LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Dec 2017 09:22

Cosmo_R wrote: You have to take 'boiling frog' approach. If you toss a frog into boiling water, it is likely to jump out. Heat up the water slowly, and the frog stays in and gets boiled. That has to be the approach.

I'm guessing you have prior experience of this and since I don't I cannot argue for or against. However I would like to know if you have tried boiling 25,000 frogs in one pot as would be the analogy of shutting down 1 large PSU. If you do that experiment please get back and let me know.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Dec 2017 09:25

Philip wrote:Each aircraft seems to be ever so slightly different; this is a major shortcoming. US and French-origin aircraft are designed from drawing board onwards to be easy to repair and parts are freely swappable

Just curious. Are US/French planes bought in larger numbers so that some can be cannibalized for parts that stop working on others? AM Bhojwani seems to know. Someone ask him please.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Dec 2017 09:33

Moderator Note:

Disagree with a poster. Put your points. Cite examples. Do not attack the person. Next time complete posts will be deleted. I do not want to start with warnings and bans so that we can continue discussions. Please do not ignite the TNT.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Dec 2017 09:40

ramana wrote:
fanne wrote:I don't think AM is critical. What he says is right - HAL has not manufactured (dunno about HAWK and SU30MKI) planes where parts can be interchanged. Hawk was touted as teaching HAL 'modern' manufacturing capability. I do not know what it is - perhaps this. LCA is using parts that do not differ by 50-75 micron (1/3 to 1/4th the width of a human hair), that should make it maintenance friendly. Wasn't there suggestion to move 40 LRUs to make it easy to maintain. What AM is saying we will know soon.
How can you say that?

What is your question - that with such tight tolerances can equipment be interchangeable? If that is the question then the answer is yes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 09:52

Look, I clearly mentioned that it was 2 yrs. ago and an AM had given clear details.Previously we've had scant info of critics by name .I don't t think he was referring to LCAs (reg. canopies, etc.) which had not come into SLP by then but to other aircraft.We've been building a host of SU/RU birds and Jags,etc.There was mentioned earlier in a former IAF offr's blog about HAL and quality issues, how MIG-21 engines used to touch the fuselage casing, etc.

This was posted as an item of recent historic interest , IAF's attitude( name of the other quoted serving sr. officer not given in the Defence News report) and views of the LCA programme,perhaps why the SEF suddenly emerged and why it is now on a shaky footing- as the GOI perhaps feels that the LCA is further progressing and if we need to add numbers more capable TEFs are preferable and more Rafales the least controversial way to go.

The AM has also stated how most probably the IAF will use LCAs within our airspace (homeland defence) releasing the more capable birds to operate over Pak and China.Locating the first Sqd. at Sulur in S.India underscores that philosophy though equipped with AESA and AASTRA (plus the AWACS factor) the LCA could perform the air defence role anywhere.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Dec 2017 09:56

Completely misinformed.

First of all, tolerance is not the same throughout an aircraft. When you see the drawing of a part, you can see the allowable tolerance written at the corner. So which part is the AM speaking of?

LCA SPs have the tightest tolerance of any aircraft in IAF's inventory today and in the foreseeable future. It is so low that it created a small hiccup or two (which are now resolved).

Only a strong bias or lack of interest can stop a senior IAF personnel from knowing this. Deejay, I request you to write to the Air chief again saying that such comments should not be made by senior IAF personnel, an AM no less. It reflects poorly on the IAF, IMHO.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Dec 2017 10:04

Indranil wrote:Completely misinformed.

First of all, tolerance is not the same throughout an aircraft. When you see the drawing of a part, you can see the allowable tolerance written at the corner. So which part is the AM speaking of?

LCA SPs have the tightest tolerance of any aircraft in IAF's inventory today and in the foreseeable future. It is so low that it created a small hiccup or two (which are now resolved).

Only a strong bias or lack of interest can stop a senior IAF personnel from knowing this. Deejay, I request you to write to the Air chief again saying that such comments should not be made by senior IAF personnel, an AM no less. It reflects poorly on the IAF, IMHO.

Ha Ha will be writing shortly. A few of us veterans have been trying to do our bit. Though, it makes more sense to send such AMs for a little bit of training. A suggestion the Chief may actually like.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Dec 2017 10:06

Philip wrote:Look, I clearly mentioned that it was 2 yrs. ago and an AM had given clear details.

I met my friend AM Philip Rajkumar recently. He remarked that he had read my article about the Tejas. I asked him a question that I had meant to ask for a while.

I asked him, excluding test pilots, do all Air Force pilots get to fly and experience every single fighter type in the IAF? And he said no. The typical pilot in any air force flies a limited variety of aircraft. Maintenance issues for a particular type too would be well known only to an engineer officer in charge of that type, and to a squadron commander where that type operates from. Barring these exceptions all expert views are informed hearsay.

May I point out that if I were questioned by the media about newborn deaths or needless caesarean sections - both fall l outside my speciality. But on TV or in the media I would certainly blurt out the little I know and it will be made public as "the last word"

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 10:08

It was a 2yr. old post.Indy, to my personal knowledge the issue of quality with IAF products has been a running issue for decades with previous aircraft. This quote (canopies) is not about the LCA and even the AM has stated that he would have to revise his opinion if improvements (LCA) had been made.2 yrs. is a long time.I think that there was a v.recent post about the latest series delivery and HAL's own schedule showing how LCA production would steadily be ramped up to 16/yr. before 2020. 80 MK-1As are to be built and I don't think there's any doubt now that we will have at least 120 LCAs built first.Beyond that number all depends upon MK-2's swift development and external factors - what developments take place in the fleets of our two mortal enemies.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Dec 2017 10:48

Philip sahab,
2 years back LCA was not in serial production. If I were to be the AM of 4th largest airforce in the world, I would not make such comments based on prototype vehicles. Can anybody set up a factory with micron level tolerances to build 15 aircraft in 15 years (that is the level of funding they had)? Why bring upon such disrepute on a national project, scientists, engineers, TPs, and my I say on my own organization. What happens to the reputaion of my organization when aam civilians and reporters can take down my comments using simple Google searches and an Youtube video?

By the way, hakeem, kudos to you again for doing this. Could anybody have imagined hakeem making a video of this sort? He will skin anybody alive if they deride the IAF! What has brought civilians like him to speak up? It is just unfair, and may be dishonest, in the worst case.

I have not seen a PAF personnel criticize the JF-17 this way, and it is basically an upgraded Mig-21.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 11 Dec 2017 12:15

I think we should not quote old and outraged stuff as evidence. This sort of misinformation is bad.

About ADA people who are working are slogging it out but as is everywhere there will be top political honchos who want extensions so there .........

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 12:26

One must never sweep the truth under the carpet.That leads to false expectations and fudging results.Ultimately the force and nation pay for it. IN any case it's two years old,much water has flown under the bridge,but statements made IAF top brass and give us a fuller picture of the issues involved.A chain is as strong as its weakest link.Knowing one's flaws makes one work hard to repair them. The views of the current chief are what matters today-from the end user's point of view.From the foll. article,he appears to have a had a very positive view after flying it .

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/11/22/lit ... y-utility/

Litigating Tejas LCA’s quality & utility
Posted on November 22, 2017 by Bharat Karnad
Image result for pics of air chief dhanoa with tejas lca

(Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa in the Tejas)

No pilot who has actually flown the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft has had anything but the highest praise for the fighter plane. This includes two recent IAF chiefs. ACM Arup Raha called it “a wonderful aircraft” after a sortie in Bengaluru in 2016. The present CAS, ACM Dhanoa, after his LCA flight on the first day of AeroIndia 2017 seemed very satisfied and left, a project a staffer told me, with “a very positive aura”. One can, moreover, imagine that, as a seat of the pants flier, ACM Dhanoa couldn’t have resisted taking control from the back seat of the Tejas, with the National Flight Test Centre head AVM AP Singh in the lead cockpit. After all, Dhanoa is the first air chief to have flown solo — and that too a MiG-21 bis after becoming CAS, after ACM Anil Tipnis in the fin de siecle.

Considering the no-nonsense Dhanoa’s attitude to flying, it is puzzling and a little disappointing that Vayu Bhavan continues to feel the need to talk down the Tejas. Is it, perhaps, to justify the unjustifiable, namely, the import of combat aircraft at a time when the Modi government is becoming very antsy about aircraft purchases given the paucity of financial resources and the controversy fueled by the opposition Congress Party about the humungous costs entailed in the Rafale deal with France (something, incidentally, that I had warned would be raked up, in a post soon after the PM’s announcement of this transaction in Paris in April 2015) for just 36 of these planes? In a recent series of articles in Indian Express ( http://indianexpress.com/article/explai ... w-4946876/ ) no doubt prompted by IAF HQrs, some very incorrect impressions were sought to be conveyed to the Indian public about the quality of the home-grown Tejas. We’ll deconstruct some of these issues to show just how hollow the charges against this aircraft are, and leave it to the public to judge the intent behind the latest in the ongoing vilification campaign aimed at the LCA

An IAF fleet strength of 42 fighter squadrons is routinely held up as the standard the government has to somehow meet. The problem is that it is a figure the JRD Tata Committee came up with after the 1962 debacle in the Himalayas, when security insurance was sought in numbers — more of anything is better. Except by the 1970s and the advent of the F-16 the whole concept had changed to thinking about high-technology and commensurately high performance of combat aircraft as the decisive edge, and not numbers. Meaning, the F-16 generation of aircraft were often sold to host governments by saying one F-16 could take out 3 (or more) of the lesser tech fighter planes, so fewer of these were required. It was the time of the great quality vs quantity air power debate. Had a new Committee been constituted then, it would have concluded, in the context of bare minimum expenditure, that with new-gen aircraft 35 squadrons would more than suffice. So the alarm sounded about the fleet strength declining to 31 squadrons seems entirely unwarranted.

There’s the usual snide reference to the “long gestation” period of the LCA. Actually, the first Tejas prototype flew inside of 25 years not a bad show at all considering the Indian aircraft designers and engineers began from zero baseline with the complete degradation of design skills and competencies after the cold-blooded killing of the Raj Mahindra-designed Marut Mk-II by the IAF in the early 1970s. The IAF then went ahead and bought the British Aerospace Jaguar that was just as under-powered as the original HF-24 and its Mk-II version. It came with the stigma of massive commission-corruption — the first major defence deal to be so tainted and which has become the norm, sullying almost every military import transaction ever since. Ah, to get back to the “long gestation” issue — the US’ latest F-35 Lightning-II has taken over 20 years to get to where it is now and, despite Lockheed Martin’s history of designing hundreds of fighter aircraft and producing quite literally thousands of them, this F-35 by all accounts is a LEMON! It has proved to be inferior to the antiquated F-16 in straight fights; against the Russian Su-30 or MiG-35, what to talk of the FGFA PAK-FA, American aviation experts fear it stands not a spitball’s chance in hell.

It is not clear why the idea of a majorly all Tejas and variants air force is pooh-poohed. Firstly, as regards numbers — other than the 2 lines at HAL, the TOT of the Tejas to 3 or 4 private sector companies each with an assured order of 80-100 LCAs will be sufficient incentive for the Tata, Mahindra, L&T, Reliance Defence, and Adani’s company whatever it may be called, to speedily invest in assembly lines, and begin producing the aircraft in less time than it will take the Gripen E — of the same 4.5 generation aircraft as the Tejas — to be inducted into IAF. Additional motivation would be the permission to these companies to export slightly derated versions of Tejas from Day One. Gripen E is only now undergoing speed taxi trials, and is some ways from even taking to the skies (Versus Tejas which has already clocked over 400 hours of flying without a single incident). Quality wise: If, as is normally done with most aircraft with projected long runs, Tejas is developed in blocks, one block of aircraft followed by a newer, upgraded, variant of it, until the Tejas series goes from 1A to 2 to Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft with all the producers continuously getting TOT on upgrades the, the operational spectrum will be adequately covered at all times. More so because there will still be the upgraded Jaguars, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s and, to top it all 272 air superiority Su-3MKI fighters — WITH ANOTHER 40 THAT HAVE BEEN NEWLY ORDERED — for a total of some 314 Su-30s — arguably the best fighter plane now flying anywhere in the world, per Dr Carlo Kopp, the renowned Australian combat aircraft specialist.

Then there’s a certain worthy at the Air HQrs — a “test pilot” no less — who is quoted in the story. He claims to have flown the Tejas in its early days but pronounces, many years later during which time the LCA has been architecturally improved, enhancing its performance manifold in all its aspects, that “It doesn’t meet our expectations”. And where is it lacking, pray? “It needs to be escorted by more capable aircraft to come back alive”, this officer is reported as saying. This line of attack against Tejas is so silly it is surprising a stalwart flier has made it. He should know that the whole “buddy system” arose from multi-role aircraft tasked for strike missions being escorted in these missions with other aircraft of the same type providing top cover. Of course, the top cover can be afforded by a different genus of aircraft flying combat air patrols, ensuring no enemy aircraft interferes with the strike aircraft reaching its target preceded on its bombing run by EW aircraft clearing the path by suppressing air defence radar. This division of labour between strike/ground attack and top cover is routinely done by the MiG-21 bis as ACM Dhanoa (who as Wing Commander led the MiG-21 bis equipped 17 Squadron in the 1999 Kargil ops, and on May 28 this year flew the “missing man” formation to honour the martyrs of that conflict) well knows. So, yes, Tejas will require protective escort if it is on a strike mission into enemy territory. However, if as is more likely, the LCA is assigned short to medium range interception and air defence or interdiction, it will not require escort, and its 8 hard points can easily carry the necessary air-to-air and air-to-ground guided and dumb munitions.

Then the blatant nonsense is repeated about endurance, range, etc., which I tackled in my Nov 13 “Stop the vilification campaign against Tejas” post (https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/11/13/sto ... nst-tejas/ ) and won’t repeat here.
This raises the question whether Raha (a veteran of the MiG-29 squadron headed by a storied combat flier of the IAF, Air Vice Marshal Harish Masand, VrC) knew what he was talking about when he thought Tejas was “wonderful” and whether Dhanoa was being honest in praising the aircraft and the way it handled. If these IAF Chiefs were convinced about the merits of this aircraft, and impressed by the way it handles and maneuvers in the air, was’nt it/isn’t it incumbent on these CASs to champion the LCA and, given the kind of discretionary power they enjoy, have the Service takeover the Tejas program, and tell the government the IAF will not anymore depend on foreign aircraft? It will free India from being in hock to foreign countries whose aerospace sectors have prospered because of IAF custom, even as an Indian defence industry genuinely capable of design-to-delivery of capital weapons platforms is prevented from emerging in the country, and so deserving and astonishingly fine aircraft as the locally made Tejas is perennially on life support.

If the “nationalist” Prime Minister Modi and his defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman still don’t see the runaround they are getting from the IAF, and another gargantuan mistake is made this time by buying obsolete F-16/F-18 aircraft just to please Trump or, even worse, to create a few hundred new jobs in the Tata/Ambani/Adani assembly line doing nothing more than what the DPSUs have mindnumbingly done for the past 50 years — screwdrivering aircraft together from imported SKD/CKD kits, then ‘Make in India’ too will join the long series of farces past governments have perpetrated in the name of making the country self-sufficient in arms.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Dec 2017 12:43

Philip wrote:One must never sweep the truth under the carpet.That leads to false expectations and fudging results.Ultimately the force and nation pay for it. IN nay case it's two years old,but statements made IAF top brass.A chain is as strong as its weakest link.Knowing one's flaws makes one work hard to repair them.

Philip ji, 02 years ago the AM made a remark on LSP variants. Not production variants. Today the production variants are being manufactured under a standardised norm and I do not see IAF making any statements on production issues anymore.

From the mess of UPA era to the regrouping of various agencies that happened under Manohar Parrikar ji, there is definitely a transition. As the leadership changes and if it remains strong in the next few years we will see a more unified approach and unified voice. The disjointed, "to each his own" era should end.

I am not saying there will not be any difference of opinion as we go forward but the internal rift between forces, DRDO, DPSUs and MoD should reduce and a more cohesive approach will emerge.

Those championing private MIC, beware of the Corporate might. MICs world over have a way of influencing policy and conflict itself. DPSUs, despite all their ills cannot be accused of this. As privately held manufacturers gain confidence and prominence they will put pressure on GOI for supplying weapons abroad to keep their order books green. This will bring its own sets of challenges. Private MIC will have its own side effects.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Dec 2017 12:50

War is a profitable business.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 11 Dec 2017 13:02

Bharat Karnad has his heart in the right place to argue in favour of Tejas but use logic, reasoning, facts and arguments which are so incorrect that this article becomes a counter point instead of a strong defence.

There are many holes but I am just highlighting a few. My comments in blue.

Philip wrote:One must never sweep the truth under the carpet.That leads to false expectations and fudging results.Ultimately the force and nation pay for it. IN any case it's two years old,much water has flown under the bridge,but statements made IAF top brass and give us a fuller picture of the issues involved.A chain is as strong as its weakest link.Knowing one's flaws makes one work hard to repair them. The views of the current chief are what matters today-from the end user's point of view.From the foll. article,he appears to have a had a very positive view after flying it .

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/11/22/lit ... y-utility/
Litigating Tejas LCA’s quality & utility
Posted on November 22, 2017 by Bharat Karnad
Image result for pics of air chief dhanoa with tejas lca

(Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa in the Tejas)

...
An IAF fleet strength of 42 fighter squadrons is routinely held up as the standard the government has to somehow meet. The problem is that it is a figure the JRD Tata Committee came up with after the 1962 debacle in the Himalayas, when security insurance was sought in numbers — more of anything is better. Except by the 1970s and the advent of the F-16 the whole concept had changed to thinking about high-technology and commensurately high performance of combat aircraft as the decisive edge, and not numbers. Meaning, the F-16 generation of aircraft were often sold to host governments by saying one F-16 could take out 3 (or more) of the lesser tech fighter planes, so fewer of these were required. It was the time of the great quality vs quantity air power debate. Had a new Committee been constituted then, it would have concluded, in the context of bare minimum expenditure, that with new-gen aircraft 35 squadrons would more than suffice. So the alarm sounded about the fleet strength declining to 31 squadrons seems entirely unwarranted. 35 is the new 42 of Bharat Karnad. Figures from whose expertise Mr Karnad. You are talking about my countries militaries capabilities, or your private Air Force?

...

He should know that the whole “buddy system” arose from multi-role aircraft tasked for strike missions being escorted in these missions with other aircraft of the same type providing top cover. Hain????

...

If these IAF Chiefs were convinced about the merits of this aircraft, and impressed by the way it handles and maneuvers in the air, was’nt it/isn’t it incumbent on these CASs to champion the LCA and, given the kind of discretionary power they enjoy, have the Service takeover the Tejas program, and tell the government the IAF will not anymore depend on foreign aircraft? Tell me what discretionary power? This does not begin to make sense. Chief of services will be accused of usurping civilian power even if they do anything on their own. No need to pedal lies to drive home a point. IAF cannot take over the Tejas programme.

...

If the “nationalist” Prime Minister Modi and his defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman still don’t see the runaround they are getting from the IAF, and another gargantuan mistake is made this time by buying obsolete F-16/F-18 aircraft just to please Trump or, even worse, to create a few hundred new jobs in the Tata/Ambani/Adani assembly line doing nothing more than what the DPSUs have mindnumbingly done for the past 50 years — screwdrivering aircraft together from imported SKD/CKD kits, then ‘Make in India’ too will join the long series of farces past governments have perpetrated in the name of making the country self-sufficient in arms.Is the SE, MII an IAF idea. If IAF is giving PM and Def Min a run around, then God save India. we have an enemy in our own Air Force. I have said before, and I will repeat, IAF official cannot lie or deliberately present wrong data to the Govt.

chola · Post by **chola** » 11 Dec 2017 13:13

Sorry, this kind of mindnumbing anger inducing bull manure makes following chini, Iranian or Turkish mil development far more fun than our own. I gave up following the LCA for a good 7 to 8 years before the 2015 induction sucked me in again like a moth to an electricified lamp. Might need to go hermit once more on LCA if this keeps up and I blow an brain artery.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Dec 2017 13:32

chola wrote:Sorry, this kind of mindnumbing anger inducing bull manure makes following chini, Iranian or Turkish mil development far more fun than our own. I gave up following the LCA for a good 7 to 8 years before the 2015 induction sucked me in again like a moth to an electricified lamp. Might need to go hermit once more on LCA if this keeps up and I blow an brain artery.

all three countries mentioned have MICs that are far better developed than our own. Foreign countries that have established some aerospace manufacturing units here operate with a majority of ex PSU employees and are fully aware of the many vagaries of the PSUs including in-depth details of R&D issues and design details. Senior DRDO, Mil and PSU employees are embedded in the management of such organizations.

That's probably why we come off so badly in negotiations and maybe also why critical tech is not transferred, especially by the russians.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 16:29

Chtk, do you mean our DPSU wallahs selling stuff to pvt . firang entities in Indiaon the sly? That aspect never struck me as to the reluctance of some OEMs parting with tech. Years ago a German told me that they would never give us their latest sub tech when we bought the U-209s.
Maybe these OEMs know something we don't as they've been buyers too!

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 11 Dec 2017 18:45

Why Building More Tejas Fighters Is A Superior Option For The Indian Air Force

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Dec 2017 19:17

Extremely well written article. Good, I can put my half written article aside.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Dec 2017 19:32

Philip wrote:One must never sweep the truth under the carpet.That leads to false expectations and fudging results.Ultimately the force and nation pay for it. IN any case it's two years old,much water has flown under the bridge,but statements made IAF top brass and give us a fuller picture of the issues involved.A chain is as strong as its weakest link.Knowing one's flaws makes one work hard to repair them. The views of the current chief are what matters today-from the end user's point of view.From the foll. article,he appears to have a had a very positive view after flying it .

So are we then also going to discuss
a) Dud R-77s and their impact on the warfighting capabilities of the IAF - were these replaced by the supplier or was the loss absorbed by India
b) MKI serviceability problems and abnormal engine failures
c) 29K being terrific floor decorations for the Vikramaditya and causing a huge national expense as the IN is now in the process of selecting a new aircraft shifting away from the 29k? Maybe if we take the Vik with the 29ks sitting on the deck to the South China Seas, the Chinese will surrender seeing the aircraft!
d) The record of the M2Ks made the IAF look for additional numbers of the type - and that is what started the MMRCA saga. But the IAF has not tried to expand its Mig-29 fleet? Why?
e) Let us leave aside the poor service record of the Mig-27/Mig-23 and the Mig-21 and forget the problems with the 29 that made the IAF not even consider it (or its Avatar - the Mig-35) for the MMRCA.

If you consider the service record of Roosi maal in IAF service, the details are less than glorious. So one gets a feeling of thankfulness that the nation has not had to fight a major war. Kargil came at a time when PAF was in severe spares shortage and tech denial. Today they're flying the JF-17s and upgraded F-16s. The Russian aircraft types are innovative and good weapon systems but tremendously maintenance intensive.

However, the only criticism that has been leveled by russophiles and IAF is against the LCA that has yet to start service. What the LCA has demonstrated this far though is a record of over a decade and a half of flying for thousands of hours without a setback (touch wood). In that the LCA is unmatched. Also, can you change the canopy of one Mig-21 to another? Probably not.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 11 Dec 2017 19:38

Indranil wrote:Extremely well written article. Good, I can put my half written article aside.

Coming from you saar, that is high praise!

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 11 Dec 2017 19:45

Indranil wrote:Extremely well written article. Good, I can put my half written article aside.

Oh, please do write your article. Time (and the little one) permitting of course..

Different authors will help bring in different perspectives on how the Tejas, in large numbers, is a win-win proposition for both our military and our industry.

One contributor, on a different forum, went to an angle of how Indian goverment can offer the Tejas at subsidized prices to African countries in exchange for rare earth metals! (Like SU and India Migs-for-bananas

)

The more the supporting articles, the more the positivity for 'Hamara Tejas'

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 19:50

Excellent analysis.The answer is expanding LCA production lines and makes a case for a new facility which will still be churning out LCAs 15 yrs from now and future fighters/UCAVs beyond 2030.

The pvt. entities enthu about building fighters could get genuine TOT from the ADA/HAL and not the ersatz version from Firangiland! Given the right amount of political push and frank talk to the IAF, the LCA programme could be a huge game changer for India in the defence OEM world.We are already developing and perfecting the ordnance and missiles to be used by all air fleet assets.All that is needed now are the platforms in large number to deliver the advanced stand-off munitions. The map of air bases and "bubbles" of radius of action show that we can well defend our airspace with such a light fighter.The 300+ MKIs can do the heavy hitting along with the assorted 150+ medium fighters.The LCA variants will also enable us to outnumber the enemy at a fraction of the cost of imported aircraft.

This last factor must be emphasised ad nauseam to the GOI/NS as every $ matters which could be spent elsewhere on AWACS, tankers, transports and helos.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Dec 2017 21:26

Philip wrote:Excellent analysis.The answer is expanding LCA production lines and makes a case for a new facility which will still be churning out LCAs 15 yrs from now and future fighters/UCAVs beyond 2030.

The pvt. entities enthu about building fighters could get genuine TOT from the ADA/HAL and not the ersatz version from Firangiland! Given the right amount of political push and frank talk to the IAF, the LCA programme could be a huge game changer for India in the defence OEM world.We are already developing and perfecting the ordnance and missiles to be used by all air fleet assets.All that is needed now are the platforms in large number to deliver the advanced stand-off munitions. The map of air bases and "bubbles" of radius of action show that we can well defend our airspace with such a light fighter.The 300+ MKIs can do the heavy hitting along with the assorted 150+ medium fighters.The LCA variants will also enable us to outnumber the enemy at a fraction of the cost of imported aircraft.

This last factor must be emphasised ad nauseam to the GOI/NS as every $ matters which could be spent elsewhere on AWACS, tankers, transports and helos.

Forget all that, buying foreign war equipment parts of which we aren’t allowed to touch or modify allows them to build in backdoors in hardware/software. Imagine going to war with our next door neighbor up north and finding out that the Americans had built in backdoors into theAESA radars they supplied for our fighters and that the Chinese had stolen those backdoor. It is a nightmare, no? Better to develop, build and own our own weapons. We are a nation of 1.4 billion, seventh largest in terms of geography and one of the world’s largest economies. Smaller nations may not be able to go full indigenous, but we should be able to become completely self reliant or very nearly so.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2017 21:30

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... force/amp/

Why Building More Tejas Fighters Is A Superior Option For The Indian Air Force

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 11 Dec 2017 21:52

Good article.

Lack of production capacity is but being used as a ruse to justify SEF etc. be detractors. Yes, which variant to produce is an issue. But then we do know what shall change, what shall not between variants.

Imagine this were akin to a war effort, would production facilities, rate be the issue. Then as dependence on foreign fighters comes down, HAL lines in Nashik, Kanpur could be used. And if intentions are really there, private sector could be used to establish a parallel Tejas line.

So wish that Uttam AESA were ready. The mind would be Indian, if not the heart.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2017 22:08

Heart (K10) is where my mind is for Mk2. They must get the K9 ported and get data

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Dec 2017 22:59

This is relevant to the LCA. This is why MP says they bought the Rafale

"Pakistan had only about 20 km range ... due to which they remained away," he said.

However, between 1999 and 2014, Pakistan acquired a capacity of 100 km range whereas India had upgraded its BVR up to 60 km on SU30, he said.

"We were now in danger of being shot down by Pakistani fighters staying 100 km away and not being able to retaliate and Rafale deal took care of this with a missile with a range of 150 km fitted on aircraft," Mr Parrikar said."

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manohar ... ak-1785775

He's talking about the Meteor.

Just a thought MK1A/2 with conformal fuel tanks (another 1,000 kg worth) brings it into Gripen E territory. Mix of Astra and Meteor can make it very effective against PAF and PLAN

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 11 Dec 2017 23:32

Lca is being integrated with the I-Derby ER which has a range of 100km. Guess who sees first first and shoots first?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Dec 2017 23:52

Cosmo_R wrote:This is relevant to the LCA. This is why MP says they bought the Rafale

"Pakistan had only about 20 km range ... due to which they remained away," he said.

However, between 1999 and 2014, Pakistan acquired a capacity of 100 km range whereas India had upgraded its BVR up to 60 km on SU30, he said.

"We were now in danger of being shot down by Pakistani fighters staying 100 km away and not being able to retaliate and Rafale deal took care of this with a missile with a range of 150 km fitted on aircraft," Mr Parrikar said."
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manohar ... ak-1785775

He's talking about the Meteor.

Just a thought MK1A/2 with conformal fuel tanks (another 1,000 kg worth) brings it into Gripen E territory. Mix of Astra and Meteor can make it very effective against PAF and PLAN

So to counter a BVR missile, we need the Rafale or a missile to counter? Strange, how we go about apologizing for .....

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Dec 2017 00:09

And with the Phalcons, Indian fighters will get a lock on PAF fighters the moment they take off from their bases. With secure data links the fighters will then rain fire on PAF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2017 00:14

Prasad wrote:
Indranil wrote:Extremely well written article. Good, I can put my half written article aside.
Coming from you saar, that is high praise!

I echo Indranil's words. Very well written and comprehensively articulated. The author should take a bow (and DDR for consistently producing such high quality articles). I wish some more had been written on the Tejas's avionics and systems, plus weapons capabilities. But seriously, that is just jingo-giri.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2017 00:18

fanne wrote:LCA SP is suppose to have allowances in the magnitude of 50- 75 microns, each part will be interchangeable. It maybe first for HAL (how about SU30MKI and the new English trainer?)

I'm sure it's a result of the technology transfer for the licensed production. I mean, does AM Bhojwani think that Soviet supplied MiG-23s would have had interchangeable panels and parts, with each built to extremely tight tolerances?

If so, I would like to differ. Soviet jets were know to be rather crudely built, with big panel gaps, indicating that manufacturing tolerances were not so tight. Even the MiG-29 is a crudely built jet when compared to the Mirage-2000, a fact that was remarked about in a Vayu Aerospace article on the two. Of course, when talking about a Russian built jet, it was made out to be rather macho, rather than highlighting the fact that it was not that well manufactured.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2017 00:21

Cosmo_R wrote:This is relevant to the LCA. This is why MP says they bought the Rafale

"Pakistan had only about 20 km range ... due to which they remained away," he said.

However, between 1999 and 2014, Pakistan acquired a capacity of 100 km range whereas India had upgraded its BVR up to 60 km on SU30, he said.

"We were now in danger of being shot down by Pakistani fighters staying 100 km away and not being able to retaliate and Rafale deal took care of this with a missile with a range of 150 km fitted on aircraft," Mr Parrikar said."
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manohar ... ak-1785775

He's talking about the Meteor.

Just a thought MK1A/2 with conformal fuel tanks (another 1,000 kg worth) brings it into Gripen E territory. Mix of Astra and Meteor can make it very effective against PAF and PLAN

Pure ballistic range is just one parameter.

What is far more crucial is ECCM & software for high Pk.

AA-10 long burn variants can claim to have more pure range than ARH missiles but guidance and structure limit them to shorter ranges.

IMHO, Astra is anyday preferable to AMRAAM or R-77.

No hidden switches.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 Dec 2017 00:31

Vivek K wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:This is relevant to the LCA. This is why MP says they bought the Rafale

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manohar ... ak-1785775

He's talking about the Meteor.

Just a thought MK1A/2 with conformal fuel tanks (another 1,000 kg worth) brings it into Gripen E territory. Mix of Astra and Meteor can make it very effective against PAF and PLAN
So to counter a BVR missile, we need the Rafale or a missile to counter? Strange, how we go about apologizing for .....

I think it's about more than that. Read the article.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2017 00:34

Dileep wrote:Bah!! While some 'brass' diss the 'maintainability' of Tejas, the 'iron' (aka airmen) who actually work on her are in fact happy about the current birds, and EXCITED that they can actually make suggestions and requests to the designer to make their life easy.

Like the pilots who flew her, the airmen who take care of her also love her.

Fantastic feedback!

With all due respect to the retired Air Marshal Subash Bhojwani, his knowledge on how fighters are built today needs to be updated. Its woefully behind times. with 3D modeling and the likes, and with the manufacturing setup that has been built for the Tejas assembly line, it is contemporary, which means super tight tolerances. HAL supplies parts to Boeing, Airbus and Gulfstream for God's sake, including Super Hornet gun bay door panels! Does anyone here believe that a company that supplies parts that have deviations from the OEM's specifications will continue to have a contract?

More and more I'm coming around to believe that people whose primary experience lay in a specific area, that too in the past (in AM Bhojwani's case, flying), should refrain from continually drawing parallels from their field of expertise to the present day and age. They just seem to be extremely ignorant and generally make the IAF look bad. Quoting examples that were valid when HAL built Gnats, MiG-21s, MiG-27s or even Jaguars to now, when HAL built Su-30MKIs do not suffer from problems related to interchangeability of parts or panels, shows them as being ignorant and outdated in their information.

In a first of sorts, an Indian company has started supplying fuselage parts for the formidable Boeing F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet fighter jet.

The state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has already sent five sets of the Super Hornets Gun Bay Doors (GBDs) to Boeing, and 13 more are under manufacture as part of an initial contract. HAL Chairman and Managing Director Ashok Nayak told India Strategic that HAL, which had plans to invest USD 6 billion to modernize its factories in the coming years, was looking for bigger business in the worldwide military and civil aviation market as leading aircraft manufacturers increase their share of the Indian market due to the country's requirement of modern, fuel-efficient military and civil aircraft.

HAL has supplied parts for the British Jaguar aircraft that the Indian Air Force acquired in the 1970s, including the over-wing pylon for French Matra missiles that it carries. It has supplied aircraft doors to both Boeing and EADS Airbus in the past, but this is the first time that parts for a US fighter jet are being sourced from India.

..

A second order for GBDs is in the offing, he confirmed adding, "I believe HAL and Boeing share a great working together partnership for many years now that will continue to grow very significantly in support of the national industrial policy of the country." The value of the contract was not available.

But Dr Lall said that Boeing was sourcing some other equipment from HAL, including Wire Harnesses for the Super Hornet and that their first set had also been received at the F 18 manufacturing facility at St Louis in the US.

...

Mr Nayak pointed out that last year, HAL had also supplied the rear fuselage for Gulfstream 150 business jet as part of its globalization strategy and increase its annual turnover three times from around USD one billion at present.

And for Airbus, nearly half of all A320 forward doors are built by HAL. Interchangeability or tight tolerances anyone??

After receiving a certification of appreciation from Airbus for supplying high quality door frames at Aero India, here today, HAL Chairman T Suvarna Raju, said: “HAL is prepared to take up further orders for the production of Single Aisle (SA) forward passenger doors from Airbus.”

HAL has steadily grown its association with Airbus from supplying just two doors per month in 1990 to 24 ship sets per month presently, he said.

Till now, HAL has delivered over 2,500 ship sets of Single Aisle (SA) forward passenger doors to Airbus, Raju said and added that HAL and Airbus had started the business in 1990 by signing a contract for supply of 600 ship sets of doors.

link

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2017 01:01

Prasad wrote:Lca is being integrated with the I-Derby ER which has a range of 100km. Guess who sees first first and shoots first?

And nothing prevents the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A from being integrated with the Meteor either. If the Gripen C/D can be integrated with the Meteor and use it, so can the Tejas Mk1.

If someone argues that the Tejas Mk1 cannot exploit the full range of the Meteor as its tracking range is not 150 km, then that should apply to the Gripen C as well. Both have mechanically scanned arrays, similarly sized and the Elta 2032 is a really good radar, as is the PS-05A on the Gripen C/D.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Dec 2017 01:17

Kartik wrote:If someone argues that the Tejas Mk1 cannot exploit the full range of the Meteor as its tracking range is not 150 km, then that should apply to the Gripen C as well. Both have mechanically scanned arrays, similarly sized and the Elta 2032 is a really good radar, as is the PS-05A on the Gripen C/D.

Neither the Elta 2032 nor PS-05A can exploit the Meteor.

However the AESA RFP contenders for Mk1A like Elta 2052 can. As can Rafale AESA.

MP is right in his comments on Meteor + Rafale AESA outranging Pakistani F-16 + AMRAAM C5. We developed Astra, funded i-Derby ER and purchased Meteor in response.

And he has given the practical ranges of Sidewinder, R-27, R-77, AMRAAM C5 & Meteor.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2017 01:28

Both the radars should be able to exploit the Meteor at shorter ranges than its full performance, which is what I guess tsarkar means (can exploit but sub-optimally).

Its RMax seems to be 150km per Parrikars statements. NEZ guessing for a ramjet is a mugs game, so I will not even attempt to try.

SAAB has a PS-05 variant meant for Meteor.

http://saabgroup.com/Media/news-press/n ... gripen-cd/

A new hardware configuration with a complete new radar back-end gives significantly improved radar performance and operational range, enhances the Gripen Weapon System capabilities and offers full AMRAAM and Meteor integration. It also enables significant capability growth through software upgrades to successfully counter evolving threats in decades to come.

A new Air-to-Air mode has been implemented and demonstrated which takes full advantage of the signal processing capacity and the flexible waveform generation in PS-05/A Mk4. This mode increases acquisition range with 100% at low altitudes compared to previous version of PS- 05/A. This radar mode will also be useful for detection of targets with very low Radar Cross Section. The Meteor missile downlink is optimized to maintain radar performance during long-range data linking scenarios.

From a Gripen flight by a journo at Aero India, it could track airliners some 300 km away. Assuming it was the latest Mk4 variant, and estimating 30 sq mtrs per airliner (large ones etc), that gives around 190 km against a 5 sq mtr target (loaded fighter). This is not the whole answer as its always significantly easier to detect larger targets, so lets deduct another 20%, rough thumbrule, so around 150 km.

Not bad and should allow for Meteor usage.

Now what do we know of the EL/M-2032 variant on the LCA, its around the 80km range for 2 sqmtr targets (with the british radome), then its around 100 km for a 5 sq mtr target.

Not as powerful at all as the PS-05 MK4 but fairly reasonable.