Nick, thank you for that long post. However, that was the very point I was also trying to make, albeit in a different manner. One simply cant keep comparing LCA with this or that…simply because different airforces want/expect different things from their machines.:)

I didnt quite get that impression from your post, perhaps you phrased it contrary to what you meant. What did come across was a belief that the JF-17 and Gripen are somehow better off by virtue of being accepted with x thrust and whereas the LCA was still looking for more and this was because of the LCA having more drag etc, which to be frank is pure speculation and doesnt make any sort of sense since all evidence to date is to the opposite.

What is true however, is the basic point – if the IAF was more hardpressed they would have compromised more with the LCA, while they do want the airframe in light of retirals of other a/c so are pushing the program, but thanks to the MKI production and MRCA, they do have the time to expect more potent derivatives of the LCA in a more comprehensive fashion. Such is not the case with Pak, so I fully expect more limited variants of the JF-17 to be quickly cleared for induction, and why not. Even if its radar, airframe and avionics dont match contemporary standards, it will still be better than the F-7 series in PAF service, which is currently doing the bulk of the AD mission, and is limited to WVR, without a proper AD radar set and with short legs and the Mirage 3/5s are not getting any younger either & unlike India, the bulk of their spares are not manufactured inhouse, so the French must be having a good time with price gouging @ expense of the PAF.

Could be, there appears to be a thin rectangular container?

Also, have they finally fixed the (in)famous orange nosecap w/brake parachute issue, and made it an automated system?

Abhimanyu, since you keep bringing other fighters into your arguments again and again, so lets get a few things straight…but please feel free to correct me where you think Im wrong.

First, the top of speed of JF-17 is projected to be Mach 1.8 and it has a G-limit of +8.5.
Second, JF-17 weighs slightly less than 6,500 unequipped and its RD-93 engine with 18,300 lbs of thrust is considered to be good enough for the purpose. Gripen C weighs around 6,800 kg and its RM-12 with a thrust of 18,100 lbs is also good enough for this machine for its MTOW (whether that is needed or is beyond the point). OTOH, LCA with an empty weight of (lets say) 6,500 kg equipped with F404-GE-F2J3 that produced 18,000+ lbs is not good enough??? May be you should start taking drag into consdieration and not just the thrust.
Finally, trust me they have the engine issue with JF-17 covered just the way Swedes had it with Gripen. We know that JF-17 will have an IFR probe, more pylons and so on which will cause an increase in its empty weight. Its designers know that all these changes will need adjustments elsewhere. CAC will gradually introduce composites to reduce the weight and more powerful engine will also come into the equation at a later stage. But jsut the way it was not an issue with Gripen/RM-12, it won’t be anything like…Oh our fighters weighs too much now, so lets start looking for another engine.

The biggest mistake you are making here is in assuming that just because the JF-17 weighs x and the engine provides x+1 Kg thrust or that the Gripen weighs y and the engine provides y.1 Kg of thrust, the IAF will be satisfied with similar parameters for the LCA.

First, the standards set for the LCA are qualitatively different than those expected of the JF-17 in many key criteria, and the Gripen. They reflect what the IAF expects out of the aircraft and not what Pakistan does with the JF-17 or what Sweden did with the Gripen. The Gripen for eg, has short field performance superior to the LCA, but it was never an issue for the IAF, given they have ample numbers of tac AFB directed against both PAF & PLAAF. In other criteria, the LCA is to have a fully integrated internal EW suite, which the MKI doesnt have, and nor do the PAF fighters till date!

So comparisons are without merit in several cases.
And given that the IAF expects that the LCA be qualitatively superior to anything Pakistan can induct, and that it is unwilling to compromise on key performance parameters in the operational sense, why wouldnt they want a higher power engine? Its typical of how they always shoot for the moon. Now you may well point out that this approach is needlessly expensive and timeconsuming or even unfair for the local developer, who are being held upto standards which might well be unecessary. But that is the IAFs way of working. As and when they can, they will set a very high benchmark for any items they induct. Sometimes, yes, it may be whimsical.

So it is presumptuous to state that the LCAs drag is high or this or that just because a higher power engine is being asked for. Fact is that in every presentation the NFTC has released, the LCAs flight performance closely matches the expected values via simulation, which in turn use drag coeffs obtained in part from wind tunnel modelling & more FEst studies.

Nowhere till now, has the LCA been remarked to be “thirstier” than expected, which would also have been an issue with higher drag affecting performance, and hence the engine needing to be operated at higher than originally planned speed rating, affecting consumption.

A higher power engine will help in both sea level combat performance in hot conditions and for maintaining the LCAs combat performance during those criteria. A LCA @ 150 ft, needs to have its supersonic performance optimized as an escape tactic, and which is why the radar was planned to get TFR modes as well. Nowhere was this necessary in its original ASR as a point defence interceptor, but here we are.

What the IAF is also asking for, is a higher TWR which matches 4th+ developments, which also compensates for future growth plans in packing more payload onto the aircraft without making the tradeoff in combat performance.

Drag et al are tangential to this case. Small savings in airframe optimization would anyways be quickly lost when compared to the amount of metal junk the LCA will lug around in terms of bombs and pylons.

And lastly, what you also need to understand is that the PAFs hands are tied to a much larger extent with the CAC an external OEM, than the IAFs with the LCA, which is why the IAF keeps asking for more (and getting it). Tell me, if the PAF tomorrow discovers its radios need to be replaced because the encryption is an issue – they’ll have to turn to R&S who might bring up contractual provisos. In the LCAs case, the INCOM is already local and std for the IAFs latest fighters.

The same holds true for a much larger extent with design changes & improvements. Each time the PAF holds out for more, CAC can well point out how expensive it is to do it at the beginning and the PAF will see sense, and make do with what they get.

The entire program management of the PLM is being run out of India, this gives the IAF unprecedented flexibility in asking for whatever they want, especially since the program is being funded by the DRDO in most part.

In the LCAs case, the programme is being run nationally by the DRDO funded by the GOI and with partial funding from the IAF & Navy budgets. That means, they have much more leeway to ask for the moon. In contrast, if tomorrow, the PAF chief goes to JF-17 PM Office @ CAC and asks for a new engine to be accomodated, and new weapons definitions @ Phase 1 itself, the PMO will ask for more CYuan. And then what? Will the PAF pay? This makes the decision making more streamlined, but also means that the PAF is more amenable to compromise.

So understand this, just because the JF-17 has “x” specs and the PAF says ok, fine – it doesnt mean that they are automatically acceptable as far as the IAFs planning is concerned. The different way the programs are structured gives the IAF much more negotiating and fiscal authority to be finicky.

The PAF needs the JF-17 as a Mirage replacement, the original birds are way too long in the tooth, and the PAF has till date been able to afford only a few F-16s and plans for a couple of J-10 sq.

Compare & contrast to the IAFs 230 MKI run, its 126 MRCA tender, 128 LCA plan & whats already there, six squadrons of BVR Bisons and now 40 upg MiG-27s coming in and 77 Darin 2 Jags!!, which easily match and exceed the limited numbers of ROSE upgrade Mirages. Plus the Mirage and MiG-29 Upg.

So obviously, the JF-17, even a heavily downgraded first block of 50 odd aircraft is FAR better than what the PAF already flies, an almost no BVR force with the bulk of its point defence fleet, the F-7 series, not even having a fully capable TWS set. No wonder they are willing to compromise and get anything, asap.

And if it makes you feel better, the IAF also had to compromise on the Bisons assembly when it too faced what the PAF did, dropping fleet levels, an external OEM who was tough and renegotiated. So original plan for TOT for Bison kit was dropped and kits provided as CKD/SKD for fitment in India! A loss to the taxpayer, but you get what you can when working with limited resources (as India was @ the time), and an external OEM who is paid out of your own direct budget.

Such is not the case with the LCA, so the IAF are asking for the moon when they can. Sometimes they compromise, given that they too need airframes fast. And since they are getting what they want, some 128 LCAs (min) are now planned, and 48 to be inducted in the first phase with the Ge series engines.

LSP 2 has flown, with a new MB seat and the Ge404 IN20. Chase aircraft was another LCA, the PV-3. Its been noted that this has become standard. This is notable, as chase aircraft need to be precisely calibrated and this testifies to the basic flight performance being mature, for the PV’s.

There is a reason, why they did not quote the max s.l. speed, but that for 3 km height. At 3 km height the max low is ~Mach 0,1 higher due to lower air-pressure. So the Kaveri can run into problems to go supersonic in hot air at s.l., when not going over the drag-peak at Mach 1.
No real problem in my eyes, but may be by some of the owners.

Sens, please post more complete sentences, time permitting since your posts are interesting but one is left confused at certain points. Your cryptic comments are sometimes hard to understand. Whats “max low”? Are you referring to Mach?
Also, I dont think much thought goes into depicting the performance, to the extent that they finesse what they want to show, they just ask the developers who reel off stats, and some KP’s are printed. Check the missing kg notations for fuel for eg! Also, bringing Kaveri into the picture is too early, since the engine afaik hasnt even flown on a LCA yet.

Sengupta is a BS’er. Dont take anything he says as the truth without severe crosschecking. Here, he is making stuff up + copy pasting stuff from US AGMs eg tri seekers and what not + bringing in Taiwan. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://forceindia.net/feature4.asp

Nick, I do agree that it is most likely the rate of ‘induction’ rather than ‘production’ which would be the limiting factor for LCA’s induction into IAF. However, since LCA is generally considered to be the most pivotal element of Indian aviation industry’s growth and maturing process, Im of the opinion IAF has to induct it in bigger numbers than currently planned…i just noticed that the end of 13th defence plan is around 2022.

Vikas,

The IAF plans are tentative – they have now publically confirmed, for the first time, that they want “at least” six squadrons.

But that is not accounting for operational requirements which might always increase. Remember, its easier to ask for a “local fighter” rather than an imported one. Once the Jaguar became “local”, and it took almost a decade & a half for it to be so, the IAF promptly ordered 37 more. Most people have missed this substantial order for DARIN-2 capable, night attack & new EW capable airframes, and a new Jaguar squadron has also been raised now. Reason I am mentioning it, is because it testifies to how IAF works, it is much easier to raise additional orders for local kit or an item which is indigenized and in production. The LCA orders are similar, the IAF has committed, in planning for a substantial six squadrons (= the number of MRCAs they have planned for) but if they get funding, and the LCA keeps pace with more improvement, expect some 2-3 additional squadrons raised.

So, there is sufficient scope for LCA orders to be increased. Also, the Navy has plans for 3-4 squadrons of LCAs of their own.

Plus there are other programs planned & confirmed, from MRTA, IJT, various kind of choppers, LCA derivatives, the future MCA, UCAV, MALE UAVs, and who knows what else. Apart from this, there are the MKI upgrade MLU plans, the MRCA production, the Indo-Russian 5G PAK-FA & others. Not to mention, NAL the lab which does so much work for LCA composites, wind tunnel work, is now making SARAS its own light passenger a/c and is planning to make a new 90 seater jet.

So as far as Indian aerospace is concerned, it is boom time.

As far as HAL & DRDO are concerned, there is ample scope for business & technology development.

Nick, I might be wrong here, but 6 squadrons in IAF will have 108 units (18 per squadron) unless they want to go for 18+2 (reserve) which would be 120 units. In any case, if two squadrons (40+8 LSP as you said) are inducted in 2010/11 that would leave 72 units to be inducted between 2012 to 2018/20. This is roughly 8 to 10 units per year, which I personally don’t think is enough.

Hi Vikas, its 20 when the IAF can afford it, and 16-18 when the numbers are lower, and attrition reserves cant be accounted for. The remaining 72 are enough per IAF minimum estimates, and they know best given what they can manage in proper timeframe.

In any case, according to the FH Major, two squadrons of the LCA in the IOC version will be inducted in 2010-11. After that, the IAF plan is to have six LCA squadrons by the end of the 13th Defence Plan. These squadrons should start joining the IAF by 2017. I wonder if this is another example of poor journalism considering the fact that if 40+8 (as u said before) are inducted in 2010/11 and remaining squadrons start joining IAF by 2017, what happens in between?As for the rate of production, I have no doubt that it is per IAF demand. But the rate is not high enough.

By 2010-11, there will be 20+8 LCAs, by 2012-13, there will be 48. Then Block 2 will start and be completed by 2020. Thats ~10 airframes per year.
Please remember, that HAL will also be producing M-MRCAS as well and the IAF has to induct those as well, while it would have just completed MKI full ops by 2016-2017 (if HAL gets all out by 2014).

Hence, dont get confused. The rate of production is defined in part, by the IAF. And they will be inducting 126 MRCA from 2012 onwards, and a similar number of LCAs. Pilots need to be trained, squadrons need to be raised, and hence ~10 aircraft/yr is enough if it meets what the IAF can manage. Producing airframes which the IAF cant induct wheres the logic in that? Also remember, just prior to LCA Block 2 production beginning, HAL needs to “manage” Mirage 2000-5 production (and IAF has to manage induction) as well as MiG-29 Upg (ditto). So the IAF has a lot on its plate, not least of which is to operationalize 230 Su-30 MKis which make the LCA & MRCA second string.

So its reasonable & logical to produce @ the what the IAF wants and can manage.