LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 06:56

Vivek K, A whole generation grew up deriding local efforts. they were taught Indians can't make stuff. Don't blame him.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 06:58

Shreeman if you know who is Abhibhusan saar you will also apologize!!! I made the unpardonable sin of not recognizing him as we had met in early 2000s.

He didn't even remind me. A true gentleman!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Jul 2015 07:12

ramana wrote:Vivek K, A whole generation grew up deriding local efforts. they were taught Indians can't make stuff. Don't blame him.

Ramana, understood.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 12 Jul 2015 07:17

Philip wrote:I can't understand why the GIOI/MOD is not reading out the riot act to the ADA/HAL whoever is responsible for this fiasco? and sack the bl**dy top man/men whose responsibility it is.Putin does it,other nations too,and they get results. Why can't HAL deliver the goods when it is manufacturing MKIs,Hawks,Jaguars,etc.? First reform HAL and the desi aircraft industry and results will swiftly follow. Getting a pvt. player is passing the buck and absolving HAL and the ADA of incompetence.

since Putin is your one-stop solution for all the 'supposed' or real fiascos/ills of HAL/ADA/DRDO/indian SHIPYARDS etc.. it does make make sense to import Sir Putin and put him in charge of all indian shipyards, HAL, DRDO etc...

problems solved!!!

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 12 Jul 2015 08:27

ramana wrote:Shreeman if you know who is Abhibhusan saar you will also apologize!!! I made the unpardonable sin of not recognizing him as we had met in early 2000s.

He didn't even remind me. A true gentleman!

The story of the IAF's DARIN integration led by "Abhibhushan" saar (view it at https://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/ ... rin-story/) is truly inspiring, especially since it was done at a time when India was just taking baby steps in the world of avionics. If the IAF representation on the LCA project is as good, we need have no fears for it.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 12 Jul 2015 10:08

ramana wrote:Shreeman if you know who is Abhibhusan saar you will also apologize!!! I made the unpardonable sin of not recognizing him as we had met in early 2000s.

He didn't even remind me. A true gentleman!

Many people with long memories remember bits and pieces of old meetings even after these years. At one time posting photos was the norm. The apology wasnt the issue, there seemed to be posts missing here. The kweshchen still remains a)I didnt see/read anyone but ramana apologizing to ramana in third person, b)who is still in derabayareakhan. You? Arun_s? quid? What transpired here.

edit -- I see, a bit of overlap between LCA and aviation threads. Dont mind me, I am too thick these days to use the search function.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 12 Jul 2015 10:53

tsarkar wrote: ...
What more can IAF do?

Are you serious ...

Let's see ... how about specifying realistic performance parameters in the ASR? Performance parameters derived from experience of flying the platforms for decades that LCA was supposed to replace? But no, what we have is a copy-paste of different brochures is it?

Or worse, it may have started with a realistic performance parameters, and then 1-2deg/sec kept on being added as it went up the chain, is it? Like the way, it's alleged now that Army went about specifying Multi Caliber Assault Rifle requirement?

And if you are thinking that it's only about turn-rates, think again ... how about specifying the performance aspects of the turbofan? Something like "I don't care what kind of contemporary engines are there today, give me these performance parameters, as this is required since I'm saying it is required".

Wrt turn-rates here's what I'd posted sometime back ...

maitya wrote: <snip>
You may want to also refer to this post wrt lay-man pov of Turn Rates etc.
But then again, since everybody is into merrily posting brochure/internet based "data" on Turn Rates of various platforms, I thought I should join also
ITR (Instantaneous turn rate)
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 degree , M 0.7 , 8 Gs
- M2000-5 : 23 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs
- Rafale : 25 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs
AND
STR (Sustained turn rate)
- M2000-5 : 17 deg/s , M 0.7 , 6 Gs
- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 deg/s , M 0.75 , 7 Gs
- Rafale : 19 deg/s , M 0.7 , 7 Gs
Note: See how the Mach Number and the Gs required to achieve these turn rates are mentioned - "conditions" as mentioned above
<snip>

Can you ask around your buddies as to what exactly was the rational of specifying the ITR of a delta planform platform (M2K) and STR of a swept-wing platform (F-16 or MiG-29), in the same single-engined-non-TV platform?

And where you are at it, pls let them enlighten us via you, exactly which brochure specified that kind of a performance?

And if your argument would be "so what, DRDO and ADA accepted this ASR, so it's not an IAF problem anymore", pls spare us of it. Have been argued multiple times - suffice to say, two wrongs can't make anything right and moreover, disagreeing to IAF ASR would have meant no program to work on, in the first place.

============================

Wrt criticism of weight-gain due to requirement-creep, I think you have missed the whole argument.

The "problem/pushback" is not so much with such kind of requirement creep (like R73 as WVR weapon instead of R60 - it's almost sacrilegious to expect any self-respecting AF to fight with an obsolete weapon, as is evidenced by withdrawal of R60 from active duty from it's squadrons, just because they specified for it a couple of decades back).

Only criticism can be, if IAF was fore-sighted enough with specifying the other future-proof requirements of the ASR, why miss only this one (actually, as is evidenced, in the CAG report, almost entire weapon-type specifications, seems to have not been foresighted enough - but that's a separate point of discussion).

Coming back to the topic, point is any such program, that runs for 2 decades is bound have such requirement change - so why should this program and IAF be any exception?
In fact, I'd wager so much so, that if IAF didn't specify these requirement creeps, after FSED phase and accepted the platform as it is, it would have got criticized as not strategic thinking enough. Sort of circular logic, in play.

But the issue is not per se with this score-creep ... it is with of constantly disparaging the program (not only via retired assorted bum-chums but even by serving ones) that the LCA being over-weight so, by implication, not suitable for services due to failing the ASR and thus by further insinuation, let us import a foreign platform for replacing the fast getting obsolete platforms. It's this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place.

I'm not going to touch the Kaveri turbofan specification, just now, as it not as simple as the ones listed above (though sufficient details are available in BR itself).

=========================

Now coming back to your outrageous claim that "IAF does not give soundbytes like IN".

Boy if that is what you infer, after following this program over the years, I've nothing else to say. Fact is IAF is very adept is making known its’ view-point to the media either via it's retired folks or even by serving ones.

And as far as this program goes, the 99% of those media articulation by IAF is downright damning ("late", "outdated", "overweight" etc) , disparaging ("three-legged cheetah", "late-coming aircraft" etc) and worse that of trying to cleverly package these so-called-inadequacies (many of which is because of it's own attitude and change requests) and create an artificial demand for imports.

But to be fair, there're some voices (all of them are from ex-and-present IAF test pilots associated with the program, who actually flew this aircraft, provided their feedback and then validated them back) who have supported and encouraged the program - quite a few of which are available in this forum itself. But they are small minority in the sea of negativism-and-disparaging attitude by IAF towards LCA.

Indeed Dileepji was was right, when he said here, and I quote,

Dileep wrote: Who flew her, never complained about her
Who complained about her, never flew her.

As they say, exceptions prove a rule - so wrt IAF general attitude towards LCA, it's quite evident, what it is really, regardless of your views.

=================================

You compare Navy and IAF attitude ... pls don't!! As there's no need of comparing stuff that are completely opposite of each other (examples have been given from time to time, no need of repeating it countless number of times).

How many times have IAF come out and praised the successful CLAW development or the CFRP basic structure or system integration or the basic relaxed-stability aero-design or even how many of the in-service systems or subsystems (project Vetrival, rings any bell) are direct offshoots of this program itself.

Also, pls let us know that, was it a mere coincidence, that this degree of negativism went thru the roof after the navy program started getting traction and showing results. Were they little nervous that their attitude will now get contrasted aginst and their bluff is going to getting called now ... one wonders!!

================================

And lastly your point wrt, and I quote

tsarkar wrote:The reason I posted this was whenever IAF uses a foreign system, many forum members like characters from the “Lord of the Flies” viciously accuse them of being under the influence of Natashas without any reason or logic.

Well , let me just re-phrase it for you …
The reason I posted above is because whenever IAF attitude of willful neglect and plain-disdain towards indigenous programs while tom-toming various foreign platforms gets criticized, few forum members like characters from the “Lord of the Flies” viciously accuse them of being ignorant, amateur, unpatriotic etc without any reason or logic.

Every action has an equal and … Go figure!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jul 2015 11:33

maitya wrote:
And as far as this program goes, the 99% of those media articulation by IAF is downright damning ("late", "outdated", "overweight" etc) , disparaging ("three-legged cheetah" etc) and worse that of trying to cleverly package these so-called-inadequacies (many of which is because of it's own attitude and change requests) and create an artificial demand for imports.

You forgot
1. Late Combat Aircraft
2. Latest Confusion in Aeronautics
3. Khadi Gramodyog - which is a double whammy that describes Indian Handloom Cotton fabric as derisively as the LCA in one go.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 12 Jul 2015 12:09

Recently interacted with a mid-to-senior level IAF officer who's very patriotic and extremely good at and knowledgeable about what he does.
Talked to him about various things. When I asked him about Tejas, he derided it as 'full of imports', 'too advanced - hence bound to be maintenance nightmare', and 'very late'.

Got me thinking - what accounts for this prejudice towards Tejas from an otherwise sensible, patriotic and intelligent man? In general, what's the reason that our armed forces officers have such a negative attitude towards indigenous platforms?
Have to put it down to misinformation being spewed out regularly by our DDM, bad blood bet. the military and DRDO/HAL that goes back decades and an institutional mindset that's hard to shake off.
Also, I think that the fact this officer has not used a single DRDO-designed weapon platform so far in his career is a big factor. As Akash, Tejas, LCH, etc. get inducted force-wide, the institutional mindset is bound to change.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jul 2015 13:50

ManuJ wrote:When I asked him about Tejas, he derided it as 'full of imports', 'too advanced - hence bound to be maintenance nightmare', and 'very late'.

Such experiences have been posted multiple times and not a single time I have read people posting about such experience taking the officer(s) to task by making them explain with proper proof about all the points that they find lacking in the indigenous product. The pathological hatred for indigenous products in IA/IAF isn't going to go away till they start getting humiliated publicly for their disgusting derisive behaviour.

I guess all the macho behaviour comes out in front of aam junta only cause infront of the actual guys they drop their balls quickly and only have sugar coated words to say.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 Jul 2015 13:58

ramana wrote: nirav

IAF needs to come clean. Either the LCA is better than the Mig 21s its intended to replace or it is NOT.
If its better the 40 MK1 order isnt justified. IF its NOT, then a even a single order of MK1 is not justified.

40 a//c is to set up production line. And right thing.

Ramana ji,

The 40 a/c on order is massive under utilization. The MK2 is slated for a first flight in 2017 and to enter production within 2 years of first flight, i.e. 2019. If ALL goes well, we can expect HAL to churn out LCA MK2 @ 8 per year from 2020 onwards and then augment the production line by hiking capacity to 16 a year for the MK2.

@ the rate of 8 per year, it will take upto 2020 to complete the MK1 order. IF MoD accepts HALs proposal of augmenting the production line to 16 a year rightaway, the 40 a/c order will be completed by 2017-2018. which leaves scope for another 40 A/c MK1 order till the time the MK2 comes online.

It is a known fact that a/c production per year is a function of confirmed orders. Not the other way around.

The Sukhoi 30 mki production had an order book of 140, which allowed a production rate of 16 a/c a year.
The fast depleting squadron strength can be arrested by more MK1 and 1.5 and also taking steps to move away from an "Indian rate of manufacturing" ... We don't really need to get stuck at 8 or 16 a/c a year.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Jul 2015 15:09

Why can't the IAF/IA order a firm initial amount plus with an intent for a lot more when production and quality targets are met at certain specified timeframe. That will incentivize manufacture to deliver and invest in extra capacity for the follow-on guaranteed orders. The current way has that initial small order but no guarantees on future orders. How are manufactures and their partners supposed to plan beyond those initial orders?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jul 2015 15:22

^^^^
An order for 200 LCA Mk II should indeed be placed and manufacturing facilities designed and developed accordingly.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 12 Jul 2015 15:34

eklavya wrote:^^^^
An order for 200 LCA Mk II should indeed be placed and manufacturing facilities designed and developed accordingly.

eklavyaji, though it's completely IAFs prerogative to define their operational need (both current and forecasted), plan the force-compostion and likewise place an order etc, may I ask a simple question ...

Why not order, say 100, MK1s and *start* replacing the 21s and 27s atleast ... pls note this a rhetorical question, to elicit a response/answer wrt just on what aspects IAF finds Mk1s deficient wrt the Bisons and the upgraded 27s?
(Note: I have deliberately not mentioned some of the older 21Ms, 21FLs, non-upgraded 27s etc, 3(?) sqns of which are slated to be retired next year (and maybe a few more next-to-next year).

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 12 Jul 2015 16:21

shiv wrote:
maitya wrote:
And as far as this program goes, the 99% of those media articulation by IAF is downright damning ("late", "outdated", "overweight" etc) , disparaging ("three-legged cheetah" etc) and worse that of trying to cleverly package these so-called-inadequacies (many of which is because of it's own attitude and change requests) and create an artificial demand for imports.
You forgot
1. Late Combat Aircraft
2. Latest Confusion in Aeronautics
3. Khadi Gramodyog - which is a double whammy that describes Indian Handloom Cotton fabric as derisively as the LCA in one go.

Within an year of LCA first flight - Jasjit singh said, now since India has proved that technology demostrator can fly, lets close the project. this was the kind of attitude of IAF to the indigenous project.

Maitya and Karam M, excellent points and post...

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 12 Jul 2015 16:27

ManuJ wrote:Recently interacted with a mid-to-senior level IAF officer who's very patriotic and extremely good at and knowledgeable about what he does.
Talked to him about various things. When I asked him about Tejas, he derided it as 'full of imports', 'too advanced - hence bound to be maintenance nightmare', and 'very late'.

Got me thinking - what accounts for this prejudice towards Tejas from an otherwise sensible, patriotic and intelligent man? In general, what's the reason that our armed forces officers have such a negative attitude towards indigenous platforms?
Have to put it down to misinformation being spewed out regularly by our DDM, bad blood bet. the military and DRDO/HAL that goes back decades and an institutional mindset that's hard to shake off.
Also, I think that the fact this officer has not used a single DRDO-designed weapon platform so far in his career is a big factor. As Akash, Tejas, LCH, etc. get inducted force-wide, the institutional mindset is bound to change.

So according to him 100% import is better than indigenously designed product with imported component. so either 100% import or 100% indigenous, what a shame...

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jul 2015 16:48

maitya wrote:
eklavya wrote:^^^^
An order for 200 LCA Mk II should indeed be placed and manufacturing facilities designed and developed accordingly.
eklavyaji, though it's completely IAFs prerogative to define their operational need (both current and forecasted), plan the force-compostion and likewise place an order etc, may I ask a simple question ...

Why not order, say 100, MK1s and *start* replacing the 21s and 27s atleast ... pls note this a rhetorical question, to elicit a response/answer wrt just on what aspects IAF finds Mk1s deficient wrt the Bisons and the upgraded 27s?
(Note: I have deliberately not mentioned some of the older 21Ms, 21FLs, non-upgraded 27s etc, 3(?) sqns of which are slated to be retired next year (and maybe a few more next-to-next year).

Why do you go on about the Bison and MiG 27; when these aircraft are well past their retirement dates?

An aircraft to be inducted today at $30m+/ac needs to be relevant to the challenges of the next 20-30 years. Comparing LCA Mk 1 to Soviet era antiques is not sensible or relevant.

If IN and IAF believe the Mk 1 has enough drawbacks to warrant the development of the Mk 2, then the focus needs to be on getting the Mk 2 right. All the learnings from the Mk1 in design and manufacture and operations will aid the development of the Mk 2.

If Mk 2 is inordinately delayed, the production line may well be kept going to induct more Mk 1. To make additional orders for Mk 1 the test of IAF's patriotism and honesty is frankly ridiculous and disgusting.

IN decided early on that Mk 1 would not meet their needs, and will induct nil Mk 1. I don't see anybody shouting that LCA Navy Mk 1 is better than Harrier or some such and that the Navy are a bunch of import addicted people who hate indigenous aircraft. Look at the number of MiG 29K the Navy has ordered; clearly it will be flying off the INS Vikrant while the Mk2 is perfected for carrier operations.

Whatever be the drawbacks of the Mk 1, they will obviously not be advertised in detail in public, as that would hand over the advantage in combat to PAF/PLAAF. You can obviously look at the CAG report on the issues; the report will obviously have been reviewed to exclude data that may help the enemy in combat.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Jul 2015 18:35

It was my understanding, going thru posts after posts in this dhaaga, that LCA is supposed to replace Mig 21/bis which is past its life. LCA is also supposed to offer better technology than Mig21 currently offers. It was not supposed to replace M2K or Jags or Su30MKI etc. So comparing with Mg21/bis makes sense. Why would IAF operate Flying Coffins and ignore a plane more advanced than it?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 12 Jul 2015 18:42

"Why do you go on about the Bison and MiG 27; when these aircraft are well past their retirement dates?

An aircraft to be inducted today at $30m+/ac needs to be relevant to the challenges of the next 20-30 years. Comparing LCA Mk 1 to Soviet era antiques is not sensible or relevant."

The reason we are comparing these platforms is we expect to nurse these antiques for the next 10-15 years. SO a comparison of 1/2 the lifespan of the LCA I overlapping with the fag end of the Bisons run is kosher.

Whatever the shortcomings in the LCA 1 platform (the ones aired and the ones that cannot be divulged) It is still better than 80% of the platforms it will have to fight against.

The 42 sq strength will be reached only with domestic platforms , it is unatainable the way we have and are progressing.
(We are pretty good at shooting ourselfs in the foot, As Rohit V mentioned a few days back {in jest} the requirement for footwear will state the need for interchangable soles, maybe he was alluding to the small arms tender and/or our knack of shooting ourselfs in the foot.)

This peice meal planning is going to cause havoc with our supply chain, it will be a repeat of the Arjun saga if not handled right.

The goverment has to bang some heads here and ensure that equal priority is given to both the operational requirements and the building up of our MI complex.
Or else the IAF itself will be described as a 2 legged cheetah (21 squadrons instead of 42) by its adaverseries.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Jul 2015 18:53

ManuJ wrote:Recently interacted with a mid-to-senior level IAF officer who's very patriotic and extremely good at and knowledgeable about what he does.
Talked to him about various things. When I asked him about Tejas, he derided it as 'full of imports', 'too advanced - hence bound to be maintenance nightmare', and 'very late'.

Too advanced and very late in the same sentence? Does he know what he is talking about?

If LCA is full of imports, will IAF buy it as an American plan?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2015 19:12

Analysts: India's LCA Will Miss Another Deadline

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2015 19:15

Jul 10, 2015 :: Saab Offers Gripen Fighters in Fly-Away Condition to India

Saab has offered to supply an unspecified number of Gripen Aircraft in a fly-away condition to the Indian Air Force (IAF) to replenish its fleet in the short term.

Sources told defenseworld.net that the offer was made during a presentation to the Indian MoD ahead of the Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist's visited Delhi last month. Saab has also offered to manufacture the aircraft in India in conjunction with an Indian partner as a ‘Make in India’ project

..........................

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 12 Jul 2015 19:32

comparing with Mg21/bis makes sense.

comparing with Mig 21 is the minimum baseline. In addition LCA should also take into account the current threat perception and relevance for next 25 to 30 years. Why should a new aircraft be designed and developed if its sole purpose is performance should just be better than Mig 21. if that is the case then F 35 was ready at least a few years ago to replace F 16

eklavya wrote:Comparing LCA Mk 1 to Soviet era antiques is not sensible or relevant.

eklavya wrote:I don't see anybody shouting that LCA Navy Mk 1 is better than Harrier or some such and that the Navy are a bunch of import addicted people who hate indigenous aircraft. Look at the number of MiG 29K the Navy has ordered; clearly it will be flying off the INS Vikrant while the Mk2 is perfected for carrier operations.

+1

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 19:39

Article by Raghuvanahi quotes Kak saying LCA @FOC to be better than Mig 21.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Jul 2015 19:47

dhiraj wrote:
comparing with Mg21/bis makes sense.
comparing with Mig 21 is the minimum baseline. In addition LCA should also take into account the current threat perception and relevance for next 25 to 30 years. Why should a new aircraft be designed and developed if its sole purpose is performance should just be better than Mig 21. if that is the case then F 35 was ready at least a few years ago to replace F 16

That is because LCA offers indigenous capability to produce A/cs on demand and not burn a hole in the nation's pocket. Besides, it is well understood that LCA is ahead of Mig21/bis and is only going to be better with each iteration, i.e. if we allow indigenous capability to grow with required orders. I also understand that a minimum of 200+ is needed to replace Mig21/bis. Who is going to fund that kind of money for foreign planes which come with no TOT or reluctant to part with TOT , suppliers?

The question should be why should we design/produce any A/cs at all, better or worse, if we can purchase A/cs from foreign suppliers? Why should we produce anything at all when we can have everything supplied on payment by foreign suppliers? Sadly , we don't have that kind of monies as proved by Rafale deal. Getting even 126 is a pain in the a$$, if current situation is any indication.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 12 Jul 2015 21:03

^^^^^
Please tell me where did i mention that instead of LCA buy something from abroad. If everything was fine with Mk.1 , then why should ADA bring an improved MK.1 in next 2 years as suggested by previous ADA chief.
Concern is related to the push to have more MK.1 without improvements. Ideally it should be 40 MK.1 , 40-60 improved MK.1, around 150 MK.2. In parallel involve private sector which along with HAL takes care of the above order and at the same time go all out in the export market by 2020 [with improved MK.1 & MK.2] .
The current DRDO chief in recent interview had mentioned of involving private sector for exports of defence equipment

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Jul 2015 21:19

May be I misunderstood from your "Why" question. LCA is an evolution of Indian fighter Industry. LCA MK1 is ordered in 40 number. rest after FOC. There is constant need for improvement and meeting new requirements or bringing new technologies on the platform. That is why I suggested Tranche or block mode for giving order in large numbers. Others have thought on similar lines here. I think there is still a lot in LCA which gets imported. That needs to be replaced too. We don't want to see Cray XMP saga again.

I am not much concerned if HAL does it or some JVs with private sector or private sector alone. Ideally it should be JVs as private sector does not have the capability in this area. They would bring other advantage to the project such as hiring of manpower would be relaxed. Project management could be streamlined. Lateral infusion at higher level could be done. Funding for Govt would ease.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jul 2015 21:34

chaanakya wrote:It was my understanding, going thru posts after posts in this dhaaga, that LCA is supposed to replace Mig 21/bis which is past its life. LCA is also supposed to offer better technology than Mig21 currently offers. It was not supposed to replace M2K or Jags or Su30MKI etc. So comparing with Mg21/bis makes sense. Why would IAF operate Flying Coffins and ignore a plane more advanced than it?

"Flying Coffins"? What a load of bull. Their employability/role may be limited, but they've already been paid for, are relatively cheap to maintain, and only airworthy a/c are employed in operations. They need to be replaced by platforms that will be relevant for the next 20-30 years.

The detailed ASR did not state "better than MiG-21".

The MiG-23BN/MF that have been phased out were also "better than MiG-21".

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 12 Jul 2015 21:54

What are the threats that the IAF will face over the next 25-30 years that will be tackled by LCA Mk2 but not LCA Mk1 (as is)?

As I see it, the increments in STR/ITR, drag, etc. will not result in such a qualitative difference that renders the Mk1 moot. Additional upgrades like an AESA, IFR, etc. can be applied in successive blocks, or as an MLU to the Mk1.

Will it kill us if MiG-27 and Jaguar replacements are not BVR capable right out of the gate instead of a couple of years down the road?

I do not understand the IAF's reluctance to go in for iterative development.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Jul 2015 22:37

eklavya wrote:
chaanakya wrote:It was my understanding, going thru posts after posts in this dhaaga, that LCA is supposed to replace Mig 21/bis which is past its life. LCA is also supposed to offer better technology than Mig21 currently offers. It was not supposed to replace M2K or Jags or Su30MKI etc. So comparing with Mg21/bis makes sense. Why would IAF operate Flying Coffins and ignore a plane more advanced than it?
"Flying Coffins"? What a load of bull. Their employability/role may be limited, but they've already been paid for, are relatively cheap to maintain, and only airworthy a/c are employed in operations. They need to be replaced by platforms that will be relevant for the next 20-30 years.

The detailed ASR did not state "better than MiG-21".

The MiG-23BN/MF that have been phased out were also "better than MiG-21".

Then better stick with it.

That is what I said. LCA will replace MIG 21/bis. Have you read "original" or even "revised" ARSs? What I gather that the whole LCA idea started from the need to having replace MIG 21 series.

Here are few references to load of BullSh!ts

Air force’s ‘flying coffin’ laid to rest
- MiG-21 decommissioned after 50 chequered years

Kalaikunda, Dec. 11: MiG-21, the combat aircraft that earned monikers like the “flying coffin” and “widow-maker” and was at the centre of Aamir Khan blockbuster Rang De Basanti, was decommissioned from the Indian Air Force today.

The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 FL, which formed the combat backbone of the IAF for over five decades, took off for its last sortie from the Kalaikunda airbase near Kharagpur around 10am today.

A truck towed away one such jet into a hangar in a symbolic gesture, relegating the fighter to the pages of history.

Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne, who was present at the flypast this morning, termed the phase-out of India’s first supersonic aircraft a “watershed moment”.

“Today’s event marks a watershed moment in (the) IAF’s history as we reach the end of nearly five decades of remarkable operational service rendered by this iconic fighter,” Browne said at the base from where the MiG-21 FL had taken off for the first time in 1963.

Other upgraded variants of MiG continue to be a part of the air force’s fleet.

Why are MiGs flying coffins for IAF pilots?

New Delhi: The crash of a MiG-21 Bison and the death of a pilot near Uttarlai air base in Barmer, Rajsthan, on Monday, is yet another mishap in the troubled history of an aircraft that has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons in recent times.

In the IAF, pilots literally dread flying the MiG machines. Because, as many as 482 MiG-21s had been involved in accidents and as many as 171 pilots, 39 civilians and eight persons from other services lost their lives in these accidents in the last 40 years.

In this way, the Indian Air Force has lost more than half of its total fleet of 872 MiG aircraft

Flying coffin MIG-21 claims yet another Indian Air Force pilot

The Indian Air Force (IAF) lost another one of its pilots and a MIG-21 fighter jet in a crash during a routine sorties in Jammu and Kashmir's Anantnag district on Tuesday morning.

More than half the country's fleet of 872 MiGs has been lost to crashes over the last four decades, then defence minister AK Antony had told Parliament in 2012. It is for such a dismal record that the Russian-built aircraft has been dubbed the "flying coffin". There have been vehement calls to phase these out from the IAF fleet. As Arun Jaitley takes charge as the country's new defence minister, arms and equipment procurement is likely to be his biggest challenge.

Tuesday's incident could have been worse had the pilot, who was on a routine sortie, landed in a civilian area. The plane crashed in the fields of Mirhama village near Bijbhera area in south Kashmir's Anantnag district at around 10.48am. The pilot, squadron leader Raghuvanshi, died on the spot.

"One MiG-21 (Bis) Aircraft of the IAF crashed about 10km short of Awantipur Airbase on May 27. The pilot airborne from Srinagar was on a routine training sortie," said a defence spokesman in Srinagar. "A court of inquiry has been ordered to investigate into the cause of the accident."

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jul 2015 23:19

^^^^^
The media who refer to MiG-21 as Flying Coffins are the same "DDM" who on this forum are referred to with contempt and derision. So, you are aligned with them. Congratulations.

The ASRs are not public, but we know that they are detailed, and the CAG report said that Tejas Mk 1 fell short in several respects. Several waivers for the Tejas Mk 1 are permanent, and Tejas Mk 2 will address these issues (through redesign and higher thrust engine, which opens up more options). The ASR was not a one line "better than MiG-21".

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jul 2015 23:28

Raman wrote:What are the threats that the IAF will face over the next 25-30 years that will be tackled by LCA Mk2 but not LCA Mk1 (as is)?

As I see it, the increments in STR/ITR, drag, etc. will not result in such a qualitative difference that renders the Mk1 moot. Additional upgrades like an AESA, IFR, etc. can be applied in successive blocks, or as an MLU to the Mk1.

Will it kill us if MiG-27 and Jaguar replacements are not BVR capable right out of the gate instead of a couple of years down the road?

I do not understand the IAF's reluctance to go in for iterative development.

Tejas Mk 2 is an iterative development of the Mk 1. The focus should be on making the Mk 2 design work and setting up scale production facilities. The obsession with "order more Mk 1" is downright bizarre. The obsession should be with achieving FOC, getting production line going, inducting into squadron service, getting aircrew and and maintenance personnel trained up, maintaining high availability, developing tactics, etc. If all this is happening, more orders may follow. It's been nearly a decade since the first 40 were ordered, ordering 100 would not have made the development go faster/better.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Jul 2015 23:40

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
The media who refer to MiG-21 as Flying Coffins are the same "DDM" who on this forum are referred to with contempt and derision. So, you are aligned with them. Congratulations.

The ASRs are not public, but we know that they are detailed, and the CAG report said that Tejas Mk 1 fell short in several respects. Several waivers for the Tejas Mk 1 are permanent, and Tejas Mk 2 will address these issues (through redesign and higher thrust engine, which opens up more options). The ASR was not a one line "better than MiG-21".

So you mean to say that there is not an iota of facts in those reporting besides DDMitis?? Good lord I though we lost half of 872. great observation you have.

ASR is not public. so you don't know what started LCA in the first place. Please be so kind to review all the posts in this thread. You will find some thing that is needed to replace MIG 21.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Jul 2015 23:41

maitya wrote:how about specifying realistic performance parameters in the ASR?

If the performance specifications were realistically unobtainable, then were these bought to the notice of the Empowered Committee and waivers been applied for?

maitya wrote:moreover, disagreeing to IAF ASR would have meant no program to work on, in the first place.

No. This is a national project not run on IAF money. So IAF cannot shut it off. Empowered Committee providing oversight comprises COAS, SA to RM, DG ADA and Secretary Defence Production. All other members other than COAS are independent of IAF. Had this been brought to their notice, then surely they could’ve ensured a waiver?

maitya wrote:Only criticism can be, if IAF was fore-sighted enough with specifying the other future-proof requirements of the ASR

Lets take each of the weapons scope creep –

R-73 was introduced as part of Sukhoi Su-30MKI package that was signed in 30th November 1996. R-73E for Tejas was specified in March 1997. Informing within four months surely is a quick enough timeframe.

M62 Russian Bomb. This is the Russian FAB M62 bomb http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?wea ... 0FAB%20M62 The same bomb was used to crater Tezgaon airfield at Dhaka in 1971 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... dacca.html

However, IAF never intended Tejas carry an old, if effective, weapon. After Kargil, IAF specified a new version from IMI Israel, called Improved Fragmentation Bomb IFB 500. Looks similar outside but very different under the skin.
http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=66597

Imagine the effectiveness of this weapon on rat infested sangars. Again, this weapon, standardized across IAF, was specified & developed after Kargil (1999) and could not have been specified for Tejas earlier.
http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/nr/rdonlyre ... od_imi.pdf

IFB-500 is fully compatible to interface with western and eastern aircrafts – Mirage 2000, Jaguar, SU-27 and others

Next item to cause delay was CMDS. Now, CMDS would’ve saved Ajay Ahuja’s life in Kargil. My elder brother & our family had gone to Vaishnodevi with Ajay & his family just the year before in 1998 and our memories are still warm & fresh like yesterday. CMDS was specified across the fleet after Kargil.

Last item to cause delay was Derby & Python. Now, thankfully, IAF had not specified R-77, otherwise valuable time would’ve been wasted integrating a dud missile. Nor was Tejas IOC/FOC tied to Astra development. Derby + Elta 2032 was proven on the Sea Harrier in 2009 and it was specified for Tejas the same year.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07/ ... [b]Tuesday, July 07, 2009[/b]As part of the Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH), the Indian Navy will shortly conduct its second live firing test of the Israeli Derby beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), a weapon system that has been integrated to the last of the Navy's Sea Harriers as part of the upgrade programme. While the first live firing of the Derby active-radar seeker missile was conducted using the aircraft's primary sensor, the next test will be from one of the Navy's upgraded Sea Harriers with its radar switched off. Guidance will be provided from another platform, either on the ground or in the air.[/quote]http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2015.pdf

It was only in December 2009 the Air HQ communicated the requirement of specific BVR missiles viz. Derby and Python-5 Missiles on LCA as part of the FOC.

July to December is 5 months.

So in all these cases, none of the requirements could’ve forecasted or foresighted earlier than they were done.

maitya wrote:It's this intellectual dishonesty of constantly criticizing of something, in this case weight-creep, a key contributor of which is the scope-creep that they themselves have asked for in the first place.

http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2015.pdf

There were no revisions to the ASR by IAF, except in respect of weapon requirements, as discussed in Para 2.3.2.

The only scope-creep was weapons, that added to timelines and not weight, as Vina has clarified, a few coats of Kevlar in the right places. Can you kindly specify what scope-creep added to weight-creep? Some forum members keep talking vaguely about scope-creep contributing to weight-creep but seem to be completely lost when asked to specify the scope creep.

Delay has been because of a protracted development process. And success has been iterative rather than on the first time itself.

Development Issues

http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2015.pdf

RWR fitted on LCA Mk-I is having issues such as degradation of direction finding accuracy, reset in air, etc and DARE is in the process of resolving these issues.

CMDS fitted on LCA Mk-I exhibited deficiency in misguiding enemy missiles and ADA/BDL are in the process of modifying the design to overcome the flaw.

The first Electromagnetic test result of production Radome, supplied (December 2011) by HAL showed (June 2012) high loss of signal power resulting in significant reduction in radar range thereby affecting its performance. The Empowered Committee (June 2013) noticed that the losses of signal power were due to design deficiency and choice of Kevlar3 material. Subsequently, due to this deficiency, ADA had to conclude (September 2013) a contract with M/s Cobham, England for development and supply of six Radomes with quartz4 material at a cost of GBP 2.5 million (`22.75 crore) by January 2015 for testing on LCA.

We've all seen the air inlet at the base of the vertical tailfin to cool the engine bay undergoing multiple design iterations. The trailing edge root extension being more smoothly blended into the fuselage. All these design iterations took time.

Production Issues

Audit observed (October 2014) from the Empowered Committee (EC) meetings (September 2012 to July 2014) that the LSP aircraft manufactured by HAL had the following deficiencies:
(a) Design deficiencies in fuel system, brake management system, brake parachute, undercarriage system;
(b) Quality problems (September 2012) on the MMR with HAL manufactured Radome (also discussed in Chapter III Para 3.1);
(c) Water seepage observed during the flight testing to prove all weather clearance, in critical areas of aircraft including cockpit, radar, DFCC, avionics bay, etc. which required design solutions;
(d) Structural problems like fuel leak, cracking of turkey feathers, de-lamination, and contour deviation;
(e) The performance of aircraft was affected by low reliability of critical LRUs like Jet Fuel Starter (JFS), Cockpit Pressure Transducer3 (CPTCV) on the aircraft.

maitya wrote:And as far as this program goes, the 99% of those media articulation by IAF is downright damning

I agree with you & Dileep on this that those not connected with Program Development or complexities involved gave damning soundbytes. However, the damning soundbytes needs to be mapped against the overtly optimistic soundbytes given by the Tejas developers & producers. I can quote pages after pages on optimistic timelines that had to be revised. Surely, they being in the know of things, could’ve given realistic timelines.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jul 2015 23:53

chaanakya wrote:
eklavya wrote:^^^^^
The media who refer to MiG-21 as Flying Coffins are the same "DDM" who on this forum are referred to with contempt and derision. So, you are aligned with them. Congratulations.

The ASRs are not public, but we know that they are detailed, and the CAG report said that Tejas Mk 1 fell short in several respects. Several waivers for the Tejas Mk 1 are permanent, and Tejas Mk 2 will address these issues (through redesign and higher thrust engine, which opens up more options). The ASR was not a one line "better than MiG-21".
So you mean to say that there is not an iota of facts in those reporting besides DDMitis?? Good lord I though we lost half of 872. great observation you have.

ASR is not public. so you don't know what started LCA in the first place. Please be so kind to review all the posts in this thread. You will find some thing that is needed to replace MIG 21.

People pose as patriots and take cheap shots at the IAF. There were many reasons for the MiG-21 accident rate: lack of AJT, manufacturing issues, maintenance issues, training issues, bird strike, etc. Every issues was/is being dealt with. Nothing is more precious that the lives of our aircrew. They cannot be imported, cannot be borrowed, cannot be made overnight and cannot be replaced, not at any cost, so we need to give them every chance to come back alive and victorious after every mission. IAF does not send non-airworthy aircraft for operations. Accidents still happen and it is very saddening.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Jul 2015 00:00

shiv wrote:Khadi Gramodyog

Its more to do with mindset shaped by this -

Water seepage observed during the flight testing to prove all weather clearance, in critical areas of aircraft including cockpit, radar, DFCC, avionics bay, etc. which required design solutions

Suppose BR members bought a new car (LSP, not TD, not PV) and went for a drive in the monsoon and then have cabin, engine, music system, we, our better halves & kids drenched, surely won't we be using the choicest words in our vernacular vocabulary? Or will we bash on regardless to office or social occasion, stepping out partly or completely soaked, and saying to all & sundry, so what, indigenous hai

I'm sure this would've been fixed by now, but a bad impression will linger.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Jul 2015 03:07

^^^

Aircraft under testing by test pilots is not the same. Look, car manufactures do whole rounds of testing of their car models with their test drivers before they make them available to public. I'm sure if we go digging into a car model's test history all sorts of "damning" evidence would come to light.

If SPs have that issue, then that's a different matter.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 13 Jul 2015 03:43

ramana wrote:Article by Raghuvanahi quotes Kak saying LCA to be better than Mig 21.

Not Kak, but Daljit Singh.

Kak is dismisive of the LCA

"If the FOC fructifies as per stated specifications, it [the LCA Mark-1] would definitely be a better aircraft than the MiG-21," Singh said. "This would include air-to-air refuelling, navigation, compatibility, more capable missiles and better weapons carrying capability, integrated self-protection suite, much longer operational range , much better avionics, active flight control technology and communication systems."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jul 2015 04:14

^^^^ thanks Kakkaji.

tsarkar very good bring out of the issues.

Wish we all had read CAG reports as they came out with a critical eye or commented on them. We would not have had this dissonance.

My fault for no being diligent.

Aside: Has IAF also standardized on fuzes from dumb bombs? I don't see any being claimed on OFB pages.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Jul 2015 05:53

One only needs to look at the ISRO model and realize that if GOI/MOD - force the armed forces to stop squandering the national wealth, then IAF/IA would be much stronger and capable.