LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Apr 2013 02:21

^The reason I posted the architecture requirements as early as to include operational and systems to merge IAF's mission profiles. They could be changing, and repeating.. but we have at least couple of squadron per mission profile.. and as we mature, voila!.. we would have attempted almost all capabilities IAF wants.. and in a cyclical manner, and at each cycle couple of squadrons are delivered, which are extendable and upgradable. The life of LCA will be long! call it 1, 2, 3...whatever.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 21 Apr 2013 04:04

IAF always wants latest foreign equipment. Instead of trying to build a fighting force, they are building a novelty force for just dissuasive posture. We do not need a dissuasive force. Instead we need a fighting force. IAF cannot win war on imported tools. IAF needs to fight war with Indian capabilities and develop war fighting strategies with what India has got today.

I fully support DRDO chief's assertion.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Apr 2013 05:37

Philip wrote: Oldtimers like us have been expecting the LCA's IOC year after year since the millenium!

Considering that the aircraft first flew only in 2001, that was quite a stupid thing to do. IOC was always going to take 6-7 years at least after that.

Therefore kindly understand our scepticism

Don't worry. Few on BRF take you seriously when you rail against indigenous systems. We expect nothing less. We also know that your skepticism of the LCA would suddenly morph into admiration if KnAAPO starts building it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Apr 2013 06:37

ouch!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Apr 2013 07:34

Nachi,please read the report carefully.It was the DRDO which promised the IAF the LCA before 2000 and APJAK making a statement in 2000 that "200 LCAs would be produced between 2003 and 2010." That statement was made 13 years ago! Has even one production aircraft been produced during that period he mentioned? This forced the IAF to upgrade 100+ MIG-21s to Bison std.Where is the anti-desi bias therefore from myself? The IAF were sceptical about the tall claims being made by the DRDO and with good reason as they failed to deliver.Accept the facts,they're part of history.The truth is that the DRDO/HAL,etc. have been trying to sell their wares before they've matured and have been making preposterous claims on delivery,like Kalam,who was warned and misled.

We have been for the last two decades been waiting for the LCA to arrive.The statements put out by the DRDO and CAG reports of delays are now part of history.We now have rosy claims to produce "188 aircraft in 12 years time".I do not know whether I will live that long but I am most sceptical,esp. after reading the views of ACM Browne and AKA made earlier this year.Let's watch and wait and keep the timeframes put out by the DRDO/HAL as markers.These delays have taken place because of the situ in the DRDO where no one is held accountable for non-performance.The conflict between the DRDO and end-users,the services has been well documented.The non-development of the Kaveri engine has been one major reason.In other nations,the head of the project gets sacked if he fails to deliver.After repeated failures,Putin sacked the Bulava missile project head even though he was a celebrated designer with an earlier proven track record.It worked.The missile is now aboard Russian SSBNs.This firm action has never happened in India ,the establishment looks after its own vested interests and the taxpayer's money gets wasted.

The DPSA affair was a long drawn out one,where the Jaguar was finally chosen over the Mirage F-1 and Viggen.All three aircraft were in service and production in their respective nations.They were not R&D tech. demonstrators.Given our "hot and high" conditions,we requested a more powerful version of the Adour to be developed which was done from batch 2.If you've read my many posts over the last decade,I have been advocating the quick induction of LCA MK-1 with its underpowered engine,even in a purely air defence role,so that at least it can be put through its paces before being further upgraded ,step by step.But even this is taking inordinately long.The IOC has been slipping time and time again.At least with the Arjun, MK-1 is in production,the tank exists.If members remember,end 2011 was to have been the LCA's induction at Sulur.We are now told from some reports that SU-30MKIs will be stationed there due to the LCA's delay.From all available info,it looks like 2014 for the IOC is a target that can be met.Add 12 years to that date,it gives you 2026.188 aircraft means a production rate of 15-16 a year right from the start,while we are told that only when production is in full swing,the "peak period", it will reach a figure of "16 per year".Now from which year of production will this "peak period" occur? Previous official reports said that only 8 aircraft per year would be possible in the beginning.From the DRDO/HAL's own statements this production figure in the timeframe given is an impossibility-simple maths.This is why scepticism still exists and believe me,it's not mine,even the chief of the end user,ACM Browne has made his pithy remarks calling for "penalties" if targets are not met.His statements and AKA's are plain for all to read.The ball is now in the DRDO/HALs court to deliver on their promises....yet again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2013 08:03

Philip,

You have been on BR for 15+ years. Have you got your IOC? Yet? No.

So why are you complaining aboutthe LCA?

Get you IOC then we can talk about others.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 21 Apr 2013 08:30

philip sir,

Prag,from the article,quoting officials ,etc., involved in the programme,at least a year more/300 hrs of flight tests are required for IOC.

and who are these unnamed officials?? IAF chief thinks not!!

"By my estimate it (the Initial Operational Clearance II) should be by the end of this year and the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) should take another year-and-half more," he said on the sidelines of a seminar.

The IAF may be armtwisted into accepting the first lot,but they will certainly put their foot down for more when they expect the Mk-2 version to arrive,hopefully which will meet their specs .

armtwisted?? i wish it had been done long back. unfortunately that has not been done hence you see the forces demanding so much from the 'indigenous stuff' while waiving it for the imported stuff. list is long and this has been debated to death so lets not get into this.

16 aircraft per year is going to be at the "peak period" of production not from the beginning,where earlier official reports have said that "8 per year" will be initial production rate.

no disagreement there but do you think it is impossible to ramp it to 16/yr from the start?? i think not. but what after 2 and half years when the 40 is delivered? of the skilled manpower/assembly line/tools/jigs?? you want them to sit idle till the next order for Mark 2 (feasible only post 2016) which in any case will need the whole set up to be tweaked due to changes to conform to mark 2 specs. does it make any sense - economically or in terms of manpower management?? an organisation like HAL has too much on it's plate and use of manpower has to be done skillfully.

which is why an order of 4/5 squadrons of Mark 1 is ideal with a production rate of 16/yr which smoothly switches gear to Mark 2 when it hits the line.

From HAL's track record,building 188 LCA aircraft in just 12 years,an average of 15-16 per year is going to be a monumental task.This also means that right from the start 15-16 aircraft per year has to be produced to meet the "12 yr." time frame.How is that possible?

track records are not 'set in stone' that can't be changed. HAL chairman is saying on record that they ARE geared up for that. why the disbeleif sir??

Please also read again the ACMs pertinent remarks about the need for penalties,and the disconnect between "design houses and production agency".I repeat the quote, "HAL's slow production rate and ability to absorb technology are also areas of concern".

abosorption of technology?? you would be right on that if the case was for an imported product where discrepencies (sometimes can be deliberate) in the documentation can lead to lot of problems in absorption/production 'but' we are talking LCA where HAL has been part from the design stage and lot of stuff is HAL developed. so that would not be the case. only issue is rate of production - LCA Mark 1 which is solely for IAF is more comparable to M2K is good enough for a bigger order justifying 16/yr production.

as for - the disconnect between "design houses and production agency", don't you think IAF also needs to follow the IN path??

What we have is the usual positive spin from a defence PSU,that too for a brand new desi designed aircraft,unlike local production for a fully mature design in production in large numbers abroad like the Russian (MIGs and Sukhois) and Western aircraft (Jaguar,Hawks) that we have been manufacturing thus far.

no spin IMO sir. explained above.

Oldtimers like us have been expecting the LCA's IOC year after year since the millenium! Therefore kindly understand our scepticism.

old timer like you also know the issues faced in the period from various quarters - internal and external!! again debated to death.

while you are entitled to your skepticism, philip sir, it helps to positively smile once in a while at the indigenous stuff. i agree there have been issues from ada/drdo/hal side too but do they need helping hand or you want them to be thrown out?? is import our only option?? delays have been part of imported stuff too for various reasons and i do not want to list them.

Moreover,by 2020,with a proliferation of 5th-gen aircraft and 4+++ aircraft more capable than the LCA,like the Rafale which will be in local production and the advent of the FGFA,will the IAF still want large numbers of it? I've said before that realistically,we can expect about 100+ MK-1s and Mk-2s to be produced before the IAF pulls the plug.

5th gen a/c's?? let's look at what you wrote in another thread and i quote -

The best thing that can happen for the US's enemies is for the US to go ahead and buy the JSF at ultra high cost,for the sake of it being a US product.At current estimates of it being $130+M,with the final costs yet unknown and elastic,the PLAAF would be able to field 2 Flankers or 6 JF-17s or 4 J-10/FC-20s for the same cost.For an aircraft that cannot carry underwing munitions and remain "stealthy",and that has the same or inferior close combat capability than an F-16,it is going to ,as the Chinese say "live in interesting times"!.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1444540

why can't your solution for the chinese work for India??

PS:Here's a great joke,sorry,quote from 2000 from none other than er....read on:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/14drdo.htm

indeed the article is a joke and your choosing to link that irrelevant article is a joke too.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 21 Apr 2013 11:12

NRao wrote:Philip,
You have been on BR for 15+ years. Have you got your IOC? Yet? No.
So why are you complaining about the LCA?
Get you IOC then we can talk about others.

nachiket wrote:Don't worry. Few on BRF take you seriously when you rail against indigenous systems. We expect nothing less. We also know that your skepticism of the LCA would suddenly morph into admiration if KnAAPO starts building it.

NRaoji and nachiketji
Philipji has put his point of view. if you don't like it, then you can always ignore. Why go personal?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Apr 2013 11:58

^I suppose one can only appreciate "why" when one spends a few years on this forum and hear these resident russophiles denigrate indigenous products and peddle russian crap in almost every single post they make. When it becomes obvious that no matter how many times people point out the error of their ways, these people don't intend to correct their attitude, all that is left to do is make light of the ludicrousness of their stand. I would not call that going personal.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 21 Apr 2013 13:27

Arun Menon wrote:
^I suppose one can only appreciate "why" when one spends a few years on this forum and hear these resident russophiles denigrate indigenous products and peddle russian crap in almost every single post they make. When it becomes obvious that no matter how many times people point out the error of their ways, these people don't intend to correct their attitude, all that is left to do is make light of the ludicrousness of their stand. I would not call that going personal.

Yes i have spent a few years going through BR since the year 2000 (when i had a dailup connection) and finally joined BR in 2006.
IMO I agree Philip has some fixed views. so does everyone here in someways or the other.
If one does not agree with your viewpoint for x number of years, does that mean that people need to gangup and do personal attacks?
BR has build up its reputation beacuse of good info and clean environment. I just hope it remains the same.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Apr 2013 14:38

^I agree, but what I say is that the Russophiles with their attitudes are polluting that clean environment. Ever other post is one that is denigrating Indian products and peddling Russian ones. In my opinion that pollutes the clean environment of this forum and makes any objective debate impossible, often taking it down to the level we see permanently in the Armor thread. It is such factors that draw sharp responses from some posters, who are otherwise more than happy to have opposing points of view.

PS: Please visit the Armor thread (if you have already not) and stick around for a while, you will get the picture.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 21 Apr 2013 14:44

chiragAS wrote:If one does not agree with your viewpoint for x number of years, does that mean that people need to gangup and do personal attacks?

"Gangup", "Personal Attacks" !!!!! Where are you seeing this happening ??? No need to get fidgety about a few posts which red flags someone else's post.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Apr 2013 16:13

Arun Menon wrote:^I suppose one can only appreciate "why" when one spends a few years on this forum and hear these resident russophiles denigrate indigenous products and peddle russian crap in almost every single post they make. When it becomes obvious that no matter how many times people point out the error of their ways, these people don't intend to correct their attitude, all that is left to do is make light of the ludicrousness of their stand. I would not call that going personal.

+1

Such posters are left with very little credibility when the bias becomes so obvious and plain. Every post is laced with abject negativity towards anything Indian and suggestions to instead import some weapons system designed with a different customers requirements in mind are put forth.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Apr 2013 17:39

Sagar is right.I don't take most of the contrary posts personally,but sometimes some get carried away with their intempearte language,but none here .I respect their points of view.However,many mistakenly think that I am against indigenisation.I have always lauded indigenisation,esp. by the IN.True,one must give our efforts a chance and fiull support,but when as in the case of the LCA,there were decades of delays and tall claims,as I have posted,the line has to be drawn somewhere,there must be accountability .With the latest statements from AKA and ACM Browne,it appears that it is now being done.As I've said,let's watch and wait for results.

As to being a Russophile,I've always maintained that if acquire from abroad it should be if "horses for courses".Where would our armed forces be without Russian help on the ATV,Chakra acquisition,Su-30MKI,Brahmos,Klub,FGFA,etc? The US denies us even TOT for the Javelin MANPADS missile by comparison! Just add up the pros and cons for yourself as to which country has supported us the most and at what cost too.Similarly we have a good relationship with Israel who have been of great help to us in recent times.Barak,Phalcon,etc.There was another article recently about our relations with Israel,greatly improved,many defence deals,but unable to move further as Israel would like due to due to political considerations.

If indigenisation is to be furthered,the protection of defence PSUs that do not deliver has o end.It appears that after the recent exposes of defence scams,the MOD/GOI is drawing up new protocols for acqusitions,first preferring indigenous weapon systems to buying from abroad,but unless there is a firm attitude towards our PSUs and the opening up of the industry to the pvt. sector, we are going to see further conflict between the end-users and PSUs in the future if systems do not arrive on time,and perform as expected.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 21 Apr 2013 17:50

I think MoD has taken right decision to "put on hold” the AMCA project.

Let them complete LCA then think of AMCA

http://idrw.org/?p=21120#more-21120

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 21 Apr 2013 18:51

@kmc-chacko - Why do you think that "put on hold" is a good move? From my perspective, it is a bad move, if it had taken place. LCA and AMCA are far off in their development cycle and I would be very surprised if they really needed same skill set by the same set of personnel to work on. Moreover, it is better they start fast with AMCA. I do not think LCA is delaying because of lack of man power. It is getting late because we are doing flight testing for a first time and completing every part of the flight profile and do not yet know any short cuts.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Apr 2013 19:10

Actually LCA should have put a hold on MMRCA, at least in the near future.. This clearance to FoC is very very painful times. I hope, we work towards staging this puppy, from Mk3 on wards focused on AMCA technology. That way, the lead time to AMCA is short, where most of the techs are satisfied on the Mk3 platform.. Just like Agni strategy DRDO follows.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Apr 2013 19:13

+1 Philip. Very apt. Few complain about lack of ToT for American products bought with cash even when Americans are repeatedly arming nuclear powered rogue nation Pakistan.

These issues may appear as 'running ahead of ourselves' or otherwise as products start maturing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2013 19:50

Most, if not all recent deals with the US are FMS deals - Gov-to-Gov.

FMS being Gov-to-Gov cannot include ToT OR "Offset"s.

For GoI to get offsets or ToT (from the US) they need two things to happen: 1) GoI/MoD/Services need to deal directly with the vendor (which means tendering) and 2) The US laws must allow ToT.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Apr 2013 20:20

kmc_chacko wrote:I think MoD has taken right decision to "put on hold” the AMCA project.

Let them complete LCA then think of AMCA

http://idrw.org/?p=21120#more-21120

RajD wrote:Hope not posted before.
http://idrw.org/?p=21120#more-21120
Titled 'Tejas Grounds Medium Combat Aircraft Project'
Really a sad day!!!
Rajendra

I don't know about the AMCA decision, but the info on Tejas is blatantly false.

But sources pointed out that the LCA still lacks certain critical capabilities, including a reliable radar, and is deficient in at least 100 technical parameters. “The plane cannot fly on its own. It needs a lifeline in the form of support and monitoring of its systems from the ground by technicians,” they said.

How do the ground control support the components?!!! All the LSPs are test articles and have telemetry to monitor the correct functioning of the components!

To give an example of LCA’s troubles, the sources noted that LCA was grounded for three months between September and December 2012 following problems with its landing gear.

First of all the dates are wrong. LCA was grounded last year and the reasons were not landing gear. But for modifications to the ejection system.

“Normally, a combat plane is ready for its next sortie following a 30-minute attention from ground service personnel soon after it has returned from a mission. In the case of LCA, after a single sortie of about an hour or so, it needs three days of servicing before it can go for its next sortie,” they said.

First of all, there is only 1 combat plane in the world which advertises the turnaround time of 30 minutes, the Gripen.
Second, each sortie of a plane is separated by 2-3 days not because it requires maintenance of 2-3 days. It is because, every flight is a test flight. That is the amount of time that is required to check if all parameters were met in the previous test and to prepare the flight for the next test. This time is a global norm. For every trial, exercise and airshow that Tejas has participated in, the aircrafts have flown more than 2 sorties a day, which is a good standard, globally. There are days when Tejas has flown 3 or more times a day, which is exceptionally good.

It is sad, that Indian newspaper and an Indian reporter does not find out about India's own plane before publishing this.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Apr 2013 20:31

I thin we should all go to the news report and leave a comment about what we feel about the article.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Apr 2013 20:57

you should do it here indranil.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2013 21:08

I think India should dump all efforts and open the MiG-21 and Jag lines.

That should make everyone happy. The Russians because of royalty on the MiGs, the French and Brits because of the Jags, the US because India will use their engines for the Jags, China and Pakis because India will not upgrade and MoD/Babus/Netas because they will get their cuts based on revised costs.

Per Shivshankar Menon India is not going to war, so why waste the funds on anything new?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Apr 2013 01:20

How about one more line of manufacturing LCA mk-1 then? It will also make additional LCA available for testing/flying-hours/prototyping and so on. It could be later arranged for LCA naval/mk-2 variant models.

If wishes were horses the naval LCA could pair up with additional Mig-29UPG naval at naval bases at certain locations on the shore.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Apr 2013 02:11

naval LCA is not flying for a long time now.. we need to increase our staff on testing, v&v and future critical setups. Kaveri should not be outsourced. but it can be definitely be integrated with LCA TD and v&v-ed. We charted, and let us complete it, no matter IAF says it is lower thrust.. we will come back with a new kaveri and higher thrust... funds must be allocated with re-engineered efforts.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 22 Apr 2013 02:29

Philip ji has been consistent in his views.
LCA is way delayed , for what ever reasons and whatever powers and faulty planning.
We need replacements for MiG 21, MiG 23/27 aircraft, heck we need propeller aircraft as trainers, we need more and more Hawk type jet trainers
and we we were prudent or stupid enough to buy from UK, Swiss with out making them.
SO what is the problem in buying something proven from any country that gives what we want with no restrictions like end user agreements BS.

If we can get from Brazil Russia SK who ever get them let HAL and DRDO duke it out in liesure when they can set up production lines

At this time LCA is newer version saga of HF24
remember the Khan has to be kind to sell engines for LCA to come in strength

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Apr 2013 04:18

pentaiah, i think the needs in those are satisfied with Mig29s, Sukhoi jets MKI, and other purchases. What jingoes feel is that leave the LCA alone! stay out of self-reliance baby, and don't take her to dilli streets. Is that wrong to ask? IAF nor IN will not jeopardize mil preparedness with LCA or any home grown system. If that is the case, let them come out strong on those points.

It is well known facts, why the delays are caused.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 22 Apr 2013 04:42

The IAF is aiming to maintain minimum 34 sq of fighters. By 2018 when all migs except mig 29 are retired, the likely fighter force is.

Su30 350 (18sq)
mig29 60 (3sq)
mirage 49 (3sq)
jaguar 120 (6sq)
lcamk1 40 (2sq)
rafale 36 (2sq)

Total 655 (34sq)

Present Su30 order of 272 (14sq) will go upto 350 with direct purchase of 80nos from Russia.

By early 30's when all mig29,mirage and jaguar are retired the likely force is

FGFA 214 (10sq)
Su30 320 (16 sq)
Rafale 180 (9 sq)
LCA 180 (9 sq)

TOTAL 894 (44sq)

You will need AMCA only if you want to raise fighter sq to 54 nos by 2040 when early su30's will start retiring.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Apr 2013 05:19

of the above, only su30 is operational.. so, anything close would be LCA and Rafale. If LCA can get FoC, then Rafale can take a back seat, however it is important for IAF to list out the mission profile for Rafale, and see how much reduced squadrons it needs.

HAL is supposed to have increased Su30 screw drivers delivered to IAF. Now, that can be bumped up too. What is more evident is going for LCA, the technology upgrade comes in various forms.. firstly, this would be first time, that wold not be screw driver, and the shackinnaw effect for them.

Dr saraswat rightly pointed out to HAL, that they better buck up on concurrent engineering setup and look for advanced role play in production engineering. After that, you see the game changing effect.

LCA FOC is the painful wait... and it would be more than ghee and shakkar in mouth for the 1 billion smiles after that. It is a milestone that needs to be written in the history books.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 22 Apr 2013 08:53

vishvak wrote:How about one more line of manufacturing LCA mk-1 then? It will also make additional LCA available for testing/flying-hours/prototyping and so on. It could be later arranged for LCA naval/mk-2 variant models.

vishvak, except for LSP 6, all IAF LSPs are flying. any new LCA now will be SP variants and with the order being only 40, even the assembly line which will cater to it will become idle till mark 2 order fructifies (post 2016) which is why a slow production rate is planned. how is an additional mark 1 line is even feasible??

@saik,

as per PS, TD-1 and TD-2 are outdated and are used only for ground testing the equipment needed for the production versions.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 22 Apr 2013 09:02

the problem here is that IAF being an aggressive batsman need to hit sixes on every ball.

we need to tell this batsman that not every war is a T20 one

not every plane can be gayle or pollard , we need LCA to be rohit sharma , quite at first in career but now only sixes no fours

member_25399 · Post by **member_25399** » 22 Apr 2013 09:53

tushar_m wrote: not every plane can be gayle or pollard , we need LCA to be rohit sharma , quite at first in career but now only sixes no fours

May be out of the context .. but don't compare it to Rohit Sharma

. One batsman that promised a lot but a failure on the international stage. Nobody wants that to happen to LCA.
Better to call him Pujara instead, one made for long innings.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 22 Apr 2013 11:00

pragnya wrote:vishvak, except for LSP 6, all IAF LSPs are flying. any new LCA now will be SP variants and with the order being only 40, even the assembly line which will cater to it will become idle till mark 2 order fructifies (post 2016) which is why a slow production rate is planned. how is an additional mark 1 line is even feasible??

They'd better get moving pronto then. This works out to a little over 12 aircraft per year and 2013 is already 1/3rd over without an SP being delivered yet. Or do they believe in opening a separate Mk2 line and continuing to build Mk1s past 2016?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 22 Apr 2013 11:10

ArmenT wrote:
pragnya wrote:vishvak, except for LSP 6, all IAF LSPs are flying. any new LCA now will be SP variants and with the order being only 40, even the assembly line which will cater to it will become idle till mark 2 order fructifies (post 2016) which is why a slow production rate is planned. how is an additional mark 1 line is even feasible??
They'd better get moving pronto then. This works out to a little over 12 aircraft per year and 2013 is already 1/3rd over without an SP being delivered yet. Or do they believe in opening a separate Mk2 line and continuing to build Mk1s past 2016?

SP variants will be productionised and delivered post IOC - slated to be by the end of the year (as per ACM).

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Apr 2013 11:14

LCA Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2125 Test Flights Successfully. (17-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-363,LSP1-74,LSP2-258,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-160,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2131 Test Flights Successfully. (20-April--2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-364,LSP1-74,LSP2-259,PV5-36,LSP3-121,LSP4-72,LSP5-164,LSP7-34,NP1-4,LSP8-1)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Apr 2013 12:51

The "source" that was quoted in that article on IDRW.org said that

“Normally, a combat plane is ready for its next sortie following a 30-minute attention from ground service personnel soon after it has returned from a mission. In the case of LCA, after a single sortie of about an hour or so, it needs three days of servicing before it can go for its next sortie,” they said.

Now, we've seen 6 LCA flights in 3 days..so as per that dunderhead "source's" logic, the maintenance of the LCA has markedly improved, since it is now taking only half a day of maintenance on average for the LCA between each flight..

time to rejoice !

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 22 Apr 2013 13:13

kartik,

idrw is basically a cut paste site. the source is sunday standard (New Indian Express) -

Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 22 Apr 2013 13:18

Kartik wrote:Now, we've seen 6 LCA flights in 3 days..so as per that dunderhead "source's" logic, the maintenance of the LCA has markedly improved, since it is now taking only half a day of maintenance on average for the LCA between each flight..
time to rejoice !

A bit nitpick saar out of the six flights two are from two different aircrafts, the hole in that moron "source's" theory is punched by LSP-5 which logs 4 flights in 4 days.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 22 Apr 2013 14:15

was this posted before??

LCA may get IOC soon

“The last aircraft in the Limited Series Production programme of LCA-Tejas (LSP-08) took off on its maiden flight here today from HAL airport. The aircraft was flown covering a flight envelope at supersonic speeds and at an angle of attack of 20 degrees which is the current maximum limit cleared by design. With this, the Initial Operation Clearance (IOC) for the aircraft can be expected soon.”

The latest LCA carried several modifications relating to fuel, environment condition, electrical and avionics based on the feedback from the 7 earlier aircraft. The modified systems performed well.

IAF and the Indian Navy have a projected requirement of about 200 LCAs,

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Apr 2013 17:08

Perhaps this is the right time to increase that from operational training PoV.