LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2015 14:29

why exactly for a fighter design in 1990s was OBOGS left off the menu for IOC?
the advantages are clearly stated here http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14020/css/14020_163.htm
and nobody asked HAL to develop it in 90s, the cobham one was cots and used worldwide https://www.cobham.com/about-cobham/mis ... obogs.aspx

and as of Dec, 2014 a domestic one produced by Debel was headed for trials ...http://aviationweek.com/advanced-machin ... ing-system

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 May 2015 17:08

Yes, OBOGS will cut weight and free the capacity constraint of a Liquid/Gaseous oxygen system. If you are going for mid air refueling as part of FOC , it is inexplicable that one would leave that out.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2015 17:41

OT, but intentionally posting here for the reasons we all should know and talk about it.

He complimented the Navy for bringing out a comprehensive 20-year Science and Technology roadmap to guide and assist the DRDO in developing niche technologies for the future.

http://www.newkerala.com/news/2015/fullnews-64274.html

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 May 2015 21:06

One potential problem with this LCA P1 with the EL 2052 is Astra integration, will it be restricted to derby alone?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2015 21:33

Elta 2052 should support MIL1553B/ARINC 429 channels.

Had we gone 2052++ on the MKI, with the additional bang-on T/Rs, then you have got it for all MKI, Tejas and our Jaguars.

This is one of the reasons, we need to finalize on stores and interchangeability/interoperability issues much before ASR is drafted. We can save a ton of money too.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 May 2015 21:36

So is it now
40 LCA mk-1
?? LCA mk-1.5 (Possibly another 40?)
99 LCA mk-2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2015 21:37

I think, IAF is only asking that the original 40 they ordered is made with P1 standards. that is what the grudge of many posters. We are not clear, and we should not assume.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 29 May 2015 00:29

Well well 20 IOC.... will be 20+20 FOC and 40 FOC will be 40 mk 1.5. I like this logic of screwing local product. Keep the goal post moving n can sell it to the the mango men. Clever logic to keep import lines open.

IAF will not accept 4 SP because they are of IOC-1 STANDARD and they knew very well after having IOC-2, HAL will need at least 18 months before first plane will roll out of production line with IOC-2. That is enough time to discredit HAL & LCA and suggest we would like to get FOC standard if there is a delay. Not much pleased with HAL either, they could have planned bit better and promised what they could deliver n not promise moon.

Hopefully ADA will be able to get FOC by end of this year, it is quite difficult and a big challenge.

So predicting dark clouds for LCA if ADA, HAL, IAF & MoD are not supporting each other during next 2 yrs.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 29 May 2015 09:35

^^^ Has the IAF confirmed the above or is this a self depressant thought?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 May 2015 15:50

SaiK wrote:I think, IAF is only asking that the original 40 they ordered is made with P1 standards. that is what the grudge of many posters. We are not clear, and we should not assume.

The first Tejas Mk 1.5 prototype/pre-production model is scheduled to fly in 2017. By that point, the first 20 aircraft will be in service and the next 20 in an advanced stage of production.

The first production LCA I-P will be delivered no earlier than 2019 and will therefore constitute an interim batch bridging the gap with the Mk2. It should also help shrink the Mk2's development cycle by producing and testing a substantial chunk of its avionics and interfaces.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 May 2015 03:39

this ddm article keeps 1P not in the picture
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-the- ... ce=taboola

Viv S, the problem is the gap building I assume should be less advanced than the Mk2 spec. We have no data to v&v that Uttam spec > Elta 2052. We would permanently put Uttam behind R&D bars for another 30 years in making to match specs. Unless the user feedback by real use, the producer and developer will always have a gap. It is better to supply interim with Uttam 0.1 than Elta 2052., and then upgrade to Uttam 0.2 ... until it matches Elta or whatever specs IAF wants.

fortunately (actually unfortunate as Kaveri is shunned) engine is imported and it is a question of selection onlee.

OTOH, if you say "We suck in engines and radars" big time, I take my arguments back.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 30 May 2015 05:58

Viv S wrote:The first Tejas Mk 1.5 prototype/pre-production model is scheduled to fly in 2017. By that point, the first 20 aircraft will be in service and the next 20 in an advanced stage of production.

I think this assumption is too optimistic.

2015 is nearly half over. If the first 20 aircraft are to be in service by 2017, they should have started production work on them by now. How many SPs are on the production line right now?

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 30 May 2015 12:01

I can understand when top IAF officers say that IAF will have to wait for another 5 (minimum) to get Tejas-MK2 & hence replacement of Mig-21 and Mig-27 is an issue since they don't want to replace them with Tejas-MK1. But why IAF says that FOC will not happen Dec 2015 - Has ADA/HAL/MOD confirmed this?

Why the Air Force Has to Wait Another 5 Years for Indigenously-Built Tejas Fighter

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-the- ... ter-767111

NEW DELHI: It has been 32 years in the making but it will be least another five years before the indigenously-built fighter jet Tejas (Mark -II) can be deployed in a combat role, a top Indian Air Force official told NDTV.

This is bad news for India which was hoping to induct the Tejas in large numbers to make-up for its ageing fighter fleet. India will have to decommission about 14 Squadrons of MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters by 2022.

Top IAF officials told NDTV that Tejas (Mark -II) will be fitted with the GE - 414 engine instead of the existing GE- 404 engine to give the aircraft more thrust. "But that would require major changes in the airframe, the lengthy of aircraft will have to increased, air intake vents of the engine re-designed -and ballast - or weight - added to tail section of existing airframe to stabilize the aircraft," the officer told NDTV.

The aircraft will also be fitted with an improved radar to give it the capability to take on targets that are beyond visual range (BVR). The IAF wants Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars. The current version of the aircraft cannot fire missiles at BVR targets.

The Tejas (Mark -I) - the current version which doesn't meet Indian Air Force's combat requirements - is unlikely to get its crucial Final Operational Clearance (FOC) this December, as planned. "There are still some issues that need to sorted and the FOC will be delayed," the officer said.

Recently India opted to buy 36 - about two squadrons - French-built Rafale fighters to plug the growing gaps in capability created by aging and retiring jets. "It is a pragmatic decision" the Rafales will give the IAF some maneuvering room while the Tejas is further refined," the officer added.

Despite pressure to induct fighters in large numbers, the IAF plans to induct about 40 Tejas (Mark-I) fighters in the next few years and use it mainly for training purposes. "As we see it, it is better to wait and get a good fighter then going for Mark-I in its current state of development" the officer added.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 May 2015 12:33

SaiK wrote:Viv S, the problem is the gap building I assume should be less advanced than the Mk2 spec. We have no data to v&v that Uttam spec > Elta 2052. We would permanently put Uttam behind R&D bars for another 30 years in making to match specs. Unless the user feedback by real use, the producer and developer will always have a gap. It is better to supply interim with Uttam 0.1 than Elta 2052., and then upgrade to Uttam 0.2 ... until it matches Elta or whatever specs IAF wants.

fortunately (actually unfortunate as Kaveri is shunned) engine is imported and it is a question of selection onlee.

OTOH, if you say "We suck in engines and radars" big time, I take my arguments back.

I understand your concern here - we may end up with a Mk2 fielding a Elta radar (until the Uttam is 'ready'). But truth is, I can live with that. A domestic radar in my opinion is a 'good-to-have' piece of equipment rather than a 'must-have'.

I'm happy that a significant part of the aircraft is domestically build, but I'm ecstatic about the aircraft being cheap and effective - thus perfectly suited to an air force short on fighters and short of funds (relatively speaking).

The essential thing here is to boost the numbers and generate momentum in the program. In fact, if employing greater proportion of off-the-shelf equipment could have brought the induction date forward by 3-4 years, I would have been all for it. The successful Dhruv program is an apt example.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 May 2015 12:54

Kakkaji wrote:
Viv S wrote:The first Tejas Mk 1.5 prototype/pre-production model is scheduled to fly in 2017. By that point, the first 20 aircraft will be in service and the next 20 in an advanced stage of production.
I think this assumption is too optimistic.

2015 is nearly half over. If the first 20 aircraft are to be in service by 2017, they should have started production work on them by now. How many SPs are on the production line right now?

As a rule of thumb, aircraft production consists of an year in long lead production, an year in manufacture and an year in assembly. So, the number on the assembly line is not necessarily the number in production.

The current plan is to deliver 4 this year (CY not FY), 8 next year and 12 the year after i.e. 2017 (and perhaps 16 subsequently). Even assuming there are delays in that schedule, there is no way the delivery of the 21st SP aircraft can be pushed as far back as 2019 (that's a full two year delay).

And the Mk 1.5 will not be ready for delivery before 2019 (only the prototype will be ready by 2017). More likely 2020. So clearly it refers to an interim batch bridging the Mk1 & Mk2.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 May 2015 13:23

Bhaskar_T wrote:...

Why the Air Force Has to Wait Another 5 Years for Indigenously-Built Tejas Fighter

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-the- ... ter-767111

NEW DELHI: It has been 32 years in the making but it will be least another five years before the indigenously-built fighter jet Tejas (Mark -II) can be deployed in a combat role, a top Indian Air Force official told NDTV.

This is bad news for India which was hoping to induct the Tejas in large numbers to make-up for its ageing fighter fleet. India will have to decommission about 14 Squadrons of MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters by 2022.

Top IAF officials told NDTV that Tejas (Mark -II) will be fitted with the GE - 414 engine instead of the existing GE- 404 engine to give the aircraft more thrust. "But that would require major changes in the airframe, the lengthy of aircraft will have to increased, air intake vents of the engine re-designed -and ballast - or weight - added to tail section of existing airframe to stabilize the aircraft," the officer told NDTV.

The aircraft will also be fitted with an improved radar to give it the capability to take on targets that are beyond visual range (BVR). The IAF wants Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars. The current version of the aircraft cannot fire missiles at BVR targets.

The Tejas (Mark -I) - the current version which doesn't meet Indian Air Force's combat requirements - is unlikely to get its crucial Final Operational Clearance (FOC) this December, as planned. "There are still some issues that need to sorted and the FOC will be delayed," the officer said.

Recently India opted to buy 36 - about two squadrons - French-built Rafale fighters to plug the growing gaps in capability created by aging and retiring jets. "It is a pragmatic decision" the Rafales will give the IAF some maneuvering room while the Tejas is further refined," the officer added.

Despite pressure to induct fighters in large numbers, the IAF plans to induct about 40 Tejas (Mark-I) fighters in the next few years and use it mainly for training purposes. "As we see it, it is better to wait and get a good fighter then going for Mark-I in its current state of development" the officer added.

... says it all doesn't it! Good luck to you LCA.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 30 May 2015 13:51

^^^ Have these air force officers ever heard of the adage: "A bird in hand is better than ..." Either they deliberately just want imports, or they suffer from some mental pathology to keep running after unobtanium while rejecting whatever they have in hand. Is LCA in its current shape better than 90 percent of the planes that Pakis can throw at us? If yes, then what is the problem of these airforce dudes in not accepting it? When LCA Mark II is ready, they will say: "It is better to wait for Mark III -- might as well get the best fighter we can." Modi needs to do one or two dismissals out of the import-loving top brass to get the message home. They refuse to open a design bureau like the navy, act as snooty customers in front of HAL while grovelling before foreign companies, keep making sarcastic comments while having no qualms about draining foreign exchange out of the country for foreign maal ...

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 May 2015 14:01

... says it all doesn't it! Good luck to you LCA.

always maintained: Tejas will not fail because of no other alternative in that category to meet IAF needs. And if at all fails[worst case] then it will be due to supplier side issue.period. all the anonymous quotes articles good for dustbins.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 30 May 2015 14:44

I think it is time to face the hard facts. LCA is not going to fulfill IAF's need.

However, it is desirable to have a fighter industry. Hence Limited mumbers of LCA must be produced to keep the industry alive. Further it must be acknowledged that HAL has not been able to deliver. Indian PSU's need to change the way they are managed. Hence a new company should be set up. based on modern management principles. This can be in governement hands, but a new opperating model is required.

companies like AI, HAL etc should change they way they conduct their business.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 May 2015 15:28

Rishirishi wrote:I think it is time to face the hard facts. LCA is not going to fulfill IAF's need.

There's something very seriously wrong at IAF HQ if they think they can afford the luxury of an aircraft tailored to their 'need'. This is an air force that will continue to operate the MiG-21 upto 2025, the Jaguar upto 2030, and is facing a shortage of combat aircraft so acute, that its planning to weaponize its AJTs (which BTW cost just around 25% less per unit than the Tejas).

One can only hope that the DM doesn't get swayed by this nonsense and expressly stamps out such pointless cribbing.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 30 May 2015 15:40

Rishirishi wrote:I think it is time to face the hard facts. LCA is not going to fulfill IAF's need.

Who decides that "need"? The same generals who want nothing but imports! Maybe the "need" is deliberately kept at a level that the indigenous industry cannot fulfill? And once the industry becomes capable of meeting that need, the "need" inexplicably rises again to a level which only imports can fulfill? In short, there may be a deliberate strategy to keep the "need" just beyond the limits of the Indian industry. And even when the need gets fulfilled by Indian industry, the generals still wants imports (Arjun v/s T 90). One or two sackings by Parrikar may be in order to bring the generals to heel. They are deliberately not allowing a military-industrial complex to develop in India, while China races ahead.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 May 2015 16:06

The desi MIl-Industrial complex already exists in India.It is called the "DRDO",under which a galaxy of "navaratnas" /DPSUs,produce usually at their own sweet time,mainstream milware which are supposed to be the cutting edge of the armed forces. It is the incompetence and poor management skills of this desi mil-ind complex that is in question. No amount of ranting at firang entities will whitewash the failings of HAL,etc.,whose excuses now fail to elicit any sympathy,as two successive DMs have castigated the entity for excruciating delays in several major projects like the LCA,etc.

So if the IAF,who were press-ganged into buying 40 of the first batch of the LCA Mk-1s are going to "wait and see" how the aircraft performs before ordering anew,as the above poster said it well, it "says it all...!"

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 May 2015 17:07

Bhaskar_T wrote:I can understand when top IAF officers say that IAF will have to wait for another 5 (minimum) to get Tejas-MK2 & hence replacement of Mig-21 and Mig-27 is an issue since they don't want to replace them with Tejas-MK1. But why IAF says that FOC will not happen Dec 2015 - Has ADA/HAL/MOD confirmed this?

Why the Air Force Has to Wait Another 5 Years for Indigenously-Built Tejas Fighter

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-the- ... ter-767111

NEW DELHI: It has been 32 years in the making but it will be least another five years before the indigenously-built fighter jet Tejas (Mark -II) can be deployed in a combat role, a top Indian Air Force official told NDTV. :You know who is that TOP INDIAN AIR FORCE OFFICER is? Please note it is only one here. No it is a secret after all he is leaking out military secrets - haniji? And Mk 2 has been in development for 32 years

This is bad news for India which was hoping to induct the Tejas in large numbers to make-up for its ageing fighter fleet. India will have to decommission about 14 Squadrons of MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters by 2022.: Tejas Mk 2 now becomes Tejas - nice

Top IAF officials (more than one official and all TOP) told NDTV that Tejas (Mark -II) will be fitted with the GE - 414 engine instead of the existing GE- 404 engine to give the aircraft more thrust. "But that would require major changes in the airframe, the lengthy of aircraft will have to increased, air intake vents of the engine re-designed -and ballast - or weight - added to tail section of existing airframe to stabilize the aircraft," the officer told NDTV.: Now where is the nose cone in the tail section of the Tejas with the ballast requiring to change the lengthy of the aircraft?

The aircraft will also be fitted with an improved radar to give it the capability to take on targets that are beyond visual range (BVR). The IAF wants Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radars. The current version of the aircraft cannot fire missiles at BVR targets.: So not fitted with BVR missiles is the point - in Mk 1 or Mk 2? Basically what is the type this article is about?

The Tejas (Mark -I) - the current version which doesn't meet Indian Air Force's combat requirements - is unlikely to get its crucial Final Operational Clearance (FOC) this December, as planned. "There are still some issues that need to sorted and the FOC will be delayed," the officer said.: Only one unnamed officer again, waah bhai waah - musical chair eliminated the rest

Recently India opted to buy 36 - about two squadrons - French-built Rafale fighters to plug the growing gaps in capability created by aging and retiring jets. "It is a pragmatic decision" the Rafales will give the IAF some maneuvering room while the Tejas is further refined," the officer added.

Despite pressure to induct fighters in large numbers, the IAF plans to induct about 40 Tejas (Mark-I) fighters in the next few years and use it mainly for training purposes. "As we see it, it is better to wait and get a good fighter then going for Mark-I in its current state of development" the officer added. By now it is only officer so I presume it is the Officer who is in the Grippen Lobby or whatsthat fighter from Russia lobby or the Shornet Lobby or who does the NDTV group support again lobby, who has suddenly decided to use the IAF for cover fire for mass consumption but look who bites, the aviation enthusiasts on BRF who take no time in bashing the IAF 'coz its convenient.

For all the IAF bashing going on above based on this article, I have just changed the emphasis and some comments in blue. Decide whether it is DDM or IAF or may be suddenly NDTV is the most authentic news source or maybe IAF bashing is good for ....? I think as long it is Bash the IAF, who wants to check. Sound big, bash on regardless.

IAF in its offcial statements on such programmes will speak through an identified authority and he / she will be named with designation which will qualify as to how he / she can make that comment with authority. I am sure the big and mighty above can or should have figured out that by now.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 May 2015 18:26

^A law must be made to ban these unnamed sources from the presstitute business. They must be forced to either name their sources or not put up their farticle at all. We will then see how many of these "sources" then rant on like drunken old men.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 30 May 2015 18:31

Arun Menon wrote:^A law must be made to ban these unnamed sources from the presstitute business. They must be forced to either name their sources or not put up their farticle at all. We will then see how many of these "sources" then rant on like drunken old men.

+1000 fully support your view.

I believe these presstitutes just use this unnamed source thing to carry out their own agenda!!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 May 2015 18:49

so now we have the unseemly spectacle of a f16, rafale, gripen and eurofighter flying around europe with no AESA, and no money to get it fleetwide either and it suddenly becomes a crying need for IAF's "low end" fighter to get FOC, when there is no reliable and proven AESA soln for the "high end" . the Irbis-E will likely need a few years and 500 mil of our money to make seaworthy.

the games go on.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 May 2015 19:11

Singha, Irbis-E is PESA. Good enough for Su35. But for the LCA, only AESA can do.

Since current LCA has MSA and BVR, its not true BVR, per unnamed IAF officer and NDTV.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2015 19:37

NaMo has to fire a few IAF for gross negligence for all the fighter crashes and not having plan B.

this helps helps usher in CDS as IAF is the biggest hurdle for CDS appointment.

Next a few IA armored corp generals for making improvements to Arjun tank that increase the total weight by 4 tonnes from 60 tonnes to 64 tonnes when principal opposition was due to its weight.

And the MOD babus in charge of Air Force and Army should be retired immediately.

I think we should also retire some of our members who plug for imports no matter what.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 May 2015 20:03

Article like these are the challenges that the Indian military industrial complex must overcome. The extent of DRDO bashing in the article and by BRF's Russian fanboy is a testament to their success and how close their major weapons are to fruition. They need to deliver and prove their worth to the nation.

If DRDO is smart then it will understand that it needs to play to the corrupt system and not remain doodh se dhula. Money talks and is the motivation for articles like this.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 May 2015 20:11

Karan M wrote:Singha, Irbis-E is PESA. Good enough for Su35. But for the LCA, only AESA can do.
Since current LCA has MSA and BVR, its not true BVR, per unnamed IAF officer and NDTV.

Analysing FUD is impossible. Logic (Reason) will never succeed in deciphering Lobby. BTW, the article has been scripted by one :

Written by Sudhi Ranjan Sen

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 May 2015 21:48

deejay wrote:For all the IAF bashing going on above based on this article, I have just changed the emphasis and some comments in blue. Decide whether it is DDM or IAF or may be suddenly NDTV is the most authentic news source or maybe IAF bashing is good for ....? I think as long it is Bash the IAF, who wants to check. Sound big, bash on regardless.

IAF in its offcial statements on such programmes will speak through an identified authority and he / she will be named with designation which will qualify as to how he / she can make that comment with authority. I am sure the big and mighty above can or should have figured out that by now.

I might have agreed if this were the only time we'd heard comments to the same effect. But there are dozens of articles out there saying the same - 'not satisfied', 'ASR not met', 'three legged cheetah', 'MiG-21++', and numerous other such comments made by retired and serving senior officers, apparently oblivious to the limitations of the nation's resources.

disha · Post by **disha** » 30 May 2015 22:06

ramana wrote: I think we should also retire some of our members who plug for imports no matter what.

I always thought charity begins at home!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 May 2015 22:30

Viv S wrote:
deejay wrote:For all the IAF bashing going on above based on this article, I have just changed the emphasis and some comments in blue. Decide whether it is DDM or IAF or may be suddenly NDTV is the most authentic news source or maybe IAF bashing is good for ....? I think as long it is Bash the IAF, who wants to check. Sound big, bash on regardless.

IAF in its offcial statements on such programmes will speak through an identified authority and he / she will be named with designation which will qualify as to how he / she can make that comment with authority. I am sure the big and mighty above can or should have figured out that by now.
I might have agreed if this were the only time we'd heard comments to the same effect. But there are dozens of articles out there saying the same - 'not satisfied', 'ASR not met', 'three legged cheetah', 'MiG-21++', and numerous other such comments made by retired and serving senior officers, apparently oblivious to the limitations of the nation's resources.

Do you have names other that the great Strategic Advisor to the HAL?

Reaction to people in authority making comments is correct and just criticism. Reacting to plain DDMitis is naive. High level officers have been found on both sides of the LCA saga - for and against. Where institutionally IAF has erred with respect to LCA has been documented well here.

What is missed when one jumps on DDM article to criticize IAF is the the real reason for planting of the article when it surfaced. Folks read the article and bash the IAF. IAF folks read the reaction and become more hardlined in their positions. The wedge drives deeper. Who lost? Who gained?

Read the news for what it is and focus the criticism to where it should be focused. You participate on BRF and like most here have adopted an anti IAF viewpoint. Those in IAF read these articles and go all anti DRDO. No one sees that small gaps between IAF and Indian MIC are becoming gaping canyons / crevasses / chasms / gorges. Where will one find common ground if such stupid attempts drive such strong and poorly thought of reactions.

As an aside - I had missed this news and did not know of whats happening on the thread when a serving IAF lurker buzzed me on the reactions on the piece. He was convinced, just like you that the news was right. I am sure when I point out to him, he will say the same thing - Okay not this time, but there have been so many occasions where DRDO guys have missed on delivering. And I will say - Advantage Import Lobby.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 May 2015 23:23

Deejay, fair points. Why then does the IAF not publicly counter such motivated trash from NDTV? Thats the only way to prevent these vested interests from doing divide and rule.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 May 2015 23:56

deejay wrote:Do you have names other that the great Strategic Advisor to the HAL?

'Tejas, A Three-Legged Cheetah' - Air Marshal V.K Bhatia

"At present it is not a fourth generation aircraft. It will come up, but at present it is not." "MiG-21++" - ACM P V Naik

Then we have others like VK Thakur. Unfortunately, they rather glaringly overlook the Tejas' USP : its fantastic cost. This while having no problem ordering a full squadron of foreign AJTs (at a near comparable cost) for a display team.

Reaction to people in authority making comments is correct and just criticism. Reacting to plain DDMitis is naive. High level officers have been found on both sides of the LCA saga - for and against. Where institutionally IAF has erred with respect to LCA has been documented well here.

I promise my tune will change the instant the IAF gets on board. Really gets on-board. The way the USAF is with the F-35, the PAF with the JF-17, the PLAAF with the J-10, AdlA with the Rafale and so on. When the IAF sees the Tejas for the fantastic opportunity it is, rather than the obligation they think it is, that's when I'll consider it a participant not an observer/customer.

What is missed when one jumps on DDM article to criticize IAF is the the real reason for planting of the article when it surfaced. Folks read the article and bash the IAF. IAF folks read the reaction and become more hardlined in their positions. The wedge drives deeper. Who lost? Who gained?

Do IAF folks (aside from a handful) actually the read the reaction? I suspect those who do aren't hampered by the institutional inertia that dogs Air HQ.

Read the news for what it is and focus the criticism to where it should be focused. You participate on BRF and like most here have adopted an anti IAF viewpoint. Those in IAF read these articles and go all anti DRDO. No one sees that small gaps between IAF and Indian MIC are becoming gaping canyons / crevasses / chasms / gorges. Where will one find common ground if such stupid attempts drive such strong and poorly thought of reactions.

I'm hardly a cog in the system. I doubt my opinions make any difference whatsoever to the enlightened individuals taking these calls (and by extension, sharing responsibility with our mandarins, for our current predicament).

As an aside - I had missed this news and did not know of whats happening on the thread when a serving IAF lurker buzzed me on the reactions on the piece. He was convinced, just like you that the news was right. I am sure when I point out to him, he will say the same thing - Okay not this time, but there have been so many occasions where DRDO guys have missed on delivering. And I will say - Advantage Import Lobby.

We have IAF lurkers?!!

Seriously? Young officers with Facebook open in the next tab, or mid-level/senior gents too?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 May 2015 01:14

The plan B perhaps is raise RAW army, air-force and navy. CIA and special ops are funded in a separate budget directly under the command of POTUS. These RAW equipment needs can satisfy at least the #MakeInIndia movement. Where there is a will, there is a way!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 31 May 2015 06:52

Viv S wrote:
deejay wrote:Do you have names other that the great Strategic Advisor to the HAL?
'Tejas, A Three-Legged Cheetah' - Air Marshal V.K Bhatia

"At present it is not a fourth generation aircraft. It will come up, but at present it is not." "MiG-21++" - ACM P V Naik

Then we have others like VK Thakur. Unfortunately, they rather glaringly overlook the Tejas' USP : its fantastic cost. This while having no problem ordering a full squadron of foreign AJTs (at a near comparable cost) for a display team.

Reaction to people in authority making comments is correct and just criticism. Reacting to plain DDMitis is naive. High level officers have been found on both sides of the LCA saga - for and against. Where institutionally IAF has erred with respect to LCA has been documented well here.
I promise my tune will change the instant the IAF gets on board. Really gets on-board. The way the USAF is with the F-35, the PAF with the JF-17, the PLAAF with the J-10, AdlA with the Rafale and so on. When the IAF sees the Tejas for the fantastic opportunity it is, rather than the obligation they think it is, that's when I'll consider it a participant not an observer/customer.

What is missed when one jumps on DDM article to criticize IAF is the the real reason for planting of the article when it surfaced. Folks read the article and bash the IAF. IAF folks read the reaction and become more hardlined in their positions. The wedge drives deeper. Who lost? Who gained?

Do IAF folks (aside from a handful) actually the read the reaction? I suspect those who do aren't hampered by the institutional inertia that dogs Air HQ.

Read the news for what it is and focus the criticism to where it should be focused. You participate on BRF and like most here have adopted an anti IAF viewpoint. Those in IAF read these articles and go all anti DRDO. No one sees that small gaps between IAF and Indian MIC are becoming gaping canyons / crevasses / chasms / gorges. Where will one find common ground if such stupid attempts drive such strong and poorly thought of reactions.
I'm hardly a cog in the system. I doubt my opinions make any difference whatsoever to the enlightened individuals taking these calls (and by extension, sharing responsibility with our mandarins, for our current predicament).

As an aside - I had missed this news and did not know of whats happening on the thread when a serving IAF lurker buzzed me on the reactions on the piece. He was convinced, just like you that the news was right. I am sure when I point out to him, he will say the same thing - Okay not this time, but there have been so many occasions where DRDO guys have missed on delivering. And I will say - Advantage Import Lobby.
We have IAF lurkers?!! Seriously? Young officers with Facebook open in the next tab, or mid-level/senior gents too?

Viv S now do you have names for those who have spoken in favour of LCA?

IAF lurkers or not or how many is not important, our falling in to the trap of DDM is, but you don't see it do you?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 May 2015 09:25

ramana wrote:NaMo has to fire a few IAF for gross negligence for all the fighter crashes and not having plan B.

this helps helps usher in CDS as IAF is the biggest hurdle for CDS appointment.

Next a few IA armored corp generals for making improvements to Arjun tank that increase the total weight by 4 tonnes from 60 tonnes to 64 tonnes when principal opposition was due to its weight.

And the MOD babus in charge of Air Force and Army should be retired immediately.

I think we should also retire some of our members who plug for imports no matter what.

+100 Ramana-garu! But so far, Modi Sarkar only fired Avinash Chander unceremoniously, while the whine-fest from other parties have continued unabated.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 May 2015 10:07

pretty powerful post there ramana.

in the name of security, we can't be allowed to be less secure.

this is serious lax!

we need a time-bound action /counter plan to all CAG reports, that is also grossly ignoring security aspects and mil ops.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 31 May 2015 11:15

LCA can also be procured under G2G route from HAL. Give them firm order and ask them to set up adequate facility to produce in required numbers. MK-I would do initially. Additional lines could be set up to do upgrades and MK-II later. Transfer funds from IAF budget to escrow account to be utilised by HAL for this purpose and set up monitoring board for maintaining timelines on Production. ADA should be asked to speed up MK-II. IAF should be asked to go for IOC-II cleared tranche and use them as replacement for MIG 21. Ramana's guilotine should be applied to anyone doing Yak Yak. While selecting next Chief and Vicde Chief investigate their preferences for LCA and MII and overlook anyone with express preference for imports. Same for IA not opting for Arjun. In fact VKS was laughed upon when he initiated using Tech Know How for manufacturing Bofors 155 in India. We need more VKS type .