LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby thammu » 10 Nov 2017 10:53

Tejas far behind competitors, not enough to protect Indian skies: IAFhttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tejas-indian-air-force-f-16-mig-21-fighter-planes-ajit-doval/1/1086425.html
Tejas - the indigenously made Light-Combat single engine fighter - isn't enough to protect Indian skies, the India Air Force (IAF) has told the government. The response came after the South Block asked the IAF to scrap its plans of acquiring single-engine fighters from global, top sources told India Today.
The IAF said the Tejas is far behind its competitors like the JAS 39 Gripen manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab and the US made F-16 manufactured by Lockheed Martin, sources said.
National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is understood to have raised the issue after the government asked the IAF to scrap its plans to acquire foreign made single engine fighters and go for the Indian made fighters only. Recently, the IAF made a presentation to the government to explain why Tejas alone can't meet India's requirements.
Ads by ZINC

Documents accessed by India Today reveal that the IAF has told the government that the "endurance" of Tejas in combat is just about 59 minutes as against 3 hours of Gripen and nearly 4 fours for the F-16. Also, Tejas can carry a pay-load of about three tons against nearly six tons and seven tons by the Gripen and F-16 respectively.
"In other words, for target that needs about 36 bombs to be destroyed, one will have to deploy six Tejas as against just three Gripen or F-16," the IAF has told the government.
The IAF has also said Tejas needs 20 hours of serving for every hour of flying as against six hours for Gripen and 3.5 hours for F-16.
The cost of maintaining the Tejas is much higher than the other fighters. Also, both the F-16 and Gripen has a life-span of 40 years against just 20 of Tejas. And, in some areas the vintage Russian made Mig-21 is better than Tejas, the IAF is understood to have told the government.
India is desperate for single-engine fighters to replace aging MiG-21s. The country needs at least 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two front war, but currently has only 33 squadrons. And, at least another 11 fighter squadrons of the IAF will have to be retired in the next two years.
So far, the IAF has ordered 123 Tejas fighters but wants a better single-engine fighter to make up for the huge-shortfall in the fighter strength. Of the 123 Tejas fighters, only 40 will be Tejas Mark-1 and the rest 83 will be an upgraded version.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 10 Nov 2017 11:38

I don't know if IAF said this or not. But if it did, it did a mockery of itself. Even, I, just an enthusiast, can pull these numbers down, one by one. I think it is about time. I have lazed around on writing articles. I should not. There is a requirement of writers who bring such fallacious arguments and/or reports down.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 10 Nov 2017 11:45

thammu wrote:Tejas far behind competitors, not enough to protect Indian skies: IAFhttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tejas-indian-air-force-f-16-mig-21-fighter-planes-ajit-doval/1/1086425.html
Tejas - the indigenously made Light-Combat single engine fighter - isn't enough to protect Indian skies, the India Air Force (IAF) has told the government. The response came after the South Block asked the IAF to scrap its plans of acquiring single-engine fighters from global, top sources told India Today.
The IAF said the Tejas is far behind its competitors like the JAS 39 Gripen manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab and the US made F-16 manufactured by Lockheed Martin, sources said.
National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is understood to have raised the issue after the government asked the IAF to scrap its plans to acquire foreign made single engine fighters and go for the Indian made fighters only. Recently, the IAF made a presentation to the government to explain why Tejas alone can't meet India's requirements.
Ads by ZINC

Documents accessed by India Today reveal that the IAF has told the government that the "endurance" of Tejas in combat is just about 59 minutes as against 3 hours of Gripen and nearly 4 fours for the F-16. Also, Tejas can carry a pay-load of about three tons against nearly six tons and seven tons by the Gripen and F-16 respectively.
"In other words, for target that needs about 36 bombs to be destroyed, one will have to deploy six Tejas as against just three Gripen or F-16," the IAF has told the government.
The IAF has also said Tejas needs 20 hours of serving for every hour of flying as against six hours for Gripen and 3.5 hours for F-16.
The cost of maintaining the Tejas is much higher than the other fighters. Also, both the F-16 and Gripen has a life-span of 40 years against just 20 of Tejas. And, in some areas the vintage Russian made Mig-21 is better than Tejas, the IAF is understood to have told the government.
India is desperate for single-engine fighters to replace aging MiG-21s. The country needs at least 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two front war, but currently has only 33 squadrons. And, at least another 11 fighter squadrons of the IAF will have to be retired in the next two years.
So far, the IAF has ordered 123 Tejas fighters but wants a better single-engine fighter to make up for the huge-shortfall in the fighter strength. Of the 123 Tejas fighters, only 40 will be Tejas Mark-1 and the rest 83 will be an upgraded version.


Considering the report is true and not a hit-job...

What documents are these which India Today claims to have accessed..? Are those in public domain...?

Many question arise in my mind. Is IAF comparing MK1 with Gripen NG/F16..? Looks like it is. Have they made it clear in their statement...? Does the committee understand that within the same time frame that Gripen or F16 comes, perhaps with a difference of a couple of years MK2 can also come in IAF..? In what areas MiG21 is better than LCA...?? Highly disappointed with IAF's response.

I am happy to see GOI pushing for desi fighter. I hope they simply scrap the SE competition and mandate for MK2 which matches IAF's requirements. 2-3yrs delay is not something that IAF cannot live with for MK2 when they can wait for decades for imported jets without option B.

PS: While I was typing IR wrote a post. Agree with him, this response given by IAF looks like a DDM report rather than a critical analysis.

Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kersi » 10 Nov 2017 11:48

Kashi wrote:This reads like a case study of AKA's tenure as Raksha Mantri


Are you sure it is not written by AKA ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4321
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 10 Nov 2017 11:48

Indranil wrote:I don't know if IAF said this or not. But if it did, it did a mockery of itself. Even, I, just an enthusiast, can pull these numbers down, one by one. I think it is about time. I have lazed around on writing articles. I should not. There is a requirement of writers who bring such fallacious arguments and/or reports down.

Please do!

Man ... if the IAF did say things like that to get its imported fighters, then some of us, unfortunately, were right all along :evil: We will need some more news reports from credible journalists to verify the claims of this article though.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby A Deshmukh » 10 Nov 2017 11:50

Can we ask a few simple questions:
1. Why does IAF need 42 squadrons?
2. Why does IAF need endurance of >1 hr?

Can we have a deeper discussion than the superficial answer: The country needs at least 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two front war, but currently has only 33 squadrons.

On endurance of >1 hr: what is the role envisaged for Tejas/SE fighter that requires endurance of more than 1hr, in Offensive operations and in Defensive operations? Are there other means to resolve the requirements (ex: more AWACS/radars, more AD Akash, etc) (btw Mig-21 has endurance of about 30 mins)

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2017 11:51

Kersi wrote:
Kashi wrote:This reads like a case study of AKA's tenure as Raksha Mantri


Are you sure it is not written by AKA ?


I see it as an instruction manual for fcuking procurement process of MOD. It seems to have been diligenltly followed by MOD babus for atleast 30 years that I am aware of.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2017 11:53

A Deshmukh wrote:Can we ask a few simple questions:
1. Why does IAF need 42 squadrons?
2. Why does IAF need endurance of >1 hr?

Can we have a deeper discussion than the superficial answer: The country needs at least 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two front war, but currently has only 33 squadrons.

On endurance of >1 hr: what is the role envisaged for Tejas/SE fighter that requires endurance of more than 1hr, in Offensive operations and in Defensive operations? Are there other means to resolve the requirements (ex: more AWACS/radars, more AD Akash, etc) (btw Mig-21 has endurance of about 30 mins)



More importantly what is the definition of endurance in this particular context. Also why was it conceived as a single engine light fighter when endurance was such a major defining factor.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3608
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kashi » 10 Nov 2017 12:47

Kersi wrote:
Kashi wrote:This reads like a case study of AKA's tenure as Raksha Mantri


Are you sure it is not written by AKA ?


I don't know about that, but he did appear to have followed the "guidelines" to the letter and in spirit.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 10 Nov 2017 12:48

JayS wrote:
Many question arise in my mind. Is IAF comparing MK1 with Gripen NG/F16..? Looks like it is. Have they made it clear in their statement...? Does the committee understand that within the same time frame that Gripen or F16 comes, perhaps with a difference of a couple of years MK2 can also come in IAF..? In what areas MiG21 is better than LCA...?? Highly disappointed with IAF's response.

I mean think about it F-16 maintenance is 3 hours per flight hour, Gripen's 6!!! Who writes such stuff? If IAF did this in an official reply, it will be a shame!

They seem to be quoting LCA's endurance on internal fuel only. That too realistic numbers with reserves etc. If LCA could only fly 59 minutes, then all its ferry flights from Bangalore to Jodhpur/Gwalior would have to supersonic from Take off to landing. In reality, with 2 * 1200 ltr + 725 ltrs, it can fly from Bangalore to Jaisalmer.

On the other hand, Gripen and F-16's endurance has been quoted at ferry loadouts. Under those loadouts, those aircrafts can't carry any payloads.

At AI'17, the trainer prototypes (forget SPs) were giving more than 2 guest flights, each of close to 1 hour each per day. There are 24 hours in a day.

The only area where the Mig-21 beats the Tejas is top speed.

I will say this openly, if IAF did indeed give these numbers, it is a shame. If it did not, it should come out and defend its name.

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby keshavchandra » 10 Nov 2017 13:35

Everyone want firangi item. IAF don't want LCA, IA don't want Arjun as MBT, IN don't have that confidence in indigenous products.
If we don't trust our own product who else will. And if they are not upto the mark then it's even the users responsibility to guide the developer.
Product development is a constant process throughout its life span but first we need to accept it and accept it willingly.
I think it's all about money , nothing else! :oops:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4321
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 10 Nov 2017 13:36

Indranil wrote:...
I will say this openly, if IAF did indeed give these numbers, it is a shame. If it did not, it should come out and defend its name.


"Silence implies consent"

Article like these hit jobs (published in a major newspaper) just don't come out of thin air. Editorial board would need to verify sources and information before publication if they are to maintain any sense of journalistic credibility. So there must be some elements within organizations (i.e. some unnamed senior officials that keep getting referred in many of these type of articles) are feeding them these information at critical decision points. We saw similar types of articles when the Rafale contract was getting delayed.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9965
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby sum » 10 Nov 2017 13:57

Only good thing i could find in the article was GoI trying to end the SE tamasha by making IAF buy more LCA else will be a MMRCA redux which might end by time of my grandchildren

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby tsarkar » 10 Nov 2017 14:44

Indranil wrote:I don't know if IAF said this or not. But if it did, it did a mockery of itself. Even, I, just an enthusiast, can pull these numbers down, one by one. I think it is about time. I have lazed around on writing articles. I should not. There is a requirement of writers who bring such fallacious arguments and/or reports down.

This seems to be AM Deo's response to Defense Minister.

IR, please put together a factual response, email it to India Today and post it on the BR website, Facebook & Twitter page. Let any decision be taken by GoI based on correct facts.

This is important. As Indians, we've a duty to prevent the Tejas going the Marut way.

Only one request to all members. Keep emotions out and let the engineering facts do the talking. That makes proper impact. Emotions spoil any case. That is the reason the lady of the law holding weighing scales wears a blindfold.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 10 Nov 2017 14:59

Indranil wrote:
JayS wrote:
Many question arise in my mind. Is IAF comparing MK1 with Gripen NG/F16..? Looks like it is. Have they made it clear in their statement...? Does the committee understand that within the same time frame that Gripen or F16 comes, perhaps with a difference of a couple of years MK2 can also come in IAF..? In what areas MiG21 is better than LCA...?? Highly disappointed with IAF's response.

I mean think about it F-16 maintenance is 3 hours per flight hour, Gripen's 6!!! Who writes such stuff? If IAF did this in an official reply, it will be a shame!

They seem to be quoting LCA's endurance on internal fuel only. That too realistic numbers with reserves etc. If LCA could only fly 59 minutes, then all its ferry flights from Bangalore to Jodhpur/Gwalior would have to supersonic from Take off to landing. In reality, with 2 * 1200 ltr + 725 ltrs, it can fly from Bangalore to Jaisalmer.

On the other hand, Gripen and F-16's endurance has been quoted at ferry loadouts. Under those loadouts, those aircrafts can't carry any payloads.

At AI'17, the trainer prototypes (forget SPs) were giving more than 2 guest flights, each of close to 1 hour each per day. There are 24 hours in a day.

The only area where the Mig-21 beats the Tejas is top speed.

I will say this openly, if IAF did indeed give these numbers, it is a shame. If it did not, it should come out and defend its name.


Once I calculated range of LCA as 1800km (endurance of 2hr 7min) for A2A config with 2CCM+2BVR and 3 EFTs and 5 min of combat on AB with some simple back of the envelop calculations using simple aerodynamic formulae and F404 sfc numbers. If we replace Gripen C/D in those equations for Tejas, the numbers should not change much. Any half decent engineer can tell that the quoted difference in endurance is physically impossible to exist if comparison is drawn on equal basis.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1686
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Zynda » 10 Nov 2017 15:05

^^Folks here can pitch in their efforts on taking some of the facts down and can culminate in a rebuttal to the above article.

TBH, I'd glad that this is the 2nd time, MoD is trying to push for greater numbers of Tejas. Hopefully, the MoD will put the hammer and ask IAF to accept Mk.2 version of LCA. A grand wish of mine is that Mk.2 development green flag will spur greater private enterprises participation in all phases of PLM

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2017 15:07

Here is a summary of the article..

thammu wrote:Tejas far behind competitors, not enough to protect Indian skies: IAFhttp://blatoday.intoday.in/story/tejas-indian-air-force-f-16-mig-21-fighter-planes-ajit-doval/1/1086425.html
Tejas - the indigenously made Light-Combat single engine fighter - isn't enough to protect Indian skies, the India Air Force (IAF) has told the government. The response came after the South Block asked the IAF to scrap its plans of acquiring single-engine fighters from global, top sources told India Today.
The IAF said the Tejas is far behind its competitors like the JAS 39 Gripen manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab and the US made F-16 manufactured by Lockheed Martin, sources said.
National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is understood to have raised the issue after the government asked the IAF to scrap its plans to acquire foreign made single engine fighters and go for the Indian made fighters only. Recently, the IAF made a presentation to the government to explain why Tejas alone can't meet India's requirements.
Ads by ZINC

Documents accessed by India Today reveal that the IAF has told the government that the "endurance" of Tejas in combat is just about 59 minutes as against 3 hours of Gripen and nearly 4 fours for the F-16. Also, Tejas can carry a pay-load of about three tons against nearly six tons and seven tons by the Gripen and F-16 respectively.
"In other words, for target that needs about 36 bombs to be destroyed, one will have to deploy six Tejas as against just three Gripen or F-16," the IAF has told the government.
The IAF has also said Tejas needs 20 hours of serving for every hour of flying as against six hours for Gripen and 3.5 hours for F-16.
The cost of maintaining the Tejas is much higher than the other fighters. Also, both the F-16 and Gripen has a life-span of 40 years against just 20 of Tejas. And, in some areas the vintage Russian made Mig-21 is better than Tejas, the IAF is understood to have told the government.
India is desperate for single-engine fighters to replace aging MiG-21s. The country needs at least 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two front war, but currently has only 33 squadrons. And, at least another 11 fighter squadrons of the IAF will have to be retired in the next two years.
So far, the IAF has ordered 123 Tejas fighters but wants a better single-engine fighter to make up for the huge-shortfall in the fighter strength. Of the 123 Tejas fighters, only 40 will be Tejas Mark-1 and the rest 83 will be an upgraded version.


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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2017 15:07

Zynda wrote:^^Folks here can pitch in their efforts on taking some of the facts down and can culminate in a rebuttal to the above article.

You will give it more hits by doing that. Ignore.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11305
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Nov 2017 15:08

Lets face there seems to be clear import lobby at practice, it is not in any nation's interest that we have an independent MIC, and they are willing to go extent to ensure that and they seem to have deep claws within our Government set up. Post retirement benefits to childerns education/professional opportunities, every aspect is being is used to bring in pressure.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 10 Nov 2017 15:17

Insane. What is actually arrayed against us that we need to protect in our sky from? This insane dhoti-shivering over two minor military challenges in the TSP and Cheen and needing best on the phoren market right here and now has killed any attempt to start up our MIC.

PAF has what? 70 F-Solas and 100 Blunders? Cheen has about 24 J-10s and J-11s in Tibet. People, Pakiland and PRC are not first rate mil powers. Not even third rate.

What the hell do we seriously need to protect our air from? There is NOTHING on our borders that the Tejas — in combination with we already have — cannot take care of.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 276
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby pushkar.bhat » 10 Nov 2017 18:41

shiv wrote:
atma wrote::| I agree with shivji.

The point is this.. there are hundreds of Mirage 2000s operating several countries and an even larger number of F-16s. A still larger number of Western civilian airliners and 4x that number of engines are subject to the same strict inspection and replacement standards. These entities have several thousand years of collective experience. So who is saying that China will be 50% ahead? In what way? Without fleshing out details it is going to remain rhetoric - considering that high tech Chinese equipment in Aerospace is nowhere near being visible the world over.

Recall that "preventive" replacement can mean several things. "Embedded intelligence" for preventive replacement may be possible for avionics and some aerostructures. Not acknowledged by us at all is the old Russian model of preventive replacement where a GSh 23/30 is automatically discarded and replaced after 10,000 rounds (or some such thing) are fired. Engines automatically replaced after 150 hours of use. That is also "Preventive" - but inefficient and inexpensive.

And there is a bit of semantics in the words "predictive" and "preventive". The equipment may sense its own failure and demand replacement as a "preventive" measure, but the logistics chain supplying 100s of centers all over the world must have that item available quickly for swap - which is predictive based on experience

This is all OT. The LCA does not have to chase some imagined "predicted" Chinese ideal. They have to match what France does with Mirage 2000 and what US does with C-130


I will just make a short comment on what Shiv has mentioned. Predictive and Preventive are not just about semantics. China as a country has invested heavily into data sciences and specifically on the topic of IoT. They are in a way challenging a lot of incumbents with some of their embedded stuff and they need to be given due credit for the same. Our efforts in this direction need to get channelized. We have huge capacities but need to get them working on some of our strategic programs. Today many of these smart folks are working on getting Tax governance smarter. :)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 10 Nov 2017 19:06

srai wrote:
Indranil wrote:I don't know if IAF said this or not. But if it did, it did a mockery of itself. Even, I, just an enthusiast, can pull these numbers down, one by one. I think it is about time. I have lazed around on writing articles. I should not. There is a requirement of writers who bring such fallacious arguments and/or reports down.

Please do!

Man ... if the IAF did say things like that to get its imported fighters, then some of us, unfortunately, were right all along :evil: We will need some more news reports from credible journalists to verify the claims of this article though.

I echo srai. You must do it Boss. This is a nonsense article :)

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2017 19:35

pushkar.bhat wrote:
I will just make a short comment on what Shiv has mentioned. Predictive and Preventive are not just about semantics. China as a country has invested heavily into data sciences and specifically on the topic of IoT. They are in a way challenging a lot of incumbents with some of their embedded stuff and they need to be given due credit for the same. Our efforts in this direction need to get channelized. We have huge capacities but need to get them working on some of our strategic programs. Today many of these smart folks are working on getting Tax governance smarter. :)

Sorry. This post went way above my head. There are a lot of cryptic points whose meanings are unclear - and I am always challenging such statements (not yours specifically) because clever suggestive words are the stuff that rhetoric is made up of. No insult intended. Please expand and explain so I and perhaps others might learn.

Examples of what I do not understand
1. " invested heavily into data sciences and specifically on the topic of IoT."
2. "challenging a lot of incumbents with some of their embedded stuff"
3. "Our efforts in this direction need to get channelized. We have huge capacities but need to get them working on some of our strategic programs "
4. "Today many of these smart folks are working on getting Tax governance smarter."

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1999
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Bala Vignesh » 10 Nov 2017 19:57

Rakesh wrote:
srai wrote:Please do!

Man ... if the IAF did say things like that to get its imported fighters, then some of us, unfortunately, were right all along :evil: We will need some more news reports from credible journalists to verify the claims of this article though.

I echo srai. You must do it Boss. This is a nonsense article :)

Thirded!!!
This is where the BAR Monitor and the SRR were effective, to counter such bogus stories in mainstream media. Wonder whatever happened to the plan of reviving them???

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby tsarkar » 10 Nov 2017 20:23

I do believe this article - I do have independent confirmation.

Prime Minister & Defence Minister are keen on addressing the fighter shortfall and they are keen on the Tejas. And they're fed up with the perfidy and arm twisting by the French & Russians - huge cost escalations, lack of ToT on Su-30 & Scorpene & leaks

However, the IAF Plans Directorate wants imported fighters. They don't have any ulterior motives, just want "proven and tested stuff" advertised as by their sellers. And Tejas fares very bad in marketing, publicity & advertising.

This is Make or Break for Tejas.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2017 20:33

tsarkar wrote:I do believe this article - I do have independent confirmation.

Prime Minister & Defence Minister are keen on addressing the fighter shortfall and they are keen on the Tejas. And they're fed up with the perfidy and arm twisting by the French & Russians - huge cost escalations, lack of ToT on Su-30 & Scorpene & leaks

However, the IAF Plans Directorate wants imported fighters. They don't have any ulterior motives, just want "proven and tested stuff" advertised as by their sellers. And Tejas fares very bad in marketing, publicity & advertising.

This is Make or Break for Tejas.

Gnat pilots loved her.
HF 24 pilot loved their plane. But others did not believe them
MIg 21 pilots a loved her.

All were faulty to start with. Every pilot ends up liking what he flies most and other than test pilots most do not get really familiar with all.


How many experts of the IAF are actually familiar with the Tejas to pass such comments? In fact this lends credence to the theory that the IAF is actually an import pasand force of fighter jocks who have no involvement with domestic industry and sound more like the chowkidar who says "humey hathiyar do, hum larenge" rather than the technology aware person who involves himself with Indian industry. In other words a fossilized force. I say this with some sadness - I was always and Air Force admirer and sometimes defended the IAF robustly against criticism. The attitude of the air force seems to be "I am merely a soldier. Give me the best arms to fight. Don't ask me to get involved with complex intellectual stuff like industry and technology."

Now I think it is perfectly justified for the Navy and Army to have air-arms of their own

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby pandyan » 10 Nov 2017 21:09

tsarkar wrote:I do believe this article - I do have independent confirmation.

However, the IAF Plans Directorate wants imported fighters. They don't have any ulterior motives, just want "proven and tested stuff" advertised as by their sellers. And Tejas fares very bad in marketing, publicity & advertising.

I thought when DM asked for solutions, someone in iaf will promptly come with a solution quoted. This is arm twisting of highest order. A demon like strategy is needed.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Nov 2017 21:20

shiv wrote:How many experts of the IAF are actually familiar with the Tejas to pass such comments? In fact this lends credence to the theory that the IAF is actually an import pasand force of fighter jocks who have no involvement with domestic industry and sound more like the chowkidar who says "humey hathiyar do, hum larenge" rather than the technology aware person who involves himself with Indian industry. In other words a fossilized force. I say this with some sadness - I was always and Air Force admirer and sometimes defended the IAF robustly against criticism. The attitude of the air force seems to be "I am merely a soldier. Give me the best arms to fight. Don't ask me to get involved with complex intellectual stuff like industry and technology."

Now I think it is perfectly justified for the Navy and Army to have air-arms of their own
There is a small group like you indicated, the test pilots where some are actually qualified to go through the intellectual exercise to get involved in the MIC aspects of things. unfortunately, even in the naval air arm, in the fight between the "jock" and the "expert" usually leads to the jocks winning due to their numbers and rank in the organization.

What we need is a dedicated cadre of civilian experts in MoD, who are qualified to adjudicate along with political stakes to make the decisions count at the poll booth.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 10 Nov 2017 21:28

So sarkar sahib - what is proven and tested: Mig-21s that killed about 200 pilots in peacetime or Su 30s that sit around as Hangar Queens? The LCA has not had a crash in over a decade. Does IAF have no faith its own test pilots and their comments?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 10 Nov 2017 21:35

thammu wrote:Tejas far behind competitors, not enough to protect Indian skies: IAFhttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tejas-indian-air-force-f-16-mig-21-fighter-planes-ajit-doval/1/1086425.html

Article by Sudhi Ranjan Sen In India Today

Tejas - the indigenously made Light-Combat single engine fighter - isn't enough to protect Indian skies, the India Air Force (IAF) has told the government. The response came after the South Block asked the IAF to scrap its plans of acquiring single-engine fighters from global, top sources told India Today.

The IAF said the Tejas is far behind its competitors like the JAS 39 Gripen manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab and the US made F-16 manufactured by Lockheed Martin, sources said.

{Tejas was never meant to be a competitor to either Grippen 2 or the F16. Mirage 2000 is the competitor to F16. In case those who made the presentation forgot. Tejas was replacement for Mig 21 by IAF own specs. Can't now move goal post.}


National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is understood to have raised the issue after the government asked the IAF to scrap its plans to acquire foreign made single engine fighters and go for the Indian made fighters only. Recently, the IAF made a presentation to the government to explain why Tejas alone can't meet India's requirements.


Documents accessed by India Today reveal that the IAF has told the government that the "endurance" of Tejas in combat is just about 59 minutes as against 3 hours of Gripen and nearly 4 fours for the F-16. Also, Tejas can carry a pay-load of about three tons against nearly six tons and seven tons by the Gripen and F-16 respectively.

"In other words, for target that needs about 36 bombs to be destroyed, one will have to deploy six Tejas as against just three Gripen or F-16," the IAF has told the government.

{ Which target needs 36 bombs to be destroyed in Pakistan? Also is their math is wrong. What they are thinking is using Canberra type attack when even jaguar has carries more load out than the Canberra!}


The IAF has also said Tejas needs 20 hours of serving for every hour of flying as against six hours for Gripen and 3.5 hours for F-16.
The cost of maintaining the Tejas is much higher than the other fighters. Also, both the F-16 and Gripen has a life-span of 40 years against just 20 of Tejas. And, in some areas the vintage Russian made Mig-21 is better than Tejas, the IAF is understood to have told the government.

[b]{At least argue using facts. Calling Mig-21 the widow maker better than the Tejas shows how bogus the arguments are. So how true are the rest of the facts. Where did they get the 3.5 hours to maintain the F 16 or the 6 hours for Grippen? From the vendor? And how does Tejas have 20 year life span while Grippen has 40 year life span? Madrassa math. Problem is IAF still has some folks hankering for Swedish aircraft since the Viggen got beaten by the Jaguar thanks to Rajiv Gandhi being involved.}



[/b]India is desperate for single-engine fighters to replace aging MiG-21s. The country needs at least 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two front war, but currently has only 33 squadrons. And, at least another 11 fighter squadrons of the IAF will have to be retired in the next two years.

{The replacement for Mig 21 is the Tejas. PERIOD. Any thing else is a Mig 21+++}

So far, the IAF has ordered 123 Tejas fighters but wants a better single-engine fighter to make up for the huge-shortfall in the fighter strength. Of the 123 Tejas fighters, only 40 will be Tejas Mark-1 and the rest 83 will be an upgraded version.



With this attitude the IAF will be back to Wapiti type biplane fighters.

NaMo govt has floated the SEF competition to see if US is willing to play ball with India and setup a jet fighter mfg plant which is a national goal since 1960.

Further fighter development was not funded as an inducement to US aircraft industry. This is the reason for killing off the HF-24.

Arunachalam and Rajiv Gandhi put the LCA program at the feet of US and it got kicked hard. When the LCA was conceptualized the whole game was to align with US aircraft industry and the program got hit by sanctions, delays, technology denial etc. The RLG, unstable aerodynamics, flight control laws, actuators all were US components. Even the flight control laws were proofed on F16 and got sanctioned in 1998.

Its a joke if that IAF did not know the history of Tejas and now wants the F16!!!!

US has shown its not interested by offering the katara F-16s. The idiot Swedes tied up with Indian business men (who have not made a screw) in hopes of saving their aircraft industry and are offering this plane which is upgraded to Tejas. The minute they get the selection US will embargo its engine citing some arcane Export Control law on their books.


IAF needs to understand and move on. Order more Tejas, Hawks and Su-30s. Work on improving the jet engines on Su-30s.

If they want to be future oriented then press for a share in new Franco-German fighter aircraft development project coming up as we write.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 10 Nov 2017 21:37

Rakesh The article is not nonsense but the thinking that was quoted by the article is bogus.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 10 Nov 2017 21:48

tsarkar wrote:I do believe this article - I do have independent confirmation.

Prime Minister & Defence Minister are keen on addressing the fighter shortfall and they are keen on the Tejas. And they're fed up with the perfidy and arm twisting by the French & Russians - huge cost escalations, lack of ToT on Su-30 & Scorpene & leaks

However, the IAF Plans Directorate wants imported fighters. They don't have any ulterior motives, just want "proven and tested stuff" advertised as by their sellers. And Tejas fares very bad in marketing, publicity & advertising.

This is Make or Break for Tejas.


TSarkar, In 1948 when USN was downsized fifty admiral level officers resigned. How many IAF are willing to do this?

I don't think anyone.

Also if the planes don't perform as the sellers advertised what is the recourse?

The statement about PM and RM is absolutely bang on target. Just like Emden.

Its not just make or break for Tejas but the whole independence from Defense Imports.

The IAF Plans Directorate is using the techniques I referred to on previous page.


viewtopic.php?p=2228882#p2228882

In particular Obedient. and leak to press to undermine the govt decision.

The govt has decided on the Tejas and they are coming up with incorrect comparisons to change the decision.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 10 Nov 2017 21:50

Vivek K wrote:So sarkar sahib - what is proven and tested: Mig-21s that killed about 200 pilots in peacetime or Su 30s that sit around as Hangar Queens? The LCA has not had a crash in over a decade. Does IAF have no faith its own test pilots and their comments?



Vivek K Don't shoot the messenger. Shoot the message.

They will say those are development flights and not in operational/user trials.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby sudeepj » 10 Nov 2017 22:08

I wont be surprised if its a bogus report, reporters with little technical knowledge are misled by 'sources' to write the sources agenda using this 'leaked official document' approach all the time. IAF plans division cant be so stupid and dishonest that they will compare a realistic combat range with a ferry range! Indranil, you should rebut that article. Many decision makers are informed through these type of press reports and sometimes, such bogus reports give cover to the decision makers to take a particular decision for their own reasons.

An Indian aero complex cant consist of just welding/riveting F16/Gripen airframes.. It has to include the core software that goes inside the airframes.. It has to include the aero design capabilities that will surely be lost if we go the F16/Gripen route wholesale. I would rather have both the F16/Gripen and the tejas, but if its only going to be one type, then it should be tejas only!

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3026
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 10 Nov 2017 22:09

the writer of this article does not have a very strong opinion and seems to be playing to both the audiences. Appears to be a random rant by, someone who has not even scratched the surface. Rather than getting agitated a point by point rebuttal is required. Anyone here?

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 10 Nov 2017 22:13

This article is both exhilarating and exasperating. At least someone said scrap the SEF.

But then this is an advertisement for foreign maal and blatant lies. 4 hrs of flying (under what conditions!!), Tejas being costlier, Tejas having 20 yr life - TD1, TD2 will be 20 soon and if someone wants them to fly can still fly, 20 hrs of service for 1 hr of flying .. could have been true for TDs.. PVs.. for testing.. and then being worse than Mig 21!! Oh my Oh my.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3026
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 10 Nov 2017 22:29

Enough of this BS in Was thinking of a riposte on these lines
1. Why Tejas Makes sense
a. Why do we need Tejas
i. Mig 21/23/27 retiring
ii. Highly capable plane
iii. Necessary for future development of AMCA, Ghatak and any HCA that we work on
b. You fight with what you have and not what you dream for: No air force/No nation can fight on the imported weapons
c. We will fight with your opponents and not aliens
i. 75 Block 50/52 can be easily countered by Mig 29s (Kargil War), M2000s
ii. Pakistan not huge country; for china even F16/Gripen wont suffice
iii. 3000 fighters with China huge worry, but we can’t outspend like Pakistan and be a military state, a indigenous plane offers us
much more
2. Specs comparison of F16, Tejas Gripen, Mig 21
a. Weight
b. Range
c. Payload
d. Radar
e. Sortie duration
f. Lifetime: 20 Years: kidding?
g. Hours of service required for per hour of service
h. Armamament: Missiles
i. Armamament: Cannon
j. Armamament: Payload
k. Availability: Hot refuelling in Goa on NLCA

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 10 Nov 2017 22:44

tsarkar wrote:I do believe this article - I do have independent confirmation.

Prime Minister & Defence Minister are keen on addressing the fighter shortfall and they are keen on the Tejas. And they're fed up with the perfidy and arm twisting by the French & Russians - huge cost escalations, lack of ToT on Su-30 & Scorpene & leaks

However, the IAF Plans Directorate wants imported fighters. They don't have any ulterior motives, just want "proven and tested stuff" advertised as by their sellers. And Tejas fares very bad in marketing, publicity & advertising.

This is Make or Break for Tejas.


If the IAF top brass, at least some of it, cannot look past brochures, especially for an aircraft like LCA which is now part of IAF and F16/Gripen which they have evacuated rigorously in MMRCA, then I am rather disappointed with them. I have been very much against forcing any decision on IAF or any of the three AFs for the matter, but if this is what they have to say, then my take it GOI needs to push LCA down IAF's throat now. Because they are simply behaving like a kid who only wants to eat chocolates all the time. Parents know better and at times they have to force kid to eat whats essential for his health, even if it doesn't taste good as per the kid. I have just a few pages ago said that, by doing such things, IAF itself puts itself in the tight spots where GOI has to force some decision on them or the other.

I was rather happy after listening to DCOAS AM Bhaduria yesterday in that video I posted on AMCA thread. I thought perhaps IAF has learnt its lessons and finally the learnings are institutionalised. But seeing this has left me deluded now. I always thought AF folks are much more resilient to psy Ops.

I still so wish the report was a DDM hit job.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shaun » 10 Nov 2017 23:02

Chill guys, that's DDM hit job . Some amature wrote that stuff , simply hilarious.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cosmo_R » 10 Nov 2017 23:29

tsarkar wrote:....
However, the IAF Plans Directorate wants imported fighters. They don't have any ulterior motives, just want "proven and tested stuff" advertised as by their sellers. And Tejas fares very bad in marketing, publicity & advertising.

This is Make or Break for Tejas.


HAL is not just bad at marketing, they don't understand it all. They are all 'order takers'. For example, the LCA did the Bahrain Airshow and then zip. Could the HAL worthies not have shown it every opportunity they got? More ambitiously, could they not have lobbied to have 4 MK1 be the new plane for the Surya Kirans replacing or supplementing the Hawks?

As to the IAF, my guess is that the current generation is tired of beta testing and they just don't want another MiG29/MKI 'debugging' saga. The way it works now is that the IAF comes up with a set of requirements for a fighter and then MoD/PMO tell them what they can have based on money available, strategic imperatives (feed the Russians/French) and PSU union pressures. The whole MMRCA saga was just that in action and it started out with a request for 126 M2Ks as a follow on order for (you guessed it) a SE fighter.

Trying to read between the lines (assuming the story has some legs) it seems that the IAF knows it will be pressured into an LCA buy instead of the Gripen/F16. So, they will accept it on two conditions (after hard negotiations): give us 36/54 more Rafales and can the FGFA which we (the IAF) don't want because we would rather spend it on the Rafales which are here and now.

So, IMHO, the LCA is actually safe.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 41 guests