Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[NRao]

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

Folks it would benefit everyone if we get into the habit of posting the dates along with articles. TIA.

That particular interview is from around Nov, 2010.

[PratikDas]

This is where Sulur AFB is, where the first LCA squadron is to be based, as chosen by the IAF.



Do keep that in mind before spouting theories about full weapons load, climbing into combat and all that.

[Victor]

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

Even a DC-3 can release flares, fire missiles and drop bombs. That is a nice video but it did not address the problems of fighter performance.

This is what AM Rajkumar said:

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.

IOW, it cannot maneuver properly, regardless of altitude and it will be worse if it is used in a high altitude airfield.

[PratikDas]

Wonder what AM Rajkumar thinks of the Jaguar.

[Victor]

Do keep that in mind before spouting theories about full weapons load, climbing into combat and all that.

The only one spouting anything is you. Do you consider the Maldivian Air Force to be a treat? Or the Sri Lankan AF?

[Victor]

Wonder what AM Rajkumar thinks of the Jaguar.

Let me take a guess. He would consider it to be our good fortune that we didn't have to go to war with it right away. I am sure he would have picked the Viggen over the Jag if it didn't have an American engine.

[PratikDas]

Do keep that in mind before spouting theories about full weapons load, climbing into combat and all that.

The only one spouting anything is you. Do you consider the Maldivian Air Force to be a treat? Or the Sri Lankan AF?

Whatever. You obviously have missed the point. The IAF wants the first Tejas squadron for Sulur. The Tejas, as it stands, will be fine for this location with the capability it has *today*. There is no need to wait any longer in manufacturing for the first squadron. FOC can come when it does. It will not be risking lives. That is your hyperbole. As you say, the Maldivian and Sri Lankan Air Forces are not threats. So where is the life risk, "eh"?

[Victor]

You obviously have missed the point.

Nope, you are missing the point. The first IAF squadron to be based in Sulur will not be the "Tejas as it stands" as you say but the Tejas after it gets FOC.

It will not be risking lives. That is your hyperbole. As you say, the Maldivian and Sri Lankan Air Forces are not threats. So where is the life risk, "eh"?

That's what I meant--it will be based nowhere near a threat zone because it is considered a risk in a threat zone, the zone that it was designed for.

[Victor]

Instead of jumping to the defence of the useless DPSUs or on the IAF for doing something they have not done, it may be more productive to figure out in our own non-professional way what to do from here.

One way to make sure the LCA experience actually kills some enemies in future instead of becoming a parade ground backdrop is to rethink the entire concept and DROP THE STUPID LCA MONIKER. The main problem is power to weight ratio and one solution is to strap on double the power--make this thing a twin-engined warplane and forget the labels. Even if we enlarge the plane to accomodate extra fuel, a 100% increase in thrust will more than take care of even a 40-50% increase in weight. So what if we end up with a plane that is similar to the MMRCA or even Su30? Yes, it will be inefficient but it will be 100% Indian and most important, it will do the needful when the sh!t hits the fan.

[Victor]

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.

This is what AM Rajkumar said about LCA2:

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.

He also says

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.

This is exactly what I am suggesting too except that he suggests the jeweler's approach that involves tinkering with the design while I am suggesting the blacksmith approach to bludgeon the problem with an extra engine which may be quicker.

[Manish_Sharma]

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).

Beautiful Kartik, here is how hard IAF worked to tackle the faulty hydraulics of jaguar, by Wg Cdr Shri KS Suresh:

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

Four specialists from BAe arrived at Ambala on the 19th of December and left on the 23rd to be back in UK for Christmas. During their stay, they made extensive notes on all their observations and spoke to the pilot and maintenance crew. They were noncommittal on the possible cause of twin hydraulic failure, an unusual problem. BAe team stated that they would study the problem after they got back to UK and then respond. IAF had to take stock of the situation and introduce interim measures as it was clear that breakage of brake unit body of slat motor could cause rapid leakage of hydraulic fluid from both the systems (operating at a pressure of 3000 psi), leading to the situation encountered in both the accidents. Since the failed brake units had done more than 1000 hrs (About 1700 and 1400 hours respectively), as a first step, flying on aircraft fitted more than 1000 component hours was suspended. Action was initiated to procure and replace these slat motors. This measure reduced the availability of aircraft. Air HQ also issued instructions to manage the emergency, should it occur, by resorting to putting off the battery. This severely limited operations at night and in bad weather, as putting off the battery would take away the instruments, lights and radio.

Indian Efforts.

As explained above, since there were serious limitations to unrestricted operation of the aircraft and no tangible solution was forthcoming from BAe, we had to do something. There were several insinuations from BAe: IAF aircraft were being subjected to excessive number of cycles of slat operation. Strictures were passed on IAF maintenance practices, permitting entry of air into the system, during the process of charging hydraulic fluid. The first allegation of excessive slat operation was negated after our Air Advisor in London checked with the RAF and found that their slat operation cycle was identical to that of IAF. The second allegation was negated after it was pointed out that the Jaguar had a self-bleeding hydraulic system and there was no scope for air remaining within the system.

Bharat from Air HQ exhorted HAL to study the whole problem and come up with quick solutions, so that the aircraft could be cleared for unrestricted operations at the earliest. The damaged slat motor of JS 139 was brought to Bangalore for detailed metallurgical examination at National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL). By now it was clear that the accident of JS 120 could also be due to the same reason. On our request the wreckage (of JS 120) was searched again and the damaged slat motor located and brought to Bangalore. Jam put in relentless effort to analyse the cause of failure by interacting continuously with metallurgists of NAL and scientists of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). Detailed analysis was made using ELFINI, structural analysis software. It was found that the brake body of the slat motor had inadequate corner radius (by design) in the body unit, at the circlip holding groove, resulting in a sharp corner, leading to be a stress raiser. This component was prone to early failure even with normal load and duty cycles. The corner radius of 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm was permitted as per design. Jam and his team of scientists then worked out the duty cycles obtainable at different radii. Calculations revealed that even under normal operating conditions, units with corner radius of less than 0.03 mm were likely to fail prematurel,y around 1500 flying hours. This was precisely what had happened in both the accidents.

Jam presented the detailed analysis to BAe who were very reluctant to accept the findings. After a number of meetings and presentation of accurate facts and figures, BAe did accept the shortcoming. In the meantime, BAe had also examined RAF aircraft with about 1500 flying hours and found that the brake bodies of slat motors with lower corner radius showed signs of impending failure. BAe then took action to correct the design requirements and advise AVIACA accordingly. The reluctance on the part of BAe was probably to avoid any liability or legal hassles. We had learnt our lesson at the cost of one aircraft and almost another one.

Modifications.

There were a number of brainstorming sessions at the Aircraft Division of HAL to develop and introduce suitable modifications. The aim being to clear the aircraft for unrestricted operations by being able to manage the emergency, should it recur. The first modification was the introduction of a warning light on the Central Warning Panel (also wired to the Master Warning Flasher), to come ON the moment the reservoir levels dropped, consequent to a hydraulic fluid leak This was relatively easy and Mr Veluswamy, Design Engineer came up with trumps in no time. The second and most important part was to be able to use the residual fluid to lower undercarriage without putting off the battery. Jam came up with a concept; ? why not selectively de-energise one of the solenoid-operated valves, so that the fluid trapped exclusively for controls from one of the systems could be diverted to operate services like undercarriage. Controls could still be operated with the fluid from the other system?. This idea took shape and with tremendous encouragement from Mr Haridas, then General Manager of Aircraft Division and Bharat from Air HQ. Veluswamy, Rajshekar, Jayamohan and the team of the Division came up with a viable modification scheme. An additional switch was provided in the cockpit, which enabled the pilot to selectively isolate one of the hydraulic systems and divert the fluid for services, while the other system took care of the controls. Aircraft could thus operate unrestricted, as it was not required to put off the battery.

Both the modifications were rigged on one aircraft in record time, (less than two weeks). These were assessed and evaluated by HAL test pilots. In early February 94, Bharat and a team from Air HQ came to Bangalore and assessed the modifications. Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) was also involved at this stage. Air HQ gave a go ahead to fabricate the required components and introduce the modifications on the Jaguar fleet of the IAF. HAL undertook the task on priority, sent teams to Jaguar operating bases and the entire fleet was modified within six weeks. The limitations on Jaguar operations were removed by April 94. In June 94 it was found that BAe introduced these modifications as applicable to the Jaguar fleet all over the world. Interestingly the Company Notice of BAe was identical to that of HAL, word for word; expect that the letters BAe substituted letters HAL. There was a very fine print (visible only through a magnifying glass) that the modifications were based on ?work done by HAL? Contract.

Since the modifications were developed in India and adapted by BAe, it was decided to examine the possibility of claiming "Intellectual Property Rights" from them. Some interesting features of the Jaguar contract and licence agreement signed in 1978 by Government of India with the BAe emerged. The gist without actual legal terminology is given below: Operator (India) may introduce modifications on their own aircraft, the details of which are to be communicated to BAe. If we (BAe) have any technical observations, we will inform you within two months. In any case, the introduction of modification is at your own risk and cost.

If we (BAe) find that the modification is useful and should be introduced on the entire Jaguar fleet world over, we shall do so. However, this does not attract any "Intellectual Property Rights" or Commercial considerations.

It is amazing that the contract signed even before the aircraft were inducted had incorporated clauses as above. We learnt that a team of experts specialised in drawing up contracts draft these documents and bring to them the desired thoroughness.

[putnanja]

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.

This is what AM Rajkumar said about LCA2:

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.

He also says

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.

This is exactly what I am suggesting too except that he suggests the jeweler's approach that involves tinkering with the design while I am suggesting the blacksmith approach to bludgeon the problem with an extra engine which may be quicker.

I still don't see where AM Rajkumar said they have to make all those changes due to engine change. They are incremental improvements that can be made over time. He is basically saying that we can use the engine change design time to also include bunch of other changes. And you never mentioned an "Extra engine". Your exact words were:

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.

Those other improvements that he mentioned can be done in next iterations. it is very common in the airline business. The new builds of A380 will have a slightly more twist in the wings compared to initial ones built 5 years back. And all the improvements that he mentioned are the result of learnings from Mk-1, which is the same world over. F/A-18 E/F versions were a big jump over the inital A/B versions. Over time, feedback and experience is fed back into the product to make it better. The key thing is to accept initial versions flaws and all, and work with the designers/builders to make it better over time.

[Indranil]

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.

With all dues respect, don't put words into the good old man's mouth to prove YOUR point.

[Victor]

Putanja ,any future increases in length or wing area with current F404 will make the LCA even more heavy. Ergo, any changes at all being talked about are necessarily due to engine change. F414 -> more fuel needed -> more lift needed.

Also, please don't confuse an airplane that doesn't have official clearance to those that have. F-18 and A380 along with all airplanes in service had to be certified in one way or another before they were allowed to operate in any way. In a civil airliner, the requirements are that much more stringent. No doubt all aircraft will undergo continued improvements but they must meet certain minimum requirements to step out of the development stage and become operational.

[Victor]

With all dues respect, don't put words into the good old man's mouth to prove YOUR point.

I have done a precis of the good AM's words and I believe it accurately summarizes his opinions, albeit with less diplomacy. If you can do a better job, please do so instead of blindly accusing me.

[nachiket]

There was a one year gap between the first flights of the LSP-7 and LSP-8. Please tell me how the IAF was responsible for HAL and ADA failing to get he LSP-8 flying earlier?

We still have no word about when the SP-1 and SP-2 are going to see the light of day. The IAF will gladly accept them for evaluation if HAL was to provide them today.

[Karan M]

Victor, you are just making stuff up.

Nowhere does that article say there is a definite shortfall in usage of that term and by what margin. He says "probably" have an issue in maneuvering capabilities. In other words, speculation and without an analysis of how it translates versus existing airframes & potential threats, meaningless.

On the other hand, its a well known fact that the LCA ASRs for its key KPI were cobbled together from a mix of Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 specs and were unrealistic in the extreme. I know of several pilots who scoffed at the process used to derive those specifications & to expect them all from the same airframe in the MiG-21 class. They were pretty ok with the MK-1 specifications as it is equivalent to most of the aircraft in the IAF fleet today and reasonable against what PAF/PLAAF field, bar their heavies which bring range/payload combos which our Flankers balance out. Also, items were added to MK1 later that balance out marginal shortfalls in STR, with the HMD/R-73E HOBS combo, which no aircraft in the IAF today has. (MKIs only have HMCS). What they wanted was a series build aircraft built to the same standard & with adequate support equipment for rapid deployability. Not some magical/significant improvement in performance. As one pilot said, as things stand the LCA MK-1 would be superior to almost half the IAF fleet in one way or the other, MiG21s, 27s and Jaguars in several ways.

Next, that entire article by Rajkumar was speculative & proven wrong by events thereafter.
ADA/IAF/HAL did not choose any significant redesign and nor is it a 25% redesign, an arbitrary number to say the least. In contrast, only the fuselage is extended by only 0.5 mtr, limited reallocation of internal equipment, and redesign of LRUs to include more modern items developed as part of the tech progression are envisaged.

[Karan M]

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

The MiG-27 and Jaguar were both inducted into the IAF without firing BVR missiles. In other words, the LCA MK-1 even if it had not got a BVR plan at FOC, can be used in that role. FYI, there are around 200+ MiG-27s and Jaguars in the IAF and they are not getting any younger. Only 40 MiG-27s were upgraded. Out of the 260 odd MiG-21s only 125 Bisons are BVR capable. And with only 4 available pylons, that BVR capability comes at a cost (only centerline for fuel).

Next, the F-16 was also inducted without BVR capability by the USAF. Sparrows were added later.

[NRao]

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.

This is what AM Rajkumar said about LCA2:

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.

He also says

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.

This is exactly what I am suggesting too except that he suggests the jeweler's approach that involves tinkering with the design while I am suggesting the blacksmith approach to bludgeon the problem with an extra engine which may be quicker.

One of the problems of quoting and basing our comments on that (type) interview is that that interview is based on extrapolation of what the AM knew then (which is perfectly fine for that time). But since the knowledge base has changed dramatically, that interview could be irrelevant today.

I have often wondered what such people would say today - now they know a lot more about the situation.

[Misraji]

The MiG-27 and Jaguar were both inducted into the IAF without firing BVR missiles. In other words, the LCA MK-1 even if it had not got a BVR plan at FOC, can be used in that role. FYI, there are around 200+ MiG-27s and Jaguars in the IAF and they are not getting any younger. Only 40 MiG-27s were upgraded. Out of the 260 odd MiG-21s only 125 Bisons are BVR capable. And with only 4 available pylons, that BVR capability comes at a cost (only centerline for fuel).

Next, the F-16 was also inducted without BVR capability by the USAF. Sparrows were added later.

Fair point. Sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant the home countries, not IAF.
With those aircraft, IAF was getting an aircraft that had completed FOC into their respective countries.
IIRC, F-16 was designed from the outset as day-only fighter. It only later morphed into BVR platform.

I agree on LCA MK-1 being used once FOC is complete. The flight envelope would have been completely opened up.
After FOC, integrating BVR weapon should not stall production.

This idea of ordering LCA in numbers when even IOC-2 is not complete, is not conducive to operations/planning of IAF.

--Ashish

[Victor]

Victor, you are just making stuff up.

I could say the same about you Karan. Where does the article say the maneuvering capabilities are acceptable? The way I read it, even the most generous translation won't come close to that. It is in fact a rejection of LCA and of ADA/HAL with a somewhat hopeful expectation for LCA2, that too only if it were a completely redesigned concept. The very first line of the quote reads:

Lack of engine power leads to lack of performance. The main shortcoming would probably be in manoeuvring flight

He considers maneuvering to be merely the main shortcoming, one among others. The suggestion that this may be "speculation" would be amusing if it were not so depressing. I doubt they were speculating on the F414's extra power when they ordered a hundred of them to "fix" the LCA and call it LCA2. Also, I think Rajkumar is being very charitable by mentioning "lack of engine power". There is no lack in the engine's power. If it is good enough for the Gripen, it should be good enough for the LCA.

On the other hand, its a well known fact that the LCA ASRs for its key KPI were cobbled together from a mix of Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 specs and were unrealistic in the extreme. I know of several pilots who scoffed at the process

Wow. So the IAF top brass are basically a bunch of inept has-beens carelessly wasting taxpayer money on harebrained requirements and we should let the junior ranks (your "sources") set the ASQRs from now on? Double wow.

Just a minor difference of opinion--unlike you and those pilots you know, I wouldn't feel safe and don't look forward to IAF merely matching/balancing TSPAF/PLAAF. I want IAF to smash the crap out of them on the first try because we won't get another chance.

Next, that entire article by Rajkumar was speculative & proven wrong by events thereafter.

That's merely your slant. I saw it as a very professional, realistic and informative viewpoint full of expert technical insight that has at heart only India's security and the health of its aeronautical capability. Besides, nothing he said has been "proven wrong" because LCA2 is still entirely on paper. In fact, the talk about minimal changes being needed (only a 0.5 mt to fuselage etc) to accommodate the more powerful F414 sounds like an attempt to minimize the serious nature of the redesign necessary and the time it will likely take. Time will tell.

Look, in the end all of this back and forth is because one side wants to protect the DPSUs and blame the IAF while the other wants to pillory the DPSUs and side with the IAF while both sides believe that theirs' is the only halal answer for India's best interest and the other's is haram. It need not be that way and I am sure that the answer will be found soon enough. It has to. Things are fast approaching the point where nobody, and I mean nobody, is in a mood to tolerate the DPSUs' record to date. If the IAF and MoD babus are found to share the fault, no doubt they too will be brought around by events. We should just pray that any such event is a relatively benign one and not a multi-generationally painful wound.

[Indranil]

Victor sahab,

1. Dr. Rajkumar just said what are the areas in which Mk2 will become better or where Mk1 can be optimized more. He never characterized LCA Mk1 as not being able to take off from high and hot places. He also said the maneuverability of LCA Mk-1 has not met the design specs because of higher drag. LCA Mk-2 will overcome that. He never said LCA Mk1 was an incompetent fighter that you make it sound.

2. Also he did not say Mk2 will be 25% heavier. He said it will change from Mk-1 by 25%. This is consistent with what ADA has been saying. ADA has categorically said there will be a performance gain of 18% or so (if my memory is serving me right here).

3. This is exactly how a development of fighter planes go where the calculations are highly non-linear. All fighter planes perform better than expected in some features and worse than expected in other features. You can take any fighter Su-27, YF-22. And no, no fighter is completely optimized. There is a point where they do a design freeze and just go with what they have. Optimization is an extremely long process. And it will change throughout the life time of the plane (some components get heavier, and others get lighter, more fuel tanks are slapped on etc). LCA Tejas should be studied for optimization. But not now IMHO. Right now, the priority is to get Tejas operational. Dr. Rajkumar himself has spoken and written on many forums regarding this. After FoC, ADA should build an experimental aircraft just for these studies. May be LSP-6 can be used for it. Even if Tejas, does not benefit from this, future Indian aircrafts will.

[member_20292]

^^^^

where does AM Rajkumar post?

[Austin]

Not sure if he posts any where but occasionally i have seen him write for FORCE and some indian news paper.

Seems P Rajkumar has co-authored a new book on Mig-21 in IAF

"First to the Last: 50 years of MiG -215 with the IAF" by Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar (retd) and Pushpinder Singh

[shiv]

Not sure if he posts any where but occasionally i have seen him write for FORCE and some indian news paper.

Seems P Rajkumar has co-authored a new book on Mig-21 in IAF

"First to the Last: 50 years of MiG -215 with the IAF" by Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar (retd) and Pushpinder Singh

Am currently reviewing the book. Will post in due course

[Austin]

Shiv , Where did you order it from would like to have a copy of it.

[Kartik]

@ 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).

But Gurneesh, it isn't the changes that are required to bring a PV-5 to an LSP-8 level that takes the most time- it is the long lead items, the parts that need to be ordered from suppliers and sub-contractors a year or more in advance.

Had the order been placed to built them to an earlier version, we might have been having HAL replacing the obsolete parts/software and they could have been brought to the same SoP as LSP-8. Things such as the fuel piping location being shifted, ejection seat issue would have required some re-work but by now ASTE would have IOC-1 Tejas Mk1s in hand and soon enough an entire squadron could have been equipped with the Tejas Mk1, also at IOC-1 standard.

[Kartik]

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.

What would you call a meaningful payload? Does the MiG-21 carry a meaningful payload? After all, the LCA is a replacement for the MiG-21, so as long as it can carry what a MiG-21 can, its surely a meaningful payload. BTW, there are no bigger wings for the Tejas Mk2. It was confirmed in AI-'13. They're simply being pushed outwards since the fuselage is slightly larger in diameter due to the F-414's higher diameter.

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.

Nobody's life is in danger if they were to fly the Tejas Mk1 even as it stands today. it has achieved IOC-1, which isn't just semantics. There would have been a set of targets to achieve for IOC, a part of which it already did, a part of which it still hasn't but with the FBW, no pilot could exceed the limitations. It is foolish to not look at what every other OEM does (at a certain level even civilian OEMs), and then want a fully developed aircraft delivered at your doorstep. Other Air Forces are more involved in the development process, ours is more content taking ready made products.

[Kartik]

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?

It doesn't need to go to combat! It needs to go to an operational evaluation squadron, for the IAF to evaluate and for training maintenance personnel. They give feedback that helps in making it easier to maintain, and easier to fly. Even the current weapons load it can carry is better than the MiG-21 Bison, so don't keep crowing on the useful load part. What AM Rajkumar was referring to was the reduction in payload from the original ASR to 3 tons, which is still more than sufficient for a light fighter. You are deliberately taking that one statement and blowing it out of all proportions.

[Kartik]

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

Even a DC-3 can release flares, fire missiles and drop bombs. That is a nice video but it did not address the problems of fighter performance.

This is what AM Rajkumar said:

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.

IOW, it cannot maneuver properly, regardless of altitude and it will be worse if it is used in a high altitude airfield.

wrong again.

I have spoken to Commodore Maolankar and what he said was that what the Tejas Mk1 could do even today was in his own words "more than sufficient". G-limits are set by the software that can always be upgraded (as it has on every other 3rd or 4th gen aircraft that is serving today), so its not like the first batch of Mk1s would have been limited to 6Gs and 23 deg AoA for their entire service lives.

[vic]

MRCA deal would worth USD 20 Billion dollars and on Agusta Westaland rate generate one time bribe of Rs. 11,000 Crores, there is no way LCA will be allowed to proceed till MRCA deal is signed. After MRCA deal is signed then LCA Mark-2 will be stalled till Second batch of 63 MRCA is pushed through.

[Sanku]

Things such as the fuel piping location being shifted, ejection seat issue would have required some re-work but by now ASTE would have IOC-1 Tejas Mk1s in hand and soon enough an entire squadron could have been equipped with the Tejas Mk1, also at IOC-1 standard.

You think post construction addition of changes which are involved in the below step

it isn't the changes that are required to bring a PV-5 to an LSP-8 level that takes the most time

Would take some rework? It is practically taking the a/c apart and reassembling? And for what?

the parts that need to be ordered from suppliers and sub-contractors a year or more in advance.

Just to make sure that HAL gets its supply lines sorted out? That in itself is very tenous claim, that a supply chain cant be sorted out without a large order. Desiging a supply chain does not necessarily require orders, only a idea of what the order is likely to be.

Further, at PV 5 level, HAL anyway has only a limited idea of what the supply chain would be, since the a/c is changing, so in itself, that idea does not hold water.

A design related issue can not be sorted out by order size or timing, they are orthogonal parameters.

[Sanku]

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?

It doesn't need to go to combat! It needs to go to an operational evaluation squadron, for the IAF to evaluate and for training maintenance personnel. They give feedback that helps in making it easier to maintain, and easier to fly. Even the current weapons load it can carry is better than the MiG-21 Bison, so don't keep crowing on the useful load part. What AM Rajkumar was referring to was the reduction in payload from the original ASR to 3 tons, which is still more than sufficient for a light fighter. You are deliberately taking that one statement and blowing it out of all proportions.

I personally don not think that the metric of "lets buy a a/c in 2013 which is better than what we inducted in 1970" will be compelling to IAF, all the jingoism of "its Indian" aside.

In any case the first squd of LCA is exactly for

operational evaluation squadron,

Even ADA does not say that they have an a/c which can be used for that. Let alone a full sqdrn.

The time lines of LCA/Arjun/Nag/xyz..... is what it is because that is the time that ADA/HAL/CVRDE/AVADI/BEL/BDL etc take, blaming the customer is a fine sport, and as we have seen in other cases some PSUs try that all the time, its does not remotely make it real.

[Indranil]

Sanku sir,

Busy day here. I am afraid your questions don't hold much water.

Things such as the fuel piping location being shifted, ejection seat issue would have required some re-work but by now ASTE would have IOC-1 Tejas Mk1s in hand and soon enough an entire squadron could have been equipped with the Tejas Mk1, also at IOC-1 standard.

You think post construction addition of changes which are involved in the below step

Why not? what is so difficult about it?

it isn't the changes that are required to bring a PV-5 to an LSP-8 level that takes the most time

Would take some rework? It is practically taking the a/c apart and reassembling? And for what?

Is it? Faulty components are changed on operational planes all the time! Besides, it could have been taken as the first overhaul. What's the big deal?

the parts that need to be ordered from suppliers and sub-contractors a year or more in advance.

Just to make sure that HAL gets its supply lines sorted out? That in itself is very tenous claim, that a supply chain cant be sorted out without a large order. Desiging a supply chain does not necessarily require orders, only a idea of what the order is likely to be.

You could not be more wrong on this one! It has got nothing to do with HAL. This is a global norm in the aviation industry.

Further, at PV 5 level, HAL anyway has only a limited idea of what the supply chain would be, since the a/c is changing, so in itself, that idea does not hold water.

That is exactly what Kartik is saying. Instead of starting from now, when HAL has no idea. HAL should have started then. The only things left to be sorted out by now would be the components which changes since PV-5.

A design related issue can not be sorted out by order size or timing, they are orthogonal parameters.

Design of components keep changing all the time. Should the manufacturing be kept hostage to the design being finalized? Swedes don't agree (they had a talk on it at AI'13), and so do the Russians and US. Do check what the Su-27 prototypes looked like compared to the final version.

[shiv]

Shiv , Where did you order it from would like to have a copy of it.

Austin let me get back to you on this. I got it from the author

[Victor]

Kartik, 2 things:
- The F-414 is a replacement for F-404 and has exactly the same length and diameter so if the wings are going to be pushed out, it will be for some other reason. F-414 is heavier and will require additional fuel which inreases the weight of the aircraft. If the calculation is that the same wing area will be sufficient for this added weight, I say good luck because they will need it.
- My main grouse is the penchant to attack the IAF, the party that actually has to put its lives on the line, to explain away the PSUs' failings. Your cynical remark that IAF is not involved and happy just to get finished goods is a good example of the attitude that bothers me. You have conveniently forgotten that IAF was not allowed to take full responsibility because the civilian PSU no-goods p!ssed in their pants and went running to MoD chacha in fear that they may actually have to PERFORM. And then people wonder why IAF let loose on the PSUs in public?

Something thas got to change and I get the distinct feeling that it will very soon. Pressure is building up from all sides and showtime is near.

[Sanku]

Things such as the fuel piping location being shifted, ejection seat issue would have required some re-work but by now ASTE would have IOC-1 Tejas Mk1s in hand and soon enough an entire squadron could have been equipped with the Tejas Mk1, also at IOC-1 standard.

You think post construction addition of changes which are involved in the below step

Why not? what is so difficult about it?

Nothing difficult, just that it is for all practical purposes, taking the plane apart and reassembling a new different plane. Heck that happens even during overhaul.

Its not just few components like you said, it is fairly widespread changes.

Is it? Faulty components are changed on operational planes all the time! Besides, it could have been taken as the first overhaul. What's the big deal?

Even with faulty components and a full overhaul, what is the time frame for a full overhaul of a/c? Almost a full year. And this is not even overhaul, this is for all practical purposes, a reassembly.

Why block precious resources to first make, then disassemble and remake it?

You could not be more wrong on this one! It has got nothing to do with HAL. This is a global norm in the aviation industry.

Err On what?

That is exactly what Kartik is saying. Instead of starting from now, when HAL has no idea. HAL should have started then. The only things left to be sorted out by now would be the components which changes since PV-5.

Which is fine, but what does IAF order come from there?

Do check what the Su-27 prototypes looked like compared to the final version.

I agree with the above, that is why I am saying that prototype development and testing is independent of induction into IAF, this should be done by HAL, from its own budget, drawing on IAF as little as possible. They can absorb the elements from IAF on a permanent basis if there is shortage of manpower and talent, but the responsibility is theirs alone and needs for the basics to be in place before IAF is involved.

[vic]

One hundred F-35 have been produced with only 20% test points been achieved. No indication that cannon has been tested and radar "guided" missile test has not taken place ( missile, weapon separation test only has been conducted).

[Kartik]

That's what I meant--it will be based nowhere near a threat zone because it is considered a risk in a threat zone, the zone that it was designed for.

Utter rubbish. It's being based there due to its proximity to Bangalore and HAL. The first couple of years will require very close coordination between HAL engineers and technicians and IAF maintenance guys.

Are you aware that Su-30MKIs are to be deployed at Tanjore? Why deploy them to what you call a non threat zone? To give their pilots a well deserved break?

[Kartik]

This is what AM Rajkumar said about LCA2:

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.

He himself said in the article that he wasn't sure what all the changes were on the MK2. And that article is more than 2 years old when Mk2 definition was still ongoing. It's now confirmed there is no increase in wing chord.