And what data do you have to support this? And why should we assume that we will produce only 200-300 Tejas'? Why not produce more and sell it to 'friendly' countries as well (Brazil, SA, Vietnam, etc)? and why do we not extend the lines like those of F-16s and continue to produce more advanced and current Tejas and variants?Gaur wrote:^^
So, people who want 80-100 tejas mk1 to be produced per year should think about the cost of setting up additional production lines. And that additional cost will be reflected in the cost of tejas mk1 which would become a highly expensive a/c. And what will happen to the production line after those 200-300 mk1s are built? They will have to be closed and all that investment would be wasted.
So, there is a reason why IAF has ordered 40 acs and the production rate will be around 8 a/cs per year. Anything higher production rate will not be economically feasible.
None! It is just an estimation which will seem obvious to you if you were to google the production rate of modern fighter a/cs of various countries. As an example, I provided the production rate of Rafale. You can search for others. Only US and erstwhile Soviet Union have produced 100s of fighters/year and that is when the order was in thousands.yantra wrote:And what data do you have to support this?Gaur wrote:^^
So, people who want 80-100 tejas mk1 to be produced per year should think about the cost of setting up additional production lines. And that additional cost will be reflected in the cost of tejas mk1 which would become a highly expensive a/c. And what will happen to the production line after those 200-300 mk1s are built? They will have to be closed and all that investment would be wasted.
So, there is a reason why IAF has ordered 40 acs and the production rate will be around 8 a/cs per year. Anything higher production rate will not be economically feasible.
Considering that IAF has ordered no more that 40 Tejas, there is nothing left to assume, is there? And as for selling it to other countries, I wish for it no less than you. But the problem is that production lines cannot be setup based on our wishes. If Brazil, SA and Vietnam were to order 100 Tejas mk1 each, I am sure that new production lines will be setup.yantra wrote:And why should we assume that we will produce only 200-300 Tejas'? Why not produce more and sell it to 'friendly' countries as well (Brazil, SA, Vietnam, etc)?
F-16? Well, I doubt if you even bothered looking up the nos of F-16s built. More than 4400.and why do we not extend the lines like those of F-16s and continue to produce more advanced and current Tejas and variants?
It is thinking like this that takes us no where as a country. It will only help babus to import more MMRCAs 'as need arises', and make phoren trips with (extended) families!
My point was exactly that - why do we not produce 100s (if not thousands) of Tejas' (Mk1, Mk2, and so on) ala F-16 (by block #s)? We can sell older blocks to friendly countries by pecking order and sell the oldest to countries like Ghana/Ivory CoastGaur wrote:..F-16? Well, I doubt if you even bothered looking up the nos of F-16s built. More than 4400.
Again, I am all for max no of indigenous fighters but it is best to not let our jingoistic dreams run out of control. When MK2 is completed and IAF orders in bulk, I am sure that the production rate will automatically go much higher.
Exactly..we take 5 years to induct measly 40 planes and another 20 years for remaining. Within first 10 years the first tranche is already obsolete and we start the upgrading them again at 8 planes a year, half way through the upgraded planes are also obsolete and we start mark III up-gradation, simultaneously inducting last of tranche 2 planes!Vivek K wrote:.....
We should aim for 50 LCA Mk1s per year and then re-tool the lines for Mk2. Economics gayi jahennum mein (sorry not meant to be a flame bait). Where was the economics when so many other products are purchased from foreign vendors who raise prices for every little thing!
--Gaur wrote:Vivek K,
Well, I too agree that it is necessary to produce as many LCAs as we can as fast as we can. However, as I said before, it is not likely at least for mk1 because IAF does not seem keen on ordering more than 40 Tejas mk1.
However, I must admit that I have a very bad feeling that IAF would deeply regret not ordering mk1 in bulk. IAF's plan seems to wait for mk2 to be developed 'quickly' and then order that in bulk (at least that is what the general feeling here seems to be). However, I fear that mk2 will arrive too late for comfort. The engine has not yet been selected and IMHO is unlikely to be selected before MMRCA winner gets decided. That may take too long. Then it is not like mk2 will be flying the day after the engine is selected. So, I am very pessimistic regarding mk2 being inducted in time. Again this is just my fear for mk2. It may very well be that mk2 will be inducted as per schedule and if that happens no one will be happier than me. I just feel it would be safer for IAF to induct mk1 in more nos.
Here you are assuming thatTelang wrote:The argument by K MehtaThis would lead to a situation just identical to what Jagan wrote:The question is not of permission but of priorities, I am suggesting that such a change at this juncture would affect the delivery schedule as well as retrofitting will also affect the uptime of the prototypes
Jagan wrote:What do we want?Another frequent complaint was that tendency to push Aircraft production towards the fag end of the financial year so that targets could be met. The complaint was that such rushed an feverish activity resulted in poor QC and subsequent glitches with such aircraft.
(A) Rush and have a product not meeting the objectives of its use and have satisfation of inducting,
or
(B)wait and exhaust all available capabilities to upgrade and then have a near perfect fighter that can perform???
which then became“I am pushing for LSP-5 to fly by June-end,” says D Balasunder, the managing director of HAL’s Bangalore Complex. “It will have all the systems fitted in LSP-4, and will additionally have night lighting within the cockpit, and an auto-pilot.”
andsee also“We are aiming for an August first week flight, and slight modifications to the cockpit are being done now in mutual consultations with the test pilots from National Flight Test Center. These modifications will make Tejas a complete services version,” Subramanyam says.
Air Marshal P.K. Barbora, vice chief of the Indian Air Force (IAF), says it is important for any fighter jet program to develop cockpits that fulfill pilots’ growing needs.
Will confirm/check my doubts with my chaiwallah! I just hope its just additional night vision related problems and not other things, (if thats so my bad, cold getting better of me etc.)! Anyways I am down with flu and you have an active LCA thread, so enjoy maadi!The fifth limited series production (LSP-5) platform of Tejas, set to fly in the first week of August, will have an onboard “re-arranged and modified cockpit” to increase the comfort levels of the pilot.
Program director (combat aircraft) and director of Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) PS Subramanyam told DNA that the layout changes will make the glass cockpit more pilot-friendly and even enhance its night flying capabilities.
Not entirely true. LCA turned up heavier than expected. So the target characteristics can't even be achieved with the GE 404. The alternate engine is part of Mark II. All of us know about the AoA issues. We can only say that acceptable characteristics are met.Marten wrote:Indranil, as many others have pointed out, Mark 1 is a capable aircraft and is nearing IOC. That means the flight envelope is opened up and fully tested.
I know that such statements have been made. but Mk- xx is not all about structural changes. Engine is a critical change. Radar and avionics might change. I am sure there will be optimizations of the structure. Besides FOC of Mark II will not be the same as FOC of Tejas.Marten wrote:At this point, the a/c will not need structural changes to meet FOC. There is no merit in waiting for it to be Mk II or MK III.
I know the Mark II is not going to be produced before 5 years. That's why I said 40 planes at 8 planes a year.Marten wrote:The MoD has to draw the line and let the IAF know a certain number will be added since there is a shortfall in required numbers. What specific lack are you talking of? Do you realize Mk II is just as far away from production as can be 5 years from now?
So you mean to say that we here are the only patriotic guys who want to see Tejas fly. Or do you want to say that IAF doesn't understand the basics of economics which are taught in class 6. If you follow what the IAF wants, it is asking for a good rate 4th generation plane. Forget the LCA, even for the MCA, the ACM said "Just give a bloody first-rate 4th gen plane!" We seem to champion here as know-it-alls. I for one would like to know all that IAF knows before I make such a condemning statement.Marten wrote:If the IAF keeps asking for the most super-duper bestest ever plane, there will not be a MK-II squadron in this country. Rest assured, investing in the manufacturing line to increase output will help reduce manufacturing cost per unit.
I never equated it to the JF-17. I always said stay clear of that nonsensical race. A matured Tejas will of course be close to the Gripen C/D. But it has not even cleared IOC yet! If you take LCA and Gripen C/D in their present status (or even after IOC) to any airforce in the world. Which one do you think people will pick?Marten wrote:Until that happens, this project and the next will remain one of those units that is perpetually required to be upgraded for some feature or the other by the IAF. Please don't ever draw the Bundar parallel here. This plane is already capable enough to meet Grippen C/D standards.
I don't quite understand what you mean by cheap fighter replacements in the IAF. I can't see a single instance of that. We have always maintained that qualitative edge. You know it might seem from my post that I am supporting the "import mania". But if your wish sees the light of day, there will be nobody happier than me. I adore the Tejas and have been following it for some time now. I am equally proud of it. But as a customer, I totally understand IAF's stand. It just wants it in the right avatar. It is not like the good work is stopping.Marten wrote:Why would you not want the cheap fighter replacements that the IAF so desperately wants? Let's stop the import mania for once and encourage more of Mk I and let IAF have a larger share of the Defence Budget if they so require!
Err?? why the disparaging ??? and even sexist comments. surely you can find a better analogyThe IAF is not a housemaker buying a mixer-grinder.
A few who post here has actually done serious (and seminal) work on areas of stealth, aerospace design, test flying etc. You dont seem like one. You will get even less cred if you come here and pass off dated stereotypes on how we Indians behave.indranilroy wrote: Instead of questioning, we start protesting with knowledge that barely scratches the skin . That seems unfair to me. Again, just my thoughts.
Can you kindly tell me where the ACM said this about the MCA? I am genuinely curious, because whoever said this made it up, period. I do have a fair idea of what the IAF expects of the MCA, and 4th Gen it isnt.indranilroy wrote: So you mean to say that we here are the only patriotic guys who want to see Tejas fly. Or do you want to say that IAF doesn't understand the basics of economics which are taught in class 6. If you follow what the IAF wants, it is asking for a good rate 4th generation plane. Forget the LCA, even for the MCA, the ACM said "Just give a bloody first-rate 4th gen plane!" We seem to champion here as know-it-alls. I for one would like to know all that IAF knows before I make such a condemning statement.
The IAF is ok with imports of obsolete airframes like the MiG-27 while uncertainty remains on their powerplants, but still haggling over the LCA MK1, which offers far more capabilities, that doesnt seem odd to you?I don't quite understand what you mean by cheap fighter replacements in the IAF. I can't see a single instance of that. We have always maintained that qualitative edge. You know it might seem from my post that I am supporting the "import mania". But if your wish sees the light of day, there will be nobody happier than me. I adore the Tejas and have been following it for some time now. I am equally proud of it. But as a customer, I totally understand IAF's stand. It just wants it in the right avatar. It is not like the good work is stopping.
Lets keep appeals to emotion, patriotism etc out of this.LCA and indeed the defence infrastructure in India is coming off age of late. LCA particularly has gone leaps and bounds. I can already see in five years, it will start going places. But as of today's status, I feel the IAF has done the right thing. I would never doubt the same force which guards me atleast in terms of patriotism. Also, I would not pass judgements by knowing tit-bits.
Start here:No detail on why its radar is good, No detail on why its avionics is good. No detail on the airframe strength. No detail on the engine. No detail on currently tested stuff. No details of how some of the stuff in the LCA is better than other planes that the IAF is planning to get.
here.Karan M wrote: Can you kindly tell me where the ACM said this about the MCA? I am genuinely curious, because whoever said this made it up, period. I do have a fair idea of what the IAF expects of the MCA, and 4th Gen it isnt.
In August 2008, right about the time the Indian Air Force had decided to officially kickstart procedures to get the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) off the realm of theory, then Chief of Air Staff Fali Major happened to bump into DRDO chief M Natarajan and then HAL chairman Ashok Baweja at an industry suppliers function in Bangalore. The Chief was mildly irritated that both Baweja and Natarajan had provided media sound-bytes and interviews suggesting that the MCA would have "fifth generation technologies". He impressed upon both gentlemen, over tea, that if the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country's security. "Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you," he said.
You are speaking of times when India didn't have this much money to choose and demand. Within the given budget we tried to keep as many airframes flying as possible. Mig-21 when initially inducted was one of the frontline dog fighters. The Mig-27 had an equally venerable reputation as a ground attack plane. could you suggest better planes that were available to the IAF at that time.The IAF is ok with imports of obsolete airframes like the MiG-27 while uncertainty remains on their powerplants, but still haggling over the LCA MK1, which offers far more capabilities, that doesnt seem odd to you?
The MiG-21 is a perfect case of "cheap fighter replacements", the Bis et al were still being produced when more sophisticated aircraft were entering service.
Agreed. but 300-400 LCAs Mark I ?!!Third, the point is the IAF has to treat the LCA more as a partner, rather than a customer.
I didn't start it! If people suggest things which paint a defence force in the wrong light, without using the word "unpatriotic", does it still mean nothing?Lets keep appeals to emotion, patriotism etc out of this.
My friend, I read that article long back. That was the first time, I really sat up and took notice of this "certain" B. Harry. As well informed and as well written as that article is, I suggest that you read similar articles on other planes. You will be able to understand that a write up of any modern day plane will be equally impressive. That is the state of art of modern day fighters.
You are right. I should have used a better analogy. I tried not to be sexist by using the word homemaker. However, I have failed miserably. Apologies extended.Surya wrote:Err?? why the disparaging ??? and even sexist comments. surely you can find a better analogyThe IAF is not a housemaker buying a mixer-grinder.
Its your prerogative to believe what this chap has written. Personally, it reads like a lot of what he writes on his blog - sensationalist bunk, as if he was standing right behind Naik and hearing every word. I presume you are aware of how he had his ears bent by a certain services officer and another time, a HAL type for his proclivity to spice up reports in like fashion. He also tends to have a very shallow understanding of defence technologies in general, and tries to compensate for it via masalaindranilroy wrote: here.
Ok, there is a reason why I pointed you to that specific article. If you take what that article says, look at notes in media then you can extrapolate from it vis a vis capabilities available in "state of the art modern day fighters". Otherwise, few anywhere can help you, because what you are asking for, are ready made conclusions offered to you on a plate. And who has the time to do that. But if you are looking for a simple checklist:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downl ... diance.pdf
My friend, I read that article long back. That was the first time, I really sat up and took notice of this "certain" B. Harry. As well informed and as well written as that article is, I suggest that you read similar articles on other planes. You will be able to understand that a write up of any modern day plane will be equally impressive. That is the state of art of modern day fighters.
What venerable reputation did the MiG-27 have when we inducted it? How many conflicts had it participated in? None, right.indranilroy wrote:You are speaking of times when India didn't have this much money to choose and demand. Within the given budget we tried to keep as many airframes flying as possible. Mig-21 when initially inducted was one of the frontline dog fighters. The Mig-27 had an equally venerable reputation as a ground attack plane. could you suggest better planes that were available to the IAF at that time.
Yes, thats unrealistic and unlikely to happen unless we raise the Sq limits. But the IAF should look at 150- 200 MK2s rather than the 100 its stating for now.Agreed. but 300-400 LCAs Mark I ?!!
I didn't start it! If people suggest things which paint a defence force in the wrong light, without using the word "unpatriotic", does it still mean nothing?Lets keep appeals to emotion, patriotism etc out of this.
During the Cold war era, US and USSR fielded planes against one another. Almost none of them saw combat. Their reputation was not built on combat experience. Mig-27 was quite advanced technologically when it was inducted. Even today, we in the MRCA, the Euro birds seem to be most respected. Have they seen any combat experience?Karan M wrote: What venerable reputation did the MiG-27 have when we inducted it? How many conflicts had it participated in? None, right.
I am not IAF's spokesperson. But I don't think IAF against the inception of LCAs. It sees, that LCA -II is round the corner. 5 years is nothing compared to the 40 years, that these planes will serve. Unless LCA-I can be readily upgraded to LCA-II, they want the newer fighters. Is that wrong? LCA II as far as I know will have a much more optimized airframe than the LCA Mark I. Hence LCA Mark I can't be structurally upgraded to Mark II.Karan M wrote:Similarly, did the BN which preceded it, have a great reputation either? We inducted some 80 of them, if my memory is right, as interim. Twice the MK1 LCA number.
What was the alternative?And of the MiG-21, so how many MiG-21s have crashed due to TD, and yet the IAF put efforts into upgrades for the Bis?
How many Su-30s did we initially order? How many will we end up having?Yes, thats unrealistic and unlikely to happen unless we raise the Sq limits. But the IAF should look at 150- 200 MK2s rather than the 100 its stating for now.
It can be slippery on both fronts. Can't it? If one starts asking why IAF is not doing according to what we deem as logical?What is the "wrong light"? Is the IAF perfect and has it made no mistakes in the past?
This sort of argument is a slippery slope one, as everything can be dismissed as being unjustified as it'd be in the wrong light.
I agree with the sensationalization part. But all I know is since Aero India 09, I have hardly heard ADA using the 5th generation tag. However, I agree with you that there is hardly anything on a 5th generational plane which the AMCA lacks. There is actually nothing in that weight category.Karan M wrote: Its your prerogative to believe what this chap has written.
And with that we are back to square one. I mean we can see the other side too right.Ok, there is a reason why I pointed you to that specific article. If you take what that article says, look at notes in media then you can extrapolate from it vis a vis capabilities available in "state of the art modern day fighters". Otherwise, few anywhere can help you, because what you are asking for, are ready made conclusions offered to you on a plate. And who has the time to do that. But if you are looking for a simple checklist:
Structures = Equal (Composites, alloys in a good ratio)
Propulsion = Needs more thrust
Radar = Good for its class (speaking of current systems; >100 Km range for small RCS target, light radar with A2G modes and TFR)
Avionics = Good for its class and quite credible (Glass CP, NVG, HMS, comprehensive EW suite, digital SMS and Computational suite, RLG INS)
Weaponry = Comprehensive - only items lacking are ARM (Kh-25 could be explored) and AShM (not critical).
For a light fighter, the LCA is very credible in terms of capabilities, even in its MK1 version.
. But we are not there yet. So keeping the production line working till then seems a good choice for me. With this I rest my case.Yes, that is why I said it is a 50 year project..but as taller mountain says, a long journey begins with a small step. Big companies do have good R&D teams and have better means to attract and retain talent. GOI has to pay everyone the same, be they incompetent idiots or Abdul Kalam.NRao wrote:Sharing what GoI has is one thing. Who is going to fill in the huge gaps in research (a topic we are going in circles here)?
Those companies that have large Indian ownerships do NOT have even the expertise that the "GoI" has. Not even close (outside of software).
This is NOT a trivial matter that one can think of catching up with the US industries. Even the Russians will find it a challenge.
Please don't distort. In my post, 300-400 planes refers to total numbers for MK1 and MK2 variants as against oft talked about 140( 40 mk1+100mk2). What else is a mass production plane for? The Mki is about to reach close to 300 but we bought the bulk of them when Rouble was in trouble.indranilroy wrote:However, I don't find this cyclic outcry for 300-400 Tejas Mark-I just!
Even Jaguars are underpowered though bought much after the ‘62 war.indranilroy wrote:Not entirely true. LCA turned up heavier than expected. So the target characteristics can't even be achieved with the GE 404. The alternate engine is part of Mark II. All of us know about the AoA issues. We can only say that acceptable characteristics are met.
Perfect way to give a silent death. Creating conducive situation for opportunist folks to say ”Too little, too late, can’t be procured in numbers at this rate”indranilroy wrote:I know the Mark II is not going to be produced before 5 years. That's why I said 40 planes at 8 planes a year.
A race is a race. Challenge has been thrown to us. Even the Yanks were forced to respond with f16 when Soviets started the numbers game although yank doctrine has always focused on quality.indranilroy wrote:I never equated it to the JF-17. I always said stay clear of that nonsensical race.
Gnats going against Sabre jets. Mig21s to face the F16s in pre-mki era. Cough, Cough. Ok there were Mig-29s added later too but in the then config it wouldn’t be a qualitative edge.indranilroy wrote:We have always maintained that qualitative edge.
Really? Take the example of PAK-FA. The plane has been thrashed left, right and center on s-duct and frontal stealth issues by a specific poster on keypubs. The russkies were first in denial, then in personal attacks and weak defence(Sukhoi engineers know what is best for it). Forget any related modifications, the russkies seem even reluctant for adding second seat for Indian avatar. Though I still support it against f35 for the absence of strings and ridiculous need to be sent to unkil for even maintenance.indranilroy wrote:But as a customer, I totally understand IAF's stand. It just wants it in the right avatar.
Common man’s admiration is for life-risking foot-soldiers, pilots and sailors and residual patriots in increasingly rotten higher echelons. Don’t stretch the halo reserved for a subset to include the rotten eggs as well.indranilroy wrote:I would never doubt the same force which guards me atleast in terms of patriotism.
To counter, in the 1980s, the Pakistani purchase of (specifically) the F-16C model.nishu wrote:well guys i don't understand one thing . people keep on saying lca was made to replace mig-21 but some other say it was made to counter f-16 that tsp acquired . could any body tell me why was the idea of lca originated .