They will now move to manouvering targets and MK1 should be ready for production soon. Finally a cost effective local option for BVR missiles.

Actually, the MKI fleet availability rate has been hovering around 50% after these incidents. But of that ~50% that’s not available, ~30% is mostly due to routine and scheduled servicing. What this issue with the MC and display has caused is that it took otherwise perfectly flyable aircraft off the flight line either for inspection or precautionary grounding.

So, another way of saying it is that the MKI fleet usually sees about 70% availability but this issue has decreased it to around 50%. What this issue is causing is creating a bow wave of pent up maintenance work that needs to be done not just on the routine/scheduled level but also to fix this MC/display issue. Even with the new MRO facility open and 100% capacity at day one, it will take time to nibble away at the bow wave of work that is pilling up.

Actually the Su-30MKI fleet availability was misreported – based on reports that it was 50%; actually it was 50% of batch 1 Sukhois, around 20 aircraft, which had the MC, HUD issue subsequently rectified. Another 15-20 aircraft were expected to come in for overhaul. (Projections for several years per a leaked communique). Thats 20 out of some 200 delivered till date. Reports noted that Russia India were squabbling over price hikes for the overall program and Russian firms contrary to contract expectations gone slow on delivery which has slowed both overhaul facility setup and aggregate repair. HAL had setup facilities for 19 modules and IAF/ HAL were using new aggregates for serviceability requirements for the rest but it raised program costs. Note HAL makes items, overhaul and repair is the other aspect we are discussing. Whatever the reasons for the delay, the ROH setup was to be done by Dec 2013 but was finally been done recently and also a new setup for storing spares and aggregates for the IAF at HAL as well ( as versus IAF alone) has also been setup. As of June 2014:
http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.aspx?id=IK/iQsrOuU4=
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/iaf-chief-reviews-su-30-fighter-jet-production-facility_937877.html

Net, this issue has been addressed and Russian cooperation appears back on track.

I don’t know what percentage of the aircraft were grounded, but the accumulation of unserviceable aircraft had to do with the support infrastructure not coming up (because of contractual issues with the Russian side), as per the HAL-UAC communication (links on last page). The MC failures were a separate (and relatively minor) issue.

The number of aircraft for servicing was also minor and per reports the facilities are now being set up on a war footing with several phases done. Basically much ado over nothing.

Well well looks like I pinched a nerve. Archer take the nonsensical drivel elsewhere like BR Forums. A total of 20 aircraft participated & Jane’s (if you subscribe & actually sat with people who read it) nowadays picks up a lot from the net & is wrong many times. It is no longer as good an authority as it used to be. Like another member said wait for any article by Warnes. Till then hold your horses. BTW I read the earlier posts & it was clear that every time a neighbor from the east jumps in the whole thread is demeaned & takes a nosedive. Nothing new there.

You need to grow up and stop getting into verbal diarrhea about other forums etc if somebody asks a question based on a report.
All you needed to do was point out that the article is wrong and a more detailed one would come out from Warnes or whichever Pakaccess outlet you wish to tout.
Instead, you respond with a level of churlishness Mountain usually responds with. Take a look at his antics in multiple threads & then think logically about the level of discourse he practises and also, how innocuous the question from Archer was in comparison.

The IAF did communicate its position to the government internally. That the minutes from the meeting were leaked to the press is not something the service can be held accountable for (likely the work of an individual).

That is provided those minutes of the meeting were accurate, in context and summarized as such. Which remains to be confirmed.

Two of the highest ranking Indian air marshals has referred to Tejas 1 as a ‘ three-legged cheetah ‘ and ‘ a 3rd gen fighter ‘,
it is not up to the task of air superiority missions.
Its a very cheap bomb truck, but survivability is low

That 3 legged Cheetah comment was made by a rtd IAF chap who moonlights as a journalist. He was neither a member of the program and nor has he followed it extensively. And that comment was made at IOC-1 when the Tejas was still in pre-qualifications. In his latest articles he sings a different tune regarding the LCA, quoting more upto date sources.

No current IAF person associated with the program ever made a comment that Tejas is a 3rd Gen fighter. The CAS rtd several years back at IOC-1 (pre quals) noted the LCA was a MiG-21++ until & unless it achieved revised IOC standards. That, it has & is now full steam towards FOC & current IAF pilots note it to be equivalent to the upgraded Mirage 2000 & comparable to the F-16s India faces as well.

As regards what current IAF thinks of the Tejas, here are the Chief of Air Staff’s remarks at IOC-2 – if you think this wasn’t cleared by AHQ & procurement..

“Successful integration of various types of air to air and air to ground weapons have added the much needed firepower to this fighter. All of these core technologies and design features have made Tejas a truly modern fighter aircraft in spite of being the smallest and lightest in its class,” he added.

“Having come a long way since the finalisation of Air Staff Requirements (ASR) in 1985, Tejas has completed an arduous journey through a complex and challenging design and development process, and has achieved the required certification standards for airworthiness, manoeuvrability and air-to-air as well as air-to-ground weaponisation,” he added.

Lets now go to the view from the actual evaluation side.

Air Commodore (Brigadier General rank) Pervez Khokhar, head National Flight Test Center and a critic of Tejas Program Management has also come out in support the IOC’ed MK1 noting that not only is it ahead of the Bison (which remains quite credible in the Indian scenario) but ahead in several parameters of the upgraded Mirage 2000.

His comments are backed up by current NFTC pilots who are responsible for judging the progress of the program from the IAF’s point of view, who note – Dec 2013 article in Business Standard:

The Tejas� capability is best known to the air force and navy test pilots in the National Flight Test Centre, who have tested it in 2,400 flights.

The Tejas� likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force�s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas� superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF�s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF�s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: �As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF�s upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario.�

The bulk of the aircraft the IAF faces across the border are not F-16s but Mirage 3’s, JF-17s, F-7s. In terms of BVR & even WVR, the Tejas will be potent with the DASH HMDS & Python-5 in WVR (likely making it one of the most capable aircraft in the IAF inventory, bar the Su-30 MKI which has TVC, as well as HMCS+HOBs, though the R73E is behind the Python-5).

For named pilots going on record, Group Captain Suneet Krishna – LCA TP in a recent chat noted:

HMDS
We have a fully integrated helmet mounted display…. you only have to look at the enemy aircraft to fire off a missile.!

The HMDS is fully integrated on the Tejas. We can designate targets using the HMDS and fire weapons. It greatly improves Air to AIr and AIr to ground capabilities..!

Swing Role
Hi Navneet. Tejas is designed to be a multirole aircraft. It can easily swing between air -air to air – Gd role.

Performance
In its class, Tejas is one of the most agile fighters….

Tejas is a light and agile fighter designed for very specific roles. IAF needs a mix of fighters to fulfill different roles. Tejas will do part of that.

Relaxed static stability along with state of the art fly by wire make the Tejas hugely manoeuvrable and gives optimum performance

MK2
MK2…In design stage…

Yes , Mk2 is happening and the design is progressing well.

FOC
Everybody is working very hard to reach FOC ASAP. Of course additional capabilities will keep getting added ON as they are tested and certified.

Radar

Sir,Performance of the EL/M-2032 radar on the LCA MK.1?

>> Excellent…!

how many targets can it track and engage at a time in a look and shoot mode ??? And sir it wd be better if u kindly answer my last question about any unique capabilities ?

>> Can’t give any specific numbers. But be assured it is one of the best in its class…!

EW Role
Is there any plan to make a fully ‘EW’ enabled Tejas just like Growler?
>>Yes. It will be EW enabled.

All this effort is being done not for time pass but to ensure that the MK1 itself is fully combat capable and will be employed as such against all likely opponents in both A2A and A2G.
No point in integrating BVR capability, integrating an expensive AI FCR or the latest in A2A tech (HMDS, Python5 etc).

To give a comparison, IAF acquired only ~40 Mirage 2000s (third squadron was acquired much later), ~3 squadrons of MiG-29s (over a decade+). In comparison, IAF has already committed to 40 LCA MK1s & 83 MK2s (99 Ge414 engines are already ordered).

As to what the MK1 has had to meet itself in terms of ASRs and how the ASRs were drawn up, unrealistic process to say the least, cobbling together the best performance from multiple different types of aircraft & the MK2 program genesis, here it is from the horse’s mouth.

Credit goes to an aero industry guy who went & spoke to the Naval TP & Engineering crew of the LCA.

Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program

When asked about the STR and ITR rates of the Tejas, he simply smiled and said �it�s enough, let me put it that way�. When I queried him further, asking about the ASR that the IAF had set based on the Mirage-2000 and MiG-29�s STR and ITR, his smile vanished and he got serious. He said that when people look at 10 different brochures and come up with requirements, without looking at whether meeting all those requirements is even possible for ANY one fighter, they set themselves and the program up for failure. He was very frank about this, stating that even those brochure specs were just that- brochure specs that even those famed fighters sometimes don�t meet. But they were taken as benchmarks anyway and then the ASR was prepared.
– He was full of praise for the handling of the Tejas. It�s a true delight to fly and both he and Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna have tremendous confidence in the aircraft itself. He said that they both push the aircraft to its current limits without any worry since the FCS is very good.

Note – the LCA program’s ASR never took into account the presence of either HMDS or HOBS missiles. Even the R73E was added later. Ergo, the clean sheet design was expected to be able to outperform the lightest variants of the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 in a guns only/R60MK environment. These ASRs, to put it mildly, were highly demanding in terms of pure performance & in terms of combat capability have been addressed in both WVR & BVR by better avionics systems & weapons technologies.

Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program

– F-414 was primarily an IN requirement. It turns out that the IAF was fine with the F-404IN20 engine on the Mk1. They jumped on the IN�s requirement for a higher thrust engine and requested the IAF Mk2 variant.

Net, in the current environment, the LCA will bring a quantum leap in capability to the IAF – the Mirage 2000 is very well loved by the IAF & comparisons to it are telling. A huge plus is in terms of flight safety, the MiG-27 and MiG-21 given their generation, don’t have FBW, and its not uncommon for even experienced pilots to have the occasional scare with departures from controlled flight envelope under aggressive maneuvering. The LCA will obviate that.

Also, its pretty likely LCA orders will rise, IAFs needs are rising & delays in complex TOT-procurement programs are a given. Meanwhile, LCA is available fast & cheap (at $26 Mn its a bloody steal). Already, voices are being raised that IAF should double the orders for MK1 itself given its capabilities.

Couple of points. 100 missiles was the initial order. Like every other missile the PAF (and any air force in the world) the PAF will order more then one batch.

I see, you are funding this effort out of your pocketbook perhaps and ergo, the PAF chose to inform you?
Or could it be that since I pointed out that a 100 missile inventory won’t be very effective, the PAF will now magically order more? Funny. Here I thought, past lessons werent particularly useful according to you. How surprising, post to post, the PAFs strategy changes as and when some lacunae are pointed out.

If the use of the missile forces the IAF to keep moving it’s SAM assets they have already done part of the jobe (as stated by Swerve)

Or a) the IAF, already knows this & will deliberately use decoy radars to provoke the PAF formation & trigger off ARM strikes, while other FCRs guide the missiles in. b) ARMs are not going to be very effective against F&F missile systems anyhow.

Not all of IAF Akash and Spyder missiles will be deployed on the Pak border.

Most of the SpyDers will be since they are replacing the older SA-8s. And even more capable systems than the Akash will be deployed on the Pak border. Food for thought.

The MAR-1 could well be just employed to protect strike packages or may be used as a stand off weapon. The PAF also has RAAD and H4 stand off missiles with 300km and 120km missile ranges respectively. So MAR-1 will not be operating in a vacum, just like the IAF will not be operating in a vacum.

SEAD weapons and tactics. Speed matters for suppression when it comes to ARMs. And slower systems are the loitering systems which are designed to do so from the basics. RAAD & H4 are not going to be very effective against mobile systems.

To state these will be ineffective defies belief.

Oh no. They are employed by the PAF & come with the JF-17, which magically makes them secret sauce, defy all known laws of combat, application & make them 100% effective.

Swerve, here is the context of my remark – I said, the MAR-1 is a limited defensive weapon”?

In short, it can be employed (in the best case) to suppress a command guided mobile SAM system by forcing it to stop emitting. Which also depends on the command guidance schema employed & how the batteries are located.

For instance, a mobile Akash system – can be relocated day to day or even within a hour. A PAF strike package inbound hence has to be on its toes. If lucky, the MAR-1 pilot is able to cue his missile in the likely direction of a radar & suppress that particular radar.

Given HARM & SA-6 experience (HARM being a long range, combat proven system as versus MAR-1 and Akash being far more modern than a SA-6), its unlikely that the MAR-1 can do more than protect the package at that point of time.

This depends on the MAR-1 being able to detect & actively track the PA radar of the Akash as well. If the IAF is sneaky (and why wouldnt they be) they too would employ a variety of measures to minimize the time available for the PAF to respond with an ARM. Keep one radar on x track emitting, switch to another for guidance (there are two FCRs per Akash squadron)

Unfortunately, for the PAF, the IAF also has the F&F SpyDer, which can be cued optronically & relies on the radar only for initial cueing.

Net, at best, the MAR-1 is a defensive weapon, with limited ability to suppress threats.

This known limitation of ARMs is also why the IAF is going heavily for more versatile systems (as versus relying purely on ARMs). HAROP & Harpy for extended suppression and even DEAD, plus Brahmos SSMs (high speed guided strike against located defence systems) are being acquired for these very reasons. PAF has no equivalents. No HAROP/HARPY & its Denel Raptor/MUPSOW knockoffs are not fast enough for destroying targets which can relocate quickly as SOP.

The other point I was making is that NATO fired no less than 743 HARMs to suppress 22 SA-6 batteries. PAF has acquired some 100 MAR-1s and the IAF has some 16 batteries of Akash and 18 of the SpyDer on order. Another 18 LRSAM as well. You can see here that the MAR-1 impact on the battlespace will likely be limited given the PAFs limited inventory & the much harder task that awaits them (as versus NATO vs mostly obsolete SAMs).