LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 24 Dec 2014 16:00

Cybaru wrote:I don't see how the nose-cone or the IFR should hold anything back. Attach em when they arrive and are done with testing. Get the 4 handed over to IAF and start the process of getting the training/manuals/procedures/qualifications going. Don't engage anything outside a 50KM range if you do take it to pokhran.

As per one research paper, Nose-cone redesign is not only necessary for performance improvement as well. May be with new nose cone, Performance of Tejas may improve along with its MMR Radar.

3.2 Reduction of wave drag
One of the major out come of sea level trial of Tejas
is that the drag of the aircraft is high such that the aircraft
could not reach the supersonic Mach number at sea level.
The components contributing for the maximum drag rise
has been identified and improvement methods were worked
out.
Nose cone extension using a Plug: The major component
of drag at higher speed is the wave drag. This can be
minimized by following the Whitcomb’s Area rule for the
aerodynamic configuration design. The cross sectional area
variation of LCA along the length of fuselage is shown
in Fig 12. Between station X = 5000mm & 6000mm there
is a sudden increase in area. By smoothing this sudden
rise, the wave drag can be minimized. A possible solution
proposed is the extension of nose cone by introducing a
Plug. The detailed analysis of this design and its implementation
plan is being worked out.

drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Dec 2014 16:02

Kartik wrote:<SNIP>Nevertheless, that work should carry on regardless of the delay of the IFR probe and the new quartz radome.

Can you comment on how the material of cone itself has such a huge impact on performance of the Radar? I mean, 60% increase in performance just because of material of the cone? Thanks.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Dec 2014 16:08

Vipul Dave wrote:
Cybaru wrote:I don't see how the nose-cone or the IFR should hold anything back. Attach em when they arrive and are done with testing. Get the 4 handed over to IAF and start the process of getting the training/manuals/procedures/qualifications going. Don't engage anything outside a 50KM range if you do take it to pokhran.

As per one research paper, Nose-cone redesign is not only necessary for performance improvement as well. May be with new nose cone, Performance of Tejas may improve along with its MMR Radar.

3.2 Reduction of wave drag
One of the major out come of sea level trial of Tejas
is that the drag of the aircraft is high such that the aircraft
could not reach the supersonic Mach number at sea level.
The components contributing for the maximum drag rise
has been identified and improvement methods were worked
out.
Nose cone extension using a Plug: The major component
of drag at higher speed is the wave drag. This can be
minimized by following the Whitcomb’s Area rule for the
aerodynamic configuration design. The cross sectional area
variation of LCA along the length of fuselage is shown
in Fig 12. Between station X = 5000mm & 6000mm there
is a sudden increase in area. By smoothing this sudden
rise, the wave drag can be minimized. A possible solution
proposed is the extension of nose cone by introducing a
Plug. The detailed analysis of this design and its implementation
plan is being worked out.

drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

That plug was to reduce wave drag by improving the fine-ness ratio. it had nothing to do with the material that was used for the Tejas' radome (which was kevlar IIRC). As such the change in the material used for the radome won't make any difference to the drag, it'll only improve the electromagnetic transparency of the radome, which will mean improved range of detection.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 24 Dec 2014 16:09

Kartik wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: I have heard this on fora before but have never seen any source that documents this IAF demand for an uber unobtainable bird. As per VKS, who was deputed by the IAF to study the LCA requirements, it was entirely the opposite.

It is true CM. I distinctly remember reading that article but now am not able to find it. The ITR was that of the Mirage-2000 and the STR from the MiG-29. the ITR part has been achieved but a large delta wing hinders getting upto 18 deg STR..btw, AM MSD Woolen wrote an article (and its available on BR archives page) that the STR target as per the ASR was 17 deg per sec.

The best STR I have watched is 26 sec at high speed in Horizontal loop and 20 sec in vertical loop. Horizontal loop timing should come down to 20 sec as well.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 24 Dec 2014 16:13

[/quote]That plug was to reduce wave drag by improving the fine-ness ratio. it had nothing to do with the material that was used for the Tejas' radome (which was kevlar IIRC). As such the change in the material used for the radome won't make any difference to the drag, it'll only improve the electromagnetic transparency of the radome, which will mean improved range of detection.[/quote]

Exactly.

That is what I want to say. Some people understand that new Nose-cone is for the improvement in Radar signal and improving the efficiency. However that is not the case. It will improve the aerodynamic performance of Tejas as an aircraft as well.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Dec 2014 16:18

rohitvats wrote:
Kartik wrote:<SNIP>Nevertheless, that work should carry on regardless of the delay of the IFR probe and the new quartz radome.
Can you comment on how the material of cone itself has such a huge impact on performance of the Radar? I mean, 60% increase in performance just because of material of the cone? Thanks.

Not sure about the details Rohit, but if anyone can get a hand on this paper then a few questions will definitely get answered on what exactly the Tejas' radome was made of and what the results of EM tests on it were.

And here are some more details- although the specific reason as to why the earlier radome had issues with permittivity to the radar's X-band radiation and higher signal loss isn't given here either.

There are a couple of things we can conclude from the document, though. ADA appears to be satisfied with its Aerodynamic characteristics & sees no reason to improve upon it. It has stated that no changes be made in the Geometric specifications of the Radome, though surface finish could be improved upon. Thus outwardly the new Radome, if selected, would look no different from the one currently in use. What they do want, however, is that it display better Electromagnetic [EM] performance - it must block the least possible amount of radiations emitted by the Radar it protects. Of special requirement is its permittivity to X-Band radiation - the frequency at which the LCA's under-development Multi-Mode Radar [MMR] functions.

As part of this call, ADA has made quite a few details available of the Radar and its configuration. For example, the Identification Friend or Foe [IFF] slotted array antenna is physically mounted on the LCA's MMR, though it is a separate, distinct system. The radar has a scan coverage of 140o in the Azimuthal plane [plane of the wing] & 120o in the plane of altitude [plane of the vertical tail fin]. The paint scheme in which the nose cone is painted is referred to as 'dove grey' and has a matt finish [would it not nullify the better surface finish ADA desires, as stated earlier?]. The radar nose has to be designed with a factor of safety of 1.5, w.r.t forces acting on it during flight operations.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Dec 2014 16:20

Vipul Dave wrote: Exactly.

That is what I want to say. Some people understand that new Nose-cone is for the improvement in Radar signal and improving the efficiency. However that is not the case. It will improve the aerodynamic performance of Tejas as an aircraft as well.

Vipul, the new radome IS FOR the improvement of the radar range - not for reducing wave drag. A slight surface geometry improvement may be seen but the effects of that on wave drag will be miniscule.

The wave drag reduction by improving the fineness ratio is being taken up by adding a 0.5m plug AFT of the cockpit on the Tejas Mk2. That paper suggested that it be added FORE of the cockpit, just AFT of the radome. That isn't being done.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Dec 2014 16:25

Geometry, construction, materials and everything in between is going to have an effect on how the antenna inside ultimately performs. Ray tracing for wave attaneuation and polarization characterstic changes are done as shown here http://www.nal.res.in/pdf/Computational ... ratory.pdf since refractive characterstics of the material change. For practical aspects elaborate equations can be found on the net - which mostly escaped me and I would love to see an economics graduate struggle with it too

.

The problem as I see is - why the hell was this not foreseen and done on a separate track. Kya geometry nahi pata thi, ya radar hi phanalize nahi hua tha ya hum sab Indian Standard Time par synchronized hein.

Anyway from a theory perspective I have a noob pooch. Why the hell does not a Nose cone optimized for LO not prevent the returning waves from reaching the antenna inside? Or ......

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Dec 2014 16:27

One thing- dielectric constant should be low for a radome- and kevlar has a higher dielectric constant than quartz and a higher relative permittivity as well..will need to read up on this topic to get an idea as to how the new quartz nose cone will help improve performance over the earlier kevlar one.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Dec 2014 16:29

Kartik wrote:
Vipul Dave wrote: Exactly.

That is what I want to say. Some people understand that new Nose-cone is for the improvement in Radar signal and improving the efficiency. However that is not the case. It will improve the aerodynamic performance of Tejas as an aircraft as well.
Vipul, the new radome IS FOR the improvement of the radar range - not for reducing wave drag. A slight surface geometry improvement may be seen but the effects of that on wave drag will be miniscule.

The wave drag reduction by improving the fineness ratio is being taken up by adding a 0.5m plug AFT of the cockpit on the Tejas Mk2. That paper suggested that it be added FORE of the cockpit, just AFT of the radome. That isn't being done.

Can something like the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Spike help in any way in the aerodynamics of Tejas?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Dec 2014 16:38

What material is the MKI radome made up of? Is it made in India?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Dec 2014 17:07

i wikied on whitcomb area rule.. so it is longitudinal section reduction for drag. now, if i consider the fuselage itself without the wings for argument, the cross section area is pretty huge considering the nose plug (however i am not saying it would not add drag). if the drag is a concern, then i would expect them to work on shaving the longitudinal section, and then consider smoothing to reduce drag. of course the drag and shock waves near the intakes is another headache. am i reading this wrong?

i'm thinking you can't just go by this rule alone.. the surface dynamics and cross-section area is important too, to reduce drag.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 24 Dec 2014 20:08

abhik wrote:What material is the MKI radome made up of? Is it made in India?

Kevlar composite. Yes it is made in India.

Edit: I missed the MKI, my answer is regarding LCA don't know about MKI.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Dec 2014 20:10

Why can we not FOC with the Indian nose cone? Fit the Cobham cone later if we want. (I admit I have no idea on this technical thing so excuse the noob pooch)

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 24 Dec 2014 20:36

Victorji,
You are losing it. What is the point of "taking full responsibility, something the PSUs have no idea about.", "fat guy squirming under the blanket" etc. You know very well what has been accomplished so far and what is remaining in LCA. It is not even remotely close to the picture you are painting. Looks like you are more focused on winning the argument, rather than having a productive discussion. I am not going to take the bait.

Personally, it would give me great pleasure, if the current government comes down hard on IAF (and IA) and force them to look inwards rather than promoting foreign products, even if the Indian products are slightly less capable (which I don't believe they are, anyway) than the foreign ones. It will force the IAF (and IA) to work with/collaborate with Indian PSUs and industries and extend Indian capabilities. In time, the products will mature and become equal to or even better than the foreign maal.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Dec 2014 20:53

We should have created a whole IAC REPLICA ON LAND like China does for development projects. I am a fan of CAD and so on but nothing works better than an actual full size replica to understand and find out blind spots during design.

@ Victor - Nothing is wrong with IAF as long as it is 100 % Russian sourced aircrafts

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 24 Dec 2014 21:04

Kartik wrote:One thing- dielectric constant should be low for a radome- and kevlar has a higher dielectric constant than quartz and a higher relative permittivity as well..will need to read up on this topic to get an idea as to how the new quartz nose cone will help improve performance over the earlier kevlar one.

At a basic fundamental level there is a beautiful exposition in Volume 1 of the Feynman Lecture series. There is only one chapter in that volume that is serious, even Feynman says that. The chapter is called the origin of the Refractive index. He reduces things to a toy model. He has the atoms of the molecule, quartz, Kothari paan ka masala whatever. He views them as balls attached together with springs having a natural frequency say a. On this radiation of frequency b impinges. He solves the simple ODE you get, and sums all these little oscillators over the Geometry. In his case he takes a flat plane but I suppose you can take a curved nose cone. The key fact is in the solution you get
a term 1/(a^2-b^2) and from this you can read off the dispersion relation, refractive index and so on. It simply becomes a piece of cake. This is the only chapter in volume 1 where you need to think a little bit. Rest of volume 1 is tamasha.

He returns to the dielectric and permittivity again at the end of Volume 2, but you can see in the formula in Volume 1 how the stiffness of the springs( bonds in the atoms of Kothari paan ka masala) the mass of the atoms and the electronic charge and the incoming frequency go into the formula. He has plotted the dispersion curves and explains the deep qualitative meaning of the formula. The questions you raise will become completely clear if you read the exposition.
At a very naive level you do NOT want resonance, the frequency of the radar must be far away from the natural frequency that the atoms vibrate in the Paan ka masala molecule. So you will have many materials that will fit the bill, then possibly you select a material that satisfies additional constraints that preserve the structural integrity of the nose cone, so then you find the optimal material, and possibly it is paan ka masala. This is the content of (31.19) in Feynman.
Notice that the formula derived by him by elementary calculus is( I have dropped some of the constants)

refractive index =1+ Nq^2/(a^2-b^2)

N is the number of charges per unit volume of the substance/ quartz whatever, q the charge of an electron etc. The job is to stay as close to 1 as possible, b is the frequency of the radar and so a must be huge in comparison to b, you get a huge denominator and so a tiny contribution to 1 and the material has refractive index close to 1. The dispersion curve is Fig 31-5 and notice how the refractive index jumps up at certain frequencies. If that is your radar frequency that is very bad news, those are the resonant frequencies and are to be avoided. Somewhat like the poles in a scattering matrix. So to get large a, one can think of the material having electrons that are bound together by really tight springs, so the natural frequency of the material is very high. Quartz is one such material.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 24 Dec 2014 22:27

rgsriniji, I don't want to win any arguments unless we are questioning the integrity and national interests of the IAF vs the PSUs. In my view, there is absolutely no contest. About trying to hide large, very visible and obvious fnckups, what do you think can be done? Or are we suggesting that the fnckups are not large and obvious to everyone? Are we not aware that only bad news sells?

Nobody is trying to put down what the PSUs are trying to do, they are only pointing out the weaknesses and suggesting ways to correct it. Top of this list is the IAF who are the only folks qualified to comment technically followed by MoD on fiscal and other issues. My view on this has been consistent--PSUs, efficiency and accountability don't go together with very few exceptions. The reason is obvious unless we deliberately wish not to see it. The urgency is that in this particular situation (LCA project), optimum efficiency and accountability is a critical need, something that only the IAF seems to be able to see but has not been able to articulate effectively so far. If they did, HAL would be run by IAF by now. What we have instead is an army of people defending a multi-decade long trail of under/non-performance in the name of "indigenization" and arguing that the same should continue. I'm amazed that we don't see the ridiculousness in this?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Dec 2014 22:50

vsunder ji, v. beautiful.

Thanks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Dec 2014 23:25

ati vsunder! nice.

so, ref index of kevlar :

http://www.microlabgallery.com/gallery/ ... opped.aspx
Kevlar is yellow and can have the highest birefringence, 0.685, and parallel refractive index, 2.322, of any of the synthetic fibers. Typical values for the refractive indices of Kevlar (29 and 49) are 1.646 perpendicular and 2.05 parallel, which gives a birefringence of about 0.4, still the highest by far of any of the synthetic fibers.

and that of quartz:

http://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main ... e=Malitson
n = 1.4585
Other optical constants
Abbe number[ i ]
Vd = 67.82
Chromatic dispersion[ i ]
dn/dλ = -0.035209 µm-1
Group velocity dispersion[ i ] [ i ] [ i ]
GVD = 57.540 fs2/mm
D = -313.91 ps/(nm km)

EL/M 2032 operates under X band - 8 - 12 Ghz.

that is all i could grab info off the web. now, we need to calculate.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 24 Dec 2014 23:54

There are two tiny observations you can make if you stare at the formula. Notice as b approaches a
the refractive index increases as the denominator becomes tiny. This is consistent with our observation, blue light bends more(large b) as opposed to red light(small b). This is the origin of the word dispersion relation. Secondly metals have a lot of unbound conduction electrons and that would correspond to a spring which is weak and so small a, no good, quartz is a covalent compound and has very tightly bound electrons, large a, very good material. The astonishing thing is that the presentation is so novel and elementary that when I first read it in undergraduate I was struck with
how nicely the dispersion relation is derived.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Dec 2014 23:58

An article in FORCE Magazine by late Parvez Khokhar where he sahes his views on Tejas MK-2 and MK-1.

A Better Alternative
Before Tejas Mk II is brought in, experts should weigh all the pros and cons

By Air Cmde. (retd.) Parvez Khokhar

Now that sounds coming from the ministry of defence (MoD) and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) seem to be suggesting that the Tejas Mk I is just around the corner, the focus seems to be shifting to the Tejas Mk II. This variant appears to be gathering momentum in the eyes of clairvoyant chair-borne pundits, who profess that this will be the panacea for all the ills that beset the indigenous aircraft industry and will also address the desire of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to have a super-duper fighter.

ADA and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have even widely publicised a time schedule for the induction of this aircraft (too fictional to be mentioned). The granting of permission by the MoD to commence this project and its acceptance by the IAF by placing some initial orders, is not in the public domain. In order to take an educated decision on what the Mk II aims to be and the challenges involved therein, it is imperative to comprehend the facts, as they exist today.

ADA and HAL have made public statements that work on the airframe will begin by end 2013. Whilst it is apparent that the qualities envisaged in the Mk II are all commendable, they require a closer examination to comprehend the challenges involved in reaching this target without unacceptable time and cost overruns. So what are the major changes envisaged in the Mk II in order to be a quantum leap over the Mk I?

These are: More powerful engine F-414-GE-INS6; New Flight Control Computer; Upgraded avionics; Retractable In Flight Refuelling probe; On Board Oxygen Generating system (OBOGS); AESA radar; Cockpit upgrade; New Electronic Warfare(EW) suite; and Ability to super cruise (fly supersonic in level flight in dry power).

These changes will lend value throughHigher thrust; More ordnance carrying capacity; Better avionics; Longer endurance with On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); State-of-the-art radar; Better man-machine interface and situational awareness through larger displays in the cockpit and easier management drills; and Better survivability through better EW suites. This factor will also enhance the operational performance.

ADAs contention that all this can be done within two years is based on the example of the Swedish Gripen NG (called Gripen E for in-service usage). ADA has also sought guidance through consultancy from Saab for the Mk II. Before proceeding further, we need to factor in some extremely relevant points, otherwise this comparison becomes rather odious.

The Gripen E is an off-shoot of the highly successful Gripen A/B/C/D. The Tejas Mk I is yet to enter service.

Saab has over 75-year-old history of design and development of fighter aircraft vis-a-vis ADA/HALs nascent experience in producing fighter aircraft.

ADAs record of non-adherence to consultants recommendations, especially when it runs against their grain and involves redoing certain aspects of work, is well known.

Then there are consultants who merely review your work and either tell you that it is okay or withhold comments that may rock the boat. It is to be seen how much Saab would be involved; ADA should be absolutely clear that Saab will neither build/design this aircraft for them nor give them a blueprint to follow.

Let us take a cursory glance at the summary of how Saab went about making the Gripen E, which has fairly similar improvements as envisaged for the Tejas MK II. The stated aims of the Gripen E were: Increased thrust; Decision support; Sensor fusion; Superior HMI; Improved communication; More weapon stations; Superior target acquisition; Airframe upgrades; External sensors; General systems upgrade; New avionics architecture; and Electronic Warfare

These changes led the demonstrator aircraft (the NGs) to achieve the following:Enhanced range; Morepayload; New sensor suite/weapons/electronic countermeasures; Engine with higher thrust; AESAradar; New avionics system; More internal fuel; and Super cruise ability. This also permitted reduced cost and lead time by 60 per cent, thanks to new processes and new supplier strategy (very significant in the Indian context).

The programme followed a time-bound schedule that went through the following steps:

Early 2006: Demonstrator development started in Saab with the aim to fly in 2008

27 May 2008: Maiden flight of the Demonstrator(NG). This segment of the test programme was concluded in only 79 test flights with the new engine (414), larger internal fuel tank and more pylons (increased payload).

27 October 2009: Introduced AESA (limited version), MAW and SATCOM. Flown and tested in 73 flights including flights with a larger drop tank. Next step planned was to introduce new avionics.

By 19 December 2012 the demo aircraft had accumulated over 250 hours.

15 July 2013: Saab started the assembly of the Next Generation Gripen, the Gripen E. First to be constructed is the front fuselage of the first pre-production test aircraft 39-8.

15 August 2013: Saab claimed they reduced cost and lead time by 60 per cent, thanks to new processes and new supplier strategy

2018: Delivery of first Gripen E planned for the Swedish Air Force. Saab managed the weight issue rather cleverly through extensive use of aluminium alloys and composites for the airframe. The major lesson that this remarkable programme brought was that it is extremely important to work with the customer to achieve success in record time.

Challenges for the Tejas Mk II

ADA has certainly conducted some studies on this subject, but the extent to which they have proceeded and the results achieved are shrouded in secrecy. Educated guesses from within ADA vary from the lets see how it goes to the more horrifying prospect that it may do less than the MK I. The latter view seems to justify ADAs reluctance to even part with the projected improved performance figures. Remember, unlike the Gripen E, the Tejas Mk II will first have to contend with the shortcomings and flaws that it will inherit from the Mk I. These include:

Weight reduction;

New engine F414 fitment requirements;

Re-design of air intakes;

Better cooling of the avionics bay;

Estate management of ancillaries fitted around the engine to facilitate a swift engine change (Gripen engine change takes 33 minutes); and

Brakes

These are only representative and by no means, exhaustive. Corrective measures for all shortfalls will have to be addressed along with the challenges that the new design will throw up.

The new design features would include modification of the fuselage to accommodate the larger and heavier F414 engine. This would entail lengthening the fuselage, strengthening the fuselage and redesigning the contours. More thrust being produced by this engine (35 per cent more than the F404) means more fuel consumed and hence, the necessity for larger capacity fuel tanks. The obvious penalty would be in adding more weight, changing the area ruling (contours of the fuselage) which would increase the drag index, thereby negating some of the advantages of having a more powerful engine. The addition of more weight would be counter-productive. However, some saving grace could be sought from redistribution of segments of the avionics components/LRUs and those of the new radar to get rid of the 200kg ballast that is carried in the nose bay to keep the centre of gravity within limits, an unheard of solution in good modern day fighters, only exception being Chinese fighters.

The air intakes would have to be redesigned to ensure full benefit is derived from the new engine. This is one area that ADA has shied away from doing for decades. It is both understandable and acceptable that they lack expertise in this area, but it has to be addressed, so why not get specialist help for this.

Fool-proof cooling of the avionics bay is a safety requirement, since this area houses much sensitive equipment, including the four channel cards for the quadruple fly-by-wire system of the Digital Flight Control Computer, which, if affected by thermal transfer due to inadequate cooling, can have disastrous consequences. The quadruple control system will come to naught if all four systems fail in quick succession. Other sensitive equipment can also get degraded and thereby, jeopardise mission accomplishment.

Maintenance practices in the Tejas are probably among the most primitive in this class of aircraft and certainly not conducive to operational efficiency. The Gripen requires all of 33 minutes to replace the engine. The Tejas takes a couple of days because of poor estate management of ancillary connections on the engine. With a Hot Refuelling (engine running after landing) and rearming with air-to-air missiles, the Gripen is back in the air in 22 minutes. Hot refueling is not permitted by Indian Oil, who seems to dictate the Tejas operational efficiency. The IAF could circumvent this issue by getting their own refuellers that are manned by IAF personnel. (I wonder whether Indian Oil is aware that air to air refueling does not require the engines to be shut down in the air! So much for their safety practices).

There are a host of other issues that have been swept under the table ever since the first aircraft was designed and manufactured. Unless each one of them is addressed, their ghost will always return to haunt this programme.

So, how does this translate into time required and cost involved?ADA has no clue and that is a charitable observation. Having been brought up for decades on self-delusion, delays and cost overruns, that have always been condoned, they no longer acknowledge the word accountability. HAL keenly aids and abets this philosophy. Before the go-ahead is given to this project, a complete feasibility report must be produced by the two Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), clearly stating the aim of this exercise, with details of changes planned, the improved performance that would accrue and realistic timelines, plus costs.

It would not be out of place, based on past performance, to state that performance, costs and timelines will have to be critically examined and the casual figures bandied about by non-involved individuals/bodies must be totally ignored. If the Gripen E, with Saabs extensive experience, is realistically pitched at 12 years from conception to manufacture to delivery of first aircraft to the Swedish Air Force, it would behove ADA/HAL to add on a few more years to the Tejas Mk II. At a conservative estimate of 16 years (your guess is as good as mine), does this version of the aircraft really add value to the IAF, when it would have already inducted the fifth generation aircraft?

A Viable Alternative

The rationale of making the Tejas MK II is centred around the Indian Navys requirement of having a greater initial acceleration for deck operations. Hence, the choice of a more powerful and bigger engine, the F414. The IAF has piggybacked on this solution since it promises a greater all round performance.

The navys requirement is well focused on the engine, though they would not be reluctant to avail of any other benefit that this aircraft would bring as a bonus. The IAFs configuration for the MK II, though discussed internally, is still not frozen. Therefore, to consider a viable alternative is not too late.Give a serious thought to modifying the Mk I with all the changes envisaged for the Mk II, other than the engine change. The only major challenge is to redesign the air intakes to ensure optimum pressure recovery. The rest would entail only modifications and improvements.

The question that comes up is whether a serious study has been done to explore this alternative. It would not need rocket science to presume that the time, effort and money required to do this would be far less than design and development of a new aircraft. Whether this version is called theMK IAor Mk II is of no consequence, since such nomenclature is pure semantics.

The prime focus will have to be on ensuring that the rated thrust is allowed to be produced by the engine. The Swedish version of the F404 is the RM 12, made by Volvo. Some tweaking by Volvo has enhanced the dry thrust from 49.9 kN to 54kN and in the after burner regime, from 78.7kN to 80.5kN. It has also strengthened fan modules to withstand bird strikes. The F404-IN-20 also incorporates these modifications, but the Tejas Mk I intake design does not allow this full thrust to be built up. Hence, it is mandatory to redesign the intakes. Both the Gripen and the older version of the F-18 have air intakes that permit optimum pressure recovery. Can ADA not consult both Saab and Boeing to overcome this problem?

The other unresolved issues that have defied a solution are not because of ADAs capability, but their reluctance to address them, since it is far easier to sweep them under the carpet, to be looked at later. Later has arrived now and procrastination cannot be condoned any further. The work force, which is familiar with the MK I and is relatively unoccupied, can now be gainfully diverted to carrying out structural and other reviews to resolve pending issues, instead of waiting to tackle the MK II, as and when it emerges.

Will this avatar of the Tejas meet the requirements of the Indian Navy? Has ADA measured what the static thrust of the engine is in the MK I as of now and determined how short it falls of the manufacturers figure? Unless that is known, how can we aim to achieve the latter? A comprehensive study would provide the answer. In the event that the enhanced initial thrust still falls short of the navys requirement, the F 414 may be the only answer, but not in the form that ADA envisages the Tejas Mk II. Before giving a green light to the Tejas Mk II, a transparent study of the enhanced performance, with specific facts and figures, along with a realistic timeframe and cost, must be scrutinised by a competent body of the users (IAF and IN) and financial wizards, lest the taxpayers money is again squandered away. Is anyone listening?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Dec 2014 00:28

well rohit, tax payer money is not squandered by any amount of local r&d, as long as the lessons are fed back into some operational system. but, the user must be aware and doubly careful in writing down ASR. one screw up, can be so costly in upgrades.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Dec 2014 07:39

The lie:

The air intakes would have to be redesigned to ensure full benefit is derived from the new engine. This is one area that ADA has shied away from doing for decades. It is both understandable and acceptable that they lack expertise in this area, but it has to be addressed, so why not get specialist help for this.

The truth:

Contrary to earlier speculation, Dr Tamilmani says that the Tejas Mk-II does not require an intake re-design since the MK-I intake was in any case intended to be used with the Kaveri engine which has a greater mass flow than the current F404-GE-IN20 . Studies have shown that the existing intake can easily handle the additional mass flow from the F414-GE-INS6.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... india.html

This Parvez Khokhar fellow should get his facts right. This kind of ignorance is symbolic of the prejudice directed at indigenous projects. Some people just want foreign toys and would say anything, even things that are factually wrong, to support their nonsense. Also, I do not appreciate the mocking and hostile attitude of this fellow towards an Indian product. With such fanboys in service, who needs enemies? We may need to protect the LCA also from sabotage.

Edit: Fixed misleading quote attribution.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Dec 2014 08:42

^^ Air Cdre Khokhar was the director of the LCA test flight program and director of the National Flight Test Center. I guess he too was one of the shifty-eyed, corrupt, anti-national, import mafia IAF types since he bad mouthed HAL/ADA so much. Too bad he was murdered under mysterious circumstances in Nov last year. His input would have been very useful now. (Did they ever find out who killed him?).

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 25 Dec 2014 11:09

@Arun Menon: The way you have used quotes, it makes it look as if RV made the statement, whereas RV was only quoting. Hope you can look at it.

Pervez Khokkar is no more. You may add his name to the mysteriously killed names. Also, he was pretty closely involved with ADA / HAL after his military service. Also, his article seems older (2013).

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 25 Dec 2014 11:42

Arun Menon wrote:The lie:
Pervez Khokkar wrote:The air intakes would have to be redesigned to ensure full benefit is derived from the new engine. This is one area that ADA has shied away from doing for decades. It is both understandable and acceptable that they lack expertise in this area, but it has to be addressed, so why not get specialist help for this.
The truth:
Contrary to earlier speculation, Dr Tamilmani says that the Tejas Mk-II does not require an intake re-design since the MK-I intake was in any case intended to be used with the Kaveri engine which has a greater mass flow than the current F404-GE-IN20 . Studies have shown that the existing intake can easily handle the additional mass flow from the F414-GE-INS6.
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2 ... india.html

Since we are dealing with fluids so things cannot be as B&W. Notice the spring loaded doors on the inlets. It is entirely possible for both sides to be true with or without either being fair

. For all we know, we may as well be able to fly Mk-2 with a 10 mm smaller intake if we are willing to fly the thing in cold air nearer to the ground at probably sea level. Unfortunately we are never going to fly in Alaska. Mostly we will fly in the heat of Gujarat/Rajasthan/Punjab or in the High Himalayas. It makes sense to have more air flowing in. There were complaints of Mk-1 not getting enough to breath in and as a result the F-404 not being able to perform to the best of it capacity. Moreover intakes have to be capable of significantly higher air intake then is needed merely to fire up the tail end, in order to take into account the High-Hots

.

Reality is more unexciting. With the desire for higher loadout and higher maneuverability and biggest possible radar and most difficult possible operating environment and cheapest possible bang, we are going to end up with the kind of craft LCA already is (Mk-1 ie.). And once you get married, then later to compare the wifey with Sunny Leone is not fair to either (you are being fair only to yourself if you still insist).

Actually the point that the late lead is trying to make is that Mk-1 is not bad at all and hence need not be ignored. And Mk-2 need not necessarily be the best thing to happen too (Notice the growth of Fa-Solahs).

Part of the trouble is the tech guys get too involved in the tech involved and we outsiders need not take sides. OTOH the missions to be flown may need to be better understood.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Dec 2014 17:58

Arun Menon wrote:<SNIP>This Parvez Khokhar fellow should get his facts right. This kind of ignorance is symbolic of the prejudice directed at indigenous projects. Some people just want foreign toys and would say anything, even things that are factually wrong, to support their nonsense. Also, I do not appreciate the mocking and hostile attitude of this fellow towards an Indian product. With such fanboys in service, who needs enemies? We may need to protect the LCA also from sabotage.

Edit: Fixed misleading quote attribution.

The only one being ignorant here and making a fool of himself is you. Can you point me to one single line where he has 'mocked' the domestic product?

You need to read that article again to try and understand what he is saying - that IAF needs to induct more LCA Mk-1 than go for LCA Mk-2. And instead of working on a an ambitious Mk-2 project, time and resources should be invested in incremental development of Mk-1 itself to remove all the shortcomings in Mk-1 w/o getting into serious redesign issue.

BTW - that 'fan-boy' is ex-head/Chief Test Pilot of National Flight Test Center (NFTC) which is responsible for flight testing of LCA. And as a Test Pilot, he is the final arbiter between technological imperatives and operational requirement.

Here is something which this 'prejudiced' fellow said about LCA Mk-1:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 973_1.html

Says Air Commodore (Retd) Parvez Khokhar, who was for years the chief test pilot of the Tejas programme: "The Tejas Mark I is far superior to the MiG-21 fleet that the IAF would have to operate to the end of this decade. In key respects, it is a better fighter than even the Mirage 2000. The Tejas Mark I should enter the IAF's combat fleet in larger numbers and the Tejas Mark II scaled down. This would allow the air force to retire the MiG-21 fleet sooner."

And anyone who has a critique (as against criticism) to offer against domestic PSU/R&D organizations does not automatically become agent of import lobby. Like Services, domestic PSU/R&D Organizations are not above critique. And neither are they Lilly White and above obfuscation.

Instead of questioning the integrity of the author, please put some effort to understand his concern(s) and what is being done to address the same.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Dec 2014 20:26

A big concern should be the apparent arrogance of the PSU folks in spite of their demonstrated ignorance. They have paid money to foreign design consultants and then ignored recommendations because they would either cause further delay or were thought unescessary according to their own understanding. According to Khokhar, this was a well known trait of the ADA people. WTF? We can't afford this nonsense at a critical moment like this.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 25 Dec 2014 21:37

There is also an added advantage in using crystals other than materials like glass etc. which have no regular pattern in their arrangement of molecules. Each atom in a crystal is a potential scatterer of radiation. An analogy can be drawn with American football. Imagine a row of blockers evenly arranged with regularly spaced distance between them. Now imagine a second row behind them. If the second row stands in the gaps of the first row, it will be hard for a person to cross the two rows. The blocker is a potential scatterer as you try running past. But if the rows are arranged in columns then there is order akin to a crystal, there is of course scattering but now a good percentage of people will get across. Even with crystals there can be defects and impurities and there will be atoms violating the order in the crystal, like the odd blocker blocking one of the aisles, so materials have to be chosen and manufactured with great care free from defects and impurities so that scattering is kept to a minimum.

Secondly if you observe a coin at the bottom of a swimming pool, due to light refraction the coin appears in a different place from where it actually is. So if one shoots at the coin you are in fact shooting at a mirage. Induction of a new nose cone will mean integrating the radar computer to take into account such parallax errors over 80-100 km distances, you will never have zero scattering and zero refraction. It may also mean integrating the BVR to take into account such parallax( I am only guessing here) seeker or otherwise. To me this does not sound trivial, maybe some of you know Scattering theory well and have experience in it. My knowledge of scattering is based on my own work and I fully know the problems one has, perhaps I misunderstand the problems and indeed as some of you write it is a trivial problem to proceed to FOC. I would not know all I know these are potentially difficult things.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 25 Dec 2014 21:49

^^Victorji,
IAFs cannot be Holy Cows. They should be subjected to the same scrutiny like the PSUs. There are quite a few bad seeds in the armed forces as well, and the scrutiny process should unearth the bad seeds and take them out of the decision making process. No point in blindly believing what the IAF or the IA says (and/or what the PSU says).

I think time has come for IAF to accept the product, especially the Mark I in large numbers, rather than postponing the decision to get Mark II. If they don't, then in my personal opinion, then MOD should step in and force the IAF to accept it.

I have the exact same recommendation for Arjun as well. The decision should not be left with the armed forces in these cases, in my personal opinion, as they seem not to accept them, or always asking for improvements before accepting them in large numbers. Forcing them to use it and not allowing other options will automatically make them adjust to these products and make improvements on them. Short term pain, long term gain.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Dec 2014 22:50

Victor wrote:A big concern should be the apparent arrogance of the PSU folks in spite of their demonstrated ignorance. They have paid money to foreign design consultants and then ignored recommendations because they would either cause further delay or were thought unescessary according to their own understanding. According to Khokhar, this was a well known trait of the ADA people. WTF? We can't afford this nonsense at a critical moment like this.

Ah yes. The Lord forbid dutty Indians use their own brains and decide that foreign design consultants recommendations didn't make sense.

Dirty Indians, living in India, working in dirty PSUs, how dare they do this?

Thats arrogant. Aukaat nahin jaante hain apni? Foreigners ke samne sir utha the hain saale?

They should just be brainless and not be so "arrogant".

Perhaps Victor should share this brilliant insight with folks like this who see how inviolate those recommendations are.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02/ ... -hand.html

By Group Captain (Retd) Hari Nair

Lessons Learnt on the ALH

5. While its quite easy to be wise after the event and hindsight is always ‘6x6’, the indisputable fact is that the combination of spectrum-sweeping performance and role requirements that were demanded from a single platform and certain design options that were incorporated, caused extremely severe hurdles to practical implementation. Whereas today one is not aware of the imperatives that influenced the drafting of the staff requirements in the late Seventies, or the decision of the Negotiations Committee in accepting the recommendations of MBB in the early Eighties, the fact remains that some of the futuristic design options put forth by MBB were initially resounding failures. The project that was supposed to have progressed smoothly under the tutelage of advanced German technology, instead stumbled badly to almost a point of no-return and required extreme effort by our indigenous teams to recover, re-develop from basic design stages and optimise for production. Each of the contributory factors therefore needs deeper scrutiny for better clarity.

. It would also appear that MBB had either over-estimated their capabilities or perhaps had even attempted to experiment the feasibility of some of these concepts at the cost of our project.

Seriously, gasbags who neither work in the Indian MIC nor contribute to India's MIC, sit around and diss those working hands on these programs as arrogant..

Propaganda ki had hain.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Dec 2014 23:07

rohitvats wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:<SNIP>This Parvez Khokhar fellow should get his facts right. This kind of ignorance is symbolic of the prejudice directed at indigenous projects. Some people just want foreign toys and would say anything, even things that are factually wrong, to support their nonsense. Also, I do not appreciate the mocking and hostile attitude of this fellow towards an Indian product. With such fanboys in service, who needs enemies? We may need to protect the LCA also from sabotage.

Edit: Fixed misleading quote attribution.
The only one being ignorant here and making a fool of himself is you. Can you point me to one single line where he has 'mocked' the domestic product?

You need to read that article again to try and understand what he is saying - that IAF needs to induct more LCA Mk-1 than go for LCA Mk-2. And instead of working on a an ambitious Mk-2 project, time and resources should be invested in incremental development of Mk-1 itself to remove all the shortcomings in Mk-1 w/o getting into serious redesign issue.

BTW - that 'fan-boy' is ex-head/Chief Test Pilot of National Flight Test Center (NFTC) which is responsible for flight testing of LCA. And as a Test Pilot, he is the final arbiter between technological imperatives and operational requirement.

Here is something which this 'prejudiced' fellow said about LCA Mk-1:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 973_1.html

Says Air Commodore (Retd) Parvez Khokhar, who was for years the chief test pilot of the Tejas programme: "The Tejas Mark I is far superior to the MiG-21 fleet that the IAF would have to operate to the end of this decade. In key respects, it is a better fighter than even the Mirage 2000. The Tejas Mark I should enter the IAF's combat fleet in larger numbers and the Tejas Mark II scaled down. This would allow the air force to retire the MiG-21 fleet sooner."
And anyone who has a critique (as against criticism) to offer against domestic PSU/R&D organizations does not automatically become agent of import lobby. Like Services, domestic PSU/R&D Organizations are not above critique. And neither are they Lilly White and above obfuscation.

Instead of questioning the integrity of the author, please put some effort to understand his concern(s) and what is being done to address the same.

There are some fallacies in that article RV about MK-2 and given current circumstances, its probably best not to discuss those threadbare inviting critiques of a persons views when that gentleman has passed on.

Basically, he made several glaring assumptions in that article about how MK-2 would develop. The basic thing is MK-2 is an incremental MK-1. Its not an overambitious redesign of MK-1 (which actually Matheswaran wants saying the entire light fighter concept is passe and we should upscale). Given the number of tac AFldss we have, a MK2 even iteratively improved over MK1 makes sense.

Challenge with Matheswarans comments is there is no clarity whether his views are the official IAF view. We have a risk of being caught in the Arjun trap then. Constant increasing specs of a gold plated fighter which the IAF then says is overboard with it being in constant dev to boot. Until and unless we get firm IAF commitment, why go that route. There is the MCA anyhow.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Dec 2014 23:09

vsunder wrote:There is also an added advantage in using crystals other than materials like glass etc. which have no regular pattern in their arrangement of molecules. Each atom in a crystal is a potential scatterer of radiation. An analogy can be drawn with American football. Imagine a row of blockers evenly arranged with regularly spaced distance between them. Now imagine a second row behind them. If the second row stands in the gaps of the first row, it will be hard for a person to cross the two rows. The blocker is a potential scatterer as you try running past. But if the rows are arranged in columns then there is order akin to a crystal, there is of course scattering but now a good percentage of people will get across. Even with crystals there can be defects and impurities and there will be atoms violating the order in the crystal, like the odd blocker blocking one of the aisles, so materials have to be chosen and manufactured with great care free from defects and impurities so that scattering is kept to a minimum.

Secondly if you observe a coin at the bottom of a swimming pool, due to light refraction the coin appears in a different place from where it actually is. So if one shoots at the coin you are in fact shooting at a mirage. Induction of a new nose cone will mean integrating the radar computer to take into account such parallax errors over 80-100 km distances, you will never have zero scattering and zero refraction. It may also mean integrating the BVR to take into account such parallax( I am only guessing here) seeker or otherwise. To me this does not sound trivial, maybe some of you know Scattering theory well and have experience in it. My knowledge of scattering is based on my own work and I fully know the problems one has, perhaps I misunderstand the problems and indeed as some of you write it is a trivial problem to proceed to FOC. I would not know all I know these are potentially difficult things.

vsunder, you have just explained why it will take 25-30 flights for validating the nose cone, which is a pretty high number even after ground based testing etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Dec 2014 23:20

deejay wrote:Why can we not FOC with the Indian nose cone? Fit the Cobham cone later if we want. (I admit I have no idea on this technical thing so excuse the noob pooch)

They could.. but it might lead to bad blood/press with leaks of half finished LCA etc. 50 km @ 2mtr sq is not bad though, 63 km for 5 sq Mtr. The Kopyo on the Bis is 57 km for 5 sq mtr (public specs). So the basic MMR is at Kopyo level already.

FOC is currently at w/IAF ASR for specific radar ranges w/BVR capability w/Derby then Astra.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Dec 2014 00:24

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> There are some fallacies in that article RV about MK-2 and given current circumstances, its probably best not to discuss those threadbare inviting critiques of a persons views when that gentleman has passed on.

Basically, he made several glaring assumptions in that article about how MK-2 would develop. The basic thing is MK-2 is an incremental MK-1. Its not an overambitious redesign of MK-1 (which actually Matheswaran wants saying the entire light fighter concept is passe and we should upscale). Given the number of tac AFldss we have, a MK2 even iteratively improved over MK1 makes sense.

Challenge with Matheswarans comments is there is no clarity whether his views are the official IAF view. We have a risk of being caught in the Arjun trap then. Constant increasing specs of a gold plated fighter which the IAF then says is overboard with it being in constant dev to boot. Until and unless we get firm IAF commitment, why go that route. There is the MCA anyhow.

Karan - honestly, I'm not informed enough either ways to give my inputs on the subject.

However, from whatever little that I've managed to read so far (after going through article I listed above), there seem to be some questions which keep on popping time and again. Both from technology and project management aspect. I will put them together after I do some more reading.

As for the comments made by late Air Commodore - It would be to everyone's benefit if you (or other posters more acquainted with the subject) can provide your POV/inputs on the same.

From what I could make out - the main contention that the late author had was with respect to Project Management of Mk-2 project. And over ambitious timelines which seem to have been coming from ADA (that article is from October 2013). As I could gather from interview of Dr. Tamilmani by Saurav Jha, the first a/c is likely to take off not before 2018-2019 and another ~3 years to achieve FOC. That puts the time frame in 2022-2023 category. Assuming NO DELAYS of any kind. Otherwise, we're looking at 2025 period easily before production starts. That's 8 years (2014-2022) to 10 years (2014-2024) for 'incremental' development.

Frankly, looking at the Orbat numbers (I'm still fine tuning them, will make a post in a day or two) and from whatever I've read so far, Mk-2 seems to be a high risk strategy for IAF.

More Tejas Mk-1 (and even Mk-1A with some true incremental improvements) seem to make more and more sense.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2014 00:50

RV, from what I know, the MK-2 program really took off only once the Navy agreed, and the IAF said that they too were interested in a redesigned MK-1 and at the time Mr Khokhar was involved, there was only speculation about what it would include. Also, his association with the program was very limited. He didn't really stick on & went onto helm other responsibilities. Perhaps best discussed at another time.

The basic thing is IAF does not compromise. Its all very well for folks to suggest it should, but it won't and hence the MK-2 is required. Its organizational setup (like the IA) is geared to demand the best and they will have the program continue if it meets every requirement, ergo the MK-2.

The MK-1 ASR as has been discussed were built on a mix of Mirage 2000/MiG-29 airframe performance, plus MiG-21 footprint and over time avionics improvements were constantly added (which means weight/volume challenges). The last were increasingly hard to shoehorn into the MK-1. BTW, even the Su-30 started getting so full, thanks to IAF requirements that a HAL guy said "we are running out of space" - basically you have to replace earlier gear with better gear. Cant keep adding stuff within.

Similarly the only way to meet all the IAF requirements is a redesigned MK-1 with iterative improvements. Timeline wise, no matter what we procure today, it will take time till it comes out at HAL or any Indian facility.

Incremental development is relative at the end of the day. F/A-18 E/F is part of the same family, but at the end of the day, its pretty much a new plane versus F/A-18 earlier variants. Bigger, newer, different in many ways. Our MK-2 is going to be thorough rework of the innards - which means time consuming testing and development but overall, within the same planform & similar dimensions. This should compress the FBW work & test flying. In short, its not as radical as the above or as Matheswaran wants.

The simpler thing to do is to continue MK-1 production & replace the MiG-21 Bis/M/FL/Mongols (if any are still around at MOFTU)s and replace the Bisons and earlier MK-1s with MK-2. This is what a country like China would do. Willing to spend and willing to compromise with a baseline product (J-10A as versus an all singing and dancing perfect MK-2/3 etc at the beginning). They'll make the case to the Govt and get the funding too.

Unfortunately, IAF is not interested in & per my knowledge, will not acquiesce to such a system EVEN as it drops to 25 squadrons whilst holding out for the perfect system eg Rafale which "will come". In the process, they will not even pitch the idea to MOD & get funding. They will even dismiss the above idea as "empire building by local industry" and "waste of taxpayer money etc etc". The fear is the LCA taking up MMRCA funds as well.

So the MK-2 is the only game in town even though the MK-1 handily outperforms the Bison and matches the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 upgrade in several criteria.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 26 Dec 2014 01:01

Karan M, consequence of waiting for a perfect platform with every cycle of acquisition is that, IAF
1. will always be short of it's required squadron strength
2. will always stay half a generation behind on state-of-the-art, while it waits for the platforms to get debugged.

I can only hope that they realise this.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Dec 2014 02:11

Karan M wrote:<SNIP>So the MK-2 is the only game in town even though the MK-1 handily outperforms the Bison and matches the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 upgrade in several criteria.

Frankly, the preliminary conclusion I've reached post whatever I've read on LCA Mk-1 and present scenario is as follows:

1. The a/c has superlative performance in some areas where it matches/exceeds performance of front line a/c in IAF service. And I don't count Bison as front-line a/c.

2. However, the aircraft falls short of ASR on certain key parameters. Even ADA/DRDO have started acknowledging his openly. Which I think comes more from the comfort of Mk-2 being in works (and IAF/IN on board with respect to the same) than any attempt at increasing transparency. On the other hand, it is HAL which is now talking about numbers! But we digress.

The conundrum which needs answering is this:

- Are these short-falls in ASR being seeing RELATIVE to promised performance numbers?

OR

- the short-fall in ASR has serious enough impact on employment of Tejas as a war-fighting machine relative to existent and emerging threat in the neighborhood?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the Squadron numbers and type, I think the IAF will need to find replacement for 12 Squadron worth of a/c over next 5-8 years (2020-2023). These are Squadron with Mig-27UPG, Mig-27ML, Mig-21M/MF and Mig-21bis.

The way I think IAF is planning to game this is as follows:

- 6 x Squadrons - Rafale
- 2 x Squadrons - Tejas Mk-1
- 4 x Squadrons - Tejas Mk-2

The problem in the neat calculation above is in terms of timeline for rollover.

At best, 2 x Rafale Squadrons will be operational by 2020 and four by 2022. By 2020 we'll see two squadrons worth of Tejas Mk-1. Tejas Mk-2 will not come before 2022 by best of estimate. That accounts for only 6 replacements. What happens to rest 6?

I think either ways you look at it, more LCA Mk-1 orders are coming. IMO, IAF is holding out to only put pressure on MOD in terms of MMRCA purchase. Once the ink dries on MMRCA contract, expect order for at least 2 x Squadrons of LCA Mk-1.

Not to forget, our Russian friends can always help with some more Su-30 MKI to make good the time constraint.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most important takeaway in this entire exercise for me is this: Put the might of entire nation behind AMCA NOW if it has to become reality by 2030 and for us to stabilize our overall numbers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other question which remains unanswered is that all the calculation above is for 37 Squadron strength IAF - How, When and with What does it hope to plus the numbers for additional 08 squadrons?

Added later: Need to revisit the rollover numbers and schedules after factoring in Su-30MKI numbers. Will post update on weekend.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Dec 2014 02:18

JTull wrote:Karan M, consequence of waiting for a perfect platform with every cycle of acquisition is that, IAF
1. will always be short of it's required squadron strength
2. will always stay half a generation behind on state-of-the-art, while it waits for the platforms get debugged.

I can hope that they realise this.

well said.. IAF should get to see IAF in upgrade modes more than wait mode, and would always be in the "start-of-the-art" platform otherwise.