LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Vivek K » 13 Dec 2016 11:43

Funny to see some posters so worked about India-US ties when theiy wear their own ties to mother Russia on their chest all the time. Just saying... pot calling the kettle black, wot!

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2803
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 13 Dec 2016 12:35


^^ The RFP is a bad idea that will unnecessarily delay the program, unless 1. others have reliable new technology much better than what EL-2052 has to offer or 2. the Israeli's are charging exorbitantly, that seems unlikely since DARIN 3 isn't costing a bomb and TSR's interview stated they'll do Tejas integration for free.

Over and above RFP specing, evaluation, PoC & contracting, time, effort & money would be expended on designing, integration & testing. If we chose Derby, Python, Litening, DASH, without rfp, then we could do the same for radar.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Philip » 13 Dec 2016 13:57

Russia gives us Akula subs,N-sub tech,BMos missiles,SU-30MKIs,S-400s and FGFAs to come, while the US gives... Pak $55billion and offers us 50yr old hags with an overdose of makeup! Apologists for Uncle Sam should check their facts first.

Two reports which show us up in poor light.First that Pak now has 70 of its homemade with China fighter,we have zero by comparison, and why the IN dumped the NLCA.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/confirme ... hter-jets/
Confirmed: Pakistan Air Force now Operates 70 JF-17 Fighter Jets
The new number was released by Pakistan’s National Assembly in early December.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
December 13, 2016

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) operates a total of 70 Pakistan Aeronautical Complex/Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (PAC/CAC) JF-17 Thunder fighter jets, the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defense Production revealed in Islamabad on December 7, according to local media reports.

The PAF now fields about an equal number of JF-17 and U.S.-made F-16 multirole fighter aircraft of all variants. (After U.S. lawmakers stalled financing for an additional eight F-16C/D Block-52 fighter aircraft, Pakistan is now mulling the purchase of eight used F-16s from the Royal Jordanian Air Force.)

The JF-17, first inducted into the PAF in 2011, is a lightweight, single-engine, multirole combat aircraft, powered by a Russian-designed-but-Chinese-built Klimov RD-93 (a RD-33 derivative) turbofan, capable of reaching a top speed of Mach 1.6. The aircraft allegedly has an operational range of around 1,200 kilometers (745 miles).

In total, the PAF plans to acquire 150 JF-17s over the next years divided into three production blocks: Block-I, Block II, and Block-III. So far, the PAF has only received Block-I and Block-II variants of the aircraft. 50 out of the 70 JF-17 in service are of the Block-I variant. The PAF last inducted 16 Block-II JF-17s in April.

As I noted elsewhere, according to the chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman, Pakistan achieved its goal of producing 16 JF-17 Thunder aircraft in 2015 and wants to produce a total number of 24 Block-II JF-17 aircraft by the end of 2016. Next to carrying a heavier weapons payload, Block-II variants feature a new air-to-air refueling probe, an enhanced oxygen system, and an improved electronic countermeasures system, among other things.

Pakistan produces 58 percent of the airframe and China 42 percent respectively. Islamabad has the capacity to assemble up to 25 JF-17s per year without Beijing’s technical assistance. However, as I noted in April 2015, according to Chinese and Pakistani media reports, China agreed to deliver 110 JF-17s to Pakistan in fly-away condition due to Pakistan’s still limited aircraft manufacturing capacity.

The JF-17 was originally developed to to replace the PAF’s aging fleet of Dassault Mirage III/5 fighter jets by 2o20. “Pakistan is looking to replace 190 aircraft—primarily Chengdu F-7 and Dassault Mirage III/5 fighter jets—by 2020 presumably with a mixture of F-16 and JF-17 aircraft. Pakistan, however, is also allegedly in talks with Russia over the purchase of Su-35 multi-role fighters,” I reported in April (See: “China and Pakistan Air Forces Launch Joint Training Exercise”).

China and Pakistan are also developing a combat-capable two-seat trainer variant of the JF-17, which likely will make its maiden flight in the coming weeks.


If Pakistan can produce 16 fighters /yr raising it to 24,why can't HAL,far older than the Paki entity do likewise? It will be hilarious if we buy ancient 50 yr old F-16s or F-18s and Russia sells Pak cutting edge SU-35s! We will become the laughing stock of the planet!

http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/has-the- ... t-project/

Why the Indian Navy Is Unhappy With Its Carrier-Based Light Combat Aircraft Project
India’s chief of naval staff reiterates reservations about the Tejas’ suitability for carrier operations.

By Abhijit Singh
December 03, 2016

Ahead of Navy Day celebrations on December 4, Admiral Sunil Lanba, India’s chief of naval staff (CNS), caused a minor flutter in the media by suggesting that the Navy was doing a rethink on the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, India’s premier light fighter jet program. At a press conference, Lanba remarked that the navy was looking for a temporary replacement jet from a source abroad for carrier-operations as the LCA (Navy) wasn’t “yet up to the mark.” Even though the navy chief did not go as far as to suggest the project was being scrapped, he was categorical about the navy’s dissatisfaction with the naval variants under production.

Lanba’s admission is likely to have placed many officials in the Ministry of Defense (MoD), as well as the Defense Research and Development Organization, in a spot of bother. After a slow start in the early 1980s, the LCA struggled for over three decades before showing progress in the past few years. Having obtained operational clearance in 2013, the aircraft has now been officially integrated into the Indian Air Force. Oddly, the naval chief’s statement came only a day after the ministry cleared an order for 83 LCA Mk 1As from the government-owned defense manufacture Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) for the IAF.

This isn’t, of course, the first time that a naval chief has publicly expressed reservations about the LCA program. In 2012, Admiral Nirmal Verma, then CNS, in an interaction with the media chided the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for frequent cost and time overruns in the development of the naval version of the aircraft. The Navy, he suggested, was beginning to lose faith in the project.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
Now, as then, the problem with the LCA remains the same: its inability to take off with its full weapon load from a carrier top. Naval sources point out that since 2013, the LCA has consistently failed the test of flight from a 200-meter deck with full weapons load. In a series of trial sorties at a Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in May this year, ADA officials claimed that the aircraft had made the cut by successfully ascending from a short deck with two R-73 close combat missiles. But naval managers clearly weren’t impressed.

The Navy’s real problem is that it believes that the LCA is a largely air force-centric program that isn’t essentially geared to meet aircraft carrier-operations. At many points during its evolution, naval managers are said to have emphasized the need for aircraft systems to be reconfigured to meet the requirements of carrier take-off and landing, but the ADA never reportedly made a serious attempt to undertake the necessary modifications.

Naval aeronautical engineers believe that the LCA’s naval variant is slightly but “significantly” different from its air force version, not least on account of a major modification needed in the aircraft’s landing gear that enables arrested landings on a carrier deck. Unfortunately for the Indian Navy, the ADA hasn’t ever fully committed itself to developing a modified undercarriage. As a consequence, the suspicion of an institutional indifference toward the Navy’s specific needs of carrier operations has only grown stronger.

Another concern has been the lack of a reliable air-to-air refueling system. Despite renewed efforts, the complex integration of the aerial refueling probe on to the Tejas fighter hasn’t been properly accomplished. The absence of reliable “hot-refueling” implies a restriction in aircraft mission ranges, which maritime managers have been unwilling to accept.

Why, however, must the Indian Navy be fussy about an aircraft that is only meant to supplement the Mig-29K? Aircraft carrier experts say middle and light category aircraft have different peacetime roles profiles. Given India’s geostrategic interests in the Indian Ocean region, it is important for the Navy to project both hard and soft naval power. High-end combat aircraft like the Mig-29K are meant to exert hard military influence by signaling coercive intent. Equally important, however, is the need for a carrier-borne aircraft to showcase the Indian Navy’s prowess as reliable security agent in the littorals. Indigenous medium-capability assets help in creating a circle of trust, owing to their utility in joint multinational operations. With a leading role in regional forums such as the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) and Milan, the Indian Navy has come to be known as a friendly maritime agency. Its low-end light combat aircraft aids in the cultivation of a benevolent image. In addition, the aircraft’s export to friendly countries would help in the forging of strong working-level partnerships.

Misgivings about the LCA program, however, go beyond the perceived disregard for specific functionality. In an article in July this year, Admiral Arun Prakash (retd.), a former chief of naval staff, outlined three reasons why the military leadership was apprehensive about the project. Firstly, Prakash pointed out that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the huge public sector firm manufacturing the LCA, is a monolithic, indolent giant with a work ethos that “struck dread in the hearts of air-warriors.” The company’s unionized employees were a cause for low productivity and poor production engineering standards that created many maintenance and inter-changeability problems on aircraft. Secondly, there was a high failure rate of HAL manufactured components and systems that didn’t inspire confidence among military aviation managers. And lastly, Prakash pointed to the suboptimal production support, which often left “HAL customers high and dry.”

Scrapping the LCA (Navy) program, however, will not be without consequences. For one, the Indian Navy will need to start afresh in the search for a foreign source for a new light combat aircraft. Given the stringent provisions of the Defense Procurement Procedures (DPP), especially the need for a domestic manufacturer, this implies a substantial delay in the project. Besides, having invested considerable funds in the LCA program since 2009, the Indian Navy will need to explain losses, as well as the wisdom of investing in a new project. Not only will it push back delivery of the platforms by a few years, the work-load on the Mig-29K will dramatically increase with involvement in both low-end and high-end missions.

For the moment, the critics of the LCA program will feel vindicated. At least until the Indian Navy clarifies that its chief’s statement is being misinterpreted.

Abhijit Singh is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Fellow in New Delhi.


PS:Reports of problems with the MIG-29 engine,etc.don't help either.Unless these issues are sorted out,the 29K fleet is unlikely to be augmented in the wake of the NLCA being dumped. It leaves the In with few choices. The best western bets are the naval Rafale,at exorbitant cost or the paper version from SAAB,the Sea Gripen.offer made some time ago. As for any thought of the JSF,just read what the Donald has just said about it.It's future is now in doubt.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 13 Dec 2016 15:50

Excellent video of formation landing for LCA, from LCA FB page

https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca/videos/vb.103329156428208/1244504868977292/?type=2&theater

From the comments in the same post. LCA FB page admin replied to one query -

Sp4 is in time. All equipping over. Should come out quickly. Beyond sp3, the hurdles have been overcome and it should be quick thereafter
:mrgreen:

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4843
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 13 Dec 2016 16:34

NLCA has to proceed ahead if for no other reason than gaining valuable insight into the issue of designing & building carrier borne aircraft. It does not matter if better aircraft can be had from overseas. The learning curve has to begin now or it never will.

Basic competence in developing fixed and rotary aircraft for use at sea has to exist as the 21 century will eclipse the 20th century in sea borne trade.

It has to be recognized that the strategic importance of building up a local aerospace industry is as important as having the best imported foreign weapons.

No country wants to lose a war with shitty weapons. The again, no country wants to land itself in a war only to find its local defence industries are incapable of producing anything and dependency on foreign arms is 100%.

Just as the defence industry largely drove the growth & innovation of Western nations, so too it must do the same in India. To piss away hundreds of billions in foreign buying sprees which provide near zero development of the local aerospace R&D base is by far the worst act of economic sabotage that can take place.

Where is the overall national plan for the above? All one hears about is hurried plans to import the most expensive shit from overseas with scant regard for the above.

tushar_m

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tushar_m » 13 Dec 2016 19:01

Is it possible that the Mod/IAF is trying to get saab GaN AESA Radar for LCA without buying Gripen ???

American Radar make no sense as we have already integrated all out weapons with Elta radar. Russian radar for LCA is again not a finished product & may have compatibility issues (python/derby). If we have to choose Elta EL/M-2052 (or EL/M-2032 radar) why go for the competition.

Saab offers cutting-edge GaN AESA Radar Technology if India selects Gripen

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 13 Dec 2016 22:07

Not going for a foreign radar would have jeopardized Mk1A itself. Please understand the Mk1A the role of Mk1A. It is a stop gap between Mk1s whose delivery finishes in 2019-20 to Mk2 whose deliveries start in 2025-26. Therefore, time is of the essence here. Hence I agree with tsarkar sir: what is this RFP tamasha? Get the 2052 and keep going. If it is indeed being integrated into a Jaguar, then there is absolutely no need to look anywhere else. Reuse the work. In fact, ask Elbit/BAE if they are ready to fit the radar in the nose of the combat/dream Hawk. If the RFP is for due process, or to keep Elbit honest, then it is fine. Otherwise, it makes no sense for me to delay on the choice of the radar.

Uttam will come with Mk2. If DRDO cannot deliver the radar by then, then it shuold be ready to answer some tough questions.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 13 Dec 2016 23:07

Indranil wrote:Not going for a foreign radar would have jeopardized Mk1A itself.


Not just Mk1A, but the entire LCA programme saar. It must be in DRDO/HALs interests to ASAP deliver to IAF a fighter that the latter sees fit, no matter what the % of imported components are. Once IAF is satisfied with this version of fighter and after induction in respectable numbers, ADA can go for mark 2,3,4... with increasing indigenization.
Just like what ISRO did with GSLV. They used the Russian cryos for the first few vehicles until the indigenous one was ready.

Indranil wrote: Therefore, time is of the essence here. Hence I agree with tsarkar sir: what is this RFP tamasha? Get the 2052 and keep going. If it is indeed being integrated into a Jaguar, then there is absolutely no need to look anywhere else. Reuse the work. In fact, ask Elbit/BAE if they are ready to fit the radar in the nose of the combat/dream Hawk. If the RFP is for due process, or to keep Elbit honest, then it is fine. Otherwise, it makes no sense for me to delay on the choice of the radar.


I think Israel must have sensed the urgency of IAF, DRDO and GOI and is probably demanding higher price for the 2052. This RFP drama is an indirect message to them that GOI is not averse to look for other sources. Just a layman's guess.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 13 Dec 2016 23:41


sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1698
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sudeepj » 13 Dec 2016 23:45

It may just be a tender to avoid a single vendor situation and also to get a better price from the Israelis. The GoI can later say, we invited tenders, Israelis turned out to be the cheapest ones (or even the only ones) and hence we chose it. MoD/GoI is not entirely stupid.. If you think that corruption allegations will not be made to derail yet another indigenous effort, you have another think coming.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 14 Dec 2016 00:01

Inspite of 50 years of license manufacturing Russian equipment, we don't have Engineers who can read Russian? What Rubbish! Same idiotic excuse was trotted out to explain non indigenisation of Su-30 MKI and spending US$ 2 Billion extra.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Khalsa » 14 Dec 2016 01:48

in all my years of reading other people's code I have never learnt to code well by copying their style. Because you were just jumping from one style to another guy's style.I had to go through pain of doing it myself ... it was cr_ap when I began, but today I hold mine and teach younglings ... how to do the same (not copy my code but to learn to create their own style)

And Yes I know i invite the wrath of all of you who are going to kill me for comparing the LCA to software code.
I am not comparing the do. I am just talking about invention/ creation/ construction of anything.... from a line of code to a car.

Do what you have to do to fill the gap but a permanent pathway must be laid down in this country.
USA did it
France did it
UK did it and stuffed it up
Russia did it
China did it
HOLY HELL even the pakis are doing it as best as they can.

LCA is the foundation
AMCA is the Framework on Top
FGFA will be the meat on the bones.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Dec 2016 01:56

sum wrote:
prashanth wrote:
Sum avare, this is my (layman's) interpretation.
China is getting aggressive across the border in Tibet and GOI has to reply back with same posturing. This cannot happen unless you have fully equipped and well oiled military. As it is, IAF is straining with depleting squadron strength. Raflale deal is downsized. MMR is not performing up to IAF's expectations and uttam is nowhere in sight. This might have led to quick decision by GOI to use imported AESA radars. Probably GOI now thinks that HAL should make multiple copies of the latest SP configuration, with imported AESA and get LCA inducted to IAF in large numbers. Cant fault them. Same reasoning for M777 howitzer deal. We jingoes might yearn for 100% Indian LCA, but the MOD/GOI have to take realities into account.

Agree and definitely do not believe that it should be held up since by all reports, the Uttam/MMR are in deep doo-doo and nowehere close to coming online anytime soon


Is there a reason why you make such pointlessly sky is falling posts about issue after issue?

Its no joke to make a compact FCR and to extrapolatate that to program us in this, that is weird.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Dec 2016 01:59

tushar_m wrote:.
India to ask US, Israeli and European companies to bid for AESA Radar tender for LCA Mk 1A

Image

India is set to initiate a major international competition to acquire new age radars for its indigenous combat planes in the coming weeks, the winner of which is likely to gain a strong foothold for future domestic projects.

Sources have told ET that an expression of interest for a new set of AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk 1A is set to be floated shortly, with top global aviation firms expected to participate. The government had recently cleared an order for 83 of the LCA Mk 1A jets. The competition would be the largest international contract for AESA radars that are the heart of modern combat jets.

These new radars give much more range and engagement potential to fighters, enabling them to engage targets from a distance without getting detected. AESA radars can track and direct weapons to multiple air and ground targets simultaneously. With India working on an indigenous next generation plane under the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), it is likely that the winning company will have a much larger order book, with the potential number going upwards of 200.

The first Indian Air Force aircraft with AESA radars will be the Jaguar fighter that is being upgraded to the DARIN 3 version. The first Jaguar with the new radar is expected to fly in January. The contract to equip 58 Jaguars with AESA radars had gone to Israel’s ELTA, making it the frontrunner for the LCA Mk 1A project as well. There could, however, also be surprise entries into the Indian competition from the US, with Raytheon, which manufactures the AESA radar for the F/A 18 Super Hornet and the F 16 also showing interest.

While in the past, US firms had limited options to offer to New Delhi, with India now gaining Major Defence Partner status, transfer of sensitive technology and licences have been made easier. The integration of an AESA radar was a key parameter for the Air Force to clear the order for 83 LCA Mk 1A fighters, after years of blocking the indigenous fighter on concerns that it would not be combat worthy. The AESA will give the LCA an edge over similar fighter operating in the region that are equipped with conventional radars.

The LCA project took a minor hit earlier this month when Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanbaannounced that the naval version of the fighter is not suitable for aircraft carrier operations, necessitating an international competition for a new range of combat aircraft.



This is good news and prevents Israel from fobbing off half baked goids to us as a favor in the name of doing us a favor. Selex, Raytheon, NG, Thales have programs. Latter three production ready. SAAB too has experience. Evaluate what is available before taking the Israeli offer and handing over a huge order.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 877
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Mihir » 14 Dec 2016 03:10

sudeepj wrote:It may just be a tender to avoid a single vendor situation and also to get a better price from the Israelis. The GoI can later say, we invited tenders, Israelis turned out to be the cheapest ones (or even the only ones) and hence we chose it. MoD/GoI is not entirely stupid. If you think that corruption allegations will not be made to derail yet another indigenous effort, you have another think coming.

Such tenders often take on a life of their own. Any competitor to Elta that chooses to throw its hat in the ring would make a very competitive offer and that very well edge out the 2052. What then? Spend more time and money qualifying new weapons and interfaces on the aircraft? How many years of delay would that lead to? And if the 2052 is chosen in spite of a better offer from elsewhere, what stops the other OEM from appealing the decision, lodging a protest, or even filing a lawsuit over the rejection? I don't think this is a risk that we can bear at this point.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3842
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Dec 2016 03:56

^ I'm afraid it could cause more horrid delays though. I remember how long it took ada to make a decision on the engines....hope this is not repeated. Give an opportunity for folks to ditch lca for more solah down the road.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9966
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sum » 14 Dec 2016 05:35

Is there a reason why you make such pointlessly sky is falling posts about issue after issue?

Its no joke to make a compact FCR and to extrapolatate that to program us in this, that is weird.

Of course, saar. No doubt about the difficulties. Its just that Uttam project is tied to the hip of the LCA project and hence, was mentioning about it here

Its just that whenever Chailwallahs mention the current status of such projects, it seems at huge variance from whatever is being put out in DDM or being mentioned in BRF about "almost turned the corner". Thats the only reason for the "gloomy tone" of my posts.
If the Uttam does indeed go well, all power to it but just hope that the correct status is being put out from time to time instead of "resolved mostissues and about to get everything by end of next month/year"

Anyways, hope that all ends well and we achieve our goals after the initial technological mountains are climbed
Last edited by sum on 14 Dec 2016 05:58, edited 1 time in total.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby fanne » 14 Dec 2016 05:41

Why AESA on Jags? Does not make sense.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18657
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Dec 2016 05:59

sum wrote:
Is there a reason why you make such pointlessly sky is falling posts about issue after issue?

Its no joke to make a compact FCR and to extrapolatate that to program us in this, that is weird.

Of course, saar. No doubt about the difficulties.

Its just that whenever Chailwallahs mention the current status of such projects, it seems at huge variance from whatever is being put out in DDM or being mentioned in BRF about "almost turned the corner". Thats the only reason for the "gloomy tone" of my posts.

If the Uttam does indeed go well, all power to it but just hope that the correct status is being put out from time to time instead of "resolved all issues and about to get everything by end of next month"


Who are these chai wallahs and what are they drinking? Problem is this stuff "resolved all issues and get everything by month end" - where has this ever been said? Uttam suppliers and DRDO itself have put out periodic updates on every step. Anyone can see how much remain. And how is that extrapolated to its ready? AEW&C, doom and gloom. This when reports note it is in methodical flight trials. Uttam, doom and gloom. Right now Uttam Protos are in test and they will take time to field. Kindly point out one DRDO release saying otherwise. They are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Right now, LRDE has some dozen radars in devpt. A bunch are in advanced testing/fab or ready for user trials. They have given periodic updates on each. Lets appreciate their transparency as versus worrying like this or believibg in what random dudes say.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3842
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Dec 2016 07:49

Indranil wrote:Not going for a foreign radar would have jeopardized Mk1A itself. Please understand the Mk1A the role of Mk1A. It is a stop gap between Mk1s whose delivery finishes in 2019-20 to Mk2 whose deliveries start in 2025-26. Therefore, time is of the essence here. Hence I agree with tsarkar sir: what is this RFP tamasha? Get the 2052 and keep going. If it is indeed being integrated into a Jaguar, then there is absolutely no need to look anywhere else. Reuse the work. In fact, ask Elbit/BAE if they are ready to fit the radar in the nose of the combat/dream Hawk. If the RFP is for due process, or to keep Elbit honest, then it is fine. Otherwise, it makes no sense for me to delay on the choice of the radar.

Uttam will come with Mk2. If DRDO cannot deliver the radar by then, then it shuold be ready to answer some tough questions.


Don't think jags will get 2052 aesa, just the 2032 mech array. HAL might be finding out that it is not very easy to get an aesa with large enough array in such a small space so as to provide worthwhile advantages over an advanced mech array. Hence the dekko at other vendors.

Another more sinister possibility is that this is a sneaky way to get in solah with racr. it would probably be unlikely for Hal to complete the search and integrate the radar by stated timeline of 2021, which would then justify higher numbers of solah production, in-house and MII of course, and a few extra lca mk1s with 2032 might get an order for some dikhawa purposes. Everybody is happy, no?

Just a guess of course.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 14 Dec 2016 08:10

Cain Marko wrote:Don't think jags will get 2052 aesa, just the 2032 mech array. HAL might be finding out that it is not very easy to get an aesa with large enough array in such a small space so as to provide worthwhile advantages over an advanced mech array. Hence the dekko at other vendors.

58 Jaguars are slated to get an AESA upgrade. So basically, every two-ship Jaguar sortie will be able to share an AESA through the data-link.

The aperture is not a problem; the EL/M-2052 is a scalable system. IAI's offering it as standard kit on Kfir Blk 60s (and for upgrades).

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3842
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Dec 2016 08:22

^ is the 2052 confirmed on the jag?

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 14 Dec 2016 08:49

Anybody remember the Shakti saga b/w HAL & Turbomeca/Safran? Already operational on the Dhruv, it was a natural choice for the LUH. Turbomeca, knowing this, jacked up its prices. An 'outraged' HAL responded with a global RFP forcing Safran to.. adjust its position.

HAL confronts Snecma in light helicopter project
The Light Utility Helicopter (LuH), which Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) is designing for the Indian military, has encountered turbulence even before leaving the drawing board. French engine-maker Turbomeca, whose vaunted Shakti engine was to power the LuH, is demanding what Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources term “extortionist prices” for integrating the Shakti with the LuH.

HAL had paid Turbomeca to develop the Shakti engine for the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH); and the Shakti also powers the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) that HAL is developing. Because the Shakti is custom-designed for the high altitudes — between 15,000 and 20,000 feet — that characterise much of India’s border, and because HAL and Turbomeca will jointly manufacture the engine in India, the Shakti was selected to also power the LuH.

But the Dhruv and the LCH are twin-engine helicopters, while the lighter LuH will fly with a single Shakti engine. That requires Turbomeca to design a new transmission for the LuH. Additionally, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will have to certify the Shakti for single-engine operation. To HAL’s dismay, Turbomeca has demanded Rs 190 crore for these jobs, more than half the LuH’s entire budget of Rs 376 crore.


In formulating the LuH development budget, HAL had assumed that Turbomeca would design the new transmission system cheaply, to benefit from additional orders of hundreds of Shakti engines over the service life of the LuH.

An outraged HAL board, having decided against paying so much to Turbomeca, has approached other engine-makers — including General Electric, Honeywell, Rolls-Royce, and Pratt & Whitney — for an engine for the LuH. :shock:

Reliable MoD sources tell Business Standard that Turbomeca is now negotiating with HAL to compromise on a price for the Shakti. The French company has offered to reduce the cost by Rs 90 crore, provided that the amount is adjusted against its offset liability. But HAL rejected that offer last week, telling Turbomeca that even Rs 100 crore is too high a price. Turbomeca is now preparing a fresh proposal.

Senior HAL sources complain that Turbomeca is taking advantage of the rigid timelines that the defence ministry has imposed on HAL in the LuH project. The MoD has split its order for 384 LuHs between a global tender for 197 ready-built LuHs; and an order for HAL to develop and build 187 LuHs by 2017. The MoD has specified a target date for each of the LuH’s development milestones: building of a mock-up; the design freeze; the first flight; Initial Operational Clearance, and so on. Each time HAL misses a milestone, its order reduces from 187.

Turbomeca apparently believes that these time obligations reduce HAL’s bargaining leverage. HAL, however, has decided early not to put all its eggs in the Turbomeca basket.



That being said, this is still relatively early days for the Mk1A. If they are serious about considering other options and can make that decision without excessive delay, a SABR/APG-83 derivative will probably the most capable of the lot.

Personally, I've always been lukewarm on the 2052; the T/R count (generally a good thumb rule of capability) was definitely underwhelming (500 modules for a F-16 sized antenna IIRC) and the lack of a captive customer was a barrier to sustained evolution (eg. Vixen 500E -> Vixen 1000E -> ES-05). Hopefully that's old news and the 2052 has advanced by a generation (like its peers) but I can't say I'd be willing to bet on it.
Last edited by ramana on 15 Dec 2016 05:50, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Bold added ramana

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 14 Dec 2016 08:53

Cain Marko wrote:^ is the 2052 confirmed on the jag?

Yeah.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3842
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Dec 2016 09:40

Viv S wrote:. The aperture is not a problem; the EL/M-2052 is a scalable system. IAI's offering it as standard kit on Kfir Blk 60s (and for upgrades).

Yes but what about space for cooling requirements? I'm guessing that more trms = greater cooling and hence you simply can't have too many modules densely packed in a small nose cone. Of course I'm just a layperson, no phyjjicks and engineering background to speak of.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 14 Dec 2016 11:39

Cain Marko wrote:Yes but what about space for cooling requirements? I'm guessing that more trms = greater cooling and hence you simply can't have too many modules densely packed in a small nose cone. Of course I'm just a layperson, no phyjjicks and engineering background to speak of.

Like I said, its a scaled down variant. Assuming its the same size as a Kfir's it should have about 300 TRMs. Cooling requirements will be proportionately lower. Its quite doable.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 14 Dec 2016 11:57

Cain Marko wrote:^ is the 2052 confirmed on the jag?


The deal was always with LCA +1/2 more jets for AESA order, as what was Israeli demand IIRC. Jag was being mentioned as the other candidate even 2yrs ago. So nothing surprizing there. All these things been discussed on this very thread.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JTull » 14 Dec 2016 14:52



This should call Saab's bluff that India cannot access AESA GaN tech without buying whole aircraft.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 14 Dec 2016 18:45

JTull wrote:


This should call Saab's bluff that India cannot access AESA GaN tech without buying whole aircraft.


Depending on what is on offer the advantages non SAAB bids enjoy is proven, lower cost, high reliabiltiy (on account of refinement over time) systems and not an S&T project that have not even left the lab yet (what SAAB has offered). Israel has a radar it is integrated on the KFIR, and the jaguar while both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman's lines share huge component commonality (including software in some instances) with massive programs of record such as the AN/APG-81 and the AN/APG-79/63/82 programs.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gagan » 15 Dec 2016 03:34

And allow india a dekko at what advances the world has made in AESA technology.

The MMRCA saga did allow the IAF to get a really good dekko at all the top line fighters flying today right right?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 15 Dec 2016 05:47

I don't like this baloney AESA tender at this stage for the Mk1A. Its another way to slowdown the delivery.

Why cant these be for future upgrade for the 40 odd LCAs?


Something is not right.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3842
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Dec 2016 07:50

ramana wrote:Something is not right.


Would have to agree - smells funny. First the unhelpful NLCA news and now this....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Philip » 15 Dec 2016 12:49

What happened to the much displayed desi AESA radar at the last Aero-India? Another great 'technology demonstrator" what?
Last edited by Indranil on 15 Dec 2016 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Poster warned for trolling. Banned for a week.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby maitya » 15 Dec 2016 13:05

Philip wrote:What happened to the much displayed desi AESA radar at the last Aero-India? Another great 'technology demonstrator" what?

If this is not trolling of worst kind (combined with naked flame-baiting), I don't know what trolling is!!

Response will be there, but after allowing the admins to express their views/actions.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 15 Dec 2016 13:53

maitya wrote:
Philip wrote:What happened to the much displayed desi AESA radar at the last Aero-India? Another great 'technology demonstrator" what?

If this is not trolling of worst kind (combined with naked flame-baiting), I don't know what trolling is!!

Response will be there, but after allowing the admins to express their views/actions.

Fully agree. Being a senior member has no meaning if one is just a troll on any indigenous thread (moreover, pushing Russkiya schit at the expense of India's capabilities).

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 15 Dec 2016 14:55

Philip wrote:What happened to the much displayed desi AESA radar at the last Aero-India? Another great 'technology demonstrator" what?


Philip saar, making an AESA radar that fits into the nose cone of a small fighter is not easy, and takes time. DRDO has experience in making working AESA radars mounted on AEWC platforms, which is close to being inducted into IAF. From what I have read on the internet, Uttam radar's hardware is ready and they are working on the signal processing part, specifically the A2G mode. This is very difficult to master and might take a few more years to complete. IIRC, even Israel had to get US help in developing the software.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 15 Dec 2016 15:10

Marten wrote:
maitya wrote:If this is not trolling of worst kind (combined with naked flame-baiting), I don't know what trolling is!!

Response will be there, but after allowing the admins to express their views/actions.

Fully agree. Being a senior member has no meaning if one is just a troll on any indigenous thread (moreover, pushing Russkiya schit at the expense of India's capabilities).


Saar relax,
One can only feel sorry for such salemen who can't sell anything even with zero commission and only can keep crapping in forums in memory of Castro, Kim Junk Ill, and Stalin.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohiths » 15 Dec 2016 15:15

Even Russia does not have a working AESA radar :-)

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3878
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby chola » 15 Dec 2016 15:33

Rishi Verma wrote:
Marten wrote:Fully agree. Being a senior member has no meaning if one is just a troll on any indigenous thread (moreover, pushing Russkiya schit at the expense of India's capabilities).


Saar relax,
One can only feel sorry for such salemen who can't sell anything even with zero commission and only can keep crapping in forums in memory of Castro, Kim Junk Ill, and Stalin.


The problem is they DO sell a lot to India. (I respect Philip as a poster but not his cheerleading for the russkies.)

The crap they sell has cost us in treasure and, even more importantly, blood. Screwdrivergiriing russian crap for the past 50 years has left us with a stunted industrial base which is why we are still discussing the LCA after all these years.

The S Koreans cut their teeth building the F-sola decades after we begin screwing together the MiG flying coffins. They are already selling their indigenous T-50 Golden Eagle around the world (Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, etc.) The japs with their F-2 (again from the F-16) which has been in frontline service for decades. If we must go firang, it is far better to go Unkil.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 15 Dec 2016 17:24

chola wrote:The S Koreans cut their teeth building the F-sola decades after we begin screwing together the MiG flying coffins. They are already selling their indigenous T-50 Golden Eagle around the world (Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, etc.) The japs with their F-2 (again from the F-16) which has been in frontline service for decades. If we must go firang, it is far better to go Unkil.


No advantage there either. Both T-50 and J-2 use US powerplants and radars, exactly where LCA is struggling. They are not sanction proof and this outweighs all other considerations.

How I wish we had a working MMR radar and flightworthy Kaveri engine. No matter how far behind we are in terms of generations, we would have a (almost) completely indigenous LCA to fall back on when a warlike situation arises. This is one reason why GOI/DRDO/IAF must never ever abandon work on Kaveri and MMR/Uttam radar and see it to completion.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests