Jang,
90 Kn itself is going to make the MK1 perform pretty well. At a public event, I had asked a bunch of LCA program guys about LCA topics, and in a passing comment one of the folks remarked that much of the hype about the LCA weight etc was overblown. He was ex-MiG-21 himself and said that with the new engine (he meant the Ge404 IN20) for the MK1, the LCA would be very competitive performance wise & meet most of the IAF requirements. Only payload would not be as high as originally required, but it was not such a big deal since with precision missiles & air to air armament (HOBS missiles, RF BVR) the LCA MK1 could still carry significant punch with decent fuel inside. Now the extra 8-10 kn (the Ge414 INS6 rating is not available AFAIK at this point of time) will not have to deal with a massive increase in weight for the LCA MK2. The weight increase will only go for some extra structural weight to increase the MTOW and also for some more fuel. Overall, the TP, who watch the program with a hawks eye, were very positive.
Coming to the size of the plane and composites, well you are mixing up causes and effects. The LCA went for a composite structure because there was no other way to meet IAF weight and performance requirements in the form factor they wanted – MiG-21 class platform which would be able to operate out of all the MiG-21 basing (HAS, Aprons, taxi/runways etc) without upgradation.
Also, there is no given issue that if the aircraft is using composites today, it can’t use better technology tomorrow. For instance some of the LCA’s composite structures will be replaced by other composites which are lighter, as strong and in some cases are cheaper and faster to produce due to advances in manufacturing tech. locally. Also, its a fallacy to believe that if you have an all metal, “simple” aircraft, you can “composite it” later. Composites in many cases need to be designed for in the specifications of the platform itself. They can’t just be used as one to one replacements for legacy designs.
Net, the “world’s smallest, lightest” tag thingy – that was not the intent by itself, as mentioned before, that flowed from the replacement of the MiG-21 class platform. Now, does that put more stress on designers and manufacturers, absolutely. It does make life much harder. But in which case, the requirements from the IAF should have been relaxed to begin with. In India as the budgeting for the LCA came entirely from the MOD under a separate head, and the IAF budgeted its capex differently, there was no unified understanding of the impact a complex form factor would have on development costs and timeline, as versus the costs of an infrastructure upgrade to accomodate larger aircraft.
Overall though, by developing a complex system of systems project with associated avionics, they are better placed for follow ons. Right now for instance, the DRDO/industry team has met ww standards for the bulk of mission avionics, a development and deployment time of 2-3 years. Flight critical systems, the world over, take some 10-15 years, on account of both complexity, redundancy and safety issues. They have pretty much crossed this hurdle as well, with a fully local DFCC and local control laws. Its now just a matter of time (and consistent effort) till the IOC/FOC stages are crossed.
Finally, coming to the light fighter issue, what must be understood is that the IAF has moved on from the light fighter dominant force it once was. The PAF is still somewhere there. The IAF on the other hand has to face both the heavy fighter deploying PLAAF & the PAF which has significant numbers of medium class fighters (or at least aims to deploy the same). As such the IAF has gone for heavy platforms in a big way. The earlier ratio was light (MiG-21):medium (MiG-23,27,29, Mirage) in a round 60:40 ratio, later coming in at around 50:50. Now, the ratio is changed with the deployment of the Sukhois. Taking the PAKFAs into account, the ratio will be around 50 (heavy):25-30 (medium):25-20(light).
There are 272 Su-30 MKIs planned for instance, plus the PAKFA at around 250 planes (214 mentioned, whereas other reports mention upto 250). These will supplant a part of the MKI fleet. Whereas the MMRCA/Rafale comes in at 126-189. The LCA at similar numbers! The AMCA will replace the Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s, plus remaining Jaguars (which have not been supplanted by the Rafale). That’ll add upto around ~200 planes. Overall the heavy fleet will continue to dominate.
Its all about trends, and frankly, the IAF is firmly moving towards the heavy end of the spectrum. It needs light/medium fighters on account of cost effectiveness, but the LCA alone is not the answer to the IAF’s need for larger, heavier platforms.
Its interesting to see that for all the issues with slow decision making etc, the correct decisions have been taken. The light fighter is firmly in Indian hands, and so is the medium class, whereas the heavy class is being codeveloped with a geopolitically tested partner. Basically, we are firmly moving from an era where everything in the IAF was imported, to one where we will meet the bulk of our demands either domestically or via joint ventures.
Sign In
