LCA News and Discussions

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Mar 2011 14:49

^^^We have had a dedicated EW Squadron based on Mig-21......I think with LCA Mk-1 and Mk-2 slated to claim a wide berth for themselves in IAF Orbat - replacing the venerable Mig-21 in AD and A2G roles and Mig-27 in A2G roles, something like this may follow suite. Something like a flight of 4XTejas in mud-moving role being escorted by Tejas EW version/armed with stand-off jammers.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 04 Mar 2011 15:24

Lalmohan wrote:Tejas as EW platform - my first reaction was that its quite a small airframe to carry a lot of jamming gear, but it if it is a mix of internal/conformal and podded - might be quite interesting
i also expect that the TD's could be good research vehicles for AMCA future designs

Except that the TDs are already dismantled/in the process of being dismantled. I think you meant the PVs.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 04 Mar 2011 18:49

DRDO under the IA/IAF would be a disaster.....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Mar 2011 19:41

People just think on the organization they patronize alone when things begin to show up to take credits. When the real struggle happens or for all the corrections, they back off and keep blaming/pointing fingers even if they have bruises on them. Keeping coming back in different avatars and repeat the same whine.

It is when people think about product and uses, they will mature. IAF must be a stake holder in the whole process giving inputs to and oversee as an user, and not a manager of projects. IAF's job is strategy and security of the country/.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Mar 2011 19:45

not sure how it panned out, but few yrs back people were testing pods on Growler driven by ram air turbines in front of the pod...as the a/c moves the air spins the turbine and generates power . maybe the plane also contributes some power . its similar to the Prowler pods except those pods have exposed props, here it is shrouded.

http://www.ghetzleraeropower.com/ea-18g-pod.htm

so additional power can be generated :
- two such pods with integral turbines on 2nd pylon
- 2 fuel tanks on inner pylons
- maybe a passive SEAD/HADF pod beneath the centerline
- 2 self defence AAMs on outer pylons
- chin pylon empty

couple other a/c could carry a shitload of ARMs based on the AstraMk1 and KH31Pv2....a kind of Core2 duo of EW+SEAD based around a Tejas operating in pairs...or if you want to scare people send along a MKI loaded with 10 ARMs for company to provide the reshoot capability.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 04 Mar 2011 19:49

X-Posting from Miscellaneous Pictures - Indian Military

Thanks checko ji for these wonderful pics. Hope they will provide a healthy break from this Services Vs DRDO boring debate.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 04 Mar 2011 20:48

many months back in another forum i had asked if the LCA could be turned into a mini growler?? i could not get any answer. hence this news of electronic attack LCA gives me reasons to be happy.

.................

Singha wrote:not sure how it panned out, but few yrs back people were testing pods on Growler driven by ram air turbines in front of the pod...as the a/c moves the air spins the turbine and generates power . maybe the plane also contributes some power . its similar to the Prowler pods except those pods have exposed props, here it is shrouded.

http://www.ghetzleraeropower.com/ea-18g-pod.htm

so additional power can be generated :
- two such pods with integral turbines on 2nd pylon
- 2 fuel tanks on inner pylons
- maybe a passive SEAD/HADF pod beneath the centerline
- 2 self defence AAMs on outer pylons
- chin pylon empty

couple other a/c could carry a shitload of ARMs based on the AstraMk1 and KH31Pv2....a kind of Core2 duo of EW+SEAD based around a Tejas operating in pairs...or if you want to scare people send along a MKI loaded with 10 ARMs for company to provide the reshoot capability.

singha sir,

take a look at this link. and also follow the links within that to get power requirements and how the RAM air turbine caters to it.

http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir043/sbir366.html

however ALQ 99 production has been stopped in favour of the next gen jammer according to this -

The USA's next-generation jammer is not expected to become operational until around the middle of the next decade. The ALQ-99 tactical jamming pod which equips the US Navy's Super Hornets is no longer in production.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -lite.html

cheers.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Mar 2011 21:22

Sid,

I am working on some pics to be used as desk top backgrounds or screen savers. Will let you know.

udy · Post by **udy** » 05 Mar 2011 10:37

many months back in another forum i had asked if the LCA could be turned into a mini growler?? i could not get any answer. hence this news of electronic attack LCA gives me reasons to be happy.

Probably a lite version of this Su30 MKI Self Protection suite

Can some admin(Jagan?) move that folder out of the aero india 2009 folder(some nice info board pictures in it).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Mar 2011 11:28

I have said this before. LCA - by itself - in not THAT important, it is , yet not that. What is important is the team that dreamed and designed the LCA. (Which is why I do not fear the Grippen either.)

THIS team, IMHO, now has the confidence.

IMHO, what THIS team does with the LCA is proof of concept (PoC) for the AMCA.

It is just great that they are now thinking and implementing as best as they can WRT a "Growler".

However, IMHO, the issue with this "Growler" is not a LCA based electronic snooping air craft, but that India seems to have a gained tremendous confidence in designing and building sensors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The news WRT LCA "Growler" is sensors.

Just a small plug for the AMAC:

Long live the AMCA.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 05 Mar 2011 13:19

slightly off topic with the current line of discussion on the thread, however, still relevant as this topic repeats every now and then.

There has been a lot of talk about how the DRDO's are not competent and how the IAF officers are not technically sound etc etc....
I wonder if anyone who says these things has ever read the DARIN story by AVM Tikko Sen (http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/0 ... rin-story/). If anyone has doubts about the technical competency of our officers they should stand corrected.
BTW, In case you don't know, the same BAe story was pretty much repeated on the sea harrier upgrade and finally the LUSH was done by India in collaboration with Elta.
I worked with an old HAL GM (deputed from IAF to HAL) who retired a long time ago and heard these types of tales from him and from many people in the electronic components industries of india. How how we were gouged by foreign vendors of aircraft systems (for example, how electronic components magically reduced in price by 50 to 80% when an Indian component vendor developed it locally)

Yes, there have been many managerial and long term vision problems over the years, but a lot of good work was done by many talented and dedicated people in the defence organizations, be it IAF, IA, DRDO, DRDL (you name it). The kind of things that have been accomplished under the most demanding circumstances with next to no money, boggle the mind. Belittling all the work of these dedicated and determined people by making sweeping statements (lazy buggers, incompetent asses etc..) on these forums is not right and just shows the "Frog in the well" attitude that is common among us Indians, not just Indians in India but also Indians in the USA.

hopefully i have not offended too many people and maybe, just maybe, the next time someone makes sweeping statements they think again before they put fingers on keyboard.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2011 15:55

on the contrary you make eminent sense. criticism should always be specific.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 Mar 2011 16:07

I don't want to sound contradictory. But, in every organisation, there exist some exemplry people. They have always made a mark for themselves, usually out side the organisation. Generally, one should judge the organisation by the overall outlook or in other words, the larger picture.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 05 Mar 2011 16:42

Chako,
Thats a valid point of view, however, the posts got into "The people are stupid etc.. brainless, idiots, etc." thats what got my goat finally.
I happen to know quiet a few people in the defense labs and i know the kind of work that was done in the past.
I agree that a lot of criticism of the defense labs is very valid, but, let us not start calling the scientists names.

If you look at the work that has been done, there is a lot, most of which has been done with minimal foreign tech transfer. there are lots of examples when you look deep into any aircraft. If you look into the migs, or the harriers, or the MKI, there are lots of HAL, BEL, LRDE designed part in them, where did these come from?
I know someone who designed the LCD's for the map displays for the navy helicopters and the dornier a/c, these were selected in competition with the foreign vendors who only offered commercial grade LCD's for military applications, however his company used what was available, hardened it for military use and supplied it for less than 50% of the foreign cost.
Yes, the labs and the def PSU's dont have large things to show off like aircraft (LCA is another store in itself), engines, radars, etc, but there are a lot of small things in them that are fully indian and they are a step forward towards proper full localization. How can make a system if you cannot make the components?

Another point, if you remember the performance of the mig21 bison against the USAF a few years ago, there were RCS reduction measures, jammers, RWR's etc.. that make the bison deadly. Where did these come from?
Anyways, I think i made my point, so let me back off

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 Mar 2011 17:20

vcsekhar,

There is absolutely no disagreement. You have made your point and So do others. I happen to know forces and DRDO up and close. Rest assured, I will be very measured on what I say, after all I have a very profitable business reporting them.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Mar 2011 17:47

Every one is right in their own perspectives. That is why I said, the objectives matter. The product in discussion and its scope and use. Criticisms involving men behind these objectives can go either way, but constructive criticism is all that matters for this objective. All the negatives, harms only these men and the supporting poster's ego. So, take your stand. /JMT.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 06 Mar 2011 15:29

Cross posting from Su-30

Russia spat delays BrahMos air version

But more than the amount it’s the Russian style of business that has irked Indian defence scientists. “They are preventing us from undertaking the job, citing a clause in the transfer of technology pact,” said a source. “They won’t do it for a reasonable amount and aren’t allowing us to do it either.”

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Mar 2011 12:44

Now, what concerns me is this: Various ddm links have been posted in the past saying MKI modifications. Now how did that happen without even an agreement? So, are our organizations so dumb to sign into a project without even understanding risks in the agreements or none there if at all?

Got to know these basic facts about this whole affair. It may be Russian company now, tomorrow it could be xyZ.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Mar 2011 13:38

^^^ If i have to guess the clause they are citing ,it is pretty much common to any deal ( nothing to do with TOT which is something different ) right from Mirage to Sukhoi to MMRCA , which is any structural modification/upgrade done on aircraft will be done in consent and co-operation with OEM , failing which they could loose warranty on the aircraft.

So HAL is no position to do any structural changes on MKI without the consent and/or involvement of SDB.

One of the key reason M2K and Mig-29 upgrade is being done via OEM route rather then cheap Israel upgrade.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Mar 2011 19:00

I understand that, but when you plan your platform delivery in the initial project definition stage is where these issues should be coming to fore and not at a time when DRDO says, they are ready with the missile test.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 07 Mar 2011 19:39

Austin wrote:^^^ If i have to guess the clause they are citing ,it is pretty much common to any deal ( nothing to do with TOT which is something different ) right from Mirage to Sukhoi to MMRCA , which is any structural modification/upgrade done on aircraft will be done in consent and co-operation with OEM , failing which they could loose warranty on the aircraft.

So HAL is no position to do any structural changes on MKI without the consent and/or involvement of SDB.

One of the key reason M2K and Mig-29 upgrade is being done via OEM route rather then cheap Israel upgrade.

as far as m2000 upgrade is concerned we don't even know whether it includes MICA,ASRAAM,AASM or other weapons IN 2 BILLION or its extra.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 08 Mar 2011 08:00

DRDO official sees good export potential for Tejas

W. Selvamurthy, Chief Controller, Life Sciences, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), said there could be a good export market for Tejas, the country's first indigenously built supersonic fighter aircraft, if the Centre okayed it.

Speaking to The Hindu recently, he said the DRDO had already received enquiries for Tejas from various countries.

Mr. Selvamurthy said out of 40 Tejas aircraft ordered by the Indian Air Force (IAF), the Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) had already completed production of 10. It had already been figured in the inventory of IAF. Another 20 aircraft would be completed after the Final Operating Clearance is given.

It is expected that an order might be received for a large number of aircraft in 2012. HAL had also geared up its capacity building facilities, including assembly line and others.

It planned to increase the capacity to increase the number of aircrafts built in a year to meet the growing demand.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Mar 2011 08:52

Confused as usual with the numbers

Mr. Selvamurthy said out of 40 Tejas aircraft ordered by the Indian Air Force (IAF), the Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) had already completed production of 10. It had already been figured in the inventory of IAF. Another 20 aircraft would be completed after the Final Operating Clearance is given.

Does this 10 include (lsp1-8 and sp1-2) ? or are this 10 from elsewhere

The fighter plane is expected to get the Final Operating Clearance in the first quarter of 2012, the official said.

AoA if true

nash · Post by **nash** » 08 Mar 2011 09:15

suryag wrote:Confused as usual with the numbers

The fighter plane is expected to get the Final Operating Clearance in the first quarter of 2012, the official said.
AoA if true

That means in coming months we are going to see further opening of flight envelope(9g), in flight refueling and my fav. BVR testing.

just guessing, but i think lsp-6 is for in flight refueling.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Mar 2011 09:40

lsp-6 was supposed to be used for high AoA testing and evaluation

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 08 Mar 2011 11:22

W. Selvamurthy, Chief Controller, Life Sciences, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), said there could be a good export market for Tejas, the country's first indigenously built supersonic fighter aircraft, if the Centre okayed it.

Speaking to The Hindu recently, he said the DRDO had already received enquiries for Tejas from various countries.

I hope the famous Mig21++ statement doesn't damage this effort to sell LCA to others!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Mar 2011 11:46

I think Dr. Selvamurthy did not give out the correct data in that interview or the reporter messed it up.

some of the things which are quiet different from hitherto consistently repeated news:
1. The breakup of the current IAF order (10 LSPs+ PVs counted within the 40 to be given to IAF). I am not entirely clear on this. The two handed over to the IAF at IOC were indeed LSPs and LSP7 and 8 would be handed over to IAF for user evaluations as soon as they are ready. So may be he is right on this one.
2. the unit cost which has been consistently put up by ADA/HAL is 145Cr (IAF)-150 Cr(Naval) (should come down with numbers)
3. FOC timing.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Mar 2011 12:36

indranilroy wrote:I think Dr. Selvamurthy did not give out the correct data in that interview or the reporter messed it up.

Dr. Selva cannot be wrong. Its the reporter.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Mar 2011 14:37

Vina wrote: From this published document Gripen Future Development published by Saab Aerospace, the significant enhancements are as follows.

Vina, nowhere in that document are structural changes mentioned.

Vina wrote:Needless to say, there was weight gain from A to C version (which has increased MTOW, bring back load AND higher design mass, all from the manufacturer) and there WAS an increase in percentage of composites. Google around, you will find out exactly how much.

Yes, there was a weight increase, but the Swedes went for the upgrades because it did not entail significant airframe structural changes and kept costs low. And many of the C/D are/were planned to be leased to Eastern European nations. The Swedes have cut their projected Gripen orders from 200 to 100, and plan to lease excess manufactured airframes to East Europeans, et al. I don’t need to google, those who operate and maintain the birds, as well as my own eyes have seen that Gripen ABCD isn’t 45% of weight in composites like Tejas is. And frankly, the Swedes do respect Indians for all-composite-wings-and-empennage decision, it was a bold and respectable decision from a development perspective, though risky and time consuming from a user perspective.

Vina wrote: That is ridiculous. I just posted the full specs of the Gripen C/D in an earlier post and the "over designed and miscalculated" LCA weighs LESS than the C/D and fields a more powerful engine!

I would have been impressed, Vina, if you used the words, better maneuverability, STR, payload, etc. The Gripen A/C still carries more useful load than Tejas Mk.1, despite Tejas Mk1 having “more powerful engine”.

Vina wrote: Surely by your logic, the Swedes "miscalculated and overdesigned" as well, and the reason they are now going for the NG with the 414 is to "compensate" for that ?

I will reserve my opinion until I can compare the actual performances of the Mk.2 vs NG.

Vina wrote:While that is a valid perspective from your point of view, to project that the Rafale actually is of similar capability as the Mig 29K is facile. It is similar to saying that since I cannot operate the E2D Hawkeye from my STOBAR, it has the same capability as the Ka-31 that I have!

Look around the other way, a designer designs a plane with similar capabilities knowing fully well no catapult is available. That too is an achievement! Incidentally NG pitch to IN for E2D is that the more powerful engines enable STOBAR performance. Though this is only marketing pitch, no one has tested.

Geeth wrote:I was trying to state the obvious, and not try to blame IAF. But, why are you holding the designers alone for the overweight?

I don’t know the authenticity of Pragnya’s post, but IAF certainly didn’t do the following, the designers did

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.

Geeth wrote:You don't know what would have been the weight of the final design, if they had stuck to the original ASR issued in 1985

The performance specs have not changed from 1985. Can any PV/LSP stripped of all avionics meet 1985 performance standards? No. Also, if you are implying DRDO concluded the 1985 ASR performance specs were for an un-weaponized bird, then that is a miscalculation by itself.

Geeth wrote:Kargil happened in 1999 whereas the Gorshkov deal was signed in 2004.

The formal process via DAC/CCS takes time, described here http://www.ciidefence.com/defence_proc_org.asp?id=3 The finance minister doesnt come up with money like a bunny from a hat every time the defense minister asks for something. If no previous provision was made, then it takes time.

Karan, you keep posting selective points supporting your PoV, that don’t communicate the full picture, that I will clarify below -

With regards to the FBW system, you description covers only the digital FBW system that Dassault, a private company, was developing for the Rafale and felt their global commercial interests might be affected if this technology was given out. The analogue system was not even considered by ADA. It is incidents like this, where IAF operational criteria were snubbed, that resulted in IAF losing interest. Nowhere does AM PR mention in his book that IAF requirements increased weight.

Coming to radar,

Karan M wrote:The IAF cut no slack for the LCA performance. The LCA radar, has specifications of 120 km range (against small fighter target)

Not sure where you get these specs from, but the ones I know is atleast 100 km for 5 m sq target, that is pretty normal even in 1985. FWIW, F-16A/B presents 3 m sq in frontal aspect in A2A role. Hence, here also, no super performance specs were set.

Karan M wrote: which means Zhuk ME standard and approximately 20% more or at least equal when compared to todays APG-68 V(9) best in class mechanical radar on F-16 Block 52s being sold to Pakistan.

Now, you keep mentioning without proof that IAF used Zhuk ME and APG-68 V(9) as benchmarks, when IAF wasn’t even aware of these radars, nor were details of these available at that point of time. This is obfuscation of facts. You need to compare with Thomson RDM radar in service with Mirage 2000 in late 80s early 90s.

Karan M wrote:It also was to have Doppler Mapping, DBR (A2G ranging) and Terrain Following Modes.

The requirements were Air to Ground ranging and Terrain Following Modes. Well even the RDM radars on Mirage 2000 delivered late 80s early 90s had these very basic air to ground modes. The ONLY reason why the Mirage 2000 was Air to Ground capable was because the radar did Air to Ground ranging! The Mirage 2000 needs this radar mode because it does not have a laser rangefinder like the Jaguar and MiG-27 carry in their chiseled nose. Eureka!!! Air-to-Ground ranging mode on radar avoids having to carry a laser rangefinder!!! So it was required in the multi-role LCA. Even the Hunter and MiG-21 could drop bombs and fire rockets, and they did have ballistic computers. A laser rangefinder like Jaguar/MiG-27 or Air to Ground ranging mode in radar significantly improves air to ground accuracy even with unguided bombs. Incidentally, even the Tejas PV uses Litening Pod as a rangefinder while dropping unguided bombs. If you notice IAF exhibition, Aero India, etc Mirage 2000 armament fit, you'll notice the Matra Belouga submunition dispenser. Now these dispensers have very exact deployment envelopes to be effective, otherwise the mass of submunitions may end up hitting nearby friendly forces or result in area denial of adjoining target areas. So, unlike MiG21 rocket fire or bomb runs, they need the accuracy afforded by RDM radar air to ground ranging mode, since the Belouga never had laser guidance because these kits were expensive those days.

Karan M wrote:Here is what is interesting. No IAF fighter has had these features before Kopyo radar in late 2000's and that too Kopyo range is not even half that of LCA radar.

Correction, Thomson RDM already had these modes and A2A performance in 80s & 90’s. You are incorrectly implying IAF learnt about radars and Air to Ground modes only when the Kopyo entered service late 2000’s.Rewind to 1993. During those years, IAF was evaluating Su-30 and MiG-21 Bison packages. The MiG-21 Bison contract was signed in March 1996. Su-30 MKI package was signed in November 1996. Hence IAF knew the capabilities of the Kopyo and Bars very well in 1996. And IAF set more stringent air to ground performance specifications for Bars Mk3 in 1996! So “No IAF fighter has had these features before Kopyo radar in late 2000's” is another piece of misinformation on your part.

Karan M wrote:Furthermore, if you see IAF requirements circa 2003-05, SAR has been added to LCA radar. Because now latest fighter radars come with SAR.

Yes, otherwise the ELTA processors containing SAR processing algorithms could not have been budgeted or purchased, could it? If you’re buying the processors for A2A mode, why not buy the A2G mode as well?

Karan M wrote:Lets get to the even more interesting part, weight - the Zhuk ME, weighs 220 Kg. The LCA MMR required specifications? 130 Kg (http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/acig_aero05_lca.htm).

Another gross misinformation. Where is it mentioned that the 130 kg radar weight was IAF specification? ADA could include 260 kg or 390 kg or 520 kg radar weight as long as flight and maneuverability criteria were met.

Karan M wrote:Point is the IAF specs were very ambitious, and are today, achieved with sets that are either heavier, or more powerful (power), and are on larger, more powerful aircraft.

Wrong, the IAF did not specify weight and the capabilities were present in Mirage RDM radar in the 80s & 90's as well. How does one expect the Mirage 2000 to fire the Super 530D missile if the radar doesn’t have a search range of atleast 100 km and tracking range of atleast 70 km to cue the 40 km ranged missile?

Karan M wrote:power/cooling requirements have to be kept in place already

Every engine generates ample electricity, so it is factually incorrect. Its absurd to note the Mk1 has deadweight infrastructure for EW systems that will go in Mk2. Basic rule of aeronautical engineering is to avoid carrying deadweight. So operational Tejas Mk.1 will not carry deadweight infrastructure for Mk2.

Rajan B wrote: FYI, the MIG -21 that I sat in 1982 had RWR!

Rajan, your post needs to be directed to Rahul M who said there was no RWR in 1985, rather than me. The Canberra I sat in 1977 had RWR.

Geeth wrote: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.

In addition to vcsekhar’s response, you forget service engineers are sent to IIT for MTech courses. Many go annually, in different specializations, from all three arms. Many engineers, after completing 7/10/20 years, do end up working for global aviation biggies like BAe and EADS. One reason they don’t join HAL/DRDO is because they’re not offered equivalence in rank and pay. Engineers greatly outnumber pilots in the IAF. Even these engineers found the development approach too complex. But the contention that IAF engineers dont understand aeronautics, even in 1983, is incorrect.

Geeth wrote:Beg, borrow/steal - but produce the damn thing hand it over to us in time - that was the attitude of IAF (and you).

Absolutely!

Geeth wrote:I wish the IAF shows the same no-non-sense attitude towards foreign vendors as well.

Yes they do. We put our foot down and didn’t accept delivery of the Talwar class unless issues with Shtil missiles were resolved. And withheld payment. However, if the MoD drafts a loose contract disregarding Navy, like Mazgaon Procured Material (MPM) for Scorpene submarines, disregarding service viewpoints, can we be held to blame? Or if Project 75I becomes a Rozgar Yojna for Hindustan Shipyards Ltd ignoring L&T yard next door, even if the Navy found L&T yard superior, it doesn’t have any authority to promote healthy private sector over sick PSU.

However, delay in project is no reason to show disinterest or discard the product.

Absolutely, and I personally believe the Mk1 should be inducted like the Su-30K was inducted. Even the interim capability offered by Su-30K from 1997-2007 was significant.

Vina wrote: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.

The lifetime of an airframe is typically 20 years, extended to 30 by upgrades. Speculating if there was a metal+analogue FBW LCA 1990-2010 followed by a composite+digital FBW LCA 2010 onwards, the 1990-2010 birds could have aptly served the role that 18 Su-30K birds did from 1997-2007. Today, in my personal opinion, the first 20 tranche and the next 20 tranche should be completely trainers, used extensively, and retired when Mk2 enters service.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 08 Mar 2011 15:54

Good post tsarkar......
This thread has been quite educative with all the various opinions.....
And between the various opinions is the truth and it is a shade of grey.....

Hindsight as is said is 20:20

cheers

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Mar 2011 15:58

i dont find the Mig21++ statement to be problematic
i interpret it as 'the Mig21 was the supreme light fighter of its day, the Tejas is a superb lightfigher for its times and emulates the memory of the Mig21'

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Mar 2011 16:22

Lalmohan wrote:i dont find the Mig21++ statement to be problematic
i interpret it as 'the Mig21 was the supreme light fighter of its day, the Tejas is a superb lightfigher for its times and emulates the memory of the Mig21'

Move over Bhajji and company

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Mar 2011 16:49

ks_sachin wrote:Good post tsarkar......
This thread has been quite educative with all the various opinions.....
And between the various opinions is the truth and it is a shade of grey.....

Hindsight as is said is 20:20

cheers

The problem with tsarkar's view is that, he holds weight as a deviation and rest of the parameters as constant. He has been fanatic about it. If one points out similar incidents and examples around, he refuses to acknowledge it.

For example, even with all the composites used in LCA, the fact is that it has put on weight. It means that things have changed. The plane weight has been cut down by designers as much as possible, without resorting to use of toilet paper or balsa wood. He says that plane should have not gained weight. We are asking how it is possible? He also says that newer components should not add weight. One cannot understand his logic.

he says LCA designers should have kept in mind that weight issues can crop up in worlds smallest lightest combat aircraft.

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Mar 2011 17:01

I think we are debating on weight gain just because it is 'apparent' to us , however if I would hazard a guess IAF would be least bothered by 'weight' of the AC as such what they care about is performance specifications viz. top speed, climb rate, STR, ITR , stall speed, AoA etc, if these specs are met then I don't see how does it matter if the AC is overweight by a tonne or so. Now as I understand some of the performance specs are not yet met to be specific as far as I know I only know about the AoA limit not being met and engine inlet design issues (which iirc was resolved by retro fitting auxiliary doors) hence imho the question that needs to be asked is what specifications under the ASR are yet to be met and how many of these are related to the weight gain.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Mar 2011 17:10

tsarkar,
While overall you post some solid arguments, some of your points are incredulous beyond belief! Take your following statement for example:

Speculating if there was a metal+analogue FBW LCA 1990-2010 followed by a composite+digital FBW LCA 2010 onwards, the 1990-2010 birds could have aptly served the role that 18 Su-30K birds did from 1997-2007.

So you want a basic fighter to be ready by 1990 when even the funding started from 1993?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2011 17:12

What has happened to LCA is correct, but it was all due to right funding at right time issue, plus an organization that faced brain drain. Now, what needs to be done right with in a right time must not be lost, and not in the future we add LCA to marut story lines.

It is important to know this./aam

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Mar 2011 17:35

Some of the issues wit tsarkars post

Vina, nowhere in that document are structural changes mentioned.

The TD's were proof oc concept and not final product.

Yes, there was a weight increase, but the Swedes went for the upgrades because it did not entail significant airframe structural changes and kept costs low.

He passes an off the cuff statement without actually comparing the changes in gripen and LCA. Here is how gripens weight was achieved "Dry: JAS-39(A) - 6,622 kg, JAS-39(B) - 6,850 kg, JAS-39(C) - 6,250 kg, JAS-39(D) - 6,350 kg"

Max Take-Off: JAS-39(A) - 12,500 kg, JAS-39(B) - 13,100 kg, JAS-39(C) - 14,250 kg, JAS-39(D) - 14,750 kg[/quote]

Compare this to LCA which is in just mark 1 stage. he needs to let the aircraft go through evolution.

LCA structural changes are on its wings and intake. I have no idea, why he is making so much fuss about it. Even id Mark 2 is little more structurally different, we cannot say it is because of weight or volume.

I would have been impressed, Vina, if you used the words, better maneuverability, STR, payload, etc. The Gripen A/C still carries more useful load than Tejas Mk.1, despite Tejas Mk1 having “more powerful engine”.

ENGINE THRUST
JAS-39 (A,B): 1 x General Electric / Volvo Flyingmotor RM12 turbofan, 54 kN static thrust with 80.5 kN of afterburner
JAS-39 (C,D): 1 x General Electric / Volvo Flyingmotor RM13 turbofan with overtechnology, 70 kN of static thrust with 130 kN of afterburner

LCA Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan. Dry thrust: 53.9 kN (11250 lbf) Thrust with afterburner: 78.7 kN (19100 lbf)

Clearly, tsarkar is mistaken here.

I will reserve my opinion until I can compare the actual performances of the Mk.2 vs NG.

Is this an argument?

The performance specs have not changed from 1985. Can any PV/LSP stripped of all avionics meet 1985 performance standards? No. Also, if you are implying DRDO concluded the 1985 ASR performance specs were for an un-weaponized bird, then that is a miscalculation by itself.

Here is his pet argument. he isn't specifying what are the specs. he is guestimating. he has not provided any credible proof.

Karan, you keep posting selective points supporting your PoV, that don’t communicate

karan is giving tsarkar the taste of his own medicine and tsarkar clearly does not like it.

Another gross misinformation. Where is it mentioned that the 130 kg radar weight was IAF specification? ADA could include 260 kg or 390 kg or 520 kg radar weight as long as flight and maneuverability criteria were met.

What are the weight of comparable radars around?

Every engine generates ample electricity, so it is factually incorrect.

This is something that does not goes inside his head. I tried explaining this even last time. But he rants on and on and on.

Yes they do. We put our foot down and didn’t accept delivery of the Talwar class unless issues with Shtil missiles were resolved. And withheld payment. However, if the MoD drafts a loose contract disregarding Navy, like Mazgaon Procured Material (MPM) for Scorpene submarines, disregarding service viewpoints, can we be held to blame? Or if Project 75I becomes a Rozgar Yojna for Hindustan Shipyards Ltd ignoring L&T yard next door, even if the Navy found L&T yard superior, it doesn’t have any authority to promote healthy private sector over sick PSU.

[/quote]

Geeth said "i wish IAF did it." tsarkar rants that navy does it. IMO, there is no connection.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 08 Mar 2011 18:13

Can someone corroborate tsarkar's comment about the radar with 100 Km search and 70Km tracking range on M2K that we bought?

When the M2k was inducted in the early 80s improvements were done only later on - there were deficiencies in the early aircrafts.

It will definitely be interesting to know, in mid 80s what radars had the specs mentioned by tsarkar along with their weight and size.

Chako,
Is the link you provided in your post correct?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Mar 2011 18:19

Gaur, I used the word "speculate" as the first word in that sentence, and I meant if the project started in the 80's, funding made available, etc etc. The point I intended to make even Olympic pole vaulters/high jumpers/long jumpers pace themselves in the heats instead of going for gold in the first attempt.

Sachin, yes, everyone is wise in the hindsight, and I respect those who're hands on right now either on the flight line or on the shop floor, and the decisions they've made at that point in time. I only wanted facts clarified and myths dispelled.

Chacko, you are getting personal, and I'll ignore that aspect of your post. You're completely missing my overall message, and I have communicated enough information. I'll leave it to readers to form their opinions from my statements.

Added later - P Chitkara - As also the Phazotron N019E Sapfir 29 in the MiG29 delivered late 80s / early90s to guide the SARH R-27 to 70 odd km. I'll annoy Austin and Shankar here by not citing 100 km range for R-27

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Mar 2011 18:23

P Chitkara,

Is the link you provided in your post correct?

Fairly representative and comprehensive.

Is the link you provided in your post correct?

It is evident he is talking to someone in IAF to argue here.