Primary aim of LCA was to replace ageing IAF fighters.

No, the LCA project had TWO aims, each of which was as important as the other- one, the obvious one- to provide the IAF with a MiG-21 replacement, and secondly, to develop India’s aerospace industry.
In the case of the former, the program is still underway- testing is proceeding apace, and in the case of the second, it has ALREADY been successful, if one sees the spinoffs, and the impact on follow on programs, such as the IJT, and upgrades.

I dont think anyone here is referring to LCA project as a failed one.

Please, it takes no rocket scientist to see the drivel written by Scooter and some other gents, irrespective of how many sources contradict them.

In contrast what some people are saying that if LCA fails to achieve its primary objective, i.e. inducted in sufficient numbers, it would be considered a failed project in spite of all the benefits it has generated. One may use Lavi as an example. It gave birth to Israeli aviation industry, which at present is going from strength to strength. Yet one can’t say that Lavi was a successful project.

You are mistaken here. I brought up the Lavi as an example to show how even when a program tasked to develop a fighter alone, results in spinoffs, if done right. In contrast– the LCA was intended to do both from the beginning. Its a subtle difference, but one which deserves to be noted.

Lastly, the LCA program is underway, and it has already received financial commitment from the GOI for IOC and FOC.

On another point, IAF is considering procurement of additional MKIs. Various otherproposals such as MMRCA and upgrades are also under consideration or being implemented to keep the force level up. Now if LCA had been around already as was envisaged initially, do you seriously think that IAF would have considered keeping its old Mig-21s in service up to 2015/20?

There is no doubt that the LCA delay lead to the Bison upgradation. However, nobody could have anticipated the impact of sanctions or similar issues which cropped up in between. These delays are the price one pays for strategic independence. If India had not gone nuclear in 1998, “if”..

The additional 40 MKI purchase is because of the delay in the MMRCA, which is again delayed to a variety of bureaucratic and political factors. It has little to do with the LCA. If there were available Mirage 2000’s for the picking, the IAF would have gone for them, rather than 40 HCA’s- but you take what you can.

If LCA was on par with gripen as many have suggested over the years and coming soon, don’t you think HAL would have been a serious contender for MMRCA RFP just like SAAB’s Gripen is likely to be for the very same competition?

This is again pure arguementative conjecture, which you are just throwing into the mix. The Gripen is a latecomer to the MMRCA, and was included only to avoid claims of impropriety. It again, does NOT meet the 15-20 tonnes requirement of the MMRCA. As SP Tyagi, CAS stated, the weight requirements were relaxed on account of political and competitive reasons.

The LCA is compared to the Gripen, purely because it is the only light fighter in its category, with similar but not the same, design goals.

Besides that why would IAF need to go abroad to shop if they had something of the same calibre at home and available at almost half the price. Heck the GOI would have included it in the competion just to increase her chances on negotiations table, if she shared these sentiments for LCA.

First, the LCA is in development, and its development timeline has been remarked on before.

As MSD Wollen states,

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.

A few words on final operational clearance (FOC). The entire avionics and weapon systems are con-figured around three 1553 B data bus. Mission oriented computation/flight management is through a 32 hit computer. Information: from sensors (e.g. multi-mode radar, IRST, radar/laser/missile launch-warning receivers); from the inertial navigation System with embedded GPS; from targetting pod (FLIR, laser designator) are presented to the pilot on a head-up-display and head-down-displays. A helmet mounted target designator steers radar and missile seekers for early target acquisition (during a ‘close-in’ air-to-air engagement with a Vympel R-73 missile, currently the best dog-fight’ missile in the world). Laser guided bombs and TV guided missiles, require a pilot to initially ‘zero-in’ the laser designator or missile-mounted TV camera, on the ground target. Considerable engineering effort and expertise is necessary to achieve avionics-weapon integration and to prove the integration by live trials. Success here means FOC. Depending on what is stated in the (updated) ASR, it could take two years and around 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to FOC.

There will he setbacks in the flight development phase. All major engineering projects suffer them e.g. India’s first two SLVs failed disastrously. The Prime Minister was present at the first launch at Sriharikota; so was this author. Disappointment was everywhere, but no recrimination; only determination to get it right. Loss of a demonstrator aircraft or prototype could take place, lives could he lost, leading to questions/debate. Therefore, let the recent transparency in tile program continue, even intensify; let it he honest, 2010 is not far, for a first’ program of this magnitude and complexity.

Now, if AM MSD Wollen knows this, do you think that the IAF wont?

The point is simple, every AF plans for risk mitigation. In the case of the MMRCA, an unstated issue, was that the MKI was being inducted, and was a complely new type. The same would hold for the LCA, when it came.

The IAF wanted a few squadrons of the MMRCA, ie the Mirage 2000-V, to act as a fallback and to be quickly inducted along with the MKI and primarily because it would replace the retiring MiG-23 MF’s, BN’s and some unupgraded MiG-27 ML airframes, if need be. In other words, a relatively mature platform, which could be quickly inducted and would be operationalized by the IAF asap. Note, that the original MMRCA/ Mirage 2000-V deal did not even speak of TOT but quick license assembling by HAL.

Luckily for the AF, the MKI met its expectations, but the MMRCA program went into a bureacratic spin, to reemerge as a multi-vendor one, with even development aircraft competing (such as the MiG-35).

So much for their original plan!

The LCA, MCA, HCA all represent different requirements for the IAF. For purposes of risk mitigation, each would have covered up for the other to some extent, if one program was delayed, or induction moved forward or recast etc.

Unfortunately, the MMRCA delay, meant that the IAFs plans were thrown out of kilter, and hence the current search for extra airframes to compensate for the MMRCA delay. The Su-30 MKI force is getting another two squadrons, another squadron of Mirage 2000s might be raised, and everyones getting upgrades.

Even– if the LCA was ready, and had reached FOC by now, the IAF would have not given up the MMRCA, simply put, they also needed a heavier, longer ranged strike oriented aircraft. But one, whose operational costs would be lower than that of the Su-30 MKI.

Even future plans reflect this cautious progression. For instance, the MCA is to be a Jaguar replacement, with a multi-role strike platform.

Well put.

Ultimately if the LCA does not become one of the IAF’s mainstays then it has failed as that was the projects initial aim. The J-10 on the other hand has entered operational service, has impressed the CIA (who also report that improved versions are in an advanced stage of development), and sufficient engines have been ordered for some 300 examples. 🙂

My goodness, Sea Lord and Scooter have had a Vulcan mind meld. They both seem to think that repeating the same bilge over and over again, makes it the truth. They seem to think that they can speak for the IAF even. Delusions of grandeur, or what! 🙂 :p :rolleyes:

In fact, SLL is so hardpressed for support that he even needs to quote LoJ’s post out of context. Why not LoJ speak for himself, dude- I dont think he’ll take kindly to you trying to piggyback on his words.

As regards “impressing the CIA”- well, the USAF does need funding for its new F-22A’s and the more mature posters here might well remember what the “Soviet threat” was made out to be in the good old days of the Cold War.
But never mind, be happy. :p

Tomorrow the CIA will say that the PRC is building a Death Star, and Sea Lord will lord it over us all. 😀

Now I will let Nick76 post a massive reply full of insults and rantings- yet with no evidence, which is surprising as that is what he demands from others.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Au contraire, my dear Chinese but loath to admit it friend, I have posted reams of evidence, as well as links to citations from the Government of India and IAF officials. Heres one more, as badly as it may offend you- being from a reputable source and all.

Mr N R Mohanty, chairman HAL, in conversation
with AVIA
(Recorded on 9 Jan 03)

Yes we are indeed hopeful that the IJT will fly
next month. This project only started three and
a half years ago, so we do feel proud. To tell
you the truth, we could make the IJT happen
because of the wealth of experience we gained
from the LCA programme. That’s also why we
feel very confident about being able to build a
light combat helicopter. After HAL’s success
with Dhruv, it can’t be very difficult. (IJT, named
HJT-36, flew on 21 Mar 03)

In contrast, all you and Scooter have done is insist– in an extremely “nyah nyah nyah” manner, is what you believe, is and must be the truth.

In fact, I was expecting this behaviour from you, given the J-10 rollout, after all- you had to go and engage in a mine is bigger than yours frenzy. And sure as beans, you didnt disappoint at all.

Of course, since you couldnt even post a half sensible reply- all you were left with is to insist that you were insulted. How darn predictable. This being the third time, you have gone down the same old, same old beaten path.

A big hooey to your melodrama. :p

Sorry, your 20 Pre-Production examples mean little

Because you say so, right?

And your ignorance speaks volumes, yet again. The 8 LSP and 20 aircraft thereafter, are all to be production standard variants. :rolleyes:

Then, there are the prototypes, 35 aircraft on order, as is. :rolleyes:

Arent you tired of being wrong?

………….and it will take 5 years just to get them in to service. All the while China will have hundreds of J-10’s!:p

Why hundreds, make it thousands!

I mean, if you have to make stuff up, y’might as well try for the high stakes.

Wait, in the meantime, the IAF will be inducting 14 MKI’s each year, along with upgrades for its current fleet of MiG-29s and Mirage 2000’s, as well as a few additional Mirages and Jaguars.

But lets not count all that. It makes Scooter look uninformed. We cant have that. :rolleyes:

Your only problem seems to be your up-set when others don’t agree with your views?

No, I am merely pointing out (as Vick also has), that you have little to no knowledge about the LCA, and have merely been blowing sunshine.

You have been proved wrong on each and every account, but you are still trying to spin away and think that it somehow proves you correct.

Seriously, thats good for the Energizer Bunny (Tm.), but I think you’d give it a run for its money. :rolleyes:

Then like Broncho you throw insults to try to intimidate others!

No, I am just pointing out how incredibly silly your claims are, and how you have been pulling claims out of your wazoo all this while. I take no pleasure in doing so, but the more you indulge in dishonest bombast, the more I & others will correct you on it.

We wouldnt have to even do so, but for your ego trip on parroting the same stuff over and over and over again, no matter how many sources contradict you. And that too from professionals who do know more about the issue than you do.

Personally, you can spin the LCA anyway you want and quote as many facts as you think you know…………….Yet, here are a few of mine! Fact the LCA is 24 years old and well be over 30 if it ever reach squadron service in numbers!

Which only goes to show your immaturity when it comes to talking of the LCA, as several other programs have had an equally protracted gestation, and that it was US sanctions which also partly delayed the LCA.

But never mind that, as you rah rah about how India must and should buy American or whatever, because without it, its armageddon for the IAF. :rolleyes:

Fact it is yet to enter full scale production and has not received any large scale orders from the IAF.

A repeat of the above, since the fact is that the IAF orders aircraft only when IOC is completed, as visible from the MKI program.

Fact the Kaveri Engine is “JUNK” and India has been forced to order GE Engines from the US! (i.e. small order at that)

Only goes to show that you still dont know what you are babbling about, since the LCA program intended to use Ge404s for its prototype variants and that the Kaveri program is still going on, which is exactly why the Ge404 orders are limited, as of date.

Whilst you are busy mooning over the J-10, do realize that even it uses the Al-31FN for its current production run.

Aircraft designers the world over, are not as immature as you are, and try to go for risk mitigation. :rolleyes:

Whilst your epithets for the program are amusing, I find your hypocrisy even more so- werent you the one getting worked about Broncho doing the same for your beloved Super Hornet? Ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Fact the LCA will not be superior to many types designed over 30 years ago! (i.e. F-16, Mirage 2000, Mig-29, Hornet, etc. etc.)

Which is yet to be proven, since the LCA is yet to be put forth in its final operational version. Even if the LCA is as good as other 4th generation light fighters, it would have achieved its role, given how it fits within the IAF doctrine. Third, I know that you dont like to rely on primary sources, but the LCA’s ASRs have been revised to keep it in line with its possible adversaries, which is evident from the articles I quoted earlier. But never mind, that since you know more than the IAF does about its own programs. :rolleyes:

Finally, even if your claim that the LCA is Superior to the J-10 (for example) it would only be by the smallest margins. Further, that would have little effect considering that it will be likely out numbered by a large margin!

Get real and show some honesty for a change. I never claimed that the LCA is superior to the J-10.

In fact, it was you who has been babbling all the while about how superior the J-10 is. But when Vick asked you to put your money where your mouth was, you failed to do so.

Given that you dont even know what the actual J-10s penultimate production run is or what its actual performance figures are, I find your claims of superiority or inferiority, and being outnumbered as equally silly as the rest of your assertions.

My facts are based on the failure of the program to field an aircraft suitable to the IAF.

No, your claims are based on your egotistical insistence that the IAF will, and must and should buy American or whatever Scooter thinks.

I mean, get a grip already- isnt it enough for you to have been so thoroughly debunked already?

Whether it be the HCA/MMRCA/LCA issue (where you were shown to be wrong) or the fact that you dont have sources on the J-10, to postulate worth a darn?

Yet you persist.

Yours are based on a google search on the web and what the plane is suppose to do………..or could do!

No my statements are based on testimonials from IAF personnel involved with the program, including folks like Air Marshal’s P Rajkumar and MSD Wollen, who have neither shirked from the mistakes over the years, but also provide the context in which the program was undertaken and its current status.

I would take them, and their testimonies- being the professionals that they are, over your bombast, anyday. If you think you know more than them, then you are seriously deluded, and thats that.

China has come along way with the J-10. Yet, she needs to move on to exercises with other nation like India is doing right now! As for J-10 and LCA comparisons. Well, the information available is so undependable its hard to have a far debate. Yet, as I have stated over and over the J-10 is in service and the LCA is not……..and after 25 years that says alot!:rolleyes:

Yes, you keep stating it over and over, even when IAF personnel are on record stating that the timeline would be exactly that, and even more. But never mind that, you know more than them. :rolleyes:

OTOH, you know next to nothing of the J-10, including when it was launched, and what programs it drew from, but otoh, you pass judgement on the LCA.

Brilliant.

And of course, you have no bias, and you are a perfectly valid and impeccable observer. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, Scooter- 25 years eh?

The LCA program was launched on paper, in 1983. Funding became available from 1987 onwards. Jeez, thats 19 years.

Congrutalations, on being wrong- AGAIN. :rolleyes:

To bad you can’t express your views without attaching a few insults like some others on this forum.

Really amusing Scooter, I have not insulted you- but I have called a spade a spade, and shown how amusing and incorrect your assertions are.

If you cant stand being proven wrong in debate, especially when you make bombastic predictions, then dont enter it.

Personally, I have nothing against the LCA. Except for its prolonged developement…………….this inturn has taken so long. Its questionable to the value it will bring?

If you are unable to grasp all the facts that everyone here has endeavoured to place at your disposal, mores the pity.

The simple fact is that you REFUSE to learn. And keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Air Marshal MSD Wollen of the IAF has laid out line and verse on what the LCA program means to India, and that its original timeline was itself grossly optimistic.

But what would he know. Just some thirty-plus years in the IAF, and head of India’s largest aircraft manufacturer. Definitely not the kind of experience that can match upto Scooters conclusions. :rolleyes:

The MMRCA on the otherhand could provide India with a first rate strike fighter to work in a high/low mix with the Su-30MKI’s. My only hope is India purchases enough of both types and for goes the LCA altogether……………..IMO

Keep going on and on and on and on…

We have the IAF talk of its plans for the heavy/medium/low mix to match its operational needs, but no- you know better than them and you “hope” contrary to their plans..

Seriously, talking with you is like talking to a brick wall, you are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong on almost each and every count, and will just repeat the same thing over and over again. :rolleyes:

I can well understand now why Broncho decided to respond to you in your own vein, it appears to be the only kind of language and manner that gets through to you. :rolleyes:

Facts and reality, of course, be damned. :rolleyes:

Keep droning! Adios! :rolleyes:

Go through the chinese news pics and speculations thread, and the Xinhua thread, also look at the likes of sinodefence and CDF. The issue has been talked to death.

ROTFLMAO, the usual wave of hands when asked for proof. Why dont you prove your talk, by walking the walk and come out with exact figures about your claims? Face it- you know next to nothing about the PLAAF apart from what they choose to release. The errors of judgement that can come from relying upon only these leaks and speculation, hardly needs to be remarked upon.

I understand the Light, Medium, and High of the three types. Yet, this concept didn’t even exist until the last couple of years ago! When all of a sudden India throws out the MRCA Contract. Which, sometime later turns into the MMRCA??? Do you think that could have something to do with the much delayed LCA? hmmm, makes you wonder? As for the gestation period of 25-30 years as being reasonable? Well, that’s your story?:eek: Further, your point of the Su-30 MKI meeting India’s needs. Really nice except it also meets China’s needs and in greater numbers…………….:p Regardless, getting excited and calling names is not going to prove your point……

So let me guess, now Scooter knows more than the Indian Ministry of Defence and the IAF.

Wow!

What will you do if we come up with the basic fact that several years back itself, the Indian MOD and the IAF remarked on the HCA, MMRCA, LCA concept to introduce fleet standardisation?

Oh wait, wasnt the LCA intended to replace thelight MiG-21s in the Indian Air Force?

Scooter, the only thing more remarkable than your ignorance, is your arrogance. Not only do you insist that you-know-it-all, but when you are shown to be wrong, you insist otherwise.

You purport to know more about the LCA program than its developers and the IAF.

Now you purport to know more than the IAF about its plans even.

As regards the Flanker meeting Indias needs- the Flanker-H or the MKI meets Indias needs, which the PRC does not have.

For the serious posters- people like Emgy, Vick, Sevo–

The IAFs plans were to gradually phase out all the myriad soviet era aircraft in the IAF, and gradually induct the LCA.

Currently, the IAF operates

-The MiG 21 FL, M, MF, Bis, UM
-The MiG-21 Bison
-The MiG-23 UM, BN
-The MiG-27 ML
-The Jaguar IS/IM
-The Mirage 2000 H/TH
-The MiG29 A/S
-The Su-30 K
-The Su-30 MKI

The LCA was always intended to replace the MiG-21s.Hence the term Light.

It should also be obvious as to why the IAF would want to just standardize on three- four types, over the long term.

The Flanker program was launched in 1996.

Swerve, is absolutely correct. The introduction of the Flanker was a new development, but it was line with the IAFs revised air power doctrine, which kept apace with the introduction of the Flankers in the PRC and evaluated the 2000-V and the Su-30K, and ultimately came up with the purpose designed Su-30 MKI.

In 2001, the year the LCA first flew, the IAF was already scouting for a few squadrons of the Mirage 2000-V.

Why? Because of the “medium designation”, as well as the fact that they wanted a (relatively) proven platform for nuclear delivery. The Su-30 MKI was yet to be operationalized.

The IAFs Mirage 2000 program metamorphosed into the MMRCA on account of Govt auditors raising an objection, and in 2005-06, the weight guidelines were further relaxed to encourage competition. This allowed the Gripen and the EF Typhoon, as well as the F/A-18 E/F to join in.

The MMRCA has also been tied to India’s nuke deal with the US, another reason why it has been delayed.

It has little to do with a grand overarching plan to replace the LCA or the like, considering it was in the works ever since 1999.

For those wondering, the Mirage 2000s conducted pinpoint PGM attacks in 1999, and this went to support the preference for the Mirage 2000.