LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 13 Feb 2017 10:59

When successive governments including dharmic one's which are desh Bhakti, seem to have a common policy or similar policy towards procurement of phoren maal, then, our negotiating strengths are not as good as we think and leverage of phoreners is more than we assume.

However, at least the current governing dispensation seems to be pushing indigenous maal more than any others have done in the past.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2017 11:15

Look,sev. years ago I postulated that despite the IN's enthu,the NLCA would find it difficult to make the grade. The LCA was underpowered,couldn't meet IAF stds. set in the ''80s even,how would it therefore meet the extra reqs./performance of a naval fighter? The IN's angst,made public and posted somewhere recently, is that the DRDO didn't take it seriously enough,despite it having spent a large amt. of money in its development ,played footsie with the project, simply expecting the IN to swallow the bird half-cooked! "No way Jose",said the IN/CNS. The DRDO chief now whinges insultingly about the capability of the IN itself to evaluate the aircraft,a service which for 50+ years has been operating carrier aircraft. Sour grapes and hard cheese, Saraswat.

However, I have a bone to pick with the IN too. A single-engined carrier fighter is an anachronism today.No such fighter can emulate the capabilities of a twin-engined bird for survivability,range,endurance,payload,etc.With the advent of newer anti-air defences like LR SAMs,naval strike aircraft are increasingly fielding LR ASMs.Just a few days ago one of our LRMP IL-38SDs launched a KH-35. BMos-M will in a few years arm our MIG-29Ks too! Even the JSF is finding the going v.hard and is a sitting duck from the rear thanks to its huge heat signature from the massive engine. The USN is already pondering over the contours of a future manned bird since the JSF will not be acquired in the huge numbers earlier planned.

Thus the IN's clarion cry for another carrier fighter shows that it too failed to anticipate the changing shape of mariime warfare/carrier aviation of the future with enough vision. The moolah it spent on the NLCA perhaps could be used to develop a naval two-seat trainer,which could obviate the need for more Hawks. In fact,a naval trainer could become a successful advanced trainer for the IAF too and would have a good export potential,if numbers could be built swiftly and development would not take another decade!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Feb 2017 12:05

Oh! How the penny drops...The darling of BRFites, Indian Navy, has just dropped the ball on NLCA and as usual, we're back to finding conspiracy theories. Not too long ago, IN's commitment of INR 300+ crore was touted as the template for IAF and others to follow. Not to mention the paeans being sung about a Navy man at helm of affairs in ADA for LCA project.

If anyone had followed IN's way of working with DRDO, they would not be surprised. People seem to have missed a an important word in the report - IN exercised the right of foreclosure.

Contrary to all the rosy picture painted here about IN and DRDO, IN is very tough task master. The reason for its success with DRDO is because it does NOT allow DRDO to set the agenda. It works with DRDO and does not hesitate to call BS if it thinks the program (s) are not going anywhere. And most important of all, it delinks R&D from operational requirements, wherever possible. But at the same time, it persists with the R&D program till it matures while fulfilling the current requirement through import.

In case of NLCA, it is highly likely that Navy does not see it materializing in required timeframe and has delinked them from future operational requirement. It knows more than the feel good news which DRDO/ADA shares in public; and this is not the first time it has expressed concerns on NLCA. I can't find the report but few years back, then Navy Chief had made some terse comments on DRDO not sharing the complete picture about NLCA and keeping it in dark.

The Navy will continue to work on R&D project to evolve a naval fighter while going for proven platform which can be made available in required timeline.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 13 Feb 2017 13:22

At some point, having the ability to build aircraft of our own less-than-perfect designs locally outweighs having a (supposedly) perfect foreign aircraft.

A shitload of Migs have crashed and tons of pilots have died. Yet none of that factors into decision making.
Despite decades of producing foreign aircraft under license, there has been little if any gains to domestic aerospace R&D. Again that does not figure into decision making.

Its time to induct the NLCA and spur private industry participation to evolve it over time. Keep demanding the perfect platform and eventually nothing will result. The country will be forever be dependent on foreign planes and financing foreign aerospace R&D at the expense of domestic industry which will wither & die.

Same story will be repeated if and when MK1A, MK2, AMCA comes along with more excuses put forward as to why more so called perfect foreign planes need to be purchased.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 15:08

Neshant ji,

This is baffling.
Let's talk money first. The HAL proposal to double production line involved they paying half the cost + other half coming from Af and Navy.
Current production schedule for LCA is 20+20+83 scheduled to be completed in 19-20.

IN actually had placed an order for 6 NLCA.
Money's been paid for, yet so sign of NLCA SP 1 for the foreseeable future.

We come to NLCA. Are you aware of the limitations in its take off payload and combat range whilst operating from the ski jump ? What's the IOC FOC status for the naval LCA ?
Public knowledge is successful testing off the SBTF in Goa.Since then there's been an almost black out.

And you say induct NLCA !

How do you induct something that's not even ready ?
And also there's no clue on when it will be ready ?

Also an aircraft carriers best defense against aerial threats is its own air wing.

If the NLCA can't take off with a respectable payload and range is already reduced compared to AF LCA, how in the world would you expect the navy to fight ?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Feb 2017 15:18

IN had done well to support local systems for decades and their track record speaks for itself. If they have done something like this, then they must have some serious reasons for it. Unless there is some serious info otherwise we have to agree with the IN on this.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Feb 2017 15:24

Not the first time either.

A similar thing happened with the ALH too.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Feb 2017 16:19

Yagnasri wrote:IN had done well to support local systems for decades and their track record speaks for itself. If they have done something like this, then they must have some serious reasons for it. Unless there is some serious info otherwise we have to agree with the IN on this.

IN might have had strong reasons to give a shocker to ADA. May be ADA did something really wrong on NLCA. I trust IN will support until the end on the prototype phase. I just hope they do not drop the ball on NLCA, without inducting at least a handful of NLCA and put them to Operational service as design validation phase. The importance of completion of life cycle of NLCA is far more than inter-organizational dissonance. I hope MoD takes care of the issues that IN must be having.

But saying IN rejected NLCA MK1 because MK1 fell short of IN requirements is little dishonest (whoever says that). MK1 was never meant to do so. It was always MK2. IN can say that they no longer believe that ADA can design NLCA MK2 up to IN expectations or even if they can, MK2 will not be delivered to IN in required time and thus they want to buy new jet. They could even say there requirement vis-à-vis IAC-2 have changed and they want to buy bigger jet. That's fair.

Note that there have been merely 120-odd test flights so far for NLCA. It could be said that NLCA has been going too slow for IN's taste.

Wasn't there a mention on this thread few months ago that NLCA MK2 prototype is being worked on and is expected to come up by mid 2018 or something. Was it you Indranil who said that..?? Or someone else..?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Feb 2017 16:36

I did saw NLCA flying in Goa trying to practice carrier landing and take off. As a mongo man, it looked very good to me. I have not seen LCA actually flying, and NLCA seemed sexier than LCA to me.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Feb 2017 16:43

chetak wrote:Not the first time either.
A similar thing happened with the ALH too.

I think what has happened here is that IN feels the challenges to develop a true blue Naval version of LCA with GE-414 are beyond DRDO/ADA in the required timeline. And true to its form, it will continue to put money in R&D but has de-linked the project from operational requirement.

Another thing - It has decided to put all eggs in a double engine jet-basket - which cannot be seen as as 'N-LCA not good hence we're going for other fighter'. Simply because N-LCA was never in same class as Rafale or F/A-18. I think the number of a/c under RFP has increased. The strength of planned N-LCA has gone to other fighter.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Feb 2017 16:55

rohitvats wrote:
Another thing - It has decided to put all eggs in a double engine jet-basket - which cannot be seen as as 'N-LCA not good hence we're going for other fighter'. Simply because N-LCA was never in same class as Rafale or F/A-18. I think the number of a/c under RFP has increased. The strength of planned N-LCA has gone to other fighter.

Exactly. Might be so that IN now sees possibility of a bigger and CATOBAR equipped IAC-2 which can host bigger jets and thus want to go for it i.e. change of plan. But then the story line should not be twisted to say 'because NLCA failed to meet IN requirement, they have to go for another jet'. I don't see how the IAC-2 configuration is linked to success of NLCA anyhow. Its not as if IN would have built smaller STOBAR AC if NLCA was going to be ready in time. Even in MK2 form, NLCA is restricted in some aspects vis-à-vis a twin engine jet such as Rafale-M. Also getting a twin engine jet is any day possible (F/A-18, Rafale-M are eager to sell, no restriction as such, even F35 should be available without much ado, if GOI does away ToT requirements) given IAC-2 is quite far in future. But then IN should be in a situation to build big enough AC which can have these jets. To me its going to be a package deal of CATOBAR and /or N-propulsion and twin jet aircraft.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 17:01

Don't you guys think that the jets ought to be operational and in training before the carrier becomes operational ?

By the looks of it, NLCA Mk2 might not even be in prototype stage when the Vikrant is deployed.

I believe that's what the navy means when they say NLCA failed to meet naval requirement.
It hasn't arrived yet nor it will on *time*.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Feb 2017 17:05

JayS wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
Another thing - It has decided to put all eggs in a double engine jet-basket - which cannot be seen as as 'N-LCA not good hence we're going for other fighter'. Simply because N-LCA was never in same class as Rafale or F/A-18. I think the number of a/c under RFP has increased. The strength of planned N-LCA has gone to other fighter.
Exactly. Might be so that IN now sees possibility of a bigger and CATOBAR equipped IAC-2 which can host bigger jets and thus want to go for it i.e. change of plan. But then the story line should not be twisted to say 'because NLCA failed to meet IN requirement, they have to go for another jet'. I don't see how the IAC-2 configuration is linked to success of NLCA anyhow. Its not as if IN would have built smaller STOBAR AC if NLCA was going to be ready in time. Even in MK2 form, NLCA is restricted in some aspects vis-à-vis a twin engine jet such as RafaleM.

We are probably all basing our opinions on one article. IN is steadfastly behind indigenisation and the decision to use the resources for Mk2 is a sound one. The fact of the matter is that we have learnt a lot more about building a naval plaform. Lesson one of project management is that 9-% of projects will fail to meet their parameters. So, let's not make this a death of a platform speech, and try to figure out how the IN will be handling its AMCA specific requirements. Or if there will be ever a push for a twin-engined TLCA (non-stealthy non-AMCA model). I think the F-35B is where we are headed long-term. (Apologies to mods for having this discussion on the LCA rather than NLCA thread).

Most folks gloss over the fact that the head of ADA is ex-Navy! Am sure Balaji Sir would be happy to field questions if Kartik accosts him this time around.

PS: Am also sure he reads BR and grins once in a while about our high BP.
PPS: Nirav, no one stopped from MOD from prioritising NLCA by allocating funds. You are probably missing the point that IN gave up on the NLCA Mk1 because MoD is immobile on that front.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 17:14

Marten Saar,

With hands already full with AF version, FOC not yet done, the threat of LCA program itself getting shit canned, MoD and HAL did well to prioritise and come up with funds to ensure Mk1A comes and the bell don't toll for the LCA.

They've probably realised by now that a single type solution was extremely ambitious to begin with @ airforce and naval variants based on a same platform.

Had it not been for MoD prioritising, LCA program itself would be under threat.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Feb 2017 17:23

nirav wrote:Don't you guys think that the jets ought to be operational and in training before the carrier becomes operational ?

By the looks of it, NLCA Mk2 might not even be in prototype stage when the Vikrant is deployed.

I believe that's what the navy means when they say NLCA failed to meet naval requirement.
It hasn't arrived yet nor it will on *time*.

Well, of coarse its good to have operational jet for new AC.

IN would be right to say that if they really mean that. None can argue. But we are already seeing that its being spun in a way that NLCA MK1 is over-weight, under-power and thus failed to meet IN requirement. This was known from very early stage anyway. This is no failure of MK1.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 17:30

I agree.
It isn't a failure of mk1.
Everyone knew what it had to offer.

That aside, whosoever is spinning it, doesn't give a license to BRFites to go calling the IAF foreign pasand to calling the country banana republic of India.

From being a darling of brfites, navy has suddenly become a villain...
Such commentary in the name of "discussion" is not right.

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 17:36

What a beauty !!! Any other country would have gone all out to support this aircraft unlike our esteemed IAF jocks who seem to crave after phoren stuff all the time to the detriment of homegrown products

http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/jul/01tejas1.jpg

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/be ... 170213.htm

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 17:43

Schmidt wrote:What a beauty !!! Any other country would have gone all out to support this aircraft unlike our esteemed IAF jocks who seem to crave after phoren stuff all the time to the detriment of homegrown products

http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/jul/01tejas1.jpg

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/be ... 170213.htm

You will realise how ridiculous your post sounds when you learn a real cute little fact that IAFs MIG 21 can whack IAFs LCA today in BVR.
Simple reason being the migs of 60s 70s vintage has BVR and the shiny new LCA version in 2017 in the IAF can't fire a BVR .. that will hold true for the next 2 years before they are upgraded to FOC standard.

Would you like to revise your statement about 'esteemed IAF jocks' ?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 13 Feb 2017 17:46

OT, but it would be stupid to think of ourselves as a 3+ carrier force without a homegrown fighter to embark on them. LCA/NLCA is the closest we're to qualifying one, so there is absolutely no reason not to take it to logical conclusion.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Feb 2017 17:46

Marten wrote:<SNIP> But then the story line should not be twisted to say 'because NLCA failed to meet IN requirement, they have to go for another jet'. I don't see how the IAC-2 configuration is linked to success of NLCA anyhow. Its not as if IN would have built smaller STOBAR AC if NLCA was going to be ready in time. Even in MK2 form, NLCA is restricted in some aspects vis-à-vis a twin engine jet such as RafaleM.

I don't necessarily agree to the above part. I think there is something in development in N-LCA which IN has taken into account and taken a call on the fighter. The Hi-Lo Mix has gone in favor of Hi-Hi Mix for some reason. IN has always been very prudent with its capital allocation. For them to go for such a decision means something serious development.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 13 Feb 2017 18:18

There were news reports that SP-4 will fly before or during Aero-India, if I am not mistaken then SP-4 has not even done ground-runs!! Could there be a surprise show-up of SP-4 in Aero India, just a fly by?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2017 18:27

Interview with Air Marshal (R) Philip Rajkumar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEoKfMQzciQ

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 18:33

nirav wrote:
Schmidt wrote:What a beauty !!! Any other country would have gone all out to support this aircraft unlike our esteemed IAF jocks who seem to crave after phoren stuff all the time to the detriment of homegrown products

http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/jul/01tejas1.jpg

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/be ... 170213.htm
You will realise how ridiculous your post sounds when you learn a real cute little fact that IAFs MIG 21 can whack IAFs LCA today in BVR.
Simple reason being the migs of 60s 70s vintage has BVR and the shiny new LCA version in 2017 in the IAF can't fire a BVR .. that will hold true for the next 2 years before they are upgraded to FOC standard.

Would you like to revise your statement about 'esteemed IAF jocks' ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^^^

I fully stand by my post

The IAF has displayed step motherly treatment to an INDIAN fighter all along and not bothered to take ownership of the product

Reg BVRAAM - and many other features - IT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS and will be achieved if not done already ( I don't know the real time status of this issue )

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... le-4805565

PLs read below article :
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/tejas-i-l ... /9604.html

Our forces must learn to support INDIAN products first and take ownership to help them progress in INCREMENTS

You don't end up with a shiny toy all at once

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 18:49

Cybersurg Saar has his work cut out @ the 8G display

Thank you for taking the time to make the video of the interview, Shiv Saar.

Schmidt ji,

How's 20+20+83 orders for the LCA not taking ownership by the IAF ?

The Ravi rikhye article is a full blown talkoutofyourassathon.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Feb 2017 18:53

rohitvats wrote:
Marten wrote:<SNIP>
I don't necessarily agree to the above part. I think there is something in development in N-LCA which IN has taken into account and taken a call on the fighter. The Hi-Lo Mix has gone in favor of Hi-Hi Mix for some reason. IN has always been very prudent with its capital allocation. For them to go for such a decision means something serious development.

Rohit, that was JayS that you quoted. Please edit the post.

Canceling six units means nothing by itself unless they give up on the program itself. Basically the delay in finalizing SOP, the lack of space and resultant delays in airforce SP deliveries would have meant that the NPs were not a priority. Makes more sense trying to get a move on and try to get to Mk2. However, still don't see funds allocated for Mk2. This is not IAF or IN or HAL at fault - blame squarely lies at South block.

Nirav, MOD holds the key to the questions you ask. Remember the increase in output can only be mandated by them. And they sat on the request for three precious years. Why? In any case, your posts have gone from praising another platform (which is just fine) to downright putting down of the platform that is built to IAF demands. Is it required? Haven't seen this in many years from you, so what changed recently?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 18:56

nirav wrote:
Schmidt wrote:What a beauty !!! Any other country would have gone all out to support this aircraft unlike our esteemed IAF jocks who seem to crave after phoren stuff all the time to the detriment of homegrown products

http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/jul/01tejas1.jpg

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/be ... 170213.htm
You will realise how ridiculous your post sounds when you learn a real cute little fact that IAFs MIG 21 can whack IAFs LCA today in BVR.
Simple reason being the migs of 60s 70s vintage has BVR and the shiny new LCA version in 2017 in the IAF can't fire a BVR .. that will hold true for the next 2 years before they are upgraded to FOC standard.

Would you like to revise your statement about 'esteemed IAF jocks' ?

Can they? What is the status of our RVV-AEs? Have any MiG-21 bisons ever been equipped with R-27s?

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/m ... 819970.ece

Phased out by 2019. Same timeframe as the LCAs start entering service.

BTW your statement that the MiG-21s with BVR are of 60's-70's vintage is likely equally ridiculous. The upgraded Bis's were made in the 1980s.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Bison.html

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 19:00

Marten ji,

It hurts to say these things about the LCA as much as I love it.
Reason I'm engaging in it and at times being overly critical of the LCA is to remind some posters in here to take a fresh look at actual issues and challenges facing the IAF/In rather than viewing everything related to the LCA with rose tinted glasses.

I'm confident, LCA, will come online and do its job quite admirably. @ the 20+20+83. If Mk2 isn't ready, IAF might very well order more Mk1A..

But abuse of IAF/IN by some posters is unacceptable imvho..

Karan Saar,
You are smart enough to recognise that I was highlighting mig21s BVR capability as of today vs lack of the same in the IAFs LCA.
Also do check the context in which I made that exaggerated claim of the bison whacking Tejas today.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:01

Regarding cute little facts, here is one more.

A lot of Rhona dhona on BRF about how MMR did not have A2G modes, useless Indians etc.

Very revealing note in CAG review of MiG-21 UPG stating that A2G worked never really worked out for that jet. Kopyo was a one trick A2A pony.

As LCA enters service, even in IOC variant, it likely has better capabilities than many of IAFs more "famous" aircraft.

How many LGBs have been tested from MiG-21 Bison again?

Which is more cost-effective, the limited store of KAB-500s or LGBs?

How many pylons does LCA Mk1 have vs MiG-21?

Perhaps before dishing out advice, and going by brochure bashing (MiG-21 Bison has xyz on webpage), question to ask is does it really and there is a reason why its being phased out. Same wth the MiG-27s. Upgrades to these airframes only do so much.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:02

nirav wrote:Marten ji,

It hurts to say these things about the LCA as much as I love it.
Reason I'm engaging in it and at times being overly critical of the LCA is to remind some posters in here to take a fresh look at actual issues and challenges facing the IAF/In rather than viewing everything related to the LCA with rose tinted glasses.

Then state the facts and don't engage in equal hyperbole.

I'm confident, LCA, will come online and do its job quite admirably. @ the 20+20+83. If Mk2 isn't ready, IAF might very well order more Mk1A..

But abuse of IAF/IN by some posters is unacceptable imvho..

[/quote]

Abuse of indian programs on specious grounds is unacceptable too.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 19:08

Rah rah LCA isn't going to make FOC come tomorrow or get the Mk1A prototype flying day after tomorrow.

If factual discussion is the need of the hour, why don't you ask posters bashing IAF and IN in here with gay abandon to temper it ?

Or is it that you find it justifiable?
How warped is don't talk crap about LCA but crap about IAF/IN issokay ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:16

Here are some facts -

LCA MK1 is far more versatile than most of the IAF A/C in service today bar the Su-30 and Mirage 2000. The MiG-29 claims to be so too but after the TLC shown with MiG-29K, Mig-21 Bison, wait some time.

LCA Mk1 has seven pylons, Bison has 5. Advantage in fuel + payload.
LCA Mk1 has FBW & full glass cockpit. Better pilot safety and situational awareness from word go.
Close combat, LCA Mk1 has Dash, Bison has only Sura-K. Better situational awareness. If Mk1 gets Python-5 as well, then Bison falls further.
A2G & A2A - LCA radar based on EL/M-2032 is streets ahead of Kopyo. Point to note. LCA radar with Kopyo A2A range was unacceptable till new radome came.
LCA Mk1 has Litening capability - can be used in both A2G LDP role, A2A IRST role & even recce (as Mirages did in Muntho Dhalo).
Bison had "claimed" BVR, with RVV-AE & also EW Pod capability with EL/L-8222 SPJ.
First, we now know the parlous state of RVV-AE. Second, MK1A is to integrate an advanced EW pod (likely far more advanced than 2000's EL/L-8222 and it will be retrofitted to Mk1s).

The flight safety across the envelope & fuel/payload advantages of the LCA MK1 itself make it far superior to the MiG-21 across the board, let alone in specific areas versus MiG-27 and Jaguar (especially till the latter gets DARIN-3+ new engines).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:20

nirav wrote:Rah rah LCA isn't going to make FOC come tomorrow or get the Mk1A prototype flying day after tomorrow.

The point was about IOC level LCA Mk1 already surpassing MiG-21s in many areas. Not MK1 FOC with BVR. So is it that hard for you to accept you were engaging in rhetoric as well?

If factual discussion is the need of the hour, why don't you ask posters bashing IAF and IN in here with gay abandon to temper it ?

You are no better, since you are willing to attack Indian programs in a warped attempt to pretend you are being objective.

Or is it that you find it justifiable?

I find your behavior as ludicrous and unjustifiable as claims that the IA/IAF are corrupt etc.

How warped is don't talk crap about LCA but crap about IAF/IN issokay ?

[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle. Given you are talking crap about the LCA, you are hardly in any position to ask others not to talk crap either.

Your hyperbole is as over the top as theirs is.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 19:24

Amusing this is.
No one's saying that the bison is better than the LCA.
If I wanted to be obstinate and argue just for the heck of it, I could say that the Bison more than surprised USAF F15s in cope India.

But I'm not interested in a paper fact war.

I brought up the bison vs LCA example to demonstrate to a poster who claimed IAF is not supporting LCA.

If an order for an aircraft of 20+20+83 which hasn't btw got FOC yet is not support, I don't know what is.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Feb 2017 19:24

Karan M wrote:Here are some facts -

LCA MK1 is far more versatile than most of the IAF A/C in service today bar the Su-30 and Mirage 2000. The MiG-29 claims to be so too but after the TLC shown with MiG-29K, Mig-21 Bison, wait some time.

LCA Mk1 has seven pylons, Bison has 5. Advantage in fuel + payload.
LCA Mk1 has FBW & full glass cockpit. Better pilot safety and situational awareness from word go.
Close combat, LCA Mk1 has Dash, Bison has only Sura-K. Better situational awareness. If Mk1 gets Python-5 as well, then Bison falls further.
A2G & A2A - LCA radar based on EL/M-2032 is streets ahead of Kopyo. Point to note. LCA radar with Kopyo A2A range was unacceptable till new radome came.
LCA Mk1 has Litening capability - can be used in both A2G LDP role, A2A IRST role & even recce (as Mirages did in Muntho Dhalo).
Bison had "claimed" BVR, with RVV-AE & also EW Pod capability with EL/L-8222 SPJ.
First, we now know the parlous state of RVV-AE. Second, MK1A is to integrate an advanced EW pod (likely far more advanced than 2000's EL/L-8222 and it will be retrofitted to Mk1s).

The flight safety across the envelope & fuel/payload advantages of the LCA MK1 itself make it far superior to the MiG-21 across the board, let alone in specific areas versus MiG-27 and Jaguar (especially till the latter gets DARIN-3+ new engines).

The whole of above argument is redundant.

For a simple reason that argument of LCA replacing Mig-21 in IAF service has long ceased to exist. At the expense of repeating myself umpteenth number of times, those Mig-21 were replaced by Su-30MKI of all fighters!

By the time fist LCA squadron forms up, we'll most probably have only 2 x Mig-21 squadrons outside of Bison ones. And between LCA Mk1A and XYZ medium fighter, balance Mig-21 Bison will also be gone.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 19:27

Karan M wrote:
Your hyperbole is as over the top as theirs is.

Thank you for proving my point.
Not a peep from you at 'their' hyperbole.
So you do find IAF/IN bashing justifiable, but can't accept exaggerated criticism of the LCA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:29

Rohit the IAF can replace other squadrons with retiring airframes with LCAs. Just because it took whatever was available at the moment, doesnt make it optimal. The Su30 is poorly suited for many SR tasks which other fighters can do in a better manner.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:32

nirav wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Your hyperbole is as over the top as theirs is.
Thank you for proving my point.
Not a peep from you at 'their' hyperbole.
So you do find IAF/IN bashing justifiable, but can't accept exaggerated criticism of the LCA.

Au contraire, I just showed you the mirror while you were busy asking others to be factual. Good you admitted your criticism of the LCA was exaggerated.

And you seem to suffer from a reading comprehension issue. I never mentioned that their criticism of the services etc was justified etc. I said your claims were as ridiculous as theirs were.

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 19:33

Nirav - you seem to take issue with the fact that I have somehow insulted / abused the IAF / IA

Well , the IAF definitely has not been supportive of INdian products ( atleast wrt to Tejas ) and same with IA regardsing Arjun

We finally seem to have developed some pretty decent products and instead of supporting them and working with DRDO to keep improving them , the forces seem to deride them at every opportunity

And yes , 20+20+80 is not going to cut it

I want full replacement of the MIGs with the Tejas

The IAF needs to figure out how to do this rather that keep crying for phoren stuff that is decades old

At the time of MRCA , the same IAF openly derided the F-16 / F18
Now suddenly they are ok with changing the goal post and are looking for a new single engined fighter

First they only wanted a twin engined aircraft for the MMRCA

The Tejas was supposed to completely replace the MIGs

The IAF only agreed to 20+20+80 because Parrikar forced them to do so

Left to themselves they would have given it a quiet burial

At least as a negotiation strategy , you need to keep praising your own fighter to drive the prices of competing products down
Even a small time trader would know this

But idiots like Raha openly talk about the absence of a Plan B , thereby strengthening the hands of foreign manufacturers

This is borderline treasonous if not downright stupidity

My crib is not about IAFs fighting competency - it is that they are not supportive of INDIAN products

Maybe it is a mindset - they feel more confident about foreign fighters quality and features

But you must still support and encourage INDIAN products and help them to develop further

These things take time , and are done in iterations

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 19:37

Karan M wrote:
nirav wrote:
Thank you for proving my point.
Not a peep from you at 'their' hyperbole.
So you do find IAF/IN bashing justifiable, but can't accept exaggerated criticism of the LCA.
Au contraire, I just showed you the mirror while you were busy asking others to be factual. Good you admitted your criticism of the LCA was exaggerated. And you seem to suffer from a reading comprehension issue. I said your claims were as ridiculous as theirs were. Repeated.

Sorry but you can't get away with it. It's on record.
You jumped in only after I made posts critical of the LCA.
And took a post of mine to type out a long winded posts on 'spec'...

Whys your passion missing in action while folks in this very thread have been abusing IAF/IN with gay abandon ?

Rakesh Saar had mentioned in the other thread that he recognises that LCA is not the best thing since sliced bread.
For most abusing IAF/In in here it seems LCA itself is sliced bread.

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 19:41

I don't understand one thing

Why should the forces be above any criticism ?

I am only highlighting their lack of support for INDIAN homegrown products

This much is obvious , please don't argue that they are supportive

Otherwise I will have to spend days digging up the various articles and interviews where service Heads have run down our own stuff

Even if they had valid criticism , they should do it in private

You simply don't wash your dirty linen in public and show the world that you are a divided house

Let's learn from the Chinese