LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4112
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

flight update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2182 Test Flights Successfully. (31-May-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-273,PV5-36,LSP3-133,LSP4-80,LSP5-173,LSP7-38,NP1-4,LSP8-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2185 Test Flights Successfully. (05-June-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-365,LSP1-74,LSP2-273,PV5-36,LSP3-134,LSP4-80,LSP5-174,LSP7-39,NP1-4,LSP8-4)
RKumar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by RKumar »

Mods, please remove this post if you think it violates forum rules ...

To the point post by Spitfire9 on another forum
I think you do not understand that India wants to build its own advanced aircraft in the long run. Some of the reasons are:

Sovereignty - if India builds its own aircraft with Indian components, no other country can interfere with how that aircraft is used.

Cost - if India acquires the technology to build its own aircraft, designing, developing and manufacturing should cost less than doing those things in Europe or the USA so the aircraft should cost less.

Employment - if India can design, develop, test and manufacture advanced aircraft, many highly skilled jobs can be created in India.

Foreign exchange - buying aircraft made in India from Indian components requires no foreign exchange

Trade balance - buying aircraft made in India avoids imports.

Corruption - it appears that deals with foreign suppliers of aircraft are more prone to corruption.

The IAF has a requrement for 125-200 MRCA in the near future. The Indian aviation sector is not capable of producing such aircraft yet. Making an order for these aircraft dependent on TOT to enable India to make its own sophisticated aircraft in the future is an opportunity that cannot be missed. India could have its own fast jet industry in 10-20 years if it can acquire the necessary technology through the MMRCA purchase. The alternative you suggest (buying F-35) would neither advance India's political strategy (to gain independence in use of defence assets) nor its industrial strategy (to become capable of producing sophisticated state of the art military aircraft).
MMRCA and import reality check
from what's been said, it is the India's officials that want Dassault to be responsible for any potential defect that may result from HAL's production... even if it's entirely HAL's fault.. for as long as India asks for such silly engagement (from any manufacturer, not only Dassault), they'll have to wait for any technology they may expect... you want technology, independence, and do it by yourself it's fine, but you have to assume responsibility for what you do... it is, sort of: "you want to play with the big guys? grow up then!"
My point is : we can hope that we will learn to design and develop by import or JV but reality is exactly opposite.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

we can hope that we will learn to design and develop by import or JV but reality is exactly opposite.
The point is that there is a LOT more than just Design and Develop.

The FGFA should have provided a great deal of it (testing as an example), but it looks like it will not (as much).
Ramu
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 17:05

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Ramu »

SaiK wrote:instead of saying no more new aircraft programs, we should say no more new aircraft platform development programs. we could use existing platform to enable tomorrows technologies.. and this is exactly the model followed by LM/Boeing et al.

This is already happening and IAF has been quite successful during the last decade.
Let me list down the existing platforms being upgraded inhouse by HAL.

MiG 21 BIS, Bison upgrade
MiG 27 Upgrade Package
Jaguar DARIN 1,2,3 Upgrades
SU 30K to MKI

The technology went into those above in-house (MKI is a bit of an exception) were mostly sourced from maturity achieved from LCA project.
No delays get reported. IAF pays from its pocket. No testing efforts get reported.

One would expect a DPP offset clause from .. lets say MK2 Upgrade to benefit our LCA program or an improvement of HAL facilities/processes. But in India's case, other platforms are benefitting at the expense of our LCA program. After agreeing to pay 10bn, Dassault won't give assurances for Rafales built from HAL.

I am not against IAF upgrading existing platforms using LCA's technology. Indeed it is a good thing.
At the same time I wish IAF supported LCA project a bit more than what is doing now. Currently I see only their criticisms via media.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

the difference is not just applying and adapting to LCA technology which is mandatory to enrichment of capability of mission profiles, but looking ahead. the context is AMCA, when we say, no more new platforms. The argument is within that context.. where, the AMCA enabling technologies needs to be exercised and operational capabilities measured and optimized using LCA platform. Almost all capabilities can be enabled from SEAD, DEAD, Dual Engine, AESA, NetCentricity, Retractable systems, reSizing, Stealth body, internal stealth, external aerodynamics modifications, DSI, super-cruise, Kaveri++, you name it! space is not the limit. A perfect mash-up platform it shall be... and besides that it will have "Proudly Made in India" mark... with total controls.
sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by sohamn »

Ramu wrote:
SaiK wrote:instead of saying no more new aircraft programs, we should say no more new aircraft platform development programs. we could use existing platform to enable tomorrows technologies.. and this is exactly the model followed by LM/Boeing et al.

This is already happening and IAF has been quite successful during the last decade.
Let me list down the existing platforms being upgraded inhouse by HAL.

MiG 21 BIS, Bison upgrade
MiG 27 Upgrade Package
Jaguar DARIN 1,2,3 Upgrades
SU 30K to MKI

The technology went into those above in-house (MKI is a bit of an exception) were mostly sourced from maturity achieved from LCA project.
No delays get reported. IAF pays from its pocket. No testing efforts get reported.

One would expect a DPP offset clause from .. lets say MK2 Upgrade to benefit our LCA program or an improvement of HAL facilities/processes. But in India's case, other platforms are benefitting at the expense of our LCA program. After agreeing to pay 10bn, Dassault won't give assurances for Rafales built from HAL.

I am not against IAF upgrading existing platforms using LCA's technology. Indeed it is a good thing.
At the same time I wish IAF supported LCA project a bit more than what is doing now. Currently I see only their criticisms via media.

Don't agree to your reasoning. precisely because

MiG 21 BIS, Bison upgrade - Upgrade was not designed or conceptualized at HAL. It was designed in Russia.
MiG 27 Upgrade Package - Very Basic upgrade. HAL couldn't retrofit the AL31F engine, but Russia had already done that.
Jaguar DARIN 1,2,3 Upgrades - Prbably the only upgrade designed inhouse.
SU 30K to MKI- Again not designed completely at HAL. Equipment and Brains were loaned from Russia, Israel and France.


So the solution is not just to support in house development at HAL, the only way things can be improved is to encourage privatization. There has to be motivation to do some extreme engineering in terms of monetary benefit.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

Reg. the upgrades,the point being made is not who is responsible for the upgrades,both DRDO/HAL and firang manufacturers have contributed,but that there are no more worthwhile aircraft to upgrade,when in the imminent future,hundreds of MIG-21s will be retired after the type has served the IAF for a record 50 years!

Therefore,the LCA has to arrive on time if we are to achieve in some measure the goal of self-sufficiency.Yet even here I have warned that even if it succeeds,the planned official production rate is woefully low,as we have yet to master a production line for the LCA,and the numbers shortfall will still exist.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

^^^ Don't worry, we are the absolute gold medalists of procrastination. The biggest catalyst seems to be a kick in the back. The imminent mass retirement of Mig-21s is that kick. LCA will come through now.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Sagar G »

Philip wrote:Yet even here I have warned that even if it succeeds,the planned official production rate is woefully low,as we have yet to master a production line for the LCA,and the numbers shortfall will still exist.
Why keep beating around the bush all the time ??? It has been debated umpteen times why the production no's are low. LCA coming to fruition within a decade of IAF's involvement is pretty good given IAF's lethargy towards indigenzation.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

SaiK wrote:Yes! and not Rafale as a replacement for LCA. ;).

See.. your vote depends on which side you are speaking for. Firang or Desh. We all know, our billion planet is Firang Fetish.
Well, if the LCA had been delivered in time and on spec, the MiG-21 would have retired ages ago, hundreds of LCA would now be in the IAF, and there would be no need for the Rafale. So, in fact, you are exactly wrong, and the reason Desh has to spend billions it cannot afford on importing Rafale is because the LCA programme is so massively delayed. The Rafale is the replacement for the LCA.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Sagar G wrote:LCA coming to fruition within a decade of IAF's involvement is pretty good given IAF's lethargy towards indigenzation.
It is completely nonsensical to blame the IAF for ADA and HAL's gross failure to deliver the LCA to spec and on time.

The issues that LCA faces are design engineering and production engineering issues, which are in the the ADA and HAL's domain of responsibility.

The IAF can only test the LCA, which it does quite extensively, but the design issues and production issues have to be understood and solved by the ADA and HAL.

The country put all its eggs (for the MiG-21 replacement) in the LCA basket, and the country is having to pay dearly through its nose for ADA and HAL's failure to deliver the LCA to spec and on time.

The country is forced to buy foreign manufactured aircraft for the IAF because of the lack of delivery of ADA, HAL, etc. The alternative would be to leave the nation defenceless, as simply cancelling Rafale, etc will not miraculously transform LCA into an aircraft that meets its design specs or is capable of taking on F-16s, Su-30, etc of the PAF / PLAAF.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

The country is paying for the lack of any R&D for 30 years after the HF 24. If the HF 24 was followed up with the various designs proposed by HAL from time to time even as TD programs. The LCA could have been in service a lot earlier. But, in the absence of dedicated R&D program for over 30 years. Add to that the risk aversion (Justified) by the DRDO / ADA. You are seeing a delay.


It is just the function of the lack of institution building and R&D activity. Nothing else.
member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_20292 »

The Honda Superjet

42 feet long. Something like the LCA.

First flight 2003. Still not completed in 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HondaJet

It is not just us SDREs who are useless lazy buggers. The japanese, some of their largest and best companies are lazy opium eaters too !

:)

Now back to the booze.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Lalmohan »

i just hope the tejas is the first of many aircraft that the Indian Mil-Eng complex produces, inducts, learns from until it is able to build and field a state of the art fighter as routine - we are still on the learning curve, just need to stop getting off it
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by vasu raya »

some readers might already have noticed the irony,

The USAF's criteria for IOC consists of being able to stand up the first operational F-35A squadron equipped with 12 to 24 aircraft and with enough trained personnel "to conduct basic close air support, interdiction, and limited suppression and destruction of enemy air defence operations in a contested environment".

However, the 2016 deadline does indicate a departure from the service's earlier insistence that it would require the fighter to have the full capabilities of its final Block 3F configuration to declare IOC.


and cross-posting from mil flight safety thread,
krishnan wrote:
10:36 MiG-21 crashes, pilot ejects safely: A MiG-21 aircraft of IAF today crashed in Rajasthan's Barmer district, with the pilot ejecting safely. The plane crashed near Sodiyar village at 9 AM and the pilot ejected safely, Defence Spokesperson S D Goswami told PTI. He said the aircraft took off from the Uttarlai Airbase in the western sector and was on a routine sortie. It crashed 40 km off Barmer, he said. A rescue mission was immediately launched from Jodhpur airbase, he said.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Sagar G »

eklavya wrote:It is completely nonsensical to blame the IAF for ADA and HAL's gross failure to deliver the LCA to spec and on time.
It's also completely nonsensical to put up a reply without understanding the context of the post you are replying too.
eklavya wrote:The country put all its eggs (for the MiG-21 replacement) in the LCA basket, and the country is having to pay dearly through its nose for ADA and HAL's failure to deliver the LCA to spec and on time.
I don't see how the country is paying dearly for the supposed failure's of ADA and HAL. Can you expand you post please.
eklavya wrote:The country is forced to buy foreign manufactured aircraft for the IAF because of the lack of delivery of ADA, HAL, etc.
If that had been the case then an equivalent category of aircraft should be brought why purchase an aircraft which is of different league altogether ???
eklavya wrote:The alternative would be to leave the nation defenceless, as simply cancelling Rafale, etc will not miraculously transform LCA into an aircraft that meets its design specs or is capable of taking on F-16s, Su-30, etc of the PAF / PLAAF.
LCA will take on these adversaries when it is inducted, purchasing Rafale is not going to relieve LCA of it's intended duty.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

Lalmohan wrote:i just hope the tejas is the first of many aircraft that the Indian Mil-Eng complex produces, inducts, learns from until it is able to build and field a state of the art fighter as routine - we are still on the learning curve, just need to stop getting off it
The only way to have dual stream learning mode and keeping the capability mode, is by ope-rationalizing systems. Then things will start feeding in, and the product lifecycle begins establishing learning curve as vector and its entropy.
Ramu
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 17:05

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Ramu »

^^^ +1
Absolutely.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Meanwhile in wake of the Mig 21 crash, India Toady reports:

Resentment against DRDO/HAL delay of LCA induction

Could be transferred anger at the Mig crashes.

Also I dont understand the IOC and FOC. IOC means induction starts and FOC means the induction is complete, all over the world. Only in India they take standard acornyms and use them any which way they want.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

When we talk abstract terms like operational clearance, and it takes time means many things - from not meeting requirements of operational needs to changing mindsets of the user. We have no clue regarding the details of issues, aspects where change is needed, what organizational changes including training, etc..

What is not clear to me is this big dependency we have established (by shooting ourselves in foot), that FoC is needed for beginning of production. Yes, it is definitely has a dependency at integration of components and final assembly, but not at sub-component level that has been tested, verified and validated, and such components are not affected by operational clearance.

Any components already used in Migs, Sukhois, can start productions. For example, had if ADA/HAL gets LCA skins on to Sukhoi, pretty much covered there. I am sure many sub-components and technology that went into Su30 needs no op clearance.

IAF's ops clearance should be more on the mission profile/capability clearance, rather LRUs and components that affects production. I hope HAL has already sorted out issues in terms of what Dr. Saraswat was calling for concurrent engineering setup. I sincerely wish HAL to heed to his advice, else I don't see a good start.

I hope IAF is not waiting for operational usage metrics for comparison, then decide to begin production. Then fate will be written ahead rather in the future. We have a great force, but it needs more greater participation from local industries to satisfy our vision.

We can be regimental for up-gradations, but should not limit operational clearance at tech level. we can mature as we go.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

srai wrote:
agupta wrote:...
So a clear signal needs to be sent - no more new aircraft development programs until HAL and ADA get together and get this past the finish line. ...

...
Given that the R&D of a "next-generation" combat aircraft can take anywhere from 20 to 30 years (simpler ones at least 10 years), you cannot stop new aircraft development activities. It has to be done in parallel. Even within a program, you will have many parallel R&D activities taking place on various LRUs, materials, etc. What you can instead mandate for is that the current project iteration needs to be adequately resourced to get it to the finish line. As individual groups finish their tasks, most of them will move on to next project and this may mean next iteration of a sub-component rather than a completely new project. It is possible that the next sub-component they work on could go on to be used in the "next-gen" aircraft as well.
Exactly. The most illogical and damaging thing to do, would be to hold up progress on the next generation design till everything on the LCA is deemed to have crossed some finish line - whether it is FOC or whatever. The tech advances needed for an AMCA will be substantial by themselves and cannot be pulled out of a hat. The private vendors who work with ADA, whom ADA has painstakingly nurtured are mostly SMEs and need to be given adequate time AND funding. For instance, if items like mission computer components need to be sourced, and these are one step beyond what is on the LCA, they cannot just be pulled out of thin air!

The biggest mistake ever made by India, was to not clear any TD program after the Marut, which is what has led to the delays in the LCA. Other countries leveraged, and built upon the original iterative designs of their prior aircraft. In contrast, India has had no subsystem development to speak of. Everything had to be done from scratch for the LCA.

For the AMCA, every system developed will be LCA MK-2 +++, they cant be developed overnight and every bit of time helps!!
Not to mention funding.

One of the biggest issues with the LCA program has been the trickle feed funding allocated to various items, thanks to the graduated - TD-->PV-->FSED and slow acceptance of the need to have MK1 and then MK2. Private SMEs cannot afford to wait for such piecemeal orders and they are crucial to such programs.

HAL itself, will not dedicate resources to a program that it regards as secondary to "assured" sources of revenue, programs like the Rafale or Su-30 MKI, and engineering resources will be instead poured into accepting TOT & ensuring timely production of aggregates for these programs instead. This is one of the reasons the LCA has been a stepchild. There is always a bigger, more "certain" program around the corner.

If any lesson or success from the LCA has to be learnt, it is this. Don't stop development based on the delays with the initial versions of the first product. The Marut teething troubles were used to essentially stall the further development of the program and then kill it altogether. All the while, India just license assembled other people's designs and learnt little of the crucial overall process which is all around iteratively testing, redesigning, and then certifying.

We have to get started on the MCA technology today, if the program has to be sped up.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

eklavya wrote:
SaiK wrote:Yes! and not Rafale as a replacement for LCA. ;).

See.. your vote depends on which side you are speaking for. Firang or Desh. We all know, our billion planet is Firang Fetish.
Well, if the LCA had been delivered in time and on spec, the MiG-21 would have retired ages ago, hundreds of LCA would now be in the IAF, and there would be no need for the Rafale. So, in fact, you are exactly wrong, and the reason Desh has to spend billions it cannot afford on importing Rafale is because the LCA programme is so massively delayed. The Rafale is the replacement for the LCA.
This is completely wrong. The Rafale and LCA are altogether different categories of aircraft and classified by the IAF as such. The Rafale is classified by the IAF as a MMRCA whereas the LCA is what its name suggests. Furthermore, given the developments in the PLAAF & the need to face a two front war scenario, the IAF has moved away from its earlier reliance on "hundreds" of MiG-21s, and is now equally split between a heavy fighter force, backed up by equal numbers of Medium Aircraft & finally light combat aircraft.

The Su-30 MKI for instance is now planned at 270 units, the MMRCA will come in at 126+63 options, and the LCA is planned to be at similar numbers to the MMRCA. Apart from these, there will be upgraded Jaguars (around 80), Mirage 2000s (around 50) and upgraded MiG-29s (around 60).

These 3 types all come in as Medium weight aircraft. As can be seen, the IAF is placing more emphasis on a combination of payload and persistence, and no longer wishes to be a light fighter heavy force, as it once was and could afford to be.

Future inductions will be the FGFA, gradually supplanting retiring Su-30s and the older MMRCA types above, while the MCA will come in for the rest of the MMRCA. Basically, the split between the HCA, MMRCA and LCA will remain, lopsided towards the first two segments.

The LCA is a much required addition to build up numbers of a cost effective, light aircraft, but the era of swarms of MiG-21 equivalents is gone. We will be looking at approximately 126-189 LCAs out of a fleet of 4 times the overall number of fighters (800-900) if the squadron level stabilizes at 42.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

agupta wrote:I would urge you to think harder/more about the distinction between technology demonstrations vs. product engineering. And think about where it is that we are stuck.
I have thought about it. But I hope you have as well.
The entire problem with the LCA is that there was absolutely no industrial base in the country to provide systems which could be translated into ready products! As a result of which the program was built around a time consuming, technology demonstration phase and funding for actual production ready units followed only thereafter!!
This, apart from the IAF disinterest in the program during the technology demonstration phase, meant that many of the initial systems developed as part of the TD phase, have had to be entirely redesigned, and could not even be leveraged fully for translating into production ready items! It also meant that HAL & other vendors continue to sit and redesign systems which have been subject to late requests for action, and a production standard version has been evolved only of late.

By your prescription of waiting for a perfect LCA and not working on the follow on program, India would be stuck at the same place, all over again. There is simply no time to sit and have ADA/HAL & their vendors wait out the entire LCA development cycle, when there will be groups who can & should be tasked with moving onto the next program. This includes labs such as DARE, LRDE, NAL etc who need to start today to develop production ready items available for the MCA.

Take a look at China. They did not wait for the J-10 to entirely finish its development either, and launched multiple programs in parallel. We cannot and should not ascribe to the same scale since we nowhere have that level of investment in a captive "wait for projects industry" spread out between Shenyang, Chengdu and literally hundreds of ancillary vendors, but there is a lead time involved in these programs which cannot be bypassed.
This is not rocket science. Enough said.
Exactly. And which is why its surprising you didnt get the point.
Last edited by Karan M on 08 Jun 2013 04:39, edited 1 time in total.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

eklavya wrote:
Sagar G wrote:LCA coming to fruition within a decade of IAF's involvement is pretty good given IAF's lethargy towards indigenzation.
It is completely nonsensical to blame the IAF for ADA and HAL's gross failure to deliver the LCA to spec and on time.

The issues that LCA faces are design engineering and production engineering issues, which are in the the ADA and HAL's domain of responsibility.

The IAF can only test the LCA, which it does quite extensively, but the design issues and production issues have to be understood and solved by the ADA and HAL.

The country put all its eggs (for the MiG-21 replacement) in the LCA basket, and the country is having to pay dearly through its nose for ADA and HAL's failure to deliver the LCA to spec and on time.

The country is forced to buy foreign manufactured aircraft for the IAF because of the lack of delivery of ADA, HAL, etc. The alternative would be to leave the nation defenceless, as simply cancelling Rafale, etc will not miraculously transform LCA into an aircraft that meets its design specs or is capable of taking on F-16s, Su-30, etc of the PAF / PLAAF.
Not that simple I am afraid.

If the IAF was an organization, which would meekly accept whatever industry churns out, then the above argument would hold weight.

But the IAF, justifiably, wants aircraft customized to its unique warfighting requirements. Which is where it shares a big part of the blame, as it did not involve itself during a crucial phase of the LCA development, wherein the aircraft was built around high level ASRs, but its subsystems did not have enough IAF input.

Today, much of the delay stems from the fact that the IAF has literally raised tons of requests for actions to redesign many of the features in the aircraft, during the latter part of the FSED phase, and this has added to the delay.

Coming back to the customization part - lets take a look at the mission computing, this was initially in the TDs, built around the 386/486 era chips, and was deemed good enough to fit into our upgrade programs on the Jaguar and MiG-27. Later, the IAF asked for further upgrades, and this was delivered as the OAC (Open Architecture Computer). The latest upgrade moves to an IMA architecture which is to be adopted for the Su-30 MKI program as well. The point though is that the LCA team has built up enough experience to constantly deliver against these changing goal posts. But the same cant be said of every system out there. For instance, the LCA per IAF requirements is built around the overall dimensions of the MiG-21. This because the IAF wanted the LCA to fit into the same HAS & basing requirements that the MiG-21s enjoy across the western and eastern sectors. But it also meant the LCA is a very compact aircraft & the IAF has asked for constant systems upgrades which constantly challenge the developers.

The MK-2 for instance is to feature an internal EW suite, something which hitherto not even the much larger Su-30 MKI had. Similarly, the antenna dimensions of the LCA (650mm odd) rival those on the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29. Many of the technology features and the final performance specifications for the LCA, have been certified as having been culled from a mix of the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000, the then best aircraft of the IAF. Ironically enough, all this having to be put into a fighter which is much smaller.

This sort of brochuritis is a big issue with many of our indigenous programs. They tend to mix and match features which cannot be easily put together into one platform (if at all) and result in programs getting more and more complex, and delayed. And in turn the specifications keep getting upgraded on account of delay, and a perfect example of mission creep.

Another significant part which you miss is the impact of sanctions. Whether we like it or not, these did impact the program, though we can justifiably claim that by driving the program to where it is today, we have also demonstrated that we could work through them.

To understand how the LCA program was affected, take a look at key systems like the actuators and the engine. With limited funding available, India/ADA ordered limited sets of both. When sanctions hit, actuators were literally moved around between prototype aircraft & the ground Iron Bird test rig, to keep the test flight program going.
No other country with a similar test program has managed to pull something similar off, and it confounded those who thought that with no engineering support from the original vendor, India would just have to kill the program. Some of these were indigenized later. However, it also testifies to the limited, trickle feed funding allocated to the program, that India could not walk up with the right money (to say Russia) and bribe them to codevelop the remaining sets. This is the sort of thing China does (or attempts to) - for instance when they dont get complete technology from Russia, they walk to Ukraine and attempt to acquire the same from them, or have their industry provide reverse engineered equivalents.

Similarly, in a prescient move, GTRE had asked for and received detailed calibration & instrumentation data for the Ge404s initially shipped for the LCA program - they needn't have, because OEM support was assumed as a given. When sanctions hit, this was a big factor allowing us to proceed with the program.

Similarly, a CLAW team & a FBW Hardware team had to be created from scratch to overcome the impact of the Lock Mart assistance being pulled out (and our FBW HW being illegally confiscated in the US).

While there is little doubt that the program has suffered from mismanagement at some levels, and the disinterest by some at HAL, and also politicking about who pays for what (for instance, the entire brouhaha about the upgrade costs for manufacture at HAL, a pass-the-buck game between HAL & IAF about who picks up the tab), the program has also had issues beyond mere incompetence or inexperience.

These have added many years to the program easily.

For instance, our lack of experience meant that we had hired BAe as consultants to speed up the testing process (as versus testing at every point of the flight envelope). First, BAe walked off, citing EF commitments. Later, sanctions came in & further assistance was not available.

It was only relatively recently, a year or two back, that we managed to get consultants back into the program to have us speed up the testing.

There is also the issue of subsystems. Some of the LCA requirements are unique to the type and cannot be acquired off the shelf. The combinations of sanctions and also limited production runs in the TD/PV series have meant these cannot be sourced easily and have to be developed specifically for the type.

But there are fundamental issues with our entire aerospace group beyond the LCA.

The IAF continues to lack a product steering group. Officers continue to be deputed on ad hoc basis for critical programs, and if they transfer to DRDO/DPSU, their ability to influence or steer decisions within their parent organization drops down. In contrast, the Navy owns their own program managers & hence ends up owning the program as well. The IAF is yet to evolve to that level.

Similarly, HAL has made some steps in terms of understanding how important R&D is, but the primary focus continues to be around license manufacture. I have seen several of their presentations in the past and while ALH et al occupy pride of place, the LCA is one of the many programs they mention for aircraft. Ideally, it would be the program for them, given its India's own aircraft and can give them their own product to compete with. But it doesn't seem to be. Its one of the several they have.

Plus, the MOD continues to lack any overall program management office for aerospace, and India's biggest achilles heel, its lack of a proper turbofan engine, continues to remain as such. After all these years, the Snecma program did not come through either. And nor are we following the kitchen sink approach China does..

Net, the problems the LCA currently has may be overcome, but if tomorrow is to be different, several more things need to click.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

There was a report in yesterday's Ind Exp. about a huge transfer in HAL and Tyagi was being bombed for it.

Here are some details:
"HAL lands on muddy tarmac with mass transfers"...."landing on the wrong side of the runway".
Chairman Tyagi blamed for the unscientific and ill-timed transfers which has caused unrest amongst officers across the company.
Anonymous tip-off to the paper said that ,"more than a normal transfer I feel it's like a barter deal between various divisions.There's no logic behind these transfers and it is definitely done by adopting a pick-and-choose policy",a Grade-6 officer said.

"Anyone who has questioned the policies of HAL has been put on the hit-list.If job rotation was the genuine criteria,then why is it that so many officers in the corporate office in Bangalore are still untouched after 12 years?" These transfers are being done at the whims and fancies of senior HR officials at the corporate office",another officer said speaking from Hyderabad.

HAL's HR director,VM Chamola,however said that "all is well",transfers are an annual feature,of around 100+ transfers,but when asked about drop in morale,etc.,refused to comment if these transfers would bring about further delays in HAL's projects.A top source in HAL's vigilance dept. said that another "200-300" people have been identified to be transferred in the second batch."A committee is also going to examine those working at one centre for more than 15 years" .Transfers affect families,education of children,employment of spouses,etc., and HAL accused off overturning the rule book has caused "much heartburn".

PS: have these transfers got anything to do with AKA's openly expressed frustration at the LCA's prolonged confinement ? Is he kicking ass to get results? There are delays in many other projects like the IJT,rejection of the IAF of the HTT,etc.So from this report if true,we can expect to see further delays until the dust settles and transferees pick up the threads of their lives in their new HAL stations.

PPS: Just read Karan's post,which explains why our performance in the aviation sphere has been so patchy.What comes out of this analysis is that there have been to many cooks as far as the LCA is concerned.No focus,no pit-boss to crack the whip.Everyone trying to throw in their two bits and attempting to deliver a contradiction,that of a lightweight fighter ,meant to replace the MIG-21 (which was basically an interceptor) being able to do the job of a medium sized one by trying to stuff into its small airframe as much bells and whistles as possible.Many on BR have been saying for years that to succeed,the LCA should first arrive as primarily an air combat aircraft and getting the first avatar into the air in service the top priority.While this is now what appears to be the goal,the damage has already been done and if the above report is true,just routinely "rotating" the staff of HAL is not going to deliver results for that entity.
Last edited by Philip on 08 Jun 2013 07:56, edited 2 times in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

TQM. total quality movement started in Japan with a top down approach, where only higher section of the triangle is booted first for non-performance. I think that culture is very much required for desh.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by vic »

LCA is suffering due to three reasons:-


Inadequate funds- funding is 1/10th of required funds

Import love of Armed forces and the political direction that dogs & indians not allowed in the hallowed corridors of MoD procurement system. After all why waste 10 years developing indigenous programs when in one order you can have a fatty Swiss account.


Idiotic babudom that fails to provide funds to absorb ToT. OFB is able to produce Bofors gun as it was given Rs. 500 crores to set up a manufacturing plant. BDL claims 90% indigenisaton while it's Balance Sheet shows 60% import content out of Sales in which20% is profit margin.
venku_Raj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 14 Oct 2010 19:08

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by venku_Raj »

ADL Gets an Export Order from IAI, Isreal
Image
Accessories Division, Lucknow, bagged an export order worth 0.55 MUSD from Israel Aerospace Industries(IAI) for the supply of wheels and brakes and its spares. The wheels and brakes were designed and developed in-house by Aerospace Systems Equipment Research and Development Centre (ASERDC), Lucknow for IAI. After successful trials, the first supply order for the production phase was received from IAI,Israel during 2011-12 and was executed during 2012-13.
LINK

Wheels seems like from lca .
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Karan M wrote:This is completely wrong. The Rafale and LCA are altogether different categories of aircraft and classified by the IAF as such. The Rafale is classified by the IAF as a MMRCA whereas the LCA is what its name suggests. Furthermore, given the developments in the PLAAF & the need to face a two front war scenario, the IAF has moved away from its earlier reliance on "hundreds" of MiG-21s, and is now equally split between a heavy fighter force, backed up by equal numbers of Medium Aircraft & finally light combat aircraft.
All this light, medium, heavy distinction is being made up as theory to fit the facts. A better categorisation will be affordable, expensive, nosebleed expensive.

When the IAF acquired the Su-30 (heavy) in the mid-90s, the aircraft they actually wanted (capability, reliability, proven, etc) was the single-engine Dash-5 (medium). But the Dash-5 (nosebleed expensive at the time) cost 2x the Su-30 (expensive), budget was tight (the economy was one-fourth the size of what it is today), and the government went for the cheaper (but heavier!) option.

The MiG-21s (light) were always intended to be replaced by the LCA (light). The reality is that as MiG-21 (light) squadrons retire, they are being replaced by Su-30 MKI (heavy). That is because that is what is available, not because of some grand weight balance theory.

If the LCA meeting its specs were available, IAF would happily induct 350 of them, and upgrade them over time with AESA, etc, but since they are not, alternatives are being sought (in all weight categories).

The MMRCA saga started as the MRCA (i.e. simply multi role). This was also in response to the fact that the LCA was going to be further delayed. Once again, the IAF wanted the single-engine Dash-5 (by now, with the economy several times larger than in the mid-90s, it was merely "expensive"). But Dassault closed down the Dash-5 production line, and by default the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-18SH, etc. entered the competition. With F-18SH in the fray, there was never any relevance to the Medium in MMRCA.

The economy had reached a state where "nosebleed expensive" options like the Rafale and the Eurofighter were now on the table. Perhaps the threat perception has evolved to a point where the combination of AESA, SPECTRA and METEOR is considered indispensable to keep the PLAAF Su-30 hordes at bay.

I still wonder if the F-18SH with its AESA and AMRAAM would not have done the job more cheaply instead, but it seems that "nothing but the best" is what is required to deter the PLAAF.

Even if Su-30 MKI is heavy and Rafale is medium, the Rafale is superior to the Su-30 MKI in every respect: range, payload, radar, missile, smart bombs, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, air-to-air and air-to-ground. It is truly omnirole, but it is also undeniably nosebleed expensive.

126 or 189 Rafale will provide the IAF with genuine deterrent capacity against the hordes of PLAAF Su-30s, and in that respect it has perhaps become a necessity in its own right, but we should not forget that the whole saga started with dwIndling squadrons numbers, MiG-21 getting very long in the tooth, LCA not close to being inducted, and therefore the request for Dash 5. Well, the IAF got the Dash 5 "in the end", its called the Mirage 2000 upgrade (which arguably is also "nosebleed expensive" with one nostril, whereas the Rafale is a two nostril nosebleed).
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by vasu raya »

^^^

Your tunes are confusing, one minute you say Tejas must meet IOC, FOC else it cannot fight F-16 or Su-30MKK and now you say only Rafale can save us from the MKK hordes, technically Tejas might get FOC and a squadron is made available before the 1st Rafale squadron is delivered.

In the missiles thread its a similar issue, the Bars radar is Russian owned and cannot be upgraded to include BMD mode without paying the Bear (an Indian AESA might show up whenever) and taking another approach where the platform of choice to bust TELs, the Rafale is held by France.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1253
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by A Sharma »

HAL MSM

The requirement of three consecutive starts for the LCA main engine has been a long felt need. The JFS (GTSU-110) was modified for improved lubrication to achieve three consecutive starts with a time gap of 75 seconds between two successive starts. However, the demonstration could not be done till now because the flywheel which is connected to the output shaft of the GTSU-110 takes six minutes to come to a stop. AERDC team members Shri K. H.Venkatesha, Manager and Shri S.Esakki Muthu, Senior Manager (Design) came up with an innovative method to brake the flywheel, with air impingement on the fir-tree section of the flywheel, stopping it within 70 seconds. The novel idea was executed in one week and three c o n s e c u t i v e s t a r t s w e r e demonstrated in front of the committee members from IAF, ADA, RCMA (E) and ORDAQA (E). HAL has recognised the work of the team members, and a Certificate of Commendation was given to them during the AERDC Culture of Continuous Learning function.

T h e M C S R D C designed Solid State Crash Data Recorder MKII was successfully integrated and flown on LCA – LSP8 aircraft (IOC Standard) on March 31, 2013. ADA reported: “The data & audio was retrieved and analysed. The recorded hardwired data (Analog, Discrete & Frequency), RS 422 from DFCC & MIL-1553B parameters and audio was satisfactory.”
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

IAF share in this blame has to be made known.. It is a requirements bungle right from the start.. instead of graduating, phased and block wise development, they wanted all eggs in one basket.. and hence, ADA/DRDO with their brain-drained, meager budget has to fail on schedule, QoS, etc.

As a stake-holder, and user, IAF should put their foot in the mouth, and demand better management, budgeting and phased development. Blaming LCA tejas for Mig crashes is like blaming a graduating student not being an earning member of the family, and you realize this after death of an earning member. where the heck is the planning brains hiding?

See.. the nation is hiding in this finger pointing game as long as it can find some bhakra org or entity, and feel that they have done their quality job. The finger is actually pointing at themselves. Mig21 crashes is because, its life is out! well known. Who is to blame for 15 years of MMRCA selection process? LCA team? Who is to blame for changing T:W for Kaveri, LCA team? part yes, and part is IAF.

One has to engineer such products and not take things at buyer-purchase relationship to realize the failure aspects. For better visibility of failures, IAF should put a decision tree and look where it stands.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

eklavya wrote:
All this light, medium, heavy distinction is being made up as theory to fit the facts.
I see, because it contradicts whatever claims you made?

I'd rather go with what the IAF itself classifies these platforms as:

VCAS Interview - We Want a Judicious Mix of Medium, Heavy, Light Fighters
http://spsaviation.net/story_issue.asp?Article=323

This is but one of many references to how the IAF classifies its platforms as.
A better categorisation will be affordable, expensive, nosebleed expensive.

When the IAF acquired the Su-30 (heavy) in the mid-90s, the aircraft they actually wanted (capability, reliability, proven, etc) was the single-engine Dash-5 (medium). But the Dash-5 (nosebleed expensive at the time) cost 2x the Su-30 (expensive), budget was tight (the economy was one-fourth the size of what it is today), and the government went for the cheaper (but heavier!) option.
The Su-30 was not chosen merely on cost grounds, but also because it was accurately assessed as being made into something capable of more, on the basis of upgrades. Otherwise, it would never have been acquired.
The MiG-21s (light) were always intended to be replaced by the LCA (light). The reality is that as MiG-21 (light) squadrons retire, they are being replaced by Su-30 MKI (heavy). That is because that is what is available, not because of some grand weight balance theory.

If the LCA meeting its specs were available, IAF would happily induct 350 of them, and upgrade them over time with AESA, etc, but since they are not, alternatives are being sought (in all weight categories).
This is wrong, because the IAF will never "happily induct" 350 LCAs simply because it no longer intends to have 350 light combat aircraft. It would rather have a mix of more HCA and MCA than the light aircraft. The ship for the IAF being a light fighter force sailed a long time back, with the PLAAF acquiring more and more Su's and also J-10s.
The MMRCA saga started as the MRCA (i.e. simply multi role). This was also in response to the fact that the LCA was going to be further delayed. Once again, the IAF wanted the single-engine Dash-5 (by now, with the economy several times larger than in the mid-90s, it was merely "expensive"). But Dassault closed down the Dash-5 production line, and by default the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-18SH, etc. entered the competition. With F-18SH in the fray, there was never any relevance to the Medium in MMRCA.
Again, no. The IAF did want the Mirage 2000-5 but the competition was launched not because of some default issue, but because the CAG correctly pointed out that the then DPP was against single vendor deals.

By IAF classification, the Mirage does come under the Medium weight category. The heavy category is where the Su-30 fits in which is why no F-15 or Su-35s were offered by the Russians and Americans either.
The economy had reached a state where "nosebleed expensive" options like the Rafale and the Eurofighter were now on the table. Perhaps the threat perception has evolved to a point where the combination of AESA, SPECTRA and METEOR is considered indispensable to keep the PLAAF Su-30 hordes at bay.
The PLAAF has only a few Su-30s. The vast majority of their Flankers are single engined Su-27 variants. Nosebleed options as you put them are a necessity, because the IAF is outnumbered. In a two front war scenario, it needs the edge technology provides.
I still wonder if the F-18SH with its AESA and AMRAAM would not have done the job more cheaply instead, but it seems that "nothing but the best" is what is required to deter the PLAAF.
The F-18 comes with performance restrictions thanks to its carrier heritage, has limited performance in high speed configurations (for which Boeing offered the unproven excess thrust engine option) and also, the technology transfer aspects were another consideration.
AMRAAM is outranged by Meteor, provided India acquires the Meteor.
Even if Su-30 MKI is heavy and Rafale is medium, the Rafale is superior to the Su-30 MKI in every respect: range, payload, radar, missile, smart bombs, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, air-to-air and air-to-ground. It is truly omnirole, but it is also undeniably nosebleed expensive.
This is wrong, because there are several aspects to the Su-30 MKI that make it competitive to both the current Rafale & also the one that we will eventually acquire. In terms of payload & range, the Su-30 MKI compares equitably, despite not carrying external fuel. In terms of smart munitions, the Su-30 MKI is arguably ahead at this point of time, as it carries ARMs (the Rafale does not have any), LGBs (both have them), long range strike (the Su-30 MKI has the Kh-59, the Rafale has Scalp - but the MKI is slated to receive the Brahmos). In BVR, the SU-30 has the RVV-AE which outranges the Mica (and the Meteor is yet to be integrated fully on the Rafale), but the Mica comes in an IR variant as well. In terms of recce & sensors, the Su-30 is ahead of the Rafale since it comes with both the conventional FLIR/LDP but also long range SAR sensors (EL/M-2060) which is already integrated on the platform. In terms of the radar, the N011M PESA outranges & outperforms the RBE-2 PESA, and compares well with even the RBE-2 AESA variant, by virtue of plain physics. At a 1 mtr dia antenna, the radar has a significant advantage over the smaller nosed radar, which suffers from power aperture product limitations (the Rafales antenna is in the 600 mm dia range, the one area where the platform design is clearly limited). In terms of EW- the Spectra is clearly ahead in terms of being an integrated suite, but the Super-30 upgrade shows two heavy duty jammers on the Su30 MKI wingtips (as evident in a DARE display) & the upgrades to all the other systems - radar, avionics, weapons will keep it competitive.
126 or 189 Rafale will provide the IAF with genuine deterrent capacity against the hordes of PLAAF Su-30s, and in that respect it has perhaps become a necessity in its own right, but we should not forget that the whole saga started with dwIndling squadrons numbers, MiG-21 getting very long in the tooth, LCA not close to being inducted, and therefore the request for Dash 5. Well, the IAF got the Dash 5 "in the end", its called the Mirage 2000 upgrade (which arguably is also "nosebleed expensive" with one nostril, whereas the Rafale is a two nostril nosebleed).
I have no idea what you are going on about here, because one way or the other the IAF is going to go for more expensive platforms. And the FGFA is going to be far more expensive than the Rafale as well.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

a lot depends on astra, astra2 and the r73 and r77 successors being worked on for the pakfa. for sure these two will be backward compatible with bars and irbis.

we needed them yesterday.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

The missile status isnt that bad. The r77 with its issues worked out is a decent ARH. Similarly R73E with Sura and TVC is deadly. Astra feature set now extends from quasi CCM to BVR and includes 3rd party desig and some nifty features. True the meteor if it isnt jammed is a game changer but once LRSAM is done expect its tech to find its way to Astra or similar programs- the dual thrust motor in specific.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Sagar G »

LCA is already successful for me given the sheer amount of Khujli it generates among different organizations and individuals. Arunachalam was right on the dot about this being a season for DRDO bashing.
Karan M wrote:The missile status isnt that bad. The r77 with its issues worked out is a decent ARH. Similarly R73E with Sura and TVC is deadly. Astra feature set now extends from quasi CCM to BVR and includes 3rd party desig and some nifty features. True the meteor if it isnt jammed is a game changer but once LRSAM is done expect its tech to find its way to Astra or similar programs- the dual thrust motor in specific.
3rd party is indigenous or foreign ???
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Karan M wrote: This is wrong, because there are several aspects to the Su-30 MKI that make it competitive to both the current Rafale & also the one that we will eventually acquire. In terms of payload & range, the Su-30 MKI compares equitably, despite not carrying external fuel. In terms of smart munitions, the Su-30 MKI is arguably ahead at this point of time, as it carries ARMs (the Rafale does not have any), LGBs (both have them), long range strike (the Su-30 MKI has the Kh-59, the Rafale has Scalp - but the MKI is slated to receive the Brahmos). In BVR, the SU-30 has the RVV-AE which outranges the Mica (and the Meteor is yet to be integrated fully on the Rafale), but the Mica comes in an IR variant as well. In terms of recce & sensors, the Su-30 is ahead of the Rafale since it comes with both the conventional FLIR/LDP but also long range SAR sensors (EL/M-2060) which is already integrated on the platform. In terms of the radar, the N011M PESA outranges & outperforms the RBE-2 PESA, and compares well with even the RBE-2 AESA variant, by virtue of plain physics. At a 1 mtr dia antenna, the radar has a significant advantage over the smaller nosed radar, which suffers from power aperture product limitations (the Rafales antenna is in the 600 mm dia range, the one area where the platform design is clearly limited). In terms of EW- the Spectra is clearly ahead in terms of being an integrated suite, but the Super-30 upgrade shows two heavy duty jammers on the Su30 MKI wingtips (as evident in a DARE display) & the upgrades to all the other systems - radar, avionics, weapons will keep it competitive.
Radar Cross Section. Factor into your response, and try again.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Sagar G »

eklavya wrote:Radar Cross Section. Factor into your response, and try again.
I don't know the exact RCS figures of both the fighters but let's just assume that Su-30 MKI has a bigger RCS than Rafale. So according to you because of that Su-30 MKI is an easy kill ???
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Sagar G wrote:
eklavya wrote:Radar Cross Section. Factor into your response, and try again.
I don't know the exact RCS figures of both the fighters but let's just assume that Su-30 MKI has a bigger RCS than Rafale. So according to you because of that Su-30 MKI is an easy kill ???
AESA radar, SPECTRA electronic warfare system, METEOR missile, significantly lower RCS => Rafale superiority
Post Reply