LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2015 00:07

shiv wrote: Ironically - in the height of desperate inter European wars - this was exactly the situation that many European air forces were in. Aircraft of varying standards of excellence/incompetence were being churned out and being flown and crashed at a faster rate that we like to talk about.

Everything else being equal, the very fact that the horrible nature of war was visible to scientists as well, and his and his family's safety depended upon winning the said war, was a good motivator to make sure that whatever was being developed, was developed with a sense of urgency. And pushed ASAP for front-line duty.

In 'peace-time', the exigency of operational readiness is something which DPSU and R&D organizations don't seem to understand. So, LCA was to be developed with the aim of rejuvenating the aerospace scenario in India and leapfrog in terms of development of cutting edge technology.

In all this high sounding slogans, the crucial matter of IAF's operational readiness and need to ensure timely phase-over from old to new aircraft was completely lost. So, while India did not face existential crisis like Europeans, Indian Armed Forces have to day-in and day-out plan and be ready for this. May be, if India had faced such issues, the Mil-Ind Complex would've been more receptive of timeline related concerns of Services. And not make them science projects.

The IAF missed all this and has been fed with what has been tested by others - with foreign test pilots having died and half ready planes passed. If you look back at the history of the Gnat and MiG 21, each of those planes had some very good points and each had some hopeless fail issues that needed correction. Indians have gone and stayed in God Forsaken places and been instructed in Russian and still not found out everything and have found faults on their own. The IAF has taken excessive pride in finding faults that Russia or Britain corrected for us, and then claiming "Hey we fly better than them". It is OK to genuflect when we are getting Russia or some foreign company to do the job. It is Indians in front of whom the Lord God IAF must not genuflect

You're comparing two different scenarios which are further separated by element of time.

When it came to Mig-XX from USSR stable, India did not even have a proper buyer-seller relationship. It was more of they gave and we took. They designed the a/c as per their specification+operational doctrine and we adapted it to our requirement. But before the Mig became pervasive, IAF operated the other best in their class in form of Hunters and Canberra.

Next time it actually went looking for an a/c, it did try and choose the best possible option but instead of Viggen, we got the Jaguars. And IAF made do with the Jaguars and refined it to the best extent possible. Same was the case with AJT - IAF went to town looking for the best possible option. Had it been in IAF's hand, would it have bought the Jaguar?

But why only look at the imports? IAF worked with HAL to sort out maintenance issues on HAL and operated the fighter till 1990; it adapted a fighter which was supposed to be super-sonic multi-role aircraft into Ground Attack aircraft once it became clear that engine issue would not be resolved.

The common thread running through above examples is this: Only constant is the operational requirement and IAF makes do with what it has in a manner which best serves this purpose. Wherever it can, it has wanted to go for the best system possible. And through sheer industriousness, it has not only adapted the platforms but improved upon them. But that does not mean it let go of wanting quality and superlative platform which could give maximum bang for buck. Hence, the choice for MRCA was Mirage-2000 and not Mig-29.

Same thing happened with MMRCA competition. IAF told you which is the best plane out there. If tomorrow, the GOI in its wisdom decides to buy F/A-18 Super Hornet (which failed Leh test), then IAF will adapt it the best it can.

Now arises the question about taking LCA as it is and making the best of it - Here let me ask a simple question: What is the 'least' performance a fighter like LCA entering service in 2018 should have? And which part of the components under IOC and FOC are ones which IAF should let go of and which represents something IAF would never ask from a foreign weapon system?

Your descriptive language about the IAF's inability to genuflect may be perfectly accurate and honest about a military force that acts cocky and arrogant Ultimately such arrogance is stupid and unnecessary. Few people make the case that Indian manufacturing agencies are good - -but the Air Force need a kick up its butt for things like
1. Being a users air force with no insight into being a builders force
2. Being cocky buggers with an elite fighter jocks club who simply do not "want to genuflect" in front of their own colleagues and coursemates and will never allow a non flying cadre, a transport pilot or a helo pilot to become Chief of Air staff.

Thanks for showing up that cocky attitude in a beautifully illustraive post.

Never mind the fact that I used the phrase in a different context, the above observation about top slot reserved for fighter jocks is not limited to IAF alone.

I looked at the list of USAF Chiefs from 1947 to present and but for 2 instances out of 20 listed, all have been from fighters or bombers.

Now, coming to my phrase - given the nature of education, exposure and employment of many BRFites, they're able to identify more with the technological challenges inherent in development of a weapon system. Which is LCA in this case. So, the common refrain is that since we've done so much hard-work in terms of R&D and the result is visible in form of flying Tejas aircraft, the IAF should be simply happy to have got a home grown fighter.

What no-one wants to understand or comment upon is the fact that Tejas is a weapon system at the end of the day which is supposed to fight a war. R&D is all right but unless that R&D translates into an effective weapon system, every effort remains in the realm of science labs and research papers and do not address the requirement of the IAF.

More so when the R&D establishment said that we'd give you a world class fighter in a certain time-frame. And any opinion to the contrary was rebuffed. And it is because of this science-project approach that we're where we are.

Today, we've reached a stage where the delay in achieving FOC by Tejas is being deflected as IAF asking for too much at this stage! Can anyone point out what is this too much? Especially when 20 a/c are already on order with IOC-2 level.

Can IAF pull out front-line squadrons - even if they're Mig-21M/MF - and start replacing them with IOC-2 standard Tejas?

Shiv - you spoke about IAF getting ready-made planes because testing and sorting out of teething problems had been done by western nations already. I guess, this applies equally to Indian R&D and manufacturing establishment as well.

HAL has been used to working basis all the hard work done by others with added benefit of OEM being available to sort out any mess. R&D establishment is learning the hard way of NOT shooting your mouth about timelines and reneging on it later.

Finally, let me add one more point: Any weapon system being developed and manufactured in-house, which is linked to operational readiness and time-bound phase over, will see this pressure. The same user, developer and manufacturer seem to have gotten along pretty well when it came to ALH and Radars and EW stuff. But something like Tejas will see the pressure because of critical nature and time-element.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Apr 2015 00:21

Karan M wrote:campaigning against the LCA in Indian media. Getting rtd IAF types to run FUD against LCA. Proposals to make in India with only that type intended as the single type to replace all. List goes on and on..

Saab campaigned against LCA in indian media? I mean naturally, you're going to try and get your product to win especially with such a big competition. As long as they aren't interfering in the selection process itself, they haven't violated any laws. If anything we should be more worried about the media outlets that allow for this. This seems like it is an issue of attacking the symptom vs the problem. In any case, I haven't really seen any evidence for Parrikar derailing the LCA induction process and I would wait till we actually hear something concrete before saying things like "So much for nationalist DM and nationalist support for strategic programs." But hey, all in the name of paranoia.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2015 00:25

Karan M wrote: <SNIP> The entire issue arose because of our inability to make the radar program by ourselves a success at the end of the day. HAL mismanaged it, and it went abroad & these sort of teething issues are then a given.

Bottomline, the MMR was & is, one of the most complex facets of the LCA program & one which has caused us maximum pain. Its the fourth after engine and FBW (both complex, former has the edge because of hardware & manufacturing), the composite wings and finally, the radar. This is why the AEW&C is such a vital program because finally we have a fast jet (relatively) testbed for fine tuning such stuff. The XV-2004 really doesn't count as much because its on a slower platform & the clutter issues are not as substantial (faster airframe + clutter issues are the real challenge).

The LCA is hence always on the harder path for most solutions because of indigenization & the size issue (e.g. volume available for radar assembly is lower than larger MMRCA sized platforms but ranges remain 100 km+ which means a decently powerful radar is required).

Net, you see this as some sort of "pick your vendor, get answers" sort of thing, which is not going to be possible with the LCA until & unless you drop all indigenous items (like a hybrid MMR) and go with a complete OTS package - OEM radar + radome + weapons.
Speaking to some vendors (foreign) about the LCA program, pretty much everything for it is custom designed. They can;t even use existing systems as a template so they feel that times they take to deliver are reasonable and reflect the problems they face in meeting our requirements too.

@Karan - trust you to be the Santa Claus when it comes to sharing the details!

Just for sake of reference, I do not consider this radome business any less complicated; especially after reading the fantastic explanation given by VSunder last time this topic came up. My contention was only with blaming IAF for this change in Radome requirement by some here on BRF and tweets by SaurabhJha.

But I'm going to use this post of yours for another purpose.

@Shiv: Please see the explanation above by Karan about change of Radome for Tejas in 2012-13. The set of tweets by SaurabhJha and some posters here would have you believe that it is the IAF which has asked for changes at the Nth hour. While it seems that the issue was that of Project Management at HAL's end.

Automatically blaming IAF for any issue here is the 'development bias' I was talking about earlier.

I again come back to a question I raised earlier: What is the minimum performance IAF should expect from Tejas Mk1? And which can be had by dropping certain (please name them) items from the FOC check-list.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2015 00:27

DexterM wrote:It is shameful that now we can simply say maybe that rainwater is so serious that the FOC must be delayed. Shameful and utterly self-deceiving. Worse, it comes from a mod. Either don't participate or don't moderate. That genuflection comment was a disgrace to the IAF as well.

If you've problem with anything I've posted, please report the same and other Mods can take a call.

But stop this sanctimonious bull-sh1t. You don't get to preach what I should post or not. Mind your own business.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Apr 2015 01:49

RoyG wrote:Saab campaigned against LCA in indian media? I mean naturally, you're going to try and get your product to win especially with such a big competition. As long as they aren't interfering in the selection process itself, they haven't violated any laws. If anything we should be more worried about the media outlets that allow for this. This seems like it is an issue of attacking the symptom vs the problem.

so unethical tricks & attempting to act against indian interests is ok?

In any case, I haven't really seen any evidence for Parrikar derailing the LCA induction process and I would wait till we actually hear something concrete before saying things like "So much for nationalist DM and nationalist support for strategic programs." But hey, all in the name of paranoia.

time will tell. and a bit of paranoia or whatever goes a long way. you are the one who came up with that absurd term & are busy flagging it.

anyways, as always its a waste of time debating all this with you & mistake in even replying.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Apr 2015 01:55

rohitvats wrote: @Karan - trust you to be the Santa Claus when it comes to sharing the details!

Just for sake of reference, I do not consider this radome business any less complicated; especially after reading the fantastic explanation given by VSunder last time this topic came up. My contention was only with blaming IAF for this change in Radome requirement by some here on BRF and tweets by SaurabhJha.

I think the issue is whether IAF would accept a 50 km range radar for FOC Mk1 - its Bison class. I personally believe that if you have to do all this, go the whole hog and fix it once and for all. Besides all said and done, FOC is finally around the corner. Cobham etc are likely to deliver as well.

More than IAF being pernickety about FOC standards, I'd rather the IAF just raised the indent for Mk1 by two squadrons, provided FOC standards are met & preannounced this. It would go a long way in both program support & also raising the rationale for moving production to 16/year otherwise Arjun style we'll be left with a gap by the time Mk2 is available.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Apr 2015 03:11

Karan M wrote:
rohitvats wrote: @Karan - trust you to be the Santa Claus when it comes to sharing the details! Just for sake of reference, I do not consider this radome business any less complicated; especially after reading the fantastic explanation given by VSunder last time this topic came up. My contention was only with blaming IAF for this change in Radome requirement by some here on BRF and tweets by SaurabhJha.
 I think the issue is whether IAF would accept a 50 km range radar for FOC Mk1 - its Bison class. I personally believe that if you have to do all this, go the whole hog and fix it once and for all. Besides all said and done, FOC is finally around the corner. Cobham etc are likely to deliver as well. More than IAF being pernickety about FOC standards, I'd rather the IAF just raised the indent for Mk1 by two squadrons, provided FOC standards are met & preannounced this. It would go a long way in both program support & also raising the rationale for moving production to 16/year otherwise Arjun style we'll be left with a gap by the time Mk2 is available.

+1

Ultimately this radome issue seems like one where IAF was not satisfied with the performance (perhaps it was below their specified ASR for FOC, I don't know - can anyone clarify?) and hence the need to change the radome. In one sense, the 50km range for a radar aperture of about 640-650mm is certainly underwhelming. In terms of size, the MMR antenna is equal or bigger than the M2k, F-16 and possibly even the MiG-29, which are much bigger a/c. Now, in terms of power output, the LCA being smaller probably has less power available, but still the discrepancy is quite a bit. Compared to similar sized radars, the range should be about 100km for 3-5 msq target. Earlier advertised specs on the MMR were considerably more optimistic iirc.

Also, if the issue was exceptionally complicated, the ADA should have turned around and said - "sorry, no can do - this will take a LOT longer". OTOH, they accepted the revision and gave the usual short term tareekh. Folks seem right in that there is a project management problem somewhere.

The one thing about SJha's post that was an eye opener was the problem with supplies when it comes to the Derby - that seems unfortunate and also a bit remarkable. Out of the three issues that seem to have held up FOC: radome, IFR, and BVR integration - at least two seem to be because of supplier problems. Coincidence, conspiracy or something else?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Apr 2015 06:14

Yeah all we needed were these pals of Scar to come for the party here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Apr 2015 07:46

rohitvats wrote: Can IAF pull out front-line squadrons - even if they're Mig-21M/MF - and start replacing them with IOC-2 standard Tejas?

Shiv - you spoke about IAF getting ready-made planes because testing and sorting out of teething problems had been done by western nations already. I guess, this applies equally to Indian R&D and manufacturing establishment as well.

HAL has been used to working basis all the hard work done by others with added benefit of OEM being available to sort out any mess. R&D establishment is learning the hard way of NOT shooting your mouth about timelines and reneging on it later.

Please let me remove a possible misunderstanding that may arise from the order in which you have used your words and then answer the question.

You ask:

Can IAF pull out front-line squadrons - even if they're Mig-21M/MF - and start replacing them with IOC-2 standard Tejas?

Obviously the IAF cannot pull out squadrons first and then replace them with an untested aircraft. But such a catastrophic sequence of events has happened to nations at war where they have lost half their air force and have had to throw into battle untested aircraft with undertrained pilots. So your question about "Can the IAF do..etc" is something that I pray will not happen to our air force. I hope the IAF is not forced into such a situation.

Ideally the new aircraft should be inducted before the old aircraft are pulled out, in peacetime.

Ideally the new aircraft should be available before the old aircraft need to be pulled out. This does not always happen. It could be made to happen, but most often the IAF has acquired new aircraft simply to counter threats that arise and has not developed the culture of analysing future threats and defining future requirements, preferring instead to depend on emergency purchases.

When the IAF needed a fighter that was affordable and could be made in India they went and bought the Gnat, which did not even see use as a fighter in its country of origin. It is another matter that its deficiencies were compensated for by training and its advantages utilized appropriately. The Gnat had some characteristics that fighter pilots simply loved - like its climb rate. They accepted its manifold deficiencies like supershort legs and miniscule armament capability and other shortcomings.

Later, stung by the induction of the F-104 by Pakistan, the IAF rapidly went and selected the MiG 21 - an aircraft again came with many faults and some advantages. It had no gun. Two useless missiles and super short legs. Once again the deficiencies were compensated for by training and the advantages utilized. Ironically the MiG 21 was made as an interceptor against high altitude American bombers. The MiG 21s great fame in India does not come from air combat but from ground attack with some famous attack missions having been conducted by MiG 21s. The IAF learned Russian and accepted instruments labelled in Russian, learned to calculate in kilograms and kilometers like the Russians rather than pounds and miles like the Brits. And they loved and praised the MiG 21 and even justified its accident rate and accepted fatalities as part of the job - such was the attraction of this high performance horse.

The IAF can and has worked with aircraft that do not come with the label "The latest and greatest". Or even with understandable manuals and instructions - as our experience with the Soviets illustrates. Whatever the excuses offered on behalf of the IAF, their reluctance to work with the LCA has not been accompanied by convincing explanations. In 2001, when the IAF brought out its requirement for 126 aircraft the IAF had already dismissed the LCA as khadi gramodyog. But even before the IAF went and assessed the Folland Gnat, that aircraft had already been dismissed by the RAF as a fighter. (It is another matter that using khadi gramodyog as a pejorative expression to mock a program itself illustrates a particular mindset.). And with respect Rohit, the words "genuflect in front of ADA" is a perfect evolution of the reluctance to genuflect in front of khadi gramodyog. There is an attitude problem here, where dealing with harsh national realities are beneath the IAFs dignity, reputation and status.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 17 Apr 2015 08:09

shiv wrote:There is an attitude problem here, where dealing with harsh national realities are beneath the IAFs dignity, reputation and status.

IAF says they want 42 squadrons of frontline fighters. Given the lead times in aircraft manufacturing, virtually all of these will be 4G or 4G+ planes. Lets say this 42 squadron force comes into being 10 years from today, in 2025. Given our current GDP of 2Trillion and growth rates of (say) 8%, we end up at $4.3Trillion. No $4 Trillion economy today (Germany, Japan, France+Britain) has an air force of 800 4G planes. But then we have a combination of very big airspace and contested borders so we need a lot more than these pacific countries.

Considering that most of the western advanced economies have more or less stopped planning for wars and are instead gearing themselves for counter insurgency type operations, the planes are produced in vanishingly small numbers and are therefore much more expensive. The relative cost of a 5G vs 4G vs 3G fighter has grown many many times over, but the GDPs in the meanwhile have only doubled or so. Russians are still designing new systems, but given the conflict in Europe and the diminutive size of their economy, and the biting sanctions, they need a partner with a strategic heft that India does not have at present. They seem to be moving in a direction that makes them vassals and technology providers to PRC. How can we buy weapons from them if we arent sure that 5 years later, the secrets wont land up in the hands of the PLA?

In a way, we are seeing the 1990 crisis again, when we were strategic orphans. Today, the economic and political situation is not that dire, but the technological situation is much more concerning. Strangely, while the political and economic situation of the 90s was dire, the technological situation was a little bit better as Russian stuff was not completely obsolescent. Since the 90s, strategic contradictions have built up to a level that threatens sudden and great change.

If the IAF wants to be a 40+ squadron force, the only solution is to use Indian designs, Indian manufacturing and Indian maintenance which can come with a lower cost basis more harmonized with Indian national capability. The alternative is an alliance with NATO, which will come with its own issues.

Given the 2% of GDP defense budgets, if the countries defense managers are smart, they will see the writing on the wall. There is no other way than the LCA and the AMCA.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Apr 2015 08:47

@Rohit, Karan, Shiv Sir, et al,

It is crystal clear that there is difference in POV with IAF on one side and DRDO, HAL & Def PSU's on the other. The problem is to handle the differences while keeping the National POV ahead of all.

That we each take our POV's and keep highlighting those to prove that our POV is correct is exactly what the IAF and HAL do anyway. Where is the solution? How long will we continue to keep pushing POVs and arguing on whose right?

There has to be a bridge somewhere between the two chasms and that bridge has to be found. We have discussed of people here who have tried to make that bridge. As it happens the names that I recall are all ex-IAF.

That the Def PSU's and R&D will have to be guided to the path IAF wants them to travel is naturally an IAF perogative and yes the Khadi Gram Udyog pejorative is not the way to make the bridge.

Unfortunately, we have focused only on disagreements and only the discords are discussed thread bear. We are (IMO) developing here more ammo for the chasm to be widened or deepened.

@Rohit - The IAF must realise that true National Defence will come from weapons that are made here (as in IPR is Indian). It will not happen in a day. If it were that easy, many countries would have it. China is the only (ex- third world country) example which has become partially successful. Look what they did to get there. Do we see the Chinese complain or have they complained on the poor quality or capability of local stuff to the point where they refuse to accept it? Are they a military power worth reckoning? Did they not defend themselves with a mix of Chinese (mostly Chinese) and (some) imported stuff. They even exported those planes.

We will have to travel a similar path. It won't happen from day one. The IAF must accept some flaws and help grow the domestic manufacturing. If IAF does not accept 4 gen fighters from ADA / HAL, will it accept their Gen 5? How long will this proposal (from ADA /HAL) be met with refusal? IAF needs to hand hold these agencies and give them an opportunity. In the long run IAF will be the winner.

That BRF is dominated with people from technical background makes it a great platform to see where the Technical minds and Operational minds see common ground.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 17 Apr 2015 09:02

This needs de-constructing ...

rohitvats wrote:
pankajs wrote:Massive dhoti shiver in the DRDO community wrt LCA it seems. I still ~~hope~~ believe that Modi will give a big push to LCA.

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 42m 42 minutes ago >>

* Nowhere in the world does so much of the envelope have to be proven for FOC. IAF's policy with regard to this needs to be reviewed.
When you cannot meet your own self-declared deadlines, whine about the process! Never mind the fact that this whine about squadron service and incremental improvement is redundant because 20 x Tejas Mk1@IOC-2 are to be inducted; and FOC deadline has nothing to do with getting the aircraft into squadron service.

Non sequitor point - the so-called "whine" was about having to meet quantum of requirements in a ab intio platform FOC (vis-a-vis what happens across the world - and even with other videshi-platforms that has been inducted in the past (by this same force).

Why do you have go on a tangent wrt "self-declared deadlines", redundancy of incremental improvements etc wrt IOC-2 productionising and then link with a totally un-related point of having to meet quantum of requirements in a ab intio platform FOC, and then labeling it as a "whine".

Is it not name-calling? And why do you think you have the license to do so - becuase of the "moderator" tag, is it?

rohitvats wrote:
pankajs wrote: * To refine a combat jet. Everybody learns and the combat jet becomes better.
So, we would be doing all the learning with IOC-2 level Tejas Mk1 in first squadron being raised. How is FOC being held up because of this?

You know the reasons why FOC is being held-up right? Why is the uber-capable-and-patriotic IAF teams not able to get the relevant foreign (so must be their institutions favorites) 3rd party vendors supply the IFR probes and radomes so that flight-testing for FOC can be re-started? What are they doing sitting there in UK?

Where does it say FOC is being held for *any other* incremental learning ...
Why for a change IAF can't state as to why does it need a IFR and brand new radome on MK-1 itself (it didn't needed in M2K and Jaguars, when they were inducted, it still doesn't need it in a MiG-21/27 which LCA is envisaged to replace (by their own admission).
Of course, I can understand IAF not disclosing the public the operational need (and more importantly the operational parameters for these) as to why that is required.

Also how is the 2023 with current-radome measure up to a Kopyo (on bisons) - what about the range of kopyo at > +/- 30deg off-boreshight (with the air-intake cum radome limitations of the bison) then?

Could these not be retrofitted later once squadron-services like that has been done in 21s, 29s and M2Ks? But why is the need to have it as a part of FOC?

rohitvats wrote:
pankajs wrote: * Everybody tries to get their homegrown fighter into some sort of squadron service and series production first. Bcoz that is the real way.
And this real way of doing things is under progress with IOC-2 Tejas. Is it again IAF's fault that HAL will take its own sweet time to deliver the jets?

Where is HAL non-delivery etc linked to the point above - why do you try to link it? Just to badmouth an org that doesn’t fit your dual-blue-shaded viewpoint, is it?

rohitvats wrote:
pankajs wrote: * Our favorite R&D org is trying its best to complete hawa bahadur's changing requirements by end 2015.
Someone please ask him to spell this 'change in requirement'...On the one hand, we've every hot-shot from DRDO saying that Tejas will meet the FOC deadline which has already been extended from June 2015 to December 2015. And on the another, we've this favorite plank of 'changing requirement by IAF' to deflect every blame

Where is the deflection? The uber efficient and patriotic IAF gents (that can do now wrong) has not being able to get their favorite firangs to deliver on COTS IFR and radome. Hence is the delay in FOC.

Why can't IAF, for a change, live up to their own so-called super-efficient org culture - the same org which routinely plants stories ion the press about their retired folks should be heading manufacturing orgs, irrespective of them having any manufacturing hands-on experience.
In this case, they can't even manage a single foreign-vendor - but want to head a manufacturing org? Good skills towards displaying the need of securing post-retirement-warm-nests, but when it comes to a simple single/two vendor mgmt, the results are there for all to see.
If there's any deflection going on, it's this desperate attempt to mask this weakness and pass onto HAL/ADA.

rohitvats wrote:
pankajs wrote: * Our bird is yet to fire new laaang range A2A because of Yehudi non-delivery. Stocks from Naavik Sena will be used now.
And what about the A2G and A2A gun-firing trials?
* People at our favorite R&D organization are completely demoralized at the moment. They sounded quite dejected. Talked to them this morning.
* Any move to sideline Tejas with an imported design would be nothing short of the Weimar betrayal.
* Why does a radome need to be changed right at the end of a program? And how many jets have had to be IFR qualified before FOC ?
Radome had to be changed because someone discovered towards fag end of development cycle that RADAR performance can be increased by 40% by simply changing the Radome of the fighter.
<SNIP>

Again why how is a 2023 with an old-rodome perf comparable to the kopyo in a Bison?

If 40% increase is achievable, well and good, by all means get it – but why hold up FOC because of it?
Why can't that be a mini-MLU?
After all IAFs favorite bird M2K came with an inverted-cassegrain antenna based system (and still does) - why is not then IAF, going by the same logic, stop flying M2K and insist on RDY (that they are getting via a MLU), before it can start using them again?

Between anybody knows how does a RDI performance compare with that of a 2023 within the existing-radome of LCA? I mean it will be a sacrilege to even compare a modern PD multi-mode set with an inverted-cassegrain-based one - but if IAF seems to be super happy with it even today, why not compare?

rohitvats wrote: More than anything else, it seems the danda from RM and PM has caused major takleef in the DRDO.

No what actaully has happened is, now that LCA is closer than reality, much to the chagrin of the IAF worthies who were dismissive about it being of a 3-legged-cheetah etc, these IAF wallahs are getting nightmares of having to go thru the takleef of facing upto NaMo.

And as far as your dadagiri is concerened - Of course, I can get it, in your world-view, people who don't wear various stripes and stars in their lapels etc, can't be patriotic enough - so any uttering/feeling from them is a whine, of course.
Problem is, there's another world-view outside that of yours, and BRF does cater to (and atleast used to) to that world-view as well. So pls go easy on your moderator-giri, and post only if you can do so, without that tag/attitude.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Apr 2015 09:12

+1 Maitya Ji.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Apr 2015 09:21

sudeepj wrote:
shiv wrote:..
..
..
If the IAF wants to be a 40+ squadron force, the only solution is to use Indian designs, Indian manufacturing and Indian maintenance which can come with a lower cost basis more harmonized with Indian national capability. ~~The alternative is an alliance with NATO, which will come with its own issues.~~

Given the 2% of GDP defense budgets, if the countries defense managers are smart, they will see the writing on the wall. There is no other way than the LCA and the AMCA.

Probably a contest such as MMRCA - this time for line production - could be beneficial, wherein Indian pvt and public industry leaders will be at least exposed to and plan about overcoming all shortfalls.

That is better than knowing nothing and importing parts, at the least.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 17 Apr 2015 09:35

rohitvats wrote:
DexterM wrote:It is shameful that now we can simply say maybe that rainwater is so serious that the FOC must be delayed. Shameful and utterly self-deceiving. Worse, it comes from a mod. Either don't participate or don't moderate. That genuflection comment was a disgrace to the IAF as well.
If you've problem with anything I've posted, please report the same and other Mods can take a call.

But stop this sanctimonious bull-sh1t. You don't get to preach what I should post or not. Mind your own business.

Whatever you post on this forum is a business of anyone who is part of it. Your opinion is no more informed than anyone else's simply because you are a mod - even as a poster on this thread,

You tried to sell a lie that the radome delays were because of this rain ingress delay - frankly, it is worse than what we expect from the paidmedia. And that genuflection comment remains distastful - by anyone else I believe it would result in a warning, if not a ban. Utterly disgraceful on your part to continue the same tone.

Either participate without the mod kavach or don't moderate. FWIF, someone else already reported your posts. I hope you get warned for those posts. Let the Mods indeed take a call. Defending the services viewpoint does not require such uncouth behaviour.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 17 Apr 2015 09:56

Karan M wrote:
rohitvats wrote: @Karan - trust you to be the Santa Claus when it comes to sharing the details!

Just for sake of reference, I do not consider this radome business any less complicated; especially after reading the fantastic explanation given by VSunder last time this topic came up. My contention was only with blaming IAF for this change in Radome requirement by some here on BRF and tweets by SaurabhJha.
I think the issue is whether IAF would accept a 50 km range radar for FOC Mk1 - its Bison class. I personally believe that if you have to do all this, go the whole hog and fix it once and for all. Besides all said and done, FOC is finally around the corner. Cobham etc are likely to deliver as well.

More than IAF being pernickety about FOC standards, I'd rather the IAF just raised the indent for Mk1 by two squadrons, provided FOC standards are met & preannounced this. It would go a long way in both program support & also raising the rationale for moving production to 16/year otherwise Arjun style we'll be left with a gap by the time Mk2 is available.

Would it be impossible for the aircraft to perform its basic functions without this new radome? Is it critical for certification or can be replaced later on one or more a/c and then tested again? That's how the lean manufacturing process would work with prototype components. I have a very close chaiwalla at Cobham but he's completely shut the door on any updates. I don't understand if the material they picked for this radome is newly developed or whether it is from their considerable portfolio.

IFR and Guns are probably non-negotiable - completely discounting of course any possibility of FOC happening without Derby integration. Would this much prove this aircraft capable enough for the IAF to consider for curriculum development?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Apr 2015 10:05

IAF has flown for long without IFR and neither Mig21 or Mig27 have it. so unless IFR means some changes in FCS to pump around fuel and lots of retesting, I would imagine its not mandatory for FOC.

guns and derby are non-negotiable.

actually postponing the guns to so late is a bad decision by project managers. the gun is the component that generates the most serious recoil, vibration and gases that can stall the engine is not handled properly. and we have a airframe like all modern airframes have composites and light metals not a agriculture tractor chassis like frogfoot.
it is quite possible extensive gun firing could reveal issues that need structural fixes. guns should have been fitted and fired long ago to reduce risk even on a grounded fuselage like TD1 . they will have to take it in the air and fire off the entire magazine...then there is accuracy to check also...there is some gunsight thing in the HUD. so this item is a lot more poison that it looks.

derby is all upto the israelis mostly. the el2032 already supports it long back.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Apr 2015 10:06

Dexter, the issue is multifold. One is of trust. The IAF has serious trust issues with domestic programs. So they wish to get everything at once. That will only change after a lot of stuff happens - ie. more domestic programs deliver, IAF officers apply more relaxed standards for multiple Marks etc.

Second, is that sequential changes also add delays to the program, increase timelines and cost. For instance, you realize a radome is not working (say) do you persist with it & get it certified and then go through the whole process for a brand new radome? That's the issue as well. Please note, in India's penny pinching GOI culture, where every Rs spent on DRDO, etc is under criticism and audit from CAG etc, even sticking their neck out for such things is going to get DRDO/ADA bad press and they will be risk averse. You'd recall we imported some LRU from UK as plan B, but plan A worked out and CAG scolded ADA for having an unecessary import. This is what happens when beancounting runs amuck. Yes, they could fit a domestic non perfect radome, but it runs up against issue One. The IAF wants things as they are, and if further delays are expected, it will only worsen the IAF perception of the program. So they will agree.

Third, the radome issue itself. I think its probably a LCA specific issue & has to do with the radar too. The lab in question (CSIRs radome lab has supplied radomes for IAF's Mirage 2000s, Jaguars. So the LCA can be addressed too. We have just run up against a time factor & complexity. The aim is to squeeze every bit of performance out of the radar so the radome material has to be changed too. Given CSIR is working on and even has stealth radomes in progress, clearly competence is not the issue, time is.

Fourth, what is non negotiable. That's the IAF's prerogative & there has been scope creep there in the program for sure. Again, IAF want's what it wants. If its any consolation, even the private industry is openly griping about how unrealistic expectations mean they won't be bidding for some large programs where they don't have a foreign OEM to hand hold them. On the plus side, we have a very Darwinian process in play here. Our systems work & are tested heavily. Heck, even the IAF's training curriculum at one time (without AJT) was like that.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 17 Apr 2015 10:12

DexterM wrote: <snip>
IFR and Guns are probably non-negotiable - completely discounting of course any possibility of FOC happening without Derby integration. Would this much prove this aircraft capable enough for the IAF to consider for curriculum development?

Could you pls tell me why is IFR non-negotiable at the FOC state?
If IAF is happy with it's non-IFR 21s and 27s even today (the paltofrms LCA is supposed to have repalced), why is an IFR a non-negotiable requirement?
And, more importantly, why is it a mandatory requirement to be achieved as a part of FOC?

Isn't it that with internal fuel and 2T of weapon-load, is Mk1 having more range than a similarly loaded 21 or 27? (the lower value of 2T is deliberate - let cut some slack to these old workhorses).
And, betw how many take-on/take-off cycles would such an old platform take before it cries "Mommy" and asks for an overhaul - and how many would Mk1 allow before it does so?

Surely IAF would, in their true traditions of fair comparisions, would have these 21s/27s (with same *weapon load*) flying out from Leh alongwith Mk1 for DACTs? And surely they wouldn't want the balance to be tilted in favour of Mk1 with the added luxury of mid-air topping up right after an intial climb on A/B.
... and many such scenarios!!

Question is what tasks would IAF assign to it's Mk1 platforms in first 3 years post-FOC, that would necessarily require an IFR?

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 17 Apr 2015 10:31

It is quite clear that the IAF prefers to be a customer than a development partner for this platform. That by itself might actually be a good thing. When you have a fair arbitrator.
The attitude of "I won't have it if it isn't the best" won't work - not that I am attributing this to the IAF, yet. HAL has issues. Yes. But are these the same folks who're doing well on the Dhruv, LCH or WLS front? Is the Rotary division different because of Dr Sampat and his relentless aggression? I've heard only good things said about them.

If Derby integration is the key issue here, it should have been planned as part of IOC 1. In fact, any items key enough to destroy the program goals should have been handled up front. I still do not understand why planning for type conversion would not be accelerated. Was the plan always to get two squadrons up and wait until they've sorted out all issues before Mk 2 was even considered?

Karan, the Plan A, B,C should have been out of CAG's purview. To be honest, as a Program Manager, I believe the funds allocated for risk management should be written off from the budget. They need to be completely out of the purview of anyone but the Change Control board and the Good Governance councils (Not the CAG post-mortem types, but the PMO types that will enable vetting of such decisions). Any savings should be considered as inputs for the next phase.

Both HAL and IAF need to be taken to the Toyota plan at Bidadi - while not the scale of the Euro Consortium plants or the St Louis one that a few officers flew to, this one will inform them on how to help Indian labour adapt to Industry best practices. I've been associated with Japanese companies for 5 years now, and have been privileged to see some of the best set up shop in India. There is one South Korean tools manufacturer who set up shop near Yeshwantpur (I don't remember the name of the Industrial area) - some of their innovations from ITI graduates. So there is hope. This much can be conveyed even by them visiting the BMTC Volvo workshops! Technical competence is not beyond us.

The trust issue is inexplicable. deejay (sir) explained this, but having cousins/in laws who're serving, and noticing their attitudes, I do not find this harsh offensive tone against HAL. I also do have friends (some neighbors) who work there or at ADA. I find them to be quite reasonable folks - conscientious too.

Net net, HAL and ADA and the IAF are all just reflections of us. The elitism is baffling.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 17 Apr 2015 10:47

one simple question for clarity purpose :

- Tejas replaces 21/27 which were inducted in 60's and 70's at a very low cost even when compared to Mirage 2000 at that time.
- in the same line F 35 replaces F 16 and others inducted in the 70's [ plz don't assume that i am asking for F 35 performance. Just as a reference]

Now the question is how good a 21's century replacement fighter be for a 60's / 70's plane. Point is it is mentioned that since IAF still flies 21/27 so LCA being better should be inducted immediately. Fine no problem.
My query is only from the point that should LCA performance be benchmarked with much old gen. fighter for induction or on a stand alone basis in 21st century where a lot of stuff are considered basic standards.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Apr 2015 10:52

maitya sir, I am no expert but let me explain it the way I see it. IAF bought those non IFR aircraft at a time Air to Air refueling was not a capability in India. IIRC, the IAF paid money for them to be removed from the Jaguars when they were bought.

The IAF acquired this Air to Air capabilities in early 2000's. Now, they are trying to get all aircraft with IFR. My guess is Mig 21 or Mig 27 are too old to modify or retrofit (is it even possible?).

Again, not sure here but it looks like a MOFTU kind of syllabus is in the works for LCA. IMO, IFR training will be done here to have the pilots clear their Day Ops and Night Ops status before moving on to the front line sqns. IFR requires training and presently expensive Su 30 hrs (an example) are being done to train pilots who quite often have more than 1000 hrs of flight time.

This is perhaps why, IOC 2 standard is being used for initial sqn raising and thereafter the plan is to go for FOC standards. By the time the Sqn is ready FOC (or I should say equipped with IFR< new Radome and fron Guns cleared) will be done and training may begin for IFR, front gun firing and of course use of high end avionics on the LCA itself. Trust me, to fly a plane and then manage the work load all the time in formation, maintaining TOT etc takes a lot of flight hours (Simulated + Actual).

The above is not to say that IAF could not have done it better, but there is some planning on the utilisation post induction. As far as accepting the aircraft is concerned, IAF has already done that. There are orders for 20 + 20. Then, why should the FOC be held up for that? Ahhh.. its infuriating. These could be retrofitted even after FOC. Certification could be done at HAL using aircraft coming out of production.

Secondly, that the IAF wants something better than the capabilities of 21's or 27's is not in itself wrong but to insist on those as a requirement for FOC is being unreasonable (mild) here.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Apr 2015 10:56

Dexter, good points all. I find the risk averse culture in many GOI labs and orgs to be a direct reflection of how the system has been set up. In recent days, even VK Saraswat was subject to name calling from the press/beancounters because he funded a bunch of radar development efforts out of his discretionary budget.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 17 Apr 2015 11:17

Guys, please no more blue-on-blue attacks and sniping at each other. Otherwise I will simply lock this thread till people calm down.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 17 Apr 2015 11:31

RB, my sincere apologies for reacting. I will refrain from posting on this thread for a few days to avoid any further escalations. However, my points stand.

Deejay (sir): asked about this earlier as well - from what I've been told, it takes two years for curriculum development. But what about instructor certification - isn't that done prior to this?

Wouldn't it be possible to gather this information so we can understand how the entire type induction, training dev., instructor certification, type conversion training, and so on.
I'm approaching this from the angle that perhaps they could increase the number of trainers to 6 instead of 2 per squadron, if the instructor lead training needs to be accelerated. At 20 hrs a month per pilot, availability of single seaters should also not be a problem (LSPs have already flow 20-30 sorties a month). I don't know enough, but would like to. Thanks in advance.

This is probably more important than FOC - in fact, this will probably help determine if the IAF can or will order larger numbers of Mk 1+.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Apr 2015 11:56

^^^

LCA Mk1+ or 1.5 is yet another delay tactic. R&D and flight testing itself would add some years. This on top of 18-36 months that it takes to begin new delivers of this type from production. So it's important that the follow up orders need to be Mk.1 FOC.

All these talk of Mk.1+, 1.5 etc should only be attempted as part of a series of minor/major upgrades over its service life. As is IMO, the whole "FOC" concept has been misunderstood. In other parts of the world, FOC has more to do with the new type's squadron being combat ready. This means aircraft induction, syllabus, training of pilots and maintenance crew, and support infrastructure setup has taken place. Technical capability can then be progressively added through series of hardware/software upgrades.

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

One question: In case some how we increase the order of LCA MK1, can we order more engines at the same price points that has been agreed previously? Will that become an sticking point in some time with associated delivery issues

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Apr 2015 12:02

The first fighters themselves will be FOC as i recall as versus earlier plans of IOC 20 then 20 FOC

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 17 Apr 2015 12:10

Karan M wrote:<snip>
Second, is that sequential changes also add delays to the program, increase timelines and cost. ...

KaranM-ji, as far as scope-creep is concerned, you know very well what happened back in 2003/4 … suddenly IAF mandated the outboard pylons would need to be able to carry 105Kg class WVAAM (R-73) from an original scope of a 45Kg class WVAAM (R-60).
Given a platform needs to be stressed to 12G atleast (9G load is for the pilot etc), safety margins included, you could do the maths as to the level of torque-stress withstanding that now needs building in to the airframe/wings.

But this also not only gives a chance to the IAF to whine about platform-weight-creep, and also effectively takes away whatever output thrust margin that was available on an ab initio turbofan development.

Mind you, with the benefit of hindsight, atleast I’m completely convinced (as if that matters in any shape or form) with these types of scope-creep in requirement.

But that also brings out an uncomfortable question:
Why was original requirement in early 90s (I know people will come out and talk about 80s when req were defined – most are incorrigible to argue with, so I don’t even try) from IAF talked about R-60 WVAAM? Was/Is IAFs ability to project/foresee battle-field scenarios limited to only a decade?
I simply won’t be able to believe this – the IAF that I know of, is far more capable and strategic thinking when it comes to forward thinking these kind of tactical/operational scenarios (MMRCA tech evaluation parameter setting, is one such example).

So is it that, IAF simply wanted these SDREs to get off their back wrt this business of specifying requirements etc and get along along with some set of requirements on some “science project”? Specifying turn-rates of two different platforms with two diff type of wing-planform design are another such pointer (Cdr Mao-sir also alluded to it to Kartik in AI many moons back).

And when they got surprised, by the SDREs, with a working platform, having now to test it etc – quick comes out these types of IFR, new-radome, higher AoA type of requirement changes.

That’s the irony of all this!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2015 14:28

DexterM wrote: Whatever you post on this forum is a business of anyone who is part of it. Your opinion is no more informed than anyone else's simply because you are a mod - even as a poster on this thread

No moderator on this forum carries extra weight and each is judged by his post(s) - so, don't bring this tangential argument of me wanting to ram down my argument through someone's throat because I'm a Moderator.

You tried to sell a lie that the radome delays were because of this rain ingress delay - frankly, it is worse than what we expect from the paidmedia. And that genuflection comment remains distastful - by anyone else I believe it would result in a warning, if not a ban. Utterly disgraceful on your part to continue the same tone.

Stop attributing stuff to people simply because you've nothing better to argue with - go back and read on what I wrote. If you've comprehension problems, that is none of my problems.

Either participate without the mod kavach or don't moderate. FWIF, someone else already reported your posts. I hope you get warned for those posts. Let the Mods indeed take a call. Defending the services viewpoint does not require such uncouth behavior

Please, stop passing these sermons and contribute something worthwhile to the forum.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 17 Apr 2015 14:45

Good - then cut the bullcrap. Whether or what I contribute to the thread is not your business. Don't presume to tell me what to do.

Your tone and level of discourse is that of a thug. You are a disgrace to the mod team.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Apr 2015 15:03

DexterM wrote:
Deejay (sir): asked about this earlier as well - from what I've been told, it takes two years for curriculum development. But what about instructor certification - isn't that done prior to this?

Wouldn't it be possible to gather this information so we can understand how the entire type induction, training dev., instructor certification, type conversion training, and so on.
I'm approaching this from the angle that perhaps they could increase the number of trainers to 6 instead of 2 per squadron, if the instructor lead training needs to be accelerated. At 20 hrs a month per pilot, availability of single seaters should also not be a problem (LSPs have already flow 20-30 sorties a month). I don't know enough, but would like to. Thanks in advance.

This is probably more important than FOC - in fact, this will probably help determine if the IAF can or will order larger numbers of Mk 1+.

DexterM ji, Please and please no Sir for me.

The Instructional training to be a qualified flight instructor (QFI) at Tambaram in Flight Instructors School (Tambaram). There are FSL's and FCL's trained at TACDE, Gwalior. A typical Sqn has a mix of these. Mostly type conversion and check sorties require trainers. Most of the training happens following a lead aircraft on a single seater. One is always a part of aircraft package or formation.

The flying training on any new type will be after the pilots do a technical course for the type concerned. In IAF, these are called TETRAs (I forget the full form). Before the flying even begins in the Sqn, the Technical crew (Officers and Airmen) will be trained unless HAL handles initial ground handling in which case both can go on simultaneously. This is most probably the case with LCA.

Initial pilots who will convert on type will be helped by Test Pilots operating with HAL. Most of the initial pilots will most probably A2 QFI's (I do not think there is any A1 today in the IAF) and FCLs or FSLs. These will then help convert the ordinary line pilots on type. All pilots who have role clearances from prior flying will attain role clearance on this type. And yes, they will definitely train one Examiner for type. The Syllabus for type conversions already exists and it can be applied on to any type. Some peculiarities may need to covered.

I was a part of the Unit inducting the first Mi 17-1V's (Came in just after the major work was done). The big challenge was in developing the Ops Manual for the type and role manuals. These become the most important document in flight ops and are very important for flight safety. These manuals will be based on aircraft technical and flight manuals supplied by the OEM. Essentially, zero variation from OEM supplied manuals are allowed.

The number of trainers ordered appears adequate for two sqns. Number of hours per aircraft should also not be a problem. A single sortie should be of the duration 40 - 45 mins on an average. 30 hrs of training flying a month is enough work load for the trainee (IMO).

Btw, in IAF we always used the term PS-in-FCS (Present Situation in Fast Changing Scenario). The whole training like MOFTU for LCA is the talk, I hear. How will it go down actually, only time will tell.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 17 Apr 2015 15:07

+1 Maityaji

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 17 Apr 2015 16:04

This thread needs to be locked down for some time.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2015 16:46

maitya wrote:This needs de-constructing...

Non sequitor point - the so-called "whine" was about having to meet quantum of requirements in an ab intio platform FOC (vis-a-vis what happens across the world - and even with other videshi-platforms that has been inducted in the past (by this same force).
Why do you have go on a tangent wrt "self-declared deadlines", redundancy of incremental improvements etc wrt IOC-2 productionising and then link with a totally un-related point of having to meet quantum of requirements in a ab intio platform FOC, and then labeling it as a "whine".

Is it not name-calling? And why do you think you have the license to do so - because of the "moderator" tag, is it?

Those quanta of requirements were agreed between the two parties and a timeline was given by the R&D establishment as to when the same will be met. The R&D establishment is still confident about meeting that deadline. Hell, in fact, it has been claimed at after first 4-SP birds, balance 36 will be almost as per FOC standard (save for tests under FOC).

So, why make an issue out of it now?

Also, how does what happens around the world exactly a template of what should happen in India? And why templates get pulled out only when DRDO faces an issue in meeting deadlines? Around the world, it is also a practice to develop an aircraft which AF wants and not the one which scientists think IAF should have.

And this aspect of ‘this force’ having accepted less than perfect platforms is pretty much nullified by the fact that 20 IOC-2 a/c are under delivery.

You know the reasons why FOC is being held-up right? Why is the uber-capable-and-patriotic IAF teams not able to get the relevant foreign (so must be their institutions favorites) 3rd party vendors supply the IFR probes and radomes so that flight-testing for FOC can be re-started? What are they doing sitting there in UK?

I guess they’re simply sitting there having English Tea with croissant while their hard-working cousins in DRDO sweat it out making the Tejas achieve FOC!

Why for a change IAF can't state as to why does it need a IFR and brand new radome on MK-1 itself (it didn't needed in M2K and Jaguars, when they were inducted, it still doesn't need it in a MiG-21/27 which LCA is envisaged to replace (by their own admission).

The last part of your point above actually takes the cake.

On the one hand, Tejas is supposed to be this superlative platform which is better than a Mirage-2000 in certain aspects. And is much more potent weapon system than a Mig-21 and Mig-27. But the moment DRDO hits a wall with some feature and we’ve time over-runs, out comes a standard reply on the lines of what you’ve written above. Do you, or others who advance this argument, even realize the absurdity of comparing Tejas with Mig-21 and Mig-27 in this day and age?

Never mind the fact that there is a perfectly logical argument presented right here on the forum of why new Radome was required and who was responsible for the project management issue for this aspect.

And who should IAF declare to the reason about wanting the a/c with RIGHT Radome or IFR probe? You and me? The people that matter know and that is why they’re working on it.

Also how is the 2023 with current-radome measure up to a Kopyo (on bisons) - what about the range of kopyo at > +/- 30deg off-boreshight (with the air-intake cum radome limitations of the bison) then? Could these not be retrofitted later once squadron-services like that has been done in 21s, 29s and M2Ks? But why is the need to have it as a part of FOC?

Is Tejas in the same league as Mig-21 Bison?

And again, what is with this selective usage of performance argument? IAF should induct a system in 2018 whose performance in some respect is equivalent to a legacy aircraft?

The real question is why not to do this activity after the a/c has entered the Squadron service. There is no definite way of knowing this answer. Bottom line is IAF wants this cleared in FOC and that is where we stand.

Where is HAL non-delivery etc linked to the point above - why do you try to link it? Just to badmouth an org that doesn’t fit your dual-blue-shaded viewpoint, is it?

Statement of a fact is bad-mouthing an organization? And if you’re so concerned about ‘bad-mouthing’ of a certain organization, what have you done in this post by calling IAF names?

Where is the deflection? The uber efficient and patriotic IAF gents (that can do now wrong) has not being able to get their favorite firangs to deliver on COTS IFR and radome. Hence is the delay in FOC.

The point was about ‘changing requirement’ leading to delay in FOC. And not about delay by an OEM to deliver the required part. As for IAF’s inability to get the part from the foreign vendor – this is a really nice spin! Was it IAF’s deliverable to get the part on time from the said vendor? Or, now we’re going to lay the blame on vendor management also on IAF?

Why can't IAF, for a change, live up to their own so-called super-efficient org culture - the same org which routinely plants stories ion the press about their retired folks should be heading manufacturing orgs, irrespective of them having any manufacturing hands-on experience.

In this case, they can't even manage a single foreign-vendor - but want to head a manufacturing org? Good skills towards displaying the need of securing post-retirement-warm-nests, but when it comes to a simple single/two vendor mgmt, the results are there for all to see. If there's any deflection going on, it's this desperate attempt to mask this weakness and pass onto HAL/ADA.

God forbid a day comes when IAF has to learn time and dead-line management from HAL and ADA!

Again why how is a 2023 with an old-rodome perf comparable to the kopyo in a Bison? If 40% increase is achievable, well and good, by all means get it – but why hold up FOC because of it? Why can't that be a mini-MLU? After all IAFs favorite bird M2K came with an inverted-cassegrain antenna based system (and still does) - why is not then IAF, going by the same logic, stop flying M2K and insist on RDY (that they are getting via a MLU), before it can start using them again?

Between anybody knows how does a RDI performance compare with that of a 2023 within the existing-radome of LCA? I mean it will be a sacrilege to even compare a modern PD multi-mode set with an inverted-cassegrain-based one - but if IAF seems to be super happy with it even today, why not compare?

This is the same trite argument you’ve used before in this post. So, why bother with a Tejas in this day and age? Let me order more of second hand stuff and make do till some new 'fancy' toy becomes available.

No what actaully has happened is, now that LCA is closer than reality, much to the chagrin of the IAF worthies who were dismissive about it being of a 3-legged-cheetah etc, these IAF wallahs are getting nightmares of having to go thru the takleef of facing upto NaMo.

Funny that you say this because the set whines by someone who ‘spoke’ to Tejas team! And not IAF complaining about this or that.

And as far as your dadagiri is concerned - Of course, I can get it, in your world-view, people who don't wear various stripes and stars in their lapels etc, can't be patriotic enough - so any uttering/feeling from them is a whine, of course. Problem is, there's another world-view outside that of yours, and BRF does cater to (and at least used to) to that world-view as well. So pls go easy on your moderator-giri, and post only if you can do so, without that tag/attitude.

If you draw incorrect conclusions, the problem is yours not mine. And my ‘dadagiri’ did not stop you from posting what you did, so I must be pretty lousy at that.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2015 16:49

DexterM wrote:Good - then cut the bullcrap. Whether or what I contribute to the thread is not your business. Don't presume to tell me what to do. Your tone and level of discourse is that of a thug. You are a disgrace to the mod team.

As if I need a certificate from you!

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Apr 2015 17:18

^^^

Chill out bro. Have some beer and come back in a day or two

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Apr 2015 17:42

srai: can I join in on the beer? Some good ol' Kingfisher with Karimeen (it is a fish) fry will do really good for me right now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Apr 2015 18:04

I am locking this thread for 2 days. cool down over the weekend & come back with a fresh mind monday.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 18 Apr 2015 23:51

Mod Note: DexterM banned for 1 month for name-calling. Any others want to follow his path, please step up. Otherwise learn how to have a civilized debate (strong opinions are fine and welcome, personal attacks and name-calling are not). Thank you.