LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 26 Jul 2014 17:11

Is LCA now in Catch-22 situation?
Without firm orders we cannot have a production line with a high rate and without a good rate of production promised we cannot have a big order?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2014 17:51

The NLCA will require the higher powered 414 engine as it has to take off on a short run using the ski-jump .Heavier weight due to increased strengthening of the undercarriage for landings as well as the entire airframe is needed.This adds weight.Even with the 414 engine,the LCA's range and endurance is nothing worth writing home about. It will fall far short of the MIG-29Ks.

Interestingly,Britain is very seriously developing the Taranis UCAV as a successor to Typhoon and the USN too fast tracking its own UCLASS programme. Taranis might even be a joint UK/French programme.By the next decade,we will see the operational advent of UCAVs from carriers which will give them unprecedented endurance ,lasting days.For ISR purposes,stealth UCAVs will be bird of choice taking over many manned missions and able to perform them better.The Indian UCAV classified programme should be a tri-service one,or at least a joint IAF/IN programme ,where the bird can operate from IN carriers,current and future.

However,where the NLCA has real potential is if it used aboard our 4 planned LHPDs. If these amphibs are designed around the Juan Carlos concept,where a ski-jump exists,the NLCAs could operate from them for the close air support role for amphib landings. Gripen to operate from the Viraat ,which is smaller in size than the Juan Carlos. The amphibs could carry a mix of NLCAs,heavy multi-role helos,and a few UAVs too,around 20-24 aircraft in total.With the NLCAs,close support could be provided at farhter ranges from the shore than attack helos,with much more firepower and ability to defend themselves as well from any air threats. USN amphibs are really medium sized carriers of approx 45-50,000t. In the air defence role of the fleet,NLCAs would have to use aux. tanks and buddy refuelling tactics to stay aloft longer.Aux tanks would also limit the number of AAMs that it could carry.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jul 2014 18:38

Interestingly,Britain is very seriously developing the Taranis UCAV as a successor to Typhoon and the USN too fast tracking its own UCLASS programme

Taranis is a technology demonstrator for a future vehicle. The Joint program with the french is a clean sheet design for a continental UCAV. The Taranis or any future vehicle is not intended to take off or land on a carrier. The UK would probably require a Various like vehicle if they want Fixed wing unmanned from the QE class, much the same as the USMC.

The UCLASS is an Orbit approach to ISR (NIFC_CA) and strike which may or may not be stealthy or penetrative similar to the USAF's doctrine. The USN wants to advance carrier reach and protect it first before moving on to strategic strikes from a carrier. Who wins remains to be seen.

By the next decade,we will see the operational advent of UCAVs from carriers which will give them unprecedented endurance ,lasting days

Which UCAV will be lasting days in the next decade? The only UAV i know of that has that sort of persistence is this

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/bds/phanto ... m_eye.page

Which is neither meant for combat (UCAV) nor the aircraft carrier

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 26 Jul 2014 18:45

Philip the Mig-29 is a heavy metallic fighter. The Tejas is composed mostly of composites so it is lightweight. The crucial issue for any plane is power to weight ratio. Calculate that for the Mig-29k and compare to Tejas Naval version.

Tejas MkII with GE-414 Turbo fan - 98kn
Aircraft weight 6.5k

Thrust to weight ratio 15. That seems ridiculously good, can someone double check my results? The Naval Tejas is definitely superior to the Mig-29 given those stats.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 26 Jul 2014 18:59

K Mehta wrote:Is LCA now in Catch-22 situation?
Without firm orders we cannot have a production line with a high rate and without a god rate of production promised we cannot have a big order?

Yes saar. Its a deliberately created one. One must recollect how LCA was ordered for the first and only time. Pranabda was chairing his DAC circa 2004-5 when there was a lot of noise about unspent capital budget returned by the forces. He ordered 20 LCAs and something else (I think its Akash) to the tune of 2bn to reduce that year's unspent capex. It was only in late 2011 around the time of IOC-1, IAF mentioned on record that it wants them in IOC-2 spec. Now imagine the uncertainty it would have created in setting up a production assembly and vendor supply chain etc. Now who in the right mind can demand either IAF or MoD to order more until the first lot is delivered? Imagine a scenario where IAF managed to finalise its Rafale deal before IOC-2, LCA don't stand a chance in its IOC-2 spec for production. This is diabolically genius self throttling but who stands to lose the most? Definitely not LCA. Its development will continue as if nothing happened.

Periodical order is the need of the hour for indian defence ecosystem.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 26 Jul 2014 19:10

K Mehta wrote:Is LCA now in Catch-22 situation?
Without firm orders we cannot have a production line with a high rate and without a god rate of production promised we cannot have a big order?

There is no catch 22 situation as there is no intention to order a "good" number of LCAs in the first place.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jul 2014 19:50

Rien wrote:Tejas MkII with GE-414 Turbo fan - 98kn
Aircraft weight 6.5k.

1kg = 9.8N

The Tejas Mk2 will probably be closer to 7 tons empty and perhaps 9.5 tons loaded. With a 10 ton (98kN) engine, that's a TWR of about 1.05 in a combat configuration which is excellent. Might even be capable of supercruise.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 26 Jul 2014 20:09

Viv S wrote:
Rien wrote:Tejas MkII with GE-414 Turbo fan - 98kn
Aircraft weight 6.5k.
1kg = 9.8N

The Tejas Mk2 will probably be closer to 7 tons empty and perhaps 9.5 tons loaded. With a 10 ton (98kN) engine, that's a TWR of about 1.05 in a combat configuration which is excellent. Might even be capable of supercruise.

Viv S is that 98kn dry?

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 26 Jul 2014 20:38

deejay wrote: Viv S is that 98kn dry?

No. That'd be 59 Mgf dry and 100 Mgf wet thrust.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 26 Jul 2014 20:58

BTW have they stopped giving updates on the number of flights? What was the last count?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 26 Jul 2014 21:15

here you go sir ji

2592th flight on 31 May
2623th flight on 28 June
2654th flight on 22 July

Details can found on this page flight test news

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 26 Jul 2014 21:22

abhik wrote:
K Mehta wrote:Is LCA now in Catch-22 situation?
Without firm orders we cannot have a production line with a high rate and without a god rate of production promised we cannot have a big order?
There is no catch 22 situation as there is no intention to order a "good" number of LCAs in the first place.

If we Indians fail to take this plane seriously then I would have only one thing to say to my countrymen.

Bahut royega nehru.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 26 Jul 2014 21:50

2592th flight on 31 May
2623th flight on 28 June
2654th flight on 22 July

Now this is really strange . After IOC-2 and 500 sorties in 2013, back to 188 till now in 2014. All air crafts back for refits/upgrades for FOC ? plus no SP1 and MK.2 news. Unfortunately things seems to have slowed down a bit . Authentic Reasons please ?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 26 Jul 2014 22:06

I guess ...
1. Efforts are moving to NLCA.
2. upgrading few LSPs to FOC standard.
3. Supporting and supervising HAL with initial SP.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 26 Jul 2014 23:08

All that we have read on this thread for the last 3-4 pages is endless blabber which is meaning less. No indication on what progress has not been made or what milestones have been achieved. Interestingly all chai wala's and their relatives are silent. Am I reading too much into the silence.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 26 Jul 2014 23:57

NRao wrote:Too bad the original poster got banned. However, he's right about APJ being overhyped by media somewhat. One thing about the man himself is he's rather modest (and doesn't claim anything that he is not), but the media portrays his skills as a lot more than reality. My info is based upon conversations with some of the real scientific types who have actually worked with him very closely for several years. His real best talent is that he's very good at herding cats and that is a very valuable skill when dealing with the real scientific types. Probably not the forum to discuss this though, so I won't go any further.

I can accept the fact that the best technical mind rarely gets to be the head of an institution but that is not a necessity to be a good leader unlike popular perception, instead the best technical mind is rarely a good leader. Dr. Kalam's leadership is unquestionable, he got a lot of things done which is more important than debating about his technical prowess. Maybe he wasn't the best tech mind in DRDO at that point of time but how many question his leadership skills ??? Media paints a picture of each and everyone in a way that they think will get them more eyeballs so media portrayal of people isn't any gold standard to judge about anyone instead we must look into the legacy they have left to decide how capable the person was. I know of a person who headed an institution, was corrupt but delivered a great deal and ran that institution with utmost discipline. The next one who followed was a no show, a dhimmi (that's the picture I got) and fortunes of the institution went down with him.
So given a choice whom will you appoint as a head of an institution the first one or the second one ??? As in design so in real life there are always tradeoffs. IF at all India needs any person it is a project manager or a leader of sorts - to get things done.
What use are all these other people who are great scientists but cannot - for whatever reason - get things completed?

Reminds me of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who also was not the best technical mind of the group he led, but was just right for the job. And he got it done.
Gautam

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 28 Jul 2014 20:22

dhiraj wrote:
2592th flight on 31 May
2623th flight on 28 June
2654th flight on 22 July
Now this is really strange . After IOC-2 and 500 sorties in 2013, back to 188 till now in 2014. All air crafts back for refits/upgrades for FOC ? plus no SP1 and MK.2 news. Unfortunately things seems to have slowed down a bit . Authentic Reasons please ?

Just read the FOC has been pushed to March 2015 and honestly, even that looks ambitious.

IAF LCA squadron awaits first aircraft after fresh delay

NEW DELHI: More than seven months after it was cleared for being flown by IAF pilots, the entry of the first LCA Tejas in its newly-raised squadron in Bangalore is still awaited as the project has been delayed yet again.

IAF has raised its 45 Squadron at Bangalore for allowing its pilots to fly the aircraft and was supposed to induct the first Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) in March this year.

But the schedule has now been shifted to coming September, sources said here.

The delay is also understood to have pushed backed the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) of the aircraft from December this year to March 2015.

Flight manuals, the aircraft manual and other basic documents required by pilots to operate the aircraft are also not yet ready, the sources added.

The aircraft received its Initial Operational Clearance ( IOC) last year on December 20 after which Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was supposed to supply two Limited Series Production LCA's to IAF, sources said.

The LCA programme, cleared in August 1983 at a cost of Rs 560 crore to replace the ageing MiG-21s in IAF's combat fleet, has missed several deadlines.

Asked about the delays, a HAL spokesperson said that as far as the production of LCAs was concerned, "HAL is on the right path and there is no delivery issue at this stage."

He said the HAL LCA Project Group has now been upgraded to a full-fledged division to look after production in a systematic way with more investments.

"The new initiative will help enhance the rate of production and reduce production cycle-times by incorporating several advanced defence aerospace technologies," the spokesperson said.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 28 Jul 2014 20:39

Asked about the delays, a HAL spokesperson said that as far as the production of LCAs was concerned, "HAL is on the right path and there is no delivery issue at this stage."

This does not explain the delay in delivery by March, especially when there is no delivery issue at this stage. Why then the delay?

"The new initiative will help enhance the rate of production and reduce production cycle-times by incorporating several advanced defence aerospace technologies," the spokesperson said.

Have all steps under this 'new initiative been already taken or are they under process. When will these be ready?

Somehow, this article raises more questions in my mind than answering existing ones?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 29 Jul 2014 11:10

There seems to be no clarity as to why the Tejas is delayed, *yet again*. FOC by this year end was stated by Avinash Chander and if it misses that goal it is yet another failed promise bringing the credibility of ADA/HAL to a new low with respect to dates.

I wonder why there is a delay in delivering the first two SP aircraft. And what tests are pending. Am sure the lightning strike certification is pending. I think wake penetration tests were done but increase the cleared envelope to full design spec has not been done. Also certification of a radar guided missile might be pending.

Supersonic drop tanks and semi-retractable refuelling probe is for Mk2. But a refuelling probe which is non-retractable should be there for Mk1. Gun firing trials are also pending.

Looks like lots to do and no clarity for the general public as to what is pending.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jul 2014 11:37

merlin wrote:Looks like lots to do and no clarity for the general public as to what is pending.

+1. And this leads to confusion and frustration for people who wants Tejas MK.1/2 to succeed at the earliest.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2014 12:19

Air Cmde.Parvez Khokar (retd),who was the LCA's Project Director (Test Flight) has been making regular updates on the progress of the programme in Vayu.In his latest update, "Life after the IOC",he states that there i a huge amt. of work to be done for FOC and that to expect FOC to be completed in a year's time is "sheer fantasy".His points in brief.

Req. for FOC:
*.Clearance for in-flight refuelling.

*High AoA to 28 deg.

*Envelope expansion to +8G.

*Ventral fuel tank integration and drop tank testing for supersonic flight.

*BVR missile integration.

*23mmgun integration.

*Other weapons including tandem carriage.

*Enhancing autopilot modes.

*Improvements driven by user feedback (unlikely or scanty.

* Miscell. improvements.Quartz radome,tougher canopy,etc.

*Pending MK-1 issues which will be inherited by MK-2. (what are these,classified?)

He particularly refers to the gun vibration and refuelling,which may require control law modifications or extra laws.
PK estimates that by March 2015,4 series prod. aircraft may be delivered to the IAF to form the first flight which will enable them to proceed with FOC issues.He ends by saying,
"That the IAF is not complaining about this additional delay by HAL can only be construed as a measure of the IAF's eagerness to actually induct the LCA!"

PS:As said earlier elsewhere,it appears that the IAF has convinced the new dispensation about the criticality of the MMRCA acquisition,the Rafale in the delay in LCA FOC,series production,etc.,and subject to funds available,the GOI will seal the deal asap in some form,hinted at with reduced numbers.That the IAF is once more getting lukewarm about the LCA is open to speculation,so is HAL's speed in developing Mk-2,but regardless of the Rafale's acquisition,there are 200 legacy MIG-21s to be replaced from 2016,120 more Bisons by 2025 ,another 100+ MIG-27s and yet another 120 or so Jaguars. This is a huge total of around 500 aircraft!Therefore there is ample time if the current pressure is maintained to produce between at least 120-200 LCAs to make up the coming shortfall by 2025-2030.With a concentrated effort it may be even more.But that all depends upon the intention of he prime stakeholder who wields the whip,the GOI and MOD to bring the programme to success and hand it over to the IAF to operate.
I think that some have misunderstood my points made earlier .Let me clarify.

In the case of firang birds like the MKIs,Rafale,Typhoon,F-18SHs,etc.,the aircraft has already been developed,flaws ironed out,in series production and in service with the country of origin.Thus producing it in India under licence is much easier. Everything from drawings,tooling,production facilities have been established abroad and transferred to us.We tinkered with the MKI only with some avionics and systems using Indian,Israeli and French wares to improve performance.We have achieved 70% indigenisation and by 2019 100% indigenisation where material used will be only of Indian origin.No mean feat .

As far as the LCA is concerned,the issue is not the foreign content but the manner in which we've struggled to put the various components together.The primary reason why the project is delayed is the engine.We never learnt our lesson of the HF-24,relying upon a new engine under development by the GTRE which had never produced anything like it earlier.APJAK was repeatedly warned about the tall talk from the GTRE about Kaveri and told that the entire programme would be held hostage to it. Thus when it failed to deliver after decades of R&D we had to use the GE 404 which is underpowered for the LCA's weight. Had we chosen a tried and proven foreign engine from the start and designed the aircraft around its performance we may have saved a decade in time.We are now hostage to the success of LCA MK-2 for large scale series production ,again relying upon the 414 which may or may not be adequate with much redesign and the increased weight factor. Induction into the IAF, hopefully will start from 2020 onwards,but the Mk-2 has yet to fly.

Latest reports about further delays will only dampen the IAF's enthusiasm and make it apply even more pressure for foreign imports,sealing the deal on the Rafale.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 29 Jul 2014 15:29

^ The LCA in present form is good enough, being a 4+ Generation fighter with good reliability, performance, FBW technology and capable of swing wing role. The IAF should wait only for the 23mm gun integration and not for the above long list of items. The Mig 21 was not perfect even after 30 years of service, and IAF Jaguars and Mirage 2000s did not have full capability even after many years of service. How dare they ask for such a shopping list when "concessions" were made for French and UK Aircraft, as shown by many sources incl. BRF? The Eurofighter had a cement block in the nose cone for half a decade after RAF induction, waiting for the Blue Fox radar. When USA, UK and France are ready to take incomplete aircraft, why the hell should the IAF dither so much for Indian built aircraft, and readily accept foreign built but not fully capable Toofanis, Mig 21s, Jaguars and Mirage 2000s? If this is their attitude, let them not talk of depleting squadron strength, and learn to manage with 22-23 squadrons, instead of the present 33-34. The LCA will take over roles done by Mig 21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 and Mig 27. Did any of these comes with "quartz canopy", "in-flight refuelling", "HOTAS" or "8G +" ?? If the IAF and their chief is so interested in LCA doing 8G, to replace dwindling Mig 21s and Mig 27 nos., please let him demonstrate 8G on these two aircraft so lay people like us will know the importance of the same.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jul 2014 15:59

dinesh_kumar wrote:The Eurofighter had a cement block in the nose cone for half a decade after RAF induction, waiting for the Blue Fox radar.

Tornado ADV. The RAF Eurofighter was initially intended for fielding with concrete ballast in place of the gun except that it turned out the replacement process would cost more than the gun itself. It does however cast a light on RAF's perception of the gun's utility on the modern aerial battlefield.

As far as the Tejas is concerned, there's no part of the FOC requirement (except for the internal gun) that is a barrier to scaling up production. The 8G, 24 deg AoA envelope, weapons racks, Python V, R-77 etc certification can be done without needing any structural modification.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jul 2014 16:25

July 2014

IAF LCA squadron awaits first aircraft after fresh delay
"HAL is on the right path and there is no delivery issue at this stage."

December 9, 2013
Tejas LCA sprints towards IAF's frontline squadron
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 025_1.html

The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) - a special purpose vehicle of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO), set up to manage the Tejas programme - worried that a crash during flight-testing might be a fatal blow to the project itself, and so has handled flight testing cautiously, taking twice the time that experienced countries do.
Avinash Chander, the DRDO chief, tells Business Standard the FOC will involve firing a range of different weapons, including missiles and bombs, and testing the fighter for mid-air refuelling.

"With the IAF now enthused about the Tejas, and participating actively in the project, we will surely obtain FOC next year. We could not have completed over 450 test flights this year without close cooperation between the IAF, ADA and HAL," says Chander.

Sep 1, 2013
Tejas to be ready by mid-2014: DRDO chief
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 194411.cms

Work is at full throttle to roll out the country's first indigenous light combat aircraft Tejas and the first fleet would be out by mid-2014, chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation, Avinash Chander, said

"The production work has already started at full throttle. Currently there are no bottlenecks to prevent rolling out of the first lot of these indigenously built LCAs by middle of next year," Chander told TOI. "The production rate, I believe, is around 16-20 per year and huge orders would assist in good production rates," he said.

"Final Operational Clearance (FOC) for our first modern light combat aircraft would follow soon thereafter. Meanwhile, these two processes can go on parallel tracks to save time in delivery and induction once the IOC-2 and FOC are given," said the DRDO chief.

Friday, June 28, 2013
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/06/ ... -full.html
DRDO CHIEF INTERVIEW Part1: First Full-Rate Production LCAs This Year

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."
For FOC, there will be a variety of weapons, all weather clearance."

SATURDAY, JUNE 1, 2013
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/06/in ... -drdo.html

“After finishing the taking over formalities, I am catching the first available flight to Bangalore to review the project. I am absolutely aware of the issues that are dogging the project and I would now want to see it from close quarters, what the delays are. The Tejas' IOC and FOC cannot be postponed any further,” said Avinash,

From the above the only thing that is confusing me is that if there was no issues in 2013 and even in latest article of July 2014, then what is causing the delay. Yes development activities can have delays . No issues with that. But there is hardly any open source material which can clarify the current status for Tejas Mk.1 / 2 . Some transparency please

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 Aug 2014 14:37

HAL and Business Partners meet to increase Indigenization in LCA Tejas to 80%

As per to SA to RM, Mr. Avinash Chander, it is possible to achieve such a goal since 165 out of 344 Line Replacement Units (LRUs) are already made in India. In his address to the vendors, representing around 50 companies,.....

member_28640 · Post by **member_28640** » 12 Aug 2014 14:54

^^^
Again looks like typical Indian MIC mentality of over-optimism. Current Indigenization % is 48% and the goal is to be achieved in three years. Not to mention the article also says that HAL is aiming to double the production rate to 16 aircrafts a year.
Nice idea, but still I prefer to be cautious..

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 12 Aug 2014 15:17

Tejas Mk2 team targets 2017 for first flight. Lets hope this "early" 2017 timeline is met.

http://idrw.org/?p=41645

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Aug 2014 16:29

GopiN wrote:^^^
Again looks like typical Indian MIC mentality of over-optimism. Current Indigenization % is 48% and the goal is to be achieved in three years. Not to mention the article also says that HAL is aiming to double the production rate to 16 aircrafts a year.
Nice idea, but still I prefer to be cautious..

Actually its very doable if it is given proper attention and funding (SMEs require the latter). That 48% figure represents both big changes in the original mix (imported GE Engine + radar systems replacing kaveri/local MMR systems) and also many low hanging fruit (electronic/electro-hydraulic components) latter which are being imported from foreign firms because low production rate of PV/LSP made indigenization unfeasible for SMEs and partners (only DPSU can fund these sort of limited production runs).
ADA had posted the list earlier, and some complex items are already being supplied by firms for other programs. So these can be indigenized relatively quickly provided the partners are supported accordingly.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 12 Aug 2014 16:43

Sid wrote:Tejas Mk2 team targets 2017 for first flight. Lets hope this "early" 2017 timeline is met.

http://idrw.org/?p=41645

So HAL is building the Mk2 prototypes?

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 12 Aug 2014 17:52

Is their any mention about conformal tanks to extend range

Smallest fighter + AESA + Astra >> IAF might just find that they have a very potent fighting machine in their hands.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 13 Aug 2014 22:38

http://www.stratpost.com/video-vayu-str ... undtable-v
LCA discussion, this stratapost article disappointed me badly, if IAF really don't want this a/c why worry let IN fund it one day they will make it, if only things were that easy.. this blame game will mess things up. Too many cooks spoil the broth.. I think LCA strongly suits for IN needs, so IAF should give it up and handle AMCA carefully ..

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 Aug 2014 23:02

Vayu-Stratpost Airpower Roundtable Discussion on the LCA

http://www.stratpost.com/video-vayu-str ... undtable-v

Quoting some relevant bits:

Let me go back to 1961 when the navy started the Leander project. It was a great leap of faith but today the navy owns the warship design, the warship building. They want any kind of warship to project any capability they can get it. Hopefully, soon we’ll be the same in the submarine business. So I had thrown this gauntlet right at the beginning: Why has the air force not taken ownership of everything that they need – from a basic trainer to a fighter bomber to a transport aircraft.

We’ve sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we’ve sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don’t understand. So it’s committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen. Instead of doing all that, back the LCA. It’s got problems, sure, but here the chief test pilot who’s written a paper and his last words are ‘It’s a beautiful aircraft. Why don’t we back it – why don’t we back the LCA Mk II, and once again let me give you the navy’s example. The navy sunk 900 crores into the LCA Navy – the air force has not given them a single rupee. So if the air force had done it right at the beginning perhaps this stage would not have arisen. If you had shown enough interest, if you had backed it – meddled with it and interfered at every stage and made it go. This is only a personal opinion that we should not allow the LCA to fail. We should go on to LCA Mk II – the AMCA should also be a lead on from the LCA and then this whole thing will proliferate – we’ll have a trainer, aero engines – the whole industry.

– Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash

We should have continued with HF-24 in different blocks. That’s how you build the national capability.

We closed shop there and then we jumped to a four and half generation aspiration on the LCA – much has been achieved, which is very creditable, but it will take thirty years if we jump like that. And the time frames that have been projected have all been absolutely unrealistic.

– Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran

With the LCA program, in fact I was involved in – at one time were making air defense for India 25-year plan. I was one of those who actually wrote that. ’94 and ’95, it nearly got approved. LCA, we went to see – the then chief and I. And we went to Bangalore. They actually made us sit in the aircraft and they said this is all ready and by – this was the month of May or June – they said December it’ll be taking off. In fact, 125 upgrade of MiG-21, were only done interim because I, at that point in time, in next two years – they told us that. That by ’98 we’ll start inducting and we said by 2000 we’ll have a whole lot of aircraft, so that’s why we said we’ll upgrade only 125...

...You open a panel you can’t fit it back. You have to hammer it down. So let’s not hoodwink and we’ve been doing it all these years and that’s why when I say that we have to be really honest to ourselves and honest to this nation and honest to the armed forces.

– Air Commodore (retd) Suren Tyagi

As someone who’s been involved closely with the program, and who’s done two studies intimately, I’d like to put certain things at rest. One: the LCA and MMRCA cannot be compared. So don’t flog that fallacy that under the indigenous program the LCA can now take over the MMRCA’s requirements and fill in those gaps – its not possible...

...The F-22 program was – after the basic technology demonstration program the user takes over the entire program management. The US Air Force appointed a program manager with significant powers – financial as well as executive decision-making with respect to the program.

Because you must take even a decision – even if you have to foreclose the program if its not viable and you must have that wherewithal for it, so you have to be trained and you have to be fully in that process. This man took over the F-22 program as a Lieutenant Colonel – he remained the program manager when the F-22 was operationally inducted 20 years later and he was Lieutenant General when he retired. There’s a problem in our service culture and service mindset. We don’t want to put people on professional competencies as experts on a program for any length of time. Our P-staff or personnel staff in the other two services will cry hoarse and say ‘no, this guy cannot be in Bangalore for 20 years or three years or five years. So we keep breaking the expertise and it’s like the monkey climbing up and coming down two feet down so we are always at the perpetual start point. These are the fundamental factors that impinge on this.

More importantly, I think DRDO and the public sector spend more time on publicity events – on non-events. I said, stop all that. You know you have a pre-IOC, you have an IOC, you have a huge celebration – you actually keep announcing things – ‘we are the fourth country to achieve this’, ‘we are the fifth country to achieve this’ or ‘we are the third country to achieve this’ – where is the final product? Where is it going to see the operational utility? How about questioning that? Where are the timelines? Where is the cost accountability?

– Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran.

Constantly, there’s an accusation that goalposts have been shifted by air force. The ASR was approved with everybody involved in 1985 and there were two concessions given in 1989 – no other change has ever been made [EH? ]. It is their inability to conform the ASR, for a variety of reasons.

– Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran.

When people talk about sanctions and delays – I was with the LCA program for about eight months, myself. And I used to hear this excuse every time that because of sanctions we lost it. Mr. Mishra will bear witness to this that when we were doing the bis-upgrade program; even at that time in ’93 we anticipated American sanctions. And therefore we kept away from American equipment – at that time. How ADA didn’t foresee this – DRDO – that American will put sanctions on them, sometime or the other – particularly when one arm of the DRDO was tinkering with nukes at that time. They should have known that this would come. And they should have gone for different technology. I also want to reiterate that we had opportunities at each stage to get the LCA going in a different direction and probably make it more of a success. We forsook those opportunities for some reasons or the other.

– Air Marshal (retd.) Harish Masand

I tried, when I was in service that the chief of air staff should at least monitor what is happening on the LCA program. So one of the things was the project – that’s how (Air Marshal) Harish Masand, amongst others, went to the LCA program. But a meeting to be conducted under the chief’s chairmanship – it took us two years to have one meeting per quarter, or one meeting in six months. Two years the scientists, actually – and please understand the problem is that our minister of defense is the minister of air force, he’s minister of defense production, he needs to worry about the balance sheet of HAL, he’s also minister of DRDO. So he finds it very easy to say, ‘Inko aapas main ladhney do‘ and let my tenure pass.

– Air Chief Marshal (retd.) SP Tyagi

The issue why ADA has not been able to come up is because aircraft are very complex systems. There are many technologies in use. We are using – most of the systems onboard are imported. But for whatever we are doing in house – there are more than a dozen technologies. In some we have made good progress, in some we have not. And where we have not, the scientists don’t like to admit and don’t like to take help. And the consultancy which is there looks only at a project which is projected to them because of costs. In some cases, it’s never projected to them.

– Air Marshal (retd.) Nirdosh Tyagi

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Aug 2014 23:05

...The F-22 program was – after the basic technology demonstration program the user takes over the entire program management. The US Air Force appointed a program manager with significant powers – financial as well as executive decision-making with respect to the program

The ATF PM was in charge of both the YF-22 and YF23 while the industry had its own team program management in place The Program manager oversaw both the flight test birds and verified that the designs were as submitted. Everything that was delivered using Government money had a program manager sitting on top of it. Similarly the JSF program had a program manager appointed and the PM was rotated between the 3 services and monitored both the X-32 and X-35 program and before these test birds were delivered there was a government manager monitoring the Lockheed Martin X-32 and the McD propulsion system for a STOVL aircraft.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Aug 2014 19:28

Mihir wrote:Vayu-Stratpost Airpower Roundtable Discussion on the LCA

http://www.stratpost.com/video-vayu-str ... undtable-v

Quoting some relevant bits:

...

We should have continued with HF-24 in different blocks. That’s how you build the national capability.

We closed shop there and then we jumped to a four and half generation aspiration on the LCA – much has been achieved, which is very creditable, but it will take thirty years if we jump like that. And the time frames that have been projected have all been absolutely unrealistic.

– Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran
...

Finally it seems now, there is a realisation amongst the IAF brass on how to build the national capability!

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 14 Aug 2014 20:31

HAL aims for 80% local content in Tejas

India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) aims to boost the indigenous content of components and systems fitted onto the long-delayed HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), the state-owned company has stated.

At a conference for LCA subcontractors on 12 August, HAL said that it is targeting 80% local content in the LCA within the next three years. Indigenous content in the aircraft is presently about 60%.

Addressing about 50 LCA subcontractors, Avinash Chander - the Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister Arun Jaitley and Director General of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) - said the target is achievable as 165 of the 344 line replacement units (LRUs) on the LCA are already made in India.

vic · Post by **vic** » 16 Aug 2014 18:30

Why does one never hear about HAL trying to take up indigenisation of ALH to 80%? Though we do hear about even seats being imported.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Aug 2014 22:59

^^^ You make it sound like the making those seats is a child's play. Making them would be a totally separate programme and will need proper investment in R&D w.r.t. that.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Aug 2014 05:59

one thing many people don't realize is that almost every item that goes into an aircraft needs to be certified for crashworthy and other requirements. If I recall correctly, even the passenger seats in civil airlines need to be qualified for 7-9G so that they can survive in crash landings etc. Same for many other parts. That is why though it looks like an aircraft is importing mundane items like seats, window panes, canopies etc, it is because they have all been tested for various scenarios and are usually certified by relevant authorities in one or more countries.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2014 06:05

putnanja wrote:one thing many people don't realize is that almost every item that goes into an aircraft needs to be certified for crashworthy and other requirements. If I recall correctly, even the passenger seats in civil airlines need to be qualified for 7-9G so that they can survive in crash landings etc. Same for many other parts. That is why though it looks like an aircraft is importing mundane items like seats, window panes, canopies etc, it is because they have all been tested for various scenarios and are usually certified by relevant authorities in one or more countries.

It actually goes beyond that, though your point is extremely valid. The process to test has to be established. This is rather tame with certain aspects of an air craft, but with some it is difficult and only comes with great deal of time, funds and multiple failures.

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Aug 2014 10:29

ALH was started in 1980s, so am I to understand that HAL could not set up a vendor even for ALH seats in "only" 30 years?