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.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1697
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby sudeepj » 22 Nov 2017 03:52

ShauryaT wrote:^Sudeepj: The armed forces are articulating exactly what they have been asked to do. Articulate requirements on what they need for national defense. They are simply doing their jobs. The issue here is systemic, mostly at the ministry and political levels. The forces have not been told, you will buy Indian only and nothing else, have they? This type of a directive and getting people to work together is the job of the ministry. It takes a committed set of people and processes to build a MIC. Empower the users to shake things up and see the magic happen. Empower them with budgets, decision-making power, and accountabilities. In my view, the problem has always been the bureaucracy at the MoD led by the political class. No point in blaming the forces, DRDO, HAL or other OFB's even. For even, the decision to not involve the private sector earlier or even after NDA I allowed private sector participation but has not worked in a major way yet is due to MoD not able and willing to make it work. Put the blame squarely, where it belongs. Tejas can be made to work, it is up to MoD to make it happen.


How does running the tank for 1000km in reverse to sabotage the trial square with '.. articulate requirements on what they need for national defense..' ? I dont think our generals and air marshals understand technology and I think they are using the process and the trial rigmarole in bad faith. IMO, the problem is far more on the side of the forces than either the Defense research establishment or the production agencies. They are not without flaws but those are fixable flaws, on the armed forces side, we are seeing flaws that are to do with worldview and mindset.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SiddharthS » 22 Nov 2017 04:00




Fully agree with that. By importing weapons Indian institutions have jeopardized nation's security. There is no appreciation of iterative development in the Army and Air Force , every equipment has to be up to the mark, no desire to build upon the product.

Services have impeded the growth of Indian MIC By giving very high requirements and then expecting DRDO to meet them in the first iteration. After the first flight in 2001 ,IAf should have ordered 60 aircrafts in the 2001 SOP with addition of few plugs after each batch ,producing it till 2010 and also parallelly developing Block 1, from 2010 to 2015 another 100 Block 1 should have been produced while concurrently developing Block 1a,and from 2015 to 2020 another 150 Block 1a should have been produced while developing the Block 2. Iterative development is the only way a novice nation can build a formidable MIC.

IAF would rather have nothing than make do with something that has few shortages. This mindset is perfectly captured by an old adage: will only wear a high quality saree or else will stay naked.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 04:11

Ok Here is Ajai Shukla on 16 August 2017 detailing HAL production plan for the LCA

Tejas Fighter finally achieves

Eight Tejas to roll out this year; heavily outsourced to private sector

By Ajai Shukla
HAL, Bengaluru
Business Standard, 16th Aug 17

Since December 2013, when the indigenous Tejas fighter was operationally cleared to join the Indian Air Force (IAF), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has struggled to establish an assembly line that could build the homegrown light fighter quickly and cheaply.

With just three Tejas delivered until this year out of the 20 ordered in 2013, the IAF’s complaint that the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) had taken too long in development gave way to the charge that HAL was not building the fighter fast enough to replace the IAF’s retiring MiG fighters.

HAL’s manufacturing shortfall became even starker last November, when the defence ministry cleared the acquisition of 83 more Tejas 1A fighters. This successor to the Tejas Mark 1, with four specified capability improvements, is required to enter production in 2019. This plan hinges on establishing a high-capacity assembly line.

Now, finally, HAL’s Tejas assembly line in Benguluru is meeting its targets. On a visit by Business Standard to the Tejas assembly line, HAL chief T Suvarna Raju has confirmed that eight Tejas fighters will roll off the line this year – the rated capacity of the assembly line.

Furthermore, with an additional investment of Rs 1,231 crore sanctioned for enhancing capacity, the Tejas line is projected to build 10 fighters in 2018-19; and 16 Tejas Mark 1As each year from 2019-20 onwards.


Thereafter, the line is expected to build the Tejas Mark II fighter, an advanced variant of the Tejas with a more powerful General Electric F-414 engine and upgraded avionics.


Outsourcing to private defence firms has been key to achieving HAL’s production targets. “HAL is now focusing mainly on putting together large assemblies that are built and supplied by private aerospace companies. That has allowed us to speed up work exponentially”, says Raju.

Production Plan follows:}

HAL has created five “Tier-1” suppliers that each build a part of the Tejas. The front fuselage is supplied by Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, Bengaluru; the centre fuselage by VEM Technologies, Hyderabad; rear fuselage by Alpha Tocol, Bengaluru; wings by Larsen & Toubro, Coimbatore; and the tail fin and rudder by National Aerospace Laboratory and Tata Advanced Materials Ltd.

Each of these Tier-1 suppliers sources components and sub-assemblies from lower-order Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers, creating an aerospace industry around the Tejas.

In addition, a range of equipment is sourced from other private firms that are emerging as players in the aerospace realm: avionics racks and air intakes from Lakshmi Machine Works, Coimbatore; electrical panels from Amphenol, Pune; slats and elevons from Aequs, Belgaum; pipelines from Rangson, Mysore, and precision mechanical assemblies from Sri Koteswara Cam Systems, Secunderabad.

HAL plans to eventually outsource 69 percent of the production of Tejas structural modules, with just 31 percent of the work done in-house – consisting mainly of assembly and equipping work.


{This would reduce the jig time in HAL assy shops.}

A visit by Business Standard to the Tejas production hanger reveals the most technologically advanced production line that HAL has ever set up – significantly more high-tech than the Hawk advanced jet trainer line that was established with BAE Systems.

The production jigs, on which Tejas components are fabricated, are calibrated with lasers to an accuracy of 50-80 microns (one micron is one-thousandth of a millimeter). This ensures repeatability, which means that every component coming off a jig is precisely the same, and can be switched across aircraft.

There are also robotic machines to drill the thousands of holes that are required in each Tejas’ carbon “skin”. These robots drill in two days what manual drillers earlier took two months to do.

“It earlier took us 19 months to build a Tejas, from start to finish. This is now down to 11 months, and we will be building each Tejas in nine months by September this year”, says Raju.

HAL’s plan for expanding Tejas production to 16 fighters per year involves establishing a second assembly line. This has physically replaced the Hawk trainer line that is close to completing delivery of its orders.

The cost of Rs 1,231 crore
is being half-funded by HAL, with the IAF and navy picking up the tab for the other half.


The key point is the Rs 1230-1250 crore cost to establish the second assy line has been consistent in many reports.

Now it is close to December. Has HAL managed to achieve the assy time of nine months?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4304
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 22 Nov 2017 04:24

^^^
Bit cryptic on the nine-months by Sept part. Did he mean from Sept onward we will see new LCAs being completed within 9-months?

2018 looks like it's gonna be a good year 8)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 04:30

Can we ask the ADA website?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1697
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby sudeepj » 22 Nov 2017 04:53

SiddharthS wrote:



Fully agree with that. By importing weapons Indian institutions have jeopardized nation's security. There is no appreciation of iterative development in the Army and Air Force , every equipment has to be up to the mark, no desire to build upon the product.

Services have impeded the growth of Indian MIC By giving very high requirements and then expecting DRDO to meet them in the first iteration. After the first flight in 2001 ,IAf should have ordered 60 aircrafts in the 2001 SOP with addition of few plugs after each batch ,producing it till 2010 and also parallelly developing Block 1, from 2010 to 2015 another 100 Block 1 should have been produced while concurrently developing Block 1a,and from 2015 to 2020 another 150 Block 1a should have been produced while developing the Block 2. Iterative development is the only way a novice nation can build a formidable MIC.

IAF would rather have nothing than make do with something that has few shortages. This mindset is perfectly captured by an old adage: will only wear a high quality saree or else will stay naked.


This is absolutely right. Further, in the Loksabha TV program, both the armed forces gents were lying and arguing in bad faith. Generals and Marshals should not use the sacrifice of young officers to cover their shoddy planning and poor understanding of technology.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2017 04:56

Data point on serviceability. Notice that these are PVs and LSPs, not SPs. Most of these flights were not at Bangalore.

Between 31st Oct to 18 Nov (18 days), there have been 52 test flights using 5 aircrafts: LSP3 (11 flights), LSP5(13 flights), LSP4(6), LSP7 (16) and PV6 (6).

In fact, after the monsoons, from 1-Sept to 18 Nov (79 days), there have been nearly 150 test flights!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7863
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 22 Nov 2017 05:55

Indranil wrote:The pace of Tejas production is going to really pick up from next year. The outsourced large sub-assemblies are going to start coming in from next year.

Awesome. That is fantastic news. Thank You Saar.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36390
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SaiK » 22 Nov 2017 06:29

What is important for Tejas is to satisfying the needs of higher thrust F414 ASAP.. basically the Mk2 space can't be allowed to SEF from firing nation. This is LCA market. That I26 SEF is actually Mk2 order space and perhaps bumped up to 200 or more.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Nov 2017 06:43

sudeepj wrote:How does running the tank for 1000km in reverse to sabotage the trial square with '.. articulate requirements on what they need for national defense..' ? I dont think our generals and air marshals understand technology and I think they are using the process and the trial rigmarole in bad faith. IMO, the problem is far more on the side of the forces than either the Defense research establishment or the production agencies. They are not without flaws but those are fixable flaws, on the armed forces side, we are seeing flaws that are to do with worldview and mindset.
Let us stick to Tejas here and let that passing comment on Arjun be discussed somewhere else. You are entitled to your views but a view that the forces are acting in bad faith is sweeping and wide and without proof. Call it short-sighted, lack of competence to understand technology, world view or mind set is also fine. We may not like it but bad faith it is not, they have their point. Their faith is to protect the nation, does not suit anyone to question that.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2017 07:26

ramana wrote:Just to recap, Col Ajai Shukla wrote

LINK

The integration of air-to-air refuelling has been regarded as essential to give the Tejas enough reach. Currently, its internal tanks carry just 2,300 litres of fuel, with another 2,400 litres carried in external pods. However, external pods cannot be carried into battle, and they take up two weapon stations, reducing the fighter’s punch. Without external fuel tanks, the Tejas has a combat radius of barely 300 kilometres.

Every single image of Gripens in combat over Libya and F-16s in combat config over Iraq show them carrying drop tanks. Has India signed an international convention that Tejas should not carry drop tanks? NPT "No Petrol Tank" (yeah it's not petrol - don't piss me off by reminding me)

Look at the specs of F-16/Gripen
https://youtu.be/IMG0M3VO_kc

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3806
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Nov 2017 09:26

An IAF test pilot, who has flown the Tejas’s early prototypes and who is currently a senior decisionmaker at Air Headquarters, said: “The LCA doesn’t meet our expectations. It needs to be escorted by more capable aircraft to come back alive.” Consider: The LCA Tejas Mark-1A can carry an external load of 3 tonnes compared to 5-8 tonnes of Gripen and 6.7 tonnes of F-16. While Gripen and F-16 have escort ranges of 520 km and 645 km respectively, for the Tejas it is only 300 km. The Tejas can loiter without mid-air refuelling for 59 minutes; Gripen can be out for 2.49 hours, F-16 for 2.51 hours. It takes more than 60 minutes to prepare Tejas for the next mission; for Gripen it is 23 minutes; for F-16, 21 minutes.


Tejas and beyond: How short the IAF is of fighters, what options it has now[/quote]

:shock: who is this supposed test pilot?

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2017 09:40

I don't know who that is but Namby did call Tejas "Khadi Gramodyog" showing pride in India

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 22 Nov 2017 10:04

Look,all Tejas needs to do is to defend our airspace and bases from intruders,leaving more long-legged and capable birds esp. twin-engined ones,to do the biz of striking deep into Pak.Tejas will also be v.useful in GA/CS whose ops will first take place around the border/LOC.With drop tanks ,it can extend its endurance that extra bit longer .As if the MIG-21s could fly to Timbuctoo and back! During wartime,emergency airstripsclose to the border to assist returning aircraft low on fuel or suffering some battle damage will also be activated.Remember that 60% of our losses in all wars with Pak were due to ground/AAA fire and not due to aerial combat.The problem lies with the deep ,mistrust between the IAF and HAL .The establishment of the ADA which should've actually been the design bureau within HAL,added to the confusion and inordinate delays with the LCA prog.

brvarsh
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 03 Mar 2011 20:29

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby brvarsh » 22 Nov 2017 10:35

I don't think even IAF disputes a need to have our local fighter line that can cheaply be mass produced. All IAF is saying that fighter has to be capable for a certain flight and combat profile. Tejas has so far been the most capable fighter that India has been able to produce. If we kill it now, there is no way we would be able to make another in next many decades to come - May be its okay, but thinking from your heart it does not feel right even if the Big West guarantees undeterred delivery and service of foreign birds. Tejas in its 1A avatar is still a good fighter - need is IAF branches a new role for it. Our borders are huge with different needs. I am not sure what logistic challenges there may be but Tejas can still be pressed into service in many areas even Naval. Do we need the same kind of fighters in our western sector as we need around Sri Lankan borders? Does our South Eastern sector need a distance more than 200Km radius? I am no expert and I am thinking from my heart - I just don't want to see Tejas die.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 22 Nov 2017 11:12

ShauryaT wrote:[...Unless and until we develop a strong lobby for defense and accountabilities these lackadaisical approaches with NO political consequences will continue.

Tejas and beyond: How short the IAF is of fighters, what options it has now


This article makes an interesting point:

The Air Force is authorised 42 squadrons of fighter aircraft, which is the bare minimum it needs to dominate a two-front conflict.


People need to keep this point in mind while discussing either for or against. The number (42) can be higher but lower is unacceptable for a 02 front war. Has the brief changed? Are we as a default preparing for a 02 front war? At what Sqn numbers can theater commands become realistically possible? Also, what capabilities are sought with a minimum of 42 Sqn? Is there any clarity on this?

500 / 600 Kms vs 300 Kms - why does IAF need 500 Kms and for what objectives? How important are they? Why will 300 Kms not do? Do we have any insights here?

My view is IAF will gobble up all LCAs and it future version that will be produced. The SE deal is MMRCA gap fill and not a Tejas killer. Why did we need the MMRCA and not more light fighters? Any insights?

P.S.: Nothing I say above justifies the vicious and false attacks on Tejas performance. I really want to get to the bottom of who really said it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53470
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 11:44

Deejay lets discuss the points you raise.

My calculations in 1999 say 45 squadrons for a 1.5 front war. 30 squadrons on one attacking front and 15 for defence on other front. For real two front war with China allocating large resources if Pacific front is quiet will need more like 65 squadrons. In 1965 and 1971 many fighters aborted take off as starters didn't work.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 22 Nov 2017 11:56

^ Ramana Sir, we will have China on our western front too sometime before 2027. We will fight China on both fronts.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4336
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 22 Nov 2017 13:41

Indranil wrote:Data point on serviceability. Notice that these are PVs and LSPs, not SPs. Most of these flights were not at Bangalore.

Between 31st Oct to 18 Nov (18 days), there have been 52 test flights using 5 aircrafts: LSP3 (11 flights), LSP5(13 flights), LSP4(6), LSP7 (16) and PV6 (6).

In fact, after the monsoons, from 1-Sept to 18 Nov (79 days), there have been nearly 150 test flights!


Recent interview of TSR confirms that there is an agreement to conduct some 60 flights per month to expedite the FOC. Shows that if need be the serviceability can be easily hiked for Tejas. For SP it will be even more easy, if this can be done for flight test articles.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3412
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby suryag » 22 Nov 2017 14:17

DJ and Ramana Sir - the 45 squadron number was arrived at when we didnt have inflight refuellers, AWACS, MAFI, lack of swing role aircraft(except M2K) all these have made the number of available aircraft for operations higher, in that light, how much lower can we go. apologies for this arm chair brainwave.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1964
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_P » 22 Nov 2017 14:32

suryag wrote:DJ and Ramana Sir - the 45 squadron number was arrived at when we didnt have inflight refuellers, AWACS, MAFI, lack of swing role aircraft(except M2K) all these have made the number of available aircraft for operations higher, in that light, how much lower can we go. apologies for this arm chair brainwave.


Counter-point could be increase in PLAAF numbers and their AAD capabilities, not to mention their industrial expansion (more targets)
(not counting PAF, nor the ummah factor)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2017 15:03

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:Data point on serviceability. Notice that these are PVs and LSPs, not SPs. Most of these flights were not at Bangalore.

Between 31st Oct to 18 Nov (18 days), there have been 52 test flights using 5 aircrafts: LSP3 (11 flights), LSP5(13 flights), LSP4(6), LSP7 (16) and PV6 (6).

In fact, after the monsoons, from 1-Sept to 18 Nov (79 days), there have been nearly 150 test flights!


Recent interview of TSR confirms that there is an agreement to conduct some 60 flights per month to expedite the FOC. Shows that if need be the serviceability can be easily hiked for Tejas. For SP it will be even more easy, if this can be done for flight test articles.


Link please

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 22 Nov 2017 16:05

MMRCA started in early 2000 with a M2K requirement. The need has remained constant over all these years.

The need also evolved in a time when Indian military faced / developed deterrence, limited offensive (cold start), post Kargil and post Parakram security situation. None of those factors have changed but new developments have further complicated the security situation. These include CPEC, China's ring of pearls, Pakistan's wholesale of sovereignty to China and Chain'a rapid technological advance.

The brief of 02 front war seems to have become a static requirement over multiple Govts and I am guessing the brief also looks at expeditionary deployments (including air arm).

My reading therefore is that over the next few decades we will need a 1000+ combat aircraft fleet and we also need multiple production facilities.

The LCA therefore is not under threat, IMHO. If anything as it evolves we will see it becoming the main 4+ gen fighter in our air force.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4336
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 22 Nov 2017 16:22

Karan M wrote:
JayS wrote:
Recent interview of TSR confirms that there is an agreement to conduct some 60 flights per month to expedite the FOC. Shows that if need be the serviceability can be easily hiked for Tejas. For SP it will be even more easy, if this can be done for flight test articles.


Link please


Was posted 3 pages back. Read last part.

ashishvikas wrote:Interview with HAL CMD: ‘No frozen standard of preparation of LCA… that’s where delays are coming’

On the recent reports about the LCA Tejas and the foreign single-engine fighter, where does the HAL stand? Is everything fine with LCA?

There is not much controversy about the LCA. HAL stands very strongly behind the LCA. We have established the production line capacity of eight aircrafts, the first five of them are already flying and have done more than 600 sorties. They are doing up. and we have kept things in place to produce eight and we are investing Rs 1,331 crore to increase the capacity to 16 deliverable a year. We have also used another concept of contracting the main components of the aircraft such as the front fuselage, centre fuselage, rear fuselage to L&T, WhAM, DTL.

We have placed the orders. If these guys start giving me the required top-quality product, that adds to my deliverables. Now question comes, how much order I have. I have 20 IOC, of which I will provide 11 to IAF by the end of this financial year, and that would leave me with 4 fighters and 4 trainers, and trainers’ SOP we hope can be concluded so that the production run can be there.

As far as the FOC order is concerned, mid-2018 is when FOC is expected to come but we are asking the customer (IAF) to allow us to cut the material. Because if we start now, the aircraft will come after three years.
By then, this AON of 83 LCA will be converted into a contract between the IAF and HAL. However, today the facilities are on and the rate at which jigs are created are available, and the purchase orders can be verified and checked.



What is the delay in getting the FOC now?

The aircraft are flying and the operational capacity enhancement requires a thorough verification. It is a developmental work and we are planning to fly 60 sorties a month. Now between IAF, ADA and HAL, we are ensuring that these many sorties happen.

While the promises are for getting the FOC by mid-2018, we will definitely get it by December 2018. We should then be able to supply these 20 FOC by 2022. And then on to the next 83… If capacities are put on depending on the configuration clearance, the numbers can be rolled out.

http://indianexpress.com/article/busine ... g-4944113/

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7863
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 22 Nov 2017 20:41

Deejay: Good posts. I do not want to repeat what I typed in the SE thread, so I am just giving a link....

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7261&p=2231764#p2231764

Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj has written two good articles on improving the IAF's squadron strength. Both articles are in the link above, but I reproduce them below.

1) The Indian Air Force’s Tyranny Of Arithmetic - Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

2) The Indian Air Force’s Declining Squadron Strength: Options and Challenges - Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

1000+ combat aircraft equates to 55+ combat squadrons...a number that Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik has argued for in the past. The only way for SEF to co-exist in the IAF is to have a greater number of squadrons than 42. However seeing how the IAF is right now at 33 - 34 squadrons, the main goal is to get to 42. Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa has said 42 will be achieved by 2032.

To underscore your point that the Tejas will become the main 4+ gen fighter in our air force, Dr Dr Sanjay Badri-Maharaj - in the first link above - has stated the following;

The Government of India through the Ministry of Defence and the IAF needs to take steps towards initiating the procurement of a single-engine type through the Strategic Partnership route. However, care must be taken for this program to feed into the Tejas Mk.2 project. Linkage between the SFE and the Tejas cannot be allowed to become competitive with the former undermining the latter. Rather it must become complimentary with expertise aiding in expediting the Tejas Mk.2, partnering with the ADA and HAL as needed. To date, this iteration of the SFE program has not been emphasized.

If the IAF can go down that path - as envisaged by the above author - then Mk2 and SEF might have a future together in the IAF. Budgets are an important point to note though with acquisitions of similar platforms. Also, with the F414 engine now going to be license produced in India, it makes sense to have that engine across multiple platforms - F-18 Super Hornet (for the Navy), Gripen E and Tejas Mk2. I do not know if a F414 can be installed on a Mk1 or Mk1A. SEF has to assist in the development of Mk2, otherwise it is a pointless acquisition. In light of this, acquiring the F-16 makes no sense at all. I believe the IAF will play the waiting game for the Gripen E to complete at least IOC (2021 I believe), before making her decision. From many in the IAF, the Gripen E is the choice.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 22 Nov 2017 21:03

Admiral Sa'ab, given how pricey fighter aircraft are becomjng, Tejas automatically makes it to be IAFs main stay aircraft. This is irrespective of which lobby, which force, which Govt. The pressure to go indigenous will only increase hereafter.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3806
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Nov 2017 21:11

^ have to agree with your assessment deejay sir, my thoughts exactly....iaf will all up more tejas

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2017 21:39

deejay wrote:MMRCA started in early 2000 with a M2K requirement. The need has remained constant over all these years.

The need also evolved in a time when Indian military faced / developed deterrence, limited offensive (cold start), post Kargil and post Parakram security situation. None of those factors have changed but new developments have further complicated the security situation. These include CPEC, China's ring of pearls, Pakistan's wholesale of sovereignty to China and Chain'a rapid technological advance.

The brief of 02 front war seems to have become a static requirement over multiple Govts and I am guessing the brief also looks at expeditionary deployments (including air arm).

My reading therefore is that over the next few decades we will need a 1000+ combat aircraft fleet and we also need multiple production facilities.

The LCA therefore is not under threat, IMHO. If anything as it evolves we will see it becoming the main 4+ gen fighter in our air force.


Gawsh, how i wish guys like you were in AHQ Planning or MOD. A huge LCA run would be a dream which came true then.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 22 Nov 2017 23:31

ShauryaT wrote:
sudeepj wrote:How does running the tank for 1000km in reverse to sabotage the trial square with '.. articulate requirements on what they need for national defense..' ? I dont think our generals and air marshals understand technology and I think they are using the process and the trial rigmarole in bad faith. IMO, the problem is far more on the side of the forces than either the Defense research establishment or the production agencies. They are not without flaws but those are fixable flaws, on the armed forces side, we are seeing flaws that are to do with worldview and mindset.
Let us stick to Tejas here and let that passing comment on Arjun be discussed somewhere else. You are entitled to your views but a view that the forces are acting in bad faith is sweeping and wide and without proof. Call it short-sighted, lack of competence to understand technology, world view or mind set is also fine. We may not like it but bad faith it is not, they have their point. Their faith is to protect the nation, does not suit anyone to question that.

Call a spade a spade. This is not yet an autocracy. Short sightedness only on the Arjun? Is it standard practice to test tanks running 1000s of km in reverse?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2017 23:40

Wrong thread.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4559
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 23 Nov 2017 00:00

Indranil wrote:Data point on serviceability. Notice that these are PVs and LSPs, not SPs. Most of these flights were not at Bangalore.

Between 31st Oct to 18 Nov (18 days), there have been 52 test flights using 5 aircrafts: LSP3 (11 flights), LSP5(13 flights), LSP4(6), LSP7 (16) and PV6 (6).

In fact, after the monsoons, from 1-Sept to 18 Nov (79 days), there have been nearly 150 test flights!


Most of these flights were not from Bangalore? Then where were they from and were they related to the new capability, among others, that you were referring to earlier?

The pace of testing has really picked up tremendously. But ADA isn't giving any sound bytes on the status of gun trials, IFR and Python-5 carriage. Wish you could publish an article with permission from your sources, IR.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2975
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ArjunPandit » 23 Nov 2017 00:15

long back read a poem which had lines meaning that "a lamp flickers most before extinguishing" (pardon my translation). The import lobby have started realize the situation with the advent of Tejas, and that's why we will see all such unnamed test pilots and AF officials. Hopefully, this govt will ensure, what no one could in past (say is sheer luck)

samirdiw
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby samirdiw » 23 Nov 2017 02:24

SiddharthS wrote:
the nation's security is paramount .

By importing weapons Indian institutions have jeopardized nation's security. There is no appreciation of iterative development in the Army and Air Force , every equipment has to be up to the mark, no desire to build upon the product.

Services have impeded the growth of Indian MIC By giving very high requirements and then expecting DRDO to meet them in the first iteration. After the first flight in 2001 ,IAf should have ordered 60 aircrafts in the 2001 SOP with addition of few plugs after each batch ,producing it till 2010 and also parallelly developing Block 1, from 2010 to 2015 another 100 Block 1 should have been produced while concurrently developing Block 1a,and from 2015 to 2020 another 150 Block 1a should have been produced while developing the Block 2. Iterative development is the only way a novice nation can build a formidable MIC.

IAF would rather have nothing than make do with something that has few shortages. This mindset is perfectly captured by an old adage: will only wear a high quality saree or else will stay naked.


This should be framed on BR's front page!

But it is upto DRDO Product Management to take the initiative, propose this and layout what each block will contain and obtain pre-approved orders on the condition it meets the outlined goal of each block. Have they?

Can't depend on the client to create the model for delivery.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2556
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Katare » 23 Nov 2017 05:12

This 42 sqadron is totally useless number without other qualifiers defined. I am hearing this numbers since two decades at least if not more. 42 squds of what type, with what kind of support infrastructure and force multipliers. There are so manythings that need to be taken in to account to achieve a detersnce that works. One way or only way to get to 42 is to induct as many LCA as we can make. That is what Rusdisn, Americans, Chinese and now even pakis are doing. No one has built a large airforce by only importing foreign maal. Commit to an order of 500 LCA over next 15 years and see how it transforms into a world class aircraft at ultra affordable cost. The business opportunity would generate sufficient private investment in manufacturing capacityand supply chain to transform desh into an aviation power.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2017 05:36

I think the number of squadrons even without qualifiers has some merit. Let us say, that we had the ultimate aircraft (however you define it). Will one sqaudron of such aircraft be enough? We require a certain number of squadrons to provide the coverage to our boundaries. And that number according to the IAF is 42. Yes, today's 42 squadrons is much better than yesteryear's 42-squadrons. But, that is true of our enemies too.

Having said that, I don't understand IAF's procurement policies or priorities.

1. Getting refuelers almost immediately doubles the endurance of almost all fighters. Additionally, not having to carry large fuel tanks increases the payload, steakth and flexibility in use of the aircrafts. Today, almost every aircraft (except the Mig-27) in the inventory is IFR-capable, yet we have next to no refuelers. Where is the priority to get them? Just a nudge, once a decade!
2. We keep shouting ntework-centric/network-centric. Yet we procure aircrafts which cannot talk to each other: Russian/UK/Indian/French/US and may be now the Swedish! The less the said the better about AWACs. 3 almost always grounded AWACs and 3 AeWACs, really?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5677
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 23 Nov 2017 06:47

Another "educated guess" on python FWIW. The vibration was actually very minor. A standard fix was available, which is being implemented. But the interesting fact is that the "stated requirement" for the CCM was already met in the form of R73, and python was 'ghee on roti'.

Gun and IFR are not so trivial. We had discussion here on this earlier. My 'uneducated guess' is that we will not see a solution in near future.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 07:03

Indranil wrote:1. Getting refuelers almost immediately doubles the endurance of almost all fighters. Additionally, not having to carry large fuel tanks increases the payload, steakth and flexibility in use of the aircrafts. Today, almost every aircraft (except the Mig-27) in the inventory is IFR-capable, yet we have next to no refuelers. Where is the priority to get them? Just a nudge, once a decade!

I am not trying to say that IFR is no use. But I would really like to know the value of IFR over Pakistani or Chinese territory. Over the ocean is a different issue. The US (and NATO) have sent expeditionary forces that demand (and allow for) IFR over safe land or ocean zones. We do not have that luxury.

The other thing I want to point out is that if we talk about really hot, hot war then even with 42 sqn we are looking at (as per that ref I posted recently) an actual fleet availability of 70 % or so. That means a fleet availability of 29 squadrons. Expect 10% attrition in the first week. Leaving us with just 26 squadrons by week 2. So we definitely need numbers. The IFR bit could actually aid logistics more than fighters

What the US and NATO did (over adversaries who were much much much weaker) was to use overwhelming aircraft numbers to impose a no-fly zone as the opposing air defences were gradually whittled away. This phase of phoney war lasted for many weeks. I don't see us having that luxury.

One more point I want to make - unrelated to this specific discussion but on the general topic of wars as we (India) have experienced them. I am seeing more and more references to "Let us get a few F-35s". I must point out that a sale of F-35 to India will be immediately matched by the sale of some opposing technology to states who are our adversaries (or to their allies). These sales only shore up the economies of exporting nations and do not help us in outright victory. The western paradigm of "right to self defence" is applied to Pakistan the minute India acquires something that threatens Pakistan.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2017 07:08

Dileep wrote:Another "educated guess" on python FWIW. The vibration was actually very minor. A standard fix was available, which is being implemented. But the interesting fact is that the "stated requirement" for the CCM was already met in the form of R73, and python was 'ghee on roti'.

Gun and IFR are not so trivial. We had discussion here on this earlier. My 'uneducated guess' is that we will not see a solution in near future.

I did have some tea over CCM. I was told that the ball was in the Israeli court and that they were dragging foot. Nothing else was told. I did not prod. So your educated guess may be right. I don't know.

There is a short break. SP5 first flight and gun trials are imminent.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 07:08

Dileep wrote:Another "educated guess" on python FWIW. The vibration was actually very minor. A standard fix was available, which is being implemented. But the interesting fact is that the "stated requirement" for the CCM was already met in the form of R73, and python was 'ghee on roti'.

Gun and IFR are not so trivial. We had discussion here on this earlier. My 'uneducated guess' is that we will not see a solution in near future.

Yeah. There is no such thing as trivial vibration with guns and aircraft are lost or damaged severely during gun testing. We desi rakshaks just don't hear about any other than HF 24. And now Tejas. Dig into history and you find a whole lot of aircraft that have restrictions and rules on gun usage

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2017 07:24

shiv wrote:I am not trying to say that IFR is no use. But I would really like to know the value of IFR over Pakistani or Chinese territory. Over the ocean is a different issue. The US (and NATO) have sent expeditionary forces that demand (and allow for) IFR over safe land or ocean zones. We do not have that luxury.

The other thing I want to point out is that if we talk about really hot, hot war then even with 42 sqn we are looking at (as per that ref I posted recently) an actual fleet availability of 70 % or so. That means a fleet availability of 29 squadrons. Expect 10% attrition in the first week. Leaving us with just 26 squadrons by week 2. So we definitely need numbers. The IFR bit could actually aid logistics more than fighters

What the US and NATO did (over adversaries who were much much much weaker) was to use overwhelming aircraft numbers to impose a no-fly zone as the opposing air defences were gradually whittled away. This phase of phoney war lasted for many weeks. I don't see us having that luxury.

One more point I want to make - unrelated to this specific discussion but on the general topic of wars as we (India) have experienced them. I am seeing more and more references to "Let us get a few F-35s". I must point out that a sale of F-35 to India will be immediately matched by the sale of some opposing technology to states who are our adversaries (or to their allies). These sales only shore up the economies of exporting nations and do not help us in outright victory. The western paradigm of "right to self defence" is applied to Pakistan the minute India acquires something that threatens Pakistan.

Hakeem,

If refueling is a luxury not accorded to India, then why put those draggy, heavy, RCS increasing probes on the fighters? We even got them on our C-130s for special-ops!

With IFR, you can stage your aircraft further inland. In combat sorties, especially in strike roles, an aircraft uses up a significant amount of its fuel in TO and reaching altitude. You could have your refuelers 100 km from the borders where they top off the fighters and let them play. You could strike 500 km inside Pakistan using Tejas. Also, imagine point defence or CAP roles. The fighters will be in our territory and the ideal configuration is a loadout of only A2A missiles and only internal fuel. IFR can help you reach this config, or as close to it as possible (small DTs) without sacrificing endurance.

I am dead against "F-35 for India". But, that is my opinion and OT for this thread.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests