LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jan 2014 19:55

Arun,why don't you behave like a gentleman? If anyone is posting garbage it is you with your cheap attempts at denigrating posters whose opinions on some issues you can't stomach.This is a free country and forum.The Hindu prides itself on accuracy of news.When it puts out an "editorial" that clearly has flaws in it,which I've pointed out, all you can do is take cheap shots at the messenger. Surely you can counter the editorial with more intelligent language and facts instead of talking about garbage?

Moderators,please teach some of the posters some manners.BR is fast losing its reputation as a dignified forum with the disrespect shown to members by a few individuals.

Nachi,was the statement about the MK-1 not carrying BVR missiles a hint at the radar? [quote]To fulfill the IOC-II standard, the aircraft was certified to carry close to three tons of weapons which include laser-guided 500 kg bombs and short-range R-73 missiles,[quote] I remember a recent post /report about the Mk-1's radar range which appeared inadequate for a 50km BVR missile,even though the 2032 is rated for 150km A-to-A and for naval targets 300km?

PS:No answer yet to the Q about the in-flight refuelling requirement.Was it in the original IAF ASR and is it an essential on the MK-1?

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 06 Jan 2014 20:11

Philip wrote: 1.Is it a fact that the MK-1 cannot carry a BVR missile,only SR AAMs due to the 404 engine power limitations? Surely MK-1 is capable of carrying 2XBVR + 2/4X SR AAM (Derby + R-73/Python-5) missiles along with an underbelly drop tank?

A man with 8964 posts behind him asking such a dumb question

Philip Saar, don't you know the average weight of a BVR missile?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Jan 2014 20:24

nitinraj - please note where the punctuation is in the sentence and ask yourself the same question you have posed again

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jan 2014 21:00

Philip wrote: Nachi,was the statement about the MK-1 not carrying BVR missiles a hint at the radar?
To fulfill the IOC-II standard, the aircraft was certified to carry close to three tons of weapons which include laser-guided 500 kg bombs and short-range R-73 missiles,
I remember a recent post /report about the Mk-1's radar range which appeared inadequate for a 50km BVR missile,even though the 2032 is rated for 150km A-to-A and for naval targets 300km?

The article specifically mentioned some imagined shortfall in engine performance which somehow allowed only SRAAMs and 500kg bombs to be carried (and presumably disallowed BVRAAMs). That has nothing to do with radar performance. Basically whoever wrote that article had no idea what they were talking about. But that is normal for DDM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 21:07

Lets see, a member who first posts a ridiculous editorial saying that the engine is somehow responsible for not being able to carry BVR missiles and then does not even have the ability to discern that is truth or fiction.

Then when called out on this inability to do so, especially given the reams of similarly flawed stuff he spams any and every topic with... then accuses the forum of having low standards and other members of not being upto his standards.

Then asks whether it is the radar to blame.

Time after time, we have had attacks on the LCA & similar programs based on similar dodgy claims.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jan 2014 21:10

Yes.. quick self-introspection is needed from anyone who is posting article.. let the articles and op-eds take the blame than "you" (poster). lesson: Please don't take ownership of public articles blindly.

And.. let us not focus on attacking each other.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 21:20

Indranil, its adding the point that its high time somebody pointed out the fact that Philip doesn't have the slightest iota of understanding of the LCA or similar programs and then has him trolling his way through every topic and then posting without an iota of basic knowledge or research.

This sort of stuff - Su-34s to replace Rafale, LCA cannot carry BVR because of engine and so forth. Poorly researched haphazard rubbish based on voluminous copy paste without an iota of sense.

This despite the fact that other members go to a significant effort in terms of personal time and effort to post with credibility.

Its killing our enthusiasm to even contribute when one sees this sort of rubbish each time one opens the thread. You think I am alone in feeling this? Check maitya's response earlier.

And you know what, he spams in return, again & again - putting him on ignore doesn't work, because unlike the rest of us, he clearly doesn't give a darn whether the topic dies or not & other members quote him in turn. BR is quoted everywhere & he keeps FUD'ing.

Yes, the forum quality is taking a hit, and its taking a hit because these sort of posts are what are considered ok. Its frustrating & hence the response.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jan 2014 21:21

Karan M wrote:Lets see, a member who first posts a ridiculous editorial saying that the engine is somehow responsible for not being able to carry BVR missiles and then does not even have the ability to discern that is truth or fiction.

Then when called out on this inability to do so, especially given the reams of similarly flawed stuff he spams any and every topic with... then accuses the forum of having low standards and other members of not being upto his standards.

Then asks whether it is the radar to blame.

Time after time, we have had attacks on the LCA & similar programs based on similar dodgy claims.

Agreed Karan.

Maybe OT, but maybe some posters are either ill-informed, or immature, or I wonder have an ulterior agenda? Equally disturbing is when I see posters comparing a Nano to Eyetalian spaghetti. IRRELEVANT on technical threads and in most threads.

Concentrate on what is good for Bharat Mata. Many a brave Indian has either given their lives for the country or dedicated their work at suboptimal pay for their vision of a self sufficient Bharat Mata.

Rant over:

Kill the post Mods if you think it has crossed any lines. It is not about a particular personality, but about whoever that posts whatever I have pointed out above!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Jan 2014 21:23

philip has not actually said that the engine is the problem vis a vis bvr missiles, he is quoting and asking a rhetorical question

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jan 2014 21:28

Philip wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editori ... 542125.ece
Some Qs that the editorial provokes:

1.Is it a fact that the MK-1 cannot carry a BVR missile,only SR AAMs due to the 404 engine power limitations? Surely MK-1 is capable of carrying 2XBVR + 2/4X SR AAM (Derby + R-73/Python-5) missiles along with an underbelly drop tank?

2.The requirement of A-to-A refuelling for MK-1.Is this an "absolute" requirement from the IAF for MK-1 series production,the first 40,and was it in the initial ASR?

3.10 years for Mk-2 to arrive.This seems to be overestimated, even by the assessment of conservative sceptics who feel that it may take between 5 -7 years

Philip sir,
Hindu is not the gold standard, facts are. And the fact is that this reporter knows diddly squat about fighter airplanes.

1. LCA Mk1 will definitely carry BVRAAMs. The first one to be tried would be of Israeli make. They are in the process of getting a missile and firing it before FOC.
2. I havn't read the ASR. But Mk1 would have in flight refueling. ADA chief believes, it is a solved problem. You would see IFR before FOC (My guess is it will by on LSP-8 as it has suddenly stopped flying for the last month or so).
3. AFAIK, the Mk2 design has been finalized. I have seen tenders for raw materials for Mk2 since the last year. Even if I presume that Mk2 fabrication starts today and takes 3 years for first flight, and testing to take 4 more years, it should be ready for production in 7 years. The real question is when will they be able to start serial production? Can testing and production be overlapped, such that serially produced Mlk2 start rolling out at 12-16 airplanes annually from the day of issuance of operation clearance? They can probably do it has much of the hardware would be frozen, except for the radar. I am quite positive that IAF will order a couple of squadrons more of Mk-1 to tide the production gap.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 21:30

Rajan sir,

This same gent was raving and ranting about how the Indians were such poor designers that their programs cant even budget for weight gain & hence the LCA was a dud or whatever. Just because Russia messed up on its end regarding an engine for the IJT.

I was pulling out a reference book, on the Su-27 & how its unplanned weight gain caused many issues for engine & aircraft designers. How its avionics and structures were heavier than planned and how the engine designers had to compensate..

But then I thought, why bother?

After all, all that would do is incite this gent to copy paste more rubbish from dodgy sites (strategy page et al) to run down an Indian program.

Such is the state of affairs.

And this same gent who was busy telling everyone how incompetent the LCA designers are, cannot even determine that the LCA can carry 500 odd Kg bombs and a 100 odd Kg BVR missile is lighter, and the LCA engine is dragged in.

Coincidence, given his attempts to draw an equal equal between the LCA & IJT engine issues earlier? Or plain ignorance?

Take your pick.

Eitherway, speaks volumes about the kind of commentary we have had. And then he bemoans BR Forum member quality. Talk of irony.

Just tired of seeing such stuff and seeing discussion after discussion go down the proverbial rhetorical hole.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jan 2014 21:34

The turn rate from the video posted so far looks pretty good (check the rear video capturing another LCA tejas flipping and rolling).. but do we have the numbers here?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jan 2014 21:48

This thread is called LCA thread, not Philip thread. Take it elsewhere.

My opinion:
Every poster has the right to voice his opinion. A dumb opinion should be the easiest to rebuff if counterpoints are insurmountable. Biased opinions are inevitable. It would be a sad day for discussion when we all start having the same bias.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jan 2014 21:58

Well Karan. Have the faith. A majority of the posts are relevant. Some informative and some respectfully asking to be educated. the latter also makes creative juices churn, because at times the very basic questions (not all

) are the toughest to answer.

Some, ofcourse, from posters and DDMs deserve the "Egg on the Face" Award! (rotten egg ofcourse)

But on a more serious note, they do as much damage to Bharat Mata as Macaulay did, as Macaulay's Children!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bab ... ulay#India

The term "Macaulay's Children" is sometimes used to refer to people born of Indian ancestry who adopt Western culture as a lifestyle, or display attitudes influenced by colonisers ("Macaulayism")[14] – expressions used disparagingly, and with the implication of disloyalty to one's country and one's heritage.

The relevance here is limited to the bold part.

PS: Sorry for the OT, but frustration reigns, especially with ISRO's successful FUKhan GSLV launch.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 22:13

indranilroy wrote:This thread is called LCA thread, not Philip thread. Take it elsewhere.

My opinion:
Every poster has the right to voice his opinion. A dumb opinion should be the easiest to rebuff if counterpoints are insurmountable. Biased opinions are inevitable. It would be a sad day for discussion when we all start having the same bias.

Indranil, it would be great, if the LCA thread does not become the Philip thread. I for one would be overjoyed, if I opened this thread and only saw relevant posts. Unfortunately, the thread becomes the Philip thread because he will keep attacking local programs based on dodgy premises. Or come up with such "innocuous posts" wherein the discussion quality again takes a turn for the surreal.

As regards voicing opinions & constantly rebuffing them - seriously, this is not practical. A free for all, wherein we sit & rebut the same stuff again & again and again.

Please understand, our time, those who actually like this forum & seek to contribute is not infinite. We hope to learn from the forum as well. Sadly, each time stuff like this comes up, we end up listening to the same copy paste stuff from some website posted without an iota of discretion, selectively bolded.

If these questions have to be answered, it would be great if they are restricted to the newbie/FAQ thread wherein such "innocent" questions can be asked. And the next time such folks dont mess up every discussion based on copy paste from strategy page, or whatever any DDM outlet churns up.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2014 22:16

rajanb wrote:Well Karan. Have the faith. A majority of the posts are relevant. Some informative and some respectfully asking to be educated. the latter also makes creative juices churn, because at times the very basic questions (not all ) are the toughest to answer. .

I have no issue with sincere questions sir. Do my utmost to answer them & ask them as well. What I do have an issue with are the insincere type/s.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jan 2014 22:20

Under such circumstances ignorance is bliss. Every article from Rajat Pandit is a facepalm moment. But what to do

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 06 Jan 2014 22:53

Folks, there is no need to argue over the editorial (personally disappointed to read this, the editor could have run this by TSS before publication). Did anyone read the comments? There are some robust posts countering most of the editorial, and they correspond to some of the gurus' posts here. Do the following gentlemen post on BR as well?

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editori ... e#comments
A very poorly researched editorial.

The Editors must be aware of these facts:

1) Tejas shall be cleared to fire long-range BVR missiles like R-77 and Derby post-FOC.

2) The thrust of the GE-F404 engine is not "limited". Other contemporary fighter jets like Gripen and Sino-Pak JF-17 weigh the same as Tejas, have the same thrust, and carry equal payload as Tejas. In fact Gripen 'C' also uses the GE-F404 engine, as the Tejas !

3) The work of Mk.2 has begun already, and its development shall take much lesser time than Tejas. This is because its not a new fighter from scratch, but an upgrade of an existing fighter.

from: Abhiman
Posted on: Jan 6, 2014 at 17:21 IST

Another wrong statement. There is no relation between engine thrust and long range missiles! Is it the fighter aircraft's engine that is going to power the long range BVR missile or the missiles own motors?

If the Ge-404 enables tejas to lift 3.5 tons then why people are saying long range BVRS can't be included in those 3.5 tons when the radar has the range to target at 120 Km ?

Originally "budgeted for " weapon weight is 4 tons and now it carries 3.5 tons as per ADA poster in aeroindia-2013. with an MTOW of 13.2 ton against the 12 ton mtow of original ASR. SO what is the fuss?

tejas has ten percent more TWR than Mirage-2000 and 25 percent lower wing loading than Mirage-2000. SO it will beat any 60 million dollar per piece upgraded Mirage-2000 hands down and most of the F-16 fighter fleets and J-10 fleets of PAf and PLAF in mk-1 itself.

from: ersakthivel
Posted on: Jan 6, 2014 at 15:57 IST

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2014 00:47

And this same gent who was busy telling everyone how incompetent the LCA designers are, cannot even determine that the LCA can carry 500 odd Kg bombs and a 100 odd Kg BVR missile is lighter, and the LCA engine is dragged in.

Coincidence, given his attempts to draw an equal equal between the LCA & IJT engine issues earlier? Or plain ignorance?

I'm afraid that Karan's bile and personal bias has blinkered his brain. I have drawn attention to the incompetence of DPSUs with certain projects and their mis-management ,like the GTRE reg. Kaveri,etc.These are no secret and have caused undue delays that has hit some of our indigenous programmes ,particularly the LCA.When the DM and air chief express their angst and exasperation and attack HAL for the same ,and hand out final deadlines (IJT 14 yrs. on,LCA 30 yrs,etc),are they anti-national?

I guess he has not understood that it is not the weight of the ordnance ,bomb vs missile,that I was questioning.I know my maths! It was the editor who was writing about it apparently in the context of engine power.However, if you read my follow on post ,I clarified whether it was an issue with the interim radar;that the BVR missiles have been yet to tested with the Mk-1 radar which he was implying .Thus far we've only had info about the R-73 tests,none reg. BVR missiles.

Both the IJT and LCA MK-1s engines are supposedly deficient in a particular aspect,TBO-IJT and power- LCA MK-1.The Q I asked was whether the IJT designers/HAL or the IAF in its ASR had specified the TBO? It is a very legit Q because if it/they had ,then the manufacturer is at fault and should be penalised.If not for modifications ,pay the piper!

Secondly both the LCA and IJT are obese.No state secret.This has affected performance of both.Is it the engine manufacturer's fault for inadequate weight-related performance of both aircraft or that of the designers?

IJT:

Since the start of design work in 1997, the IJT program has suffered three accidents, delaying its initial operational capability (IOC). When HAL displayed the first two IJT prototypes at the Paris Air Show in June 2005, it said that certification would follow in 2007. “We are concerned as we are not seeing significant progress on the IJT. HAL put in a dedicated design team, yet there are no results. This is a training aircraft and we cannot compromise on safety,” said Browne.

Issues remain on controls, engines and the aircraft’s weight, stall and spin characteristics, Browne said. This was confirmed to AIN by HAL design director T. Suvaranaraju, who said, “We have had a setback…four aircraft are in flight mode. We will recover the lost time.”

LCA:

In November 2010, it was reported that the Tejas Mk1 reportedly fell short of the relaxed Air Staff Requirements stipulated for limited series production (LSP) aircraft. The areas that did not meet requirements were power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate, maximum speeds at low altitudes, AoA range, and weapon delivery profiles. The extent of the deficiencies was classified.[52]

These are hard facts.The IAF have planned for the induction of both aircraft according to a given schedule.They cannot indefinitely wait for the baby to be delivered year after year and maintain their combat capability without deterioration of existing aircraft which get older and develop aging problems . There is a limit as to how long "string and tape" solutions can keep MIG-21s flying.There was a recent report that the MIG-21 Bisons were not to be unduly stressed to extend their lifespan.Here is a former air chief on the issue.

PUNE: City-based retired top Air Force officers believe that the Centre must hasten the process of acquiring replacement for MiG-21 aircraft.
This reaction comes in the wake of a MiG-21 Bison aircraft, which crashed while landing at Uttarlai airbase in Rajasthan on Monday killing the pilot.

Air Chief Marshal (Retd) PV Naik, former chief of the Air Staff, told Sakal Times on Tuesday that the Government must hasten the process of acquiring the replacement for the MIG-21 aircraft whose lifespan is nearing its end.

"There has been a substantial delay in acquiring Light Combat Aircraft and Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) Rafale. I would have phased-out these MiG-21 in a phased manner only when the replacement was available. Hence, the Government must hasten the process of acquiring these planes," he said.

"The average lifespan of an aircraft is about 30 to 40 years. The MiG-21 Bison aircraft has a new radar and avionics but it has the same engine and airframe. One of the major reasons for such accidents is that after ageing, the variation in MTBF (Mean-Time Between Failure) cannot be known," he said.

Likewise, Air Marshal (Retd) Bhushan Gokhale told Sakal Times on Tuesday,"replacements are woefully slow. The LCA or Tejas is yet to get Final Operational Clearance and the contract for new 126 aircraft, though in final stages of negotiations, is yet to be inked. Hence, the IAF is postponing the phase out from 2014 to 2017-18," he said.

Are these distinguished former air marshals talking "rubbish"?

APJAK in 2003 promised 200 LCAs by 2010! A decade on not one barring LSPs has been delivered.As for my being against national projects,the LCA for ex.,far from it.I stated just days ago that 200 were not enough to make up the gap which would emerge with the IAF's inventory as our MIGs were rapidly being retired (quotes above ),the number of sqds. planned for,and that HAL should gear itself up to manufacture 300 by 2030 instead and give the highest priority to series production. It is only by transparently acknowledging our shortcomings and deficiencies that we will focus attention upon the key deficiencies and finding solutions to resolving them.Otherwise we will end up believing in our own propaganda like our dear friends across our western border!

Ultimately the armed forces have to possess as much modern weaponry as possible that the nation can afford to meet the challenges that are growing by the day,especially with China's huge modernisation and expansion of its armed forces.If indigenous programmes are to succeed in the true meaning of the word,they must be delivered meeting specs within a reasonable time frame, otherwise defence preparedness suffers and the import route has to be followed yet again as we are seeing today with the MMRCA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jan 2014 00:47

indranilroy wrote:Under such circumstances ignorance is bliss. Every article from Rajat Pandit is a facepalm moment. But what to do

even economic times people have done an excellent job:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... craft-drdo

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 07 Jan 2014 01:09

Philip wrote:(IJT 14 yrs. on,LCA 30 yrs,etc)

Timeline of development of Rafale and LCA is given below.

Rafale
-------

1) Design Started : 1978
2) Design completed : 1983
3) First Flight : 1986
4) Introduction to service : 2001

Time Between First flight and Introduction to service : 15 years
Time Between design and introduction : 23 years

LCA
----

1) Design Started : 1987
2) Design Completed : 1990
3) First Flight : 2001
4) Introduction to service : 2014

Time Between First flight and Introduction to service : 13 years
Time Between design and introduction : 23 years

This shows the development time taken for LCA is comparable to any other current generation aircraft.
In fact it is really amazing seeing the indian effort considering we had to start everything almost from scratch after Marut and the sanctions etc. after 1998.
The whole development is being done at a fraction of the cost of Rafale. Total amount spent well under $2B.
Contrast this with France who were the leaders in the field at that time with aircraft's like mirage 2000 flying.Even they took almost 23 years in Rafale.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2014 01:24

LCA
----

1) Design Started : 1987
2) Design Completed : 1990
3) First Flight : 2001
4) Introduction to service : 2014

Time Between First flight and Introduction to service : 13 years
Time Between design and introduction : 23 years

Forgot to add the amount of knowledge, etc gained?

Even IF India is willing to pay for such things no one will give it to her. A point, at times, missed by the IAF leadership.

India should be in a position to make/build pretty much what she wants - IF the Labs are funded the way foreign entities are.

Heck $22 billion for the AMCA should be good to go.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2014 02:58

You've made a valid point.For too long the end-user and manufacturer,HAL have been talking at each other instead of to each other,IJT and BT cases in point,open spat between the two in the media.In the initial years of the LCA this was apparent.Many months ago I posted the scepticism of the IAF at the very beginning of the project when unveiled to them ,by the officers tasked to evaluate the concept (Tapas Sen and co.),as the high-tech required didn't exist in the country and the ADA 's timeframe was too ambitious, just 10 years.It has taken 30.At the presentation the then air chief was also present .The outcome was that the IAF correctly predicted that the LCA would arrive late and decided to upgrade the MIG-21 into the Bison which has proved a huge success and fortunately filled the gap of the LCA's non-arrival for a decade.The GTRE's failure with the Kaveri added to the delay not to mention US sanctions which were unexpected and not the fault of the design bureau..

Still, 30 years on,the LCA flies with a firang engine,firang radar and is armed with firang weaponry! Not so for the Rafale.The signal achievement has been in absorbing the "masala" ingredients and integrating the various components together into an aircraft that despite its shortcomings is a major achievement ,considering our lost decades of aircraft design after developing the HF-24 with Dr.Tank. The Q must be asked however as to why we still cannot design and develop a less sophisticated basic trainer and IJT when we have succeeded with the LCA.The ACM's comments in the earlier post need to be followed up as HAL did establish a strong team for the IJT.

If it has taken the Rafale 30 years to arrive for the French,did it seriously harm their air force? They have been well served with various Mirage avatars which have all been upgraded.A better example of delay would be the JAF which is delayed causing serious problems for the US,where upgrades of SHs and F-15s are being touted as stop-gap alternatives. However,in the case of western nations,they've always had alternatives indigenous available and have incrementally improved the types under production-same with the Soviets/Russians.Perhaps we should examine the Gripen's development timeframe as this aircraft is so similar to the LCA in size and capability and assess our overall performance.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 07 Jan 2014 03:59

Philip wrote:You've made a valid point.For too long the end-user and manufacturer,HAL have been talking at each other instead of to each other,IJT and BT cases in point,open spat between the two in the media.In the initial years of the LCA this was apparent.Many months ago I posted the scepticism of the IAF at the very beginning of the project when unveiled to them ,by the officers tasked to evaluate the concept (Tapas Sen and co.),as the high-tech required didn't exist in the country and the ADA 's timeframe was too ambitious, just 10 years.It has taken 30.At the presentation the then air chief was also present .The outcome was that the IAF correctly predicted that the LCA would arrive late and decided to upgrade the MIG-21 into the Bison which has proved a huge success and fortunately filled the gap of the LCA's non-arrival for a decade.The GTRE's failure with the Kaveri added to the delay not to mention US sanctions which were unexpected and not the fault of the design bureau..

Still, 30 years on,the LCA flies with a firang engine,firang radar and is armed with firang weaponry! Not so for the Rafale.The signal achievement has been in absorbing the "masala" ingredients and integrating the various components together into an aircraft that despite its shortcomings is a major achievement ,considering our lost decades of aircraft design after developing the HF-24 with Dr.Tank. The Q must be asked however as to why we still cannot design and develop a less sophisticated basic trainer and IJT when we have succeeded with the LCA.The ACM's comments in the earlier post need to be followed up as HAL did establish a strong team for the IJT.

If it has taken the Rafale 30 years to arrive for the French,did it seriously harm their air force? They have been well served with various Mirage avatars which have all been upgraded.A better example of delay would be the JAF which is delayed causing serious problems for the US,where upgrades of SHs and F-15s are being touted as stop-gap alternatives. However,in the case of western nations,they've always had alternatives indigenous available and have incrementally improved the types under production-same with the Soviets/Russians.Perhaps we should examine the Gripen's development timeframe as this aircraft is so similar to the LCA in size and capability and assess our overall performance.

Philip, Is it 20 years delay or 30 years delay? Is delay a bad thing? In that case why should we compare our performace with Gripen?
It makes us look bad, isn't it? They all seem to be making planes in around 20 to 30 years but none of them had over 20/30 years delay.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jan 2014 04:06

The "30 years" lie appears again.

IAF ASR finalized - 1985
Project Definition Started - 1987
Govt. review for final go-ahead (for proof-of-concept) -1989
Design finalized - 1990
Full scale funding even for the first 2 TD's, wasn't granted till 1993 because of the financial crunch.

They couldn't start building even the first technology demonstrator before 1993. So where exactly do we calculate the 30 years from?

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jan 2014 04:11

^^^

The so called "delay" was due to inexperienced DRDO team underestimating the R&D efforts to build a 4th-Gen aircraft and over promising deliverables. However, they aren't be the only ones to be blamed. The user IAF also had unrealistic expectation in wanting a new fighter developed within 10 years timeframe otherwise it wasn't going to sign up for it.

Besides, as you have correctly pointed out, the details of the timeline is what should be taken into consideration instead of some simplistic viewpoint that R&D started back in 1983. A lot of the critics seem to be using that 1983 as a project start year to justify their viewpoint.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Jan 2014 06:05

I really think that some posters should be banned for trolling. Stating 30 year delay for LCA is extremely distasteful (to state it mildly) since it provides relief to forces inimical to growth of indigenous industry. This from a gentleman that is a BRF oldie must be taken as a deliberate action with an ulterior motive. If it were so simple to take a firang engine, firang radar and firang weaponry then what stops 90% of the nations from making fighters rather buy from one of the superpowers?

Admins are behaving just like MMS by accepting this relentless tirade against domestic products and industry. How many threads are derailed by such insensitive posts. Yet there is not even a warning to the trolls. Well, that is a sign of the times, isn't it?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 07 Jan 2014 06:11

^+1 million. I also find it curious that this guy never gets warned, suspended or banned no matter what he posts. He even directly commands the Admins to take so and so an action, which unfortunately they seem to do immediately. He complains that BR quality is waning, yet the number of posts just keeps on increasing. If he is so suffering under the distasteful conditions on this forum, why does he not ever take a break. I have seen far more valuable (in fact invaluable) posters with irreplaceable contributions take a leave for far less negative a feedback. In spite of his complaints, he never really intends to leave this forum and will be tormenting the rest of us with his disrespectful and subversive agenda (to Indigenous efforts) for ever.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Jan 2014 06:31

Couldn't agree with you more Arun. He needs to think like this - how many Chinese posters come on BRF to talk bad about their products?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2014 06:45

Philip sir, please answer in short.

1. What would come out of a Gripen vs LCA timeline check? Will it be an apple's to apple's check?
2. How has LCA harmed IAF? Suppose LCA was not there? What would the IAF do? How would it have funded so many squadrons? They don't like the second hand Mirages. Gripens are not exactly cheap and the JF-17 is definitely a no-no. What was the plan-B?
3. Why should people not have a heartburn if you blame HAL for the AL-55I (and absolve Saturn), but blame GTRE for Kaveri.

P.S. You are right in one aspect though, that often times people equate LCA development time to Rafale. But Rafale had new engines, weapons and radar. But none of them were built from scratch as in the case of LCA. LCA's new weapons are not far back. Astra is round the corner (3 years at max). Orders for Sudarshan have already started flowing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2014 07:25

Missing the wood for the trees as usual and descending into cheap personal attacks.If a few have a point to make,counter,please do so in a dignified manner.If you can't, keep quiet.As to the "birth" of the LCA,VIVEK,I'm posting an old post by NR,14th Oct. last yr. and xcpts. from Air Cmde. Tapas Sen's memoirs.So if you take the "go ahead" date of 1983,then it is 30 years since then.

Indranil,the foll. quotes may answer some of your queries.I have suggested studying the dev. time fior the Gripen and LCA only because they are so similar in concept.It was not advocating a Gripen buy ,that bird had its chance in the MMRCA deal and lost.There is no defence of Saturn if they delivered an engine that did not meet specs in the original ASR.Who goofed? I repeat the Q,why is HAL now demanding only 350+ TBO when the IAF want at least 1000? Are they on speaking terms?

The delay in the LCA has affected the IAF's modernisation plan severely.Pl. see the quotes of the air chief,DM and former chiefs,top brass,etc. which I've posted many a time.ACM Naik's statement reg aging:

"The average lifespan of an aircraft is about 30 to 40 years. The MiG-21 Bison aircraft has a new radar and avionics but it has the same engine and airframe. One of the major reasons for such accidents is that after ageing, the variation in MTBF (Mean-Time Between Failure) cannot be known," he said.

AM Ghokale,

,"replacements are woefully slow.

NR's Oct 14th post

and an old BR post:

SaurabhG
Quote:
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 ...............................

And Air Cmde. Tapas Sen on his presentation to the IAF top brass:

I also wonder if my original presentation in 1982 had any effect on the responses of the Air Force in relation to the LCA project? I am glad that we were not swayed by over enthusiasm. I have never regretted stating my opinion and my assessments during that presentation. I am glad that our assessment of the time required for the LCA project were more real than what was then the current wisdom. I am glad that the up-grade project of MiG21BIS to BISON standard came about. I am however sad that our professional judgement on our courses of actions to fulfill the task allotted to the Air Force is now criticized by people who do not carry the responsibility of keeping the Air Force fit for its tasks. And above all, I am saddened by the realization that in this project of developing the LCA we seem to have not reached our true potential. I know we can reach where we aim to. It has taken a long time. We are not yet there. But, we must continue till we succeed. A definitive determination to be honest to the nation, Politically, Administratively, Technologically and Morally, would help. There is no room for defeatism.

The importance of the LCA in the nation's path to defence systems independence is not an issue.I well remember the IT issue with the LCA on the cover,early '80s,when Rajiv G gave the go ahead after the presentation by the MOD.Oldtimers will remember the curved wingtips in the initial concept.The issue has been its torturous path to fruition and fulfilling the IAF's requirements to replace the fleet of hundreds of MIG-21s which are at the very end of their lifespans.
Look,what the IAF expert team said in retrospect,was that well knowing the tough long road ahead for the LCA,tech to be locally developed and its importance ,it should've been given the status of a "national programme",not as a replacement project for IAF aircraft which had deadlines and schedules.That way when it was fully developed the IAF could place huge orders .

Sen again:

Now a days when I think about the Tejas, many scenarios, many ‘what if’ s if you like, cross my mind. What if we had allowed the HAL design team to handle the development without going through the ADA route? What if Ramu or I were allowed to take on the project management? in 1983 – in 1986 – in 1993 – in 1996 ? What if we had the guts to depend on our own people for the development of the digital flight control system, some thing that we were ultimately forced to do anyway? What if we had listened to internal doubts expressed in muted tones and then in thunderous debates that the Kavery project will not and cannot match with the Tejas project in good time? This obvious decision had to be forced down our gullet after a long period of wasted time. (Those readers who had not been aware of the Tejas Project at that time may like to look up the transcript of the Address made by Ramu at the ASTE Seminar on Flight Testing on 10 December 1997. The full transcript was published by the Vayu Magazine). What if we had realized a couple of years earlier that the MMR will need foreign collaboration to fit into the Tejas program? What if we had coordinated our testing program more tightly with the existing assets of ASTE and HAL Flight Test Division rather than creating a brand new set-up of NFTC for the purpose? (I hasten to add that NFTC and Phillip Raj Kumar who was tasked to set it up did perform excellently. I only wonder whether we could have saved some time and resources?)

How babudom sabotaged filling the post of DG ADA for two decades despite APJAK's efforts!

Abdul Kalam was then the SA to RM. He wanted Ramu to take over the LCA project in the existing vacancy of Director General ADA as he had done good work earlier on the very successful “Jaguar Darin” project. Ramu was willing to take on the challenge provided his name was proposed jointly by DRDO & Air Force so that he was not identified as an “Air Force” man or a “DRDO” man and he could function freely in the interests of the project. Accordingly, the SA to RM routed the file through the CAS who concurred with the proposal and forwarded it to the RM Sri Sharad Pawar in Feb 93. It is learnt that the same got approval from three out of the four members of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) within a couple of months but was held up by the PMO for more than two years on various pretexts. It was examined by a few more search Committees all of whom had concurred with the original selection of Ramu. Dr Kalam intervened again and Ramu’s appointment was finally cleared by the PM in Jun 95. The file was then passed to the Establishment Directorate for issue of an official letter of appointment. Even after another one full year, this letter had not been issued. It looked as if no one other than Dr Kalam was interested in strengthening the LCA project Management, and even he was powerless to enforce his will in the face of departmental apathy/antipathy. Ramu was determined not to pursue his own case but act only if the formal appointment letter was issued. That post still remains vacant after almost two decades!

As patriotic Indians,and I believe that all of us on BR are despite our differences on issues at times,a careful study of the LCA history shows that many years and a lot of money could've been saved had there been greater focus on the programme by the most important stakeholder,the GOI.The delays affecting key projects is now being realised by the Govt. itself which is now opening up the defence industry to pvt. entities,something that should've been done at least a decade ago.I once again request members,instead of making cheap one-liners and getting personal ,members should do their research more thoroughly and counter like gentlemen.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2014 08:07

Others,
I don't care if the math says LCA took 20 years or 30 years. Who cares? The question is are there no lessons to be learnt from the LCA, IJT saga? If the answer is no, naysayers like Philip sir should be let to voice his opinion. I don't say anything unpatriotic about it.

Philip sir,
1. About IJT. The MTO of an aero engine is so fundamental, and 100 hours is so low a figure that it is blasphemous to even mention it. That is the irony that some people here are trying to point out to you. Moving on, can you substantiate the fact that HAL is officially asking for 350+ hours and IAF will accept 1000+ hours only. (I am sorry, I have not gone through all your posts. Please don't mind it, they are too lengthy to go through). If you can, there is a serious flaw in national outlook.

2. I actually have read the memoirs of Tapas Sen multiple times. Even outside of that article, I have often wondered, could we have built a 3.5 gen plane first by 2000 and then a 4.5 gen plane by 2015. Or if we had to go for 4.5 gen plane first up, could we have started squadron service in say 2005 if everything went ideally? If yes, what would be those ideal conditions. 1. Govt. will (decisiveness and money). 2. Synergy between scientist and airmen. 3. A spiral model of growth. 4. Organizational efficiency. We know in hindsight, that all these were missing. Could we have learnt them without committing them. Somehow, I feel in a country where babus instead of experts take the decisions, could not have avoided these. The more pertinent question today is, are these lessons truly learnt. Time will tell.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2014 08:50

Tx Indranil.Yes,the disconnect in TBO time was posted in the Indian Aerospace td. Saturn is now reportedly modifying the TBO time as per HAL's reqs.I think it was Vina or NR who gave a plausible explanation,that HAL thought after the Lazarc was found underpowered,that a derated engine from the SU-30 developed only for India ,giving us full IP rights,exports, etc.,would be a golden opportunity.Where Saturn clearly failed was a two-year delay in developing the same.As for TBO and the IAF's requirements the Q remains.One explanation for the "half-baked " engine with only 100hrs TBO is that the same engine is/can be used on our cruise missiles.

This one of the earliest reports of the engine selection fro Flight Global.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ia-213591/

India, meanwhile, has selected Saturn's AL-55I unreheated turbofan for the HAL HJT-36 intermediate jet trainer. The initial 4,000lb-thrust version will power the single-engined HJT-36, and a 5,000lb-thrust derivative of the twin-engined HJT-39 advanced jet trainer. Bench tests of the first prototype started in March last year and the engine is said to have completed qualification tests for the HJT-36 in December. Flight tests on an Ilyushin Il-76LL testbed are expected to start later this year.

In 2005 India signed two contacts totalling $250 million for development and licence production of 200 AL-55Is at HAL. Saturn will complete development of the engine and produce the hot section in Rybinsk while the final assembly will take place at UMPO. India will join the manufacturing process from the 100th engine. Saturn hopes to extend the agreement to cover production of 1,000 units.

Hindu report:
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 282863.ece

HAL’s Intermediate Jet Trainer programme gets a timely boost
Ravi Sharma

Prototype of long-delayed Russian engine arrives
IJT’s first flight with the AL-55I likely by September
AL-55I has a higher thrust rating than
French-made Snecma Larzac 04H20

BANGALORE: The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s floundering Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) programme just got a shot in the arm.

A prototype of the long-delayed Russian engine that will power the trainer has arrived here.

Developed by the Russian aero engine house NPO Saturn and christened AL-55I (I for Indian), the custom-made engine — which was to have arrived last November — has a higher thrust rating than the French-made Snecma Larzac 04H20 engine, currently flying the two IJT prototypes.

The AL-55I has been built keeping the Air Force’s staff requirements in mind and is a scaled-down version of the AL-31FP engine that flies the Su-30 MKI combat aircraft.

Official sources from the HAL working on the programme told The Hindu that the Russian engine had been fitted on the IJT prototype one and the aircraft was almost ready for the all-important ‘engine ground run.’

Minor adjustments

Being larger than the French engine, the installation of the AL-55I necessitated minor adjustments such as the modification of the engine bay doors and the re-routing of pipelines on the trainer.

The HAL has, however, not been able to fit the ‘standby generator’ on the aircraft as this will require shaving off a few centimetres from the engine’s casing. The task, which will have to be undertaken by NPO Saturn, is necessary since the standby generator — a safety enhancement device — is very much an integral part of the trainer’s design architecture.

While the engine ground run will enable the HAL to check out the working of the aircraft’s systems, the trainer cannot get airborne until the Russians successfully complete the engine’s flight tests.

Reports quoting the CEO of NPO Saturn, Yuri Lastochkin, have indicated that an AL-55I engine is being installed on the Russian MiG-AT trainer and is ready for flight tests.

The Russians will have to undertake 50 sorties to get the engine certified. The HAL hopes to undertake the IJT’s first flight with the AL-55I by September-end.

Meant to become the backbone of the Air Force’s stage II or combat pilot training programme, the IJT christened Sitara was sanctioned by the government in 1999 with an initial budget of Rs.180 crore.

After the first flight in March 2003, it was meant to replace the Air Force’s workhorse, the Hindustan Jet Trainer-16, or Kiran. Around 225 HJT-36s are to be eventually produced, serving the IAF, the Navy as well as the Air Force’s Surya Kiran aerobatic team.

As per the original schedule, the first batch of IJTs was to have been delivered to the Air Force in 2005-06. Coded the Hindustan Jet Trainer (HJT)-36, the HAL has received an order for 12 Limited Series Production (LSP) and 60 production aircraft. The revised schedule is for the Air Force to receive the 12 LSPs by 2010.

The IDRW has the 100 hrs,1000 hrs TBO req. mentioned in the Dec.2013 report.
14 years on,IAF jet trainer still not ready.
http://idrw.org/?p=31361

Here is a Russian 2011 report on the engine.Gives more insight into flight testing of the engine.
http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to19.pdf

Russian companies NPO Saturn
and UMPO continue to fulfil a con-
tract on the HAL-ordered AL-55I
engines designed to power the future
HAL HJT-36 Sitara intermediate jet
trainer (IJT). AL-55I prototypes have
been mounted on both HJT-36 pro-
totypes that had previously been
powered by SNECMA Larzac 04H20
engines producing less thrust (the
first of the prototypes, PT-1 seri-
alled S-3466, conducted its first
Larzac-powered flight on 7 March
2003, and the other (PT-2, S-3474)
followed on 26 March 2004).
The first three AL-55I turbofans
fully rig-tested by NPO Saturn were
shipped to India in December 2008.
By then, the one AL-55I prototype
had passed the first stage of its flight
tests in Russia onboard the MiG-AT
(serial 823) flying testbed that first
flew with it on 28 July 2008. In addi-
tion, an AL-55I was integrated with
an HJT-36 prototype in Bangalore
in July 2008. The engine’s operation
as part of the powerplant was tested
and early taxi runs at the airfield
were performed.
The AL-55I-powered HJT-36 flew
its maiden mission in Bangalore on
9 May 2009. Indian test pilot Baldev
Singh, being HAL’s chief pilot (fixed
aircraft) and HAL’s executive director
for flight operations said, “The pow-
erplant proved itself”. The flight kicked
off the phase of certification test flights
of the AL-55I onboard the HJT-36.
To continue the testing of the
HJT-36s, NPO Saturn made a batch
of six more AL-55I prototypes
under the October 2008 contract
and shipped them to HAL during
2009–2010. The acceptance tests
of the first three of them at NPO
Saturn’s test rigs were completed
on 28 August 2009 and those of
the remaining three on 12 February
2010.
The AL-55I’s certification flight
tests on the two HJT-36s were
wrapped up successfully in February
2010. Overall, 31 sorties were
logged, after which the planes were
headed to Jaisalmer in Rajasthan for
hot-climate tests in April 2010. 13
sorties were performed there within
10 days at an ambient temperature
of +44 deg. C. The sorties proved
the compliance of the HJT-36 trainer
and its AL-55I engine with all of the
IAF requirements to the operation
under such climatic conditions.
With the high-temperature trials
over, the AL-55I-powered HJT-36s
started their stall and spin tests.
Upwards of 70 flights had been
logged by the two HJT-36s pow-
ered by AL-55I turbpofans by August
2010. NPO Saturn expected to deliv-
er four next AL-55Is to HAL before
year-end and six more during 2011.
Now, under a HAL-awarded contract,
Saturn is running developmental
work to extend the engine’s service
life up to 300 flying hours, with the
work to be complete in November
this year.
As is known, the AL-55I two-shaft
turbofan rated at 1,760 kgf is being
developed by NPO Saturn on order
from HAL under a contract that came
into force on 1 August 2005. The
work on productionising a prototype
engine batch in Russia, as well as
certification and licence production
support in India is being done by
NPO Saturn and UMPO on a 50:50
basis. The contract stipulates licence
production of at least 250 AL-55I
engines by HAL’s plant in Koraput,
with producing more engines being
an option.
The AL-55I-powered HJT-36
Sitara is expected to oust IAF’s obso-
lete HJT-16 Kiran trainers. IAF has
ordered a low-rate initial production
12-ship batch, and India’s Cabinet
Committee on Security gave the
green light to the Defence Ministry’s
request for acquisition of the first
73 production-standard aircraft last
year. IAF has plans to buy at least
70 HJT-36 more further down the
line, with the service’s overall HJT
requirement estimated at 200–250
aircra

What was this "1000 more" requirement for,100+ IJTs?

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/02/h ... e-jet.html

The IAF brass believes that HAL made a major blunder in deciding to change the IJT’s engine, replacing the French Larzac engine around which the Sitara was designed, with a more powerful AL-55I engine built by Russian engine-maker, NPO-Saturn. In 2005, HAL signed a $350 million contract with Russian defence export agency, Rosoboronexport, to build 250 AL-55I engines under license in Bangalore, with an option for 1000 more. After developing the engine, Moscow insisted on payment of another $64 million.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2014 08:54

The time the LCA took does matter.

Jan 7, 2014 :: 'India to Launch Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft in Another 5 Years'

The work on the design of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that began nearly 20 years back had culminated in developing vehicles using indigenous technology and the first batch of 40 such aircraft would be ready for defence utilization by the year 2017. The Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) would manufacture four vehicles this year, eight by next year and sixteen each in the following two years, Tamilmani added. With the advent of communication and automation technology, system engineering and other tools, the message to the world community is: ‘India can build new-state-of-art aerospace technology products and is ready for competition.’ Tamilmani said each of the LCA would be built at an estimated cost of `200 crore and these aircraft would be subjected to around 14,000 failure simulation conditions, to test the efficacy of the technology before they were deployed for the army. The ground work on designing the aircraft was started in the year 1993 and the prototype would be ready in the next five years. “We had to build the technology all by ourselves from scratch as no agency was willing to share the technology. Even though we have taken a little more time to develop the technology, we have now laid a strong foundation in this field,” he noted.

_______________________

{BTW, even better news, the title of that article is quote. AMCA by 2018!!!}

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2014 10:05

Philip sahab,

Let me dispel a few wrong notions.
1. AL-55I was never meant for a cruise missile. It is the naivety of the media who don't have a clue of what they are speaking. Cruise missiles will not grow larger than what Nirbhay is today, and at that weight a 4kn engine like Laghu Shakti engine suffices. AL-55I provides more than 4 times that power. The expected order for 1000-1500 engine is based on an approximate estimated market for 500 such engines for trainers, and another 500-1000 for private jets, UAVs, UCAVs.

2. The actual chronology of the AL-55I saga on the IJT is as follows. IJT turned out heavier than planned, and with the Larzac engine it would not meet the ASR. Larzac said that they could give a more powerful engine, but the price was exorbitant. So, HAL sent out a RFP for engines. Saturn made a proposal, why go for all this jhamela, we will give you an engine which would be a down-rated version of AL-31. It will be very easy to make one. What's more we will transfer the rights, so you can do whatever you want to do with it later. Saturn's point of view, they would be able to sell a license for over 1000 engines and get the money for its development. HAL's point of view, we get the engine we want and we can use this for other products too. That was a grave mistake (in hindsight). Saturn could not deliver on the promised the engine. There was no going back for HAL in 2008-2009. So now HAL is stuck with a program where the engine testing and the plane testing is undergoing together, and slowing down the later. Additionally, the Ruskies are demanding more money for testing the engine. In my view, what would eventually happen is that IJT will satisfy the ASR (unless what chacko sir is saying about it being 20% deficient on power is correct. But Baldev Singhji (may his sole rest in peace) said otherwise). The engine would have been tested enough to clear it for a TBO of 1000 hours. But HAL would have had to pay for the development and testing of a new engine. This would jack up the price of IJT (from its current 50 crore a piece), or cut down on HAL's profits. Either way, the bean counting earlier and the blind faith on the Russians to deliver has come to bite hard, real hard.

3. The one silver lining is that may be the AL-55I is the basis for the 20-25 kn engine that HAL is currently building and is reportedly going to start testing in 2016. They are also building that engine for jet trainers, private jets, UAVs and UCAVs. But given the fact that they are collaborating with Snecma on this, I don't know how the overlaps are in this project.

4. That IDRW news article comes from Rajat Pandit. Do yourself a favour, please don't his articles. Till now there is nothing which says IAF would not accept the plane till the MTO of 1000 is reached. Ajai Shukla reported that IAF has asked HAL to use all the 12 LSPs for flight testing to obtain clearance ASAP. Engine certification is a longitudinal study (which means it can't be accelerated through parallelization). Clearly this and the above statement, don't go together. But Rajat Pandit and his sources must know better.

NRao wrote: {BTW, even better news, the title of that article is quote. AMCA by 2018!!!}

Don't do this Rao sahab. It will be held up against the project when time comes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jan 2014 10:30

And yet again, the LCA thread becomes a P thread again, thanks to the efforts of P in raising the usual out of context rubbish, 30 years, furrin engine & so forth. A decade plus of discussion settling these points & this guy will deliberately ignore each & every bit of info out there & wreck thread after thread.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Jan 2014 10:42

And yet the admins choose to turn a blind eye against the transgressions of the troll. The good Hakim ji once called it as self-flagellation or intellectual masturbation. Whatever it is, its making the forum stink as a whole.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Jan 2014 10:44

TBO of 100 hours is comparable to the TBO of 10 hrs of the Junkers Jumo engines of the Me262 that first flew in the 1940s. Remarkable tech, eh!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jan 2014 10:56

Tx Indranil.I was only quoting what some posters speculated about cruise missile applications.V.ambitious expectations for 1000 engine sales unless Russia is picking up the majority.You mention that there may be some (classified) UAV/UCAV requirements.
However,reg. UCAV engine,I thought that the Kaveri was to be used from earlier reports.

Your explanation about the IJT engine fiasco underscores the root of the problem,our weakness in engine tech,never pursued diligently since HF-24 days.The IAF wanted the Lazarc modified ,not a change of engine mid-way during the project,but the French wanted a huge amt.We've wasted more money and time on the AL.This was the result of the aircraft being fundamentally overweight.One can draw one's own conclusions.

Since this is the LCA td. we'll stick to the topic and shift any further IJT debate to the other td.
Any further clarification reg BVR missiles for MK-1?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2014 11:15

I have never known a plane which has tipped the scales at exactly the designed weight. Also as we design and build more planes our estimates would become more accurate.

Don't worry about BVR missiles. The radar is a good one. We are working on a good radome. The missiles are tested and already integrated with the radar before (except for Astra). 4 of the weapon stations can take MVRAAMs. In fact once the multiple pylons are designed, they have enough payload carrying capacity to take multiple of them on each weapon station.

What is worrisome, is the quality of reporting. These are elementary knowledge to anybody following the program, rest aside people writing editorials about the same!