LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Oct 2015 21:16

deejay wrote: As per the post you have quoted, I understood this... If HAL messes up, it is IAF's fault.

The message is the IAF should have known that HAL would mess up - so it is the IAF's fault.

member_29089 · Post by **member_29089** » 04 Oct 2015 22:22

I took a survey of some members' recent writeups in this thread and it seems most are blaming HAL for not prioritizing LCA manufacturing or not making LCA fast enough or being lazy or making Pakoras etc. Below are some snippets.

QUOTE: "HAL will have to build new assembly line and scale up its production process NOW if it wants to start churning out mk1A in 2018."

QUOTE: "How was HAL supposed to built planes without that freeze in standards especially when the customer wanted that config for first 20 order? "

QUOTE: "The airforce should just dump it and should just place an order for 300+ LCA variants and rope in the private sector for production."

QUOTE: "LCA Mk2 is out of HAL's scope for now. Only way for making it reality is to give to the pvt sector."

QUOTE: "If private sector proves their mettle in LCA, give a production line of AMCA too, even encourage them to produce different variants on LCA/AMCA platform (like Su-34)."

QUOTE: "They have no excuse but to deliver. WOrkers need to stop making pakoras during break time as I had alluded to earlier and start delivering now."

*****

After having spent 30+ years in Manufacturing industry, may I briefly explain how a complex system is "manufactured"?

The first and foremost step is that the product (in this case the LCA) is designed FOR MANUFACTURE
(this entails the ADA/NAL (designers) sitting down from day-1 with HAL (Manufacturer) and IAF (User) to make this into a mass-produced item even if only 40 are ordered initially)

Second step is the sub-systems (e.g. Radome, Fuselage, Landing gear etc.) are manufactured to stated tolerances and documented such that they can be interchanged (swapped).

Third step is that test-jigs are designed and made for sub-assemblies to test for meeting the documented specs prior to final assembly. For any out-of-spec part a team then goes off to do a RCA (root-cause-analysis) and submits a report to fix the issue from recurring.

Fourth step is the final assembly process. For a well-designed product the final process is largely integration and final testing (and not mix and match)

****

Without having any insider information. From the data available it seems that the LCA is a technology demonstrator with very little thought given to the manufacturing process. Example: in the Vayu video of several ex-IAF chiefs and a Navy chief. One ex-Chief had mentioned that the LCA serial production versions are not consistent in wiring etc. and that a user-manual is not available. This means that the product individually tweaked and forced to fit by hook or by crook. (AKA juggad way).

I can see HAL trying to fit a certain part onto the fuselage to discover that it does not fit it will keep trying a different part until it fits. But this process of swapping and matching often requires a lot of dis-assembly of wiring, hydraulics, and other hardware and it is truly a manufacturing nightmare.

(One would be surprised to see how often the above situation happens in the industry)

If the LCA is not made for manufacture then no private player (or a super-duper American MIC) will be able to make more quantities of LCA per year than the poor HAL.

People should salute the guys who designed F-16, Mig-21 and what-not which have been built in thousands and ponder why/how instead of just blaming HAL for not being able to make 4-5 per year.

The next iteration of LCA must meet DFM philosophy and design and manufacture of test-jigs which minimize the human factor otherwise be prepared for the same cycle of past 30 years for the next 30 years: 1) design a prototype 2) show-case it at AeroIndia 2045 3) Make comparative video with XYZ 4) Feel good 5) And wonder why we keep importing.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 04 Oct 2015 22:34

shiv wrote:
RoyG wrote: I have that feeling too. I think we'll see more LCA variants down the line. The French aren't playing ball so the solah may have been brought in to get them to sweeten the deal.
Or, India is squeezing a deal from them that will benefit us, ultimately. It took 20 years to get AJT and now it is not only a crucial player but will go on to become a light attack aircraft. We may be looking at long courtship, detailed scrutiny of horoscope and long marriage.

Right, that is what I meant. Ultimately I think we will either end up with Su30s, LCA MKIA, F16IN or Su30's, MKIA&II, and Rafale.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Oct 2015 22:37

GunterH see this: http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/12/fi ... -hals.html

While things are not ideal, they are not as bad as "LCA is not designed for manufacturing" either. Your thoughts on the above infra and shopfloor welcome.

In all likelihood, before the LCAs start coming out, the design has to frozen and fixed in entirety. There have been a lot of FOC related advancements which may have held up the final configuration. ADA Chief said "new plan" was to deliver 38 FOC LCAs to IAF even though order was for 20 IOC, 20 FOC. So if there is a common design that minimizes upgrade challenges between IOC/FOC LCAs then there may be a delay. FOC is/was due by March 2016.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Oct 2015 00:26

Parsing the IAF boss' words, what really strikes me is that now he seems to understand the concept of economies of scale of production. The LCA project has long been bedeviled by the 'give us something completely done quickly'. This has several issues. IAF itself does not stick to one fixed notion of 'completeness', nor does it have the involvement into the project to account for developmental timelines associated with any new design RFEs it demands.

It also seemed to almost willfully ignore the implications of its 'done quickly' demand. It's almost intuitive to find the suggestion 'first give us a few items quickly. then we will order many more'. It makes sense to us because we're used to buying many new things that way. Like a bag of flavoured peanuts. Unfortunately, the LCA is not a bag of peanuts. As non-intuitive as it may sound, IAF will get deliveries quickly if it orders in bulk. The bulk order gives HAL the cash to invest in the production line and to order from suppliers. It also naturally reduces the per unit price.

I would not be surprised if the Europeans, Russians and Americans all maintain a supply chain capable of spitting out a few examples quickly, naturally at a corresponding premium cost. It's good business sense for them - the (typically overseas) buyer pays the premium for timeliness. But HAL doesn't have the established power to attract such buying. And of course, they get dinged for it as well.

Raha's words translate to 'give me the planes quickly'. He also makes the connection between getting the planes quickly, and ordering a large number of them. That in itself is a huge change from the past. This is not to suggest HAL is blameless. I'm sure they have many shortcomings, but I'm posting in the context of the IAF chief's words.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Oct 2015 02:12

Rafale was plan B because LCA did not come. There no plan B (yet). LCA was plan A. Mirage 2000 was plan A(1)

As per the post you have quoted, I understood this... If HAL messes up, it is IAF's fault.

And while propagating such falsehoods you should remember that LCA development was starved of funds and tech denial post Pokhran. Plan A was the LCA and Plan B was Qatari Mirages plus Bison upgrade. There was also the delayed Sukhoi acquisition with small numbers trickling in. There was no MRCA requirement at the time. The only reason for an MMRCA can be the low serviceability of the Sukhois and perceived difficulty in sourcing spares for them or lack of belief in the LCA program (read that as liking new foreign toys over dull SDRE product - even the intakes don't look sexy).

IAF plays this game that they and the IA have perfected over the past several decades
Heads IAF wins, tails HAL loses! If the LCA can overcome all the obstacles hurled in its path by IAF then IAF can accept it and take the credit but if a few flaws can be noticed, it can be used as an excuse to whip HAL/DRDO!! We don't like PSUs anyway and would gladly pay twice the unit price for a Tejas manufactured by Tata/reliance/Saab!!

I'm no fan of HAL but both (HAL and IAF) have a stake in national security. We have seen in the INs case how things can be when the armed force takes ownership of the process and not sits in the corner sulking that its toys have not been approved. And why has it taken the IAF so long to know that the LCA without IFR would not be up to their standards?

If Raffy was plan B, then IAF seems to have done a fine job in its acquisition!

The truth is that the IAF had liked the M2K serviceability and effectiveness in Kargil and had expressed a desire to expand the M2K fleet. In the middle of this planning, the Indian economy that had been struggling in the 90s suddenly took off in the 2000s giving wings to the dreams of some in the IAF of another type - the MRCA. And someone came up with the idea that this requirement could be sold to the MOD as coming in-between the Light Tejas and the heavy Sukhois. The problem came with the choice of the rafale and the greed of the French with the IAF and its fancy for brochuritis needing customization. The result - a $20 Billion price tag that kept climbing. Because we do not still have unlimited resources, the LCA became an inconvenient pawn in this game. How could funds be made available for the needless MRCA cost expansion? By killing the LCA. And that is what we see unfolding before us. The Rafale was never a requirement of the IAF. The IAF wanted to expand the M2K fleet since it had existing facilities to absorb additional numbers without investing much more. The Rafale purchase is introducing another type that is not needed and will be a total waste of funds.

Just like the Arjun will never see regular service in the IA, IAF has done its best to keep the LCA out of squadron service. Why wasn't IOC-1 standard used to build up a squadron and gain knowledge about the type and train pilots on it? If that had been done, IOC-2 and FOC standards could have been pushed through faster and put into service?

There is no shortcut to developing your own domestic industry. And it will need support and will have failures. The Rafale was never a requirement and is now being used to kill domestic development.

In the end we deserve the result of our actions!!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 05 Oct 2015 02:38

Karan M wrote:GunterH see this: http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2013/12/fi ... -hals.html

While things are not ideal, they are not as bad as "LCA is not designed for manufacturing" either. Your thoughts on the above infra and shopfloor welcome.

Economies of scale and design for manufacturing and all those things industrial engg. will make sense for millions of items. For fighter jets - not so much. In fact the shinkasen (Bullet train) engine front curved manifolds are made by hand. Recently a program in the Japanese news channel in the US where they were talking about the master artisan who had experience beating the metal into shape. The reporter (wetsren) tries it and could never get it right where as immediately the master artisan takes over and not only corrects the imperfections created by by the ham-fisted reporter but gracefully gtes the whole sheet thing stretched evenly to a nice large manifold.

The number of shinkasen engines would be comparable in number to the number of LCAs we are planning to build, I am sure. Of course, if India wants to export, the manufacturing has to move to more automated means. But then new manufacturing techniques would progress too by the time we have perfected and mastered the entire process.

In the beginning there is no go but to put money into building in tranches and put them into service and iteratively improve the designs. The problem is everybody says DFM but nobody knows how to really verify whether a part is designed for manufacturability. After the design and analysis, NCM programs are generated and the programs are then verfied for correct tool paths and possibly even optimized to find the shortest tool paths. But almost all sub-problems that arise are hard computational problems for which computing exact solutions take too long a time. Usually it is a combination of CAM visualization and manually fixing tools hitting the sides etc.

To summarize, DFM is a buzz word. No general purpose CAM software today - be it CATIA, Siemens PLM, or other Pro/E can guarantee whether the CAD models are manufacturable beyond some simple checks. That itself is a big step forward from what the state of the art was just 10 years ago. We need to develop our own special purpose tool chain - starting from CAD modeling, CAE, to CAM, visualization, optimization to suit to our own purposes.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 02:51

Vivek K wrote:
deejay wrote:Rafale was plan B because LCA did not come. There no plan B (yet). LCA was plan A. Mirage 2000 was plan A(1)

As per the post you have quoted, I understood this... If HAL messes up, it is IAF's fault.
And while propagating such falsehoods you should remember that LCA development was starved of funds and tech denial post Pokhran. Plan A was the LCA and Plan B was Qatari Mirages plus Bison upgrade. There was also the delayed Sukhoi acquisition with small numbers trickling in. There was no MRCA requirement at the time. The only reason for an MMRCA can be the low serviceability of the Sukhois and perceived difficulty in sourcing spares for them or lack of belief in the LCA program (read that as liking new foreign toys over dull SDRE product - even the intakes don't look sexy).

IAF plays this game that they and the IA have perfected over the past several decades
Heads IAF wins, tails HAL loses! If the LCA can overcome all the obstacles hurled in its path by IAF then IAF can accept it and take the credit but if a few flaws can be noticed, it can be used as an excuse to whip HAL/DRDO!! We don't like PSUs anyway and would gladly pay twice the unit price for a Tejas manufactured by Tata/reliance/Saab!!

I'm no fan of HAL but both (HAL and IAF) have a stake in national security. We have seen in the INs case how things can be when the armed force takes ownership of the process and not sits in the corner sulking that its toys have not been approved. And why has it taken the IAF so long to know that the LCA without IFR would not be up to their standards?

If Raffy was plan B, then IAF seems to have done a fine job in its acquisition!

The truth is that the IAF had liked the M2K serviceability and effectiveness in Kargil and had expressed a desire to expand the M2K fleet. In the middle of this planning, the Indian economy that had been struggling in the 90s suddenly took off in the 2000s giving wins to the dreams of some in the IAF of another type - the MRCA. And someone came up with the idea that this requirement could be sold to the MOD as coming in-between the Light Tejas and the heavy Sukhois. The problem came with the choice of the rafale and the greed of the French with the IAF and its fancy for brochuritis needing customization. The result - a $20 Billion price tag that kept climbing. Because we do not still have unlimited resources, the LCA became an inconvenient pawn in this game. How could funds be made available for the needless MRCA cost expansion? By killing the LCA. And that is what we see unfolding before us. The Rafale was never a requirement of the IAF. The IAF wanted to expand the M2K fleet since it had existing facilities absorb additional numbers without investing much more. The Rafale purchase is introducing another type that is not needed and will be a total waste of funds.

Just like the Arjun will never see regular service in the IA, IAF has done its best to keep the LCA out of squadron service. Why wasn't IOC-1 standard used to build up a squadron and gain knowledge about the type and train pilots on it? If that had been done, IOC-2 and FOC standards could have been pushed through faster and put into service?

There is no shortcut to developing your own domestic industry. And it will need support and will have failures. The Rafale was never a requirement and is now being used to kill domestic development.

In the end we deserve the result of our actions!!

Good post. The timelines and situations for all involved be it IAF, HAL, ADA/DRDO, MoD, or GoI have their own convoluted paths that spans three decades. It's not as simple to put the fault on one party alone. Some, like financial crisis of the early 1990s, were beyond control (other than the policies that created it) but which dictated decisions that have continued to carry weight today. At the end of the day, everyone has their share of faults as well as positive achievements. Time to look forward!

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 03:57

All this talk of F-16 sneaking in with "cheap" hand-me down production lines from a first-world country sounds a bit appalling to me. How does it look when most nations operating F-16s switch over to JSF in the next 15 years while India will be inducting new F-16s? Besides, isn't that the policy of first-world nations to squeeze extra profits from a last gen product that they have moved on from thereby retaining technological edge while continuing to view third-world country as such--beneath them? Let's give both political leverage as well as take the "hand-me" downs all in the name of it being cheapest. Yes sahib indeed!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Oct 2015 04:13

And what is necessity of hand me downs? There are the beginnings of a domestic industry. Support that and then reap the benefits!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Oct 2015 05:10

Much of what became the LCA was unavailable "off the shelf" in India. That is a consequence of general industrial underdevelopment in India aggravated by a socialist pig-headed insistence on doing high tech defence only in PSUs. We had no one making composites "off the shelf" and there is that much-discussed story by Kota Harinarayana who wanted a pipe of a particular material and shape for the LCA and finally found an obscure workshop in Mumbai who did the work. Now how do you get someone to mass produce - or even produce 40 items like that? If the Mumbai workshop did it as a one off they are not going to be joining the LCA program. There are thousands of such parts to be made.

Europe and the US went through these industrial birth pangs in the first half of the 20th century when they fought wars that forced them to create infrastructure within their own countries. We in India have always bought off the shelf from abroad when it comes to aircraft. Suraj's point about supply chains to get components off the shelf in the US and Russia have ample illustrative examples. The Scorpion trainer aircraft that was falsely reported as being mooted by Arup Raha was apparently built out of components predominantly available off the shelf. The Russians were masters at that. The nosewheel of the MiG 21 had the same tyres as Russian tractors. A book I read about Foxtrots spoke of a shoddy job in Russia where a worker had left cloth in an A/C duct causing a couple of pistons to conk out. En route to India in Madagascar the sub crew found a convoy of Russian trucks that used the exact same piston and got spares off them in exchange for Vodka.

ACM Raha states in that interview that the PSUs after independence had the mandate to develop things that no one would sell us and while they have gone far they have not fully met their mandate. I think this is pretty much what most of us also say. But Raha goes on to say that the IAF, DRDO. ADA and HAL must join hands to deliver and be accountable.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Oct 2015 06:06

Good point Hakim ji. However, here the IAF must come clean about the LCA with honesty. We read that their fest pilots love the LCA. We also read the posts about Commander Mao and his statements about the advantages of domestic products. Then out come IAF spokespersons with Mig21++ and other derogatory comments to support the Rafale.

That is dishonest and gives rise to questions about their motive. Why are we holding the induction of a ready product for IFR and nose cone? It is disingenuous to induct 36 Rafale when it will disrupt the supply chain for such a small number of aircraft. This purchase puts into question the wisdom of the IAF brass.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 05 Oct 2015 06:38

Vivek K sir, rest assured I want the LCA in IAF as much as anybody here on the forum but I must say, let's not be unfair to IAF for criticizing the program. I think IAF has had its own problems with the LCA as well documented by Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar. But that is the past. And even that had a basis - where the IAF simply wanted a Mig21 replacement while DRDO (for all the right reasons, mind you!) wanted to develop a very modern light weight fighter and bridge the technology gap! Two competing goals and on completely different timelines! Add to that technology barriers, sanctions and St Anthony for 10 years to provide the political leadership...it's almost a miracle that we are almost there!

I had met ACM Naik in person when he was invited as the CHief Guest in my organization and had a little chat with him. (IIRC it was he who made the Mig 21++ comment) - His biggest lament was that the LCA was too late and IAF had to do a lot to plan around those delays! Having said that, I think ACM Raha has given as much support as he can from the IAF - it's time to celebrate and see that this gets done.

Peeping into the past we tend to think wisely but the fact is that while IAF/HAL/ADE may have been at fault in the past, a major time of the LCA program was spent when there was absolutely no political leadership to guide it through or in a time when the political leadership could not have done much due to economic situations (83-98) or there were economic sanctions (98-2001).

History will judge the program differently and I daresay, the Tejas program will become a case study on how scientific and engineering capabilities are created from scratch despite many adverse political situations. JMT.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Oct 2015 06:43

Saumitraji, you think we could do with a Mig21 replacement today? I daresay that if the ACM said that then that does him discredit and credits HAL/DRDO for their vision.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 05 Oct 2015 06:52

Check this link

Considering the technologies involved, it (LCA Mk II) will be a MiG 21 + + aircraft and it will render yeoman service to the IAF

LCA Mk II is the journalist's own interpretation. And this statement was made in 2011. LCA was no where near where it is today, the IOC was not done so we need to put in proper context the ACM's statement instead of dissing it on face value.
Again quoting from the same article:

Explaining the parameters on which he called the LCA Mk II as MiG 21 + + aircraft, the Naik said, "This means first in endurance, second in performance, third in load carrying, fourth is the number of weapons it can deliver. Fifth is the weight with which it can navigate with and the vintage of the aircraft or avionics and sixth is radar."

I hope this puts all doubts to rest! We needed Mig21 replacement as of two decades back, for a chief who has to fight a war and not get a replacement is not a happy situation at all!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Oct 2015 07:54

-delete-

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Oct 2015 07:56

-delete-

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Oct 2015 07:57

True then. Today, the LCA is ready for the job it was designed to perform. The IAF need to accept IOC-1 Gen aircraft. And work for iterative improvements.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Oct 2015 07:59

Deejay - this person has corrected his post! Apologies.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 08:18

sivab wrote:
Karan M wrote: No increase in 6 squadrons. This is the part that is disappointing but I can live with it.
I didn't hear that. His point was we have ordered 20 IOC, 20 FOC & 120 MK2 right from the beginning. It has not been produced yet, but we are ready to take MORE (~35:50). To the next specific question whether those 120 need to be MK2, we just need those to be tejas with improvements as and when those technologies become available. That sounds reasonable.

He clearly says we are not increasing or decreasing the orders. And we we want all the tejas to be one type. Reading together the chances for a Mk2 reduce. And only 8 squadrons remain Its not optimal because the Mk2 would have been a rocket and really taken the program forward.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Oct 2015 08:24

Mk2 Tejas makes sense if they make it longer by 1.5m and wider wings to put in more fuel, internal avionics, more pylons, speedier a kind of Su34 derivative of the basic design to resolve all aerodynamic issues and increase strike power.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 08:28

Now would India also get license production deal for F-404-IN? It would make sense to do so now. This would be on top of 99 F-414 deal under negotiation for Mk.2. Both engines should be licensed produced to keep LCA fleet viable for the long haul.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 05 Oct 2015 08:31

Karan M: ACM starts out saying 1 IOC + 1 FOC + 6 MK2, but then corrects himself and says 6 squandrons (120) in total. Though I cannot be sure, you can see him catching the eye of someone from the right side of the screen who seems to point out the right numbers.

So, while he initially states 8 squadrons, he subsequently corrects himself to 6 and sticks with the latter number

He then says all of them will be Tejas with incremental improvements as they come

So, while the last part is good news, there is lack of clarity on the size of total order (if its 120, that isn't so great) & on the future of MK2

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 08:39

^^^
All previous reports mentioned the following and that has been verified by the ACM:

1 sqdn x LCA Mk.1 IOC-2 (20 units)
1 sqdn x LCA Mk.1 FOC (20 units)
4 sqdn x LCA Mk.2 (80 units) -> this now is Mk.1A or whatever improved version

Total: 6 sqdn (120 units) LCA on order

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 09:23

Prem and SRai - you guys appear to be right.

Depressing! So much for our hope of a change in attitude and some pragmatism at the IAF's AHQ. Nothing's changed really.

All that has happened is IAF agreeing to shift Mk2 orders to apparently Mk1/Mk1A.

Meanwhile they continue to dream of an unaffordable Rafale.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 09:26

Shukla confirms it.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/

Indian Air Force (IAF) boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, has verified Business Standard’s report (October 2, “Parrikar cuts Gordian knot to boost Tejas line”) that the air force was ordering 120 (six squadrons) Tejas Mark I Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), triple the 40 aircraft it had previously committed to buying from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).

Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Saturday, in the lead up to Air Force Day on October 8, Raha declared: “We are ready to take more --- 120 (fighters), six squadrons of Tejas… We are ready to take it as soon as they (HAL) can provide it. That means they have to ramp up the production rate, which is running behind schedule… But we will take all 120.”

Raha endorsed Business Standard’s description of the configuration of the additional fighters, which is being dubbed the Tejas Mark 1A. It will have an under-wing pod for electronic warfare and jamming, aerial refuelling capability, better air-to-air missiles and rearranged internals for easy maintenance.

... Raha’s optimism rests on his acceptance of indigenisation, a notable turnaround from his predecessors, who never planned beyond one-to-two Tejas squadrons. Raha’s acceptance of six Tejas squadrons immediately makes the numbers better.

In short per Shukla, this was the true state of affairs. Hitherto even the remaining 4 squadrons were somewhat uncertain (it was contingent on a future Mk2 and its performance). Thanks to Raksha Mantri's intervention, that 4 has been shifted publicly to the Mk1A. The public statement is a commitment to a high degree.

Some progress. Wonder what happens to the 99 Ge414 we had indented for. We haven't paid for them but some funding might have been released or commitment given.

The Mk2 will continue for the Navy at any rate. Perhaps the IAF may jump on it at a later date.

IMHO, Mk1A should focus on both weight reduction and aero improvements planned for Mk2 to be inducted. Along with the advanced avionics. Every ounce of improvement should be squeezed out of the current airframe and hope RM makes sure both HAL/ADA get this done ASAP.

If the LCA comes in at tim, proves itself, and IAFs expensive Rafale etc plans continue to flounder, there is a good chance for more LCA to be ordered. Common sense may kick in. PLAAF is still mostly J-10 and derivatives, PAF is stocking up on J-17s, but IAF has its sights set on unobtainium.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Oct 2015 10:09

Karan M wrote:Prem and SRai - you guys appear to be right.
Depressing! So much for our hope of a change in attitude and some pragmatism at the IAF's AHQ. Nothing's changed really.
All that has happened is IAF agreeing to shift Mk2 orders to apparently Mk1/Mk1A.
Meanwhile they continue to dream of an unaffordable Rafale.

I don't really agree, but then I am not a regular here. The decision to acquire Mk 1As rather than Mk 2 itself is a huge concession and climbdown from their earlier position, which was that LCA Mk 1 in its current form was a 'broken' design, that needed fixing through the Mk 2 version. The new position states implicitly 'the LCA airframe in its current form is fine - just give us more, and scale up to 1A level later'.

This amounts to a major change in position from a long held position that the current LCA design is not worth procuring in large numbers (i.e. at least half a dozen squadrons). Instead, now it's very much acceptable, and they simply want greater numbers and incremental improvement in capabilities via 1A. If Parrikar could convince them this much within a year - quite a significant accomplishment in itself, he can convince them to order more LCAs later.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 10:25

F404-GE-IN20 needs to be licensed produced with enough ToT to do both major and minor overhauls/repairs within India. Have GE open shop in India to do that if need be. No sending the engines to US for repairs as that would really impact fleet serviceability at the most critical times.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Oct 2015 10:25

if HAL can deliver 20 planes quickly and support it strongly to make sure of a high uptime and functionality, I can see more orders for Mk1A. there will simply be no option with 100s of Jags and Mig27s and 100 bison set to go within the next decade.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 10:37

Singha wrote:if HAL can deliver 20 planes quickly and support it strongly to make sure of a high uptime and functionality, I can see more orders for Mk1A. there will simply be no option with 100s of Jags and Mig27s and 100 bison set to go within the next decade.

Based on HAL's original statements disclosed to BS in Dec 2013, the delivery of the first four Tejas (SP-3 - SP-6) will be the defining moment from production standardization and stabilisation point-of-view. From there, scaling up won't be that much of an issue as seen with Hawk production.

HAL to build 8, then 12, Tejas fighters each year

...
"By end-March 2014, SP-1 will fly, and SP-2 will fly a few months later. By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters," says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL's production line for the Hawk trainer.
...
The Tejas could be a game-changer. Firstly, HAL has played a major role both in designing the Tejas and in building prototypes for the flight-test programme. Secondly, HAL has brought a radically new approach to Tejas production, adopting global aerospace manufacturing standards and an unprecedented approach to quality control.

Walking around the Tejas assembly line, Sridharan explains that the sixteen Tejas prototypes HAL has built are each different from the other. As the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) incrementally refined and improved the fighter, each new prototype incorporated improvements and additions. The most recent prototype has a pressure refuelling system that lets the Tejas be topped up Formula One style, in just 8 minutes and then flown back into combat.

"As a result of all these changes, a panel from one Tejas would not fit another. Now we will implement absolute standardisation, with identical components, assemblies and panels," explains Sridharan.

This is being done with laser scanners that ensure that a number of key points (called "locators") on each aircraft being built is exactly where it should be. By measuring with the laser, it is ensured that the locator is within 80 microns, i.e. about one-tenth of a millimetre, of where it should be. These are international standards, used by companies like Boeing.

It is evident from the focus of the laser trackers teams that it is painstaking work. This standardisation, and coordinating the flow of Tejas systems and sub-systems to the assembly line constitutes what Sridharan describes as the process of "stabilising" the Tejas line.

"Once the process is stabilised, we can transition to higher rates of production. My initial focus will be on production quality; then we will scale up production. HAL will meet the target of building 20 fighters by 2016-17," he says.

That was the pattern while building the Hawk. After building just two aircraft in the first year, seven were built in the second year. In the third year, HAL built 18 Hawks, and the remaining 14 Hawks were produced within months.
...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 10:43

Suraj, the problem is that such a basic thing is itself regarded as a "huge concession" itself shows the gravity of the situation & how the IAF has played hardball with the LCA program to such a degree that even this is a breather. Parrikar deserves credit to stabilize the program but one wishes the IAF had committed to a Mk2 as well and did more for the light fighter segment. That is where my concerns are.

Brought to some basic level of early order confirmation is a positive development, but the IAF is still not committing to more LCAs beyond six squadrons (that in itself is a huge mess for future planning and testament to how unrealistic the IAFs force planning is, cost wise - we are using Su-30 sledgehammers at forward AFB to do CAP, whilst obsolete airframes like the Jag are having more and more poured into them for tactical strike).

Even so, IAF had asked for 120 aircraft since GOI had them commit. All that has occurred is the 120 will now be Mk1/Mk1A. Shukla claims even the 4 follow on squadrons were not confirmed but MOD reports show the IAF had to commit to some 80 airframes for Mk2 (for which Ge414s were indented) and ADA/GOI had an overall budget for both Mk1 and Mk2. In short, even prior GOI managed to get the IAF to agree to 80 odd airframes for Mk2 but in interactions with journalists, and media the prior CAS were circumspect about LCA leading to much kiteflying and doubt about the program. This would likely have not changed, since once the investments were made, those LCAs would have come in.

In short, the IAF has actually not made any significant concessions in reality, because 120 airframes for the Mk1A/Mk1 as good as it may be, is still not sufficient to progress a Mk2 with confirmed orders.

It is of course to Parrikars credit that he got the IAF to climb down from its perch and meet the MOD on a reasonable proposition from a production order perspective to get enough LCAs out of the door. But from the program numbers perspective, all that has happened is a juggle.

The money that was already allocated for a Mk2 will now be mostly used for a Mk1A. The numbers that would have gone to a Mk2 - a far more capable aircraft than a Mk1A with a significantly more powerful engine - will now be used up for a Mk1A. The Naval Mk2 may be affected as well, since its costs will go up since its a single program.

At best, its a plus but it comes with tradeoffs elsewhere.

Add to the fact that the CAS is still loudly beating the MMRCA drum in public (which just adds to Dassault's negotiating position) and the LCA numbers haven't really gone up (which again adds to the above & also puts Mk2/NLCA MK2 at risk plus continues to have the IAF lopsided in its cost /capability matrix) - and this news is not overwhelmingly positive.

Which is the point Prem was making - and in that I tend to agree with him. Good news, but not something earth shattering. The Mk2 needs to be progressed with more range/payload than current LCA Mk1/Mk1A.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 05 Oct 2015 11:45

Re the IAF and it's 'attitude' which has been debated recently

This thought has been bothering me for some time.

The IAF chief and top brass have to do advance planning. For decades, unlike the politicos who have to do '5 year' plans (survive election to election)

So if i was the top rung of the IAF would i be thinking... 'This government appears to be more favorable and sensitive towards expansion of defence capabilities. Let us try and get them to get us as much latest products as possible, as long as they are in power. Who knows what kind of deprivation we might have to undergo in the future should this government lose the next elections.'

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 05 Oct 2015 15:49

srai wrote:F404-GE-IN20 needs to be licensed produced with enough ToT to do both major and minor overhauls/repairs within India. Have GE open shop in India to do that if need be. No sending the engines to US for repairs as that would really impact fleet serviceability at the most critical times.

i think both GE 404/414 need to be license built in India.

the LCA as is, is going thro' drag and weight reduction processes which will make the aircraft very capable by way of range and payload (though not the initial squadrons). so GE 404IN20 would still be good to go. some years down the line i hope more lighter avionics (due to advances in tech/miniaturisation/OBOGS etc) replacement and their rearrangement may give more in terms of weight reduction making it even better.

GE414 too because i expect IAF 'will' go for the much more capable/cost effective naval LCA 2 if MOD plays hardball and TINA. the commonality factor (logistics/spares etc..) will also kick in and dictate the choice.

GE/US need to be convinced to set up a shop here and make the these engines for selling globally as part of the MII programme. these engines being older family, US would be open to such a proposal i guess.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 15:53

We need a Mk2 unshackled from the size, weight footprint of the MiG-21 class and yet, lower than the twin engine Rafale/AMCA. Will be able to beat the PAF black and blue.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Oct 2015 17:35

I think, that is the reason to keep Mk2 behind the design window, and focus on the Mk1a.
Once IAF 'becomes a user', things can be re-assessed based on their actual ops feedback.

Mk2 will become AMCA.

[think like m4k, and we know the history and influences]

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 05 Oct 2015 18:21

SaiK wrote:I think, that is the reason to keep Mk2 behind the design window, and focus on the Mk1a.
Once IAF 'becomes a user', things can be re-assessed based on their actual ops feedback.

Mk2 will become AMCA. [think like m4k, and we know the history and influences]

IAF never conceptualized Mk2.. IN has.. when there was no other option in sight, IAF jumped on Mk2 wagon..

Now there seems to be a 'possibility' of pvt production line for F16, so IAF can jettison Mk2 and fill those numbers with F16. From IAF POV - with F16 performance is guaranteed (Mk2 has to get tested & proven) and quickly add Sqd numbers (production nearly in parallel with 120 Mk1A).

However, IN needs LCA Navy-Mk2. It cannot meet requirements with Mk1 or Mk1A. So IN will (have to) pursue LCA-Navy Mk2 with F414 engine. Therefore, Mk2 is not out of the picture.. If LCA-Navy Mk2 does turn out even fractionally better than F16 - then IAF can get interested in it.

For ADA - they can merge the Tejas-Mk2 team with AMCA team and push hard on AMCA. In one way it is good for AMCA program.

IAF wants more Rafales - but where is the money for more Rafales & then possible PAKFA?

In the end - my heart is not with the F16 production line (especially if the CISMOA stuff etc are involved), but have to come around to the fact that IAF has waited enough & also in dire situation with falling squadron levels & MMRCA down to 36 from 126..

Heart if firmly with 120 Mk1A & 120+ Mk2!!

I still feel if numbers are an issue - force ADA & HAL to agree to a parallel production line for LCAMk1A, and churn out LCA Mk1A in a healthy competition between HAL & a Pvt player.. but, "strategic partnership" game with US and necessary CBMs is a key factor in going for F16, I suppose.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Oct 2015 18:32

I don't think the F-16 thing is any more serious than the Gripen line in India thing. Corporations will offer but that doesn't mean the offer is being treated seriously.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Oct 2015 18:32

Karan, I would go with Suraj here. once Mk1A has a foot in the door it would be much easier for the Mk2 to be acquired later.
not to mention IAF choosing Mk1A itself is a progress.

5 years down the line when there is a continuing shortfall in numbers, and quick eurocanard purchase not possible, Mk2 would be the choice of least resistance.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 18:39

^^^

Akash being a good case point. Hopefully that's what transpires.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 05 Oct 2015 18:48

Don't understand such a long discussion. Isn't this what everyone wanted (except maybe few) -

1. Cancelling Rafales (and ordering few for face saving).
2. Building/Ordering LCA with incremental capabilities.

Does it matter now who it what earlier? Also people should not confuse Modi's "Make in India" with "Made in India". His process is to bring manufacturing here in India, be it F-16 or LCA or maybe JF-17

. Industry brings basic experience, which we don't have right now.