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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9247
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby brar_w » 27 Nov 2017 17:51

Singha wrote:even the israelis were made to use the APG68v9 radar on F16I Sufa than their own 2032/2054


This requires clarification - The Israelis were "made to use" this because the said radars, and the support package was being paid for by the US congress. If Israel wants they can jolly well integrate their own radar on the F-16's in their I configuration since the mission computers are their own. Of course this would involve a detailed integration and flight test program funded solely by them that involves assistance from Lockheed (much the same way they plan on operating their sole F-35I test aircraft). But this level of cooperation already seems to be happening as is evident from them integrating the Stunner on their F-16Is.

Perhaps Singapore may be interested since they have in the past acquired Israeli systems on their US aircraft. Besides those two, all others will continue to buy the AESA radars that the USAF chooses since there are economic benefits of buying in bulk which are only enhanced when it comes time for upgrades where you don't want to be left stranded as one of the few customers that chose a different solution.One doesn't need to look very deep into the F-16I configuration to see how extensive the Israeli technology integration has been. From the weapons interface, mission computers, to the electronic warfare suite..its all their own. The only other international program that compares to the F-16I is the IAF's MKI as far as how much it deviates from the baseline configuration in terms of suppliers and sub-systems.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Nov 2017 20:02, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 27 Nov 2017 19:06

Another little muse from me..

Looking back at the history of purchases made for the Air Force - most of us tend to say "Air Force bought this", "Air Force rejected that". We feel that this is a righteous accusation. But spend a moment recalling that when Indian Today said "the Air Force rejected the LCA" we asked "Who said that?"

Officially the Air Force has not rejected the LCA. The Air Force is not an individual and no one in the Air Force has the power to make purchase decisions. It would be an argument of rhetoric to say that "Oh but they can delay, haggle and complain". Yes, but I want to bring some things to the attention of those who might read this.

If you read through various histories of aircraft acquisition and through what retired air chiefs and senior officers have written we can summarize (and surmise) a few surprising and non intuitive things.

Starting with the Gnat purchase:

1. A team went to the UK to check out the useless Supermarine Swift and saw the Folland Gnat by accident, made enquiries and the designer decided to offer it to the IAF. They liked its acceleration and climb rate and recommended it and India bought the plane with all its faults. It suffered from a lot of accidents but the HAL Ajeet corrected many of its problems and was a much safer aircraft. A retired Air Force chief lamented that the Ajeet was not inducted. It would have served the Air Force well as a light fighter and as a trainer. If someone in the Air Force liked and supported the Ajeet, does it mean that the Air Force was going against the view of its own officers in rejecting the Ajeet?

2. The rejection of the HF 24 too has been lamented by senior IAF pilots. The two seater would have been a super trainer. I can provide scans and links for these views. Does this mean that the Air Force willy nilly made a decision against the informed view of its own officers?

3. Another senior IAF officer has written in his memoirs that he test flew the HTT 34 and found that its performance was good and that its stall and spin characteristics were like the HTT 32. he goes on to write that if we had selected it, we would not have had to look abroad for a basic trainer.

4. Again from memoirs of very senior people (I have the books and quotes and have not had the chance to scan as "proof") we find that the IAF was to have evaluated the English Electric Lightning but Krishnamenon sent them to Russia to look at the MiG 21. The initial MiGs were found to lack a gun and had only 2 "Atoll" missiles. The test pilots recommended rejection but orders came from Delhi to go ahead with a promise from Russia that they would install a gun etc. The rest is history.

In the above 4 cases - the Air Force itself had a view that went against the final decision. Clearly it was the ministry of defence who called the shots. In the case of Gnat retirement I think a hunt had started for an imported AJT - ending with the selection of the Hawk. In the case of the HF-24 the hunt had started for the imported "DPSA" - Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft" and eventually the Jaguar was selected. The Air Force takes orders from the MoD and if the MoD says import, they have to import. They cannot resist or protest even if they feel differently.

People (on Twitter) have got angry with me for accusing the IAF of being fighter jock led. But let me point out a couple of facts. ACM PC Lal himself, and others too (Tipnis?) point out that pilots get emotionally attached to the fighter they get familiar with. And true to that observation the Air Force not only loved the Gnat for its superduper manoeuvrability and excellent acceleration, they excused all its faults that caused a lot of deaths.

As regards the MiG 21 - its pilots cannot stop praising it. This is the fighter in which they were able to fly Mach 2 plus and climb to 60,000 feet and touch the stratosphere. The plane could out accelerate and our turn any Paki fighter of that era. The MiG 21 had some faults but you will never find Air Force pilots calling them "faults". In fact there are stories where the MiG 21's engine cuts out leading to a dangerous crash situation but the pilot is grateful to the plane for saving his life. As a detached medical observer I would call this emotional attachment and not a critical examination of fault which were very high landing speed (340 kmph), no visibility in front while landing and no warning sign of impending stall. The IAF loves super-performing agile aircraft. I am not surprised that they love the Su-30.

What have people in IAF written in the public domain about the MiG 23/27 and Mirage 2000? Not a lot that I have read. The MiG 23 with its poor safety record was admired for its powerful engine and the IAF has a culture where they are instructed not to complain about their plane. The Mirage 2000s potential as a strike platform was not noticed till Kargil.

The points I am making are
1. The decision to purchase or not purchase a foreign aircraft or to reject an Indian aircraft lies with the MoD and not the Air Force
2. The Air Force fighter jocks will typically learn to love an agile aircraft as it has loved the Gnat, MiG 21, MiG 29 and Su 30. (And the Hunter whose initial climb rate was better than Mig 21). The power of the Su-7 too gets favourable mention. Faults are excused. No one mentions the MiG 23 or the Jaguar. Or HF 24.

That means Tejas decision is NOT with Air Force, it is with MoD. If purchase pasand govt is in power Tejas will be killed. Tejas has not flown in enough numbers for people to get to know its real performance but in its current state of some envelope restriction we are going to hear more negative stuff.

My personal opinion is that we should have both Tejas and SEF for various reasons because that will satisfy multiple requirements.

JMT.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 27 Nov 2017 20:34

Sir, read the DPP please. In full.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby manjgu » 27 Nov 2017 21:13

Mod rules still today... ofc the netas rule MoD...netas need babus to twist and settle things as per their needs. IAF officers just stand outside the offices of MoD folks. No decision is with IAF. deejay with due respect , DPP is a worthless piece of paper which can be twisted as per needs of neta+babu combo. But yes, if there is a strong -ve report by IAF then it becomes a little hard for Netas+babus but its not a showstopper.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby putnanja » 27 Nov 2017 21:22

From LCA-FB page :

LSP-7 (KH-2017) taxying out with four 1000lbs live bombs and the centreline drop tank for a test sortie..


Image

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_P » 27 Nov 2017 21:49

Oh you beauty.. Form and Function blending in a nice smooth way..

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Nov 2017 22:23

shiv wrote:My personal opinion is that we should have both Tejas and SEF for various reasons because that will satisfy multiple requirements.

JMT.
Shiv ji: Fine thoughts, please elaborate on why you think SEF is "needed" by the IAF or country, specifically in the context of other assets IAF will have in its mix to meet our threat matrix and the planned evolution of Tejas along with some options to increase the rate of production. I understand nothing is overnight and neither is the SEF, so let us say the context is 5-10 years time frame. Do you think we need the SEF due to time-capability risks on the evolution of the Tejas or are there other factors such as MII, western collaboration, etc that in your view are needed and essential.

TIA.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 27 Nov 2017 23:18

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:My personal opinion is that we should have both Tejas and SEF for various reasons because that will satisfy multiple requirements.

JMT.
Shiv ji: Fine thoughts, please elaborate on why you think SEF is "needed" by the IAF or country, specifically in the context of other assets IAF will have in its mix to meet out threat matrix and the planned evolution of Tejas along with some options in upping the rate of production. I understand nothing is overnight and neither is the SEF, so let us say the context is 5-10 years time frame. Do you think we need the SEF due to time-capability risks on the evolution of the Tejas or are there other factors such as MII, western collaboration, etc that in your view are needed and essential.

TIA.

If the IAF wants to have a fighting force then it needs to build the LCA in numbers and focus its funds on LCA production facilities. The Rafale and the SEF will not help in the quest of fleet enhancements and will drain every last penny available to the IAF. And on top of that, entire squadrons will continually retire and the IAF may be stuck at 33 - 35 squadrons. One way out could perhaps be in looking at HAL and evaluate selling the LCA division (plus ADA) cast into a new pvt aerospace entity with perhaps a minority stake from an international aviation major. This new recast entity should be expanded urgently to produce 50 LCA per year for a production run of 250 aircraft and at the same time be tasked to partner with IAF and collect feedback to incorporate in the next serial version that should go into production by 2025 or so.

The bottom line is - there isn't enough money to go around buying Rafales, F-16s/Gripen/F-18 or the JSF. So either we can all sit and indulge in what the good doctor once caled "Intellectual Mast__bation" or face this stark reality. Foreign purchases require money for
a) Initial aircraft
b) Setup of specialized infrastructure
c) Exorbitant Mid Life upgrades - look at the M2K - French are charging $2.0 billion for upgrades not involving engines for 50 aircraft (more than twice the cost of a single Tejas).
d) Limited learning and Lack of source codes, CFD models etc to expand the envelope and further develop the aircraft or to integrate local weapons like the Astra with the aircraft. All weapons and munitiions need to be sourced through the seller for 5 decades.

End result, an airforce that will continually shrink because of affordability issues and the lack of a local industry capable of delivering a future LCA or Arjun type system. Collateral damage - Jobs sent overseas along with Indian funds. As a result, India will remain the largest importer of arms and itself remain technologically backward with no benefit to employment through expenditure of billions of dollars. Indians need to stop scoffing at China and follow a similar path of developing their own industries rather than funding those of others.

The LCA is here and is a decent platform. Quantity is a quality and China has pushed that for decades.
Last edited by Vivek K on 27 Nov 2017 23:23, edited 2 times in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 27 Nov 2017 23:19

putnanja wrote:From LCA-FB page :

LSP-7 (KH-2017) taxying out with four 1000lbs live bombs and the centreline drop tank for a test sortie..

What a beauty - what are the red projectiles under each weak on the outer pylon?

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 27 Nov 2017 23:29

putnanja wrote:From LCA-FB page :

LSP-7 (KH-2017) taxying out with four 1000lbs live bombs and the centreline drop tank for a test sortie..


Image


Why the LDP..? For Videos..?

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 27 Nov 2017 23:38

putnanja wrote:From LCA-FB page :

LSP-7 (KH-2017) taxying out with four 1000lbs live bombs and the centreline drop tank for a test sortie..


Image


Can those 1000lbs be replaced by 2000lbs ? Considering inner most pylon supports 1200kgs .

If yes, how many ?

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 28 Nov 2017 00:19

^^ I do not remember to have seen 2000 pounders on LCA. But Tandem pylons already tested for LCA. So it could technically carry 6x1000lbs + EFT at centreline station and two CCM. OR various other combinations such as 3ETF + 2 bomb or 3EFT + 4 bomb and so on. Now that mid board pylon is also plumbed (IIRC, or will be done anyway) there is a whole lot of flexibility.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 28 Nov 2017 00:40

Already plumbed. In maximum bomb config, it can carry 7 1000 lb bombs or 5 LGBs.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Thakur_B » 28 Nov 2017 00:59

Indranil wrote:Already plumbed. In maximum bomb config, it can carry 7 1000 lb bombs or 5 LGBs.


6 LGBs. The center pylon can carry two side by side on dual rack. There was a graphic of that in IOC2 pdf released by ADA. That would also mean 8 x 1000 lb bombs, but that would be exceeding the reasonable weight limit.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 28 Nov 2017 01:25

Isn't the above image carrying 4 lgbs and possibly 4 more on the red color multi rack carrier?

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 28 Nov 2017 01:28

Cybaru wrote:Isn't the above image carrying 4 lgbs and possibly 4 more on the red color multi rack carrier?


dumb bombs and those orange things are camera pods.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 28 Nov 2017 01:28

Thakur_B wrote:
Indranil wrote:Already plumbed. In maximum bomb config, it can carry 7 1000 lb bombs or 5 LGBs.


6 LGBs. The center pylon can carry two side by side on dual rack. There was a graphic of that in IOC2 pdf released by ADA. That would also mean 8 x 1000 lb bombs, but that would be exceeding the reasonable weight limit.


Can you post the pic, if possible..?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Thakur_B » 28 Nov 2017 01:45

JayS wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:
6 LGBs. The center pylon can carry two side by side on dual rack. There was a graphic of that in IOC2 pdf released by ADA. That would also mean 8 x 1000 lb bombs, but that would be exceeding the reasonable weight limit.


Can you post the pic, if possible..?


I checked again, might not be in IOC 2 brochure, but I definitely have seen in, unless my memory is playing tricks on me.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vivek K » 28 Nov 2017 02:01

What is the useful load out of a bison? BRF gives the max external stores as 4409 lbs. So the LCA would enhance IAF's strike ability significantly.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Katare » 28 Nov 2017 02:55

Check from 4 min forward, for tandem long pylon for LCA..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RlLyzz8-QI

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 28 Nov 2017 03:04

JayS wrote:Surely IAF is still hung up with FOC if we take what HAL CMD says at face value - IAF has not given a go ahead for metal cutting of second batch of 20 jets still. I don't have to explain what does that mean to deliveries. Its rather surprising that the metal cutting for 20 FOC birds not started yet, precisely because no major changes are expected between IOC2 and FOC config. And here we keep bashing HAL for lackadaisical approach towards LCA production. No one gives so much ado to FOC because its just another milestone is continuously evolving platform and it doesn't stop production but this is India after all, here it does.

I was reading some history of Gripen yesterday. First Serial production fighter was already in final assembly stage when the total flights of flight testing programs stood at 6..! That's right 6. And that includes one landing accident of first prototype which wrote it off, only after 5 flights. The IFR probe was already inducted in 2002 in Swedish AF fighter, when the prototype to certify IFR was a whole 1 yr in future, it took first flight in 2003. Until then their AF simply carried the IFR without using it. The second Serial production jet crashed only after a handful of flights. All the weapons integration work went on well after the first batch of 30 jets were inducted. And as the jets were being inducted, Gripen still had some serious issues with its FCS. Nothing stopped the production or induction. In such scenario FOC is just a milestone. But in case of LCA its very important because its looks like its might end up delaying the deliveries, just as IOC 2 delayed deliveries of first 20 jets.


That is what happens when an Air Force is fully invested in a program and understands that the program's failure will have very severe consequences on its force structure. PAF and the JF-17 is another such program where concurrent development has been going on while Serial Production jets are being inducted. the IAF has shown that sort of an attitude when it came to inducting foreign jets (case in point- Jaguar, MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Su-30MKI), seemingly taking the OEM's word as long as the OEM is foreign, but seems to have a deep set mistrust of HAL and PSUs delivering on promises.

There was no reason whatsoever not to being induction of the Tejas Mk1s after completion of the IOC-1 phase itself. By the time the squadron would have been built up to half its size, the Tejas Mk1 would've achieved IOC status and even by then, the squadron wouldn't have reached Operational Status. But it would have given 3 additional years to start and stabilize a production line while filling up numbers of a safe, 4th gen multi-role fighter and retiring unsafe, unreliable 2nd gen jets like the MiG-21M and MiG-27. Instead, we have had some past IAF Chiefs (AM PV Naik, FH Major and Browne) who showed very lukewarm interest in the jet. They didn't seem fully committed to or invested in the program, which was shocking considering that their force structure plans should have made it clear that the IAF could not, under any circumstance, reach anywhere near 42 squadrons without an affordable light fighter to replace the MiG-21. They had placed orders for 40 jets, but didn't show the necessary flexibility to allow for expedited entry into service. Who knows, perhaps its a fear of the CAG types who will invariably miss the forest for the trees.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 28 Nov 2017 03:45

Congrats Indranil and wish you many happy years of joy with little 'un.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 28 Nov 2017 03:54

Katare wrote:Check from 4 min forward, for tandem long pylon for LCA..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RlLyzz8-QI


Image

Thanks Karan :D

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 28 Nov 2017 03:56

Indranil wrote:Already plumbed. In maximum bomb config, it can carry 7 1000 lb bombs or 5 LGBs.


5 LBGs would mean centerline hardpoint to carry 1 LGB? AFAIK, 2 LGBs cannot be fitted on the tandem stores pylon, due to their additional length.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 28 Nov 2017 03:59

Thakur_B wrote:
JayS wrote:
Can you post the pic, if possible..?


I checked again, might not be in IOC 2 brochure, but I definitely have seen in, unless my memory is playing tricks on me.


That sort of twin-rack for 2X500 lb LGBs on the twin under-fuselage hardpoints is seen on the Gripen E brochures, but I've never seen it on a Tejas Mk1/Mk2 brochure pic.

Image

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 28 Nov 2017 04:52

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:Already plumbed. In maximum bomb config, it can carry 7 1000 lb bombs or 5 LGBs.


5 LBGs would mean centerline hardpoint to carry 1 LGB? AFAIK, 2 LGBs cannot be fitted on the tandem stores pylon, due to their additional length.

yes. This is possible on Mk1 and Mk1A.
Image

Multiple LGBs on one pylon have to be carried in parallel config. ADA AFAIK have never showcased this. It has consistently been on my wishlist of things.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 28 Nov 2017 05:25

JayS wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Isn't the above image carrying 4 lgbs and possibly 4 more on the red color multi rack carrier?


dumb bombs and those orange things are camera pods.



Yes dumb bums correcto mundo.. My bad.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby UlanBatori » 28 Nov 2017 06:50

Amazing that it can fly. Looks like a Kerala Private Bus with all those things being carried. The LCA is fast becoming a Heavy Bomber. As the Mullah said, it can carry more bombs than the Canberra Bomber. This is another reason to build the Bloated Combat Aircraft (BCA) and get that F-136 engine from GE into mass production. Guys, there is a version out there with counter-rotating stages, with a thrust-to-weight of 12:1.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 28 Nov 2017 08:01

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:My personal opinion is that we should have both Tejas and SEF for various reasons because that will satisfy multiple requirements.

JMT.
Shiv ji: Fine thoughts, please elaborate on why you think SEF is "needed" by the IAF or country, specifically in the context of other assets IAF will have in its mix to meet our threat matrix and the planned evolution of Tejas along with some options to increase the rate of production. I understand nothing is overnight and neither is the SEF, so let us say the context is 5-10 years time frame. Do you think we need the SEF due to time-capability risks on the evolution of the Tejas or are there other factors such as MII, western collaboration, etc that in your view are needed and essential.

TIA.

Basically the "SEF" is to be funded by foreign investment along with private Indian investment. No (or little) gormint investment. It has to be a business deal between two private business partners where the product will be made in India (assembled to start with).

The idea as I see it is to
  • Set up a parallel aerospace manufacturing eco system in the private sector
  • Create jobs for the "youth bulge"
  • Make aircraft in India using cheaper Indian labour and therefore a less expensive end product
  • The Air Force is "also ran" and gets more aircraft
  • Export of components/aircraft would have to be part of the business plan between foreign and Indian business houses

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Suresh S » 28 Nov 2017 08:42

Shiv look at these ars****les, so called defense updates. Took your video and posted as their own. Did not bother to even change the language. absolute bas**ds

https://youtu.be/fS9XOVmW-Ok

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 28 Nov 2017 08:48

shiv wrote:Basically the "SEF" is to be funded by foreign investment along with private Indian investment. No (or little) gormint investment. It has to be a business deal between two private business partners where the product will be made in India (assembled to start with).

So who is actually paying the bill: private partner or the strategic partner?

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 28 Nov 2017 09:09

Indranil wrote:
shiv wrote:Basically the "SEF" is to be funded by foreign investment along with private Indian investment. No (or little) gormint investment. It has to be a business deal between two private business partners where the product will be made in India (assembled to start with).

So who is actually paying the bill: private partner or the strategic partner?

It has to be a business deal - so it is not about "payment of bill" but investment from both sides with risks considered - like any good business house. Semantically speaking ALL business investment involves "payments of bills" but with a view to making up the cost by means of a business plan to make a profit.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 28 Nov 2017 09:09

Suresh S wrote:Shiv look at these ars****les, so called defense updates. Took your video and posted as their own. Did not bother to even change the language. absolute bas**ds


:rotfl: Ha! Thanks for the heads up. They use a text-to-speech engine

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3828
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby suryag » 28 Nov 2017 09:27

BTW was looking at the MIG27 loadout on wiki and looks like Tejas can easily match(almost) pray why would we not replace the 27s with the Tejas, does the force think our pilots are safer in that rust bucket when compared with the Tejas??

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4621
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Nov 2017 09:33

deejay wrote:No SE, MII, no Rafale, too many Su 30, IAF to fill up with Tejas without FOC. This is the sum total of last few years of my learning on BRF. I guess, we really are not talking of military readiness but using military to develop an industry only.

In the same time span, I have seen IAF on alert during Pathankot, Uri, Pampore, Surgical Strikes, Dokhlam and a few minor ones here and there. We cannot argue for a potent response on the 26/11 thread with impotent capabilities. Unless, it hurts your ego, it is our impotence in capabilities that we could not cross LOC in Kargil, did not do anything in 2002 despite a colossal build up, no strike on Pakistan post 26/11. It is also a sign of our frothing and anger that while we announce the surgical strike but wait a year to release any details.

Either you and I live in the same country or the way we view defence is poles apart. Defence of my nation is not a work for tomorrow. Capabilities when inducted and accepted must be available and proven. Else, a Naval Chief has cried hoarse for locally made batteries. There are many similar experiences of the Forces which cause a lot of decisions. It may butt hurt some of us, but better us than when the forces have to deliver.

+1008 deejay sir. This is the what I mean by the short term need that folks so glibly ignore.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 28 Nov 2017 09:38

Here is a quote from Chetak's post in the vayusena thread and a comment
viewtopic.php?p=2233043#p2233043
We're at 900 kph now, 100m above the ground, flying in a loose tactical formation, separated from each other by 100 metres. 900 kph is a great speed to fly at, because mental calculation of distances is so easy with a whole number of 15 km/min or 4 secs to a km. The navigation route, drawn on a paper map, with checkpoint timings, is visible on my right thigh, inserted in a talc pocket sewed on to the right thigh of my flying overalls. But both of us have memorized every checkpoint timing to the second. We reach our first checkpoint on time and turn left Northwards towards our next checkpoint. Inside the turn Golf1 points out a herd of rhinos. Oh yes, "contact!", I call out. As we roll out of the turn, I check my chronometer - yes, the turn was perfect, our timing is perfect to the second.

The only navigation equipment practically available to a MiG-21 pilot in those days was the Eyeball Mk-I; no GPS, no Variable Omni Range (VOR), no Instrument Landing System (ILS). There was an Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) which would tell you the direction to a ground based radio beacon. You knew sine and cosine values for all angles in 15 degree increments by rote, so that your angle to a beacon, your chronometer and your Air Speed Indicator (ASI) could allow you to calculate mentally your distance to a beacon.


This is the sort of stuff that contributes to "pilot workload" and in the MiG 21 you need to add to that the need to watch your airspeed and fuel.

If you have an aircraft like the Tejas where the mission is programmed into the computer and flight parameters are pre-set and can be overridden if need be, and the attack profile is also pre programmed the pilots workload is so much less, reducing the chance of pilot error.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 28 Nov 2017 10:10

manjgu wrote:Mod rules still today... ofc the netas rule MoD...netas need babus to twist and settle things as per their needs. IAF officers just stand outside the offices of MoD folks. No decision is with IAF. deejay with due respect , DPP is a worthless piece of paper which can be twisted as per needs of neta+babu combo. But yes, if there is a strong -ve report by IAF then it becomes a little hard for Netas+babus but its not a showstopper.


The DPP is actually what defines the authority in purchase/acquisition decisions. The military (IA,IN, IAF) do not have any authority beyond the RFI/RFP stage. Even the RFI and RFP will need to be vetted from multiple agencies like DRDO, MoD etc. Its like, the military is treated as an organisation which cannot think / take decisions for its own benefit.

Maybe, this is right. Maybe we do recruit incapable people in the military. In which case we are better off without a military. Chief cannot even buy desi batteries. What I do not understand then is: Why are the pot shots being fired from the military's shoulders.

If you follow the DPP, IAF's role in acquisition is restricted till RFI/RFP (which are externally approved) and Tech evaluation. The policy and orders are placed by MoD. Each acquisition of imported item needs to be approved or agreed to by DRDO or equivalent who have a first right of refusal to the acquisition.

"Import Passand" / "Import Lobby" / "Blonde Imports" - who are these people then? Why does the MoD point all guns at Forces? How does news leak from MoD in a very selective and anti military narrative? Why does this news not come out of AF HQs?

In the case of Tejas acquisition, IAF has already signed off on all 123 Tejas decided so far. The delay is now at ministry all elsewhere.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 28 Nov 2017 10:20

Posting separately since this is a pure conjecture but to be read with what I posted above on ability of military to decide:

To those asking why does the IAF not clarify against news appearing about stupid comparison of Tejas. Think of it this way - IAF cannot move an inch without MoD. News has been leaked (sourced) from MoD. IAF now must go to press and clarify against such news leaking from MoD. Hmmm, in a situation where there are multiple battles going around over at the MoD, this is just another one.

IMHO, the new Def Minister crossed a Rubicon when she asked the military commanders to come with solutions and not just present a problem. Some people at the ministry will certainly lose a lot if the military starts offering solutions.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Singha » 28 Nov 2017 10:27

even if the SEF is structured as a private sector deal with someone on our side being the lead agency (not HAL), ultimately Govt money (our money) will be paid to that said agency, and they will pay royalty to the OEM. the pvt agency will need to invest in a factory, and getting people and training them, all of this will be part of the pkg loaded cost which Govt will have to pay - just as we pay a huge amount for FMS sales under the training, support etc category.

so it does not matter, in the end you and I will be paying for every nut and bolt that the armed forces purchase.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9865
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Yagnasri » 28 Nov 2017 11:20

Mango alert:

NS needs to just get an order for Mk1A immediately and in increased numbers. She needs to arrange for the investment in HAL production line and increase production to 24 or even 32. We do not know what kind of commitment we have given to Khanland on F16. If nothing is given, they with the approval of PMO she can make a statement incoming parliament session that there will be no SEF and only LCAs with Mk1A and Mk2 when it is developed will be procured by India. She shall commit funds for MK2 development.

Once it is done MoD people and Gora funded presstitutes will be playing games. Whenever there is a negative article she can say the press is undermining the confidence of IAF by false statements and many in the press of being paid by the Gora suppliers. She shall also start making statements the imports of arms is generally not in national interest and we need to be promoting MII and Made in India as a policy.

A passive NS or another DM is not going to archive much in stopping the imports. We need more active


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests