LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2010 22:33

We need something like Derby and Vymple combined in one missile, that fuses IR/electro-optical and MMW seeking logic.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Nov 2010 23:37

Karan you have provided very valid points on MkI.

But are you also of the opinion that the IAF has the legit right to see how the Tejas MkI fares in its first squadron or two before it can order more till Tejas Mark II comes and is standardized.

If yes, then we are on the same page.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Dec 2010 00:05

All I am saying is that I hope the IAF is less dogmatic, and more pragmatic when it comes to identifying the potential of the LCA MK1 itself, and using it as it can be used.

In my previous posts, when I was attempting to classify the LCA, based on the back and forth over the ASR's and what is expected of the aircraft, looking through different reports, I realized some of the requirements of the LCA are quite challenging and fairly futuristic, even for todays technology. The aircraft capabilities are expected to encompass a wide variety of tasks and capabilities of a wide range of current IAF aircraft, some of which are heavier, more expensive and even specialized for certain roles.

We are actually spending heavily to acquire capabilities which are being provided as part of the LCA at a fraction of the cost, despite claims it is overbudget, and what not. Given that, I feel the Govt. of India & the IAF should both work in tandem, to use the MK1 to its optimum potential.

One last bit I forgot to add was about growth potential.

There is also the point that the ADA Chief or somebody made a comment about how the LCA MK1s could also be up-engined with the upgraded version of the Snecma-GTRE Kaveri venture. This implies these aircraft (like others worldwide) could actually see some gains in performance, without significant redesign as on the MK2 (with a larger engine). Avionics upgrades are anyhow, a given, as India has by now well established capabilities in the arena.

I do think a larger order for the MK1 could really "up" the combat potential of the IAF faster, than any induction of the MMRCA (which too will require a bug-fixing, maturity phase, even for the relatively tried and tested types) and will provide a good bridge to the LCA MK2.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2010 00:43

Agreed.

I think you are right. GTRE was only ready to delink from Tejas program when the assurance was given Tejas Mark I will be re-engined with Kaveri after the initial 48 GE-404 are used up.

Nobody is questioning the utility of Tejas Mark I. But I just wanted to know your opinion if it is fine if the IAF places further orders after an evaluation of the Mark I in Sulur.

P.S. Ofcourse, IAF is not entitled to be answerable to any of our opinions.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Dec 2010 00:49

Akash missile are theoretically 2 gen behind the state of art present day SAMs but they are only 20% of the cost of such missiles. Now, we have to see whether LCA Mark-1 at 50% of the cost of equivalent aircraft are :-
Better than Zero aircraft or not?, are they such rubbish that we prefer not to have them between 2014-2018 to reduce gap in numbers?? Better than upgraded Mig-21s or not? Better than trouble prone Mig-27s or not, even if they cannot carry the full load?

Then we can use the period of 2010 to 2020 to ramp up production of Mark-1s and switch line to LCA-AJT/LIFT when Mark-2 production stabilizes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Dec 2010 00:54

One has to also see that IAF was largely a user rather a stake-holder. If it can change with more investment attitude for a modern look, it would need a budgeted wing to become a strong stakeholder and do real role play in LCA -mks.

Now, the earlier threshold for IAF was India's capability to pursue a program like LCA all indigenous. Due to heavy DDM, public outcry, the Kaveri program was butted into by babooze to consider Snecma. You may ask does it matter 'cause IAF needs the puppy and it is getting delayed.. well haven't we all heard in the ddm for sometime "Without a home grown engine, LCA is not really wanted".. Now that feeling has been phased out.

It has been a learning for everyone, especially when developing advanced defence products like fighter aircraft which takes more precision than non-human-based rocket science. Aam people think, we are already advanced by jingoistic aspects of few flight tests, and when we take back seat when our neighbors goes ahead gets things from the khans and russkies, left right and center at 4-6% GDP on their defence.

IAF is right in considering the "available best" to use. At the same time, just by being a meek user, IAF will be treated nothing more than P-L-AF, especially when home grown products never fills gap, that may be denied without signing huge b@lls catching documents like CISMOA/EMU or better still control buttons at either DC or Moscow, that guides whether to attack a paki or not?

Some time it takes a lot of effort to learn.. and in the midst, we have DDM and its supporters which is actually causing more problems than it provides the right information to public.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 01 Dec 2010 01:11

vic wrote: Now, we have to see whether LCA Mark-1 at 50% of the cost of equivalent aircraft are :-
Better than Zero aircraft or not?, are they such rubbish that we prefer not to have them between 2014-2018 to reduce gap in numbers?? Better than upgraded Mig-21s or not? Better than trouble prone Mig-27s or not, even if they cannot carry the full load?

Then we can use the period of 2010 to 2020 to ramp up production of Mark-1s and switch line to LCA-AJT/LIFT when Mark-2 production stabilizes.

Arre bhai..it is not all about mk1's performance. Even if mk1's specs were equal to...say Su-30MKI...IAF would still have been this cautious. In fact, it would have surprised me greatly if IAF had already given orders for...say 100 mk1s at 20 acs/anum.

I find myself repeating my earlier post below:

Gaur wrote: Fielding a new aircraft is fraught with risks which cannot be taken lightly. There are production/maintainance/design issues involved which cannot be predicted. Even after decades of service, new problems still surface (Mig-29, Typhoon etc being few egs).

OK...let HAL manufacture 50 aircrafts/year and give IAF 200 mk1s as per the wet dreams here. Remember the initial engine problems of MKI for which they had to be sent back to Russia? What is something similar happen with mk1s? HAL will leave every project aside and repair all 200 mk1s which will remain grounded for how long? What if the problem was found in production line and is much more easier to rectify in production stage?

Mind you..some problem or another "will" be found in the mk1s. Hopefully, the problem will not be a serious one and could be easily rectified. This will not be because of any incompetence on our side but because this is a fact of life for all newly developed aircrafts.
But what if the problem is a serious one? What would this mess do with India's and HAL's reputation? What will this do to IAF's confidence in indigenous weapons? It will make Tejas and India a laughing stock. What will this do to the prospects of HAL to be sanctioned future projects like MCA?

So..IAF decided to take no risks and decided to get all the design/manufacturing/maintainance issues be ironed out first. The feedback from this will be used in mk2s to give a more better aircraft will less initial risks.

So, now let them first test out 40mk1s and sort out various issues. After that, IMO it will all depend upon when mk2 will achieve IOC. Some sources state 2014 while others state 2018-2020. So, all this gets very confusing.

// Added quotes later to avoid confusion.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2010 01:19

Vic, we have not operationalized a single squadron of Tejas! How do we suppose that the only problem is that it can't carry reqd. payloads!

We havn't finished weapons trial. We havn't pulled more than 6 Gs. Havn't taken the plane to 22 degrees of AoA. Do you want IAF pilots to fly the Tejas into enemy territory with this state. So if you ask me, IAF is very right in waiting for a couple of years when these parameters are certified. IAF can only get a feel after it gets its hand on the plane. The shortage of planes stings them much more than us who are just typing posts. I don't see any reason why they won't order more of LCAs if they find that LCA far outmatches the Mig-21 and the Mig-27s. But right now it is not there yet.

You blame the IAF vis-a-vis PAF/PLAAF. PAF/PLAAF don't have many options. Give the PAF the funds that IAF has and see how things change!
PLAAF itself has always favoured imports. They can't make a public outcry. That is a crime in their country. For example they are not ready to accept the WS-10 engines! Engineless J-10 Bs have been sitting on the tarmac, but they won't speak out. At other times the Chinese defence system has provided clones of imported systems.

We have gone the moral way. It has taken us time and we are almost there. However it is a couple of years away. As an user (where its not comfort, but national defence and lives involved), the IAF is entitled to wait till things get certified before they can put more pilots into the systems.

We have lost our patience and want to see hundreds of LCA in the air ASAP. The IAF is being more patient and watchful. We are blaming it for being that!

P.S. Gaur Sahab beat me to it

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Dec 2010 01:19

IAF is not a distant 3rd party uninvolved in the development of LCA. There are 10 planes flying, enough to give data to order way more.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2010 01:24

Those 10 planes have not yet proven it to be combat ready! So what does IAF go by?!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Dec 2010 01:26

----Self Deleted----

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 01 Dec 2010 01:49

^^
Why do you even ask. You know the answer already..SA-6 clone. This should also go into FAQs thread.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Dec 2010 02:02

Good advice Gaur!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Dec 2010 02:23

Gaur wrote:OK...let HAL manufacture 50 aircrafts/year and give IAF 200 mk1s as per the wet dreams here. Remember the initial engine problems of MKI for which they had to be sent back to Russia? What is something similar happen with mk1s? HAL will leave every project aside and repair all 200 mk1s which will remain grounded for how long? What if the problem was found in production line and is much more easier to rectify in production stage?

Why make such irrelevant, abusive ("wet dreams") remarks without even attempting to understand a serious discussion?

Who said order 200 MK1s at the rate of 50/year? The discussion as it stood currently, was about ordering a MERE 2 squadrons more after the initial 2 Squadron order, and that too placing the order once IOC was complete, and FOC was on track, so that HAL & private & WW partners would have enough lead time to deliver the revised numbers of LCAs by the time the MK2 comes out.

As matter of fact, this is also what SRai said earlier:

Summary of LCA Production run (2010-2025)

* 2010-2014 -> 40 LCA Mk-1
* 2014-2017 -> 40 LCA Mk-1
* 2017-2025 -> 100 LCA Mk-2

Given that the 3 squadrons of MiG-27ML (non-upgraded) and 5 squadrons of MiG-21M/MF are set for an immediate retirement (within the next 5 years), LCA Mk-1 in its current form is more versatile and capable than these retiring MiGs. It would make sense to order more of these LCA in the Mk-1 version to fill-in the immediate force-level gaps until more capable Mk-2 version is ready for induction in around 2018.

After having reduced a valid issue (replacing retiring aircraft with an equivalent one) to an absurd statement "200 MK1s", which apparently exist only in your imagination, you then note what is obvious.

Namely, a rhetorical reply of "why the IAF is doing what it is", as if we are unaware of the manner in which the IAF operates.

Even this is not accurate, as no MKIs were ever sent back to Russia for engine problems. The then IAF Air Chief Krishnaswamy made a public statement very critical of hyped media reports.

The entire point of IOC and then FOC is to ensure critical issues are sorted out & resolved, and its all too common even now, for the IAF to routinely deal with aircraft defects and sort them out with the vendor. So the claim that 200 MK1s will be grounded and HAL will be unable to cope is just hyperbole, nothing else. If anything, this supports the case for the LCA even more, as HAL is next door, and the IAF does not have to run halfway across the world, because aged MiGs are now found to have design defects.

Furthermore, you entirely miss the point that the IAF in the past has by holding out for the best equipment, ended up with force issues when its best laid plans come to naught. GOI procedures can also add more delay. New inductions will also need time to mature. Hence the entire point about ordering a few more squadrons of the LCA MK1 within the next couple of years as a decent fallback option, which will hardly break the bank & GOI can even fund it, as a large amount of money is going to local industry.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 01 Dec 2010 03:37

Karan M wrote: Why make such irrelevant, abusive ("wet dreams") remarks without even attempting to understand a serious discussion?

Who said order 200 MK1s at the rate of 50/year? The discussion as it stood currently, was about ordering a MERE 2 squadrons more after the initial 2 Squadron order, and that too placing the order once IOC was complete, and FOC was on track, so that HAL & private & WW partners would have enough lead time to deliver the revised numbers of LCAs by the time the MK2 comes out.

that the 3 squadrons of MiG-27ML (non-upgraded) and 5 squadrons of MiG-21M/MF are set for an immediate retirement (within the next 5 years), LCA Mk-1 in its current form is more versatile and capable than these retiring MiGs. It would make sense to order more of these LCA in the Mk-1 version to fill-in the immediate force-level gaps until more capable Mk-2 version is ready for induction in around 2018.

After having reduced a valid issue (replacing retiring aircraft with an equivalent one) to an absurd statement "200 MK1s", which apparently exist only in your imagination, you then note what is obvious.

As matter of fact, this is also what SRai said earlier:
<snipped some figures>

After having reduced a valid issue (replacing retiring aircraft with an equivalent one) to an absurd statement "200 MK1s", which apparently exist only in your imagination, you then note what is obvious.

My dear Man,
Why so much takleef for a simple post? First of all, the phrase "wet dreams", though certainly crude, has been in regular use at BR for a long time(for good or for bad). However, if you are highly offended by my choice of words, you always have the option to report my post.

Now, regarding 200 mk1s at 50 acs/year. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear...but I was just quoting one of my previous post word by word. Perhaps I should have pasted that in quotes.
Anyways...neither was the post directed at either you or SRai, nor were the nos supposed to be a jab at some figure posted by any poster. I posted after reading vic's post who seemed to be relating the order solely to mk1's performance.

As this seems to be a cyclic observation...I merely copy pasted
one of my earlier post which I had written in the previous page.

Namely, a rhetorical reply of "why the IAF is doing what it is", as if we are unaware of the manner in which the IAF operates.

Even this is not accurate, as no MKIs were ever sent back to Russia for engine problems. The then IAF Air Chief Krishnaswamy made a public statement very critical of hyped media reports.

Incorrect. MKIs were indeed sent to Russia for repairs. Check out the following article by an MKI WSO Wg Cdr A Srivastav:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_jpRroRLCaYc/TKdpn ... -Story.jpg

The entire point of IOC and then FOC is to ensure critical issues are sorted out & resolved, and its all too common even now, for the IAF to routinely deal with aircraft defects and sort them out with the vendor. So the claim that 200 MK1s will be grounded and HAL will be unable to cope is just hyperbole, nothing else. If anything, this supports the case for the LCA even more, as HAL is next door, and the IAF does not have to run halfway across the world, because aged MiGs are now found to have design defects.

Furthermore, you entirely miss the point that the IAF in the past has by holding out for the best equipment, ended up with force issues when its best laid plans come to naught. GOI procedures can also add more delay. New inductions will also need time to mature. Hence the entire point about ordering a few more squadrons of the LCA MK1 within the next couple of years as a decent fallback option, which will hardly break the bank & GOI can even fund it, as a large amount of money is going to local industry.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never "claimed" that "200 mk1s will be grounded". I merely said that LCA will be a brand new aircraft which would be fielded for the first time. And like all other new aircrafts, they would be prone to more niggles. Hopefully, it will not have to face any major problem. However, for such a new platform..not even seasoned designers can be too confident.
So, it seems understandable for IAF to play it safe and not put the whole program at risk. Afterall, mk1 will have impact on not only mk2, AMCA and IAF but India's whole Aviation Industry.

Even mk1's flight envelope has not been opened yet. So my point is that people should first let IAF test it out a little. If everything goes OK and still IAF does not order more mk1s, then I would be the first one to criticize IAF. However, IMO it will not come to that.

PS: Considering that my post (specially the wet dreams part) was not directed at any poster..and specially not at you, perhaps you would agree that you could have been a tad more civil?
Even before, I have noticed you to be a little aggressive in your posts. May be it is not deliberate, but sometimes the context is hard to guess while reading posts.

Just an observation.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 01 Dec 2010 04:15

Considering all the valuable information that all of you have shared, it pains me to conclude that Tejas will not be recruited in large numbers in the short term. However, in the long run it will be recruited in large numbers in future.

I hope that all low category Mig21s will be replaced by Tejas as soon as possible so that we do not lose any lives on Mig21s.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2010 04:37

^^^ You are drawing the wrong conclusions.

Everybody here is for higher number of Tejas. There is no short term or long term here.

When should be the right spread of orders is the question.

So don't be disheartened.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Dec 2010 04:39

Gaur wrote:My dear Man,
Why so much takleef for a simple post? First of all, the phrase "wet dreams", though certainly crude, has been in regular use at BR for a long time(for good or for bad). However, if you are highly offended by my choice of words, you always have the option to report my post.

Asking upfront is faster than reporting posts and adding to the administrators workload. I doubt this term is regularly used, because so far I have seen it used, thankfully, less. It just detracts from a discussion and takes it to a lower level.

Simply, my point was why interject an analogy of 200 MK-1s and what not, in a discussion which was not suggesting such claims.

Now, regarding 200 mk1s at 50 acs/year. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear...but I was just quoting one of my previous post word by word. Perhaps I should have pasted that in quotes.
Anyways...neither was the post directed at either you or SRai, nor were the nos supposed to be a jab at some figure posted by any poster. I posted after reading vic's post who seemed to be relating the order solely to mk1's performance.

Then please address them to Vic. directly. Anyways, as long as it was not directed at me, fair enough but this 200 MK1 stuff is clearly not a serious line of discussion.

Incorrect. MKIs were indeed sent to Russia for repairs. Check out the following article by an MKI WSO Wg Cdr A Srivastav:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_jpRroRLCaYc/TKdpn ... -Story.jpg

Boss, we are referring to different incidents, Krishnaswamy was referring to media reports of MKis getting FOD damage. This is a different case.

And its not relevant to the LCA.

Read the point - " and the cost of the repair was borne by the OEM. Since the aircraft was under warranty, it was sent to Russia for the repair,serving and replacement of parts". Do you think Sukhois today are being sent to Russia? The maintenance facilities are now in India & warranty would transfer to HAL with Sukhoi support.

Also, for the LCA, any product rectification will be done in India itself.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never "claimed" that "200 mk1s will be grounded".

Actually, these were your exact words.

HAL will leave every project aside and repair all 200 mk1s which will remain grounded for how long?

Lets move on, as this is a sidetrack

Further: in the not so recent past, the IAF has grounded all its MiG-27s, all its MiG-29s, and then got them back to ops status, this even when the original designer is out of India and HAL was able to support these efforts. What exactly is the problem with the LCA that it would be something different and needs to be treated with kid gloves. This line of argument is not accurate.

I merely said that LCA will be a brand new aircraft which would be fielded for the first time. And like all other new aircrafts, they would be prone to more niggles. Hopefully, it will not have to face any major problem. However, for such a new platform..not even seasoned designers can be too confident.
So, it seems understandable for IAF to play it safe and not put the whole program at risk. Afterall, mk1 will have impact on not only mk2, AMCA and IAF but India's whole Aviation Industry.

Again, this simply does not come together. What & how does ordering more aircraft after IOC/FOC have to do with putting the entire program at risk? It actually indicates support for the program, and the risk that will be accrued to the LCA will be lesser than the risk faced by the IAF when it inducted aircraft which it had no involvement with, and had to take them as they were, at face value, only to suffer later.

Even mk1's flight envelope has not been opened yet. So my point is that people should first let IAF test it out a little. If everything goes OK and still IAF does not order more mk1s, then I would be the first one to criticize IAF. However, IMO it will not come to that.

The entire discussion is hypothetical. That has been established & we are merely discussing a possible course of action.

PS: Considering that my post (specially the wet dreams part) was not directed at any poster..and specially not at you, perhaps you would agree that you could have been a tad more civil?
Even before, I have noticed you to be a little aggressive in your posts. May be it is not deliberate, but sometimes the context is hard to guess while reading posts.

Just an observation.

Well, if you use words like "Wet dreams" & then post immediately after somebody posts a serious reply, what response would be suitable. The discussion would not have arisen if you had not used that term to begin with, had been clearer about whom your post was in reply. And I have been civil in my reply though forthright. Anyways, lets move on.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 01 Dec 2010 05:07

Karan M,
Ordering more a/c after IOC/FOC? Then there is no conflict of opinion. In fact, I have been saying all along that if all goes well with mk1's induction, it should be (and IMO would be) inducted in more nos. The only thing that could possibility limit mk1s induction are:
1> IAF facing some major problems with initial batch. (Highly unlikely).
2> mk2 attaining IOC earlier than expected. Here the sources vary greatly, ranging from 2014 to 2017-18. So, I really do not know what to expect.

Again..my post was regarding the arguments (in various variations) that seem to come again and again in cycles i.e; "If mk1 is good enough..why didn't IAF order X no of it. Or why only 8-12 a/cs per year. Why not produce Y no of acs/year from the start? etc etc."
For that my point was that specs are not the only factor. So, I think that we are on the same page as we are all for max no of mk1s after IOC/FOC.

Cheers.

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 01 Dec 2010 05:29

Just a bunch of media reports covering this test...

Indian LCA Tejas jet fires close combat missile
Defense World

One of the main objectives of the current phase of flight trials was clearing the firing envelope of air to air close combat missile from the Tejas. The R-73 missile, which is the chosen air to air close combat missile for the Tejas.

The missile is integrated with the on-board Digital Stores Management System (SMS) and Open Architecture Mission and Display Computer. The missile selection is performed from the high resolution Multi Function Display (MFD) pages integrated with the state of the art on-board avionics.

LCA Successfully Test Fires R-73 Missiles
Outlook India.

"This flight test demonstrated important requirements of the user like safe separation of the missile from the test aircraft, no missile plume-effect on the engine operation, avionics and weapon system functionality and safety interlocks, aircraft handling quality assessment during missile release, and effect of missile plume on the composite structure," DRDO officials said.

LCA successfully test fires R-73 missiles
Hindustan Times.

LCA successfully test fires R-73 missiles
The Economic Times.

http://www.zeenews.com/news671473.html
Zee News.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Dec 2010 05:38

40 + 8 LCA is not a small amount of planes. It's more or equal to the Mirage 2K we have in inventory.They are in the same league as those or better, since we control everything. If IAF is willing to add another 20-30 odd LCA of MK1 variety that would indeed allow more Mig-21's to be retired before 2015/16. Remember we are also adding in about 20 odd MKI a year. So 32 new planes a year ain't something to sneeze at. Upgrades, MRCA etc make things look not too bad. I am not sure where this urgency of wanting things yesterday is coming from. Everything will get replaced, but it won't happen overnight.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 01 Dec 2010 05:49

Karan M,

Akash was bought only after it cleared all the user trials with flying colors. Once the data/results set in we have orders worth Rs 20K core. Arjun was moved into LSP production in mid/late 90s when it was not matured, production orders for it were not of any use to anyone.

And yes people here are arguing about placing orders of additional LCA orders "Now" of current version. Long term production plans were made and assured at the time of sanction of project. Those numbers may go into several hundrers abd no one argues against that.

LCA mk2 is being made even before a single mk1 has been produced/inducted is because LCA mk1 has decidingly failed to meet most important user requirements. It is a technological success, great scientific achievement, learning and MIC capability build up for nation but it has only very limited use for IAF. 48 Aircraft production is more than enough IMO to build capacities and refine assembling.

LSP and first sqaudron order is not R&D but production of combat aircraft for delivery to IAF.

I do not buy the argument that IAF should buy 100LCA mk1 at Rs15k corer (and spend another Rs 30K corer on life time operations)because they are better than retiring Mig21 of 1960s design. An aircraft inducted today will be in servic till 2040-50 and if it is only better than a 1960s plane it does not make sense.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 01 Dec 2010 07:21

What about replacing the bombs for the LCA with the new ones, which are small and lightweight. Will this not improve on many aspects like LCA has to carry lesser loads to inflict the same damage on the enemy? Will this not save on many aspects including fuel. Help in improving the range of the aircraft etc?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2010 07:31

Might be. But there are only so many stations on the LCA. Unless they can design an adapter to carry many of these. Looking at cost this ICL will be used for special uses.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Dec 2010 07:33

Similar to multiple ejector racks to carry multiple missiles, perhaps by reducing the munition size, the LCA could carry more.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Dec 2010 09:11

indranilroy wrote:Those 10 planes have not yet proven it to be combat ready! So what does IAF go by?!

If IAF motto is "I have no satisfaction" or that "Am too sexy for LCA" then there is no solution. Next you will say that they need to be combat proven by having a war!

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 01 Dec 2010 09:36

ramana wrote:Might be. But there are only so many stations on the LCA. Unless they can design an adapter to carry many of these. Looking at cost this ICL will be used for special uses.

Ramana, ICL is around 12 times more expensive than HMX ( 70000 Vs 6000 INR per KG ) but at the same time it is also 15 times more powerful than HMX. So even if bomb casing remains the same, the weight of the exposives inside the bomb can theoritically be reduced by a factor of 15 with the final cost of the munition approximately remaining the same. ICL munitons should provide the same performance with much lighter weight than the current ones and approximately at the same price.

Cheers....

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Dec 2010 09:40

Dileep wrote:Those pilots who criticized Tejas, never flew her.
Those pilots who flew her, never criticized her.

Dileep ji, your couplet is now famous, via Tarmak007:

Got this amazing quote on Tejas, via email from SAM, a blog member: "Those who flew her never criticized her; those who criticized her never flew her."

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2010 09:41

vic wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Those 10 planes have not yet proven it to be combat ready! So what does IAF go by?!
If IAF motto is "I have no satisfaction" or that "Am too sexy for LCA" then there is no solution. Next you will say that they need to be combat proven by having a war!

You are going off on a tangent!

An armed force is most justified to wait for a plane to be ready before it orders for them. Come to think about it. You and me will talk and fight about it. You expect a young pilot to go to war with an uncertified plane?! Only because it is swadeshi! Forget the IAF, ask that pilots family what they would feel about it.

LCA has not been certified in most of things that would be required for an operational plane. Its flight envelop has not been completely opened. It's weapons profile has not been completely opened. It's radar is yet to be tested! Not a single squadron has been fielded.

You are making a hue and cry why IAF is not ordering them in the hundreds! It's not about the sexiness of the pant here. the zipper and the wiast button hasn't been certified yet.

IMHO is doing nothing wrong for waiting to see the outcome of the operationalization before ordering more. IMVHO that is the way any mature AF works. I will say no more.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 01 Dec 2010 12:49

I would look at the glass almost full. The order of 40 is also a statement of confidence in a manner from the IAF considering - the full flight envelope has not yet been opened/full weapon trials not yet taken place/radar is being tested just now.

As has been said, the IAF wants to get the feel of the system, iron out all the glitches - both technical and production before going full steam ahead. After all, it is they who are tasked with defending the skies and have a better grip on the situation, not to mention vast experience in inducting new types. They, more than anyone else here, can much better anticipate the challenges.

Akash proved itself and results are there for everyone to see. So, saying the IAF will not order in hundreds even after the a/c is proven may be siding on pessimism.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Dec 2010 12:55

PratikDas wrote:
Dileep wrote:Those pilots who criticized Tejas, never flew her.
Those pilots who flew her, never criticized her.
Dileep ji, your couplet is now famous, via Tarmak007:
Got this amazing quote on Tejas, via email from SAM, a blog member: "Those who flew her never criticized her; those who criticized her never flew her."

Dileep chettan you are famous now

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Dec 2010 13:35

Austin,

Just a minor correction.

I would say Dileep is infamous for the most devastating lines addressed to the critics of the LCA.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Dec 2010 13:38

vic, please stop saying the same things over and over.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 01 Dec 2010 13:40

No no. I did not get the right answer. Why I ask this is because it's said that LCA is slightly overweight and there cannot be any compromise on weaponry carried etc. So why not utilize the same light weight miniature munition instead of the conventional one to carry out the strike, without any compromise. Also this may help to increase the range of the LCA and also help in the stealthy aspects while strike is being carried out. Will it also not help the LCA to better maneuver with this miniature munitions when there is a threat rather than with the conventional one. Also will it not save on fuel costs over a period of time and hence benefit in that aspect, compared to the initial investment made for this weapon? Why not solve the problems of extra weight etc using such ways as well.
Multiple MMunition can be on a single pylon, especially on aircraft like the Su-30MKI's.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 01 Dec 2010 13:45

But I will surely love a Nano bomb the size of a pencil being dropped on Pakis and that will make Paki pindi headquarters to Nano particles. May be AMCA will be able to carry so many pencils for Pakis.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Dec 2010 18:42

You expect a young pilot to go to war with an uncertified plane?! Only because it is swadeshi! Forget the IAF, ask that pilots family what they would feel about it.

Well I suppose it is ok till the young pilot goes in the War with Mig-21s or just wait....... the things keep falling out of the sky even in peace time like Mig-23/27s

Rahul_M

As the admin has issued the dictat that my point of view is not acceptable then I will say no more!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2010 23:45

vic wrote:
You expect a young pilot to go to war with an uncertified plane?! Only because it is swadeshi! Forget the IAF, ask that pilots family what they would feel about it.
Well I suppose it is ok till the young pilot goes in the War with Mig-21s or just wait....... the things keep falling out of the sky even in peace time like Mig-23/27s

Rahul_M

As the admin has issued the dictat that my point of view is not acceptable then I will say no more!

Yes please replace the Mig-21s and the Mig-27s. We have waited for this long. The plane is at the verge of getting certified and has huge potential. But please wait till FOC to get big orders. That is the norm everywhere. By FOC of Mark I if MArk II comes galloping along. It makes sense that the IAF gets more LCA Tejas Mark IIs than Mark Is. Instead of setting 1 production line for Tejas Mark I and one for Mark II, it would make more sense to change the existing Mark I production line to produce MarkIIs on two production lines.

But you are right we should let it be.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2010 23:53

neerajb wrote:
ramana wrote:Might be. But there are only so many stations on the LCA. Unless they can design an adapter to carry many of these. Looking at cost this ICL will be used for special uses.
Ramana, ICL is around 12 times more expensive than HMX ( 70000 Vs 6000 INR per KG ) but at the same time it is also 15 times more powerful than HMX. So even if bomb casing remains the same, the weight of the exposives inside the bomb can theoritically be reduced by a factor of 15 with the final cost of the munition approximately remaining the same. ICL munitons should provide the same performance with much lighter weight than the current ones and approximately at the same price.

Cheers....

Neerajb, I am thinking of the same casing shape to keep ballistics simple and use less cl 20 and thus add to the casing thickness so overall mass moment of inertia is the same. Taking into account the insensitivity of the compund this would make a very good penetrator to take out those deeply buried targets in Sargodha. This is what I ment by special uses.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2010 03:50

for A2G, we could keep the same shape and size, and increase the bunker busting poundage?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2010 05:00

For that you need more steel and less maal. Newton's law states the denser the round the deeper it goes. However need some mall to go boom. This would be ideal as it wont go off while busting through.