LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2014 04:22

I'd say start the Mk-3 specs, and POCs right away! allocate funds and the get projects kick started.
- Kaveri engine
- Dual engine airframe
- Try a tail out
- change the wing designs for mach 2
- divertless intake
- stealth skins, absorption and deflection
- passive lock, scan & track
- .net centric/awac integration with various mission profiles

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 22 Dec 2014 04:51

IIRC the Stratpost conference was discussed to death on BR a few months back. My takeaways at the time were that Adm. Arun Prakash was brief and devastatingly accurate on the IAF'S lack of ownership of the program, and the Navy way that we all know and admire that is the exact opposite. Masand was pretty good too.

AVM Mateshwaran came across as a very negative element, with his views that the LCA program was a failure and on how to "salvage" it. For him the cup was perpetually half empty. IIRC many of his statements were inaccurate, to say the least. As for the two Tyagis, the less said the better. The videos clearly highlighted the differences between the IAF and IN product development/ acquisition mechanisms, and why the Navy is so successful at it. Hopefully the IAF has woken up now to the error of their ways, with their belated involvement in the program.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 22 Dec 2014 05:36

SaiK wrote:^good pointer there khalsa ji! btw, destruction is easy! as easy as being lazy.

kaveri next gen must happen. we need to only re-org the boys.

Aye Sir.... we must NEVER give up...

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 22 Dec 2014 07:46

maz wrote:two more articles by AM Mathy

http://www.stratpost.com/light-combat-a ... rrection-i
http://www.stratpost.com/light-combat-a ... rection-ii

Very timely analysis. One hopes the powers that be take heed, step back, take a deep breath and try to save the domestic fighter project (let's drop the "LCA" moniker for a start

). It's not too late but soon it will go the HF-24 way.

Leaving out who is to blame and focusing solely on the future, the main takeaways as I read it:

* LCA in its present config is too small with too many performance drawbacks to fulfill IAF's needs. The "Light" part of the idea was faulty from the start.

* basic design is too heavy due to poor weight management

* It's delta wing "unstable flight" regime driven by FBW is not enough to make up performance deficiencies

* It needs to have canards to deliver adequate performance, like Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon as was recommended by phoren consultants that HAL/ADA/DRDO brought in.

* upshot of above: LCA will never be an operational IAF fighter. This needs to get drilled into everyone's brains.

* Media and internet air marshalls who insist that IAF should use and fight with the LCA are talking unadulterated bullcr@p and need to get real.

* We need to reconsider the basic LCA idea to deliver a fighter that is relevant to the IAF's needs today and tomorrow, not yesterday. A simple replacement of the MiG-21 won't do.

* Make ICA (LCA2 renamed as Indian Combat Aircraft) with a single Ge 414 with canards and longer fuselage for additional fuel and range. This will need minimal additional tech development and can be done quickly.

* Make and ICA2 with two Ge 414s for a kick@ss fighter, also needing minimal redesign. Both should have canards.

Strangely enough, we have pretty much said the same things here.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2014 07:55

hobbes, failure is abstract term and dependent on how one uses the product. From an R&D perspective, it is darn too successful! from operational requirements to take right into squadrons, it is not. Again, the failure is also part of IAF for not having to own their specifications, and get into agile mode to watch programs and establish deep certification, V&V regime right from paper designs. hey, if things don't work out certain way, one can't be lazy and sleeping around till delivery time. can't complain on health, if one doesn't exercise at all!

take it constructive.. WE can't just dump this.. if we blame game, then politicians will see it as weakness and just dump it. they have frekking no clues as to the advantages of home grown establishments doing advanced fighter jets. WE have to be supportive to make LCA be successful. right charter, right program management and user stakeholder participation is a MUST for all projects. In addition, if IAF does what IN is doing, it is a double shot under the arm.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Dec 2014 09:25

The author says it can't be achieved without canards and Jha says it will be achieved with Mk2

Vice Air Marshal Matheswaran is shooting in the wind. This is not a canard business, but rather a lack of installed power business. With the weight gain that the LCA went through it will not meet the ASR 1995 requirements (with a close to 800Kg to 1000 kg empty weight less) with the same installed power. That weight gain was largely result of scope and requirements creep. The short falls are in Sustained Turn Rate, Climb Rate and Trans sonic acceleration , all of which are a function of engine power.

With the current config, the LCA MK1 (on paper) is a far better fighter and all round plane than the M2K -5 to 9 version. Sure the M2K (with it's 90KN engine) will not have the sustained turn rate of a F-16 (120 KN + unstable config with FBW) (which the Mig 29 with it's excess installed power probably matches or betters slightly , the Mig 29 is a conventional layout) , but that doesn't mean that it is "unusable" by any means, far from it. It is a very competent plane as will be the Mk1 and will do a fine all round job and can easily replace the Mig21.

That said, the LCA is probably over dragged with it's large wing area and probably it probably will do with a lil bit of fuselage stretch to get the fine ness ratio in place and some amount of better area ruling to get that kink out of the area curve that was posted here and to make the change in area more gradual.

That is what is being addressed in LCA MKII. With the higher thrust (98KN) engine and the fuselage stretch and the "whisper ultra wings" tank on the spine and saddle tank near the fuselages put the bulges in the right places, increases range and t:w ratio shortfall and of course aero refinements.

The question is, what does the IAF want. I suspect that with the Bison upgrades, the IAF is comfortable wrt to the interceptor /point defence, short range attack , along with the Jag and Mig 27 upgrades and despite all the noise does not want the MK1 that desperately, but is willing to wait 5 more years for the fully capable LCA MKII to roll out in numbers and do the batch replacement of those airframes (Mig21, Mig 27) at one go with the fully capable platform.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 22 Dec 2014 09:35

Victor wrote:LCA will never be an operational IAF fighter

Dream on

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 22 Dec 2014 11:00

yeah i agree , we cant even make a basic plane and look at paki , they got even a monkey to fly

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 22 Dec 2014 12:21

Victor wrote:Make ICA (LCA2 renamed as Indian Combat Aircraft) with a single Ge 414 with canards and longer fuselage for additional fuel and range. This will need minimal additional tech development and can be done quickly.

* Make and ICA2 with two Ge 414s for a kick@ss fighter, also needing minimal redesign. Both should have canards.

Strangely enough, we have pretty much said the same things here.

Well then if the ground situation matches your wishlist then a few fanbois can be safely ignored. ICA2 with two Ge 414s would be a different beast entirely and hence I am not asking anything about it.

But what in your view are, the extra missions / increase in mission capability (as against technical capability), that are predicated solely on a change of engine from 404 to 414?

Also could you explain, why would not the Mk2 become the same kind of 'unprepared for future dominated by enemy 5th gen stealthy fighters' in next 5 years? And if there is no such comfort at then end of 5 years then why should we not, simply chuck Indian aircraft designing, out of the window and order better 5th Gen solutions available at 4.5 Gen prices today?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2014 12:21

Shaun wrote:What I can get from Jha's article is , although there is no denying the whole LCA program accelerated the aero space industry but we will be getting an a/c similar to 6-teen ( WRT aerodynamics ) only by next decade !!
The control laws were tested on teen VISTA with 33 sorties recorded before pokhran 2 , so it can be safely assumed that 1995 ASR for LCA is influenced by 6-teen.

the original ASR was influenced by 2 aircraft that the IAF was flying back in the '80s. the Mirage-2000 and the MiG-29. I can't find that article now, but it was written by a top IAF guy, and he stated that the ITR was supposed to be equal to that of the Mirage-2000 and the STR was supposed to equal the MiG-29.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2014 12:25

Philip wrote:"IAF's 1995 ASR..." to be achieved with Mk-2.That's two decades on.A simple Q,no disrespect whatsoever to the tireless ones trying to bring the 3+ decade old programme to success,but can the 20 yr. old ASR still be valid in the age of stealth birds? There's still a huge way to go before the LCA can be judged to be a success.Series prod. of the MK-2 will not emerge before 2020 and at that time we will have a proliferation of enemy stealth aircraft coming off their prod. lines.
The LCA programme however does have great potential if we leapfrog old ASRs and consider a lightweight stealth version based upon the experience achieved thus far. We've tackled composites quite well and with conformal radars,sensors etc. arriving with the FGFA JV,use whatever is available right now to put into place asap a stealth version of Tejas.The Chinese appear to be doing just that.Getting their aircraft flying and into service asap ,refining their capabilities later on.
Tejas stealth would be achieved much faster than a 15 yr. programme for an all new AMCA which would be the next step after LCA-S.LCA-S would have good export potential too.

yes it can, since the neighbourhood won't go to full stealth fighters even by 2035-40. And if a Gripen NG can be entering service with the Flygvapnet and FAB in the 2020s then why can't a Tejas Mk2? Rafale's aren't going anywhere, Typhoons aren't going anywhere and nor are newer vintage F-16s and Super Hornets.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2014 12:41

deejay wrote:^^^ With due respect to A M (Retd) Mathesaran, the problem IMO, is in inter agency blame game and never taking ownership. A M (Retd) Mathesaran may be right but continuously blaming the other guys does not solve the problem. I have said this before and I repeat - at StratPost roundtable and his two part article on StratPost he is blaming the 'other guys'. I am sure 'other guys' can fault the IAF equally.

It is time that IAF, HAL, DRDO and all its associated labs started working as 'We'. I would have found the retired Air Marshal's view more palatable if he could transcend barriers and look at LCA as an Indian effort where the IAF gets to use the LCA not only as a 'User' but as 'Users' who have a stake in the future of the aircraft, perhaps like the IN does it.

On the contrary, his blinkered approach is clearly visible in the article as well as in the round table talks.

He talks about the inability to meet certain ASR specifications related to aero performance..and then uses that as an excuse to state that the Mk1 cannot meet operational requirements. Remember, these specs were just drawn up by looking at the capabilities of other hot rods like the MiG-29 and the Mirage-2000. Not by looking at the specs of the airplane that the Tejas Mk1 was supposed to be replacing, the MiG-21. All while retaining the form, size and footprint of a MiG-21.

There have been some who had commented on the IAF's focus on an airplane's performance without necessarily looking at the full spectrum of capabilities it brings. AM Matheswaran exemplifies that type of vision. So even if the airplane has HOBS with HMDS, he will state that because its STR isn't what they originally wanted, its useless.

He then goes on to compare it to a Gripen (while an advert for the Gripen is in the right hand top corner) while ignoring the fact that Saab was into fighter development for many decades with support from the govt. and the Flygvapnet. the IAF's record in this matter is rather poor in comparison. he doesn't even come around to the affordability part of it..And conveniently he doesn't raise the question of cost vs capability-because the Gripen C/D costs nearly 2 times as much as a Tejas Mk1 now and the Gripen E is going for upwards of $100 million each. All for what? a couple more degrees of turning capability?

Where is the realism and practical approach in his talks and writing? This is the type of leadership that landed the Tejas program in such a situation where the primary customer was itself as distant as distant could be. Very unimpressive.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 22 Dec 2014 12:59

^^^ If he had indeed kept the 'ownership' of the programme as an Indian effort and not seen it as an end user, these very points would not have come. It is exactly at this attitudinal shift that the IAF has to work and I hope it finds a person of the caliber of Adm Arun Prakash.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 22 Dec 2014 13:01

Not questioning his credentials but with such hostility towards LCA he wanted(or was it the IAF?) to be CMD of HAL. Thank god it didn't happen!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2014 13:06

Hobbes wrote:IIRC the Stratpost conference was discussed to death on BR a few months back. My takeaways at the time were that Adm. Arun Prakash was brief and devastatingly accurate on the IAF'S lack of ownership of the program, and the Navy way that we all know and admire that is the exact opposite. Masand was pretty good too.

AVM Mateshwaran came across as a very negative element, with his views that the LCA program was a failure and on how to "salvage" it. For him the cup was perpetually half empty. IIRC many of his statements were inaccurate, to say the least. As for the two Tyagis, the less said the better. The videos clearly highlighted the differences between the IAF and IN product development/ acquisition mechanisms, and why the Navy is so successful at it. Hopefully the IAF has woken up now to the error of their ways, with their belated involvement in the program.

in fact, it was a classic case of the higher ups being clueless about many of the latest developments, having not been so deeply involved.

I've seen this in other areas of work as well- the higher up the exec goes, the farther they are from day to day goings-on and the less up to date and the lesser knowledge they have of the intricate details. Most spout opinions, not facts, based on hearsay that they pick up from others.

Go to an airshow and talk to a pilot and you're likely to see that they know a lot about their mounts (quite natural), but not so much about others.

As you rightly said, his views come across as totally pessimistic and negative. All for what? Not meeting some climb rate and STR spec? Despite the fact that in every other area, be it avionics, structures, FBW, weapons, safety, etc. the Tejas Mk1 itself brings a huge qualitative jump over the airplane it is supposed to replace..why doesn't anyone question him as to whether any young IAF pilot would even dare take a MiG-21 to its limits, aware of the fact that doing so without a computer to save his ass may mean having to eject from a stalled airplane? Does safety and reduced pilot workload not matter or what? And what might his suggestion be for replacing the MiG-21 in IAF service without breaking the bank and again foreclosing on an aeronautical industry

it is the fault of his ilk that the HF-24 Marut fiasco occurred, the HTT-34 never went into development, that the IAF stayed away from the program for so long..although thankfully this last part is being addressed now with the IAF clearly being deeply involved as Saurabh Jha's article pointed out. Finally, better sense is prevailing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Dec 2014 13:34

It's not that the IAF stayed away for so long,it was "nobody's baby".I've posted often enough inside info as to how the programme was neglected for a long time and tall tales by those responsible ,Even APJ AK was fooled into believing its progress and made his infamous statement in 2003 that "by 2010,200 LCAs would be built"!

When Mk-2 will fly and meet its IAF parameters is anyone's guess.The Gripen would've been in service a decade by the time series production of Mk-2 starts.Upgraded variants are already in the pipeline. Pak's modest fighter would've crossed 100+ homebuilt by 2020. Our Bisons will have to meet the challenge until 2025 from official statements.As for Mk-1's much vaunted capabilities against a M-2000UG,as of now its purely speculative.Only when it enters sqd. service anmd performs as hoped for can we truly open the bottle of bubbly.

The best news is that the NLCA seems to be making steady if not spectacular progress.We hope that weapon testing is completed asap given the experience of the MK-1 and it actually flies off a carrier's deck next year.That would be superb news.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 22 Dec 2014 13:49

PLease feel free to ignore.

From AM Matheswaran's article part II:

India’s profile and its environment of the 1970s and early 80s may have sufficed with a one-to-one replacement for the MiG-21. India’s increasing stature and global role, its threat environment and rapid technological developments in the world mandates an aircraft with better performance and radius of action in this segment

Sounds awfully like a bingo game. I find it strange then that the IAF continues to operate Mig-21s ? Why hasn't it disbanded its fleet of early-Cold war era aircraft.
But AM Matheswaran also says that an a/c with better performance/radius is needed. Has it asked for modern equivalents for its fleet in the intervening period when LCA was still in development?What is he really saying?Im confused.

<conjecture>
To me , this sudden set of posts taking "holistic"views of things is NOT meant for the public but rather directed at Babus/Defence ministry. Is there an Aerospace command with MIL-IND-UNI linkage planned? Are posts there up for grabs?
</conjecture>

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Dec 2014 14:23

Philip wrote:It's not that the IAF stayed away for so long,it was "nobody's baby".I've posted often enough inside info as to how the programme was neglected for a long time and tall tales by those responsible ,Even APJ AK was fooled into believing its progress and made his infamous statement in 2003 that "by 2010,200 LCAs would be built"!

And we have first hand info from AM Rajkumar as to how the IAF looked at the Tejas program and what it did to those who were deputed to that program. It was pretty much a career ending choice for IAF personnel instead of being a prestigious posting that would draw the best IAF talent towards management of that program.

When Mk-2 will fly and meet its IAF parameters is anyone's guess.
The Gripen would've been in service a decade by the time series production of Mk-2 starts.Upgraded variants are already in the pipeline. Pak's modest fighter would've crossed 100+ homebuilt by 2020. Our Bisons will have to meet the challenge until 2025 from official statements.As for Mk-1's much vaunted capabilities against a M-2000UG,as of now its purely speculative.Only when it enters sqd. service anmd performs as hoped for can we truly open the bottle of bubbly.

No, the Gripen E will only enter service with the FAB and the Flygvapnet around 2020. At most it will enter service a couple of years ahead of the Tejas Mk2.

As for those Bisons, the Tejas Mk1 comfortably exceeds their capability and safety and a sensible IAF would order another 20 Tejas Mk1s so that half of the Bison fleet can retire by 2020.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Dec 2014 15:43

Cost wise and also the capability wise LCA Mk1 and Mk2 gives a very good option to us. Further we can free most of high end AC from west in case of two front war with lizzard and their munna. We may not be needing high end ACs to attend to Munna. At least this factor has to be taken into consideration.

Forces need to look at the economic condition of the nation and need for the development of national capabilities also. They can not behave like like a wife in the gold shop. Good that we have not yet signed for Rafale. It is time to seriously relook into LCA and its role in future of national security as a whole. Hope new RM will do that.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 22 Dec 2014 15:56

There were lots of Ifs and buts on fitness of Naval Tejas design for A/C compatibility. However the way it has took off from SBTF have left no scope for skepticism. As per Tamil mani the climb rate is 11* Against 6.4 degree. It may be said that Navy was right in funding and having confidence in Naval Tejas.

I have a question. Whether Lavcon design of naval Tejas can help Air force version to have a better agility i.e STR by adopting that features from Navy?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Dec 2014 17:58

Neela wrote:PLease feel free to ignore.

From AM Matheswaran's article part II:
India’s profile and its environment of the 1970s and early 80s may have sufficed with a one-to-one replacement for the MiG-21. India’s increasing stature and global role, its threat environment and rapid technological developments in the world mandates an aircraft with better performance and radius of action in this segment

So India will exercise its 'increasing stature and global role' using imported Rafael fighters. Fighters that will only work when the India's and France's interests are aligned. India is a supel power when its actions are OK with France else we are international pigmies onlee?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2014 18:34

vina wrote:
The author says it can't be achieved without canards and Jha says it will be achieved with Mk2
Vice Air Marshal Matheswaran is shooting in the wind. This is not a canard business, but rather a lack of installed power business. With the weight gain that the LCA went through it will not meet the ASR 1995 requirements (with a close to 800Kg to 1000 kg empty weight less) with the same installed power. That weight gain was largely result of scope and requirements creep. The short falls are in Sustained Turn Rate, Climb Rate and Trans sonic acceleration , all of which are a function of engine power.

vina boss, the designer had every mind and right to not shoot the scope creep into the winds. after all, who owns the design here? I as a customer can ask for a flying tank! but it is the designer to come up and say, not possible with this budget or time frame or even based on my capability. [just leave aside PCO/TD etc]. The point AM Mathy is saying is, all about management, process and structure corrections rather technology achievements. There are significant issues there rather than the technology hit and miss aspect.

In a learning process, no one will shoot in the wind. If I were the designer, I'd say, great requirements for Block 2, or 3. Let us complete the Block 1 with the requirements we had. Now, there is no such thing as agile mode when you scratching on papers and working out components in R&D shop. It is a serious run-time process business.

Unless, we have seen capabilities as plug-play components, there is no way one can accept requirement changes without study. The very fact, designers accepted changes means, their parameters to include additional weights and expecting similar performance was wrong.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Dec 2014 18:47

SaiK

Vina is right. Its underpowered for the expected weight.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 22 Dec 2014 20:19

Matheswaran has blamed both IAF and HAL for the LCA problems but the whole thrust of those 2 articles is not to flog a dead horse but to lay out the best path going forward. This is the only thing that matters and from my computer gaddi, I will defer to him rather than anyone on BR or even HAL. He represents the view of the IAF and that is enough for me but more impotantly, everything he has written makes perfect sense even with my lay understanding of aircraft.

The LCA is a dead duck as far as the IAF is concerned and the sensible thing to do is move on to LCA2. It helps no one to be bull-headed about this. HAL doesn't have to prove anything and what we have learned is not going anywhere. Let us build on it with the overriding goal being to get an adequate fighter asap. Adequate as defined by IAF and not HAL/ADA and certainly not by keyboard ninjas.

The fact that HAL brought in consultants says a lot but if HAL then ignored their advice on canards, I lose all faith in their decision making abilities. Fact remains that even a bathtub with wings will turn better with canards than without. What's the problem? I lay odds that LCA 2 will have them.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Dec 2014 20:47

<conjecture>
To me , this sudden set of posts taking "holistic"views of things is NOT meant for the public but rather directed at Babus/Defence ministry. Is there an Aerospace command with MIL-IND-UNI linkage planned? Are posts there up for grabs?
</conjecture>

Absolutely spot on. It has been the IAF's fondest wish to gain control of the HAL and make it an extended workshop /larger BRD kind of business and put an ex IAF dude there. That would be an absolute disaster and will ruin the HAL beyond repair , exactly the same way that posting Ex IN officers in Cochin, Vizag and GRSE and Goa and MDL yards led them to a terminal decline and an extension of the IN. A basic poor captive to what the IN decides.

That will be the death knell of any aerospace stuff in the long term. HAL should be run on business lines. In fact it should privatised and made to venture out into the wide world to go out and conquer, after it is split into airframe, engine and avionics businesses separately.

The ex IAF types always wanted to get parked in the HAL as a CMD/Director level positions after retirement there and this is a way of them trying to throw their hats into the rings.

Frankly, the IAF , beyond it's ability to operate planes has zero design and and even design analysis capability. They harrumph a lot, just like the Army, but don't have the capability to come up with a requirements specs (the sorry state of an orphaned LCA having to have it's wings re-designed as postulated and later confirmed by an ex ADA guy because the IAF couldn't bother putting up a realistic weapon spec and a delay of 1 year on that count) that is in anyway meaningful.

They cannot come up with a weapon concept , which of course is a trade off between requirements, capabilities and what can be realistically achieved in a given time frame, along with an operational doctrine /use case to go with it, or anything new beyond some hackneyed thing that exists. For e.g., the F-35 has a LOWER field performance than the F-16. There is no way in hell any IAF officer would have signed off on a concept like that. The only guys here again are the Navy, because they have a competent R&D specialised branch which can actually make engineering and design sense. They can sign off on putting an existing power plant from the Leander into a larger Hull when their designers analysed it and promised the same top speed. The Navy puts it's money where it's mouth is and puts up Rs 900 cr of it's own money for purely R&D on a carrier derivative of the LCA (and hey, it just took off a few days ago from the shore based test bed) and based senior folks there in Bangalore for that.

The Air Force couldn't even be bothered to put a few of their folks together and say what weapons the LCA should carry! Then when the Navy put up the modification of the LCA with the GE 414 engine, the Airforce guys claim that this was the version that they "always" wanted ! No sir. No NAVAIR China Lake like expertise or US Airforce Systems Command , nor could they be bothered or have made any efforts to develop that. Instead an attempt at empire building by grabbing HAL and it's manufacturing base and turning into an extension of it's BRD. Let the Air Force first invest and build a cadre of trained aerospace engineering folks ( not the maintenance kind, but the design and R&D guys), by hiring and training internal folks and actually build serious program management capabilities. That will be a serious long term contribution of consequence , rather than attempts to pad their post retirement nests.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Dec 2014 20:49

** Deleted **

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2014 21:37

ramana, vina is of course right in that the LCA is underpowered for the weight (it goes beyond saying that)... the contention is not about that. DRDO must understand they can't stand alone on this front, but must respect user community in their requirememnts. Now, it is all about how to do it! not whats. The whats must have happened during elicitiations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Dec 2014 21:41

Vina that's unnecessary.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 22 Dec 2014 23:11

What is it about pakis who get into a lather and lapse into abusive lingo when their "whizzdom" and "gnawlidge" is refuted by the facts time and again? Comical and pathetic.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Dec 2014 02:38

Hes also responsible for organizing another witch hubt against orgs he didnt like. Spurious claims and rhetoric were employed. Sorry to say but he seemed to have reveled in his power.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Dec 2014 03:33

did I miss any specific analysis point? could you guys point me to exactly the statements he made for you all to go orthogonal on him?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2014 08:03

vina wrote: Frankly, the IAF , beyond it's ability to operate planes has zero design and and even design analysis capability. They harrumph a lot, just like the Army, but don't have the capability to come up with a requirements specs (the sorry state of an orphaned LCA having to have it's wings re-designed as postulated and later confirmed by an ex ADA guy because the IAF couldn't bother putting up a realistic weapon spec and a delay of 1 year on that count) that is in anyway meaningful.

They cannot come up with a weapon concept , which of course is a trade off between requirements, capabilities and what can be realistically achieved in a given time frame, along with an operational doctrine /use case to go with it, or anything new beyond some hackneyed thing that exists. For e.g., the F-35 has a LOWER field performance than the F-16. There is no way in hell any IAF officer would have signed off on a concept like that. The only guys here again are the Navy, because they have a competent R&D specialised branch which can actually make engineering and design sense. They can sign off on putting an existing power plant from the Leander into a larger Hull when their designers analysed it and promised the same top speed. The Navy puts it's money where it's mouth is and puts up Rs 900 cr of it's own money for purely R&D on a carrier derivative of the LCA (and hey, it just took off a few days ago from the shore based test bed) and based senior folks there in Bangalore for that.

The Air Force couldn't even be bothered to put a few of their folks together and say what weapons the LCA should carry! Then when the Navy put up the modification of the LCA with the GE 414 engine, the Airforce guys claim that this was the version that they "always" wanted ! No sir. No NAVAIR China Lake like expertise or US Airforce Systems Command , nor could they be bothered or have made any efforts to develop that. Instead an attempt at empire building by grabbing HAL and it's manufacturing base and turning into an extension of it's BRD. Let the Air Force first invest and build a cadre of trained aerospace engineering folks ( not the maintenance kind, but the design and R&D guys), by hiring and training internal folks and actually build serious program management capabilities. That will be a serious long term contribution of consequence , rather than attempts to pad their post retirement nests.

Good. Not STRICTLY, but on above average scale, if you ask a navy chap if a capability is there in the equipment and he will respond "it is not there right now, but it is on the way." Ask the same question to IAF or IA guy and weep weep weep weep.... Beep Beep Beep.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Dec 2014 09:19

Victor wrote: The LCA is a dead duck as far as the IAF is concerned and the sensible thing to do is move on to LCA2. It helps no one to be bull-headed about this. HAL doesn't have to prove anything and what we have learned is not going anywhere. Let us build on it with the overriding goal being to get an adequate fighter asap. Adequate as defined by IAF and not HAL/ADA and certainly not by keyboard ninjas.

The fact that HAL brought in consultants says a lot but if HAL then ignored their advice on canards, I lose all faith in their decision making abilities. Fact remains that even a bathtub with wings will turn better with canards than without. What's the problem? I lay odds that LCA 2 will have them.

dead duck? really? when it is so close to getting FOC and entering service? That is clearly not the IAF viewpoint other there wouldn't be 30+ IAF guys posted on the program now. It is you who is being bull-headed in not even bothering to look at what capabilities the Tejas Mk1 brings to the table that would make a comparison with the MiG-21, the aircraft it is supposed to replace, superfluous. If you still cannot see why the Tejas Mk1 fits the bill of replacing many of the MiG-21s that have been retired recently, then I'm sorry to say its more to do with your own bias and prejudice.

As for the absurd notion that AM Matheswaran was putting forth that a twin-engined LCA should be pursued now, I am just stumped that an IAF guy would write something like that without giving a thought to how complicated such an approach would be. First off, what exactly is to be gained by getting a twin-engined LCA?? its USP is its affordability vs its capability> both wrt to its cost to acquire and its cost to operate. Does Matheswaran think that the IAF can afford a nearly all twin-engined air force in the numbers it hopes to have?? What world does he live in?? Hasn't he heard of the Mirage-4000 experiment that ended up going nowhere because it would end up costing as much as an F-15?

Add to that, developing a twin engined fighter out of a single engined fighter would be more complex than the Tejas Mk2 itself. The entire airframe would need to be enlarged and re-designed in a much bigger way than it being attempted for the Mk2, since the thrust will double. Flight testing will have to be more extensive and more comprehensive.

And what you get as a result is a heavier aircraft, with more payload and range and then you have a LCA that nearly overlaps with the MiG-29 and Rafale in terms of size and complexity. All for what?? Just because as things stand, the Tejas Mk1 doesn't meet some ASR figures?

If a twin engined fighter is required, then a clean sheet design that doesn't inherit any of the LCA's structures would be the best way to go and that is what the AMCA is intended to be. You design it from the very beginning for stealth, internal carriage, for twin engines and for much higher fuel volume to get the range you require. Instead of trying to work around what constraints the LCA's existing airframe imposes on you.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Dec 2014 09:23

BTW, there were some super pics of NP1 posted on Facebook's Tejas page..I cannot post them here, but if someone else has them and could post them would make a lot of jingos' day.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Dec 2014 09:28

The AM's writing is a clear indication of lack of strategic thinking in the IAF and the IA. If a need is felt for a twin engined aircraft then a new program for a definite strategic niche should be started with different goals and strike roles than the LCA. The writing by the AM is clearly an attempt to try and derail a program that is near to success and potentially will be the foundation for a local Military Indian Complex.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 23 Dec 2014 09:59

Why is the phasility not an entire ground aircraft carrier? The rest should not be hard to build. The alpum of most images: http://imgur.com/a/CA3Vw

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Dec 2014 10:23

Didn't Tarmak warn that a slew of Anti LCA articles are set to arrive soon?

Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous, constantly trying to pour cold water over peoples efforts. What downers these guys are. Shalav had that sheet which compared fuel fraction/loads/ranges of different IAF aircraft, perhaps we want to put that somewhere and make it available as a way to counter this and stuff like this in the future?

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 23 Dec 2014 10:29

When i read Commander mathy's i was little irritated.Then i understood , it's another point of view.I feel the gulf war and the other wars have thought a different story.As a user they it might be difficulty to understand the engineering problem involved.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Dec 2014 11:02

Each time someone writes against it, the aircraft crosses another milestone.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Dec 2014 11:11

they used that for night testing too ???