TeerI suppose you have. If so give me a picutre and your identity proof, then I would believe you.
ID proof- as you have so graciously provided? Till Ankush told us about your decades of Product experience?
Ah.
Second – you dont even have to be inside a T series tank physically to see the details I posted.
All you need to do is talk to veterans.
There are enough online – even for you virtual world types.
It is more logical to order 200 LCAs the first batch with Mk1 standards 100 or so of them and then second batch in MK2 standards and then convert the MK1s gradually into MK2s during an MLU. It means more fighters in service in a short time.
Ah.
So you will pay for 100 MK1s to be rebuilt to 100 MK2s.
And I presume HAL has already informed you this rebuild is possible and cost effective.
Second, I presume HAL has already got funds from you for churning out 100 fighters of a type 1 while in parallel building up facilities for a type 2 with different jigs, of which only 100 will be made.
And third, the IAF has already informed you that it will waste its time and budget on keeping two different blocks in service and juggling the logistics.
Net.
Are you serious?
Surely not.
So.
Can you please BE serious.
Claim Claim Claim……Officer(s) not oen lol. Ok. I should not take you seriously.
I edited out the personal details – since it would be a waste on kids!
So dont worry – you can actually go back to WW2 COD or whatever you play!
And no – please DO take me seriously.
We adults LIKE being taken seriously.
I appreciate its a difficult concept for you, but since you will one day be an adult, I think you should start on that path.
Civilians rule and Military takes orders. Thats how things should be always. Otherwise we will degenerate into a failed state like the central african republics. It has been said that as long as people worship Napoleans of this world new Napoleans would arise to make their life ****. I do not subscribe to martyr worship or glorification of the military, sorry.
Cut the BS Ante. Civilians dont lord it over the military. If that is the sum total of your understanding, I pity your education and your thought process. The civilian military leadership is one of mutual need, respect and identified lines of responsibility.
Second – learn to spell, its Napoleon not Napolean. And expletives dont help – they merely serve to demonstrate you have a potty mouth.
And NCO means a recruit. Look at your definition in any dictionary. Recruit i don’t mean reservist.
Whatever are you going on about?
Educate yourself please.
You implied that officers are adept, whereas NCOs are different – that is the most bizarre statement ever.
NCO’s are the bedrock of a professional armed forces.
TeerI am not replying to your jibes and insults.
Facts are jibes – gee, wow. Tell us Ante, about your detailed knowledge of the Indian procurement system. In fact, lets even talk about the US. (I doubt you know anything about India, flag waving on the internet apart)
I seriously doubt that claim
And you are…?
Its irrelevant what you think.
Fact – LCA core avionics have been operationalized on over 200 aircraft already.
Can go into the details – but again – would it matter?
But by all means complain all you want – it wont change things.
The F 16 Block 52+ r Block 60 has a lot more capability than the baseline F 16.
Tell me what the LCA MK1 has over the planned LCA that it is overweight and requiers a new powerplant.
Also note that the original F 16 and every block since had a powerplant that was adequate for its weight. The LCA MK1 or block 10 do not have that.
Dont talk drivel please – attempt to be coherent.
One of the first things is to research what has been posted already.
Its the LCA Mk2, not MK1.
Its intended to have an AESA (heavier), an all internal EW suite (heavier), OBOGs and IFR. Its pylons are intended to carry heavier loads.
These are but some of the changes – I could talk more- but I do wonder whether you will understand the minutiae.
Again posts entangled with insults.
Let me make this simple to you.
For me they made the wrong deisgn choice in going for composites. A normal fighter may have been in service by now.
Let me make it even simpler to you.
You are wrong.
Since composite structures on the LCA are already ready and it is the FBW, engine and weaponisation which remains.
Ignoring personal and unfounded insults. I think i should rather ignore you totally.
Hardly an insult.
You make poorly researched, illogical posts – I am sure you can improve, but you say you wont.
In your words – “this is how I operate” et al.
I am merely pointing out that it is quite disturbing.
See it if you want to. its your choice.
I am asking you for sources, as I do want to. Being pointed to youtube videos or he said she said, and even Ankush is a joke. As Ankush, in this very thread is taking the mickey out of your “arguements” and so called sources.
I repeat I don’t care what you or anyone else here think about me or the way i operate.If saying all this makes your day then have a good one 🙂
If that’s really the case, then why the hissy fit? Why the continued insistence that you are right?
Was talking about Sustained Turn Rate (str) not G load.
With no evidence.
As usual!
TeerYou are the one talking Trash. The AK 47/74 etc or its derivatives are in full frontline service of many armed forces. Tell me what Rifle did the average Indian solider use in the front lines before the INSAS ? And there are claims by the AK licencers that the INSAS is an unlicensed copy of it. Some chinese user posted it here, I do not believe it is true but searching INSAS will show you its pretty similar to the AK series other than the fact that it sues NATO type ammo.
Talking “trash” will win you no points.
Different armed forces have different priorities – as far as India is concerned, the INSAS is the FBR, not the AK-47!
Second, once again you demonstrate your appalling lack of knowledge versus the topic!
The average Indian soldier used the Ishapore SLR before the INSAS- the FN-FAL derivative manufactured by the OFB.
No AK-47s were distributed formation wide – they were only issued to the handful of COIN units in J&K and the NE to offset the tactical advantage of AK equipped insurgents in CQB versus the long barrel SLR equipped IA COIN formations!
The INSAS draws upon design elements from a variety of rifles as do most systems worldwide! Next you’ll be telling us that because of the design commonalities between the MiG-29 and Su-27 both are of the same class!
Logic helps – use it sometime.
As for exploding turrets, it has also to do with the basic tank design and where the ammunition is located.
The auto loader complicates matters.
Please dont make me laugh – do you know anything relevant viz the topic under discussion?
The autoloader is NOT the problem – its located below the turret ring. Its the propellant stowed throughout the tank with the semicombustible rounds.
Have you even BEEN inside a T series tanks, to whit?
That was the original plan. Then it was too different compared to the MKIs so they retired them instead. Same should not be the case with the LCA and MK2, only a new engine and avionics are on the cards.
Once again – two squadrons of K’s purchased as LSP, replaced with series MKI. Same with the LCA – irrelevant semantics aside, who is going to rebuild LCA Mk1s into MK2s and why should the IAF invest in MK1s when the MK2 investment makes more sense!
Frankly- more logic and less rhetoric would help!
Even though the vanilla Su-30K aircraft were meant to be upgraded to MKI standard the significant differences meant that the only viable option was to replace the aircraft completely. New build MKIs were supplied to replace them to 24 Sqn.
So?
Thats what I said.
I appreciate you copy pasting what I said back to me – but it does nothing.
It merely PROVES that the IAF went about the Su induction in the same manner as it did with the LCA. Two squadrons of the basic type, and final orders for the definitive variant.
The Price they are or will pay is that they cannot start military campaigns without washingtons consent. They are now totally dependent on U.S hardware and the F 35 customization requests are denied, meaning they wont be able to field aircraft which has different avionics/radar than their potential adverseries in the region.
Gee, I guess that’s what stopped them from Osiraq then!
And congratulations on an irrelevant sidetrack – Israel and India are not the same, nor are their priorities the same.
None, Call it what you want, but when there is war a soliders life is only important to his comrades his family and may be his commanding officer. After the War the nation would mourn for them. For the people who make decisions they are just assets.
You speak absolute jingoistic nonsense, Ante.
This is deeply offensive to any Indian who knows the human costs decision makers have to live with, and DO live with.
Your attempts at such armchair bravado, gleaned from online games or whathaveyou are not impressive at all.
I have several commanding officers in my circle of acquaintances.
They mourn the death of each and every soldier they ever sent into battle. They dread the fact that they would have to make such choices, even as they steel themselves for the same.
The Indian Armed forces promote human beings, not your DVD heros.
I suggest you grow up and spend some time in the real world, not world of warcraft!
What makes you think that India is going to lose so much pilots if the original version LCA is in service, They will be flying against ancient PAF jets anyway.
Dont tilt at windmill’s kindly.
Never said the LCA would cause “so much pilots” to be lost.
I merely pointed out that the IAF or any service has the first choice to decide on its kit.
Not forced on it by civilians.
Your choices of “forcing” kit on soldiers has a very slippery slope.
Next – the IAF is not PAF centric.
May be true with Commissoned officers, Apparently not with recruits (NCOs). But please don’t make as if the Armed forces are not corrupt their underhand dealings with regards to arms deals are exposed all the time. Especially the IAFs.
More nonsensical stuff.
You clearly know nothing about the military including even its structure! Yet here you are, pontificating on a defence forum.
NCO’s are not “recruits” – whatever that is supposed to mean! They are non commission officers and man very important posts throughout the IAF, and are the backbone of its technical fleet!
Corruption is an irrelevant redherring – the question was and is about the Armed Forces being the actual domain experts viz their needs. That they clearly here, and you have been caught out.
TeerI don’t think that is any of your bussiness. I simply refuse to answer such comments.
In other words, you dont have any worthwhile qualification to speak of viz the topic- very germaine when you keep posting opinion as fact.
Normally when a person keeps saying “I think this was credible, I think this is true” and sticks to this dogmatic position IN SPITE of facts to the contrary – the least they should be, are SME’s – subject matter experts. Their words carry some weight.
Your poorly worded posts, grammatical errors, lack of research, all suggested the reverse- thanks for confirming it!
This was quoted by Ankush in some Brochure. Go to the JF 17 The New Rafale thread in this very forum if you want to see.
Actually I see Ankush in this very thread, querying you for your alleged sources – I think you’ll have to try harder.
bout the STR i read that on Pak Def based on some analysis some users made on videos of JF 17 LCA and F 16 seemed pretty convincing.
I said, she said, and youtube?
Are you joking? This is your proof? This is the depth of your knowledge on this topic?
In another news I don’t give a **** about what you think
Hissy fits arent impressive!
I don’t need your or anybodys certificate. I post what I think and what i read sometimes I cannot remember the sources, sometimes I won’t be in the mood to search for them. Well thats how I operate.
I am sure that IS how you operate.
Absolutely nothing in the terms of facts, sources, or any worry about credibility whatsoever.
Unfortunately, adults dont operate like this.
TeerI made my point the IAF should not have the final say. You can disagree with it as you have let us leave it us that. Same with Arjun and the Army the government should force the amred forces to buy several hundred of indigenous products.
You have made NO point whatsoever, apart from some poorly written illogical rants.
Prove what you are saying by logical statements, not by repeating the same drivel again and again.
IAF don’t get what it wants not because government denies it. It is because of Indias slow procurement process and all that. For me the government should be the one making the final choice after studying IAF reccomendations. If the government feels it is better economically or strategically/politically go for the second or thrid choice of the IAF then it should go that way,
You are talking absolute illogical circular trash here. First you were whining that the GOI doesnt armtwist the IAF.
Now you claim they do, and the IAF doesnt get what it wants!
And then you come up with some nonsense that the GOI should study the IAFs choices!
I mean- are you even aware of the basics of how decisions are taken? Heard of a procurement matrix, heard of the L1 tendering system, heard of the CCS, and the RM’s role?
Clearly not – you are simply and absolutely ignorant of the entire decision making process in India – and from your posts, apparently the rest of the world.
Apparently, opinions are what you have, but facts – you couldnt be bothered with those!
Apparently not on the LCA. Only when it is on the LCA we can see how it affects its weight and performance.
Silly comment – weights and form factors were designed FOR the LCA have been flown on the LCA already, flight qualified, modified for other aircraft AND operationalized.
Just because you know nothing about these events does not change the reality!
The F 16 still remains pretty agile and can carry nearly two times the load the LCA can. While the LCA still have not achieved its required flight parameters.
Silly comment#2- and tilting at windmills! The F-16 would NOT have remained agile, if it added its enhanced avionics, payload, CFT etc and retained its original powerplant.
Please post logically.
I don’t know what could have or would have happend. You really do not need to have composites to be light weight and successful the Mirage 2000, F 16 etc are examples. But the F 15 has beaten both in a few competitons. 🙂
Silly comment #3 from you- the aircraft were designed for a specific need and they met that. The LCA was intended to use composites to manage with a lower weight and it has done so, even as it adds new weight in revised specs.
Clearly you are unable to utilize any logical though progression – or your posts would be more coherent.
Let me make it simpler for you – the Indians wanted x aircraft at y weight, so they used composites, and they got that. They could have NOT used composites and got an x* aircraft at Y++ weight and paid a tradeoff elsewhere – so they didnt!
Its all about design choices – something which you still are unable to grasp.
Which is why I said – read more, talk less – will help you as an adult.
TeerWow Your AK 47 is news to me. AK 47 and its derivatives AK 74 etc were and are battle rifles and were used by Indian Armed forces till they got the INSAS. They are still used by many. Russian tanks equal, ahem exploding turrets comes to mind.
Dont talk rot.
You are making a fool out of yourself with such statements.
The AK-47 is not a battle rifle. It is an assault rifle – an entirely different breed of weapon and is used as such by the Indian Armed forces, for CQB and volume of fire considerations.
A FBR, full battle rifle is one such as the FN-FAL which has now been replaced by the INSAS in indian service. Accurate out to a longer range, and meant for much more judicious use by trained soldiers.
No Indian conventional formation uses the AK-47 as its primary operating weapon. They all use the INSAS.
The AK-47 as it stands is only used by COIN formations and CQB units, not to mention guards and stationary units.
Coming to exploding turrets – a bit of education helps.
Turret explosions may make your day, but for the soldier inside it matters little if the turret stays and he is skewered or if the turret goes. The Russians emphasised low profile MBTs with a smaller frontal area to armour. Hence saving on overall volumbe but having a tradeoff in lack of compartmentalized ammunition stowage, which they attempted to minimize by putting the autoloader below the turret ring. There are no perfect solutions!
What western tanks gain in impressive protection is also offset by poorer/more expensive strategic mobility on account of weight and immediate engineering support to have advances not bogged down by crumbling infra unable to take 60T weights!
And if a penetration occurs, turret explosions can occur in western tanks as well – refer you to a freak accident wherein a HESH round impacted a Challenger 2 top.
The best way to induct a fighter is by inducting it and upgrading it modularly. Like in the case of the Su 30s in IAF.
Ridiculous.
The IAF inducted just 2 Sq’s of the Su-30 K. And waited for the definitive Su-30 MKI.
Thats exactly whats being done for the LCA!
There is no “modularly” here – the K cannot be built into the MKI or vice versa! The Indian operational MKIs are ALL new builds!
And they are paying the price for it. I think we would too in future if we continue to be dependent on others for our planes.
Paid what price?
They are happy with their US sourced fleet and made a strategic choice not to continue with the LAVI.
They have a booming export market fed by their LAVI sparked avionics industry.
Wars are always won with lose of life. Russians lost more than Germans to win WW2. When it is war for the war planners atleast soldiers are not seen as humans, but as companies battalions and regiments, pieces in a big chess board. If you put too much emphasis on the safety of a single solider, wars can never be won.
All this gasbag stuff is fine, stud – but tell me, how many brigades and battalions have you commanded?
How many soldiers have you sent to their death?
How many family members have you lost to conflict?
And finally- gasbagging aside – how many pilots does India currently have and how many can it spare on your ridiculous human wave WW2 theories?
The soldiers are in effect employees of the government. They protect you because protecting you is their duty. Their sacrifices must be respected and acknowledged but they should not be made all powerful. Good functional kit : what is more functional to you the best kit for half your army or the next best thing for the whole of it. You also should know the number of people turned away at every recruitment rally. In a country where a lot of people are unemployed finding soldiers is not hard.
Utter tommy rot – and illogical to boot.
I suggest you actually talk to some GOI or services member with this drivel and see their reaction.
They are highly skilled talent whose needs have to be taken into account. They are the best judge of what they need, within reasonable aims. And their expertise is valued.
Being employees does not mean that the Govt not meet their requirments – thats probably what happens wherever you are from (as compared to where you claim where you are from!).
In real life – Armies, Navies, AF’s are built – they are not just started overnight. Breaking the covenant of the service trust means creating an exodus of talent and being left with mediocre sycophants.
TeerWhy do you always hang out for offical stuff ? I know a believable claim when i see one.
Its called sourcing! Its something all adults do, in real life!
And coming to your knowing things – what exactly are YOUR qualifications?
Tell us.
Even if you go by the offical line 8 G vs 6 G is rather impressive.
I see – so tell us where and how these were achieved and under what loads? What of the STR, which you were confidently stating?
See above I don’t have official reports. But there are no reports offical or not about Tejas doing more than 6G or the promised AoA i think it is one or two degrees short.
In other words, you dont have ANYTHING.
No sources, nothing.
Just opinions which you were passing off as fact.
Now I am no fan of the Chinese but I don’t think the J 10 was not more than a concept when the deisgn was sold to China. If the Israelis thought they could build it then they would have built it. They may be regretting not doing that now. Especially if Tehran is engaged in a dialogue with washington. Imagine how much independence of aciton a LAVI with Russian/European engine would have given Israel.
So ok – now you know when the J-10 was launched, that the Lavi design was sold to China and what every intell agency is still guessing about.
Ante – you do your credibility no good with your posts.
TeerThey would still be better than the MIG 21s that it was supposed to replace.
So?
What matters is if the IAF thinks its still sufficient.
Sadly it should not be that way. Even in countries like the U.S the Armed forces do not always get what they want.
What makes you think the IAF gets ALL what it wants?
Heard of consensus decision making?
Are you aware of the CCS? The LCA Review Meetings at ADA? Clearly not!
The IAF is under government control. The IAF should say what it want and the civlillian government should decide after assessing all options. Now the IAF would get most things they want and not all. This is the way forward.
Irrelevant.
The IAF has ASR’s and needs which the LCA has to meet.
The GOI has clearly thought that these needs were relevant.
The ADA has acquiesced.
Straightforward.
Again tell me how much of these IAF requirements have been integrated. No flight has taken place with a radar on board,
Why should it? When the LCA Mk2 is now the definitive version?
Enlighten me on the internal avionics and EW suite that it flies with.
Kindly read the LCA Monographs by MSD Wollen and P Rajkumar to know about the requirements already met! The LCA’s already have a fit superior to some of the original ASRs including a HMDS and more advanced cockpit and computational system with an OAC!
Apart from the specs do the LSPs even fly with them ? You have to consider the one ton overweight is despite not having a radar. Or are they filling the nose up with dumb weights to simulate a radar ?
Hello! The LCA is overweight WITH the additional fits + telemetry equipment! And yes, it DOES have ballast at specific places!
Basically according to you IAF is stretching the original design beyong its limits by asking for integration. It appears to be ow even without integrating all they want. Is it viable to persue the LCA then as more weight that comes with 4++ capability will reduce its flight performance.
Talk sense! Why should ADA integrate systems according to the original requirement if the requirement has changed?
It will obviously redo the estate management and testing schedule!
If you were even barely aware of the current program you would have known that MOST of the original LCA’s critical avionics items have already been flight integrated and operationalized on ~200 aircraft already.
That includes the Jaguar, MiG and Su fleet!
It shows me the lack of robustness of the original design. Compare it to the F 16 which has picked on a lot of weight and still survives because of the robust original design.
Are you joking?
The F-16 has led the same trajectory the LCA is doing, with enhanced upgrades and more powerful engines to compensate!
Clearly, what it should “show you” is that you need to do more reading and less talking, since your knowledge of aircraft development is next to zilch!
Like I said not everything requires a source its a common knowledge. Most in the forum wil agree with me on that, that the EF and Rafale uses more composites than the Su 35.
Common knowledge! Ah!
Perhaps then it is common knowledge that the Su-35 may not need as many composites as the Rafale and EF. It may also be common knowledge that composites are often designed into the original specs and cant just be specced on later to give a vital advantage!
Form follows function – understand what this means!
Which is exactly why many potential export customers want the Rafale with a more powerful engine. And the EF 200 is a rather powerful engine.
And what would have happened if they didnt have composites to begin with, would they even be acceptable in their present state?
Think!
Dont just post for the heck of it, because you can type away! It impresses none.
One day you will go to college and even have a career, an opinion without fact will open you up to ridicule!
TeerMass production of slightly inferior weapons is ok. Ak 47 was inferior to many western rifles. The Russian tanks are said to be inferior. Like I said when you are talking about a countries armed forces I do not sustain the notion that they should be given the best and most expensive equipment. I would rather arm 100 men with slightly worse equipment than arm 50 with others. In a country like India human resources (soldiers) can always be replaced.
What absolute rot. Ak-47 was never a battle rifle, but intended to be a mass produced automatic weapon for closer ranges! Russian tanks were every bit the equal of their western contemporaries in many areas, and reflected the design priorities of their designers!
Fighter pilots are an expensive and scarce breed – are you even aware of how much training costs? Aware of how many years it takes?
What of the human costs involved when a human being is lost?
In India – human resources, ie soldiers are every bit as valuable as those in any other country! Please talk sense.
They are under civilian control. They do what the government ask them to do. Indian Government should not give the Armed services the freedom to choose their equipment, they should only be able to evaluate and suggest.
Absolute rot – the soldiers are not a Govt’s plaything. They protect me, an Indian taxpayer (which I doubt you are), and the Govt. elected by me and my peers, has to fulfill its oath to them by providing them good functional kit!
It is not a claim, It is a fact that has been discussed and disected in this forum and others. Why can you not accept that I currently am in no mood to bring back all the archives just to please you, while you can do it urself.
In other words, you dont have any evidence to back up your claims. I do look forward to your detailed facts about the STR, ITR et al achieved and under what conditions.
This is the problem with letting the services choose, The GOI should say the LCA as is was according to your requirments posted a few years ago. You are going to get it into service and they will be upgraded in time.
There are only limited funds available and the IAF has to choose between a menagerie of different blocks in service or one consolidated block.
They have made their choice – 2 Sq of 1 type + trainers, and 5 of the second – at a minimum.
about the LAVI programme it tells me that Israel is totally dependend on America for its aircrafts and while it makes profit selling avionics and stuff it still cannot make a fighter from scratch. I don’t think thats what we aim at.
Again – educate yourself!
The Israeli’s shut down the Lavi because it was funded in part by the United States which withdrew the same. Not because they could’nt make it!
And what it should tell you is that one way or the other, the Lavi program contributed to a robust growth in capabilities across the entire IAI product arena.
TeerI would say that when the LCA is in suqadron service in numbers and when we read about it doing awesome things. Right now it has not even met its performance parameters.
Your feelings dont matter!
The LCA is meant to be what the IAF wants- not for doing “Awesome things” – where did you get that from? GI Joe?
What matters is what the IAF thinks – and it is the IAF which changed its requirements midway and the program is accomodating it.
The LCA TD et al already met the early-mid-90’s Performance parameters.
The IAF has upped its avionic, structural requirements and other systems kit for the LCA, and added weight to the program. Now the developers will compensate!
was being critical about using them in the LCA project it has not helped reduce the weight (its a ton overweight without the radar and other stuff) and we have to see about the RCS, when we have them inducted.
Again – a bit of common sense helps!
The LCA’s composites allow it to meets its ORIGINAL specification requirements. They have little to do if the IAF adds MORE requirements boosting the weight of the fighter.
Use your sense, if the LCA didnt have composites, it would not even meet original requirements let alone what the IAF has added – an all internal EW suite, an IFR suite, more weight clearance for select pylons, OBOGs etal.
These are but a few of the changes made to the LCA’s original ASR’s.
As regards the RCS, that’s already been evaluated vis a vis existing IAF aircraft and has met original specs. The RCS is least of the LCA’s worries, and with the MMR-2032 hybrid, it already meets IAF original detection/look parameters!
Still not as much as modern western fighters
Give us the exact breakdowns!
Tell us WHY they should use composites and WHERE.
Remember – form follows function, the tail shouldnt wag the dog!
It is one of the reasons. One among many. I would also assume that the procurement costs of the Rafale and Typhoon are so high because of using so much composites.
Illogical! The Rafale and Typhoon pricing reflects a wide variety of factors – to tie them to composites is shallow at best!
The Rafale and Typhoon achieve their sterling performance thanks to lightweight structures which allow for more fuel efficiency and less power generating and fuel hungry powerplants, which too is tied to cost!
Thought of that? Didnt? Then do!
TeerNo that is their duty and many fancy the job as a pilot. So many would.
I invite you to go ahead and ask the everyday soldier to fight with an inferior weapon.
Not only would you shatter your credibility, you will derail defense research by making soldiers distrustful of those who force them into such decisions!
Sadly it is, but a stong willed government can make laws and put the IAF and armed forces in their place.
It is NOT the job of the Govt to “put the services in their place” but to support them to do their job to the best of their ability.
Talk sense, please.
I am not doing your research for you atleast google. The JF 17 has achieved 8.5 G and better AoA than what the LCA has achieved so far. The LCA however remains a better aircraft on paper.
Is that the best you have? What conditions were those achieved under? What loads? What of the STR, and ITR?
If you make claims, you will be asked for evidence.
As compared to better aircraft on paper – the P’ & FC’s differ – but I doubt if you’ve even met a single one!
LCA is about building a plane, and the benefits to the Aerospace industry is the by product. You are confusing it and saying the LCA is building the Auerospace industry and the plane is the by product, that is exactly what is wrong with the programme. India may gain a lot but the fighter may never see light. We could may well be like the ISRAELIS good at avionics and all but not that successful in building planes,
Dont talk nonsense please.
You are clearly unaware of the genesis of the program and what it was launched for.
The LCA was and is about building the entire aircraft development value chain in India not just the plane by itself. Do you even understand what that means?
It mean’s establishing the entire infrastructure for ab-initio development in India, investing through the entire value chain, building up manpower, and also running the program.
The former objective has been met, with the spinoff’s in the IJT and SARAS programs being incubated and many startup’s in the field of aerospace, plus the capabilities being built up in Indian labs.
Come to Bangalore-Hyd- and you will see the umpteen startups working in EW, avionics, structures and design who all won their spurs working on the LCA project.
The bigger ISV’s can actually field entire LCA sourced teams if they were to categorize them in that manner.
The second – the more public aspect of the LCA is still underway, of meeting the IAF’s ever changing expectations of its fighter!
But the most critical aspect has been met – funding and it has got IAF support. Something which the test program has achieved.
If you have no access to primary sources, do some research on secondary ones then. Look up at GOI documentation dating from the 1990’s on any academic archival network. Or search for Raman Puri’s statements on record.
And yes, the Israelis achieved an incredible aerospace industry despite the LAVI cancellation, what does that tell you!
For people who do not take risks the rewards are less.
And we all saw what happened to the massive risk taking in the financial industry recently, didnt we?
FYI- the aerospace industry as far as some aspects are concerned is conservative. Flight safety is one of those things!
The first LCA TP didn’t get the Kincheloe award for his good looks and erect posture – he got it for the manner in which he and the FC did the program making sure safety was not neglected!
TeerI am sorry the composites may have its good uses, but in the Indian context and in the context of any developing country trying to kick start a fighter programme i think that is hardly the way to go.
How much composites have the new Su 35 super flankers have ? With modern avionics they can equal any fourth gen composite filled euro Canard which costs twice as much.
And we all know how the use of composites and stealth has made the F 22 so unsustainable. That even a small runway crash could cost much more than buying a small fighter.
Once again – please dont talk nonsense about a subject you clearly know very little about.
Composites are a success as far as the LCA is concerned.
They didn’t delay the program to a critical extent – the engine and FBW development did. The program objectives have been met.
Composites are used in India not just for the LCA, but for missile structures, for transporters, armour as well as the civilian ISRO.
If that were not enough, the IAF BRD’s have been adapting MiG-29’s to use more composites – every Kg of weight dropped allows for better performance.
The Su-35 does include a good amount of composite structures – please look up to see what the term composite means. And that is partly why Sukhoi claim improved performance figures over earlier Sushkis.
The F-22 cost is not because of composites but because of the radical nature of its entire design, which flows from its performance specifications of combining the requirements of flying faster, higher, being far less visible than most of todays 4G aircraft!
To blame it on composites alone, is silly, and shows you and your knowledge in a poor light.
TeerI believe that the Armed forces must be FORCED to buy a certain quantity of Indian equipment even if slightly inferior.
And will you fight your battles for them?
JF 17 is a good little fighter, I would have like LCA to enter squadron service and then upgraded to later standards as time goes by rather than wanting everyhting at once.
Agree but the IAF disagrees. So your thoughts are moot.
Having said that the JF 17 do not suffer from overweight and has already taken more Gs and better AoA and sustained turn rate than the LCA.
Talk is cheap, provide the evidence both in terms of G’s, AoA and STR, and under what conditions.
Now the LCA may better it but it is a slow **** of a programme you gotta admit it.
The LCA is about building an aerospace industry, not just getting a fighter ready. That takes and will take time.
If I had the power to tell the ADA what to do, I would have said get on with the tests show us that you can achieve the promised performance, if you lose a few prototypes then so be it we will fund you for more.
Your optimism does you credit, but there is no way the ADA will take the risk given how many vultures, read arms dealers would target the program.
TeerNot the one (Tejas) in its present form. Because of its engine issues, it cant yet even fly with its designated MTOW. OTOH, MK.2 is only a paper concept for the time being.
Correction – the MK.2 is anything but a paper concept – funding has been allocated and permission granted for FSED.
Having said that- pushing the MK.2 for a MRCA is ludicrous. It’s apples to oranges. And the IAF has no interest in replacing it’s MRCA requirement with the LCA.
TeerComposites are just expensive trash and not worth the money you invest in them in my opinion. Mostly composites are LCA is still over weight. While the metal JF 17 is doing allright.
That has to be one of the most inane and absolutely ridiculous posts ever made on this forum. Composite technology is one of the absolute “must invest” areas in aerospace, and India is well suited to keep abreast.
Please dont talk nonsense about a topic you clearly know so little about.
Sign In
