LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 11 Apr 2015 03:58

If the news of 144 Rafale (36 flyaway + 108 HAL built) is true, then IAF plans to replace the 14 squadrons of Mig-21/Mig-27 with 8 squadrons of Rafale + 6 squadrons of LCA (40 MK1 + 80 MK2). There will be no chance of any further orders for Tejas as the 6 squadrons of Jaguar and the 6 squadrons of Mig-29/Mirage 2000 will likely be replaced by AMCA and FGFA respectively, when they are ready. It would be a sad end to the LCA story to have a production run of just 120 aircraft.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 11 Apr 2015 10:11

^^ agreed. Although being a brilliant aircraft it is a living proof of what happens when there is no competition in these space, it is bound to delay and eventually cost lot more with aerospace skills now lost to private players and even car compnies paying 5X times more for their effort.

There is no alternative to competition and markets. Govt projects are doomed for failure without competition.

(ISRO is exceptional case with best and most dedicated ones in the class)

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Apr 2015 10:39

MODERATOR NOTE: To each one of you, keep the language and debate civil. This is a military thread and unless absolutely necessary, there will be NO political discussion. Especially not of the variety where you harangue about your pet peeves. Secondly, each one of you will mind your language when it comes the Services. Your right to criticize the Services does not translate into a free pass for potty mouthed comments or loose language. This is an absolute red-line. Posters found deviating from the said guideline will be summarily banned - rohitvats.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 11 Apr 2015 10:54

While abusing the IAF one should take into account incompetence of HAL who have not been able to provide second LCA SP till now. HAL is only interested in screw drivergiri and IAF is right in their lack of faith in them.

MODERATOR: No one needs to be abused in the garb of criticism. Keep the debate and comments factual and civil - rohitvats

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Apr 2015 12:16

The IAF the is on record that it needs to build force numbers to 45 squadrons. The only way it can happen is by adding the LCA, in large numbers to the force.

You can rest assured that once the jet starts to enter service. The IAF will take it in the numbers required.

member_27164 · Post by **member_27164** » 11 Apr 2015 13:35

Pratyush, my thoughts are exactly the same. Iaf still require more aircrafts to make up 45 squadrons. and those will be tejas.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Apr 2015 14:49

brar_w wrote:NileshJi, The link said that the prototype pulled 6G's at supersonic speed. I was talking about a sustained G performance at supersonic for the purpose of cranking. The F-16 can pull its design G's at supersonic speeds along with other fighters. Here's a direct quote from a pilot who has 2000 hours on the Viper (along with 500 on the Mig29, and 900 on the F-15)

F-16, once the centerline tank is empty (or jettisoned) can go to nine Gs regardless of airspeed or Mach number.
This is obviously not the same as sustaining 9 G's at any mach number

I have come across numbers on the ATF requirement ( from the most definitive book on the matter authored by the Program Manager himself) and the F-22A performance figures (M 1.7, sustained 5G's) from Janes (July 7, 2005). I have the Typhoon data in my notes but don't have the exact source of the 40,000 feet, Mach 1.6 Sustained 5G performance. I also do not have the fuel state (Internal, 50%? or some external) or weapon load for the Phoon with that performance, but I'll look around.

Please drop the 'ji'. I am just a kid in this arena compared to someone such as yourself.

I didn't understand your point nor the difference between cranking and sustained G turn. Fro my understanding, Cranking is to turn right/left by say 60deg after firing first BVR missile while keeping the Bandit at the edge of you radar scope and keep going in that direction. (PS - I have only preliminary understanding of Combat manoeuvring). So cranking is actually less demanding than a sustained G turn of much higher angle.

BTW a quick google search tells me "6G ability at M1.6 for 35000/40000 ft" for Rafale mentioned on couple of forums etc. But no proper proof/reference. So not worth mentioning.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 11 Apr 2015 14:51

Facts HAL has not been able to produce 2nd LCA out of 52 on order.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Apr 2015 14:56

I didn't understand you point nor the difference between cranking and sustained G turn.

Cranking is actually a bit different. Its intention is to get you out of the range of incoming missiles from an approaching fighter after you have launched your first couple of missiles. You do not need to have the bandit at your radar scope all the time because you can enter a cooperative engagement with your 2 ship or four ship. In the context of stealth fighters (F-22, PAKFA, AMCA, F35 etc) this means that you make your best efforts to put distance between you and the target because there is loss of LO due to the weapons bay opening and MAWS signaling an incoming. Its a snipe and run type of a thing where you then get back into the fight for a mid flight update or let your wingman do that. This along with other reasons is why stealth fighters are quite spread out in formation (they don't expect to see each other until they RTB in some scenarios). Sustained performance at such speed for such a maneuver was considered important enough for the ATF (F22) to be made a key performance requirement with 6 weapons and 50% gas.

Its a bit different with high super cruisers because you are already at a high speed before you engage ABs and do your hard turning post launch. Subsonic aircraft do the same but if you can sustain some solid G's at high mach you can very very rapidly put a sizable distance between you and the opponent and be outside his weapons envelope rather quickly.

BTW a quick google search tells me "6G ability at M1.6 for 35000/40000 ft" for Rafale mentioned on couple of forums etc. But no proper proof/reference. So not worth mentioning.

There is absolutely no reference or any claim by a credible source. I usually save info when I have along with sources but don't have a source in my notes for even the Typhoon. Only solid information I have is on the F-22A and the ATF requirements from the sources mentioned earlier.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2015 17:57

a recent book by dale brown tiger claw has such a fight of widely spread f22 being attacked by widely spread J20's each time the f22 turns to engage, a j20 sees more of it from the side or back and takes a shot.

for ac with more frontal stealth vs side or rear stealth, if it turns nose on to engage , another enemy fighter to the side would likely see it and take a shot - JSF and Pakfa might face this problem more than f22.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 11 Apr 2015 18:04

@karan m
can you give a link for the statement
former IAF gent currently at HAL known to be anti LCA has admitted he wanted to scuttle mk1

would help immensely in countering some arguments.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2015 20:01

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

More than the transcript, see the video.. there is no guarantee for instance, talk apart that the Mk2 has institutional support judging by the attitude of the gent/s in question. No admission either that the bulk of the IAF fleet today, bar the Su-30, is actually behind the Mk1 in terms of specific capabilities eg avionics & systems. The bias is stark & open.
Luckily though, there are others who think different. You'll also note how cannily one other gent introduces other aircraft in the LCA category.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Apr 2015 20:13

^^^ this video was the precise turning point in my views on Rafale

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2015 20:44

Deejay sir - after this i seriously think things will be better only when the younger gen gets into command (if the older lot has not completely made them think like them already). Otherwise, it'll be import, import, import.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Apr 2015 20:57

Kiss the LCA goodbye! Make Rafale in India. This action of GOI is comparable to purchase of the Jags over committing to the Marut. This convinces me that Indians cannot support local produced equipment. We have been slaves too long. It has made an indelible impression in our character. Phoren is better onlee! SDRE is not good enough! More T-90 and more Raffy are the answer!!!

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 11 Apr 2015 21:04

Vivek K wrote:Kiss the LCA goodbye! Make Rafale in India.

LCA and Rafale are mutually exclusive. Rafale deal has no negative outcome on LCA. Period.
No need to repeat where the delay is for now.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Apr 2015 21:24

Karan, please drop the Sir. I am just not comfortable with it.

As far as the IAF is concerned, when I speak to my contemporaries who are senior Wing Commanders or fresh Group Captains (mid level) the feeling is very strong vis-a-vis HAL. I have not found a single voice in service and pro HAL and I also include the Engineering officers.

Secondly, the IAF, which may be 'import passand' etc, is very efficient in its work culture in things like discipline, timelines, punctuality (I am refering to rank and file and not the Air ranks or decision makers only). Folks in uniform almost as a rule expect PSUs of defence sector to be like them and no amount of argument gets them to see the other side - Unions, Worker issues, non military life style, etc.

I also felt that very few if any understood challenges of setting up Assembly Lines, Production, economic order quantity etc, even among the Engineers.

IMO, the disconnect is large and continues. A sustained effort is required to inculcate a culture which supports Indian production is. HAL and other PSU's need to turn a new leaf and learn some Marketing, Advertising, Brand Promotion, etc for once. Another step will be to stop time line slippages. Just last weekend I could not get folks to see how LCA would be available in quantities and on time given that the second aircraft has again missed a deadline provided by HAL.

Even today, the news or opinion folks in uniform digest or consume is not BRF style "Indic" but very mainstream Western style propagandized view points. This further increases the disconnect. Add to that the opinion of the likes of Air Marshal (Retd) Mathesaran and Col (Retd) Shukla tends to get more traction in military circles for obvious reasons.

HAL and IAF are two entities and while there are other players in this Military vs. Def PSUs debate, this one relationship probably embodies all the ills faced by the Indian MIC. If this relationship improves, I am sure all else will fall in place.

I think the Defence Ministries proposal of not allowing imports in certain sectors and in time increasing this list to cover more and more sectors will go a long way. Let Rafale be the last example of a weapon system where a generational equivalent Made in India was available but imports were allowed.

The above are my views and opinions based on a small sample of people I interact.

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Apr 2015 21:30

@ Singha ..the F22 doesn't really need to turn to engage ! ..unless it is bereft of missiles and in a dogfight ..which is rare case scenario

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 Apr 2015 22:04

deejay wrote:Karan, please drop the Sir. I am just not comfortable with it.

As far as the IAF is concerned, when I speak to my contemporaries who are senior Wing Commanders or fresh Group Captains (mid level) the feeling is very strong vis-a-vis HAL. I have not found a single voice in service and pro HAL and I also include the Engineering officers.

Secondly, the IAF, which may be 'import passand' etc, is very efficient in its work culture in things like discipline, timelines, punctuality (I am refering to rank and file and not the Air ranks or decision makers only). Folks in uniform almost as a rule expect PSUs of defence sector to be like them and no amount of argument gets them to see the other side - Unions, Worker issues, non military life style, etc.

I also felt that very few if any understood challenges of setting up Assembly Lines, Production, economic order quantity etc, even among the Engineers.

IMO, the disconnect is large and continues. A sustained effort is required to inculcate a culture which supports Indian production is. HAL and other PSU's need to turn a new leaf and learn some Marketing, Advertising, Brand Promotion, etc for once. Another step will be to stop time line slippages. Just last weekend I could not get folks to see how LCA would be available in quantities and on time given that the second aircraft has again missed a deadline provided by HAL.

Even today, the news or opinion folks in uniform digest or consume is not BRF style "Indic" but very mainstream Western style propagandized view points. This further increases the disconnect. Add to that the opinion of the likes of Air Marshal (Retd) Mathesaran and Col (Retd) Shukla tends to get more traction in military circles for obvious reasons.

HAL and IAF are two entities and while there are other players in this Military vs. Def PSUs debate, this one relationship probably embodies all the ills faced by the Indian MIC. If this relationship improves, I am sure all else will fall in place.

I think the Defence Ministries proposal of not allowing imports in certain sectors and in time increasing this list to cover more and more sectors will go a long way. Let Rafale be the last example of a weapon system where a generational equivalent Made in India was available but imports were allowed.

The above are my views and opinions based on a small sample of people I interact.

+100. Despite the negatives, I feel there is a lot of hope - more so than in the past. This is mostly because we have a firm leadership today, which might take a firm stand on the appropriate delivery and acceptance of the LCA. Further, there is a noticeable difference amongst many youngsters today than in previous generations - they are far more Indic than their predecessors. JMT

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2015 23:04

deejay wrote:Karan, please drop the Sir. I am just not comfortable with it.

As far as the IAF is concerned, when I speak to my contemporaries who are senior Wing Commanders or fresh Group Captains (mid level) the feeling is very strong vis-a-vis HAL. I have not found a single voice in service and pro HAL and I also include the Engineering officers.

Secondly, the IAF, which may be 'import passand' etc, is very efficient in its work culture in things like discipline, timelines, punctuality (I am refering to rank and file and not the Air ranks or decision makers only). Folks in uniform almost as a rule expect PSUs of defence sector to be like them and no amount of argument gets them to see the other side - Unions, Worker issues, non military life style, etc.

I also felt that very few if any understood challenges of setting up Assembly Lines, Production, economic order quantity etc, even among the Engineers.

IMO, the disconnect is large and continues. A sustained effort is required to inculcate a culture which supports Indian production is. HAL and other PSU's need to turn a new leaf and learn some Marketing, Advertising, Brand Promotion, etc for once. Another step will be to stop time line slippages. Just last weekend I could not get folks to see how LCA would be available in quantities and on time given that the second aircraft has again missed a deadline provided by HAL.

Even today, the news or opinion folks in uniform digest or consume is not BRF style "Indic" but very mainstream Western style propagandized view points. This further increases the disconnect. Add to that the opinion of the likes of Air Marshal (Retd) Mathesaran and Col (Retd) Shukla tends to get more traction in military circles for obvious reasons.

HAL and IAF are two entities and while there are other players in this Military vs. Def PSUs debate, this one relationship probably embodies all the ills faced by the Indian MIC. If this relationship improves, I am sure all else will fall in place.

I think the Defence Ministries proposal of not allowing imports in certain sectors and in time increasing this list to cover more and more sectors will go a long way. Let Rafale be the last example of a weapon system where a generational equivalent Made in India was available but imports were allowed.

The above are my views and opinions based on a small sample of people I interact.

Agree & that's been my experience too.

Now to a few more controversial points.

One, I think the average IAF person/military person simply doesn't have the background or wherewithal (time, interest) to adequately look into issues that determine national industrial development. I was once told by a senior IAF guys - these "DRDO wallahs are asking millions for a simple bomb" - he neither cared nor understood that the components of a bomb, such as a seeker would require expensive production facilities by themselves. This sort of attitude is all very common. "We are on time, they are not". That "they" are developing things from scratch, is not really looked into at all. Another issue is that the limited amount of reverse engineering that has gone on at BRDs has been very useful, but even worsened this attitude "even my airman could do this" - never mind that the component being machined is a) to an existing form factor b ) uses metal already developed or ex-import c ) relies on commercial analysis often done by the private sector or DPSU/R&D labs themselves. The refrain is since we need to go to war, we need this now, no matter what. The question then is, why was this not raised earlier? And if it was, and the time taken is long, do they understand that cancelling the program/or not giving it adequate orders (as versus imports for the short term, but keep the program running) will lead to permanent reliance on imports? These sort of forward planning/analysis is almost completely missing when these programs are discussed.

The prior practise was to send a few people to the labs, a few stay, others spend as much time as is necessary (bare minimum), come back with a tick mark but not really aware of the issues in detail. How exactly does one become an expert on R&D or production by making a few visits? Yet, the IAF's empire building is such that it want's these folks to run all other organizations which is neither realistic nor will it give the desired results. IAF folks say "we sent xyz to fix HAL, govt didn't agree". Would a person who has spent a better part of a decade cursing HAL, with very little mfg awareness, be the ideal person to do this?

So to sum it up, until & unless the IAF creates a cadre of people who work on such programs & see the real issues, there will continue to be hand waving dismissals of national programs which are far more complex than the IAF cares for.

Second, coming to westernized viewpoints. This has long been a pet peeve of mine & most of my friends who have been on both sides of the divide (brats included) - reluctantly agree. The entire "sahibs in cantonment" versus "Civilians outside" culture deliberately done by the British to have an apolitical, and completely loyal force has served India well, in that the corruption and disorganization outside was kept at bay. However, it has also created an artificial is versus them divide wherein the view that the other side has bleddy civilians (mostly those associated with the GOI, the babus who must be obeyed but can be held in contempt) has poisoned relations with the DPSU structure. Have seen this wherein some services appointees come in with a chip on their shoulder & treat everyone on the other side of the fence with extreme disdain. The worst was at a public function where a gent from the IA (self described as India's foremost expert on offsets and acquisitions) went on a long rant about many of the people attending the function itself. Somehow, this sort of behaviour is NEVER done with the gora's or foreign OEMs, who are treated with stiff necked courtesy even if they are wrong. Those from the services who then work on the R&D/DPSU side are treated with contempt if they seek to have neutral viewpoints. The high(low) point being even the Std Committee on Defence being informed that officers who worked on the Arjun & disagreed with the Army had "forgotten the Olive green". This sort of stuff is almost unique to the Indian services & needs to be solved.

I cannot reiterate this enough. Calling your own people names in public is not done - it causes morale issues, it worsens relations & further more reduces the deterrence effect of our national programs. In 1999, the then ISI chief as much admitted that they went on newspaper reports about how "hollow" the Indian forces were. By constantly crying wolf and claiming to be weak, we invite war. By all means, flag issues in private, be consistent, don't dilute standards.

IMHO, this second issue is fundamentally the biggest issue dogging many critical programs. The problem is acute with senior brass of the age group of the AMs/Generals - but the issue is before they go, they make sure the same ethos carries over to the young guys.

Third, there is the extreme dysfunction in the Indian MIC wherein the MOD has basically been Nero fiddling. If ADA is to design the LCA, HAL to make it, IAF to procure it, why exactly did the MOD not crack the whip and get all to work together? IMHO, this is not merely happenstance but deliberate because it keeps the import gravy train flowing. Disinterested Defence Ministers & babus who could'nt care less & the system is what it has become. If its MOD which funds ADA, HAL, IAF why were HAL and IAF bickering over who funds production? If MOD runs both HAL & ADA, why was HAL not extending full support to LCA? If MOD runs both ADA & IAF, why is it that IAF could get away with zero involvement with the LCA & in turn, ADA could get away with promising unrealistic deadlines? All this because fundamentally, there is nobody to stand upto any of these groups & tell them, enough, work together.

Fourth, the increasingly distressing phenomenon of open lobbyists from the Armed Forces, rtd. They front multiple companies, act as agents, run magazines, run media shows etc. All this is fine but there are often conflicts of interest. Many of those who routinely mocked & denigrate our made in India efforts often have a commercial interest to do so. Whilst the Armed forces may justifiably point out they can't do anything to those who leave, the MOD should have ensured laws were stringent enough to avoid such overt & covert lobbying at the expense of the Indian national interest. Instead, the MOD had people who actively encouraged the media to go after its own groups. Such is the state of affairs.

All said & done, I still believe things will get better. But the manner in which otherwise respected seniors have let their personal perceptions affect national programs is often a hard thing to understand or even accept. That & they still attempt to influence policy & refuse to look at reason.

Having said this, I do believe the LCA will prove its critics wrong & the success of several other programs will gradually change opinions. And in that I think the AF's youngsters/mid-ranked staff (WingCos & so forth) will play a huge role. They come from a new generation & don't really buy into any superiority of the west or similar baggage. They'll do what it takes to get us ahead. There were IAF folks deputed to DARE for EW, others to CABS for AEW&C. These are people who are seeing the R&D effort first hand. Hopefully, they will continue to shape opinion & drive such programs forward.

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 12 Apr 2015 00:13

@Pratyush - Tejas MK2 will have to compete for orders against FGFA and you know which aircraft the IAF will choose. It's clear what the IAF wants, and it's not the LCA, or the AMCA for that matter.

@rohitvats - I am not abusing the IAF - I am just stating the obvious. I found BRF in 2001 when searching for news on the LCA, and I have been waiting since then for the IAF to show an interest in acquiring it in numbers. I guess I can stop waiting now. And no point holding my breath on the AMCA either.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Apr 2015 00:21

Karan M, LCA is the Marut of this generation. Calling your own product names is not only bad for morale it is self defeating.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 12 Apr 2015 01:17

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... -parrikar/

We need some lighter type of single-engine kind of aircraft, but we also need deep penetration double-engine aircraft which has latest technology and other equipment which can give India a decisive edge over its traditional enemies,” the minister said.

Noting that Light Combat aircraft Tejas will undergo final flight testing next month, he said, ‘Make In India’ is a long-term solution for India’s Air Force strength.
“We have to push the development of Tejas and we have to also ensure that we could build some high grade aircraft,”

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 12 Apr 2015 05:26

We've heard these vague promises before. AKA also said that the 14 remaining squadrons of Mig-21/Mig-27 would be replaced by LCA. Yet, here we are. Keeping in mind that all the previous Mig-21/Mig-27 squadrons have been converted to Su-30 MKI, the talk of IAF needing a "lighter type of single-engine kind of aircraft" is just talk with no commitment behind it.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 12 Apr 2015 06:49

New performance analysis article up on my blog:

A preliminary performance review of the Indian Light Combat Aircraft

This one looks at the performance of our very own LCA. Finally got time to finish this article sitting on my desktop in word document format for last few years!

-Vivek

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Apr 2015 07:33

^ Impressive stuff sir. Quick question - I was under the impression that the range of the LCA on internal fuel should be better/equal to the M2k internal range of around 1800km (altitude unknown), and the MiG-29 @ about 1600km - considering that the fuel to weight ratio is similar (with the M2k) but the GE-404 has a better SFC? But the charts on your post show about 900km. Of course, altitude is not known here.

Is that the combat radius? Even the MiG-21 on internal fuel and no weapons is said to have a range of 720 odd miles (altitude > 36000 feet) and around 800miles (altitude unknown).

What am I missing?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 12 Apr 2015 08:21

Cain Marko wrote:^ Impressive stuff sir. Quick question - I was under the impression that the range of the LCA on internal fuel should be better/equal to the M2k internal range of around 1800km (altitude unknown), and the MiG-29 @ about 1600km - considering that the fuel to weight ratio is similar (with the M2k) but the GE-404 has a better SFC? But the charts on your post show about 900km. Of course, altitude is not known here.

Is that the combat radius? Even the MiG-21 on internal fuel and no weapons is said to have a range of 720 odd miles (altitude > 36000 feet) and around 800miles (altitude unknown).

What am I missing?

So the plots are all ranges (not combat radius) in there. The key thing is exactly what you mentioned in your post: altitude. We don't know what fuel (internal or external) and altitude the Mirage, Mig-21 and Mig-29 numbers are for.

But I will say this: the LCA and the M2K are not that different. So that 1550 km range for the Mirage might be with external fuel tanks at high altitude and in ferry condition (no payload) and so in that sense the LCA is equivalent to the Mirage-2000. But without knowing the Mirage performance on a chart similar to the LCA, we won't know that for sure.

The LCA on internal fuel is going to be similar to a Mirage-2000 on internal fuel. But that 1,800 km for the Mirage-2000 is certainly not on internal fuel alone.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 12 Apr 2015 08:40

Okay, so here is the Mirage-2000 data point provided by the Dassault people themselves:

* Mission type: air superiority
* Configuration: Two IR Missiles + Four BVR Missiles + Maximum Tanks
* Altitude: 30,000ft. (9144m) - Mach 0.8 (high subsonic)
* Tanks dropped prior to combat - Self defence Missiles retained.
* Range: 2886 km

Maximum subsonic tanks for the Mirage-2000 are the RPL-541/542 series with 2,000 L capacity each or the RPL-501/502 with 1,700 L each.

In other words, the Mirage-2000 has a total fuel of nearly 9,950 L for the RPL-541/542 tanks plus internal fuel. And that gives it a range of 2886 km at 30,000 ft.

M2K range/fuel ratio for this data point: 0.2900 Km/L

Consider, by comparison, the LCA plots from my article now for 30,000 ft. We get 1,500 km for ~5,100 L of fuel.

LCA range/fuel ratio for this data point: 0.2941 Km/L

-Vivek

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Apr 2015 08:58

Aah yes, - thanks for the comparison, makes it much easier now. The LCA is in pretty good shape; the thing about the M2K iirc, was that it had pretty high fuel consumption when using AB on the M-53 engines as mentioned by AM Masand. Wonder if the LCA will do a bit better here considering the 404s are more efficient?

Here is a link that shows the M53 SFC is around ~ 2.0 vs. GE F404/RM12 @ 1.7/1.8. Not sure if this would just be a marginal difference, also there is no data for the IN20 even though it is listed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 09:18

Vivek, can you add any comparison to the Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 or Jaguar to put the performance in context?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2015 09:46

The three big fuel tanks rafale carts around will not be so cheap that they can be thrown away as each fight begins. Losing the tanks might even make limping back to base tough in dpsa missions.

I do not know what's the solution.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Apr 2015 09:47

^^^

Comparison with MiG-21--the aircraft LCA is replacing-- too.

Great Analysis!

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Apr 2015 09:50

Karan M wrote:
deejay wrote:Karan, please drop the Sir. I am just not comfortable with it.

As far as the IAF is concerned, when I speak to my contemporaries who are senior Wing Commanders or fresh Group Captains (mid level) the feeling is very strong vis-a-vis HAL. I have not found a single voice in service and pro HAL and I also include the Engineering officers.

Secondly, the IAF, which may be 'import passand' etc, is very efficient in its work culture in things like discipline, timelines, punctuality (I am refering to rank and file and not the Air ranks or decision makers only). Folks in uniform almost as a rule expect PSUs of defence sector to be like them and no amount of argument gets them to see the other side - Unions, Worker issues, non military life style, etc.

I also felt that very few if any understood challenges of setting up Assembly Lines, Production, economic order quantity etc, even among the Engineers.

IMO, the disconnect is large and continues. A sustained effort is required to inculcate a culture which supports Indian production is. HAL and other PSU's need to turn a new leaf and learn some Marketing, Advertising, Brand Promotion, etc for once. Another step will be to stop time line slippages. Just last weekend I could not get folks to see how LCA would be available in quantities and on time given that the second aircraft has again missed a deadline provided by HAL.

Even today, the news or opinion folks in uniform digest or consume is not BRF style "Indic" but very mainstream Western style propagandized view points. This further increases the disconnect. Add to that the opinion of the likes of Air Marshal (Retd) Mathesaran and Col (Retd) Shukla tends to get more traction in military circles for obvious reasons.

HAL and IAF are two entities and while there are other players in this Military vs. Def PSUs debate, this one relationship probably embodies all the ills faced by the Indian MIC. If this relationship improves, I am sure all else will fall in place.

I think the Defence Ministries proposal of not allowing imports in certain sectors and in time increasing this list to cover more and more sectors will go a long way. Let Rafale be the last example of a weapon system where a generational equivalent Made in India was available but imports were allowed.

The above are my views and opinions based on a small sample of people I interact.
Agree & that's been my experience too.

Now to a few more controversial points.

One, I think the average IAF person/military person simply doesn't have the background or wherewithal (time, interest) to adequately look into issues that determine national industrial development. I was once told by a senior IAF guys - these "DRDO wallahs are asking millions for a simple bomb" - he neither cared nor understood that the components of a bomb, such as a seeker would require expensive production facilities by themselves. This sort of attitude is all very common. "We are on time, they are not". That "they" are developing things from scratch, is not really looked into at all. Another issue is that the limited amount of reverse engineering that has gone on at BRDs has been very useful, but even worsened this attitude "even my airman could do this" - never mind that the component being machined is a) to an existing form factor b ) uses metal already developed or ex-import c ) relies on commercial analysis often done by the private sector or DPSU/R&D labs themselves. The refrain is since we need to go to war, we need this now, no matter what. The question then is, why was this not raised earlier? And if it was, and the time taken is long, do they understand that cancelling the program/or not giving it adequate orders (as versus imports for the short term, but keep the program running) will lead to permanent reliance on imports? These sort of forward planning/analysis is almost completely missing when these programs are discussed.

The prior practise was to send a few people to the labs, a few stay, others spend as much time as is necessary (bare minimum), come back with a tick mark but not really aware of the issues in detail. How exactly does one become an expert on R&D or production by making a few visits? Yet, the IAF's empire building is such that it want's these folks to run all other organizations which is neither realistic nor will it give the desired results. IAF folks say "we sent xyz to fix HAL, govt didn't agree". Would a person who has spent a better part of a decade cursing HAL, with very little mfg awareness, be the ideal person to do this?

So to sum it up, until & unless the IAF creates a cadre of people who work on such programs & see the real issues, there will continue to be hand waving dismissals of national programs which are far more complex than the IAF cares for.

Second, coming to westernized viewpoints. This has long been a pet peeve of mine & most of my friends who have been on both sides of the divide (brats included) - reluctantly agree. The entire "sahibs in cantonment" versus "Civilians outside" culture deliberately done by the British to have an apolitical, and completely loyal force has served India well, in that the corruption and disorganization outside was kept at bay. However, it has also created an artificial is versus them divide wherein the view that the other side has bleddy civilians (mostly those associated with the GOI, the babus who must be obeyed but can be held in contempt) has poisoned relations with the DPSU structure. Have seen this wherein some services appointees come in with a chip on their shoulder & treat everyone on the other side of the fence with extreme disdain. The worst was at a public function where a gent from the IA (self described as India's foremost expert on offsets and acquisitions) went on a long rant about many of the people attending the function itself. Somehow, this sort of behaviour is NEVER done with the gora's or foreign OEMs, who are treated with stiff necked courtesy even if they are wrong. Those from the services who then work on the R&D/DPSU side are treated with contempt if they seek to have neutral viewpoints. The high(low) point being even the Std Committee on Defence being informed that officers who worked on the Arjun & disagreed with the Army had "forgotten the Olive green". This sort of stuff is almost unique to the Indian services & needs to be solved.

I cannot reiterate this enough. Calling your own people names in public is not done - it causes morale issues, it worsens relations & further more reduces the deterrence effect of our national programs. In 1999, the then ISI chief as much admitted that they went on newspaper reports about how "hollow" the Indian forces were. By constantly crying wolf and claiming to be weak, we invite war. By all means, flag issues in private, be consistent, don't dilute standards.

IMHO, this second issue is fundamentally the biggest issue dogging many critical programs. The problem is acute with senior brass of the age group of the AMs/Generals - but the issue is before they go, they make sure the same ethos carries over to the young guys.

Third, there is the extreme dysfunction in the Indian MIC wherein the MOD has basically been Nero fiddling. If ADA is to design the LCA, HAL to make it, IAF to procure it, why exactly did the MOD not crack the whip and get all to work together? IMHO, this is not merely happenstance but deliberate because it keeps the import gravy train flowing. Disinterested Defence Ministers & babus who could'nt care less & the system is what it has become. If its MOD which funds ADA, HAL, IAF why were HAL and IAF bickering over who funds production? If MOD runs both HAL & ADA, why was HAL not extending full support to LCA? If MOD runs both ADA & IAF, why is it that IAF could get away with zero involvement with the LCA & in turn, ADA could get away with promising unrealistic deadlines? All this because fundamentally, there is nobody to stand upto any of these groups & tell them, enough, work together.

Fourth, the increasingly distressing phenomenon of open lobbyists from the Armed Forces, rtd. They front multiple companies, act as agents, run magazines, run media shows etc. All this is fine but there are often conflicts of interest. Many of those who routinely mocked & denigrate our made in India efforts often have a commercial interest to do so. Whilst the Armed forces may justifiably point out they can't do anything to those who leave, the MOD should have ensured laws were stringent enough to avoid such overt & covert lobbying at the expense of the Indian national interest. Instead, the MOD had people who actively encouraged the media to go after its own groups. Such is the state of affairs.

All said & done, I still believe things will get better. But the manner in which otherwise respected seniors have let their personal perceptions affect national programs is often a hard thing to understand or even accept. That & they still attempt to influence policy & refuse to look at reason.

Having said this, I do believe the LCA will prove its critics wrong & the success of several other programs will gradually change opinions. And in that I think the AF's youngsters/mid-ranked staff (WingCos & so forth) will play a huge role. They come from a new generation & don't really buy into any superiority of the west or similar baggage. They'll do what it takes to get us ahead. There were IAF folks deputed to DARE for EW, others to CABS for AEW&C. These are people who are seeing the R&D effort first hand. Hopefully, they will continue to shape opinion & drive such programs forward.

Well explained! Cohesion and understanding has been missing. Each side continues to say, "They don't get it!"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2015 10:42

I think only useful comparison is with j10 and jf17 not our own.
Tejas has to fight these two strongly to be useful.

How much its better than mig21 will not pacify iaf..threats have changed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 11:05

Those too..

But comparison with own fighters will add weight to the points that Mk1 is not some mega underperformer as the DDM would have us believe.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Apr 2015 12:01

IIRC, a ex-Navy Harrier pilot while commenting on recent LCA article by Prodyut Das put the combat radius of Tejas Mk1 at 500 kms with internal fuel.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 12 Apr 2015 12:27

That would mean a range of 1200kms on internal fuel! Not bad, if 6 stations carry the Derby/Astra combo.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2015 13:57

Singha wrote:The three big fuel tanks rafale carts around will not be so cheap that they can be thrown away as each fight begins. Losing the tanks might even make limping back to base tough in dpsa missions.

I do not know what's the solution.

In war they will invariably be dropped if there is a threat.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2015 16:16

We will need a stockpile of 1000s of spare drop tanks then.

None of the rafale missions seen so far faced any air threat.

When the tide goes out the f15e with cft and su30 with more internal fuel will be proved superior in this.

Few yrs back rafale did test cft. We should get it and get rid of atleast the centerline drop tank

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 12 Apr 2015 19:49

Vivek sir,

the internal fuel capacity of LCA 1 is 2458 kg as has been known for long and confirmed per DRDO techfocus of FEB 2011. great analysis as always. thanks.