LCA News and Discussions

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Sep 2013 19:29

abhik wrote: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.

Spare the rhetoric - that the acquisition process has been fvcked up over last 10 years to save the halo around someone's head is hind-sight - when MOD wants things to be done, it gets it done in double time. As for domestic R&D - the timelines are anybody's guess.

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.

Order more LCA? Seriously? And what would have ordering more LCA done to anything? Would it have started to fly already of more orders have been placed? Will it suddenly clear IOC-2 and FOC if IAF tomorrow places order for 150 aircraft?

The fact is this - those unsafe Mig-21 and Mig-27 are in IAF inventory because DRDO has repeatedly failed in all its deadline. And unlike DRDO and DPSU where there is no skin off anyone's back if deadlines are missed, IAF has a job to do. And it will make do with whatever it has. So, stop making these nonsensical arguments.

The IA could have asked the DRDO for a Bofors clone and it would have been ready years ago.

And how do you know this? Talk is cheap, and easy.

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.

That would have been learnt by now if DRDO and others had not so gloriously fvcked up by now on timelines for almost everything. It takes two to tango - and now both are getting their acts together. These 'he-said-so, she-said-so' arguments are useless and pointless.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Sep 2013 20:19

Giving a large firm order for the Mk1 today can mean the difference between say a 100 LCAs being in service by 2020 and having only 40. It can have a direct bearing on the IAFs fighting strength.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2013 21:14

pragnya wrote:is 'SIVA' pod still in use or replaced??

SIVA is just the name of the pod, as I recall. Its a modular pod that can be used for various applications. ESM, EW etc depending on what elecronics you fit in it. Currently its used for High Accuracy Direction Finding (HADF) for the Su-30 MKI. These are used by the IAF Su-30 MKIs to cue their Kh-31P ARMs and for electronic surveillance. Our MKIs have the local Tarang RWR (being replaced by R118) and hence use this pod for cueing. Standard Russian Flankers come with the Pastel RWR with integrated ARM cueing, but are less accurate and over range, the errors add up reducing missile effectiveness.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... va-pod.jpg

Another pod unveiled at the show was the Indian SIVA Electronic Support System, developed by the Indian Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE). The pod weighs 100 kg can be carried by the Su-30 aircraft on standard rocket attachment point and is interfacing with the aircraft radar warning systems and avionics. The pod covers a forward arc of 60 degrees and provides target accuracy of 1-2 RMS. The SIVA pod will enable the Indian Air Force to conduct electronic reconnaissance missions and support air defense suppression missions by providing accurate targeting for radar suppression missiles and other guided weapons.

http://defense-update.com/events/2008/s ... radars.htm

is the 'Mayawi' EW (with israel) which was being talked about years back on or dropped??

That was misinfo spread by Defense news. The truth is that DARE has developed its own inhouse ESM/EW controller suite, which can direct a variety of jammer types. For the LCA, this suite is combined with transmitters with consultancy from Elisra. The production has commenced in India as I recall. It will be on MK2 and a LCA proto is being used for tests. MiG-27 Upgs will also be fitted with it (2 squadrons).
http://www.spsaviation.net/news/?id=288 ... -Bengaluru
A variant for the MiG-29s has also been developed. The jamming suite for the MiG-29s is AESA and codeveloped with Elettronica based on their Virgilius design. An even more advanced ESM suite is on the CABS AEW&C.

also EADS/CASSIDIAN was involved with DARE iirc.

Developed a Missile Warner based on an EADS design, for helicopters and slow moving aircraft.
http://www.cassidian.com/web/guest/milds-an/aar-601

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 07 Sep 2013 21:42

Thanks karan

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Sep 2013 11:23

Karan

Is DRDO working on DIRCM and towed decoys?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 08 Sep 2013 19:03

thanks KaranM,

The truth is that DARE has developed its own inhouse ESM/EW controller suite, which can direct a variety of jammer types. For the LCA, this suite is combined with transmitters with consultancy from Elisra. The production has commenced in India as I recall.

are you referring to this -

It will be on MK2 and a LCA proto is being used for tests. MiG-27 Upgs will also be fitted with it (2 squadrons).

why not on LCA 1 if in production?? internal space constraints??

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2013 19:25

abhik wrote:Giving a large firm order for the Mk1 today can mean the difference between say a 100 LCAs being in service by 2020 and having only 40. It can have a direct bearing on the IAFs fighting strength.

How?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Sep 2013 20:38

pragnya wrote:thanks KaranM,

The truth is that DARE has developed its own inhouse ESM/EW controller suite, which can direct a variety of jammer types. For the LCA, this suite is combined with transmitters with consultancy from Elisra. The production has commenced in India as I recall.
are you referring to this -

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwHf70wl1x8/T ... 1+LCA+.jpg

It will be on MK2 and a LCA proto is being used for tests. MiG-27 Upgs will also be fitted with it (2 squadrons).
why not on LCA 1 if in production?? internal space constraints??

Yes, thats the one. The receive antenna, and the UREP (Unified Receiver Exciter Processor) are the parts which can be combined with a variety of Tx options.

You can search under my posts and you will find the MiG-27 trials testbed as well. I had surmised, thanks to the extra antenna on it that it was deploying a new EW fit, tying it in with then press reports, and later MOD reports confirmed it.

Its not on LCA 1 because its a later change from the IAF, they will have to move around existing gear to accommodate. Currently, MK1 has a 8th (special) pylon meant to carry external SPJ or LDP. In all likelihood the lightweight El/l8222 which are being used on the Bisons as well, but use one up of the scarce 4 wing pylons on the MiG-21.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Sep 2013 20:56

Note jammer on Bison:

http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory. ... 771-01.jpg

LCA 8th pylon (on MK1): 200 kg
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2928/404 ... 408412.jpg

Cutaway, would be instead of the LDP
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4035/escaneo001.jpg

Note: EL/L-8222 is deemed sufficient to protect the Israeli AF F-15s, and is a more advanced version of the earlier 8212.
http://theaviationist.com/tag/ell-8222/

Dealing with the F-16Bs Netz of the Nevatim-based 116 Sqn and 140 Sqn, besides the chaff and flares dispensers among the ventral fins (see also: http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2010/11/30 ... ng-detail/) they operated with an EL/L-8212 self-protection jamming pod underneath the starboard wing. A similar pod, the EL/L-8222 self-protection jamming pod, was instead carried by the F-15Ds Baz of the 106 Sqn based at Tel Nof.

Clearly a reason why we chose it for our Su-30 MKIs as well.

Basically, the jamming is expected to mitigate against RCS hot spots and prevent FCR lockon.

Now this pod with the small and low RCS Bison/LCA would mean a pretty tough combo to beat. Note that despite all his chest thumping, Fornof of the USAF gave away some valuable snippets during his talk a) the turn rates of the F22 and that it was vulnerable in post stall (mixed both up with the Su-30 and this became clear once IAF released its unofficial rebuttal) and b) that the USAF F-16s had a very tough time with the Bison (Israeli jammers on the Mig21).

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Sep 2013 12:49

There will never be large order for anything Indian by military. The contract for second batch of LCA mark-1 out of 40 has still not been signed and order for 144, 155mm howitzers is also only an intent and still not a formal contract. Nag order is also not placed while PRAHAAR is not even being seriuosly considered. Delay and procastinate is the policy of military. I wonder whether any Chief has written a letter to support any indigenous product like the support given to Swiss junk.

saps · Post by **saps** » 09 Sep 2013 15:55

vic wrote:Delay and procastinate is the policy of military. I wonder whether any Chief has written a letter to support any indigenous product like the support given to Swiss junk.

Well what do you expect him to do, stop his production line (rookie training) or pause undertaking air maintenance mission.

Yes; he can definitely curtail flying hrs on existing airframes so that life can be extended further. Guess that's what been happening most often; or else how come we are still flying machines likely to be eased out yesterday.

None of us do the JOB he's got to do; so lets leave him out of this flared up patriotism.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2013 15:58

are strategic thinking part of their job descriptions? may be the answers lies there. the structure under which men and materials are put is important to set on the table when we point fingers.

saps · Post by **saps** » 09 Sep 2013 16:07

SaiK wrote:are strategic thinking part of their job descriptions? may be the answers lies there. the structure under which men and materials are put is important to set on the table when we point fingers.

Lets not fool ourself; he has no say. Do you think all that is thought of strategically is taken cognizance of. We are not like our friendly neighborhood where-in strategic capability is understood in absolute terms. They have their share of issues; however any co relation of acquisitions and capability points directly to the access to wish list.

Guess in our case its the MOD's babu who has ultimate string of strategy in hand. Its his note which counts; no chiefs remarks or wish list. My two cents, open to schooling.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2013 16:36

now you are opening up the loop holes.. and that is where we need plugs.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 09 Sep 2013 16:44

A post in off topic thread to note.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2013 17:48

Rajan sir, my pleasure.

vic wrote:Karan

Is DRDO working on DIRCM and towed decoys?

Yes, both projects are being led by DARE. First is more public than the second. There was a RFI out for cooperation on the second, but details have been scarce thereafter. DARE tends to be very PR shy, so there is a good chance even the towed decoy project is going on.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2013 18:01

vic wrote:There will never be large order for anything Indian by military. The contract for second batch of LCA mark-1 out of 40 has still not been signed and order for 144, 155mm howitzers is also only an intent and still not a formal contract. Nag order is also not placed while PRAHAAR is not even being seriuosly considered. Delay and procastinate is the policy of military. I wonder whether any Chief has written a letter to support any indigenous product like the support given to Swiss junk.

I would say the Akash, assorted radar success, EW programs across all three services, sonars, Pinaka are all examples of large scale production subject to services ORBAT requirements. So it's not as if services do not order.

Prahaar is now stated to be a Prithvi replacement. DRDO will likely conduct a few more trials and transition. Good news for AAD production too, as cost will be amortised. Nag issue with seeker was holding things up, let's see how things turn out now its resolved. Namica may require some fine tuning. As regards artillery, that is yes, a clear goof up by Army, but if OFB gun proves reliable in service, the Army will order more. The services may still have a bias towards imported, "easier" acquisitions which come with ready made products or claim to, but its not all black and white and there have been significant orders placed for local gear.

We also need to have a wider product mix. The big challenge is that most of the heavy lifting continues to be done by DRDO, it's high time the DPSUs consistently delivered on their end as well and make a mark for themselves as designers, and we also open up the entire ambit of platforms to the private sector. DRDO funding also needs to be raised but even so our requirements re huge and asking them all from one org is to stretch that orgs resources beyond reasonable.

Also, The mollycoddled worker unions in some DPSUs need to face competition, which will improve productivity and their management needs to focus on long term sustainability, which means QA and R&D both. That versus giving dividends to MOD and saying success. If the product or service (MRO) is world class, import mania or not, lack of engineering org in services or not, they will end up buying local. The advantages accumulate. The corrupt few arms agents cannot swing all the services deals and I am pretty sure the services have folks who will buy local.

Big thing is to not give them easy targets like the IJT.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 09 Sep 2013 18:11

Karan M wrote:Yes, thats the one. The receive antenna, and the UREP (Unified Receiver Exciter Processor) are the parts which can be combined with a variety of Tx options.

in the brochure i see HADF antennae. now we know it is for ARM cueing. any idea what are ARM options for LCA??

how does this package, specifically wrt HADF function, compare with SIVA pod on the MKIs cueing KH 31s??

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Sep 2013 22:55

Sanku wrote:
abhik wrote:Giving a large firm order for the Mk1 today can mean the difference between say a 100 LCAs being in service by 2020 and having only 40. It can have a direct bearing on the IAFs fighting strength.
How?

The production rate should be ramped up to something like 40 per year ASAP for the LCA to fill the gap left by the Migs being retired. Even a few years at such a high production rate(vs the current projected 16) will mean a huge difference in the numbers inducted. For this to happen the IAF must first give the large orders ASAP that will give HAL the time to set up a high capacity production facility as well as the financial justification. The excuse that they will give further orders after the LCA attains FOC is complete BS. Do they not expect the LCA to ever attain FOC? If thats not the case then why not just order now. With a paltry order of 20 (+8 from the navy) what incentive does HAL have to invest in this programme? From what I see the IAF is trying to get away with buying as few LCAs as it can.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Sep 2013 23:23

abhik wrote:The production rate should be ramped up to something like 40 per year ASAP for the LCA to fill the gap left by the Migs being retired. Even a few years at such a high production rate(vs the current projected 16) will mean a huge difference in the numbers inducted. For this to happen the IAF must first give the large orders ASAP that will give HAL the time to set up a high capacity production facility as well as the financial justification. The excuse that they will give further orders after the LCA attains FOC is complete BS. Do they not expect the LCA to ever attain FOC? If thats not the case then why not just order now. With a paltry order of 20 (+8 from the navy) what incentive does HAL have to invest in this programme? From what I see the IAF is trying to get away with buying as few LCAs as it can.

You want production order to be increased for a product which is yet to enter service from a manufacturer who is rolling out the first high performance aircraft? You do realize that the first squadron to enter service will be used to iron out any issues in the aircraft. And that is why it is being raised in Sulur.

As for incentive for HAL - well, if we're talking about incentives for HAL as a manufacturer, we need to factor into account the requirements of the operator as well. The aircraft to enter first squadron and their subsequent exploitation by line fighter pilots will decide on the SOP for further squadron. An aircraft adopting FOC is not the be-all and end-all of the development.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2013 23:28

abhik wrote: The production rate should be ramped up to something like 40 per year ASAP for the LCA to fill the gap left by the Migs being retired. Even a few years at such a high production rate(vs the current projected 16) will mean a huge difference in the numbers inducted. For this to happen the IAF must first give the large orders ASAP that will give HAL the time to set up a high capacity production facility as well as the financial justification. The excuse that they will give further orders after the LCA attains FOC is complete BS. Do they not expect the LCA to ever attain FOC? If thats not the case then why not just order now. With a paltry order of 20 (+8 from the navy) what incentive does HAL have to invest in this programme? From what I see the IAF is trying to get away with buying as few LCAs as it can.

Did not the DRDO Chief just state that the production and IOC/FOC is going on in parallel? That the first LCA should be out in mid 2014? That the production rate is 16-20 per year?

Just asking.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2013 23:36

For what it is worth: June 28, 2013 :: DRDO CHIEF INTERVIEW Part1: First Full-Rate Production LCAs This Year

In an exclusive interview to Livefist, the DRDO's new chief Dr Avinash Chander, said, "I feel very confident that LCA is within a visible range for production start. The target is that production should start this year. We should see two-three aircraft rolling out this year itself."

"The residual tasks are quite minimal. Some weapon release trials we have to do, some modifications we have done need to be tested. The radar has to be tested for operations. A total of 140 hours are planned in the next few months for IOC-2. With that the aircraft will be cleared for production."

"We will complete the FOC by 2014 end. There are some issues when you touch the boundaries of performance, which have been identified and come out only during flight test. Those will be rectified. For FOC, there will be a variety of weapons, all weather clearance."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2013 07:06

^^ two important note:

I feel very confident that LCA is within a visible range for production start. The target is that production should start this year. We should see two-three aircraft rolling out this year itself

We will complete the FOC by 2014 end. There are some issues when you touch the boundaries of performance, which have been identified and come out only during flight test. Those will be rectified. For FOC, there will be a variety of weapons, all weather clearance

So, the boundary values are within the change control that is within a visible range for production start.

cool

saps · Post by **saps** » 10 Sep 2013 07:39

rohitvats wrote:You want production order to be increased for a product which is yet to enter service from a manufacturer who is rolling out the first high performance aircraft? You do realize that the first squadron to enter service will be used to iron out any issues in the aircraft. And that is why it is being raised in Sulur.

As for incentive for HAL - well, if we're talking about incentives for HAL as a manufacturer, we need to factor into account the requirements of the operator as well. The aircraft to enter first squadron and their subsequent exploitation by line fighter pilots will decide on the SOP for further squadron. An aircraft adopting FOC is not the be-all and end-all of the development.

How does firm order affect the acquisition plan wrt DPP and purchases ?

IF IAF does put in buy order for 80 ac straight way and then due to issues they are not delivered; to be employed operationally as required, what does that mean. Maneuvering space available for more immediate buys from open market.

Just trying to fathom this cautious approach of IAF when the goal post is just (nearly) one free kick away now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2013 08:23

So, the boundary values are within the change control that is within a visible range for production start.

The real cool part seems to be a very good project manager somewhere. FOC and production in parallel? Sounds good to me.

Onto 20 per year.

And an order of 200+ to provide good supply chain, spares and cut costs.

Nice!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Sep 2013 11:55

the LCA is made by one company - but they are essentially a 'system integrator' - components of the system, come from 2000-3000 manufacturers of sub-components, parts, fastners, wire assemblies, connectors, hydraulic pipes, etc., etc., etc. All of who have to worry about their own suppliers and all of whom have to place orders on the understanding that there will be a flow of cash down this huge pyramid - and all of whom rely on the economies of scale to make any profits on what they supply

without a ready source of orders (from this programme or other industries) - who is going to invest in building up this capability?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2013 12:47

abhik wrote: For this to happen the IAF must first give the large orders ASAP that will give HAL the time to set up a high capacity production facility as well as the financial justification.

HAL does not need financial justification. It is a DPSU fully working off MoD. It can make the necessary investments through MoD. However one CAN NOT make a high capacity production before they make a LSP run.

The learning from LSP run is critical before a manufacturing line can be built. Manufacturing involves its own learning.

It is that why a LSP is first made. You can not go for series production before making a base line.

The excuse that they will give further orders after the LCA attains FOC is complete BS. Do they not expect the LCA to ever attain FOC?

Let me turn it around, since IAF, MoD, HAL, and DRDO are all parts of the same family, why does HAL need to wait for FoC to invest in it?

There is a reason, it is capital outlay every year. A firm order for planes means a fixed capital outlay, on the basis of a plan on paper. The plan is on paper since no LSP is done.

MoD will not agree to it, and CAG will murder them if they do, rightly. Neither can HAL ask for it.

If thats not the case then why not just order now. With a paltry order of 20 (+8 from the navy) what incentive does HAL have to invest in this programme? From what I see the IAF is trying to get away with buying as few LCAs as it can.

HAL invests in the program because MoD asks it to. The money is not HALs to decide on what they want to do. Neither it is IAFs money.

It is MoDs money.

And none is goging to make orders for a plane with paper manufacturing setup.

HALs job is simple, it is to work with money given by MoD for the task they are given in time after they have signed off on it. As simple as that.

And that is why HAL is at uniform receiving end of criticism for delay in production.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 10 Sep 2013 14:01

^^^
Lalmohan's post +1

Optimum order quantity is the key to create and sustain a high tech defence ecosystem in India. HAl can manage with low orders but other vendors cant and we will be forced to order tyres and screws from abroad.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Sep 2013 14:20

alexis wrote:^^^
Lalmohan's post +1

Optimum order quantity is the key to create and sustain a high tech defence ecosystem in India. HAl can manage with low orders but other vendors cant and we will be forced to order tyres and screws from abroad.

All the more reason to get LSPs up and running immediately so that serial productions can start. Meanwhile importing tires and screws and other subsystem is perfectly acceptable. A line needs to prove it functionality before optimizations for efficiencies can be thought about.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 10 Sep 2013 14:23

IAF should order another 50 LCA mk-1s ideally mostly in twin seater config right away to support orders of 40 already placed. The point is LCA is the ideal LIFT trainer as well, 3 (45 fighters) squadrons for IAF 1 squadron (15 fighters) for IN can be used as last phase of fighter training to help pilots transition into their designated super sonic fighter, this will improve pilot skill & training. Another squadron (15 fighters) should be used as part of TACDE to establish an agressor squadron for large scale excercises & hone tactics. The last 15 (comprising of LSPs & NPs & future MK-2 prototypes) can be used for display teams + testing new avionics + improvements.

An eventual order of 300 LCA mk-2 would do justice for this fighter program

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 10 Sep 2013 14:27

Absolutely Lalchix and Alexis.

I would also now mull the alternatives, in view of the economic situation, particularly the US$, to half the orders of Rafale to ~ 63 and increase the LCA's MKI to about hundred. We should uplift the production line in two ways:
a) increased output: so as to deliver more and stem the slide of depleting squadron levels
b) In case of any unforeseen delay, both within or without our control, on the MK II, the production of MKI could continue, as deemed necessary, above the estimated 100.
c) build the production line in such a way that it can be quickly adapted to change to MKII.
c) Keep the 63 additional Rafale's as option and forget about ever having considered to have procured more than 126. And get meaningful TOT to improve our local capabilities and learning curve as well as the added punch of the Rafale.

The only major dependent point I see is the supply of the 404 engines?

And if France plays hardball on this, throw out the tender and go to old pal Ru for SU 35s (MKI it) or SU 30 MKI, so as to be able to match the Chinese.

With the global economy shrinking in terms of defence, I am sure companies would be glad to do business with India, in terms of collaborating for subsystems.

Do we all go home happy with this?

cheers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2013 16:40

my only concern in the LCA department is the core engine.. gtre failed us terribly.

reorg that entity, input fresh funds... get the K going with the right specs for use, and reuse. [please no firang help]

make kaveri vision to a mission.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2013 16:45

Besides ALL that, the LCA is an in-house effort and cannot be compared to the MKI or any other effort. I very much doubt they would resort to importing anything if they cna get their hands on a local fellow. It was what it was then, today is a different story - there is a core set of competencies that have matured to a point that the process cannot be reversed. Thanks in no small part to the value of teh Rs (for the time being I would say thankfully - else there would be some tincanner that would sabotage the process).

In addition to the MMRCA deal, I would strongly suggest to reassess the FGFA project too. India NEEDS help in engine and radar, they are not going to get that (I do no expect anyone to part with those techs - fair enough), so why dump that much FE on a plane that only fills the gaps and does not provide any progress in tech knowledge?

France is a spent entity and India should not hitch her wagon to them on an aircraft project. The Rafale is not going where India would like it to go unless India spends the funds to keep France afloat.

Russia IMHO is either becoming or has become a non strategic partner - they are growing very close to China - too close for any comfort (just a political issue that India has no control over). So, why spend those Billions out there, when India may have to spend a few more Billions to counter what Russia sells to china?

So, for starters, back to the LCA. And, throw out those sequential processes for the time being. The LCA is mature enough to deal with some seat-of-the-pant manufacturing. This is no longer a embryonic project. A good deal needs to happen in parallel and mods made in parallel. Figure it out. There are risks, but let India take risks on Indian products and not on French or Russian ones. Now is the time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2013 16:46

gtre failed us terribly

Only in relation to the LCA.

I still have not found an answer why it is otherwise a failure. Waiting for an answer.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2013 19:04

saps wrote: How does firm order affect the acquisition plan wrt DPP and purchases ?

IF IAF does put in buy order for 80 ac straight way and then due to issues they are not delivered; to be employed operationally as required, what does that mean. Maneuvering space available for more immediate buys from open market.

Just trying to fathom this cautious approach of IAF when the goal post is just (nearly) one free kick away now.

You are comparing a mature product from the stable of an established manufacturer versus LCA produced by HAL.

Just because HAL says XYZ aircraft will be ready by certain time frame, does not mean that they will be. Same goes for the FOC date.

Further, HAL needs to cut its teeth in delivering a complex product from ground up. Let them get their SOPs correct and iron out any issues raised with respect to a/c in squadron service before HAL starts producing 100s of them fighters.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 10 Sep 2013 21:28

rohitvats wrote:
saps wrote: How does firm order affect the acquisition plan wrt DPP and purchases ?

IF IAF does put in buy order for 80 ac straight way and then due to issues they are not delivered; to be employed operationally as required, what does that mean. Maneuvering space available for more immediate buys from open market.

Just trying to fathom this cautious approach of IAF when the goal post is just (nearly) one free kick away now.
You are comparing a mature product from the stable of an established manufacturer versus LCA produced by HAL.

Just because HAL says XYZ aircraft will be ready by certain time frame, does not mean that they will be. Same goes for the FOC date.

Further, HAL needs to cut its teeth in delivering a complex product from ground up. Let them get their SOPs correct and iron out any issues raised with respect to a/c in squadron service before HAL starts producing 100s of them fighters.

I agree RV. But I feel that with the economic downturn the screws need to be applied on whoever is not delivering.

I base my optimism on the wonderous, innovative methods that our armed forces have used to optimise whatever they have in hand. Proof of the pudding is in the past!

And have in recent times risen to the occasion when they have been war gaming with other countries. Add to that, we still have people, maybe not in the right places, but with enough intellect to contribute at HAL or other DPSUs. When and if (sighs: big IF) they are given the freedom to apply themselves, we can pull ourselves out of this mess.

And verily even improve the current force levels of the IAF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2013 22:03

The question I have is: Is the LCA so deficient that in its current form the IAF JUST cannot use it? I do not think so. I think it has some deficiencies that need to be worked on. But, it is mature enough to be start of in the IAF and as time goes along the kinks can be ironed out.

It would be very nice if the dates are met, but even if they are not met, at this stage, the plane should be enough for use at the new AF base.

The fact that they are starting production and hope to have a few production ones out by this year end is indication that the plan is to have the IAF start using them and then work in parallel with the IOC-2 and FOC. Where the LCA is, that should be a great, workable plan.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 10 Sep 2013 22:08

+1 I think the IAF should play around with a couple of them. Or take a couple of test pilots as part of the squadron at Sulur.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Sep 2013 22:20

This plane has gone beyond test pilot stage. IMHO they need to open the gates and let it flood the AFB. No better way to beat issues than to get feedback from userS. It is going to have problems - check out the MiG-35, great designer, great manufacturer, experience galore, what is missing at MiG/Russia for a plane like that to be two years late? Crap it happens to even the best. And we are grumbling?

Ordering a large number is not going to impact the IOC/FOC - not meant to. What it will impact is the procurement, supply chain, numbers made per year, per plane cost and such. And at this point in time, it should be relatively low risk. There is some risk, but worth taking it.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Sep 2013 22:33

From Aeromag Jan-Feb issue carrying ADA director's interview

Could you share your thoughts on the roadmap for the LCA-Tejas programme and the milestones you are looking going forward to?

After the IOC clearance, we are going to work towards FOC in which we will envisage the flight envelope of the aircraft from the 22 degree of angular attack to 24 degree of attack and the manuevering of the aircraft from 6 g to 8 g. Also we will integrate new missiles. For FOC we have to achieve the inflight refueling, which will give extended flying hours. And towards FOC target realisation we are integrating a 23 mm gun and also some other conventional weapons indicated by the Air Force. So before the FOC completion, all these activities are achievable. By 2014 December we will achieve full FOC reaching all objectives and that will see 20 Aircraft ordered by IAF. We hope that within about five years, the 40 aircraft ordered by IAF 20 in the IOC configuration and 20 in the FOC clearance configuration can be delivered. And during this process, some refinement of the software and some of the hardware if necessary will also be done.

Is the LSP-6 going to have an IFR probe and is that the reason why it is taking such a long time ???