M wrote:>>Flt Cdr" For now, go to my office, write down a written warning for failing to carry out duties and sign them"

This was a joke, right? you weren't actually censured?


Such censuring anyways would never make it to the record books. It usually was code for the "Beer Book". So, a written warning from the Flt Cdr would mean 06 bottles (half a case) of beer in my unit :) .

Once, the beer book would have adequate entries, a "Beer" party would be called for all and the unfortunate folks like me would end up paying our shares.

BTW: Peacock character went on to join the first Garud training batch and passed too.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 10 Oct 2015 01:42

Completely OT Deejay, but completely worth it :D

deejay wrote:P.S.: That idiot Peacock is yet to keep his appointment at Bravo Alpha Romeo.

Reminds me of a video I saw long time back.


Guys, let us move this discussion on combating UAV to military aviation thread or the UAV thread.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 Oct 2015 02:02

The LCA Tejas Needs To See Squadron Service NOW
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/10/ ... adron.html

go all the way down, and tell me if it reflects what I have said here.

btw, super pic!

Image

"I feel we should simply induct the Tejas. Once it is in service, a sense of ownership will come. And we can progressively improve it jointly along with the developers. The aircraft needs to get out of test and into squadrons. That is the only solution."
-Former IAF chief Srinvasapuram Krishnaswamy That was 11 years ago.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 10 Oct 2015 02:38

SaiK wrote:The LCA Tejas Needs To See Squadron Service NOW
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/10/ ... adron.html

go all the way down, and tell me if it reflects what I have said here.

"I feel we should simply induct the Tejas. Once it is in service, a sense of ownership will come. And we can progressively improve it jointly along with the developers. The aircraft needs to get out of test and into squadrons. That is the only solution."
-Former IAF chief Srinvasapuram Krishnaswamy That was 11 years ago.


Makes too much sense.

But, that is what should have happened from day one, that is the way it is normally done.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2015 02:58

SaiK wrote:The LCA Tejas Needs To See Squadron Service NOW
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/10/ ... adron.html

"I feel we should simply induct the Tejas. Once it is in service, a sense of ownership will come. And we can progressively improve it jointly along with the developers. The aircraft needs to get out of test and into squadrons. That is the only solution."
-Former IAF chief Srinvasapuram Krishnaswamy That was 11 years ago.


Good pitch from Tarmak007, Livefist and SJha for LCA. Lets make sure we share these articles et al over social media as much as possible so more mango men can see the real picture through the smog created by the presstitude.

The point raised by the former ACS Krishnaswamy, is precisely what I also strongly believe. LCA should have been inducted at the 1st chance in IAF. Other things would have fallen in place. Anyway, thigs are looking better now. Once the bridge of trust is formed between user and developer LCA will move on rapidly.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2015 03:52

Heh. That Aroor character did a fair amount to run down the LCA and generally rake up FUD against the program. Now he's acting all virtuous and sensible. Journalists..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 10 Oct 2015 03:55

Subah ka bhoola....

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2015 05:32

tsarkar wrote:No, I don’t think it was possible to do so.

There are two aspects to a new aircraft – fly & fight.

By Fly, it means an aircraft that is good to fly within its envelope. Its envelope should be well established so that operational pilots, whose job is to fly within the envelope, can fly it.

By Fight, it means weapons & sensors.
.
.
I’m sure you would agree that Tejas’s performance for Wake Penetration needed to be tested before induction.
.
.
So before December 2013, the evaluation of FCS was not complete. This is an important Flight Safety Criteria for induction.
.
.
This is a major flight safety requirement incase of an engine flameout.
.
.
This is a very key statement. It means before IOC-2, Tejas inflight health had to be monitored by ground team for any anomalies. It was only during IOC-2 testing that Tejas inflight health was certified fit for flying without the need for continuous monitoring via telemetry support.

So, to answer your question, No, Tejas was NOT safe to fly before IOC-2. It didn’t achieve engine relight, FCS testing and all the things listed above before IOC-2.


My whole argument is based on this principle - the foremost thing in an fighter jet that is to be mastered, is its Aerodynamic configuration. An impeccable aerodynamic configuration can outlive almost all of the sub-systems, which can be replaced time to time, relatively easily. Even as you have pointed out - basic flight envelop is not dependent much on the weapons and peripheral avionics systems. So the 1st thing that should have been the priority for LCA was to test the aero-config in entire of its flight envelop (i.e. as much of the intended envelop as possible with given system status). All the safety related tests that you have mentioned, could have been easily done much before since they are function of bare minimum aircraft which was well defined in 2001 itself - aerodynamics + engine + structural features of the airframe + FCS. I can't think of any particular hindrance which forced ADA to do wake tests or engine relight or spin tests until after 2013 or so (in the absence of factual knowledge my best guess is they were over-cautious and thus kept high risk tests in later stages). If this was prioritized over everything, I don't see any reason why all the basic flight testing to check the performance over basic flight envelop could not have been carried out in 5-6 years with 5-6 prototypes (e.g. TD1-6) say by 2007 (FCS would be constantly evolving in this time definitely). Once this was done and design is frozen, telemetry/health monitoring related issues could have been sorted out - since I'd imagine these things would not cause much design changes anyway. If HAL had started background work on MFG facility right from 2001 slowly, by the time first design freeze happen, they would have been in a position to quickly configure it for final design and start production.

tsarkar wrote: Can you substantiate here that what flight related feature upgrades were requested by user? It is with this kind of statement that we depart from the realm of fact and enter into the realm of speculation.
As per CAG report Page 14 http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/our ... /Index.pdf
There were no revisions to the ASR by IAF, except in respect of weapon requirements, as discussed in Para 2.3.2.

Now, I’ve repeatedly asked Karan, Vina, Maitya and now I’ll ask you to substantiate and educate me as to what flight related changes were requested?


I never meant, there were changes in flight-related or performance related features which delayed things. I am just saying, so many changes were kept rolling all the time (due to user requests for weapons and other issues such as MMR and other LRUs) that every prototype was different, and those changes took focus away from the basic flight testing. Those changes ate away engineering resources and test flight time, which should really have been focused on getting the plane up and flying, don't you think?? For example, what was the need to incorporate drop tanks, guided bombs, HMS ityadi non-essential systems even before you have finished basic flight testing like spin or wake penetration?? These things could have been included later on as well. Those resources could have been put to finish basic safety features first. Delay of 14 months for this, 16 months for that...all this should have been done once LCA had proved itself flight-worthy and fully safe. This is where my point that bare minimum jet with basics weapon capability should have been targeted in first attempt. I think A2A would have been easier since 2 CCM were already part of the basic aerodynamic configuration anyway.


tsarkar wrote: The maintainability issues raised were around estate management & quicker turn around time that is being progressively addressed in Mk1 IOC-2 (Eg pressure refueling) & Mk1 FOC. However, there are no structural or configuration changes in Mk1. All possible structural & configuration changes are to be addressed in Mk2 and possibly Mk1A.

Why the issues were raised after design freeze?? Why was not IAF involved while laying out the plan of internal systems itself?? I have no information on whether it was IAF's apathy that they never bothered about it or ADA's stupidity that they never asked IAF's opinion, so lets keep it aside. But the failure happened delaying the program further.

But surely, you will agree that, if one actually handles some system he gets to know better about its pros and cons. If MK0, even with basic capability, was placed in IAF squadron, even in small number, IAF would have come up with more directed and specific feedback on maintainability. These could have been incorporated in MK1 itself. In fact we could have seen more substantial changes like elongated fuselage, optimum area-ruling, structural optimization etc in MK1 itself.

tsarkar wrote:
nileshjr wrote:- Flight envelop for the aerodynamic config would have been opened up much earlier, making possible aero refinement in next tranche possible. MK-1 itself could have had the adjustments that now Mk2 has.

To even think of improvements, one requires to baseline and benchmark Mk1 performance. As explained in the PIB link, the time until December 2013 was spent in baselining and benchmarking basic Mk1 envelope.

If we remove the delays quoted by ADA owing to the changes as mentioned in CAG report, 3 big changes amount to 14+16+18=48 months. Add to that things on account of ADA/HAL and we can see how much of time was wasted in the changes which could have been pushed to MK1 and simply focusing on MK0 would have expedited the flight testing significantly. Please note I am not saying 48 months delay means things would have been done 48 months before if these changes weren't considered. FCS was also being evolved side-by-side. But significant time would have been saved since resources which were put into incorporating those changes would have gone into FCS/flight testing/Safety requirements.

For that matter some weapons systems (which were not demanding structural/aerodynamic changes in design) could have been integrated even after induction into Squadron service. Its not terribly uncommon for fighters to enter squadron service and later get FOC, is it??

tsarkar wrote:HAL with ADA’s inputs was struggling to manufacture even PV’s & LSPs on time? How could more orders helped here?

nileshjr wrote:Early start of production run would have let HAL learn all nitty gritty about setting up of assembly line much earlier, 2006-07 onwards rather than 2010-11 onwards.

Sir, more than orders, standards & drawings required to be frozen. The initial set of SOP/DAL for IOC production standards started coming from 2010. Without SOP/DAL, on what basis does one manufacture?


Again, for constantly changing designs, of coarse HAL would find it difficult to maintain MFG speed for n number of reasons such as many components would be hand-crafted, re-work would happen etc. Unless and until a configuration is frozen, how can drawings be released. No standard config, no drawing, no standardized MFG possible. Things would have been different if the configuration was frozen much earlier in basic form.

tsarkar wrote:To summarize, the basic Mk1 flight envelope was opened by IOC in December 2013. Flight safety issues like Wake Penetration, Engine Relight, FCS evaluation were tested and addressed during IOC-2 achieved in December 2013. Production SOP/DAL could be framed only after IOC. Even if orders were placed, they would’ve stayed in backlog unless flight safety tests were satisfactorily tested.

To summarize my POV, if the basic config was fixed much earlier, focus could have been kept on first proving flight worthiness along with all safety requirements fulfilled for bare minimum jet. A frozen design for this config say MK0, would have allowed early release of production drawings for HAL and HAL could have started on first small batch production where they would have ironed out all the difficulties, establishing supply-chain, logistics etc. That small batch could have entered squadron service in IAF were IAF would be able to develop infrastructure for LCA, get familarize with the jet, pilot training and all, maintenance issues noted and conveyed to designers, final user's comments, feature requests fed back into the design discussions etc etc. This would have enabled the program management to better plane the next iterations of LCA. To me this would have greatly expediated the whole program.
tsarkar wrote:Sir, testing & certification of trainer version, leave aside arms, is running behind the main Tejas program. Which is why 20 IOC and 20 FOC production planes include no trainers.

No no Sir, I was not refering to LCA trainer. I meant basic MK0 version at the level of an armed trainer for example weaponised Hawk in terms of flight and fight. I actually have no idea why trainer is taking so much time to get certified. There are changes in 1-seater and 2-seater, but are those changes really so substantial?? I don't know.

tsarkar wrote:Aircraft development is a time consuming process. Where the IAF has gone horribly wrong is by not suppressing the flippant comments made by a certain section of its officers in the Media.

That and some more. From any objective angle, its not only IAF that has onus of failure, but ADA and HAL also have gone wrong terribly. I have most sympathies for ADA since they are least experienced of all three and have most challenging part in development process. LCA excelled at technical things but sucked big time in project management.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests