LCA news and discussion

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 28 Nov 2009 22:22

Hey I was googling about that and just found this piece from 2006... sorry if repost.

Volvo Aero in cooperation with DRDO/GTRE
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Volvo Aero Corporation announced a cooperation with the Indian Ministry of Defence for the development of various Aero Engine Programs. Volvo Aero Corporation of Trollhättan, Sweden, has since 75 years developed, manufactured, and maintained different versions of aircraft engines for the Swedish Air Force, including the RM12 engine powering Sweden´s fourth generation multi-role fighter aircraft Gripen.

http://www.avitrader.com/press/printview.aspx?id=1590

http://www.volvoaero.com/SiteCollection ... 6_webb.pdf

Two questions come to mind.

1. Is this cooperation not enough for the Kaveri program since they also seems to have talked with Snecma.

2. Will the coop impact the decision on Tejas in regards to F414 (Volvo already working with GE for the F414G on Gripen NG/IN)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Nov 2009 23:38

rohitvats wrote:A question to tje learned hawa-bahadurs of BRF:

How rational is choice of LCA as a fighter for future Aircraft Carrier of IN? The reason I ask is the range and payload capability of the aircraft versus something like MiG-29? Is the loiter time for CAP and combat radius for strike requisite?

While I understand that LCA is improvement over Harriers but is an a/c like MiG-29? and are we looking at a mix complement of LCA and Mig-29 for the ADC?

Link to earlier threads or gyaan on this topic will be greatly appreciated.

range and payload capacity isn't all that bad, the basic mig-29 is a notoriously short legged bird. while RAC MiG has improved range by adding extra fuel tanks, on internal fuel only LCA will probably have a greater range.

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
http://mach-five.blogspot.com/2009/04/n ... -none.html

LCA will also be cheaper to operate and will in all probability have a much lower turn-around time and higher uptime.

the cons against LCA being a) safety, since it is a single engined bird in the stressful marine environment and b) much lower payload capability than the mig-29k. (4t against 6.5 t)

in some ways it is similar to USAF's F-15/F-16 hi-lo mix.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Nov 2009 00:13

Rahul M wrote:range and payload capacity isn't all that bad, the basic mig-29 is a notoriously short legged bird. while RAC MiG has improved range by adding extra fuel tanks, on internal fuel only LCA will probably have a greater range.

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
http://mach-five.blogspot.com/2009/04/n ... -none.html

LCA will also be cheaper to operate and will in all probability have a much lower turn-around time and higher uptime.

the cons against LCA being a) safety, since it is a single engined bird in the stressful marine environment and b) much lower payload capability than the mig-29k. (4t against 6.5 t)

Mig-29k and LCA both have similar range (2000 km) internal fuel only. There are no data available for range of naval LCA. I do not think payload will be big drawback because of the limitations of Ski jump. However single engine design will pose limitations for naval operation, it will likely result in higher attrition rate and lower up time (there is also lot of discussion out there on F-16 vs F-18 for naval purpose).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Nov 2009 00:15

attrition rate, well time will tell. but lower uptime ? not sure why.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 29 Nov 2009 00:42

Vishnu wrote:The pictures are up on my page ndtv.com/vishnu

Please do join the page. I am trying to build this as a forum to occasionally have defence related chats and put up relevant information.

I would request all my BR friends to join in as Friend.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV

Hi Vishnu,
Your page is much like Facebook and hence more difficult to find the topic of interest. Can you have the layout similar to other blogs like livefist/broadsword.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Nov 2009 00:43

Rahul M wrote:attrition rate, well time will tell. but lower uptime ? not sure why.

Thank for the replies.

While the range (assuming the loiter time is also same), payload and twin-engine/safety issue is understood, from the CAP perspective, wouldn't I need an a/c with more powerful radar and better BVR-WVR missile mix? A MiG-29 on CAP versus a LCA in not exactly comparable in the sense that MiG-29 will/can carry 8 (4*BVR+4*WVR) versus 6(2*BVR+2*WVR) missiles for task?Also, can the nose of LCA accomodate the same radar as on a MiG-29?

Another thing, given the difference in terms of payload, won't there be a limitation wrt the mix of weapons (heavy-stand-off variety) that can be carried? I'm going by the logic that an a/c able to carry higher payload will also have more pylons rated for high load? While hardpoint 3&5 on LCA may have same rating as 4&6 on Mig-29, other pylon may be able to take lesser load? So, the amount and variety of stores that I can carry is lower vis-a-vis Mig 29 and have to dedicate more ac for the strike?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2009 03:05

if you are referring the joint venture with Snecma, per 2007 then they said they will not re-invent any wheels for Kaveri.. they wanted snecma core PERIOD.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Nov 2009 05:43

Any idea about the delta wing design resulting in lower weight of ammo that the LCA can land back on the carrier with?
Also will the delta wing design result in a higher landing speed?

The F-14 swingwings used to take its wings all the way forward to enable it to land on a carrier at lower landing speeds.

I understand that most naval aircraft have to dump a lot of aviation fuel and jettison some ammo to come into the right weight category before they can land back on the carrier.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Nov 2009 08:33

gagan ji, bring back weight won't be determined by landing speed but by airframe strength.

on a STOBAR carrier (which both vik and future viraat will be) all aircraft approach to land at quite high speeds so that if they miss the arrestor wires they can again fly off and come in for another landing. there's a reason why landing on an AC is called a controlled collision !

so whether the LCA or the MiG-29k, both will come in at quite high landing speeds irrespective of their on-land landing speeds. this is why undercarriages of carrier aircraft need strengthening.

========
rohit, the LCA is quite well designed in some ways. it is a small aircraft surely, but not one meant to deliver small aircraft capability. LCA nose for example is very large for its size, comparable with much larger fighters, allowing it to accommodate powerful radars.
the LCA's stop-gap EL/M-2032 or the future MMR (apparently the AESA version is also progressing well) both compare quite favourably with the Zhuk-ME on the MiG-29k.
futhermore, the AD environment around a CBG will be so saturated by long range ship-borne air surveillance radars and AEW helos that they will not need to depend on the fighter for surveillance.

I made a mistake about the mig-29k payload though, it is 5.5t, not 6.5t.

from the CAP perspective, wouldn't I need an a/c with more powerful radar and better BVR-WVR missile mix? A MiG-29 on CAP versus a LCA in not exactly comparable in the sense that MiG-29 will/can carry 8 (4*BVR+4*WVR) versus 6(2*BVR+2*WVR) missiles for task?Also, can the nose of LCA accomodate the same radar as on a MiG-29?

here is where things get interesting, as I've already said basic radar performance is pretty similar from what public domain info we have.

count the number of hardpoints, 8 for the 'k' and 7 for the tejas (+1 for an electronic pod) it's not that different is it ?

for A2A roles, the total weapons load is light enough (< 1.5 t) so that the max payload has academic significance only.
the LCA will also be better suited to be plugged into navy's information net and gain the fruits of a dedicated EW system called 'mayawi' which will also be a part of israel's F-35 fleet.

A2S missions are the only one where the 'k' has anadvantage as it can carry more number of heavier missiles/bombs but we will have to wait and see what is the actual max T/O weight off the vik.

all in all, IMHO performance wise the LCA can well give the 'k' a run for its money. the more I look at it the more f-15/f-16 comparison comes to my mind. there too, at the end of their service life it can be said that the f-16 has performed as well in combat as its glamorous elder brother.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Nov 2009 08:50

Gagan the variable geometry wings/swing wing design was a fad in an era where the general notion was 'speed is everything' , today one would observe modern fighters have a max speed of about 1.8 Mach (basically below 2 Mach) which can be achieved by doing away with complex designs required for variable geometry designs both for wings as well as the intakes .

As far as approach velocity is concerned for the naval variant of the LCA it is said that the AC would employ 'leading edge vortex controllers ' aka 'LEVCONs' for lower approach speed for carrier ops.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Nov 2009 10:56

Rahul M wrote:gain the fruits of a dedicated EW system called 'mayawi' which will also be a part of israel's F-35 fleet.

Wow!

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 29 Nov 2009 12:12

John wrote: Mig-29k and LCA both have similar range (2000 km) internal fuel only. There are no data available for range of naval LCA. I do not think payload will be big drawback because of the limitations of Ski jump. However single engine design will pose limitations for naval operation, it will likely result in higher attrition rate and lower up time (there is also lot of discussion out there on F-16 vs F-18 for naval purpose).

The twin-engine requirement for naval aircraft was mainly a US Navy doctrine. Most of the other navies that operated carriers with jet aircraft, were perfectly happy to use single-engine fighters (e.g.) Harrier, Super Etenard etc.. As it happens, early jet engines weren't exactly very reliable and so the USN made it a requirement to not have single-engined aircraft. Even after engine technology improved, it took a lot of effort for the USN to get past this requirement. The JSF is an single-engined aircraft and was somewhat reluctantly (as I heard it) accepted by Navy planners, only because Congress made it a requirement for all three branches of the military to operate the same aircraft.

Wonder if the Naval LCA is going to get folding wings? Most carrier based aircraft have this feature, so as to maximize the number of aircraft that can be carried on board the carrier

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Nov 2009 12:38

Armen the kind of role and mission requirements which USN envisages for its carrier based AC are completely different from that of British or French navies and Sea Harrier is not an AC which anyone would want to quote for low attrition rates or a given uptime . Imho the choice between single engine and two engines also depends on the size of the aircraft apart from the 'redundancy/reliability' factor i.e. for a Navy which wants its AC to have long range and carry out strike missions apart from air defense a F-14/F-18SH size airframe comes to my mind , it then makes perfect sense to have such AC powered with two engines of a type which are already in use by smaller AC or can be used by other single engine designs .

The Naval version of LCA is single engined not because Navy wanted it to be that way but because being the first indigenous AC it was a more realistic approach towards building an AC in house.

--typos

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Nov 2009 12:44

till date there have been no news of folding wings for NLCA. being a small aircraft there's not much need to do it either.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost ... tcount=583

Actually, the Su-33 takes up LESS room on deck - and in the hangar - than the MiG-29K.

With wings and tailplanes folded, the Su-33 spans 7.4m - less than the original MiG-29K (7.8m - 8.3 with missiles).

LCA wingspan is 8.2 m, not to mention a length of 13.2 m as against 17.3 m for the 'K'.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 29 Nov 2009 16:43

Jagan wrote:
Kartik wrote:One question to Jagan.

Ajai Shukla says that No. 45 Flying Daggers squadron which fly the MiG-21M will be the first squadron equipped with the Tejas Mk1. But BR's IAF page on squadrons states that No.45 flies the MiG-21 Bison, whereas No.35 Rapiers and No.37 Black Panthers are the ones flying the MiG-21M..which is correct ? and wouldn't these 2 units flying the MiG-21M be the first to retire their mounts ?

and aren't the MiG-21M units tasked with ground attack and interdiction as their main role ? I wonder if they'd be the best units to break-in the Tejas and develop tactics, operating manuals, etc. considering that their air-to-air and interception skills and experience will be somewhat lacking compared to some other units like those that fly the Bison, Fulcrum and the Mirage, not to speak of the Su-30MKI..

BTW, Air International confirmed that No.224 Warlords are the latest to convert to the Jaguar IS.
Ajais right. 45 will be the next LCA sqn. The Squadron page needs correcting. The Fleet Page correctly states that 45 is a numberplated unit

In addition to 35 and 37, you also have 17, 101 and 108 flying the MiG-21M. After the FLs, these are the oldest MiGs in our fleet and would probably b first to go.

I thought it was 35 Sqn "The Rapiers" that was number plated. 35 Sqn used to fly a flight of Canberra's and Mig-21M each. The Canberra's got decommissioned and then the unit replaced the Canberra flight with a Mig 21 M flight. May years ago this unit got number plated. They were last heard of as the unit to receive the Mig-25's when 102 Sqn "The Trisonics" got disbanded. Last I had heard was that 35 Sqn was to recieve new aircrafts at a later date. At one point of time I thought they will get SU-30's when a SQN comes up in Bareilly. I have not heard of the unit for a long time so presume that they are still not operational.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 29 Nov 2009 20:08

pushkar.bhat wrote:I thought it was 35 Sqn "The Rapiers" that was number plated. 35 Sqn used to fly a flight of Canberra's and Mig-21M each. The Canberra's got decommissioned and then the unit replaced the Canberra flight with a Mig 21 M flight. May years ago this unit got number plated. They were last heard of as the unit to receive the Mig-25's when 102 Sqn "The Trisonics" got disbanded

They replaced the numberplated MiG-25 Flight with another MiG-21M Flight . So they are still operational.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Nov 2009 22:25

Rahul M wrote:gagan ji, bring back weight won't be determined by landing speed but by airframe strength.

Rahul, they are inter-dependant..the airframe strength required will be determined based on how much is the lowest safe landing speed- if its too high, then its dangerous for the pilot with the rate of descent creating a huge g-load at the time of impact (since carrier fighters literally plop onto the carrier), which in turn requires a strong airframe and correspondingly weight. and the higher the landing speed, the higher the momentum and hence the higher the load on the airframe..if you cannot reduce the landing speed beyond a certain value by adding high lift devices and so on, you will have to reduce the bring back weight in order to keep the g-load within the permissible limits.

on a STOBAR carrier (which both vik and future viraat will be) all aircraft approach to land at quite high speeds so that if they miss the arrestor wires they can again fly off and come in for another landing. there's a reason why landing on an AC is called a controlled collision ! so whether the LCA or the MiG-29k, both will come in at quite high landing speeds irrespective of their on-land landing speeds. this is why undercarriages of carrier aircraft need strengthening.

actually they come in and land at low speeds, but the pilot engages afterburner immediately on landing just in case he's missed the arrestor wire..

LCA nose for example is very large for its size, comparable with much larger fighters, allowing it to accommodate powerful radars.

yes its quite a voluminous nose for such a small fighter..its diameter is 650 mm, so it can accomodate a radar array that is almost as large as that of the Fulcrum.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Nov 2009 22:34

kartik, won't the approach speed be different from the normal minimum landing speed and be determined by other factors (stall speed etc) ?

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 29 Nov 2009 23:55

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
Tejas to fly on indigenous Kaveri engine next year: Official

The city-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), which is indigenously developing various types of aero engines, would be fitting its flagship product Kaveri engine to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) 'Tejas' in the next one year.

He said GTRE's bid to find a joint venture partner was yet to be finalised as it was expecting the final sanction from the government. ''We had shortlisted 'Snecma' of France for the JV, but we have not started the work yet as some government approvals are still pending. Indian Air Force and DRDO would have to approve the JV,'' he said.
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstyp ... sid=157679

Hi...This article clearly states that work with Snecma has not started yet because of goverment delays then how can they say that Tejas will be flying with Kaveri in the next one year.
Earlier DRDO said they will deliver the engine within 2 years of signing the agreement. Now they are promising to deliver it within 1 year. May be something fishy going on here.
Can somebody please clarify that ??

I hope they are not making these claims just to calm the media.

Thanks

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 30 Nov 2009 07:20

I would not count on Snecma for anything other than helping to oversee the failure of the project. Lets face it, its not in their interest to help India but rather keep buying expensive crap from them.

I get a bad feeling that all the work put in to date is going to be anulled by the inability of GTRE to produce a working engine.

I'd have more faith if this was undertaken by the private sector.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 07:24

sunny, this is for the basic kaveri, it was never intended to get snecma help for that.

outside help is intended for developing the kaveri further, call it kaveri-2 if you will for deployment in future programs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Nov 2009 08:00

Rahul M wrote:sunny, this is for the basic kaveri, it was never intended to get snecma help for that.

outside help is intended for developing the kaveri further, call it kaveri-2 if you will for deployment in future programs.

For my sanity, which is the engine sent to RU for testing - K1 or K2?

And, what are they testing?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 08:08

it is the same kaveri we have known (and loved) for all these years !

the one with vital stats of 52/81

kaveri-2/kaveri-NG hasn't started yet. first GTRE has to prove it can at all make a decent turbofan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Nov 2009 08:19

OK. Then which is the one that we love and claim that it meets the specs?

Certainly not the one we love and has been sent to RU for testing. For testing implies that the specs are not met - yet.

Who is gassing?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Nov 2009 11:00

Rahul M and others, thank you for indulging my ignorance.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Nov 2009 11:04

Isn't the Rapier Squadron tasked with EW role in the IAF?

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 30 Nov 2009 13:18

Thanks Rahul for your reply

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 30 Nov 2009 22:12

India's first Tejas trainer makes flight debut
By Radhakrishna Rao

The first two-seat trainer prototype of the Indian Aeronautical Development Agency's Tejas light combat aircraft has made its debut flight from Hindustan Aeronautics' Bangalore airport facilities.

Performed on 26 November, the 30min first flight represents a major step towards the availability of an indigenous advanced supersonic trainer to accompany the Indian air force's future fleet of Tejas lightweight fighters.

"All the objectives set for the flight were achieved and all the systems on board the trainer prototype performed well all through the sortie," says the state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation, which oversees the activities of the ADA.

Piloted by Gp Capt Ritu Raj Tyagi from the National Flight Test Centre, the aircraft reached an altitude of 29,500ft (9,000m) and a maximum speed of M0.85 during its debut sortie.

The Tejas is scheduled to achieve its initial operational capability milestone with the Indian air force in late 2010. The nation's navy also intends to acquire a carrier-capable version of the type, with this to feature a high level of commonality with the new trainer model.

The ADA says development, prototype and pre-series production examples of the Tejas had flown a combined total of almost 1,230 test flights by 26 November.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Dec 2009 00:36

Rahul M wrote:kartik, won't the approach speed be different from the normal minimum landing speed and be determined by other factors (stall speed etc) ?

Why will they be different Rahul ? I'm not sure if I understood your question fully- are you saying that the minimum landing speed is not determined by the weight of the stores and aircraft, but by the approach speed, which in turn is dependant on the stall speed, correct ?

But you see, your aim as a designer is to design the aircraft with the lowest possible landing speed and this is especially true of naval aircraft, where catching that arrestor wire is quite a difficult task. You approach with flaps down, nose up, gear down and you're basically doing all you can to keep lift high when drag is also high at the minimum possible speed. And as you also pointed out, during the final approach, the aircraft is quite close to being about as slow as it can be, without stalling. And you see, that means that by keeping approach and landing speed down, as a designer you have already started to keep the momentum, and the g-loads, down. The lower that you can bring the landing speed, the more is the bring back weight on board a carrier, for the same undercarriage and landing gear strength.

so they add LEVCONs to reduce the approach speed and maintain lift and controllability. What is does is to add some weight to the airframe compared to the basic air force version Tejas. the benefit is that you don't need to make the airframe and landing gear that much stronger any more because the landing speed is reduced, so you can reduce a bit of weight there. They would've needed extensive calculations and studies on that trade-off to arrive at that configuration.

This is where another issue arises related to an inherent disadvantage with delta wing aircraft, in that they tend to lack flaps, and have a higher approach and landing speed (on the Mirages, it was cited as the reason for excessive wear on the tyres) as well as experience buffeting at low altitudes because of the low wing loading that they have- that is, their gust response is more than that of high wing loading aircraft..this issue may not be relevant on the FBW controlled aircraft anymore (as the recent test pilot's report on the Rafale pointed out), but it used to be an area of concern for earlier generation deltas.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Dec 2009 00:54

can TVC help in coming overcoming the inherent disadvantages of delta wings? i am assuming it may have a vectored thrust to support landing.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 01 Dec 2009 13:10

rohitvats wrote:Isn't the Rapier Squadron tasked with EW role in the IAF?

Yes, once upon a time it was the only EW unit in IAF and therefore was tasked with developing the operational EW doctrine for IAF. Since then additional units with EW capabilities have been inducted. The role of doctrine development has since been transferred to other establishment to the best of my knowledge.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 Dec 2009 14:12

Yawn.. All this talk about "disadvantages" of Delta wings are so passe.. It is like harking back to Mullah Enqyoob's days in the 60s in the Madrassa where the A-1 Dasaprakash icecream was the height of haute cuisine for the talibs who were served rice, some bad rotis and apologies for sambar and rasam.

With the wings moved forward making the aircraft inherently unstable and stabilized by the FBW software, that is not the case anymore. You had leading edge slats (which earlier planes like Mirage III etc didnt have), and wing generating all "lift", you have far lower approach and take off speed (the elevons dont need to at cross purposes with the wing lift to be able to rotate the aircraft) (in fact the elevon working would reversed in an unstable aircraft!) , yada, yada.. so main wing can be smaller ityadi , making it more efficient etc.

So if you do go unstable, you keep all the "advantages" of a delta, while doing away with the traditional "disadvantages" . The only thing remaining probably is the traditional high alpha of deltas in approach, but other than that, not too bad.

No wonder all the recent Euro (Trash) like Eurofighter , Rafale and Gripen have been deltas.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Dec 2009 18:39

vina, fyi: on your first para.. just posted one line on the feedback thread.

.

btw, nice discussion here on your valuable post.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... 431&page=9

nsarma · Post by **nsarma** » 02 Dec 2009 13:18

Indian Navy scouting for new carrier borne fighter aircraft :
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/navys ... ns/547606/

The search for a new set of carrier-operated aircraft has begun as there would be a delay in operationalising the naval variant of the 'Tejas' Light Combat Aircraft, sources said.

IN is expecting to commission the first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in 2015, more than 5 years from now. Does it indicate that NLCA won't be ready for carrier operations in 5 years ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2009 14:20

IN is expecting to commission the first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in 2015, more than 5 years from now. Does it indicate that NLCA won't be ready for carrier operations in 5 years ?

does it say so ?

This is just a stop-gap arrangement, keeping in mind the operational requirements in case the Naval LCAs are not ready by the time the IACs set sail, sources added.

secondly, blindly believe any Indian media report even remotely concerning indigenous military development at your own risk. the signs are there even in this report, no sources are named (an poorly hidden attempt to give foreign vendors and their agents a voice), the reporter himself is afraid to put his own name on the article and lastly they have the image of the bow of a warship accompanying the article that has no relevance in an article on naval aviation.
how difficult is it for them to get a picture of the viraat or the mig-29k ?

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 02 Dec 2009 14:28

one thing gurus....the news says

the air complement of 16 MiG-29Ks.

I remember that We have ordered 29 more to bring the count upto 45...isn't that true..?

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 02 Dec 2009 15:52

Indigenous technology for Arjun tank and Tejas Aircraft

/RAJYA SABHA/

The engine used in Tejas Aircraft is imported from USA, whereas 70% of avionic systems integrated on Tejas is indigenous and 30% has been imported from Israel, France, Italy, United Kingdom and USA. Parallel efforts are being made for indigenizing remaining 30% of the avionic systems.

Only few countries in the world are currently capable of design and development of engines for aircraft and tank. These are exceptionally complex technologies and involve many disciplines and vast industrial base and capabilities. Hence development of these technologies take longer time.

Indigenous Kaveri engine development program for the Tejas aircraft is already under progress. To cater to the additional thrust requirement within the same engine envelope, co-development with an established and reputed international engine house is being contemplated.

nsarma · Post by **nsarma** » 02 Dec 2009 16:58

IN is expecting to commission the first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in 2015, more than 5 years from now. Does it indicate that NLCA won't be ready for carrier operations in 5 years ?
does it say so ?

This is just a stop-gap arrangement, keeping in mind the operational requirements in case the Naval LCAs are not ready by the time the IACs set sail, sources added.
secondly, blindly believe any Indian media report even remotely concerning indigenous military development at your own risk. the signs are there even in this report, no sources are named (an poorly hidden attempt to give foreign vendors and their agents a voice), the reporter himself is afraid to put his own name on the article and lastly they have the image of the bow of a warship accompanying the article that has no relevance in an article on naval aviation.
how difficult is it for them to get a picture of the viraat or the mig-29k ?

Rahul, I'm with you as far as supporting indigenous effort goes. Self reliance is the key and our money should be spent within the country.
This news is doing rounds in quite a few news sites, URLs are provided at the end. I kept ignoring the Zees, MSNs and the lot, but Indian Express is one paper that can not be taken lightly.
I also don't want to believe it; but, is there any way to ascertain whether this is true or just another hoax.

I could not resist mentioning this quote by Adolf Hitler "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. "

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/74239.htm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20091122/83 ... enera.html
http://www.zeenews.com/news583219.html
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... 152&page=0

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2009 17:21

taking time to do the needed core technologies for the 30% of the imports is great! and that should not be faulted under the assumption that the same amount, type, money, and effort is all that takes to do these.

i am saying, the management, methods and engineering best practices, and most importantly maintaining a maturity model at the highest level for bringing about precision engineering and its product, product engineering is lacking... its not just lacking, but failing to the fact that we are outsourcing to Israel and Eu nations for getting the real precision tech done.

I understand only few in the world can do it, but unfortunately, the graph is tending towards that eventuality that those niche countries may not add another one into the list.

I am still hopeful.. but like Rahul ji said, dont go by ddm.. which unfortunately is the only source for us.

We have to see double investments, better management and engineering methods for the remaining 30% to get the niche status. its important, they learn this. it always takes much more to go from 90% rather than just get 35% pass to clear tests.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2009 17:31

american express is reliable ?

try this http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 09#p430209

NO Indian news media can be considered 100% reliable, it's a handful of individual journalists (TS Subramanium, Ajai Shukla, Sandeep Unnithan, Shiv Aroor to some extent, might have missed a couple of names) who are generally reliable. ALL the rest has to be considered unreliable until proven otherwise. these belong to the class called DDM, usually woefully ignorant of defence matters and malicious otherwise. see here for instance of the general standard :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 94&start=0

all the reports that you mention are quoting each other, the original one was from PTI IIRC, which itself is the doyen of stupid defence reporting.
all it says is that navy has floated RFI for fighters. these news outlets OTOH add their own spin, speculation and fabrication to suit their POV (namely all Indian defence R&D should be stopped and everything bought from abroad).