LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 May 2016 19:29

^^^

It's an achievement

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 May 2016 20:19

Chindu reports using PTI headline:

LINK

Someone please inform PTI fighter planes are not homegrown. Stop using quaint phrases.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 May 2016 22:45

Huge day for all jingos!

By the way, why didn't any of the journos get pics of the HTT-40 that was also apparently parked on the tarmac? Haven't seen it in a long while.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 17 May 2016 23:53

Indeed a big day for LCA Tejas and evidence of big steps towards self reliance of India on fighter aircraft's. Abdul khush hua. Wish IAF Chief and IAF gets more involved in Tejas program. Anyone knows what is SP1 doing? Has IAF started providing feedback from SP1 flights to HAL or SP1 is eating dust?

PS - Calls tonight for Chivas Regal and not Royal Challenger !!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 May 2016 02:46

Kakkaji wrote:IIRC, The small size was mandated so that it can fit in the hangars built for the Mig-21

Perhaps but that is also the point I'm making. What's easier—building larger hangars or building scalable platforms?

If we insist on using the lowest common denominator as the all encompassing constraint, we can't think big.

Anyway, water under the bridge.

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 May 2016 03:14

Cosmo_R wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:IIRC, The small size was mandated so that it can fit in the hangars built for the Mig-21
Perhaps but that is also the point I'm making. What's easier—building larger hangars or building scalable platforms?

If we insist on using the lowest common denominator as the all encompassing constraint, we can't think big.

Anyway, water under the bridge.

Times have changed.

Back in the 1980/90s, India was still in the defensive mindset focused on Pakistan. LCA was to be a modern low-cost replacement for its MiG-21s, which were a bulk of the IAF's fleet (some 300-400 of them). It would have been a massive infrastructure upgrade to replace all those MiG-21 hangers/shelters. Try doing that with limited budget of those days.

Besides, there are opportunities to address some of these "scalability" design issues with Mk.2/3 etc. For instance, NLCA Mk.2 dimension is around Mirage-2000 size. The IAF is also undertaking MAFI across its airbases and would modernize them with Su-30MKI size in mind.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 18 May 2016 04:40

rakall wrote:
PratikDas wrote:How long have we waited for this?

Salutations to the LCA team. I'm thinking tears will have been shed.

Source: https://twitter.com/jcmenon/status/732508246687158272

15years 4months 13days !!!

I looked at this figure for a long time.
Tears of Joy are flowing down today.

An excellent step forward by the ACM.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 May 2016 05:02

Would ACM Raha be the first serving IAF Officer to fly the Tejas or are there IAF pilots on deputation to ASTE?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 May 2016 05:34

Times have changed.

Back in the 1980/90s, India was still in the defensive mindset focused on Pakistan.

We are still focused on Pakistan

LCA was to be a modern low-cost replacement for its MiG-21s, which were a bulk of the IAF's fleet (some 300-400 of them). It would have been a massive infrastructure upgrade to replace all those MiG-21 hangers/shelters. Try doing that with limited budget of those days.

Bigger than the investment in the a/c?

Besides, there are opportunities to address some of these "scalability" design issues with Mk.2/3 etc. For instance, NLCA Mk.2 dimension is around Mirage-2000 size. ..

The IN seems to not want the NLCA Mk2.

BUT the overall point is that just having a M2K size/design that could have morphed into M4K would have saved us so much grief.

All I'm trying to say is that it has been a failure of the imagination. Of thinking big vs what could be accommodated today. Remember 20/20 foresight

Blaming resources is ok, but think of it: successful efforts require whatever it takes. Inadequate amounts lead to science projects. That is not prescience. Just common sense.

The Gnat/Maruti/Nano model may be at the end of it's relevance. Hope so.

Think big.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 May 2016 06:05

Cosmo_R wrote:
The Gnat/Maruti/Nano model may be at the end of it's relevance. Hope so.

Think big.

I would not confuse Gnat with Maruti/Nano. The latter two are perfect for narrow Indian inner city roads. Remember Hummers in Mogadishu and shameful defeat as they got stuck in lanes. Just sayin.. and sorry to go OT

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 May 2016 06:08

Khalsa wrote:
rakall wrote:{quote="PratikDas"}How long have we waited for this?

Salutations to the LCA team. I'm thinking tears will have been shed.

Source: https://twitter.com/jcmenon/status/7325 ... 272{/quote}

15years 4months 13days !!!

I looked at this figure for a long time.
Tears of Joy are flowing down today.

An excellent step forward by the ACM.

Definitely!

It feels like we are coming to an end of an era for those of us who have followed indigenous programs like the LCA from the late eighties/early nineties. One of the reasons why I joined this forum. We have all nurtured it along in our own ways

From here on, I can happily leave it to the next generation

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 18 May 2016 06:49

Cosmo_R wrote:The Gnat/Maruti/Nano model may be at the end of it's relevance. Hope so.

Think big.

Think of it this way- Learn to walk before you run.

Probably now ADA, HAL, IAF and MoD are better equipped to think big.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2016 07:02

Cosmo_R wrote: Perhaps but that is also the point I'm making. What's easier—building larger hangars or building scalable platforms?

If we insist on using the lowest common denominator as the all encompassing constraint, we can't think big.

Anyway, water under the bridge.

Good one.

But, think smart.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 May 2016 07:13

Kakkaji wrote:IIRC, The small size was mandated so that it can fit in the hangars built for the Mig-21

The hangar size was not an issue. No hangar is custom made for the Mig-21. The size of the aircraft is dictated by the perceived role. LCAs were supposed to replace Mig-21 in their role. Also, the small size was dictated by the infatuations of the design team with (wait-for-it) the Gnat! No less, than Dr. Kota Hariharan has said this on many occasions.

P.S. The last remark was not to flame the debate on whether Gnat size aircrafts have utility or not. As they say, the resemblance is coincidental.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 May 2016 07:38

I suspect that the design team (for whatever reason) felt that small would be easier than big - surprising coming from an establishment that had built the HF 24. Or was it the Gnat's much vaulted stealth in WVR that was admired? Don't know

But the US asked for small and agile and had 2 teams to compete and got YF16 and 17. YF 17 team first brought out F 18 and the shifted gears and created the F/A 18 which they are still peddling. Mirage OTOH failed with the Mirage 4000 upgrade of the 2000.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 18 May 2016 09:32

Kartik wrote:Huge day for all jingos!

By the way, why didn't any of the journos get pics of the HTT-40 that was also apparently parked on the tarmac? Haven't seen it in a long while.

HTT 40 went in for extensive long ground runs in the afternoon. I was expecting to see LUH but no joy there.

@Shiv ji, serving IAF pilots have flown LCA.

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 May 2016 09:39

Small and single engined does have immense advantages in total cost of ownership (acquisition, maintenance and running costs) over it's lifecycle. The bulk of flying hours in any airforce will be these types (think of them of as beat cops that go out on daily patrols and are the first quick response teams) .

A force top heavy with larger Flanker type planes will be paying through it's nose for life cycle costs. We need a mix and the bulk will be small single engine types. The small single engine types again are best suited for homeland defence and operations within 400km of the border. The large Flanker types are great for long range deep penetration offensive operations , but don't know how survivable they will be in this day and age of high tech ground and multi layered air defences.

JMT. The LCA is just what we need for the bulk of our fleet (ok, the F16 would have been ideal, but we don't have them) and the modern descendants of the F16 are the Gripens and of course our LCA.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 18 May 2016 12:11

Typically when doing it for the first time, designers often follow the philosophy of designing the smallest and lightest possible airframe around the most powerful engine available. Wily Messerschmitt and Harry Hillaker followed that policy for Me 109 and F-16 respectively.

Bigger fighters like Su-30, despite range & speed, cannot be at two places at the same time, that smaller fighters like Tejas can in small airfields across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, J&K and North East and North Bengal to cover the aerospace.

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 May 2016 13:23

Interview with Harry Hillaker on why Smaller and Lighter is Better

A must read for anyone who actually does some thinking beyond brouchuritis and fanboyism of XX plane vs YY..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 May 2016 14:05

Indian Navy's indigenous fighter successfully completes flight tests

India's Aeronautical Development Agency has made key progress in the development of the long-delayed naval version of the locally designed Light Combat Aircraft (Navy) or LCA(N), after two prototypes successfully undertook 33 sorties from the Indian Navy's (IN's) shore-based testing facility (SBTF) at INS Hansa in the southwestern state of Goa.

Between 27 March and 25 April two prototypes (NP1 & 2) carrying two Russian Vympel R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') air-to-air missiles each had validated 'ski-jump' trials from the SBTF, which replicates an aircraft carrier deck, according to IN sources.

They said both prototypes - designed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) with stronger landing gear than the standard LCA to absorb the additional forces - took flight after rolling 200 m at the facility. This was 100 m less than the 300 m the NP1 prototype rolled before take-off during its earlier test in December 2014.

The trials also successfully tested the 'hot refuelling' capability of the fighters.

Both naval fighter prototypes, along with the follow-on six to eight limited series production platforms, will be powered by General Electric F404-GE-IN20 afterburning turbofan engines, which generate 80-85 kN of thrust.

For induction into service around 2021-22, however, the naval fighter will be fitted with the more powerful General Electric GE-414 engine - which generates 90-96 kN of thrust - to facilitate take-offs and landings and enable the fighter to operate with a 3.5-tonne payload of fuel for extended range and assorted weaponry.

NP1 conducted its maiden test flight in April 2012: over four years behind schedule. Senior IN officials admitted the reason for this was that the naval fighter had for years found itself 'hostage' to the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Tejas LCA programme.The development of India's locally designed carrier-based fighter has continued to languish due principally to a lack of institutional support from both the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the IN.

Progress has been further hampered by the priority conferred by successive governments on the IAF's Tejas programme, which was initiated in 1983. The Tejas, however, has yet to obtain its final operational clearance (FOC) after a nearly four-year delay.

"The naval LCA is merely an add-on to the IAF programme," Commodore Jaideep Maolankar, a test pilot with the fighter project, said at the 2015 Naval Aviation Seminar in New Delhi. There is also "no synergy" between the Naval Design Bureau and the naval LCA designers, he added.

More recently, however, under the Modi-led government's 'Make in India' initiative, the MoD reaffirmed its commitment to the programme by approving INR36.50 billion (USD544 million) for it.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 18 May 2016 15:15

shiv wrote:Would ACM Raha be the first serving IAF Officer to fly the Tejas or are there IAF pilots on deputation to ASTE?

All Tejas test pilots are serving IAF (& IN) pilots on deputation to ASTE for 2-3yrs.

AirCmde Rohit Verma was a Chief test pilot in 2011 quit service as IAF overlooked him for promotion apparently citing Blr as plum posting.

OTOH, Navy has kept one test pilot (Cmd.Maolonkar) dedicated to LCA-N program for the past 10-11years (while some other test pilots from IN did 3-4yr detachments).. During this period he got his due promotion from Captain to Commodore.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 May 2016 15:20

indranilroy wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:IIRC, The small size was mandated so that it can fit in the hangars built for the Mig-21
The hangar size was not an issue. No hangar is custom made for the Mig-21. The size of the aircraft is dictated by the perceived role. LCAs were supposed to replace Mig-21 in their role. Also, the small size was dictated by the infatuations of the design team with (wait-for-it) the Gnat! No less, than Dr. Kota Hariharan has said this on many occasions.

P.S. The last remark was not to flame the debate on whether Gnat size aircrafts have utility or not. As they say, the resemblance is coincidental.

HAS sizes for MiG-21 were an issue as was the amount of basing LCAs would require

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 18 May 2016 17:20

rakall wrote:
PratikDas wrote:How long have we waited for this?

Salutations to the LCA team. I'm thinking tears will have been shed.

Source: https://twitter.com/jcmenon/status/732508246687158272

15years 4months 13days !!!

And I, the least technically inclined of anyone in this forum

, was the first one to break the news of that test flight back in January, 2001! Arun V then made a play on my last name.

Great news!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 May 2016 02:12

Still remember that day!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 May 2016 02:17

It seems ACM Raha was impressed by the maneuverability of the aircraft. He pulled 4.5 Gs without any reheat and said it could pull even more. And this is the trainer prototype with all the telemetry strapped on.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 May 2016 03:27

Source Indranil ?

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 19 May 2016 03:32

He could order a squadron of trainer. Its never too late.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 May 2016 04:34

shiv wrote:
I would not confuse Gnat with Maruti/Nano. The latter two are perfect for narrow Indian inner city roads. Remember Hummers in Mogadishu and shameful defeat as they got stuck in lanes. Just sayin.. and sorry to go OT

Agreed. All I'm trying to do is get across a couple of things:

1. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail (not original). The Gnats did wonderful things against the F-86s—though possibly more because of the fearlessness of the Keelors and others

http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/ip65ind.htm

than any atavistic airframe advantage —my take based on pre-internet news and bad gun camera videos.

2. The small size Maruti/Nano should not be a limiting (subconscious) factor when we look at the future. Let us not get trapped into a rear view mirror image and use it to extrapolate what lies ahead.

If the LCA had been a little bigger (extend the hangar canopy), we could have carried a F-414, had more range etc. The MiG 21 was the rear view image.

OK enough, coudda/woudda/shoudda.

Going forward, I hope we think platforms versus ponies, sensor and shooters vs knife fights and scenarios that involve how to drop the maximum ordnance and hurt on the enemy within our reach and out of his.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 May 2016 06:23

Cosmo_R wrote: If the LCA had been a little bigger (extend the hangar canopy), we could have carried a F-414, had more range etc. The MiG 21 was the rear view image.

Cosmo I get your point but it's your examples that are jarring. When the examples you quote are inaccurate the points you make lose their effect.

The F 414 will be the same size as the F-404 and will not require the LCA to have a new hangar

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 May 2016 07:06

If they really wanted a bigger lca, the best window of opportunity was when the sanctions hit and the mki program took off..late 90s. There was a chance to wrap a mirage sized tejas around an al 31. And bag decent tot into the engine as well.

Anyways water under the bridge...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 May 2016 07:20

Sorry to go off on a slight tangent. We have noticed, on BRF, that the entire country is infected with the curse of admiring phoren. This admiration is not something that one wakes up and finds one morning like pimples. It is a process of education that everyone gets. Our Air Force and our Army officers go through the same education and they too have the same biases. And with our own industry - especially the public sector having been a morass of inefficiency and money down the drain - men who had to put their lives on line using equipment would be doubly unsure of Indian stuff.

The LCA started in an era when all that I have mentioned above was true and is reaching fruition in an era when things have changed. There is some pride in things India. The ISROs and the ITivitys have done well and private industry like pharma and automotive are competitive and even some PSUs are delivering. And as has been repeated ad nauseam, sanctions are useful. The Indian defence budget had put sanctions on the Indian Navy for so many years that they learned to fend for themselves - cooperating with PSUs, Indian universities and the lungi-pyjama clad people who have no inherent self hate until they get an English education

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 19 May 2016 08:03

Indeed. And this curse for admiring phoren runs across all sectors of the economy. In the internet age it also leads to imported business models that dont work eventually because those models were built for a different business environment. And since the so called VCs are also likely to have had their VC learning phase out of India, (our systems are still maturing) it leads to blinkers on, for some time at least, till the business reality hits, and investments go bad, or are scaled down.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 19 May 2016 09:57

Ramu wrote:He could order a squadron of trainer. Its never too late.

Each Sqn of LCA will have a fixed number of trainers. It is how it is with other fighters too. The Sqns are equipped to a "Scale" approved earlier.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 19 May 2016 12:13

rakall wrote:
shiv wrote:Would ACM Raha be the first serving IAF Officer to fly the Tejas or are there IAF pilots on deputation to ASTE?
All Tejas test pilots are serving IAF (& IN) pilots on deputation to ASTE for 2-3yrs.

AirCmde Rohit Verma was a Chief test pilot in 2011 quit service as IAF overlooked him for promotion apparently citing Blr as plum posting.

OTOH, Navy has kept one test pilot (Cmd.Maolonkar) dedicated to LCA-N program for the past 10-11years (while some other test pilots from IN did 3-4yr detachments).. During this period he got his due promotion from Captain to Commodore.

Re. Maolankar, not entirely correct, he had to take a break for a year to do his sea time to get his promotion to Captain from commander (this i know first hand) and again from captain to commodore (indirect info).
In the Navy it is essential for all officers to do their sea time at each level to get promoted to the next level. Unfortunately, the pilots all have to get re-certified every time they go for their sea time and take a long break from flying.
This is a problem that exists both in the IAF and the IN.

sad but true.. the only navy where this does not happen is the USN where the air arm is big enough that the aviators that want to only fly do not get forced into the regular sailing positions and they get their promotions.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 19 May 2016 13:41

I'd asked about this topic earlier as well -- if the initial lot of LCAs contained more trainers (instead of 2/20, let's say 6/20), wouldn't it help jumpstart type conversion?
Trying to understand the induction process for a new type. Any tips on how this is done?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 19 May 2016 14:16

vcsekhar wrote:
rakall wrote:
All Tejas test pilots are serving IAF (& IN) pilots on deputation to ASTE for 2-3yrs.

AirCmde Rohit Verma was a Chief test pilot in 2011 quit service as IAF overlooked him for promotion apparently citing Blr as plum posting.

OTOH, Navy has kept one test pilot (Cmd.Maolonkar) dedicated to LCA-N program for the past 10-11years (while some other test pilots from IN did 3-4yr detachments).. During this period he got his due promotion from Captain to Commodore.
Re. Maolankar, not entirely correct, he had to take a break for a year to do his sea time to get his promotion to Captain from commander (this i know first hand) and again from captain to commodore (indirect info).
In the Navy it is essential for all officers to do their sea time at each level to get promoted to the next level. Unfortunately, the pilots all have to get re-certified every time they go for their sea time and take a long break from flying.
This is a problem that exists both in the IAF and the IN.

sad but true.. the only navy where this does not happen is the USN where the air arm is big enough that the aviators that want to only fly do not get forced into the regular sailing positions and they get their promotions.

Thanks for the update.. but even in that intent of the IN was clear.. that IN will facilitate the required stuff while allowing him to be dedicated to the LCA-Navy program.. the fact that IN did not use the 1yr sea time as an opportunity to terminate his detachment to ASTE, and instead let him go back to ASTE immediately after the 1yr sea time speaks volumes about IN's commitment to Tejas.. and inturn shows up the rather step motherly treatment that IAF had resorted to during the same period..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 May 2016 14:44

DexterM wrote:I'd asked about this topic earlier as well -- if the initial lot of LCAs contained more trainers (instead of 2/20, let's say 6/20), wouldn't it help jumpstart type conversion?
Trying to understand the induction process for a new type. Any tips on how this is done?

If one trainer can fly 2 hours a day and each pilot needs 10 hours for conversion then 6 pilots can be trained on one trainer in 1 month and 12 if there are 2 trainers. What will be done with the extra trainers after the first 2-3 months? Better to have extra fighters no?

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 19 May 2016 17:39

deejay wrote:
Ramu wrote:He could order a squadron of trainer. Its never too late.
Each Sqn of LCA will have a fixed number of trainers. It is how it is with other fighters too. The Sqns are equipped to a "Scale" approved earlier.

It made sense when IAF used to order piecemeal qty of variety of aircrafts.

Why we limit ourselves wrt LCA?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 May 2016 19:40

rakall wrote: Thanks for the update.. but even in that intent of the IN was clear.. that IN will facilitate the required stuff while allowing him to be dedicated to the LCA-Navy program.. the fact that IN did not use the 1yr sea time as an opportunity to terminate his detachment to ASTE, and instead let him go back to ASTE immediately after the 1yr sea time speaks volumes about IN's commitment to Tejas.. and inturn shows up the rather step motherly treatment that IAF had resorted to during the same period..

What with sweeping assumptions?

How much flying opportunities exist for a Naval Aviator in India? If anything, secondment to a program like LCA testing opens up growth opportunities for them. An IAF test pilot is a fighter pilot at the end of the day. Beyond a certain level, his promotion in the IAF will be basis his tenures in a front-line squadron and various staff postings. Unless, we have a dedicated cadre for Test Pilots/dedicated R&D personnel with its own hierarchy up to AVM/AM level.

Not to forget that LCA flight test team at NFTC has been mostly manned by IAF pilots.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 May 2016 19:53

Kartik wrote:Source Indranil ?

Please watch from 6:42 onwards.

rohitvats wrote: What with sweeping assumptions?

How much flying opportunities exist for a Naval Aviator in India? If anything, secondment to a program like LCA testing opens up growth opportunities for them. An IAF test pilot is a fighter pilot at the end of the day. Beyond a certain level, his promotion in the IAF will be basis his tenures in a front-line squadron and various staff postings. Unless, we have a dedicated cadre for Test Pilots/dedicated R&D personnel with its own hierarchy up to AVM/AM level.

Not to forget that LCA flight test team at NFTC has been mostly manned by IAF pilots.

While I agree with the remainder of your comment, the bolded part is not true.