Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Apr 2013 23:56

vic wrote: IAF is doing an Arjun on LCA.

No. The Arjun production line was set up years ago. Where is the LCA production line? Where is the SP-1? HAL needs to get the production issues sorted out first. At least the IAF has stated an intention of buying 40 Mk1s. That is two whole squadrons with reserves. Not an insignificant amount. Much better than how the IA treated the Arjun Mk1 which is a far more complete product than the LCA at present (they still haven't integrated the Derby yet).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2013 00:03

The IAF is behaving as though the LCA will tank?

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Apr 2013 00:25

There is no SP-1, as it is not allowed to fly till LCA gets IOC-2 per IAF specifications.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Apr 2013 07:13

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=20078
which one?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2013 07:21

the bison and other mig21 flying hours will surely enter a declining funnel and will be curtailed for sure ... perhaps that process has already started...in the end for couple of yrs spares will be drawn down and retired a/c harvested for useable spares.

all in all, not a good situation to have 250+ fighters in such a elderly age and condition. we know the pakis have a lot of trouble with their Mirage-III fleet...thats why so keen to induct the bandar in good nos.

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 24 Apr 2013 07:56

Singha wrote:They are dragging it along so that a future crisis gives a portal to pull in more emergency imports like 80 more mrca and perhaps more mki.

vic wrote:There is no SP-1, as it is not allowed to fly till LCA gets IOC-2 per IAF specifications.

The thread surprises me as it saddens me.
---Is there any indication anywhere that the IAF is trying to delay the Tejas project?
---Can any one justify the purchase of a weapon that has not been tested and cleared by the designer and manufacturers for its projected tasks?
---If the first lot of SPs are produced and are given over to the IAF,but cannot be used because it fails to achieve IOC, will it help the IAF/HAL/DRDO/MOD/INDIA?
---Do the stalwarts in the BRF actually want the IAF to dilute the specifications and accept the Tejas as is because in their wisdom the IAF is incapable of deciding what is required for it to fight a war couple of decades down the line?

Having spent a lifetime in the IAF, I am just astounded and saddened.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 24 Apr 2013 08:32

^I understand your sadness, it is only natural. The fact is that people have lost their faith in the IA and IAF thanks to its overt foreign hardware loving attitude and reluctance bordering on hostility with regard to indigenous projects. That video from AI 2013 was just appalling, the way the IAF officer was spewing venom on HAL. Of course, HAL is an inefficient PSU, but it is the ONLY indigenous manufacturer we have. To air such dirty laundry in public and to humiliate them so (which will have very negative consequences for the IAF), all the while foreign producers who have performed just as badly as HAL gets no public criticism is grossly unfair and step-motherly. So, it is really surprising that people point fingers at the IAF at the drop of a hat?

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Apr 2013 09:09

I was also saddened when I heard about an FIR against IAF chief for pushing foreign products. I wonder what IOC & FOC standards were set for taking bribes.

IAF killed HTT-35 & CAT, is trying to kill HTT-40 & delay LCA to help foreign products like Pilatus, Hawk and MRCA. Agustawestland scam has shown that bribes are paid over more than a decade to change & influence policy.

Military affairs are too important to be left to military alone.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Apr 2013 09:55

For comparision of A400 program, the initial deliveries to French AF will have basic capability. Note that the delivery is even before it meets SOC -I(standard OC). Note that all the SOCs will be compeleted only in 2017. Compare that to IAF still thinking about

A400M Certification Imminent, Without Full Capability

...
MSN007, the first delivery aircraft, has been transferred to the flight-test center and is expected to make its initial flight next week. The delivery process, to be started in mid-April, is expected to last around six weeks.
...
...
Before year-end, the A400M will undergo its first upgrade to standard operational capability 1 (SOC1), allowing for initial aerial delivery and self-protection. That is to be followed by SOC1.5 in late 2014 and SOC2 a year later. According to Gautier, upgrades up to SOC1.5 are likely to be performed here because they also involve hardware changes, but later upgrades are expected to be implemented at the various main operational bases because they are limited to software adaptation. The final step to SOC3 will clear the aircraft for low-level flight.
...

From airliners.net forum ...

...
-IOC : for the first four - 3 French, 1 Turkish - delivered this year . The IOC allows transport and medevac missions. They will be next year upgraded to SOC 1.5
SOC 1 : From June 2013 onward, 11 aircraft (6 French, 3 Brits, 1 Turk, 1 German) and equpped with a newer FMS : They will be tactical mission capable, high and low air delivery - up to sixteen tons in one pack and will have a first level of protection ( passivbe alerting and flares )
SOC 1.5 : for the next aeroplanes from June 2014 onwards : FMS mods for air refuelling and the complete protection package.
So at that point, the M will be fully able to accomplish all tactical transport missions ( the strategic mission is already covered by IOC ).
SOC 2 and 2.5 : deal with the tanker-capability and the French Air Force has planned to have 33 of their planes with that capability. Two SOCs are concerned because two delivery systems are considered : underwing nacelles and/or fuelingt pallets.They will be implemented between August 2015 and June 2017.
.SOC 3 concerns, in the beginning of the Summer 2018 the automatic terrain-following and navigation system required by the Luftwaffe.
So in the early autumn 2014, the Armée de l'Air will be equipped with a fully operational A400M air transport squadron.
...

I think the problem with IAF is that it is used to buying fully built and tested planes, so it doesn't understand how to undertake co-development.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2013 10:06

But the fact is that ADA has still not provided LSP-7/8 to IAF for evaluation. How is IAF stalling LCA?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 24 Apr 2013 10:51

If I may use an analogy, a university thesis may pass an evaluation for a masters degree with flying colours but could be found wanting for a doctoral degree evaluation. ADA/HAL may be unable to submit the thesis for IAF evaluation just yet because the evaluation awaiting them is for the doctoral dissertation. One doesn't submit the thesis when one knows the outcome will be negative.

I simply cannot imagine the LCA being deficient for IAF's immediate purposes after what it demonstrated at Iron Fist 2013, that too being stationed out of Sulur. In another air force, HAL might have had to beg the air force pilot over comms to bring the LCA back to base after having taken it out for a sortie.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 24 Apr 2013 10:51

indranilroy wrote:But the fact is that ADA has still not provided LSP-7/8 to IAF for evaluation. How is IAF stalling LCA?

+1. "Debates" are getting more ridiculous and without a grounding in known facts.
Every person that is making a statement to the effect of "IAF needs to order XYZ number of LCA", please prove your credentials as an expert in aeronautics.
At the very least, point out a comparable example of a 3rd (NOT EVEN 4th GEN) aircraft that was accepted into service without firing a BVR missile and ordered in comparable numbers.

--Ashish

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2013 10:52

vic wrote:I was also saddened when I heard about an FIR against IAF chief for pushing foreign products. I wonder what IOC & FOC standards were set for taking bribes.

I was also very saddened but knowing CBI you can expect it to do such things , CBI does not ever file FIR against PMO , MOD , Top Babus or top politician because these people are Honest and have a Halo over their head

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2013 11:22

eurofighter entered service for years without any A2G capability. even in libya it needed buddy lasing my GR4.
so why cant Tejas enter service as a ground attack bird + R73 - in which role its more agile and new than jags/Mig27/mig21 and let the bvr radar and missile combo come in block2. as it is, the EL2032 and derby are ready products but integration is lagging...we are not developing a big new thing there.

dipys · Post by **dipys** » 24 Apr 2013 13:16

For a Long time A Bachelor(Read IAF) was staying alone. For food, since he didnt have option and no time to cook, he used to go to different restaurants(read Foreign OEM). Every Restaurant had its own food(read migs/jaguars/mirages) in the menu. Now a restaurant(OEM) will make food(migs/jaguar/mirages) only according to the owners taste or the local areas taste. For the bachelor if it didnt suit him, he could not complain, as he'd be told go to a different restauarnt. So, he got his own salt/masala and added to suit his own palette.
In comes a beautiful maiden(HAL) who was known to make delicious dishes(migs/jaguars/sukhois) as per recipe book(OEM). And make tall claims that she's a fantastic cook.
Now the Bachelor(IAF) and maiden(HAL) decide to get married. Now the Bachelor(IAF) wants the food(Tejas/IJT/HTT-40) cooked according to its taste, because its home made, but the maiden(HAL) cannot as she can only cook from a recipe book(OEM). But the Bachelor(IAF) needs to eat food(planes) to survive and maiden(HAL) needs time to become a real cook.

Now in all this no ones at fault. Neither the bachelor(IAF) to expect due to maiden's(HAL) tall claim, nor the maiden(HAL) as she only has experience from recipe book(OEM)

We have two groups on this forum(maybe even out in real world) who are continuously blaming each other for their respective faults..... but nobody's ready to accept each's fault and move ahead.

Blame culture will not help us.... its the solution thats needed as the way forward. and the will to work towards the solution. And in the will, i cannot find fault in either the IAF or HAL, as each is trying(stumbling but still trying) to do its best.

Just my thought.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 24 Apr 2013 13:24

I think IAF is stalling too much, there is no harm in inducting LCA mk-1 in full scale, an order of 60 MK-1s should get the ball rolling, in its basic form it's already far better in many aspects than the Mirages, Mig-21s, Jaguars, Mig-27s. Anyways the radar, CMDS, LDP, EW suite etc have alll be tested. It can drop already a variety of bombs and the only thing it really needs to induct is the Python-5 and it can easily take most of the comers in Pak.

Also, the longer they wait to have large numbers, the longer it take to have some meaningful tactics researched & developed where the bird's strengths can be exploited against a vairety of threat types. This excerise takes time. Looking at Pilatus Deliveries, hopefully IJT coming online in the next two years and Hawk training, would be great to have a new large batch of youngsters to put the LCA through its paces. We need a lot of fresh pilots to have a nice long learning curve and by the time Mk-2 comes online we already have some serious experience.

Also first 3 squadrons of MK-1 (60 aircraft) should have a majority of twin seat trainers, around 48 twin seater and 12 single seaters in both Naval and AF variants. 2 sqds dedicated for AF LIFT training and 1 dedicated to IN LIFT training (to be used from ADS).

First stage: Pilatus (Pure flying) HTT-40 (Basic weapons training)

Second Stage: IJT (flying + weapons)

Third Stage: Hawk (Flying+Weapons+some tactics)

Fourth Stage: LCA LIFT (Flying, Weapons, Tactics, Advanced Avionics)

By the time these 60 are delivered LCA mk-2 comes online with FOC, a very large order of 400 of these puppies will keep HAL busy for a while and we have ourselves by then great development + manufacturing experience.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Apr 2013 13:28

It is really ridiculous to see how the 'indigenous' argument has been stretched to beat the IAF with on the LCA issue. And on top of it, we've the comparison with IA/Arjun saga...truly a theater of absurd!!!

To all those talking about IAF delaying the induction of LCA, please answer this simple question - Is the LCA ready for induction in Service as a complete airworthy system? And I'm not even talking about integration of radar here. Just the aircraft and all its subsystems? Has the certification authority given its stamp that the a/c meets the IOC standard?

And this is the IOC Definition:

Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_op ... capability)

Has IAF delayed the development and maturity of the platform? Why has the IOC-2 date (and subsequent FOC date) shifted from one year to another? Why was LSP-7/8 development delayed? Were these not supposed to be delivered by 2011-2012 time frame?

Was it because IAF is holding up the product development? Or because the product development itself has not reached a stage where it can enter Squadron level service? And while I might not be the brightest crayon in the pack when it comes to aviation, even I can read and understand that IAF is not asking for moon here - but simply a aircraft which is w/o glitches as an aviation platform.

Some of the issues raised at IOC-1 and which were to be cleared by IOC-2 are (from Livefist: angle of attack, sustained turn rate (STR) and speed at low altitudes, wake penetration tests, all weather clearance, lightning clearance).

It is pretty easy to compare Mig-21/27 and Tejas in terms of capability. True, Tejas is superior to these a/c in terms of capabilities but before it can showcase its capabilities, it needs to first fly as a mature aviation platform. Forget the guns and missiles and dumb/smart bombs. Just the platform needs to be sorted out first.

What will mass order beyond 40 numbers for Mk-1 by IAF for Tejas do to the program? Will it help to expedite the development process? NO.

And before people even talk about ordering the a/c, where is the production line for the aircraft? How long will it take for the HAL to put in place the production line and sort out the QC issues - which are already being spoken about as per news paper reports.

And then there is the aspect related to spare parts - imported stuff like engines can be ordered in bulk and stored for replacement. What about products designed and developed in-house? How long will it take for HAL to reach speed where it can supply all the required spare-parts and paraphernalia to allow for up required up time for the Squadrons?

People spoke about Eurofighter entering service with only A2A capability - Has IAF asked for multi-role aircraft at IOC-2 level?

Everyone simply seems to be concentrating on the guns/missiles/bombs angle with respect to IOC-2 when the problems required to be sorted out are more fundamental - about the platform itself. Neither the Eurofighter nor AM400 were lacking in terms of basic platform when they entered service in tranche 1.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2013 13:29

in addn to the EF example above, the Tornado ADV marconi foxhunter radar had years of problems and it flew with cement balast in the nose in full RAF service.

I am sure more such examples can be dug up. the JSF has been produced how many around 100 planes now and still nowhere near IOC capability....all tri-services are inducting it and working out their plans and testing it in parallel as new stuff gets added in phases.

expecting a 100% complete product these days of "agile" and "spiral loops" is not going to be realistic.

the raptor is still to get any LGB dropping ability...restricted to releasing JDAMs only if some sw update is done.

dipys · Post by **dipys** » 24 Apr 2013 13:37

+1 Rohitvats

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 24 Apr 2013 14:00

The lament continues!

Singha wrote:eurofighter entered service for years without any A2G capability. even in libya it needed buddy lasing my GR4.
so why cant Tejas enter service as a ground attack bird + R73 - in which role its more agile and new than jags/Mig27/mig21 and let the bvr radar and missile combo come in block2. as it is, the EL2032 and derby are ready products but integration is lagging...we are not developing a big new thing there.

I can only shake my head in despair!

WHERE ARE THE AIRCRAFT?

Where are the first two with the ASTE with which they would complete the Service evaluation? Where are the next four with which TACDE can begin formulating combat tactics? Where are a minimum of eight with which a combat squadron can be formed - to formulate training policies - to formulate servicing policies - to discover weaknesses and strengths of the new platform and convert it to a potent weapon system? Where are the next 24 aircraft with which one can run a second unit and stabilize a 'Force '?

Nature does not tolerate prolonged gestation. If a baby remains too long in the womb it is likely to die. Its father, eager as he is to take it in his lap and to nurture it to adulthood, cannot help. Doctors are needed to perform a 'C-Sec' and save the child.

I retired more than 26 years ago and have no say within the current IAF. However, I can apply my domain knowledge and say that if the first 40 aircraft can be produced latest by 2016, the Tejas fleet will grow in the Air Force. If not, it will be difficult for the Tejas to flower as a system.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 24 Apr 2013 14:09

+1 rohitvats

If you look at IAF's order book, 20 aircraft in IOC-2 standard (LSP8) and 20 more in FOC (LSP6) standard.

ADA has been rolling out almost 1 aircraft a year since 2001 till today. Each aircraft is an increment to the previous and deserve. So I don't see an issue with development of the platform. It will continue to develop even if IAF didn't order the initial 40.

An order of 20 in PV-5 standard & additional 20 in LSP-3/5 standard would have made HAL to streamline its shopfloor by now, stabilise 100s of small scale industries, build training manuals. Instead IAF starved the program by not ordering the tranches.

Now compare these to Eurofighter program developed in tranches clicky

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2013 14:49

The IAF has already ordered 80 Tejas Mk2 which is actually the configuration that Mk1 was suppose to achieve without Mk2 even flying till date , that is an indication that IAF support Tejas program fully.

Tejas Mk1 was suppose to meet parameter for Mk2 that the IAF wanted from start up but since it got heavy and could not meet it they reduced the benchmark and let Mk1 achieve those and ordered 40 odd while keeping faith that Mk2 will achieve those laid criteria. Even Mk1 has missed its deadline quite a few times.

Now ADA and HAL have orders for Mk1 and Mk2 and support from IAF and yes the Navy too .....the ball is in their court now to meet the desired spec that is laid down in the time they promised ....short of ordering 1200 aircraft IAF did its bit by putting money and faith in the program.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 24 Apr 2013 15:40

Austin wrote:The IAF has already ordered 80 Tejas Mk2 which is actually the configuration that Mk1 was suppose to achieve without Mk2 even flying till date , that is an indication that IAF support Tejas program fully.

No Saar. Let me quote from the recent farticle - Tejas grounds AMCA.

At present, the IAF has placed an order for 40 LCAs Mk1 to raise two squadrons by 2016-17 with HAL which is the nodal agency for production of Tejas. But these will be delivered with the American General Electric F404 engines which provide only 80 Kilo Newton power.

Later, 80 more LCAs of its Mk2 version will be ordered for raising four more squadrons. The LCA Mk2 will be powered by the GE F414 engines that provide a 90 Kilo Newton thrust.

20 (IOC2) +20 (FOC) is a confirmed order by IAF via MoD till today. There is no confirmed order of 80 MK2 as far as I know.

99 F414 has been ordered in 2010 by ADA reducing any possible delays to the program without any firm orders from IAF.
MoD finalises and approves the contract in January 2013 and first batch of 18 engines are scheduled to arrive sometime in 2014-15. In the meantime we all jingos are eagerly waiting to see the first glimpse of MK2.

Also let us not debate MK2 is supposed to be the MK1 standard that IAF requested in its 80's GSQR. We all know its a different bird altogether.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Apr 2013 16:05

Ramu wrote: 99 F414 has been ordered in 2010 by ADA reducing any possible delays to the program without any firm orders from IAF.

This is as good as a firm order. Where does ADA gets its money from? MoD?
Who makes purchasing decision for IAF? MoD.

So unless, MoD is so clueless that it allows ADA to buy without checking whether IAF would buy if produced (which is anyway unlikely) -- all this firm order business is semantics, as far as IAF and PSU are concerned.

In fact DRDO/ADA is not responsible for production so, the engine order is not likely to be by ADA, only its selection is by ADA. These will be from different MoD (HAL?) budget. DRDO/ADA is only responsible for design, manufacturing is not part of ADAs scope of responsibilities. Its at best will fund the prototypes from its own budget.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Apr 2013 16:07

Ramu wrote: An order of 20 in PV-5 standard & additional 20 in LSP-3/5 standard would have made HAL to streamline its shopfloor by now, stabilise 100s of small scale industries, build training manuals. Instead IAF starved the program by not ordering the tranches.

And what would IAF do with those 20 PV 5 etc standard a/cs? Use them as gate guardians? Practice real time ejection?

Because a a/c which can not even make IOC, can not be used for anything else after all right?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Apr 2013 16:58

See.. if a product is architect-ed for TD, then it remains there.. the reason DODAFv2 looks at mission capabilities in JSF++. IAF can't be blamed, and nor the TD-ers. It is a graduation pain! Massans, will complain on failures, while correcting the defects.. we indics are keep on complaining, while keeping on outsourcing.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 24 Apr 2013 17:37

Ramu wrote: An order of 20 in PV-5 standard & additional 20 in LSP-3/5 standard would have made HAL to streamline its shopfloor by now, stabilise 100s of small scale industries, build training manuals. Instead IAF starved the program by not ordering the tranches.

Now compare these to Eurofighter program developed in tranches clicky

Has HAL/DRDO/ADA ever said that lack of orders is harming the program?
Why are we(unscientific jingoes as opposed to working aeronautical engineers) judging the IAF when they are not?

This is the not the same as Arjun saga, since both sides clearly took the battle to the media and then have had supporters/detractors.

In this case, the start of storm is a few guys shouting that IAF must order more LCAs, its IAF's fault that LCA is not in service.
But HAL/DRDO/ADA never said so.
So then examples are quoted from all over the world.
Who is suffering from the Brochuritis syndrome now?

--Ashish.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2013 17:53

Ramu wrote:20 (IOC2) +20 (FOC) is a confirmed order by IAF via MoD till today. There is no confirmed order of 80 MK2 as far as I know.

AFAIK 80 Mk2 is a done deal , IAF chief has mentioned the same in interview with force iirc , After all why would they order those big number of GE engines , I am not even counting IN order which will be another 40-50 aircraft

Also let us not debate MK2 is supposed to be the MK1 standard that IAF requested in its 80's GSQR. We all know its a different bird altogether.

This is what P Rajkumar said in an interview to FORCE some time back

In your opinion what are the shortfalls the LCA could be facing currently because of an underpowered engine?

Lack of engine power leads to lack of performance. The main shortcoming would probably be in manoeuvring flight and the ability to take off with the required load from runways in hot and high conditions. There will be increase in time to climb to height and it won’t accelerate as fast. So the Indian Air Force (IAF) in its wisdom has said that they are not happy with the performance of the LCA with its current engine. One of the points mentioned is that the sustained turn rate has been lower than specified. One must understand that the performance parameters laid down in the Air Staff Requirement (ASR) have been arrived after a lot of debate in Air Headquarters. I don’t understand the argument of reducing the payload to meet performance. The IAF requires a certain level of performance to be delivered for the payload that is being asked for. Engine power is important and having arrived at the conclusion that thrust on the current GE-404 engine is insufficient, it is the GE-F-414 that has been chosen.

Now thrust is proportional to fuel consumption and increased thrust will lead to increased fuel consumption which will have a bearing on mission performance. Having a more powerful engine does not automatically increase performance.

What changes will the choice of a new engine require for the LCA Mk-2?

With regards to the LCA Mk-2 there will be design changes and all design changes will lead to a weight penalty. The outcome of this design exercise that ADA is undertaking on the LCA Mk-2 is yet to be seen. The LCA Mk-2 will have a slighter longer fuselage and may carry more fuel as well. Will the weight go up, will they add more fuel, will the aircraft be able to offer the performance demanded by the IAF with an engine offering more thrust and higher fuel consumption are questions I cannot answer, as these details have not been made public. We could however use this opportunity to lengthen the fuselage, look at the wave drag to improve aerodynamics, put a wider chord on the wings to generate more lift, etc. However, this would then essentially result in a new aircraft but it will be a more capable aircraft and this is a good opportunity to do so. The slightly larger LCA Mk-2 can also include essential operational equipment without which the LCA Mk-2 will not be able to fulfill its operational role. These changes would lead to increase in the All Up Weight (AUW) and result in the LCA Mk-2 being different from Mk-1 by 25 per cent.

By when do you see these changes being completed and the LCA Mk-2 taking to the air with the GE-F414 engine?

I will be extremely happy if the LCA Mk-2 flies by 2015 and all these changes are completed in the next five years. If they are changes in chord of wing and length of fuselage, then the FCS will also need changes. All these would again require flight testing, though not as extensive as that of the LCA Mk-1. This will require a flight test schedule that will take 2 to 2.5 years in my opinion. The LCA Mk-2 would then attain operational capability by 2018 and enter operational service with the IAF by 2020. If we can achieve this, it would be commendable.

What needs to be done to improve performance and reduce the weight of the LCA?

The way to go about increasing the LCA’s performance is by reducing its drag and weight including structural weight but this is a long drawn out exercise. The entire aircraft has to be instrumented so we can measure the loads existing in flight and then compare the data with design loads that have been catered for. A particular part of the structure could have been made too strong and another part too weak. So we have to perform a structural optimisation exercise that usually results in reduction in weight. The aerodynamic optimisation will lead to some configuration changes. Unfortunately our aeronautical institutions from the days of the HT-2 have never undertaken the task of measuring the aerodynamic loads during flight and optimising the structure. We did not do it for the ‘Marut’ or the ‘Kiran’. I have always maintained that performing a structural optimisation exercise is the way to go. I am told that it is a time consuming exercise, but we have to start from somewhere. There is no easy way out. You can also reduce weight by looking at the Line Replaceable Units (LCA), Head-Up Displays (HUD), and Mission Computers etc.

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Apr 2013 19:55

Singha wrote:in addn to the EF example above, the Tornado ADV marconi foxhunter radar had years of problems and it flew with cement balast in the nose in full RAF service.

I am sure more such examples can be dug up. the JSF has been produced how many around 100 planes now and still nowhere near IOC capability....all tri-services are inducting it and working out their plans and testing it in parallel as new stuff gets added in phases.

expecting a 100% complete product these days of "agile" and "spiral loops" is not going to be realistic.

the raptor is still to get any LGB dropping ability...restricted to releasing JDAMs only if some sw update is done.

Up

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 24 Apr 2013 20:03

Abhibhushan wrote: I can only shake my head in despair!

WHERE ARE THE AIRCRAFT?

Where are the first two with the ASTE with which they would complete the Service evaluation? Where are the next four with which TACDE can begin formulating combat tactics? Where are a minimum of eight with which a combat squadron can be formed - to formulate training policies - to formulate servicing policies - to discover weaknesses and strengths of the new platform and convert it to a potent weapon system? Where are the next 24 aircraft with which one can run a second unit and stabilize a 'Force '?

Nature does not tolerate prolonged gestation. If a baby remains too long in the womb it is likely to die. Its father, eager as he is to take it in his lap and to nurture it to adulthood, cannot help. Doctors are needed to perform a 'C-Sec' and save the child.

I retired more than 26 years ago and have no say within the current IAF. However, I can apply my domain knowledge and say that if the first 40 aircraft can be produced latest by 2016, the Tejas fleet will grow in the Air Force. If not, it will be difficult for the Tejas to flower as a system.

+1. Right now, instead of lamenting the lack of apparent progress on LCA, one has to lament on the quality of posts.

In entire India, who other than BR forum is demanding the placing order for more LCAs?
Not DRDO(who clearly said IA needs to place more orders for Arjun), not ADA, not HAL, not MOD, not KH, APJ Kalam, not Saraswat ~~(one who clearly said IA needs to place more orders for Arjun)~~
(Note: Stand corrected. Could not find any such link attributed to Saraswat. Either heard it on news or must have been mistaken.)
No recognized aeronautical engineer claims that IAF's not placing order has hurt LCA's development.

I don't understand where this more-order-for-lca demand comes from?
A dissatisfied jingo wakes up one morning and says "If only IAF placed orders for more LCA's, it would solve all our problems" ?

Then there are the follow-on allegations.
"Since IAF has not placed more orders, something is wrong.
Wait a minute ... IA is doing something similar ..
Thats it ... IAF is corrupt.
It must be the case. There is no other explanation"

Talk about building castles in air.

--Ashish

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Apr 2013 21:08

Abhibhushan wrote:The lament continues!

abhibhushan wrote: I can only shake my head in despair!

WHERE ARE THE AIRCRAFT?

Where are the first two with the ASTE with which they would complete the Service evaluation? Where are the next four with which TACDE can begin formulating combat tactics? Where are a minimum of eight with which a combat squadron can be formed - to formulate training policies - to formulate servicing policies - to discover weaknesses and strengths of the new platform and convert it to a potent weapon system? Where are the next 24 aircraft with which one can run a second unit and stabilize a 'Force '?

Nature does not tolerate prolonged gestation. If a baby remains too long in the womb it is likely to die. Its father, eager as he is to take it in his lap and to nurture it to adulthood, cannot help. Doctors are needed to perform a 'C-Sec' and save the child.

I retired more than 26 years ago and have no say within the current IAF. However, I can apply my domain knowledge and say that if the first 40 aircraft can be produced latest by 2016, the Tejas fleet will grow in the Air Force. If not, it will be difficult for the Tejas to flower as a system.

Why 2016 specifically for the first 40? And sir, aren't you setting it up for failure by saying all 40 by 2016 knowing fully well that it will achieve FOC by 2015? It cannot be done, no at the existing assembly rate of 8 per year. With the first SP's being manufactured for delivery to ASTE by 2014 my estimate is that it will be 2017 by when all 40 Tejas Mk1s are delivered.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Apr 2013 21:27

Sanku wrote:
Ramu wrote: An order of 20 in PV-5 standard & additional 20 in LSP-3/5 standard would have made HAL to streamline its shopfloor by now, stabilise 100s of small scale industries, build training manuals. Instead IAF starved the program by not ordering the tranches.
And what would IAF do with those 20 PV 5 etc standard a/cs? Use them as gate guardians? Practice real time ejection?

Because a a/c which can not even make IOC, can not be used for anything else after all right?

It won't be the first time in the IAF's glorious history that it has bought an aircraft that had severe teething troubles (Gnat anybody?) or ended up needing to be upgraded within no time of induction (the seriously underpowered Jag that needed DARIN nearly as soon as it entered service). Did they end up being gate guardians right at that point or did the IAF buckle down and tackle the issues on hand?

Had the first batch of 20 Tejas Mk1 been ordered at an earlier SoP (standard of preparation) spec, long lead items (most of which won't change anyway on the current SP level of preparation) could have been ordered long ago and the entire schedule could have been dragged to the left. Concurrent work would have been possible to change parts that had been modified on the SP level of prep. By now the ASTE would have had a couple of the Tejas Mk1 in hand (with some operational envelope limitations since it hasn't yet achieved FOC) but the bulk of the avionics and performance points could still have been tested and evaluated.

Even the F-35 hasn't achieved FOC but already 40 odd have been delivered for evaluation and training.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Apr 2013 21:56

Misraji wrote:, not Saraswat (one who clearly said IA needs to place more orders for Arjun)
No recognized aeronautical engineer claims that IAF's not placing order has hurt LCA's development.

Can you please, provide a quote for this.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 24 Apr 2013 21:59

Kartik wrote:
Sanku wrote: And what would IAF do with those 20 PV 5 etc standard a/cs? Use them as gate guardians? Practice real time ejection?

Because a a/c which can not even make IOC, can not be used for anything else after all right?

Had the first batch of 20 Tejas Mk1 been ordered at an earlier SoP (standard of preparation) spec, long lead items (most of which won't change anyway on the current SP level of preparation) could have been ordered long ago and the entire schedule could have been dragged to the left. Concurrent work would have been possible to change parts that had been modified on the SP level of prep. By now the ASTE would have had a couple of the Tejas Mk1 in hand (with some operational envelope limitations since it hasn't yet achieved FOC) but the bulk of the avionics and performance points could still have been tested and evaluated.

@ Kartik: weren't LSP7 and 8 always meant for IAF evaluation?

Also, ordering 20 PV5 standard A/C would not have been very useful as PV5 simply wasn't mature enough (no autopilot, radar, etc.). IMHO the first 20 SP's were supposed to be of LSP5 standard which was mature enough (with some additional tests that would have been performed by the time SP's would have started rolling out). But the delay in the last two LSP's seems to have put the entire program behind by about two years. Actually as the primer on both LSP 7 and 8 looked oldish, I would say that HAL had most of airframes ready within time and the delay was just in the fitting of various interior stuff like piping, wiring (along with the fuel leak and ejector seat issue).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2013 00:20

Kartik wrote:
It won't be the first time in the IAF's glorious history that it has bought an aircraft that had severe teething troubles (Gnat anybody?) or ended up needing to be upgraded within no time of induction (the seriously underpowered Jag that needed DARIN nearly as soon as it entered service). Did they end up being gate guardians right at that point or did the IAF buckle down and tackle the issues on hand?

Had the first batch of 20 Tejas Mk1 been ordered at an earlier SoP (standard of preparation) spec, long lead items (most of which won't change anyway on the current SP level of preparation) could have been ordered long ago and the entire schedule could have been dragged to the left. Concurrent work would have been possible to change parts that had been modified on the SP level of prep. By now the ASTE would have had a couple of the Tejas Mk1 in hand (with some operational envelope limitations since it hasn't yet achieved FOC) but the bulk of the avionics and performance points could still have been tested and evaluated.

Even the F-35 hasn't achieved FOC but already 40 odd have been delivered for evaluation and training.

Kartik,

I also feel that IAF could have taken higher ownership of the project. I, myself have posted before lamenting the fact that a squadron worth of LCAs should have been "operational" with the IAF by now. The goal of this squadron is not to fight wars. They would fly only up to the opened up envelop. Its goal is to just provide user feedback for the aircraft operational at squadron level (and there will always be many) and to niggle out problems with the assembly line. Therefore, IAF could have accelerated operationalizing of LCA. The ASTE after all is providing as many pilots as ADA requires for the program.

But, has IAF slowed down LCA. IMHO. No. HAL/ADA have a lot of blame to take. And some problem lies with our industrial capability. The components on LCA are not standardized yet. LSP-7 and LSP-8 were supposed to be identical to LSP-5 (which was supposed to be IOC-standard). Now, if your flight critical components are changing, how will you set up an assembly line. Explains, why they have waited till LSP-8 to fly till they start building the assembly line and also Dr. Saraswat's rant on the components of LCA.

Also HAL has always pushed aside IAF interference into running the project. You are definitely aware of IAF wanting to put somebody at the top to oversee the project, but HAL pushed hard to not let that happen.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Apr 2013 01:41

The comments by Air Marshal Rajkumar posted above by Austin are a sobering eye opener.

The LCA Mk1 is not structurally and aerodynamically efficient enough to carry any meaningful loads while meeting basic combat flight characteristics (climb rate and acceleration), specially in hot & high conditions. It is hoped that a more powerful engine will solve this problem but there is no guarantee that it will because the aircraft will need to add even more weight (longer fuselage, bigger wings) to handle the new engine. This will result in a 25% heavier aircraft and may bring us back to square one. The reason for this situation is "our aeronautical institutions" decision not to go in for structural optimization testing with prototypes becaue "it is a time consuming exercise"! We are therefore attempting to design the LCA with the same level of trial-and-error with no effective feedback data that we used for the HT-2! If true, this is a serious situation which can't be rectified on the LCA because it is too late in the process. It looks like it will remain a sub-optimal aircraft that may never reach FOC.

Contrary to what folks are saying here about other TFTA planes, this is not about lacking a radar here or an engine there. This is a fundamental development shortcoming. Even the LCA2 may unfortunately be a lost cause but I hope that by some miracle, it meets the requirements of a basic fighter and enters service.

To order the LCA as is, or worse an earlier iteration, would be a dumb thing for the IAF to do with it's allocated resources. It is to their credit that they still ordered enough for a few squadrons, even if they will not be based anywhere near a threat zone. It is also an extremely callous attitude for internet-enabled civilians to take and I am ashamed to see so many on BR suggesting that our pilots should put their lives on the line on an unproven aircraft. I think enough have died already because of the proven failings of our "aeronautical institutions". It is foolish bringing in the Gnat as an example of a half-baked aircraft that we took risks with. In those days we were beggars, today we are choosers.

FWIW, this could be why the MCA was cancelled and Thank God for that.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Apr 2013 01:53

Once again we have hyperbole on the LCA risking lives. Who should be ashamed about making callous, disingenuous, statements like this?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Apr 2013 01:55

Victor wrote:The comments by Air Marshal Rajkumar posted above by Austin are a sobering eye opener.

The LCA Mk1 is not structurally and aerodynamically efficient enough to carry any meaningful loads while meeting basic combat flight characteristics (climb rate and acceleration), specially in hot & high conditions. It is hoped that a more powerful engine will solve this problem but there is no guarantee that it will because the aircraft will need to add even more weight (longer fuselage, bigger wings) to handle the new engine. This will result in a 25% heavier aircraft and may bring us back to square one. The reason for this situation is "our aeronautical institutions" decision not to go in for structural optimization testing with prototypes becaue "it is a time consuming exercise"! We are therefore attempting to design the LCA with the same level of trial-and-error with no effective feedback data that we used for the HT-2! If true, this is a serious situation which can't be rectified on the LCA because it is too late in the process. It looks like it will remain a sub-optimal aircraft that may never reach FOC.
...

The bolded part is plainly wrong. AM Rajkumar mentions the shortfall only in hot and high condition, while you are generalizing it to all conditions. There have been photos of LCA with all pylons loaded in flight. So it is not right to say that the LCA doesn't meet the basic flight characteristics. So far, there have been no reports of LCA failing to meet the basic requirements. it is only in Leh that the LCA had some shortcomings. well, even some of the MRCA contenders couldn't pass evaluation at Leh!

And can you please add any proof that the new engine will lead to change in wings? There will be NO change in the wings, and there will be only a 0.5m elongation of the fuselage, and that is NOT because of change of engine.

Your post is totally misleading and far from the truth.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Apr 2013 01:57

Hyperbole eh? You are actually suggesting that we field a plane that cannot lift a useful load of weapons, climb or accelerate properly to go into combat, right? Or are you saying it CAN carry a useful load AND climb and accelerate adequately?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Apr 2013 01:58

It has demonstrated what it can do at Iron Fist 2013. Wonder if you even pressed play on that video.