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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
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.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4480
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2015 05:39

Karan M wrote: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..


Even better. We can say he was infidel previously but now he believes in the one true God - LCA - after LCA showed him its Viraat swarup. :mrgreen:

That would compel the mango non-believer readers think again about LCA. :D

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2070
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 10 Oct 2015 09:31

:shock: Damn that pic is good!

A warrior, calm and poised, waiting for his moment.

There is just something about the rear profile pics of the Tejas.. something exuding a quiet menace..

Any chance of getting the full photo, anyone ?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3935
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2015 10:33

rohitvats wrote: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!


+1. And this after what the chief just said..specious arguments continue..

M2K was ARGUABLY inducted without BVR in 1985 so natcherly LCA should also be inducted in the same manner 30 years later in 2015, no? Flight envelopes and changes in the nature of the threat be damned!

SU-30K was not available for dropping bums in 1999 so LCA should be inducted without completing flight trials in 20XX because it can drop bums ala MiG-27 and Jaguar. The only reason that the SU-30 was not used in Kargil is probably because the IAF did not yet have enough time on the platform, and didn't want to chance it when it had birds with which it had far more experience. And in a pinch they would have certainly been used (and were probably used without the knowledge of jingos or msm). It was not because the platform was in any way incomplete - the Su-30K was used in Cope India 2004 to some serious effect! Even though this was not the final version ala MKI, it was obviously a very potent aircraft. In 2009 the LCA was nowhere ready but was still given the status of IOC I, it became somewhat ready by 2013 (IOC II, which the design agency had promised by 2010-11 btw)....it has been around two years since, and where are the birds that the IAF can use even at IOC II std?

It has been 10 years since the IAF ordered 20 IOC std. birds, which were to be delivered around 2008-10. Since then, they have received about 1 LCA @ IOC II std. If folks want to compare this with the MKI induction - the first deal was signed around 1996 and by 2002, the first real MKIs comparable to FOC LCA (not Su-30K) - were inducted. Where are the FOC birds after 11 years since order was placed? The SU-30K, which started coming in piecemeal within 1 year of deal (approx. equivalent to IOC II), are just now taking shape...and FOC std LCA?

Bad bad IAF - dimag (and quite possibly, desh) ke dushman! We are also forgetting that the IAF has had 20 orders since 2005, not to mention 20 more since 2009-10. AFAIK (and I could be wrong here) it has not done this sort of bandaid induction before, at least in recent memory - dividing induction into three phases IOC I, II and FOC...but don't you know, IAF bad bad wonlee wont extend basic support to indigenous program - import airforce after all. Deputing a team of well qualified experts in Bengaluru since 2005 only for show

The way I see it the first IOC aircraft should have been available by 2010-12 based on the promised timelines, these were to be used as the SU-30Ks were - acclimatization, SOPs etc...by 2013 FOC production should have started and by now a sqd. or more should have been available. But instead what they got were 1 or 2 birds at a std. far below IOC, which they still inducted, then had to wait for another 3-4 years to get one more IOC II std. bird, and since then there has been NOTHING produced, not IOC II not FOC, which btw, was promised some time ago.

But might as well blame the IAF.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 10 Oct 2015 10:50, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 10 Oct 2015 10:38

5 Tejas in Squadron colours to fly during next IAF Day sky party: DRDO

http://www.oneindia.com/india/5-tejas-i ... 92971.html
Tejas will be participating in Iron Fist in 2016 and will demonstrate the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missile launching and stick bombing capabilities with tandem bomb carrier in swing role. We can certainly envisage Tejas to don the IAF colours during the IAF Day celebrations in 2016 with at least five aircraft. Only inducted platforms perform at AF Day celebrations," the official said.

He dismissed all anti-Tejas rant saying the worth of the fighter will be known only after it is produced in large numbers. "Let the machine do all the talking," he said.

To a query on the weapon trials, the official said that Tejas had completed hot weather trials on the trainer version during July this year.

"All the system of LCA-AF trainer performed satisfactory during the trials at ambient of 48 degrees Celsius. Significant preparatory work for the balance weapon work has been carried out in this quarter and actual weapon deployment is planned over the next six months," he added.

When asked about the challenges being faced by the team now, the official cited the integrations of air-to-air refueling probe, supersonic drop tank and BVR missile integration with radar as examples.

"The relevant flight tests for completion of the Final Operational Clearance (FOC), tops our agenda now. Towards this the design and development work has already been completed. The aircraft integration and flight testing is on schedule. The BVR is likely to get released with MMR (Multi-Mode Radar) integrated with quartz radome by March 2016," he said.

Squadron formation preparations in full swing

Around 60 per cent work towards the formation of the Tejas Squadron is completed at Bengaluru.

"The O-Level training to IAF technicians has been completed. The air crew training on mission simulator is likely to be completed by November this year. About 70 per cent of GSE/GHE (Ground Support Equipment/Ground Handling Equipment) procurement is also completed," he added.

The technical publications and flight manuals have already been delivered to the IAF. Initially, the IAF has planned to operate the aircraft from Bangalore and then shift to the permanent Tejas Squadron base in Sulur (Tamil Nadu).

The IAF too has taken up a series of modernization work at Sulur to welcome the new entrant into its fold.

As reported by OneIndia during Aero India 2015, the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will have to deliver a total of 20 Tejas series production aircraft in the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) format and another 20 in the FOC mode.

The Tejas Mk-2s would be powered by the GE 414 engine. In addition to a higher thrust engine, the Mk-2 would have the benefits of better performance, improved flight and mission systems and greater maintainability.

Upgraded Tejas Mk1A will be more user-friendly


The official confirmed that the LCA MK1A would be an improved product with better maintainability to make it more user-friendly.

"We are planning MK1As with enhanced survivability embedded with an integrated EW suite, which would give an improved sensor performance over Mk1s. This is planned for the larger number of aircraft intended by IAF," the official, who chose not to be named, said.


The official claimed that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has given ‘a new direction' to the project through an accelerated approach during his frequent interactions. He said HAL is geared up to roll out at least four series production aircraft by March 2016.

The first of Series Production (SP-1) aircraft has already been handed over to IAF and another 19 more are expected from HAL to complete the MK1 production schedules in the IOC format.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kashi » 10 Oct 2015 11:21

^^ The above article quotes a DRDO official saying that Tejas WILL demonstrate BVR capabilities, that seems to contradict the assertion that Tejas is BVR nood..

Which is it? :-?

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 » 10 Oct 2015 11:25

M2K was ARGUABLY inducted without BVR in 1985 so natcherly LCA should also be inducted in the same manner 30 years later in 2015, no? Flight envelopes and changes in the nature of the threat be damned!


How cute. The Eurofighter Typhoon was inducted in the RAF with a lump of concrete it it's nose where the radar should have been and not even a gun integrated , while the RAF were projecting the Typhoon as a response to evolved SU27/Su30s!

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 10 Oct 2015 11:26

The only thing nood is shame on some of these people.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2015 11:34

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> Will the MiG-27s and Jaguars without BVR firing capability sit out the conflict as well?


Whats with the rhetorical question, mate?

However, answering your quip, won't it be better that Mig-27 and Jaguar sit out of the war then be used for Air Defense role, no?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3935
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2015 11:35

vina wrote:
M2K was ARGUABLY inducted without BVR in 1985 so natcherly LCA should also be inducted in the same manner 30 years later in 2015, no? Flight envelopes and changes in the nature of the threat be damned!


How cute. The Eurofighter Typhoon was inducted in the RAF with a lump of concrete it it's nose where the radar should have been and not even a gun integrated , while the RAF were projecting the Typhoon as a response to evolved SU27/Su30s!


Another gem...RAF does X, IAF also should do same same. Oh, and lest we forget, IAF did order 20 (and is willing to take even more) @ IOC II std., without gun or BVR capability. Point of course is that missed deadlines are entirely missed by the IAF is bad-bad crowd

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 » 10 Oct 2015 11:39

Whats with the rhetorical question, mate?
However, answering your quip, won't it be better that Mig-27 and Jaguar sit out of the war then be used for Air Defense role, no?

No. Pointing out the fact that unlike the SU-30K, the LCA as inducted today would be fully good for strike roles as the Mirage 2000s did in Kargil (which the pre upgraded Jaguars could not do and neither the Mig 27s, which did only strafing gun runs). So there you are . It would not sit out a war. It has full A2G capability as of now including precision strikes , with self protection capability better than the Mig 27s and Jaguars.

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 » 10 Oct 2015 11:42

Cain Marko wrote:Another gem...RAF does X, IAF also should do same same. Oh, and lest we forget, IAF did order 20 (and is willing to take even more) @ IOC II std., without gun or BVR capability. Point of course is that missed deadlines are entirely missed by the IAF is bad-bad crowd

Yeah. And the IAF NOW wants Typhoons as it's MMRCA ! How smart innit ? They got a lump of concrete in nose aircraft in service aircraft, which after a few years are selling to you as the hottest sh*t in the planet!

And look a this post Aero Dynamic Improvements for Typhoon. So what was offered to the IAF and what it is salivating over does not even match the manoeuvrability of the current SU-30s! It doesnt have the AESA radar (neither did the Rafale at the trials,it was just a promissory note), doesnt have full A2G capability, and the IAF went and selected the two Euro Canards for the MMRCA!

And from the comment section of the article.
Oooh how fine, after over 30 years of developement Billions of € cost overruns and only "12 full combat ready" German planes, is this a new bad joke from Airbus CEO Thomas Enders , more Shareholder-value without no results needet ?

Oooh sorry, we forgot to see something just now , after the "over 12 years of the massiv expensive procurement delays" with delivering Block/ Tranche 1 planes who was good for nothing outer Pilot's education and the corrupt Austrian Politicans ?

Airbus Military is trying again to hoax the Tax-payers, unbelivible, annoying and senseless without any end to see !

But they are unable to bring the A400M Cargo-project to a combat-ready status , what a bloody shame again from Airbus !

nd for the younger of your dear JANE'S friend's, this Eurofighter/Typhoon was named "Jäger EKF'90 / Fighter'90, Lol, ))) !

Developement contract started in 26.May.1983-1986 Eurfighter consortium founding, until this times already 5 years overlay.

And as Madam Rach wrote here yesterday, the AMSAR three times renamed now CAESAR Radar is in a few years a 25- years old AESA-Radar design from the formaly DASA-Ulm (Germany) later EADS, later Cassidian, later EURORADAR ,LoL !

Dear JANE'S friends, if this radar would be somewhere integrate in a Eurofighter/Typhoon , they will be no more electronic spare-parts or compareble IT-Chips in production or in restoring deliverable , never ever ?!

This must be a evil new joke from Airbus-Military and this Eurofighter consortium GmbH, always the same rubbish !

Who of your's, mostly honestly Tax-Payers want to pay millions of EU € or UK Pounds for a 25 years old , then modernized but also 15 years old AESA-Radar design ?!

Would you buy a 15 years old 17" Computer Notebook for 20.000,- € , no , you understand ? LoL ))) !

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3935
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2015 12:16

^ Wah bhaiyya wah! Even bishen bedi did not have this much spin variation...First you say, IAF should induct LCA @ whatever config because it inducted M2K without BVR (arguably). When pointed out that that was 30 years ago when nobody had BVR and that BVR might have actually been there, you say IAF should induct LCA in a state of incompleteness because Typhoon was inducted by RAF in similar state; when pointed out that IAF is not equal equal with RAF, you point out but IAF wants phoon! Before all this you was saying Su-30K was not in state of readiness! Importantly, were any of these birds still to achieve full flight certification before induction by respective forces? If not, how can you expect IAF to do the same? More importantly, even if others do this, why should iaf do the same?As TSarkarji has pointed out - induction is possibly if either flight/fight parameters are complete, in LCA's case before 2013 neither were achieved.

Sirji, IAF was never after rafale or phoon, the GOI literally forced the MRCA as an open contest, IAF was pushing for M2k originally. Even so, IAF will not induct any MRCA without it actually being flight worthy. It may accept a sqd or two without full fight parameters for familiarization purposes wonlee.

More importantly, IAF has already declared that it will take LCA in IOC II state BVR, IFR and Gun be damned. If needed it will even take more than 20. That is from the Chief's mouth, take it for what it is worth. So where is the problem?
Last edited by Cain Marko on 10 Oct 2015 13:13, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 10 Oct 2015 12:43

Which agency in right mind would set up Assembly line for measly order of 20+20 with no hope for future orders. HAL would have done it because it is not responsible to Shareholders nor to the taxpayers whose money would have gone into this. without MOQ no new lines are set up nor prioritised. That was the game played upon LCA.Unfortunately it survived hit and cold weather.And there is someone at the helm who forced stakeholders to spell it out clearly as never before in the past. In fact money needed for replacement for MIG 21/Bis should be budgeted and earmarked to HAL for production of LCA ( 20 sqdrns at least) and put it in escrow account to be drawn and replenished as needed .

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2015 12:49

vina wrote: No. Pointing out the fact that unlike the SU-30K, the LCA as inducted today would be fully good for strike roles as the Mirage 2000s did in Kargil (which the pre upgraded Jaguars could not do and neither the Mig 27s, which did only strafing gun runs). So there you are . It would not sit out a war. It has full A2G capability as of now including precision strikes , with self protection capability better than the Mig 27s and Jaguars.


Thanks for bringing out the point that in it's present avatar, LCA CANNOT under take proper A2A missions. Even if mounts a CAP, it will be with only WVR missile in form of R-73E.

Now, coming to your other argument of comparing it with Jaguar and Mig-27:

1. Jaguar or Mig-27 in 1999 represented capability that IAF had 16-18 years ago...what was an exception then (Like M2K dropping LGB), is the norm now. Even M2K are undergoing very comprehensive upgrade. As are Mig-29. So, Tejas being inducted in 2017-18 needs to have these by now BASIC qualities.

2. Remember the original raison detre of LCA? Replace Mig-21 in IAF service...irrespective of its multi-role ability, it's primary role is going to be Air Defense. Till the time it achieves this ability, you will not see large numbers of LCA in service. It is no coincidence that LCA Mk1A comes with more powerful AESA radar and high performance BVR Missiles. Would've hardly been priority if IAF wanted LCA for mud-moving role.

3. No one is going to replace Mig-27 or Jaguar in IAF with LCA. Jaguar will stay till they are replaced by AMCA or more MMRCA (whatever that a/c is). Mig-27 have been, and are being replaced by Su-30MKI squadrons.

3. As and when more LCA enter IAF colors in FOC format, they'll start picking up number-plated Mig-21 squadrons. I expect LCA Mk2 to replace Mig-21 Bison.

All in all, you're looking at at least 11-12 LCA Mk1+Mk1A and Mk2 squadrons in IAF colors.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3935
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2015 12:51

vina wrote:
Whats with the rhetorical question, mate?
However, answering your quip, won't it be better that Mig-27 and Jaguar sit out of the war then be used for Air Defense role, no?

No. Pointing out the fact that unlike the SU-30K, the LCA as inducted today would be fully good for strike roles as the Mirage 2000s did in Kargil (which the pre upgraded Jaguars could not do and neither the Mig 27s, which did only strafing gun runs). So there you are . It would not sit out a war. It has full A2G capability as of now including precision strikes , with self protection capability better than the Mig 27s and Jaguars.


When the su 30k was inducted in 1997, it was well ahead of the m2k and baaz in a2a capability, it still stayedy out ifthe war probably because the iaf had nowhere operationalized the bird, it had a mere handful of these during kargil.

I somehow doubt that the lca tejas which achieved the std you claim above, which btw has not been proved, only in late 2013 and has not been produced in any effective quantity, is going to be any different. First let them at least get the first sqd ready in sulur...

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3935
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2015 13:09

chaanakya wrote:Which agency in right mind would set up Assembly line for measly order of 20+20 with no hope for future orders. HAL would have done it because it is not responsible to Shareholders nor to the taxpayers whose money would have gone into this. without MOQ no new lines are set up nor prioritised. That was the game played upon LCA.Unfortunately it survived hit and cold weather.And there is someone at the helm who forced stakeholders to spell it out clearly as never before in the past. In fact money needed for replacement for MIG 21/Bis should be budgeted and earmarked to HAL for production of LCA ( 20 sqdrns at least) and put it in escrow account to be drawn and replenished as needed .

Sir, I'm not entirely sure about this measly order of 20+20 bit.

First, every stakeholder knew that the primary purpose of the lca was to replaced the fished, which the iaf has in hundreds...if the plane was ready the iaf was ready to order as well...this is clearly proved by the acms comments, no need for me or anybody to judge the afs intent.

It is ridiculous for the af to place orders in huge numbers for a bird, which has absolutely no clarity in terms of its capability in its first avatar..the iaf will order piecemeal..stabilize the induction and then make a bulk purchase, again the possibility of the bulk purchase is a given and hal knows this considering that the lca is primarily being created for the af...this is corroborated by the history of the dhruv as well iirc. Initial orders were ridiculously low in the late 90s..just a handful, obviously
the approach has worked out well

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Oct 2015 14:02

Rohit not rhetorical but point is you dont need it for AD alone because it has the same PGM capabilities as MiG or Jag. So simple logic...it can be used the same way they are for tactical strike and wont have to sit out a war.

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 » 10 Oct 2015 14:24

Would've hardly been priority if IAF wanted LCA for mud-moving role.

Sorry. Going by what the IAF has been insisting in the A2G role and the integration of LDP etc, the IAF priority "want" is for the LCA MK1 is the strike role. Not air defence. Most multi role planes enter service primarily for air defence and A2G is added on only later. Not LCA. We have full multi role including A2G and A2A from day one when it enters service.

In fact, the Mirage 2000 too is primarily an air defence plane with strike being a SECONDARY role all over the world. It was inducted into the IAF primarily to counter the PAF F16s. That it performed that much better than the Jaguar and the Mig 27 at Kargil is only a testimony to what a fine plane it was.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2015 15:28

vina wrote: Sorry. Going by what the IAF has been insisting in the A2G role and the integration of LDP etc, the IAF priority "want" is for the LCA MK1 is the strike role. Not air defence. Most multi role planes enter service primarily for air defence and A2G is added on only later. Not LCA. We have full multi role including A2G and A2A from day one when it enters service.

In fact, the Mirage 2000 too is primarily an air defence plane with strike being a SECONDARY role all over the world. It was inducted into the IAF primarily to counter the PAF F16s. That it performed that much better than the Jaguar and the Mig 27 at Kargil is only a testimony to what a fine plane it was.


Do you realize what you're writing?

LCA having got A2G capability BEFORE full spectrum A2A capability is not a function of it's intended role in IAF - more to do with what R&D establishment could achieve!

One of the most difficult aspects of LCA development has been the MMR - something responsible for most delay in the program. And as for IAF's role for LCA - you can make that out by the fact that IAF insisted that R-73E be qualified for firing using the radar as well! Had it been interested in using LCA for A2G role, I'm sure simply having the ability to fire such OBS missile using HMDS would've have been enough.

You forget that many forward IAF bases in western sector have a Mig-21 M/MF or Mig-21 Bison...they are the primary AD fighters in their AOR. And this is the role which LCA will fulfill.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2015 15:45

Karan M wrote:Rohit not rhetorical but point is you dont need it for AD alone because it has the same PGM capabilities as MiG or Jag. So simple logic...it can be used the same way they are for tactical strike and wont have to sit out a war.


Karan - your argument highlights an important facet of debate on LCA on BRF. While we all look at the technology and associated stuff, people forget something known as operational requirement of IAF or their Order of Battle.

There are only two ways LCA can enter the ORBAT of IAF - (1) it replaces something (2) adds new capability beyond existing numbers.

For the Nth time, let me put here the IAF's squadron numbers and what they fly; people can at least use it to know what they're taking about when they advance arguments like 'order 200 of type'...

M2K - 3
Su-30MKI - 10
Mig-21 Bison - 5
Mig-29 - 3
Jaguar IS/IB - 5
Jaguar IM - 1
Mig-27 UPG - 2
Mig-27 ML - 3
Mig-21Bis - 1
Mig-21M/MF - 4
Tejas - 1
---------------------------------------------------
Total - 38


- Outgoing: Mig-21 Bis, Mig-27 ML, Mig21M/MF and Mig-27 UPG. A total of 10 squadrons.
--------------------------------------------------
There are balance 4 Su-30MKI squadrons left to be inducted. While 2 x Rafale squadrons will be signed. I'm assuming balance 4 squadrons will also come. You can assume any a/c type. And IAF will get 5 more Tejas squadrons (6th one has been accounted already above).

Total inductions: 4+2+4+5 - 15 squadrons.
----------------------------------------------------

Balance Su-30MKI and MMRCA will address the roll over requirement. And apart from capability, this also tells you why IAF has been adamant at getting MMRCA - a proven plane from an established OEM will help to undertake transition this task in relatively lesser time. And ensure much more smooth roll-over as compared to LCA. Where the whole process of production, induction, post-induction support and maintenance will undergo birthing pangs.
--------------------------------------------------------

6 LCA squadrons will help IAF to reach 43 squadron level. And more importantly, when the Mig-21 Bison start retiring in 2022+ time frame, this will be replaced either by LCA Mk1A or Mk1A+ or LCA Mk2, as the case may be.

So, like I said before, we're talking about a minimum of 11 LCA squadrons...And depending upon how the Jaguar fleet behaves, I would not be surprised if older ones start getting replaced with LCA Mk2.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 10 Oct 2015 17:37

Cain Marko wrote:
Sir, I'm not entirely sure about this measly order of 20+20 bit.

First, every stakeholder knew that the primary purpose of the lca was to replaced the fished, which the iaf has in hundreds...if the plane was ready the iaf was ready to order as well...this is clearly proved by the acms comments, no need for me or anybody to judge the afs intent.

It is ridiculous for the af to place orders in huge numbers for a bird, which has absolutely no clarity in terms of its capability in its first avatar..the iaf will order piecemeal..stabilize the induction and then make a bulk purchase, again the possibility of the bulk purchase is a given and hal knows this considering that the lca is primarily being created for the af...this is corroborated by the history of the dhruv as well iirc. Initial orders were ridiculously low in the late 90s..just a handful, obviously
the approach has worked out well

If IOC-1 or 2 config was good for IAF to begin with and there was no major changes in airframes then it makes sense to order in good numbers from the start.

Nobody is there to judge IAFs intent when it has been clear like day light that they want a good product with fully developed capabilities and not something under constant development and not from some place which had no previous experience in producing fighter planes. If LCA had no clear capability why even order for 20 planes were given? It goes againt your stated position that order should be given only for proven fully capable A/cs. beats me. However I always thought LCA would have been a story of progressive , iterative development. Most of the time I talked about Block mode or tranche in the context of LCA. But then it is opinion of Aam admi not to be confused with technical stalwarts and IAF experts here.The questions I ask is for my better understanding and not to form some opinion about any agency.

However on the other hand we also know well known proclivities in some sections of IAF for foreign fighters. Unfortunately we apparently seem to be short on money so we have to make do with "Nano" rather than "Merc".

If IAF had policy of replacing all Mig21/Bis with LCA as and when it becomes available then that should have been clearly specified. It works like this . If your prototype passes the test I would commit an order of XYZ number. In that case developer can do the work confidently and also set up production line. There is economies of scale involved here not only to keep the cost of plane down but to make development viable. As ADA , the lead agency for development, is not responsible for production and money comes from taxpayers it does not have to worry about order quantity . HAL , the agency responsible for production, is not getting either the approved , frozen design nor firm order, is asked to set up assembly line for 20+20 A/Cs. It is also not getting any written future commitment from IAF and not sure if ADA would get FOC and when. So only way to set up production line is to burn taxpayers money without regard to scale or order.

As for Dhruv example. Heli orders would always be less I suppose. But then it is no template for development of indigenous fighter plane industries. Both are in different class altogether. But even then one would be better off with committing orders in numbers.

Foreign suppliers look for more orders from many sources to reduce the cost of development and setting up of assembly lines for production. LCA doesn't have this luxury. At least Dhruv had this option.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 10 Oct 2015 17:54

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:Rohit not rhetorical but point is you dont need it for AD alone because it has the same PGM capabilities as MiG or Jag. So simple logic...it can be used the same way they are for tactical strike and wont have to sit out a war.


Karan - your argument highlights an important facet of debate on LCA on BRF. While we all look at the technology and associated stuff, people forget something known as operational requirement of IAF or their Order of Battle.

There are only two ways LCA can enter the ORBAT of IAF - (1) it replaces something (2) adds new capability beyond existing numbers.

For the Nth time, let me put here the IAF's squadron numbers and what they fly; people can at least use it to know what they're taking about when they advance arguments like 'order 200 of type'...

M2K - 3
Su-30MKI - 10
Mig-21 Bison - 5
Mig-29 - 3
Jaguar IS/IB - 5
Jaguar IM - 1
Mig-27 UPG - 2
Mig-27 ML - 3
Mig-21Bis - 1
Mig-21M/MF - 4
Tejas - 1
---------------------------------------------------
Total - 38


- Outgoing: Mig-21 Bis, Mig-27 ML, Mig21M/MF and Mig-27 UPG. A total of 10 squadrons.
--------------------------------------------------
There are balance 4 Su-30MKI squadrons left to be inducted. While 2 x Rafale squadrons will be signed. I'm assuming balance 4 squadrons will also come. You can assume any a/c type. And IAF will get 5 more Tejas squadrons (6th one has been accounted already above).

Total inductions: 4+2+4+5 - 15 squadrons.
----------------------------------------------------

Balance Su-30MKI and MMRCA will address the roll over requirement. And apart from capability, this also tells you why IAF has been adamant at getting MMRCA - a proven plane from an established OEM will help to undertake transition this task in relatively lesser time. And ensure much more smooth roll-over as compared to LCA. Where the whole process of production, induction, post-induction support and maintenance will undergo birthing pangs.
--------------------------------------------------------

6 LCA squadrons will help IAF to reach 43 squadron level. And more importantly, when the Mig-21 Bison start retiring in 2022+ time frame, this will be replaced either by LCA Mk1A or Mk1A+ or LCA Mk2, as the case may be.

So, like I said before, we're talking about a minimum of 11 LCA squadrons...And depending upon how the Jaguar fleet behaves, I would not be surprised if older ones start getting replaced with LCA Mk2
.


That is very nice. This is known all along. And if the idea is to replace to talk about a minimum of 11 sqdrns the number comes to about 220 A/cs. It would serve better purpose to tell HAL , not an implicit assumption, to prepare for 220 planes.No?

And you have also revealed a good point.

"a proven plane from an established OEM will help to undertake transition this task in relatively lesser time"

Now I have no idea that at the time of tendering or finalising Rafale , if it was a proven plane. Posts in this thread would bear testimony to this. Order for Rafale was given by other countries only later. IIRC France sent two plane to Lybia to show case and rebut the charge of being " unproven" in real battlefield.

You have also assumed that another 4 sqdrns of rafale would enter service. Whereas reportedly CCS has denied the very same request. So I suppose that 4 could be added to LCA kitty?

LCA gives an option to expand IAF capability beyond what is envisaged currently i.e. 45. So theoretically number could be more but one would be satisfied with 20 sqdrns meaning 400 planes while replacing others with with AMCA, FGFA, PAK-FA when they become available. Afterall , wasn't there a talk of two front war?

The last point should be committed by IAF to HAL ASAP.

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 » 10 Oct 2015 18:16

rohitvats wrote:Do you realize what you're writing?

LCA having got A2G capability BEFORE full spectrum A2A capability is not a function of it's intended role in IAF - more to do with what R&D establishment could achieve!

One of the most difficult aspects of LCA development has been the MMR - something responsible for most delay in the program.

Yes, this part is very true and a valid and highly plausible set of arguments. I buy it.

And as for IAF's role for LCA - you can make that out by the fact that IAF insisted that R-73E be qualified for firing using the radar as well! Had it been interested in using LCA for A2G role, I'm sure simply having the ability to fire such OBS missile using HMDS would've have been enough.

I wonder why the IAF made them qualify the R73E . The Russians refused to share the interface, demanded ridiculous amounts of money, it would have taken some back breaking IT/VIty work to crack the protocol, integrate it with the Radar and HMDS. I think that alone would have taken a good part of a year and a half to do the full development, verification and validation. They should have simply gone with the Python V and Derby when they decided to go with the Elta radar.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2015 19:02

^^^

R-60 -> R-73 -> Python-5 ... all before FOC blessing!

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2015 19:05

rohitvats wrote:
You forget that many forward IAF bases in western sector have a Mig-21 M/MF or Mig-21 Bison...they are the primary AD fighters in their AOR. And this is the role which LCA will fulfill.

This is totally correct but if one recalls a little bit of history we find that aircraft acquired with one primary role ended up being used for other roles either because there was no other option, or because they actually did very well in those alternate roles.

To recap the MiG 21 was an interceptor that was adapted for the air to ground role. So it became a multirole fighter and it was that ability to be a "fighter" as well as an attack aircraft that was desired when the LCA was conceived.

May I add that again, when the LCA was conceived the world was still building dedicated air superiority fighters and separate attack aircraft simply because the flight performance requirements of the two are different. But the LCA was conceived just as the world sniffed the first multimode radars that could "see" air and ground targets. Until then it was radar for air and optical/TV or laser guided targeting for ground targets. At least for us SDREs. Not Amrika. Jaguars came with a Nav-Attack system that supposedly aided accurate dumb bomb release - but it had a laser ranger in the nose. The MiG 27 too came with a laser ranger in the nose. So as the LCA evolved its avionics requirements actually evolved faster. MMR and developments in IR have come after the basic dimensions and design of the LCA was fixed. So which the IAF's predicament is understandable we have a serious problem because of the rate at which technology is moving in the West. If you recall a post by Vishnu Som in one Aero India when he flew in an F-16, he marvelled at the fact that the radar display was showing images of vehicles on the ground when switched to the air to ground mode. Soon after that AESA came in and there was no "switching" from A-A to A-G, the radar could do both simultaneously. Very quickly after that came the IS sensors and this was followed by sensor fusion. Somewhere along the way the HUD was supplemented by Helmet mounted sights. And better avionics means more power and weight. So the avionics revolution has literally turned things upside down for aircraft and the LCA got stuck in a time warp as a result of that.

None of this is the Air Force's fault. But that does not make it the fault of ADA or HAL either. Any aircraft without MMR, preferably AESA and now IR and also an SPJ system is going to be "obsolete". Technology is moving that fast.

But there simply has to be some compromise somewhere. I think the armed forces could possibly have the answer if they communicated it to the civilian government. Perhaps 10 years have been wasted but its like this: If the country is going to lose territory in an attack because we do not have the latest and greatest in conventional weaponry, we simply must reduce our nuclear threshold. I am sure the armed forces have their red lines - I mean if the Air Force gets into a war in which it suffers 50% attrition and the war does not look like it is going to be won by army or navy - the use of nuclear weapons must be brought higher up in the list of possible actions. Typically the armed forces rightly point out that this decision can only be taken by the civilian government.

But the civilian government has been reluctant to use air power when it can be used. The USA, France and a sinking Britain have projected their force - mainly by air action thousands of km away from their shores. Wars are being fought far away from their own territory. And now Russia that was licking its wounds after Afghanistan just like the US licked its wounds for 15 years before Grenada has also jumped in. We need to use our assets. We need to project our force. And strategize and say "This is what we have. If this is going to be exceeded we will use nukes". I see someone telling me "Oh it's not that simple". But how simple is it to claim that nuclear weapons are not warfighting weapons? Heck the government is not even letting the Air Force into a conventional fight, fearing escalation. So is the Air Force also "not a warfighting force" then?

Let's face it - the army is constantly slogging away and losing men. Sad, but its a fact. The Navy is on an expansion spree and is being seen in faraway shores. The Air Force exercises with others but for all the hardware they are not allowed to do the simplest of jobs. This is not the Air Force's fault, but this is something that needs a gradual change of mindset with senior and retired Air Force people gradually chipping away at the fossilized minds in government pointing out that expensive hardware needs to be used.

The Air Force cannot be told to expect the latest and greatest and the demand made that they must not get into a war at all for fear of escalation and if they do get in they must win on conventional arms alone. That is absurd. America is trying that , but it is not possible for India to copy that. The Air Force needs to be used, like the army. They must fight with what we can give them but give them nukes if that is not enough. This needs to get into ar planning and general awareness of this must increase.

MiG 21s are 3 legged Cheetahs. Let us say the LCA is also one. It must be slotted in and gradually improved. And if war occurs and we are not prevailing - we must make sure that the other side simply will_not_win. They will eat nukes.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2015 19:13

^^^

You can't fight wars with imported weapons. Not with 70:30 imported weapons ratio. They are meant more as a deterrent. There are far too many restrictions on when and how they can be used. Nuclear weapons is a big no no. Independent foreign policy requires a much more sanction proof military ... at least enough time to win slogging drawn out wars with all options on the table.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2015 19:17

May I draw a parallel between medical electronics and aviation. In the late 1970s - the first ultrasound scanner came to my college hospital and when they wanted to demo it I volunteered to be the "patient". I was disappointed to see the cathode ray tube display a wiggly line that wiggled in tune with my heartbeat and I was told that this was the image of one of my heart valves. Great.

But in 15 years we had machines that were giving a proper real time image - i.e what you saw on the monitor was the actual organ itself with all its moving parts as if it had been cut open. It was matter of signal processing and number crunching.

It was the late 1990s before "microcomputers" - i.e small portable ones ("desktop size") had the processing power to process images in real time. That is what aided the development of MMR, but by then the development of the LCA was well under way.

Just my thoughts. Any errors are mine.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 10 Oct 2015 19:21

You forget that many forward IAF bases in western sector have a Mig-21 M/MF or Mig-21 Bison...they are the primary AD fighters in their AOR. And this is the role which LCA will fulfill.


Recent news reports call the LCA "multi role". I think the role has morphed. ??????

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2015 19:22

srai wrote:^^^

You can't fight wars with imported weapons. Not with 70:30 imported weapons ratio. They are meant more as a deterrent. There are far too many restrictions on when and how they can be used. Nuclear weapons is a big no no. Independent foreign policy requires a much more sanction proof military ... at least enough time to win slogging drawn out wars with all options on the table.

Let me state my viewpoint.

The Air Force is tasked to fight under the exact restriction that you have stated "Nuclear weapons are a no no". That being the case the Air Force is 100% correct in insisting on a large force which has the latest weaponry to defeat the best that an adversary can throw at us. The Air Force cannot be blamed for asking for the best when they have been told that nuclear weapons should be kept in puja room for daily aarti.

So where do HAL/ADA fit into this? Exactly nowhere. They simply cannot deliver the latest and the best, so we must import.

Now you say (not you personally - the general belief seems to be)
1. You cannot fight a war on imported weapons
2. You cannot use nukes

This means that we are asking to lose a war. We are begging for it. No jokes.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1717
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ldev » 10 Oct 2015 19:23

srai wrote:^^^

You can't fight wars with imported weapons. Not with 70:30 imported weapons ratio. They are meant more as a deterrent. There are far too many restrictions on when and how they can be used. Nuclear weapons is a big no no. Independent foreign policy requires a much more sanction proof military ... at least enough time to win slogging drawn out wars with all options on the table.


+1

What is worse is not only are the weapons imported, even the ammunition i.e. missiles, guidance kits in some cases are imported. How can one fight a discretionary offensive war in such a scenario. The only option is defensive when we are pushed with our backs to the wall. And even then, under the most severe provocation, we don't fight, because of fear of escalation!!

OT but what is this fetish with small, light, etc. Whether it is the Maruti 800 or the Light Combat Aircraft, why this fetish with small, light, puny etc. Why cant India think of big, huge, biggest/largest/fastest/most powerful in the world in every area, planes, ships, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines?? Need a national mind reset....

But finally Indian aero enthusiasts will have an Indian aircraft to cheer about as opposed doing oooh and aaahs about imported maal.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2015 19:44

I think the Chinese have a lesson for us - a lesson that is there for us to learn from

They were under sanctions and could not even get Hunter/Canberra level tech. So they built nukes and said we wil never lose a war because we will nuke you. It the meantime they built rust buckets for 3 decades until their industry was big enough to innovate.

What we are doing is to forget that weapons, conventional or nuclear are ultimately weapons to ensure that one is never defeated. You must not say that you will never use some of your weapons but only use others. That is brainlessness. We keep our missile fores strong and gradually build up our industry. The Air Force must be reassured that we will never let them get decimated and defeated - and that we too will help them devastate the enemy with nukes if necessary. Let them have some control over nukes. In exchange they have to encourage local industry and ue less than the best.

We must never do a Pakistan on our armed forces. After 1965 the PAF claimed that the army lost the war and that the PAF came off well. We must not be in a situation where we say "The army won a war, but the Air Force lost". No Our forces fight as one and we must be one with them and stop telling them to go and get killed while we do puja and aarti to nukes. That is stupid. I hope this can be understood by the people who matter.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2015 19:57

shiv wrote:...
So where do HAL/ADA fit into this? Exactly nowhere. They simply cannot deliver the latest and the best, so we must import.

Now you say (not you personally - the general belief seems to be)
1. You cannot fight a war on imported weapons
2. You cannot use nukes

This means that we are asking to lose a war. We are begging for it. No jokes.


True in a way because you are at the mercy of foreign suppliers and their geopolitics. There's lot more pressure to conform to their policies. They don't want "blood on their hands" so to speak. Look if India drops a nuclear bomb using a Rafale, France will get equal blame for selling such "sophisticated" weapon platform which was used to kill lots of people (as the press like to point out many women and children among the dead). They would be forced to join in on the sanctions and other condemnations.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Oct 2015 20:13

srai wrote:True in a way because you are at the mercy of foreign suppliers and their geopolitics. There's lot more pressure to conform to their policies. They don't want "blood on their hands" so to speak.



We are going OT here but it has nothing to do with bood on their hands. They don't give a rat's ass for that.

MTCR, FMCT and CTBT are to ensure that nations who cannot win conventional wars because of lack of the latest weapons cannot use nukes either - at least of the nations who own and export technology.

The "world order" is that blatant and biased.

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 » 10 Oct 2015 20:13

So they built nukes and said we wil never lose a war because we will nuke you. It the meantime they built rust buckets for 3 decades until their industry was big enough to innovate


Yes and no,but largely O.T but let me take a stab at it.

The Chinese nuke was a bluster and as a credible weapon it was probably early 80s before it came that way, with some very limited delivery systems. The Chinese nuke was basically meant to attack the "foreign invading forces" on Chinese soil and backed by millions of Chinese grunts armed with rifles and with some handkerchief kind of cloth wrapped around their faces for protection.

Sub nuke threshold wars that don't escalate and where deterrence holds are conventional and they are won and lost with conventional weaponry. The Chinese had their backsides handed back to them by the Vietnamese when they invaded Vietnam and their nukes were useless. In the India-Pakistan context, Kargil was sub threshold war, again which the Pakis didn't game could happen (tactically brilliant and strategically stupid as repeated said in BRF) that India could keep it sub nuclear and localised and use superior conventional might and win hands down.

But yes, you do have a point. As a purely defensive strategy , a low nuke use threshold does make it very difficult for any rational adversary to inflict direct harm on you. That opens out the entire fight by proxy that raged during the cold war and still continues to this day from Ukraine to now Syria.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 10 Oct 2015 20:15

shiv wrote:
srai wrote:True in a way because you are at the mercy of foreign suppliers and their geopolitics. There's lot more pressure to conform to their policies. They don't want "blood on their hands" so to speak.



We are going OT here but it has nothing to do with bood on their hands. They don't give a rat's ass for that.

MTCR, FMCT and CTBT are to ensure that nations who cannot win conventional wars because of lack of the latest weapons cannot use nukes either - at least of the nations who own and export technology.

The "world order" is that blatant and biased.


That was really my point too. "Blood on their hands" is a metaphor ;)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 Oct 2015 20:26

right now, the dependencies are such that IAF will be called to wrap up things rather to begin things if anything we speak for wars. if we can't decide the eventuality within couple of weeks, then we will expose IAF into all sorts of sanctions, stores crunch, and effectively make them unusable.

when compared to USAF, or Russia, or even China, we are low on spares, and high on dependencies. for this same reason, we have to invest billions more in Kaveri++ and revamp GTRE.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2015 20:46

chaanakya wrote:<SNIP>If IOC-1 or 2 config was good for IAF to begin with and there was no major changes in airframes then it makes sense to order in good numbers from the start.


But that exactly is the fallacy in argument being extended time and again on this forum! That LCA Mk1 is good for IAF in current form. When the fact of matter is that it is not.

From Srinagar in North to Naliya in Gujarat, there are many IAF bases which house Mig-21 M/MF, Mig-21 Bis or Mig-21 Bison squadrons. Airbases like Pathankot, Udhampur, Sirsa, Suratgarh, Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Barmer are all equipped with at least one fighter squadron. And that fighter squadron operates Mig-21. And in Air Defense being the primary role.

So, every time you hear a news story about IAF fighters being scrambled to intercept unidentified object, 99% chance is that this fighter will be Mi-21.

As the things stand today at IOC-2 stage, IAF cannot order more LCA Mk1 and start putting these up in these air bases to defend the Indian skies.

There is still merit in the argument that LCA Mk1 at FOC, which IAF has been reluctant to induct in large numbers, can be placed in these bases to take on duties of existing Mig-21 squadrons (except Mig-21 Bison). But definitely not the IOC-2 stage LCA Mk1.

It having a superlative ability to drop dumb bombs with great accuracy, carry LGB and all other features (beyond a Mig-21, Mig-27 or Jaguar even) does not make it a platform to undertake the primary responsibility.

There is a reason why Mig-27 are in Jodhpur and Jaguars are in Ambala/Gorakhpur while Mig-21 squadrons are in Barmer/Uttarlai, Jaisalmer and Bikaner.

If LCA had no clear capability why even order for 20 planes were given? It goes againt your stated position that order should be given only for proven fully capable A/cs. beats me. However I always thought LCA would have been a story of progressive , iterative development. Most of the time I talked about Block mode or tranche in the context of LCA. But then it is opinion of Aam admi not to be confused with technical stalwarts and IAF experts here.The questions I ask is for my better understanding and not to form some opinion about any agency.


The whole LCA program started because IAF had projected a requirement to replace its Mig-21 fleet. And IOC and FOC are milestones in this development. And basis constant reviews, it is expected that program will satisfactorily progress from Stage X to Stage Y. Had IAF felt that LCA program program will not reach FOC stage for whatever reason, I don't think it would have ordered even 20 IOC stage a/c. What good would these have been if FOC was not forthcoming?

As for tranche development - that is an argument bandied about only because LCA Program has repeatedly failed to meet the deadlines set by its very on program managers!

In their wisdom, people on here are asking IAF to accept a product (on a scale larger than 20 @ IOC-2) which falls short of basic requirements as expected by the consumer and agreed upon by the developer. And treat this half baked product as some sort of Tranche X!

IAF's basic requirement of LCA is to carry A2A missiles and drop bombs...It has already signed up on 20 a/c with lesser capability for training role. One can understand LCA having a lesser performance radar in Tranche 1 and more powerful in Tranche 2. Or some other capability enhancement. But between what IAF is getting at IOC-2 and FOC, where does Tranche development come into picture?

If IAF had policy of replacing all Mig21/Bis with LCA as and when it becomes available then that should have been clearly specified.


The whole raison d'etre of LCA program was and is Mig-21 replacement. But in their over zealousness of wanting to develop every critical technology to 'bridge the gap' with west, the R&D establishment forgot the little thing called operational requirement of the user.

As ADA , the lead agency for development, is not responsible for production and money comes from taxpayers it does not have to worry about order quantity . HAL , the agency responsible for production, is not getting either the approved , frozen design nor firm order, is asked to set up assembly line for 20+20 A/Cs. It is also not getting any written future commitment from IAF and not sure if ADA would get FOC and when. So only way to set up production line is to burn taxpayers money without regard to scale or order.


The above is quite an interesting argument about production numbers and associated cost and stuff.

My question to you and others who talk about economy of scale and cost of manufacturing - How come we're missing the attitude that since LCA represents a great stride for Indian aviation complex, we'll do it, no matter what the cost! Even if we've to produce 40 a/c at higher production rate, we'll do it because it is important for India.

How comes hard nosed realities like economy of scale, cost of capital, per unit cost and stuff comes into calculation while emotional stuff about need to nurture indigenous product gets lost somewhere?

What about the hard-nosed realities of war and maintaining a fighting force which IAF faces? Why is it expected to 'adjust' and show leniency but same is not expected of HAL?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 10 Oct 2015 20:50

NRao wrote:
You forget that many forward IAF bases in western sector have a Mig-21 M/MF or Mig-21 Bison...they are the primary AD fighters in their AOR. And this is the role which LCA will fulfill.


Recent news reports call the LCA "multi role". I think the role has morphed. ??????


Even if it had morphed and by all means LCA will be expected to to more, the primary responsibility stays the same.

Srinagar is home to 51 Squadron of IAF which flies the Mig-21 Bison. And hopefully, tomorrow LCA Mk1A will fly with this squadron. But even if it can go across the LOC and bomb the shit out of Pakees, it will also be required to guard the skies of Srinagar and Kashmir. Which only LCA Mk1 or Mk1A can do. Not the version at IOC-2 stage.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11202
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 10 Oct 2015 20:51

Even Kargil was a farce that the then GoI played on the soldier and the nation in one way.
The IAF was asked to pull its punches in a '62-ish redux.

POK is indian territory for godssake, and the IAF was asked to not violate the LOC!

Indian leadership seem to suffer from a MTCR of the mind, which needs to be cured first


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests