LCA News and Discussions

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2013 22:02

IAF might have similar experiences that feeds their skepticism.

We dont know.
We get flashes in complaints about fuzes that malfunction.
Ordnance that doesnt get made by OFB.
Complaints about projects suddenly proposed to stall an acquisition and non delivery or delayed miletones leading ot acquistion at higher prices.
Non appearance of important ordnance specifcially tasked by IAF as high priority.

Also we don't know IAF has not made the effort to work the issues.

In the tkstales account one big point was the lack of aero engine.

Even now it hasn't materialised with confidence.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 05 Sep 2013 22:19

So what if we haven't tasted success in some of our endeavours, the important thing is to keep trying and try till you taste success. Navy hasn't reached where it is today by walking on a bed of roses had IAF chosen to walk the tough road of indigenization then it wouldn't have been in a position it is in today where it is unnecessarily risking it's men by making them fly in rust buckets.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2013 22:29

Currently threat countering.

IA is first in line
IAF next
IN last.

However Arun Kumar fixed that by the proactive patrols off Karachi during kargil. So even IN wont accept delays.

{Delay is the worst form of denial:Northcote Parkinson}

DRDO mainly talks about futuristic visions.

One should have some near term projects, medium and a few far out projects.

DRDO stance since Arunachalam is get hold of latest services tenders and claim they can do it and lead to essentially force readiness being impacted.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 05 Sep 2013 22:50

Delay in defence R&D happens worldwide it's not an India specific phenomena that's why you must have robust planning so that even if delay happens you have a backup or don't face a crisis situation because of delay. It's also to be noted that almost all of our major defence projects are an India's first kind of stuff hence are bound to take some time but as our industrial base matures these delays will be cut. If you don't even allow our nascent defence industry to take these baby steps then how can you dream of having a robust mil-ind complex (that all the forces guys love to dream off) in the first place ??? Patience is definitely a virtue here.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 05 Sep 2013 23:05

What I got from tks blog comments: It's very commendable to dream of building the Starship Enterprise when we haven't built a basic trainer and to keep trying, trying, trying, trying and trying (ad nauseum) until one succeeds but it is delusional to tie that heroic trying to an urgently needed product within a known time frame that, if absent, will take away the need to try ever again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2013 23:21

could someone point me to the tks blog please?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 05 Sep 2013 23:24

Posted by Sanku above.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 05 Sep 2013 23:35

Sagar G wrote:Navy has been working with DRDO since the 90's to make indigenous torpedoes but has yet to see them getting inducted (other than TAL which has seen some limited induction and it is still being worked on) but they keep silently working in the background supporting the endeavour rather than wasting time in creating a public scene. Take a look at the attitude with which Navy is approaching the LCA naval programme and compare that with that of IAF's. There are many more such examples, so if IN can do it with much less percentage of defence budget why can't the other two forces ??? Beats logic no ???

But the Navy has been getting torpedoes for it's current needs hasn't it ? Do the outdated imported torpedoes kill it's sailors ?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 05 Sep 2013 23:36

NRao wrote:could someone point me to the tks blog please?

http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2012/04/0 ... s-arrives/

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 05 Sep 2013 23:47

KrishnaK wrote:But the Navy has been getting torpedoes for it's current needs hasn't it ?

Yes it does but IN has been wise enough to spend on building capabilities so that in future it doesn't have to look outside to fulfill it's needs.

KrishnaK wrote:Do the outdated imported torpedoes kill it's sailors ?

Pretty recently they did so yes.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 06 Sep 2013 02:36

ramana wrote:Currently threat countering.

IA is first in line
IAF next
IN last.

However Arun Kumar fixed that by the proactive patrols off Karachi during kargil. So even IN wont accept delays.

{Delay is the worst form of denial:Northcote Parkinson}

DRDO mainly talks about futuristic visions.

One should have some near term projects, medium and a few far out projects.

DRDO stance since Arunachalam is get hold of latest services tenders and claim they can do it and lead to essentially force readiness being impacted.

Is it DRDO responsible to defined short, medium and long term project definitions? I guessed it is the MoD and service to accept imperfect stuff and make their hands dirty to make them perfect with continuous improvement then say make these and that improvements then only induct. They try to delay the induction till last problem is fixed but they find work around for imported stuff.

IA is worst, they are ready to accept stuff
- which fails 7 out of 10 times (Javelin) but not a system which fails 3 out of 10 times (Nag). (I know Javelin != Nag, but using it only as an example.)
- which beats their MBT (t-90) but disqualify because Arjun fired while on move. Will IA complain same if Chinese or Paki tanks fired on move?

Same is with IAF but still better then IA
- Ready to induct Su-30 when it was far perfect but not LCA.
- Air Marshal make comments on IOC three legged cheeta.
- Lower condition for Swiss made stuff but not for local maal.

We can't expect rolling out of SP LCA lot, as it has to be IOC-II ready. When we haven't got IOC-2, how we can expect to get planes from HAL?? Even if we get IOC-2 by end of Sept to Dec, HAL or any other company can't deliver planes from thin air the very next day. It will take time to make a complex system after IOC-2 and line will also take time to stabilise. So why this hue and cry when we are about to cross a big mile stone???

Jai ho.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Sep 2013 02:51

there are two factors

1. need based technology research
2. technology based requirements

both complement each other especially when we are establishing certain capabilities that we have not handled earlier. expect a lot mind set change

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 06 Sep 2013 03:00

Sanku wrote:
Why cherry pick, let me add a few more points
3. HAL feels wronged about being asked to play second fiddle to ADA. This pique continues to hurt the project even today.

12. According to me the project can be called a complete success only when the aircraft sees squadron service for a couple of decades. We will have to wait but it is progressing on the right lines and we as a nation have nothing to be ashamed of.

See the silver lining why are you always so negative. And I like a pet line of many posters ... I supports local industry but they can't be trusted, lack of Quality control and can't deliver on time.

Arms suppliers are trustworthy when they jack up prices in middle or delay projects e.g. Russia, Israel etc. or are not able to provide spare parts or support services.
Service and MoD are professional when they can't decide what to buy e.g. MMRCA, Hawk, FMBT (do we have basic requirements, I keep hearing about it since 3-4 years).

Why to pollute this thread, may be better to discuss T-90 Vs Arjun stuff as LCA has no Russian connection. Thx

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 06 Sep 2013 03:34

Wonder how the conversations go in actual power corridors.

My perception is like a feeding frenzy, like a swarm of piranhas attacking a buffalo. Everyone is trying to figure out how much commission is been made and making additional demands using guesswork. What a ruckus!

The Piranhas are the folks in power position (including generals I dare say). The Buffalo is the taxes we pay directly and indirectly !

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 06 Sep 2013 06:46

A number of times it was suggested that HAL has to give asquadron of Tejas to IAF to toy with them
Even as trainer that's fine but all one of a kind with no LISP

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Sep 2013 12:05

IAF is not a fighting force anymore, it is Importing Always force. As soon as the war breaks out the Generals will be running clueless as spare parts supply dries up or perhaps will rather order bigger Swiss lockers for bigger cuts from hiked prices of everything from ammo to adult pampers.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Sep 2013 12:23

vic wrote:IAF is not a fighting force anymore, it is Importing Always force. As soon as the war breaks out the Generals will be running clueless as spare parts supply dries up or perhaps will rather order bigger Swiss lockers for bigger cuts from hiked prices of everything from ammo to adult pampers.

Yup! The only patriots are key-board ninjas like you and the folks at HAL+DRDO+DPSU who but for the shenanigans of the Service guys, would have by now built a MIC paralleling the US.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Sep 2013 13:05

Lalmohan wrote:btw - all aircraft have extensive volumes and volumes of manuals - flight, operations, maintenance, etc., etc., aircraft manufacturers have massive teams preparing these, aircraft operators also have to spend a lot of effort in updating and synchronising these with the OEM (continuous updates are provided) and regulators (continuously changing rules and regulations) and then there are modifications, changes due to modifications... this is not a simple matter of hiring a bunch of grads to write some software user manuals - requires a lot of knowledgeable people in the different parts of the chain to keep the paper work going

Ah.. What is this big deal with manuals and documentations that SDREs need to be bothered about. Why it is a cinch! For eg, I know that T.Nagar Chutney Sambar and Vegetable Oil have sizable technical writing teams as part of their Product Engg offerings . They do work for BoeYing and YairPuss as well, writing all sorts of manuals and stuff for their laytusht offerings like 777, 787 and 340 etc.

I in fact was sitting through a presentation with one of the heads of that group and his eyes lit up when he talked about new model planes. His joy was, that evidently for each model of plane, an equal weight in manuals come along with it ! All work for him.

Now if the ADA/HAL/IAF will sign up with those , you will have 400000 Doos filling out the manuals electronically and within 6 months at max, instead of 6500 tons of paper manual , you will have all the manuals in e-Book format and will be available on tablets to all the maintenance, training and other folks up and down the line (the CoAS will of course will want to manuals for "a glance" since it will come with a tablet

).

All very doable in double quick time. Now if they want to do Baboogiri and call for a "Tender" with "Earnest Money" and want "No Objection Certificates" in triplicate and laminated and whatever and with Natashas wiggling hips in the background.. ie business as usual, then it wont happen.. It is all about, do you want to do it or do you want to politic over it and seek pelf and pleasure.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Sep 2013 13:12

RKumar wrote: Is it DRDO responsible to defined short, medium and long term project definitions? I guessed it is the MoD and service to accept imperfect stuff and make their hands dirty to make them perfect with continuous improvement then say make these and that improvements then only induct. They try to delay the induction till last problem is fixed but they find work around for imported stuff.

These are all very nice and dandy comments which can be made when you don't have the responsibility to maintain a force uptill an optimal level and be ready to fight a conflict. There is no skin of anyone's back if LCA gets dragged or misses a deadline or WLR do not materialize for donkey years or soliders die because barells bursts during exercises. And these are not rhetorical arguments but reality which people on this board simply do not want to answer.

To the above, add the situation where the armed forces are trying to make up for both the short-fall in the equipment level as well induct and absorb new technologies and weapon-systems.

If you really want to see the dilemma of the forces, please take a step back into 80s.

If you see the evolution of Services in terms of equipment, the need for equipment profile started to undergo generational shift was felt by late 70s. The old warhorses were at the fag end of their service life and technology in the interim period was moving to the next level.

Services saw the induction of newer systems indicative of latest technology in the 80s - IA got the Bofors and T-72 and BMP-1/2 while IAF inducted the Jaguar, Mig-29 and Mirage and IL-76. IA drafted the Army Plan 2020 whereby IA was to be equipped with 4 x Armored Divisions, 7 x Mechanized Divisions, 4 x RAPID and 10 Mountain Divisions. IAF had given its thumbs-up for higher induction of Mirage-2000. Plus, it was a looking forward to a replacement of Mig-21 which was expected to retire by at the turn of the century.

But then came the economic crisis and the so called lost decade of 90s. And the modernization of the Services was stuck for the last of funds. Had this not happened, a generational shift in the equipment profile of the Services would have happened by end of last Century. And Services would have been on a more strong footing in terms of technology as well the quantum of equipment held.

The exigency of requirement acoss the Services needs to be understood from this perspective. We're in a midst of a situation where Services have inducted or will be inducting weapon systems 2 to 2.5 generations ahead of present holding. The typical games which get played at MOD level further add to the mess.

Given the evolutionary stage of our MIC, there is no way they can keep pace with the requirement of Services. Services are trying to make up for the short-fall as well as the change in technology that has happened in the intervening period between 80s and start of this Century. That is why the MIC needs to prioritize the focus areas - where the development timeline and technology does not compromise the requipment and modernization phase of the Services - Services have emerged from an acute shortage of almost everything and the requipment process cannot be held hostage to development timeline of domestic products.

Cases where the Services have a buffer in terms of quantum, life and technology of existing equipment are best cases to start development of next generation domestic products - Second case is a situation where a completely new system is being development, which was not even part of the holding of the Services. Nag is one such system whose development timeline does not impinge on the operation status of the IA.

Take for example the IJT - IAF was pretty exited about the project. And we were developing something well within the timeline required - IAF had sufficient amount of Kiran MK2 with requisite life. But look where we are today - we've pushed the IAF to the wall. Kirans need to be replaced in near future and IAF will be forced to look for an alternate - either more PC-7Mk2 or even imported IJT or simply more AJT. Similarly, the WLR were imported from USA in 2002 and this gave sufficient timeline for DRDO (between 2002 and 2008) to develop the domestic version of which 28 are on firm order. And number will see an increase to 60 IMO.

LCA received the flak because both the requipment and modernization of the force is held up because of the program delays - IAF mitigated against this risk by going for the Bison upgrade but even those are now proving to be insufficient. Even on this board people have advocated purchase of second hand M2K-5 from across the world to beef up the squadron strength. If we do, shoudn't that cost be added to the program cost of LCA?

IA wanted to import artillery guns because that was the fastest way of making up for the technological obsolescence - just imagine if Bofors would have been inducted in required quantity in late 80s - by turn of this century, DRDO could have been mandated to develop a replacement system over 8-10 year period w/o affecting the warfighting capability of the IA. Those who accuse IA of sticking to foreing purchase inspite of repeated scrapping of the trials is that even with 2-3 rounds of scrapping, foreign purchase was the shortest route to induct guns.

If someone is emanciated and hungry, you cannot ask him to wait for sowing of crops, harvesting, processing and then cooking of meal to feed himself. He needs to be fed immediately and if that be through import of food, so be it. In due course of time, he will reach a stage where he can wait for domestic crops to mature and feed him.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Sep 2013 14:03

This has always been my favourite thread or should I say was?

I am in love with the LCA, because in spite of our gaming theories (or should I say blaming theories), I have been spoilt by living in Bangalore, where I keep seeing that fabulous delta silhouette and the sexy thunderous roar of the engine. And have shared the luncheon table with great test pilots and Dr. KH himself, many a time. And got pissed in a bar with a retired LCA test pilot who was involved in weapons testing on the LCA. He kept sober!

I have been associated with the IAF, HAL, AI and IA. from since I was a kid. I do respect what posters have written above, but guess what?

The malaise affecting us goes deeper. it starts from the top and spreads its tentacle across all boundaries of various public and even private sector companies. As an Indian, I used to be proud to have my gora guests fly AI. In country, in those days, IA was the only choice. See where those two companies have gone!

To me, whatever reams have been written about the delays, excuses, blame theories, affecting the LCA, I apportion blame to all the parties involved.

Taking aside the delays and heartburn caused by sanctions and manipulations of 'friendly" countries partnering us in defense! And leaving aside the people, both young and old, who are working with a zeal in respect for their love for Bharat Mata and still soldiering on.

As for the "lack of manuals", I can assure you that before one of the PV or LSP a/c take off there is a checklist which is followed! No one gets so far with over 2,300 flights without mishap, using chewing gum as glue!

Manuals in aircraft are living documents. And with a smatter of LCAs being flown, each at a different engineering levels; each platform being used to test different aspects; a comprehensive manual can come only when serial production starts. The inputs to such manuals will have to also broadly stae what level/category of maintenance can be carried out at field, depot and factory level. And not only manuals but quite a few tools used in the assembly process be distributed to locations dependent on the category of repair that the location can carry out.

And fine tune it so as to ensure minimum turn around time. To that extent the IAF techs and ops will also have to be involved.

So I do not know why we SDRE's are suffering so much heartburn over it. HAL will have to depute some of their own technicians at Sulur when the first few a/c will be prepared for FOC for an initial period.

Shanti, my fellow posters. She (the LCA not Shanti) is ultimately going to be a kick ass machine. Then watch how many fathers will claim to be hers.

Just my 2cents and no intent to contradict other posters.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Sep 2013 18:02

Please note, those who ask for things under LCA banner, are also doing so with good intention. The way they say it is however little demeaning. so, it is essential that we pool in their complaints and convert them into essential discussion points, and not engage in a flare up between taking sides like the user and developer. only a collaboration can get LCA into numbers. In the LCA mk2 program charter, they should specify this collaboration as mission statement.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Sep 2013 18:33

I think the last several posts have been very well said.We now need to be patriotic Indians,visionary like the Chinese and practice the work ethic of the Germans.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2013 18:57

it starts from the top and spreads its tentacle across all boundaries of various public and even private sector companies

This !!!!

And:

1) The simple fact that India has had an underground economy for some 50 years (I am not too sure about the %ages, but I wonder how many Indian homes come without an under the table dealing), which I am told today is around 1 (above): 3 (below) say it all. And, more importantly

2) One very important component to the above quoted list is missing: Foreigners have been instrumental in keeping this situ going. No brownie points for which country is the most instrumental - just look at the %age of imports by nation. enough said.

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 06 Sep 2013 19:12

No vision from leadership
Skewed education priorities
Rotten. Industrial policies
General lack of understanding of India and its potential
Biggest culprits the media buffoons who don't know the connection between independence and defense preparedness also
Vision
Strategy
National identity
National pride
Nations role in global affairs
Know about defense equipment more importantly the service rendered by ranks in thick of action

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Sep 2013 19:49

RKumar wrote:
Is it DRDO responsible to defined short, medium and long term project definitions?

Yes absolutely.

I guessed it is the MoD and service to accept imperfect stuff and make their hands dirty to make them perfect with continuous improvement then say make these and that improvements then only induct.

MoD is the parent organization of DRDO. What do you mean that MoD has to accept x, y, z. DRDO is part of MoD.

And there is a level of imperfection we are talking about. It is one thing to tighten a bolt on a car, and another thing to be given a car to assemble it yourself.

It can not be brushed under the carpet as a single "an imperfection is an imperfection is an imperfection" type of blanket excuses I am afraid. People who get to live or die with it should at least get to speak their mind, even if the civvies dont listen to them most of the time.

We can't expect rolling out of SP LCA lot, as it has to be IOC-II ready. When we haven't got IOC-2, how we can expect to get planes from HAL?? Even if we get IOC-2 by end of Sept to Dec, HAL or any other company can't deliver planes from thin air the very next day. It will take time to make a complex system after IOC-2 and line will also take time to stabilise. So why this hue and cry when we are about to cross a big mile stone???

Jai ho.

Because the big mile stone is getting unacceptably delayed. The rate at which HAL is going around making it, it is any ones guess when a meaningful number will be available. And all the "oh LCA is a complex system" makes no sense in the given context. What is HAL? A cycle repair shop? Or a Maharatna or what not? What should be the expectations from HAL, the concept of concurrent engineering is not really a big secret.

Even ADA folks said that HAL was not prepared to manufacture the a/c. Why is that anyone else failure but HALs?

saps · Post by **saps** » 06 Sep 2013 20:15

Sanku wrote:Because the big mile stone is getting unacceptably delayed. The rate at which HAL is going around making it, it is any ones guess when a meaningful number will be available. And all the "oh LCA is a complex system" makes no sense in the given context. What is HAL? A cycle repair shop? Or a Maharatna or what not? What should be the expectations from HAL, the concept of concurrent engineering is not really a big secret.

Even ADA folks said that HAL was not prepared to manufacture the a/c. Why is that anyone else failure but HALs?

Gentlemen, I would request the learned lot to point me towards simple things.. (this would put things in perspective i guess for me as well)

1. Indian designed CMDS
2. Home designed A-A gun
3. Indigenous EW pod
4. Except (LCA) own designed nav attack system
5. Reliable RWR
6. If i stand correct; even the tyres in Bison were still being imported few yrs back.

So, i guess we need to deliver first before seeking credit..AFAIK...there are none reliable EW or survival equipment produced in house till now... We have a long way to go...

"Jugat Lagani Hogi" as it used to come in DD Tv some time back.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2013 21:04

^^^^^

We are going in terrible circles, shooting ourselves in the foot.

Indigenous has never meant that everything would be made in-house. That, plain simple, cannot happen. Some for technical reasons and others for economical (political and corruption are not included). So, asking for such details will not make too much sense, unless of course you want to beat up on someone for the sake of beating up.

There is no doubt that we ALL would have liked the LCA (and others) to come in a decade prior, etc and by now have the 5th or 6th MK of it too. But, inspite of it being "late" the fact remains that India has a good toe hold in the field. Yes, the LCA to many nations it is a very slow product to make it to the market, but it is not so late for India. It is the very first near complete attempt for India and has not really taken that long to come to market - check out F-35 and PAK-FA. Any leading edge takes time (PAK-FA engine) and failures are bound to arise (MiG-35). But, the LCA could have come much earlier if India had done a few things the way they should have been done - granted.

Would love to see the LCA in IAF colors in a few months. What I am hoping for is a real large order for them as well as Arjuns. Then on to the AMCA.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 06 Sep 2013 21:37

Just had a message, to build the composite skins of LCA, most likely its the autoclaves that are employed like the example link shown below, if they generate electronic reports on the temperature, pressure etc parameters against time directly from the autoclave's control system for each production batch, have the e-report reviewed by end user auditors from IAF, from design agency ADA/DRDO and MoD/CAG for compliance and review any red flags before the batch is accepted by them, wouldn't it improve the transparency on the part of HAL as far as QC is concerned? This is much like patient monitoring systems used in healthcare.

INDIA SHINING | NAL to unveil desi lab scale autoclave for IIT-K | Product to mitigate imports | MIT, VSSC ready with orders

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Sep 2013 21:45

Keyboard ninjas like us Are patriots compared to Generals who sit in Poland collecting bribes when war breaks out or Chiefs peddling Swiss junk.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2013 22:26

saps wrote: Gentlemen, I would request the learned lot to point me towards simple things.. (this would put things in perspective i guess for me as well)

Did you even google? Seriously.

Try it out.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Sep 2013 22:55

Sanku wrote: As before Karan, personal attacks can not substitute for meat on the topic,

Which explains your record on the forum, eh? Your vast history of "meat on the topic"

and being factually correct.

Get your english correct..."factually correct"...could just have posted factual.. you don't even understand the terms you throw around in your verbose attempt to appear very knowledgeable.

Kindly stay on the topic and offer meaningful content instead of vitriol.

Take a quick look at the forum and lets have a poll as to who offers meaningful content and who deserves the vitriol. You have been tagged by enough posters for posting nonsense, and peddling nonsense. While you think you are some Oracle who must be heard..

I will be happy to engage when there is content which can be discussed.

Au contraire, no body wants to engage you. We'd rather wish that you slunk off to some cesspool which would be honored to have you, instead of you reducing BRF to one..

Stop responding to my posts, "Sanku" and I wont have to "engage" you. Understood?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 06 Sep 2013 23:25

Sagar G wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:But the Navy has been getting torpedoes for it's current needs hasn't it ?
Yes it does but IN has been wise enough to spend on building capabilities so that in future it doesn't have to look outside to fulfill it's needs.

KrishnaK wrote:Do the outdated imported torpedoes kill it's sailors ?
Pretty recently they did so yes.

Quite untrue, nobody knows what happened. As far as building capabilities, rohitvats' post below explains it far better than I would ever be able to. Sufficient numbers were imported to allow for a long development period.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 06 Sep 2013 23:50

KrishnaK wrote:Quite untrue, nobody knows what happened.

Most probable cause given what has been reported.

KrishnaK wrote:Sufficient numbers were imported to allow for a long development period.

Yeah so what's your point ???

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 Sep 2013 23:57

rohitvats wrote:... Those who accuse IA of sticking to foreing purchase inspite of repeated scrapping of the trials is that even with 2-3 rounds of scrapping, foreign purchase was the shortest route to induct guns.

In reality this just isn't true. Our foreign arms purchase process is so treacherous and unpredictable that a lot of them have not produced any results even after dragging on for 10+ years in multiple iterations. The slightest allegation of an impropriety however legitimate is enough to derail the entire process. A lot of the ones that go through are because of kick-backs or are political decisions. Compare this to how 1000's were allocated to successful indigenous programs like the Akash, Dhruv once they cleared by the Forces. No controversies, no delays. And inducting a system early even with a few shortcomings means a faster maturing of the system and greater rate of induction.
But the IAF would have our fighter pilots fly the obsolete and unsafe Mig 21s and 27s for many more years while they wait for the uber Rafale rather than order large number of LCAs. The IA could have asked the DRDO for a Bofors clone and it would have been ready years ago. But they'd rather have no guns than local ones. Its not the duty of the Military to try and get the best possible stuff out there but to make the best of the situation. Its quite clear that supporting indigenous systems actually means a better armed military even if the arms itself may not be the best. They should have learnt this by now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2013 00:01

................foreign purchase was the shortest route to induct guns .............

As important as that point is, it should not be the focus. The focus has to be on building that shortest route in-house and the IA has to play its role in order to get it done no matter what. And, I feel that the future is very promising.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2013 00:12

saps wrote:Gentlemen, I would request the learned lot to point me towards simple things.. (this would put things in perspective i guess for me as well)

1. Indian designed CMDS

In production at BDL for Jaguars and to be adopted fleet wide.

2. Home designed A-A gun

IAF hasn't projected a need for one. We currently using Gsh series items.

3. Indigenous EW pod

Gen1 pod, produced & adopted in service for MiG-23BNs. Also upgraded later.
Gen2 pod; "Tusker", used by MiG-27s, ordered by IAF.
Gen3 SPJ: Internal & podded - EWSFA - in production for MiG-27 and LCA. Variant on MiG-29, albeit with higher power AESA jammers codeveloped with Elettronica. Can be adapted for other aircraft as well - eg Su-30, Jaguar etc.
Other items in development..

4. Except (LCA) own designed nav attack system

What do you mean "except LCA" - India's first "own nav attack system" was the one configured on DARIN-1, designed inhouse. It used french INS, but the system architecture had Indian contribution.

Anyways, a full blown nav-attack system consists of mission computing & a nav system - not considering advanced sensors like radars and LDPs and keeping it per strike aircraft.

The RCI has developed a local RLG-INS/satellite navigation system, which is to be used across the LCA, Sukhoi and other aircraft. This is now being used (variants) across our missile (Agni, BMD, SLBM etc) and naval programs.

HAL already builds regular INS for missiles like the Prithvi.

Even otherwise, our current nav-attack suites are "hybrid", they use local mission computing plus imported/license assembled INS/RGL-INS suites.

As regards Mission Computing:
MC on first bunch of LCAs using 386 and 486 chips
then MC1 on MiG-27/Jag upgrades and Su-30 MKI (MC-486 for Su-30 as part of Project Vetrivale)
then OAC on LCA Production Variants (combines mission computing, display processing, video switching and mission prep and retrieval unit)
Advanced IMA on LCA MK2 and Su-30 MKI Upgrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated ... r_avionics)

also HAL OSAMC (similar to LCA OAC, but developed separately) for Jaguar Upgrade (DARIN-3)

5. Reliable RWR

Tranquil on MiG-23BN
then, Tarang series on various aircraft (MK1, MK1B, MK2)
then, R118 (better sensitivity, more reliable, much more compact)
then, Eagle Eye (improved R118 for Su-30 MKI) and also EWSFA (combined RWR & SPJ)

6. If i stand correct; even the tyres in Bison were still being imported few yrs back.

MRF
http://www.mydigitalfc.com/news/mrf-for ... -tyres-069

So, i guess we need to deliver first before seeking credit..AFAIK...there are none reliable EW or survival equipment produced in house till now... We have a long way to go...

Wrong on many counts.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 07 Sep 2013 10:53

KaranM,

In production at BDL for Jaguars and to be adopted fleet wide.

LCA 1 already sports it. ofc serial prod for it only will happen when serial prod of LCA starts. BDL CMDS trials were conducted on the MI 17 helis in sept 2012 and was satisfactory. probably in production now(!). trials were on for the other fleets.

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

is 'SIVA' pod still in use or replaced??

is the 'Mayawi' EW (with israel) which was being talked about years back on or dropped?? also EADS/CASSIDIAN was involved with DARE iirc.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Sep 2013 11:03

rohitvats wrote: IA drafted the Army Plan 2020 whereby IA was to be equipped with 4 x Armored Divisions, 7 x Mechanized Divisions, 4 x RAPID and 10 Mountain Divisions.

Rohit haven't seen you writing new articles on you blog since artillery ones. Would be great if you can write a new series detailing the above quote. Thanks!

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 07 Sep 2013 11:16

^^^^^ Oops I wandered into the wrong thread, have I?

Or is the IA substituting its armoured division with the LCA

or does LCA stand for Light Combat Artillery?

so on and so forth.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Sep 2013 12:28

In continuation to Karan's post,here are excerpts about the conclusion of the DARIN project which are informative.

By July 1981, the first set of Jaguar aircraft were allotted to ASTE. The bits and pieces of the INAS also became available to ASTE. The first item to be tested was the COMED which was mounted on an HS748 and was tried out extensively to every one’s delight. It took about one more year for us to complete the static and dynamic rig testing and feel comfortable about commencing flight tests. By this time, Ramu had become due for his promotion to the next rank. In September 1982 he took over as the Commandant of ASTE and Mike McMahon came down to IIO as a Group Captain and took over as MD Operations. The first flight of a DARIN equipped Jaguar took place at ASTE on 17 Dec 1982 with Air Cmde PM Ramachandran at the controls, after a cute little side play about certification for the first flight. The IIO had kept the CRE and the CRI in the loop through out the process of development. BAe had kept their part of the bargain and had signed off the design integrity certificate for the DARIN modification brought about by the IIO. It was expected that the CRE and CRI would play their part and would certify the actual structural modification and the electronic integration brought about over the last 36 months. However, there was a last minute hitch and the certification authority felt disinclined to sign the aircraft off for the test flights. They wanted the aircraft to be formally submitted for their inspection and wanted the working bodies IIO, HAL, ASTE to go over each step of the process with them once again so that they can certify the flights. This would have introduced a delay that would have thrown the production plans completely out of gear. The DARIN team was not willing to accept this disruption. The legal and theoretical positions were re-examined. The aircraft that had been modified belonged to the air force. The actual modification work had been done, under designs cleared by BAe, by ASTE and HAL personnel. It was therefore decided that the PD-IIO will officially clear the design of the modifications for implementations and the chief technical officer of the ASTE will certify airworthiness of the modified aircraft. The aircraft started flying and completed all the tests required uneventfully. When the time came for signing the release to service document after IOC, every authority began jumping for the privilege of signing it. The IIO was however firm. Just as the release for tests had been signed by the PD-IIO, so was the release to service signed off by the PD-IIO. All the customary authorities, CRE, CRI et all were only given the privilege to countersign the document.

Number 14 Squadron IAF was the first squadron to be equipped with the DARIN Jaguar. After its initial work-up when it went to Jamnagar for gunnery assessment the squadron’s average scores were often better that the best shot figures of other Jaguar squadrons. The DARIN had arrived. In 1983 – 84, it was clearly the best INAS in the whole world. All this was achieved within 39 months (instead of 36 months as originally planned) and within the originally sanctioned budget of Rupees twenty Crores with some money to spare. This I think is a unique feat of technical administration that has never been equaled by any other project in India to date.

It shows that we can achieve great results with good leadership,teamwork and support from the top.

A comment from another retd. AM.

J. K. Seth, Air Marshal (retd) on March 10, 2010

This Project was an unprecedented technological challenge of colossal importance which was taken up and executed brilliantly by Tikkoo Sen and his team. It gave an altogether new dimension — as also new-found enthusiasm, confidence and filip — to our country’s hitherto-untapped potential for handling and controlling cutting-edge technologies. Further, it is a rare example of making our Governmental system “deliver” despite its notorious inefficiencies and red-tape.
Tikkoo’s narration is not only very thorough but also very absorbing and flawless in all its details. His only weakness — for which my admiration for him has now increased even more — is his characteristic modesty which has prevented him from fully bringing out the immense personal contribution made by himself in this most successful saga.

PS:Is there any similar material (memoirs) available for the success of the SU-30 MKI.Available info on Project VV isn't as detailed as the DARIN,perhaps because of the sensitivity being our top fighter?