I must mention that the showcasing of indigenous Dhruv, both by the IAF’s ‘Sarang’ display team and HAL, had a major impact on the people. I would like to share with you that as I was going around with the German Air Force Chief, he was especially appreciative of the good capabilities displayed by the Indian DPSU’s and industry. He told me that the Indian indigenous electronic warfare equipment and sensors were world class.

Puts the DRDO effort in perspective!

The latest Force mag has the ACM Major stating that

It looks like six sqdns by 2018-20 time frame.

Thanks Victor. Can you post the entire article?

Sens, we dont even know whether this new rumour about LCA’s having limited weapons capability is true or not. But the point I was trying to make was that you can’t shift your goals in this manner as Abhimanyu appeared to have suggested, i.e. we aimed for 4000 but 2,500 would suffice because its good enough or that’s what we need.

Vikas,

Please read what has been quoted earlier. The new engine is meant to achieve the 4T max warload figure. Otherwise, as Sens said, anyways the LCA is well placed with the current ~2T payload. Please do a calculation of the likely AFB vs target, and you’ll realise what the LCA can or cannot do. And what it is easily capable of. Frankly, the IAF understands this, or they would never agree to another squadron of the LCA, discussions on this board apart.

I again ask , would an LCA with Basic A2A capability (BVR missile + WVR missile) and some infant A2G capability (Dumb bombs , no PGM’s , no cruise missiles and what not) and limited load (Full A2A) with IOC in 2002 be better then what is now being offered in 2012 timeframe ?

Bringiton, the Indian Nuke tests in 1998 and the US sanctions ruled that out.

Also, you are understating the amount of effort it would take to actually get the LCA to the state above. Eg in 2001, Air Marshal MSD Wollen notes that it will definitely take ~2010 to get the LCA operational given a prudent comparison with how much time and effort it took the Gripen, Rafale etc to reach IOC. So the combination of sanctions and a first time effort plus overall testing required would definitely take a substantial amount of time.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/wollen.html

In the late eighties India’s aircraft Industry was not as advanced as Sweden’s; and yet India follows a more arduous design/development route for its LCA, compared to Sweden for its JAS-39 Gripen. The Gripen embodied a far higher percentage of foreign, off-the-shelf technology, including its RM-12 engine (improved GE F404). France (Dassault Aviation) built and exhaustively flew a demonstrator aircraft (Rafale-A) before embarking on construction of Rafale prototypes. Over 2,000 flights were completed by September 1994 when first Flight of a production Rafale was still 20 months away. At that point of time, Dassault Aviation had built or flown 93 prototypes, of which at least fifteen went into production Sixteen years elapsed from ‘first-metal-cut’ of the Rafale demonstrator to entry into service. Current plans for the LCA is ten years. And what of India’s past record? Just a hand-ful of trainer aircraft designed and productionised. The story is similar for the Typhoon (earlier Eurofighter 2000). It was seventeen years from ‘first-metal-cut’ (EAP) to squadron entry in 2000. One more timeframe needs to be noted. It took Gripen six and a half years from first flight (prototype) to entry into squadron. For the LCA, four and a half years is the target! The quantum of test flying hours required to attain Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) is about 2000 hours; an impossible task in four and a half years. Concurrent production will shorten service entry time, but this will not enable the present target to be reached.

The LCA remains a high-risk project. All too often glitches occur in development of a fly-by-wire FCS. The Typhoon is an example; this, despite vast experimental work for over a decade by leading aircraft manufacturers in the UK and Germany (Jaguar, F-104, EAP). Engine development is the most complex of all activities. There are sure to be problems during flight development of the Kaveri, GTRE’s first engine. Teething problems after service entry will occur; and major reliability improvements will be required in the first decade of its exploitation. Engines of the Russian fleet of fighters operated by the IAF (MiG-21 BIS, MiG-23BN/27M MiG-29) have this in-service history. Proceeding from this, four points emerge:

(a) India has its best designers, engineers, scientists, academicians working on/contributing to the project. In the main, they are devoted and tireless in their efforts to success-fully complete the project. They need support (not blind sup-port) of the polity, defence services and bureaucrats. Public support will follow, provided there is honest transparency;
(b) Costs of the project will escalate. (checks and balance are necessary, but let there be no inordinate delays, as have occurred in the past;
(c) The future of the aircraft industry, military and civil, depends on success of the LCA (and ALH, Saras, HJT-36) project; and,
(d) It is unlikely that the LCA will attain initial operational clearance (IOC) before 2010 When it is achieved, it will be an industrial success of magnificent proportion, and is sure to receive the acclaim it deserves.

Now if the point is, would OEM assistance help speed up the program? Well yes, but please remember, in 2001, BAe (who did an excellent job earlier) could no longer assist because they were tied up with the EF. Indias relations with Israel were still getting firmed up, and Russian involvement would cause substantial reengineering. The USs sanctions on India were still biting (even if ostensibly removed), so who was there to provide an engine, a new radar and what not? Perhaps France, but as we have seen, it was Elta chosen instead of Thales, and its Boeing instead of Dassault and for the engine, it is EJ and Ge which are frontrunners, not Snecma..
So it does seem that France’s offer was not what the LCA team could leverage?!

I pointed out, I said this, I feel this …………is not going to make LCA what you want. “LCA is not suitable for combat” is the verdict of defense ministry.

Learn to read. Its not about your feelings and how much you hate the LCA or think that waging war on the LCA on the net contributes to winning brownie points in the “Annual Internet flamewar competition”. I can assure you they wont. Sorry, my sympathies!

The statement about Air Combat and similar stupidity is from the breathless journalist who wrote the article. Of course, you would agree with him.

I await your brilliant copy paste skills in bringing out the OFFICIAL MOD claim that the LCA is unsuitable for Air Combat. Go on, show us. We are all waiting.

Never mind it has been now conclusively shown that a 1T warload is sufficient (1/4th of the LCAs Max) for its A2A requirements. I showed it to you above.

Do the numbers yourself. Use a calculator. Or use your thumbs and toes together, if necessary. Use a spreadsheet. Whatever works.

What you want of LCA, what LCA needs……….fantasy is altogether different.

I know fantasy is different. That is your expertise. I live in reality. A reality where the LCA is now about to get on a follow on order, for another squadron while people like you continue to wage cyber war on the internet. And where its key tech challenges are all being addressed, including the engine. So nice of you to approve. I am sure you must feel so happy that India is getting all this.

Oh yeah the ample time of five years was not enough……… to “fix” the AoA, so why bother when 4 deg will do

Tsk tsk, thats the problem with you excitable chaps. You are so busy flaming and yelling that you forget to read. 🙁

Each of the LCA blocs is different and are meant for different purposes. The TDs were meant to demonstrate tech and assist in the FT Program. They have. The PVs were meant to operationalize avionics and contribute to the flight envelope clearance. They have. The LSP 1-8 will be used to clear the FT envelope to IOC standards along with the first 20. That will also be done.

Understood?

And second, as much as you dont understand, three people have pointed out the above, about the LCAs FT program and how the control laws are progressively upgraded @ each stage.

AM Philip Rajumar, AM MSD Wollen, and K Harinarayana.

So while you continue with your cyber war against the hated bad bad Indian LCA, and how bad it is and how non Indian it is, and how the horrible world gave everything to India etc etc etc …reality is that the LCA program IS going ahead.

And LIKE Sens, Arthur, and many other posters on this very board pointed out, a sensible thing is being done in inducting the aircraft in blocks, each of which will be more capable than the previous.

Sad news for you. Please have a brandy to drown your sorrows, if you must.

Oh is it!! But rarely do fantasy realize….

My sympathies for whatever your fantasies were and for their realisation.

So you downgraded from Multi-role to A2A onleee… but for ths also LCA is unsuitable ……says the Ministry of defense:diablo:

Learn to read.

I pointed out that even a full A2A warload only accounts for ~800 Kg. And that EVEN with a warload of ~2T the LCA can easily do what its meant for, A2G OR A2A. And that a 4T MTOW is unrealistic in the extreme for operational needs, given where LCAs are deployed and that they’ll have IFR. :rolleyes:

Oh the claim of 20 degrees AoA and having touched 22 degrees is also busted…

Oh wow. The LCA is “busted” because as everyone knows a 4 deg of AoA is essential for combat. ROTFLMAO. Gee, a BVR missile launched at 15 deg AoA will not work, whereas one launched at 19 deg AoA will be automatically superior. What brilliance. :rolleyes:

Second, that comment by the Indian Express is @ the current PV’s. The LSP will be different and AoA limitations are a function of Flight control software maturity, for which there is ample time to fix. Thats all they have said.

Thats what I & others had posted before, but you were to busy jumping around and flaming to pay any heed.

It can not come at worst time EDITED..towed decoy..:D

Tejas to have only limited weaponry

Look above. A 3T warload ie a 25% reduction in the LCAs Max Payload is still sufficient to get the job done. A full BVR A2A fit would only add upto 820 Kg.