Nick_76Really, the waste here is some take the criticism of the LCA as somehow Anti-Indian???(i.e. personal) You know how many American Fighter Projects were total failures over the last 50 years! Maybe India should take what it has learned from the LCA and move on? That said, I am not saying the LCA is necessarily a total failure. Clearly, we all learn from our mistakes just as learn from our success! Sometimes much more! At the current rate we will more than likely see something like 20-40 LCA in service by time the program turns 30 years old! Personally, after the Billions invested and all of the time I don’t see the up side??? Respectfully
When your criticism is basically founded on shoddy research, then your opinion- especially when restated time and again, without even having the basic courtesy of reading on the topic, will be regarded as just baiting.
There are IAF personnel from 2001, closely associated with the project who point out that a 2010 timeline is reasonable and the LCA will still be a success.
But you know better and you refuse to acknowledge even their statements.
Very well.
You say that India should move on- really, and how many years in the aerospace industry have you clocked up?
Every authoritative account of the LCA points out how essential it is for the LCA to be completed, all its teething troubles worked out, and it to be operationalized- only then would Indian designers have mastered the entire product design to its launch, but we’d have you suggest that it be abandoned.
Very well. You know better than MSD Wollen, all he was, was an Air Marshal of the IAF, and all he did was head India’s largest aircraft manufacturer.
All the billions spent on the LCA. Sure, till date approximately a Billion has been spent on the LCA, but lets make it multiples- again, a fraction of the amount other nations have spent, and the fact that the LCA includes complete subsystem development.
This is of course stated by GOI sources, including amounts spent on FSED1 and FSED 2 (which includes 8 LSP variants).
Very well, lets even ignore that.
Wrong on every count, but even that doesnt count, does it.
So please tell us, why your opinion should be taken as authoritative, or for that matter as anything more than illinformed critique, especially when you couple it with silly icons intended to provoke, and repeat the same ad nauseum?
You take issue with Broncho using insulting quips for the F/A-18 E/F Hornet (which I requested him not to do, btw)- but you see no issues in indulging the same behaviour yourself, albiet in another way.
And again and again, and again and again, and again and again.
Nick_76I agree with you Scooter, Not only the above but the IAF has yet to show any real commitment to it. Only 20 have been ordered with the option of a further 20, a measly number for any fighter programme but it is even worse when we consider that it now looks like over 200 Su-30MKI and 126 MMRCA will be ordered. Unless LCA procurement rises above at least 100 then the project as a whole is a faliure. All we have heard about further LCA orders is vague comments about further orders and people insisting that it will replace all the Mig-21’s.
And who makes you the authority on what decides LCA failure or not? That too with some quickly bandied figures of “100” aircraft- gee, why 100- lets make it 300. :rolleyes:
This is getting way too hilarious for words- we have Chinese expats now deciding what the IAF’s procurement policy will be, and whether Indian projects are successful or not.
The argument that the LCA has been worth it becouse of the spin-offs now in service is flawed. These ‘spin-offs’ could have been developed without the LCA.
That is a facile arguement, and clearly shows your lack of knowledge in this matter. I would gladly like to see which country has fielded the range of spinoffs the LCA has provided, without a program of this nature launched.
Sweden- uh, the Gripen, Viggen, Draken. Israel- the Lavi. The PRC- why bother, we have you to tom-tom it. The US, Russia etc. In each case, only programs of the scale of complete manufacture, gave local industry the ability to provide detailed insights into all the nitty gritties of aircraft manufacture, whether it be airframes or avionics, or electromechanical systems.
But even that apart, what your claim shows is the fact that you insist on applying your methodology to what the LCA programs stated objectives were, one of which was quite clearly to develop this kind of expertise via the LCA program. Comments on there being “other ways” are moot, given point 1 and India’s own resource constraints which have always prevented it from doing things iteratively or in parallel.
Kindly stop trying to fit the LCA program to your judgements.
If we see firm orders for a large number of LCA’s in excess of 100, then I will consider it a success but for the moment it is not looking good.
Who is this “We” and who are “you” to decide what the project is, or is not? The projects determiners are the IAF, and the IAF alone- given the periodic updates published on the LCA, from IAF personnel, both serving and retired, I’d take their word anyday over yours, despite your fervent wishes (bar the occasional “balanced statements” for credibility on the forum) about the opposite, thank’ee very much. :rolleyes:
Nick_76Well, if the LCA is so capable than why even have the MMRCA Contest in the first place?
You have to be kidding us. How many times does one have to repeat the same thing till you finally “get” it?
The IAF had plans for three classes of aircraft- Heavy, Medium and Light. This has been posted repeatedly on this forum, including statements by the CAS himself, both the current, and the previous.
The LCA comes in the last category, the Su-30 MKI in the first.
The MMRCA in between, and it was originally slated to be the Mirage 2000 Mk2, but political considerations made it a multi-vendor deal.
Further, the LCA has been in devolpement for “over” twenty years and has yet to start series production and hasn’t entered squadron service!
The LCA started in the late 80’s, when financing was obtained, paperwork and . And the reasons for the gestation time are entirely within reasonable limits, considering India’s last fighter flew in the 70’s.
The articles both by IAF personnel lay out the details in line and verse and in fact state that even a 2010 IOC/FOC would be entirely reasonable given the scale of the challenge. But wait, you cant be bothered to read them, can you? :rolleyes:
I mite add this very capable and ambitious project is not as capable as designs that are 30+ years old! (i.e. Viper, Hornet, Fulcrum, Flanker, Mirage 2000, etc. etc.)
This is again silliness of the highest order, because the LCA has been designed for a specific role and purpose. Its nearest analogue is the Gripen, and even that program draws upon a far more experienced aircraft industry, and did not suffer from sanctions either- from the US (never acknowledge that,eh while you rah rah the F/A-18 and F-16!).
If the LCA meets its ASR’s – some of which meet exceed the Mirage 2000H and MiG9A in terms of manoueverability, and with modern avionics equivalent to most 4th generation fighters today, produced inhouse in India, it has done its job and more.
The LCA’s purpose is to provide a local design and manufacture capability, apart from a fighter, if you cant understand that- thats fine, but spare us your bilious predictions on what the program should be, and isnt, when there are other sources- with more authority on the matter, which contradict you.
As for the J-10 you are correct I can’t provide any hard facts because the Communist and Closed Society of China won’t provide them. Yet, neither can you! Unless you have some super secret access to Chinese Military Hardware you would like to share with the members of this forum???
Then if you dont have figures, what makes you undertake predictions with the J-10 thrown in as a comparison or even other Chinese programs?
Yet another case of being wilfully blind, because nor will you read the articles from people- IAF personnel who do know more than you on the LCA, but on top of it you indulge in whimsical comparisons with other programs, without even the data to back it up.
My opinion clearly states “I” believe India would be better off with Western Technology. (either American and/or European) For some reason you can’t express your opinion with out insults!
There are no insults in telling you that your behaviour is juvenile and patronizing. You parrot the same thing again and again and again, and then insert silly icons – the thumbs down and rolleyes, for that extra bit of “opinion”. Well if you can do that, then you can listen to the other side of the coin as well, that despite your fervent beliefs US made equipment may not be the best choice for India.
I would not have to even make my points forcefully, but seriously, how many people does it take for one to tell you this?
Swerve has said so, I have, Vick has – the list grows longer by the minute. Indeed, your very behaviour provokes replies like mine, from people who have to listen to you state the same thing twenty times, without even having the basic courtesy of acknowledging facts that run contrary to your opinion, especially when they blow holes in your assertions.
How long did it take for you to admit that the UK- a far closer ally to the US- has had significant issues over operational sovereignty with the JSF?
Where is your proof that India will be offered a better deal than what the UK, was?
It is no disrespect to Russia that she hasn’t had the funds to develope her technology to the fullest. With the Break-Up of the former USSR. It will be many years before she can do so……:p
Which is something India knows, and knows well.
You seriously think that with almost 70% of its fleet Russian, this is something the IAF, and those who observe it, wouldnt know?
But purchases are not always decided by who offers the fanciest gee-whiz technology or the like. They are also decided by user familiarity, service support in terms of strategic reliability and politcal considerations.
In all the above, the Russians have do have an edge over the US. You may think that US equipment is the fanciest and best there is- and well it might be, but India also has sufficient experience with multi-party projects such as the MKI to meet its needs.
Nick_76Clearly, India is ambitious and wants the technology to build and develope Military Aircraft itself. Yet, I don’t believe India has reach the level of success that it had hoped for and the LCA is a perfect example! As Military Industries are there to support and defend national interests not the other way around. As it stands right now the LCA has been a disappointment and is not the equal of India’s main rivals. (i.e. China, Pakistan, and the J-10) If, India wants to waste its resources with Russia that is her business……….Yet, I believe she will be left behind by the West and even China and maybe Pakistan. Her call………….:rolleyes:
The information provided in the prior post clearly rebuts most of your opinionated nonsense, especially since the prior articles by IAF personnel supported the LCA program and even pointed out that a 2010 timeline was perfectly reasonable for such an ambitious program. In response, all you have to offer is more of the same gibberish that prompted a reasoned reply. If I were to ask for specific details about the J-10 for instance, I dont think you would have them on hand either, so whither the comparison. India is pursuing the LCA because of her own strategic needs and the program has already yielded a variety of spinoffs for the modernisation of the IAF’s fighter fleet- if you regard this as “wasteful”, you are merely demonstrating your silly bias in the matter.
Your insistence that without cooperating with the US, India’s ambitions are doomed or likewise, is not just patronizing hogwash, especially when you bring up the LCA program- which was delayed because of US sanctions. But you have not acknowledged this either, and keep saying the same thing over and over again, assuming that a few juvenile “rolleyes” and “thumbs down” substitute for facts. Get real; repeating the same litany again and again, does not make it correct.
Many posters have tried to make you understand this, and once again- we repeat- India will cooperate with the US only if the US package meets her needs, period. This includes transfer of technology and reliability viz. products support- both of which are severe hurdles for the US to overcome, when one considers the experience of even much closer allies like the UK.
Otherwise, codevelopment with Europe and Russia is a valid possibility. Irrrespective of how dismal and primitive you think the latter are vis a vis the US, thanks to your own national blinkers on the issue.
Nick_76Personally, I don’t get this arguement about the Super Hornet not being in the 20 ton class? While I would agree that it is closer to 30 tons. If, that ruled it out in the MMRCA Comptitions. Why is it in the running then????:confused: Make no sense………..:confused:
The original MRCA was designed around the Mirage 2000-V. Thats all the IAF wanted, a few more squadrons of the type.
The Indian Comptroller Auditor General (Indian version of the GAO) objected, against a single vendor deal. Hence, the MiG-29, Mirage 2000 joined in. The delay led to the Mirage 2000 being dropped, by the French. Which made the MiG-29 the front runner and practically a single vendor deal, again. Hence, the weight restriction was removed, and other competitors included.
The MiG29OVT, Rafale, Gripen, EF, F/A-18E/F, F-16 etc.
Why was the original thing designed around the term “medium”, and even the current designation as the MMRCA..
Because the IAF plans for three classes of aircraft-
LCA (light)
MMRCA (medium)
Su-30 MKI (heavy)
Nick_76Broncho
Please cool down, your anger is not doing you or your opinions good.
The F/A-18 E/F is amongst the most advanced a/c flying today, and its users like it. Whether it meets Indias needs is a different matter, and you can surely put across that POV without using epithets against the aircraft.
Nick_76I think they are just looking at all the options, but as with everything involving Indian defense procurement it will take a very long time.
Actually ammo and munitions deals are done fast, and so are codevelopment ones. They are just not in the press because of the current Govt, being reliant on the Leftist parties for political support. Which dont like Israel.
Nick_76The only “help” we needed was permission to overfly Pakistani airspace as most of the combat assets were based in the Gulf.
Then why is the US paying through its teeth to Pak, giving them billions in free military aid? :confused:
Nick_76This is something very unique. But I fail to see how integrating a MATRA Magic on MiG-21 is comparable to with integration of ‘Russian origin air-to-air missile type having a range in excess of 100 km’ with the radar of Mirage 2000. That looks as one major redesign..
BTW, wouldn’t IAF be better off by simply upgrading to Mirage 2000-5 and MICA?
They are purchasing Micas with the Mirage upgrade. But the need to integrate Russian missiles and bombs is straightforward; they are cheaper by a substantial margin in many cases; they offer a performance advantage in some parameters (eg R-77 range vs Mica) and most importantly, a Mirage squadron can (in a pinch) use the weapons being used by a colocated MiG-21/29/ Su-30 squadron. In wartime, detachments of each squadron are deployed to forward operating bases and even ones located deeper into India, where several aircraft types could be operating from the same base. So from logistics viewpoint, this is very helpful!
Nick_76You could well be right about the potential benefits to the USA, but given past behaviour, I have no expectation that the US authorities will see it that way. Even if the Pentagon does, I doubt Congress will. The record speaks for itself.
If the UK has to armtwist the US to grant the UK operational flexibility with the JSF, one can well imagine the TOT available to India for the SH.
Nick_76If, India just wants to maintain parity with China and Pakistan I would agree yet I don’t believe that is the case? As for the LCA I also don’t believe you could significantly lower its RCS. Even if it was possible it does you little good as soon as you load stores on the aircraft. As I stated before I don’t know what’s going on with the LCA other than its not entering service? Further, its been in development for so long that it would be more or less obsolete by time it reached service in any numbers. That of course only applies if it ever does and I am begining to have my doubts……………..
If you have already made up your mind, then whats the point of debating? Second,all 4th gen fighters including the Super Hornet are obsolete..so whats the point? :rolleyes:
As for Russia its relationship with China would very much be a concern to me if I were India. Because to tie your defenses so closely to a Country that also supplies your biggest threat is a worry that I wouldn’t want to bear! Just my 2 cents……….
And the US is donating arms to Pak..:rolleyes:
Nick_76The best interests of India are for her to decide! I am just expressing my own personal opinion……….nothing more nothing less. Regardless, you should take it at face value. As for the P-8 India is very independent and could equip them with Israel, US, and/or Russian Sonar/Radar/etc. That is for her to decide…………..As for the LCA the cold hard truth is it hasn’t come about for whatever reason? All the while India keeps buying more Flankers and ordering yet another type. (i.e. MRCA) Personally, I don’t know the what’s going on with the LCA but its not happening………………..:rolleyes:
Respectfully,
Scooter
Scooter, when you think of the MRCA and the MKI vis a vis the LCA, please think technology. Each has its place in the scheme of things.
For those who followed the debate, here is what the IAF had planned:
The MKI, the MRCA would fill in a <20 Ton aircraft “medium weight”, the LCA would be the light.
Political compulsions (nuke deal, hence US involvement), need to raise competitiveness (hence EF, Rafale, Gripen) all made the race a mixed one vis a vis the original requirement for 126 Mirage 2000-V Mk2’s. In the ultimate irony, the Mirage itself withdrew from the race.
The reason why the LCA is slogging along and not just being zipped into service, is because of the consistent effort to indigenize. Otherwise, the Ge404 would be “enough” and the radar would have been imported a long time back. Try to understand- the LCA is not just about a fighter, its about creating an industry. Also when talking of delays, try to see how unrealistic and ambitious the original plans themselves were. Way back in 2001 itself, a figure of 2010 for the IOC was predicted.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/wollen.html
http://journal.frontierindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=38
The amount of transparency about the program and its steady development all point to it being fielded in numbers. The key thing for India (remaining) is to productionize the engine and the radar. From the POV of self reliance, otherwise imports are always available.
Nick_76Because it is in the interest of the US to do so! Currently, the US even being the Super Power that it is knows it can’t be everywhere at every moment! Further, the US Militarily always works within an Alliance both officially and unofficially. As for any possible technological exchanges……….I believe both parties have weighted the risks and think this maybe the time to expand upon them. That said, I also think the risks for both parties can be measured to lower each sides apprehension. With the Super Hornet being the perfect avenue for such an endeavor. Selling Super Hornets to India even with full access is not the risks some mite believe. While the Radar and Avoinics are State of the Art. The aircraft is still a 4.5 Generation Strike Fighter and without the Super Secret Stealth Capabilities of the F-22 and F-35. On the otherhand the Super Hornet give India capabilities and access to technology that she could only dream of a short while ago. So, if the marriage turns out to be a good one everything is possible for both sides. Possibly, India could move onto the F-35 or maybe jointly develope a 5.5 or 6th Generation Fighter with Europe and/or the US who knows? If, it falls apart both sides won’t loose everything………there is risk but I believe the gains are much more for both sides at least at this stage! IMO:rolleyes:
Scooter tell me this. Why would Boeing talk of involving Israel, if TOT from the US was so straightforward?
Nick_76I value your opinion but I would have to respectfully disagree! The LCA is way past its prime and just sinking more money into a lost cause that would be a waste of resources.
Without the LCA, there will be no Indian aerospace industry. It has already become the bedrock from which the IJT, inhouse upgrade projects have come. The future AJT and MCA are also tied to the LCA and its subsystem development.
As it stands right now the LCA it is clearly inferior to China’s J-10 and Flanker series.
With regards to the former, nobody outside the PLAAF knows how good or bad it is, and with regards to the latter, the LCA was never meant to be an equivalent anyways. Your stating that it is worse than the Flanker is like saying the F-16 is worse than the F-15, well, duh! :p
Also, for India to spend Billions on any indigenous MCA project with Russia is full of pitfalls including China’s close ties to the former. Especially, as China moves closer to Russia to counter US and Western Technology.
Sorry, but the counterarguement is that by developing the MCA with Russia, India locks out the PLAAF from the best the Russians have, or at least attempts to do so. Secondly, the Russians have been far more reliable suppliers than the US, as far as India is concerned. And Russia and India’s strategic concerns are more in alignment in many cases (esp. Pak.) than the US and Indias, which makes their armtwisting India over conflict conditions that much unlikely.
Really, the only way and best way for India is to move closer to the West and not necessarily the US. She could gain just as much from the Europeans and also counter both US and Russian influences. She could take from either the Rafale or Typhoon Projects and build from there………….personally I think Russia is the wrong direction for India’s future at least as long as China is in the picture! That is just my humble opinion.:D
That is a fair point, but the fact is that Transfer of tech, from EADS and dealing with multiple nations is not a plus for India. Secondly, European gear is very expensive. India cannot afford to become a joint investor on the scale the European projects demand.
Nick_76LCA was to replace the MiG-21s and later, the MiG-27s
MCA for the Jags, Mirage 2000s
Currently..the LCA will replace the Bisons from 2010 onwards.
Sign In
