LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2680
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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.
Last edited by JTull on 26 Dec 2014 04:27, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby 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.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Vivek K » 26 Dec 2014 03:06

India will never be a serious world power till its armed forces give up their reliance on foreign purchases. TOT has been demonstrated to be nothing more than purchase of fancy brand name screwdrivers.

Is it better to have a slightly lower rated domestic weapon system or a slightly better import? The import ties up your decision making so that spares flow is not disrupted. Is it in India's national interest to give someone else this power over your war fighting capability? Indian strategic community it seems is behind China's in this sense.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 26 Dec 2014 03:21

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

Actually Victor was only quoting this dutty Indian working for a dutty Indian PSU. He happens to be the ex-head of LCA test flight program and the ex-head of the National Flight Test Center ( :rotfl: :roll: )
.. ADA’s record of non-adherence to consultants’ recommendations, especially when it runs against their grain and involves redoing certain aspects of work, is well known.
( :rotfl: :roll: )

..Lessons Learnt on the ALH
...the fact remains that some of the futuristic design options put forth by MBB were initially resounding failures. [b]The project that was supposed to have progressed smoothly under the tutelage of advanced German technology, instead stumbled badly...

.... 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.

Ah, so these BRAINIACS knew what phoren CON-sultancy is and still threw buckets of Rupees at them to figure out what to do with the LCA inlet and production line? IOW, they accepted that they were ignorant about these things but plan to ignore recommendations because many moons ago a German CON-sultancy screwed them up and down? Wah! ( :rotfl: :roll: )

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 03:33

RohitVats wrote: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?

.


I'll just make a brief post here.. because this is where the IAF has been doing an "Ashwatthama is dead" to dodge around the actual performance of the jet vis a vis its peers and what it already employs. The spate of recent anti LCA articles you see dismissing it from rtd types (Bahadur, Matheswaran) and even the earlier ones are all linked to the profound fear that if the LCA becomes the #1 priority.. MMRCA wont have funds allocated. And the IAF wants the latest toy, stat. Some folks don't even want to wait for the FGFA, since the Rafale is "ready". Its the typical short sighted approach that they were into during the Soviet era and speaking to many current folks/rtd folks just shows there is a huge gap between the "builders AF" and "purchase AF" mindsets we all crib about from time to time. The heavy lifting is to be done by the developers/PSUs etc since they are "air warriors" first and foremost, the rest is not their business. The exceptions are those who are deputed to DRDO labs/HAL/PSU R&D and come away with an appreciation of making our own stuff & how it segues into the bigger picture.

So, to the point - those number shortfalls are pretty meaningless. The LCA actually handily outperforms the Bison in acceleration and related energy parameters. The Bison in turn is still a credible threat against most of what PAF fields & outperforms the Jag/MiG strikers we have. In avionics, the LCA packs HOBS missiles & a HMS - these give it the crucial lock on & launch capability which easily makes up for any shortfall of a few degrees of STR. As matter of fact, if the LCA gets into a turning fight in an era of missiles and HMS, the pilot probably miscalculated or is down to guns alone. In terms of BVR - the LCA will match the upgraded Mirage 2000 by virtue of its small RCS/radar/BVRAAM combo. The payload combinations (I had worked them out on the forum) are also fairly credible and give it a decent ROA versus PAF when deployed as we do with our Jags/MiG-27/MiG-21 and even MiG-29 fleet. The addition of IFR will also be a further boost. The key attribute that would matter is reliability, serviceability and TAT. These were per reports flagged by the IAF heavily and addressed on a priority basis for IOC-2. Now, the reason why ADA et al are so sanguine is exactly because of the above. They run simulations and have been told by the TPs etc that in real situations, these shortfalls are pretty meaningless. OTOH, its not in the MMRCA establishments interest to acknowledge this.

Context matters. For instance, take all the brouhaha about the engines and change times etc. When I raised this, a knowledgeable guy just mentioned this - we had barely a handful of Ge404s (not even calibrated) and these ran throughout to get our test program up and running. These are not the MiG-21/27/29 style turbojet/fans which have to be constantly yanked out and reworked (given FSU design/mfg points of that era). Similarly, when somebody was grousing about actuators - the same point was raised. These items are so reliable, that indigenization is being driven more from the strategic perspective than a consumables perspective. The point is the stuff about LCA serviceability - testers, documentation, kits- are all being addressed and the big reason why they werent done earlier was because of the convoluted structure - TD (IAF then approves FSED1, then FSED2). Till then our much discussed spat/issues meant that only after IAF joined the program did the ECRs get raised in the hundreds! (Eng Change Reqs). When IAF started sharing SOPs as versus generic Mil std guidelines followed etc. So prioritization was done. Net, the MK1 is basically a nifty aircraft with a lot of tactical utility.

Unfortunately, segments of the IAF are now enamoured of the entire MMRCA shebang and its funding is their be-all and end-all. Luckily though the MK2 development is funded via the MOD for the most part and should be allocated accordingly since its been cleared before.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 26 Dec 2014 04:06

Karan M wrote:I'll just make a brief post here.. because this is where the IAF has been doing an "Ashwatthama is dead" to dodge around the actual performance of the jet vis a vis its peers and what it already employs.

Says who? You? When you make an accusation like this you ought to back it up with at least a link?

The spate of recent anti LCA articles you see dismissing it from rtd types (Bahadur, Matheswaran) and even the earlier ones are all linked to the profound fear that if the LCA becomes the #1 priority.. MMRCA wont have funds allocated. And the IAF wants the latest toy,

This is devoid of any logic. The LCA is not, was never intended to be and will never be equal to or a stand-in for the MMRCA which has its own important place in the IAF stable. IAF has absolutely no axe to grind here at all and is praying that some kind of LCA meet its goals and passes the FOC sometime soon. I'm much more comfortable believing what the IAF says than anyone else, specially not ADA/HAL types who have proven how "truthful and correct" they have been for decades.

...just shows there is a huge gap between the "builders AF" and "purchase AF" mindsets we all (hoo's "we all"?) crib about from time to time. The heavy lifting is to be done by the developers/PSUs etc since they are "air warriors" first and foremost, the rest is not their business. .

Again, this sounds like HAL/ADA-funded fiction simply because it ignores the fact that the IAF wanted to do the heavy lifting, make it their business and take full responsibility but was denied. Make HAL/ADA accountable under strict discipline of IAF? Perish the thought!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3904
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2014 06:42

rohitvats wrote: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. .


I would.agree, at.least.partly. IAF will order more mk1s, but they are also waiting for the FOC specced aircraft to fly, and this seems to be taking forever.

This "never meet timeline" crap from the psus has to end , it certainly makes it easier for the services to look at the import option, and can't really blame them. I do like the idea of an IAF type being somewhere ć at the top in HAL/ADA.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3904
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2014 06:52

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.



Would love.to read the article if either you or Karan can get a hold of it. BTW at what speed.was this str achieved? IIRC, the 29.is unbeatable at lower speeds, but high speed turning was always the solah's forte, not that the fulcrum couldn't manage, but the flanker and esp. The viper were the real gold standard pre 90s.

Was this requirement in the 1995 revised edition? I ask because in this case it would not be entirely unreasonable, the gold standard by then had shifted. Now it would be unrealistic if the IAF expected the LCA to better ecanards .

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby abhik » 26 Dec 2014 07:53

rohitvats wrote: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. .

How is the IAF holding the LCA programme hostage to push for the MRCA an acceptable behaviour? Any way I don't think that's the case. If the Rafale deal is signed the IAF won't have much money left, given that it will cost us at least 2 billion + per year. It was reported that the FGFA numbers have also been cut down from the earlier 250 because of the same. The FGFA if signed will probably cist us even more than the Rafale. So we can expect the Tejas Mk 2 to also get squeezed.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_26622 » 26 Dec 2014 08:29

So IAF is squeezing a domestic program to save money for imports - Diabolical move. Are we in 1970 or 2020?

Old habits die hard and in some cases never I guess!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3904
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2014 08:46

^^can we drop this diabolical, insidious, and polemical nonsense reg the IAF, there is absolutely no support for such claims beyond that of an occasional extrapolation. The worst and possibly the most worthy criticism came from AM Raj Kumar. The services could be faulted in being a bit keen for.imports and quite skeptical of PSU promises, perhaps an a attitude adjustment is on the cards, but diabolical? Puhleeze! There is far more open source information available to suggest that the workings or rather non working of the PSUs alongside a byzantine MOD have contributed far more to the present dire situation.

Ever the.promise of fabled riches followed by hardly a crumb.

The orders for ffoc standard mk1s will very likely come, nor is this contingent upon the MRCA, but pray tell us when shall that day arrive when we can achieve FOC?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9624
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Yagnasri » 26 Dec 2014 08:56

As I wrote earlier, the problem is with almost everyone. But as a man in charge of Defense of the nation RM need to put his foot down. Present RM need to do that. AKA drifted among clouds and did nothing for 10 years to stop imports other than banning people. May be it is also good in way. But malai is too much on a import deal to stop all the rubbish going on.

May be it is the need of the hour to reject Rafale and proceed with L.C.A. in a big way. It will create lot of heart burns but good long run. Money save will finance A.M.C.A. development and T-50 mki version can also be brought in large numbers than the present cut numbers.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ravip » 26 Dec 2014 10:51

Gentlemen, there are many veterans from AF in social media we have to invite or engage them to get their perspective. All that we are debating is on the material available from the manufacturers and not from the Point Of View of user.For example let's consider their argument as,
1. Is MOD going to sanction further funds for rafale after accepting LCA?
2. IAF is for war fighting and not for testing LCA and give solace to keyboard warriors.
3. If a aircraft is short of critical parameter like STR, knowing that any AF would not send LCA to war.
4. IAF has options to buy and its not in the same situation as PLAAF, so no comparison with them. More over we get to know the quality of PLAAF only in war.

So there are many unknowns before we can come to any conclusion.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Pratyush » 26 Dec 2014 11:01

Regarding the production of the LCA. Some time ago I came across a news piece that the GOI was considering paying up to 12 billion $$. for 250 LCA Mk2s to be produced by 2025. This was also to be made by a Pvt player.

The interesting part is that the news disappeared without any followup articles.

India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Vivek K » 26 Dec 2014 13:03

ravip wrote:1. Is MOD going to sanction further funds for rafale after accepting LCA?
2. IAF is for war fighting and not for testing LCA and give solace to keyboard warriors.
3. If a aircraft is short of critical parameter like STR, knowing that any AF would not send LCA to war.
4. IAF has options to buy and its not in the same situation as PLAAF, so no comparison with them. More over we get to know the quality of PLAAF only in war.

So there are many unknowns before we can come to any conclusion.

Really! Your post confirms how much better the navy understands her role than the IAF. The navy not only helps with testing, but also with the design. Very able pilots have commented that the LCA is at least as capable as the M2K. Is the IAF withdrawing the M2K?

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ravip » 26 Dec 2014 15:51

Vivek K wrote:Really! Your post confirms how much better the navy understands her role than the IAF. The navy not only helps with testing, but also with the design. Very able pilots have commented that the LCA is at least as capable as the M2K. Is the IAF withdrawing the M2K?



But there is complete opaqueness as to why IAF is refusing to accept LCA. Until we know the official reason the debate is going no where. Though one cannot expect actual numbers to be released but a least it should release the shortcomings.

As to navy, it is also known that Navy is looking forward for mk2 and has no hopes on LCA mk1. It is also well known that Cmdr Malonkar had said we would love to have rafale like aircraft but its impossible and we have to make do with what we have and in future we have to realise such desired capacity. Yes, it is instititional culture where Navy leads a program in certain way which differs from IAF. If LCA is forced down the throat by MoD in the present form that is mk1, IAF might induct 1 or 2 sqnd and make do away with the pressure like how army did with arjun which only offered little advantage over tin can which dissuaded from being inducted in large numbers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 17:56

Victor wrote:
Says who? You? When you make an accusation like this you ought to back it up with at least a link?


Oh lo look at the sense of entitlement here.. and who are you to ask for any link, when all you contribute to this forum is garbage and trolling? All you do is curse patriotic Indians who contribute to India, unlike you and then you expect to be spoonfed?

This is devoid of any logic. The LCA is not, was never intended to be and will never be equal to or a stand-in for the MMRCA which has its own important place in the IAF stable. IAF has absolutely no axe to grind here at all and is praying that some kind of LCA meet its goals and passes the FOC sometime soon. I'm much more comfortable believing what the IAF says than anyone else, specially not ADA/HAL types who have proven how "truthful and correct" they have been for decades.


Only somebody with congenital comprehension problems would be unable to realize a straightforward post, that there is only x amount of funding available and the IAF prioritizes between all acquisitions.

Again, this sounds like HAL/ADA-funded fiction simply because it ignores the fact that the IAF wanted to do the heavy lifting, make it their business and take full responsibility but was denied. Make HAL/ADA accountable under strict discipline of IAF? Perish the thought!


ADA funded lol. Looks like you are projecting since you clearly owe your roti, kapda aur makaan to your masters in the great Khan and hence think everyone is like you.With your 24/7 propaganda against Indians and Indian institutions while pretending to be pro-IAF.

Tu apna Green Card ya US ka passport pakad aur wahin reh.
Your pathetic posts don't even merit a reply.
Last edited by Indranil on 26 Dec 2014 21:33, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Karan, no need for the personal attacks.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9624
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Yagnasri » 26 Dec 2014 18:05

The question is whether LCA Mk1 or 2 can be inducted in large numbers so that there is no need for Rafale. It may not be. But it can certainly provide a suitable answers to any threat from west of our nation and can handle numerous old gen ac types lizard still has. If properly done it has huge export potential.

The requirement of Rafale is estimated some 15 years back. Is the situation still same??? Do we need 5th acs now when lizard is exhibiting their own 5th acs? If the T-50 derivative is a better alternative now? Can we incur the cost involved? What is the cost benefit analysis?

All these questions are to be asked now.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 18:12

Cain Marko wrote:
rohitvats wrote: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. .


I would.agree, at.least.partly. IAF will order more mk1s, but they are also waiting for the FOC specced aircraft to fly, and this seems to be taking forever.

This "never meet timeline" crap from the psus has to end , it certainly makes it easier for the services to look at the import option, and can't really blame them. I do like the idea of an IAF type being somewhere ć at the top in HAL/ADA.


The never meet the timeline crap also comes from constantly adding on to the requirements late and then forcing another set of changes late in the development cycle. Go look at the Arjun thread and see how that is carried out. Requirements come in late, delay starts as design has to be redone, program takes the flak for late redesign.

Look above for the ALH case & how IAF teams were not deputed to the ALH as well in time. Its a critical factor.

In the LCA case, many examples, due to IAF disinterest and joining way later than it should have. Avionics refresh - not once but three times over. From TDs to current SPs. IAF asked for R73Es late in development, wing redesign a result and so it goes... many of the MK-2 and what not changes could have been avoided if the IAF was involved in the beginning.

Its pretty damning when AM Rajkumar has to tell the then CAS Tipnis before the first flight, this plane is being designed for you, not the enemy, attend it.

My own posts

In the past:
Pg 125 Tejas Story:
Before the FRRB - Flight Readiness Review Board

"I rang up ACM Tipnis and requested him to attend the final session"...
"He flew down and invited me to have dinner with him..when i met him there he said:"my advisers have told me not to attend the FRRB as it would indicate IAF support for the program. what do you suggest?"
I said, "sir, the LCA is being built only for the IAF and not for the enemy AF. Please come." He came for the meeting.


"There was an irrational view at Air HQ that I was having a good time at Bangalore, which happened to be my home town. The fact that I was working on a project which was to deliver a fourth generation fighter for the IAF inventory and crucial for the long-term interest of the aeronautical industry in India, was conveniently forgotten".

Should clear up all the claims of Tejas being 3 Generation.

Then writes:
"Back I went to ACM Tipnis and and said it was upto him to address my very genuine grievance. With great reluctance, he promised to do something".

Thereafter, he had to literally threaten legal action for AHQ to take him seriously, and MOD then supported him with the PM (ABV) invoking a special rule to promote him first and paperwork to follow later.

Also mentions that asked for Kirti Chakra for Shri Kothiyal for his test flight on justifiable grounds - flying a FBW aircraft for the first flight, but was denied by then CAS. Met the CAS, and repeatedly pressed for recognition & finally Kothiyal got it over the much lesser AVSM. Also says about 26 January 2001:

"I scanned the morning papers to see which award Dr Kota had been conferred with. I was expecting him to be conferred with the Padma Bhushan. To my utter horror, I found he had not been given any recognition for the stupendous effort over a period of fifteen years. This was a pity, because like justice, recognition delayed was recognition denied."


And as regards stuff about how things are hunky dory otherwise in equipment choices & the lack of support to local production is an accident.

From Google bhai about "blast from the past"

Swedish embassy official has informed us that main Indian negotiator with swedes on viggen at New Delhi end has been Ms Gandhi's older son, Rajiv Gandhi. Latter's only association with aircraft industry (to our knowledge) has been as pilot for Indian airlines and this is first time we have heard his name as entrepreneur," said a US diplomatic cable sent on October 21, 1975.

The cables went on to say that French aviation firm Dassault, which was also in the race with its Mirage aircraft, had the son-in-law of the then Air Chief, Air Marshal O P Mehra, as its chief negotiator.


Less said the better about how Indian arms procurement has been run.

Here is another patriot about the LCA:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/kalma ... tee-181143

His previous attempts were apparently unsuccessful, so try and try again.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengalur ... k-hole-073

Weeks before the IAF inducts India’s indigenous light combat aircraft, it has come to light that Congress leader Suresh Kalmadi, who quit as secretary of the Congress parliamentary party in the aftermath of allegations of financial irregularities in the recent Commonwealth Games, was ironically concerned about public funding for the ‘Made in India’ light combat aircraft ‘Tejas.’

He told defence scientists to scrap the project well before the jet had even made its maiden flight. The scientists, according to former science adviser to the defence minister V.S. Arunachalam, held on despite threats by Mr Kalmadi that he would ask the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to probe the accounts of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the nodal organisation for the project. He did not stop with such threats, but moved a private member resolution in Parliament asking the Union government to scrap the project.


Mr Kalmadi’s moves to ground the project when it was in its infancy in 1980s was fuelled by his belief that it was wasteful :lol: :lol: .


Bhaiyya ji, there is a lot of grime in the Indian system which shills don't talk about and nor do we folks because of the justified concerns about not tarnishing the fair name of others serving & of how justified acquisitions can get stuck.

MMRCA is $20 Billion+ and counting now. The LCA is a hindrance, lets be clear for some. Especially for ONE of the contenders which falls straight in LCA MK-2 category and has hence run a pointed campaign against the need for a MK-2, how MK-1 is either enough, or LCA itself is pointless, helmed by a nice aviation mag in India (widest read) which has run nice nice full page ads of the MMRCA contender. And then even a conference is held on "role of LCA". Go figure on conflict of interest.

As to IAF guys being at the top - can the average IAF guy who is a whiz at commanding fighter squadrons or at best logistics for his unit, suddenly helm a group of designers and others? There are but a handful of TPs with the breadth of experience beyond flying and even they would struggle. This is ADA, HAL is an even tougher ask.
Last edited by Karan M on 26 Dec 2014 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 18:23

Cain Marko wrote:Would love.to read the article if either you or Karan can get a hold of it. BTW at what speed.was this str achieved? IIRC, the 29.is unbeatable at lower speeds, but high speed turning was always the solah's forte, not that the fulcrum couldn't manage, but the flanker and esp. The viper were the real gold standard pre 90s.

Was this requirement in the 1995 revised edition? I ask because in this case it would not be entirely unreasonable, the gold standard by then had shifted. Now it would be unrealistic if the IAF expected the LCA to better ecanards .


The details were also mentioned in a paper by KH himself. I am trawling through my emails/archives lets see..if its a print copy then might be anyplace.

Solah was not mentioned - it was the Mirage & MiG-29.

At the beginning, IAF was closely involved.

Mirage manuals (limited amount we got @ induction) were closely pored over for LCA specs. The MC function was derived by checking a mix of both the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 functions - (hence also the by design from beginning to carry a mix of western & russian & third party kit).

It was the near complete disassociation of IAF from the entire dev phase to the TD stage that really caused an issue.

Good part is now everyone who has experience and can contribute has gone to LCA. Jags, MiGs, Su's - its all there.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 18:48

BTW, all the stuff about MiG21 = LCA etc. Plain rubbish.

Bison: 3G upgraded -so called 3G++ versus LCA

Full Glass Cockpit: No (1HUD+1MFD+limited HOTAS+HMCS)
LCA: Yes (3MFD, HUD, full HOTAS, Helmet Mounted Display - better than cueing sight)

LCA -far more modern ejection seat, the Martin Baker Mk16 as compared to that on the Bison which is the KM-1M, one that is unchanged from the Bis.

Radar: Bison - Kopyo (range limited to 57Km for 5SqMtr, limited scan angles thanks to Bison nose)
LCA: Elta 2032 & LCA Hybrid MMR - both with ranges ~100 Km, wide variety of modes, scan angles of the order of 60 degrees

EW suite: Bison - Tarang MK1, external jammer which if carried, reduces number of pylons (already limited to 5, by 1)
LCA: Integrated internal suite, with both RWR & jamming capability

Litening pod for the LCA; not on the Bison

Propulsion: LCA - modern more reliable powerplant with FADEC
Bison: Older gen powerplant, no FADEC, issues with reliability and maintenance

LCA: FBW for carefree handling and pilot friendlyness; has FBW dictate maneuvering limits with loads, stores, and other criteria preventing errors
Bison: No

LCA: Special measures for reduced signature in design itself - canopy, airframe, use of specific materials, Y shaped intakes displaced for signature reduction
Bison: Original MiG-21 design, only RAM possible, comes with weight penalty, important as weapons add radar signature

LCA: Able to carry dedicated LDP/Special store on dedicated pylon
Bison: No

LCA: Has 7+1 pylons per design
Bison: 4+1, limiting flexibility

Payload: Edge to LCA even using 6400 Kg empty aircraft weight (~900 kg over original 5.5T) and 10.5T, empty weight with 2R73E missiles included. Has payload of 2.5T for 5 remaining pylons

Growth potential: Edge to LCA - items such as Oxygen generating equipment being included, plus In Flight Refuelling

Stores flexibility: LCA has 1760 standard avionics fit allowing for western, Indian, Russian weapons
Bison: No

Avionics: LCA has provision for datalink, has modern avionics, computers etc
Bison: Limited upgrade, few of these are included in current aircraft & it does not have a datalink/no mention of it to get the same

Systems: LCA designed around test kits, with simulators for crew
Bison: Limited by original MiG-21 design, only part task training
---

With 7 pylons and more fuel capability + even disregarding IFR on the way, its a joke to say LCA == MiG-21 as some folks have been pushing.
Last edited by Karan M on 26 Dec 2014 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 18:53

Pratyush wrote:Regarding the production of the LCA. Some time ago I came across a news piece that the GOI was considering paying up to 12 billion $$. for 250 LCA Mk2s to be produced by 2025. This was also to be made by a Pvt player.

The interesting part is that the news disappeared without any followup articles.

India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly


Basically, looks like its the old stuff all over again. Private sector demurred more or less. Pity if thats the case!

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby arijitkm » 26 Dec 2014 19:22

‘Hot engines’, UAVs on New Delhi’s wish list to Pentagon

NEW DELHI: India has asked the Pentagon for five key technologies, including advanced highaltitude UAVs and “hot engines” for its fighter jets, to bolster its defences, sources said.
Delhi’s request for detailed proposals and licence requirements under the bilateral defence technology and trade initiative were conveyed to a visiting Pentagon delegation, sources said. US President Barack Obama visits India in January. While the defence ministry had decided on the four technologies it will ask for from the US, the decision on the fifth would be taken after talking to the army, South Block sources said. On India’s wish-list was “hot-engine technology” for indigenous light combat aircraft Mark II to be powered by GE-414 jet engine, sources said. This technology allows fighter to operate in hot weather conditions like in deserts without any possibility of an engine failure.
New Delhi is also keen on Raytheon-manufactured “Signature Aperture Radar” that can penetrate thick forests, like the ones found in eastern India. Third on the list is the stealth-coating technology. The coating deadens radar images and would give Indian jets minimum radar profile and maximum survivability in hostile conditions.
......
......

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 26 Dec 2014 20:07

Karan M wrote:<SNIP> The never meet the timeline crap also comes from constantly adding on to the requirements late and then forcing another set of changes late in the development cycle. Go look at the Arjun thread and see how that is carried out. Requirements come in late, delay starts as design has to be redone, program takes the flak for late redesign.<SNIP>


The above statement is not correct in it's entirety.

You're correct about delays due to scope creep late in the development - two instances that I know are modifications in armament load for the wing (I think this is where R-73 came in) and requirement for internal EW suite. And this happened in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

However, inspite of all this having happened, the IOC was promised in 2010 and FOC in 2012. With first squadron entering service by 2012 time frame. And all this is as per Standing Committee on Defense Report. 16th or 17th I think.

You quoted AM Philip Rajkumar from his book on IAF's lack of support for Tejas. The same book also mentions how he cautioned APJ Kalam against given timeline for first flight of Tejas. And was proven later when Tejas made first flight 6-years later (he had said it would take 5 years).

Even Dr. Saraswat - DRDO head then - claimed in an interview in 2012 that Tejas will enter IAF service in 2013 as all issues encountered in IOC have been sorted out and a/c is now in FOC stage.

V.K. Saraswat, Chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation, said that Indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) ‘Tejas’ has entered into final operational clearance phase and will be inducted into the Indian Air Force by December 2013.

Speaking to press persons after participating in the Graduation Day programme at the Siddaganga Institute of Technology here on Saturday, Dr. Saraswat said that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has begun production of the Light Combat Aircraft.


So, did he not know what he was talking about?

And one does not need go that back in time to see the missed deadlines - just look at the production timeline made earlier for SP-1 and SP-2. Sp-1 is full one year late with SP-2 being 6 months late.

I don't subscribe to the view that lack of participation by IAF is THE factor which impacted the delay. Even by DRDO's own account, IAF has been on board since 2007. What explains the slippages time and again from 2007 on wards?

My objective to bring this point is not to point fingers. When informed posters like you comment on the subject and bring out issues which have/had cropped up because of disinterest of IAF in the program between 1986 and 2006 ('IAF dropped the ball' as per Philip Rajkumar), it seems that this is the only reason which has been holding back Tejas program. And other posters take off from there and we end up having a whine fest.

While the truth is that there are delay is also because of decisions which DRDO had/has taken which have impacted the timeline. Not to mention the project management part.

Further, while one understands learning curve and all that, what is the reason for DRDO heads to give timelines in the first place and not adhere to them? Nothing which comes from DRDO/HAL/ADA in terms of timeline has any sanctity because of always missing timelines which they themselves announce.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Gyan » 26 Dec 2014 20:32

arijitkm wrote:‘Hot engines’, UAVs on New Delhi’s wish list to Pentagon

NEW DELHI: India has asked the Pentagon for five key technologies, including advanced highaltitude UAVs and “hot engines” for its fighter jets, to bolster its defences, sources said.
Delhi’s request for detailed proposals and licence requirements under the bilateral defence technology and trade initiative were conveyed to a visiting Pentagon delegation, sources said. US President Barack Obama visits India in January. While the defence ministry had decided on the four technologies it will ask for from the US, the decision on the fifth would be taken after talking to the army, South Block sources said. On India’s wish-list was “hot-engine technology” for indigenous light combat aircraft Mark II to be powered by GE-414 jet engine, sources said. This technology allows fighter to operate in hot weather conditions like in deserts without any possibility of an engine failure.
New Delhi is also keen on Raytheon-manufactured “Signature Aperture Radar” that can penetrate thick forests, like the ones found in eastern India. Third on the list is the stealth-coating technology. The coating deadens radar images and would give Indian jets minimum radar profile and maximum survivability in hostile conditions.
......
......



Hot engines may refer to technology for "Hot Section" of a Turbofan Engine. (which USA will never never ever give)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 21:20

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:<SNIP> The never meet the timeline crap also comes from constantly adding on to the requirements late and then forcing another set of changes late in the development cycle. Go look at the Arjun thread and see how that is carried out. Requirements come in late, delay starts as design has to be redone, program takes the flak for late redesign.<SNIP>


The above statement is not correct in it's entirety.

You're correct about delays due to scope creep late in the development - two instances that I know are modifications in armament load for the wing (I think this is where R-73 came in) and requirement for internal EW suite. And this happened in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

However, inspite of all this having happened, the IOC was promised in 2010 and FOC in 2012. With first squadron entering service by 2012 time frame. And all this is as per Standing Committee on Defense Report. 16th or 17th I think.

You quoted AM Philip Rajkumar from his book on IAF's lack of support for Tejas. The same book also mentions how he cautioned APJ Kalam against given timeline for first flight of Tejas. And was proven later when Tejas made first flight 6-years later (he had said it would take 5 years).

Even Dr. Saraswat - DRDO head then - claimed in an interview in 2012 that Tejas will enter IAF service in 2013 as all issues encountered in IOC have been sorted out and a/c is now in FOC stage.

V.K. Saraswat, Chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation, said that Indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) ‘Tejas’ has entered into final operational clearance phase and will be inducted into the Indian Air Force by December 2013.

Speaking to press persons after participating in the Graduation Day programme at the Siddaganga Institute of Technology here on Saturday, Dr. Saraswat said that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has begun production of the Light Combat Aircraft.


So, did he not know what he was talking about?

And one does not need go that back in time to see the missed deadlines - just look at the production timeline made earlier for SP-1 and SP-2. Sp-1 is full one year late with SP-2 being 6 months late.

I don't subscribe to the view that lack of participation by IAF is THE factor which impacted the delay. Even by DRDO's own account, IAF has been on board since 2007. What explains the slippages time and again from 2007 on wards?

My objective to bring this point is not to point fingers. When informed posters like you comment on the subject and bring out issues which have/had cropped up because of disinterest of IAF in the program between 1986 and 2006 ('IAF dropped the ball' as per Philip Rajkumar), it seems that this is the only reason which has been holding back Tejas program. And other posters take off from there and we end up having a whine fest.


Rohit Vats, of course its a mix of things. Note what I said: The never meet the timeline crap also comes... also, as in not the only factor but a part of the overall challenge.

User involvement is a BIG thing which has not been acknowledged by the IAF for the most part and only the 30 year stuff gets bandied about.

Without user involvement at every stage, they simply cannot manage.

Lets go back and see the cribbing about "Serviceability" and "not meeting design requirements/ASR" in xyz.

These are directly related to IAF non involvement in the program. There is no internal EW suite in the aircraft - its on MK2. There was however a huge issue with avionics wherein IAF communicated to IAF after TD phase that it wanted an avionics change! Now they had valid reasons one surmises even though the Su's were flying with the same TD level suite, but the iterative development took place thereafter.

Speak to anybody from ADA/NFTC etc about when the ECRs - Engineering Change Requests have been created in the dozens post 2007 after IAF got heavily involved. These range from stuff like testers too complicated, to missing documentation with easily marked instructions (huge difference between a Scientist D working on the same thing for a decade as versus a new serviceing tech who has moved from Bisons to LCA). ADA guys wont know this because all the people they interact with are at their level and deployment intricacies require user input.

Now whats happened is there is huge amounts of stuff pending & its been a herculean task for ADA to figure out what is critical & what is good to have. The TPs remember are not looking at the plane from the 360 deg angle. They can only contribute (mostly) to the aircraft itself and not all its maint/servicing aspects. Documentation taken from IAF aircraft etc is not sufficient. There is a huge amount of stuff which is simply not documented & needs to be explicitly called out. In absence of the data, ADA designers and their OEM vendors went by assumptions based on general principles. That stuff now needs finetuning and is being done on a war footing now, whereas all this could have been done a decade back. Revisions for newer stuff would be easier (experience factor).

Next, the IAF's cynicism regarding the program (to an extent justified given the tech challenges) meant the plane had to first fly as TD, then FSED was launched (1&2) and funded. However, the problem here was that a lot of the stuff developed for TDs was simply not leveraged & had to be completely redesigned for SP - the mission avionics being an example. A "glass cockpit" was demonstrated, as versus a glass cockpit which the IAF took a key role in design from day 1 and was SP ready. (They did do the latter once they joined).

Now, the ADA had its own share of snafus (Kaveri linkage + radar w/HAL) but the above were a key factor.

The stated reasons - all PC without bringing in the acrimony for the politicos to crib about :

Reasons for Delay
• First time development, integration and flight testing of a world class fighter aircraft.
•Complexity of system design and very high safety standards leading to extensive testing to ensure flight safety.
•Due to non-availability of indigenous ‘Kaveri Engine’ design changes were carried out to accommodate GE404 engine of USA.
•US Sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production cycle took time.
•Change in the development strategy of radar and associated changes on theaircraft.
•Incorporating configuration changes made by the user (for example R60 Close
Combat Missile (CCM) was replaced by R73E CCM which required design
modifications) to keep the aircraft contemporary.
•Major development activity of avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft
contemporary, which took time but yielded results.


First two and last three points are directly related to developer challenges and also user input challenges.
Third is a developer failure. Fifth as well (though as mentioned above, quicker IAF acceptance of say Kopyo+ or 2032 directly may have speeded up things).
Fourth was a political decision. Tests to be done asap and weather the rest.

While the truth is that there are delay is also because of decisions which DRDO had/has taken which have impacted the timeline. Not to mention the project management part.

Further, while one understands learning curve and all that, what is the reason for DRDO heads to give timelines in the first place and not adhere to them? Nothing which comes from DRDO/HAL/ADA in terms of timeline has any sanctity because of always missing timelines which they themselves announce.


The timeline part is definitely true in that these orgs need to bite the bullet and not announce timelines which are impossible to meet. The answer as to why they did so relates to our dysfunctional system where there is no assured support for these programs and one always has to yank rabbits from the hat. These orgs constantly offer optimistic timelines. The problem is simply insecurity. If the IAF/MOD etc were part of the program as true partners, all this rubbish wouldnt arise since the insecure would not be thinking about how to save the program and accountability would be much higher as even if the occasional high flier tried to fib, he would be caught out. The IAF et al also have to face similar issues. The IAF suddenly announces an airstrip functional few days before CAG can censure them, not that the CAG cares about IAF resourcing and other aspects which it has to juggle.

The other part is simply R&D. Once you have a baseline product, you can estimate workplanning and times efficiently. Now LRDE has radar 1, radar 2 and then radar 3 will be more accurately estimated. With LCA, most systems were Block 1 themselves. Incidentally, they met avionics refresh timelines pretty well. Why? It was MK3, after TD avionics were revised twice based on user demand. Basically, more experience better the estimates. Otherwise, you think elbow grease and consultant PPTs will set the agenda. Reality begs otherwise.

Basically, get the IAF as part of the LCA without ego hassles and make it a given LCA will be supported as its a national priority and IAF is onboard and see things change. ADA etc will gladly appoint anyone who can get the program done and manage the myriad daily headaches.

Matheswaran claims "user should lead the program and program should even be cancelled if necessary" - with this sort of "parachute in program killers" sort of stuff, we are set for dysfunction. Former yes, latter just demonstrates he (and others) despite their claims, dont get the importance of the LCA. He also claims MMRCA was designed to bring in tech to India, this after umpteen decades of experience, that it does little on those lines. This is the state of affairs.

Hopefully we will get the right stuff with the AMCA..more experience with LCA/FGFA etc will grow the IAFs capabilities as well to manage programs and lead them.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18826
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 26 Dec 2014 21:33

arijitkm wrote:‘Hot engines’, UAVs on New Delhi’s wish list to Pentagon

NEW DELHI: India has asked the Pentagon for five key technologies, including advanced highaltitude UAVs and “hot engines” for its fighter jets, to bolster its defences, sources said.
Delhi’s request for detailed proposals and licence requirements under the bilateral defence technology and trade initiative were conveyed to a visiting Pentagon delegation, sources said. US President Barack Obama visits India in January. While the defence ministry had decided on the four technologies it will ask for from the US, the decision on the fifth would be taken after talking to the army, South Block sources said. On India’s wish-list was “hot-engine technology” for indigenous light combat aircraft Mark II to be powered by GE-414 jet engine, sources said. This technology allows fighter to operate in hot weather conditions like in deserts without any possibility of an engine failure.
New Delhi is also keen on Raytheon-manufactured “Signature Aperture Radar” that can penetrate thick forests, like the ones found in eastern India. Third on the list is the stealth-coating technology. The coating deadens radar images and would give Indian jets minimum radar profile and maximum survivability in hostile conditions.
......
......


UAVs and FPR for purchase, yes... the rest, yeah sure! :lol:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4399
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby srai » 26 Dec 2014 21:44

Karan M wrote:BTW, all the stuff about MiG21 = LCA etc. Plain rubbish.

Bison: 3G upgraded -so called 3G++ versus LCA

Full Glass Cockpit: No (1HUD+1MFD+limited HOTAS+HMCS)
LCA: Yes (3MFD, HUD, full HOTAS, Helmet Mounted Display - better than cueing sight)

LCA -far more modern ejection seat, the Martin Baker Mk16 as compared to that on the Bison which is the KM-1M, one that is unchanged from the Bis.

Radar: Bison - Kopyo (range limited to 57Km for 5SqMtr, limited scan angles thanks to Bison nose)
LCA: Elta 2032 & LCA Hybrid MMR - both with ranges ~100 Km, wide variety of modes, scan angles of the order of 60 degrees

EW suite: Bison - Tarang MK1, external jammer which if carried, reduces number of pylons (already limited to 5, by 1)
LCA: Integrated internal suite, with both RWR & jamming capability

Litening pod for the LCA; not on the Bison

Propulsion: LCA - modern more reliable powerplant with FADEC
Bison: Older gen powerplant, no FADEC, issues with reliability and maintenance

LCA: FBW for carefree handling and pilot friendlyness; has FBW dictate maneuvering limits with loads, stores, and other criteria preventing errors
Bison: No

LCA: Special measures for reduced signature in design itself - canopy, airframe, use of specific materials, Y shaped intakes displaced for signature reduction
Bison: Original MiG-21 design, only RAM possible, comes with weight penalty, important as weapons add radar signature

LCA: Able to carry dedicated LDP/Special store on dedicated pylon
Bison: No

LCA: Has 7+1 pylons per design
Bison: 4+1, limiting flexibility

Payload: Edge to LCA even using 6400 Kg empty aircraft weight (~900 kg over original 5.5T) and 10.5T, empty weight with 2R73E missiles included. Has payload of 2.5T for 5 remaining pylons

Growth potential: Edge to LCA - items such as Oxygen generating equipment being included, plus In Flight Refuelling

Stores flexibility: LCA has 1760 standard avionics fit allowing for western, Indian, Russian weapons
Bison: No

Avionics: LCA has provision for datalink, has modern avionics, computers etc
Bison: Limited upgrade, few of these are included in current aircraft & it does not have a datalink/no mention of it to get the same

Systems: LCA designed around test kits, with simulators for crew
Bison: Limited by original MiG-21 design, only part task training
---

With 7 pylons and more fuel capability + even disregarding IFR on the way, its a joke to say LCA == MiG-21 as some folks have been pushing.


I would also add these:
  • Ergonomics - LCA has been designed for best fit Indian anthropometric mesurements.
  • Upgrade potential - LCA has all of the necessary R&D infrastructure and manpower with the know-why/how for indigenous future upgrades.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4399
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby srai » 26 Dec 2014 22:39

Karan M wrote:...

While the truth is that there are delay is also because of decisions which DRDO had/has taken which have impacted the timeline. Not to mention the project management part.

Further, while one understands learning curve and all that, what is the reason for DRDO heads to give timelines in the first place and not adhere to them? Nothing which comes from DRDO/HAL/ADA in terms of timeline has any sanctity because of always missing timelines which they themselves announce.


The timeline part is definitely true in that these orgs need to bite the bullet and not announce timelines which are impossible to meet. The answer as to why they did so relates to our dysfunctional system where there is no assured support for these programs and one always has to yank rabbits from the hat. These orgs constantly offer optimistic timelines. The problem is simply insecurity. If the IAF/MOD etc were part of the program as true partners, all this rubbish wouldnt arise since the insecure would not be thinking about how to save the program and accountability would be much higher as even if the occasional high flier tried to fib, he would be caught out. The IAF et al also have to face similar issues. The IAF suddenly announces an airstrip functional few days before CAG can censure them, not that the CAG cares about IAF resourcing and other aspects which it has to juggle.

The other part is simply R&D. Once you have a baseline product, you can estimate workplanning and times efficiently. Now LRDE has radar 1, radar 2 and then radar 3 will be more accurately estimated. With LCA, most systems were Block 1 themselves. Incidentally, they met avionics refresh timelines pretty well. Why? It was MK3, after TD avionics were revised twice based on user demand. Basically, more experience better the estimates. Otherwise, you think elbow grease and consultant PPTs will set the agenda. Reality begs otherwise.

...

Well said!

Contrary to some calling ADA "liars", estimating an R&D effort is not an exact science. Without any baseline which is where ADA started from, the initial estimates would be based on what others have done elsewhere. This usually tends to be highly inaccurate because it discounts various critical aspects, such as infrastructure setup, technical and management abilities (or velocity) of those other teams when compared to your own. There are also lots of unknowns. Some efforts turn out to be much more complicated than originally estimated even though in one's naivety/optimism it "felt" possible within that timeframe. Sometimes there are additional unplanned work that crops up while implementing. Another "mistake" in estimates occurs when only development times are considered without including the additional time it takes to test and be accepted by the user.

Generally speaking, it is typical to come up with three different estimates: (1) best case scenario, (2) worst case scenario (padding i.e. x2/3), and (3) somewhere in the middle (padding of around x1.5). Estimates should include times for design, development, QA and user acceptance. Number (3) is what most teams would target for. However, some teams or their leads or their management force a more aggressive schedule on themselves or their teams knowingly or unknowingly and that maybe due to external time pressures or budgets or other expectations.

It is true that estimations get more accurate with experience. It is the reponsibility of project managers to mange the expectations of their clients by clearly communicating the impact of any changes in relation to priorities, cost and time. Schedules should be readjusted to reflect those decisions.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Victor » 27 Dec 2014 00:21

Karan M wrote:...Only somebody with congenital comprehension problems

...Looks like you are projecting since you clearly owe your roti, kapda aur makaan to your masters in the great Khan and hence think everyone is like you.With your 24/7 propaganda against Indians and Indian institutions while pretending to be pro-IAF.

Tu apna Green Card ya US ka passport pakad aur wahin reh.
.

Yup. All you've done is show you're just like the rage-boy pakis who foam in the mouth spouting personal abuse when they run out of responses. (Thanks Indranil for not deleting this guy's response and allowing me to see what he has written).

Quoting a consistent line from a slew of top ranked IAF senior officers, including the Chief, and professing full faith in their view is "pretending to be pro IAF" and "propaganda against Indians and Indian institutions"? But quoting a single Bangalore-based (and possibly HAL/ADA-beholden) guy who had legal issue with the IAF is beyond question? Decrying HAL's amply demonstrated incompetence and worse is against Indian interests? The same HAL/ADA that can't make trainers and has been castigated by everyone, including the MoD and IAF? Toba. It's obvious who who has the congenital problems, comprehension and otherwise. There are too many Bangalore-based folks who are constrained to dredge up any pos to try and show at least a sliver of worth in these nincompoop PSU morons. Maybe their personal well-being depends on selling PSU worm oil?

I will say again that while I acknowledge problems on all sides of this dung soup, the IAF is least culpable and most pro-indigenization. Your contention (speculation?) that they have no worthwhile "TPs" shows the level of you ignorance. Maybe that's why HAL started crapping bricks when IAF said they would make the Pilatus themselves? No need to say who is ready to give up their lives and who is ready to hide under MoD skirts. I am certain that it will be the IAF and Indian private companies that will turn this turd into what we need it to be. We simply can't afford the waste and loss of time which is all these damn PSUs have given us. Let's hope this govt corrects the absurd mistake.
Last edited by Indranil on 27 Dec 2014 22:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: You would also do well by not fanning the fire. Reactions to instigations are quite natural.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3904
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Dec 2014 01:12

Karan,

Line by line replies to your post will take too long, esp. Via a phone, so I will try to keep response brief..

1. The point in my post above should have been clear: the LCA saga is hard to decipher, calling the IAF names is pathetic. Of all govt.depts and psus, the services have the cleanest image for good reasons.

2. user involvement is critical, and as you point out , initially the IAF was involved, what happened thereafter that it bailed out? From what I gather, the DRDO/ADA from the outset overpromised and under delivered, and despite IAF protests, the MOD chose to go with the DRDO plans. To make.matters worse, IAF attempts to get decision making positions within the program were scuttled. IAF knew the futility of depending upon such promises and became indifferent, an overbearing attitude and superiority complex probably added to the problem, and explains Krishnaswamis advisors stance, egos must have certainly been hurt.

3. After 2005, when the IAF went ahead and placed 20+20 orders, and even now, the user participation is there, wherefore the incessant delays and missed time lines? Again, overpromise and underdeliver. When this happens as often as it has, it is rather hard to place much faith in HAL/ADA, especially their amazing timelines such as promising a mk2 in 5 years.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby abhik » 27 Dec 2014 01:20

That Kalmadi guy who was trying to kill the LCA was ex-IAF.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 27 Dec 2014 02:36

Moderator Note: Keep the language civil. You repeat that next time and I will simply delete the entire exchange of posts.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_22539 » 27 Dec 2014 10:21

abhik wrote:That Kalmadi guy who was trying to kill the LCA was ex-IAF.


+1. Just because one is form the services doesn't mean one is infallible. They are human too, with all the good and bad that comes with it.

Criticism of some in the IAF is not the same as criticism of all.

member_28932
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28932 » 27 Dec 2014 11:07

rohitvats wrote: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.

ADA’s 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/HAL’s nascent experience in producing fighter aircraft.

• ADA’s 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 ‘let’s see how it goes’ to the more horrifying prospect that it may do ‘less than the MK I’. The latter view seems to justify ADA’s 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 Saab’s 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 Navy’s 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 navy’s 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 IAF’s 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 ADA’s 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 manufacturer’s 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 navy’s 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?



late Parvez Khokhar sir had voiced his concern over weight increase in MK2. However in recent recently published article of Saurav Jha, it was stated that designers of MK2 were successful in bringing the design weight of MK2 down by 350 KG compare to MK1.So weight increase is not be a problem. So far as higher fuels consumption is concern in GE 414 Engine, It may not consume more fuel for same performance level i.e say for example 20 KN thrust is required for X performance. GE 414 shall not consume more fuel for that power compare to GE 404 since GE 414 is an engine which operates at very high compression ratio so not necessarily there should be high fuel consumption for same performance. In fact the fuel consumption shall be less.

His concern over poor air intake design is very genuine. We should hire American company such as Boeing to resolve the intake issue. Other improvement we may carry out is wing redesign. This unnecessary large design has resulted in weight and turn rate penalty.

If we carry out some practical changes such as wing and air intake redesign along with continuous work on AOA increase and wight reduction in MK1, We can enhance the performance of even MK 1 and can make that a very decent plane acceptable to IAF.
Last edited by member_28932 on 27 Dec 2014 12:07, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests