TeerJust sounds so funny. You have to be creative to find a role for LCA. Putting HAWK (which is a superb advanced trainer) and having dual seaters in every section is just a clear sign that there is no role. If you ask me it would be enormous waste of tax. I mean serious. PAF is having Mushaq, K8 and then F7. If F7 moves out then there will be direct move towards JF17. The whole world wants less planes between first flight to operational duty. Or is it worth to have less flight hours/maintenance/fuel costs on the hawk and the extra type rating and another plane worth the effort? I think not. If you look at the unit price of the LCA and the cost of foreign parts in it you will have to recalculate the entire
“advantage”. India might be big but having so many types is hardly called effective. Look at Europe. They all went for same planes for effectivity. They alwork together for F35 for… Exactly. Yet India should go for another not fully tested, not having reached operational status in between role? 😉
Quite a lot of hot air there Munir.
The fact is that the LCA already has a role, we are just discussing where else the IAF may end up adding it, given prior discussions on the topic & how the IAF has been modifying its training regimen over the years.
Unfortunately, little of what you wrote made any sense whatsoever. Where you did touch anything relevant, it was merely a rehash of what I already wrote.
For instance:
“PAF is having Mushaq, K8 and then F7. If F7 moves out then there will be direct move towards JF17.”….who is bothered about what the PAF does? Whats the point of even bringing in the PAF at this point, since clearly IAF procurement, inventory is substantially different from the PAF.
“If you look at the unit price of the LCA and the cost of foreign parts in it you will have to recalculate the entire “advantage”
..as compared to of course, aircraft like the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 which have lesser foreign parts, right? I mean did you even think before typing? And never mind that the vast majority of LRUs in the Tejas are homegrown, and come with a cost advantage.
“Yet India should go for another not fully tested, not having reached operational status in between role? ”
..- which I already pointed out would commence only after MK2 production is completed & that by no means is it certain as a cost/benefit analysis would support it only at that point.
And of course there is this gem:
“Putting HAWK (which is a superb advanced trainer) and having dual seaters in every section is just a clear sign that there is no role.”…
I mean where does one come up with such absolute and total BS.
The Jaguar squadrons all have dual seaters in each squadron. The MiG-27s had attached MiG-23 UBs. The MiG-21 squadrons had attached Mongols.
There is something called conversion training which every IAF squadron is focused on, because of which two seaters have long been part of every operational fighter unit.
So in an effort to somehow imply the LCA has no role (something which you & your coterie are appearing more & more pathetic in attempting to force) you end up denying the reality, yet again.
If you cant contribute anything of worth, why even bother commenting? Leave the serious discussion to those worthy of it.
TeerFrom AJT to fighter type training you mean. LCA trainer version closes the gap. If you mean a squadron or two of LCA Trainers with basic weapons capability, then you are right.
Exactly.
For 200 odd LCA’s, you will require a squardron or two of trainers alone.
Right – but each LCA Squadron will have 2 trainers anyways. My point would really make more sense for more expensive planes such as MiG-29s, Mirage 2000’s, MKIs – etc.
What I meant was that there is no explicit requirement from IAF for fighter capability in the trainer. Or it could be weapon simulation capability. It may arise later or not is not known.
The trainer will be fully combat capable. In terms of performance etc it will be basically as capable as the single seater, but will have a bit reduced range (not really such an issue with IFR) and slightly higher maintenance requirements.
On the plus side, the dual seater allows for more flexibility & a WSO sort of arrangement. The IAF also looks favorably at dual seaters for mission command/ leading strike packages.
Teer‘…and clean the windshield too will ya’
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5D1K6390_sm.jpg
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5D1K7032_sm.jpg
Amazing pics.
TeerDoes LIFT need exists.
Its all about cost and benefit at the end of the day.
The IAF will have to look into the savings in spares burn & time viz training ramp up versus the initial acquisition costs of additional Tejas.
Right now, it will be more expensive as the Tejas logistics have not been set up and the definitive MK2 variant is not out.
Once the MK2 comes out, this kind of approach may end up being adopted – I have seen at least two discussions on something around this sort of stuff.
Now, there are two potential objections – one every aircraft consumes manpower (which people often ignore in most discussions) & the IAF may actually prefer a higher number of marginally more capable single seaters than trainers – the second seat cuts into range basically and MMH for dual seaters is a bit higher.
Second, simulators could actually pick up a bit of the training lag vis a vis Hawk guys going to much more advanced aircraft.
But simulators are not exactly cheap either and nor do they always provide the exact level of training that is required.
Also, as I recall, the IAF needs new trainers beyond the additional RFP mentioned so far. I’ll try and dig up the numbers but I dont have my notes with me about what the original estimates were.
TeerEr….what!? I think you are just trying to plug a gap here that does not exist in the first place.
According to you. In real life, there will still be a jump when a trainee moves from the Hawk to a fighter squadron and needs to get fully ops on tactics and equipment which he would not have had access to, on the Hawk.
The very reason for Hawk purchase was to act as a LIFT and lead trainees straight to fighters. The exact job it does for air forces world wide. Are you now saying it is not capable of doing that?
I am saying there may be even better options. Do try and keep up.
TeerI wonder what will be their use.
Might make sense for the IAF to append these to a new LIFT pool and save on training hours when trainees go to supersonic, much more advanced combat aircraft for the first time after a Hawk. I mean Hawk->LCA LIFT ->Su-30/MiG-29/Mirage/Jaguar may turn out both cheaper and more effective in the long run versus Hawk-> directly to the combat squadrons with fully supersonic aircraft and more advanced avionics (eg radar).
TeerI know it as a generalist. I do not have the entire brief.
The 2004 ASR was for weaponization and avionics. As told to me, some deficiencies in the technology demonstrator was found as the weapons available now have changed. Some avionics available are more compact etc. Then the engine specs was sounded (I am not saying that they decided on the engine, just specs). Hence, the wings, air intakes etc have to be modified. These things were reserved as MK2.
For familiarization with the a/c, IAF is ordering a squadron or two with the current specs. IMO, GE 404 IN will not be ordered any more than contracted (if not for maintainability).
Fair enough – what you are speaking of ties in what is known.
The deficiencies in the TD were – the mission avionics were custom designed and not open architecture (this was solved with the current OAC on PV-2 et al, but the MK2 will have the more advanced CIP), the EW suite was moved internal (hence freeing up a pylon), the wings had to be redesigned for the R-73E (versus the earlier AA-8).
The IAF is ordering the MK1 for more than familiarization – that may have been the original plan, but they need the combat punch now, with aircraft retiring. Hence the second squadron is now intended to be a full combat unit.
About wings, Rahul pointed out that HAL had remarked that it would have bigger wings – makes sense, to keep wing loadings at the same level as the MK2 would be heavier.
But I’d wager that the design remains the same, the overall aircraft may be retouched here and there with some finessing on some points as is usual but nothing radical.
TeerThe original ASR was to make a current generation fighter when it fructifies. They wanted the smallest fighter then (shades of Arjun Tank: current generation with all equipment needed and weight should be like feather). It was supposed to fructify in 1990’s, but, this has been discussed to death.
Currently, the 2004 ASR holds true after the proof of concept was demonstrated. Then they refined it to Mk2 😉
Do you have more on the 2004 details.
The one thankful difference between the LCA and the Arjun is that the IAF wants the LCA double quick, as compared to the Army which is so used to cheap T- series tanks that it still doesnt know how to fit the Arjun into its doctrine (round peg and square hole).
TeerHAL’s Annual Report 2008-09 is out.
http://www.hal-india.com/Annual.Report.2008-09.pdf
Tie this in with the $ 5.4 B Capex HAL intends to make over the coming decade.
Typing it out..
“Design and Development projects viz. LCH, ALH (WSI) besides IJT and LCA MK-II have progressed satisfactorily”
Mentions LCA MKII development as a 2009-10 focus area as well.
Yet another confirmation that the program has been officially sanctioned w/the IAFs support.
So lets see the other data points:
And then there is this $ 1.7 Billion investment.
http://www.headlinesfeed.com/viewnews/nod-to-rs-8000cr-for-production-of-tejas/304413
B.R. Srikanth Bengaluru Dec. 15: In a major leg-up for one of the country?s most crucial indigenous defence initiatives, the Centre has sanctioned a massive Rs 8,000 crores to begin production of the fighter jet Tejas for the IAF and Indian Navy. The lion?s share of this outlay, Rs 5,000 crores, will be for the manufacture of the jets for the IAF, while the rest will be for the development of a variant for the Navy, P.S. Subramanyam, director of the Aeronautical Development Agency which coordinates the Light Combat Aircraft programme, told this newspaper. “This is very good encouragement for a homegrown programme, but the challenge ahead is that we must deliver the jets on time. The first of these fighters will join the IAF?s fleet early 2011. The Air Force has ordered one squadron (20 fighters), and is in the process of ordering another squadron,” he said. Official sources said the IAF has committed to the purchase of 140 more jets, for seven squadrons, with more powerful engines. Next year, the LCA programme will cross another milestone with the maiden flight of the naval version. This variant will be designed to operate from aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and the Air Defence Ship.
Thats 180 LCAs for the IAF alone (40 MK-I and 140 MK-II).
Plus, the Navy orders to spur development of the NLCA:
Six to begin with:
http://www.india-defence.com/reports/4480
“‘Even the Indian Navy will be ordering the LCA once the ski jump trials are validated,’ Air Vice Marshal Shankar Mani told reporters, adding that the naval version was still in the prototype phase.”
And HAL will hire 500 more folks to ramp up production to 12 units per year (from 8) which compares favorably with current Su-30 MKI production (around 13 per year).
All this apart from the development of the LCA MKII AESA (sanctioned in Nov 2008, MOD AR08-09)
And of course the dual engine programs (Purchase of EJ/Ge engines while codeveloping a high thrust Kaveri 2 with Safran).
TeerFirst of all, I don;t think anyone can say with abs authority that it was ONLY the new ASR which increased the weight by 1,000 kg. Can you say with absolute certainty that ADA would have met the target of 5,500 kg if IAF had not changed the original ASR?
I think theres a bit of confusion about what ASR’s mean in your post – the IAF’s ASRs specify performance – payload, ITR, STR, a certain range, specified sensor suite etc. Now theres always what is “negotiable” and what is not.
Eg if the LCA manages to come in heavier & yet achieves the rest, then ADA will be happy because the IAF will still be happy.
Let me give a recent example. The Indian Army asked for a radar around 100 odd Kgs from the DRDO. They gave them something with 20 odd Kgs more, but everything else was fine – the Army snapped it up double quick, because the requirements they had set (and they knew it) were very stringent (which no other system met anyways) and 20 odd kgs did nothing to change operational use.
So in this case, is 5.5 T the absolute, must have, should have weight? Was it scripted in stone for ADA to achieve?
No.
When the LCA was launched, they did a literature survey, talked to guys from MBB, Dassault etc and came up with an estimate of what the fighter should be. Discussed it with the IAF and the ASRs came out.
Once the engineering models started coming out of the CAD stations, weight estimations were trotted out. But again – these are estimations.
Even the JSF has more weight than originally factored for.
What the IAF is concerned with is performance. If the engine compensates, sensors are adequate, design is sound, they will take it.
For them – this 5.5T versus 6.5 T is academic, its pointless.
What they really require is an “Indian” plane with all its attendant advantages, able to turn and accelerate as they want, with suitable weapons, and sensors.
Thats all that matters.
So they have been adding stuff here and there, knowing the weight might go up but they’d rather that happened than have a 5.5 T plane with limited capabilities.
Putting a very comprehensive EW suite outside will save anywhere between 200 odd kgs, a MMR versus an AESA will save at least 50-100 kgs and so on and so forth. Designers will save even more weight since they dont have to reinforce the structure for higher loads in the avionics racks etc and mountings across the fuselage, but is the IAF going to be happy with a light plane which doesnt have all they want for definitive series production…thats the point.
Which brings me to the second point..
Second, IAF gave its first ASR in 80s. Being the end user, they were only interested in the final product being delivered on time. It was the job of the designers and project managers to take into consideration the impact of delays. If they told IAF (at the start) we would give you a product in this year, so be it. Times change & so do the rules of combat. And if IAF had to change the goal posts in 21st century because they did not get the final product on time, then they are hardly to be blamed for it. Having said so, I do believe that more flexibility from IAF would have been better for LCA and indian aviation industry.
..the simple truth is the IAF was not really interested in the LCA .. it was just an alternative to even “better imports”. As such it languished in the early part of the program – the IAFs involvement was limited to handing out a set of requirements modeled after what they expected a top fighter to be, based on their premier Mirage, and MiG-29 units.
What really changed things was the collapse of the Soviet Union. The same way in which the Kargil War and 26/11 have opened up GOI pursestrings, the same way the sudden overreliance on the Soviet Union brought some cold water on the IAF force planners foreheads.
That is when some rethinking began about the LCA and what it was meant to be & the scope creep started- for one, there was much more interest in making the LCA truly multirole as compared to just an air defense fighter.
Now, the rise of China and the atrocious costs of importing fighters are also driving the need for the LCA. And hence the support for the LCA in IAF quarters.
Pragmatism drives change.
TeerFantastic! Thanks very much for sharing.
My pleasure.
TeerAmazing.
I just wanted to correct someone who wrongly claimed
You would do well to actually to correct your own posts first.
LCA is “certain” to be inducted in numbers
Its pretty certain as things stand.
2) IAF was sole operator of Gnats an Jags.
I proved that person wrong.
Stop spinning. Your attempts to claim that the IAF was not a single operator ergo the LCA would not be successful were successfully challenged and you were shown to be wrong (eg ALH, eg Su-30 MKI).
Suddenly 3 other posters accuse me of
“Hate”, “spamming”, “troll”.
I anyone can post a single peice of evidence that I have indulgd in name calling or spamming PLEASE POST MY QOUTES.
If proving you wrong on several suumption you make is “hate” of “trolling”, thats actually something you may have to start actually dealing with.
Nirav/Teer/Whoever
Your obnoxious, misspelled posts speak for themselves about both your intent and attitude.
As you should well know going but recent Indian projects. The backing of senior officers or service checifs does not nessacarily mean a project gets off the ground and is nducted in large numbers. The Arjun tank is a example of this.
The Arjun tank has nowhere near the institutional support the LCA does, nor does it fit into the Army’s doctrine.
A flawed comparison to begin with.
My point is stll valid. LCA is way off being “certain” to be inducted in large numbers.
Your point is anything but valid. As things stand, the LCA is quite certain to be inducted in large numbers, despite the fervent wishes of certain Pakdef posters.
All you know have to do is respond with FACTS, not “senior officers think” or “I consider” etc etc.There is no “hate” being shown anywhere on here by me, others may d. If I was the mods would do something. They have not.
The facts speak for themselves about current orders, financial investment in series production and overall numbers already required by the IAF.
Those are FACTS. Not your trolling.
Deal with it.
Deal with reality.
TeerThe main focus of my question was how much changes to LCA structure i.e. wing etc are planned for Mk-2, as more the changes the farther away it will slip.
Huge design changes are not planned for MKII – there will be some changes though to improve things over the current MKI – per my understanding, if they get a chance to improve space etc they will go for it. Wing – “if it ain’t broke – dont fix it” so doubt they’d mess with that.
Secondly if MMR was working well, how come it has not been put in some other fighter like say Mig-29 to atleast start testing it for mechanical prop i.e. ability to bear high gs. With Hack, this aspect cannot be tested.
Where are the MiG-29s for this to occur? 2-3 are in Russia for the upgrade & the rest is to begin in India. All the MiG-29s are being stationed in one base for the upgrade as well.
The fact is the aircraft is available in the LCA itself for tests, but they are doing it step by step since its for FOC not IOC.
First was the design & integration of the MMR hybrid. Second was coding & verification of the first release s/w. Third – debug using ground tests. Fourth will be flight tests – once that is done on the Hack, then the flight tests will be commencing w/LCA.
Its very common for converted commercial aircraft to be used for FCR testbeds. Grumman has this somewhat tiny fairly old looking bizjet for its SABR & the APG-77 was also first debugged on a modified commercial jet . Russia also has its own “Hacks”, actually the term Hack itself is a bit of a generic one in specific referring to a flying testbed.
If you see the Hack, its got consoles inside for mission operators to evaluate the radar performance in real time – its a huge plus over just flying it in a fighter. You can get the engineering crew airborne & have them fiddle with the set to fine tune its performance. Only after all thats done will it go on the fighter itself. One issue with the Hack was that power O/p of the MMR was cut (since the actual antenna assembly was of course separated from the rest of the radar LRUs which are colocated with the engineering work stations for FTE), which meant transmission power loss. In the actual LCA, all LRUs are colocated, so the performance will be higher.
They would have a form and fit set ready for integration work on the LCA and another representative model (non emitting) for integration on the DAIR. Its just that they aren’t talking about the entire charter and progress, but then again where have they talked about any of what they plan for the MKII as well, maximum will be a press release when LSP3 w/MMR takes to the air etc. Subsequent testing will get some 2-3 lines in Vayu.
High G tests etc wont be such an issue. We’ve been flying MMRs of several kinds for quite a few years now and have an idea of what the design constraints are and ruggedization. The challenge, as always, is in software, ie track and lock stability, high resolution mapping, ECCM etc. and making sure all of it works without overloading the SP/RDP (now one unit).
TeerI think what we need now is a FAQ ( perhaps at BR ? ) which is constantly updated so that Troll Brigade can see the light from the eternal darkness they are now into.
In the past we had similar discussion where Harry , JC spent a good amount of time debunking the myth and now we see Teer , Rahul and others doing the same.
This is lot of time and energy wasted in responding to the query which keeps on popping up and then we end up responding to each Troll.
What we need is a good FAQ with even Tejas for Dummies , so that the next time we end up with a Troll request we can direct them to those FAQ and it will save a lot of time and promote correct information about the project.
I guess you are absolutely right. How do we go about this?
Plus like Nirav noted, its hard reasoning with blind hate.
Facts, logic etc dont matter.
That moron Bryant whatever who got banned on the other thread was shameless enough to openly brag about it – that he registered out of hate, because he wanted to settle scores & didnt really care for any logical debate.
Just a few pages back you have a newsreport openly stating that $1.7Billion is being put into the LCA with the IAF asking 7 Sq of the MK 2 (up from 5) – so whats the reaction?
A troll who promptly attacks the thread.
Its just blind, unreasoning hate and jealousy, nothing less.
TeerThe problem here is the endless HATE. And a case of extremely selective reading/interpreting of available information.
Even if a repository were to be put up, they would still come up with the same old ‘merinews’ or ‘Admiral Nadkarni’ article over and over again …
Exactly. Its just pure hate.
When was the last time you saw an Indian registering and spamming the PAF thread – we simply dont care. The hate levels from one side, the near obsession is unbelievable. Reality just doesnt factor into it.
Sign In
