LCA News and Discussions

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 31 Aug 2012 15:44

so DRDO scientist's have everything planed & if pokhran sanctions have not happened not only LCA mk1 but LCA mk2 could have been flying right now.

LCA Mk2 may have been competing with rafale & eurofighter at some competition right now

fingers crossed it will happen someday...........

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 31 Aug 2012 16:03

There are lot of events beyond DRDO's control and its not possible to prepare for each and every contingency. To give a comparison, Germany had a working jet in WW II. US & Britain pooled their resources in WW II but could not get one in time for the war. The Soviets poured tonnes of money in the late 40s to outperform the western engines. In stark contrast, we built an engine on a shoe string budget that came close (according to Wiki, GE404 & Kaveri have the same T/W ratio of 7.8:1).

Eurofighter was designed to take on Soviet fighters over European airspace. With the Cold War over, they are struggling to fund AG capabilities for the partner countries. It would have been a joke if someone was to say that UK, Germany, Spain, Italy are not able to fund their own joint fighter a decade or two earlier. On that account, the LCA is way ahead and demonstrated its bombing skills prior to induction.

We could have the LCA Mk1 flying a long time back if we had stuck to the GE404 throughout and only AA capabilities in the first tranche. This was obviously not the case and we all know why. No point in beating a dead horse.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 31 Aug 2012 16:05

tushar_m wrote:i want to ask is f404 right now have the same configuration that it had in 1978 when it first run the answer is no they should have made fewer or may be lot of changes.

similarly kaveri now is giving say 70kn thrust & we expect it to give 90+ kn in few years to be able to fly LCA.

No ... Kaveri can't be improved further without changing the core (i.e. Kabini) which essentially means moving to the next gen (i.e. SCB gen) technology and metallurgy. There are other aspects of basic manufacturing shortcoming (which I'll post a while later), without resolving those, improving Kaveri as fighter aircraft's engine is more or less impossible.
And these being basic design and manyfacturig issues, it's more or less at the dead-end, until some foreign collaborator rescues it by essentially changing the core itself (which would mean 70%- 80% of engine technology, which is what we had hoped to develop by this program). So no joy!!

tushar_m wrote: ...
what i asked is that was there ever a possibility of LCA+RD33 as now mass produced jf17 will be problem for IAF in few years.

1600+ mig 29 were produced & now navy has ordered new mig 29k with the same engine which is not good for our own fighter but good for the primary fighter on our CBG (untill new types inducted) .

Wrong ... what will fly from our CBG will be the RD-33MK powered 29Ks - apples and oranges really in terms of technology. After all the 7% higher thrust, digitally controlled FADEC, smokeless combustor, 4K MTBO etc figures should have qualified it to be called with a completely new name.
No wonder it took Russia about a decade of solid R&D to achieve these performance improvements. But names aside, these type of improvements were achieved only after changing the core itself and adapting the next gen technology of SCB blade coating etc. With Kaveri we haven't even baslined it on a military flight and maintenance parameters (hopefully they will get it on TD-1, and get this done soon - the experience gained will be worth it's weight in gold).

tushar_m wrote: as f404 grew to f414 rd33 could also mature if we would have tried.

as people have told that engine was not the problem , then there must be SW/HW problems or mounting problem as in 1997 only f404 became part of LCA.

Again repeating, F404 went into LCA TD-1 becuase LCA was designed a decade or back (in 1988/93) around the dimensions and parameters (e.g. face interface wrt the air-intake) of a F404. Without validating and baselinging that airframe design no other engine would have made it to it.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 31 Aug 2012 16:14

maitya wrote:
tushar_m wrote:i want to ask is f404 right now have the same configuration that it had in 1978 when it first run the answer is no they should have made fewer or may be lot of changes.

similarly kaveri now is giving say 70kn thrust & we expect it to give 90+ kn in few years to be able to fly LCA.
No ... Kaveri can't be improved further without changing the core (i.e. Kabini) which essentially means moving to the next gen (i.e. SCB gen) technology and metallurgy. There are other aspects of basic manufacturing shortcoming (which I'll post a while later), without resolving those, improving Kaveri as fighter aircraft's engine is more or less impossible.
And these being basic design and manyfacturig issues, it's more or less at the dead-end, until some foreign collaborator rescues it by essentially changing the core itself (which would mean 70%- 80% of engine technology, which is what we had hoped to develop by this program). So no joy!!
tushar_m wrote: ...
what i asked is that was there ever a possibility of LCA+RD33 as now mass produced jf17 will be problem for IAF in few years.

1600+ mig 29 were produced & now navy has ordered new mig 29k with the same engine which is not good for our own fighter but good for the primary fighter on our CBG (untill new types inducted) .
Wrong ... what will fly from our CBG will be the RD-33MK powered 29Ks - apples and oranges really in terms of technology. After all the 7% higher thrust, digitally controlled FADEC, smokeless combustor, 4K MTBO etc figures should have qualified it to be called with a completely new name.
No wonder it took Russia about a decade of solid R&D to achieve these performance improvements. But names aside, these type of improvements were achieved only after changing the core itself and adapting the next gen technology of SCB blade coating etc. With Kaveri we haven't even baslined it on a military flight and maintenance parameters (hopefully they will get it on TD-1, and get this done soon - the experience gained will be worth it's weight in gold).

tushar_m wrote: as f404 grew to f414 rd33 could also mature if we would have tried.

as people have told that engine was not the problem , then there must be SW/HW problems or mounting problem as in 1997 only f404 became part of LCA.
Again repeating, F404 went into LCA TD-1 becuase LCA was designed a decade or back (in 1988/93) around the dimensions and parameters (e.g. face interface wrt the air-intake) of a F404. Without validating and baselinging that airframe design no other engine would have made it to it.

again was there even a slight possibility of LCA+rd33 technology demonstrator like mig27+al31

that's all i was asking from my initial posts though i am happy to get all the knowledge from you but simple yes or no would do.

also if LCA+rd33 not possible why experiment with mig27+al31

http://pilot.strizhi.info/2008/03/22/5256

new technology is only create when we experiment not by putting all good in one design , there is always need for experimentation's to get something better & then the best .

just go to American aircraft manufacturer's website & see how many of there designs failed but from a failed design they created something good for there next project.

mirage 4000 was base for rafale that we are buying today .................

if you do not agree that DRDO should conduct various design & engine experiment for project like LCA,rustom AURA ,AMCA etc just reply in simple NO.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Aug 2012 16:58

yes, from the failures, one has to learn and not shunt it like what the lab boys and GoI is doing to Kaveri. Go for the next core all indigenous.. else, ask DDM not to report any such project exists, or even GTRE exists. It is a shame, imho. I am all for voting for K++ with a re-orged desi setup, and with heavy funds. engage them, with a correction model. atleast, 20 years from now, we can start appreciating our actual capabilities.

kaveri is already de-linked from a project management perspective from LCA-mk2. Now focus on the forked process, and ensure it joins back LCA Mk2++ with a bang. challenge? yes/no.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 31 Aug 2012 17:19

There's a bit of truth that gets hidden when we try to do a RCA of the Kaveri failure and lay the blame singularly on our lack of SCB related metallurgical technology.

What needs to be understood also, is what we have failed to achieve in the non-hot part of the core itself i.e. the compressors.
Pls note, as per open source, the stage Pressure Ratio (SPR) achieved was only 1.6 (as opposed to the design goal of "Three stage axial flow LP compressor with a mass-flow rate of 78kg/sec, Pressure ratio of 3.4, Isentropic efficiency of 85% and surge margin >20%.".

Playing around with the turbine stages will not overcome this shortage, but re-designing and more importantly, refining the manufacturing process and the corresponding tolerance level of the Compressor blades would address this shortcoming.

The other sledge-hammer approach is to add one more compressor stage - but that will increase the weight of an already overweight engine (by 150Kg, it stands at 1265 Kg - while GE-404 weighs 1036 kg, Eurojet2000 weighs just 989Kg but still manages 90KN).

Betw, this is what the grand-mullah enqyoob-uddin gas-turbini had to say about this issue, long back, before he decided on his self-imposed BR-sanyayas ... quoting in full in here:

enqyoob wrote:It's a lot better than that. Note that stage pressure ratio for Kaveri is onbly about 1.3. Long way to improve, and this does not require SCB. Just good aerodynamics, or maybe just good fabrication of the existing design (based on other things I've seen, I suspect strongly that the actual fabrication quality control is where they lose 50% of their design performance). If they can get even this improved, they can probably save a lot of weight on the engine. Or they can beef up the turbine blades with the saved weight, or add cooling and increase T.i.T.

Also, the T.i.T is still a long way from getting to the levels where SCB is needed.

IOW, a number of small improvements, whose cumulative effect is a drastic improvement. Just plain hard work and good management and coordination.

Another goal was to have Afterburner to provide a 50% over and above the max dry thrust at efficiency of 88%.

The 72kN achieved vs 81kN goal there, most probably is directly linked to the shortfall in the core mass-flow. Increasing which will require improving both the compressor stage PR and also the Turbine-inlet-temperature by 150-200deg C. While the compressor stage PR issues can be resolved by next level of manufacturing process and CFD design tweaking etc, for increasing the turbine efficiency, we need the SCB and blisk-level manufacturing technology, which we haven't got.
What we have got is teh lab level SCB technology (with DMRL etc) which can demostrate say the 1900K level temperature tolerance on model SCB blades - but we have failed to scale it up to actual engine-blade level dimension. And apparently, the difficulty level of growing single crystals is exponentially proprotionate to the size itself.

Other key area where we lack is the TBC of these blades in those 1700-1900K domain.

So we are basically staring at two completely opposing cosntraints - increasing the mass-flow and thus the stage PRs and the OPR while reducing the overall weight (which can only be done by reducing either the compressor blade density or removing a compressor stage itself) of the engine itself.

Which, IMVVHO, is a dead-end when constrasted against our open-source-published technological capability.

These above mentioned problems have been quoted in the following link - Kaveri jet engine finally poised for first flight

“The reason was two-fold”, explains Mohana Rao. “The Kaveri turned out 15% heavier than we planned. From the planned 1100 kg, its final weight has gone up to 1265 kg.”

Meanwhile, the Tejas fighter also turned out heavier than planned, demanding a more powerful engine; the Kaveri’s maximum thrust of 65 Kilo Newtons (KN) is simply not enough. The air force has chosen American GE 404-IN engines, which produce 80 KN at full power, to power the first 20 Tejas fighters. And subsequent Tejas will get about 95 KN of thrust from a new-generation engine: the General Electric GE-414 and the Eurojet EJ200 engines are currently being evaluated.
...
“We need more thrust without increasing the size of the engine”, says Mohana Rao. “That means getting better technologies from a more experienced foreign partner. We have chosen (French aero-engine major) Snecma. The Defence Ministry has approved the tie-up.”

I've long exceeded my BR quota for atleast a couple of weeks - so back to lurk mode now.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Aug 2012 17:29

Do we know the strength of material that we used for A5 shield? It is supposed to handle re-entry burns.. only if it can be made to shapes and retains high strength at high temp for turbine use.

If CFM can do it, GTRE can too.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 31 Aug 2012 19:47

ceramics tiles are usually used on reentry vehicles .....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Aug 2012 19:59

are you sure on A5?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 31 Aug 2012 20:19

Can the "carbon-carbon" heat shield be called a ceramic? I think not.

Frontline: New firepower

The avionics are within the missile's nose cone, which is made of carbon-carbon composites. The re-entry vehicle is protected by a heat shield, which is made out of carbon composite fibre. In this mission, the Agni-V carried a warhead that mimicked a nuclear bomb but without the radioactive material.

Anyway, coming back to the LCA, I understand that carbon composites invariably have the carbon burning off at very high temperatures albeit slowly, which is why they don't make good engine blades.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 31 Aug 2012 20:25

Carbon composites work on a different principle. The material is made up of many layers. The trick lies in the non conduction of heat between these layers. The heat is restricted to the exposed layers only. They burn out and expose the inner layers and the cycle continues. While this is a slow process and useful for re entry vehicles, we can't change engines every 2 hours in jet planes. That will make even the F 22 look dirt cheap.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Aug 2012 21:02

CFM can't be wrong on pursuing 3d woven composites for their blades.. this is where snecma engineers are gearing into having carbon fiber components into jet engines. It is a fiber woven technique on their leap series. chacha it out.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 31 Aug 2012 21:34

Maitya,
You are right and I'll add that we need to move towards SCB (directionally welded, better alloys , TB coating, cooling etc) until we reach SCB/Blisk level. Bypass ratio is directly related to how hot and pressurized one can run the hot section of the engine. To run hotter at higher pressure you need better/stronger/defect free blades. Best of those are SCB, although it may be possible to increase the bypass ratio a little with better non SCB designs, as you mentioned.

On the other hand if they get the SCB developed it'll almost guarantee higher bypass ratio and much improved performance. In either case other aspects of design refinement would most certainly add too performance gain.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 31 Aug 2012 21:35

SaiK ji, those 3d woven composite blades appear to be for the compressor, not the [hot] turbine.

However, the Ceramic Matrix Composite blades are for the hot turbine section.

Development of Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) technology has been underway at GE for more than 30 years. This ultra-light-weight material can support the higher temperatures found in the high-pressure turbine that provide thermal efficiency.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 01 Sep 2012 08:57

^^^ IIRC, the kintergartner-saar was saying at that time that India has a chance to leapfrog existing SCB tech by going all out for the CMC approach that Maitya-saar has posted above. GE will have its own reasons (legacy inertia, due to great investments and customer base) to phase these tech in a slow fashion, but we don't have to.

However it needs a quick moving technocracy to make such choices, rather than choosing the lazier ToT way

We have done these sort of things in recent past. The case of the prancing RVs fpr our mijjiles is one such example where we actually tried a different approach and reaped benefits.

(couldn't find that post, where The Preserver talks about how maintaining TFTA-ness of materials at high temp etc is not the sole domain of SCB and there are many ways to skin that felne)

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 01 Sep 2012 10:02

Katare, SaiK, PrateekDas and others for discussion on ceramic blades and Turbine Inlet Temp vs Combustor Temp etc pls refer to Pg 32 of Kaveri & aero-engine discussion.

There were some posts between moi, geethji and Kansonji wrt this, all of which started when Kansonji posted this Kaveri temp distn cutout published in the livefist blog (also available in Pg31 of the Kaveri thread).

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Sep 2012 10:35

There is not too much leapfrogging technology.
The past standard tech has a lot to teach us, even when we innovate.
For example. I have been involved with something called the paper battery.
www.paperbatteryco.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_battery
There were innumerable small issues that you face when you make something like this, and there are innumerable other small issues you face before you take such a thing forward and get it to the market.

Overcoming these technical challenges and actually making something that works is a humongous exercise in itself. Lab projects like CMC have to be done in the background, by collaborating with universities. Day to day activities at DRDO have to have a technical development focus and undoubtedly a focus on the tried and tested western technology, that we don’t have access to, but know that it works.

CMCs for the blades of the turbine is great. But it’s a background project, while the main thing is developing the existing metal blades to their best potential.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Sep 2012 10:39

another question...How can I email an individual poster...? many good people on here do not have their email addresses on their home pages....nor does the user page indicate how to email them.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Sep 2012 10:41

I think that we should go in present Kaveri and use it for AJT version of LCA or further down grade thrust to use it for CAT of HAL. We need to get the engine out of the lab into real world.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Sep 2012 22:21

hnair, thanks for graduating the preschooler.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 01 Sep 2012 23:37

maitya wrote:Katare, SaiK, PrateekDas and others for discussion on ceramic blades and Turbine Inlet Temp vs Combustor Temp etc pls refer to Pg 32 of Kaveri & aero-engine discussion.

There were some posts between moi, geethji and Kansonji wrt this, all of which started when Kansonji posted this Kaveri temp distn cutout published in the livefist blog (also available in Pg31 of the Kaveri thread).

Hey, I have not seen that discussion, I was traveling to India at that time. I thought everyone knew that TiT of Kaveri is 1700K or (1426C). Also you were right no metalalic alloy exists that can be used to burn anything above 1500-1600C on sustained basis. 2500C temp for combuster would be achieved in the center of the combuster but the casing from where cool fuel/air misture is entering would stay at substantially lower temps.

Better alloys, coating, cooling and SCB would allow this temp to go up another 100C but more importantly it may allow higher pressure/volume flow and speed of turbine

Also like you said 2000 C is the minimum magic number for insuring complete breakdown of all chemical bonds of what ever is being burned. If enough oxygen is supplied almost no polution (in gas form) comes out of the exhaust. That's how most industrial waste incinerator works too (they also scrub exhaust to remove solids).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2012 00:25

the right fuel air mixture is the key to performance and lean burn too., which also again is determined based on what altitude in the sense, oxygen content varies at various atmospheric levels.

rolls royce scb blades also carries micro holes [steam/capillary drilling] in the blades shaped in the direction of air flow, helps in cooling down remarkably.. iirc, seeing a natgeo on the rolls scbs.

here is one nice big doc
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104500661/22/Manufacture

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 02 Sep 2012 18:49

^^^ we can copy such technology on the basis of one paper or documentary?

not!

undoubtedly, we have to master and tread the beaten path first and foremost. get old tech. then experiment with new tech. innovation is not easy. tech development causes lots of wasted money and manpower.

in india, which is a technology-risk averse country by definition, it is tough to have the whole of the industry be rnd averse and have cutting edge products flowing out from the labs of drdo.

where are the indian small business innovation research grants? lets bring them out first. lets have a few phd thesis's on defence tech...ere we crib about always being forced to buy foreign.

our forces are not wrong. if they dont have the latest tech, they will go the way of the lodhis when faced with babur's guns.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2012 20:45

there is not even a co-relation in what you are saying. when a need is seen, it has to be realized. all needs can not be realized.. and when we are buying nation of defence equipments, no country will sell you advanced stuff for simply cheap or even sell it at all or cheat you for having sold an advanced tech, that is like 20 years back happened. how are you going to verify what you are r&ding is in the right path?

rest is logic. you can figure it out.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 02 Sep 2012 20:54

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 02 Sep 2012 23:35

ok mullahs don't jump on me. i am a wikipedia expert only.

wiki tells me that kaveri performs better than ge404 but worse than ge414. is kaveri really better than ge404 ??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2012 23:57

T:W is ideal for both Kaveri and GE F404. if not better, it should be equivalent.

If one has to put that in wiki, it has to be verified and validated on LCA Tejas. It is vital we put Kaveri on one of the TDs or PVs.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 02 Sep 2012 23:59

thanks for the answer. i was thinking so too but not so sure considering all the -ve publicity it received. to be honest, if Kaveri == GE404, i consider it an achievement.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Sep 2012 02:47

nakul, you want to be careful in == equating. we were talking only about performance characteristics, and not the performance itself. it has received a bad name because it is not ported to LCA., where GE404 is robust for many years and in many a/cs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Sep 2012 05:24

the Air Force version of the light combat aircraft (LCA) to replace MiG-21s, the Navy version of LCA to replace Sea Harriers;

The LCA was set for final operational certification (FOC), a step needed for its joining the service, in early 2013. LCA was expected to get the FOC by early 2013 and the first squadron to be operational by the end of 2013.

The light fighter programme is a baby of the Aeronautical Development Agency. In January, the LCA got a conditional IOC.

The LCA Navy version must be fine-tuned and fulfil pending criteria before it goes to the final operational clearance.

The Air Force has ordered 40 LCAs and is eventually estimated to ask for around 220 aircraft, while the Navy may need about 40.

Currently, HAL is making the limited series of 16.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 848655.ece

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 03 Sep 2012 05:31

Great News

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 03 Sep 2012 09:01

Mr chairman we are still waiting for LSP-8 !!! LSP-7 flew six months back if this is " full throttle " , then we need to change the definition of it in HAL terms

vic · Post by **vic** » 03 Sep 2012 09:10

GE 404 J series has thrust of 78 kn which can go upto 84 kn in emergency situation
Similarly GE 404 IN has thrust of 83 kn which can go unto 90(?) kn in emergency

Kaveri is struggling at 65 kn max. We still don't know if it can fly, maintainaince, life hours etc

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 03 Sep 2012 10:31

karan_mc wrote:Mr chairman we are still waiting for LSP-8 !!! LSP-7 flew six months back if this is " full throttle " , then we need to change the definition of it in HAL terms

But we've talked about the size of the order and what that means for the scale of production and the level of automation that is economically viable. I would say that aggressive marketing to other friendly countries might help shore up additional orders which would then make more efficient, parallel, automated processes viable.

We have plenty of talent in the media and marketing sector to make this happen. What seems to be missing is the will.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Sep 2012 10:31

vic, where did you hear about the struggle? I am thinking you are talking about it before the 55 odd test flights at grumov. I did read the reports that it did its quota of 80kN wet... or was it a dream?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 03 Sep 2012 10:45

^^^^^

“In recent times, the engine has been able to produce thrust of 82 Kilo Newton but what the IAF and other stake-holders desire is power between 90—95 KN", senior officials told The Hindu. "On using the Kaveri for the LCA, they said the engine would be fitted on the first 40 LCAs to be supplied to the IAF when they come for upgrades to the DRDO in the latter half of the decade." Article further adds that in 2011,50-60 test flights will be carried out to mature the engine in terms of reliability, safety and airworthiness

I believe the 82 figure is with afterburner. The source, for whatever it is worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

Sorry, if it is OT for the LCA thread, and if required will move it to the Kaveri thread.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 03 Sep 2012 11:12

rajanb wrote:^^^^^

“In recent times, the engine has been able to produce thrust of 82 Kilo Newton but what the IAF and other stake-holders desire is power between 90—95 KN", senior officials told The Hindu. "On using the Kaveri for the LCA, they said the engine would be fitted on the first 40 LCAs to be supplied to the IAF when they come for upgrades to the DRDO in the latter half of the decade." Article further adds that in 2011,50-60 test flights will be carried out to mature the engine in terms of reliability, safety and airworthiness
I believe the 82 figure is with afterburner. The source, for whatever it is worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

Sorry, if it is OT for the LCA thread, and if required will move it to the Kaveri thread.

So somebody took this original quote from the Hindu Jan 2011 article

“In recent times, the engine has been able to produce thrust of 70-75 Kilo Newton but what the IAF and other stake-holders desire is power between 90—95 KN."

from this article in Hindu Kaveri engine to power fifth generation fighter aircraft, and simply overtyped 70-75KN with 82KN in Wiki (and for good measure, also provided it as a bookmark).

Brilliant!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Sep 2012 11:28

If the stated design is 80kN, then it shall be. If IAF asks for 90-95kN, then it shall be later tranches.. give me a break! yeah OT. Let them get the needed thrust first, and then we can ask for upgrades in entirely fresh set of requirements. 15-20kN is not a joke.

It is really not as simple as the wiki up-thrusting!

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 03 Sep 2012 12:32

i don't think we can check if kaveri == GE404 without putting it in service. but the current available data seems to imply that it can power an LCA tasked with AG capabilties and perhaps AA for customers not as demanding as the IAF. That would bring us one step closer to a wholly indigenous plane.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2012 13:19

Chronologic examination of the past should've warned our boffins that without a proven engine,the LCA would come a cropper.We had the experience of the HF-24 ad abandoned HF-74 too.It is what a former VCoAS told his superiors in the IAF,bosses in the MOD and even APJK for a decade+ about the LCA,which was ignored,that the success or failure would depend upon the rapid development of the engine,when Kaveri was being touted as "just around the corner".In retrospect,not taking on Indian pvt. industry when experiencing difficulties was a mistake,especially when high performance engine tech. was alien to us and unavailable in the beginning.

We neither had the availability of western tech due to the CWar or an equivalent Russian engine which would fit into the LCA's dimensional constraints.Sanctions after P-2 delayed matters even further when western tech became available.I vividly remember the media hype when Rajiv G gave the go-ahead for the LCA programme in the '80s.Three decades on,we are still only on the brink of inducting Mk-1 with the underpowered GE engine.One fact however has emerged,that fitting all the paraphenalia into the LCA's dimensions might be an impossibility without significant redesign which will make it larger and heavier.Given the time that has already been lost,it is almost sure that we will be the only operators of the aircraft when it eventually arrives in Mk-2 form,as our own qty required will ensure that whatever is produced at our low production rates,wiill be absorbed by the IAF.The Gripen has already won the race for being the world's best lightweight fighter and is being exported to those nations who cannot afford a larger fighter or have lesser needs.

The most vital programme for the IAF is undoubtedly the FGFA,of which 200+ are envisaged to be acquired.Therefore,we must ensure after the experience of the HF-24,LCA and IJT,that there are no undue delays and that the aircraft enters service in intial avatar asap.The speedy induction acquisition of MRCAs/Rafales is the next.Here it would be still advisable to get the first lot built in France ,inducted,and operationalised before we build them at home so that the IAF have a minimum number of sqds in service to meet the Sino-Paki threat. Unlike the major powers barring China,we will be simultaneously engaged upon with two prgrammes,the FGFA and MMRCA ,not to mention still developing the LCA and IJT! I'm not mentioning the MTA and AVRO replacement as these are transports and the massive helo programmes too.This is going to be a huge strain upon our scientific resource base as well as financial.It is a monumental task ahead for us and unless dedicated teams,with concentrated focus,time-bound management strategy ,accountable to the GOI,are in place for each programme,our lofty aero-space ambitions will be forever stunted.