LCA News and Discussions

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2011 16:10

ajai shukla @ broadsword wrote:I never said that this is an "EW suite" being fitted on the LCA. I said that this was PV-1 being modified for an EW role!

I can't tell you too much about what is actually going into the fighter. The details will have to remain classified for now.

hmmm.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 02 Mar 2011 16:19

Desi growler should be named Mayavi or Marich after the elusive golden deer from Ramayana.

Cheers....

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 02 Mar 2011 16:26

Mayavi project already exists

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Mar 2011 17:12

JTull wrote:Correction! 1000 years.

The only people who personally know/experienced that history are senior citizens now. Also this is way OT.

Rahul M wrote:ajai shukla @ broadsword wrote:
I never said that this is an "EW suite" being fitted on the LCA. I said that this was PV-1 being modified for an EW role!

I can't tell you too much about what is actually going into the fighter. The details will have to remain classified for now.
hmmm.
ajai shukla @ broadsword wrote:I never said that this is an "EW suite" being fitted on the LCA. I said that this was PV-1 being modified for an EW role!

I can't tell you too much about what is actually going into the fighter. The details will have to remain classified for now.
hmmm.

EW is just an instance of whats possible with the airframe. I think this is the first time we have a fighter-category platform which can be customized to our will !!! We can test every enhancement possible in future - FBL, AESA radars, IRSTs, the Kaveri, subsystems developed for mk2/AMCA, RCS reduction.

Reg Ajai Shukla, if a reporter knows it, how can the information be called classified? Are they supposed to reveal it to any outsider?

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Mar 2011 17:24

Sriman wrote:Interesting.. Ajai Shukla says this is the PV1 being prepped for an EW role

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... at-is.html

One has to read this news with DARE brochure wherein there is reference of development of integrated warfare suite for LCA.

My understanding after casual reading about F-18 Growler is that EW aircraft require dozens of antennas and emitters which need huge amount of wiring & mounting points. So this may be new electronic variant of LCA

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 02 Mar 2011 17:26

Raman wrote:
{err what ? everyone knows that a fighter without its radar flies with a ballast of equivalent weight to compensate the CG.
Quite right. In fact, Ajai Shukla's newest LCA pictures show the very thing

I also want to raise one more point. Much is made of a weight difference of only 60kg between an R-60 and an R-73E. However, consider that it will translate to an additional structural load requirement of 60kg * 6G (conservative ASR requirement) * 1.5 (safety factor) * 2 (wings) = 1080 kg. Since these loads are at the outermost pylon, we have to further multiply by the 3+ mts distance between the pylon and the wing attachment point to get the bending loads. It adds up quickly.

Raman,

i don't know how i missed out this post of yours.

my knowledge was very basic 'thumb rule' sort. it is good that you explained it properly. thanks so much. also can you guide to me a relevant site or article.

also can you calculate for me what would be the structural strengthening needed in this case in terms of weight gain??
(R73E)105-(R60)43.5 = 61.5 kg.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Mar 2011 17:28

You see, the EW thing came up. Eventually it had to come. This are the benefits of having a indigenious project. Its good to know how they are using the PV's which have shelf life but are bit obselete for current use as LSP's are taking up to air. Hopefully, they will eventually convert LSP's into other uses and make up for the flying hours.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Mar 2011 17:41

Karan M, wonderful post there. Please bring about Kaveri issues in the Kaveri thread and please highlight the need for Snecma's help for K10 when we have a LCA project de-linked in its project charter. tia.

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Mar 2011 17:53

People dont realise that 6 to 10 times the cost of "original aircraft" is spent on spare parts, upgradation etc over the life time of an aircraft. LCA "programme" will lead to massive cost saving over time. Now if this EW thingie is realised fully then we can have a first fully dedicated EW/SEAD aircraft.

I am ready to assume that the first LCA SP1 will be 7500kg (empty) and 40th will be 7000kg, even then it is an excellent aircraft. The fact that IAF does not support LCA is evident from their lack of interest in developing LCA into even an AJT-LIFT, as a follow on to Hawk.

Forget LCA, how does IAF explain ignoring HTT-40 and then suddenly creating a crisis for quick import???????

Didn't IAF kill HAL's AJT aka CAT? IAF killed HALs attempt to license manufacture Medium Helo and is content only importing.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 18:28

chackojoseph wrote:
Correction. IAF does say that technocrats took over. The fact cannot be denied. Civilians and technocrats are generally not acceptable to IA and IAF in most cases. An attitude, one can understand if we are from services background. Same argument has been heard form Army for Arjun project. They say that civvies and techno's took over and messed the project.

So my question is, if ADA or CVRDE decides to be a bit more ambitious, Does IAF and IA simply gets hostile to the project and keeps away?

ADA's and CVRDE's descisions are good. we can see the benefits now. <SNIP>

This post is the usual rant that you come up with against the services.

Please put some thought in what you write.....Was the objective of LCA Programme to develop the aeronautical Mil-Ind Complex of the country or develop a fighter for the IAF in the required timeframe? Is the development of Mil-Ind Complex incidental to the development of the fighter or the other way around?

The way you've put your reply it seems that the scientific community went about R&D in the aerospace field and said, 'well, we'll deliver the fighter when we can'.

To meet the requirement of the IAF in timely manner is an important criterioa, in case you've missed the point.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Mar 2011 18:31

Rohitvats ji, with all due respect, you seem to have missed large portions of Karan ji's post.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 18:31

chackojoseph wrote: One of thfacts that IAF did not want a complex aircraft is a farce. You can judge by the current requirements on LCA Tejas by IAF. They want it to be truly 4th gen. IAF chief is on record for that. Had IAF needed a workable aircraft like Gnat ++, why so many demands and specs now?

Why Mk 1 order is jut 40 aircrafts? Dosen't IAF itself says that its much more than mig 21 even in mk 1 form?

Please don't consider it as a IAF demanding too much from ADA debate, just pointing out that IAF is not doing what it says.

With respect to the bolded part - thannk you stating the obvious.

If the LCA is being delivered in 2011-2014 timeframe, then it needs to incorporate technologies which reflect the technologies as of today and which can handle the threat requirement in near future as well. Or do you want the airforce to operate an aircraft today which has technologies as of 10years ago?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 18:34

PratikDas wrote:Rohitvats ji, with all due respect, you seem to have missed large portions of Karan ji's post.

First, why the ji?

As for Karam's post, I've not missed his post. I've gone through it. He's taken pains to put that post and I consider it my duty to acknowledge the same. I will reply to it. It is just that LCA numbers do not come naturally to me.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Mar 2011 18:36

This is a classic chicken and egg scenario. IAF knew very well what it was asking ADA to do and it set an impossible task in the form of the ASR with forward-looking criteria so that it would never need to look in LCA's direction. What a pity it now has to, and thanks to the many miracles that have led to IOC.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Mar 2011 18:38

What on Earth is the Mig 21++ comment? It is a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of the facts.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2011 18:38

rohit, could you answer a couple of questions so that we can understand where you stand on this ?

>> when you say simple mig-21 replacement what do you think was the minimum level acceptable to IAF ?
mig-21bison ? JF-17 ?

>> what would you say is a realistic time period by which this aircraft would reach IOC, counting from the day the govt gives an 'in principle' go ahead ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Mar 2011 18:51

rohitvats wrote:With respect to the bolded part - thannk you stating the obvious.

If the LCA is being delivered in 2011-2014 timeframe, then it needs to incorporate technologies which reflect the technologies as of today and which can handle the threat requirement in near future as well. Or do you want the airforce to operate an aircraft today which has technologies as of 10years ago?

Hmm.... You mean, they want a complicated plane with 4.5 gen features? And please tell me the Mark 1 features which are 10 years old technology.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 02 Mar 2011 19:18

PratikDas wrote:

What on Earth is the Mig 21++ comment? It is a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of the facts.

A classic Freudian slip, which betrays the low opinion the commentator has of the LCA Tejas. He later had to retract it, most likely under pressure.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2011 19:36

so the Tejas-E is about to be born! good.

next step - PnP ARM seeker for Astra Mk1

Tejas could do the high flying topcover role done by Mig29/M2K for low flying strike a/c and in addition do the jamming and SEAD roles heh heh.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 19:39

Karan M wrote: No that is incorrect & an misreading of the situation as it was. I am taking the liberty of replying to you as I find your posts on the Army etc pretty interesting & generally serious. At least, I hope I wont have to face the problem of obnoxious replies and will face a reasoned statements in return <SNIP>

Karan, first and foremost, thank you for taking the effort for putting up that post. Many people on BRF, including me, are more learned and aware because of that and the effort is really appreciated.

Now coming to the points made by you.

First, the point of contention is factual rather than interpretation of events as observed by a particular person. PR cannot be non-biased in one instance and biased in another – I consider his every point in his book to be authentic – whether for or against services.

Was the LCA program used by the scientific community for R&D purpose and with the aim to develop the aeronautical industry in this country and catch up with the west (as alluded in the book)? Especially, after the break from HF-24 days? If yes, there is nothing wrong in it. But at the same time, was proper assessment done of the timeframe and work required to achieve the target? Were we trying to marry two seemingly opposite requirement at the same time? And what was the priority given to the timely delivery of the operational fighter for IAF with all the bells and whistles?

Take the FBW requirement – whose idea was it to have FBW in the first place on the fighter? Did the IAF ask for FBW for the original MiG-21 replacement they had in mind? Or was the ASR issued with FBW after the demand from the scientific community that FBW be developed for the fighter in India? The same PR notes that in 1988, Air Commodore Krishnaswamy wrote a report critical of timeframe being projected in the Project Definition Phase (PDP) for the development of new technologies, flight testing, and validation of technologies and subsequent delivery of the operational fighter for the IAF.
And hence, advised for the TD route of development.

Now, let us come to the dynamics of short-listing consultants for the development of FBW system. So, apart from the bonhomie between RG and Nixon, the ADA was not sure of the learning they could gain from the Dassault guys? As PR points out in his book, was the technological requirement given precedence over operational requirement when deciding on the FBW partner?

The same book also clearly stated how the time frame of the first flight of TD-1 was grossly overestimated by even likes of Kota and Kalam (1996) versus when it actually happened.

I cannot comment on the radar specs issue for I have no knowledge of it.

Karan, no one, least of me, doubts the tremendous difficulty against which LCA has come up (including IAF top-brass expecting it to never reach TD phase) and the spin-offs it has already has had – with IJT being the prime example. However, my point of contention is different – I’m of the opinion that in the requirement for development of domestic mil-ind complex, the timeframe for the operational requirement for the IAF was sacrificed. I don’t think one can hide behind the “boost to domestic aeronautical industry” (actually base of modern aeronautics in India) argument to justify the delay. And not all the delay was because of the funding – it was also because of the technological choices made by the scientific community in the beginning. They wanted to learn and it was a painful learning experience - where we wanted to deliver a Ferrari when Amby was foreign maal and to get everything done on time.

People here comment about the ASR changes in 2004-05 period in the same breadth as IA changing GSQR for Arjun tank. If the aircraft is to come up in operational service as of 2013-14, can it continue with the ASR designed for the fighter to enter service in late 90s or early 2000s?

This is all I can say on the topic.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 02 Mar 2011 19:42

Karan M: Thank you for the excellent post. It should be on the first page of LCA thread!

The Tejas program has given the aeronautical industry/miltary industrial complex to the country - the problem was that IAF's immediate requirements were never de-risked from the program and we have issues like scope creep (the later your deliver the fighter, the more advance it has to be, in keeping with the times!). One must also understand that a big variable in this has been the Indian economy - when the Tejas program was inked, we had the economy growing with the Hindu rate of growth and funds were hard to come by. Hence de-risking IAF's requirement was probably not an option to the planners with limited budgets at their disposal. As any project manager knows, risks mitigation for unknown unknown means more resources! Things changed quite a bit by late nineties and IAF could look at alternatives like the Bison upgrade et al to de-risk their plans from LCA program to some extent - remember thanks to the extra funds available from the growing economy. Hence, while overall program management may look to have a lot of flaws, we need to understand the overall context in which the program was executed. However, many individuals did not necessarily show too much maturity e.g. unrealistic time lines from GTRE on the Kaveri or the rants of the likes of Admiral Nadkarni are points in case. Even one of the IAF chief had to be told by his own staff to support the project as the plane was being built for IAF and not the enemy air force!

Overall, the program is a fantastic achievement that the country should be very proud of instead of fighting over who is right and who is wrong. For once, the most reviled politicians (AKA, GF et al) have proven to be much more mature than the folks we tend to worship(Scientists or people from the Armed Forces) in continuing the program and managing all the actors within the system!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 19:45

PratikDas wrote:This is a classic chicken and egg scenario. IAF knew very well what it was asking ADA to do and it set an impossible task in the form of the ASR with forward-looking criteria so that it would never need to look in LCA's direction. What a pity it now has to, and thanks to the many miracles that have led to IOC.

Sorry Sir, that is not the case and all this while I'm trying to say only that.

It was the scientific communities desire that a new fighter be developed with host of newer technologies to bridge the gap with west because of lag due to no development post HF-24. In AM Rajkumar words, AST was issued for a "cost-effective' replacement of Mig-21 but the scientifc community did not agree to it. They wanted new fighter to have newer critical technologies like MMR, engine, FBW-FCS, glass-cockpit and composites. The newer AST was issued with reservations on the timelines and ability to develop everything in house.

Vivs · Post by **Vivs** » 02 Mar 2011 19:52

Mind blowing post by Karan!

A post about the Kaveri too please!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 19:57

Rahul M wrote:rohit, could you answer a couple of questions so that we can understand where you stand on this ?

>> when you say simple mig-21 replacement what do you think was the minimum level acceptable to IAF ?
mig-21bison ? JF-17 ?

>> what would you say is a realistic time period by which this aircraft would reach IOC, counting from the day the govt gives an 'in principle' go ahead ?

Rahul, I have no answer to both the questions. But does anyone has? But did the TD-1 feature technologies as required by the original AST for Mig-21 replacement or the ones as desired to be developed in India by the scientific community?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 20:02

chackojoseph wrote: Hmm.... You mean, they want a complicated plane with 4.5 gen features? And please tell me the Mark 1 features which are 10 years old technology.

Again, it is your simple comprehension issue - can you please tell me where I wrote issues with technologies on Mk-1?

Better still, since you have all the facts in place - can you, or anyone else, eductae me, what was the timeframe given by the ADA for first flight of TD-1 and subsequent roll-out of PV-1 and IOC and FOC? And please feel free to list the reasons for why the same were not met.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Mar 2011 20:06

this thread is degenerating into a "prove that you have stopped beating your wife" type discussion

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 02 Mar 2011 20:07

Lalchix?

But Karan M saar, really good post. Should be made a sticky, or at least included in the FAQ that Rahul M is working on

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Mar 2011 20:08

yeah, its about time...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2011 20:50

rohitvats wrote:
Rahul M wrote:rohit, could you answer a couple of questions so that we can understand where you stand on this ?

>> when you say simple mig-21 replacement what do you think was the minimum level acceptable to IAF ?
mig-21bison ? JF-17 ?

>> what would you say is a realistic time period by which this aircraft would reach IOC, counting from the day the govt gives an 'in principle' go ahead ?
Rahul, I have no answer to both the questions. But does anyone has? But did the TD-1 feature technologies as required by the original AST for Mig-21 replacement or the ones as desired to be developed in India by the scientific community?

rohit, I don't know if you have read the tejas story. what I gathered from it and old reports on LCA, the mig-21++ was indeed proposed by air HQ but only at a very preliminary stage and this proposal was withdrawn when the technocrats strongly opposed it (rightly so IMO, coming to that later) and the decision was vindicated when PAF acquired the F-16.

this was in early 80's, immediately after this the F-16's happened to PAF and subsequently IAF was fully on board with proto-ADA about the tech level of LCA, one that could counter F-16. the LCA's strong focus on aerodynamic performance was also because of the need to face off against the very agile F-16's. this was an unusual step in the sense that most emerging aerospace powers break out with a ground attack design, which are usually much more forgiving. LCA's A2A focus thus underlines IAF's requirements from the project.

however, it would be very wrong to say that IAF was confident of ADA delivering on those technologies on time, if ever. they were not; they were sceptical of ADA's capabilities and this resulted in the bifurcation of the project into TD and FSED-II phases by GOI on IAF recommendation. IAF had already come to the conclusion that it could only accept LCA level fighters but they were prepared or rather expected to make that acquisition from abroad, assuming that ADA would invariably fail. this attitude was at the root at the decade long disconnect between the two organisations.
about the date, I've already mentioned the time taken for LCA project and I don't think there was much more ADA could do to speed it up. 17 years from fund allocation to IOC even with the mountain of problems they faced (including isolation from user for 11 of those 17 years) is very good by any standard.

now coming to whether making aircraft for IAF was more important or building aviation industry, I would say both are equally important. moreover, it is really misleading when people say that IAF's fleet numbers came down because of LCA. going through IAF's acquisitions through the last two decades, I found no evidence that LCA ever featured in the longterm plans.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 02 Mar 2011 21:05

Please put some thought in what you write.....Was the objective of LCA Programme to develop the aeronautical Mil-Ind Complex of the country or develop a fighter for the IAF in the required timeframe? Is the development of Mil-Ind Complex incidental to the development of the fighter or the other way around?

The way you've put your reply it seems that the scientific community went about R&D in the aerospace field and said, 'well, we'll deliver the fighter when we can'.

You have been harping on this point in your subsequent posts too...

The objective of the LCA programme was to develop a modern fighter for the IAF. This was mentioned in the letter written by Dr. S.R. Valluri in 1983 and sent to various people in the Academia / Industry (Incidentally, as a student, I was also given a copy of it). The letter further mentioned about the lack of adequate facility and manpower to undertake such an enormous project of national importance, and requested everybody concerned to put in their best effort in order to pursue with the project further. It was amply clear at that time that it was a project conceived by the Aeronautical community concentrated in Bangalore. Ofcourse the ultimate benificary will be IAF.

It is a fact that when the project was presented to IAF, they were skeptical and their enthusiasm was less than adequate. They did not believe that these desi scientists could develop a modern fighter plane. Why IAF, I too didn't believe it -- thats why I went elsewhere, instead of joing the ADE. After a lot of initial hiccups, the project got some fillip when Dr. Kalam became the head of DRDO.

All that the IAF did was issue the ASR. Tell me, what is the expertise available in IAF, which could supplement the designers of LCA. Leave alone assistance, very few people in IAF would understand the complex design process. So, in that respect, IAF could not have assisted the design team. What they could have done is depute some experienced pilots and assist the design team to fix the design parameters. They did a half hearted job in that respect.

The man power available was not adequate and the facilities available were still worse. That is why some of the experiments/tests had to be done in foreign countries. So, it was not just a project to design a fighter plane. It was also a project to develop the facilities and manpower concurrently. Ofcourse, the IAF, as a customer need not be bothered about facilities manpower etc - their stop watch started clicking from the day ASR was issued. Beg, borrow/steal - but produce the damn thing hand it over to us in time - that was the attitude of IAF (and you). I wish the IAF shows the same no-non-sense attitude towards foreign vendors as well.

About the bolded part - they may not have said that they will deliver when they can, but the reality is not very different. What can the IAF do about it? or for that matter the USAF - thay are waiting for the JSF for almost a decade now. They may be complaining to the GOTUS, Supplier etc. But are the USAF chief complaing to the American journalists? I don't know.

See the Hawk Trainer saga - IAF got the plane 17 years after babus started fa*ting on the files. And they didn't do a neat job in finalising the contract. So, delays are there everywhere. LCA is not an exception, as it is made out to be. It is too boring to list out the reason for the delay in LCA (there are plenty of them)

To meet the requirement of the IAF in timely manner is an important criterioa, in case you've missed the point

It is important and time schedule should be strictly adhered to, when ever possible. However, delay in project is no reason to show disinterest or discard the product. You had also mentioned it affects the operational capability. First of all, scientists are not directly responsible for the operational readiness of IAF. Whoever is responsible had taken adequate measures by way of inducting fighters ranging from MIG-29, Mirage 2000, SU-30, Modernising MIG-21 etc.

We recycling the same thing over and over again...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 21:26

Rahul M wrote:
rohit, I don't know if you have read the tejas story. what I gathered from it and old reports on LCA, the mig-21++ was indeed proposed by air HQ but only at a very preliminary stage and this proposal was withdrawn when the technocrats strongly opposed it (rightly so IMO, coming to that later) and the decision was vindicated when PAF acquired the F-16.

This was in early 80's, immediately after this the F-16's happened to PAF and subsequently IAF was fully on board with proto-ADA about the tech level of LCA, one that could counter F-16. the LCA's strong focus on aerodynamic performance was also because of the need to face off against the very agile F-16's. this was an unusual step in the sense that most emerging aerospace powers break out with a ground attack design, which are usually much more forgiving. LCA's A2A focus thus underlines IAF's requirements from the project.

I have read the ACM PR's book and that is my primary source of information.

As for the IAF requirement - yes, it was supposed to be replacement for Ajeet and MiG-21 by mid to late 90s and the requirement by IAF came up in early 80s. As for the fact about IAF being on board - they were more or less forced to accept the contention of scientists on the need to develop critical technologies in house for newer fighter. From the word go, IAF was skeptical about the ability to develop everything in house and yet, deliver a fighter in required timeframe.

However, it would be very wrong to say that IAF was confident of ADA delivering on those technologies on time, if ever. they were not; they were sceptical of ADA's capabilities and this resulted in the bifurcation of the project into TD and FSED-II phases by GOI on IAF recommendation. IAF had already come to the conclusion that it could only accept LCA level fighters but they were prepared or rather expected to make that acquisition from abroad, assuming that ADA would invariably fail.

Sir, I've already stated that IAF was not confident about the ability to deliver on the promised goods and hence, reccomended the TD->PV route.

This attitude was at the root at the decade long disconnect between the two organisations. About the date, I've already mentioned the time taken for LCA project and I don't think there was much more ADA could do to speed it up. 17 years from fund allocation to IOC even with the mountain of problems they faced (including isolation from user for 11 of those 17 years) is very good by any standard.

I can say the same about ADA and the people who forced the technological choices on the IAF and the as the real reason for the go clash between people at helms of affair.

now coming to whether making aircraft for IAF was more important or building aviation industry, I would say both are equally important. moreover, it is really misleading when people say that IAF's fleet numbers came down because of LCA. going through IAF's acquisitions through the last two decades, I found no evidence that LCA ever featured in the longterm plans

This is a wrong statement - IAF requirement was for Mig-21 and Ajeet replacement. What do you think would have been the situation if a lesser cousin of LCA was ready for induction by late 90s?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Mar 2011 21:41

geeth wrote: You have been harping on this point in your subsequent posts too...

The objective of the LCA programme was to develop a modern fighter for the IAF. This was mentioned in the letter written by Dr. S.R. Valluri in 1983 and sent to various people in the Academia / Industry (Incidentally, as a student, I was also given a copy of it). The letter further mentioned about the lack of adequate facility and manpower to undertake such an enormous project of national importance, and requested everybody concerned to put in their best effort in order to pursue with the project further. It was amply clear at that time that it was a project conceived by the Aeronautical community concentrated in Bangalore. Ofcourse the ultimate benificary will be IAF. <SNIP>

The last line bolded in your post above sums-up the story of the genesis of the LCA. And this is all that I've trying to say. And one of the reasons for the delay in the program. I don't know why that is so difficult to accept.

As for the rest of post about lack of infra for the development of the something like LCA - the same observation was made about IAF and is the reason why it was skeptical about timelines for delivery of the aircraft. And yet, the scientists decided for the best of the best from the word go. And some where set in motion the dynamics which would delay the program.

Now coming to my rant on the priority for the delivery of an aircraft to IAF - you don't put the cart before the horse. The a/c is there for the operational requirement of the IAF and not to tom-tom as R&D product alone. And the requirement of the IAF is has time angle to it - the purchase of Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 or Jaguar have nothing to do with LCA program or the need to replace Mig-21 in IAF service.

As for JSF and LCA analogy - the first one may be getting delayed in meeting objectives as set by the end-user while the latter got initially delayed due to objectived set by the developer. There is a world of difference in there.

However, this is my last post on the topic - LCA is flying and doing well. And has bright future in front of it and will serve the IAF real well into the future. LCA-Mk-2 should be the real game changer.

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Mar 2011 21:42

IAF requirement was for Mig-21 and Ajeet replacement. What do you think would have been the situation if a lesser cousin of LCA was ready for induction by late 90s?

Congratulations! What you would have created and have inducted 5 years ago would be the Indian equivalent of the JF-17 Thunder- Bandar , which you could have called the HF-97 Tejas - Sundar . Both will be obsolete at entry in service and ready to be turned into aluminum cans for Pepsi and Coke for Dhoni and others to endorse in another 2 years.

That would have vindicated the retd folks who went on and on about "The LCA would be obsolete at entry into service". Now you can point to Gripen C/D and say , well, Thailand just paid big bucks to buy that fighter !

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Mar 2011 21:45

Oh, the only thing criminal was not to take the original AJT , the Gnat/HAL Ajeet and develop it into a contemporary AJT with the Jaguar engine (exactly what the Brits themselves did) and field an AJT, rather than import the Hawk.

The IAF and Babooze sat on that for 25 years and HTT-40 never saw any interest and now we have a global RFP for basic turbo powered trainers!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Mar 2011 21:59

When it comes to rant on time and schedule, the same goes true with any desh project, for example just placing MRCA order.. and the requirements there was not fixed 12 years back. It was a mig21++ to JSF-- now. As times go by, people age and change to think new and get requirements changed. We don't have an established LRU and sub-component level mftrg orgs who delivers in flip of the finger in 6 months flat to keep abreast of time. We have to remember, we are catching up in terms of technology gap. So, marut -> Lca Mk2, is a milestone indeed that needs appreciation.

Regarding tom tom aspect, that is entirely a perspective of user of a product. IAF is free tom tom home grown LCA Mk2 as JSF-- or raptor Jr--, and who is stopping them to do so? I hope this is not because of the fact that it is late, but not latest, expect everything from scratch and be leapfrog to future all at once thoughts.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 02 Mar 2011 22:20

i don't know if this has been posted. it is a 2009 airfleet mag article. answers quite accurately some of the questions being asked as also the whole development story of the LCA. must read.

A group of Indian
Air Force and Industry experts drafted a report
then saying that a such-like program was technically
and economically feasible. At the same time
the authors of the report thought that some parts
of the new aircraft (some onboard equipment,
systems, and construction materials, including
onboard radar, flight-by-wire control system, and
composite materials) would have to be purchased
abroad. A bit later (likely in the middle of 1983)
similar reports (with alike conclusions) made on
the Indian government’s order were provided by
four west-European aircraft builders: BAE, MBB,
Dornier, and Dassault-Breguet. In the very year of
1983, the government made a fundamental decision to launch the program. The Indian new generation fighter was finally given the green light!

In the May of 1985, the Aeronautical
Development Authority (ADA) founded in 1984,
as it seems specially to implement the fighter program,
presented the government with a detailed
report on the perspectives of the new aircraft
based on previous research. A month later, the Air
Force made customer technical specifications for
the fighter and a group of HAL experts was teamed
up in the ADA to perform the pre-draft preparation
of the project called LCA

In accordance with initial calculations, the new
aircraft was to have tailless configuration, a delta
wing with a front edge curve (both completely tailless
configuration and tailless configuration with
small-surface foreplane located close to the wing
were considered), an aerodynamically unstable
structure, and a digital flight-by-wire control system.
Composite materials were supposed to be
widely used in the airframe design.

The specification demands were also gradually clarified.
Under preliminary estimates, the
LCA empty weight was to be around 6,000 kg,
and the max takeoff weight was to total 10,500
kg.

Looking ahead we will say that the fuselage
finally remained to be Indian, but the Americans
further received contracts for deliveries of engines,
advanced alloys, and composite materials, as well
as for development of the LCA digital flight-by-wire
control system. The development of the system is
worth focusing on. The Indian gave up the idea of
making this crucial element of the aircraft themselves
at early stages of the program. In 1988,
Dassault offered its analogue flight-by-wire control system.
For a number of reasons the system din
not satisfy the Indians and in 1993 the U.S. General
Dynamics (currently Lockheed Martin), which had
obtained a lot of experience in the field while creating and
upgrading F-16, was chosen to create a
four-channel digital flight-by-wire control system.

It is noteworthy that, though, the Indian fighter
was designed for the Air Force, at the early stages
of the program a deck-landing aircraft based on
it was also considered: the Indian Navy bought a
British-built Vikrant in 1961

In the late 1980s – early 1990s, the further
LCA strategy implementation was considered for
changes. For instance, a simplified version of the
fighter deprived of some earlier planned technical
solutions was offered to be built as soon as possible
with minimum costs. And no sooner than at
the second stage of the program, when a simplified
version was launched into series production,
extended work on a “full-fledged” LCA was supposed
to start. Besides, a number of squadrons
initially planned to be fitted with LCA aircraft
were then to receive advanced MiG-21. Looking
ahead, it is noteworthy that we can see today this
scenario implemented: 125 MiG-21UPG entered
service of the Indian Air Force partly filling the
LCA “gap”, the LCA Мk.1, which “do not entirely
meet the requirements of the Air Force” are being
batch-produced and the work on “full-fledged”
LCA Mk.2 completely satisfying the customer
demands have started.

In 1993, the Indian government finally sanctioned
the construction of a flight-demonstration
(experimental) LCA item. In the May of 1995,
the fuselage was launched into production, and
in December that year the coal-plastic wing followed.
The ceremonial wheeling-out of the LCA
TD1 (technological demonstrator, first) took place
on November 17, 1996 lagging nine months
behind the schedule. But the customizing of the jet
proved to be longer than expected and no sooner
than April 1997, test-pilot Rakesh Sharma, the
first Indian spaceman, who visited the Mir Soviet
Orbital Station, started the ground tests of the jet.

On January 4, 2001 the LCA fighter made
its maiden flight and was later named Tejas
(Radiance). On August 1, 2003 the jet exceeded
the sound speed for the first time. On August 14,
1998, the second TD2 prototype was wheeled out
from an assembling workshop. Just like TD1, it
also had the F404-GE-F2J3 U.S. engine. Its flight
tests started no sooner than 2002.

But then some problems of adjusting the
Swedish radar to the Indian “board” emerged and
in 1997 a decision was made that the LCA radar
with features close to those of PS-05/A be made
by HAL’s radio electronics department on its own,
which did not exclude possible technical support
provided by foreign partners. Two test-bed aircraft
based on HS478М were fitted to flight-test the
onboard radar.

Due to the fast tempo of mastering the latest
technology in aircraft building showed by the
Indians, the LCA design specifications looked
impressive. So, while at the initial stage of the
program the design empty weigh was estimated
at 6,000 kg, then due to optimism in wide coalplastic
use the Indians decreased the weight to
the record low for a fighter of the class – to 5,500
kg, which seamed rather possible. The composite
materials were supposed to be used in the wing,
empennage and control surface design.

The percent of the composite materials used
in the LCA roughly twice exceeded that of the U.S.
F-22A Raptor fifth generation fighter and its Soviet
analogue MiG-MFI jet. For a comparison, the Saab
JAS 39 Gripen with a structure close to that of
the LCA and a similar engine (Svenska Flygmotor
RM12 based on the same F404) and a radar was
6,620 kg, that is 1,120 kg more. At the same
time, the internal fuel tanks of the Indian aircraft,
according to advertizing brochures, was to accommodate
2,400 kg of fuel compared to 2,270 kg of
the Saab aircraft. The LCA fuel efficiency was 0.44
compared to 0.34 of the Jas 39. The LCA predecessor
in the Indian Air Force, MiG-21bis (empty
weight – 5,350 kg), was fitted with the R-25-300
augmented turbojet engine with the thrust of 7,100
kgf and had only 1,790 kg of fuel in internal tanks
(fuel efficiency also 0.34). It is little surprise that
the LCA practical range of 2,000 km was to be
close to that of heavier fourth generation foreign
fighters (F-15 and F-16) and be much better than
that of not only MiG-21bis (1,250 km), but also of
Gripen (1,700-1,800) km.

The construction of the first two prototype
vehicles PV1 and PV2 was launched in 1998.
The traditional natural model of the fighter was
replaced by a virtual model, which was a 3D data
base of detailed information on the configuration
and design of the aircraft (a similar approach was
first used in the U.S. for the development of the
Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit low observable strategic bomber, and was later used for F-22, F-35,
and T-50 fighter programs.

PV1 took off on November 25, 2005, and
the PV2 followed on December 1, 2005. Exactly
a year later, on December 1, 2006, flight tests of
the PV3 started. The fourth pre-series aircraft PV4
initially built as s prototype of the LCA-Navy carrier
fighter was further delivered as the second series
jet LSP2. Then an prototype of the PV5 two-seat
combat trainer was launched, as well as navy
prototypes NP-1 and NP-2, which have not started
flight tests as of today.

It should be mentioned that the takeoff weight
of empty demonstrator aircraft LCA TD was far
from the announced record low figure for the
series aircraft and totaled according to the Indian
media 6,800 kg. The pre-series LCA PV1 had more
carbon-plastic and the weight reduced to 6,300 kg.
The LCA PV2 had the design composite material
figure of 43%. But this fighter was also fitted with
some organic electronic equipment, armament,
as well as some onboard systems, which were
not installed on previous versions. It was likely to
increase the weight again. The exceeding weight
became one of the crucial problems for the Tejas
makers…
On April 12, 2007, the first series Tejas Mk.1
fighter LSP1 made its maiden test flight. On June
16, 2008 it was followed by LSP2 (former PV4).
Another six series aircraft (LSР-3 – LSР-8) were
supposed to be tested until the end of 2008

In 2005, the Indian Air Force concluded a 20
billion rupees (over $445 million) contract with
the HAL for the delivery of the first 20 series
Tejas aircraft Mark 1 with F404-GE-IN20 General
Electric bypass turbofan engines with afterburner,
including 16 single-seat fighters and four twoseat combat trainers. The agreement also had an
option for the purchase of another 20 aircraft.

About 43% of the series-produced LCA airframe
is made of composite materials. The fighter
skin is 90% composite materials. The use of large
coal-plastic panels provided a much lighter design,
as well as a reduced use of fasteners with 5,000 of
rivets necessary compared to 10,000 of a similar
size fighter with an all-metal riveted design. The
use of composite materials saved the necessity of
drilling 2,000 holes in the airframe inevitable for a
usual all-metal design.

: in the autumn of 2008 referring to the national
Ministry of Defense it was declared, that the serial
craft possesses «superfluous weight». The exact
figure of the overweight was not pronounced,
however it is possible to assume, that it appeared
to be rather essential. As a result the “Tejas” Mk.1
aircrafts as it turns out, possess underestimated
(in comparison with the estimated) flight characteristics
and do not correspond even to «minimal
requirements of the customer for combat load».
It was reported, that the weight of empty
“Tejas” MK.1 aircraft exceeds the estimated one
by 1500 kg, i.e. makes not less than 7000 kg (and
probably more). It is necessary to say, that the
growth of the craft’s weight during its designing
is quite usual.[/*size] For example Mig-29 became 1.13
times heavier during the period between the initial
project and the first serial fighter (from 9,670 to
10,900 kg) that however didn’t make any remarkable
consequences for the program. Probably
the weight of the US F-35 grew even more significantly
but also did not result in any troubles
for the designers. However the increase of this
major characteristic by 1.27-1.30 times nevertheless
forced the Air Forces of India reject further
purchases of this “overweight” fighter.[/*size] Excessive
weight of the LCA can be possibly explained
with too optimistic belief of the developers in the
composition materials design of the glider and
overestimation of their ability to work with carbon
fiber-reinforced plastic. Probably, the acquiring
of extra weight appeared during the design of a
number of systems also took place.[/*size]

http://www.airfleet.ru/files/airfleet/A ... 2009-1.pdf

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2011 22:39

rohitvats wrote:
Rahul M wrote:rohit, I don't know if you have read the tejas story. what I gathered from it and old reports on LCA, the mig-21++ was indeed proposed by air HQ but only at a very preliminary stage and this proposal was withdrawn when the technocrats strongly opposed it (rightly so IMO, coming to that later) and the decision was vindicated when PAF acquired the F-16.

This was in early 80's, immediately after this the F-16's happened to PAF and subsequently IAF was fully on board with proto-ADA about the tech level of LCA, one that could counter F-16. the LCA's strong focus on aerodynamic performance was also because of the need to face off against the very agile F-16's. this was an unusual step in the sense that most emerging aerospace powers break out with a ground attack design, which are usually much more forgiving. LCA's A2A focus thus underlines IAF's requirements from the project.
I have read the ACM PR's book and that is my primary source of information.

As for the IAF requirement - yes, it was supposed to be replacement for Ajeet and MiG-21 by mid to late 90s and the requirement by IAF came up in early 80s. As for the fact about IAF being on board - they were more or less forced to accept the contention of scientists on the need to develop critical technologies in house for newer fighter. From the word go, IAF was skeptical about the ability to develop everything in house and yet, deliver a fighter in required timeframe.

I haven't heard of IAF ever bringing up the mig-21/ajeet thing after the initial proposal. to be frank it didn't occur to me that it was a particularly strong opinion from IAF that needed to be 'forced'. they gave that proposal from their perceptions of our immediate capability but it died soon after and the PAF F-16's were the final nail in the coffin of that proposal.

However, it would be very wrong to say that IAF was confident of ADA delivering on those technologies on time, if ever. they were not; they were sceptical of ADA's capabilities and this resulted in the bifurcation of the project into TD and FSED-II phases by GOI on IAF recommendation. IAF had already come to the conclusion that it could only accept LCA level fighters but they were prepared or rather expected to make that acquisition from abroad, assuming that ADA would invariably fail.
Sir, I've already stated that IAF was not confident about the ability to deliver on the promised goods and hence, reccomended the TD->PV route.

which added at least 3-4 years to the program. if they had tried to develop a fighter from day one many things could have been done concurrently which were done only after 2005.

This attitude was at the root at the decade long disconnect between the two organisations. About the date, I've already mentioned the time taken for LCA project and I don't think there was much more ADA could do to speed it up. 17 years from fund allocation to IOC even with the mountain of problems they faced (including isolation from user for 11 of those 17 years) is very good by any standard.
I can say the same about ADA and the people who forced the technological choices on the IAF and the as the real reason for the go clash between people at helms of affair.

as I said it didn't occur to me that IAF was opposed to the tech standard of LCA, only ADA's ability to deliver it. the issues are separate.
once it was clear that ADA was undertaking a state-of-the-art project after all (and not with much opposition from IAF either), I'm not sure I don't get what you think was IAF's justification in disowning it. unless you mean vindictiveness is justified in a project of national importance.

now coming to whether making aircraft for IAF was more important or building aviation industry, I would say both are equally important. moreover, it is really misleading when people say that IAF's fleet numbers came down because of LCA. going through IAF's acquisitions through the last two decades, I found no evidence that LCA ever featured in the longterm plans
This is a wrong statement - IAF requirement was for Mig-21 and Ajeet replacement. What do you think would have been the situation if a lesser cousin of LCA was ready for induction by late 90s?

no rohit, it's not a wrong statement. sure, it may have been meant for mig-21/ajeet replacement. that doesn't mean IAF wanted to replace them with more mig-21/ajeet equivalents !! they wanted a replacement that could fight the F-16 on its terms and hold its own.
and how was even a mig-21 equivalent to be ready in late 90's ? do you really think ADA should have delivered a brand new fighter (even if an obsolete one) in 5 years flat ?

I'm sorry, this is unreal expectation. even such an inferior machine would have taken 10 years to completely develop, if not more. the IJT is taking 12 years !!

moreover, you really think IAF would have accepted a fighter with no FBW, analogue cockpit and mig-21 era capabilities in 2003 ?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Mar 2011 22:57

guys - small nitpick, you are all fiercely debating something about which none of you have the real facts. its all one set of hypotheses against another

where are those lalchix when you need them the most?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2011 23:25

It must be some arcane details the finer points we mere mortals dont comprehend? I gave up.

To me the arguments seems like bash the IAF for not going gungho with the LCA development team's efforts.

While at the outset it looks like that but one has to recall they have to fight and not be just flyboys.

Once the concept was proven they swung behind it.

I recall RayC was also bashed for saying INSAS had some shortcomings! And he was user.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 02 Mar 2011 23:33

Rahul M wrote: This is a wrong statement - IAF requirement was for Mig-21 and Ajeet replacement. What do you think would have been the situation if a lesser cousin of LCA was ready for induction by late 90s?

no rohit, it's not a wrong statement. sure, it may have been meant for mig-21/ajeet replacement. that doesn't mean IAF wanted to replace them with more mig-21/ajeet equivalents !! they wanted a replacement that could fight the F-16 on its terms and hold its own.
and how was even a mig-21 equivalent to be ready in late 90's ? do you really think ADA should have delivered a brand new fighter (even if an obsolete one) in 5 years flat ?

I'm sorry, this is unreal expectation. even such an inferior machine would have taken 10 years to completely develop, if not more. the IJT is taking 12 years !!

moreover, you really think IAF would have accepted a fighter with no FBW, analogue cockpit and mig-21 era capabilities in 2003 ?

[/quote]

Well if they wanted to make a f-16 level fighter, Tejas should have been heavier and larger from the get go.