LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 14:29

pushkar.bhat wrote:Karan M & Wickberg can you guys stop this. This decending into a personal mud slinging match. Pls stop immediately.

Your unsolicited advice would have been more welcome if it had been originally directed towards the troll who started off with ad hominem attacks. If trolls troll, they get treated as trolls.

PS: Before getting preachy go ahead & look at the prior posts of the great Wickberg & his tendency to randomly jump into LCA threads & attack Indian members.

RKumar wrote: It is a local defense forum but everyone is welcome with positive contributions. No pissing compitition or scoring goal pls.

C'mon..as if he didn't know its a local forum & what the name meant. He's been here a long while & has done this sort of thing repeatedly. One's patience only goes so far with such types.

Someone seems to be more interested in politics then plane, want to provoke using pure landers

Exactly. He knew what this forum is & his only desire is to provoke & belittle. He does so on a repeated basis.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 14:38

chetak wrote:
chaanakya wrote:I don't know what expertise CAG has in commenting upon LCA MK1 not meeting ASR. It is also not clear if auditors have any worthwhile qualifications to discuss ASR and its suitability and high or low expectations. Mostly they should confine themselves to financial aspects. If LCA has MK1 then it clearly implies evolving designs which would meet ASR at some point of time. So essentially they should talk about the delay and it reasons and not LCA deficiencies. Anyway I would not trust this CAG , who was ex Secy Defense and known congi bureaucrat and appointed during dying days of UPA in a last minute hurry when dead king's thumb impression is stamped on the royal decree. His role in rushing from his Indonesia trip during the so called coup and DOB controversy of VKS is too fresh to give him due credit. He would be living off the reputation of his illustrious predecessors.
CAG audits are based purely on written documents, written commitments and agreements and any slippage simply means that as per the written agreement or written commitment one or the other party has failed to meet a clearly agreed upon deadline or criteria. If ADA says four aircraft delivered, it means that, for CAG, there should be four acceptance test reports, mentioning the serial nos of all relevant assemblies, sub assemblies and the associated test reports properly referenced and accepted and signed off by the customer as well as ADA and flight test reports signed off by the pilots.

Cost escalations simply mean difference between agreed cost and as delivered costs and the methodology of calculating the escalation, if any.

CAG will comment only on these aspects. If there is no commitment deadlines or milestones, vendor agreements left open ended or delivery /acceptance criteria are not full filled, CA will point out that too. Around 95-98% of a CAG report should have already been caught by a decently competent internal audit team, had they been allowed to function, unhindered. It's no rocket science.

Don't blame CAG. They are simply doing their jobs. We had better hope like hell that nothing more has been buried or left uncovered because of political or bureaucratic interference. This CAG is not like Vinod Rai.

Chetak, if the CAG just stops at what you mentioned, its one thing.

However, it does not. In recent years, even from the NDA times, the adjunct arms of the executive seem to have taken it more and more upon themselves to behave as the executive itself. They make policy recommendations (sometimes exceeding their mandate), make wide ranging commentary on topics they lack expertise on & don't have a mechanism by which they take feedback or acknowledge it (if they can't agree, then it should be upto a third party expert to make the call).

We don't see that with some of the CAG stuff. In years prior, they attacked the NDA Govt (of the day) and the IA for emergency purchases of gear which they said was not necessary in the mountains. But what if the conflict became an all out war?
Similarly George Fernandes got a reputation for being corrupt not merely to the Tehelka affair but because of the metal coffins issue. Again, merely because the coffins chosen on basis of urgency were not the cheapest etc. In effect, a DM got penalized for being proactive.

When reviewing their weapons program accounts, they are without exception, shoddy. The one on the Arjun (around 1997-98) was a mishmash of conflicting data & only the PAC review of the CAG account was explanatory about all the issues CAG missed.

The CAG also did a review of HAL vs IAF maintenance and said latter was worse. However, it missed checking whether HAL built airframes were dual checked in the respective AFB.

These sort of missing details only point out that these guys are basically folks who will be looking at one Govt dept one day, and then jumping over to the next.

The way out is to build a core group of auditors who are topic specialized, not generalized folks with superficial knowledge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 14:46

chaanakya wrote:I don't know what expertise CAG has in commenting upon LCA MK1 not meeting ASR. It is also not clear if auditors have any worthwhile qualifications to discuss ASR and its suitability and high or low expectations. Mostly they should confine themselves to financial aspects. If LCA has MK1 then it clearly implies evolving designs which would meet ASR at some point of time. So essentially they should talk about the delay and it reasons and not LCA deficiencies.

Exactly. If they are speaking of the LCA viz program schedules, then its fair game & they can go into all the details, funding, unrealistic timelines, draw up similar programs worldwide etc. However, when they start commenting on indigenization (without a clue of what the design aspect entails), about ASR etc it becomes hilarious.

Heres an example of CAG ignorance, DARE EW fit for LCA is deemed as unsatisfactory because it can't fit within the current LCA. Did it strike them that the design has been successfully leveraged across multiple programs and that its the same range as WW peers. If it can't fit into the LCA, its because the LCA is too small. And if the LCA cannot carry an internal SPJ, then an external one can be fitted! But they don't even explore this, whether this is being done or not and why not! The MiG-27 Upg & Bisons for instance carry an Elta EL/L-8222
In fact, all of IAFs fighters currently carry an external SPJ, but CAG does not know this or even ask about this!

Next, they claim current RWR has issues on LCA, and as if its a huge thing which is insurmountable, tut tut. First, LCA has some ways to go before SP/FOC. Next, several RWR fits on IAF aircraft faced issues & were fixed later on. Its part of the process. Su-30 MKIs in fact because of their drooped nose had significant blanking issues, so they recieved a brand new variant of the R118.

Obviously DARE can tell them all this. Question is whether they were even asked & whether the answers they gave were even considered.

This sort of stuff is what makes CAG's commentary so dubious. They neither care for the details or declare them, but pronounce the entire effort as infructuous/can't be accepted or some 1930's era Brit auditor speak.

Anyway I would not trust this CAG , who was ex Secy Defense and known congi bureaucrat and appointed during dying days of UPA in a last minute hurry when dead king's thumb impression is stamped on the royal decree. His role in rushing from his Indonesia trip during the so called coup and DOB controversy of VKS is too fresh to give him due credit. He would be living off the reputation of his illustrious predecessors.

Interesting. Wheels within wheels.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 May 2015 15:07

The CAG comments are being made because someone external to the CAG is pushing the comments.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 10 May 2015 15:47

There are some serious issues about present incumbent who is CAG. I wonder in which department in Govt. he was serving when Rafale won the tender? Is he justifying his appointment to the lobbies that helped him?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 May 2015 16:05

Karan M wrote: This sort of stuff is what makes CAG's commentary so dubious. They neither care for the details or declare them, but pronounce the entire effort as infructuous/can't be accepted or some 1930's era Brit auditor speak.

That sort of clarification would come from MOD once it goes through CAG report and puts its stand on it , it seems MOD is yet to do that ( as parliament is in session atm and report was tabled ) so we need to wait and see what Def Sec replies to points raised by CAG.

CAG would just audit based on data available thats pretty much for any auditing CAG does and its does wide spectrum auditing , the core of contention seems to be ASR which even CAG refers to , The IAF sticks to ASR religiously and even many in IAF and older folks deputed to LCA project mentioned that the current Mk1 does not meet some of IAF ASR specs laid down and these would only be met with Mk2 also minimum bare essential design changes were done on Mk2 so as not delay it further.

What CAG states is more or less known from official and unofficial reports nothing much new there except for the fact that it just documents it as one places and puts and offical label to it.

Let see how MOD rebuts/replies point by point on CAG report.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 16:18

There should be a PAC report on the CAG audit objections in the future, with the MOD reply.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 16:22

Singha wrote:justt to pick two points the SPJ is not internal even on the MKI as we use a israeli stick type pod. sure its a waste of one pylon in a small plane but maybe room can be found in the mk2 or they can add another small pylon on other side from the LDP pylon under the centerline...it will have good 180' fov from under the plane.

also without clear listing of these 53 parameters, what was the ASR target and what is achieved one cannot comment . we all know how 'logical' IAF and IA ASR sometimes tend to be - take the best of m2k + add the best of F16 + add masala from the raptor and we get a local ASR.
all the tfta kit that was sent for IA arty trials also roundly failed many tests and most dropped out only the FH77B05 was finally able to meet I think.

about the imported like radar, radome, engine, MFDs sure we all know that and more. in due course when volumes are there these things will get slowly localized like the uttam radar, local composite makers, samtel MFDs , astra, 100k gliding bomb etc......the only long term problem is having a local engine of 404+ level which is a major challenge.

Singha wrote:^^ I am not at all worried by any of the cag report. the only worries are right now completion of BVR weapons and radar testing and any A2G munitions and night/bad weather combat tests. they should also throw in some 2 week DACT with M2k, su30 and Mig29 in tacde in a war game setting to find out how it shapes up at the deep end of the pond in wvr and bvr scenarios rather than just complete the test points. have it try to intercept jags and mig27s trying to sneak in fast at low level also.

FCS testing always throws up new unknowns that no test plan can always cover.

You said it. Best if the MOD tells LCA team to avoid getting distracted by media FUD and the arms vendors, shillsters and focus on the task at hand which is to get FOC completed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 16:41

Ignoring the CAG's sooper dooper "interpretations", the actual data is interesting.

Performance Audit on 'Design, Development, Manufacture and
Induction of Light Combat Aircraft’
Details of development of indigenous capability
Sl No Description Indigenisation level projected
1 Aerodynamic design Complete
2 System Architecture Complete
3 Structural Design Complete
4 Manufacture of structure 95 per cent indigenous
5 General Systems 85 per cent indigenous
Import–heat exchangers, pumps, sensors
6 Metallic materials 80 per cent indigenous
7 Engines Import – as interim solution
8 Avionics equipment 80 per cent indigenous
Import – Multi Functional Displays, Electrical Generators, RLG, Electronic components
9 Software Complete
10 Flight Control System 40 per cent indigenous Import – Actuators, sensors
11 Radar Indigenous Import – Electronic components
12 Aircraft integration Complete
13 Ground test rigs Complete
14 Flight testing Complete
Total Indigenous content 61 percent
Total Import content 39
per cent

The interesting part is this is current status (projected at FOC).

CAG can continue to be a duffer about not having every microchip in the LRUs sourced from India but we can ignore that.

The radar is mentioned as local w/imported components. Again, CAG does not get into what, where.

CAG claims the actuators & MFDs are imported but ignore the imports are for the interim and Samtel MFDs are now planned for the SP LCAs. On actuators, interestingly these are finally ready for trials and a set has been delivered to HAL.

Samtel's local MFDs mean that the LCD screens may be imported (or do they have a fab?) we avoid the obscene markup on the integrated display, RCI has now got a RLG-INS which they have tested & verified - CAG doesn't know about this either.

All said & done, the progressive indigenization is now a fact with the radar & engine the critical hold outs.

In Mk2, the radar will be addressed, CAG can crib on how we are using foreign FPGAs or Flash but I doubt anyone serious will give their "considered" comments any serious look as the critical components plus overall design & assembly will be local.

The engine is the weak point however & there is no concrete plan for that.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 May 2015 16:45

It is unfortunate that the CAG's report is being used to attack the CAG (whoever that is) personally. It takes some courage to be honest, esp in GOI (and in most other Gxxxxs) - and NO courage of any sort to throw poo. If people can get the actual report (and it is linked above, 73 pages of it), people also have all the freedom they need to study what it says, and debate individual points on their merits. BRF many years ago used to do such things. An example relevant to the LCA is posted here:

The LCA: With All Due Respect to the Naysayers…
Narayanan Komerath Bharat-Rakshak Monitor 3.5 Mar-Apr. 2001

The prevailing caterwauling about Cost Overrun, Foreign Components, Stealth, blah blah blah were each systematically analyzed and demolished with logical argument. Like water flowing over a village, only the poo now re-surfaces, not all the valuable facts and argument which remain buried. I see that the link does not work anymore, which is a great pity!

In those days people at BRF apparently went to the trouble of actually distilling the knowledge in hajaar-hajaar posts and other sources, and developing systematic arguments.

Which goes far beyond the present 'expertise' of parroting Official Statements from Blue Suits and Corporate Propaganda or jumping up and down in response to something misreported by some arithmetic-illiterate zero-watt papparazzi or corrupt Retired Military/IAS/IFS Aphsar.

So there are 53 points. Can they be extracted and listed? And dissected one by one?
It is no secret that the LCA is hobbled by dependence on a now-30-year-old engine. So at least in that respect, I would say that the LCA's thrust-to-weight ratio is very far behind the leading edge of today's capabilities, and will continue to keep going backwards as technology advances.

Which is why I say that at least there, the best, albeit somewhat daring, approach would be to buy the GE F136, lock stock and barrel, buy/build 100 engines. Some manufacturing technology will remain secret, but given the actual hardware in one's hands, it is not impossible to figure out what R&D to undertake (on a War Phooting Using Mark-IV Snail Pace) and whip Indian universities / corporate R&D into shape to improve Indian engine technology.

I feel that today relations with the US are sufficiently good to swing this deal and overcome ITAR issues. Such a project will also be a breath of life to industry say in Cincinnati, OH - and may instill oxygen into the ruling party's hopes for the next election. IMO this can be merged into a deal to sell several LCAs to the US in a barter deal - after all the flight control system was developed with US collaboration until 1998, and the integration of the F404 engine implies that much is already known about the LCA's insides, in the US. So it is already an India-US collaboration here. Why not take it to the next level?

(For those jumping up and down: The US always has had at least a small Aggressor Squadron equipped with phoren planes that they might encounter, to challenge and train their line pilots. The pilots of the Aggressor Squadron are probably among the very best in the US. So extending this to integrate a whole set of planes is not so new a concept. After all, the Harriers were imported and modified in the US as well. Why not the LCA?)

As discussed elsewhere, these are interesting times with creative solutions for developing high-cost military systems. The US may well see the sense of an F-136-equipped USLCA @ 1/6 to 1/4 the unit cost of an F-35 but without Stealth, as a nice complement to the F-35. Who knows? It may lead to the import of a very FEW F-35s later to complement the Indian Navy / North-Northeast high altitude stations. Stealth is definitely good for a Naval version. It will certainly lead to seamless integration of US and Indian weapons where desired by both nations.

The LCA program has great technology. But the political management above that seems to be stuck at 1950s levels. In any event, attacking people who tell the truth should not be acceptable.
And there is no denying that an airplane equipped with F-404 (de-rated or otherwise) is not going to have the T/W ratio of the same airplane with a modern engine. There have been huge strides in engine technology since the F-404 was developed (de-rated or otherwise). A big one is in T/W because of counter-rotating stages. Others are not so evident, but are crucial - they are in engine CONTROL technology and surge/stall suppression. These are the critical aspects in combat.

Can these things be developed in India? My guess is that an Indian version near-term, won't have the same TSFC or T/W, and certainly won't come close in MTBF. So it will require many more people-hours to maintain - but the cost of that is only 1/4 to 1/10 what it is in the US. So the optimization calculation produces very different results.

What if the US says

to all this? Why would the US buy Indian airframes rather than, say, Polish or Botswanan or British or Swedish? I can't say. But in that case, the smart approach is to buy Russian engines, build them. BUT STILL, set Archimedes-type expectations on Indian universities and corporate R&D to come up with India-Genius technology solutions to improve Indian engines.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 May 2015 16:48

If I were the IAF, my Requirement would be simple:
Give me a system that will allow my people to win the wars that we are likely to face.

I am not going to say:

Give me a system that will allow my people to come in SECOND PLACE in the war. We are are Indians onlee, these are Indian condishuns onlee. Second Place is Honourable.

This means, competitive with the best in the world. So no, no system is going to meet that completely.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 10 May 2015 17:13

Who knows? It may lead to the import of a very FEW F-35s later to complement the Indian Navy / North-Northeast high altitude stations. Stealth is definitely good for a Naval version. It will certainly lead to seamless integration of US and Indian weapons where desired by both nations.

Who are you and what have you done with the Mongol?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 May 2015 18:00

The F404 thrust issue is already being addressed in the MK2 through the F414. There is a roadmap for the EPE enhancements if anyone is willing to take that up. That version is in contention for later USN development and upgrades (for the F-18E/F) and is being submitted for bids in Korea and turkey (and possibly for the AMCA as well). That engine has been found suitable for a host of projects from the Gripen Next Generation (already an export success) to the Super Hornet and Super Hornet International. It will also likely be the engine of choice for the Korean 5th generation fighter, and most likely be the initial engine for the AMCA as well.

As to the point about putting a 48 inch diameter engine (not to mention the Billions required to develop and integrate/certify it), with 40,000+ Pounds of thrust on the LCA I would like to ask what impact would a 140+% thrust increase have on the range of the aircraft? Also, what timeframe will this science project be available for production or export?

There is already a performance bump from the F404 to the F414 and has been used by both Boeing and SAAB to compensate for the capability addition in their respective fighter platforms (F/A-18 to F-18E/F, and Gripen C to Gripen NG). The LCA Mkii is doing just that.

http://www.stratpost.com/ge-finally-get ... gine-order

Even for the other advanced fighter projects the engine issue will remain the limiting factor in their design and capability -

Korean KF-X : GEF414+/EJ200
Turkish T-X : EJ200+, or possibly GEF414
AMCA : GE F414+/EJ200+ or an equivalent engine from Russia or France
J-20 : Russian AL-31F possibly or its chinese copy
J-31 : Russian RD-93
J-10 : AL-31FN

As far as the US using Red-Air aggressors and buying LCA for that, it would be pointless. They did operate a classified (now de-classified) project Constant Peg, where they acquired Mig's (21's and 23's) and tested them out both tactically and as aggressors (Read Pecks book on it) and have also purchased Mig-29's to do the same in addition to the Su-27 Flanker that has been photographed at Groom Lake. However, what use is the LCA in such a case? Is the LCA representative of Su-27, Su-30, Chinese Flanker clones, PAKFA, J-20 and J-31 in the aggressor role? At the moment they rely on UK Typhoon's to train against different aircraft and they get a nice mix of other aircraft as well through Red Flag. There hasn't been a requirement to buy foreign aircraft for aggressor roles but even if there were they'd be better off seeking some flankers because it represents the vast majority of the future Chinese fighter force.

But Red Air Training, is as much about the intelligence and aggressor/red-air tactics and weapons as they are about platforms therefore an F-16 can succesfully simulate a Chinese flanker clones if the aggressor squadrons have most up to date and accurate information on chinese fighter tactics. Other capability can be brought up through higher exercises with flanker operators, such as India and Malaysia.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 18:05

UlanBatori wrote:It is unfortunate that the CAG's report is being used to attack the CAG (whoever that is) personally. It takes some courage to be honest, esp in GOI (and in most other Gxxxxs) - and NO courage of any sort to throw poo. If people can get the actual report (and it is linked above, 73 pages of it), people also have all the freedom they need to study what it says, and debate individual points on their merits. BRF many years ago used to do such things. An example relevant to the LCA is posted here:

The LCA: With All Due Respect to the Naysayers…
Narayanan Komerath Bharat-Rakshak Monitor 3.5 Mar-Apr. 2001
The prevailing caterwauling about Cost Overrun, Foreign Components, Stealth, blah blah blah were each systematically analyzed and demolished with logical argument. Like water flowing over a village, only the poo now re-surfaces, not all the valuable facts and argument which remain buried. I see that the link does not work anymore, which is a great pity!

In those days people at BRF apparently went to the trouble of actually distilling the knowledge in hajaar-hajaar posts and other sources, and developing systematic arguments.

Sorry but you are completely mistaken, if a) you think politics has nothing to do with the timing of such leaks and b) if merely putting out data honestly "with all due respect to xxx" is not being done.

When an entire report has a lot of cr@p, smells like cr@p and feels like cr@p, sometimes its worthwhile calling it cr@p. Of course, if you see the above, there have been several points raised already about the lack of objectivity or rigor in some of the CAGs claims. That can be done in parallel.

But as free as the CAG is to write such rubbish, we are equally free to point out they are rubbish.

I feel that today relations with the US are sufficiently good to swing this deal and overcome ITAR issues.

The issue with the US has not been about such issues per se, but the overall political contours where India is supposed to take massa's orders as a given.
Whether it be Ford Foundation or Green Peace.

Unfortunately, the Europeans don't have a comparable engine & the Russians? Well, one only needs to look at the MiG-29 Upgrade issues to see how they can muck up an otherwise ok deal to snag every Rs from the Indians.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 19:24

Compared to the huge amount we read on dastardly HAL, ADA etc with the criminal LCA, I had to dig around a lot to find this:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 483312.cms

NAGPUR: The Indian Air Force (IAF) is struggling to get a vital component from the Russian original equipment maker (OEM) of MiG-29 fighter aircraft, without which the ongoing upgrade of the plane may not be complete.

In a first ever move, IAF has tied up with a private player Taneja Aerospace Limited, a Pune-based company, for fixing the latest components in the MiG-29s. This will extend the aircraft's life cycle by another 40 years. Though everything else has been sourced, IAF has so far not had the latest navigation systems to be fitted along with the new systems, without which the work shall remain incomplete.

The components have been supplied from the Russian OEM, while some of the smaller spares have been developed by base repair depots (BRD) of the IAF. The BRDs come under IAF's maintenance command headquartered at Nagpur. However, when it comes to finally flying the aircraft, the plane will also be needing the navigation systems. "There have been long-drawn negotiations with RAC-MiG the company that makes the aircraft but there has been no result so far," said a senior IAF official closely related to the project.

Of course, the plane finally flew in March of 2015, but your guess as good as mine whether the component was resolved. The usual Russian apologist/s may claim it was all-ok, even whilst running down the LCA, but the fact remains:

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... ntract.htm

About the MiG-29s, he said that their upgrade project had not met the scheduled timelines for various reasons, although the contract for this was signed with Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG in March 2008. The project has been undertaken in two phases, Design and Development (D&D) of six aircraft in Russia, and the Series Upgrade Phase on the remaining aircraft at an IAF Base Repair Depot (BRD). The D&D phase is delayed and is expected to be completed this year. Nonetheless, the series upgrade phase has begun at 11 BRD and the lead aircraft is expected to be produced by March 2015.

But then this is not the only component either.
http://www.oneindia.com/feature/hal-pro ... 90744.html

Ingenious efforts on for overhauling MiG 29 engines The division has been on the threshold of successfully launching home-grown solutions while overhauling the RD-33 (Series-3) engines of MiG 29 fighters. "There was no ToT (transfer of technology) with Russians for six uncommon aggregators (accessories) of the RD-33 (Series-3) engines. The ToT was getting delayed as the Russians were demanding additional funds. The ToT would have come only by 2016, prompting us to initiate the indigenous programme," says Arup Chatterjee, Officiating Chief of Project (Engines), while interacting with the media. He said the IAF had bought over 100 engines from the Russians in 2007. "With the engines started coming for overhaul, we developed technologies for three out of the six uncommon aggregators successfully. HAL propels fortunes of Koraput Division The remaining three are targeted to be developed within HAL by June 2015. This has given us self-confidence for meeting our indigenous missions," Chatterjee added. Similarly, HAL also developed an overhaul technology for the KSA-2 accessory gearbox of RD-33 engines, which has been cleared by the certifying agencies now.

This is what we are facing from our-oh-so-reliable suppliers elsewhere.

What a choice. Buy "western" and be held hostage to having your culture destroyed, your internal policies meddled with & any attempts to stop this subversion by using the legal framework against such subversive elements is "not democratic" or buy Russian & be held hostage to constantly delayed TOT or be asked for more money for every screw or screwdriver.

Meanwhile CAG bloviates about the LCA not meeting timelines etc, and our DDM tom toms it.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 May 2015 19:35

For the record, article on an American fighter jet:
A rough landing
Referred in an earlier post here: viewtopic.php?p=1638188#p1638188

After the 1962 war,the US offered India the F-4,a two-seater fighter aircraft of high quality,but later reneged on its promise. In the meantime,we had trained a large number of pilots and navigators for the F-4,which created a major problem. As for the F-104 Starfighter,which later earned the moniker widow-maker because it crashed all too frequently,the story is even worse. After a joint exercise with the US air force at Palam,the IAF declared the Starfighter to be a superior aircraft and was eager to acquire it. The Americans refused to give it,which was a stroke of good luck for India.
For long before the dawn of the global age,it was discovered that the big sales of Starfighters were a global racket. A powerful prime minister of Japan and a prince in Western Europe were among a large number of middlemen who went to jail for accepting heavy bribes. The flames of accusation reached even West Germanys famous defence minister,J. Strauss,but did not singe him. However,he was heard reciting: The fault is not in our stars but our Starfighters.

It was a stroke of good luck for India that Americans refused to sell starfighters, that later turned out to crash too frequently and also part of a global racket.

It is not that in history we have not gone through such American pie in the sky experiences.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2015 20:40

Dunno.

The IAF was able to accept inferior MiG-29 and Su-27 and make something out of them.

So who knows? May be it is the misfortune of others that the IAF did not get their hands on the Starfighter.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 May 2015 20:53

Gyan wrote:There are some serious issues about present incumbent who is CAG. I wonder in which department in Govt. he was serving when Rafale won the tender? Is he justifying his appointment to the lobbies that helped him?

Oh he was Secy Defence though Rafale got through technical rounds of IAF evaluators and MOD has no say in it. They were in the process of financial negotiations.

However one could also ask , in turn, what did he do when he was defence secy to improve LCA programme?? UPA govt had not courtesy to wait for incoming Govt to make an appointment to CAG , it was in such a hurry on its way out. Fortunately there have been many dubious appointments in the sunset of UPA misgovernance and NaMo has steered cleared of them, not touching them, allowing them to make the mistakes and in turn expose themselves.

These are high profile and high stake comments by CAG.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 May 2015 21:01

UlanBatori wrote:It is unfortunate that the CAG's report is being used to attack the CAG (whoever that is) personally. It takes some courage to be honest, esp in GOI (and in most other Gxxxxs) - and NO courage of any sort to throw poo. If people can get the actual report (and it is linked above, 73 pages of it), people also have all the freedom they need to study what it says, and debate individual points on their merits. BRF many years ago used to do such things. An example relevant to the LCA is posted here:

Well as Secy Defence he was equally responsible for what he wrote. And unfortunately he has no claim whatsoever to "be the honest". You don't become defence secy in UPA got by flouting your honesty rather than toeing the corrupt line. And one does not have to tolerate lessons of morality from a thief. Vinod rai is in different class. And this thread itself is having indepth info abt LCA, much more than any silly auditors, and I had the fortune or misfortune to meet many, could ever understand, except for financials and timelines.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 May 2015 22:16

Glad to take any rocks thrown etc

as long as it induces some thinking. What I don't understand is why the engine thing hasn't been given to a part of the guvrmand that is simply not in the news. Doesn't India have any place that is run by dedicated military-govt people with powers to bring in industry as needed, and just get things done? How were the nuclear weapons developed and the necessary technologies mastered? Surely not by

in the media? And more recently, the cryogenic space engine?

Aircraft jet engines should be a National Interest Priority. Of course if there were such a lab, one would not know about it, but given the biss-boor state of Indian engine technology as seen from all these reports, it seems that there is no one with any brains assigned to this task.

This is what needs to change. And yes, I stand by all things I posted above. There is a lot of ranting at BRF these days (there always was) but no coherent action. And it is sad that the whole mass of articles seems to be lost now.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 May 2015 02:12

chaanakya wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:It is unfortunate that the CAG's report is being used to attack the CAG (whoever that is) personally. It takes some courage to be honest, esp in GOI (and in most other Gxxxxs) - and NO courage of any sort to throw poo. If people can get the actual report (and it is linked above, 73 pages of it), people also have all the freedom they need to study what it says, and debate individual points on their merits. BRF many years ago used to do such things. An example relevant to the LCA is posted here:
Well as Secy Defence he was equally responsible for what he wrote. And unfortunately he has no claim whatsoever to "be the honest". You don't become defence secy in UPA got by flouting your honesty rather than toeing the corrupt line. And one does not have to tolerate lessons of morality from a thief. Vinod rai is in different class. And this thread itself is having indepth info abt LCA, much more than any silly auditors, and I had the fortune or misfortune to meet many, could ever understand, except for financials and timelines.

Give yourself the BRF award of '15. Just heard from a little bird that another ex IAF worthy involved with the MMRCA process who is now sitting as an advisor at HAL (no prizes for guessing who!) was also involved with a parallel slam of the LCA program. What a coincidence. Two gentlemen, each involved with the MMRCA.

So, of course its a coincidence.. the UPA was not basically putting everything in place to justify the MMRCA and hence this gent (ex MMRCA guy) was not handpicked to steer this effort. Bad bad LCA doesn't meet requirements, we need MMRCA now, buy asap. And of course, its completely justified if a light fighter thereafter since LCA was too delayed and what not.

Good going.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 May 2015 02:18

And this is the right attitude to have.
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/

The show will go on; FOC is the key for us now:

When this correspondent read out the key portions of the report, the scientist agreed to comment on condition of not being named.
“We are used to the CAG reports now. The current report was supposed to have reviewed by the Secretary (Department of Defence R&D) and we are not sure whether it was done. What I understand is that the review hasn’t happened and due to deadline pressures the report has been tabled in the Parliament,” the scientist claimed.
When specifically asked whether the report will dampen the spirit of the team engrossed in the FOC activities of Tejas, the scientist said: “One report or any reports in the future cannot stop our scheduled activities. We have come this far and have probably entered the last lap of Tejas Mk-1 development phase. The show will go on.”

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 11 May 2015 03:14

The PeeAref server was cruelly shot down by a Ishtealth Mijjile just when I was going to post my previous post, misost-fortunately

So the F-136 engine has a diameter of 48 inches, the F-404 just 35 inches. IMO, this is the sort of problem that would be a killer if the design of the airframe is not one's own and one has no clue how it was designed. Otherwise it is not a big deal. The 'Coke-bottle' / Aishwarya-esque shape of the LCA mid-fuselage is because it is primarily a mid-subsonic/ transonic aircraft, with barely enough power to get much beyond. Get an engine with higher T/W into it, and the optimal fuselage shape for something that can go Mach 2 is very different, call it Jayalithaa-esque. Witness MiG-25 vs. MiG 21 or 27.

The F-136 has much higher Bypass Ratio (oooh! Let me call it Beta to sound knawlidjibal), hence the bigger radius. This gives much better TSFC and compensates for any drag increase due to the bigger diameter.

Yes, that would be a redesign, but if it was a serious war-footing effort that should take about 3 months. Plus some re-tooling time for the external panels to be cooked in the combojit autoclave. Longer than it would take for the CAG to draft the Memo to approve the SecDefence's Memo on the Proper Procedure to Table Reports in Lok Sabha.
It was pretty shocking to read the part where they couldn't find space in the airplane to stick in whatever CounterMeasures thingy. Those are the points (among the 43) that need point-by-point rebuttal (or agreement and fixing).

Instead all I see is people talking about each other's possible motives. Yes, there may be motives, but either someone is telling an objective truth, or not. If the latter, then the right approach to defeat the attack is to present the truth. Throwing poo at someone who is already full of it, is not a viable path to success.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 11 May 2015 03:14

UlanBatori wrote:Glad to take any rocks thrown etc as long as it induces some thinking. What I don't understand is why the engine thing hasn't been given to a part of the guvrmand that is simply not in the news. Doesn't India have any place that is run by dedicated military-govt people with powers to bring in industry as needed, and just get things done? How were the nuclear weapons developed and the necessary technologies mastered? Surely not by in the media? And more recently, the cryogenic space engine?

Aircraft jet engines should be a National Interest Priority. Of course if there were such a lab, one would not know about it, but given the biss-boor state of Indian engine technology as seen from all these reports, it seems that there is no one with any brains assigned to this task.

This is what needs to change. And yes, I stand by all things I posted above. There is a lot of ranting at BRF these days (there always was) but no coherent action. And it is sad that the whole mass of articles seems to be lost now.

Someone ask for a rant? Ok.

Oh, though shall not take the E-word in vain! For it shall open up the heavens and bring down the mighty sword of the ukrainians? -- I forget guys, whos mighty sword was it that used to strike down when the big E or small e was even mentioned?

Anyway, engines are to be imported onlee. Move along, sir, with your new fangled throries about making engines! India does not even make bicycle engines. Do you know the time it will take? May be 10 years to graduate from bicycle engines to aircraft engines. How will we fight the wars that occurred in 2001-2010? or even 2010-2015?

Thus, bring not the sayings of prophets who dare not appear in their shining glory in these here parts, except, in wink wink nudge nudge form:

The LCA: With All Due Respect to the Naysayers…
Narayanan Komerath Bharat-Rakshak Monitor 3.5 Mar-Apr. 2001

The world does not run on yak milk. An engine, we shall never make. A piston engine? We shall not make it. A radial or rotary? We shall not make it. A jet engine, you say? No. A pulse jet we shall not make, nor a turbo prop, nor a turbo fan. We simply shall not make them. Thus it was written.

edit -- but I already have this poo in my hand, that I was going to throw. What shall I do with it?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 May 2015 03:20

Whats shocking about not finding space to fit in a full blown SPJ in a compact light fighter?
Lets check with the IAF fleet shall we.
Does Jaguar currently have an internal SPJ? No. Upgrade may.
Does the Mirage 2000? No. Upgrade may.
Does the MiG-29? No. Upgrade will.
Does the Su-30 MKI? No. Even upgrade wont.
Does the MiG-21 Bison? No. Only external.

All the above except the MiG-21 are MMRCA or HCA class. Squeezing in an internal SPJ is a non trivial task & which is why the LCA has external pylons. If the IAF wants a SPJ, it can be fielded on an external pylon, same as for all the other IAF aircraft.

In short, this is classic CAG style misdirection. Making a mountain out of a molehill & pretending they have found a major secret.

PS: The LCAs internal SPJ is also being fitted to the IAFs MiG-29 upgrade. So much for it not having been of use etc etc.

Throwing poo at someone who is already full of it, is not a viable path to success.

Au contraire. Pointing out that CAG which claims they are of gilt, are actually of poo, might open the eyes of those folk who take the CAGs word on defence development as sacrosanct.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 11 May 2015 03:21

Thus it was written.

And that, precisely, is why we wander in the yak-dung-fragrant (YDF) steppes of Mongolia.

IMO, the age of the human-piloted $$$$B combat airplane is going the same way as the Age of the I See Bee Em. But what replaces it is an age of thousands, clouds, swarms, of autonomous / coordinated/ nasty killer vehicles. Each with its own mass-produced engine. If one sits around for 20 years with one's thumb up one's musharraf contemplating ONE engine, well.. one gets wiped out or enslaved in short order.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 11 May 2015 03:27

All the above except the MiG-21 are MMRCA or HCA class. Squeezing in an internal SPJ is a non trivial task & which is why the LCA has external pylons. If the IAF wants a SPJ, it can be fielded on an external pylon, same as for all the other IAF aircraft.
In short, this is classic CAG style misdirection. Making a mountain out of a molehill & pretending they have found a major secret.

One of many in the 53. Please go ahead and list as many as you can - this is EXACTLY what is needed. AFAIK, the greatly respected Adm. ******* quit writing his weekly diatribe demanding shutdown of the EllSeeYay project and importing (his clients' ?

) boondoggles, after the above-mentioned gentle point-by-point rebuttal was communicated to him.

Same could happen to the CGA etc. and to the DDM who parrot these things.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 May 2015 03:29

So how does a cost accounting segment of Indian bureaucracy actually come up with the list of questions that they are going to investigate? Who comes with that? How do they justify it being the correct set of questions to ask and then compare with existing platforms? What operational input do they get since they don't have access to real data other than questionable marketing brochures to do an analysis and report outcome? This is a serious question.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 11 May 2015 03:38

The CAG, and its reports are not bad by the way. It is the inferences that are drawn. You could say XYZ was tasked to build a ladder to heaven, and has managed to reach the moon. Or you could say the sun is not even in the sights yet, forget about heaven.

The YelSeaYay was a negotiation device. Same with the Kauverry. And every other non-rocket DRDO item, the arjun inkluded. The problem is that the YelSeaYay has materialijed in public, visible form. Unlike the Arjun, the Kauverry, and a hundred other things. What to do with it now?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2015 04:13

UlanBatori wrote:So the F-136 engine has a diameter of 48 inches, the F-404 just 35 inches. IMO, this is the sort of problem that would be a killer if the design of the airframe is not one's own and one has no clue how it was designed. Otherwise it is not a big deal. The 'Coke-bottle' / Aishwarya-esque shape of the LCA mid-fuselage is because it is primarily a mid-subsonic/ transonic aircraft, with barely enough power to get much beyond. Get an engine with higher T/W into it, and the optimal fuselage shape for something that can go Mach 2 is very different, call it Jayalithaa-esque. Witness MiG-25 vs. MiG 21 or 27.

So you're proposing we fit one of the biggest & heaviest engines ever developed for a combat jet (well.. the F136 has been cancelled but lets skim past that) into the smallest 4th gen fighter jet? And do it within 3 months?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 11 May 2015 04:57

Viv S: Probably CAD redesign - onlee - can be done in three months or there abouts. Then ... ?

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 May 2015 05:54

VivS wrote:So you're proposing we fit one of the biggest & heaviest engines ever developed for a combat jet (well.. the F136 has been cancelled but lets skim past that) into the smallest 4th gen fighter jet? And do it within 3 months?

Well, that was him after he had too much Kumis (fermented mare's milk, mildly alcoholic) to drink yesterdin in the good traditions of Mongolia.

But the Mongol does have a point. You dont shoot the messenger. The CAG types are auditors. By definition, auditing and accounting are a snapshot of the past. A rear view mirror. You dont use that to drive, not in managerial decision making (which is based on marginal cost benefit analysis going FORWARD) or even just navigating the road.

After all, you dont drive by looking at the rearview, but rather through the windscreen. The rear view and wing mirrors are to protect yourself from random abduls bent on soosai and changing and navigating lanes safely!

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2015 06:27

200 LCA's to be inducted: Parrikar.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 May 2015 07:32

Karan M wrote:And this is the right attitude to have.
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/

The show will go on; FOC is the key for us now:

When this correspondent read out the key portions of the report, the scientist agreed to comment on condition of not being named.
“We are used to the CAG reports now. The current report was supposed to have reviewed by the Secretary (Department of Defence R&D) and we are not sure whether it was done. What I understand is that the review hasn’t happened and due to deadline pressures the report has been tabled in the Parliament,” the scientist claimed.
When specifically asked whether the report will dampen the spirit of the team engrossed in the FOC activities of Tejas, the scientist said: “One report or any reports in the future cannot stop our scheduled activities. We have come this far and have probably entered the last lap of Tejas Mk-1 development phase. The show will go on.”

IMO, that CAG report is another "hit" job by the IAF to restrict Mk.1 purchase to 40 units. It was mainly prepared by Air Force audit team and not by CAG. There was no review by Department of Defence R&D before publication. That's why the report sounds very biased and some of the points being made in that report makes it quite evident who has been feeding "negative" LCA articles to the media!

...
The 63-page report is signed by Rajiv Kumar Pandey, Principal Director of Audit (Air Force) and counter-signed by Shashi Kant Sharma, the CAG of India.
...
“We are used to the CAG reports now. The current report was supposed to have reviewed by the Secretary (Department of Defence R&D) and we are not sure whether it was done. What I understand is that the review hasn’t happened and due to deadline pressures the report has been tabled in the Parliament,” the scientist claimed.
...

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 11 May 2015 08:14

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opi ... 227416.cms

What are the next steps in the Rafale deal and how will it be linked to the Made in India concept?

Manohar Parrikar: The basic message is that the Rafale deal has been restricted in number. By doing this, we will free about Rs 60,000-65,000 crore - money which will be used for Make in India. Even in the Rafale deal, we will have 50% offsets. So this will take care of partial Make in India. But more than that, we now have money released for activities that can be carried out in improving and speeding up the LCA (Light Combat Aircraft). We can have 10-12 squadrons as MiG 21 replacements.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 11 May 2015 08:29

In effect, MRCA and all other current IAF programs are being re-assessed (or already re-assessed) with LCA as the center-piece. IOW, there is a clear understanding that no matter what, the LCA has to be inducted in large numbers to take India's fighter design and production capability to the next level.

going forward, if the precedent for LCA is anything to go by, I feel like Parrikar will similarly prioritize Mk2, and AMCA. Funding for everything else (for IAF) will depend on the money needed for those 2 programs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2015 08:44

The goal to produce 200-220 Tejas was always the original goal of the program , Pick up Janes All World Aircraft of early 90's and they would put the numbers at 220.

Good to see Parikar sticking its neck out and supporting the program without any sequester to original numbers.

The only risk is when they would induct the 10th squadron and production scale of HAL even if HAL manages to do that in next 12-15 years it would be a feather in its cap which is average rate of production 14 aircraft per year

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 May 2015 08:58

srai wrote:...

IMO, that CAG report is another "hit" job by the IAF to restrict Mk.1 purchase to 40 units. It was mainly prepared by Air Force audit team and not by CAG. There was no review by Department of Defence R&D before publication. That's why the report sounds very biased and some of the points being made in that report makes it quite evident who has been feeding "negative" LCA articles to the media!
...
The 63-page report is signed by Rajiv Kumar Pandey, Principal Director of Audit (Air Force) and counter-signed by Shashi Kant Sharma, the CAG of India.
...
“We are used to the CAG reports now. The current report was supposed to have reviewed by the Secretary (Department of Defence R&D) and we are not sure whether it was done. What I understand is that the review hasn’t happened and due to deadline pressures the report has been tabled in the Parliament,” the scientist claimed.
...

Rajiv Kumar Pandey is not IAF personnel. He is under the CAG, not sure, but he handle all audits conducted on IAF. Pls, IAF did not do this audit. No idea or comments on vested interests.

All I can say is that till simple points like Karan explained above are not got forward, laymen will fall for it. This kind of CT's might weaken the case.

The report also lists that MOD's answer to CAG's queries had not been received by the time they tabled the report.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 May 2015 09:00

Guys. Foggedabout the Natashas and others. The LCA is a done deal and is going to see service in numbers. There is no alternative. TINA. The cost of combat aircraft is so prohibitive, that a fleet of India's size of imported airframes will bankrupt the economy. It happened earlier under Rajiv Gandhi with the 1984 Mirage and later imports which stressed the external sector.

Someone imagining $20b thrown on Rafale and another $40b thrown on PakFa whatever is simply in cloud cuckoo land. The IAF better wake up and smell the coffee. Critical combat arms are going to be designed and made in India from now. Sure there will be substantial part of the components from global supply chains /vendors , but that is how it is and will be. Now if the self same Natashas come out and proclaim a 100% indigenous fetish for domestic products , you know where to tell them to get off.

The Mongolian yak herder is right. Gas turbines are a vitally important and again prohibitively expensive piece of the entire thing. We need to get this into a national mission mode and get the following in place ..

1) A 120KN military engine that can be used in single engine and twin engined fighters.. ( I think the 110KN projected for AMCA is on the lower side and too program specific). A 125KN engine is what will cut the mustard for single engine ones .. So build the airframe around the engine, not the other way around.

2) A civil engine with around 90KN thrust that can be leveraged across the military fleet.

This is the kind of core research and development investment which the Refinery,Dalda and Salt to Software types can never do and only the govt can do.

Sure he BharatForge/Kalyani types can build guns better than the OFB (they imported the entire RuAg line straight!

, and the refinery types can roll out ship hulls like donuts.. ). There are dozens of IT/Vity boys that can do the R73 electronics integration better than the govmint guys . Focus.. guys, focus. Do only the things that you and you alone can do best and give the rest of it out to the Banias and DOOs who will do a splendid job.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 May 2015 09:06

Good investment, political vision,leadership and commitment and commitment to keep the timelines will result in 10 years having some serious capabilities in aerospace Industry. It is good that MP has committed to LCA in good numbers. It will provide very good starting point.