LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Nov 2017 14:12

Point! Thanks for putting it straight. It is our problem and the firangs are within us.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Nov 2017 14:45

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... us-443179/

Lockheed has previously toyed with the idea of operating the F-35 alongside Russian fighters. As recently as 2011, Lockheed offered a path to F-35 for India if New Delhi bought the F-16 Falcon. Until recently, India and Russia were partnered on India’s fifth-generation Perspective Multirole Fighter aircraft.

Pointer SEF. Adding a dimension to LCA destruction plan

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Nov 2017 15:10

‘Tejas not enough, need foreign single-engine jets’

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-4939375/

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 16 Nov 2017 15:15

Numbers on that are out of whack.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-syst ... gripen-cd/
http://tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas%20Brochure-2015.pdf

Read the payload and empty weights and mtows. Then do basic arithmetic and send that article to the trash bin. Amazing how numbers get jumbled around to push agenda.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Nov 2017 18:55

Austin wrote:‘Tejas not enough, need foreign single-engine jets’

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-4939375/

Coming from unnamed top IAF official, for all we know, its junk article, if we extend the same logic that is being applied to the previous article.

Besides it has some glaring errors. And does not really give anything new.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Nov 2017 19:04

Prasad wrote:Numbers on that are out of whack.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-syst ... gripen-cd/
http://tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas%20Brochure-2015.pdf

Read the payload and empty weights and mtows. Then do basic arithmetic and send that article to the trash bin. Amazing how numbers get jumbled around to push agenda.

They are comparing GripenE with LCA MK1. Not C/D version.

But even with Gripen E, and taking its brochure figures at face values: Empty mass 8000kg, internal fuel 3400kg and MTOW 16500kg. Combat empty weight would be 8000 + some 400-500kg for oil, pylons and stuff like that. Lets say 8000+3400+600 = 12000kg for sake of ease of calculation. That means 4500kg over and above that. Lets also forget about that additional weight of 600kg. Best case 5000kg payload. Where is the figure 5.8/6ton being quoted coming from...? And mind you this 5000kg would be any external fuel + bombs/missiles. It could carry more payload only if it reduces internal fuel and then IFR after TO. But by that logic even LCA's payload would be higher.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2017 20:20

JayS wrote:
Prasad wrote:Numbers on that are out of whack.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-syst ... gripen-cd/
http://tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas%20Brochure-2015.pdf

Read the payload and empty weights and mtows. Then do basic arithmetic and send that article to the trash bin. Amazing how numbers get jumbled around to push agenda.
They are comparing GripenE with LCA MK1. Not C/D version.

But even with Gripen E, and taking its brochure figures at face values: Empty mass 8000kg, internal fuel 3400kg and MTOW 16500kg. Combat empty weight would be 8000 + some 400-500kg for oil, pylons and stuff like that. Lets say 8000+3400+600 = 12000kg for sake of ease of calculation. That means 4500kg over and above that. Lets also forget about that additional weight of 600kg. Best case 5000kg payload. Where is the figure 5.8/6ton being quoted coming from...? And mind you this 5000kg would be any external fuel + bombs/missiles. It could carry more payload only if it reduces internal fuel and then IFR after TO. But by that logic even LCA's payload would be higher.

So even the Sushant Singh article has erroneous numbers from the unnamed senior IAF officer.

Realistically he had a chance to correct the misperception brought out in the earlier article. But the data and point of view is the same.

One thing is Sushant Singh article is not based on 'MoD' leaks as he quotes unnamed officer.

This removes the main argument of 'evil MoD babu leakers out to defame forces' group. At least in this instance.

I think such erroneous data would not be released unless GOI has decided on Tejas for the rest of the SEF order.
And a section of IAF does not like that.

Its like a petulant child kicking and screaming when he is given what the parent can afford but the child wants what his rich friend has.
Happened in many Indian homes as we were growing up.
Sad.

The early IAF officers were awesome warriors and used their resources to best advantage.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2017 20:26

manjgu wrote:on a side note...my dad retired as a 2 star officer from IAF and also worked with Perspective Planning in IAF. as a child whenever I saw my mom dad fight..my mom always taunted my dad "lagta hai aaj ministry ho ke aaye ho" !! which made my dad shut up and seethe... he was awarded a PVSM as he highlighted and put stop to huge financial trickery being carried out by HAL for long wrt maintenance of IAF a/c. He got into a flap with the MoD Babus and also a retired IAF officer ( IIRC) on this account was who heading HAL that time but the then IAF chief Dilbagh Singh or was it Katre recognised his contribution.

Pranam to your dad!!!!

It takes lots of guts to stand up and be counted.

Thanks for his service.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Nov 2017 21:40

ramana wrote:
JayS wrote:
They are comparing GripenE with LCA MK1. Not C/D version.

But even with Gripen E, and taking its brochure figures at face values: Empty mass 8000kg, internal fuel 3400kg and MTOW 16500kg. Combat empty weight would be 8000 + some 400-500kg for oil, pylons and stuff like that. Lets say 8000+3400+600 = 12000kg for sake of ease of calculation. That means 4500kg over and above that. Lets also forget about that additional weight of 600kg. Best case 5000kg payload. Where is the figure 5.8/6ton being quoted coming from...? And mind you this 5000kg would be any external fuel + bombs/missiles. It could carry more payload only if it reduces internal fuel and then IFR after TO. But by that logic even LCA's payload would be higher.
So even the Sushant Singh article has erroneous numbers from the unnamed senior IAF officer.

Realistically he had a chance to correct the misperception brought out in the earlier article. But the data and point of view is the same.

One thing is Sushant Singh article is not based on 'MoD' leaks as he quotes unnamed officer.

This removes the main argument of 'evil MoD babu leakers out to defame forces' group. At least in this instance.

I think such erroneous data would not be released unless GOI has decided on Tejas for the rest of the SEF order.
And a section of IAF does not like that.

Its like a petulant child kicking and screaming when he is given what the parent can afford but the child wants what his rich friend has.
Happened in many Indian homes as we were growing up.
Sad.

The early IAF officers were awesome warriors and used their resources to best advantage.

This is another shot in the foot by IAF if this is indeed IAF's attempt to clarify its stance. And as you rightly pointed out this makes one think the MoD is out of equation now. But on the other hand this could very well be another hit job by the same lobby who published the first article. Just to increase confusion. I hope those who were considering earlier article as hitjob, do not take this article to be IAF's stand. Because that would be ironic. Since this article basically only corroborates the earlier account, numbers not being really different. Lets not conclude just now. The lobbies also gain by this confusion and internal rifts. And I agree with shiv 400% than blaming each other only gonna make things worse because that makes the other side deaf and blind to your valid points even more.

After a while it doesn't really matter who leaked data. Because at the end of the day LCA suffers all the same.

Looking at the brochure numbers it looks like IAF used older brochure for Gripen E which used to have this 7 ton empty weight.

Otherwise I cannot make sense of the max 5.8 ton payload figure.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2017 21:47

JayS, For senior officer to make such lapses is inexcusable.
If he really believes those numbers he should speak up.
Adm D.K. Joshi showed the way. No need for excuses.

Do you know ACM P.C. Lal scrounged up every flight worthy aircraft and had very high level of maintenance to ensure victory in 1971?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 16 Nov 2017 21:57

JayS wrote:
Prasad wrote:Numbers on that are out of whack.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-syst ... gripen-cd/
http://tejas.gov.in/ADA-Tejas%20Brochure-2015.pdf

Read the payload and empty weights and mtows. Then do basic arithmetic and send that article to the trash bin. Amazing how numbers get jumbled around to push agenda.
They are comparing GripenE with LCA MK1. Not C/D version.

But even with Gripen E, and taking its brochure figures at face values:
Empty mass 8000kg, internal fuel 3400kg and MTOW 16500kg.
Combat empty weight would be 8000 + some 400-500kg for oil, pylons and stuff like that.

Lets say 8000+3400+600 = 12000kg for sake of ease of calculation. That means 4500kg over and above that. Lets also forget about that additional weight of 600kg. Best case 5000kg payload.

Where is the figure 5.8/6ton being quoted coming from...? And mind you this 5000kg would be any external fuel + bombs/missiles. It could carry more payload only if it reduces internal fuel and then IFR after TO. But by that logic even LCA's payload would be higher.

Yes saar. Gripen E/NG is akin to our LCA Mk2, an elongated version with the GE 414 engine and an AESA radar.
MTOW - C -> E = 14 tons -> 16.5 tons. An increase of 2.5 tons. With greater internal fuel, even with a 33:66 split, that is still only 1.6 tons more payload than the LCA Mk1/1A. 5.3 ton payload is coming out of someones daydreams.
Internal fuel - 3.4 tons per their own brochure http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial ... et--en.pdf So that is a 1.x ( 0<x<5) ton increase in fuel load. So the NG will have a 1.y ton higher payload than the comparable Mk1 LCA with a similar increase in internal fuel and hence range.

The Gripen E/NG will IOC in 2021. http://www.janes.com/article/70287/braz ... the-get-go

shaunb · Post by **shaunb** » 16 Nov 2017 22:27

IAF Chief while talking about Rafale
Rafale is a good deal

Dhanoa said a contract was signed in March 2006 for 20 Tejas aircraft to be delivered between April 2009 and December 2010.

"Out of these 20 aircraft, only five were received ... Again a contract was signed in December 2010 for 20 more aircraft to be delivered between June 2014 and December 2016. So we have already committed to 40 aircraft in addition to 83 more Tejas," he said.

He said the IAF would induct Mark 2 fighters with higher thrust engines and new weapons by 2027.

Shortcomings in LCA Mark 1 will be removed in the LCA Mark 1A aircraft and then Mark 2 will be manufactured, he said.

"Gradually we will make advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, moving from low medium to high technology aircraft," he said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Nov 2017 22:41

Un-frickin believable

The IAF used and celebrated one of the most dangerous & unsafe fighters in the world, the Gnat, rejected in the UK. See this from the commemorative book Sabre Slayers. What could the IAF have against the Tejas???

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2017 22:58

Prasad,
Very good summary of facts.
So this Gripen E will IOC in 2021 and the media reports want that as the SEF now i.e. four years before that date.....

I think debunking the Gripen E is crucial as the F16 does not have takers in IAF.

So Prasad or JayS or tsarkar can you write on that comparison in your article?

SBM if you are reading can this be your next article?

shiv, Unbelievable Looks like "Bridge on River Kwai" syndrome is afflicting IAF top brass.

Losing the Way on "The River Kwai"

My favorite leadership movie is The Bridge on the River Kwai. In this Academy Award winner, the British Commander (played by Sir Alec Guinness) demonstrates almost every quality of outstanding leadership except one: He let his goal -- to "build the bridge" -- become more important than his mission, "to win the war."

This is a wonderful case study of goal obsession. I believe that goal obsession is one of the greatest challenges faced by smart, successful leaders. For example, we may become so focused on "proving we are right" that we forget to "listen and learn." We may become so focused on making money that we ruin our family life, get divorced and lose half of everything that we made.

At the end of the movie, the Commander's last words were, "What have I done?" If leaders are not careful, they can become so obsessed with achieving their goals that they think, "What have I done?" on their death bed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2017 23:05

ramana wrote:Gagan, The radome bit.
Is Cobham supposed to supply all the quartz radome or there is local Indian mfg.?

Dileep or JayS, Any insight on the Cobham quartz radomes for LCA?

Are they supposed to make them all in future or pass on ToT to HAL?

Also has NAL learnt how to make quartz radomes now with smooth finish?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Nov 2017 23:22

NAL seems to be focused on FSS radomes:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7839049/

X Band is 8-12 GHz IIRC. This is a beginning.

This one is interesting as well.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7843824/

So I would surmise we are planning to advance our own designs without any significant TOT anticipated from Cobham.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Nov 2017 01:03

Here's what Dhanoa has to say :

"Dhanoa said a contract was signed in March 2006 for 20 Tejas aircraft to be delivered between April 2009 and December 2010.

"Out of these 20 aircraft, only five were received ... Again a contract was signed in December 2010 for 20 more aircraft to be delivered between June 2014 and December 2016. So we have already committed to 40 aircraft in addition to 83 more Tejas," he said.

"He said the IAF would induct Mark 2 fighters with higher thrust engines and new weapons by 2027.

"Shortcomings in LCA Mark 1 will be removed in the LCA Mark 1A aircraft and then Mark 2 will be manufactured, he said.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 677180.cms

How does this square with what has been seen as anti-LCA signals by the IAF?

maks · Post by **maks** » 17 Nov 2017 01:13

Been reading BR since 1998 but haven't posted much and apologies if this has been discussed already. Do point me in the right direction if so, but having just read the Sushant Singh article another thing that jumped at me was that no matter where you are looking at procuring additional aircraft from, logistically speaking, its not as if anyone has 100 odd aircraft lying around in the configuration you need. There is going to be latency regardless of the source. Understandably, the IAF fleet strength is less than optimal and there is no ideal solution to get to the required squadron strength fast enough for some. Given those limitations and my understanding (which could be totally wrong) that the IAF would also like to simplify its inventory going forward instead of flying multiple different types of aircraft with overlapping roles, which in turn would theoretically also help with TCO - in such a scenario getting another single engined fighter would be counter productive considering it would still take years to procure and would require resources devoted to a new supply chain dedicated to the new aircraft which is not cheap and increases the TCO. Just my .02 and probably barking up the wrong tree but thanks in advance for indulging.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Nov 2017 01:28

Maks: You are committing hara-kiri by saying this things like this! No matter how many times what you said above, has been hashed to death on BRF, the import lobby will switch from Global Supply Chain to Export F-Solahs to Parts, Parts, Parts! to Revitalize India's Aviation Industry to HAL needs Competition to Strategic Alignment with Amreeka to F-Solah only small part of a Big Pie (Yummy Pie!!) to etc, etc, etc.

You missed Moral Class 101 and Philosophy Class 201 in the previous few pages of this thread. Read Up and Enjoy

More **acute** than squadron shortage is pilot shortage (no point in acquiring 100 new birds if there are few pilots to fly them), increasing the serviceability of current aircraft (MRO facilities), increasing stocks of present weaponry for a 2 - 3 week conflict, air base modernisation (MAFI), air base protection (Akash, S-400, etc), force multipliers (tankers, AEW, etc)....the list goes on.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Nov 2017 02:25

Watch this video again. Listen to the IAF officers' comments and what Grp Cpt Madhav Rangachari has to say about the LCA vs Mirage-2000

"I can tell you with a lot of conviction, that as far as the basic handling qualities are concerned, as far as the FBW is concerned, it is a league ahead of the Mirage-2000. Its a generation ahead of the Mirage-2000. As far as the avionics on board are concerned, it is a generation ahead of the Mirage-2000....

This is a true 4th generation, 4th generation plus fighter aircraft, Mirage is definitely a generation older than this."

Let's forget comparing it to the MiG-21 which will be far behind in most categories except top speed. This jet is a generation ahead of the Mirage-2000H/TH itself. Obviously when it comes to range and payload it must be compared to the MiG-21 and not to the Mirage-2000, since they are as Grp Cpt Rangachari said "comparing apples with oranges".

Similar theme applies to direct comparisons with the F-16. They are not in the same weight class and consequently not in the same payload/range class.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2017 03:16

maks, What is TCO? usually when introducing an acronym its good to spell it out.

Also when you have a single plane the fear is the fleet has to be grounded in case of any technical issues.
Hence its prudent to have a couple of different planes and not a menagerie of planes.

Rakesh, The sense of the forum thread is supporting the LCA.
So what are you talking about?

Also MAFI etc. wont let you fly planes.
An airforce needs planes to be an air force.

Carl Builder analyzing US military services says Air force needs planes. Giving them Minuteman missiles doesn't cut it.

Philip wants Russian imports no matter how they are.
Not more of what is already being made i.e. Su-30MKI.

Rest who wants SEF? None.
Kartik the fight is over the residual of the Rafale 126 order.
NaMo govt purchased 36 planes and weapons for quite a sum. This leaves (126-36=) 90 planes. Some in IAF are saying those should be SEF. The number has gone up to 114.
GOI and HAL are saying that can be the LCA Mk2.
To that the IAF is saying Mk1A is not yet started let alone Mk2.
And gave erroneous figures to shoot down LCA as a substitute for the mythical SEF.
Above articles document that.

To that the GOI+HAL are saying Gripen E or NG will be IOC in 2021 and then deliveries will happen and India will be receiving planes after local demand and once the factory is setup it will be 2027-29 when the 114 inventory objective is met.
The F16 now will move from Texas to South Carolina in two years and then 3 years for the factory to be shifted to India. And then planes to come out will take another two years. And again will take 2027-29 period and who know what sanctions will be imposed by US. Besides F16 even with all that lipstick and silicone(Block 70) is a 1970 design.

By then the Mk2 will be ready and in production....

I think 36 more Rafale to give total 4 squadrons will happen. Adding two squadrons doesn't make sense.
That will take the edge of the IAF anxiety.

HAL has now 1.5 lines for LCA (18 planes). So what will it take to setup a greenfield aircraft assy plant or upgrade the 0.5 line to full line (24) in double quick time?

I think a good plan is to have GE setup the F404/F414 plant in Bengaluru aerospace SEZ to make those engines for LCA.
And let Elta set up joint venture with HAL or anyone else to make those radars in an SEZ say in Mumbai. Will be close to Chabad House.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Nov 2017 03:39

ramana wrote:maks, What is TCO? usually when introducing an acronym its good to spell it out.

Total Cost of Ownership

ramana wrote:Rakesh, The sense of the forum thread is supporting the LCA.
So what are you talking about?

Also MAFI etc. wont let you fly planes.
An airforce needs planes to be an air force.

Carl Builder analyzing US military services says Air force needs planes. Giving them Minuteman missiles doesn't cut it.

Saar, My apologies.

ramana wrote:Rest who wants SEF? None

Aap Ke Muh Mein Ghee Shakhar!

ramana wrote:Kartik the fight is over the residual of the Rafale 126 order.
NaMo govt purchased 36 planes and weapons for quite a sum. This leaves (126-36=) 90 planes. Some in IAF are saying those should be SEF. The number has gone up to 114.
GOI and HAL are saying that can be the LCA Mk2.
To that the IAF is saying Mk1A is not yet started let alone Mk2.
And gave erroneous figures to shoot down LCA as a substitute for the mythical SEF.
Above articles document that.

To that the GOI+HAL are saying Gripen E or NG will be IOC in 2021 and then deliveries will happen and India will be receiving planes after local demand and once the factory is setup it will be 2027-29 when the 114 inventory objective is met.
The F16 now will move from Texas to South Carolina in two years and then 3 years for the factory to be shifted to India. And then planes to come out will take another two years. And again will take 2027-29 period and who know what sanctions will be imposed by US. Besides F16 even with all that lipstick and silicone(Block 70) is a 1970 design.

By then the Mk2 will be ready and in production....

Just one point....that is why Trump wants to sign the F-16 deal now. He did the Trump "hand squeeze" on Modi-ji at the ASEAN summit a few days back. Strong push from him. The longer the delay, the F-16 candlelight gets smaller. Delay in SEF is a HUGE boon for the Tejas program.

ramana wrote:I think 36 more Rafale to give total 4 squadrons will happen. Adding two squadrons doesn't make sense.
That will take the edge of the IAF anxiety.

Two additional squadrons, improving serviceability of current aircraft and stockpiling of weaponry will go a long way to soothing the anxiety.

ramana wrote:HAL has now 1.5 lines for LCA (18 planes). So what will it take to setup a greenfield aircraft assy plant or upgrade the 0.5 line to full line (24) in double quick time?

A second line will be ready in 2019 at a cost to HAL for ₹130 Crore ($20 million). See below. Additional lines could be set up with the Rambha and Hawk lines winding up soon. But Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers will have to ramp up their production for the additional lines to be viable. Very doable, if the IAF wants a rapid increase in squadron numbers. As you said, Will To Implement is Needed.

Tejas aircraft capability to be enhanced
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... 398063.ece

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was undertaking the enhancements and was in the process of setting up another assembly line at a cost of ₹130 crore to increase production rate from the present eight to 16. The second line would be ready by 2019 when Mk-1A began production, the source stated.

ramana wrote:I think a good plan is to have GE setup the F404/F414 plant in Bengaluru aerospace SEZ to make those engines for LCA.

I have been arguing for that, for a long time now. Let Snecma do its thing. But having a F404/F414 screwdrivergiri line is awesome. Just like F-16 can fly with one of two engines ---> P&W F100 or GE F110, it would be nice for Tejas as well. Spin-offs are great in the long run. Also cheaper than acquisition of a whole new platform. 100% worth the investment.

ramana wrote:And let Elta set up joint venture with HAL or anyone else to make those radars in an SEZ say in Mumbai. Will be close to Chabad House.

Another great idea! Elta with ELM-2052 + Thales with RBE2-AA. Have both of them in India with joint ventures with private companies or public organisations. Collaboration on components is something I strongly endorse. Buying an entire platform - when you have one at home - I do not.

That is why a follow on order for 36 Rafales makes perfect sense. One of the offsets can include Thales collaboration (like Snecma is doing now with GTRE on Kaveri). Thales has already offered a modified RBE2 for Mk1A.

An MRO facility for the Rafale would be awesome, with the O (Overhaul) being the key. Any phoren platform acquired must have a MRO facility in India. Saves time + money + wear & tear flying the aircraft to home country.

I have been told that the IAF flies the Mi-26 all the way to Russia for overhaul. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 17 Nov 2017 04:02

IIRC, the setting up of additional assembly line is going on since last 5-6 months and now there are reports it will be ready by 2019. So it takes HAL 2.5 years to increase the factory shade with Jigs and fixtures? This is beyond pathetic. A private sector player would have done this in 6-9 months.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Nov 2017 04:07

HAL does not feel the urgency on anything. PSU, so everything is guaranteed. Pension, Salary, Benefits, Job Security. Who cares?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Nov 2017 04:51

Rakesh wrote:HAL does not feel the urgency on anything. PSU, so everything is guaranteed. Pension, Salary, Benefits, Job Security. Who cares?

It's not about that. They showed urgency over IJT, HTT-40, LUH, LCH.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Nov 2017 04:56

Indranil wrote:
Rakesh wrote:HAL does not feel the urgency on anything. PSU, so everything is guaranteed. Pension, Salary, Benefits, Job Security. Who cares?
It's not about that. They showed urgency over IJT, HTT-40, LUH, LCH.

LCA is different because its ADA's baby?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Nov 2017 05:08

There is still a lot of that. People get prejudiced.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2017 05:27

Vips wrote:IIRC, the setting up of additional assembly line is going on since last 5-6 months and now there are reports it will be ready by 2019. So it takes HAL 2.5 years to increase the factory shade with Jigs and fixtures? This is beyond pathetic. A private sector player would have done this in 6-9 months.

The space was former Hawk assembly are.
The jigs and fixtures probably are being made from outside.
Meantime the third party suppliers have to make the parts that goes into the plane.
These all have long lead time.
Also the first aircraft made on the new line will have a lot of inspection to qualify the line, tooling and the workers.
This is standard aircraft mfg process in the world.
And what rolls off in 2019 is the Mk1A which has many changes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2017 05:40

Rakesh wrote:
Tejas aircraft capability to be enhanced
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... 398063.ece

IAF had recently told the government that the LCA did not meet its requirements

In the face of the Air Force raising questions about the capability of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, the government is now aiming to install capability enhancements and speed up the rate of production.

“The production of Tejas Mk-1A will begin in 2019. Most of the 43 improvements have already been made and the tender process to install an Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Self-Protection Jammer is under way. A refuelling probe would also be added to increase range,” a source said.

While the design cannot be changed and endurance improved as it is powered by the GE-404 engine, the enhancements will increase the capability of the aircraft, the source said. The IAF had told the government that Tejas did not meet its requirements. IAF was in the process of issuing a tender for the procurement of 100 jets through the Strategic partnership mode, for which the contenders were Lockheed F-16 and SAAB Gripen. Lockheed had tied up with Tata group and SAAB with the Adani group to build them locally if selected.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was undertaking the enhancements and was in the process of setting up another assembly line at a cost of ₹130 crore to increase production rate from the present eight to 16. The second line would be ready by 2019 when Mk-1A began production, the source stated.

So the Mk1A will start rolling off from 2019 onwards.
The 43 improvements are made.
Tenders for the AESA and the SPJ are underway.
Will have refueling probe.

No changes to the engine however aircraft capability will be improved.

The current Mk1 with the No. 45 squadron is it armed with the gun?
And what radar does it have?
When is FOC frozen?

Mk1 IOC standard 20 a/c when?
Mk1 FOC standard 20 a/c when?
Mk1 A 83 from 2019

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2017 05:55

karanM, Mihir or any one whats the difference between the Thales and ELTA radars bids?
Single vendor with ELTA could cause lots of heartburn.

Or will Thales means whole BVR and weapons trials?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Nov 2017 06:26

RBE 2 AA from Thales --> https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/active-e ... rbe2-radar
RBE 2 AA from Thales --> https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... bat_ok.pdf

EL/M-2052 from Elta --> http://www.iai.co.il/2013/34481-34455-e ... s-ELM.aspx
EL/M-2052 from Elta --> http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/7/41417.pdf

Like I said earlier, have multiple component programs going for similar systems. Radar + Engine to start off with. Mitigates risk, enjoy the advantages (and disadvantages) of both systems. Learn from them and develop/fine-tune your own components.

Kaveri --> F404/F414 + M88
Uttam --> EL/M-2052 + RBE 2 AA

Have Thales, Elta, GE, Snecma-Safran partner with public and/or private institutions. I prefer the latter and this is where Chola's idea can come to frutition. Have private/public firms invest in doing screwdrivergiri on components, but not on an entire plane. You can learn a lot more on a component (micro - laser vision focus) that just doing assembly on a plane (macro - no focus, all over the map, zero learning). You want to revolutionize the aviation industry? Start on small albeit absolutely-must-have components.

Rope in IITs and other educational institutions if you need to. We don't have a lack of brainpower in India. Rather than have newly-minted IITs graduates go abroad, give them "valuable" employment in Indian organisations with comparable pay + benefit packages like their Western counterparts. Lot cheaper than SEF (no sarcasm intended) and that investment has payoffs. Think long term, not short term and asinine solutions like SEF acquisition.

SEF acquisition does not mitigate risk vis-à-vis Tejas Mk1A or Mk2, it does the exact opposite.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2017 06:38

The Thales radar would mean another round of developmental and operational testing and integration with Derby and other AAMs. There is really no way around that. The added cost and schedule would basically need to be offset by much better performance to make the entire effort worthwhile.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Nov 2017 06:42

^^ Agree 100%

Continue with EL/M-2052 onlee. But don't drop the RBE2 AA offer. Invest in it. When it is ready, incorporate that. If it does not work, oh well. But the learning curve has been valuable. Will help with Uttam AESA.

Same with F404/F414 turbofan. Continue with that, till Kaveri88 comes online. When it is ready, incorporate that. If it does not work, oh well. But the learning curve has been valuable.

Money well spent.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2017 06:57

Why stop at just 2 foreign radars ? Why not more? Are there no better areas to invest finite resources?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Nov 2017 06:59

You can always buy SEF

And of the four components (EL/M-2052, RBE2 AA, F404/F414 and Kaveri with M88 core), three are already in progress or in use. Money has already been spent on them.

Tejas flies with EL/M-2052 radar and F404 turbofan right now. Mk 2 is designed to have F414. Snecma is working on getting Kaveri up & running with the M88 core, as part of the Rafale offset.

The only component that investment has to be made on, is the RBE2 AA from Thales. How much do you think that development will cost? $1 billion? or $2 billion? or $3 billion? Order another 36 Rafales and offset that also.

Even at $5 billion (grossly exaggerated), still cheaper than the $15 - $25 billion the SEF acquisition will cost.

The real question is where is India's priorities.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Nov 2017 07:04

Rakesh wrote:You can always buy SEF

Game over

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Nov 2017 07:21

This is the Jaguar that the IAF selected, bought and learned to love? Why not the Tejas? Image from a Vayu Aerospace article about the Jaguar by Air Marshal Rajkumar

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Nov 2017 07:29

^^
Related Tweets
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/931207466217480192
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/931338484257775617

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2017 07:34

The only component that is on offer is the RBE2 AA from Thales. How much do you think that development will cost?

$1 billion? or $2 billion? or $3 billion? Even at $5 billion (grossly exaggerated), still cheaper than the $15 - $25 billion the SEF acquisition will cost.

This isn't even comparing the same thing. The SEF is a farce and completely uncalled for as I have said on numerous occasions. That gives no excuse to alternatively begin pursuing a second imported radar just for the kicks when there is an indigenous unit being developed which makes perfect sense as the primary investment as a long term solution to all future Tejas iterations. F414 is redundant unless the MK2 is fully committed to in which case it is obviously necessary.

Here is an alternative source of investment - Select one foreign AESA that best fits the performance, cost and schedule requirement and eliminate all others that may respond to the RFP (hence the source selection). Use the money saved by not pursuing the second foreign radar and try to put an IRST module on a Litening pod much the same way Northrop Grumman did on their failed bid for the USAF's IRST competition. Rafael and MBDA can help here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Nov 2017 07:36

The above two radars are for the Mk1A i.e. 83 planes and maybe retrofit the earlier 40 planes. So from 83 to 123 radars.

having two gives options:
If cost and schedule of re-qualifying the BVR etc. with RBE-2 vs the actual costs of ELTA 2052 have to be weighed.

Its still not a cinch that ELTA 2052 will work with Derby etc.. but can expect minimal extra effort.

I think RBE-2 should be kept on the side qualifying it as it gives flexibility.
Also its same as Rafale AESA, so could have qty buy for weapons.

So how is the radar signal passed to Astra missile? LCA does have a datalink which passes radar a/a/and A/g data.

How is Derby guided in LCA Mk1?

If Astra seeker needs the received signal from the AESA in Ku band then it makes the BVR simple.
Forget Derby. LCA has the Vympel launcher already.

Ajai Shukla Blog on Astra AAM

The Astra – designated a “beyond visual range air-to-air missile”, or BVRAAM – involves radically different technology challenges compared to ballistic and tactical missiles. For one, a typical Astra engagement has both the launcher and the target moving at speeds in excess of 1,000 kilometres per hour.

Fired from a pylon on the wing of a Su-30MKI fighter, the Astra’s smokeless propellant quickly accelerates it to about 4,000 kilometres per hour, as it screams towards its target. The Su-30MKI tracks the target continuously on its radar, and steers the missile towards it over a data link. About 15 kilometres from the target, the Astra’s on-board radio seeker locks onto the target; now, it no longer needs guidance from the Su-30MKI. When it reaches a few metres from the enemy fighter, the Astra warhead is detonated by a “radio proximity fuze”, spraying the target with shrapnel and shooting it down.

Only a handful of missile builders – in the USA, Russia, Europe, China, Israel, South Africa, Japan, Brazil and Taiwan – have mastered the technologies that go into air-to-air missiles. India is now joining that elite group.

Ultimately, a fighter aircraft is only as good in combat as the missiles it carries. An aircraft can close in with an enemy fighter and position itself dominatingly. But, eventually, an air-to-air missile must shoot the enemy down.

The Astra is fired from the Russian Vympel launcher – a rail under a fighter aircraft’s wing from which the missile hangs, and is launched. The Vympel launcher is integrated with all four of India’s current generation fighters --- the Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and the Tejas – allowing the Astra to be fired from all of them.

Astra components that have been developed indigenously include the missile’s propulsion system, its on-board computer, inertial navigation system, the radio proximity fuze, and data link between aircraft and missile.

Even so, the missile’s seeker head – a key component of most tactical missiles – is still imported. This is a key development thrust for the DRDO.

On the drawing board is a longer-range Astra Mark II, intended to shoot down enemy fighters up to 100 kilometres away.

According to the defence ministry, the latest Astra tests included engagement of long-range targets, high-manoeuvring target at medium range and launches of missiles in salvo to engage multiple targets. Two missiles were also launched in the combat configuration with warheads.

With the Indian Air Force operating 600-700 fighter aircraft, there will be a need for several thousand Astra missiles. With air-to-air missiles costing in the region of $2 million each, the Astra will provide major business opportunities to Indian firms.

I think tHAl should seriously work with Thales to ensure AESA price flexibility.

Mihir would be happy to note this!!!!