LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Feb 2017 04:01

IN should continue to co-invest in the tejas' nav/attack/comms/ecm suites with the IAF whilst the naval dimension is refined
everyone will win

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 04:05

By the way, who the hell has a problem with Admiral Prakash's report? He has only stated the facts.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 04:23

Iirc the initial plan was for the migs and NLCA to both be able to operate from Vikrant.
Post the Mk1A announcement, news on the mk2 kind of dried up.
It could be possible that the mk2 getting kicked down the road further which prompted IN to announce what it did.

In the larger scheme of things, priority would have always gone to the AF considering the sheer numbers of fighters it will eventually operate..

I'd like to highlight an important point which will go against the normal belief system in here.

@ IAF vs IN - indigenisation,

IAF I think is unfairly criticised. Ships vs fighter jets is as apples and oranges comparison as it can get.

The navy where it can, has gone in for indigenous ships for its fleet.
However shipbuilding and a fighter jet aircraft building are radically different engineering challenges.
Shipbuilding is comparatively easier.

When it comes to subs, we still don't have a indigenous sub solution.

The AF meanwhile never had any other indigenous option for the past 30 years except the LCA.

It's unfair to brand AF as unsupportive of indigenous options where there was only one option and compare it with IN.

Where it can, AF has embraced indigenous solutions be it Akash, or the wide variety of surveillance radars ..

The criticism of AF is valid if it imported jets while we had desi equivalents of the Sukhois, Rafale but still chose the import route.
For the moment the only pony in town is LCA and it will still take a while to get operational in full capacity with the airforce.

My point is,do praise IN for its indigenisation efforts by all means, but do not be so harsh on IAF.They never had indigenous options in the fighter jets stream.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Feb 2017 05:01

^^^ +1
But remember, IN still uses the UKR Zorya propulsion system right? Same problem (though fewer numbers) as GE engines. And weapons—still a long way from MII

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2017 05:39

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

Photo Credit: Prasun Sengupta

Nice picture.

Those four items, including the Spice 250 (left on a rack of 4) and 1000 (a singleton on the right), are on the table and part of a $3 billion deal to be completed before Modi visits Israel this year.

Do not know the value, but the Spice 250 could be slung under the HTT-40.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2017 06:46

what would happen to the onboard gun if that location is indeed chosen as the location for the additional hard point? Would have to be removed.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 14 Feb 2017 06:46

Rakesh wrote: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

And how are we going to know them
- by changing specification continuously, so that the indigenous products never mature
- by delaying induction and ridiculing indigenous effort, so that they can import and help themselves and their master in collecting bribe.
- openly speaking against indigenous effort. but at the same time expecting respect and no criticism from nationals.
- by trying to shut any reasonable questioning from those who care by hiding behind risk to security and those questioning not understanding the difficulty of armed forces.
- while the corruption goes on...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Feb 2017 08:20

Navy has not abandoned LCA, Media misconstrued Navy Chief's Statement

Navy has not abandoned LCA, Media misconstrued Navy Chief's Statement

Dec 03, 2016 Vijainder K Thakur

Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba told the media on December 2, 2016 that the Indian Navy is scouting for another carrier operations compatible fighter besides the MiG-29, since LCA Navy lacks the payload required to be effective when operating from a carrier.

“The present LCA Navy does not meet the carrier capability which is required by the Navy. We will continue to support the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in their efforts to develop a carrier-based fighter aircraft. At the same time we will seek aircraft elsewhere which can operate on the aircraft carrier,” Admiral Lanba told the media.

"In the present form, the LCA cannot take off with its full weapon load," the Navy Chief added.

With its proclivity to sensationalize, the Indian mainstream media projected the Chief's statement to imply that the Navy has ditched the LCA Navy project. Taking a cue, social media took the disinformation to puerile heights, alluding subversion of indigenous defense R&D by the military leadership of the country.

I feel there is an urgent need to put the Navy Chief's statement in the correct perspective. The Navy Chief did not say LCA Navy development is being abandoned.

The Navy's decision to procure a second carrier compatible fighter other than LCA Navy is prompted by the mismatch in the development of LCA Navy and the projected commissioning of IAC-1 (INS Vikrant) around 2023.

LCA Navy History
The Indian Government sanctioned Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) of Naval Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-Navy), capable of operating from an aircraft carrier, on March 28, 2003 with a PDC of March 27, 2010.

Subsequently, as a result of the failure of the Kaveri project and a weight spiral LCA performance fell below expectations. In 2008, the IAF, the MoD and the ADA agreed that LCA does not meet critical IAF QRs - Power to Weight Ratio, Sustained Turn Rate and Maximum speeds at low altitudes. The performance shortfalls would be addressed by developing a follow-up LCA variant fitted with the more powerful GE F414 engine. LCA Mk2 was sanctioned in November 2009 with PDC of December 2018.

With LCA Mk1 falling short on critical IAF QRs, LCA Navy, which would be much heavier on account of its strengthened undercarriage, had no chance of meeting the Navy's more stringent QRs for deck operations. It was evident that LCA Navy would have to be based on LCA Mk2.

However, since LCA Mk1 & Mk2 would be similar in design, in order to save time it was decided to start developing LCA Navy technologies using LCA Mk1 as testbed.

The LCA Navy project was recast as a two phased development program. In Phase 1, ADA would use prototypes built in LCA Mk1 configuration (powered by GE-F-404-IN20 with a max thrust of 17,700 lbs.) to develop arrested landing and ski jump take-off technology. In Phase 2, ADA would use prototype aircraft built in the Tejas Mk2 configuration (powered by GE-414-INS6 engine with a max thrust of 22,000 lbs.) to certify LCA Navy for carrier operations.

Navy Hedges its Bet on LCA Navy

The recasting of LCA Navy program notwithstanding, IN decided to hedge its bet on the successful development of the aircraft, in order to ensure that its current and future aircraft carriers embarked lethal fighters. In November 2009, the Navy prudently issued an RFI (request for information) to several global aviation majors, including American Boeing, French Dassault and Russian MiG companies, for ‘an alternate deck-based aircraft.’

LCA Navy Development Delays

A Navy fighter has to be designed and built for carrier operation from the ground up, not as an afterthought, as is the case with LCA Navy. When the LCA project was initially sanctioned, the aircraft was not conceived to be a Navy fighter.

Strengthening the LCA for carrier operations proved to be a nightmare for ADA. Embarked aircraft are required to perform flare less landings with a high sink rate of 7.1 rn/sec. To meet the requirement, LCA Navy undercarriage became grotesquely over-sized. Part of the problem was the positioning of the undercarriage in the fuselage. Aircraft designed for carrier operations generally have the undercarriage in their wing roots.

(Compare the u/c of LCA Navy Mk-1 above with that of the Tejas LCA below. The former looks oversized, the latter, elegant.)

Tejas LCA at Aero India 2015

The strengthened u/c added weight and lowered the aircraft's performance much more than initially expected.

The LCA Navy would have to embark on INS Vikrant (IAC-1) much before its scheduled commissioning in 2023.

LCA Navy, in its present form, cannot be operationally deployed on INS Vikrant - it's very limited weapon load, range and performance wouldn't justify such deployment. This is what the Navy Chief said!

LCA Navy Not Abandoned

At Aero India 2015, the author asked the then LCA Navy Project Director Commodore CD Balaji (He is now ADA chief) if LCA Navy in its present form could operationally be deployed on a carrier, were the LCA Navy Mk-2 project to be delayed.

"LCA Navy Mk-2 will not be delayed," said Balaji with a lot of confidence. "We are close to freezing its design, which has been simplified. The new design would be easy to implement."

Commodore Balaji's confidence was eye-opening - The biggest pay-off from the LCA Navy project may well be ADA's increasing confidence in its ability to tweak fighter aircraft design to squeeze out better performance. This is evident from the following:

LCA Navy Mk-2 has been designed from the ground up as a Navy fighter, independently of Tejas LCA Mk-2.

The fuselage of the aircraft has been broadened and the wing roots moved outwards. As a result, aircraft design has been optimized for supersonic flight with perfect conformance to area rule. (Tejas LCA and LCA Navy Mk-1 do not conform perfectly to area ruling resulting in high supersonic drag.)

Mid-section fuselage broadening allows undercarriage bays to be shifted outwards, allowing a simpler, straight and light undercarriage as in the Rafale.

Mid-section fuselage broadening also increases fuel capacity.

That is three birds with one stone!

The following design layout of LCA Mk-2 from a brochure distributed during Aero India 2015 clarifies what I have stated above about the design tweaks.

Conclusion

What the Navy Chief said on December 2, 2016 did not signal a change in plans. He merely reiterated what the Navy had planned since the sanctioning of the LCA Navy project. If the LCA Navy is not ready on time, the Navy will seek a second carrier based fighter from the global market.

The Navy will continue to support development of LCA Navy. With a former naval officer helming ADA, it wouldn't expect it to be otherwise.

It's unusual for a Navy to have two types of carrier based aircraft, except when one is being phased out on account of obsolescence. It is possible that the Navy's quest for a second carrier fighter stems from shortcomings with MiG-29K operations. It could also be a way of pressurizing Russia to come good with its support for the aircraft

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 14 Feb 2017 08:49

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

Raha was a disaster for the IAF & LCA.

I couldn't believe it when he said "we don't want MK2" and that quote got published in newspapers. That was the IAF not the navy he was talking about.

Thank god he was retired.

With the piss poor support given to the LCA, it is no wonder that no private sub-contractor will step forward to invest time & effort to develop sub-systems of the plane in any major way. Who wants to invest in something were at the drop of the hat, a shitload of foreign planes can be imported and the LCA mothballed forever like the Arjun tank.

On top of that you got loose canons like Raha running around doing maximum damage to the program.

It will be a miracle if the LCA MK2 attracts private players beyond just 3rd tier sub-contractors.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 09:34

chetak wrote:Navy has not abandoned LCA, Media misconstrued Navy Chief's Statement

Navy has not abandoned LCA, Media misconstrued Navy Chief's Statement

Dec 03, 2016 Vijainder K Thakur

Good article. Put things into perspective. Lets see what comes out of this new RFI.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Feb 2017 12:50

ragupta wrote: And how are we going to know them
- by changing specification continuously, so that the indigenous products never mature

Please list five (05) products where GSQR was altered because of which a domestic product could not enter production and was not inducted.

- by delaying induction and ridiculing indigenous effort, so that they can import and help themselves and their master in collecting bribe.

Please list five (05) products where induction was delayed and mention the sources/instances of Services ridiculing domestic products? Also, mention with evidence (even anecdotal ones) where this was done with express purpose of inducting foreign product so that bribes could be collected.

- openly speaking against indigenous effort. but at the same time expecting respect and no criticism from nationals.

Please list five (05) instances of Services ridiculing domestic products?

- by trying to shut any reasonable questioning from those who care by hiding behind risk to security and those questioning not understanding the difficulty of armed forces.

Again, please list five (05) instances of Services hiding behind the national security parameter to deflect questions?

- while the corruption goes on...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 13:10

Why the hell doesn't Tejas adopt this low visibility pain scheme. Looks so much better.

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

Meanwhile, SAAB's "sweeteners" for LCA.

Courtesy: Livefist.

We are already doing this inhouse. Where is the "extra" sweetness.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 13:37

nirav wrote: @ IAF vs IN - indigenisation,

IAF I think is unfairly criticised. Ships vs fighter jets is as apples and oranges comparison as it can get.

The navy where it can, has gone in for indigenous ships for its fleet.
However shipbuilding and a fighter jet aircraft building are radically different engineering challenges.
Shipbuilding is comparatively easier.

When it comes to subs, we still don't have a indigenous sub solution.

The AF meanwhile never had any other indigenous option for the past 30 years except the LCA.

It's unfair to brand AF as unsupportive of indigenous options where there was only one option and compare it with IN.

Where it can, AF has embraced indigenous solutions be it Akash, or the wide variety of surveillance radars ..

The criticism of AF is valid if it imported jets while we had desi equivalents of the Sukhois, Rafale but still chose the import route.
For the moment the only pony in town is LCA and it will still take a while to get operational in full capacity with the airforce.

My point is,do praise IN for its indigenisation efforts by all means, but do not be so harsh on IAF.They never had indigenous options in the fighter jets stream.

I respect IAF for many things. But please don't ask me to respect IAF for what it is not: a champion for indigenous development. While, I can't speak for IAF of yore, IAF in the last decade has been anything but supportive of the Indian aviation industry.

For example, the IAF chief while residing on Tejas's IOC ceremony called it a "three legged cheetah"

. Its officials openly chastised desi developers and scientist in front of an international gathering like AI'13. When the points raised were rebutted by the members in the audience, the speaker said, "But, customer is king!". In AI-15, an IAF official presented a view of IAF's expectations from tomorrow's engines. It was nothing about an amalgamation of brochures. When questioned by people in the room with actual engine development experience, the speaker had no clue and hand-waived. IAF never responded to HTT-35, and tried everything it could to kill the HTT-40. It set such requirements from MTA, that no engine in the world can currently suffice.

In contrast, the Navy has operated submarines without torpedoes, ships without air defense, ships without towed sonars to let the development of desi products. Saying that IAF is as supportive of desi products as IN, is unfair to the IN.

Thankfully, the IAF is starting to come around in the last 2-3 years. However, I think Manohar Parrikar has had a big hand in that change.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Feb 2017 14:24

Indranil wrote:For example, the IAF chief while residing on Tejas's IOC ceremony called it a "three legged cheetah" .

Are you sure, Indranil, that what you posted is true & correct? You might want to cross check your facts.

No disrespect intended to you or anyone else, but there is a very bad habit among forum members to distort the truth to accommodate pet biases.

Please let the truth prevail.

Secondly, IOC 1 in 2011 was a sham H&D ceremony, when the flight envelope was not fully opened up. No aircraft is fit for IOC without its flight regimes fully established.

Here is official GOI statement http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=102056

In addition to this, Wake penetration trials, all weather clearances were planned beyond IOC-1.

I'm sure everyone has seen the movie Topgun and remembers what happened when Tom Cruise's aircraft flies into the jet wash of his wingman

The salient features which have been achieved in IOC-2 include....The Flight control system evaluation has also been completed.

That indicates FCS Testing wasnt complete despite IOC 1

Tejas has passed all the tests for “All Weather Clearance” of the aircraft.

We saw what happened at Bhopal airport when it rained.

The Aircraft has been cleared for fly without any telemetry support.

Why did the aircraft needed ground telemetry after IOC 1? Because it's flight characteristics had not completed testing despite IOC-1.

The Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said it is indeed a proud day for the nation and particularly for the IAF; since the grant of IOC acknowledges the capabilities of this aircraft and paves the way for the induction of LCA Mk 1 into operational service. He said the progress of such a challenging experimental project without any accident or major incident is unprecedented in the history of aviation.

On a personal note, ACM Browne said as he prepares to hang his uniform at the end of this month, he would have gone home as a disappointed person if the IOC of the LCA had not been achieved.

If it gives any solace, IAF called PAK-FA third generation

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 932340.cms

Objections that had been raised by the air force - with one senior officer even terming the fighter as a 'third generation' combat aircraft

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 14 Feb 2017 14:35

Indranil wrote:By the way, who the hell has a problem with Admiral Prakash's report? He has only stated the facts.

Sir I have a problem with the report.
The report IMHO is being presented a clear reasoning of the IN filing for divorce in a very systematic and professional manner.

My issues with that is .... I don't see any clear indication of that.

The report details performance issues >> Me, a poster on the web already knew that. (there are way way more capable and professional people than me running the program).

The report details time line and other issues >> Again the same reason as above, I knew that and so did IN.

I don't have an issue with the good admiral whom I respect for destroying bloody chuck yeager's aircraft above all he done with distinction in the service of our nation.

What I am saying is and Rohit is calling me conspiratorial (which I like btw), that there is something that has fundamentally shifted.
I prepared to bet my bottom dollar that if HAL was pumping out Mig-29K. Navy would have still said the same thing and asked for 57 different fighters.
I believe we are on the cusp of seeing something different for the procurement of a phoren fighter.

I believe the Navy is either trying to force the IAF's hand or they are collaborating.

I just hope IN continues to maintain its fledgling investment in the LCA. It has brought a much wanted 3rd dimension to the project.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 14:45

tsarkar wrote: No aircraft is fit for IOC without its flight regimes fully established.

Not so for the F-35
http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaki ... /87948142/

The Eurofighter was pressed into service before it was air to ground capable. It was even offered to Singapore who rejected it on those very grounds. On the other hand the IAF took on a supersonic MiG 21 in 1962 with no radar and no gun, augmenting, as interceptor a Gnat that we accepted although it never enetered service as a fighter in the manufacturing nation. The Gnat also had some nasty habits that put pilots at risk

tsarkar wrote:
I'm sure everyone has seen the movie Topgun and remembers what happened when Tom Cruise's aircraft flies into the jet wash of his wingman

I haven't seen top gun but our early C-130 crash was a wake penetration accident. And that is a 50 year old design or nearabouts

tsarkar wrote:
Why did the aircraft needed ground telemetry after IOC 1? Because it's flight characteristics had not completed testing despite IOC-1.

The Gripen continued with expansion of envelope and high AoA testing even after it entered service

All these objections have been discussed on here time and again - proving that every time someone new enters the debate the same old things need to be rehashed.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 14:57

We need a special sticky thread for all this back and forth arguments on LCA, so it won't pollute this thread time and again.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 15:20

LCA beepals

Please listen to this statemnt from Air Marshal Rajkumar for 15 seconds from where I have linked below and comment..

https://youtu.be/fEoKfMQzciQ?t=255

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 15:50

Indranil wrote:
nirav wrote: @ IAF vs IN - indigenisation,

IAF I think is unfairly criticised. Ships vs fighter jets is as apples and oranges comparison as it can get.

The navy where it can, has gone in for indigenous ships for its fleet.
However shipbuilding and a fighter jet aircraft building are radically different engineering challenges.
Shipbuilding is comparatively easier.

When it comes to subs, we still don't have a indigenous sub solution.

The AF meanwhile never had any other indigenous option for the past 30 years except the LCA.

It's unfair to brand AF as unsupportive of indigenous options where there was only one option and compare it with IN.

Where it can, AF has embraced indigenous solutions be it Akash, or the wide variety of surveillance radars ..

The criticism of AF is valid if it imported jets while we had desi equivalents of the Sukhois, Rafale but still chose the import route.
For the moment the only pony in town is LCA and it will still take a while to get operational in full capacity with the airforce.

My point is,do praise IN for its indigenisation efforts by all means, but do not be so harsh on IAF.They never had indigenous options in the fighter jets stream.
I respect IAF for many things. But please don't ask me to respect IAF for what it is not: a champion for indigenous development. While, I can't speak for IAF of yore, IAF in the last decade has been anything but supportive of the Indian aviation industry.

For example, the IAF chief while residing on Tejas's IOC ceremony called it a "three legged cheetah" . Its officials openly chastised desi developers and scientist in front of an international gathering like AI'13. When the points raised were rebutted by the members in the audience, the speaker said, "But, customer is king!". In AI-15, an IAF official presented a view of IAF's expectations from tomorrow's engines. It was nothing about an amalgamation of brochures. When questioned by people in the room with actual engine development experience, the speaker had no clue and hand-waived. IAF never responded to HTT-35, and tried everything it could to kill the HTT-40. It set such requirements from MTA, that no engine in the world can currently suffice.

In contrast, the Navy has operated submarines without torpedoes, ships without air defense, ships without towed sonars to let the development of desi products. Saying that IAF is as supportive of desi products as IN, is unfair to the IN.

Thankfully, the IAF is starting to come around in the last 2-3 years. However, I think Manohar Parrikar has had a big hand in that change.

2015 was FOC "target".
We are in Feb 2017, it's still *not* been done.

As of today and even for the next two years, the operational capability of the LCA is still going to be of that of a 3 legged cheetah, till the time the FOC squadron is fully equipped.

If you are going to say that because of some public statements from IAF on the LCA are not in the"spirit" and that's reason enough to label them "unsupportive" of indigenous efforts, we are going to have a problem.

If an unbiased person takes fault in IAF or someone from IAF throwing brochure numbers, the person might do well to ensure that they too don't keep throwing brochure numbers for their favourite aircraft.

If only multi quote heckling could win a two front war !

The main reason for my post was -

Br is an excellent place for getting to know about all things Indian military.
But if seasoned posters and moderators post that IAF is "unsupportive" , throws "brochure figures", critique of LCA not welcome, you guys are setting a very bad precedent.
Any new guy who reads the "discussion" get encouraged to bash the AF as it's the unspoken allowable.

@Accountability, while labelling the AF with a variety of epithets, why doesn't any one question the repeated slippages in even something as crucial as the FOC.
Why are the guys who seem it fit to label the AF eerily quiet about the tareekh pe tareekh which has been going on for the past 25 years !?

I do not intend to make this into a IAF vs ADA/HAL shouting match.

But I certainly want seasoned posters to introspect and acknowledge that having open season on the AF for labels or accepting IAF -unsupportive as the background for any discussions in here is only pushing forward a false narrative.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Feb 2017 15:56

shiv wrote: Not so for the F-35 <SNIP>

Well, there is IOC and then there is IOC.

You make exactly the same mistake which many have done umpteenth number of time when it comes to LCA and IOC and FOC.

Here is the definition of IOC as set out by US Air Force, Marine Corps and US Navy.

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/documents/se ... watchword/

“Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment. Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

“Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

“Navy F-35C IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10 aircraft, and Navy personnel are trained, manned and equipped to conduct assigned missions. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35C will reach the IOC milestone between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.”

The detailed report by the three US services submitted to US Congress as to what constitutes IOC is here:

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... _FINAL.pdf

By the above definition of IOC for F-35, Tejas will NOT reach IOC before the whole of FOC squadron gets delivered to IAF.

While the fact of the matter is that IOC in our case was a series of milestones which established all the flight parameters, save for full AoA envelope.

Here is the list of some parameters for IOC-1 and IOC-2:http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=102056

The Initial Operational Clearance-1 (IOC-I) for ‘Tejas’ was achieved on 10 Jan 2011. In IOC-I, the Aircraft had a few limitations in terms of Combat performance, turn around time and its weaponization which had to be refined and improved through Research & Development process. In addition to this, Wake penetration trials, all weather clearances were planned beyond IOC-1.

Since IOC-1, ‘Tejas’ has accomplished significant milestones. Till date, more than 2450 sorties have been completed to achieve the flight test goals towards IOC-2. The design issues were resolved with System Engineering approach and by periodical reviews with participation of external experts.

The salient features which have been achieved in IOC-2 include Safe flying up to High angle of Attack as mandated by the users. This has considerably enhanced the combat performance of the aircraft. The Flight control system evaluation has also been completed. The time for initial built-in test has been reduced considerably which enables faster turn around and enhanced operational readiness of aircraft. The Brake system has been improved significantly in terms of energy absorption capability during landing, thus ensuring prompt turn-around of the aircraft. Significant improvement in Cockpit ergonomic and lighting system has been accomplished for improved night flying. In-flight re-light capability was demonstrated to ensure enhanced safety and reliability of the aircraft. This is a major achievement. Avionics and Weapon system of the aircraft have been revamped for effective mission superiority. Helmet Mounted Display Sight (HMDS) has been fully integrated in Tejas and R73E missile firing has been successfully demonstrated using HMDS.

Multi Mode Weapon multirole capability of Tejas was demonstrated during its participation in Iron Fist. Air to Ground mission and Air to Air missions were demonstrated by dropping Laser Guided Bombs and R73E firing in single pass. Laser Guided Bomb firing has been achieved for IOC-2 to user’s satisfaction.

Aircraft readiness for missions in terms of its readiness and Operational Readiness Platform (ORP) and Turn Round Service (TRS) and easier maintainability has been achieved as per requirement thus enhancing operational readiness of the aircraft. Tejas has passed all the tests for “All Weather Clearance” of the aircraft. The Aircraft has been cleared for fly without any telemetry support.
IOC-2 shall enable Air Force to carry out air superiority and offensive air support missions, forward air field operations, all weather multi role operations, Electronic counter measures and night flying operations.

The Eurofighter was pressed into service before it was air to ground capable. It was even offered to Singapore who rejected it on those very grounds. On the other hand the IAF took on a supersonic MiG 21 in 1962 with no radar and no gun, augmenting, as interceptor a Gnat that we accepted although it never enetered service as a fighter in the manufacturing nation. The Gnat also had some nasty habits that put pilots at risk

20 a/c have been ordered at IOC-2 standard when the a/c was cleared for flight by regular pilots and not TPs. I guess a same number of Su-30K a/c entered IAF service. How many Mig-21s w/o cannon were bought before we put a gun-pack and subsequently went to the other models?

I haven't seen top gun but our early C-130 crash was a wake penetration accident. And that is a 50 year old design or near-about

Because C-130 suffered a wake penetration accident, the whole exercise of wake penetration trials on Tejas certification is not required?

The Gripen continued with expansion of envelope and high AoA testing even after it entered service

You're confusing two separate things - Tejas did not receive all-weather capability till IOC-2. As for Gripen entering service with limited AoA, first twenty Tejas were ordered at a stage when it had not reached full AoA.

All these objections have been discussed on here time and again - proving that every time someone new enters the debate the same old things need to be rehashed.

These are not objection but facts which get lost in the din of debate that we have on the topic. And we end up with people drawing erroneous conclusions. So, F-35 ordered in hundreds at IOC while IAF asks for FOC for Tejas - IAF is bad, it loves imports, IAF Chiefs are idiots, sack them and what not!

Criticism is all-right but at least do that on relevant facts!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Feb 2017 15:57

shiv wrote:LCA beepals

Please listen to this statemnt from Air Marshal Rajkumar for 15 seconds from where I have linked below and comment..

https://youtu.be/fEoKfMQzciQ?t=255

4000Lbs weapon load over a radius of 300km

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Feb 2017 15:58

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote: No aircraft is fit for IOC without its flight regimes fully established.
Not so for the F-35
http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaki ... /87948142/

The Eurofighter was pressed into service before it was air to ground capable. It was even offered to Singapore who rejected it on those very grounds. On the other hand the IAF took on a supersonic MiG 21 in 1962 with no radar and no gun, augmenting, as interceptor a Gnat that we accepted although it never enetered service as a fighter in the manufacturing nation. The Gnat also had some nasty habits that put pilots at risk.

You might want to re-read my original statement.

IOC & FOC criteria are typically decided by the developer, certifier & user. Broadly, IOC means aircraft is fit to fly, its flight envelope is known & certified.

Regular pilots are not test pilots, they're operational pilots. They need to know what their planes are capable of.

Radar & Guns are immaterial to flight envelope and certification.

So, even if the Eurofighter wasnt A2G capable, its flight envelope was known, hence it was fit for IOC.

The MiG-21's flight envelope was certified by the Soviets, and validated by test pilots like AM Wollen & Rajkumar. Radar & Guns are immaterial to IOC.

Same for the Gnat, its flight envelope was opened up and validated by test pilots. Its flaws were known and accepted.

In case of the Tejas before IOC-2 in 2013, its flight characteristics were an unknown quantity. We didnt even know in 2011 if
1. If all-is-well? or
2. If there is a flaw? or
3. Can we live with that flaw?

It was only in 2013 that Tejas flight characteristics were fully known

The Flight control system evaluation has also been completed.

Tejas has passed all the tests for “All Weather Clearance” of the aircraft.

The Aircraft has been cleared for fly without any telemetry support.

There are other things as well, like
brakes
cockpit lighting (not just for night flying but in overcast conditions as well
engine relight - incase there is a flameout

All these basic flight envelope criteria were unknown before 2013. A2G, radar, guns are secondary to knowing the flight envelope.

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
I'm sure everyone has seen the movie Topgun and remembers what happened when Tom Cruise's aircraft flies into the jet wash of his wingman
I haven't seen top gun but our early C-130 crash was a wake penetration accident. And that is a 50 year old design or nearabouts

No aircraft, F-14, C-130 or Tejas can fly in turbulent airflow.

However its important to know the limits it can fly upto. So that the pilots flying in formation with other fighters, transports, civil airliners or in holding pattern after takeoff or in landing pattern and Ground Controllers / Air Traffic Controllers know the safe distances to maintain.

How can an aircraft be inducted without those parameters not known?

Exceeding the safe limits will result in a crash.

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote: Why did the aircraft needed ground telemetry after IOC 1? Because it's flight characteristics had not completed testing despite IOC-1.
The Gripen continued with expansion of envelope and high AoA testing even after it entered service

As is also the case with Tejas. The extreme performance can always be done later. However, in case of Tejas, the basic flight envelope was established in 2013.

shiv wrote:All these objections have been discussed on here time and again - proving that every time someone new enters the debate the same old things need to be rehashed.

JayS wrote:We need a special sticky thread for all this back and forth arguments on LCA, so it won't pollute this thread time and again.

Shouldn't the untruth's - from all sides - also stop? And let the truth prevail? Yet we've posters repeatedly lying about ACM Raha & ACM Browne on what they didn't say nor did.

And the IAF is equally scathing about PAK-FA and MTA.

Yes, it loves Rafale & Mirage 2000. But in every recent air action - Jaffna food drop, Maldives Coup, Kargil, Loonda Post - Mirage 2000 led from the front with 100% reliability and success.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 16:19

F-35 envelope within the IOC and software performance relevant to the block has been fully cleared prior to IOC. Beyond the criteria rohit mentioned in his post, it required fully capable and configured flight simulators with he IOC software build as well. They continued further SDD testing and validation beyond IOC criteria with testing of full block 3F.

2B/3I IOC criteria for USAF and USMC, while 3F IOC criteria for USN. FOC is not defined purely in terms of software configuration and capability but it wlll not happen until 3F is delivered early next year.

In fact on the EMD aircraft at Edwards AFB they had flown full envelope and tested it beyond its maximum G and AOA but that was not released to the fleet at the time because it was tied to a larger software build that was still in testing. IOC to FOC on that aircraft besides the logistical and operational elements essentially requires a software install to take 3I jets to 3F configuration. On some Marine jets they need the planned mission computer expansion to go from 2B to 3I and then a software bump to get to 3F but most of the aircraft that have been delivered over the last 2 years have been in the 3I configuration.

IOC is a milestone and not an end. It allows the services acquiring a weapons system to detach themselves from the program office, and the test and certification program and begin to train, and prepare to fight if need be with the weapons system as per their own internal terms and practices. While the operational squadranization of the F-35 was slow for many years it was primarily because they were preparing the ground work to train hundreds of pilots and maintainers. Luke Air Force Base alone has over 50 F-35's currently all tasked with training. Over the next few years the training footprint at Luke will grow to 144 F-35's.

Indranil wrote:Meanwhile, SAAB's "sweeteners" for LCA.

It would be quite remarkable if SAAB wins this despite of other competitors having their radars in either flight testing or versions actually available on operational aircraft. SAAB has come out and said that they wouldn't even begin flight testing of their proposed radar until they have an order.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Feb 2017 16:25

RM just said that the new assempt line will be ready in 2 years and will have a capacity of 8 aircraft/yr.

Why not set it up for 16 or 24 aircraft?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Feb 2017 17:23

Here are my personal thoughts on Adm Arun Prakash's article -

Going back in history, the US Light Weight Fighter Program was to find low cost alternatives to both F-15 & carrier based F-14. It was initially thought F-16 with structural strengthening and tailhook could do the job.

Unlike a land based aircraft, when an aircraft lands on a carrier, its engines are on full power, so as to have sufficient take off power to go around incase it misses the arrestor wires. Remember, while landing, it doesn't have the benefit of ski jump or catapult to help it go around.

The tailhook snapping arrestor wires guides the aircraft to controlled crash with engines at full power. This requires really strong structures. Despite that, carrier aircraft have very short lives. Just to give an example, old INS Vikrant could operate max 18 Seahawk fighters at a time. However, India purchased -
23 Seahawk with initial INS Vikrant purchase.
7 more in 1962
10 more in 1963
6 more in 1964
28 from Federal Republic of Germany in 1966
for a whopping total of 74 fighters. (Data from Admiral Hiranandani - Transition to Triumph)

In the US, it was found F-16 could not be suitably modified and the Naval F-16 died a natural death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_Model_1600
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... hat-wasnt/

Read the part about tailpipe banging the deck and 20 feet pitching

Which makes the case of Sea-F-16 and Sea-Gripen today utterly false.

Coming to the Naval LCA, that was exactly the plan of action - add tailhook and strengthened landing gear. However, the LCA was itself overweight and required weight reduction. It was clear early on that Navy Mk1 or modification to it wont be suitable for carrier operations.

The control laws for takeoff & landing need extensive development and testing. Please remember it took from 199x to 2013 to validate Tejas Flight Control Software. The Naval Tejas CLAW testing has just started.

Secondly, ADA is completely focussed on Tejas Mk1 FOC and HAL is completely focussed on Tejas Mk1A.

Tejas Navy Mk2 requires a full fledged development team. Tejas Mk2 itself is in abeyance until above two programs are completed.

Operationally, Tejas Navy Mk2 wont be in time for INS Vikramaditya or INS Vikrant.

So a new fighter will be required - given the high attrition in naval aviation compounded by poor availability of MiG-29.

Everyone is wiser in hindsight. In retrospect, Adm Prakash should've taken into consideration that LCA Navy never got the national priority it required.

In my personal opinion, we should not stop halfway. Tejas today is a known quantity. We should continue developing & testing the FCS. And build a more robust Mk2. Navy Mk2 needs its own dedicated team with far more personnel & resources than presently available.

They're two separate aircraft programs like F-16 & F/A-18 and we're trying to develop using one team.

IMO, Mk1A would probably slip to 2020, IAF Mk2 would probably slip to 2025 and Navy Mk2 to 2027, but these are still good programs and the aircraft will still be viable then.

Just like ALH expedited development of LCH & LUH, and Dhanush expedited ATAGS, Navy Mk2 would expedite AMCA or future programs

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 17:37

Excellent post tsarkarji.

I have a query.When we ran a tender for the engines for mk2 in 2010, the agenda for mk2 was a 1 metre plug + requisite changes in airframe needed to accommodate the larger engine.

For the latter, it was then said that it's doable and won't take too much time.
But the way things have progressed,it was after all supposed to have first flight in 2015, looks like it might not be as simple and straightforward as thought so earlier.

The Mk1A gives the mk2 adequate breathing space to come online.
I was wondering if the mk2 which will be undergoing significant structural changes could accommodate 2 F414s.
If we are going to delink navy LCA from AF version, we might as well go the distance and break the self imposed shackles of "light".

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Feb 2017 18:05

Nirav,

In my opinion, a two engined fighter would required re-testing of aerodynamics, development of wings, actuators, etc, development from a scratch of flight control software and a long testing process. Going by the time taken by US, Europe, Russia to develop new fighters, it would take a minimum 20 years.

Tweaking the existing LCA with higher power engine, stronger structure and enhanced control laws would be doable in 10 years.

We are doing aircrafts with two engines - the FGFA and AMCA. The experience gained with FGFA would definitely help us. But IMO AMCA IOC/FOC is atleast 20 years away.

I'm not as knowledgeable in aeronautical matters as Indranil and JayS, so would defer to their knowledge on this.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Feb 2017 18:08

Lets keep the faith - Tejas flying with IFR probe

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 18:13

tsarkar wrote:

JayS wrote:We need a special sticky thread for all this back and forth arguments on LCA, so it won't pollute this thread time and again.
Shouldn't the untruth's - from all sides - also stop? And let the truth prevail? Yet we've posters repeatedly lying about ACM Raha & ACM Browne on what they didn't say nor did.

It would be good for everyone no?? Refute things once and for all. Any jingo coming again and again can be redirected there instead of piling useless posts on this thread. Good posts get buried under the repetitive cycles of the same back and forth arguments.

BTW I would love to hear what you think of the deployment plan for these new 57 twin engine jets. This would be OT here, so Naval Aviation thread perhaps.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 18:24

^well,
There's intense debate on what's the "truth"..
The gist one gets from this thread is, one is not allowed to be critical of the LCA.But there's open season on IAF.
God forbid, if you do criticise, all hell breaks loose.

The above approach is valid if the intent of the thread is to form a mutual admiration society.
For a discussion thread, it's not acceptable.Calling a discussion on the status of the program as "useless" posts reeks of wanting to preserve the mutual admiration society rather than have factual discussions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 18:45

rohitvats wrote:
“Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment.

Since i have not been the one calling for sacking of service chiefs let me state something that is going to put the services in a bad light. The US services accepted fighters that did not have full capability. The IAF refused to do that for the LCA. They have accepted half baked fighters with less than full capability in the past. Clearly there is something that could have been done but was not done. Perhaps there are reasons for that which no one wants to discuss because the people who accepted half-baked fighters in the past are all retired or no more.

rohitvats wrote:How many Mig-21s w/o cannon were bought before we put a gun-pack and subsequently went to the other models?

Sixty. 60. The MiG 21 type 77/FL that came later had a sling on gun-pack - not an intergral cannon

rohitvats wrote: Because C-130 suffered a wake penetration accident, the whole exercise of wake penetration trials on Tejas certification is not required?

I did not say that - but wake penetration certification need not be a reason for lack of IOC given the 3000 plus accident free developmental, formation flights and demonstration flights. This is an "iffy exuse" and my point is no worse that the one that was posted

rohitvats wrote:
The Gripen continued with expansion of envelope and high AoA testing even after it entered service
You're confusing two separate things - Tejas did not receive all-weather capability till IOC-2. As for Gripen entering service with limited AoA, first twenty Tejas were ordered at a stage when it had not reached full AoA.

So air forces can operate fighters without full AoA capability? Especially when pilots are protected against departure by FBW Flight Control Laws?

rohitvats wrote:
All these objections have been discussed on here time and again - proving that every time someone new enters the debate the same old things need to be rehashed.
These are not objection but facts which get lost in the din of debate that we have on the topic. And we end up with people drawing erroneous conclusions.

There are counter facts that make these facts seem less relevant than they are made out to be, and the same ones are being repeated, getting the same answers

rohitvats wrote: while IAF asks for FOC for Tejas - IAF is bad, it loves imports, IAF Chiefs are idiots, sack them and what not!

Criticism is all-right but at least do that on relevant facts!

Nothing to do with me. I never said that -there is no point confusing facts with rants. I have always opposed that. BRF is lucky that I resigned as admin- I would have banned everyone who said that You should too

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2017 19:14

nirav wrote:I was wondering if the mk2 which will be undergoing significant structural changes could accommodate 2 F414s.

Check out the images of the MCA, which is now the AMCA. The MCA was a LCA with two engines. It actually retained the planeform of the LCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 19:15

tsarkar wrote: You might want to re-read my original statement.

IOC & FOC criteria are typically decided by the developer, certifier & user. Broadly, IOC means aircraft is fit to fly, its flight envelope is known & certified.

Regular pilots are not test pilots, they're operational pilots. They need to know what their planes are capable of.

Radar & Guns are immaterial to flight envelope and certification.

So, even if the Eurofighter wasnt A2G capable, its flight envelope was known, hence it was fit for IOC.

Wrong on some counts. In the case of the LCA (as opposed to the MiG 21 or Gnat) it is the software that prevented pilots from exceeding a pre-defined flight envelope. The envelope was completely known. That means the plane was inherently safe, but not fully capable.

Adding weapons means testing and making the CLAWS compensate for the weapons added - so adding new weapons essentially takes a plane back to "before IOC" stage. read Air Marshal Rajkumars experiences after an above wing pylon was added for AAMs in the Jaguar

tsarkar wrote: The MiG-21's flight envelope was certified by the Soviets, and validated by test pilots like AM Wollen & Rajkumar. Radar & Guns are immaterial to IOC.

Same for the Gnat, its flight envelope was opened up and validated by test pilots. Its flaws were known and accepted.

What you are saying is that planes with flaws are accepted as long as someone else (Russian/British) signs the certificate. That is exactly what i am also saying and criticizing it.

tsarkar wrote: In case of the Tejas before IOC-2 in 2013, its flight characteristics were an unknown quantity. We didnt even know in 2011 if
1. If all-is-well? or
2. If there is a flaw? or
3. Can we live with that flaw?

You are totally off here. I think you should do some reading up or talking to test pilots about how FBW restricts the flight envelope to what is safe and prevents unsafe departures until the unsafe departure is tested by test pilots flying modified control laws. And when they find it safe - that extra envelope is incorporated into the regular flight CLAW

tsarkar wrote:
cockpit lighting (not just for night flying but in overcast conditions as well

So these were fine in the Jaguar/MiG 21/MiG 27. Not the Tejas. that is what I am also saying, but I ask "Why?"

tsarkar wrote: engine relight - incase there is a flameout

There are some aircraft that come into service where certain issues - like spin for instance mean bail out. Until relight is certified the rules can be modified.

tsarkar wrote:No aircraft, F-14, C-130 or Tejas can fly in turbulent airflow.

However its important to know the limits it can fly upto. So that the pilots flying in formation with other fighters, transports, civil airliners or in holding pattern after takeoff or in landing pattern and Ground Controllers / Air Traffic Controllers know the safe distances to maintain.

How can an aircraft be inducted without those parameters not known?

How were aircraft inducted in the past without knowing limits? Going by your objection wake penetration should be the first thing to be tested as soon as the plane flies. Obviously it is not as important as you are trying to make it out to be. IOC can come before that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 19:17

Totally changing the design of an aircraft isn't an easy task as "accommodating two engines". It is damn nearly running a new program. Increasing size, weight and performance takes time. See how long the Super Hornet took to fully develop, test and certify and it was essentially a larger Hornet. This is a major undertaking from both a cost perspective and a time-frame perspective and will take away resources from the AMCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 19:25

tsarkar wrote:Lets keep the faith - Tejas flying with IFR probe

Both Su-30 and Tejas are in a high angle of attack flight attitude to fly as slowly as possible to remain in formation with the PC-7

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 19:41

I think this talk of "safe and unsafe flight regimes" needs to be updated. The MiG 21 got a bad reputation because it lulled rookie pilots into a sense of safety even as it entered an unsafe flight regime as the pilot was busy doing multiple tasks. Apart from lost lives, the cost of putting the entire fleet into rest mode until the cause was ascertained certainly did not add to operational readiness. A FBW aircraft that stops a pilot from entering an unsafe flight regime is a revolutionary thing that will prevent needless accidents in peace time and reduce pilot workload in stress situations where he can concentrate on something else - like weapon release, navigation or formation flying rather than worrying about whether he is entering into a dangerous flight regime. Criticizing the LCA for being safe is absurd. It can be criticized for not having opened up its entire flight envelope. How bad would it have been for an Air Force to spare some resources for a fighter under development while its flight regime was being opened up. Ironically we have done that time and again for half baked fighters whose flying characteristics had to be improved by foreign suppliers or reworked because new armaments were added. At our request.

While it is silly to call for resignation/sacking of senior pilots a blanket ban on pointing out mysteries of history should will only attract needless criticism. Of course tighter admin control in this regard would be useful. We often have to argue about idiotic things when a person says "Sack the air chief" for a silly reason. But this crap requires tight admin control from a sensitive and knowledgeable admin. Liberalism, democracy and freedom of expression can only go so far when anonymous members have licence to blindly curse anyone who is not on the board but not criticize each other for being unfair to service people or scientists. This cannot be a private club and an informative board/ think tank at the same time

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2017 19:55

the mirage4000 TD1 had its first flight just a year after the Mirage2000. so it must have run in parallel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_4000

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Feb 2017 19:58

tsarkar wrote:Nirav,

In my opinion, a two engined fighter would required re-testing of aerodynamics, development of wings, actuators, etc, development from a scratch of flight control software and a long testing process. Going by the time taken by US, Europe, Russia to develop new fighters, it would take a minimum 20 years.
.

Are you sure? Seems like dassault was able to get the m4k derivative off the m2k in a much shorter time. Took them 4 years from decision to prototype. If in 2007-8 when they realized that lca was underpowered, had they made a decision to go with a twin engine design based on f404 perhaps we might have been close to local mrca today?
Our what if they had stick tho a single engine but a much larger one ala pw f110 or al31?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2017 20:05

shiv wrote:
rohitvats wrote:How many Mig-21s w/o cannon were bought before we put a gun-pack and subsequently went to the other models?
Sixty. 60. The MiG 21 type 77/FL that came later had a sling on gun-pack - not an intergral cannon

To be fair - the IAF was forced to accept this. but its a hard world. And real hardship means surviving on our own steam, The entire nation is grateful to the USSR but the IAF put up with a half baked product while the Russkies improved it.

To rehash what has been said time and again - for the future we simply have to depend on our own work and make all round sacrifices for that.
Anything more I say will end up being a sociological treatise on my countrymen.