LCA News and Discussions

[Anujan]

X-posting

Case in point – K series missiles – http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ma ... ssile.html
K series missiles are DRDO staffed but Navy managed while Agni series are DRDO staffed and managed. Comparing the Navy run Shourya length 10.22 meters diameter 0.74 meters weight 6500 kg with DRDO run Agni 1 length 15 meters weight 12000 kg offering same throw weight and range (~700 km). Also, Shourya is built of maraging steel while Agni uses composites.

This is just BS being peddled around. My question is, would Shourya be possible at all without the decades of experience being built up using the Agni? This is like comparing Brahmos with Prithvi!! When Agni and Prithvi were designed, not even (decent) cars were being manufactured in India!

The Shourya is not even a "pure" ballistic missile! How did we gain knowledge about the atmospheric conditions, the temperature and the thermal conditions during the re-entry regime, and aspects like guidance to pull of something like the Shourya? Do you know why Agni has a comparatively "pathetic" performance when compared to newer missiles? (Hint: Do you know how Indian capability to make rocket motor casings evolved over the years? And our achievement in making case-bonded motors?) Also, coming back to the super pathetic Prithvi, did its quasi-ballistic warhead influence the technologies in Shourya?

Also *most importantly* could it be the case that a metal case is *needed* for the Shourya, because, maybe it flies within the atmosphere and maybe the skin temperatures reach upto 700 C, which need to be dissipated uniformly and the missile undergoes lot more stress than a conventional ballistic missile (which can be built out of composites because the skin temperature is well within 300 C) ?

[pragnya]

@TSarkar,

However, as I mentioned earlier, couldnt we have got the bird on the flight line faster using the Dassault analogue FC system,

Sir, when the very aim (among others) of the ADA/IAF/MOD via the LCA program was to get the digital FBW why would they go for Dassualt Analog FC system which in any case would have become stale much faster as proven?? why would have ADE partnered with BAE/LM for the same and why would have National Control LAW (CLAW) TEAM been established in 1992?? besides i dare say IAF was party to this if you go thro' this interesting article though an old one. i have highlighted the relevant portions.

Monday, Sep 16, 2002

LCA economics

REGULAR READERS of The Hindu may remember the article `Saving the light combat aircraft' that appeared on August 9, 2001 arguing that the only way to save the then floundering LCA was to purchase about fifty GE 404 engines, enough to equip two squadrons along with some spares, until the Kaveri engine was ready.

It now appears that the defence ministry was already thinking on those lines and has decided, in principle, to buy about forty engines from General Electric of the United States. One needs to go back about a quarter century to understand the background to the LCA programme. As Pushpinder Singh has pointed out in Vayu, that was when the IAF drew up an Air Staff Target spelling out the need for a fighter to replace the MiG-21 which, even today, continues to be the backbone of the air force. The agile new aircraft was essentially for air defence with a secondary close air support capability. It had to incorporate state-of-the-art avionics and weapon systems while being pre-eminently affordable, considering that at its peak the IAF's order of battle included over 400 MiG-21s in 19 squadrons.

This Target had become an Air Staff Requirement by the mid-1980s calling for a far more potent fighter than the "Super Gnat'' originally envisaged. That was also when the LCA programme was launched with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) formally constituted to manage it.ADA recognised right at the beginning that the LCA programme was predicated on five critical technologies: The carbon composite wing, the high performance multimode radar, the propulsion, the flight control systems, and a glass cockpit. Looking back, development of advanced carbon composite has been very
successful, with specialised software having even been sold to Airbus Industrie, and the critical flight control system has been developed in spite of Lockheed Martin withdrawing their assistance thanks to the Pokhran blasts of 1998.

On the other hand, development of the Kaveri engine has fallen behind, but engine development is always slow and unpredictable. Even Snecma of France, with half a century of successful jet engine development experience, took nearly 13 years to bring the Rafale fighter's engine, the M 88, to low volume production after bench testing had begun.

Fast-forwarding to the present, two LCA "technology demonstrators'' have already flown with GE 404 engines, the maiden flight having taken place on 4th January 2001. The first aircraft, TD 1, completed its initial flight test programme after a dozen flights and is now being upgraded to expand its flight envelope. TD 2, with an "indigenous cockpit'', had completed nine flights by the end of August.

The LCA has been described as the world's smallest and lightest, supersonic, multirole fighter. Modern aerodynamic design with static instability (controlled by a quadruplex flight control system), a "full glass'' cockpit, full authority digital engine control (FADEC), and up-to-date weapons systems including beyond visual range air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles make it comparable in performance to the latest versions of the American F-16 or the French Mirage 2000. Small size and the extensive use of composites also make this agile aircraft much stealthier than its formidable competitors, without having to resort to the aerodynamically inefficient compromises of, for example, the American F-117 "stealth'' fighter.

Estimates last year put the LCA's cost at about Rs.100 crores per aircraft. One needs to compare this with an aircraft of similar capability like the multirole Mirage 2000-5, which Taiwan bought paying French franc 333 million apiece in 1997. At current exchange rates, that amounts to approximately Rs. 245 crores with inflation easily taking that up to Rs. 300 crores today. In other words, assuming Indian and French inflation rates are similar, the LCA would be one third the price, or Rs. 200 crores cheaper, when it enters service. No mean achievement.

Some of those critical of the LCA do not seem to realise that affordability is something that even the United States has learnt to accept as shown by the launch of the Joint Strike Fighter programme last year. The JSF is in some ways less capable than the US Air Force F-22 or the US Navy's F/A-18 E/F, but its affordability makes it unbeatably essential to both services.

A major advance with the LCA programme is the complete transparency that has recently been achieved between the IAF, ADA and Hindustan Aeronautics with the former realising that it was not being forced to accept an aircraft of unknown capability at an uncertain future date and that, on the contrary, it really needs the LCA soon. However, other important programmes such as those for unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) should also be given importance.

All this does not mean that everything is hunky dory. For the LCA to demonstrate initial operations capability including successful weapons release trials and full integration of the avionics suite, at least another thousand test flights will be essential. If that is to be achieved by the end of 2007, five more "near production standard'' prototypes will have to be flying soon in addition to the two technology demonstrators that have already taken to the air.

Some systems will have to be imported, at least initially, from secure sources, but great efforts urgently need to be made to ensure that the development of all indigenous systems and production facilities needed for the aircraft is put on a war footing. This will not happen unless and until realistic estimates for the various activities involved are made, and stuck to thereafter, by committing adequate physical, financial and, not least, human resources to the programme.

Past experience does not suggest, unfortunately, that that will happen unless the defence minister gives immediate political direction to that effect. Even assuming that the IAF only needs 250 aircraft of the type, that means that a saving of at least Rs. 50,000 crores is involved in initial acquisition costs and at least as much again over the aircrafts' lifetime.

The nation's financial health and a sustainable air defence capability demand that nothing less is acceptable.

C. Manmohan Reddy

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/biz/ ... 190300.htm

@mods : excuse me for posting the full article. it is an old article and may even be removed from the hindu site in some time.

bottom line : while the original target was a Mig 21 replacement but what we have today is more like M2K-5 replacement!!! is that not an achievement?? even if a bit delayed which was again partly out of the control of the ADA (fbw story - between 2 to 3 yrs delay)??

.......................

your other point was IAF was not responsible for the weight gain.

let's take a look at this standing committe on defence (9th report) -

Standard of preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and
avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was
made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.

Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the
Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-à-vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II
programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31
Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop
& productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of
Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds.

The need for extension of PDC for LCA FSED Phase-II was due to :

 Complexity of the system desgn and very high safety standards lead to extensive
testing to ensure flight safety.

 Incorporating the configuration changes (for example R60 close Combat Missile (CCM)
was replaced by R73E CCM which required design modifications) to keep the aircraft
contemporary

 Due to non-availability of indigenous „Kaveri Engine‟ design changes were carried out to
accommodate GE404 engine of USA.

 Change in the development strategy of Radar and associated changes on the aircraft.

 Major development activity of Avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft
contemporary, which took time but yielded results (for example, development of obsolescence
free open architecture avionics system).

 US sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and
developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production
cycle took time.

as you can see the specs were only finalised by the IAF in 2004. how do you expect the weight will not go up?? any weapon of a higher weight added, sensors added, avionics added does not mean only that much weight gain but additional weight gain because of strengthening the aircraft for the higher load plus counterbalancing effort to maintain the CG. as one can see it is a vicious circle all adding up to the weight!!! and then obviously one needs a higher thrust engine if one's requirements are more, just as with IAF in this case. to absolve IAF completely from this weight gain phenomenon is simply unbeleivable. even the change from R60 to R73 means 123 kg (for 2 missiles) the aircraft needs to be strengthened to a g-force of 1107kg!!!

however i do agree ADA was conservative (this is understandable because they were doing it for the first time with no past experience) and may have over designed it and hence partly responsible but definitely not solely. plus also their original aim of 5500kg empty was unrealistic (case in point - Gripen C which is similar LCA but weighs higher at 6800kg) due to the same point which they must have realised later but even here it won't be 1 tonne weight gain (which looks so because of that unrealistic 5500kg old parameter) but would be IMO half of that which is being chopped/remedied now. this is common to any new player and the curve is always harder.

but at the end of the day what they have achieved is stupendous to say the least vis-a-vis setting up a whole new infra/architecture for building an aircraft on our own. the systems developed for the LCA are becoming standard on other IAF aircrafts.

[suryag]

Firstly, Staff Requirements typically specify performance criteria, like maneuverability, range, payload & speed. Empty weight and TWR are derived from these performance criteria by the designers. For example, with “x” engine to have range/endurance “y” with payload “z” at speed “w” will back-calculate in an indicative empty weight of “v”. There is no record or proof that ASR was changed by IAF increasing payload/speed/range/endurance.

Tsarkar ji can we ask you proof of the fact that IAF didnt change the ASR. You say it was loosely based on Marut's ASR but I am not sure of your engineering background loose specification means either you are not a serious customer or the executing company has no choice but to try and implement every vague thing that is thrown at them due to desperation.

Again i am not aware of your engg background but this talk of means and ends achieved is to say the least all hogwash. Historically the attitude of the forces have been to demand the best, please see what happened to the first ATGM(:?:) DRDO designed by reverse engineering and incremental enhancement of the product, it never cut ice with the forces. The approach taken was exactly the one you have suggested i.e., take an existing technology(wire guided ATGM) and then enhance it. Also all this talk about navy being prudent with project management is borne out of their meager fund allocations and not out of some great insight. In that context could you expect DRDO to go to the forces and give them Dassault's analog FBW and if they had done that no need to guess the response of the IAF to the RM,it would simply be that DRDO is incapable of looking into future and wants to peddle existing stuff to the IAF. Let us now forget what IAF has to say, they never had any good things to say in the first place anyways.

Let us now consider a general engineering challenge assume you have three generations of products and let us say you havent built even nuts and bolts for the first two generations and now you want to make a product and you are resource constrained, which direction would you proceed, would you go ahead and generate the second generation product and have no customer and resultant total waste of money and no knowhow on the third generation or would you take a stab at the third generation and get that working? Even if you encounter time delays while developing the third generation you have consolation that you are fully aware of the state of art and also from the fact that the processes involved in designing a fourth generation would borrow heavily from the third generation than from the second generation.

Because of what has been achieved on the Tejas program we are talking about AMCA/AURA, in other words, I dont think we can get to the drawing board for these projects if we had not mastered 4 channel FBW, glass cockpit or composite structure. Apart from the technologies mastered we have also gained a large amount of information on the maintenance needed for the technologies mentioned above and these are not specified in any textbook and as Air Cmde Rohit Verma said it is one thing to design/develop a capable fighter and it is another thing to achieve high sortie rate. So looking at all these and many other things the approach taken with the LCA was the best and yeah last but not the least we never had multiple design bureaus running and it was just one bureau so all in all the gravity of achievements on the LCA front is huge and could things have been done better ? yes hindsight is 20/20 however the direction that was taken is not in question.

[Craig Alpert]

Also, what is ISR? Never heard of this term.

Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
Cheers!

[Sanku]

as you can see the specs were only finalised by the IAF in 2004. .

If you see the very same list you posted, there is only (1) change due to ASR requirements, which is already discussed, viz the missile.

The other changes are (1) development issues, (2) sanctions, (3) upgrading avionics

What do any of these have to weight anyway, delay maybe understandable, but not weight.

===============

In any case I am with Shiv on this one, when he says that the shooting for the moon before making a Sivkasi rocket, is certainly not a prudent approach. Step by step is a much better option.

[Rahul M]

sanku ji, I've already mentioned the ASR updates in my post and it is not 'just' the missile. why intentionally derail the thread by picking out one article that doesn't have the complete information when the full information is already provided by others ?

[Sanku]

sanku ji, I've already mentioned the ASR updates in my post and it is not 'just' the missile. why intentionally derail the thread by picking out one article that doesn't have the complete information when the full information is already provided by others ?

Do you mean this post Rahul? Or an older one that I missed?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1038661

If you mean the above, could you please make a list of the same with some points on additional support for each of these and the weight gain you expect per component, kindly do feel free to add secondary addition (for example if OBGS is 5Kg+ (say) -- add 5 + kgs for plumbing etc if you think it is needed)

I ask for this, because with colored fonts in embedded quote, it is very difficult to get all the points from your replies.

[negi]

TSarkar it's interesting you bring up the point about using 'complex means' to achieve standard goals and I believe Shiv ji had some time back posted views of Prof Prodyut Das who had similar things to say about the Tejas programme all I have to say on the part about choice of complex FCS and unstable design is we do not know exactly as to what circumstances compelled the team to opt for such a design specially when it's a well know fact that Tejas design team was closely working with the LM trying to devise and validate a FCS based on F-16 VISTA platform which is again an unstable design. Iow the design team's decision to opt for a complex system might have become easy due to the fact that they had someone who had perfected and fielded the technology looking over their shoulders and this later came back to bite us when sanctions were imposed on us post PoK-II, this is what imho delayed the programme more than anything else.

[Rahul M]

sanku ji, frankly, trying to estimate 'wild guess' additional weight per component we would be more pathetic than blind men trying to understand elephants' social habits armed with nothing but a marble, IOW utterly ill-equipped. even experienced aircraft designers would need more than a little info about the equipment themselves and LCA's internal architecture in order to make a crude guesstimate. if we try it with our knowledge of LCA project we would only be embarrassing ourselves.

better stick to hard facts,

>>we do know that systems that have been added or upgraded in ASR 2005 as compared to ASR 1985 f.e IFR, jammer, extra station for LDP, full upgradation of avionics in addition to the wing re-design.
>> we know that the initial LCA vehicles were not over the 5500 kg weight any more than is usual for prototypes, which are invariably a little overweight. (unless my memory has gone AWOL)
>> we know that the post ASR 2005 LCA vehicles started to be about 1 ton over the 5500 kg target. it's only from 2007 that we started hearing about performance 'shortfall' in LCA, which would be the time the first post ASR-2005 aircraft with all the bells and whistles would have started rolling out. we never heard that before this time.

from all this and also the repeated statement by PSS that LCA was modified according to IAF requirements in 2005, which for the first time clarified what IAF wanted from the fighter, one can perhaps draw a chain of causality from ASR-2005 to improved capabilities on to increased weight of LCA. of course, you are free to disagree but then you have to explain how the weight increased magically by more than one ton if no new systems were added and by all accounts ADA was trying its utmost to reduce weight.

[aditya.agd]

Wonderful posts gentlemen. I hope that IAF selects Tejas in large numbers ....

I wish IAF and IA services were as friendly to indegenous technology as Indian Navy.

[suryag]

In any case I am with Shiv on this one, when he says that the shooting for the moon before making a Sivkasi rocket, is certainly not a prudent approach. Step by step is a much better option.

Sanku ji it would be preposterous to claim Raj Mahindra/KH didnt know how to build a sivakasi rocket when he embarked on building a rocket

[shiv]

Secondly, because MiG-21 were the oldest fighters on the IAF flight line, it was naturally assumed by everyone that Tejas will be the line replacement for MiG-21. In reality, Su-30 was the line replacement of MiG-21 series. However, nowhere and at no point of time did IAF cut-paste MiG-21 performance criteria while drafting Tejas ASR.

This is the first I am hearing of this

Simpler fighters means using simpler means to achieve superior ends.. That is the challenge and the beauty of engineering. The present Tejas project is a classic example of complex means achieving standard ends.

The design of modular line-replaceable units is beautiful engineering requiring more complex design to provide a product that is simple to maintain for the air force because the entire aircraft need not be take off the flight line to repair a failed part. In aviation going beyond standard ends requires mastery of complexities.

The part about composites is a never ending debate. Weight of Tejas with more composites versus weight of Gripen with less is one side of the story. Other other side of the story is to ask how a nation is ever going to gain experience in the use of composites for aircraft is the entire nation whines and whines and whines all the time. We talk one heck of a lot about 4th Gen and 5th gen. Composites tech is an integral part of 5th gen - and it started with 4th gen, There is almost no way a country can suddenly acquire expertise in the manufacture of composites in aircraft minus the pain.

[shiv]

anyone with access to Janes aircraft yearbooks can look up the old declared intent for LCA - its been a while since i've looked but there used to be a description of the LCA every year... i think you'll find that the description has changed over time

Serendipity-ullah ji!

I happen to have the 1986-87 issue of Jane's All the World's Aircraft.

On page 95-96 there is a paragraph that says:

LIGHT COMBAT AIRCRAFT
The Indian government has confirmed a requirement for an air superiority and light close air support aircraft for service in the 1990s. Known as the LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) it will be designed with assistance from a Western aerospace company but probably manufactured entirely in India. It is expected to embody composite materials in its construction and to have a fly-by-wire control system. Empty and max T-O weights were originally believed to be in the order of 6000 kg (13,230 lb) and 10,500 kg (23,150 lb) but the latter has now risen to 12,500 kg (27,558 lb). An indigenous afterburning engine of about 83.4 kN (18,740 lb st) designate GTX-35 entered development by the Gas Turbine Reseacrh Establishment at Bangalore but an existing foreign engine (the RB199 and/or F404 have been suggested) may be utilised until this is ready/ The project definition phase is currently under way, but a first flight is not expected before the early 1990s.

[shiv]

couldnt we have got the bird on the flight line faster using the Dassault analogue FC system, open the envelope, and use the indigenous system in the next mark?

That would have negated one of the original requirements of the LCA. In fact Prof Prodyut Das suggested that we should have made Gnat ++.

[vina]

Agreed, however ADA design specifications, that was derived from IAF ASR, included payload and empty weight. Typically, Store Management Systems, pylons, wiring covered under empty weight. When designing a fighter, certain tolerances have to be built into the airframe and accounted for as a part of empty weight. Obviously design is not right when we have to stiffen the wing when weaponization commences. Shouldn’t these tolerances have been built in the first place?

Ah, now you are coming to the point. Why was the spec for the TD not close enough to the actual production fighter and thus required major full scale engg development (FSED) and prototype building? For that you need to look at your fellow folks in uniform, the IAF.

The IAF frankly didn't give a rat's musharraf about the Tejas until the TD phase was over and I think the folks asked.. umm.. what will you need on the production Tejas! Why the IAF chief was advised NOT to come for the first flight! The Tejas program was used as a parking lot for brass who fell out in the race to the top post to be kicked upstairs before , with the clear exit sign pasted! It frankly was a ba*tard child which the IAF didnt want to be bothered about until that damned thing actually flew against all expectations. That thing flying and flying successfully was not something the IAF wanted and looked forward to at all!

Frankly that is the kind of difference between the Navy and the IAF. They Navy APPROACHED the ADA from their side and wanted studies to see if the LCA can be made a STOBAR fighter, created a project team staffed with top level high quality people, embedded them with the team, gave them full authority to sign off on specs and make decisions and most importantly paid 40% of the cost to develop the LCA Navy from it's own budget! The Airforce sat on it's bottom, didn't even want to look at it, contributed ZERO Rupees out of it's budget and once the TD was over and was asked to come up with weapon specs, came up with new specs, and then when the IAF's Musharraf was kicked around for that kind of thing (there would have been serious Musharraf kicking behind the scenes between the MoD and IAF on this , I am very very sure on this) they THEN get serious about it and start supporting the program. Of course that lack of IAF support and involvement right from the TD stage (other than contributing test pilots and the folks who set up the national test flight center) is what is the root of these kind of snafus.

[vina]

Well, I did get a chance to visit the Saab factory, and A/B model is only 20-25% composites. Tejas has 40-45% weight as composites

Yeah. Maybe you should ask them why they upped the 20-25% to the close to 40% for the C/D model (which is what the LCA MK-1 is comparable to ) and what was the weight gain from A to C?

[NRao]

Secondly, because MiG-21 were the oldest fighters on the IAF flight line, it was naturally assumed by everyone that Tejas will be the line replacement for MiG-21. In reality, Su-30 was the line replacement of MiG-21 series. However, nowhere and at no point of time did IAF cut-paste MiG-21 performance criteria while drafting Tejas ASR.

The LCA was designed to take on the F-16C - the first set of planes TSP got then.

[vina]

Yet if PV Naik requests performance deficiencies be removed before squadron serviced, he is criticized for being too demanding. Double standards for KF and Jet vis-a-vis IAF.

Err. But you were the one who wanted a metal plane to be built!. If you want the best of the best, start doing your part of the design and also be prepared for delays and technology maturity cycles kind of snafus and holdups. It is all part of the game.

Yet the MiG29K/KUB does it, beat the Rafale in that competition, and will be the backbone of Fleet Air Defence for atleast the next 30 years.

What competition ? There was none. You wouldn't have got the carrier if you didn't take the Mig29Ks along with it ! That is why you got it. What you really wanted was the carrier. The Russians pulled a classic bait and switch and the Navy fell for that like a bunch of massive suckers. That Mig 29 beating Rafale is the realm of make believe,unless you drink the Russian cool aid in gallons.

Like getting the bird on the flight line using the Dassault analogue FC system and use the indigenous system in the next mark.

That analog FC is the first thing that would have been thrown out! Dassault didn't want to co develop with us the digital one they were developing for the Rafale!. So go figure. Now we don't need them for that kind of thing and they can go shove their heads up a place where the sun doesn't shine!

Well the 4000 kg payload design specs during the 90’s have shrunk to 3000-3500 kg for IOC birds. Also, for all aircraft, sum of pylon ratings do not accurately add up to total payload. The wings cannot carry more than total payload, even though sum of pylon rating may be higher.

Okay. If you notice carefully the billboard in the AI 11 had some 2xxx kg of internal fuel listed. That is around 200 to 400 kg more than the inital specs of 22xx. So the payload was listed I think by some 200kg less.You wanna carry more, well fill in 200 kg fuel less and you will still be carrying nearly the same amount of internal fuel as the Gripen C!

It is a very very rare figher plane indeed with a MTOW that is equal or greater than the total payload capacity on paper! So, don't get taken in by paper payload capacity. That is just for suckers to fall for. Most planes can't take off with full fuel if it is carrying the max payload , unless you are talking about commercial airliners.

Anyways, the Tejas today is a good plane, however, no way did the IAF do anything to stunt its growth.

It is a good plane alright. Problem is that it is the bast*rd child that the IAF didn't want. It probably would have been more appropriate if they had named the plane as "Karna" instead.

[Vivek K]

Nice, vina! Reminds me of Jcage's style!!

[pragnya]

as you can see the specs were only finalised by the IAF in 2004. .

If you see the very same list you posted, there is only (1) change due to ASR requirements, which is already discussed, viz the missile.

The other changes are (1) development issues, (2) sanctions, (3) upgrading avionics

What do any of these have to weight anyway, delay maybe understandable, but not weight.

sir, just because weight is not mentioned in the report does not mean there is no weight added. look closely at the Standing Committee report again -

Standard of preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was made in 1990s).

and what could have been the changes?? let's examine -

1. Laser Designator Pod - remember except for the Mirages none of the indian aircrafts had LDPs even in 1999. it was only post kargill when the efficacy of the LDP was realised and became a standard fit for the IAF birds. there is a BR article how the Mirages were made to fire the paveways.

now look at the highlighted part of the st.com.report. the original specs given earlier (mid 80s as per the Hindu article i posted and broadly accepted as 1985) was changed in 2004. now logic will tell you of the LDP requirement post Kargill scenario. is it not??

now LDP itself may not add weight to the the aircraft but the pylon and airframe as whole now needs a strengthening for a g-force of 1800kg. is that not right?? does not it mean some weight gain because of this new requirement??

2. IFF - again i am willing to bet on this as added later.

3. INS-GPS - same again.

on both points # 2 & 3, i even doubt if IAF had access in the mid 80s when the original ASR was made for the LCA.

4. same with EW system.

remember these indian systems have matured only post 2000. now was there a chance in 1985 to specify these??

most of the avionics sensors are processed by the OAC in the LCA and the info fused on to the MFD and HMDS. even this computer adds weight. isn't it??

5. HMDS - none of the indian aircrafts had HMDS in the 80s. i guess you know that. i am pretty sure these were later addons.

all these what makes the TEJAS not a Mig 21 replacement as originally thought of but more of a M2K-5 replacement.

all these directly or indirectly add weight unless you want to close your eyes and ears.

now i don't find fault with the IAF for adding them as these were needed to keep the Tejas current but what i do not agree is that - "IAF is not responsible at all" in the weight gain phenomenon and i have already said myself even ADA is partly responsible.

now i know you would ask ASRs?? but sir who can get them?? can you?? one needs to understand the context too and you are the one who has always read between the lines!!!

cheers.

[Cybaru]

Agreed, however ADA design specifications, that was derived from IAF ASR, included payload and empty weight. Typically, Store Management Systems, pylons, wiring covered under empty weight. When designing a fighter, certain tolerances have to be built into the airframe and accounted for as a part of empty weight. Obviously design is not right when we have to stiffen the wing when weaponization commences. Shouldn’t these tolerances have been built in the first place?

For that you need to look at your fellow folks in uniform, the IAF.

tsarkar,

I am confused as I haven't that regular on BRF and perhaps in all certainty missed this. For some reason I thought you were in IN and not IAF. Could you please clarify if you were in Indian Navy or Indian airforce, so I can follow these discussions and perhaps be able to better grasp/understand where your viewpoint maybe coming from ?

[Cain Marko]

From what I remember, what the LCA couldn't meet with the old engine was the take off run distance at Arakkonam in peak summer. Now if you put a Gripen C/D through the same test with it's current engine, it wont be able to do it either. There is no aerodynamics at play here, just pure installed thrust to weight ratios to reach rotation speed.

This is a noteworthy point indeed - I remember that the hot/high trials for the MRCA candidates (including the Gripen C) were conducted during much milder weather than what the Tejas had to go through. MRCA tech evals were during Sept-March - the best season for visiting India, no? - IOWs the bloody firangi birds never got tested at Arakkonam, nor at Nagpur/Jodhpur during sweltering mid May temps as did the Tejas. Double standards anyone?

Yes, we'd like to see how well the Gripen C meets IAF specs if it has to do all the stuff the Tejas is expected to. Add to this the fact, as Merlin/Lalchix sahib pointed out, that the current Tejas has v.high amount of redundancy built in for safety reasons. It will surely shed weight - as can be seen from the optimism of the ADA in reducing weight to ~ 6000kg for the mk2. I hope they can manage to bring the weight down - what a resounding answer to the naysayers!

Having said this, I do feel that it is not a one way street - the IAF was looking for a fighter it could use asap, the technocrats seemed more to be concerned with meeting esoteric goals, which the IAF knew could never be acheived in the time frame it expected/needed, hardly surprising that they were not v.supportive. Lots of areas where LCA folkds could've done something else imho, could certainly have sped things up a bit. Otoh, the LCA adage seemed always to be - put forth insane goals (whether it be technologies involved or timelines) and then not meet them, over and over again! And then there is no effective PR to elaborate on delays - no wonder people are pissed and disillusioned. It will take a lot to convince blokes otherwise, but not impossible.

One way to do this - get that mk2 flying and show 'em what it can do, and then hope and pray it gets big orders! The IAF has shown that it is not above buying desi maal - the large orders for the Akash are a good indication.

CM

[Cain Marko]

Pragnya, good post.

[Sanku]

In any case I am with Shiv on this one, when he says that the shooting for the moon before making a Sivkasi rocket, is certainly not a prudent approach. Step by step is a much better option.

Sanku ji it would be preposterous to claim Raj Mahindra/KH didnt know how to build a sivakasi rocket when he embarked on building a rocket

Err that is merely a exgatergated example to highlight a point. In any case I did know that KH was not building a rocket in any case he was building a a/c, (hopefully I can be trusted to be not so dumb) -- I made the statement despite that, which goes to show the overall point rather than exactness of the analogy.

[Kailash]

Having said this, I do feel that it is not a one way street - the IAF was looking for a fighter it could use asap, the technocrats seemed more to be concerned with meeting esoteric goals, which the IAF knew could never be acheived in the time frame it expected/needed, hardly surprising that they were not v.supportive. Lots of areas where LCA folkds could've done something else imho, could certainly have sped things up a bit. Otoh, the LCA adage seemed always to be - put forth insane goals (whether it be technologies involved or timelines) and then not meet them, over and over again! And then there is no effective PR to elaborate on delays - no wonder people are pissed and disillusioned. It will take a lot to convince blokes otherwise, but not impossible.

CM, I would agree more with Vina that LCA did not receive the support it needed from IAF. I am not very clear if the lack enthu from IAF is the effect of DRDO propaganda only.

Rather, since the IAF did not care enough, they did not try to downsize any of the ambitious goals set by DRDO. We all heard force/conviction with which they complain when the project did not deliver on a certain aspect. But we never saw a single case where they said "I need 100 planes within the next decade, hell with you high technology research. Take the simpler/safer route BUT deliver. Deliver a safe/capable aircraft ON TIME"

For me it only means that IAF was not serious on inducting this craft in numbers. They were less concerned about depleting numbers - than their tussles and finger pointing at DRDO. Things are changing slowly.. got to wait and see if there will be subsequent orders of mk1, tests of mk1 with kaveri and export orientation.

[Sanku]

now i know you would ask ASRs?? but sir who can get them?? can you?? one needs to understand the context too and you are the one who has always read between the lines!!! .

Reading between the lines is a fun game, people can read anything between a elephant and mouse between the lines, I normally avoid that and stick to available info.

If we see the newer list that you have posted, they are small stuff, sure they indirectly add weight but how much? You dont know, I dont know so on what basis is the claim that it was those that added the weight?

In that line of thought at least what Rahul M said made more sense in its logical reasoning

sanku ji, frankly, trying to estimate 'wild guess' additional weight per component we would be more pathetic than blind men trying to understand elephants' social habits armed with nothing but a marble

His claim that 2005 ASR changes are based around the logic
Pre 2005 TD met weight target
2005 was ASR tweaks
Post 2005 the weight went up.

Fair enough, at least that is a logical view.

However, I am looking for
1) Links showing what the TD weight was
2) Links showing that TD was everything in current LCA modulo the ASR tweaks, i.e. after the made the TD the test could have very well shown that the TD version just can not meet the original GSQR (such as AoA envelop say)

So I think we still need some more information/discussion before we can conclusively claim one way or other about the impact of ASR items on the weight.

[Sanku]

Rather, since the IAF did not care enough, they did not try to downsize any of the ambitious goals set by DRDO. We all heard force/conviction with which they complain when the project did not deliver on a certain aspect. But we never saw a single case where they said "I need 100 planes within the next decade, hell with you high technology research. Take the simpler/safer route BUT deliver. Deliver a safe/capable aircraft ON TIME"

The forces have done this on occasion, DRDO does not take kindly to such suggestions. The ego's in the scientific communities are not known to be small (as one in that part of the world)

[Rahul M]

Sanku ji, read AM Rajkumar's tejas story. I've no online links.

[geeth]

His claim that 2005 ASR changes are based around the logic
Pre 2005 TD met weight target
2005 was ASR tweaks
Post 2005 the weight went up.

I think you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Do you know there is a change in percentage of composites between TDs and PVs? For eg, in TD, the fuselage front portion (about 1/3rd) is only Composites and the rest Metallic. In PV-1 also, the fuselage was only 2/3rd composite and 1/3rd Metallic. There are many other refinements like this.

Links showing that TD was everything in current LCA modulo the ASR tweaks, i.e. after the made the TD the test could have very well shown that the TD version just can not meet the original GSQR (such as AoA envelop say)

The TDs were made to validate the BASIC aerodynamics of the craft - that is the reason they were scrapped after initial flights. They wouldn't have been useful for further validation and expanding the flight envelope.

If you want to talk about weight target, we should be talking about the production model with ORGINAL ASR - such a model doesn't exist and so, it would at best be an academic exercise.

Like it or not, when we add additional avionics suite, the weight indeed increases. If this additional weight is beyond what is catered for, by the structural designers, the only options available are : (a) go back to the drawing board and re-design the structure (like that being done on SU-30 MKI to fit the Brahmos) or (b) Discard the additional avionics suite or what ever is causing the extra weight or (reduce the weapon load/fuel load etc.

[pragnya]

@sanku sir,

Reading between the lines is a fun game, people can read anything between a elephant and mouse between the lines,

agreed.

I normally avoid that and stick to available info.

i provided you the st.com.report which clearly mentions the finalising of the specs and addons in 2004 in lieu of the 1985 ones and followed it up with the "context" for that (logical??) but you accept that only partly and gingerly as -

If we see the newer list that you have posted, they are small stuff, sure they indirectly add weight but how much? You dont know, I dont know so on what basis is the claim that it was those that added the weight?

when i have not given any ballpark figure for the weight gain. may be an aero/structural engineer would give you one. besides all these are incremental small bits of weight which pile on adding up to a bigger figure. is it not??

In that line of thought at least what Rahul M said made more sense in its logical reasoning

and i am with Rahul M on that. no disagreement at all there and not for nothing he is one of the finest posters here besides being a mod himself.

[Sanku]

i provided you the st.com.report which clearly mentions the finalising of the specs and addons in 2004 in lieu of the 1985 ones and followed it up with the "context" for that (logical??) but you accept that only partly and gingerly as -

Well tsarkar's claim, to which I somewhat agree, is that those changes are not the real reason behind the higher weight penalty. Considering that we are saying we have no way to directly calculate the impact of the changes on weight, we are restrained to looking at other evidence.

So far, if Rahul's view that TD-1 was as per spec can be validated, that will provide a conclusive backing to the rationale of 2005 ASR changes being the major reason for weight increase.

[tsarkar]

we do not know exactly as to what circumstances compelled the team to opt for such a design specially when it's a well know fact that Tejas design team was closely working with the LM trying to devise and validate a FCS based on F-16 VISTA platform which is again an unstable design. Iow the design team's decision to opt for a complex system might have become easy due to the fact that they had someone who had perfected and fielded the technology looking over their shoulders and this later came back to bite us when sanctions were imposed on us post PoK-II, this is what imho delayed the programme more than anything else.

Yes, LCA was conceptualized during Rajeev Gandhi times. Relations with US had warmed that allowed collaboration with LM. Based on this collaboration, DRDO used to disdain IAF PoV, of using proven technologies and developing new systems independently of the fighter. 1995-2000 was when IAF was facing a fighter crunch, because ex-Soviet spares manufactures had shut shop grounding birds, however given DRDO not incorporating IAF suggestions, the IAF backed off. Post Pokharan, LM didn’t even allow the then current version of the Indian developed software to be shipped back, and the actual complexity hit. Ultimately what IAF had suggested is happening, proven radars & engines used and development decoupled from the project.

That would have negated one of the original requirements of the LCA. In fact Prof Prodyut Das suggested that we should have made Gnat ++.

I disagree here. Using a proven analogue FBW system does not result in a Gnat++. It would have very well allowed our unstable cranked delta to perform. Even earlier F-16 blocks and Mirage 2000 earlier versions did not have digital FBW. The code could have been written leveraging the dassault code around the analogue system and thereafter migrated to the digital system. Decoupling the NCLAW would have helped opening the full flight envelop earlier. Once the digital FBW was available, it could have been upgraded.

That analog FC is the first thing that would have been thrown out!

What's wrong in throwing out after it has served its purpose?The GE F404-F2J3 was supposed to be thrown out after Kaveri was available. The Chinese are throwing out imported stuff once their local components are available.

Why was the spec for the TD not close enough to the actual production fighter and thus required major full scale engg development (FSED) and prototype building? For that you need to look at your fellow folks in uniform, the IAF.

For all the angst you are pouring out from your heart, what action would you have wanted from IAF? Do you expect the IAF kept badgering daily to ADA to add a weight margin for avionics that is standard for its generation? Do you expect the IAF kept badgering daily to ADA to account weight for every bit of nut and bolt that should go into the plane? Did ADA, that worked with LM and F-16, really needed reminders on what avionics go into a fighter of its generation? Did ADA need reminders that payload is carried on wings and wings need to be stressed for loads?

Yeah. Maybe you should ask them why they upped the 20-25% to the close to 40% for the C/D model (which is what the LCA MK-1 is comparable to ) and what was the weight gain from A to C?

Yes, I did check that. That is the first thing any self respecting Indian checks, does your usage of composites exceed mine? The C model was developed for export, and changed Swedish systems, mainly radios and datalinks with NATO systems, to ensure the newly-NATO-joined Eastern Europeans were NATO compliant and the Swedes were not keen to export their datalink. Another major change was addition of MAR. Later on, Swedes decided to add MAR to their own birds, given their increasing international commitments to global peace operations. Swedish A with MAR added are called C. Absolutely no replacement of metal parts with composite parts from A to C, whether international C or domestic C.

What competition? There was none. You wouldn't have got the carrier if you didn't take the Mig29Ks along with it ! That is why you got it. What you really wanted was the carrier. The Russians pulled a classic bait and switch and the Navy fell for that like a bunch of massive suckers. That Mig 29 beating Rafale is the realm of make believe,unless you drink the Russian cool aid in gallons.

You’re incorrect on all counts. Firstly, George Fernandes bought the Gorshkov in a jingoistic frenzy just after Kargil. Navy had rejected it four times earlier, because the Navy knew the conversion would be complex, and it didn’t fit our operational criteria. It still doesn’t, but Navy’s reservations have been overtaken by events. Secondly, only 12 fighters were required to be purchased. Thirdly, for ADS, an assessment was carried out, and it turned out the Rafale did not offer any incremental benefits over the MiG-29 and the repeat order of 29 birds was placed. You’ll find many pictures around of Indian officers flying Rafale M as a part of that assessment.

Pragnya, you didn’t provide a link to the subcommittee report, here is it http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... REPORT.pdf
Now, this report clearly mentions

changes in weapons, sensors and avionics

. It does not mention addition Changes clearly mean X was replaced by Y. These changes are clearly mentioned there. Also, development of open architecture avionics doesn’t mean we’re adding it in the first place. It means we’re replacing avionics that were already there, or supposed to be there.

1. Laser Designator Pod

Jaguars were wired for Litening before Mirage. Litening is an external store that would be accounted under payload, not empty weight.

now LDP itself may not add weight to the the aircraft but the pylon and airframe as whole now needs a strengthening for a g-force of 1800kg. is that not right??

No. 1800 kg? That more than the Kh-59 (900 kg) and close to Brahmos A (2200 kg)!!! Litening pod weighs 200 kg, and that too a fuselage hardpoint, that is attached to the airframe. Typically, because of the inherent strength of the airframe, fuselage hardpoints are able to carry much higher weights than wing. Conversely, adding a fuselage hardpoint does not require significant structural changes. The Tejas fuselage center and wing inner hardpoints are stressed to carry 1000 kg, for EFT and bombs. The wing middle hardpoints are stressed for carrying 500 kg and the wing outer 150 kg.

IFF - again i am willing to bet on this as added later.

Good, ADA calls itself an aircraft designer and failed to account for this, right?

INS-GPS

Newer Fiber optic and ring laser gyros are very compact systems with embedded GPS receiver. You probably have a GPS receiver on your mobile phone, that will give you an indication of size and weight.

EW system

The actual Tejas internal EW system is described in page 8 of 17 of the DRDO publication http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 011%20.pdf

it is provided with EW armour comprising radar warning receiver (RWR) and countermeasure dispensing system (CMDS)

The RWR activates the chaff cartridges and there is NO INTERNAL JAMMER in Tejas Mk. 1.

HMDS

Surely it replaced earlier helmets, no, or did they wear cowboy hats before that? What is the incremental difference?

that 'standard fighter' ASR didn't include the level of RWR IAF expects today which is also heavier, needs more cooling, associated cables, leading to strengthening of attachment points.

Wow! Level of RWR! So weight increase like level of RWR increases. Please quantify the level of RWR. By your logic, the Tarang designers did a shoddy job of designing such a heavy RWR In reality, the Tejas RWR weighs much less.

so the RWJ is non-existent now because it conflicts with your pet theory?

Yes, the RWJ is non-existent in the IOC Tejas when some performance parameters were not met. From page 8 of 17 of a DRDO publication http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 011%20.pdf

it is provided with EW armour comprising radar warning receiver (RWR) and countermeasure dispensing system (CMDS)

The RWR activates the chaff cartridges and there is NO INTERNAL JAMMER in Tejas Mk.1. So EW certainly didn’t make it heavy.

please show me a shred of proof that LCA OBOGS reduces weight. and please don't post the link of some completely irrelevant yankee OBOGS as proof.

Absolutely, here is proof, thanks to Shiv http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... S.jpg.html And you conveniently always forget it reduced weight of bottled oxygen.

each item means additional cooling requirement (heat exchangers), cabling, cabinets and all of that needs to be secured robustly to be able to survive in a high G environment. in turn the airframe needs to be strengthened as well.

Gordon Moore and Harry Hillaker will turn in their graves on learning cabinets and heat exchangers for cooling requirement.

Like it or not, when we add additional avionics suite, the weight indeed increases. If this additional weight is beyond what is catered for, by the structural designers, the only options available are : (a) go back to the drawing board and re-design the structure (like that being done on SU-30 MKI to fit the Brahmos) or (b) Discard the additional avionics suite or what ever is causing the extra weight or (reduce the weapon load/fuel load etc.

Agreed, and since the Tejas doesnt carry any additional avionics over and above what is carried by aircraft of its generation, it is obvious the designers miscalculated the weight margins and structural performance of the airframe. That miscalculation is being compensated by F414. So why blame the pretty average & normal specifications for its generation and why blame the IAF? And with this humble request, I retire.

[Lalmohan]

the weight can creep up for a variety of reasons. as the structural design matures, designers start to make and test components and identify breaking and fatigue limits. in aircraft structures, safety margins are very very small - 1.1 or 1.5 at the higher end is the norm. so as components emerge - sometimes they might need to be strengthened. sometimes the weights of fastners, etc. and other anciliaries may be higher due to underestimation or errors, the reliability of critical components under fatigue loads may be a problem ... all in all there are lots of sounds reasons why the weight might creep up without any additional payload requirements. when you add those, you might find the odd extra pump here or the odd databus there or power supply change or air flow ducting change... again, adds up.
conversely, with experience the reverse can also happen - and weight can be shed
we have on record the tejas leadership saying they took a conservative approach to the structural design
why so much angst?

[vina]

Yes, I did check that. That is the first thing any self respecting Indian checks, does your usage of composites exceed mine? The C model was developed for export, and changed Swedish systems, mainly radios and datalinks with NATO systems, to ensure the newly-NATO-joined Eastern Europeans were NATO compliant and the Swedes were not keen to export their datalink. Another major change was addition of MAR. Later on, Swedes decided to add MAR to their own birds, given their increasing international commitments to global peace operations. Swedish A with MAR added are called C. Absolutely no replacement of metal parts with composite parts from A to C, whether international C or domestic C.

Sorry. You checked wrong. The Gripen C/D is a significant upgrade of the A/B . From this published document Gripen Future Development published by Saab Aerospace, the significant enhancements are as follows.

Some examples:
• Increased take-off-, landing- and design mass
• In flight refueling capability
• Full authority digital engine control, FADEC
• New low noise auxiliary power unit APU
• Onboard oxygen generating system, OBOGS
• Advanced cockpit with 3 large 6”x 8” multi-function color displays and enhanced system controls and complete night vision adaptation.
A new systems computer with significantly increased performance and spare capacity.
• Enhanced internal data communication system with increased number of 1553B data buses and a high speed Ethernet system.
• Enhanced digital recording system based on high capacity solid state memories
• Enhanced communication system
• Enhanced highly integrated EW-system with increased use of decoys
A new integrated navigation and landing system based upon updates of the INS/GPSby a terrain reference system using radar altimeter and an accurate terrain elevation database.
Adaptation to export requirements and Swedish participation in Peace Support Operations
• Integration of new weapons and other external stores (recce pod, targeting pod etc)
• Enhanced Radar

Needless to say, there was weight gain from A to C version (which has increased MTOW, bring back load AND higher design mass, all from the manufacturer) and there WAS an increase in percentage of composites. Google around, you will find out exactly how much.

That is a pretty exhaustive list. In fact, outside a dedicated APU, the LCA MK1 has EVERY FEATURE of the Gripen C/D and goes head to head with it,which is what it should be compared with. Now, if it comes in at a lower weight than the Gripen C/D, it is a brilliant achievement. Matter over. Finis! . The rest is all tilting at the windmills.

What you talked about is the EXPORT Gripen, which is the same Gripen C/D in SwAF service, with the following major differences.

Full NATO adaptation of all systems, weapons, supply connections etc. The Swedish JAS 39C/D is partially NATO compliant and fulfil most requirements but not all
• Communication system that will be individually adapted to each customer and include cryptos.
• Customer adapted ECCM functionality
• Customer adapted EWS threat libraries
• Customer adapted electronic map and data bases

And these are offered as OPTIONS if the customer wants it as a low risk developement effort

• Further weapons
• Various external pods (Recce, EW, Target Acquisition etc)
• Additional advanced communication (Link 16 etc.)
• Integration of new sensors and enhanced multi-sensor integration.
• Tactical software functions like, mission support and decision support.


So all in all. The Gripen C entered service in 2005 or so, is the model that is offered currently, in fact, the Thais took delivery of C/Ds just a few days ago and they transited through Madras with folks posting about it in BR!.

So 2011/12 for the Tejas MK1 entering service is simply NOT bad at all! In fact, brilliant given the lot more percentage of indigenous content of the LCA (including the FCS, composites and we went through a TD phase as well) and we will be fielding the Mk2 at around the same time as the Gripen NG and all this despite a rather ridiculous treatment and relationship with the IAF until recently. So there you are.

[vina]

Agreed, and since the Tejas doesnt carry any additional avionics over and above what is carried by aircraft of its generation, it is obvious the designers miscalculated the weight margins and structural performance of the airframe. That miscalculation is being compensated by F414. So why blame the pretty average & normal specifications for its generation and why blame the IAF? And with this humble request, I retire.

That is ridiculous. I just posted the full specs of the Gripen C/D in an earlier post and the "over designed and miscalculated" LCA weighs LESS than the C/D and fields a more powerful engine!

Surely by your logic, the Swedes "miscalculated and overdesigned" as well, and the reason they are now going for the NG with the 414 is to "compensate" for that ?

[vina]

You’re incorrect on all counts. Firstly, George Fernandes bought the Gorshkov in a jingoistic frenzy just after Kargil. Navy had rejected it four times earlier, because the Navy knew the conversion would be complex, and it didn’t fit our operational criteria.

That is simply fantastic. George Fernandes signed up for the Gorshkov in a "frenzy"! That takes the cake.

And here we were thinking that the Russians offered an aircraft carrier for "free", if we took the Mig 29K, the Navy (oops, George Fernandes) jumped at it and saw it as a quick way to get a carrier into service at the earliest etc. Who would have known that it is ol george who went and bought the carrier and not the Navy and that the Navy actually knew that it was going to get delayed by 5 years, end up paying close to $2.5b for the entire Gorshkov fiasco and actually wrote a letter of protest to the then defense minister to cancel the deal right at the beginning , but no heed was paid to them.

Thirdly, for ADS, an assessment was carried out, and it turned out the Rafale did not offer any incremental benefits over the MiG-29 and the repeat order of 29 birds was placed. You’ll find many pictures around of Indian officers flying Rafale M as a part of that assessment.

Well, the Rafale M is a catapult launched fighter for full capability. You want a compromized fighter to fly off a compromized carrier and then turn around and say, that I cannot exploit the full capablities of the Rafale, so it is only as good as the other compromized plane that I have. While that is a valid perspective from your point of view, to project that the Rafale actually is of similar capability as the Mig 29K is facile. It is similar to saying that since I cannot operate the E2D Hawkeye from my STOBAR, it has the same capability as the Ka-31 that I have!

[SaiK]

There is hidden truth in every aspect of analysis, but there is also hidden facts to substantiate in many arguments I see in this thread. One man's trash has to be another man's treasure is the way various arguments appear.

In all engineering, requirements and scope are primary aspects to measure against. Unless, we have those detailed, verified and authenticated document/link we have no clue as to what exactly where the cause for various defects or slippage we see. It is easy to interpret from ddm links to one's treasure or trash.

/JMU.

[Lalmohan]

i think the thing to remember is that the LCA programme was also a voyage of discovery - and that too one where we were unsure of our own ship, never mind the destination

today we have a good destination and a sturdy ship

[geeth]

Agreed, and since the Tejas doesnt carry any additional avionics over and above what is carried by aircraft of its generation, it is obvious the designers miscalculated the weight margins and structural performance of the airframe. That miscalculation is being compensated by F414. So why blame the pretty average & normal specifications for its generation and why blame the IAF? And with this humble request, I retire.

I was trying to state the obvious, and not try to blame IAF. But, why are you holding the designers alone for the overweight? You don't know what would have been the weight of the final design, if they had stuck to the original ASR issued in 1985? For that matter how can you specify/imagine in 1985, what EXACTLY the available technology would be in 2005? Even here, are we sticking to the 2005 ASR? If yes, then why go for the Mark II version?

Design evelves over a period of time and one has to be flexible. No point taking a rigid stand.

[geeth]

>>>Firstly, George Fernandes bought the Gorshkov in a jingoistic frenzy just after Kargil. Navy had rejected it four times earlier, because the Navy knew the conversion would be complex, and it didn’t fit our operational criteria.

Kargil happened in 1999 whereas the Gorshkov deal was signed in 2004. Everybody knew repair would be complex, but still went ahead. On hindsight, yes, things could have been done in a better way!