LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 25 May 2015 14:30

Philip wrote:Q: From the comments by some members eg. the ASR issue,is the IAF in their opinion guilty of "goalpost shifting" of the LCA as alleged of the IA in the Arjun programme? Or are they justified in limiting the number of MK-1s ordered?

The bigger problem than shifting of goalposts etc, is the process of specifying the goalpost itself ...
i.e. since, back in 1993-95, the viewpoint is this "science project of SDREs" is doomed to fail anyway, just cut-copy-paste from various brochures available and be done with the business of specifying the ASR etc - and let the SDREs get on with their wild-goose chase, while folks can concentrate on ramp-up their flying hours on various imported platforms.
(like, in those days, 29 jocks used to fly a lot on co-located 21s, to maintain their flying numbers/expr - because, in those days, 29s were slightly better than being called "hanger-queens" - but being videshi, those epitaphs were/are never used

).

Compared to the skill/process-orientation/application exhibited in the MMRCA technical selection/evaluation process - talk about institutional apathy!!

Does it make the ADA folks anyway less culpable?
No way, as they accepted that ASR blindly etc, and decided to pursue on it, without asking the inconvenient questions wrt benchmarking them against the performance aspects of program-goal-replacement-platforms etc.

All this khujli now, is despite all odds there's platform (the "3-legged-cheetah" or "MiG-21++" as it's being "affectionately called" nowadays) that these worthies are having to reject (or grudgingly accept) it - this, against their all expectations of it dying a slow and natural death (like Kaveri), without having to bother about it.

Betw, since you have asked, in a 2+ decade old program, some goal-post shifting in ineveitable (e.g. making the outermost hardpoint R-73 compatible, wider angle HUD, more integrated avionics, more ESM and ECM/ECCM integration etc), leading to additional platform weight etc ... no problems with that. But that's different from, the outright dissing/rejection of the platform of having not met some mythical ASR etc , that we are witnessing nowadays.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 May 2015 15:23

Do you realise something - other than the assessment done on the Beta Coefficient, (which puts STR at 16 deg/sec I think) - we still do not have a clear idea what the ITR/ STR is for the Tejas. What the naysayers have done is use the lack of data to fill in the gaps with anything they want.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 25 May 2015 15:39

Sanjay wrote:Do you realise something - other than the assessment done on the Beta Coefficient, (which puts STR at 16 deg/sec I think) - we still do not have a clear idea what the ITR/ STR is for the Tejas. What the naysayers have done is use the lack of data to fill in the gaps with anything they want.

Sanjay, there's absolutely no need of any public articulation of the performance charatceristics (either achieved or required) for a military plaftform ... what however missing is generic articulation (or qualitative articulation) of them like below:

According to Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Naval Tejas program, to our own kartikji in a AI:

... When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”.
...
When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.
...
He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don’t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared

Note the diff in attitude exhibited between somebody from IN and various IAF gents for the very same program.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 May 2015 15:45

Sanjay wrote:Do you realise something - other than the assessment done on the Beta Coefficient, (which puts STR at 16 deg/sec I think) - we still do not have a clear idea what the ITR/ STR is for the Tejas. What the naysayers have done is use the lack of data to fill in the gaps with anything they want.

And it suits the IAF to the T.

The same way, the lack of public data meant the IA could run down the Arjun.

In a way, the limitation of the Rafale deal or its push out, will finally force some of the folks at AHQ, the sort of folks who wanted the IAF Chief to skip the LCA induction ceremony, to actively engage with the LCA program and make it succeed.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 May 2015 17:19

Karan M - that is exactly my point.

I know this may be anathema some for me to ask this - what is the probable STR/ITR of Tejas ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 26 May 2015 01:56

Other than what the Navy Test Pilot stated that it was good some time back

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 May 2015 04:21

Sanjay wrote:Karan M - that is exactly my point.

I know this may be anathema some for me to ask this - what is the probable STR/ITR of Tejas ?

Sorry, but is it actually relevant in the face of high angle off bore sight WVR missiles and long range BTR missiles.

I mean that if the pilot can see the target, he can kill the target. Provided that the LCA is not just a flying dart that cannot turn.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 May 2015 04:27

Guns baba guns....also against highly agile targets its not at all easy to even keep it within the FOV to launch AAMs of any type...one has to be equally agile and unpredictable to get anywhere.

I used to play a F-16 simulator called Falcon4...and I could never once get behind and keep lock on north korean Mig-21s ... these little critters just flashed past and were very hard to spot.

the only amraam kills I had were shots on Tu16 badger types.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 May 2015 05:52

or something similar to what DARPA researched - EXACTO sys.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 May 2015 06:16

So the IAF is still thinking of close range gunfight. Hmm..........

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 May 2015 06:33

with good decoys and jammers proliferating, AAMs cannot be relied on 100%.
sometimes one can reject combat if AAMs fail and go away, but sometimes as in intercepting a enemy force headed for a vital target there will be no option but to close and go guns if more friendly missile armed planes are not nearby.

if missiles were a sure shot, we would not see ships having CIWS and even smart AA ammo for the 76mm, 127mm guns...despite ships having tens of SRSAMs of the ESSM/RAM type.

guns are mans best friend. guns helped to conquer and loot 4 continents since the middle ages (n and s america, australasia and africa)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 May 2015 09:01

Pratyush, think F16, and draft all your mission plans

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 26 May 2015 09:38

The fundamental rule to remember, from pure layman pov of course, when it comes to understanding various types of turn-rates is,
1) ITR is an aero-design based performance factor (limited by Aerodynamic Load Factor - which in itself is dependent upon the by Max Lift Coeff of the wing-planform design)
2) STR is based on the amount of reserve Thrust available to overcome the overall drag (so higher TWR, higher is the STR achieved - of course, for the same TWR, the STR will increase if drag can be reduced - as is being attempted in Mk2)

And when it comes to basic design coices, the following applies:
1) A delta with almost (not exactly but you get the idea) monotonic increase in Lift Coeff with AoA will have superior ITR (Vortex genrators plays a crucial role in increasing AoA) - so LCA is no exception
2) But drag will also increase monotonically with increasing AoA, thus making the STR suffer - plus a delat with higher wing areas, will have more drag compared to othe planform designs - so again, LCA is no exception
A related post on this is here ...

But if ITR is accorded more weightage than STR, in these days of high off-boresight-missiles etc, then a prudent design choice is to go for a delta planform and maximise ITR - and ofcourse pay for the resultant increased drag, and try and mitigate it somewhat by integrating a higher thrust engine (but then again paying for a comparatively higher SFC, and thus paying with the range/combat-radius etc).

No easy choices!!

And the designers spend decades in trying to optimise these very things via a variety of control surfaces (e.g. Canard, LEVCONs etc) and design philosophies (mixed delta planform like in LCA, trapezoidal planform, forward swept planform etc etc).

And similarly, when you blindly copy-paste performance values from brochures of two different aircrafts with two diff design philosophies (ITR from M2K with pure slender-delta planform and STR from MiG-29/F-16 for swept-wing design) you are basically asking for unobtanium (I mean, without resorting to path-breaking stuff like TV etc).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2015 09:44

without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared

"unobtanium",meat for the cranium what?!

Now that is exactly what the former A.Cmde (if I remember correctly) posted on his blog,on BRF 2 yrs ago,that when he and his team were asked to examine the proposal for the LCA at inception,found it exceptionally ambitious especially for the fol. reasons quoted above. The CoAS attended the presentation and alarmed at the IAF's assessment,subsequently decided to go in for a MIG-21 upgrade ,the "Bison",as an interim solution,realizing that the ADA/HAL would not be able to deliver the aircraft on time. They were proven right.We now have the ultimate absurdity of these ancient flying machines ,the upgraded Bisons ,being asked to soldier on (with the plea from the MOD,"don't overwork them please!") until approx. 2025! This will be a true world record of an aircraft fighter-type in active service for 60+ years.

For those fulminating against the plucky MIG-21,perhaps you should've read (in Vayu) about the golden jubilee celebrated of the type attended by a galaxy of IAF air marshals,etc.,who all praised the aircraft to the skies,the backbone of the IAF upon which the IAF pilots honed their air combat skills,as one former CoAS put it.The baton has now been passed onto the MKI.

In retrospect,the ADA "committee" style management of the LCA programme was a disaster. There is really no need for an ADA. It has only added to the bureaucratic control of aircraft design and development which should be left to the concerned service and DPSU manufacturers. HAL has been the torchbearer since Independence of our indigenous aviation production ,and aircraft design should be tasked to HAL.In contrast,the IN has its own Naval Design set up,which perhaps the IAF should also start emulating in collaboration with HAL,deputing its own officers/scientists in the HAL based design studio.

Having spent so much time and effort on the LCA,this new regime must not allow the time and effort of the past (albeit with poor management)to waste, as we did with the HDW subs or HF-24 experience. A critical analysis of the entire programme,MK-1,MK-2,development,production ,etc.,must be taken up on a war footing ,with clear deadlines,to maximize on what has already been achieved and what can further be achieved within the confines of the overall LCA development. The LCA cannot be stretched into an alternative for the Rafale/MMRCA needs,but it is vital to replace retiring MIG-21s/27s and make up the numbers of the 45+ sqds. required so that the IAF benefits to the max. If this is done asap,then talk of another light fighter as a MIG-21 alternative will cease.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 May 2015 10:05

SaiK wrote:Pratyush, think F16, and draft all your mission plans

Weapons systems don't exist in isolation. They're a part of a system that uses them. So the individual capacity while useful is not be all and end all of the jet. It only need to be reasonably competitive when used with force multiplier. So a Tejas supported by AEW is good enough for dealing with the enemy. As it will have good situational awareness compared to a Tejas without AEW support. It will be good enough for the job.

So the F 16 benchmark is somewhat redundantly.

Bbut this is just the view of a chair force guy.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 27 May 2015 00:23

HAL developing LCA-1P with AESA Radar

India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme has been delayed indeed, but to make up for it, HAL is now working on developing a new variant, LCA-I P, which will be equipped with an advanced AESA Radar and an electro-optic Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor suite.

The timeline for this variant has been set at 2017, two years from now. The AESA radar will be supplied by Israel’s ELTA Systems, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)

The new LCA-MkI-P variant with the EW Package will also add some 50 kilos of more weight, but then, Mr Raju explained, the capability of the aircraft increases significantly, offsetting the disadvantage of a smaller engine.

The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 50 kilos.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 May 2015 01:35

what!? ballast for stability? wasn't that intentional and correction was with the CLAWS to handle the flight controls with servos and sensors?

and again blah blah.. at the EOD still we have no clear specification of RADAR details of ELTA.. it can't be 1/2 the no of t/rs.. and we need to get t/r modules per sq " to calculate what exactly would be the range we are talking.

again this is another one of those HAL twists to AESA.. BEL/LRDE - UTTAM is below radar, then KRET crept! and now back to Elta 2052 scaled down.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 01:39

Most important:

HAL has in principle support from the Government, and is now working on the proposal with the IAF (Indian Air Force) in this regard. This variant will be developed on the existing LCA-MkI model, and will meet IAF’s requirements till the larger LCA Mk II is developed by 2021 with the more powerful GE 414 engine.

LCA-MkI, which achieved IOC-II (Initial Operational Capability, stage II) in January 2014 for acceptance by IAF as it is produced and tested, is yet to get the FOC (Final Operational Capability) but the focus now is on adding the EW package, originally planned for the LCA-MkII.

The aircraft will continue to have the same GE 404 engine however in this variant, but the lack of adequate power will be compensated by the warfare capability generated by the new sensors, with AESA providing a formidable force multiplication. This type of radar uses multiple frequencies to electronically scan several targets simultaneously.

This idea should be refined though. A single program office of which HAL is a part, perhaps headed by the IAF but not HAL alone.

Mr Raju said that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar was taking personal interest in the development of indigenous technologies and systems, including in the LCA, and HAL was working to speed up whatever it could do.

For one thing, it is proposing now to take full charge of the LCA development programme to become the single responsible agency. Right now, the design and development of the aircraft, engines, weapons package etc, are with DRDO and its Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA).

HALs own track record with the IJT has been disappointing to say the least & doubtful whether it can do what ADA does.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 May 2015 03:28

enough reason Modi sarkar allow up to 49% share of HAL to private

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 May 2015 06:28

Karan M wrote:Most important:

HAL has in principle support from the Government, and is now working on the proposal with the IAF (Indian Air Force) in this regard. This variant will be developed on the existing LCA-MkI model, and will meet IAF’s requirements till the larger LCA Mk II is developed by 2021 with the more powerful GE 414 engine.

...

HAL developing LCA-1P with AESA Radar

India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme has been delayed indeed, but to make up for it, HAL is now working on developing a new variant, LCA-I P, which will be equipped with an advanced AESA Radar and an electro-optic Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor suite.

The timeline for this variant has been set at 2017, two years from now. ...
...
P in the LCA-I P stands for prototype, but once accepted by IAF, it could be designated LCA-MkI-A or whatever.
...
The new LCA-MkI-P variant with the EW Package will also add some 50 kilos of more weight, but then, Mr Raju explained, the capability of the aircraft increases significantly, offsetting the disadvantage of a smaller engine.

The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 50 kilos.
...

Let's see if the IAF orders more, say another 40, of the updated variant Mk.1A. But given how things have been going I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF/HAL/ADA/MoD decide to switch the current order of 40 to that version; new goalposts have been erected!

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 27 May 2015 07:26

ELTA EL/M-2052 and not Uttam?

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 27 May 2015 08:37

Any chance the radar for the LCA-1P could be the Uttam, given that it is nearing testing, and the report of the Elta radar is the usual DDMitis?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 May 2015 09:43

Possible that the Tejas-MK1P is the prototype for testing the Uttam Aesa before the Mark-II arrives.
Also if the test is successful, the whole lot of MK-1 can be fitted with the new AESA and EW systems which will then be called Tejas-MK1A or whatever.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 27 May 2015 09:58

Uttam will take its time and fits the Mk-II timeline of 2022 etc ... in the interim (between 2017 to 2022) if MK-I are provided with 2052s, it's a good move.

Maybe something like Mk-I IoC 20 platform with MMR till 2017, next 20 Mk-I FoC platforms with 2052s till 2019, then upgrade/repalce the original 20 Mk-I IoC platforms with more 2052s and finally go for Uttam for the MK-IIs.
If by any miracle, there's a further follow-up orders of Mk-Is, then more 2052s can be integrated etc ...

IIRC, Uttam's A-G modes (or was it the A-A modes?) software validation/qualification is in progress ... next would be to integrate and flight-qualify it and then test-rework-refine-test cycles of myraid of it's modes (the most difficult ones would be the A-G mode) in operational flying modes - a 4-5 year affair.

Also is a good hedging option if something doesn't work out in it ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 May 2015 18:50

It is always a good move to phase r&d to production. nobody is asking our labs and HAL to produce everything on day 1. It could be a DDMitie as rightly said, but if it is not then there is a big concern in this ASR/PLM and the whole management of production to operations. proper change control mechanism is required. we can't just shift goal posts randomly.

it is no brainer to think short term vs long term goals. who is stopping us to build Kaveri and Uttam in the future and replace the firang walas? only the user here I guess. It is the fear/politics of specifications and changes. the political and peer pressure sets in.. if they supply Elta 2052s, then uttam has to be 2052++, else IAF will outright reject it.

from drafting to delivery, we have exhibited poor management skills.. i don't know if we are following the CMMI route

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 May 2015 21:59

maitya wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Do you realise something - other than the assessment done on the Beta Coefficient, (which puts STR at 16 deg/sec I think) - we still do not have a clear idea what the ITR/ STR is for the Tejas. What the naysayers have done is use the lack of data to fill in the gaps with anything they want.
Sanjay, there's absolutely no need of any public articulation of the performance charatceristics (either achieved or required) for a military plaftform ... what however missing is generic articulation (or qualitative articulation) of them like below:
According to Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Naval Tejas program, to our own kartikji in a AI:

... When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said “it’s enough, let me put it that way”.
...
When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29’s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure.
...
He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don’t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then, without even bothering to look at the technological base in India, the ASR was prepared

Note the diff in attitude exhibited between somebody from IN and various IAF gents for the very same program.

I am a little confused about this. On the one hand, we blame IAF for having brochuritis and on the other we have IAF folks in the know who declare that the IAF always feltthat the LCA program was ridiculously ambitious.

With all due respect to Kartik and Cmd. Mao, here are my observations about above anecdote:

1. The question presumes that the IAF went with a ridiculous aSr, combining the specs of the very best fighters of the day for what it considered a low end platform for its own needs, seems rather incredible.

2. Where is the report to show that the IAF actually did this?

3. how often do test pilots actually criticize the program they work for? Also, keep in mind that "enough" is a very vague word, what might be enough for the Navy, whose primary responsibility is sea based might be totally different for the IAF.

Imho, if the IAF suffers from brochuritis, then the ADA HAL combine suffers from Overambitiousunderdeliveritis. Promise the sky and deliver jack, be it in terms of specs or in terms of timelines. the latest case in point is reduction of the LCA mk2 weight by 500kg.

I would rather see them concentrate their efforts on fewer projects.....perhaps even shelf the MK2 and create a twin engined modest AMCA mk1 based on the kaveri @ 8 tons thrust. An F18A spec bird in terms of weight, payload, thrust and an LCA, pakfa type planform . Recessed weapons carriage ala typhoon, delivered by 2025. At least it will make the IAF strategically independent.

But alas, we see the same story repeat again.....lightest, smallest fifth gen sstealth fighter with 6th gen technology, whatever that is supposed to mean, delivered by God alone knows when!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 May 2015 22:06

CM, The ridiculousness comes from specifying the contradictory turn rates.
As maitya explained you can have one and not both.
What it means is IAF doctrine is emphasizing dog fights with cannon which is what led to that specification.
The ASR gives the IAF requirements.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 May 2015 22:10

But Ramana, where is the proof to show that the IAF actually did that - ask for M2K ITR+ fulcrum STR? what single engined bird can do this?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 22:50

Singha wrote:with good decoys and jammers proliferating, AAMs cannot be relied on 100%.
sometimes one can reject combat if AAMs fail and go away, but sometimes as in intercepting a enemy force headed for a vital target there will be no option but to close and go guns if more friendly missile armed planes are not nearby.

if missiles were a sure shot, we would not see ships having CIWS and even smart AA ammo for the 76mm, 127mm guns...despite ships having tens of SRSAMs of the ESSM/RAM type.

guns are mans best friend. guns helped to conquer and loot 4 continents since the middle ages (n and s america, australasia and africa)

IIR missiles are pretty much sure shot kills at present. Laser jammers to decoy them are still far away and will remain out of reach for both PRC and PLAAF for a long time to come.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 22:52

Cain Marko wrote:But Ramana, where is the proof to show that the IAF actually did that - ask for M2K ITR+ fulcrum STR? what single engined bird can do this?

Go ahead and look at Kartiks interview with Cmd Mao. I and many others have heard much the same from ADA and HAL people eons ago. An ADA person at a public event and noted both F-16/Mirage 2000/MiG-29 performance was used as a mix for LCA ASRs. Mirage 2000 FBW was used to benchmark LCA system which was to be a step ahead. IAF folks worked on that. MiG-29/Mirage 2000 avionics were both considered and a mix of advanced performance requirements were ported on the LCA specs.

Also that the IAF asked ADA to fit LCA in MiG-21 and below dimensions - another ridiculous ask which compromised aero performance. Matheswaran has revealed this to be correct as well in recent days. Now he wants the entire light concept to be junked for Mk2 and a complete re specc undertaken.

ADA went to Dassault and took their recommendations for the design and hence signed off, not having the infra to validate each and every point. Other high IAF asks were Mirage 2000 avionics + systems performance in MiG-21 footprint which remains ambitious even by todays advanced standards.

AC Muthanna admitted as much and since the IAF omissions are mostly under omerta when serving IAF officers discuss it, passed it off as "amazingly futuristic requirements which make the LCA contemporary even today", never mind such requirements cause time/cost creep as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 23:04

3. how often do test pilots actually criticize the program they work for? Also, keep in mind that "enough" is a very vague word, what might be enough for the Navy, whose primary responsibility is sea based might be totally different for the IAF.

Speak to some test pilots then. You will be surprised.
Enough is hardly vague given the context, which is that the LCA is being equipped with a HMS+Python-V which makes all these discussions of turn rates academic. As a light fighter, it won't be loaded with ten tons of munitions and fuels either for extreme long range strike wherein the highest possible initial performance becomes critical as load increases and performance decreases.
The Navy's responsibility BTW is higher than the IAFs as its requirements are higher, it does not have the benefit of mixed packages with Sukhois and tankers or AEW aircraft with substantial range for long range work. So it will expect a fair amount of performance which is why Mk1 meets basic IAF needs but can't meet IN ones.

Imho, if the IAF suffers from brochuritis, then the ADA HAL combine suffers from Overambitiousunderdeliveritis. Promise the sky and deliver jack, be it in terms of specs or in terms of timelines. the latest case in point is reduction of the LCA mk2 weight by 500kg.

Where is it confirmed that the LCA Mk2 is to be below by 500 Kg? The higher thrust Ge engine is for the exact reason that a lower weight cannot be guaranteed until the prototypes are out and a detailed design document is available.

The overpromise factor is primarily due to lack of trust between the two players, the developers and the customer. Lack of firm orders, constant fear the program may be cancelled at any time, lack of commitment for assured production mean rabbits have to be pulled out of the hat each time and every time. Attempts by vested interests to either run down or scuttle the program entirely add to the trust issues.

I would rather see them concentrate their efforts on fewer projects.....perhaps even shelf the MK2 and create a twin engined modest AMCA mk1 based on the kaveri @ 8 tons thrust. An F18A spec bird in terms of weight, payload, thrust and an LCA, pakfa type planform . Recessed weapons carriage ala typhoon, delivered by 2025. At least it will make the IAF strategically independent.

But alas, we see the same story repeat again.....lightest, smallest fifth gen sstealth fighter with 6th gen technology, whatever that is supposed to mean, delivered by God alone knows when!

One can wish for anything, but its the IAF ASRs that will decide the game.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2015 00:28

there are cases against IAF (shukla's report) that they did dilute the ASR to favor Pilatus into the contract.. now, this is all transient and temporary dilutions we are seeking for Mk1, until we reach the Mk2 version. The Mk1++ versions can come with many variations, but getting the Mk1 on board is very important step, by diluting the ASR to match Mk1 specs. Let it not go operational as war ready, but just pre-operational ready. this is the message many are airing just to keep LCA tejas going.

if Mk1++ specifications changes, then it can't be Mk2++. it has to be Mk2--.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 May 2015 04:58

SaiK wrote:... The Mk1++ versions can come with many variations, but getting the Mk1 on board is very important step, by diluting the ASR to match Mk1 specs. Let it not go operational as war ready, but just pre-operational ready. ....

LCA Mk.1 IOC-2 is war ready. It can drop dumb bombs with accuracy in both CCIP and CCRP modes as well as precision strike with LGBs and defend with CCMs. But of course like anything else, it would need support infrastructure.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 May 2015 06:41

Karan M wrote:I and many others have heard much the same from ADA and HAL people eons ago.

But this is exactly the point isn't it? We have heard only from the ADA and HAL people but in reality know very little about the ASRs. AFAIK, the perennial complaint from the IAF has been that this was a science project for the DRDO and never had in mind much practical application for the AF's use. Hence, the ASRs, as high as they seemed to be (which we still don't know what they were) - were to meet the ADA's need for a project that would create an aviation base in the country. As a result the IAF tended to stay away from it.

Circa 1982...

Indeed, the write-up that we had received was rather confusing. The project seemed extremely ambitions. An airframe to be built with extensive use of composite material of which we had no previous experience, an engine that was still on paper, a radar set that was to be better than our imported best and yet be lighter in weight and perhaps a bit smaller in size, an electronic control system for an unstable platform (the struggle with the control laws for the Gnat being still vividly in our memory), a completely unconventional digital man/machine interface while we had no experience at all of the new fangled concept of a ‘glass cockpit’, and all this within a decade! It sounded implausible. At the same time, the paper sent down to us clearly gave us the impression that this super duper futuristic aircraft was what we were required to commit for in ten years’ time. Our Hunters, Gnats, Maruts, Mig21s would all start winding down in the nineties. If we did not start planning for these replacements realistically from now (the early eighties), we shall have undermined the ability of the air force to perform its task.......

To set the ball rolling, the AirHQ issued an ASR in 1985. By now the Air Force was reconciled to the Idea that the LCA will primarily be an R&D project under the DRDO. Therefore, the ASR reflected all the desires expressed by the scientific community; an unstable platform controlled by FBW technique, an airframe largely built of composites, a glass cockpit, a multi mode radar, an indigenous engine with FADEC, indigenous ECM/ECCM/electronics/weapons/missiles – the works. The ultimate product had to be an aircraft that could be used by the Air Force. Therefore the ASR projected an aircraft that would do everything that a MiG 21 could do, albeit do it a little better.

From TKS tales....His take on LCA from the very beginning was that it was overambitious and the IAF was skeptical -

Also that the IAF asked ADA to fit LCA in MiG-21 and below dimensions - another ridiculous ask which compromised aero performance. Matheswaran has revealed this to be correct as well in recent days. Now he wants the entire light concept to be junked for Mk2 and a complete re specc undertaken.

Yes, but the IAF wanted a light fighter, what were they supposed to do? The ambitious nature of the project was not something the IAF wanted it seems, for e.g. they preferred the hybrid, workable FBW proposed by Dassault to the US option.

AC Muthanna admitted as much and since the IAF omissions are mostly under omerta when serving IAF officers discuss it, passed it off as "amazingly futuristic requirements which make the LCA contemporary even today", never mind such requirements cause time/cost creep as well.

My point is - why were such ASRs created in the first place - it seems rather strange that an AF which was sooo skeptical of DRDO's ability as indicated by TKS would be so eager on incredibly high ASRs. At the same time, it was the IAF that initiated the LCA project in the 70s as a replacement for the 21s in the 90s, why then would they create super high ASRs?

There is a big gap between the story of the IAF and that of the ADA - seems like many BRfites have made up their mind that the fault is IAF's since it is so "phoren" motivated, I find it hard to believe that folks who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country are at the same time so willing to think so poorly of their countrymen's ability to come up with a decent, usable fighter.

And irrespective of what I believe, the facts sure aren't clear...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 May 2015 06:46

Karan M wrote:One can wish for anything, but its the IAF ASRs that will decide the game.

True this. BUT - how much control does it have in making the ASRs? What are the overall aims of the program? Purely to create a fighter for the AF or something more and possibly contradictory?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 May 2015 07:23

I would say full control. Only IAF knows its threat perceptions, and we can't arm chair that control.. however, we could air some view on their capabilities or fallacies in drafting them or it could be a threat that is least likely to happen etc., but it has the control to draft under the security risk umbrella. Risks can be bumped real steep even if the threat is not impending or the probability is low. It is a question of security.

So, the larger the theater we can handle, the better our capability becomes. I am not saying IAF -> USAF..but our threats are much more real than USAF which is really a manufactured one, especially to show off as a super cop of the world. Given our nature of threats, and budgets, I'd say we have to be extremely careful in drafting requirements...if there is a slight chance of getting a nod, I'd draft a up-rated/augmented ASR to the bottom of the needs.

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 28 May 2015 07:25

OT

Wing Co Pillai on lessons learnt with ALH. @8:18 he talks abt ASR selecting best points from diffrent platforms.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 May 2015 12:55

Karan M wrote: Speak to some test pilots then. You will be surprised.
Enough is hardly vague given the context, which is that the LCA is being equipped with a HMS+Python-V which makes all these discussions of turn rates academic.

For all of that the IAF preferred the ecanards over the shornet.

Where is it confirmed that the LCA Mk2 is to be below by 500 Kg? The higher thrust Ge engine is for the exact reason that a lower weight cannot be guaranteed until the prototypes are out and a detailed design document is available.

iirc, saurav jha quoted Tamilmani to state that 500kg weight loss over mk1 as a goal. This was discussed on BR as well quite recently.

. Lack of firm orders, constant fear the program may be cancelled at any time, lack of commitment for assured production mean rabbits have to be pulled out of the hat each time and every time. Attempts by vested interests to either run down or scuttle the program entirely add to the trust issues.

For all of this the program continues to exist for decades and so does the funding. So do firm orders of 40....

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 May 2015 13:01

SaiK wrote:I would say full control..

Idon't don't buy this...the government of the day can certainly lean on the forces....

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 28 May 2015 14:07

HAL developing LCA-1P with AESA Radar

Plz HAL if serious about MK 1.5 then apart from AESA and EW [Tejas Mk.2 one] also add OBOGS and MK.2 Tejas cockpit display system.
All seems feasible and in quick time