LCA News and Discussions

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Oct 2013 18:54

chackojoseph wrote:Over the years, we have forgotten why LCA was conceived. Me and Ex DRDO Navneet Bhushan jointly did an article after ROFLing about assertion that LCA is a replacement of MiG-21.

LCA Tejas, MIG-21s and IAF – Opportunity missed – hope it is not lost!

What is the basis of your assertion that LCA was concieved as replacement for Ajeet/Gnat in IAF? Thanks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2013 19:10

Typically the nature of market is such that one can't be assertive of any particular trend that would say LCA requirements can be mapped to. I would say it is largely because of indigenous capability establishments. This was the primary need, and rest of ops needs was a gradual progression.

Gov has to be very careful as defence market may change say if MMS-Obama agree on something, that makes all these indigenous programs does not make anymore sense on the value proposition alone. Khaans have the might and weapon to kill any program on Earth.

Our media must be aware, what can be poodled, and what can't be. We as drivers, should ensure media understands that, and channelize discussions towards that.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Oct 2013 19:24

Khans have been buying Mig-21s and spares for decades. It is very important to deal with our own requirements first and securing logistics for decades. In fact we should not allow any other countries outside strategic partners to disturb anything and for Tejas must keep logistics secure. Logistic chain and supply management should learn from experience. This is not intended to say anything against migs that made to IAF and have been formidable.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Oct 2013 20:04

Reg. the original concept of the LCA,Tapas Sen's memoirs have enough info,as well as the IAF's take on the concept at the initial stage where it was sceptical of the timeframe given by the ADA due to the ambitious capabilities proposed and the low tech base that existed then in the '80s.His team's presentation to IAF top brass including the air chief was in an earlier post.

If we are going to nurse MIG-21 Bisons until 2025,we will have to make do with MK-1s, as many as can be produced after the definitive production model has been cleared by the IAF.With an average rate of 8-16 in a 10 yr. time frame,around 80-120 could be built by 2025.They will even then only replace the 100+ Bisons in service and not the few hundreds of early model MIG-21s due for retirement! So what aircraft will then make up these numbers?

Ironically,we are now reportedly asking SAAB for help when we could've done so right at the beginning.The "E" variant of the Gripen is now available,talk about lost time.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2013 20:13

SAAB wanted us to be junior partners in the Gripen - eg take whatever was offered, which is why we didn't do it.
Once the MK-1 gets FOC, its pretty likely the MK-2 program will be supported with greater vigor.
Sad to say, but the salvos against the MK-2 at this point of time, come across as being pushed by those who don't want to commit to the program and are hence using the shoulders of others to have that message pushed across.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2013 20:17

ArmenT wrote:Anyone know what the hardware and programming language used for the LCA's flight control system are? This article mentions that DRDO bought dev. tools to build code for VME PPC-based single board computers with VxWorks 6.x OS and Ada.
http://www.adacore.com/press/mistral-solutions

Is that what they are using on the LCA?

Interesting that this report mentions flight control software .. i think you have cracked/found the data regarding the upgraded flight control computer to be seen on the MK-2.

As I recall, the VME PPC-based SBCs were originally chosen for the OAC (Open Architecture Computer) which replaces the MC (Mission Computer). The LCA DFCC however, was based on Intel 486DX4 class chips which of course are pretty old now, and also a number of chips procured from third party sources (during sanctions) had higher failure rates. Hence, redesigning the DFCC to the latest chips & supported software stds makes sense.

Edit: Also remember that ADE also makes the DFCC for the UAV programs. This could be for those as well. IIRC, they had moved to PPC as well.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Oct 2013 21:32

Karan M wrote:SAAB wanted us to be junior partners in the Gripen - eg take whatever was offered, which is why we didn't do it.
Once the MK-1 gets FOC, its pretty likely the MK-2 program will be supported with greater vigor.
Sad to say, but the salvos against the MK-2 at this point of time, come across as being pushed by those who don't want to commit to the program and are hence using the shoulders of others to have that message pushed across.

LCA was always an independent project. UK wanted India or Sweden join it for their light fighter program. Both rejected it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Oct 2013 22:46

* The LCA was specifically in response to the F-16C that Pakistan got
* In very informal conversations there was a request from an Indian to join the Tornado effort, UK countered with the Jaguar

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2013 22:47

From what I remember, India collaborated with UK and Sweden for their light fighter studies in the beginning. There were talks with SAAB and others who wanted to basically make the LCA a total MN program. They were rightly rejected as workshare agreements were lopsided. With Sweden, there was collab in terms of suppliers of critical systems (LCA team also worked with the same suppliers - eg Moog for actuators, US firms for avionics, GEC-Marconi and then Ericcson for radar).. ultimately, limited funding meant the program was launched much later than originally planned, tech challenges/sanctions and other issues added their bit later. On the plus side, if not for sanctions, current LCA would not have so many indigenous LRUs at first pass itself (before it gets to SP).

----------

Returning to the article:

Khokhar is asking for LCA MK1 intakes to be redesigned so that the Ge404 IN-20 can itself meet IAF ASR requirements. Problem is that he too is speculating here. What if it doesn't? Asking for a detailed analysis and only then approval will add more time to the program. Its a repeat of the staged TD/FSED/SP-IOC-FOC program which has been missed several timelines and required detailed approvals, funding clearances at each stage.

And even if it does, what if the program can be continued into the Ge414 with even better performance, and a larger aircraft can meet better estate management requirements, it should be allowed to do so. Limiting the dimensions to MiG-21 class and asking for F-16/MiG-29/Mirage 2000 systems - which mean every inch is packed with avionics - was a fundamental issue to begin with. Today, the IAF is busy expanding AFB to field Su-30 MKIs. The LCA can fit in as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Oct 2013 03:52

In fact LCA Mk2 not only will fit into expanding AFBs, it can spread the operational expertise and distribute wider on the aircraft maintenance and hangars. This will mean increased knowledge base much more than SuMKI can offer. The whole system, IAF, DRDO, HAL and integrators and operational support will enjoy a living eco-system. Operational feedbacks will come, and Mk-3 or AMCA can get much better support., from various LCA models.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 07:03

NRao wrote:* The LCA was specifically in response to the F-16C that Pakistan got
* In very informal conversations there was a request from an Indian to join the Tornado effort, UK countered with the Jaguar

LCA was conceived in 1974 and that's when the first meet was conducted to create a small nimble aircraft which will be current in its own time. It was direct out of experience of Gnat in 1971 war.

Karan M,

UK's proposal came much after LCA studies/ creation began. There is a book by a British author on the subject. its a long time and I don't recollect the name or the book. When I used to post at WAB forum in 2005 or 2006, a British poster had posted the entire reference to it by typing it out.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Oct 2013 07:38

NRao wrote:* The LCA was specifically in response to the F-16C that Pakistan got

That's not true. The need to counter the F-16s was more urgent and the IAF eventually ended up buying three different aircraft to counter it (and build up our own modern interceptor force) - Mig-23MF, Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 in that order.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Oct 2013 07:43

But I think, there were some significant influence in term of technology selections and capabilities from the earlier F16 models. Though it may not be a response to F16s for pakistan, but it definitely had some influence in the world fighter market, including for the russkie migs. F16s are like sachin tendulkars for next gen fighter jets.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 08:10

Logically. F-16 / Mig-29 have defined what is current generation of their times. F-16 XL was used for its FCL.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Oct 2013 08:29

That's not true.

As some here would say "from the horse's mouth". In a book in private circulation written by one that was on the lca team starting in 1980-81.

Both those incidences.

In fact another story is about the UN willing to fund a wind tunnel that got sqaushed because of our unfriendly nation in the 'hood.

There are more about asr and the Kaveri.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 08:40

Karan M wrote:Not a waste of time at all. You let such inaccurate commentary persist and it takes on a life of its own.
Eg 200 kg weight of the ballast when no radars were fitted into the LCA..

Sorry, did not see it before.

Some media publishes anything that creates sensation. That's why authors are paid. Good news won't make it for either of them.

NRao,

Absolutely shocking. The first meet for LCA was in 1974 and right after cancellation of TASA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Oct 2013 08:43

Cj,

Does it need to be a zero sum game?

I do not see why both stories cannot be true.

Will try and check, but with age having caught up do not think it possible. Let us see.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 08:54

It does not has to be zero sum game. I just read wiki and they have cited that to global security, which has cited nothing.

This is what i know about the program:

1974 : first meet by IAF and DRDO for a small, nimble a/c after the Gnat experience. The first loose ASR was then. The studies began. Project Definition Phase (PDP) for development of LCA was sanctioned in August 1983. ADA established in 1984. FSED was in 1993.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Oct 2013 09:11

My iPod is nearly dead. Let me know your email and we can take it from there.

But, based on what you have posted, I see no issues at all. Having said that i still need to dig the book out - been some 10 years.

L8r.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Oct 2013 09:14

If one looks at PKs comments,to be favourable to him,he is not for dumping the LCA in favour of an alternative bird ,but argues that the dev. time for Mk-2 will be far more than what the ADA has envisaged (2 years) and therefore will fail to be developed in time and produced in enough numbers that the IAF need to replace the large numbers of aircraft being pensioned off.To save time,he suggests improving the MK-1 itself and a comprehensive review by the two OEMs so that one knows what is being envisaged for MK-2 and how we are going to go about it. There are also several allegations he makes with regard to them affecting operational practices,engine change time for example,refuelling,etc.These should be cross-checked for veracity.Remember that PK was Dir. of the NTFC and earlier wrote this piece in VAYU,"Do we want the Tejas....or not?","Tejas and beyond",which were discussed in detail earlier on on BRF.

However,unless MK-1 enters service asap ,the first 40 ordered delivered,and is put through its paces by the IAF,one will still be in the dark about whether Mk-1 is sufficient or a more capable MK-2 is essential.Unfortunately,the MMRCA is also delayed and the IAF is up the creek without a paddle in a leaky boat.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/2013_issue4 ... -OrNot.pdf

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/The ... Beyond.pdf

Reg. the history and evolution of the LCA,it is well described by Air Cmde. Tapas Sen in this link:The Tejas Debate Continues
Posted on May 11, 2012 .I'm quoting from just one para. which illustrates the timescale required before the a new aircraft becomes operational after it enters service.This is why the production of the first 40 MK-1s has to be achieved on a war footing.

http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2012/05/1 ... continues/

There are other concerns for the Air Force. In the cyber world there seems to be an impression that as soon as the new air craft type is sanctioned Initial Operational Clearance and ordinary Air Force Pilots are allowed to fly the aircraft, the the new type becomes an asset for the air force. In real life it is not so. From our past experience we know that about four or five years are necessary for a fleet to stabilize and become a useable weapon system. The Marut and the Gnat entered service around 1959 but could become useable assets on by 1963/64. The Mig 21 entered Service in 62/63 but became a weapon system only in 1967/68. The air force needs this time to generate stocking level, supply chain. maintenance procedures, and to generate the core body of technical and tactical knowledge and experience. For this purpose, the air force needs to possess sufficient number of serviceable aircraft that can be operated intensively for a sustained period. Not a single series production Tejas aircraft has come out yet. It appears that the target rate of production would be about eight aircraft per year. That would make it 2015 before the air force commences intensive flying and about 2017 till it becomes a weapon system. After the first two squadrons are formed, a new Mk2 version of the airplane will make an appearance. It is not known how long that will take to go through all the steps and stabilize. The introduction of the MMRCA fleet will coincide with this time frame. The Air Force will be stretched. The Air Force is thus anxious.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 09:16

NRao,

I don't put the onus on proof on you. I just pointed out what I know of the history. It is ok if someone wrote from the PDP stage. There is no dispute.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Oct 2013 11:51

CJ can you write mire about the 2004 ASR and what all it included, changes et al f.e. wigh earlier ones.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 12:32

I will try. It was conceived in 1970's. I had the history once (2006?). I cannot pin the correct year now as i lost it. There was a mention of it in 1971 and probably culminated in 1973 or 74. This project is some 40 years old.

Edited ~~(It was initially called Advanced strike aircraft. )~~

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Oct 2013 15:22

I am asking about the 2004 ASRCin particular not the genesis of the program.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 14 Oct 2013 17:42

In 2004, IAF formulated the final Air Staff Requirement (ASR), which mirror the requirements of a Mig -21 ++ replacement. The matter is complicated as the power requirement surged and a higher thrust engine is now required. 2004 ASR was in effect counter to the very philosophy of LCA project. It basically makes it a bigger and heavier fighter.

Read more: http://frontierindia.net/lca-tejas-mig- ... z2hCwffuli
Frontier India - news, Analysis, Opinion
Follow us: @frontierindia on Twitter | frontierindia on Facebook

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Oct 2013 18:13

Krishnan,

read the next para "LCA-Mk-1 today not just meets the original requirement for a small light agile sophisticated fighter which was supposed to replace Ajeet’s, but also surpasses Mig-21 specs. LCA Mk-II is more suited for a ground attack role than an air combat fighter."

Both of us authors have not attributed it as a direct MiG-21 replacement and used word "mirrors."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Oct 2013 18:43

I think IAF should begin their operational exericses with LCA Mk1, to get used to it at earlier stages itself so that when MMRCA comes (if it comes)... the streatching effects can be reduced.. the man-machine interface needs a higher priority from an ops requirement point of view. JMT

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Oct 2013 19:58

While googling ....................................

AVIA :: Apr-Aug, 2003 :: Dr S R Valluri on Indian aeronautics in the 1950’s and 1960’s

What was it like in the 1970’s?

It was a trying period because the IAF didn’t
have enough confidence in the Indian industry;
neither was the climate sufficiently conducive
for industry and R&D to work together.
Fortunately Air Chief Marshal I H Latif
intervened decisively to eventually break the
impasse. A major change in the situation
developed after he strongly supported the
decision to build an indigenous fighter aircraft.
The LCA programme eventually went on to
integrate the IAF, industry and R&D labs

And an old BR post:

SaurabhG

No Nandai<BR> According to the EconomicTimes. <P>The LCA was conceived in 1968 but was given the go-ahead only in 1983. <P> They are calculating 32 years from the year of conception, which was 1968, to the year of first test flight i.e 2000(begining 2001).<P>
Code: Select all

So, there is the approx birth of the LCA. (BTW, that BR thread, in 2001, on the LCA is very interesting. Not to speak of the old timers too.)

Now for the ref to the F-16C ...............................

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 14 Oct 2013 20:10

SaiK wrote:Sagar G, I don't see the imageshack jpg.. others have the same problem?

Sorry for the delayed response saar

http://imageshack.us/a/img217/3787/tejasmk2.jpg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Oct 2013 01:55

no worries.. just wasn't working for me.

btw, in that pic, they should show the correct refueling pod (retractable).. this one looks rafalish.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 15 Oct 2013 12:31

I think the Rafale'ish refuelling pod is what we probably will get evenutally. Retractable pod will probably tax the already low real estate that is available (at least at the front of the a/c).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Oct 2013 18:05

please read that more room is being created for mk-2.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 15 Oct 2013 19:33

SaiK Garu - More space is being created for sure, but will I prefer using it for something else is the question? Looking at the basic structure of the a/c it seems that even with expansion, it will probably have little space for a moving plumbing (hydraulics, et all).
IMHO only.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Oct 2013 19:47

krishnan wrote:
In 2004, IAF formulated the final Air Staff Requirement (ASR), which mirror the requirements of a Mig -21 ++ replacement. The matter is complicated as the power requirement surged and a higher thrust engine is now required. 2004 ASR was in effect counter to the very philosophy of LCA project. It basically makes it a bigger and heavier fighter.

Read more: http://frontierindia.net/lca-tejas-mig- ... z2hCwffuli
Frontier India - news, Analysis, Opinion
Follow us: @frontierindia on Twitter | frontierindia on Facebook

I read that. Was asking for more details on top of this.

Harping on the hypothetical 1968 date is also counterproductive. Enough propaganda has been done against the LCA as is, claiming its a 3 decade program because of a signature/s in 1983.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Oct 2013 23:49

I think programme should deem to start when preliminary design of LCA was ready which was in 1989

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Oct 2013 23:56

nikhil_p, unless we see the drawings and dimensions, it is difficult to say, it is very little space. again, it could be also depend on the design of the retractable device (it could be a telescoping extendsion in only one direction /fwd at an angle).

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Oct 2013 00:22

IIRC Cobham is making retractable fuel probe for LCA mk.2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Oct 2013 05:20

are they making it for mk.2 or marketing to mk.2? in the sense we have already placed the order with them? did not hear about that.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Oct 2013 07:10

Vic,

Even if you consider 1984 preliminary design stage, LCA replacing MiG-21 is not same as LCA is the replacement of MiG-21. They are two different things. The PDP was arrived from the initial studies and process which aimed at a small nimble advanced aircraft which was initially aimed at replacing Gnats/Ajeets.

1984 PDP had nothing to state that it was one to one replacement in modern avatar. It was one of IAF's logic that LCA will fill void left after MiG-21 retirement. 1984 PDP was a formative as the first 1973-74 concept. Even 2004 final ASR has nothing that that states that it is 1 to 1 replacement (for example, replacement of a quarterback with a quarterback in football). It is a multirole fighter and not point defence/CAP fighter.

I will repeat, LCA is still what it was originally planned, a small - nimble - modern aircraft.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Oct 2013 14:38

SaiK wrote:are they making it for mk.2 or marketing to mk.2? in the sense we have already placed the order with them? did not hear about that.

Cobham Looks At LCA Fueling Probe

“We will develop and design a retractable refueling probe,” Griffiths says. “LCA is a tightly packed aircraft ... Unfortunately, we’re later in the design period. We will roll out the retractable [version] by 2013-14.”

Seems like they are making it but let's see what eventually happens.