LCA News and Discussions

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Oct 2010 20:22

Now I am even more surprised and confuzed onlee.
Link
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. are working together to make the LSP-5 a complete, final configuration platform.
“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.
LSP-5 will be the 11th platform to join the flight line, and ADA is planning to make LSP-6 a completely experimental aircraft.
“We are confident of LSP-7 in September 2010 and the final LSP-8 in December 2010, paving [the] way for the initial operational clearance,” Subramanyam says.
IFF and Radar etc is already there in LSP-4. Now what's the reason for the delay in the AA missile testing?
Also LSP-5 is to have auto pilot and lighting within the cockpit. The Auto-pilot may be the one that's delaying things for LSP-5.
May be now the plan is to have IOC with the LSP-5 and may be LSP-7 and the LSP-8 joining afterward.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 28 Oct 2010 20:42

Vivek K wrote:Why? If we can integrate russian missiles with M2k FCR without having source codes, then why is that a problem with our own FCR and all the source codes? Are we sure the integration is not done already say on a JAG or the hack?

IIRC the Archer (Heat Seaker ) was integrated with the Mirages. I am sure it is not as complicated as integrating a BVR Missile.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Oct 2010 20:56

kvraghavaiah wrote:I am frequently seeing the news that LCA completes IOC by this year end (only 2 more months).
There was no radar guided missile firing till now. NO heavy bomb(and LGBs) dropping.
No cannon firing.
Does IOC not need these? or will they do these complex tasks in just 2 months?

the news also mentioned the following:

that 200 weapons testing sorties have been conducted to date. 1000 lb bombs have been dropped. Is that heavy enough for you ? LGBs are nothing but dumb bombs with a guidance kit. the Tejas Mk1 already has the Litening LDP integrated with it which will allow it to guide a LGB as and when it is cleared to carry them.

Its true that there has been no radar guided missile fired to date. But even without being BVR capable just yet, the IOC parameters are met. the complete weaponisation tests will be over before it reaches FOC. By then Python IV and Derby missile integration is very likely, as may be the R-77 for the IAF.

Anyway just look across the border at the JF-17 Thunder Bandar. the PAF inducted it with great fanfare and even to date, it has only fired heat-seeking missiles and dropped dumb bombs only. They are now working on integrating the PL-12 with the KLJ-7 radar on the Thunder Bandar.

Basically it is perfectly normal for fighter programs to induct and operationalise capabilities in a phased manner. One only needs to look at Rafale, Typhoon type programs to see that.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 20:59

Kartik, In a pinch those LSPs can form a flight or they need massive rework due to fatigue?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Oct 2010 21:29

^^^ The LSPs should have many flying hours left in them. However LSP 1-4 would need additional hardware to be added. Also I believe LSP 6 (?), LSP 7 and LSP 8 should have been almost built by now. Once the autopilot on LSP 5 is cleared we should see LSP 7 and LSP 8 take to the air in quick succession.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Oct 2010 22:46

ramana wrote:Kartik, In a pinch those LSPs can form a flight or they need massive rework due to fatigue?

The Limited Series Production fighters are in most ways quite similar to the first 20 that will be inducted into service. Airframe wise, there may be no difference unless some concurrent weight reduction has been going on and some components may be lighter on later LSPs.

Retroactively, the earliest LSP Tejas' (LSP-1,2) may get radars and other avionics that they lacked compared to LSP-3 and 4, to bring them up to the IOC standard.

And airframe fatigue is not an issue with these fighters. None of the flying prototypes have come even close to their fatigue life being used up. So, if the IAF so chooses, it can induct the 8 LSP into the first or second squadrons and use a flight of LSP Tejas Mk1s at some base. The only reason for not using TD-1 and 2 for any more flying duties is that their airframe was heavier and avionics architecture was already superseded by the new open-architecture systems. Bringing them to the new standard would cost money and effort and instead they will be probably used as static testbeds.

BTW, I got some info regarding the LCA's fatigue life from a guy who worked on it for nearly a decade. It is not as high as I initially reported based on an earlier conversation with another ex-ADA guy. I cannot disclose the exact figures because I have been asked not to, but it is 25 years and X,000 hours.

After that my guess is that if the IAF so chooses, they would need a Life Extension program akin to the MiG-21, MiG-29 programs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 23:45

You sure is not XX instead of X?

Thanks for the info on LSPs. My thinking is in a pinch a flight can be foremd and proofed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Oct 2010 23:48

ramana wrote:You sure is not XX instead of X?

Thanks for the info on LSPs. My thinking is in a pinch a flight can be foremd and proofed.

Yeah, it is X,000 hours, not XX,000 hours..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Oct 2010 00:40

Oh this 'X' is killing me.

Can we get a quadratic equation to solve to get the value of x. Just kidding

but sigh ...

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Oct 2010 07:22

I picked up my copy of the latest Vayu and read Prof Das article in detail for the first time and I should say I am gob smacked to say the least. Much of his data is simply factually wrong.

For eg, the Gripen is 5700kg empty weight with 3% composites ?. Well, what is he smoking. The Gripen C is 6800 kg empty and uses 25% composites ( I use Saab's own presentation material for the Gripen NG where they claim 3% weight growth over the Gripen C to Gripen NG, which weights 7000kg empty!) . The Gripen C is comparably specced to the LCA Mk1 at IOC! So if the LCA comes in at 6500Kg empty (even with the current weight levels, which can be optimized further), it is pretty good and a testament of the design choices made!.

Another thing that got me absolutely rolling around is his using the structural ratios of two aircraft by using wetted surface areas. While the method is absolutely perfect and right, the way he goes about doing it is very suspect.

The LCA is 1m less than the Gripen in length, so if you assume the same weight /length (which is a measure of structural efficiency), and roughly corresponds to the , the LCA should have 1/14 , ie 7% less weight than the Gripen. I wonder where he pulled that 10% figure of lesser wetted surface I wonder.

Now given that Prof Das has been claiming that the LCA is "fat" then the cross sectional weight has to be slightly bigger for the LCA and so, LCA's weight should be 5% or so less than the Gripen, which comes to around 340Kgs. So at 6500kg empty weight , the LCA seems just fine. And mind you, this is not even factoring the LCA's larger wing area, which is 15% more than that of the Gripen!. Factor that in and the scales tip even more in the LCA's favor.

As "it is now that the knife begins to turn" that the Gripen achieved that weight with 3% composites, well, all I can say is that he knocked off a zero from 30% to arrive at 3%!

Yes, with it's greater length, the Gripen will have less FORM drag than the LCA (a longer thinner body will have a lesser pressure drag than a fatte bluff body.. no quarrels there). However, what matters is TOTAL drag which is lift induced drag + form drag + wave drag and lift induced drag drops with speed. The wing spans are roughly the same for the two and given the much larger wing area and plainly visible high twist/washout on the LCA's wings, the effective incidence angle will be less and in fact, I bet that the LCA has a lower induced drag than the Gripen! In fact, form drag builds with speed and any fineness advantages that the Gripen will have will show itself only at high speeds and at lower/transonic speed it it is the induced drag which is vitally important (induced drag drops with speed, wave drag increase with speed, both are deltas which is the perfect antidote for wave drag) !

Also, I seriously doubt that then LCA is "fatter" than the Gripen by any significant margin. The engines are the same, the fuselage sections should be similar and it the maximum cross sections are usually at the the max span of the wings whereabouts. All whitcomb's area rule tells you is that any cross section changes has to be a smooth change along the stream tube and in this day and age, is quite easy to do and none of the modern aircraft has the classic "coke bottle" waist that appeared when the Whitcomb's rule was first applied.

As for his assertions of "back of envelope" at 350kts, form drag will be 20% more than the Mig21, I seriously doubt it. The Mig 21, is largely a constant section cylinder with the teeny aero spike in front ! It is the classic blunt body. The Tejas at least has a nose !.

The Gripen will have a very similar aspect ratio as the Tejas (nearly same span and similar chord) and given the larger area and the obvious attention to areodynamic twist, I would put my money on it having a lower effective angle of attack and better induced drag.

About his prescriptions to his "crisis" , it is definitely contradictory!. The first thing they teach you about weight estimate is weight/length. And this is the basics . A shorter and fatter plane or ship is structurally more efficient than a longer thinner one all else being equal and is lighter!.

As for the engine change and MKII, well, the structure will be further optimized and the empty weight will come down by some 300kg or so I guess (per Subramaniam), the engine will weigh some 50 to 100 kg more. So all in all, we are not going to marginal if any weight gain with MKII all else being equal.

I have to say I am quite disappointed with Prof Das' write up. He has his basic facts and figures wrong (Gripen's weight) whether on lack of rigor in his open source search or by design I dont know and he has used that to make a whole lot of erroneous and basically wrong assertions. It could have been a much more interesting article to read and debate if he had his basic facts right and drawn conclusions from that. In the absence of that, his article comes across more as a motivated hack than a well reasoned argument.

He does raise some very important points though. We should go for a weight reduction. I believe that the way to go is a full composite fuselage like the B777/ Hawker Premier type of construction, rather than the current composite skins fastened on frame kind of structure. That is the kind of thing you would need for the AMCA / indian version of FGFA as well. Get cranking on that ASAP, along with the structural optimization of parts , now that the flight test regime for the MK1 is over and the loads are well estimated.

I do hope that Prof Das comes up with a revised write up in the Vayu incorporating the correct facts and drawing conclusions for that. That sure will be a more interesting article to read and more difficult to dismiss off hand because of factual inaccuracies.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Oct 2010 07:48

^^^
Vina you simply must put this post on email and send it as a letter to the editor of Vayu.

The reason I say this is because this last issue of Vayu is a very interesting one as it surely acknowledges the non professional jingo's effect on military aviation. There is a tribute to B Harry and that article by Vishnu Som, Neither of these people is an aviation professional but both reflect the deep interest in military aviation among Indians and, particularly young Indians who may have an impact tomorrow.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Oct 2010 07:54

Good analysis vina. Just a small nitpick. It is Boeing 787 which has fully composite fuselage, not 777.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Oct 2010 08:25

^^ Oh yes the beautiful Dreamliner with 50 % composite by weight

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Oct 2010 08:28

vina wrote: Yes, with it's greater length, the Gripen will have less FORM drag than the LCA (a longer thinner body will have a lesser pressure drag than a fatte bluff body.. no quarrels there). However, what matters is TOTAL drag which is lift induced drag + form drag + wave drag and lift induced drag drops with speed. The wing spans are roughly the same for the two and given the much larger wing area and plainly visible high twist/washout on the LCA's wings, the effective incidence angle will be less and in fact, I bet that the LCA has a lower induced drag than the Gripen! In fact, form drag builds with speed and any fineness advantages that the Gripen will have will show itself only at high speeds and at lower/transonic speed it it is the induced drag which is vitally important (induced drag drops with speed, wave drag increase with speed, both are deltas which is the perfect antidote for wave drag) !

I wonder if we can reach at such conclusions by merely looking at airframes, for instance it is imperative that for all that reduced length Tejas has to store all that fuel in the wings so how does it account for all that volume , are we trying to say for same wingspan as Gripen it has same wing thickness and camber ? If not then how can one arrive at a relative figure for DRAG ?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 29 Oct 2010 09:05

Veer bhaiyon finally lsp5 is ready to move in 3 dimensions
India To Fly Tejas LSP-5 Soon

vic · Post by **vic** » 29 Oct 2010 12:40

Vina Bhai, this humble layman pointed out these facts, few pages back. That is why I believe he is L**r.

vina wrote:I picked up my copy of the latest Vayu and read Prof Das article in detail for the first time and I should say I am gob smacked to say the least. Much of his data is simply factually wrong.

For eg, the Gripen is 5700kg empty weight with 3% composites ?. Well, what is he smoking. The Gripen C is 6800 kg empty and uses 25% composites ( I use Saab's own presentation material for the Gripen NG where they claim 3% weight growth over the Gripen C to Gripen NG, which weights 7000kg empty!) . The Gripen C is comparably specced to the LCA Mk1 at IOC! So if the LCA comes in at 6500Kg empty (even with the current weight levels, which can be optimized further), it is pretty good and a testament of the design choices made!.

And mind you, this is not even factoring the LCA's larger wing area, which is 15% more than that of the Gripen!. Factor that in and the scales tip even more in the LCA's favor.

Though the missing joker in the pack can be that LCA Mark-1 is still targetting empty weight of 6500kg but the achieved empty weight is (say..??) 7500kg.

IIRC there were some rumors from tests that gripen is a flying pig compared to EF

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 29 Oct 2010 13:38

Hi
I was waiting for a reply of this kind(By Vina garu).Thanks for the info.If such a factually wrong article is written why don't we lodge formal complaint on behalf of the forum.This can be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the LCA program by the IAF.

My two cents .....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2010 13:42

long time back I had read here that though Tejas empty weight was targeted for a ambitious 5500kg, the TD's had been 6500kg empty and they were planning some optimization for lighter undercarriage (via foreign consultant) and general optimization of cautiously over engineered parts and replacement of N number of older LRUs with newer, smaller M ( M < N) LRUs to achieve a further 200-300kg reduction in empty weight.

not sure how that panned out.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 29 Oct 2010 16:05

Oh come on.. this is a crazy allegation that the IAF is trying to undermine the LCA program.
We have seen over and over again for the past few years the IAF has been supportive of the program as they know that it has turned out better than anyone expected.
I have spoken with many indian fighter pilots and they have all been just waiting to get their hands on them.
You could have been trying to say that other foreign vendors have been trying to undermine the LCA program but certainly not the IAF.

my 2 cents ....

prabhug wrote:Hi
I was waiting for a reply of this kind(By Vina garu).Thanks for the info.If such a factually wrong article is written why don't we lodge formal complaint on behalf of the forum.This can be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the LCA program by the IAF.

My two cents .....

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Oct 2010 19:13

prabhug wrote:Hi
I was waiting for a reply of this kind(By Vina garu).Thanks for the info.If such a factually wrong article is written why don't we lodge formal complaint on behalf of the forum.This can be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the LCA program by the IAF.

My two cents .....

Where did the IAF come from in all this? Vina's post was rebutting the hatchet job done by "Prof." Prodyut Das.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 29 Oct 2010 19:30

suryag wrote:Veer bhaiyon finally lsp5 is ready to move in 3 dimensions
India To Fly Tejas LSP-5 Soon

Thank you for the good news ... was waiting for it since a long time

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 Oct 2010 20:00

India To Fly Tejas LSP-5 Soon
Aviation Week

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Oct 2010 10:00

Before anyone asserts again on using Ajeet like fighters as LCA, it will do good to all, if they talk about 'options' after knowing the ASR set for LCA by IAF. The whole article by Das is useless BS and simply meant for munching to pass time.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Oct 2010 10:25

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/108 ... rough.html

"The SHM monitors the structural health parameters online while the UAV is in flight and help take corrective action. This enables the UAV to be flown without unnecessarily grounding them for inspection," the release added.

The analysis algorithms for the SHM were developed to predict onset of failures, which would be perfected using the data obtained through the trial held yesterday.

"The usage of such techniques will avoid periodic grounding of the aircraft and make the maintenance schedules to be more like 'on condition maintenance' with the condition being detected even before the failure occurs.

SHM can be used for other indigenous developments such as the 'Tejas' Light Combat Aircraft, futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft, the Indo-Russian joint development of Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft and other UAVs, the DRDO said.

If i'm not wrong, it is already part of LCA albeit in crude form.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Oct 2010 10:29

When is the Naval-LCA going to take to the air? Or did I miss it already.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 30 Oct 2010 12:48

can the SHM technology be used to check the health of missiles as well? for a missile it will be too late if it can only be activated in flight.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 30 Oct 2010 12:56

vasu_ray wrote:can the SHM technology be used to check the health of missiles as well? for a missile it will be too late if it can only be activated in flight.

It can if IAF wants too. Since they are not always flown and have a different maintenance requirement, it would not be required.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Oct 2010 14:47

prabhug wrote:Hi
I was waiting for a reply of this kind(By Vina garu).Thanks for the info.If such a factually wrong article is written why don't we lodge formal complaint on behalf of the forum.This can be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the LCA program by the IAF.

My two cents .....

really ? it can be ? how so ?
if all you can do is throw meaningless accusations at random kindly keep your two cents to yourself. I'm tired of people unthinkingly pointing fingers just because that's all they can.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2010 15:39

vasu_ray wrote:can the SHM technology be used to check the health of missiles as well? for a missile it will be too late if it can only be activated in flight.

No it cannot.

The SHM monitors the structural health parameters online while the UAV is in flight and help take corrective action.

This enables the UAV to be flown without unnecessarily grounding them for inspection," the release added.

The corrective action is taken on the ground, after the SHM collects data in the air - over a period of time. The time that they spent on the ground for inspections. SHM only makes it real-time and reliable.

Unless they use umpteen missiles to test, it is of no use.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Oct 2010 20:02

Is the LSP-6 going to be built with canards and flex nozzles? It is supposedly being built to test high AoA situations.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Oct 2010 22:35

Gagan wrote:Is the LSP-6 going to be built with canards and flex nozzles? It is supposedly being built to test high AoA situations.

why does it need canards and "flex" nozzles for high alpha test flights? Those would mean such a huge change in the FCS that it would be as good as a new variant itself like the Tejas Mk2. All you're likely to see is a spin parachute.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Oct 2010 23:20

LSP-6 was being described as a completely experimental plane, I wondered if they were going to do things starting off from the basic LCA platform and try and change its flight profile to experiment further. Perhaps even as a means to test what they would like to have on the Mk-2 version.

Can you describe the functioning of the spin parachute, with pics if possible?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Oct 2010 23:58

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/ind ... covery.jsp

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 31 Oct 2010 02:04

Thanks Chackojoseph and NRao, I will post the reply in the missiles thread

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2010 02:32

Read the entire article in depth. Vice Admiral Raman Puri is one of the few who has a commendable grasp of the big picture and has seen the entire Indian defence structure in depth. Look beyond his comments on the US, which actually apply to several vendors, not just the US, in terms of dependence causing issues, to the larger picture about indigenisation, DRDO and what he says about the LCA as these are very relevant to this particular topic on the LCA.

http://www.mynews.in/News/are_we_going_ ... 04848.html
Raman Puri, 30-Oct-2010 10:16:30 AM

Vice Admiral Raman Puri asks hard questions about India-US defence ties

The Indian experience of buying weapons from America is not smooth. We have recently found problems in weapons-locating radars of the United States. The American transfer of technology means that they will build, they will sell the item and keep you on a short leash as far as spare parts and support system are concerned.

My contention is that as long as we don't have a deep political understanding with the US, it is not advisable to get into a deep defence relationship. The Asia Pacific is America's concern, but India's concern is Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Why do we need certain defence agreements with US that give us inter-operability in far away shores?

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame.

They say the Defense Research and Development Organisation has not delivered. I don't think critics of the DRDO have analysed what is not delivered. There is no synergy in the ministry of defence. There is no synergy between the decision-making structures of the government. Army headquarter is one silo, the naval and air force headquarters are separate silos. The ministry of defence works on its own. There is a very loose coordination attempted at the individual level without a formal structure. There is a firewall between the production and the research side of the weapons making systems. There is hardly any mission statement from the armed forces. That doesn't come because you don't have a national security strategy and its stated goals.

'Army's shopping from the US doesn't make sense'

The Indian army's shopping from the US or Israel doesn't make sense because our army has not issued a mission statement yet. I think our so-called shopping of state-of-the-art weapons don't make sense till the National Security Council and the office of Chairman, Chief of Defense Staff function in coordination. Both these institutions are resisted or just ignored.

The Indian armed forces are apolitical; why there should not be a chief of defence staff? How will he become more powerful than politicians?

Today in cyber warfare, we don't have joint strategies of the three wings. I have seen meetings between the chiefs of the three defence wings. They don't produce any doctrines. They function on a limited agenda.

When the issue of buying of defense equipment from America comes, they talk about 'latest' and 'high technology.' These are just subjective words. What India needs is to fight efficiently with its competitors. We are not in competition with the US or Europe. We are and we should compare ourselves with our neighbours.

I have not read a professional joint mission need of Indian forces in 40 years. So, who is pushing the forces to buy such costly arms?

'Why should we go for American aircraft'

In absence of solid internal defence coordination of the three wings of the air force, army and navy, how can India sign the Communication Interoperability & Security Memorandum of Agreement, Logistics Support agreement, End Users Agreement kind of pacts with America? Some of these agreements will allow the inter-operability of Indian forces with the US, but what about inter-operability within our own forces?

If we sign such agreements with the US then we will need double set of equipments: One to read American algorithms and one to read ours. Why do we need inter-operability that the Americans want so much? Are we going to fight with Pakistan or any other country along with the US? Surely, we don't want to join American forces doing the dirty work of intervention operations? The Indian armed forces should remain independent of such tie-ups, which are not backed by political understanding of the highest order.

In my assessment all that the Indian defence forces need is updated Sukhoi- 30s and Light Combat Aircraft. We should keep modernising the LCAs; they are as good as the Mirage 2000.

Why should we go for American- made 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft? Each US-made MMRCA will cost us over $ 70 million while the LCA cost us only $ 26 million. Why should we spend so much money? Of course, we have problems with our LCA but we should be working to solve that. Why should we be so keen to become dependent? And, remember, when you build the LCA indigenously, you are building an institution.

I can say only that I disagree with my own community when they want to go for US- or Israel-made weapons and completely bind themselves with them. I know for sure that in 2003 the Air Force only wanted the Mirage 2000. Why don't you upgrade it? I think that is what the Indian Air Force needs to fight China, Pakistan or any other neighbour if need be.

The Indian government doesn't have second professional advice. It is totally in the hands of service chiefs who many times don't agree with each other. That disturbs the country's research and development and upsets production infrastructure.

'India and US' political goals do not match'

In India, there is no systematic method to produce joint mission requirements. We don't draw joint technological plans with long-term perspectives. India doesn't have a technological commission to cater to needs of the defence services.

At this rate, in the long term, our dependence on the US will increase. Indian taxpayers will pay much more than what you should be paying for the capabilities being created. I think we will feel sorry when we have to use those capabilities.

Importantly, if the US and India's political goals do not match, then US made equipment capabilities will be much reduced, with problems of spare parts, upgradation and other legal restrictions on technologies.

There are many lobbies working around in New Delhi representing the British, French, Americans, Russians, etc. I believe they should not influence us. Even foreign aircraft come only after 10 or so years don't blame indigenous efforts to develop them that take that kind of time.

Second, we must see what we can afford.

Three, we should not have a fetish for state-of-the-art equipment if we can mange with what we have or what we can get with help of the DRDO. Also, is what you are buying really state of the art? I don't think so. I have seen negotiations for a few things going on for decades, still you say you are buying the latest! We have made ballistic missiles to ballistic missiles systems. I don't think there is any technology left that doesn't go into that system.

'We must promote self-reliance'

The American system of selling weapons to India under Foreign Military Sales has kept middlemen away, but I don't think it's helpful in getting access to spares and other services. I think CISMOA should be a no-go area for Indian defense services.

Being poor is no crime. But being a slave is a crime. How can you file status report to Americans under the LSA?

On one side we are losing politically when in Af-Pak policy the Americans keep India out while allowing Pakistan to have strategic depth, but still we want to sign defence agreements with them.

I agree that the US is a powerful country. We should have defence ties with it. But we must promote self-reliance. China is doing today what it wants because it's not dependent on others. You can't be even a sub-regional power if you are totally dependent on outside powers for your weapons. We can't even have military diplomacy.

Also, China's official defense budget is three times our own and their procurement costs are much lower than ours because they have much greater levels of indigenisation. So, when we are buying from abroad our needs cannot clearly help to bridge the growing asymmetries in capability. We must be cautious of the factor of affordability when planning to buy from America or any other country. We have to choose appropriate strategies to meet our mission needs and not some hypothetical 'state-of-the-art' printed in the brochure of weapons manufacturing companies.

As told to Sheela Bhatt

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Oct 2010 02:49

The article gives an impression of some political pressure being applied to buy American , FMS is one such sham being run by MMS regime where suddenly all the demerits of a single vendor deal seize to exist. EUMA, LSA, CISMOA are all archaic policies which might suit an Unkil's poodle or other jokers that comprise the NATO. Trenton, P-8s, C-130js and now the C-17s and M777s will make us dependent on Unkil for spares and other logistics with current bunch of spineless creatures in 10 janpath this will only worsen if the deal for a key strike platform like the MRCA goes to the USA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Oct 2010 03:06

Perhaps, IAF should wait till the next elections then. big deal.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2010 03:29

Its interesting what the Vice Admiral is saying. I said the same thing on the MMRCA thread.

Please tell me the role of the MMRCA. And why should we buy the latest and greatest for acquisition and maintenance costs greater than equal to the su-30s. Get the cheapest plane that can complete that role!

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Oct 2010 03:40

Kartik wrote:...

BTW, I got some info regarding the LCA's fatigue life from a guy who worked on it for nearly a decade. It is not as high as I initially reported based on an earlier conversation with another ex-ADA guy. I cannot disclose the exact figures because I have been asked not to, but it is 25 years and X,000 hours.

After that my guess is that if the IAF so chooses, they would need a Life Extension program akin to the MiG-21, MiG-29 programs.

Doing some simple calculations, we can roughly figure out the range for the fatigue life of the airframe. Given that an air force pilot flies on an average 120-200 hours a year, we can use that as our basis for an estimate. We also have to factor in the fact that there will be more than one pilot flying the same aircraft (as it is not one-to-one). Each aircraft belongs to a squadron, which means flying will be equally distributed per airframe. Also, we can extrapolate from the flight testing that the LCA on average flies ~40mins sorties.

High-End
5,000 hours -> 200 flying hours/year average per airframe for 25 years
At 40mins/flight average, that comes to 300 flights a year per plane (or 25 flights/month). This means each squadron with 2 flights (12 active aircrafts) will fly 2,400hrs/year (3,600 flights/year or 300 flights/month or 10 flights/day).

Low-End
3,000 hours -> 120 flying hours/year average per airframe for 25 years
At 40mins/flight average, that comes to 180 flights a year per plane (or 15 flights/month). This means each squadron with 2 flights (12 active aircrafts) will fly 1,440hrs/year (2,160 flights/year or 180 flights/month or 6 flights/day).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2010 03:50

indranilroy wrote:Its interesting what the Vice Admiral is saying. I said the same thing on the MMRCA thread.

Please tell me the role of the MMRCA. And why should we buy the latest and greatest for acquisition and maintenance costs greater than equal to the su-30s. Get the cheapest plane that can complete that role!

Dont misinterpret the VAdmirals's words to suit your ill considered notions, please. He's making the point that the MMRCA process was flawed to begin with.

Note that the Admiral says India should rely on "updated Su-30s and LCAs". In other words, given the declining numbers, instead of the MMRCA we would have more Su-30s and LCAs. What this clearly tells us is that his views reflect a heavy-low mix.

There is no space for a cheap hand me down which is not that far ahead of the LCA or does not match the capabilities that the Su-30 brings today itself, let alone an updated variant. This clearly rules out the Gripen NG and MiG-35 from the mix.

Those talking of cheap maintenance and so and so forth, should reflect on what that translates into wartime, when those aircraft are unable to handle the diverse and challenging roles that are expected of them. Ergo, now that the MMRCA program is decided, it is common sense to buy the best that India can gets for the price and one which matches the Su-30 in performance albeit with hopefully lower costs/flight hour, though that will be offset by the higher acquisition costs and investment in new logistics and infrastructure.

At any rate, relying on under performing airframes using such logic (2 for the price of 1, cheap is best) will translate to higher attrition at wartime and lead to significant effects on force deployment and all sorts of other issues.