LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

[nirav]

Agree with most part of your post Shiv Saar.

Disagree on the 'do more' being asked from AF in hindsight.

As rohitvats, tsarkarji have pointed out, the flight envelope wasn't established prior to IOC -II.

How could airforce induct a jet which needed telemetry to fly ?

There was an article posted quoting Sh.V K Saraswat firing "interceptor" missiles.
The same person had announced induction of LCA in the AF in 2012.

I keep raising it in almost every post, why isn't accountability being asked from ADA/DRDO/HAl ?

Dates keep getting pushed and pushed.nothing happens.its almost as if the country is encouraging it and rewarding it by not holding anyone accountable.

passionate guys thunder when someone says LCA started in the 80s. And that the effort has taken 30+ years.
It's pointed out FSED funds in 93, so that's the start date.

Someone didn't mind quoting Sh.Saraswat on his crying foul at CNS statement.
But here Sh.Saraswat claims that LCA indeed was started in the early 80s and that period from 1980-2000 was faced with sanctions which caused the delay.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-sa ... at-1842043

You think our multi quote hecklers would now unleash themselves on Sh.Saraswat ?

[tsarkar]

In the case of the LCA (as opposed to the MiG 21 or Gnat) it is the software that prevented pilots from exceeding a pre-defined flight envelope. The envelope was completely known.

The envelope was completely known - theoretically on paper and in the minds of aeronautical engineers.

It required to be developed and tested. It needed to be test flown and certified by CEMILAC - that is a DRDO arm.

There was software restriction precisely because the full envelope was not tested and certified.

Incase you didnt read earlier http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=102056

The Flight control system evaluation has also been completed.

Do you imply it was software that prevented Tejas from flying in all weather and rain as in the case of grounding in Bhopal? Can you cite one combat airfield and combat zone where it doesnt rain? Should we call off the war and stay in hanger when it rains?

And extending that logic in the real world, nothing needs testing and certification since the moment its designed & built, its capabilities are known the moment its designed and built

The MiG-21's flight envelope was certified by the Soviets, and validated by test pilots like AM Wollen & Rajkumar. Radar & Guns are immaterial to IOC. Same for the Gnat, its flight envelope was opened up and validated by test pilots. Its flaws were known and accepted.

What you are saying is that planes with flaws are accepted as long as someone else (Russian/British) signs the certificate. That is exactly what i am also saying and criticizing it.

I'll amplify what I wrote. The original aircraft is tested and certified in their parent countries.

But Indian test pilots like AM Prithi Singh, AM Philip Rajkumar, AM Wollen, etc validate the envelope and present their report to Air HQ. I'm sure you know these fine gentlemen through your late cousin and know their integrity. Air HQ decides based on our own Test Pilot evaluation on whether it can live with a flaw or to reject it.

There is a report by AM Rajkumar in BR somewhere on how a MiG-21 version was rejected because its engine was insufficient and they replaced it with a higher rated engine.

There have been waivers to Tejas too. Tejas Mk1 failed to go supersonic at sea level. But IAF has waived the supersonic-at-all-levels ASR because it could live with that. There are 50 odd waivers that IAF has given Tejas, as per CAG.

You are totally off here. I think you should do some reading up or talking to test pilots about how FBW restricts the flight envelope to what is safe and prevents unsafe departures until the unsafe departure is tested by test pilots flying modified control laws. And when they find it safe - that extra envelope is incorporated into the regular flight CLAW

I am very clear in my thoughts and words. I'll amplify your point here.

The FCS restricted flight envelope you mention in your post - in 2001 was a very small fragment of the overall flying environment in India. That restricted flight envelope was gradually increased and control laws expanded by flying in Bangalore and flight testing in Goa, Leh or Jaisalmer until a reasonably safe and encompassing envelope was certified in IOC-2 in 2013.

FYI, we made Embraer test our AEW platform in Alaska.

cockpit lighting (not just for night flying but in overcast conditions as well

So these were fine in the Jaguar/MiG 21/MiG 27. Not the Tejas. that is what I am also saying, but I ask "Why?"

There is a story on BR how in 1971 a MiG-21 pilot intercepted an airliner over Delhi at night.

Here it is http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... jayan.html

Here is Rahul Devnath's account of MiG-27 night flying at Hashimara

The MiGs never sleep - MiG27s ready for missions in the night at Hasimara

Jaguars too fly and fight at night

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... juAHI.html

“Today evening at Ambala airfield a Jaguar aircraft aborted take off while getting airborne for a routing night flying mission. The pilot carried out safe quick exit. The aircraft caught fire,” said public relation officer wing commander Anupam Banerjee.

All these aircraft came night flying capable and certified further validated by Indian Test Pilots. The Tejas required testing and certification that came in 2013.

engine relight - incase there is a flameout

There are some aircraft that come into service where certain issues - like spin for instance mean bail out. Until relight is certified the rules can be modified.

Shiv, you're a doctor and know the spinal compression injuries that come as a side effect of ejection. Air Cmde T K Sen's career ended with an ejection. As did so many others. Do you seriously think ejection should be a de-facto fall back option?

All the aircraft listed by you came with engine relight capabilities.

No aircraft, F-14, C-130 or Tejas can fly in turbulent airflow. However its important to know the limits it can fly upto. So that the pilots flying in formation with other fighters, transports, civil airliners or in holding pattern after takeoff or in landing pattern and Ground Controllers / Air Traffic Controllers know the safe distances to maintain. How can an aircraft be inducted without those parameters not known?

How were aircraft inducted in the past without knowing limits?

None. These characteristics were validated by Indian Test Pilots.

Going by your objection wake penetration should be the first thing to be tested as soon as the plane flies. Obviously it is not as important as you are trying to make it out to be. IOC can come before that.

Have you noticed how aircraft stay in a holding pattern until their wingmen take off and they get in formation?

Have you noticed the landing pattern in major airbases wherein aircraft fly circuits until they're slotted by ATC to land?

Do you know bases in North East and Leh where An-32, Il-76 & C-17s are on constant air supply missions to Army outposts and traffic is chock-a-block?

Even in busy civilian airports like Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore, while landing, you can see other aircraft flying in circuits nearby from your aircraft window.

What happens when an untested Tejas - not knowing the degree of turbulence it can safely fly - gets into a the wake of its preceding aircraft?

You're being needlessly argumentative here. And falsely attributing something I never said. As per CEMILAC, Tejas needed to be tested for wake penetration before IOC.

And this is precisely the problem I find with certain BR members. When out of facts, they start lying. Seriously, how does it help the Tejas?

[Atmavik]

[quote="Indranil"]Why the hell doesn't Tejas adopt this low visibility pain scheme. Looks so much better.



WoW

[tsarkar]

Flying behind in close proximity like this would not have been possible without wake penetration trials.







Previously Tejas flew ahead



Or it flew alongside http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 2.jpg.html

But never behind before IOC-2

[Sid]

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and LCA program is a beauty. Its an Indian baby.

HAL didn't just started manufacturing ALH, LCA, LUH, etc etc. It took them time to gain knowledge and confidence to start churning our products at a predictable rate/time/cost. Result? we won't be importing any chooper by 2020. Similar patience is needed for other projects, Rome was not built in a single day.

I have observed similar behaviour in Enterprises as well, when given a choice between COTS product and custom they will jump on COTS without blinking an eye even when it's costly, requires much more customization to suit their needs and required specialized resource to maintain it. But for a custom inhouse solution they will keep on moving the goal post, crib about budget/resources etc.

[shiv]

There was software restriction precisely because the full envelope was not tested and certified.

There is a semantics issue here. The flight enevelope is fully known and defined by software. What is unkown is where departure can occur. Departure is not allowed

Do you imply it was software that prevented Tejas from flying in all weather and rain as in the case of grounding in Bhopal? Can you cite one combat airfield and combat zone where it doesnt rain? Should we call off the war and stay in hanger when it rains?

You are shifting the goalpost and doing what you accuse me of "that is being needlessly argumentative". Please allow me that freedom too sir. I will explain below about this "rain" argument

What you are saying is that planes with flaws are accepted as long as someone else (Russian/British) signs the certificate. That is exactly what i am also saying and criticizing it.

I'll amplify what I wrote. The original aircraft is tested and certified in their parent countries.

But Indian test pilots like AM Prithi Singh, AM Philip Rajkumar, AM Wollen, etc validate the envelope and present their report to Air HQ. I'm sure you know these fine gentlemen through your late cousin and know their integrity. Air HQ decides based on our own Test Pilot evaluation on whether it can live with a flaw or to reject it.

They can only report what exists, good or bad. The air force accepts or rejects that. The air force accepted aircraft with flaws. Raj wrote that taking off a fully loaded Jaguar (4 bombs) on a hot day from Bangalore (900 m above MSL) was scary because the plane needed the whole runway. We bought and produced an aircraft that does not perform in the Himalayas sir. Please don't rail me with rhetoric about whether I want planes to sit it out in the rain. The Jaguars pretty much sat it out during Kargil. Do you believe that the pilots who approved it were incompetent? i don't think so but you must answer this. Mally Wollen wrote how frustrated he was when his K-13s failed and he had no gun in 1965. He wanted to ram the Paki aircraft. But we bought and manufactured them didn't we sir?

There is a story on BR how in 1971 a MiG-21 pilot intercepted an airliner over Delhi at night.

Sir there are stories of IAF pilots navigating at night with pencil, paper and torch. Nothing to do with cockpit lighting which you spoke of for LCA

Shiv, you're a doctor and know the spinal compression injuries that come as a side effect of ejection. Air Cmde T K Sen's career ended with an ejection. As did so many others. Do you seriously think ejection should be a de-facto fall back option?

Both the Phantom II and the F-14 would go into irrecoverable spins under certain circumstances sir. But they served their nation well. It is better to live with a broken spine under some circumstances.

Have you noticed how aircraft stay in a holding pattern until their wingmen take off and they get in formation?

Have you noticed the landing pattern in major airbases wherein aircraft fly circuits until they're slotted by ATC to land?

Do you know bases in North East and Leh where An-32, Il-76 & C-17s are on constant air supply missions to Army outposts and traffic is chock-a-block?

Even in busy civilian airports like Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore, while landing, you can see other aircraft flying in circuits nearby from your aircraft window.

These are precautions that Tejas pilots can take too until wake penetration is certified

You're being needlessly argumentative here.

You too sir. You too. People who get into arguments are by nature argumentative. I am one and so are you

[Bhaskar_T]

Well, I was searching the pic of CAS ACM Dhanoa ji with Tejas? I heard he flew Tejas today and now becomes 2nd Chief to do so!!

Also, Minister of State for Civil Aviation Jayant Sinha flew with Cmdre Maolankar today and becomes first Civilian to fly in Tejas. Wah!!

[tsarkar]

Ironically we have done that time and again for half baked fighters whose flying characteristics had to be improved by foreign suppliers or reworked because new armaments were added. At our request.

I do not know a single IAF inducted fighter whose flight characteristics were untested or unproven.

Do let me know one example

Such loose statements do great disrespect to our test pilots.

And before you quote the Jaguar brake unit housing incident, that happened after 1000 or more flight hours.

[nirav]

That something was done wrt to induction of MiG 21s hence same has to be done after about half a century is bad logic to justify delays in basic testing and validation of a 4th gen fighter jet.

Even if IOC -I level jets would have been inducted, so what ?
How would that advance FOC or 'help' the LCA unless the idea is to equip IAF with an untested jet and ask them to do the testing.
Is that what is being proposed?

[tsarkar]

Mally Wollen wrote how frustrated he was when his K-13s failed and he had no gun in 1965. He wanted to ram the Paki aircraft. But we bought and manufactured them didn't we sir?

IOC is dependent on flight characteristics and not weapons.

Having said that, Tejas IOC is also without gun testing. Tejas pilots too can be similarly frustrated and want to ram Paki aircraft if missiles fail. But we bought and are manufacturing 20 of them.

So its equal=equal.

While certain ex-IAF serving and retired officers could've avoided making loose comments, there was no institutional bias.

And with due respect to you, I move on.

[vina]

Sixty. 60. The MiG 21 type 77/FL that came later had a sling on gun-pack - not an intergral cannon

To be fair - the IAF was forced to accept this. but its a hard world. And real hardship means surviving on our own steam, The entire nation is grateful to the USSR but the IAF put up with a half baked product while the Russkies improved it..

Ok. I buy the Mig 21 "necessity" story (oh, that apart, the head seeking missiles the K-13 (kakoose -13) was a disaster and never worked properly , as did the early sidewinders.. without a gun it was practically useless) . But what about the OTHER plane, the one that the IAF sings absolute Hosannas about, which it swears by ? There was no "necessity" for that, the purchase of that and other items in the Rajiv Gandhi years (1984 to 89) directly led to unsustainable fiscal deficit and draw down on forex (financed by borrowings) that saw the country going bankrupt in 1990 /91 as a consequence.

The same plane came armed just with a cannon , it had a crappy radar that couldn't discriminate against ground clutter in the look down/shoot down mode, and we are informed that it provided yeoman service in the operation in Jaffna (armed only with it's cannons at that point mind you) . That same plane wouldn't qualify for the "IOC" standards that are demanded out of the LCA and got described as a 3 legged cheetah! .

A plane with no weapons, a clearly sub par radar, basically good only for airshows.. That was welcomed with glee by the IAF and inducted.. (Yes I am talking about the Mirage 2000 here, we inducted it and were willing to put up with a handicapped plane until the French brought it up to full capability in the subsequent years).

If Mirage 2000 is too old to remember, think about the OTHER plane which the IAF is ga-ga about and inducted and sat out the last major shooting war we had . Yes I am talking about the Su-30 .. When we inducted the SU-30K, it had very basic A2A capability and zero ground strike. Far less capability than the LCA at the "3 legged Cheetah " LOC (yeah, it didn't have thrust vectoring and the fbw and everything else).

So what gives ? Do the uniformed folks think the citizens of this country are THAT stupid ?

[shiv]

Ironically we have done that time and again for half baked fighters whose flying characteristics had to be improved by foreign suppliers or reworked because new armaments were added. At our request.

I do not know a single IAF inducted fighter whose flight characteristics were untested or unproven.

Do let me know one example

Sir every time a modification is made - like addition of pylons or tanks - the plane must be tested and proven by the original manufacturer. We buy planes that do not fully meet our requirements, find a defect and then ask the OEM to rectify that. Why could that not be done with the Tejas?

Such loose statements do great disrespect to our test pilots.

I request you not to accuse me personally of being disrespectful to pilots of the Indian air force. I have never done this and do not tolerate it. I also do not like being accused of things that I did not do. Please stay off this route sir.

[shiv]

Mally Wollen wrote how frustrated he was when his K-13s failed and he had no gun in 1965. He wanted to ram the Paki aircraft. But we bought and manufactured them didn't we sir?

IOC is dependent on flight characteristics and not weapons.

And weapons affect flight characteristics We have accepted the flight charateristics without weapons and have then waited for the OEM to certify new weapons which affect flight characteritics

Having said that, Tejas IOC is also without gun testing. Tejas pilots too can be similarly frustrated and want to ram Paki aircraft if missiles fail. But we bought and are manufacturing 20 of them.

So its equal=equal.

No sir. No equal equal here Please re read what you have written. The MiG 21 was inducted and used in war without guns. You know what was demanded of the Tejas

[nirav]

It's quite clear from recent posts that = = treatment should be given to LCA because Mirage 2000 and Sukhois were accepted in service while not being shat pratishat FOC.

It's demonstrative of the mindset that AdA/HAL/DDRO = Dassult and Sukhoi.

Dassult and Sukhoi have decades of experience behind them which allowed IAF to accept the non foc mirages and Sukhois.

In this case, the IAF has been on a wild goose chase even after giving some 50 odd waivers to the LCA. 30 years.
Still no sight of that impossible FOC.

We might want to think that ADA/DRDO/HAL are as efficient in delivering on time or what they've promised like Dassault/Sukhoi but ground reality says otherwise.

[suryag]

Wow the chief got his training sortie and looks supremely fit and what a pic sirjee

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/83 ... 72/photo/1

[vina]

I have said it multiple times. The record of the IAF in these matters is shameful to say the least. Just take trainers and look at the gory details.

1. They could have got a PERFECTLY acceptable Gnat based AJT (the gnats in the Brit service was an AJT) . We had a production line that was humming, we even HAD a type conversion trainer that was made, if we get the wings of the trainer version from the Brits we would have been all set. But NO, they absolutely HAD to go get the Hawk and they waited 26 YEARS before they got it. In the mean time, accident rates shot up due to pilot errors, many rookies lost their lives, people paid in blood, but NO, the IAF , was "Hawk" or Bust.

2. The HPT32 and the HTT trainer that HAL proposed and summarily rejected and the whole shenanigans on the Pilatus PC-7 and the subsequent pressure to drop the HTT-40 project is just too blatant to repeat. In fact, HAL should actively sell the HTT 40 as a full ground strike version like the Super Tucano to the BSF & Army and help them raise fixed wing ground support and limited capability and basically show the birdie to the IAF. Let the IAF run to the Swiss for the Pilatus support and pay through their nose for that. They should not touch it with a barge pole.

[nirav]

Excellent demonstration of how a determined mind can 'shame' an organisation like the IAF,facts be damned.

This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. Shaming the IAF for govt/ADA/DDRO **** ups has become acceptable on the forum.
That's the normal in here.

[shiv]

The Gnat was a horrible accident prone aircraft requiring a thousand and one modifications and precautions. But we accepted it and loved it. The Tejas could IMO have been given more rope than it was - given that we bought and made hundreds of unsafe Gnats, unready MiG 21s and underpowered Jaguars

Here is the image of the first IAF Gnat crash which happened in the UK itself. The entire page after this page lists all the deadly things that the Gnat used to do and the bullshit that was passed off on to us by the Brits. We do not seem to recall history very vividly

[nirav]

Shiv Saar,

For a 4th gen "state of the art" aircraft which hasn't received it's FOC in 16 years from first flight, an order book of 20+20+83 is rope enough.
Add to that 50 waivers by IAF as per CAG report.
What more can IAF do to "support" ?

[vina]

Ah, don't get me started on the "Rah-Rah" going around for the PAK-FA /FGFA / whatever .. The wonder plane without the required engine! We must get it of course ! It is "proven" , performs as advertised and is going to do great things .. WTF! The Russians don't have a reliable and competitive engine that can be benchmarked against the western ones either in terms of tech levels, reliability, thrust and availability and they are 20 YEARS behind. But no, we should get the FGFA by paying $10b. Yes. Also, we should get the "proven" Mig 29 K (Kakkoose) and also the "proven" Mig 35.

[tsarkar]

Ah, shameless liar Vina makes an appearance.

So what gives ? Do the uniformed folks think the citizens of this country are THAT stupid ?

No, its just that you're very biased and more blind than Dhitarashtra to truth and facts. And you lie blatantly to make a point.

Let me nail your lies.

But what about the OTHER plane, the one that the IAF sings absolute Hosannas about, which it swears by ? There was no "necessity" for that, the purchase of that and other items in the Rajiv Gandhi years (1984 to 89) directly led to unsustainable fiscal deficit and draw down on forex (financed by borrowings) that saw the country going bankrupt in 1990 /91 as a consequence.

A plane with no weapons, a clearly sub par radar, basically good only for airshows.. That was welcomed with glee by the IAF and inducted.. (Yes I am talking about the Mirage 2000 here, we inducted it and were willing to put up with a handicapped plane until the French brought it up to full capability in the subsequent years).

Firstly, its flight characteristics were well proven and certified by test pilots, so it was fit for IOC. As per your other comments about radar,

Here is Air Marshal Harish Masand's report in 1988 of MiG-29 vs Mirage 2000. He shot down a Sabre in 1971 in Bangladesh. The Mirage 2000 was inducted 1985, the MiG-29 was inducted 1987.

http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/MiG-29

MiG-29 outperformed the Mirage 2000 in "every sphere", parameters mentioned: STR, ITR, climb (climb rate). Range to payload of Mirage 2000 better, but MiG-29 and Mirage consumed almost the same amount of fuel in combat situations as the latter had to use afterburner more often.

Group combat and role specific missions: "Radar, IRST, HMSD, voice information system put to good use".

The same plane came armed just with a cannon , it had a crappy radar that couldn't discriminate against ground clutter in the look down/shoot down mode, and we are informed that it provided yeoman service in the operation in Jaffna (armed only with it's cannons at that point mind you). That same plane wouldn't qualify for the "IOC" standards that are demanded out of the LCA and got described as a 3 legged cheetah! .

More lies from shameless liar Vina nailed. Operation Poomalai happened in 1987. Mirage 2000 was inducted in IAF in 1985. It flew in combat in just 2 years.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ter01.html

Written by Jagan Pillarisetti

Designated as 'Eagle-Mission-4', the An-32s formated and climbed upto 12000 feet altitude. As they crossed the Coramandal coast at around 1645, they were met by four Mirage 2000s led by Bhavnani who had taken off about the same time as the An-32s. The Mirages were carrying three drop tanks and two Matra Magic II Air to Air Missiles, just in case the Sri Lankan Air Force made an appearance. As it turned out later, they were not needed

If Mirage 2000 is too old to remember, think about the OTHER plane which the IAF is ga-ga about and inducted and sat out the last major shooting war we had . Yes I am talking about the Su-30 .. When we inducted the SU-30K, it had very basic A2A capability and zero ground strike. Far less capability than the LCA at the "3 legged Cheetah " LOC (yeah, it didn't have thrust vectoring and the fbw and everything else).

Its flight capabilities were proven and attested by test pilots as fit for induction. Now, to nail your lies -

Here is the zero ground stike capability of original Su-30K. See the bombs?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... c.jpg.html


Count the number of bombs here. Hope your IIT/IIM professors taught you how to count.



Here is original Su-30K returning after dropping bombs with empty racks

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... k.jpg.html


And here is its A2A capabilities

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... d.jpg.html


I'm not sure of uniformed folks and citizens of this country, but I'm sure many members of BR are fed up with your BS and outrageous lies.

The 8 Su-30K + 10 Indonesian were purchased under a buy back scheme wherein they were to be replaced by MKIs. The K's were used for training pilots and engineers. The first MKI came in 2002. Any combat attrition would've affected buy back. Had the situation escalated, then they would've definitely been used, but they weren't. They Su-30K now fly for Belarus/Angola.

Secondly, IAF had stationed them in Pune and never qualified either the pilots or the aircraft to high altitude operations. That happened after MKI was inducted.

Tejas is also sitting out in Bangalore and Sulur far far from any border since 2001. It is also doing only airshows.

Do you have any credibility or shame left? Get lost, you shameless filthy liar.

When will moderators curb lies and dishonesty in the first place?

[shiv]

Shiv Saar,

For a 4th gen "state of the art" aircraft which hasn't received it's FOC in 16 years from first flight, an order book of 20+20+83 is rope enough.
Add to that 50 waivers by IAF as per CAG report.
What more can IAF do to "support" ?

It's OK nirav. i am not going to get into a discussion/argument over this. In 2001 a senior pilot of the IAF speaking to me and Nitin Venkatesh dismissed the Tejas as "Khadi Gramodyog". This is not about incompetence. it is about institutional attitudes. it is not as if HAL/DRDO institutional attitudes used to be great.

I have always been willing to say that DRDO/HAL/OFB need a kick up their butt, but I have never said the IAF should get a kick up its butt. Surely someone could ask me why I show a bias.

Forget kicking butts. Just like PSUs have a poor institutional attitude the IAF too has not necessarily shown the best institutional attitude. When the former Navy Chief Arun Prakash disses the LCA everyone has to shut his trap and listen because the Navy has done its part. But when the IAF disses the LCA, people do go ballistic because the IAF has not only not extended the institutional support the way the Navy has, but the IAF has previously accepted faulty aircraft and helped OEM's to improve them. No one wants to be reminded about that.

[shiv]

Flying behind in close proximity like this would not have been possible without wake penetration trials.


But never behind before IOC-2

Sir please watch this clip from the point where I have linked it for just 10 seconds. Tejas in 2003 on the day it was given its name. 2 Tejas in perfect formation in 2003

https://youtu.be/fEoKfMQzciQ?t=480

I can produce several separate clips like this over the years

[shiv]

[nirav]

Shiv Saar,

I agree with the basic premise of your post re - institutional attitudes.Much work to be done on that end by ALL players.

I'd still like to point out, AF wasn't as involved or supportive as the navy.

What did the involvement and support get the navy ?
For the moment there's a BIG question mark on the 6 naval jets.
I believe therein lies the answer.adequate support or not, onus was on ADA/DRDO to deliver.
Slippages in timelines are to be expected in such a complex project of national importance, but for how long ?
Initial blame for delay of FOC was put on Cobham delaying the quartz radome.that too has come from a while.
Pls do go through the link I'd posted which has Mr.Saraswats interview.
Most of the reasons sound like excuses and apportioning blame elsewhere.
Happens when there's zero accountability.

[tsarkar]

^^ Sir, in my post, I myself posted photos of Tejas flying ahead or side by side with other TD & MiG-21 with lateral separation.

My point was Tejas didnt fly behind any aircraft in turbulent airflow before 2013

I would be gladly corrected if you could show photos/videos showing Tejas flying behind another aircraft before 2013.

[shiv]

^^ Sir, in my post, I myself posted photos of Tejas flying ahead or side by side with other TD & MiG-21 with lateral separation.

My point was Tejas didnt fly behind any aircraft in turbulent airflow before 2013

I would be gladly corrected if you could show photos/videos showing Tejas flying behind another aircraft before 2013.

Sorry sir. I too would be overjoyed if you could show me one image of any plane flying directly behind another. It does not happen because the plane behind will not only be buffeted by turbulence it will also be ingesting hot exhaust gases

Behind is always behind and below or behind and to one side. Not even behind and above. No matter whether an aircraft is certified or not they still must take precautions not to get in another plane's wake. Despite that the best of planes can have accidents

[Cybaru]

Flying behind in close proximity like this would not have been possible without wake penetration trials.

Dunno about all this behind business, but its trainers, transport and fighter order to me. I am glad they are flying everything they are making!

[Lalmohan]

flying in the wake of a same size aircraft is NOT the same as flying in the wake of a different size aircraft... when flying small aircraft you are required to keep atleast a minutes separation between take offs, and four minutes if the preceding aircraft was a large one

the wake is essentially two large vortices that spin off the wingtips. in a large aircraft like a C17 or B747 these vortices will be massive and powerful... in effect its a function of the lift being generated to match the weight of the aircraft. a little plane flying into this cyclical airflow will suffer a number of severe forces - depending on which part of the vortex it is cutting through and how strong it still is

its not a simple matter

[tsarkar]

^^ Sir, in my post, I myself posted photos of Tejas flying ahead or side by side with other TD & MiG-21 with lateral separation.

My point was Tejas didnt fly behind any aircraft in turbulent airflow before 2013

I would be gladly corrected if you could show photos/videos showing Tejas flying behind another aircraft before 2013.

Sorry sir. I too would be overjoyed if you could show me one image of any plane flying directly behind another. It does not happen because the plane behind will not only be buffeted by turbulence it will also be ingesting hot exhaust gases

Behind is always behind and below or behind and to one side. Not even behind and above. No matter whether an aircraft is certified or not they still must take precautions not to get in another plane's wake. Despite that the best of planes can have accidents

You're right, no one flies directly behind, but close behind like this -

[Indranil]

what would happen to the onboard gun if that location is indeed chosen as the location for the additional hard point? Would have to be removed.

Exactly, my question. If you are going to AI-17, could you ask? In theory, they can use it has a gun station and hardpoint alternatively.

[tsarkar]

Sir every time a modification is made - like addition of pylons or tanks - the plane must be tested and proven by the original manufacturer.

Sir, this is not quite true.

We added Litening, Paveway & Griffin to Su-30, Mirage 2000, Jaguar and didn't go to Russians, French or English.

We added Crystal Maze to Mirage 2000 without going to French.

We added CBU-105 and Harpoon to Jaguar without going to English.

We added BrahMos to Su-30 without going to Russia

We added Derby to Sea Harrier without going to the British

We added 8222 to MiG-21, Sea Harrier, Su-30MKI, MiG-29K without going to anyone

We're adding HSLD to everything without going to anyone

So many examples. Point being once you know an aircraft's envelope, you can do whatever you want. For Tejas, that milestone was 2013.

[Indranil]

Tsarkar and vina, please temper your language towards one another. What good is calling each other names except attracting warnings.

Tsarkar sir, Tejas cleared wake penetration tests before IOC-2. Nobody flies into the wake of another aircraft, even when aircrafts is cleared for wake penetration. While refueling, the the following fighter is placed below the wake of the refueler. In formation flying too, care is taken to place the following following aircraft(s) outside the wake(s) of leaders. If you look at the formations from the side, you will see that they are flying in a staggered formation, not in a plane. One enters a wake inadvertantly, typically while entering or leaving a formation.

Finally, about the three legged cheetah comment. I respect the forces immensely and do not make accusations so lightly. I did not want to name names. But since you asked for it, IAF-chief Naik called it third-gen aircraft at IOC-1, a Mig-21++. Air Marshal Bhatia wrote an article which concluded with the following line: "Tejas would at best be akin to a three-legged 'Cheetah' on the inventory of the IAF". You can Google for them.

[Indranil]

Sir every time a modification is made - like addition of pylons or tanks - the plane must be tested and proven by the original manufacturer.

Sir, this is not quite true.

We added Litening, Paveway & Griffin to Su-30, Mirage 2000, Jaguar and didn't go to Russians, French or English.

We added Crystal Maze to Mirage 2000 without going to French.

We added CBU-105 and Harpoon to Jaguar without going to English.

We added BrahMos to Su-30 without going to Russia

We added Derby to Sea Harrier without going to the British

We added 8222 to MiG-21, Sea Harrier, Su-30MKI, MiG-29K

So many examples. Point being once you know an aircraft's envelope, you can do whatever you want. For Tejas, that milestone was 2013.

Striked out the wrong parts. We went to the OEMS. Formally sought permissions to modify. We signed an agreement that all our modifications will be shared IP rights. In many cases, we needed their help when the avionics had to be touched. In the case of Mirage, we cannot do anything without Dassault clearing the FCS, simply because we don't have access to it.

[tsarkar]

Finally, about the three legged cheetah comment. I respect the forces immensely and do not make accusations so lightly. I did not want to name names. But since you asked for it, IAF-chief Naik called it third-gen aircraft at IOC-1, a Mig-21++. Air Marshal Bhatia wrote an article which concluded with the following line: "Tejas would at best be akin to a three-legged 'Cheetah' on the inventory of the IAF". You can Google for them.

I follow developments very keenly, so knew exactly who said what when I read your original post. Hence I raised the objection that ACM Naik never said "3 legged Cheetah".

IAF also called PAK-FA third generation as ACM Naik called Tejas.

The adverse comments on Tejas were unwarranted, given the complexities of development.

On the other hand, IOC-1 was meaningless, since FCS testing was still in progress and the flight envelope hadnt opened up for reasonable operations.

However, IAF had placed orders well ahead as per ADA itself.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/history/genesis.html

By 2005, the Tejas had proven itself in the testing phase and the first order for 20 Series Production aircrafts was placed. A follow on order for an additional 20 SP aircraft was placed in 2010.

And 40 - 2 Sq worth - is the same what IAF purchased initially for Mirage 2000, MiG-29, Su-30 or Rafale and PAF purchased initially for F-16, F-7, F-7PG and JF-17.

[Kartik]

Lets keep the faith - Tejas flying with IFR probe

Both Su-30 and Tejas are in a high angle of attack flight attitude to fly as slowly as possible to remain in formation with the PC-7

HTT-40 sirji, not PC-7.

[tsarkar]

We went to the OEMS. Formally sought permissions to modify. We signed an agreement that all our modifications will be shared IP rights. In many cases, we needed their help when the avionics had to be touched. In the case of Mirage, we cannot do anything without Dassault clearing the FCS, simply because we don't have access to it.

Do you have any source, because I know for a fact that Russians were upset because we brought Israeli stuff instead of paying them to develop EO pods.

For Sea Harrier, I know the officer who managed LUSH. He is a Rear Admiral now. The British were planning to retire the Harrier, had zero interest, and and told us we may do as we wish. We had reached out to them for Pegasus engine spares and possible upgrades, not Radar & AAM.

Same for the Jaguar.

[Kartik]

I can't believe that there are guys still dinging the Tejas AFTER it has entered service and with just a few points to go before FOC is achieved.

Please focus on the capabilities of the Mk1, Mk1A, Mk2, N-LCA Mk2 and keep discussions healthy ! There is an Aero India going on for God's sake and this is the best time to get the most info out on these variants !!

[Indranil]

We went to the OEMS. Formally sought permissions to modify. We signed an agreement that all our modifications will be shared IP rights. In many cases, we needed their help when the avionics had to be touched. In the case of Mirage, we cannot do anything without Dassault clearing the FCS, simply because we don't have access to it.

Do you have any source, because I know for a fact that Russians were upset because we brought Israeli stuff instead of paying them to develop EO pods.

For Sea Harrier, I know the officer who managed LUSH. He is a Rear Admiral now. The British were planning to retire the Harrier, had zero interest, and and told us we may do as we wish. We had reached out to them for Pegasus engine spares and possible upgrades, not Radar & AAM.

Same for the Jaguar.

Can't talk about this in the open.

[Karan M]

tsarkar, that A2A missile stuff with Mirage 2000 vina, is talking about is not Magic-2 but Super 530D. It was widely reported at the time, and hence Vina may be old enuff to remember it (sorry vina!). The Frenchies held out for a big payoff apparently and then we got it. Other reports in some trade mags referenced the fact that actually France was not too keen on upstarts gettng same level of kit they had so they kind of held out till they got RDY and Super 530D combo which was superior to our RDM and Super 530D combo which India, Egypt all ended up getting. Supposedly (allegedly), this was part of the reason why UAE or whichever gelf state eons later went for Mirage 2000-9 variant, ended up getting Elettronica to do their EW as versus getting purely ICMS or some such thing. The Greeks werent too happy about their Mirages ICMS either, but teething issues are not uncommon and point is that these foreign vendors all hold us to ransom but their antics and shenanigans are rarely reported whereas our own issues are often magnified.

about su-30, the massive bomb carriage on the su-30k is fine, but at the end of the day, it was designed as a su-27 follow on for long range interception. it didn't AFAIK get the accurate RLG-INS integrated nav-attack system like the Su-30 MKI so while it would be a useful asset against area targets, kargil like ops were not really its forte anyhow. which is not to say it wouldn't have been useful. may have to disagree with vina here, in that su-30s may have been used at kargil, albeit in a hush hush manner, flying A2A ops. the N001 radar +AA10 combo + huge persistence would have been a huge advantage in bvr for sure. after all, much much later, the same aircraft showed its mettle at cope india.