LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2015 20:33

Actually, that interview was completely spoiled by the interviewer who wanted to put words into the ex chiefs' mouth. There was only three things that came out 1. LCA cannot replace the Rafale, 2. Practically, one has to have a balanced mix of airplanes with 50-60% of the planes being of the "best quality" type, and 3. that IAF needs squadrons.

All three points are valid. But I have a few questions for the chiefs.
1. I agree x number of LCA Mk1s cannot replace y number of Rafales. But the example reason that Fali Major gave is off the mark, especially coming from an ex IAF chief. Going through the window on a sixth floor of a building is a feature of the weapon system, not the plane. In this case, both the targetting system and the LGBs on LCA are currently not indigeneous and both are world class. The biggest problem with LCAs is its empty weight. Because it is higher than what was originally planned, the payload of the plane has taken a hit. Therefore, true swing-role capability with sufficient fuel has taken a hit. Also some A2A charectiristics have taken a hit. In future, LCA Mk2 can replace Rafales if they have the same range as the Rafales, and are equally technologically advanced. Then somebody has to show how 2 LCA Mk2s are less than 1 Rafale. And if they come at one third the price, and made in India, then somebody give a good reason. I can see none.

2. I don't know of any airforce where the best planes make up 50-60% of the fighter strength, is there?

3. How does one build up squadrons with literally the second (possibly the) most expensive plane in production in the world?

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Jun 2015 20:35

chaanakya wrote:However, can you explain how a single engine light plane could be replacement for Twin engine heavier plane?

Why not ? Not only was the original aircraft that was sought to be augmented in numbers - the M2K - but one of the most prominent MMRCA contenders - the F16 - were both single engine aircraft. The F16 was never disqualified outright from participation in the competition, on that basis. So why's a single engine LCA unacceptable ?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Jun 2015 20:43

the F16 in its current form is far from the "light plane" it started its life off as...

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 05 Jun 2015 20:54

^^ All the people getting into light, medium etc etc "classification" saying how one does not replace another etc etc ...
.
.
in the last 10 years, in all practical sense,
.
.
modern artilary for IA
MMRCA for IAF,
submarines for IN
.
.
has been replaced by MNREGA alone.

That is the reality. Sabse bada hai ........ you know what.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Jun 2015 21:00

Lalmohan wrote:the F16 in its current form is far from the "light plane" it started its life off as...

I was waiting for that. Gripen is not just lighter and much closer to the LCA in weight class, but also single engine. But it wasn't disqualified either. Somehow, the LCA is, though.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jun 2015 21:04

Gripen and F-16 seems to be the only two A/cs with single engine. Both got rejected. However can you compare F-16 and LCA and how LCA could fit in Medium weight A/cs with different operational profile , range, and payload? My understanding was that MMRCA was to replace M2K, Jag, MIG 29 etc. LCA , unless it become MCA with higher thrust, longer range, more fuel and weapons payload, can not replace MMRCA. That is a long way ahead. It is again my understanding that LCA was supposed to be replacement of MIG 21/27. I

The medium weight region was populated by Jaguars,Mirage-2000s, Mig-23 variants and MiG-29s. This segment of the fighter fleet required being modernised and a suitable contender to replace these older fighters, which were rapidly nearing the end of their useful service lives, was searched for starting in the early 1990s.

I could be entirely wrong and you can always enlighten me and others.

BTW I am supporting LCA not otherwise but perhaps we can't overlook the "immediate" requirement of IAF without compromising operational readiness, hence 36 Rafale might meet the gap.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jun 2015 21:05

Cosmo_R wrote:
shiv wrote:.... What has happened now is that the LCA is almost there but the Rafale has not come. It appears that the LCA - late as it is will still not come in the numbers needed for operational readiness. ....
..
This is the part I don't understand. If a few LCA can be inducted, why can the production not be ramped up? It does not have to be done by HAL which really has limited experience of assembly line manufacturing.

I really don't see the Rafale as a gap filler especially when only 36 are to be bought. It seems more like a sop to the French and to the IAF. Putting it into the 'SFC' deflects criticism for the half-a$$ed procurement methodology. Presumably you then shift the 40 MKIs back into the general pool.

Plan B is not a good way to run an airforce.

Well 40 why were only 40 Mirage 2000s bought in the 1980s.? Was that also sop for French?

If HAL cannot ramp up production it means that any one or more of a number of sub-assembly and component suppliers are not yet ready to produce the volume and quality required. Also recall that (as I have heard) suitably shaped and alloyed aviation grade Aluminium for LCA comes from France and those people have back orders from dozens of plane manufacturers all over the world. You order today, wait for your turn and take delivery after a long time.

The LCA numbers will come eventually, but IAF squadron strength will have gone down by that time. So no option but to start getting something else. We may get 36 Rafales and no more. On the other hand if LCA has further delays - more Rafales may have to be ordered.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Jun 2015 21:07

Borrowing a phrase from the Armoured Vehicles Thread, LCA does not have the "pleasing finish or the aesthetic appeal" of the F-16 or the smoky Mig-29!!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jun 2015 21:15

Ramping up the production of LCA presents and entirely different sets of Problems in Industrial production Management. It includes setting up of assembly lines, ancillary industries to supply various parts etc. quality control management. You can not ask private sector to set up industries to manufacture critical and non critical parts that go into LCA for just 40 on order. HAL can do it with available lines but time required would be longer. You also need people with required skill in sufficient number and train them and retain them in various units. That takes time but could be done. That is why I advocate private industries participation and campus selection for manpower to be trained, taking into account retention rate or attrition rate.
Follow Tranche/Block philosophy and order 400 + to be built in next 20 years with upgrades and new variants etc. That will spur the MIC.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Jun 2015 21:22

chaanakya wrote:Gripen and F-16 seems to be the only two A/cs with single engine. Both got rejected. However can you compare F-16 and LCA and how LCA could fit in Medium weight A/cs with different operational profile , range, and payload? My understanding was that MMRCA was to replace M2K, Jag, MIG 29 etc. LCA , unless it become MCA with higher thrust, longer range, more fuel and weapons payload, can not replace MMRCA.

Why not ? Various contenders present compromises in weight, capability, generational technologies, and even number of engines, but 'medium' is somehow outside of the LCA's purview. It wasn't even the MMRCA competition originally, just the MRCA competition. The second M came later, and really amounts to creating parameters to narrow down a choice, as opposed to the other way around. As long as LCA can satisfy multirole operations, then considering the current attrition levels, the IAF would be very well served by inducting it in numbers, and progressively operating improved tranches. But all that amounts to too much sense.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jun 2015 21:30

Of course , why not? If it does then why not? After 36 we can always go for it.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jun 2015 21:39

LCA in numbers can give Swarming effect/ phenomena for targeting systems/radars. They have limits.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jun 2015 21:43

Suraj wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:the F16 in its current form is far from the "light plane" it started its life off as...
I was waiting for that. Gripen is not just lighter and much closer to the LCA in weight class, but also single engine. But it wasn't disqualified either. Somehow, the LCA is, though.

They did participate but got disqualified in technical rounds.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Jun 2015 21:51

chaanakya wrote:
Suraj wrote:I was waiting for that. Gripen is not just lighter and much closer to the LCA in weight class, but also single engine. But it wasn't disqualified either. Somehow, the LCA is, though.
They did participate but got disqualified in technical rounds.

Not for being single engined, or F16 would have been simultaneously dismissed too. In fact, if it were a factor, their candidacy would have been rejected. That alone proves single engine was not a factor.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jun 2015 21:55

OK

But have you factored that we would be testing A/cs operated by other Airforce and gathering huge data about them. By rejecting ab initio we would miss out on this opportunity though sure to reject in the end. F-16/Gripen info is to be collected otherwise by other means.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2015 22:03

Chaanakya,

Please don't write qualitative terms like "swarm effects" etc. Speak in terms of capabilities and then we will have a discussion on our hands. What is it that a Rafale can two LCA Mk2s cannot? Is it range? Is it payload? Is it combat potential? Is it price? What is it?

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Jun 2015 22:12

chaanakya wrote:But have you factored that we would be testing A/cs operated by other Airforce and gathering huge data about them. By rejecting ab initio we would miss out on this opportunity though sure to reject in the end. F-16/Gripen info is to be collected otherwise by other means.

The genesis of the MRCA program was to 'bid fairly', rather than purchase another 126 M2Ks - a single engined plane that the LCA has significant capability overlap with today. This entire sequence of posts amount to attempting to justify the process of the deal after the fact.

The detractors of the LCA claim the LCA was originally meant to replace the MiG-21. Fine. But the MRCA program was originally just an effort to buy more M2Ks. Rather than do so, the French wanted to sell the Rafale for more, and the others offered their own, and we convinced ourselves we needed something more. It went to such an extent that the MRCA deal tried to justify the need for F-35s. The whole thing is a clusterfcuk of epic proportions, as a result.

The LCA in its current and 1.5 form can accomplish what was sought of the M2K at the outset of the MRCA deal; in Mk 1.5/2 form it can even accomplish a significant part of the Rafale's capability, with potential to close the gap. That alone should be sufficient cause for its induction, because it provides the IAF a means to address operational gaps left behind by multiple aircraft, with the ability of domestic military industrial base to expand upon the platform further, if the IAF backs it.

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 05 Jun 2015 22:38

indranilroy wrote:Chaanakya,

Please don't write qualitative terms like "swarm effects" etc. Speak in terms of capabilities and then we will have a discussion on our hands. What is it that a Rafale can two LCA Mk2s cannot? Is it range? Is it payload? Is it combat potential? Is it price? What is it?

Cost

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jun 2015 22:43

^^^"Well 40 why were only 40 Mirage 2000s bought in the 1980s.? Was that also sop for French? "

That was a sop for the USSR. They kaiboshed the M2K license production by insisting on MiG-29s

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2015 22:55

The Rafale is okay in comparison with "ready to war" specs and needs...where LCA might not compare against Rafale (just for okay/not okay war readiness comparison and not feature/roles).. so, LCA may not be okay for IAF is acceptable. But then if you include the roles, then we have to see what roles LCA can satisfy as is now? from there begin operationalizing the puppy.

slowly, but steadily LCA will become OK for IAF. no second choice.. sorry., please participate in making the LCA another Rafale of the future.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Jun 2015 23:18

The Rafale is okay in comparison with "ready to war" specs and needs...where LCA might not compare against Rafale (just for okay/not okay war readiness comparison and not feature/roles).. so, LCA may not be okay for IAF is acceptable.

This is the fundamental problem with the argument - the fudging of the 'need' case. The requirement was the MRCA, which in turn was a 'fair' bidding process for more M2Ks, which in turn is a light/medium single engine fighter.

The Rafale, and therefore its suite of capabilites, is not the need. It is just the winning option in a competition, that the IAF has convinced itself is what it needs. To go back and say 'we needed a twin-engine aircraft of Rafale's capability therefore LCA is not a good MRCA candidate' is a convenient obfuscation of the entire argument. The MRCA process is not, and never was, an attempt to buy 'something like the Rafale'.

The LCA in its present form would be augment the IAF's operational needs whether it is Mig21++ or M2K+/- , depending on which set of attributes you look at. It would do so cheaply, and give the IAF the ability to field successive tranches of increased capability levels.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2015 23:43

yes.. the fact of the problem is the obfuscation of actual needs under a new definitions of 'what they mean by needs' that gets aperiodic changes based on what IAF considers as need, per threats, capabilities and roles they play. therefore, IAF has an upper hand in determining the needs (just leaving aside politics for now, and for the same reason, I want a "quota like" system with in IAF to source materials.. (i think new defence acquisition documents /read: AKA, does that). IAF has to realize that change, and it would be a big effort.. like someone quoted here, better change or we will change you.,. appoint a lower rank afsar as chief post.

You are darn right on what LCA will fit in and how they can be put into use for enhancing existing capabilities or establishing new capabilities. Perhaps a capability driven architecture is where, we should now redefine everything for IAF. JSF folks did something very similar.. but that is dragged due to some other problems.

mistakes of all can be correct, if they are willing to correct it. Also, we cant just bluntly say, (no matter how right we are) that LCA can satisfy these roles for you, so use it. we can't say that but IAF can. We can only ask for what do you think LCA is lacking.. (IAF honestly says it in tranche/block/ based specification PLM process), and IAF clearly accepts it based on those basis per what has achieved by milestones as Tranches.. who is stopping us having 16 versions of LCA?

but, for each version, we want IAF to have at the very least 2 squadrons (mandated) delivered per 2 year basis after FOC. That way, we engage both IAF and DRDO in this demand/supply chain, which will become the backbone of Make In India for IAF.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jun 2015 01:13

1. Aerodynamically, it is hard for me to see why 2 LCA Mk2s cannot rival 1 Rafale. I argue that the two LCA Mk2s carrying the same weapons payload as a single Rafale will have same or better range, and same or better TWR. On the other hand 2 LCAs Mk2s will have numerical supremacy over a single Rafale. But wait, one can get 3-4 LCA Mk2s at the price of one Rafale.

2. There are other kind of problems in a light fighter versus a medium weight fighter, aka volume. All the electronics that can be fitted onto a medium sized fighter is difficult to fit inside the more constricted space of a light weight fighter. This can be solved too. Not all LCAs need to be configured the same way.

3. Radar related. While radars on LCA cannot match the radar of the Su-30s (simply by the size), the size of Rafale's radar is a completely different matter. And if the measures taken for RCS reduction on the Rafale are used on the LCA, it will have equivalent or smaller RCS. On the other hand if you can field 3 LCAs in place of 1 Rafale, one has 3 radars scanning the horizon, a much better capability.

4. Technological advancements in terms of LRUs. In this aspect the Rafale is really ahead of the LCA in quiet a few aspects. But hello they is something called MLU. And is there an imminent war on the horizon?

5. There is the difficulty of training two pilots instead of one. This is especially pertinent when training a pilot was a sizeable percentage of the cost of the fighter. But that was 20-30 years ago and with planes like the Mig-21s. Not with planes which cost 200 million dollars a piece!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Jun 2015 01:24

Rohitvats ji

I am just giving a "civilian" observation on that program which was meant to educate Indians about this topic. I am using this definition of pompous when I used that word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pompous).

I can write more details why I got that opinion of those two gentlemen but it wouldn't add much to the discussion other than further analyzing the messenger, message, medium and audience.

Let's leave it that.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Jun 2015 02:09

I come from ITVity so I am using that lingo.

Often Indian IT services companies do lot of custom design/development work for US/EU companies. We develop very good s/w for our customers, often at product (not custom application) quality. In other words with minor changes and small overhead the same software can be configured for another customer with similar but distinct business flow and advantage.

In these models, the IP and end product is often handed over to the customer. I remember people working on design & hi tech projects for F50 companies and they developed lot of IP for their customers.

My question is, why can't GoI start two parallel projects to develop custom jet engines from scratch for given specifications using US/EU vendors with the final IP remaining in India? They can pay top $ for these engineers and researchers in time and material basis. By infusing some Indian resources in the mix we should be able to get the final product close to our requirements.

Let's assume the vendor is GE. Would it be interested to bid for such a project? If Yes, will it be able to collect and send those engineers to India to work on I1B visas like H1B visas? Since this is custom product development will it be able to let the IP handed over to India?

Will US/EU laws allow their companies to work in India on such projects? Would it be against WTO? Can A GE go against US/EU to get the business (reminds me of the discussion I had on my blog about this aspect - will US Kshatriya allow the Vaisyas to set their base outside continental US?) and so on...

At this point, assuming international jet engine manfucaturers get involved, getting LCA spec jet engine manufacture is more of engineering aspect than research aspect except SCB. Even that is an engineering issue than research because the technology already exists, proven to work and is in use.

Bigger the problem, bigger the opportunity. I would rather spend $10B on developing two models of jet engines from scratch in India than buying additional 90 MMRCA aircraft.

Some study on this aspect: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MR1596.pdf

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jun 2015 02:37

project is fine.. but it has to be my father and yours to hand over the IP to desh! come on yama r!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Jun 2015 02:52

SaiK wrote:project is fine.. but it has to be my father and yours to hand over the IP to desh! come on yama r!

The work happens at client site, that is in India.

They removed the hours from the link I posted. But I don't think jet engine project wont be more than a 5 million hour project. Pay $500-1000/hr and people will come. Can be done.

Sometimes I wish I win powerball lattery. Like that spaceX guy, I would start a Krishna (dark) jet engine project. Why don't you & batori saab put a cloud source project, I will pitchin.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jun 2015 04:17

call me when you get the money.. you don't pay me a single penny till IAF buys the first engine. I am game. I can massage the young brains to deliver.

putting imaginations aside, incremental progress is what measures. data collection is important.. for example: put that darn whatever spec Kaveri we got on LCA (since they said it was tested out on the IL76.. is good enough).

unless we burn it on the puppy, the burn data can't be obtained. just an example.

there are lot of things that is missing in managing the project. it could be some lethargic old genes that is making this go this way.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jun 2015 04:18

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"Well 40 why were only 40 Mirage 2000s bought in the 1980s.? Was that also sop for French? "

That was a sop for the USSR. They kaiboshed the M2K license production by insisting on MiG-29s

Also BCCI financing for Mirages.

kittigadu · Post by **kittigadu** » 06 Jun 2015 04:44

Interesting thought. GE US cannot, since it is against ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations).

But GE India could. GE US employees will probably be able to consult on non-export license required part of the technology,
but cannot consult on technology that requires license, example for jet engines - Hot Section of the engine and Materials.

It is another matter, if GE or Pratt or Rolls will give away IP for money. Maybe if the price is right.

RamaY wrote:I come from ITVity so I am using that lingo.

Often Indian IT services companies do lot of custom design/development work for US/EU companies. We develop very good s/w for our customers, often at product (not custom application) quality. In other words with minor changes and small overhead the same software can be configured for another customer with similar but distinct business flow and advantage.

In these models, the IP and end product is often handed over to the customer. I remember people working on design & hi tech projects for F50 companies and they developed lot of IP for their customers.

My question is, why can't GoI start two parallel projects to develop custom jet engines from scratch for given specifications using US/EU vendors with the final IP remaining in India? They can pay top $ for these engineers and researchers in time and material basis. By infusing some Indian resources in the mix we should be able to get the final product close to our requirements.

Let's assume the vendor is GE. Would it be interested to bid for such a project? If Yes, will it be able to collect and send those engineers to India to work on I1B visas like H1B visas? Since this is custom product development will it be able to let the IP handed over to India?

Will US/EU laws allow their companies to work in India on such projects? Would it be against WTO? Can A GE go against US/EU to get the business (reminds me of the discussion I had on my blog about this aspect - will US Kshatriya allow the Vaisyas to set their base outside continental US?) and so on...

At this point, assuming international jet engine manfucaturers get involved, getting LCA spec jet engine manufacture is more of engineering aspect than research aspect except SCB. Even that is an engineering issue than research because the technology already exists, proven to work and is in use.

Bigger the problem, bigger the opportunity. I would rather spend $10B on developing two models of jet engines from scratch in India than buying additional 90 MMRCA aircraft.

Some study on this aspect: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MR1596.pdf

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 06 Jun 2015 04:56

ITAR not IB4TL would lock out all US engineers. No cannot work in India without violating US laws...which means will be stuck in India forever. Now the question is will even Russian or European retired engineers be willing to relocate and work given enough incentives.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2015 05:14

India has already made several engines - staring from the HJE 2500 in the sixties to Kaveri today, and that HAL engine in a few months. We do not have a multi engine test bed to which we can hook up an engine and see what it does. Unless we seriously invest in the infrastructure required to test engines - getting engineers to design and make them is pointless. Hundreds of young Indian engineers have passed through the portals of GTRE and have left in frustration saying "Nothing is happening".

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 06 Jun 2015 05:53

GTRE started the GATET initiative a couple of years back. We havent heard anything significant on that except a few news items. Anyone know of tangible benefits from that initiative?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2015 06:04

F18 has a hands off automatic takeoff system.pilot just needs to sit back and get launched

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Jun 2015 07:11

I think we can start from the basic on what we need. To fight TSP, how many air superiority fighter we need, and how many ground attacks (and in the middle multi-role which does both, decreasing numbers needed). What are the possible thrust area for fighting (cold start or the older fight with three reserve corps and some 9 standing corps). How many sorties needed per day to attack, to defend and to maintain air superiority. Then add to the mixture the ability to stand up to Chinese, or possibly fight two front wars. We have x planes already how many extra will we need? It may turn out that maybe 126 Rafale is not needed, and at half the price of that, some 150 SU30MKI and 150 LCA can equally do the job. 150 SU30MKI can be had faster, HAL is screwing (as in screw driving) the last batch of SU30MKI kits, it will have nothing starting next year. This thing needs some serious analysis.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jun 2015 07:41

shiv wrote:Hundreds of young Indian engineers have passed through the portals of GTRE and have left in frustration saying "Nothing is happening".

enough reason to sack the existing setup, and reorg this group

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Jun 2015 09:13

fanne wrote:I think we can start from the basic on what we need. To fight TSP, how many air superiority fighter we need, and how many ground attacks (and in the middle multi-role which does both, decreasing numbers needed). What are the possible thrust area for fighting (cold start or the older fight with three reserve corps and some 9 standing corps). How many sorties needed per day to attack, to defend and to maintain air superiority. Then add to the mixture the ability to stand up to Chinese, or possibly fight two front wars. We have x planes already how many extra will we need? It may turn out that maybe 126 Rafale is not needed, and at half the price of that, some 150 SU30MKI and 150 LCA can equally do the job. 150 SU30MKI can be had faster, HAL is screwing (as in screw driving) the last batch of SU30MKI kits, it will have nothing starting next year. This thing needs some serious analysis.

The better question is, what will it take to prevent the PRC from attacking us. While we are beating the crap out of the TSPA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jun 2015 09:20

fanne you are heading into uncharted areas.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jun 2015 12:04

Cosmo,Vayu piece by AM Masand,IAF in-house "bone fights" between the M2K and MIG-29 years ago when both were inducted,shocked everyone as the MIG-29 ousted the M2K everytime! The aircraft is even being upgraded by the NATO Poles.I've posted many pieces from western sources extolling the virtues of the aircraft.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 06 Jun 2015 12:58

SaiK wrote:The Rafale is okay in comparison with "ready to war" specs and needs...where LCA might not compare against Rafale (just for okay/not okay war readiness comparison and not feature/roles).. so, LCA may not be okay for IAF is acceptable. But then if you include the roles, then we have to see what roles LCA can satisfy as is now? from there begin operationalizing the puppy.

slowly, but steadily LCA will become OK for IAF. no second choice.. sorry., please participate in making the LCA another Rafale of the future.

LCA as Rafale is what we have AMCA. I believe there is another thread for that.

I agree that LCA will become OK for IAF steadily, given the right policy inputs to IAF.

I also agree with the suggestion that Kaveri in its existing mode should be put in Few LCA prototypes or Serial Production series and test run . GTRE and ADA should synchronise their activities in this area.

Currently Kaveri produces 82KN , as per wiki, while GE 404 powering LCA produces upto 85KN. IAF desires Kaveri to produce 90-95 KN therefore the request for GE414 to be powerhouse for LCA.

To equal Rafale we need to fit two Kaveris with each producing upto 75 KN. This does call for major changes in design of LCA, I presume. If Kaveri produces 75KN AF reliably then there is no reason why this engine should not be adopted for MCA in twin engine configuration.

The difference in MAX power of Kaveri and GE 404 is about 3 KN , don't know the difference in sustained power mode. May be 3 KN is very critical difference as it would make A/c underpowered. But for testing engines on LCA and getting data should be OK.

I agree with the assessment made by many that there could be management issues here as is in all Govt projects. These need to be addressed quickly. Higher management should be given full financial and administrative powers in technical matters without referring to MOD within overall sanctioned budget for the year. IAF also needs to be fully integrated with the project and should own the project in the sense that Budget should be made available under IAF head operated by ADA/GTRE. Monitoring should be by a Board comprising of IAF Chief and DRDO chief.