LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

[Sagar G]

^^^ You jelly indranilroy ??? Having trouble digesting critical comments ???

[Indranil]

The situation fairly simple.
1. IAF is grapling with shortage of planes and is incredibly top-heavy (by IAF's own admission).
2. LCA Mk1 is not everything that was desired out of the LCA, but is almost there. It beats the Mig-21s, Mirage 2000 and Mig-27s which are really long in the tooth.
3. LCA Mk1 will be a truly tested multi-role fighter right from the first serial produced aircraft.
4. LCA Mk1 is dirt cheap.
5. LCA Mk2 is the real deal, but is a few years away.
6. HAL has set up the infrastructure to produce 12-16 planes annually.
7. So why not use this to the full extent and fill up the numbers. Afterall a bird in hand is more than 2 in the bush! An order for 40 does not use up this capability. It is plain and simple.
8. IAF should answer for its antipathy towards LCA. Why can it absorb the Jaguar, the Su-30s as incomplete planes and develop them, but not a desi product. The question of patriotism doesn't arise, but the case of favouritism certainly does!

[Indranil]

^^^ You jelly indranilroy ??? Having trouble digesting critical comments ???

You hypocrite Sagar G??? You can be critical of others, but can't take your own criticism???

[Sagar G]

You hypocrite Sagar G??? You can be critical of others, but can't take your own criticism???

You having comprehension problem indranilroy ??? Where did I say or indicate in my previous post that I won't take criticism of my posts but make it like that no !!!

P.S.- I have always liked the way you bat from both sides, always keeps options open to change track if things don't go according to plan.

[Indranil]

Why do I have to be on one side?!!! I don't feel either IAF or ADA has got it all right. I am sorry it is not palatable to your polar views.

Anyways, I called you out, because I found your "dumbass suggestions" comment really dumbass. And I am quite polar about this one.

[Sagar G]

Why do I have to be on one side?!!! I don't feel either IAF or ADA has got it all right. I am sorry it is not palatable to your polar views.

I never said that ADA is blemishless, again your faulty comprehension.

Anyways, I called you out, because I found your "dumbass suggestions" comment really dumbass. And I am quite polar about this one.

Nice, that's a start for you.

[SaiK]

dunno why we can't jump away from this massive cooling systems for AESA radar.. it would be pretty uttam if we jumpstart to GaN based modules that should do away with cooling systems.

[member_20292]

Good post indranil.

I suggest the GoI open up the LCA for export to friendly nations since the IAF does not seem to want it too much. Vietnam would love a few of these.

[member_26622]

Idiotic rant deleted along with abusive word for IAF. User warned.

This goes for everyone on this forum - use of phrase like 'Imported Air Force' will invite a warning. There are enough ways to express your criticism for IAF/Services rather than using such foul language. - rohitvats

[nash]

Vietnam will be perfect for defense export, LCA, pragati, Brahmos, akash, pinaka, etc,. These all products are at par with finest in the world at their respective category, much cheaper than other and perfectly suit Vietnam's requirement.

[member_28722]

The situation fairly simple.
1. IAF is grapling with shortage of planes and is incredibly top-heavy (by IAF's own admission).
2. LCA Mk1 is not everything that was desired out of the LCA, but is almost there. It beats the Mig-21s, Mirage 2000 and Mig-27s which are really long in the tooth.
3. LCA Mk1 will be a truly tested multi-role fighter right from the first serial produced aircraft.
4. LCA Mk1 is dirt cheap.
5. LCA Mk2 is the real deal, but is a few years away.
6. HAL has set up the infrastructure to produce 12-16 planes annually.
7. So why not use this to the full extent and fill up the numbers. Afterall a bird in hand is more than 2 in the bush! An order for 40 does not use up this capability. It is plain and simple.
8. IAF should answer for its antipathy towards LCA. Why can it absorb the Jaguar, the Su-30s as incomplete planes and develop them, but not a desi product. The question of patriotism doesn't arise, but the case of favouritism certainly does!

It may not be so simple ....
1. LCA may beat Mig21/27 which are essentially 60s designs. Not sure if it beats the Mirage 2000. Can LCA Mk1 do what Mirage did in Kargil? Can it do nuclear bombing?
2. LCA is still 45% phoren maal and also not up to the expectations of IAF. So not only do we have phoren dependence, we also have a user who doesn't have confidence in the aircraft. Both are not needed together for an aircraft which should be built in numbers
3. As written by Rohit, the LCA support facility is not really tested and will be tested only when first 40 LCA are built. There will be issues which will come up only when LCA is actually used. Till now HAL always has had a vendor to fall back to in such scenarios, now they have to do it by themselves. Since Marut never took off, there is no benchmark for how quickly HAL can resolve such issues.
4. For all practical purposes LCA has only been run to-date in a controlled environment
5. IAF can absorb Jaguar/Su-30 as incomplete planes because they come from manufacturers whose roots have decades of development experience going back to WW2 or even earlier and who have produced several aircraft by themselves before Jag and Su30. There is no such expertise with HAL neither has it shown inclination to develop it to date. It is being developed through LCA.

[Raveen]

The situation fairly simple.
1. IAF is grapling with shortage of planes and is incredibly top-heavy (by IAF's own admission).
2. LCA Mk1 is not everything that was desired out of the LCA, but is almost there. It beats the Mig-21s, Mirage 2000 and Mig-27s which are really long in the tooth.
3. LCA Mk1 will be a truly tested multi-role fighter right from the first serial produced aircraft.
4. LCA Mk1 is dirt cheap.
5. LCA Mk2 is the real deal, but is a few years away.
6. HAL has set up the infrastructure to produce 12-16 planes annually.
7. So why not use this to the full extent and fill up the numbers. Afterall a bird in hand is more than 2 in the bush! An order for 40 does not use up this capability. It is plain and simple.
8. IAF should answer for its antipathy towards LCA. Why can it absorb the Jaguar, the Su-30s as incomplete planes and develop them, but not a desi product. The question of patriotism doesn't arise, but the case of favouritism certainly does!

It may not be so simple ....
1. LCA may beat Mig21/27 which are essentially 60s designs. Not sure if it beats the Mirage 2000. Can LCA Mk1 do what Mirage did in Kargil? Can it do nuclear bombing?
2. LCA is still 45% phoren maal and also not up to the expectations of IAF. So not only do we have phoren dependence, we also have a user who doesn't have confidence in the aircraft. Both are not needed together for an aircraft which should be built in numbers
3. As written by Rohit, the LCA support facility is not really tested and will be tested only when first 40 LCA are built. There will be issues which will come up only when LCA is actually used. Till now HAL always has had a vendor to fall back to in such scenarios, now they have to do it by themselves. Since Marut never took off, there is no benchmark for how quickly HAL can resolve such issues.
4. For all practical purposes LCA has only been run to-date in a controlled environment
5. IAF can absorb Jaguar/Su-30 as incomplete planes because they come from manufacturers whose roots have decades of development experience going back to WW2 or even earlier and who have produced several aircraft by themselves before Jag and Su30. There is no such expertise with HAL neither has it shown inclination to develop it to date. It is being developed through LCA.

1. When did Mirage do that? Why would you want a plane to do that when you have missiles - it also can't do judo and karate, go ahead and hold that against the LCA as well
2. So burn the 55% Indian maal? how about the economies of scale when more LCAs are ordered? Its been openly stated that % will go up with more orders to support the supply chain
4. That's what envelope testing is for - something you obviously don't comprehend
5. Chicken and egg story mixed with perfect being the enemy of the good...you need to wrap your head around some basics first

[member_20292]

One should take a look at the Dassault Etendards ...starting from the 50s and 60s, they evolved from version 1 through 6 and then the super etendards ; some of which are still in service.

You can LITERALLY see the OBVIOUS design evolution from the Etendards to the Mirage early versions, to the Mirage 2000.

The only country which starts off with clean slates each time is the USA. Everyone else evolves while they produce, over decades.

The IAF should exhibit a tolerance for this production cycle.

[member_28722]

1. When did Mirage do that? Why would you want a plane to do that when you have missiles - it also can't do judo and karate, go ahead and hold that against the LCA as well
2. So burn the 55% Indian maal? how about the economies of scale when more LCAs are ordered? Its been openly stated that % will go up with more orders to support the supply chain
4. That's what envelope testing is for - something you obviously don't comprehend
5. Chicken and egg story mixed with perfect being the enemy of the good...you need to wrap your head around some basics first

1. Go and watch Kargil videos again. Considering that the major part of our border is high altitude terrain, the point is valid. Stupid statements don't help your rebuttal
2. If that is what you grasped from my point, then you obviously didn't understand it, so there is no point continuing discussion on this point.
3. So envelope testing will highlight all problems. HAL will be the first one to achieve this. You obviously don't comprehend the difference between flying the LCA in Bangalore facilities vs using it at its proposed airbases in Tamil Nadu. You are assuming that there will be zero problems post production. If there are problems in Su30 today, there will be problems in LCA also. If you don't understand this then again no point continuing discussion on this point.
4. Usage of metaphors doesn't hide the fact that you missed the meaning of each and every of my points by several miles.

[jamwal]

HAL/ADA should sell, export LCA design to some foreign company like Sukhoi, Dassault etc. and ask them to manufacture the aircraft under some fancy name like Von Tigre . Once the essentials like offsets, kickbacks, foreign trips and associated perks are settled, IAF and MoD babooze will be more than happy to purchase this brand new aircraft with superb support, decades of experience and great potential for upgrades.

I am willing to bet good money on this.

Only if Indian PSUs knew how to curry favours like westerners do.

1. LCA may beat Mig21/27 which are essentially 60s designs. Not sure if it beats the Mirage 2000. Can LCA Mk1 do what Mirage did in Kargil? Can it do nuclear bombing?
----.

Please read first post of this thread:

Newbies beware ! If you make ignorant remarks, you could be grilled by gurus
to test your LCA knowledge from these pages !

If there are problems in Su30 today, there will be problems in LCA also..

Is this applicable to LCA only ?

[member_28722]

^^^ I am not questioning the capabilities of LCA the way you think I am. It is obviously a great aircraft. But its abilities have not been actually tested beyond the facilities of HAL/ADA. Once IAF gets its hands on the SP version, only then will it mature into an aircraft with actual capabilities. Till then we need to hold comparisons with other aircraft.

Is this applicable to LCA only ?

No, but since this is LCA topic, so I don't want to bring Rafale in here to complicate matters .... problems are not the issue, the more problems Mk1 unearths, the better Mk2 will be. Its HAL's ability to resolve them on their own which is the question mark.

[member_26622]

3. As written by Rohit, the LCA support facility is not really tested and will be tested only when first 40 LCA are built. There will be issues which will come up only when LCA is actually used. Till now HAL always has had a vendor to fall back to in such scenarios, now they have to do it by themselves. Since Marut never took off, there is no benchmark for how quickly HAL can resolve such issues.
4. For all practical purposes LCA has only been run to-date in a controlled environment
5. IAF can absorb Jaguar/Su-30 as incomplete planes because they come from manufacturers whose roots have decades of development experience going back to WW2 or even earlier and who have produced several aircraft by themselves before Jag and Su30. There is no such expertise with HAL neither has it shown inclination to develop it to date. It is being developed through LCA.

Going by points 3, 4 and 5, only Wright brothers planes would have been flying today.

Operational this and that will only come if the plane is 'Operational'. You are falling for the subtle messaging - giving a fail grade even before giving the test. I have seen this brought up time and again, and only 'Imports' will clear this grade.

Extend it further and see the racist - supremacist undertones > Indians should not make planes, steel and are best not even trying to learn to fly a plane. Best to use our bullock carts henceforth!

[member_28722]

Before this spills out into arguments, let me spell it out my point clearly
LCA Mk1 from a product perspective is where Prithvi-1 was in 1988. The experiences gained from using Prithvi-1 allowed development of Agni/Prahaar/Pragati/K-series and has also contributed in developing systems like Nirbhay.
Similarly LCA will mature into a series of aircraft in future
But the user experience needs to happen first.

[Viv S]

What's with equating LCA Mk1 order number and economies of scale? Is HAL going to loose money by building ONLY 40 a/c or are any of the vendors going to loose money on this order size? It will impact the price per unit of the a/c but where does ROI come into picture? Is the HAL or it's vendor going to charge same for 40 units and 120 units? No, I don't think so.

The RoI doesn't have to refer only to a profit-or-loss question. Building 40 units Tejas Mk1 is poor return on investment when the product had the potential to be built in the hundreds. Hell even by industry standards its a poor return - just over $1bn to be spent on the Mk1s, with roughly the same amount invested in development.

[Indranil]

The situation fairly simple.
1. IAF is grapling with shortage of planes and is incredibly top-heavy (by IAF's own admission).
2. LCA Mk1 is not everything that was desired out of the LCA, but is almost there. It beats the Mig-21s, Mirage 2000 and Mig-27s which are really long in the tooth.
3. LCA Mk1 will be a truly tested multi-role fighter right from the first serial produced aircraft.
4. LCA Mk1 is dirt cheap.
5. LCA Mk2 is the real deal, but is a few years away.
6. HAL has set up the infrastructure to produce 12-16 planes annually.
7. So why not use this to the full extent and fill up the numbers. Afterall a bird in hand is more than 2 in the bush! An order for 40 does not use up this capability. It is plain and simple.
8. IAF should answer for its antipathy towards LCA. Why can it absorb the Jaguar, the Su-30s as incomplete planes and develop them, but not a desi product. The question of patriotism doesn't arise, but the case of favouritism certainly does!

It may not be so simple ....
1. LCA may beat Mig21/27 which are essentially 60s designs. Not sure if it beats the Mirage 2000. Can LCA Mk1 do what Mirage did in Kargil? Can it do nuclear bombing?
2. LCA is still 45% phoren maal and also not up to the expectations of IAF. So not only do we have phoren dependence, we also have a user who doesn't have confidence in the aircraft. Both are not needed together for an aircraft which should be built in numbers
3. As written by Rohit, the LCA support facility is not really tested and will be tested only when first 40 LCA are built. There will be issues which will come up only when LCA is actually used. Till now HAL always has had a vendor to fall back to in such scenarios, now they have to do it by themselves. Since Marut never took off, there is no benchmark for how quickly HAL can resolve such issues.
4. For all practical purposes LCA has only been run to-date in a controlled environment
5. IAF can absorb Jaguar/Su-30 as incomplete planes because they come from manufacturers whose roots have decades of development experience going back to WW2 or even earlier and who have produced several aircraft by themselves before Jag and Su30. There is no such expertise with HAL neither has it shown inclination to develop it to date. It is being developed through LCA.

1. Yes, very much!!! The LCA can do everything that the Mirage did in Kargil. Name a thing it cannot do. LGBs, air defence? I have a question for nuclear bombing. Which Indian nuclear ordinance/missile does the IAF Mirages carry?
2. 100% foreign is eligible, but 45% foreign is not! What kind of logic is this? Confidence, Ah! I don't know what can inspire confidence other than more than 2640 incident free test flights.
3. How does one test support facility without building it. How does one build a support structure without orders?
4. Says who? At Ironfist, LCA was the only plane which did multirole action. Let me remind you that we lost a Su-30 and another aborted a bombing run. Did you know that, a Su-30 was supposed to be the chase plane for Nirbhay. There were problems, and a Jaguar was flown in from Ambala.
5. Fair enough. We need to start someday! We have the perfect aircraft to do it. It is safe and flies exactly like the simulators. And every test pilot has said this.

Please don't mind it. But your points are very weak and not at all grounded with reality.

[Indranil]

Before this spills out into arguments, let me spell it out my point clearly
LCA Mk1 from a product perspective is where Prithvi-1 was in 1988. The experiences gained from using Prithvi-1 allowed development of Agni/Prahaar/Pragati/K-series and has also contributed in developing systems like Nirbhay.
Similarly LCA will mature into a series of aircraft in future
But the user experience needs to happen first.

How does user experience happen, if you make orders which make it unfeasible to maintain an assembly line? And if they don't role off a stable assembly line, how will QC be provided?

[Viv S]

Before this spills out into arguments, let me spell it out my point clearly
LCA Mk1 from a product perspective is where Prithvi-1 was in 1988. The experiences gained from using Prithvi-1 allowed development of Agni/Prahaar/Pragati/K-series and has also contributed in developing systems like Nirbhay.
Similarly LCA will mature into a series of aircraft in future
But the user experience needs to happen first.

There's a very crucial difference - ballistic missile technology is stagnant by the standards of the aviation industry. The latest generation of ICBMs aren't very different from ones from the '80s. In contrast, fighter aircraft technology advances by a generation approximately every twenty years.

Today you're justifying limited orders for the Mk1 by terming it a 'learning experience' leading up to the Mk2. In 2022, there will be just as much incentive to limit Mk2 orders by characterizing it as a stepping stone to AMCA.

[Viv S]

The situation fairly simple.
1. IAF is grapling with shortage of planes and is incredibly top-heavy (by IAF's own admission).
2. LCA Mk1 is not everything that was desired out of the LCA, but is almost there. It beats the Mig-21s, Mirage 2000 and Mig-27s which are really long in the tooth.
3. LCA Mk1 will be a truly tested multi-role fighter right from the first serial produced aircraft.
4. LCA Mk1 is dirt cheap.
5. LCA Mk2 is the real deal, but is a few years away.
6. HAL has set up the infrastructure to produce 12-16 planes annually.
7. So why not use this to the full extent and fill up the numbers. Afterall a bird in hand is more than 2 in the bush! An order for 40 does not use up this capability. It is plain and simple.
8. IAF should answer for its antipathy towards LCA. Why can it absorb the Jaguar, the Su-30s as incomplete planes and develop them, but not a desi product. The question of patriotism doesn't arise, but the case of favouritism certainly does!

Perfectly put. I'd just like to add one more point -

9. The LCA Mk1's production line will be switching to the Mk2 when the latter becomes available. Investing now in infrastructure, enabling a higher production rate for the Mk1, will also assist in achieving higher delivery rates for the Mk2.

[Raveen]

1. When did Mirage do that? Why would you want a plane to do that when you have missiles - it also can't do judo and karate, go ahead and hold that against the LCA as well
2. So burn the 55% Indian maal? how about the economies of scale when more LCAs are ordered? Its been openly stated that % will go up with more orders to support the supply chain
4. That's what envelope testing is for - something you obviously don't comprehend
5. Chicken and egg story mixed with perfect being the enemy of the good...you need to wrap your head around some basics first

1. Go and watch Kargil videos again. Considering that the major part of our border is high altitude terrain, the point is valid. Stupid statements don't help your rebuttal
2. If that is what you grasped from my point, then you obviously didn't understand it, so there is no point continuing discussion on this point.
3. So envelope testing will highlight all problems. HAL will be the first one to achieve this. You obviously don't comprehend the difference between flying the LCA in Bangalore facilities vs using it at its proposed airbases in Tamil Nadu. You are assuming that there will be zero problems post production. If there are problems in Su30 today, there will be problems in LCA also. If you don't understand this then again no point continuing discussion on this point.
4. Usage of metaphors doesn't hide the fact that you missed the meaning of each and every of my points by several miles.

High altitude terrain means LCA should be a nuke capable plane even though the IAF never asked for such a thing? Great logic...go on son put those fingers on that keyboard and remove all doubt.

[member_28722]

1. Yes, very much!!! The LCA can do everything that the Mirage did in Kargil. Name a thing it cannot do. LGBs, air defence? I have a question for nuclear bombing. Which Indian nuclear ordinance/missile does the IAF Mirages carry?

Mirage 2000 was originally concieved by French for nuclear delivery, also various news and public sources state that Mirage was our primary nuclear delivery vehicle. Not sure if we ever officially confirmed it.
From wiki

India has assigned a nuclear strike role to its Mirage 2000 squadrons in service with the IAF since 1985.

2. 100% foreign is eligible, but 45% foreign is not! What kind of logic is this? Confidence, Ah! I don't know what can inspire confidence other than more than 2640 incident free test flights.

You misunderstand saar .... I am not pro Rafale/Gripen. I would prefer LCA. However the IAF needs to place orders, which they have no indication of giving. If the Stratpost round table conference is any indication, they have no confidence in LCA. Till that issue is overcome from IAF side, debating here won't matter. Also GoI won't be able to overrule IAF on technical grounds

3. How does one test support facility without building it. How does one build a support structure without orders?

Valid point .... I am not contesting it ....

4. Says who? At Ironfist, LCA was the only plane which did multirole action. Let me remind you that we lost a Su-30 and another aborted a bombing run. Did you know that, a Su-30 was supposed to be the chase plane for Nirbhay. There were problems, and a Jaguar was flown in from Ambala.

FOC pending and not yet handed over to IAF?

5. Fair enough. We need to start someday! We have the perfect aircraft to do it. It is safe and flies exactly like the simulators. And every test pilot has said this.

Completely agree ... Marut should have been our start but alas ... LCA will be ...

Please don't mind it. But your points are very weak and not at all grounded with reality.

I don't. I don't either claim that I am an armchair expert. I am looking at this from a project delivery / user perspective. I have no questions or doubts regarding the product quality.

Let me put it in IT project terms, since I am from that field
1. Let us say that X company wants to go from PeopleSoft a new ERP solution.
2. We have two options
a. Workday, a spanking new product which promises a lot and at much lesser costs but X company will be first implementation (LCA)
b. PeopleSoft new version, PeopleSoft has been reliable in the past, but future looks bleak due to changes (Russian planes)
c. SAP, market proven, but expensive (France/US/Euro etc ...)
3. If we see from an organization's point of view in 2005/06, this is the situation.
4. Now almost one decade down the line, IT folks know that Workday is doing very well and some time back had a $10bil IPO.
5. If I was X-company and I would give some non-critical systems project to Workday & either upgrade the PeopleSoft on my critical systems or switch to SAP.
6. If Workday implementation works well, I would expand it and during my next upgrade say 4 years or so down the line I would replace everything with Workday

This may be a simplistic view to some, but isn't IAF doing something similar with LCA. I would not say they are completely wrong in doing so.

[member_28722]

High altitude terrain means LCA should be a nuke capable plane even though the IAF never asked for such a thing? Great logic...go on son put those fingers on that keyboard and remove all doubt.

No thanks ... I would rather spend time on replies whose posters have some gray cells.

[Raja Bose]

Mod Note: Can we stop calling each other names and speculating on each other's grey cell densities? Thank you!

[member_28722]

There's a very crucial difference - ballistic missile technology is stagnant by the standards of the aviation industry. The latest generation of ICBMs aren't very different from ones from the '80s. In contrast, fighter aircraft technology advances by a generation approximately every twenty years.

Yes, I would say the technology is stagnant from US and Russia pov, but we have developed it from scratch through IGDMP so its still developing for us
I get what you are saying and no I am not comparing the technologies. I am looking at this from a project delivery / product maturity perspective

Today you're justifying limited orders for the Mk1 by terming it a 'learning experience' leading up to the Mk2. In 2022, there will be just as much incentive to limit Mk2 orders by characterizing it as a stepping stone to AMCA.

Is IAF's lack of faith in HAL/ADA totally stupid and unjustified? Maybe you and other experts can answer this. Saying that IAF is stuck up with phoren maal is a very simple way to put it. Do we have the actual IAF grievances with LCA which are unjustified?
Some justified grievances would be like the ones below (which have probably been diced and discussed earlier)

Some of the modifications that IAF has to make on the Tejas include pushing back the cockpit panels by few centimeters to prevent the toes of an ejecting pilot from getting entangled with instruments and aides and adding another 60 centimetres in length to the aircraft body to allow easy access and replacements of critical circuitry.

Jaitley admitted as much in parliament when he declared that HAL's "inadequate production facility" was capable of building only four LCA Mk Is per year, instead of a projected eight platforms. The IAF, for its part, wants HAL to build 14 LCA Mk Is a year to boost its depleting fighter squadrons.

[NRao]

LCA is still 45% phoren maal and also not up to the expectations of IAF.

Round that 45 to a cool 100 and the IAF would love it.

[Kartik]

dunno why we can't jump away from this massive cooling systems for AESA radar.. it would be pretty uttam if we jumpstart to GaN based modules that should do away with cooling systems.

Saurabh Jha has suggested that the Uttam AESA will look to move away from GaAs to GaN modules, but that is to be confirmed at AI-'15.

But who says that GaN modules do not require cooling?? and at ~8-10 kgs for the entire assembly, the weight penalty of the liquid cooling system for the Uttam AESA doesn't seem to be a weight issue, especially when one considers the ballast that the Tejas apparently carries in the nose due to cg requirements.

As with packaging, AESA thermal management and power conditioning has changed dramatically during the last 30-plus years. The RF devices in an AESA can generate large heat flux levels, and the thermal management of AESA systems has spurred development of higher performance liquid flow-through cold plate technology, thermal interface materials, and controlled CTE packaging materials. Arrays in the 1980s used heat pipes to reduce the temperature rise between the electronics and the ambient environments. As packaging approaches evolved to higher densities, thermal management solutions evolved to using smaller air or liquid heat sink assemblies.

Liquid cooling is typically the choice for thermal management of high performance AESA-based electronics, and is the most efficient and affordable approach to maintaining the required MMIC and TRM temperatures needed to achieve high reliability and electrical performance. Some liquid-cooling solutions provide the cooling channels directly under the TRMs or MMICs and others conduct the heat away from the TRMs or MMICs to a liquid cooled manifold. For further cooling efficiency, new liquid-cooling designs position the fluid even closer to the MMICs using integrated nano- and micro-size channels in planar volumetric cooling architectures and novel heat spreader designs. Air-cooled approaches are also used for some applications, especially for small low-power devices. Air-cooled approaches are often simpler and lower cost versus liquid-cooled designs and can be used when the system requirements allow it.

Raytheon sheet on AESA radars

[member_20292]

Is IAF's lack of faith in HAL/ADA totally stupid and unjustified?

No it is not.

But, if your child is unable to live up to your expectations, will you kick him out of your house, since he cannot do as well as the neighbours son?

The strength of the effort is the measure of the result. The IAF makes no effort to ëncourage "make in India" . It's time it does that. We are well on our way to being a superpower, and we have to have the institutions and ecosystems to match.
Preparing for a fight with China also means that we have to have lines of planes churning out of our factories.

Once ONE makes the AB-INITIO effort to generate the ecosystem, is when the ecosystem will arise.
One should have the cojones to think AB INITIO ecosystem development. Can we? Yes. Can we get people to fall in line to develop the ecosystem? Including the IAF.

Another idea:

Suppose one were to divest a stake in HAL to Reliance or Tata , would it lead to better performance? Sure, Tata has a decent management. The govt. of India on the other hand does not manage well. To expect HAL to be like Toyota in its production will be facetious. How the h$ll should it get anywhere with high standards of production, when the run and the order quantity is so miniscule?

Keep one thing constant - The LCA platform. Commit to large runs, regardless of the state of technology.
Then develop technology and production engineering, having that confidence in mind.

1. HAL should be divested, at least 26%
2. the LCA is ready for export to Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and other places.
3. Commitment to large orders is obtained from the MoD. Order of 200 placed. This is necessary for exports as well.
4. test it out to pieces. Use the LCA as a collaborative platform for the aforementioned countries, as well as the other countries and companies from which technology is sought.

[member_28756]

Is IAF's lack of faith in HAL/ADA totally stupid and unjustified?

No it is not.

.

1. HAL should be divested, at least 26%
2. the LCA is ready for export to Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and other places.
3. Commitment to large orders is obtained from the MoD. Order of 200 placed. This is necessary for exports as well.
4. test it out to pieces. Use the LCA as a collaborative platform for the aforementioned countries, as well as the other countries and companies from which technology is sought.

Hmmm...Vietnam is very heavily into Russian fighters and still have existing orders, Phillipines just bought South Korean planes and are practically broke, Taiwan builts its own fighters or buys Western, South Korea has a robust aviation industry buildings fighters, trainers and now its own future stealth program, Japan buys US or make its own and now building a stealth prototype fighter. Those are rather tough market and most of them do not need to seek tech from LCA. Most importantly if the IAF does not have much faith in it how do you expect those other countries to buy it ?

I agree IAF should be "persuaded to buy heavily into LCA" and then the prospect of exporting will get much better perhaps to Africa or Latin America or some Asian countries who are looking for affordable and "reasonably priced" fighter.

[nash]

Number of LCA can increases either if IAF get impressed by delivery quality of HAL and its operation readiness or if GoI persuade IAF that target of total number of sqd. by 2022-25 increases from 42-45 to 45-50 and it can only be done cheaply through LCA, even then IAF won't agree then shove this Jet down through their throat.

SAM DAAM DAND....

[Yagnasri]

But what is the alternative for LCA to fill the huge gap in numbers. Rafale is too costly and there is no other options available if you insist on 4+++ or what ever. At least against Pakistan, we may do ok with Tejas. Frankly a long term commitment is a must for indigenous systems development of complicated systems. Nation has limited money and tech capabilities. To increase the same every wing has to do their bit just like navy.

[NRao]

Long term AND continuous commitment.

[member_28722]

Round that 45 to a cool 100 and the IAF would love it.

The Ugly Truth .... for lack of better description

[member_28442]

Round that 45 to a cool 100 and the IAF would love it.

The Ugly Truth .... for lack of better description

to be honest, giving a greater push to the airforce and navy isnt such a bad thing in modern times.

usa mainly uses its navy and airforce in almost all wars, with the foot soldiers coming in much later to clean up

[arshyam]

^^ We don't have the advantage of oceans all around us, nor are we expeditionary in nature, so that does not apply to India. Any conflict will see the land forces getting involved off the bat.

[srai]

Hmmm...Vietnam is very heavily into Russian fighters and still have existing orders, Phillipines just bought South Korean planes and are practically broke, Taiwan builts its own fighters or buys Western, South Korea has a robust aviation industry buildings fighters, trainers and now its own future stealth program, Japan buys US or make its own and now building a stealth prototype fighter. Those are rather tough market and most of them do not need to seek tech from LCA. Most importantly if the IAF does not have much faith in it how do you expect those other countries to buy it ?

I agree IAF should be "persuaded to buy heavily into LCA" and then the prospect of exporting will get much better perhaps to Africa or Latin America or some Asian countries who are looking for affordable and "reasonably priced" fighter.

If India wants to export its weapons in a fiercely competitive and established defence arena, it would need to provide its weapons on a soft credit type of scheme. Give them away for practically "free" to get a foot in the door. Fly-away cost is only around 20% of its 10-30 year lifecycle costs. There is a lot of money to be made through a product's maintenance support and keep your MIC humming along for decades supplying parts and doing repairs/upgrades.

[shiv]

If India wants to export its weapons in a fiercely competitive and established defence arena, it would need to provide its weapons on a soft credit type of scheme. Give them away for practically "free" to get a foot in the door. Fly-away cost is only around 20% of its 10-30 year lifecycle costs. There is a lot of money to be made through a product's maintenance support and keep your MIC humming along for decades supplying parts and doing repairs/upgrades.

One important aspect is to set up a mechanism to bribe military officers from foreign buyer nations.