LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Jun 2015 18:52

Self-deleted

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 09 Jun 2015 19:00

AOA! What about the Right Wing? Two in burkhas to signify Night Fighting/ Beyond Visual Range capabilities? Or two in Mao Parkas to show All-Weather Operations?

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Jun 2015 19:19

Self-deleted

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Jun 2015 19:56

Hopefully this is nothing but some lobbying by notorious times group. ..only things worthy of a look from the Swedish is their subs and frigates (scratch that, should be corvette )their maal is always so tfta, even more than uncle...gotta give them that much

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2015 20:09

as I have said, Saab is welcome to setup a factory here or produce the Tejas under license in sweden using unused gripen capacity to speed up our induction rate.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jun 2015 20:23

folks please stick to topic of LCA.

UAV/Gripen etc are not LCA.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 10 Jun 2015 02:26

Grip your way to the Gripen

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2015 06:12

SaiK wrote:#JustAsking.. is this all because they flash those chaddie clad tfta girls?

No - your nation pays for imports by divesting people of clothes leaving people mostly undressed.

As an aside it's a curious thing that when white man sees naked Indian it is called poverty while seeing naked white woman is freedom and style

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jun 2015 07:27

^^^ GEntlemen no more discussion on this. If you have nothing to add about LCA, then please don't post.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 10 Jun 2015 07:41

indranilroy wrote:^^^ GEntlemen no more discussion on this. If you have nothing to add about LCA, then please don't post.

Does the two-seater trainer version of the LCA have the 23mm gun installed?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2015 07:53

i have deleted some posts.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jun 2015 08:00

pl. del min.. i'd not have asked without those image provocation.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 10 Jun 2015 08:11

Deleted

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jun 2015 15:12

shiv wrote: Your assumption is that you have come up with a new and brilliant idea to which I should become receptive and you are unable to flesh out the idea because I am unreceptive. Both impressions are wrong.

I have already thought about where "swarms" have been used in the past and where they might be used and cannot be receptive to the word "swarm" when you have not provided any details whatsoever. Clearly you have heard the word "swarm". Please recall that your idea was to send out swarms of LCAs. Please check Google to see under what circumstances swarm attacks have been used in the past and why every war planner is not planning what you suggest as a first step.

I don't even like your example of 30 targets and 10 radars being attacked by 30 plus targets. You have tippytoed around the details so that anything I assume can later be denied. Are you saying that 10 Chinese radars can be attacked by 35 LCA's because they can detect only 30 and will be defeated? What if 30 are shot down but the remaining 5 manage to destroy 10 radars? In a war scenario where there may be 5000 targets to hit - you are suggesting hitting 10 for the loss of 20 or 30 aircraft? You could always apply your earlier rhetoric here and say "Attrition is supposed to occur in war and why should we mourn pilots more than soldiers"

What I am saying is that you are creating scenarios that you are unable to support and either backing them up with pointless rhetoric like "Why should pilots not be lost" or by saying "I don't have the data". But you want me to be "receptive to the idea". More rhetoric. Cut it out please.

Typically an air defence scenario will be able to detect hundreds of threats and prioritise them to shoot down a smaller number of immediate threats. Yes the first days of war will mean "swarms of attacks" but those swarms will not be specially reserved for LCA. they will be conducted by the weapon platforms that are ,most suitable and against the most immediate threats

In order for this discussion to make sense, I will quote the posts that started it off for me

You are entitled to your assumptions about what I assumed which is your choice. But I have no desire that you change your receptiveness lack of which in no way affect me or the post which others can read and comment or not. And just because you are unreceptive so I should bow to you and flesh out ideas which you clearly indicated not to your liking as it might "endanger" your "precious" pilots.

You think war is a zero casualty affair esp with fighter pilots. You of course forget that even during peacetime we continue to lose planes and pilots, pretty regularly at that.

Now , it is a given that LCA , while meeting ASR in most of the aspects and by the time it is final, it may meet all the aspects of original ASR, it would still be lagging behind many planes that out enemy throw at us. While we could buy some of the best fighters that money could buy but not in quantity that we might require. besides they would be dependent on foreign suppliers with attendant consequences of timely sourcing of spare parts, prone to sanctions, and unknown chips planted to reduce its performance during critical period. So even if we get the best fighters out there like Rafale we can get only 36 which would not be enough for war time missions. LCA with limited numbers can not hope to compete with planes available with enemy aplenty. Besides they are their home production and would have high availability even if they face higher attrition.

If LCA is sent in less numbers against enemy fighters I would think pilots would have less chance of surviving. 36 Rafale against 100-200 fighters would be a mincemeat. I don't think advanced skill sets would make much difference when faced with sheer numbers.

So either we get more rafales to meet what enemy can throw at us or we get numerically higher swarms of LCA to meet enemy planes. This is a battle for control of skies. While there are other factors at play in controlling the battle field and skies, role of fighters planes can not be underestimated. The slight disadvantage in capability could be made up in numbers and that increases the chance of survival. Now to assume that when LCAs are moving out it would be alone and that no other elements would be used is perhaps a wrong assumption. While both sides would bring in to play all that they have numerically superior strength and easy replenishment of planes would make difference.

And yes, if remaining five destroys the enemy forces swarm tactic have worked? no. But you are assuming that 30 LCAs would not be able to do any damage? is that you assessment ? So what you mentioned is the extreme of the situation where numerically superior team with slightly less capable equipment wins.

Now to answer for Pilot training and availability. One has to plan long before war starts. Not all pilots wo get trained in peacetime would have to face the war and actual combat. Their job might involve constant training which would be equally streneous as pointed out. But if we want to enhance the number of planes which can go to combat we need to plan for more number of pilots , at every stage, recruitment, induction, training, active duty, rest duty leave reserve, deputations foreign assignments and also on desk job for planning. Accordingly we have to build our infrastructure. Those things are given.

If we don't have our own production of planes then we can have limited number of planes as much as money can buy. We faced attrition rate of 1.50% with Pakistan (1.82% :source wiki) . Training can make some difference. With China we don't have experience. During that time, precious pilots waited. IA faced swarms of attack. Even though they fought bravely they could not contend with the sheer numbers. Rest as they say is history.

And if there are thousand , like you mentioned 5000 or so, we do need to plan for that rather than burying our heads in sand thinking war is a zero casualty sport. Japan example is really pathetic. Did you seriously think that Americans did not resort to overwhelming force to a country with limited resources and land mass. They had advantage in that, its called local production. Germans faced numerically superior planes of allies and luftwaffe could not control the skies. But tide of war did not turn untill America entered the war and brought its numerical strength to bear upon.

However you are free to think that a single superhumanly trained fighter pilot can be sent in world's best plane to defeat swarms of enemy planes and come out with flying colours of tricolour , alive winning.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jun 2015 17:24

@Ramana,

Apologies for the late response, Karan has already answered. But here are my points

I'm against any imported AESA radar, that has not yet been operationally deployed. Otherwise its an unproven quantity. There are no AESA in Chinese or Pakistani service, so we have the time to develop Uttam.

Integrating any A2A missile will require work on missile, radar & launch aircraft. Equipment from the same country are typically designed keeping this integration in mind.

Integrating Magic-2 and R-73E to 2032 required money & time.

@Karan - for productionizing the hybrid MMR, I was given to understand it was a question of who'll take responsibility for the integration.

Lastly, Derby ranges are sufficient. The 100 km numbers for other missiles are for tail chase scenarios of bomber sized targets. The ideal BVR range against combat aircraft in real world scenario would be 40-60 km with missile having sufficient energy for the end game.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2015 18:13

tsarkar wrote:I'm against any imported AESA radar, that has not yet been operationally deployed. Otherwise its an unproven quantity. There are no AESA in Chinese or Pakistani service, so we have the time to develop Uttam.

Its operational in the PLAAF on both families - J-10 and J-11. Not yet in PAF service but the JF-17 Blk3 configuration will reportedly include an AESA radar and is expected to be ready around 2018 or so.

The EL/M-2052 isn't operationally deployed anywhere, but it is backed up by a wealth of experience in radar systems at Elta. That said, the 500 TRM count seems awfully low and I am apprehensive about the capability of the system. I'd be happier if they reached out to Raytheon & NG for a scaled RACR/SABR proposal (maybe even Selex too), just for perspective if nothing else. They don't offer easy integration with the Derby like the 2052 probably does, but since the Tejas' primary air-to-air weapon will be the Astra, that shouldn't be an issue.

With regard to the Uttam, truth is there is still fair amount of risk associated with the project and the whole LCA program should not hinge upon the radar being developed in time. The priority has to be maximize the aircraft's production rather than its indigenous content. Identifying an imported type for the interim (Mk 1.5) batch is the perfect hedge against delays in the Uttam's development vis a vis the Mk2, while also delivering vastly improved capability (relative to the current 2032-hybrid).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jun 2015 18:29

wealth of experience is only realized when a product or component is put to use. expertise gained to build systems and capabilities matured still exists, but these are not yours, but theirs. it is bundled into a cost that you pay later when you buy the product.

kaveri and uttam are not a waste.. it must be put to use.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jun 2015 18:37

>>@Karan - for productionizing the hybrid MMR, I was given to understand it was a question of who'll take responsibility for the integration.

The Israelis. Per reports we ship the scanners to israel for the initial few units, they integrated tested and shipped back. For rest, probably BEL or HAL can do it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2015 19:22

chaanakya wrote:
shiv wrote: Your assumption is that you have come up with a new and brilliant idea to which I should become receptive and you are unable to flesh out the idea because I am unreceptive. Both impressions are wrong.

You are entitled to your assumptions about what I assumed which is your choice. But I have no desire that you change your receptiveness
<snip>
You think war is a zero casualty affair esp with fighter pilots. You of course forget that even during peacetime we continue to lose planes and pilots, pretty regularly at that. .
<snip>
However you are free to think that a single superhumanly trained fighter pilot can be sent in world's best plane to defeat swarms of enemy planes and come out with flying colours of tricolour , alive winning.

Well no thank you for attempting to cover up the inadequacy of your early posts by this humongous confused post where you are informing me that
1. I am entitled to my assumptions and that you have changed your mind about my receptivity
2. You already know my thoughts and are writing them down for me - since I have not said anything of the sort.

This still does not explain your "swarm of LCA" idea whose lack of receptivity from me made you feel so deeply hurt.

Our exchanges are only going to get more acrimonious. I thought your idea was worthless and asked you to explain. You have been unable to do that but you claim know a lot about my thoughts and freedoms instead.

I am going to move on. That swarm idea and your assumptions after that remain unexplained and inadequate as an idea and no amount of involved rhetoric and trying to cover your base is going to get you past that.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jun 2015 19:42

Well one can not explain to a blind man what is light. It is better for them to move on with white sticks to beat around. Anything more will go OT and derailment of thread.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jun 2015 20:03

Its operational in the PLAAF on both families - J-10 and J-11. Not yet in PAF service but the JF-17 Blk3 configuration will reportedly include an AESA radar and is expected to be ready around 2018 or so.

The EL/M-2052 isn't operationally deployed anywhere, but it is backed up by a wealth of experience in radar systems at Elta. That said, the 500 TRM count seems awfully low and I am apprehensive about the capability of the system. I'd be happier if they reached out to Raytheon & NG for a scaled RACR/SABR proposal (maybe even Selex too), just for perspective if nothing else. They don't offer easy integration with the Derby like the 2052 probably does, but since the Tejas' primary air-to-air weapon will be the Astra, that shouldn't be an issue.

Viv, where did you see the 500 TRM figure, which sounds abysmally low, esp for a nose cone that fits a dish bigger than the f-16 @ 640mm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2015 20:21

CM, The Israeli news report remarked that there were two customers and the TRM count was mentioned there in.

KaranM, regarding the Uttam, DRDO has developed other AESA radars right?

Dr. Christopher was the Program Manager.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2015 21:14

Cain Marko wrote:
Its operational in the PLAAF on both families - J-10 and J-11. Not yet in PAF service but the JF-17 Blk3 configuration will reportedly include an AESA radar and is expected to be ready around 2018 or so.

The EL/M-2052 isn't operationally deployed anywhere, but it is backed up by a wealth of experience in radar systems at Elta. That said, the 500 TRM count seems awfully low and I am apprehensive about the capability of the system. I'd be happier if they reached out to Raytheon & NG for a scaled RACR/SABR proposal (maybe even Selex too), just for perspective if nothing else. They don't offer easy integration with the Derby like the 2052 probably does, but since the Tejas' primary air-to-air weapon will be the Astra, that shouldn't be an issue.
Viv, where did you see the 500 TRM figure, which sounds abysmally low, esp for a nose cone that fits a dish bigger than the f-16 @ 640mm

IAI executives have confirmed to Flightglobal that the X-band EL/M-2052 AESA radar for fighters is not only for sale, but has been sold to two export customers.

“It’s in production for two foreign customers,” says Igo Licht, director of sales and marketing for Elta.

Licht declines to identify the customers or fighter types involved in the sales contracts. IAI has described the EL/M-2052 as generally suitable for single-engined aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16, Northrop F-5, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, IAI Kfir Block 60 and the Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas light combat aircraft.

The applications involved in the first two export deals appear to fall on the low end of the fighter market. The key enabling technology of the AESA radar is the transmitter/receiver (T/R) module. The Northrop APG-77, for example, is packed with more than 1,500 T/R modules, making the F-22’s radar among the most powerful AESA systems.

Licht described the export versions of the EL/M-2052 now in production as having two different sizes. One is equipped with “something like 512” T/R modules. The other export customer has “a little more than 300” T/R modules, as the antenna “was adapted to the nose of the fighter”.

Flight Global

_________________________________________

I suspect their employing TR modules designed for larger AESA radars associated with SAM systems & AEW&C aircraft, unlike Raytheon/NG that are employing models designed for fighter sized radars, piggybacking on their massive existing production. The Europeans managed to pool all their resources together and created a common source for their requirements (UMS I believe).

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 10 Jun 2015 21:19

Will the LCA MKII have an internal jammer?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2015 21:53

it will need a combined system like spectra to remain safe in the 2020s....high end SAMs, AAMs and radars are proliferating.

could be one area where Saab has something to offer via their NG work.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jun 2015 04:13

why reduce t/rs on AESA on frontal real-estate problems.. one could always design something for the sides or conic surfaces. so, straight facing can be 300 t/rs, and 4 curved conical side facing about 150 each could add up to 900 t/rs.. it might add design complexities of course, but which is why they are getting paid for.. dunno about radar returns and interference issues on such arrangements.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 11 Jun 2015 08:34

Aaaand, here it is, ladies and gentlemen; the Saab "Make in India" offer for the Grippen, for whatever it is worth:

http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-ma ... ipen-video

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jun 2015 09:09

Ramana wrote:KaranM, regarding the Uttam, DRDO has developed other AESA radars right?

Dr. Christopher was the Program Manager.

DRDO (to my knowledge) has the following AESA radars developed/in progress

BMD:
LRTR - Modified, higher power Greenpine
MFCR - Localized Thales radar
They also probably have two new radars in progress, a very long range UHF one and/or an improved LRTR for BMD Phase 2

Regular
Aslesha - lightweight semi-active AESA radar, in production for AF
Another variant of above, higher power one on truck, for IAF, may be in trials
ADFCR - Air Defence FCR for IA, in trials I believe
AEW&C radar - in trials
Arudhra -300Km+ class, medium power system for IAF, one unit ready, in trials, IAF wants 8 initially
Ashwini - 200km+class, upgrade of Rohini radar for IAF, in trials, IAF wants some 17-18 units initially
Unknown name - AESA radar for IAC program for Navy
MMSR - Multi Mission Surveillance Radar - for Army

And then there is Uttam. Curiously, there is no High Power radar for the IAF to replace/complement our upgraded THDs. I believe this is because of limited resources and prioritization. We do have radars in the class eg the BMD ones, but they are apparently taking priority over the HPRs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2015 09:12

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1852874

Gun firing trials have got me worried now. Revelation that LRUs need to be re-qualified is very revealing.

Gun is same as one on Mig 21s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23

So its characteristics should be known. One would expect a loads profile aka spectra is developed for shock and vibration and the LRU packages qualified on shaker table. After design is finalized and build LCA stiffness is known and response re-calibrated.
Is the LCA body not stiff enough that vibration loads are higher? Whats going on?
Do they need the L version with muzzle brake?
HF-24 with 4 guns ended up firing only 2 due to vibrations.

If this is the case some one needs to be fired in HAL-ADA setup for this fiasco.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jun 2015 09:13

The LRUs that have been added late to the program may need the most attention.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Jun 2015 09:24

Gun firing trials have got me worried now. Revelation that LRUs need to be re-qualified is very revealing.

There is no running commentary on the program any ways. So don't worry. The golden rule is , no news IS good news! There was a video earlier of the guns being fired on the ground, posted on BRF too. The gun firing thing is the easy part. Vibration loads are easily quantified and in this day and age handled quite easily , that too with a proven gun that has been integrated and used in an airframe for like 50 years.

I wouldn't sweat on it, this is not the bottleneck holding up anything. My guess is that it was the radar package and weapons integration (also per the CAG reports) that held up the LCA most. With that licked, everything else is in place.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 11 Jun 2015 09:30

ramana wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1852874

Gun firing trials have got me worried now. Revelation that LRUs need to be re-qualified is very revealing.

Gun is same as one on Mig 21s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23

So its characteristics should be known. One would expect a loads profile aka spectra is developed for shock and vibration and the LRU packages qualified on shaker table. After design is finalized and build LCA stiffness is known and response re-calibrated.
Is the LCA body not stiff enough that vibration loads are higher? Whats going on?
Do they need the L version with muzzle brake?
HF-24 with 4 guns ended up firing only 2 due to vibrations.

If this is the case some one needs to be fired in HAL-ADA setup for this fiasco.

that report in your link is dated 19 dec 2013. considering it is a FOC requirement and almost 18 months have elapsed since that comment, i don't think either ADA or HAL may have left it untouched/unaddressed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2015 09:32

Vina, Am not so sure its a cinch. Hope proven wrong.

----
No news is bad news, for what are they not telling.

I believe tell me the bad news right away and good news slowly.
This way alternate paths can be invoked.

srin · Post by **srin** » 11 Jun 2015 09:55

ramana wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1852874

Gun firing trials have got me worried now. Revelation that LRUs need to be re-qualified is very revealing.

Gun is same as one on Mig 21s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23

So its characteristics should be known. One would expect a loads profile aka spectra is developed for shock and vibration and the LRU packages qualified on shaker table. After design is finalized and build LCA stiffness is known and response re-calibrated.
Is the LCA body not stiff enough that vibration loads are higher? Whats going on?
Do they need the L version with muzzle brake?
HF-24 with 4 guns ended up firing only 2 due to vibrations.

If this is the case some one needs to be fired in HAL-ADA setup for this fiasco.

I don't believe it is just the recoil handling, it is also to figure out the if it results in engine flameout due to gas ingestion, probably to calibrate & update avionics (Hornet shows a dispersion funnel on the HUD which indicates likelihood of a hit if fired) ....
As someone said, no news is good news. And over the past year or two, they have completely clammed up on updates.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2015 10:03

ramana wrote:
SaiK wrote:nice table for ref
http://www.cobham.com/about-cobham/adva ... sites.aspx

Most likely its quartz fiber in BMI resin for high temperature environment.

DRDO already can make quartz fiber radomes but with polyester resin. So most likely its BMI resin for high temp strength.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2015 14:57

Ramana,Rakesh Sharma said at one of our Aero-India get-togethers over a decade ago,that the vibration from the gun firing was going to be a big test for the LCA prototypes.Now that was known way back -at least a decade ago.What has happened? The great cock-up by the ADA/HAL requires the Putin treatment. But then our boffins/babus do not want an example to be made of anyone for fear that they will follow! So the "fraud against the nation" carries on regardless.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jun 2015 17:54

I'm not concerned on gun firing and recoil affecting aerodynamic properties when the whole platform is designed for relaxed stability. however, getting uttam radar and more importantly kaveri on board is the biggest concern. even the radome issues can be resolved using trial & errors.. kaveri really calls for precision engineering while uttam calls for miniaturization and advanced materials (hopefully they will jumpstart on AlGaN/GaN modules), and the extra power needed to use them.

we can't be bad on software. i think this is purely management, not putting the right resource in the right job, and getting the right things done per priorities. funding is not a problem, but planing, chartering and budgeting is. a reorg is necessary for failing orgs.. jee, we are in modi sarkar no?

a swacch gtre and a swacch lrde perhaps is around the corner.. while hal needs a daily swacch

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2015 19:02

I was a very early supporter of LCA having followed the HF-24 -> HF-74 saga. Used to scour Interavia, Flight and other obscure mags to get an idea of LCA progress since 1986. I thought after 1995 rollout of LCA TD1 its matter of time the plane will be complete. After the first flights of the series and IOC announcement thought its just a bunch of tests that need to be complete.
From the discussion in last few pages, what emerges is ADA wanted to design a flying plane while IAF wants a fighter plane.
In the last few pages we find:
- The whole aerodynamics is incorrect for the mission. Its draggy in the transonic region.
- A whole slew of irritants come up regularly delaying the project. The five milestones is an example.
Derby, radome, radar all three linked.
Refueling probe is also linked to radome mfg!
Gun firing trials this late in game even after HF-24 gun hamartia is not right. Was the LCA structure not stiff enough to absorb the shock and vibrations.
The reason given of LRUs need requalification shows a big gap.
Makes you wonder if it was meant to fight or just fly.
IAF is not the best customer but they seem to have point here.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 11 Jun 2015 19:45

ramana wrote:I was a very early supporter of LCA having followed the HF-24 -> HF-74 saga. Used to scour Interavia, Flight and other obscure mags to get an idea of LCA progress since 1986. I thought after 1995 rollout of LCA TD1 its matter of time the plane will be complete. After the first flights of the series and IOC announcement thought its just a bunch of tests that need to be complete.
From the discussion in last few pages, what emerges is ADA wanted to design a flying plane while IAF wants a fighter plane.
In the last few pages we find:
- The whole aerodynamics is incorrect for the mission. Its draggy in the transonic region.
- A whole slew of irritants come up regularly delaying the project. The five milestones is an example.
Derby, radome, radar all three linked.
Refueling probe is also linked to radome mfg!
Gun firing trials this late in game even after HF-24 gun hamartia is not right. Was the LCA structure not stiff enough to absorb the shock and vibrations.
The reason given of LRUs need requalification shows a big gap.
Makes you wonder if it was meant to fight or just fly.
IAF is not the best customer but they seem to have point here.

Parrikar has made it clear that the LCA will be pushed through. However, one can't help but think how long this will last given the constant irritants plaguing the induction process. There are limits. IMO, as privates continue to nibble around the edges of aerospace industry, HAL and ADA are going to find it increasingly difficult to maintain their relevance along with their projects.

If hypothetically SAAB teams up with a private company to manufacture Gripen NG, kiss LCA along with HAL and ADA goodbye. Aerospace PSUs will go into a crisis. Most mig variants will be phased out. Su-30s and Jags will account for most of their bulk share. Perhaps ADA and parts of HAL will be sold off and SAAB will partner with us on next gen aircraft.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 11 Jun 2015 20:09

RoyG wrote:
ramana wrote:I was a very early supporter of LCA having followed the HF-24 -> HF-74 saga. Used to scour Interavia, Flight and other obscure mags to get an idea of LCA progress since 1986. I thought after 1995 rollout of LCA TD1 its matter of time the plane will be complete. After the first flights of the series and IOC announcement thought its just a bunch of tests that need to be complete.
From the discussion in last few pages, what emerges is ADA wanted to design a flying plane while IAF wants a fighter plane.
In the last few pages we find:
- The whole aerodynamics is incorrect for the mission. Its draggy in the transonic region.
- A whole slew of irritants come up regularly delaying the project. The five milestones is an example.
Derby, radome, radar all three linked.
Refueling probe is also linked to radome mfg!
Gun firing trials this late in game even after HF-24 gun hamartia is not right. Was the LCA structure not stiff enough to absorb the shock and vibrations.
The reason given of LRUs need requalification shows a big gap.
Makes you wonder if it was meant to fight or just fly.
IAF is not the best customer but they seem to have point here.
Parrikar has made it clear that the LCA will be pushed through. However, one can't help but think how long this will last given the constant irritants plaguing the induction process. There are limits. IMO, as privates continue to nibble around the edges of aerospace industry, HAL and ADA are going to find it increasingly difficult to maintain their relevance along with their projects.

If hypothetically SAAB teams up with a private company to manufacture Gripen NG, kiss LCA along with HAL and ADA goodbye. Aerospace PSUs will go into a crisis. Most mig variants will be phased out. Su-30s and Jags will account for most of their bulk share. Perhaps ADA and parts of HAL will be sold off and SAAB will partner with us on next gen aircraft.

Ehh, SAAB is a private owned company and has been since it was founded in the late 30´s.