LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

chola · Post by **chola** » 13 Nov 2017 10:53

shiv wrote:What if Army says" Give us 2 sqns of LCA. It will be a good point defence fighter plus CAS. What would be wrong with their proposal?

LoL. Yes, that would go over well with the IAF.

They won’t even give control over attack helicopters which are under army control in every other major military.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 13 Nov 2017 11:41

Bharak Karnard is right and wrong
Defence Imports in India try to kill 3 birds with one stroke of the Pen
1. Imports are used as geostrategic moves to bolster relations with the exporting nation
2. To fill the party in power's election coffers
3. Pee-Pee contact for those involved.

Bolstering of the armed forces fighting capability also happens, but that is more of an afterthought, and the contract for spares, servicing, expendables and munitions is a repeat order which needs re-contracting and re-negotiation onlee.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Nov 2017 11:55

Philip wrote:
Given that the FGFA deal may still go ahead,with the basic bird with us and dxpected to enter service with the RuAF by 2020,the AMCA which will enter service post 2030,closer to 2035,could be conceived as a 6th-gen bird.

What is exactly 6th Gen fighter..??

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Nov 2017 12:01

BK messed up with the Life numbers of LCA it seems. As of now LCA's certified life is 1000hrs as per CAG report. At least to my knowledge full airframe fatigue life testing is still pending for it to be certified for its full design life of 3000hrs. That 12000hrs he quote is not the ~~certified~~ design life. If one uses the same matrix then every aircraft is designed for 3x-4x its "design life".

And I do not agree with his statement that manned fighter will be obsolete in 2-3 decades. We have been hearing this for past 2-3 decades and yet here we are. Oil should have been over by 2000s. We should have been colonizing moon and regularly visiting Mars by now. Entire hot section of jet engines should have been made up of CMCs by now. Such predictions should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Nov 2017 12:06

ashishvikas wrote:Stop the vilification campaign against Tejas

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/11/13/sto ... tejas/amp/

Irrespective of the merits presented by BK. I at least one person is defending it with passion and conviction. Something that was rarely seen until now.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 13 Nov 2017 12:25

He was the one who started the US personal on Russian sub rumor, so he is part of the group that confuses and claims to be on the good side while playing as part of the import lobby. Do not trust him

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 13 Nov 2017 12:26

Some good words from Vishnu from NDTV

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/929931038456991745

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Nov 2017 12:37

Pratyush wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Stop the vilification campaign against Tejas

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/11/13/sto ... tejas/amp/
Irrespective of the merits presented by BK. I at least one person is defending it with passion and conviction. Something that was rarely seen until now.

Err, as I mentioned earlier, any Executive Body, like Cabinet Committee of Security will go by the merits of the case.

And where Mr. Karnad botches it up completely is by referring to Sulur, Andhra Pradesh

Sulur is a suburb in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

How will one make a case with botched up facts?

Same goes for the 12,000 hour service life. Not sure where he pulled those numbers from.

The design life of Tejas is 3000 hours, but it hasnt been fully tested, so got a waiver from IAF for IOC as per CAG 2015 report.

A better argument would be most aircraft & ships are internally redesigned and structurally rebuilt during refits to accommodate new engines (Jaguar) radars (Mirage, Jaguar) and weapons (Su-30 for BrahMos). So modernization refits required every 10 years to prevent overall obsolescence includes structural strengthening.

I'm preparing a response to the India Today report, though totally cramped on bandwidth at work & travel.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2017 12:59

JayS wrote:
Philip wrote:
Given that the FGFA deal may still go ahead,with the basic bird with us and dxpected to enter service with the RuAF by 2020,the AMCA which will enter service post 2030,closer to 2035,could be conceived as a 6th-gen bird.
What is exactly 6th Gen fighter..??

Fly by vaporware. Unobtanium armour. Cold fusion weapons

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Nov 2017 13:49

tsarkar wrote:
Same goes for the 12,000 hour service life. Not sure where he pulled those numbers from.

That's the fatigue life, that BK is referring to I think, that needs to be demonstrated in testing in order to get the Service life certified at "Design life" which 3000hrs for LCA.

But I am very confident that LCA's design life will be extended well beyond 3000hrs eventually, based on the conservatism built in the design of LCA. We should not be surprised to see LCA life numbers going to 6000hrs or even 8000hrs without any modification in due process. As such with a good life tracking system, LCA's utilization will be much more than what another fighter from 80s would have had with 3000hr life. In other words, even with certified life of 3000hrs LCA in most probability will fly much more number of hours in reality. I have seen hike of ~30% in case of Fighter jet engine due to use of Life tracking system i.e. actual flying of 4000hrs for certified life of 3000hrs.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 13 Nov 2017 13:51

IF we want MRCA why gov is not funding Mk-2 ??? Looks like LCA is going to be like Arjun.

sum · Post by **sum** » 13 Nov 2017 14:07

Maybe because the end-customer has said it isnt really interested in it even if it happens ( like how the IN did for NLCA, its sole customer)?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Nov 2017 14:11

JayS wrote:BK messed up with the Life numbers of LCA it seems. As of now LCA's certified life is 1000hrs as per CAG report. At least to my knowledge full airframe fatigue life testing is still pending for it to be certified for its full design life of 3000hrs. That 12000hrs he quote is not the certified life. If one uses the same matrix then every aircraft is designed for 3x-4x its "design life". .....

I think he never said, LCA is certified for 12000 hrs. He said "designed for 12000 hrs".
And i think what he said is valid if one can understand.

And he talks how LCA maintenance no. is arrived at as against F16 & Gripen, which i think is important point.

I said this before and i repeat, even this 3000 hrs life is erring on safe side, like the way as N-LCA brakes.

Today journalism is all abt how to make more money, more trp, more eyeballs, so you dont give a full picture. You sell part by part. Or only that portion that maximises their money making.

.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Nov 2017 15:03

Kanson wrote:
JayS wrote:BK messed up with the Life numbers of LCA it seems. As of now LCA's certified life is 1000hrs as per CAG report. At least to my knowledge full airframe fatigue life testing is still pending for it to be certified for its full design life of 3000hrs. That 12000hrs he quote is not the certified life. If one uses the same matrix then every aircraft is designed for 3x-4x its "design life". .....
I think he never said, LCA is certified for 12000 hrs. He said "designed for 12000 hrs".
And i think what he said is valid if one can understand.

And he talks how LCA maintenance no. is arrived at as against F16 & Gripen, which i think is important point.

I said this before and i repeat, even this 3000 hrs life is erring on safe side, like the way as N-LCA brakes.

Today journalism is all abt how to make more money, more trp, more eyeballs, so you dont give a full picture. You sell part by part. Or only that portion that maximises their money making.

.

My bad. I wanted to say "Designed life". But even then 12000hrs is not designed life. Saying its "designed" for 12000hrs is also not correct. With the same matrix, F16 must be designed for 16000hrs or Gripen must be designed for 24000hrs. LCA is designed for 3000h, F16 is designed for 8000hrs and so on. That's correct way of saying it. Because these numbers are relevant as far as User is concerned.

As of now LCA is certified only for 1000hrs.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Nov 2017 17:28

JayS wrote:Saying its "designed" for 12000hrs is also not correct. With the same matrix, F16 must be designed for 16000hrs or Gripen must be designed for 24000hrs. LCA is designed for 3000h, F16 is designed for 8000hrs and so on. That's correct way of saying it. Because these numbers are relevant as far as User is concerned.

No sir, BK is also correct, I would say more correct in this instance.

Any engineering product is designed with cushions, margins & tolerances. In essence you design for much more than you actually meant to.

Say you want to design a 70 ton bridge. As per stuatory rules, you design it with a safety factor of 4. That means you are actually designing the bridge for 70 × 4, 280 tons. All those columns, beams are designed for 280 tonnage, but mentiond as designed for 70 ton with safety factor of 4.(Becoz you were asked to build a 70 ton bridge, instead you designed the bridge for 280 tons)

And you would simply say i designed a 70 ton bridge.

While safety factor for bridge is 4, for aircrafts it is 1.5 as per US standards. (It may vary slightly from region to region) So general rule 1.5

Now BK mentioned figure of 12000 hrs & 3000 hrs.

12000 hrs / 1.5 (safety factor)= 8000 hrs (This is the amount of life hrs, all modern fighters aspire for)

It was mentioned by ADA officials, as LCA is a more of composite construction, there are adding more safety margin than usually meant for metals, which is 1.5.

So from BKs words, one can deduce ADA applied a safety factor of 4 AND REDUCED the life hrs FOR CERTIFICATION as 3000 hrs.

12000 hrs / 4 (LCA safety factor)= 3000 hrs.

(If its a pure metal structure, it would be 8000 hrs)

But in effect they designed the LCA for 12000 hrs.

I guess this solves the mystery behind 12000 hrs fig.

And i just want to mention that, without going into the nitpicks, he raised some good points, I believe.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Nov 2017 19:15

Kanson wrote:
JayS wrote:Saying its "designed" for 12000hrs is also not correct. With the same matrix, F16 must be designed for 16000hrs or Gripen must be designed for 24000hrs. LCA is designed for 3000h, F16 is designed for 8000hrs and so on. That's correct way of saying it. Because these numbers are relevant as far as User is concerned.
No sir, BK is also correct, I would say more correct in this instance.

Any engineering product is designed with cushions, margins & tolerances. In essence you design for much more than you actually meant to.

Say you want to design a 70 ton bridge. As per stuatory rules, you design it with a safety factor of 4. That means you are actually designing the bridge for 70 × 4, 280 tons. All those columns, beams are designed for 280 tonnage, but mentiond as designed for 70 ton with safety factor of 4.(Becoz you were asked to build a 70 ton bridge, instead you designed the bridge for 280 tons)

And you would simply say i designed a 70 ton bridge.

While safety factor for bridge is 4, for aircrafts it is 1.5 as per US standards. (It may vary slightly from region to region) So general rule 1.5

Now BK mentioned figure of 12000 hrs & 3000 hrs.

12000 hrs / 1.5 (safety factor)= 8000 hrs (This is the amount of life hrs, all modern fighters aspire for)

It was mentioned by ADA officials, as LCA is a more of composite construction, there are adding more safety margin than usually meant for metals, which is 1.5.

So from BKs words, one can deduce ADA applied a safety factor of 4 AND REDUCED the life hrs FOR CERTIFICATION as 3000 hrs.

12000 hrs / 4 (LCA safety factor)= 3000 hrs.

(If its a pure metal structure, it would be 8000 hrs)

But in effect they designed the LCA for 12000 hrs.

I guess this solves the mystery behind 12000 hrs fig.

And i just want to mention that, without going into the nitpicks, he raised some good points, I believe.

You didn't get my point. Point was - talk based on the same matrix for all the aircrafts. If LCA is designed for 12000hrs then Gripen is also designed for 24000hrs. If LCA is designed for 3000hrs then Gripen is designed for 6000hrs. In real life however, 12000hr number is irrelevant. 3000hrs is all that matters.

There are multiple life numbers (here we are talking about LCF life of airframe). And that FOS=1.5 thing you mention is not for Fatigue life. Its for static strength. Fatigue is not so simple, even for metals. As per current certification procedure, for Metal structure to be certified for x number of hours you need to show in tests that it withstands 2x hrs. And this doesn't make the structure "designed for 2x", it still means that the design is for x hrs. That 2x is simply coming from the experience that if you want to say with 99% confidence that 95% of all the articles produced will have life of x hrs before failure then you must demonstrate in one test 2x life (if you can do more tests then this number can be reduced. In fact if you can test each and every produced component then you really have to demonstrate x life in testing, but that's not practical now, is it..?). For composites, it used to be as high as 13x as per one methodology developed for F18 in 70s, when there was not enough understanding. Now its more like 3x-4x. For F35, 2x is being used. It really depends on how much data you have and how much confidence you have in your methods. Its not simply putting FOS. These numbers are arrived at after a lot of statistical jugglery. And this is only one approach. There can be other simplifications, but then they increase conservatism even more. For example, some OEM are not doing any fatigue analysis of composite structure at all.! Only linear static analysis, put some empirical reduction factor and calculate fatigue life.

Please understand, having FOS of 1.5 doesn't mean its designed for 1.5x load. Because while at x load a structure cannot have any significant deformation (let alone failure) which might impact its form fit or function while thousands of 70ton vehicles pass over it for decades, at 1.5x load it can break after once the load is applied. So if you pass 4 Arjun MK2 sitting one over the other, over that bridge of yours, the bridge can collapse immediately after they are safely passed through, and still the design can be called as a successful/valid design. But would you call it designed for 280 tons then..? I wouldn't. I don't want to re-build bridge after one use. (Well, I don't really know how bridges are designed, but aircrafts are designed with this philosophy).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Nov 2017 20:13

For F35, 2x is being used.

They pushed beyond to 3X (against a 2x target established by the PO). This is important because it is almost certain that the frames will serve for 10-14K hours (if not more) so it is good to model for longer service life and understand what it will take in terms of SLEP/SLAP to ensure that they last that long.

-- http://www.baesystems.com/en/article/f- ... e-facility

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Nov 2017 20:58

Look, the LCA was always meant to be a better MIG-21 , replacing it in large numbers very inexpensively.Instead, we are trying to tart it up into a mini- M2K, which is b*llocks! As long as it is capable of bettering the 100 or so JF-17s currently with Pak, when they come over into our airspace loaded with munitions, and therefore with degraded air combat capability, the Tejas will have splendidly have won the argument.Who wants it to last for 30 years? 20 will do very well as long as we have 200 at least in the air. Like the T-34 tank in WW2, MIG-21s in the last 60 years and still with us in its Bison avatar besting many current fighters, the Tejas should be built at record speed as it was originally intended.MK-1A with a lightweight AESA radar will improve its BVR capability,but it needs its cannon to win the WVR battle which is its strength.

The large numbers at such low cost mean that we can field 7-8 LCAs for every Rafale and allow uz to regain our 3:1 numerical superiority against Pak which has dropped alarmingly to 1.7 :1 or even lower according to some analysts.

Sorry BK.You've missed the target here.The LCA does not have to last 30-40 years or more like a B-52 or TU-142 strat bomber, which like "Old man river,keeps rolling along!"

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 13 Nov 2017 21:26

Dileep wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Did SP-5 and SP-7 fly yet?
SP-7 will fly within weeks. SP-5 still have "some issue", not sure what.

Sir, Indranil told SP-5 issues were resolved and it started taxi trials.. and then we got some news saying it will fly in 3 days & SP-7 in 10 days.

Should we expect SP-7 flying in Nov ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2017 21:37

This is what IAF CAS said about Tejas last month
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/930103692975529986

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 Nov 2017 22:04

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote: 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.
it's a hit job IR. Simple as that. Stuff that is easily available online, put together by someone who doesn't really have access to the performance data of the Tejas in service. BS like endurance of 59 minutes versus refueled endurance of Gripen E (not yet demonstrated) and F-16. Plus BS about maintenance man-hours for the Tejas Mk1 (this 20 hours of maintenance per flight hour was a figure I vaguely remember from a couple of years ago, when the Tejas Mk1 hadn't entered service).

Apologies in advance for tooting my own trumpet, but I've attempted a rebuttal here:
https://twitter.com/elmihiro/status/930106619022553089

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Nov 2017 23:04

tsarkar, Please do write a rebuttal.

JayS, I have a question.

Has HAL placed orders for the LCA engines for the 40 + 83 planes?
Or in pipeline.
At least negotiate and option contract so that they have price definition for the engines.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 13 Nov 2017 23:16

Spoke to a chaiwala from GE aviation. He mentioned that HAL has 20 or so 404 languishing in their sheds. He didn't have lot of good words to say about HAL or its pace of operation.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 Nov 2017 23:28

What is HAL supposed to do with those 404s when the airframes they're supposed to power are still in production?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 13 Nov 2017 23:50

schinnas wrote:Spoke to a chaiwala from GE aviation. He mentioned that HAL has 20 or so 404 languishing in their sheds. He didn't have lot of good words to say about HAL or its pace of operation.

Fighter jets also parked in open air, with their jet engines. Shouldn't that be fine? Or do jet engines come in bubble wraps and a box for ~~Amazon~~Ge Prime ?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Nov 2017 00:01

[quote="ramana"]tsarkar, Please do write a rebuttal.

JayS, I have a question.

Has HAL placed orders for the LCA engines for the 40 + 83 planes?
Or in pipeline.
At least negotiate and option contract so that they have price definition for the engines.[/quote]

Frankly, I dont know. Once I looked through GE's official press release for last 20+yrs. No mention on any firm orders beyond some 20-30 F404. Only intents or possible orders mentioned. We know some 4-6 F414 are also ordered. Any big order should have shown up on GE press release. Multiple sources say different things but none can be taken as official confirmation.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 14 Nov 2017 00:19

JayS wrote:BK messed up with the Life numbers of LCA it seems. As of now LCA's certified life is 1000hrs as per CAG report. At least to my knowledge full airframe fatigue life testing is still pending for it to be certified for its full design life of 3000hrs. That 12000hrs he quote is not the ~~certified~~ design life. If one uses the same matrix then every aircraft is designed for 3x-4x its "design life".

And I do not agree with his statement that manned fighter will be obsolete in 2-3 decades. We have been hearing this for past 2-3 decades and yet here we are. Oil should have been over by 2000s. We should have been colonizing moon and regularly visiting Mars by now. Entire hot section of jet engines should have been made up of CMCs by now. Such predictions should be taken with a pinch of salt.

JayS, this is a technically sound person like you will understand. But the masses (including many in media and possibly in MoD) would go by the aft quoted argument that forces know the best about the equipment because they use them and they are more honest (if not less corrupt) than MoD/HAL.

The arguments quoted are blatant lies under the burqa of anonymity. A MSM journalist posting strongly in favor of Tejas (BK and VSom) should be supported, even if their arguments are half baked.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Nov 2017 00:23

There should be 37 F404 IN20 (17 around 2007 + 20 in 2011) (all should be delivered) and 8 F414 INS6 (2 delivered, 6 this year).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Nov 2017 00:25

JayS wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
Same goes for the 12,000 hour service life. Not sure where he pulled those numbers from.
That's the fatigue life, that BK is referring to I think, that needs to be demonstrated in testing in order to get the Service life certified at "Design life" which 3000hrs for LCA.

But I am very confident that LCA's design life will be extended well beyond 3000hrs eventually, based on the conservatism built in the design of LCA. We should not be surprised to see LCA life numbers going to 6000hrs or even 8000hrs without any modification in due process. As such with a good life tracking system, LCA's utilization will be much more than what another fighter from 80s would have had with 3000hr life. In other words, even with certified life of 3000hrs LCA in most probability will fly much more number of hours in reality. I have seen hike of ~30% in case of Fighter jet engine due to use of Life tracking system i.e. actual flying of 4000hrs for certified life of 3000hrs.

Many years ago, I had posted on BRF, about a conversation that I had with a gentleman who led the Auto-lay program in ADA. He referred me to another gentleman who had also worked in ADA, on the LCA's composites and had more idea about the design life of the jet. During my conversation with him, he led me to believe that the Tejas was designed to be in service for 25 years (which was as I recall, as per the ASR) but with the conservatism built into the design, would easily exceed that and go on to 6000 hours at least.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Nov 2017 00:32

Kartik wrote:
JayS wrote:
That's the fatigue life, that BK is referring to I think, that needs to be demonstrated in testing in order to get the Service life certified at "Design life" which 3000hrs for LCA.

But I am very confident that LCA's design life will be extended well beyond 3000hrs eventually, based on the conservatism built in the design of LCA. We should not be surprised to see LCA life numbers going to 6000hrs or even 8000hrs without any modification in due process. As such with a good life tracking system, LCA's utilization will be much more than what another fighter from 80s would have had with 3000hr life. In other words, even with certified life of 3000hrs LCA in most probability will fly much more number of hours in reality. I have seen hike of ~30% in case of Fighter jet engine due to use of Life tracking system i.e. actual flying of 4000hrs for certified life of 3000hrs.

Many years ago, I had posted on BRF, about a conversation that I had with a gentleman who led the Auto-lay program in ADA. He referred me to another gentleman who had also worked in ADA, on the LCA's composites and had more idea about the design life of the jet. During my conversation with him, he led me to believe that the Tejas was designed to be in service for 25 years (which was as I recall, as per the ASR) but with the conservatism built into the design, would easily exceed that and go on to 6000 hours at least.

Its very much expected. Anyone with even as meagre understanding of structural engineering as I have can easily see this. The higher weight of LCA is a blessing in disguise, just like our over-population is.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Nov 2017 00:59

Mihir wrote:What is HAL supposed to do with those 404s when the airframes they're supposed to power are still in production?

HAL has already established the second production line.. there are a lot of jitters in the deep state against LCA. The 404s will get in and find its rev up life soon.

The current campaign is against Mk2 and future versions of LCA/AMCA from the seekers of the Single engine fighter and lost MMRCA contenders (duly supported by lexus/nexus admis). [I don't believe in this scaremongering of LCA for delays from HAL.. IMHO, they are not the lone defaulters]

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 14 Nov 2017 01:08

What has been achieved by ADA in form of LCA is nothing short of a miracle if we look at India's current industrial development level, available budget, GDP/capita and past experience in the art of new product development. it really shows when we compare it to NAL's Saras and HAL's IJT projects which are much simpler on the technical complexity scale yet are teetering for years or decades with no end in site.

It'll be a shame if IAF sacrifices all this, once in a life time opportunity again, on the altar of operational preparedness.

My question to IAF is what if the west/world puts us under sanction or Rupee collapses in near future would we not be able to achieve operational readiness? Even with almost all of IAF inventory being imported we do not have operational preparedness yet buying another 120 F16 would make us operationally prepared and if we replace them by LCA Mk2 (and few years delay) we'll be operationally not ready?

A change of mindset is required, we choose Indians to man these aircraft, I am sure we can get better and more combat ready pilots if we looked oversees and paid good salary. Yet we choose only Indians and for a very good reason. How hard is it to get this through brass skulls!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Nov 2017 01:40

Several years ago I had suggested a "think tank" like role for BRF to act like a conscience of corrupt India as far as defense acquisitions go. That role is even more vital today with corruption crossing all limits.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Nov 2017 03:03

^The campaign is actually from Trump secret squad IMHO. I think the vilification can be reversed by the same media asking Trump sarkar to sell couple of squadrons of F22 raptors at a decent price to checkmate the deep state biz seekers.

Leave the Tejas /AMCA alone should be the NG Tantra!

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Nov 2017 03:13

Vivek K wrote:Several years ago I had suggested a "think tank" like role for BRF to act like a conscience of corrupt India as far as defense acquisitions go. That role is even more vital today with corruption crossing all limits.

+1000

What needs to happen next? Exchange emails and start working on it?

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 14 Nov 2017 05:49

Cybaru wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Several years ago I had suggested a "think tank" like role for BRF to act like a conscience of corrupt India as far as defense acquisitions go. That role is even more vital today with corruption crossing all limits.
+1000

What needs to happen next? Exchange emails and start working on it?

+++

Why not meet RM.. To request an appointment with the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri, send us a mail at appointment.rm@gov.in

Of course you all shall have deep throat sources to get this even without sending emails.

I have already pointed out Namo.. RM to visit BR to read the real news and non import views.

Given all the news riling.. LCA. Arjun none of what we do can come a day sooner..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Nov 2017 06:42

Dileep wrote:I am pretty sure that a PPT made by IAF to present to RM and Babus had been purposefully leaked out. The PPT's purpose would have been to answer RM's question "why you need SEF? What is your plan?". I think, in typical Indiligence SoP, the "comparison sheet" quotes the best on one side and the worst on the other. All of us PPT warriors have done this many times, didn't we?

So, don't worry, have curry. The "Document" is simply the "why we want SEF" justification made by IAF. If any of us was asked to make such a PPT, we would have essentially made the same.

I get the same feeling. This is willful misinformation to justify SEF. There is no way IAF needs to be educated on daily operations of military aircraft.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Nov 2017 08:20

First action should be to write to the RM! Who wants to draft a letter? IR and KaranM seem like the best informed about the LCA's capabilities.

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 14 Nov 2017 08:37

I say HAL should be given a list of friendly nations that it can sell Fighter Jets to and let them build LCA for foreign countries that need such a fighter. Let them manage it as a business, get funding and build upon it. It will also serve a purpose very critical - Let them fail on their own and realize what it means to deliver by the promises they make.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Nov 2017 09:00

Okay, so here is my take on all this....

IAF is still trying to fulfill it's medium mirage fighter need. Hence the push for gripen and f16. Since they can't have that number of Rafale. The tactic seems to be to push for as many medium or higher level Western birds that won't require iaf inputs/handholding for development. As close to was fighting capability as possible Notice their disdain for the fgfa as well.

But imho at least 200 LCA are on the cards.

Admiral sir, I'll respond to your last post in our conversation a bit later as it requires some time and more attention.