LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

[Bhaskar_T]

How reliable is this reporting of gun integration conclusion. None of any other media reports have claimed so. I am used to getting disappointed when deadlines were quoted by DRDO/HAL/ADA officials and they were missed by huge margins of years but it would be terrible if none such quote was made at the first place. (What was the conference/workshop/meeting? Was this an informal meeting on some other unrelated topic). Happy to be proved wrong.

If the news is true, it can also be seen, the officials are cautious about aiming/revealing any month or quarter. "Next Year" is the timeline. I bet 5 Old Monks that FOC won't be achieved next year (one each to 5 oldest active members of Tejas Dhaga). Basis of bet is extremely slow progress and less confirmed news spills on FOC issues.

Tejas gun integration complete. Another Derby test planned for December.

On a specific query on the Final Operational Clearance for Tejas, Aeronautical Development Agency head Cmde C D Balaji (Retd) said the process will be completed next year.

“We hope that Tejas would get the FOC by mid of 2017. The BVR Derby missile will be fired again next month. The gun integration work is completed. The air-to-air refuelling probe too will be tested next year,” Balaji said.

DRDO DG (Aero) C P Ramanarayanan said LCA with Kaveri engine might fly in 2018. He said DRDO is already in consultation with Snecma. Already Rs 2,105 crore has been spent on the project. Another Rs 600 crore is likely to be needed for the testing phase.

http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1519345

[disha]

At the end of the day, these explanations are worthless if the LCA is not mass produced.
China has mass produced its J-10, copied the Sukhoi-27 (J-11) and producing its J-12.
We are still stuck writing articles desperately trying to fend off critics.

Agreed that several J-10s and J-11s and J-12s have been produced. Including J-17. But how do you know that one they first fly and two how much they fly?

[disha]

So he says Tejas is as capable as any aircraft and he took the initiative to get Tejas going, Yet he wants to order 200 Gripen or F-16, what a hypocrite he is

Do we know for sure he (I am assuming that it is Manohar Parrikar you are talking about) wants to order 200 Gripen or F-16?

I mean I can write an article that confidently states that internal sources from the MoD headed by Raksha Mantri indicate that they want to order 200 Gripen or F-16. It still means nothing., unless you have a complete proof that Manohar Parrikar indeed said so in public OR you have a direct line to RM'ji and quoting authoritatively on what he thinks.

I think you are just assuming here Austin'ji.

Till then., calling him hypocrite because you are emotionally invested in LCA is a stretch.

From the above report., one thing we know for sure - RM MP'ji thinks highly of Tejas and thinks it is a very capable platform. That is an unequivocal faith in Tejas from the very top of MoD.

[Khalsa]

^^^^ I thought about this hard and long.

Is he a hypocrite or is he merely playing clever by letting the potentials vendors know that this is no monopoly or duopoly.
We have other options so be reasonable with prices and generous with the deal.

We kind of screwed ourselves didn't we in terms of Rafael. Sign the G2G deal and then negotiate later.
IAF openly expressing its desire for Rafael and Rafael only.

The the vendor knows that its me and no one else.

[Kakkaji]

Dr. Christopher's interview

On updates on indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas which is now inducted into armed forces, he said DRDO desires to take the total orders to 123 after meeting the placement of an additional 83 aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The 83 aircraft will see improvements made in avionics and weaponry capability and this include the next version of LCA Mk2.

While the first 20 LCAs for IAF will go as per the initial operational configuration, all efforts are being made to incorporate other changes mandated for the final operational clearance for the second 20 aircraft.

DRDO is in talks with private firm Snecma, which is ready to help Kaveri programme revive under the offset clause, company Director General (Aero), C P Ramnarayanan said, adding funds to the extent of Rs 2,105 crore has already been spent on this aero engine programme but with little success.

The latest plan to revive it with Snecma's help will see another Rs 500 crore or more being spent.

[Gagan]

Any news on the radar front?

[Kartik]

Such confused reporting..no clear information really. Couldn't they have asked Dr Christopher to confirm whether the Tejas Mk2 program was on and if so, what was its status with relation to funding and schedule.

[khan]

Isn't there room in IAF for 250-350 light fighters - evenly split between F-16 and LCA?

Why should there be a split when you have Tejas ready , Why not make more if it and in DM own word they are as capable as any thing out there.

Even for a more simplistic argument , Why on earth would one even think of complicating logistics operating two types or pay LM or SAAB when we have Tejas ready.

In an ideal world, there would be no need for a split.

But there is no guarantee that ADA or HAL will deliver (in terms of timeline or capabilities). Given the stakes it makes total sense to not bet it all on the LCA.

There is also the matter of delivery risk. Already HAL is slipping from its stated 8 units/year capability. There is drama in its efforts to scale to 16/year.

If the LCA lives up to its potential, I don't think it will ever be starved for orders, more likely than not - it will be supply constrained.

IAF has demand for 250+ light fighters. The difference in what the Indian establishment would learn between building, operating and supporting 125 LCA's vs 250 LCA's is marginal.

Yes, there are complications with operating two types, but keep in mind that these two types are replacing Mig-21, Mig-27, Jaguar's maybe even Mig-29 and Mirage-2000 (those airframes can only be flogged so much and it might just be cheaper to replace them with LCA & F-16).

There is also the strategic aspect. With the only F-16 assembly line in the world located in India, India becomes pretty much sanction proof.

All in all, in my view it is a good move - something both the Chinese and Pakis are probably losing sleep over.

[Marten]

>>Already HAL is slipping from its stated 8 units/year capability.
Is that what HAL said? From what we heard during the Bahrain show, it was six a year for this year (until March 2017).

>>there is drama in its efforts to scale to 16/year.
Awaiting MOD nod!

>>With the only F-16 assembly line in the world located in India, India becomes pretty much sanction proof.
How so? If anything, we are even more dependent on the US and will have to take MORE measures to avoid sanctions and thereby ensure our fleet stays operations. Why? There are several other centers worldwide (equivalent to the MROs) who handle PDM (aka regular maintenance). Look up CBOL corp. Remember, the current operators require no support from India (only new units if ever will be assembled here instead of Texas). Even Turkey can support any Pak sola without any Massa input if it came to that. Who will support India if the US decides to sanction us? Agreed the same issue affects most of our fleet, but this is adding one more stone to keep our b***s tied down.

[shiv]

Are multiple types a problem? Cross post
viewtopic.php?p=2057005#p2057005


In the 1950s - post WW2 Britain was a prolific aircraft designer and producer and filled itself with its own aircraft
By the 1970s Britain and France both found it tough going - so they collaborated on The Jaguar while Britain bought and operated the Phantom II, C-130, Chinook. Britain was still competitive enough to give the US a Harrier and the Hawk. In future Britain will have imported onlee.

As the going got tougher Europe consolidated to create the Tornado and later the Eurofighter which are like Brahmos in terms of cooperation. Not indigenous. Not foreign

The US and Russia have a very large number of types - but mostly indigenous. China still has a huge legacy fleet of imported stuff including Tu -16 Badgers and MiG 21s

West Germany and Japan had to live on imports as "losers". East Germany again had a sizeable Soviet origin fleet.

Brazil is a large nation with multiple imported types.

India in 1965 operated

• Vampires
  Ouragans
  Mysteres
  Hunters
  Gnats
  Canberras
  MiG 21s ( a handful)
  Caribou
  Fairchild Packet
  An-12
  Super Constellation
  Mi-4
  S-55 (I think)

in 1971

• Hunter
  Gnat
  MiG 21
  Su-7
  Mystere
  HF-24
  Canberra
  An-12
  Caribou
  Mi-4
  Alouette II
  Alouette III
  Super Constellation
  HS 748
  Sea Hawk
  Alize
  Harvard
  HJT 16 Kiran
  Iskra

In 1999 we had

• Jaguar
  MiG 21
  MiG 23
  MiG 25
  MiG 27
  MiG 29
  Mirage 2000
  Alouette 2
  Alouette 3
  Sea King
  Mi 8
  Mi 25/25
  Mi-26
  Kamov
  HS-748
  Dornier Do-228
  Harrier
  An-32
  IL 76
  HJT 16
  HPT 32
  Il 38
  Tu-142

In 2016 we have

• Jaguar
  Mirage 2000
  Su-30
  MiG 21
  MiG 27
  MiG 29
  An-32
  IL 76, 78
  Embraer
  C-130
  C-17
  Do-228
  Dhruv
  Alouette 2
  Alouette 3
  Kamov Ka 25/28/31
  Mi 8/Mi 17
  Hawk
  PC-7
  Il-38
  Tu-142
  P8

So for the last 50 plus years we have operated and serviced a multiplicity of types. In 10 years the MiG 21, MiG 27 , Alouette 2 and 3 and Il-38 will be gone.

So what is the exact new worry about logistics?

[vina]

So what is the exact new worry about logistics?

Very expensive. Requires multiple job codes that are not fungible (in Inglees, it means each type requires certified and trained workmen , and a workman for a Jag engine , cant service a Mig 21 engine , but can service an AJT engine which has the same adour).. This is just for engine. Mutiply that by each equipment (airframe, avionics, radar, etc) and different types of ordnances and weapons,the cost start sky rocketing. This is just for the stuff on the plane. Add in equipment for service (you cant service the Mig29 with the Jaguar's tools and diagnostics etc), costs start going ballistic.

So ideally, you will have two or 3 engine that are the bulk of your fleet (like GE F110 for the F15 and F16 and F14, similar equivalent of PW), commonality on tools and repair and diagnostics.

For eg, in other markets, for your car , irrespective of which make it is, all of them would be OBD II (onboard diagnostics II) compliant) , you can take the car to any shop and they plug in their diagnostics into the OBDII port and they can debug the engine and fault immediately as long as they have fault codes for that particular model and make in their database.

Now warehousing and inventory costs are massive. If you have a large fleet served out centralised inventory systems , any operations guy will tell you, those costs drop like a stone . Check out Economic Order Quantity and NewsPaper Vendor Model .

The nice thing is if there are mulitple demand centers (think a Bata Shoe Production unit, serving 100 retail outlets), though each outlet might see random demand with say given std deviation (sigma) of say 10, the factory will NOT see a std deviation of demand of 10*100 = 1000, but rather 10* sqrt(100) = 100 .. ie variability reduces by a factor of 10 . Put that into the EoQ above, and put in sophisticated inventory models , and you will start seeing Walmart like supply chain efficiencies that commercial aircraft world tries to get to.

Same with helicopters. You do it with same engine in Dhruv, ALH, LUH , , you see a very efficient overall solution, if managed well. You build the LCA and AMCA with same engine, exact same thing. If you have spin offs in a turbo prop or a marine out of it, the economies of scale kick in even more.

That is what it is and that is how you take huge costs out of the system while maintaining superb uptime. None of this is rocket science, the civil/ commercial world moved on to it starting around mid 80s. It is time the Indian military moved there too. But it cant do it on non standardised or picemeal imported stuff. You need domestic products and industrial base to do it.

I am willing to bet that the Indian Army trucks will see the absolute best uptimes , avaialility and very efficient costs overall.. No surprise . That happens because the tap into the vast installed base of Ashok Leyland and Tata's supply chain, logistics and support network!

[NachiketM]

http://idrw.org/lca-tejas-start-tanker- ... arch-2017/

Another good news snippet from the Tejas team ...
Tejas integrated with IFR probe will fly in next few days...

[JayS]

So what is the exact new worry about logistics?

This is no more 1950s n 1960s that we need large number of variety of aircrafts, each of which was specifically designed for one particular type of tasks. Today multirole swingrole is the norm. That itself should give a sound basis to reduce variety. Another thing is we do not have the kind of requirements that US or UK or Russia or China have/had. We don't want to militarily dominate the world just as yet. So we have limited set of role requirements. Also these countries spend far far more on defense than the paltry sum we spend. In 1950's UK was spending 10% of their GDP on defense. Also with commonality we can keep more number of Sq for same amount of expenditure due to ease of training, logistics n maintenance. To me there seems to be no strong reason to have a zoo in IAF. Note that we are talking about fighters only. Not transporters or other aircrafts in "variety". They have their own place. Question is do we need multirole fighters with overlapping capabilities when we can distribute those roles in less number of types...? In today's world of network centric warfare, having to integrate more diverse plateforms from various origins is going to be terribly difficult, time consuming n resource consuming. Why exhaust ourselves in unnecessary efforts of integrating too many types..?

When we can spend atleast 4% of GDP or we have more variety of role requirements which cannot be fulfilled by 3-4 fighter types, then why not, we can go with all the variety we need.

Another thing is, our mantra of strategic independence seems to be that of diversity n sourcing from multiple countries, rather than one of decreasing dependence on other countries by limiting our exposure. In process we have to keep all of them happy by doling out CBMs. Its like overcompensation of non-alignment by aligning with everyone.

[ragupta]

Isn't there room in IAF for 250-350 light fighters - evenly split between F-16 and LCA?

Why should there be a split when you have Tejas ready , Why not make more if it and in DM own word they are as capable as any thing out there.

Even for a more simplistic argument , Why on earth would one even think of complicating logistics operating two types or pay LM or SAAB when we have Tejas ready.

Why fight and compete, when you can have the logistics, supply chain and economic activity for both.

[shiv]

So what is the exact new worry about logistics?

This is no more 1950s n 1960s that we need large number of variety of aircrafts,

Nothing to do with dates. It is the size, terrain and weather of the country that calls for a wide variety of aircraft. You are simply concentrating on the fighter segment. Look at the forest - it is huge and needs lots of trees. Even if we reduce fighters to just 2 types we will still need to operate, maintain, design and maunufacture at least 20 types. We can still do with bombers and UAVs and UCAVs of various types. Transports of various sizes and ranges. Seaplanes. Helos. That will all come with logistics issues of their own. We should not be talking like small piddly nations that can manage with 2.5 types. Why concentrate on fighters alone and worry about logistics? The same air bases and the same maintenance set up has to manage everything and we simply cannot reduce beyond a point. We are a huge country with large requirements - not Nauru. And please comment on the 2016 list I have made and say what can be reduced?

[vina]

Even if we reduce fighters to just 2 types we will still need to operate, maintain, design and maunufacture at least 20 types. We can still do with bombers and UAVs and UCAVs of various types. Transports of various sizes and ranges. Seaplanes. Helos. ..

. And please comment on the 2016 list I have made and say what can be reduced?

Lets look at the 80-20 thumbrule. Fighters and strikers (we really dont have any medium range or long range bombers) will take up bulk of the costs we have. The remaining 20% will get allocated to other things. Optimise the 80% to cut costs and the rest will be fine, even if they are prima donnas.

Americans do optimsation by having same-same at engine level with civilian fleet. In fact the USAF tanker fleet (which is probably the single largest user of ATF in the world) is a wholly civilian fleet adapted for USAF. Same with Airbus with their tankers.

Looking forward. The entire Mig21/27 & Jaguar fleet can be replaced with Multirole planes.. The Mig29s and M2Ks would go next. Tactical fighters would be solely SU30, Tejas , possibly MII Single Engined fighter and the gold plated niche Rafale. Still not ideal, where you essentially could have just one engine for the entire fleet, but still far better than earlier.

[shiv]

Looking forward. The entire Mig21/27 & Jaguar fleet can be replaced with Multirole planes.. The Mig29s and M2Ks would go next. Tactical fighters would be solely SU30, Tejas , possibly MII Single Engined fighter and the gold plated niche Rafale. Still not ideal, where you essentially could have just one engine for the entire fleet, but still far better than earlier.

Still only fighters. The point is that by saying 2 fighters better than 4 we forget that we need 20 other types of aircraft inclusing transports of different capabilities, and therefore engines too, helos and increasingly UAVs

I would like to ask how would 20 types of aircraft be much better than 22 types that are required by the nation?

[vina]

I would like to ask how would 20 types of aircraft be much better than 22 types that are required by the nation?

Because it is those 2 to 4 airframes that eat up the bulk of the costs in terms of maintenance (the 80%). That would mean the large fleet of tactical aircraft. The remaining 20 would be the small change (20%).

Helicopters, we would be pretty well off. The rotor,engine, transmission /powertrain are the same for ALH, LUH and LCH. That is close to 600 airframes that are great. What we are missing is a MI17 class medium to heavy helicopters where there are gaps. Fine, we atleast got the bulk of the airframes fixed in terms of maintenance.

You do what you can. If we develop a UAV, it probably will use an existing engine in our inventory (Say the F404 without the A/B or Kaveri if it comes about!)

[shiv]

I did not understand the 80:20 ratio
I don't have the exact figures but I will put down some guesstimates +wiki (not counting navy)

In 2016 we have

• Jaguar 120
  Mirage 2000 50
  Su-30 230
  MiG 21 240?
  MiG 27 87
  MiG 29 66
  An-32 80
  IL 76, 78 24
  Embraer 6
  C-130 5
  C-17 10
  Do-228 40
  Dhruv 66
  Alouette 2 14
  Alouette 3 74
  Kamov Ka 25/28/31
  Mi 8/Mi 17 250?
  Mi 35 20
  Hawk 90
  PC-7 75
  HJT 16 80
  HS 748 60
  Il-38
  Tu-142
  P8

790 fighters (approx) of 6 types
900 (approx) non fighter types: of 17 varieties

That means 47% of our aircraft are fighters of just 6 types
53 % are non fighters, (transport helo, trainer, elint etc) of >17 varieties

[Aditya_V]

Mig 21Bison, Bis, MF are all Significantly different, similarly aircraft like the Jaguar IM, Jaguar Darin I, Darin II, Darin III, Upgraded and Original Mig-27. Apart form these the Armaments, like ASRAAM, Magic-II,MICA, Super 530-D, ASRAAM, R-60, R-73, Python Iv, Python V, Derby, Crystal Mase, CB 105, R-77, R-27, KA 31 etc. are compatible with only some parts of the fleet, each requiring its own maintenance trained personal and fleet.

All this means I don't thing we have flexibilty move the aircraft from base to base. As the logistics for these aircraft types will be way to different.

If only we buy a few SD-10, Sd-8, A-Darter, AMRAAM and Aim-9 series missiles we can have all the types of Air to Air missiles in our inventory.

[brar_w]

Don't tie this or any other aircraft deal to the DTTI. DTTI is a G2G framework to discuss technology co-development or absorption into Indian designs. It is a long term effort and is not going to be negatively impacted because of what the IAF decides vis-a-vis any new fighter aircraft purchases. The programs agreed upon through DTTI reflect the comfort level b/w the governments and industry on both sides and will most likely be negotiated under the framework established through it.

Some will naturally be easy and get going fast while others especially stuff like EMALS and any engine technology will see long negotiations. It is entirely possible that on the more challenging efforts both sides do not find common ground/agreement. The framework just allows them to go ahead and explore these things..

Of course since the framework is political in nature it isn't immune to being morphed to suit a new leadership's liking both at the MOD and the Pentagon.

[vina]

I did not understand the 80:20 ratio
I don't have the exact figures but I will put down some guesstimates +wiki (not counting navy)

From your numbers -->

Fighters : Total 783.
SU 30 --> 250
Rest --> 563 (Jag, Migs, M2k) . All this can be replaced by a SINGLE airframe . ie. 71% of ALL your fighters can be a single engined fighter that is multirole and does all these roles. Of course M2K and Mig29 went through an upgrade and are good for another 15 years. But eventually they will go,and that 15 years and the later build jags give us the ability to replace them over time as they retire. This will be a massive saving of having 71% of your fighter fleet of ONE type, instead of 5 types as current. The number is lopsided becuase of the number of Su 30s we have got. The IAF is "heavy" oriented.

Rotary wing.
Helicopter..> Approx 470
MI17 -> 250
Dhruv + Cheetah + Chetaks etc --> 154 . Cheetahs and Chetaks are largely the same engine and transmission. The Dhruv replaces both.. So that is fine. All in all in rotary, this is the best you can do.
If you get LUH , it will share commonality with Dhruv.
Kamov 226T when it gets inducted will be "unique" and destroys scale. Really dont see what Ka 226T brings to the table over LUH.


Transports -->
Too diverse roles that are subscale. We have to import the best we can get, as we dont have an industry to support us that we can leverage for engines and stuff.

[JayS]

This is no more 1950s n 1960s that we need large number of variety of aircrafts,

Nothing to do with dates. It is the size, terrain and weather of the country that calls for a wide variety of aircraft. You are simply concentrating on the fighter segment. Look at the forest - it is huge and needs lots of trees. Even if we reduce fighters to just 2 types we will still need to operate, maintain, design and maunufacture at least 20 types. We can still do with bombers and UAVs and UCAVs of various types. Transports of various sizes and ranges. Seaplanes. Helos. That will all come with logistics issues of their own. We should not be talking like small piddly nations that can manage with 2.5 types. Why concentrate on fighters alone and worry about logistics? The same air bases and the same maintenance set up has to manage everything and we simply cannot reduce beyond a point. We are a huge country with large requirements - not Nauru. And please comment on the 2016 list I have made and say what can be reduced?

Dates do matter, especially if you gonna pull US/Russia/US of yesteryears into comparison. Aerospace has improved by light years and we can cover almost all the types of roles that say 10 various types were covering in 1950s using only 2-3 types with equal or better efficiency in 2010s. If IAF had its own ways, even IAF would not have had so much variety of fighters in it in 2016. I think, IAF would be pretty happy with only 3-4 types if they get it in numbers and with reliability and assurance from sanctions.

Why emphasize on Fighter?? Because they make up bulk of the forces and eat up bulk of the resources. On top of it we are looking into inducting planes with overlapping capabilities. If GOI/IAF comes up with such planes with UAVs for example in future, I would argue against that too. In fact IAF should look to have as much commonality as possible in other parts such as the aircraft for transport, AWACS and tankers. The diversity has to be justified by the variety of operational requirements that cannot be fulfilled by available types. It cannot be based on size of the country - that would dictate numbers, not number of types so much (after all we have one jet which can operate everywhere in India and helicopters as well, all our own designs). We need pragmatism in planning. The systems are becoming quite complicated and even US cannot afford to field a large variety in 2020s that they used to have in 1950s/60s. Consolidation in Aerospace and defense is fact of matter. And its not just economy that is playing a part here but the technology itself has a natural path towards consolidation. Consolidation means increasing commonality and reduction in variety in conventional types of systems. Infusion of new things will come through new type of systems such as Unmanned systems, next generation of weapons etc and the same cycle will repeat for those systems as well.

If we had built our own design and development capabilities we could have pushed for greater commonality. We have to go beg for platforms everywhere in the world is the biggest reason we have to maintain a zoo of systems throughout the forces. Say we had our own A320 class civil liner, we could have made derivatives of it for AWACS, transporter and tankers. The variety we have is more due to our handicap with capability to develop our own systems tailor made for our own needs and not because we really need so many types. I am pretty sure we could reduce the variety if we were to make all of them in-house specifically for our own need.

[khan]

I did not understand the 80:20 ratio
I don't have the exact figures but I will put down some guesstimates +wiki (not counting navy)

Rest --> 563 (Jag, Migs, M2k) . All this can be replaced by a SINGLE airframe . ie. 71% of ALL your fighters can be a single engined fighter that is multirole and does all these roles.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that having one type is going to be cheaper than having two.

But there are other factors, like: How much cheaper is it to have one type vs two? Is the difference marginal? What about jobs, expertise and industry created in India by having an F-16 production line - how do you value that? How long will it take for HAL to deliver 250-500 LCA's? What happens if LCA deadlines are missed - and if there were no other alternative, how will that affect IAF strength and the Country's posture towards China?

There is a bigger picture here. 125 LCA's is more than enough to keep the LCA program in good health. The LCA is a full generation ahead of the F-16 - I view it as more of a Rafale contemporary than an F-16 contemporary. However, LCA won't reach its potential until 2025. Until then, it makrs a lot of sense to build numbers with F-16.

[Indranil]

^^^ Sir, I find it quite funny that you think that an F-16 line can generate jobs, but an additional LCA line cannot. Also, could you please take this discussion to the single-engine fighter thread. Thanks.

[ramana]

Vina/Shiv, For IAF what is the teeth to tail ratio or pilot to other ranks? That will give a snapshot of the logistics trail.

[Indranil]

How reliable is this reporting of gun integration conclusion. None of any other media reports have claimed so. I am used to getting disappointed when deadlines were quoted by DRDO/HAL/ADA officials and they were missed by huge margins of years but it would be terrible if none such quote was made at the first place. (What was the conference/workshop/meeting? Was this an informal meeting on some other unrelated topic). Happy to be proved wrong.

Don't get disappointed. Yes, things could be better at every rung, but things are really moving forward. Let us put some 2 and 2 together.

1. Gun integration and testing have been done on the ground. The tests have been successful (hence the chiefs statement). They havn't been any test flights. We know this because the Tejas admin has said that the SPs are not flying with a gun. ADA must have a LSP which has the gun integrated, instrumented for tests and cleared by CEMILAC to fly with these modifications. ADA will not go through the process again for another LSP as it consumes time and money. Instead, they will use the same plane whenever the priorities laid down by IAF would allow. Given the place of Tejas's gun, in flight trials should be easier in the air than on the ground. That's why they don't expect any surprises and are kind of ticking that testpoint off. Could the declaration have waited till the test flight was over. I think so
2. From the reports, you can infer what IAF current priorities are. BVR firing and flight with IFR are highest. Again ADA must have LSP(s) modified, instrumented and cleared for these tests. We know that currently LSP 3/4/7/8 sport the quartz nose. So, one or more of these four LSPs must be used for BVR firing. I have only seen LSP8 with an IFR probe. So, as long as LSP8 is not the aircraft which is instrumented for BVR testing, you will see the test activities of BVR firing and IFR flights in parallel. Otherwise, they will be in series. Given the timelines, I think they are separate LSPs.
3. Given the timeline of the gun tests, one can guess that the gun is integrated in one of the planes earmarked for BVR or IFR testing. Hence gun-testing will follow after the BVR/IFR tests are done.

I wish I could guess what HAL is doing for Mk1A. I am waiting for somebody like Kartik to go and get all the information at AI'17 However, I do guess that since they already have PV-1 instrumented for the SPJ tests, they might use the same for that aspect of testing.

[ramana]

If it were me I would have the flight testing of the gun after the BVR firing. Reason is the plane would be good for BVR service for sure. My only concern with gun firing is the location from the old cutaway drawing with so many packages around it. Shock and vibration would be quite high. I wish we can talk to some one on ADA page on this issue.
After the HF-24 Marut gun issues, its worrisome but then the GSch-23 is not same as those 30mm Aden guns.

If Abhibhushan saar weighs in its good.

---
Priority
1) BVR & radar (lethality)
2) IFR demonstration (range)
3) Gun aerial firing (AA and AG role)

[Indranil]

Ramana sir,

People have already asked the Tejas-FB admin about this. He said that typically the gun should have been tested first, but was not due to a myriad of reasons. Anyways, it is behind us now. Gun trials are not likely to generate any surprises.

[ramana]

Good to hear that.

Thanks, ramana

[shiv]

Vina/Shiv, For IAF what is the teeth to tail ratio or pilot to other ranks? That will give a snapshot of the logistics trail.

Ramana this should give you an idea of the size of an air force detachment, but it leaves out details of ground personnel that the US provided
8 fighters, 2 transports, 2 refuellers + 150 personnel. Assume 20 pilots. Missing also are things like rescue helicopters and crew which are "routine", ATC etc
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/12-india ... se-1398724

[shiv]

Why emphasize on Fighter?? Because they make up bulk of the forces and eat up bulk of the resources.

You have not actually counted have you?

Indian Air Force (from my own post above)

790 fighters (approx) of 6 types
900 (approx) non fighter types: of 17 varieties

That means 47% of our aircraft are fighters of just 6 types
53 % are non fighters, (transport helo, trainer, elint etc) of >17 varieties

In fact the number of types is only set to increase as we induct UAVs and UCAVs.

Of all the reasons being given for not inducting F-16/18/Gripen the weakest and most irrelevant one is that "One more fighter means more complicated logistics". There are much better reasons than this one

[Indranil]

TO ALL. TAKE THIS DIVERSIFICATION DISCUSSION TO THE RIGHT THREAD.

[vaibhav.n]

Export of LCA Tejas

The government proposes to export the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas to other countries. In this connection preliminary discussions have been held with a few friendly countries.

Presently, HAL has established facilities for manufacturing and delivery of 8 LCA per annum.

There is a plan to ramp up the production rate from 8 to 16 Aircraft per annum progressively by 2019-20.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar in a written reply to Shri MI Shanavas in Lok Sabha today.

DM/NAMPI/RAJ  
(Release ID :153870)

[JTull]

Janes: India's MoD releases data on Tejas' imported components

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has revealed that about 25% of the components used in the indigenously designed and built Tejas Mk 1 Light Combat Aircraft have been sourced from outside India.

Junior defence minister Subhash Bhamre told parliament on 18 November that 344 of the so-called line replaceable units (LRUs) of the Tejas Mk 1, which is being inducted into the Indian Air Force, were developed locally, while the remaining 134 LRUs have been imported.

The minister said that 75.5% of the single engine fighter's systems and components has been indigenously sourced, amounting to 59.7% of its overall value.

Bhamre added that India's Defence Research and Development Organisation, which designed the aircraft, along with manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and associated private companies, are collectively aiming to indigenise 42 of the Tejas' 134 imported LRUs.

However, some military analysts argue that the LRUs "do not accurately reflect" the fighter's overall imported content as such measures fail to take the Tejas' major components into account.

"The Tejas' LRUs are merely sub-assemblies or auxiliary equipment designed for logistic situations, and do not include principal constituents such as the engine, avionics, and weaponry," military analyst Air Marshal V K Bhatia (retd) told IHS Jane's .

The Tejas' main imported components include the General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan engine, UK-made ejection seats and the Israel Aerospace Industries/ELTA EL/M-2032 multi-mode airborne fire control radar.

The aircraft's weapon suite is also imported, comprising the Russian Vympel R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') air-to-air missile (AAM), the Israeli-made Derby beyond-visual-range AAM and the Russian GSh-23 twin-barrel 23 mm gun.

[Thakur_B]

Wait, so gsh-23, being made in country for decades, also counts as imported, what the hell will be indigenous in the make in India fighter then?

[ks_sachin]

Wait, so gsh-23, being made in country for decades, also counts as imported, what the hell will be indigenous in the make in India fighter then?

the pilot perhaps!!!

[Austin]

The heart of any aircraft is its engine as long as they is imported they would remain a critical risk for the aircraft , They cant change engine over night or even in years without major testing much like they can replace or have a substitute for weapons or replace them with indiginous system.

They should have pursued the Kaveri engine program with Tejas even if the initial thrust was less than expected , Having dozens of Kaveri equipped Tejas in squadron service would have given lot of data and confidence to improve the engine and make it better and deal with maintenance,spares etc , Now that part is completely lost perhaps for the next 2 decade if and when we see our own engine and if that engine makes to an operational aircraft and gets flight qualified or gets lost for ever like kaveri

[Rakesh]

Austin: Nothing worse in an aircraft than an underpowered engine. If the engine is not up to design specs, then it is a no-go.

[Indranil]

The need of Kaveri is not operationalization. It has not reached there yet, Austin. Its requirement is testing facilities and adequate funds.

Meanwhile, I stand corrected by LCA FB admin: LSP 3 and 5 (and not LSP 3,4,7,8) have the quartz radomes. Meanwhile, BVR test sorties have begun.