LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:47

nirav wrote:
Karan M wrote:
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.

Who is getting away with what? You just got shown up to be making bare faced stupid analogies on a topic you barely understand. Admit it, instead wrapping yourself as some objective individual.

And took a post of mine to type out a long winded posts on 'spec'...

Factual posts versus your long winded rants shilling for F-16s to this, to that and then pretending to be objective.

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

So your line is he did it toooooo...

If posters have been abusing the services, moderators will step in and have done so. In short, your argument boils down to why are you exposing me, not the others?

Rakesh Saar had mentioned in the other thread that he recognises that LCA is not the best thing since sliced bread.

LOL who said the LCA is the best? More comprehension issues?

For most abusing IAF/In in here it seems LCA itself is sliced bread.

Oh spare me the piety. A handful of offenders make these sort of posts and invite periodic moderator action. You are no better, despite your attempts to cloak yourself as some patriot with a lockdown on it.

Some like you deliberately run down national programs at the cusp of success using crap claims, and tgen pretend you were doing it on behalf of the services.

Provoke more rubbish and then sit back and enjoy the fun.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 19:49

Criticism is one thing.at times it's even needed.
But sweeping generalisations without taking into account facts isn't correct.

I'd earlier erroneously posted that the 20+20 were IOC config.i was corrected that the first 20 are IOC and the other 20 are FOC.

Now this vital aspect, no one has discussed.
Since FOC hasn't been achieved yet, how will the SoP of the FOC version be finalized.
FOC has been 'round the corner's since more than a year now.

How is IAF in the wrong wrt orders when the most crucial testing hasn't been done yet.

Still an order for 20 FOC + 83 Mk1A is nothing short of a leap of faith.

How is this still "not supportive" enough of the LCA escapes me.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 13 Feb 2017 19:50

How can BRF go without a discussion on LCA vs Mig or apathy for LCA program every 6 month?

One thing for sure is that all new chiefs are very vocally about some of homegrown programs, (IA chief calling LCH toothless, or IN chief calling NLCA inadequate). They sure have their reasons, not sure what.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 19:52

Schmidt wrote: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

Broad bush..

Dhanush, ATAGS, Pinaka, AEW&C...glass is not empty.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 20:01

Sid wrote:How can BRF go without a discussion on LCA vs Mig or apathy for LCA program every 6 month?

There are a handful of individuals who have nade a fetish of services corrupt or LCA bad. That both sides have had issues is anathema. The LCA programs mistakes are legion as is tepid HAL support, wishywashy ADA decisions (sticking with MMR), as are the umpteen IAF attempts to be done with the program.

I hope this asinine stuff stops, but some self proclaimed services corruption fetishists to objective defenders eont let it go...

One thing for sure is that all new chiefs are very vocally about some of homegrown programs, (IA chief calling LCH toothless, or IN chief calling NLCA inadequate). They sure have their reasons, not sure what.

Their criticism should ve redressed via the MOD, that I agree. But all depends on MOD being responsive, like current DM improving serviceability

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 20:27

Karan M wrote:
Schmidt wrote: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

Let's learn from the Chinese
Broad bush..

Dhanush, ATAGS, Pinaka, AEW&C...glass is not empty.

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
May be true regarding Dhanush, ATAGS, Pinaka, AEW&C , I don't know

Still , the latter part of my post is valid ( 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 )

Can anyone here give just ONE instance of any other country's service chief being critical and derisive of their own homegrown product ?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 20:29

A person who's is a master heckler saying this

I hope this asinine stuff stops, but some self proclaimed services corruption fetishists to objective defenders eont let it go...

is pretty rich.

There's a failure to acknowledge the ultra sentive babies who lose it altogether when LCA is criticised.
Doesn't matter if the criticism is valid or not.

For example.

Some like you deliberately run down national programs at the cusp of success using crap claims, and tgen pretend you were doing it on behalf of the services.

Being critical of the way LCA program has gone till now + how it's headed doesn't mean running it down.

For all the good looking specs dished out, when's the FOC again ?
When's the FOC SoP finalisation?
When's the Mk1A prototype going to fly ?
When will mk1A's Sop will be confirmed ?

When will MK2 have a protype ?
It's IOC/FOC/SoP finalisation?

No one has any accurate answers on the above questions but thunder at the IAF, "not supportive", foreign pasand and what not..

If war were to break out tomorrow, it will be those bisons who will go charging into war as the LCA squadrons won't be fully ready till atleast 18-19.

The thing with Pakistan is, whenever they fcuked up, they had a solution for it.Islam.and then more Islam on further **** ups.

From MIG 21 replacement to MMRCA replacement, some posters just stay fixated on LCA.and then, more LCA.

As much as I love and admire the LCA, a realistic assessment must be done.It will serve the air force admirably in its capacity as a light multi-role fighter over the decades to come.Provided everything namely current manufacturing and Mk2 development goes on *schedule*.

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 20:48

Are you saying that the IAF has no role to play in pushing the DRDO regarding all the following lacunae / delays / shortcomings you have mentioned ?

When's the FOC SoP finalisation?
When's the Mk1A prototype going to fly ?
When will mk1A's Sop will be confirmed ?

When will MK2 have a protype ?
It's IOC/FOC/SoP finalisation?

This is precisely the point I am making up about not taking ownership of the project

They need to see them as THEIR projects / products
Then maybe things would have turned out better / faster / cheaper wehatever it is that they seem to want

At the very least there wouldn't be this sordid spectacle of shifting specs / requirements / public crticism of our own products

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 20:59

Schmidt ji,

How exactly do you want the IAF to 'push' HAL to deliver on the above mentioned points ?

I recall Sh.Arup Rahas interview when the mk1A announcement was made.He stated back then IAF is ready to accept as many LCAs as they can make and give.

He even took a ride in the LCA and flew it himself.

What exactly do you want them to do ?
FOC was initially planned for June 2015. Still not ticked.
And still orders are 20+20+83.

Where are they not supporting ?

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 13 Feb 2017 21:15

nirav wrote:Schmidt ji,

How exactly do you want the IAF to 'push' HAL to deliver on the above mentioned points ?

Where are they not supporting ?

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

Nirav ji , very briefly I would like to see the forces adopt a much more proactive role in product development and not have an aloof END USER attitude

DRDO / HAL clearly don't have the cutting edge tech / management and product development / execution expertise

So it is all the more important for the forces to be actively involved in these critical projects right from the beginning all the way along

This would also make the designs more realistic and production oriented , than any fancy idealistic but unrealistic or simply difficult ideas

Making one sortie at the end is not the level of support that is sufficient

Somehow there seems to be a tremendous lack of coordination between the forces / DRDO / mfg entities

All 3 need to come together and be involved , not sequentially

May be advanced nations like the US can pull it off

But not India which is just starting to make our own stuff

Even basics like rifles and ammo - the forces are not satisfied

Maybe instead of importing lakhs of rifles , we would be better off buying some good foreign mfr outright and set up plants here
Or privatization is the way to go

All these projects take years and decades to fructify , so it is quite silly to spend all this time and effort and then shelve the products

We need to see where all these tech can be used in various areas / scenarios and maximise bang for the buck

Also , if the indigenous products are continually derided , what would be the motivation for DRDO staff going forward?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Feb 2017 21:29

Its zimble onleee!!

Russians promise unobtainium and Indian armed forces gleefully buy it in 1000s - Mig21s, T-72s, T-90s! The purchases are hurried through in the interest of the sacred cow - National Security. In the hurry, the forces waive all the pertinent parameters that they fail domestic products for.

Domestic products, on the other hand are tested and tested and tested and failed because they cannot match unobtainium even during the same period of a "so-called" National Security issue. And then there are these "so-called" retired military experts like admirals, colonels ... who for their own motivations prove their mettle by finding flaws with domestic products.

How about Admiral Arun Prakash elaborate on the issue of the Scorpene operational data leak by France? Does that render some of the unobtainium useless that we paid billions for? How about the operational record of the Mig-21s, 23s, 29s and Sukhois in the air force? 50% serviceability or less is not an issue of national security?

People need to get off their high horses and face reality.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 13 Feb 2017 22:01

@Vivek K

+1

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Feb 2017 22:10

This Rafael ad is interesting. Moving to a ninth weapon station?

Photo Credit: Prasun Sengupta

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 22:22

nirav wrote:A person who's is a master heckler saying this
I hope this asinine stuff stops, but some self proclaimed services corruption fetishists to objective defenders eont let it go...
is pretty rich.

There's a failure to acknowledge the ultra sentive babies who lose it altogether when LCA is criticised.
Doesn't matter if the criticism is valid or not.

LOL, so you want the right to lie through your teeth and admit it as such.

"Doesnt matter if the criticism is valid or not".

Right now all you are doing is putting up as credible a defence as Shri Pervez Mushy, dont matter if NLI lost Kargil, take "criticism" of your troops, dammit.

So stalwart defender of patriotism, dont be an ultra sensitive crybaby and learn to distinguish between facts and your claims.

Being critical of the way LCA program has gone till now + how it's headed doesn't mean running it down.

Oh wait, werent you saying it didnt matter whether the criticism is valid or not?

For all the good looking specs dished out, when's the FOC again ?
When's the FOC SoP finalisation?
When's the Mk1A prototype going to fly ?
When will mk1A's Sop will be confirmed ?

LOL why dont you look through the thread versus engaging in rhetoric?

When will MK2 have a ?
It's IOC/FOC/SoP finalisation?

You should tell us. After all you are the biggest patriot on this forum who screams down anyone who croticizes this Govt. Since you know so much about the MOD and are so cocksure about services support, digging up the exact status of the Mk2 should be easy no?

No one has any accurate answers on the above questions but thunder at the IAF, "not supportive", foreign pasand and what not..

See above. Since you have the inside track to IAF support, you can let us know all this.

If war were to break out tomorrow, it will be those bisons who will go charging into war as the LCA squadrons won't be fully ready till atleast 18-19.

Those Bisons whose capabilities you were so fully sure of. And now you say they will go charging into war when they are at the cusp of being phased out and an easy replacement keeps jumping through hoops. Think for a second and then understand whether keeping the Mk1s out even at Mk1 level let alone 83 MK1A are enough.

The thing with Pakistan is, whenever they fcuked up, they had a solution for it.Islam.and then more Islam on further **** ups.

Oh please...

From MIG 21 replacement to MMRCA replacement, some posters just stay fixated on LCA.and then, more LCA.

Whereas some posters are more fixated on trying to run down a program using specious claims and denying its obvious benefits as it stands.

A bird in the hand and all that..

As much as I love and admire the LCA, a realistic assessment must be done.It will serve the air force admirably in its capacity as a light multi-role fighter over the decades to come.Provided everything namely current manufacturing and Mk2 development goes on *schedule*.

Great platitudes while you cook up ridiculous comparisons, keep shilling dubious alternatives of unproven capability all the while running down anyone who says otherwise as being anti-forces. Great going.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 22:29

Schmidt wrote: ------------------------------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
May be true regarding Dhanush, ATAGS, Pinaka, AEW&C , I don't know

Many more examples sir. Especially for the Navy.

Still , the latter part of my post is valid ( 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 )

I agree with you but also note the public bickering happens due to vested interests and weak direction at MOD. If HAL doesnt fix issues with LCA, and still does CHawk, IJT, HTT40 a frustrated IAF will lash out..

Can anyone here give just ONE instance of any other country's service chief being critical and derisive of their own homegrown product ?

Agreed this is not great but also calling Raha sir, an idiot is just not done. Period. The position of CAS deserves respect and irrespective of what his actions were or not, these comnents are not ok.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 22:34

http://m.economictimes.com/opinion/inte ... 116375.cms

Interesting article.
HAL chairman says this

Will LCA be ordered in larger numbers and what is the contribution of the industry to the project?
We’re looking at a performance-based, time-wise plan to integrate a new AESA radar and electronic warfare suite on the fighter by 2018. If we keep up to our promise, I don’t think the order will stop at the current 123.

He himself isn't sure about time bound deliveries which is why he qualifies his answer with an IF.
Maybe he doesn't know what some here do.its "just a minor reconfiguration"..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2017 22:34

Vivek K wrote:Its zimble onleee!!

Russians promise unobtainium and Indian armed forces gleefully buy it in 1000s - Mig21s, T-72s, T-90s! The purchases are hurried through in the interest of the sacred cow - National Security. In the hurry, the forces waive all the pertinent parameters that they fail domestic products for.

Domestic products, on the other hand are tested and tested and tested and failed because they cannot match unobtainium even during the same period of a "so-called" National Security issue. And then there are these "so-called" retired military experts like admirals, colonels ... who for their own motivations prove their mettle by finding flaws with domestic products.

How about Admiral Arun Prakash elaborate on the issue of the Scorpene operational data leak by France? Does that render some of the unobtainium useless that we paid billions for? How about the operational record of the Mig-21s, 23s, 29s and Sukhois in the air force? 50% serviceability or less is not an issue of national security?

People need to get off their high horses and face reality.

Schmidt wrote:
nirav wrote:Schmidt ji,

How exactly do you want the IAF to 'push' HAL to deliver on the above mentioned points ?

Where are they not supporting ?
---------------------------------

Nirav ji , very briefly I would like to see the forces adopt a much more proactive role in product development and not have an aloof END USER attitude

DRDO / HAL clearly don't have the cutting edge tech / management and product development / execution expertise

So it is all the more important for the forces to be actively involved in these critical projects right from the beginning all the way along

This would also make the designs more realistic and production oriented , than any fancy idealistic but unrealistic or simply difficult ideas

Making one sortie at the end is not the level of support that is sufficient

Somehow there seems to be a tremendous lack of coordination between the forces / DRDO / mfg entities

All 3 need to come together and be involved , not sequentially

May be advanced nations like the US can pull it off

But not India which is just starting to make our own stuff

Even basics like rifles and ammo - the forces are not satisfied

Maybe instead of importing lakhs of rifles , we would be better off buying some good foreign mfr outright and set up plants here
Or privatization is the way to go

All these projects take years and decades to fructify , so it is quite silly to spend all this time and effort and then shelve the products

We need to see where all these tech can be used in various areas / scenarios and maximise bang for the buck

Also , if the indigenous products are continually derided , what would be the motivation for DRDO staff going forward?

Gentlemen, see you have made many valid points for the most part without deriding the services as corrupt or their key people as idiots or other such pejoratives. Thats all we ask.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Feb 2017 22:51

nirav wrote:http://m.economictimes.com/opinion/inte ... 116375.cms

Interesting article.
HAL chairman says this <snip>

He himself isn't sure about time bound deliveries which is why he qualifies his answer with an IF.
Maybe he doesn't know what some here do.its "just a minor reconfiguration"..

Now you're plain trolling.

If you have been following this thread, you will know there is a tender out for the radar. Closure of the deal is dependent on many factors. If MoD simply sits on the negotiation, or in fact on the file during the evaluation process itself, what can IAF or HAL do about it? Other than this, there are risks associated with the late approval for line expansion. Note the CCS has only approved it. After this, imagine the time until the plant is built and suppliers are ready to ramp up (24-30 months). Sane people would be expected to include that If. Especially if they are looking to receive their pension after retirement.

The path to self reliance is dreary and full of failures.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 23:00

MoD after arranging for the 83 in the first place will sit on its radar acquisition so that it messes up its own plans to not let LCA project terminate.

Don't you think it's quite far fetched even as a CT ?

I agree with you @ The path to self reliance is dreary and full of failures.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Feb 2017 23:12

nirav wrote:MoD after arranging for the 83 in the first place will sit on its radar acquisition so that it messes up its own plans to not let LCA project terminate.

Don't you think it's quite far fetched even as a CT ?

LOL they did exactly that. I am seeing news on HAL's proposal submitted to MoD since 2015 end. They have sat over countless other proposals over so many decades. Why is that so unimaginable..?? MP himself seems frustrated by the babus in MoD.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 23:28

Do you feel like

after going through this ?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ontract-us

Do check what was the initial proposal.. 83 Mk2 with Aesa and F414 powered..

Expected to fly in 2015.

Now when FOC for the basic mk1 intended in June 2015 hasn't materialised yet, you expect MoD to keep writing blank cheques ?

Does accountability even mean anything ?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 13 Feb 2017 23:29

Yes, thanks JayS. The request of line expansion for Tejas division took three years to reach CCS. Meanwhile, HAL is trying find space wherever it can. Would not be surprised if they decide to construct a shed on the RWRDC compound where we see the hover tests for new models. (*kidding). Anything they do even now will still not be enough if they want to meet the 24/yr goal.

Nirav, stop clutching at straws now. Have you not yet understood how HAL never geared up until Mk1a proposal went through? Btw, 414 engines are not here yet.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 23:41

Err, what clutching at straws?

Have a big tender in 2010,Make the govt sign a 500 million dollar contract,in 2013 and promise first flight in 2015.

Now we hear first flight of Mk2 not before 2022.

FOC getting delayed repeatedly is not a minor thing.

Mk1 ain't ready yet, and the way it's being defended in here - chalta hai..

It's one thing to be proud and supportive of the program.
I'm afraid the way it's going, we are not holding ADA accountable and being very very okay with repeated failures to deliver on time.
Mk2 design and testing isn't HAL responsibility..

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Feb 2017 23:56

Tejas, 33 Years In The Making, Aims To Show Its Potential In Bengaluru
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/home-mad ... ow-1659062

In December, the navy rejected the naval variant of the Tejas as being too heavy. That prompted the navy to issue a request last month for information on 57 foreign planes for its aircraft carriers. But NDTV has learnt that the navy is open to considering an updated version with a new engine that would make the Tejas capable of carrying a reasonable load of missiles and other weaponry while deployed on aircraft carriers.

open to considering = Mk.2 NLCA

What informed posters (i.e. Indranil) have been saying all along.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 14 Feb 2017 00:10

Saar, that still doesn't provide a reasonable explanation of the Navy's recent rant against NLCA. Mk.1 was always a TD...Mk.2 was the one after which Navy was. The recent comments by Navy gives an impression that it is not willing to accept even Mk.2

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Feb 2017 00:18

The question of rejecting a plane that was not on offer makes no sense unless it was done to prepare the public, MOD, and DRDO for rejection of NLCA Mk2

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Feb 2017 00:19

Suddenly Admiral Arun Prakash's credentials based on 40+ years of service to the nation, never mind his stellar flying record, is suspect because he writes one article questioning DRDO on Naval LCA.

Just because some blindly push for domestic products on this forum w/o bothering to look at other side of the coin does not make them uber patriotic. And others as enemies of the nation. You have an opinion. And so do others. Because yours is couched in the name indigenous product, it does not automatically trump common sense and logic. And you can shove these certificates of patriotism that you keep on passing to everyone where the Sun does not shine.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Feb 2017 00:33

Rohit, you are one confusing poster. You jump just like the rest regarding Arjun and then on other products you start on the exact opposite side. No one is questioning the Admiral' patriotism. That is not our job or position. We are questioning his judgement in deriding a local product (when MK2 is specifically designed for Navy based on flaws in MK1) without even giving it a chance. You can google the opinion of Navy test pilots and also the performance of Mk1 on the SBTF - very praiseworthy and totally out of sync with the sudden rejection.

BUt would you be OK with taking the LCA out of the Navy and putting up say an aircraft with equal capability from a foreign vendor?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Feb 2017 01:22

rohitvats wrote: 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.

I don't understand this argument. Surely there is a difference between Mig-21 squadrons being re-equipped with MKI's and the MKI's actually being optimal for taking over all the roles the Mig-21 performed in the IAF.

As far as the re-equipping is concerned, the MKI's were the only new fighters coming in. So it is obvious that squadrons with retiring Mig-21s got MKI's in their place. This doesn't mean that MKI's are now considered an optimal 1 to 1 replacement for Mig-21s. They require twice the number of pilots and probably more than twice the operating cost.

Secondly, the IAF had retired several Mig-23 squadrons as well. The MKI's are supposed to replace them as well. Not to mention the Mig-27s that the IAF is continually retiring. Even after all the MKI's come in, the IAF is nowhere close to reaching the sanctioned 39.5 squadrons let alone the 42-44 that they require.

SO no, we cannot consider that all Mig-21s have been replaced by MKI's and the LCA's expected role of serving as a successor to the Mig-21 is redundant now.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2017 01:36

How come no one is discussing the fact that this Aero India will see the Tejas trainers PV-5 and PV-6 performing customer flights for the first time at an Air Show?

From Livefist's Twitter page

Cannot overstate the size of this step. #AeroIndia2017 will mark 1st time LCA Tejas team will be doing customer flights

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 14 Feb 2017 02:00

I did bring it up

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7305&start=120#p2114713

Pure speculation onlee. There were two Tejas departures from AI right after each other. Both of them came back after 30 mins and I witnessed landing of one of them. It is possible that these are customer demo flights...perhaps took the potential customer pilots' on a sneak peak ride.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 02:07

I like the optimism and efforts towards exports.
Just a little snafu of which birds will HAL divert to exports rather than IAF and when.

The 123 are needed ASAP. Maybe after 2025 once they've completed the initial run ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Feb 2017 02:28

In any product development programme the moment you come up with a plan B i.e. if I cannot make a top of the line product then I will buy it instead ; one has already given up on plan A. I know I have said this before but at times we give services more than their share of criticism , no I am not saying this because what Adm Arun Prakash says is right but simply because services at the end of the day get to only have as much say as MoD allows them . Great products have come from stables of those who not only have vision and technical prowess but also an iron hand to instill discipline among the ranks to make stuff at a war footing and at the same time prevent the military from being distracted by the foreign stuff. USA is a great example there , they have chased away likes of Airbus and EU OEMs from even having a small foot hold on their turf and all this has come not neccessarily based on merit a lot of it has to do with a sense of national pride and protecting one's long term interests . Abrams over Leopard was one such choice they made when former was clearly an inferior platform they were able to convince their forces that it was good enough and force it down their throats over a period of years the MBT evolved to what it is today.

Tejas is technologically challenging and we have failed there by not thowing enough money and people at it ; kind of investment we have done on Kaveri and Tejas and with beurocractic institutions running the show we have a fighter being built for decades now ; with such long development cycles it becomes hard to check/prevent GSQRs from being revisited . I still say we need to force Tejas on our forces for in the long term it is the right thing to do however even for that to happen we need to throw men , money and material at this problem; someone has to draw a line on stone come up with a date and make it happen , 9-5 culture has never produced great products and it never will .

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2017 02:54

Zynda wrote:I did bring it up

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7305&start=120#p2114713

Pure speculation onlee. There were two Tejas departures from AI right after each other. Both of them came back after 30 mins and I witnessed landing of one of them. It is possible that these are customer demo flights...perhaps took the potential customer pilots' on a sneak peak ride.

Well, you were right. It's been confirmed by Angad Singh

Angad Singh's Twitter link

Just been told that there will be Tejas customer demos piloted by Cmde Maolankar in this twin seater

PV-6

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2017 03:05

Lite Shield Electronic Attack pod from Rafael- this is likely to be targeted at the Tejas Mk1A. Which would require an additional hard point for the pod, like that for the LDP. Pod weight is stated as ~200 kgs. Local strengthening might be required to fit it. Integration is supposedly quick for platforms already integrated with the Litening LDP.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 14 Feb 2017 03:08

rohitvats wrote: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.

Go on Rohit I am listening and I am not trying to sound like a conspiracist. (if you pointed at my post).

My first point ... the Admiral's article would have gone down like a smooth scotch with me if he would have borrowed your clarity of explanation.
It didn't because if you read his article he does not articulate (or hammer down) what you do.

Okay next point.

Navy had gone in for 6 MK1 . I thought Mk1 for Navy was heading towards IOC so not much was going to change in terms of the aircrafts performance.
Now what gives that they invoke of the divorce clause and say we want 57 more.
I thought Mk1 was just a temporary phase for them where they would stay with 6 Mk1 + all the Mig-29 Ks they have .... all the while working their way towards a Mk2.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Feb 2017 03:38

Ok. We need to step back and clarify a few things;

1) Military Personnel are YOU and ME. They are a product of the same society we live in. Let us not put them up on a pedestal as if they are Bhagwan. Because they are not.

2) Military Personnel make sacrifices that YOU and ME will never undertake. They MUST be given their due respect on that account alone. Chief or Jawan....it makes no difference. However it goes much beyond that. They also have the breadth of knowledge and experience - of their field - that YOU and ME will never have. That cannot be disputed. The only exception is if YOU and ME have walked in their shoes.

Now that having being said, the Chief is an experienced aviator. I believe he was among the first SHAR pilots. He definitely knows what he is talking about. So if he states that, "....DRDO failed to address the problems listed above with any urgency, leading to ultimate rejection of this ambitious project." Then DRDO screwed up. And DRDO has a proven history of over promising and under delivering. That also cannot be disputed.

However there is something that is quite not complete with the Admiral's article. Air Commodore Balaji has stated that the NLCA was only meant as a TD to validate concepts. The real NLCA lies in Mk2. Now I don't know why the Admiral did not mention the Mk2 and that is anyone's guess. However to suggest that the Admiral is throwing the program under the bus, it quite a stretch. If there is any service that supports indigenous efforts it is the Navy and the proof is in the pudding. Take a look at her fleet...it puts the IAF to shame. If the Mk2 is successful - I do not have a crystal ball and none of you do either - I can guarantee you, the Navy will be the first to order them.

However to state that to question the Admiral (or any military personnel) is anti-national or throwing them under the bus is equally ludicrous. We can, should and MUST question the Armed Forces (and her personnel) that protect us. However we must do that in a respectful manner. I do not condone the poster who called Raha an idiot. That is totally uncalled for and that good man does not deserve that kind of treatment. But checks and balances exist for a reason. In the absence of them you have the entity that we know as Pakistan.

JMVHO

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Feb 2017 03:46

Cross post from the Indian Army - News & Discussion thread...a worthwhile read for everyone in light of Admiral Arun Prakash's article.

Question The Army, But Try to Know Us First, Says Lt Gen (Retd) DS Hooda
http://www.news18.com/news/india/questi ... 45276.html

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 03:57

This tussle between Navy's requirement and LCA's development is not new. It has only come out in the open recently. IN's position has not changed on the LCA. 24 hours news channels cannot survive if they don't blow everything out of proportion. So is this.

IN rightly needs a medium weight aircraft, and LCA is not. Nonetheless, IN wisely supported the development of the LCA Navy because we need to develop many technologies in house. MLGs of carrier-based aircrafts are very different. Not only is it sturdy to take the shock of landing, but capable of sudden expansion when the aircraft leaves the edge of the ship. Developing optimized MLGs requires a lot of data collection*. Similarly, the internal structural frame should be amenable to mount these MLGs. LCA's was not, and this was the reason of the initial delay on LCA Navy. Ditto with the tail hook. Other than structural changes, the control laws need changing. The parabolic part of the STOBAR take off is outside the flight envelop of normal aircraft: the lift is less than the weight of the aircraft, the control surfaces are less responsive. The control law has to take cognizance of this special case situations and adapt. Same goes for landing. For example, NLCA uses its LEVCONs more like spoilers-cum-airbrakes place ahead of the CG! Similarly, when you are dumping fuel, care has to be taken that the CG doesn't travel abruptly. And whatever amount it does travel, it has to be accounted for by the control laws. All these data have to be generated and fed into the current and next design cycles. It needs at least a decade of data collection (may be two given our funding levels) to get to the refinement required to field a meaningful fighter on a carrier deck. So where does India and Navy start. LCA is the only game in town. So that is the prototype vehicle. That was always the goal.

Navy's dissatisfaction stems from two reason. One, inefficiencies within ADA/HAL. And more importantly the much lower priority given to LCA Navy vis-a-vis Tejas. This, when Navy stood steadfastly by ADA/HAL when IAF washed the dirty laundry in the open and hung it as high as it could. Navy voluntarily footed more than its fair share for LCA development costs for just technology demonstration when IAF had to be arm twisted to sign its share. Why would the Navy be happy?

On the plus side however, LCA Navy probably has the best program manager within ADA, aka Capt Mao. He is boon not just to LCA Navy, but the entire Tejas program. He is probably the most experienced naval aviator within India, and is a voice of reason. If you listen to the way he has prioritized the testing and development of LCA Navy, you will have nothing but respect for his professionalism, wisdom and level-headedness. He is kind of the modern day Kapil Bhargava.

What Navy wants ADA to do is develop a twin engine version of LCA instead of LCA Mk2. It doesn't need or want stealth and all that 5th gen crap. A Mig-29K or Rafale equivalent will do just fine. ADA wants to stay the course on LCA Mk2. Lets see what happens. But one thing is for sure. Navy has, is and will stand steadfastly for indigenous capability generation. And for that alone, we should be very proud of our Navy.

* So when SAAB tells you that Sea Gripen is a matter of small changes, ask them where is their data coming from? Who says, "Sea-anything" is just a few structural tweaks away.

The joke is on us, if we believe such marketing slides in spite of knowing the relaity

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 03:58

Kartik wrote:How come no one is discussing the fact that this Aero India will see the Tejas trainers PV-5 and PV-6 performing customer flights for the first time at an Air Show?

From Livefist's Twitter page

Cannot overstate the size of this step. #AeroIndia2017 will mark 1st time LCA Tejas team will be doing customer flights

Truly, it cannot be overstated. Great step. Probably the best thing of this AI.